Innovations in learning and teaching approaches using game technologies - can "The Movies" teach how to make a movie?

The use of games technology in education is not a new phenomenon. Even back in the days of 286 processors, PCs were used in some schools along with (what looks like now) primitive simulation software to teach a range of different skills and techniques – from basic programming using Logo (the turtle style car with a pen at the back that could be used to draw on the floor – always a good way of attracting the attention of school kids!) up to quite sophisticated replications of physical problems, such as working out the trajectory of a missile to blow up an enemies’ tank. So why are games not more widely used in education (especially in FE and HE)? Can they help to support learners even at this advanced stage in their education? We aim to provide in this article an overview of the use of game technologies in education (almost as a small literature review for interested parties) and then go more in depth into one particular example we aim to introduce from this coming academic year (Sept. 2006) to help with teaching and assessment of one area of our Multimedia curriculum. Of course, we will not be able to fully provide the reader with data on how successful this is but we will be running a blog (http://themoviesineducation.blogspot.com/) to keep interested parties up to date with the progress of the project and to hopefully help others to set up similar solutions themselves. We will also only consider a small element of the implementation here and cover how the use of such assessment processes could be used in a broader context. The use of a game to aid learning and improve achievement is suggested because traditional methods of engagement are currently failing on some levels. By this it is meant that various parts of the production process we normally cover in our Multimedia degree are becoming difficult to monitor and continually assess.

Public-public partnerships (PUPs) in water

Water operators need to be efficient, accountable, honest public institutions providing a universal service. Many water services however lack the institutional strength, the human resources, the technical expertise and equipment, or the financial or managerial capacity to provide these services. They need support to develop these capacities. The vast majority of water operators in the world are in the public sector – 90% of all major cities are served by such bodies. This means that the largest pool of experience and expertise, and the great majority of examples of good practice and sound institutions, are to be found in existing public sector water operators. Because they are public sector, however, they do not have any natural commercial incentive to provide international support. Their incentive stems from solidarity, not profit. Since 1990, however, the policies of donors and development banks have focussed on the private companies and their incentives. The vast resources of the public sector have been overlooked, even blocked by pro-private policies. Out of sight of these global policy-makers, however, a growing number of public sector water companies have been engaged, in a great variety of ways, in helping others develop the capacity to be effective and accountable public services. These supportive arrangements are now called 'public-public partnerships' (PUPs). A public-public partnership (PUP) is simply a collaboration between two or more public authorities or organisations, based on solidarity, to improve the capacity and effectiveness of one partner in providing public water or sanitation services. They have been described as: “a peer relationship forged around common values and objectives, which exclude profit-seeking”.1 Neither partner expects a commercial profit, directly or indirectly. This makes PUPs very different from the public–private partnerships (PPPs) which have been promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank. The problems of PPPs have been examined in a number of reports. A great advantage of PUPs is that they avoid the risks of such partnerships: transaction costs, contract failure, renegotiation, the complexities of regulation, commercial opportunism, monopoly pricing, commercial secrecy, currency risk, and lack of public legitimacy.2 PUPs are not merely an abstract concept. The list in the annexe to this paper includes over 130 PUPs in around 70 countries. This means that far more countries have hosted PUPs than host PPPs in water – according to a report from PPIAF in December 2008, there are only 44 countries with private participation in water. These PUPs cover a period of over 20 years, and been used in all regions of the world. The earliest date to the 1980s, when the Yokohama Waterworks Bureau first started partnerships to help train staff in other Asian countries. Many of the PUP projects have been initiated in the last few years, a result of the growing recognition of PUPs as a tool for achieving improvements in public water management. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the typical objectives of PUPs; the different forms of PUPs and partners involved; a series of case studies of actual PUPs; and an examination of the recent WOPs initiative. It then offers recommendations for future development of PUPs.

Fluoridation for dental public health

This article reviews the means by which fluoride is supplied to populations. Many public health authorities provide fluoridated drinking water, with typical concentrations of fluoride of between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm. This has been found to be safe and effective, though differences in caries incidence between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions are less than they were 50 years ago, because of the wider availability of fluoridated products to the whole population. Concerns about the effect of fluoride on bone density and associated conditions are reviewed and the general conclusion from considering the literature on fluoride is that there is almost no cause for concern. Alternatives to water as a means of delivering fluoride to the general public that are being used in a number of countries are salt and milk. These alternatives are also reviewed and have been shown to give satisfactory levels of protection against caries, though milk is shown to be less satisfactory than water as a vehicle for fluoride delivery. Milk is also less effective in providing fluoride to individuals in the population, and is less likely to be consumed by people in lower socio-economic groups, precisely those who suffer most from dental caries. This study concludes that mass water fluoridation remains an important contribution to good oral health throughout the community.