MMORPGs in Education: Context-Embedded Learning

The following is a summary of responses from an expert panel over three rounds of a Delphi study conducted as part of my doctoral dissertation. This is the second of six thematic summaries I plan to share on this blog.

In a final consensus check survey, the participating experts indicated a high level of consensus with this summary:

Summary of Participant Responses
Theme 2
Context-Embedded Learning

MMORPGs might be valuable in providing a safe context for active student learning. Game worlds can be more concrete, immersive, and open-ended than textbooks, and can be used to represent other places, historical periods, and environments (or systems) that would be impossible to recreate in a classroom, including models for chemistry or other sciences. Moreover, the game world can reach beyond the classroom due to the networked nature of MMORPGs. Even so, traditional textbooks and classrooms are likely to serve a complementary roll in supporting students’ game-based educational experiences. Games and simulations may even be best used in conjunction with more traditional educational techniques.

Students can take on new roles and safely explore new identities in an MMORPG game world, including academic or professional identities that might serve them well in the future. This ability to experiment with new identities might also reduce negative stereotyping and allow leaders to emerge who might not in a traditional classroom.

Students could even play a role in modifying the game environment in an MMORPG. Some games allow players a great deal of influence over the game environment. Others allow “modding” of game environments and scenarios.

Replayability of scenarios is one of the most valuable elements of an educational game or simulation. MMORPGs can also allow replayability, though this is not necessarily an element of such games and may need to be explicitly selected or designed for educational purposes.

The context provided by MMORPGs may allow more effective transfer of skills from the learning environment to the real world. However, successful transfer of skills may be dependent on the fidelity of the models used in the game. While removal of some real-world complexity is necessary in any game or simulation, commercial MMORPGs tend to distort or exaggerate aspects of the real world for the sake of entertainment rather than education. The models used in educational MMORPGs will need to be selected or designed primarily to help students meet learning goals – while still maintaining high levels of motivation and engagement.

Also, in order for transfer to be effective the academic “content” presented within the game would need to be accurate, though not necessarily in the same way as text books; for instance a historical simulation might accurately model systems content though players’ choices might generate different specific events than actually occurred in history. In this way games and texts might be used in a complementary fashion – games to teach systems content and soft skills such as leadership or decision making, and texts to teach real-world specifics.

Similarly, the fidelity of game models does not necessitate a “real world” setting. Just as in text-based stories, a fantasy world might be used to teach a real lesson. For instance, students can learn the basics of entrepreneurship in a science fiction setting. Such fantasy settings might help students to learn skills that might be too specific or too uninteresting to many students in a real world scenario.

It may be difficult to assess if students have learned the “content” and even more difficult to asses of they have learned “soft skills” such as leadership. It is also possible that students’ learning would not transfer well from the relatively safe environment of the game to the riskier environment of real world consequences. Ultimately, transfer may need to be supported through reflection, an aspect that existing MMORPGs do not stress and which may need to be guided by a teacher. Game worlds might also include an safe area explicitly meant for reflection.

MMORGPs might be most valuable if modeled on real world professional training, such as internships. The reward system in most MMORPGs might lend itself to this sort of design, as success in these games often requires hard work and considerable time to develop the necessary resources or money. Unfortunately, the MMORPG interface might require students to acquire new skills before being even minimally successful in the virtual context.

However, a well designed game could scaffold the development of such skills. Also, a fantasy or stylized setting may be better suited to teaching some skills than a realistic simulation or even real-life. In any case, students who play such a game before beginning a real-world internship would likely be better prepared than those who don’t play the game. Regardless, a simulation or game might not ever be able to replace the experience of working with an actual practitioner in a real-world internship.

As with any form of eLearning, the computer mediated context of an MMORPG might be missing valuable elements of a face-to-face learning environment. However, activities in the virtual environment can supplement (or be supplemented by) face-to-face interaction in a classroom. MMORPGs might also extend into the physical environment through new interfaces such as are now common in games like Dance Dance Revolution or the Nintendo Wii.

