1. T R I B A L October 2002 m-Learning Exploring the potential of a game implementation for m-Portal Alice Mitchell m-Learning Project Leader, ULTRALAB Kris Popat m-Learning Technical Manager, ULTRALAB

2. T R I B A L October 2002 The m-Learning project Project No: IST-2000-25270 Project Full Name: Mobile Communications Technologies for Young Adult Learning and Skills Development Duration: 36 months Start date: October 1 st 2001 Countries involved: Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom m-Learning website: www.m-learning.orgwww.m-learning.org

3. T R I B A L m--Learning consortium Ultralab, Chelmsford, UK The Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), London, UK Centre of Research in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Salerno, Italy Cambridge Training & Development, Cambridge, UK Lecando AB, Bromma, Sweden

4. T R I B A L m-Portal Interface layer to the m-Learning system:  learner management system, virtual tutor  skills-based learning materials  a learning environment in its own right Aim: a user-friendly portal layer that is powerful, empowering and engages the learner

5. T R I B A L m-Portal - key challenges Key challenges:  How can m-Portal engage and support the disaffected learner?  How can it be a ‘liberating structure’ - promoting attitudinal change - and qualities such as: adaptability, self-confidence, curiosity, creativity?

6. T R I B A L A potential role-play implementation for m-Portal Field research uses target audiences as co-researchers:  Indications: a role-play game implementation of m-Portal would be a valuable future development  Outcome: investigate the outreach potential and possible learning gains of mobile games

7. T R I B A L Literature Review Background and limitations of the review:  m-Learning deliverable  literature search by LSDA, review by ULTRALAB  ‘computer games’ - full range covered Limitations of the studies:  design and methodology, sample, outcomes, short-term focus

8. T R I B A L Computer games industry trends Wide range of game types, designed by males for males:  Immersion into a fantasy world, player involved in competition and aggression  Lucrative, so more of same  Graphics increasingly more realistic

9. T R I B A L Psycho-social effects New generation games - similar features, stronger effects:  Blurred perceptions of difference between real (rl) life and virtual world  Desensitised to aggression and violence, less prosocial  Dependency, poor self-image, depression

10. T R I B A L Gender imbalance Boys substantially heavier users than girls:  Boys’ pretend play based on fantasy, preferring action, adventure & role-play games, honing visual and spatial skills  Girls prefer realistic-familiar characters, communication, computer as a creative tool

11. T R I B A L Educational impact Complex games promote computer literacy skills, ‘expert behaviours’:  self-monitoring, pattern recognition  principled decision-making, qualitative thinking  superior memory skills

12. T R I B A L Use by target audiences Less academically successful boys:  Spend more time with TV and gaming than more successful peers  Spend more time with friends Girls:  Use computers for communication, as creative tools

13. T R I B A L Edugaming  Games as ice-breakers, rapport-builders  Stimulate curiosity, discovery learning  Risk-free experimentation  Intrinsically motivating – game structure itself promotes learning  Support different learning styles, promote confidence  Motivation via immediate feedback

14. T R I B A L Engaging target audiences  Potential for cognitive apprenticeship, participative learning, honing team, social, communication and resource-sharing skills:  Games to fit particular objectives  Skills shift from verbal to iconic – can turn this round  Role of the teacher crucial (more workload)  Fun!

15. T R I B A L Field research data needs We wanted to know more about:  Is a device perceived differently because of games?  Interface and the influence of the device  “Learnability” of the game  Why gamers seem to invest so much time learning a game

16. T R I B A L Some background A Projection of mobile gaming usage done in 2001 2000: 165$ Billion (wired 92% / wireless 8%) 2005: 236$ Billion (wired 68% / wireless 32%) Source: Motorola Sony PlayStation Portable to compete with Nokia N-Gage Source: http://www.games4mobile.com

17. T R I B A L  Reading and Plymouth  Part of a larger set of research sessions for informing the design of m-Portal Two Field Research Sessions Could this be a game? This is a game Commonalities?

18. T R I B A L What did we do? Computers Mobile Phones PDAs We took: All With Games Play TalkDesign

19. T R I B A L Some things we found Pen Input I play mobile games at the bus-stop It isn’t the violence It is having an opponent Games need better instructions I learn a new game in 1 minute

20. T R I B A L Interim conclusions 1) Is a device perceived differently because of games? 2) Interface and the influence of the device 3) “Learnability” of the game 4) Why gamers seem to invest so much time learning a game 1) Nokia et al seem to think so … 2) Relevance, ease-of-use, accessibility, image and street cred are all vital 3) Masses of potential here - but games levels must suit progression from current skills status - different challenges and skills sets are important - it must be a ‘real game’ 4) The value of self is involved - why? You’ll need to read our paper!

21. T R I B A L An Invitation You are warmly invited to contact us at Ultralab if you wish to contribute to this research:  Alice Mitchell: alice@ultralab.netalice@ultralab.net  Kris Popat: kris@ultralab.netkris@ultralab.net