Gaming and Learning in Virtual Worlds

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liam ODonnell on May 8, 2008 at 6:41pm

Great questions Jeremy, but I'd hope that no educator forces a student to do anything. I might be at the beginning of my teacher journey and a bit naive, but one thing that's been instilled in me is that every student has the "right to pass." If they don't want to participate this time around, then they don't have to. It's not the teachers job to force them to join in but to explore the reasons why the student doesn't want to play. And that means asking questions of not only the student, but the game itself. What, if anything, is in the game that is making the student reluctant to play? Does the game reinforce stereotypes that are offensive to the students? Does the student see themselves in the game? (ie is his/her ethnicity/race/gender/class represented in a positive light or at all in the game?)

These thoughts might be outside of what you were asking, but hopefully they add to the discussion. You do raise a very key point about student engagement that goes beyond the traditional view of: "But they must love it! It's a video game!", that many educators, myself included, are liable to fall into.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Koester on May 9, 2008 at 8:41am

Good points Liam. I agree that there are a great many reasons that a learner would not want to engage in a game. There are all kinds of reasons that are within a teacher's control and just as many outside of a teacher's control. I would have to agree with you, that it's the teacher's responsibility to connect with that learner to find out the motivation (or lack of depending on your view) of why the learner chooses not to engage. I think that with gaming for learning, assessment drives entirely too much of the design process for many of the games that I've seen. That drive often makes the game not very fun.

So, I guess my question is one of volitional motivation (see Keller, 2007). If one doesn't want to play, that doesn't change the fact that the game is a game, but it does change the effectiveness of the game. Of course, this is all just my opinion, but I'd really like to do some research on the topic. I'm sure that a lit rev. would touch on the subject fairly well.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rafi Santo on May 9, 2008 at 12:04am

Are you saying that a game is potentially no longer a game if it is not played within the context of choice? Not having a choice might not be the most fun way to engage in a game, though I'm not quite seeing how it would take away from its "game-ness". Do you have a particular idea in mind here?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Koester on May 9, 2008 at 8:47am

Hey Rafi, good clarifying point. I agree, that just because a user doesn't want to play, doesn't change the games status as a game. I guess I'm struggling with some of the issues that face gaming for learning, training and change (serious games, etc.). I guess the issue is one that although there are all types of games, they loose their impact and effectiveness across certain boundaries when a user doesn't want to play them.

The issue is exemplified in this: A teacher wants to use a math board game in class, but the student enters into the 'game' with a clear lack of motivation to truly 'play'. The game does not cease to be a game, but I propose that for that student, the game ceases to achieve it's goal, assuming that the method of delivery is chosen for it's motivation.

I know that I don't have all the right perspectives and answers here, just thinking through all of this. Lots of good learning games out there aren't very fun to play and lots of fun games out there don't teach what instructors want them to teach. I suppose the answer lies somewhere in the realigning of assessment and redefining of the spectrum of achievement.

Then again, I could be completely off my rocker!!!
Jeremy

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sabine Reljic / Willow Shenlin on June 12, 2008 at 10:41pm

Very interesting question, Jeremy.

My particular side of the answer would discuss the issue/problem/challenge of multiple intelligence and personalized teaching/learning. Obviously, gaming is not a magical pill that can remedy all the shortcomings of current traditional education for all the diverse remedial (or learning new skills) students. Also on the line are the all powerful Standards to which all educators must teach and skills that students "must" acquire to pass. And a lot of games out there do not provide any educational justifications for lack of being based on the standards.

All of this does not answer the question of definition of game -which I think was underlying your original post- however, I believe that it is important that the "wow" factor and the coolness of games and game-like platforms should not be employed by instructors just because they think that the "kids" will play because they are presented with a game-like assignment. Also, gaming (in education) is a specific pedagogical strategy and many instructors assume that strategy to be innate (don't say that to instructors teaching in preschools!).

As far as the definition of "game" or the "game-ness" of a game, really, I think that we all agree that if it's got detailed roles and specific goals, challenges, rewards and penalties based on a specific narrative, you've got yourself a game. Hence, WoW, Everquest, Spore, Eve, RollerCoaster Tycoon, and others are games. Personally, in the serious game categories, I think that Dimenxian has more "game-ness" than others, ...but again it might be due to the genre that Tabula Digita chose to build the educational standards, the math problems and the scenario around. Then again, you might say, the first-person shooter genre is a personal preference...or not.

Finally, to comment on your example above, if the instructor used the chess board game for the implicit motivation of presenting a game and the student is not engaging, then that instructor made a personal choice of what's motivational not a choice taken from listening, observing, or simply discussing with that student.
And this is a really interesting point because in our traditionally instructor-dominated pedagogies, gaming pedagogies and tools do not respond well. To succeed, an instructor can guide through the game, but not impose the game.

I have another thought on my mind, but I am keeping it for the RezEd group I started ;-)
the Social Presence in Virtual Worlds group. So as you guessed, I was going to mention that social presence is another aspect important in gaming pedagogies, but forgotten by most. That students establish their co-presence in a game would actually increase their motivation and their perceived learning outcomes. And again, the instructor would have to modify or choose his/her specific immediacy behaviors to allow students to establish their presence.

my 2 cents....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeremy Koester on June 13, 2008 at 8:41am

Good stuff, Sabine. BTW, that was definitely more than 2 cents worth....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Or-Tal Kiriati on July 10, 2008 at 4:20am

A little about evolution of gaming in learning:
many students, especially the young ones, are regularly required to cut, paint, and glue, or prepare game cards and play with them as a part of the learning exercises. These methods where developed at the time, because their developers saw that kids liked to engage in those activities. They thought, if the kids like it, let's use the opportunity to get them more actively involved in the learning process, by engaging them in activities they like.
**
This is exactly what is happening today with various digital games, not just virtual worlds. The developers are saying - well if kids like it so much, why not go through this gate with all the content we want them to learn anyway.
**
Here is a question then: I think most kids who have experienced the class activities described above do not enjoy painting and cutting so much... What can developers of games for learning do to make sure kids don't get sick of their games too?

Personally, I think the answer lies with the communications and the media. Unlike the paper work, the digital games, especially virtual worlds, is a two-way communications channel. If a student doesn't like the activity and doesn't contribute, input, interact with the system, the system will cease to exist. So basically, what I am saying is that these games should be extremely engaging and fun, and the developers must always feel for the pulse of their players and continuously market to their users and answer their users needs. The learning feature must always be placed behind the fun.

Or-Tal (check out a pre-pre-alpha of my vision at: http://kids4kids.ning.com/

▶ Reply to This