Workshop and other Lists

I just wrote a really nice letter to GAMESNETWORK list as they had a very long rant on the cost of attending conferences. I truly understand what they are saying, the cost of attending GDC is very expensive, there are no academic discounts (and trust me, I asked them to give us a price break, even pleaded). Personally, I do not feel that we are ready for our own conference, we are still but a few volunteers. In truth, I really feel it would be better to have regional conferences that will also target students as well as educators - it will help on keeping down the cost of travel as well as providing opportunities for making inroads to educators that are hiding out there, (have no budget or a really tight budget).

There are a few options out there for those that unable to purchase a GIGA or VIP pass to GDC. One, there is the tutorials only option, good for Monday & Tuesday's IGDA Education Curriculum Workshop for $600 (less if you are an IGDA member). Two, there will also be online support, GDC broadcasts a lot of their sessions as well as the possibility of us using a software like Breeze to provide online interactivity (still working on this).

Bottom line, it is getting really close to the early bird discount deadline of January 31, 2007 to get the best price if you are attending the conference. I hope that the readership will be enticed to attend. Besides our big push to work on our curriculum framework, there are so many other things that the SIG wants to do, but we need you there to help us get these ideas off the ground. I hope that there will be attendees that want to discuss the possibility of our own journal as well as many other ideas we have on the back burner (accreditation, sabbatical programs, etc...).

GDC is going to be an exciting time for the SIG, we hope you will be there.

Susan Gold
IGDA Education SIG Chair

Teaching "Creating Games"

Looking up at the dark, nighttime New Hampshire sky, a friend once told me that learning the names of the constellations would take away the “magic” of that sky.

Two students in my first year student seminar called “Why Do People Believe Weird Things?” told me that they were glad that they had learned how to evaluate arguments but they hadn’t expected the class to be so “serious”.

These two conversations come to mind as I prepare to teach a general education class called “Creating Games”. The class will be “serious” in the sense that the students will have to reflect on their experiences with games to try to figure out what makes a game work. I think this reflection will add to the “magic” of games but I know that a lot of people will disagree. One of my main goals in this class will be to get students to see that thoughtful examination of a game and its mechanics can enhance our enjoyment of that game. The last thing I want to do is make students feel as though we are taking the fun out of playing games.

I wonder what other folks do to ensure that the process of education adds to the enjoyment of gaming.

Cathie LeBlanc

Moving Forward

Having received many queries from educators in regards to accreditation for their degree(s), I have decided to try to tackle the question. There are many reasons why there should be some type of accreditation. Equally there is discussion about how time consuming, costly and difficult the accreditation process is to establish and achieve. I have only gone through accreditation as a faculty member writing various reports, however, I do recall that it is a very stressful and exhaustive process for departments as well as the institution. Another consideration is that our particular genre, being interdisciplinary, has other factors that may govern components of our curricula. There are of course those that feel that there should not be game degrees at all, or at least not until graduate school.

Accrediting bodies in the United States operate to ensure that students in educational programs receive an education consistent with standards for entry into practice in their respective fields or disciplines. I have received several reports from educators that there are many game programs popping up all over the world – to primarily cash in on the boom. How do we protect students from these types of academic vultures who grab the money and give students little in the way of academic value?

What if we were to develop something as simple as IGDA APPROVED? Establishing basic criteria based on our developing curriculum framework. Something like this I can imagine, as it would have minimal guidelines that would allow for institutional autonomy and innovation. With a full-blown accreditation process, what benefits do you see that would outweigh the cost, time and effort? Which then begs me to ask, who should be the governing body that assess the quality of a specialized game education degree? As a SIG, we are run by volunteers, with no current need to have a budget. Accreditation would necessitate the need for a budget and a lot more work for volunteers above what I feel individuals could comfortably be asked to give. But who else would be qualified to create or stipulate what is considered the standards?

We also must factor in variables such as the multiple types of institutions involved in our SIG. I would like the membership to weigh in, as this topic remains very difficult for me to come to any clear decision. I would very much like to hear from our membership, especially those from outside the US. I would very much like to hear how this may or may not benefit them in their own countries. To me, I feel that the SIG should concern itself with teaching and learning as the primary focus. I ask you, does that ultimately result in setting standards?

Prof. Susan Gold
Chair, IGDA Education SIG

Highlights of 2006

Now that 2007 has rolled around, it's just the time to reflect on everything that happened in 2006 to lead us into the new year!

Programs, centers, labs, courses, conferences, events, projects, games, and more. What were your highlights during 2006?

Submit your highlights by Commenting.

Beth A. Dillon
Communications Director