Is Game Based Learning More Effective Than Traditional Methods?

Games based learning research tends to compare apples with oranges (as stated in a previous blog). It seems inappropriate to lump a pilot / modded game, entertainment game, purpose built game into one category and compare to traditional teaching methods. The purpose built game ought to (although there is no guarantee) have better educational value, else it mustn't have been designed very well.

Even if that was deemed appropriate to lump together games of varying "educational value", the games fracture into many genres (simulation, action, puzzle and so on). So to use a film analogy, it would be like saying Gone with the Wind is not as escapist as Harry Potter. Game genres work in different ways, so their effect in education will vary. Education, itself, can be sliced and diced in terms of subject and age. Also, there are some games (such as multi player simulations) that offer up possibilities that are not easily achievable in traditional teaching.

Furthermore, games based learning and traditional methods don't have to be mutually exclusive. A blended approach can run across lessons, or the game can be played as a whole class exercise with the educator still providing scaffolding.

Our experience:

pixelfountain (www.pixelfountain.co.uk) has been developing learning simulations for nine years. Our simulations run in workshop settings with different sub-teams taking on different roles in the simulation. We have delivered around 450 workshops for around 6,000 delegates. We have delivered around 40 lessons in schools, colleges and universities. We have even developed online games with young people. Our education products are marketed under the brand games-ED (www.games-ed.co.uk).

We have "happy sheets" for all of these workshops and have done long-term evaluation on some of the larger projects. The delegates are asked for quantitative and qualitative feedback. Arguably, the feedback is unscientific; given there was no control group. Also, the evaluation was solicited for product / project improvement reasons for ourselves and project funders.

Delegates typically suggest they have achieved a 20% – 25% learning improvement across a number of areas. They judge the workshops at 8.5 to 9 out of 10. Although, I would say younger learners are harder to please.

Typical comments form education workshops:

“After playing the game, I now appreciate the simple things that government does.” – Pupil, Liverpool Schools Parliament.

“When I put together an induction week programme there was always a compromise between introducing the key concepts of the course and encouraging the students to communicate with each other and staff.  [Sustainaville] allows me to achieve both these goals in a very entertaining way.  It always amazes me that after a single day I can introduce most of the concepts of Urban Sustainable Development and they also know each other’s names as well!” - Course Leader, Sheffield Hallam University.

“The students thoroughly enjoyed the project and could confidently talk about what they had been doing and talk through their ideas. They have gained fantastic skills!” - Teacher from Mill Green Special School, Newton le Willows

Conclusion

Does the above prove that games based learning is better than traditional methods? Probably not. But then that is not the point. We solicited feedback, because we wanted to improve our products and how they were delivered. So maybe the original question could be reframed into, “how can we improve games based leaning products and how they are delivered?” This is how games based learning will succeed in the education market place. They will succeed by delivering what educators need and what learners like.

In some ways it is a bit like sports commentary. Listen to how the commentators often change their slant on the game after a goal has been scored. So maybe, once games based learning success has been commercially achieved, the research will prove why it happened. Until then the games based learning market, like any other, will rely on the early adopters and the innovators.

Learn by Doing AND Learn by Being

I hear and I forget.

I see and I remember.

I do and I understand.

- Confucius

Games Based Situated Learning

Clearly doing is an important aspect of learning and one that is often unappreciated. A robust Games Based Situated Learning Model, though, goes beyond doing. It needs to encapsulate the beingness of a situation.

Games Based Situated Learning is a constructivist learning theory. Learners are immersed in a situation that allows them to explore different perspectives. Indeed, in our games based learning programmes, the whole class play one game, with different sub-teams taking on different roles. The sub-teams need to be true to their mission, but they truly succeed when they negotiate and collaborate to deliver shared goals.

Our Games Based Situated Learning model is built on the interaction of Learn by Doing AND Learn by Being. Plus, it recognises that games need to allow for reflection, that learners need input from teachers and that games need to support assessment. 

1. Learn by Doing (Skills):

• Actions, activity, engagement, team working and so on.

2. Learn by Being (Knowledge):

• Environment, values, attitudes, society, diversity, culture and so on.

3. Reflection, Support and Assessment:

• Learners need to able to reflect and make tacit knowledge explicit. They need to be able to build abstractions.
• Educators (experts) need to guide and nudge learners as and when required.
• Assessment should be built into the programme to provide immediate feedback, but also to stimulate further learning. 

It is through the interaction of the three different aspects of the Games Based Situated Learning Model utilised within games-ED products that wide ranging benefits and learning outcomes are generated.

Recognition of Herrington and Oliver
Note: The above model builds on the work of Herrington and Oliver, who have written extensively on situated learning and multimedia. They suggested that to marry up to the theory, programmes need to:

• Provide authentic context.
• Provide authentic activities.
• Embed expert performances and model processes.
• Provide multiple roles and perspectives.
• Support collaborative construction of knowledge.
• Provide coaching and scaffolding.
• Promote reflection to enable abstractions to be formed.
• Promote articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit.
• Provide for integrated assessment.

Games Based Learning (GBL): Review of the Research

There has been a lot of interest in the use of games in education. A recent teacher survey shows that:

• 35% of the sample of UK teachers have already used computer games in their teaching
• 60% of teachers would consider using computer games in their teaching in the future. 

In Scotland, Learning Teaching Scotland has promoted games in schools, including funding a games and learning centre for excellence.


