Mike

What was planned?
Writing a paper for Sandbox, looking up information about the Creativity in IT conference.

What was done?
I wrote some stuff for the sandbox paper, did a few literature reviews.
Read a massive amount of information about creating and evaluating scales for psychometrics. Also read about some interesting ways of applying MRC to this type of data. It is all complected, but.. it could be a good angle to get some well cited papers.

Problems encountered?
Massive amount of information to hold on to. I also had trouble focusing on the sandbox paper and often got lost looking up information. This is better for the paper overall, but not for the short term as we didn't get the sandbox paper out.

What did you learn this week?
100% of the game studies I read had some large flaws in their design. The ones with smaller design flaws tended to have large flaws in the claims they made after doing their paper. This is leading to many papers stating negative results about games when either the study design was bias, or the statistical results were not reported correctly.

For example, one paper failed to find statistically significant results and thus claimed that "games do not teach better than a paper assignment." We could run a large meta review on game papers... it might be good to simply call people on on it..

What's planned for next week?
SIGCSE!! maybe some more work on the Sandbox paper.