Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| more_information [2024/01/06 23:37] – [Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3)] becker | more_information [2024/01/07 00:01] (current) – becker | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| The following are slides from some of the talks I have given that relate to gameful learning (i.e. practical gamification). | The following are slides from some of the talks I have given that relate to gameful learning (i.e. practical gamification). | ||
| + | If nothing else, this speaks to how long I have been concerned with the design and delivery of meaningful learning experiences for my students. | ||
| ==== The Cases For/Against Re-Submission ==== | ==== The Cases For/Against Re-Submission ==== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 87: | ||
| Invited Workshop | Invited Workshop | ||
| - | {{url> | + | {{url> |
| ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 1 (of 3) ==== | ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 1 (of 3) ==== | ||
| - | {{url> | + | {{url> |
| ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3) ==== | ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3) ==== | ||
| - | {{url> | + | {{url> |
| ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 3 (of 3) ==== | ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 3 (of 3) ==== | ||
| - | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BB0BN2D6gHWI1lv0wdrtFWh19GEgekXg/embed?start=false& |
| - | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/yvpBo7jWrxPhNb" | + | |
| - | </ | + | ==== Death to Deadlines |
| + | |||
| + | 2016 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Various approaches | ||
| + | |||
| + | Becker, K. (2016). Death to Deadlines 2.0 presented at: Mount Royal University Centennial Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{url> | ||
| Line 111: | Line 122: | ||
| Becker, K., Patrick Perri (2013). Is Gamification a Game-Changer? | Becker, K., Patrick Perri (2013). Is Gamification a Game-Changer? | ||
| - | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15MuAKMNhK9fSf-wnF70UiDgKoI6b8euOP9glc6137Wo/embed?start=false& |
| - | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/ | + | |
| - | </ | + | |
| ==== How Much Choice is Too Much? ==== | ==== How Much Choice is Too Much? ==== | ||
| Line 123: | Line 132: | ||
| Providing a learner-centered perspective is in keeping with modern constructivist approaches to learning, and this means that courses must be designed with learner attributes and choice in mind. Concerns over accreditation and the need for accountability at the post-secondary level seem to contradict freedom of choice and flexibility of term work, but this need not be the case. This paper outlines numerous strategies for offering choice and flexibility to students in a freshman programming course. Approaches include flexible deadlines, the ability to re-submit work that has already been assessed, writing tasks, contributing to course content, bonuses for embellishments and extra work, and choices about which problems to solve. All of the strategies have been employed in classes, and students’ reactions as well as effects on student engagement and quality of work are described. | Providing a learner-centered perspective is in keeping with modern constructivist approaches to learning, and this means that courses must be designed with learner attributes and choice in mind. Concerns over accreditation and the need for accountability at the post-secondary level seem to contradict freedom of choice and flexibility of term work, but this need not be the case. This paper outlines numerous strategies for offering choice and flexibility to students in a freshman programming course. Approaches include flexible deadlines, the ability to re-submit work that has already been assessed, writing tasks, contributing to course content, bonuses for embellishments and extra work, and choices about which problems to solve. All of the strategies have been employed in classes, and students’ reactions as well as effects on student engagement and quality of work are described. | ||
| - | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10zHQkWqlxgXXQQE-L8-KjiOQC-AfJIAqPLfhukU5c_Q/embed?start=false& |
| - | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/ | + | |
| - | </ | + | |
| ==== Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course ==== | ==== Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course ==== | ||
| Line 135: | Line 142: | ||
| Becker, K. (2004) Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course The Journal of Computing Science in Colleges Volume 20, Number 2, December 2004, pp 28-37 Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges Northwest Conference, October 8-9 2004, Salem, Oregon | Becker, K. (2004) Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course The Journal of Computing Science in Colleges Volume 20, Number 2, December 2004, pp 28-37 Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges Northwest Conference, October 8-9 2004, Salem, Oregon | ||
| - | <html> | + | {{url> |
| - | <iframe src="// | + | |
| - | </ | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | ==== Death to Deadlines ==== | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | 2007 | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Various approaches to allowing flexibility for students in computer science (CS) assignments (deadlines, choices, graduated requirements, | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Becker, K. (2006) Death to Deadlines: A 21st Century Look at the Use of Deadlines and Late Penalties in Programming Assignments presented at WCCCE 2006 - The Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education, Calgary, Alberta, May 4-6, 2006 | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | < | + | |
| - | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/ | + | |
| - | </ | + | |