6 Comments

Comment by Barry Joseph on May 6, 2008 at 11:11am

I think one area that makes games-based learning so strong is the level of engagement they engender. I think this is a compelling reason to bring them into a classroom but, at the same time, if we don't recognize the elements that makes them so compelling we might be blindsided by the challenges of bringing them into a classroom.

For example, part of the engagement of a game is that is speaks directly to your level of ability - a good game is not too easy nor to difficult, always challenging you just the right about to get to the next level and let's you learn at your own speed. Within this context, each player has a different learning experience (learning to master the game). If a class room is not designed to move at different speeds for different students, this component of the game's power to engage will be frustrated.

I am sure there are other examples as well - it might be interesting to look at what class room styles or pedagogy already needs to be in place to be a welcoming environment for the type of affordances virtual worlds have to offer.

Comment by Adam Ingram-Goble on May 7, 2008 at 5:33pm

It sounds like you suggesting that games might implicitly have something like a dynamic zone of proximal development. I just read Making an Instructional Game as Inviting and Addicting to Play as W.O.W. and point 3 reminded me of some other discussions my research group has had that link to this ZPD idea. It seems like classrooms tend to homogenize students, which means that the ZPD is really just between students that are all working on the same path towards "expertise". Games take allow expertise in different roles (in W.O.W. character classes and professions), that then have more of a rotation of ZPD roles of the expert-novice pairing. This kind of redistribution of responsibility and authority might be really exciting to explore regardless of games. But would this kind of decentering of a classroom be manageable? Would this contribute to the engagement, or is it something else about games that does it?

Comment by Barry Joseph on May 8, 2008 at 10:38am

Sorry Adam - "a dynamic zone of proximal development"??? What is that translated into non-academic lingo?

Comment by Bill Freese on May 8, 2008 at 11:25am

Barry, the ZPD is that place where the challenge is just right. And since it changes as the player learns, it is dynamic.

My thoughts on the question: An ancient classic, the Adventure in the Colossal Cave is text based yet was still compelling. Like any good book, a game can suggest content which the players then enhance in their own minds. There are some games which are visually stunning but otherwise dull. They are not popular. A generation has passed before our eyes compulsively playing hand held games with graphics that were pitiful. Still, a good game can be made better with good graphics and their often overlooked sibling, good audio.

What makes these games so compelling is not that one can level up, but that the new level contains new and interesting content with new and interesting challenges. I was first struck by the motivational power of a computer game while watching exhausted students at the end of a semester stay up all night in the Colossal Cave. None of them knew their score because you had to type “score” to see it and nobody cared. Nobody compared their levels because there were no levels. What drove these students was that each successful solution of a puzzle brought the reward of the exposure of a new bit of the cave and, inevitably, a new puzzle.

Compelling content, challenge, struggle, success, repeat. It is a simple formula that works. The challenge must be structured in such a way that mastering instructional content is part of the struggle for success. Other content in the game is only taken in if it is compelling in its own right. Content which is of interest to the game designer but not to the players will be ignored by most players. Challenges are more compelling if they are not repetitive. Acquired skills can carry forward, but new skill should be required as well.

Collaboration can be a wonderful part of games, and is a motivational factor, but it is not essential. There are many highly addictive single player games. We should build in collaboration wherever it makes sense, but we should not reject an instructional game proposal because it lacks collaboration. When you examine the map of Second Life, you will find groups and individuals. I love attending a forum in Second Life, but I have also enjoyed many hours wandering alone down the paths of MYST.

Comment by Barry Joseph on May 8, 2008 at 4:56pm

Ah, I get that. Thanks for the explanation.

Comment by Liam ODonnell on May 8, 2008 at 6:00pm

For me, it all comes down to story. This could be another way of defining the compelling content that Bill talks about. Although I never played Colossal Cave, I have played far too much Zork and other text based games to know that flashy graphics are not necessary to create an engaging video game experience. Getting a player to invest in the "magic circle" of the video game is the key to keeping them venturing around the next twisty little path. It might be because I am an author by trade and an emerging educator, but for me that engagement is created with a good story, compelling characters the players care about and high stakes that are truly dependent on the player's decisions. If the players are rude to an npc, then that character should remember that and act accordingly the next time the players need that npc's help. These kinds of stories aren't easy to write and even more difficult to program, but I think they're crucial to getting kids into the game and keeping them there, so the deep learning can happen.

Add a Comment