I'm currently delving into a series of videos on game design and making.
Not because I intend to join the game-making community (though I'll never rule this out), but because I've been an avid gamer all my life, and I'm always interested in finding new angles and ways to make my lessons more interesting.
To get this out of the way, I think that the word "gamification" has become a grotesquely-overused buzzword that has lost its soul.
And, based on what I've witnessed so far, a lot of "game design" workshops run in local schools are just programming workshops with a gaming front cover.
The principles of making a game interesting, engaging, and fun seem secondary to producing some sort of rudimentary templated game on some standard platform.
Of course, one could argue that the time allocated is too short to produce a fully-fledged game, but then, why are there never board games, card games, or even sport-based games produced by the students in these workshops?
As huge an industry as video and mobile games is, not every game has to be digital.
I have no issue with teaching students programming and platform use, but if that's the goal of the programme, call a spade a spade and say that it's a programming workshop.
Game design and making is much more than just that.
Online Science Programmes? Not For Me, Thanks.
A day of running 2 different science programmes online has fueled my non-enthusiasm towards them.
The inability to run actual physical activities for a science programme that is non-abstract is a real sticking point for me.
I get that schools are apprehensive about running full-scale programmes, and I appreciate the comparative simplicity of teaching life skills and even coding skills through a virtual format.
But physical sciences require physical activities to learn them properly.
Virtual labs are alright at a pinch, but there were so many incidents during the programmes when I was thinking,
"This would have been so much more impactful and enjoyable if we were doing the real thing".
Again, I understand the situation that we are in, but it's really not doing the students any favours.
The Benefits of Being Master Of Your Own Programme.
It's just one day before the enrichment programme runs, and an idea sparks in my head for an activity that, though straightforward, connects 3 of the modules that I'm teaching. That's pretty hard to come by!
Because I'm the one who wrote the programme, I can integrate it right away and see if it works as well as I think it will.
And because it's a simple activity that doesn't require a lot of additional materials and because I don't have to ask anyone to provide these materials or explain it, it's also much easier to implement.
As I've mentioned in an earlier post, I love testing new activities out.
I can't be sure this (or a modified form) will stay in the programme or in another that I've written, but, at the very least, I'll know that it's been tried out and I would have seen the response first-hand.
Very exciting! I love my work.
Live Classes Are WAY Better Than Virtual Ones. Change My Mind?
Not too long ago, I was back in a classroom, teaching live.
Yes, everyone had masks on and inter-mingling wasn't "allowed", but it was miles better than running the class online.
I'm no fan of virtual versions of hands-on activities, because a lot of the learning points and, let's face it, fun, are in the unpredictability of what may happen and how your group members will react.
Dissecting a virtual mouse is nowhere near the learning experience of dissecting a real one (that has been humanely killed).
So, I'm glad to be back after so many months.
Based on what I heard, my students had a memorable learning experience.
And that’s what makes it all worth it.