[IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
Hi all! It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar Network (pretty initial like Players instead of Users or Roles, and absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and collaborative work on content. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. kind regards On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Hi all! It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar Network (pretty initial like Players instead of Users or Roles, and absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and collaborative work on content. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. kind regards On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Hi all! It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar Network (pretty initial like Players instead of Users or Roles, and absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and collaborative work on content. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we don't have to repeat the same conversations.) regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
1. As regards tech, I'd suggest Open Badges as a good way to go here. Being implemented for the Fedora team by folks local to RIT, so we could probably help there. 2. As regards Gamification, especially for education, there's a lot more there than just issuing points and badges. It requires a deep dive into intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, goals for what Sugar Labs wants out of it, a look at the cultural impacts within the varied locals in which its being implemented yadda yadda yadda. Bad ramification boomerangs back and leaves you worse off than you were before. On May 30, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Walter Bender wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. kind regards On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Hi all! It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar Network (pretty initial like Players instead of Users or Roles, and absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and collaborative work on content. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we don't have to repeat the same conversations.) regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] Gamification in Sugar Network
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, STEPHEN JACOBS itprofjac...@gmail.com wrote: 1. As regards tech, I'd suggest Open Badges as a good way to go here. Being implemented for the Fedora team by folks local to RIT, so we could probably help there. 2. As regards Gamification, especially for education, there's a lot more there than just issuing points and badges. It requires a deep dive into intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, goals for what Sugar Labs wants out of it, a look at the cultural impacts within the varied locals in which its being implemented yadda yadda yadda. Bad ramification boomerangs back and leaves you worse off than you were before. This (2) is why the learning team has been lukewarm about the idea. Nonetheless, in the spirit of making learning visible, in contrast to explicitly rewarding or motivating learning, these data collections can be of real value. My problem with several of the proposals I had seen re convenient-for-the-developer means of gathering data, typically from outside of Sugar itself, leave me feeling dissatisfied. We want data that the learner can see. -walter On May 30, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Walter Bender wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: Sure thing, we spoke about this at length and I think there were even screenshots made regarding gamifying sugar. I know we spoke about it with quite some enthusiasm during the Paris Sugar Convention, and then after that on the mailing lists. I think we might even have written something online about it. I, for one, think it would be almost an essential next step in the Sugar UI. But it would require getting all activity creators on board, as it probably can´t be done just on a centralised level. kind regards On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Aleksey Lim alsr...@sugarlabs.org wrote: Hi all! It seems that the initial idea to have some gaming components in Sugar Network (pretty initial like Players instead of Users or Roles, and absent in current implementation) is a kind of global trend :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification#cite_note-60 In any case, if Gamification is good for CRM (http://zurmo.org/blog/gamification) it should be even more natural for systems like Sugar Network, i.e., that are oriented to students and collaborative work on content. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep As I recall, the design team never settled its differences in terms of how this would work, but we could readily build the back end for accumulating badges/milestones/... in a standard way and those activity developers who chose to use these mechanism can do so. In the meantime, it was proposed to have a badges activity. (I will try to dig up the conversation threads and feature pages so we don't have to repeat the same conversations.) regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] SLOBS's meeting
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:48:59AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Sebastian Silva sebast...@somosazucar.org wrote: Hi, It is not clear for me if there will be a meeting today at 21UTC but if so, I would like to ask if we could postpone it for tomorrow at the same time or maybe today at 23UTC, as I need to be at the Ministry of Education (of Peru) this afternoon. We had not confirmed. Tomorrow works for me, but maybe we should defer until next week, as the input from the community regarding New Co. has been pretty sparse to date. I am traveling (to Peru on the 31st, but maybe the 30th? at the usual time?) works for me. regards. Maybe we can start from what cjl suggested, i.e., investigate the possibility to take part [somehow] in the existing crowdfunding effort in edu field. The major problem, I see here, is that such crowdfunding site might require USA citizenship to create funds request. It is a problem if there are now such persons among people who are taking part in deployment project and it will be useful if SL will take care [somehow] of such kind issues. -- Aleksey ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
Buried in the meeting log [1] is a motion [5] to adopt three changes [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark [6] and Local Labs [7] pages in the wiki. The motion was seconded and we began a vote, but whereas it seemed to be a controversial decision, I though it prudent to ask those who were not able to attend today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting to also vote. So far, walter +1 cjl +1 icarito -1 alsroot has not voted yet. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [1] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10 [2] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739410 [3] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739421 [4] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739445 [5] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739570 [6] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark [7] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs [8] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739707 ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