“Almost 90% of teachers who used games stated they used games in their teaching “to engage students”. Almost half of teachers used them because they “independently wanted to offer an alternate way of teaching”. 31% were “inspired by other teachers”, while 7% had the idea “suggested by students”. The availability of consoles, publicity and articles has little impact on teachers using games.” NFER Futurelab 2009 survey 


Not everyone, though, is entirely convinced. A report from Becta (2010) provides a cautionary analysis of GBL. It states, “although some teachers are positive about the potential of games for learning, in particular to improve motivation and engagement, there are a number of challenges to introducing games in formal educational settings.” The following bullets outline the issues and puts forward some responses (in blue) based purpose built GBL rather than commercial games, which have so far tended to be the focus of research. 

• The lack of integration of most games with the current curriculum and assessment framework:
• Purpose built GBL should link to the curriculum and assessment framework.
• Annual upgrades can keep them up-to-date.
• Time constraints:
• Games can be designed to fit into standard lesson times.
• Save routines can allow the game play to spill over into a follow-on lesson.
• Technical and logistical issues (cost, licensing, limitations of school computers, technical support):
• Education games needn’t be the all singing dancing, gimmick-laden counterparts of commercial games that require the latest graphic cards.
• Adobe Flash based games can be written without the need to install plug-in and can be quite small in file size provided they are not stuffed with audio and video.
• Lack of teacher skills:
• GBL programs do not need to be overly complicated. Commercial games are complex because need to keep interest over months (to offer value for money) not hours.
• Contextual help can be embedded into the game.
• Not all learners engage with games and many do not see a link between games and learning:
• Purpose built GBL should easily demonstrate link between games and learning. Additional activities should re-enforce the message.
• Teacher and parent concerns over the content of some games (e-safety):
• This really is a problem associated with commercial games rather than purpose built GBL.

Others provide a warning for would be Games Based Learning developers. “The act of placing educational content inside a game does not guarantee that it will succeed in achieving a fun, motivating experience; meeting educational goals; or being a commercial success.” Glenda A. Gunter, Robert F. Kenny and Erik H. Vick (2007)

While GBL may not work in every situation, the potential gains are significant and expansive. Traci Sitzmann & Katherine Ely (2010) in performing a meta analysis of 65 studies and data from 6,476 trainees comparing post-training outcomes for simulation game and comparison groups, discovered that “overall, declarative knowledge was 11% higher for trainees taught with simulation games than a comparison group; procedural knowledge was 14% higher; retention was 9% higher; and self-efficacy was 20% higher.

“The emergence of Games Based Learning is offering the learning and teaching communities new opportunities to reach and motivate hard-to engage learner groups, support differentiated and personalised learning, address vocational and training-based course materials and provide new tools for teaching basic and key skills, science and maths education.” JISC Games Based Learning

The future is here:

“The category of game-based learning that is still two to three years away for schools, but one that has tremendous potential to transform education, includes open-ended, challenge-based, truly collaborative games…These games [develop generic skills and] lend themselves to curricular content, requiring students to discover and construct knowledge in order to solve problems. They are challenging to design well, but the results can be transformative.” Horizon Report, 2010.

Currently we are working on products under the brand games-ED (www.games-ed.co.uk), which achieve the goals set out in the Horizon Report, and they are being used in the classroom now. 

10 Tips on Getting Buy-in for Games Based Learning

I was recently involved in a Linked-in discussion, debating how "How do you position games for learning within your organization?" I thought I would share my thoughts on my new blog. So here goes...

My ten tips:

1. What's in a name: We don't simply call them games, we use the term learning simulations or games based learning for our products. This was especially true in the early days (10 years ago), when we were scared to mention the "G" word. In recent years, though, we have started using serious games, but we still prefer learning simulations for the adult learning and games based learning for education.
2. An obvious point, but, selling gets easy over time as you have examples to show and you can reference sell using previous (happy) clients. Also, the more you sell / deliver, the more you gain confidence, and that shows in you pitch / delivery. Until then it’s a case of fake it till you make it.
3. Sell and do projects with the public sector. They were more innovative and had more cash. Note: this tip is somewhat useless these days :( But, it is worth noting, as it really can be thought of as, "you can only sell to someone who wants to buy".
4. Make the games authentic (think situated learning, which could well be my next blog). We simulate partnership working, budgeting and delivering outcomes. We set these in a resource management game.
5. Leading on from authenticity, use games appropriately. If a game is more than an ice-breaker then it should be fit for purpose. Specifically, we wouldn’t simulate wiring a plug (as it can be simply explained with a video / animation) but do simulate sustainable communities, because it can’t be explained in a linear fashion.
6. Complexity: If like ours your products are built around a complex algorithm, then the reaction from clients and potential users is more likely to be wow that’s impressive rather than the learning looking trivial.
7. Have a score. A key element to motivation is having a score. This works in delivery as the team wants to beat the other department / authority / company. And it works in selling as the client wants to benchmark themselves.
8. Make the games visual: A key element to motivation is having nice graphics - a town that improves and progress represented in visual reports. Again, though, they need to be fit for purpose rather than gimmicky. The visuals also provide a quick hook in a sales demo.
9. Sales and marketing: Get in front of people or put a demo on a website. Sell the benefits not the features. Get people to come to one of your workshops – seeing is believing. As stated, if possible, hook people in with a score, or find another hook.
10. Don't give up.

Hope that helps. Would you add anything else?