[game_edu] ED SIG Roundtable Feedback / Debrief

[David Wessman]

Thanks for the report, Derric!

I was unable to attend GDC this year, but am always interested in sharing
knowledge about game education. I moved to the Netherlands last year and
have been teaching at NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences
<http://t.sidekickopen50.com/e1t/c/5/f18dQhb0S7lC8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9nMJW7t5XYg4XyQGWW4WJ7Kg3MPnysW3MhGXn56dJW0f14_cgM02?t=http%3A%2F%2Fmade.nhtv.nl%2Fgame-architecture-and-design%2F&si=6196514236399616&pi=1e9072f8-f246-4df1-a43a-6dde09c2b730>.
We've completely restructured our curriculum to be almost entirely
project-based. Students select specific roles (texture artist, level
designer, gameplay programmer, producer), and assessment is focused on how
well they apply themselves to learning the skills and knowledge needed in
that role. Grading is done on an individual basis, not based on the overall
project's success. So far, engagement has definitely improved.

Best regards,

David Wessman
https://linkedin.com/in/wessmaniac



On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Derric Clark <dclark at uat.edu> wrote:

> Hello List,
>
> tl;dr
>
> Curriculum Framework progress has stalled with some ideas on what could be
> added to help those who would use it. Framework and SIG communication seems
> to be lacking with some ideas on what could be done to get this rolling.
>
>
> Full debrief:
>
> I just got the feedback from the GDC session. I will be combining this
> with my notes from the session in this debrief post. This is not
> necessarily my opinions, just a report on what was observed, submitted, and
> noted.
>
>
> Official feedback from the GDC system (the evaluations filled out from the
> session):
>
> Overall the feedback was positive although it is worth noting there was
> some frustration due to the lack of progress made on the framework. This is
> understandable and made up a good portion of the conversation. There were
> some requests for more session time (the 30 minute format being too
> short) and looking for more discussion on our topics. This feedback echoes
> the discussion we had based on the engagement of the list as a whole.
>
>
> Notes from the session:
>
> There were two major themes or topics from the session. the first was the
> curriculum framework itself and the second was
> communication/practices/engagement of the SIG as a whole (with the
> framework work being used as an example of the struggles of communication)
>
> Curriculum Framework
> Some questions were posed as part of the discussion. What is the structure
> and process for the framework? How do we keep it going? Also, a need to get
> organization set up for the framework was observed. As part of this, it was
> noted that commenting and reviewing original framework to update it would
> be a good aspect or practice for the SIG.
>
> Some thoughts on what could be built, changed, considered, etc. will
> follow here. First a comment was made based on the scope of framework. 4
> year? 2 year? Make it modular? This moved into discussion about providing
> example curriculum. Another interesting topic was am idea to create
> milestones for schools looking to build a new game program instead of
> trying to launch a comprehensive program at once. Having the framework
> (this links to modular as well) guide a program through phases of
> development. This extends to a question of what about middle schools or
> high schools as well as what about curriculum in other countries without
> established game industry?
>
> There was some discussion on
> milestones/standardization/measurement/competencies. What should a game
> developer know at a certain milestone? ACM uses competencies for its
> curriculum. What competencies does the industry seek? This led to an idea
> of Education workshops would be nice at GDC.
>
> One of the things that came out of the framework discussion was the
> engagement/communication during the project and then this extended to the
> SIG as a whole. I personally made a comment based on getting busy and not
> always living up to my volunteer responsibilities and falling into the out
> of sight out of mind trap. Without this core things seem to drift and lose
> traction.
>
> (this is my personal assessment). It seems the most engagement happens on
> this list. We have a page on igda.org that gets little use, including
> forum, blogs,etc. We have a Facebook presence (group and a page) that also
> gets light use as well as LinkedIn group with light use. These styles are
> good at posting or announcing something but have not been used to
> collaborate or engage all that much.
>
> (Back to feedback) There was a suggestion to hold monthly or fortnightly
> online meetings. Another suggestion made was to consider Slack for
> communication?
>
> Conclusion:
> I feel we should start with getting the engagement/communication working
> again. This could include revitalizing our existing channels as well as
> using new means to get group members involved. Website, Facebook, LinkedIn,
> Twitter, Slack, or others could be used to increase engagement. Without
> engagement, the Framework work will continue to suffer. Once we build this
> engagement base, the we use it to get the Curriculum Framework project
> running again.
>
> Thanks for reading, please respond with your thoughts and let everyone
> know what would work for you. What can the SIG do to help you and better
> yet, how can it do it. What types of communications would help? I look
> forward to seeing the feedback and helping to get things moving forward
> again.
>
> Derric Clark
> Professor of Game Development
> Program Champion of Game Studies
> www.UAT.edu
> Twitter: @UATGameStudios
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/UATGameStudios
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> game_edu mailing list
> game_edu at igda.org
> https://pairlist7.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist7.pair.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20160429/55e9ef0a/attachment.html>