The following are a selection of significant dissenting opinions and/or final comments that members of the expert panel made in response to this final summary:

“My main comment is on ‘MMORGPs might be most valuable if modelled on real world professional training, such as internships.’ This is someone debatable because all the professional training models have been set up with a standardize learning process and tools that are known and in place for many years. MMORPGs offer the ability to have flexibility in the learning process. If you look at the way technical people learn skills, they rarely read the manuals provided with new products. On the contrary, they install and play with the application, and after much trial and error, later in the learning process, they refer to manuals or other information sources (often asking people on the net). Learning in MMORPG can happen in a seemingly random, inefficient order and also provide lessons that are difficult to model with texts and classes (such as social interaction), as therefore are often removed from professional training. In some ways MMORPGs can provide a more holistic way of learning because the lessons are intertwined with the softer skills. The point being, new learning models need to be explored. Real world professional training models are designed to streamline the process, and lower costs of delivering that service and thus they have to make compromises in the overall education experience for the purpose of transferring very specific knowledge in a very controlled realm. i.e. few people that learned MS Word in a class, learned much about how to use it or about writing. Those that learned to write and had to use MS Word as a tool to complete the tasks, often know the tools much more fully.”

“I’m a little worried about the notion that the context has to be relatively real, whereas in many cases we remove complexity or alter probabilities for instructional purposes”

“MMORPGS will not provide more transfer. That is the role of reflection and application to new situations.”

“The context may provide the necessary prior knowledge to someone who has not seen a picture of a moonbow, but for those with imagination and experience, this visual representation may reduce the pleasure of learning dependening on how inspiring the art work is and the quality of the player’s imagination.” (?)

“Why are we so preoccupied with safety? Also, wouldn’t it be better to take kids to Paris, rather than sending them to a sim of Paris? Kids are soon bored of MMORPGS if the builds are not consistently upgraded, or they are given the ability to build and create new content–but restriction in the name of safety tends to over rule this creativity.”

“’The removal of real-world complexity’ and replacing it with entertainment in commercial games in not just something that can be replaced with educational aspects. That’s a mistake most educational games make. These games are fun because the game play is tuned for fun and engagement, reality is not in the equation. You can’t take that out. if the top design goal of the game isn’t to create a fun game, it won’t be a fun game.”

“Content is a problem, there’s no way to assess it in a game like this, and yet, if all you assess is “soft” skills, you might as well just play a COTS game and see who wins. It’s as likely that leadership skills or “business” skills could be assessed through any team-based game or resource management game.”

I am interested in additional feedback from readers of this blog. What is your level of consensus with this summary? Are there any points you might want to elaborate on – or more importantly, disagree with? Please leave a comment.

MMORPGs in Education: Motivation & Engagement

The following is a summary of responses from an expert panel over three rounds of a Delphi study conducted as part of my doctoral dissertation. This is the first of six thematic summaries I plan to share on this blog.

In a final consensus check survey, the participating experts indicated a high level of consensus with this summary:

Summary of Participant Responses
Theme 1
Motivation and Engagement

Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) may be engaging and motivating for many students. This may be true for some students because MMORPGs, like other forms of problem based or project based learning, require learning by doing that is active, challenging, and authentic.

MMORPGs might, however, also motivate players to endure the drudgery of repetitive simplistic tasks for the sake of “grinding” for experience and advancement in the game. If this is necessary in an MMORPG used for educational purposes, the experience of “grinding” could also be made educational in its own right. However, repetitive grinding for no purpose other than advancement in the game is antithetical to good constructivist learning, and such grinding not a necessary element of MMORPGs. Other commercial MMORPGs have found different ways of motivating players. Educational game designers might design or use a more authentic system that corresponds more directly to real-world skills. Ultimately, including uninteresting tasks in an otherwise interesting world might undermine student engagement in the game.

The elements of competition and peer pressure common in MMORPGs might also be motivating for some students, as might the social nature of the games. MMORPGs could even be used to teach sociology concepts, including social interaction, morals, and values. However, if the game models socially destructive behavior (such as violent or sexist behaviors) this might have a negative impact on learning. Also, some students may not enjoy competition. And, pressure from social circles to conform to cliques, participate in bullying, or ostracize certain students might be transfered into (or generated by) the game.

Opportunities for self-directed creativity and exploration might appeal to other students and might be beneficial for learning, provided the educational goals of the game are still the students’ focus. The ability to take on a new role or identity within the game might also engage and motivate some students. In addition, the nature of MMORPGs could provide students accustomed to on-demand entertainment with an on-demand learning medium. However, the content of the game, including the theme and specific experiences or encounters, will need to be as compelling as the medium in order to effectively engage and motivate students.

