 That's actually not the right version, but that's okay, we can work with that. So there's about three levels of awkwardness going on, because this is not the version of the slideshow I was expecting. And the version of the slideshow I was expecting was going to work with some IRL elements that I had planted in the room beforehand, but those conveniently got tidied up or otherwise somewhat helpfully disposed of, which is a nice lesson in the fact that real life doesn't have a backup and restore option. So we're just going to start from here and pretend this is the beginning of my presentation. I thought that I would do this presentation because we often hear about projects when they're new and cool and either in development or having just been implemented, but we don't often hear about what happens to projects after the fact, and particularly not a reasonable distance after the fact. So I thought it might be interesting to have a look at looking back on a project and how a project tracks over time. So before I begin, is anyone old guard enough that they were actually there for my Moodle Moot 2011 presentation on this project? Oh, two hands, excellent. So you'll be really bored, I apologize, for everyone else who's maybe not aware. The Moodle Dailies was a project that I started working on in 2010 and implemented it in 2011, so this is six years ago. And now while I'm talking, because I'm not actually the kind of person who enjoys using PowerPoint and didn't intend to, but since we're not allowed to do live web presentations where I could actually walk you through it, I'm just going to stick those up there and you can link in QI yourself and do the interactive part of the presentation on your own devices instead of mine, so I'll just leave that up there while I talk. The Moodle Dailies was a project that I started in to explore the concept of games-based learning, implemented in Moodle in order to teach academic staff how to use Moodle. So we went to Moodle in 2010 and so I started exploring this as a way of teaching academic staff at scale to use a new system. What I did was basically used labels and conditional activities such as they were at the time to create a completely visual games-based environment for staff to learn Moodle, which relied heavily on the use of a narrative rather than explicit instruction. It was extremely painful narrative, it was like a nightmare cross between Seinfeld and Game Theft Auto. It was very bad and we'll talk later on about why that wasn't perhaps the best idea. So I created this environment and if my explanation hasn't really given you a good idea of what it is, if you go and watch the video later that will walk you through the actual site so you can understand how the project looked. I haven't actually watched that video since 2011 so God knows what I said but I hope it's entertaining for you. So when I first implemented this project I'm the type of person who likes to use Twitter a lot and blog a lot to engage in a community of practice and so I was blogging about my design thinking as I was designing it, I was tweeting about it and people got really excited. I was engaging with quite a lot of people who were engaging with my work, retweeting it, doing their own blog posts about it and then when I came to Moodle Meet 2011 I did a presentation on the topic and everyone seemed to get very excited about it and that had a reasonable knock-on effect in terms of my work and people engaging in my work. So after that point, aside from doing more work in the Twitter and blog space, getting people to engage, I started doing some speaking gigs. People would invite me to speak on both this project and game space learning in general. I did a consulting project with the Department of Education to develop professional development for teachers using games-based learning. At Moodle Meet in 2012 I did a masterclass on games-based learning design in Moodle. I don't know if any of you were there for that particular one either or one hand. Got a few old school people in the room. And then people started making their own Moodle Dailies at their own institutions. One of the really irritating things, I mean I understand why it's a thing, but when you're using conditional activities as a design feature it locks down your site to be able to be open to the public because conditionals have to track for an authenticated user, which meant that people outside of my institution couldn't do the Moodle Dailies. And so they created their own instead of their own institutions and used those principles to design their own work. And so as time went on I still did a bit here and there speaking on the project. People still tend to associate games-based learning with me. I still get asked to speak on it occasionally. Some people will still think of me as the Moodle Dailies person. And as late as earlier this year I was contacted by a very lovely Belgian academic who was asking me about the Moodle Dailies and wanted to know more about it and wanted to implement a daily style course at his own institution. And so we were talking about that. So six years after the original project it's still having impact in the higher education community, learning design community in terms of how people are thinking about course design. Which is all, you know, it's cool, it had a good run. I haven't actually done anything with it in years, it's just kind of sat there. And it's not a project that I'm working on anymore. But another significant thing that happened to it over those