Do You Have Time for a "31 Day Game"?

When I returned from Educon in 2010, I had an idea that has now had a chance to percolate for a full year. It's an idea that attempts to focus the thinking of a networked educators, providing us with common reference points for personal and professional learning. With the goal of further enhancing the toolkit for tweeting teachers, I have a proposal for the first ever professional learning game or PLG.

"What if..."
In introducing Twitter to colleagues, would it be useful to have access to a wide range of articles, videos and presentations that had been considered by the network to be worthy of deeper reflection? Might a month-long debate regarding the potential of educational resources allow educators to demonstrate critical thinking, inventiveness and openness? What will happen if teachers around the world are invited to participate in a common asynchronous conversation? Wouldn't it be great for teachers to be able to point to a specific body of knowledge and resources that were known to just about every teacher on Twitter?

Each day during the month of March, I propose that we consider two competing resources before ultimately voting for one of these tools to advance in a head-to-head playoff format. The 31 Day Game would culminate with a head-to-head competition among the top resources... on the 31st day of the month.

The game can be played at any hour of the day, but would only take place during a month that has 31 days. Each game would have room for the collaborative consideration of 32 topics. Future events might include:
1] a critical review of Web 2.0 tools;
2] a contest to select an 'Educator's Choice' book for a PLN book club; or
3] a fun head-to-head tweeting competition.

It all begins March 1st, but not until we narrow down the field to 32 Compelling Messages for Teacher-Learners. Nominate your favourite video, news story, or blog post by competing this short survey.

Over the past few years, we've seen educators make outstanding use of Twitter for personal and professional learning. Maybe you were around when we organized the first synchronous chats for education? Whether or not you've participated in time-specific chats, what do you say to taking it up a notch with the 31 Day Game!

Photo Credit: Leo Reynolds; ex_libris

Teaching the Machine: Part III

After looking at text and images and how the global networked Machine might leverage our contributions, I'm curious to consider how the World Wide Web might take advantage of patterns in human game-playing.

How might our gamesmanship work against us?
If Deep Blue can be custom programmed to take advantage of the tendencies of the world's best chess player, what strategic wisdom might a computer gain if it could harness the results of all games played on the Internet? Certainly it would not fall prey to even the most stalwart attempts at wrestling control back, once granted independence/consciousness.

If the Machine can learn to overcome human strategies in games of logic and skill, surely we'd be embarrassed at games that add variables like chance (e.g., poker, scrabble...), and we'd be demolished at games that factor in computer-generated variables and complex multi-player participation (i.e., we'd be doomed at Doom!).

Would our preferred games put us at a disadvantage?
In my thought experiment, I find it worrisome that the Machine would know about our tendency to play negative sum games that crown 'kings of the hill' (i.e., one winner; many losers). Where traditional team sports usually result in a zero sum (i.e., one winner; one loser), I would rather have a computer be aware that we were good at plus sum games (i.e., many winners; few, if any losers). These types of cooperative games, are ones that would see human beings working together to solve problems for the benefit of all... like 'preventing Global Warming' or 'eliminating poverty' or 'reducing violence everywhere'.

Too bad the games we play, so often conflict with modern society's most pressing issues. Here's hoping the Machine will be more compassionate than cold-hearted; more cooperative than competetive.


Photo Credit: DB's Photos
Podcast of "Teaching the Machine" Part 2/3