In particular, the quest system common in many MMORPGs could be put to educational use, requiring students to conduct research, perform experiments, and apply academic skills to solve in-game problems. Ideally, such quests would provide an authentic and contextualized opportunity for skill use that would facilitate transfer into real-world scenarios. Using a scoring process that is non-trivial and corresponds to skill-acquisitions might be used to motivate students to undertake such learning quests. The ability to provide immediate and meaningful feedback will also be critical to the success of such a system. Whatever the scoring and motivation systems used in the game, the game should be designed or chosen to rely as much as possible on intrinsic motivation rather than relying too heavily on extrinsic motivation. Unfortunately, the design of such a system that provides educationally valuable quests that rely primarily on intrinsic motivation may be a difficult (or impossible) challenge for game designers.

MMORPGs embody Papert’s concept of Hard Fun; MMORPGs are fun because they are hard, not inspite of being hard. However, if educational MMORPGs are selected or created in such a way that they are too hard for students, they will not be fun – and thus will not be engaging or motivating.

The possibility of players becoming “addicted” to the game or having “an unhealthy relationship with the game” is another common concern. However, if there were clear set learning outcomes that defined stopping points (or an end) to the game, this risk could be mitigated. Also, it may be that players’ personalities and other environmental factors play a greater role in causing addiction than any particular game. Furthermore, it is unlikely that students would develop an addiction to a learning game – and educators might not consider it a bad thing if they did.

The engaging elements of the game might lead to a loss of focus on educational goals. Alternatively, a focus on educational goals might reduce the motivational power of a game. Ideally, if the game is well designed it will help students accomplish educational goals without sacrificing the motivational engagement of the game. This balance could be addressed during the usual iterations of alpha and beta testing. Even if the game is slightly “less fun” than a commercial game, it would most likely still be considerably “more fun” than a traditional classroom assignment.

Video games are not appealing to all students, and may require skills (or time) that not all students have. An educational MMORPG, though, could be designed to provide multiple paths to success, with some requiring less technical “skill” with the game. Even among the students that are “gamers” not all are attracted to the same genre of games or to MMORPGs in particular.

The following are a selection of significant dissenting opinions and/or final comments that members of the expert panel made in response to this final summary:

“The discussion of repetitive actions, competition and content of the game really comes back to good design of game-play. Repetitive action in and of itself is not bad, this is exactly how we learn many things, and much of which was not intended in the design of this action.”

“Anonymity with fellow players allows the player to explore new ideas and actions without real-world social reprisals. By having each of the student’s roles registered with the school (confidentially so other students are not aware unless they reveal their identities) to provide some level of accountability of action and a safer environment to learn and play.”

“MMORPGs are educational as they are. They can teach basic computer skills, practice with communication, teaming, typing, email, etc. This discussion should is more about expanding the educational advantages, rather than whether or not MMORPGs can teach.”

“It would be possible to create an experience that would be highly transferable to the real world.”

“[This summary is] too negative about how hard it is to develop intrinsic motivation.”

I am interested in additional feedback from readers of this blog. What is your level of consensus with this summary? Are there any points you might want to elaborate on – or more importantly, disagree with? Please leave a comment.

Researcher’s Log 2008-02-18

Data collection for my Delphi study was completed as planned on February 8th. (As if on cue, Clark was born the next morning!)

I received 12 completed surveys in response to the final consensus check. Thankfully, this was the minimum number I set out to gather – so the level of attrition was acceptable, especially through rounds 2 and 3 and the final consensus check. Twenty-four experts initially agreed to participate in the study. Of these, only 15 people actually completed round one. Thirteen completed round 2, and twelve completed both round 3 and the final consensus check. So, following round 1, the attrition rate was only 20%. Those who left the study were not among the significant dissenting opinions.

In the final consensus check, consensus was defined in the following way:

For the purposes of this study, consensus is defined as the state in which the results are “at least acceptable to every member [of the expert panel], if not exactly as they would have wished.” (Reid, 1988, as cited in Williams & Webb, 1994, p. 182).