six years is not a single person ever did the Moodle Dailies as it was intended. So not a single academic staff member did the Moodle Dailies to learn how to use Moodle. Which was really interesting. You know, six years ago I feel like it was such a long time ago but probably wasn't in the scheme of things. My thinking was rather different in terms of A, my levels of enthusiasm, B, what I was expecting people to engage in and how far I expected people to be able to work outside of their conceptual boundaries. And so, you know, educators in the room will know we talk about the zone of proximal development. But designing a course in this way for a market of academic staff that was like zone of WTF. That was way beyond what they were able to conceptualise. And so my gag that I was going to do when I had the things planted in this room is you were all going to come in and it was going to be very awkward and you would eventually find the things that I'd planted. And make a point that when you come in expecting a conference presentation and I don't stand up here and immediately start power pointing you, that's very far out of your bounds of expectation that produces awkwardness and makes you uncomfortable and you don't particularly know what to do. And some of you may well have just walked out of the room. And in a similar vein this is what happened because people were coming in expecting training and their concept of training is a room like this where I come and I just tell you where to point and click for an hour and you go away having learned the system. But when you go into an online environment and some chump just puts an envelope in front of you with no other instruction, you go, what's going on? And then that produced an engagement rate of nil with my target audience. So that's up to you decide whether that project was a failure or not. Completely failed at its purpose because it was not fit for the market that I was designing for. I misunderstood the willingness of that market to move outside of their conceptual parameters. But it had a really great impact within the learning design community and the education community in general. And so from that point of view you could say it was a success. So it's kind of this awkward mix of being a great and a terrible project. Now I did say in my abstract that I would talk now about what would be different about building games-based learning in Moodle today compared to 2011 when I was doing it. I mentioned that it was design-based using just labels, pages and conditional activities. Back then you only had and conditionals and it was very simple. It was basically based on you either had clicked a link or you hadn't or you'd done an activity or you hadn't and that made things super hard, particularly if you wanted to do any kind of streaming or allow people to take different paths through a course and work at their own level. That was difficult. I have a job submitted in Moodle tracker from 2011 going please, please give us all conditionals and they did eventually, which is nice. And so today when you're working with conditionals you have all conditionals. You have a fairly sophisticated range of conditionals that you can use as a very rudimentary games engine to do games-based learning in Moodle. And so that's something that I would have really appreciated at that point in time, but now you've got a lot more options. So if it's something that you want to explore, you've got a much more sophisticated tool at hand. You also now have the better hiding and showing options. So if you want to produce a visual interface, you don't have to hack often topics in hideous, travesty ways like what you used to do. And you can now just hide things in plain sight and you can use the Moodle activities but put a visual overlay over the top of it using those features. And so I think those two features would now produce people making very different environments to what the Moodle Daily's was in 2011. Look, that's about it from now. If you read through the words section, that'll take you to my blog and should pull up all of my posts on the topic. So my original thinking back in 2010, 2011, and also a more recent post I did that's kind of a TLDR of this presentation. And then you can watch the video to see how it was designed in the first place. And other than that, you can always contact me in Twitter. I liked talking to people there. So I think that's about it unless people have questions. No? Sorry, yes. I did, yes. Yes, no Angry Birds was a thing of mine and it's now a thing of my daughter's. But it's a fun way to get people to start thinking outside of this. Let's sit here and you look at my PowerPoint. And then, so, yes, good memory. Yes. God, no. No, no, I would not. I would, yeah, it's... I mean, like I said, it was not fit for the target market. And because there's... Not a huge amount has changed in the sector between now and then in terms of the issues that academic staff face, it's not a project I would resurrect. I don't think so. I don't think it was... Because you didn't get the narrative straight up. You just got imagery. I think that was the point of switching off. And so I don't know if they could have gotten into the narrative whether that would have made things better or worse. But perhaps if I devised a better entry path and a less abstract narrative, who knows, maybe that would have helped. But it was a terrible narrative. I am not a storyteller. I am not a creative writer. Not my strong point. Okay, great. Thank you.