Exploring New Technology’s Meaning for a Sustainable Future …
341
Person 6: “But just as in old movies, someone will have an old satellite phone or
use a phone booth.”
Person 7: “And then your giraffe
2 can call you.”
Person 5: “Yes, because it’s from the first generation, they still have that
functionality.”
Person 4: “And they are keeping them, because they are so cute, you don’t throw
them away.”
Person 7: “And for sustainability reasons! You don’t throw them away, you use
them. When they’re broken, you recycle them and take every part out.”
Person 6: “And cobbled together like patchwork … and you can see it’s first
generation from the yellow color. Because most are yellow or blue, because they
are cobbled together from different robots.”
This type of emergent storytelling energizes a group and unlocks the group’s
creativity. Because it is unpredictable, however, the game’s mechanic was implemented to formalize such interactions.
Group A completely abandoned the rule that each question is answered by one
designated participant with the power to decide. Instead, they collectively discussed
each question. This led to the common pattern of behavior in which a few group
members talk the most and make the decisions. This group stayed at a superficial
and cerebral level. They related the prompts from the question to previous knowledge more than any other group, both regarding Science-Fiction, current discourse
regarding sustainability issues and content of their university courses (e.g. “Now
we’re at Blade Runner status.”, “I know that’s already possible, my friend has a PhD
in biochemistry.”).
More than the other groups, group A talked in first person plural (e.g. “if we had
the solution, we could make real money”). When the prompts instructed them to
choose a protagonist, they did, but never considered that person’s perspective, e.g.:
• Person 1, reading the question from the card: “When does he/she notice for the
first time, that this represents a problem for them?”
• Person 2: “When did we first notice this?”
• Person 3: “… we already noticed it.”
As a result, collaborative storytelling did not take place. Group A still developed a vision for a sustainable factory of the future which they got invested in, and
considered its implications. They discovered unexpected societal consequences of
their technology, like groups B and C. Therefore, personal learning has taken place.
Yet they did not equally tap the brainpower of all team members nor experience
the effect sustainability-related challenges can have on individuals: “These stupid
person-questions, for real. This is about the sustainable factory”.
An interpretation of why this happened is connected to the very nature of play
and games: The students in group A performed a task they were given as a university
assignment: to answer a set of questions on cards. This was not voluntary and they
2 A giraffe-shaped robot from a visual prompt that was picked from the inspiration wall.
341
Person 6: “But just as in old movies, someone will have an old satellite phone or
use a phone booth.”
Person 7: “And then your giraffe
2 can call you.”
Person 5: “Yes, because it’s from the first generation, they still have that
functionality.”
Person 4: “And they are keeping them, because they are so cute, you don’t throw
them away.”
Person 7: “And for sustainability reasons! You don’t throw them away, you use
them. When they’re broken, you recycle them and take every part out.”
Person 6: “And cobbled together like patchwork … and you can see it’s first
generation from the yellow color. Because most are yellow or blue, because they
are cobbled together from different robots.”
This type of emergent storytelling energizes a group and unlocks the group’s
creativity. Because it is unpredictable, however, the game’s mechanic was implemented to formalize such interactions.
Group A completely abandoned the rule that each question is answered by one
designated participant with the power to decide. Instead, they collectively discussed
each question. This led to the common pattern of behavior in which a few group
members talk the most and make the decisions. This group stayed at a superficial
and cerebral level. They related the prompts from the question to previous knowledge more than any other group, both regarding Science-Fiction, current discourse
regarding sustainability issues and content of their university courses (e.g. “Now
we’re at Blade Runner status.”, “I know that’s already possible, my friend has a PhD
in biochemistry.”).
More than the other groups, group A talked in first person plural (e.g. “if we had
the solution, we could make real money”). When the prompts instructed them to
choose a protagonist, they did, but never considered that person’s perspective, e.g.:
• Person 1, reading the question from the card: “When does he/she notice for the
first time, that this represents a problem for them?”
• Person 2: “When did we first notice this?”
• Person 3: “… we already noticed it.”
As a result, collaborative storytelling did not take place. Group A still developed a vision for a sustainable factory of the future which they got invested in, and
considered its implications. They discovered unexpected societal consequences of
their technology, like groups B and C. Therefore, personal learning has taken place.
Yet they did not equally tap the brainpower of all team members nor experience
the effect sustainability-related challenges can have on individuals: “These stupid
person-questions, for real. This is about the sustainable factory”.
An interpretation of why this happened is connected to the very nature of play
and games: The students in group A performed a task they were given as a university
assignment: to answer a set of questions on cards. This was not voluntary and they
2 A giraffe-shaped robot from a visual prompt that was picked from the inspiration wall.