Participants were then asked to rate their level of consensus with each of six summaries on the following scale (Participants were also invited to leave additional comments after rating their level of consensus with each summary):

  • 5. Complete Consensus – I am in agreement with everything stated in this summary. The results are acceptable to me, if not exactly as I would have wished.
  • 4. High Level of Consensus – I agree with most of what is stated in this summary, and I disagree in only minor or insignificant ways. The results are acceptable to me.
  • 3. Moderate Level of Consensus – I agree with much of what is stated in this summary, but I also disagree in some ways. The results are acceptable to me.
  • 2. Low Level of Consensus – I agree with some of what is stated in this summary, but I also disagree in some major or significant ways. However, the results are still acceptable to me.
  • 1. No consensus – I disagree with most or all of what is stated in this summary. The results are not acceptable to me.

These ratings were used to find a level of consensus between the participants. Though many participants selected “5. Complete Consensus” in response to individual items, no items received that rating from all participants, so it would be inaccurate to report that there was complete consensus on any of the summarized themes. However, the participants ratings were averaged and the following scale was used to determine the level of consensus among the participants:

  • 5.0 Complete Consensus
  • 4.50-4.99 Very High Level of Consensus
  • 3.50-4.49 High Level of Consensus
  • 2.50-3.49 Moderate Level of Consensus
  • 1.50-2.49 Low Level of Consensus
  • 0.00-1.49 No Consensus
By this scale, there was a high level of consensus on four themes and a very high level of consensus on two additional themes. Out of 72 individual responses (12 participants responded to 6 summarized themes), 34 were “complete consensus,” 27 were “high level of consensus,” 10 were “moderate level of consensus,” and only one was “low level of consensus.” In other words, only one participant responded with a low level of consensus, and even then only responded in this way to one theme. No participants selected “no consensus” in response to any themes. Most dissenting opinions were minor and all will be addressed in the final report.

At this point in the process I have several new tasks ahead of me.

  • Final Data Analysis: I will code and complete analysis of the Final Consensus Check comments. These will be used to modify the summaries used in the final consensus check for their final appearance in my report.
  • Confirmability Measures: I will work with two of my colleagues, both of whom have recently completed in a doctoral dissertation focused on educational technology. They will aid me in a peer debriefing, in serving as devil’s advocates, and (in one case) in serving as an external auditor of my Delphi methodology.
  • I will complete a literature realignment to account for the months between completion of my proposal and the beginning of this dissertation draft.

Then I can move on to rewrite chapters 1 through 3 to reflect the actual implementation of this study – and to compose chapters 4 and 5 to report my results and discuss their implications. Though I had hoped to have a draft of my dissertation by March 1st, I don’t think that is possible at this point. However, I still hope to have a draft completed sometime in March. I think it’s time to take on no new work until this is done… especially with a new baby in the house.

Researcher’s Log 2008-02-03

Today I completed the summaries and emailed the (link to the) final consensus check to all 12 remaining participants. I also looked forward to the confirmability measures I mentioned in the proposal. Some I have covered, such as member-checking, rich thick description, negative or discrepant information, and “prolonged time in the field.” Some I need to look up in order to address them: triangulation and bias clarification. And some I need to recruit help with. For instance, I will need to recruit as many as three peers to serve as a devils advocate for the results, to aid me in a peer debriefing, and to perform an external audit. I have some peers in mind, but am prepared to use as few as one other person for these roles, because I do not expect to find very many peers willing to make the necessary time commitment. I will send out emails to these people next time I work – Wednesday at the latest.

In any case, I will send a reminder to all participants on Wednesday because the final consensus check is due on Friday (the 8th). I plan to complete the final analysis on the 9th and to begin the remaining confirmability measures immediately. I will also begin rewriting chapters 1-3 and drafting the final chapters of the dissertation. I still hope to complete a draft of the dissertation by March 1st.

Of course, all of this is contingent on when Eva has the baby, which is due in two days on the 5th.

Researcher’s Log 2008-02-02

1:30 PM I sent out the third round questions on the 25th. I sent reminders on the 29th and again on the 31st.. Today 11 of 13 have completed the study, and one other just contacted me to say she would complete it today, so I anticipate having the 12 participants complete this 3rd round that I had hoped for. Now I hope I won’t see any additional attrition during the final consensus check; it should, however, require less effort (though at least as much reading) as the previous rounds.

