Malone makes a distinction between toys and tools. He says that: A good game should be easy to learn but difficult to master.
Whereas: A good tool should be both easy to learn and easy to master.
tool users should be able to focus most of their attention on the uncertain goal, not on the use of the tool itself p. 66
This distinction is relevant for my work – training and consulting in CAQDAS – tools that support the analysis of qualitative data (such as ATLAS.ti, NVivo, MAXqda etc.) All these tools are difficult to learn – and many people who start to use these tools are new to analyzing qualitative data – so they are learning two new big areas at once. But even those people who are experienced qualitative analysts need to learn what the new affordances a software package can offer qualitative analysis. These tools are both difficult to learn AND difficult to master – which could explain why they have been slow to be adopted, even though they have been around since the 1980s.
Malone rightly identifies that one issue facing the designers of these packages is:conflict between desire to have the system to be easy to learn for beginners and the desire to have it be powerful and flexible for experienced users To overcome the above dilemma, Malone suggests that designers build in a logical progression of increasingly complex microworlds for users of different levels of expertise. The trouble with applying this principle to CAQDAS tools is that you need to understand most of the features as they work together in an integrated way to support an analysis. However, I can see that in designing a game to teach qualitative analysis (as opposed to tool use), you could build in levels that correspond to the analysis process and you could use the CAQDAS software tools as an environment to play the game. And in an indirect way you would be teaching the tool use at the same time.Need to think more on this