Hi, I'm sorry I wasn't there; it conflicted with OLPC's weekly engineering meeting. I should be able to make the next meeting. Responding in reverse order: On Wed, May 30 2012, Walter Bender wrote: Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. I don't think this needs to be voted on -- we can talk to Tony without voting to decide to talk to Tony. Let's do that. Buried in the meeting log [1] is a motion [5] to adopt three changes [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark [6] and Local Labs [7] pages in the wiki. The motion was seconded and we began a vote, but whereas it seemed to be a controversial decision, I though it prudent to ask those who were not able to attend today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting to also vote. So far, walter +1 cjl +1 icarito -1 alsroot has not voted yet. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Since we'd like to consider revising the third statement, I'll vote -1 on this motion -- my impression is that we don't all consider the proposed wording ready to be decided on, which is a good reason not to adopt it yet. (Voting this way now doesn't mean I'd definitely vote this way again on the same text in the future; it's because we're still looking into revising the text, not because I find the change unacceptable.) Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
Hello, Not meaning to get in the way of the motion but after reading the log and the back and forth, may I suggest the following wording that I believe takes care of the legal, honors the concerns voiced, makes it more inviting, and suggests an informal non-legal association. Present: Sugar Labs Local Labs are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy. Revised: Sugar Labs Local Labs, although vital to the Sugar Labs community ecosystem, are not officially endorsed by or affiliated with Sugar Labs or the Software Freedom Conservancy. Hope it may help move the process forward. Best! John Tierney Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 19:13:26 -0400 From: walter.ben...@gmail.com To: h...@laptop.org; gerald.ard...@gmail.com; c...@laptop.org CC: t...@sfconservancy.org; bk...@sfconservancy.org; iaep@lists.sugarlabs.org; sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org Subject: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion Buried in the meeting log [1] is a motion [5] to adopt three changes [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark [6] and Local Labs [7] pages in the wiki. The motion was seconded and we began a vote, but whereas it seemed to be a controversial decision, I though it prudent to ask those who were not able to attend today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting to also vote. So far, walter +1 cjl +1 icarito -1 alsroot has not voted yet. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [1] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10 [2] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739410 [3] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739421 [4] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739445 [5] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739570 [6] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark [7] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs [8] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739707 ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Chris Ball c...@laptop.org wrote: Hi, I'm sorry I wasn't there; it conflicted with OLPC's weekly engineering meeting. I should be able to make the next meeting. Responding in reverse order: On Wed, May 30 2012, Walter Bender wrote: Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. I don't think this needs to be voted on -- we can talk to Tony without voting to decide to talk to Tony. Let's do that. As I noted in the meeting. I did reach out to Tony, and he has responded: I can't approve this edit. Buried in the meeting log [1] is a motion [5] to adopt three changes [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark [6] and Local Labs [7] pages in the wiki. The motion was seconded and we began a vote, but whereas it seemed to be a controversial decision, I though it prudent to ask those who were not able to attend today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting to also vote. So far, walter +1 cjl +1 icarito -1 alsroot has not voted yet. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Since we'd like to consider revising the third statement, I'll vote -1 on this motion -- my impression is that we don't all consider the proposed wording ready to be decided on, which is a good reason not to adopt it yet. So noted. What do you suggest we do to get to the point were we can bring this to closure? (Voting this way now doesn't mean I'd definitely vote this way again on the same text in the future; it's because we're still looking into revising the text, not because I find the change unacceptable.) The revision proposed by Icarito was not acceptable to the SFC. Are there other revisions on the table? Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball c...@laptop.org http://printf.net/ One Laptop Per Child regards. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Local Labs motion
+1 Gerald On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Walter Bender walter.ben...@gmail.com wrote: Buried in the meeting log [1] is a motion [5] to adopt three changes [2, 3, 4] to the Trademark [6] and Local Labs [7] pages in the wiki. The motion was seconded and we began a vote, but whereas it seemed to be a controversial decision, I though it prudent to ask those who were not able to attend today's Sugar Labs oversight board meeting to also vote. So far, walter +1 cjl +1 icarito -1 alsroot has not voted yet. cjb, canoeberry, and geralda were not present. Please respond to this email with your vote. Also, there was motion [8], not yet seconded, to ask Tony if he was OK with a change in the wording of [4]. There was not consensus on the wording, but there was consensus on asking for Tony's input. Tony, could you please chime in? thanks. -walter -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org [1] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10 [2] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739410 [3] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739421 [4] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739445 [5] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739570 [6] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Trademark [7] http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Local_Labs [8] http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2012-05-30T21:08:10#i_2739707 ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