My analysis method will be different for this final round. Coding is not necessary. Round 3 presented summaries (by theme) and asked participants to respond to the statement in the summary that they disagreed with most strongly. In some cases participants replied that they did not disagree with anything on the page… and in other cases they indicated that they did not disagree “strongly” and then provided a response to some elements that they had minor concerns about – or else elaborated on a point. So, in this case I will simply deal with each response one at a time. I will treat each response in one of three ways:

1. Alter the summary to reflect the concern addressed in the response.
2. Catalog the response as a dissenting opinion, to be reported in the dissertation
3. Catalog the response as repetitive, off-topic, or an insignificant contribution.

I think I’ll use TAMS on my first run to tag items for these purposes: {alter}, {dissenting}, {repetitive}, {offtopic}, {insig}. (Or perhaps {discard} for an answer of type 3 that is difficult to classify.)

2:44 PM I used this system, but also needed another set of codes to group responses that addressed the same issues, which were few in number.

6:28 Earlier today I completed the Motivation and Engagement summary. Just now I’ve completed putting together the final consensus check online questionnaire. Due to space limitations in the survey tool, I am no longer embedding the summaries, but am linking to them instead. All that remains is to complete analyzing the responses to Round 3 questions 2 through 6 and then to complete (and upload) the final summaries (at the URLs I specified in the online questionnaire).

Researcher’s Log 2008-01-25

1:22 pm – Yesterday I completed the summary for the motivation and engagement section. It took approximately two hours to complete. My first summary today, the context section, took about an hour. Social Learning is taking longer. I hope to finish all of the summaries this afternoon and send out the Round 3 survey today.

1:44 pm – Social Learning took about 90 minutes to compose. I believe that 21st century skills and reflection will go much more quickly… and I am considering cutting the “other” category from this round. I think I fished out any interesting responses last time… and with the extra added reading for questions 1 through 5, I’d love to be able to cut one question again.

3:06 pm – The reflection section was very short, so I’m considering still keeping the “other” question. Working on it now.

4:43 pm – I just emailed out the Round 3 questionnaire. In the end I decided to focus the final (6th) question on the issues that the participants focused on in Round 2. So, question 6 focused on logistics, including cost, resistance, and organizational change. Other more minor benefits and concerns were dropped from this round. I look forward to the results. Perhaps in the intervening week I will read more for the literature realignment.

Researcher’s Log 2008-01-23

2:02 pm – Back to coding again. I’m noting that there is a developing consensus. Some participants are saying things such as “all the responses above are very valid,” “nothing to add,” and “there is absolutely no question.”

3:56 pm – For question five, I created a slightly difference coding scheme using one of the following letters as the second character in the code:

a – agree
d – disagree
i – idea

4:53 pm – I’ve completed coding. I’m unsure how to proceed with composing Round 3. I used an outliner to arrange and group codes for Round 2. But there are many more codes for Round 3 and I’m unsure if that approach will work, but I am attempting it to begin with.

5:12 pm – The outline approach appears promising. I also ran a “Count” report in TAMS, which lists all codes and their frequency of appearance. I imported this into a numbers spreadsheet and sorted by the number of appearances. 86 of the 119 codes I’ve used only appear once, so my first two characters (which categorize the codes) are critical in making the information useful. Those characters are driving my organization of the codes in my outliner, which will in turn drive my composition of the round three questions. It is already clear that my six Round 3 questions will focus on these topics:

1. Motivation and Engagement
2. Context-Embedded Learning
3. Social Learning
4. 21st Century Skills (for which I am seeking a different name.)
5. Reflection
6. Logistics (including resistance and time.)

The outline went well and I think I’m ready to compose new summaries (tomorrow). I still wonder about how best to approach the questions. Perhaps I will ask them what statement they disagree with (or agree with) most strongly and why.

Researcher’s Log 2008-01-22

8:36 pm – Last night I setup TAMS Analyzer for Round 2 analysis. I needed to re-learn how to create a new xtprj file and begin populating the code browser. With that preparation out of the way, tonight I begin coding the Round 2 responses so I can compose round three. In the previous round, the direction was very clear. Participant responses to my initial questions provided the detail necessary to write summaries for Round 2 and ask more focused questions. Now, though, the amount of detail looks overwhelming. How do I proceed?

In the case of the “other” question (question #5 in Round 2), the direction is clear. The issues that were ignored will not reappear in Round 3. There were two or three clear “favorites” (wether as benefits or concerns) that will reappear in Round 3. However, with the first four questions (motivation, context, inquiry, and social learning), the participants have provided still more data. Perhaps after I’ve coded the responses the direction will be clear. If I were to predict at this point I would guess that Round 3 might take this form: longer more detailed summaries followed by a question similar to Round 2 number 5 that asks them to take issue with one benefit and/or one concern. That way, what I will be left with is an even better “summary” for the final consensus check, when they will be asked to rate their level of consensus with the final summary. I’ll move forward with this in mind.

8:44 pm – My coding scheme has improved. I now include a two letter sequence before the primary word of the code. The first letter denotes the question topic (such as “m” for motivation) and the second letter denotes the response (such as “b” for benefit). Additional responses are listed below:

b – benefit
c – concern
n – need
i – idea

Be Subversive: A Message From The Future

Though my coursework for Walden University is complete, each faculty mentor has an online “class” for his or her mentees. We, the mentees, are expected to participate in a few online discussions (and other progress reports) per quarter. For this quarter, Dr. Nolan, my advisor, put out a call to the participants for discussion prompts. I was thrilled that he chose my suggestion for our first discussion: “If you could deliver ‘a message from the future’ to the educators of today, what would it be?”

It was great to read the wide variety of perspectives in my colleagues’ responses, and though I can’t share all of those here I realized that my response might make another good blog post. Obviously, I’m indepted to Tom March for this response, too.

Hi, all. I’m thrilled Dr. Nolan decided to use this question. It comes from a welcome activity I started doing with principals (in a technology training for administrators). I finally put it down in a blog post a few months ago after a particularly powerful version of the discussion. Here’s a link to that post, which also tells the story behind the question and includes some others’ messages in the comments:

For my answer in this discussion forum I think I’ll tell another story. When I was at NECC in 2006, I was in the live audience for a webcast interview panel with Will Richardson, Tom March, and others – moderated by Chris Walsh. At the end of the session, Chris asked for questions from the audience, and I decided to ask what message the panelists had for teachers who felt they were unable to use the technologies the panel advocated (blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc) because they were not allowed by their superiors or their organization. It was a response from teachers I was encountering often at the time. Tom March gave a response that struck me at the time and has stayed with me. He said simply, “be subversive.”

He elaborated by suggesting that teachers should try these technologies (and new pedagogies) anyway, and then show their superiors what their students had accomplished. Hearing Tom say that validated my feelings on the subject and made me feel empowered to pass it on. I’ve repeated the story (or just the answer) for many educators I’ve worked with. And if I were to send “a message from the future” to the educators of today, that would be my message: “be subversive.”

The fact that today some educators are not afraid to try new things and then share them with others will be critical to building the educational systems of the future.

I’d love to read any comments responding to the “be subversive” message… or responding to the “message from the future” prompt.

Researcher’s Log 2008-01-02

Some of my research log cannot be shared here – at least not until the Delphi process is finished. In particular I can’t share the entries about the content of the participants responses. However, here is my latest entry, describing the logistics of the study, which may be of interest to those who may conduct a similar Delphi study or to those interested in the progress of my particular study.

Here is where I stand with my study. I have sent out 71 invitations to participate. Of these, 24 have indicated interest in participating. Only 22 have actually sent in consent forms and received a link to the first round questions. One of these has dropped out. Currently, I have only 11 responses to the first round questionnaire. I have extended the deadline for Round 1 to this Friday due to the holidays. If I receive even one more response, I’ll have what I considered my “minimum” amount. Regardless, despite the fact that responses have varied in quality (of course), there is no question I have plenty of material to proceed with the study.

My preliminary coding process has revealed several topics I did not originally foresee including in Round 2, so the process of beginning with a broad question is working. Also, happily, much of what they have brought up has been related to issues I cut from my literature review during the revisions that shortened my proposal. I expect I may be able to reuse some of that research and material in the discussion of my results in chapters 4 and/or 5.

Once Round 1 has completed on Friday, I plan to complete my analysis and send out Round 2 questions as soon as Monday the 7th or as late as Friday the 11th. This puts me a bit behind schedule (of course), but if I continue to do preliminary analysis as responses come in, I should be able to make up some time between each round.

Thank you again to all of you who offered assistance after my last post. I wish I were able to use more of that. I can’t wait to post the results here and receive open feedback from all of you as well.