The blog looks at gamification, g-Learning and games based learning theory and practice. It provides insight (via games-ED and pixelfountain) on games based learning use in education and g-Learning (including learning simulations) use in adult learning / training such as application in curriculum delivery, training, awareness raising, organisational development, communications and engagement.
I am obviously very interested in games based learning and enjoy watching videos on the topic. I thought that this week I would share some of these with you. They are not really in any order, but they all tap into some slightly different aspect of games based learning, its benefits, why it works, how you can capitalise on it and so on.
Before I start the main list, I would like to just bring your attention to a video which is closely related to my last blog post: 11 Educational Games for Social Good. Jane McGonigal explains in this short TED talk, how games can make a better world. She explains that globally, we spend 3 billion hours a week playing games. She feels that this is not enough to create a better future for ourselves and our planet. Jane argues that playing games gives us four ‘super powers’ which make us into better humans. Game players are very skilled and optimistic; they know they can achieve ‘epic wins’. The problem is getting gamers to believe they can achieve real life epic wins and solve real world problems in the same way. Jane explains how we can do this.
1. Katie Salen discusses learning with games. She argues that games are important for child development and are equally as important throughout life. In the video, she explains how they can encourage 21st century skills such as collaboration and problem-solving (for more information, see ‘21st Century Skills and Games Based Learning’). They also allow us to try out different identities, explore and discover and fail in a safe environment. Katie also talks about how games work like good teachers in terms of learning.
2. Tom Chatfield explains the seven ways games reward the brain and what this means for learning. He explains how people are so motivated by games. Games offer rewards which have emotional value to us both individually and collectively and these rewards can encourage engagement and learning.
3. James Gee discusses video games and learning. He uses examples such as World of Warcraft and Portal to explain how people learn collaboration skills similar to those in cross-functional teams and how people can become so interested in the game that they make the tacit knowledge gleaned from a game explicit and share it with others. James also discusses how games can be used alongside project based learning.
4. Daphne Bavelier discusses games and learning from a neuroscience perspective. We have talked about this in the past too (see ‘Neuroscience, Stress and Games Based Learning’). Daphne explains how games can help us focus, multitask and more. She is interested in games making our brains smarter, better, faster and stronger.
5. Ali Carr-Chellman talks about re-engaging boys in the learning process. She argues that boys in general have their own culture which does not fit into the traditional culture of schools. We have talked about this issue in the post ‘Boys will be Boys’. Ali believes that gaming could be a great way of encouraging boys to learn and mesh the two cultures in an easy and fun way.
6. This is a short video about how teacher Joel Levin uses the game Minecraft to teach young children. For more information on using Minecraft and other commercial games to teach, have a look at my blog post ‘Unorthodox Uses of Games in Education’.
Again, please follow@paulladley on Twitter,games-ED on Pinterestand like games-ED’sFacebook andGoogle+pages for blog updates and other interesting games based learning things. We are always finding videos and articles as interesting as these, so check us out, particularly on Pinterest.
As you may have read in my previous blog post, ‘10 Design Considerations when Developing a Learning Game’, I am currently involved in a project developing a science game for students. However, the game also aims to educate children about certain lifestyle choices: diet, exercise, drugs, smoking and so on. Therefore, it will be useful in PSHEE (Personal, Health, Social and Economic education) classes and the wider curriculum. The game has, therefore, inspired me to write about educational games that aim to encourage social good.
I spoke briefly in my blog article, ‘The Fun Theory’ about how gamification can be used to encourage social good among adults. For example, to encourage drivers not to speed, to encourage recycling, charitable giving, exercise and so on. However, there are many educational games that have been designed to teach children about social areas such as politics and sustainability and to encourage good behaviours.
A study from the School of Education at Mills College in California has analysed the link between teenagers' gaming behaviour and their civic engagement offline. The study aimed to discover whether teenagers with more ‘civic gaming experience’ were more likely to engage in real-world activities such as participating in a demonstration and giving or raising money for charity. ‘Civic games’ include games that allow players to help other players and those that explore social or ethical issues.
The study found that 70% of the teenagers who were frequent civic gamers said they donated to charity, while only 51% with little civic-gaming experience donated. 61% of civic gamers also said they were interested in politics, compared to 41% for infrequent civic gamers. The study also found that mainstream online role-playing games, such as World of Warcraft, that don't contain explicit social messages could still encourage socially ‘good’ behaviours. This is because they encourage collaboration, negotiation, mentoring of ‘newbies’ and so on. Critics argue that students naturally more inclined to donating to charity etc, will be more drawn to these games in the first place. However, the researchers argue that while that is true, the games still probably do encourage behaviours in all players, just slightly more in these people.
So what games are out there?
Understanding different ways of life Real Lives randomly assigns players to characters from different parts of the world. They must guide their characters' decisions regarding work, health, education, and love based on the opportunities and disadvantages of that society.
ICED (I Can End Deportation) allows you to play an immigrant teen trying to earn U.S. citizenship and steer clear of the law - but avoiding trouble is harder than it seems.
Charities and Business
Food Force teaches children about world hunger as well as the challenges of relief work as they guide food-aid missions to an imaginary island called Sheylan.
Karma Tycoon challenges players to earn good karma and learn the financial logistics of running a non-profit organization such as an animal shelter or a senior centre. They must strike a balance between quality of service and helping a certain number of people.
Sweatshop sees the player in charge of off shore manufacturing. They must make their business a success while taking their staff into account. Faced by a series of moral dilemmas, they must choose to put people or profits first.
Politics and Leadership
Democracy2 sees the player ruling an imaginary country. They must bolster the economy, keep the peace, protect the environment and still win the next election.
PeaceMaker allows players to try their hand at brokering a solution to the Middle East conflict as either the Israeli prime minister or the Palestinian president while juggling the demands and limitations of leadership.
Sustainaville puts a group of people in charge of a virtual community. They are split into teams such as local council, health and transport and must run a sustainable community. Sustainaville tackles issues around sustainable development such as environment, health, crime, economy, poverty and resource use.
The Environment and Climate Change
Operation: Climate Control challenges players to choose which new technologies and energy policies to invest in to clear up the skies. If they succeed in making the right choices, they can watch as clouds of pollution float away.
PowerUp by IBM challenges players with saving the imaginary planet Helios from ecological destruction. They must carry out missions to supply solar, wind, and water power before severe storms wreak havoc.
The Climate Game looks at the issue of climate change. Eight teams are responsible for reducing the community’s carbon footprint. They need to achieve this while at the same time keeping the lights on and making sure that the community remains a pleasant and economically vibrant place to live and work.
Last week I talked about the gamification of classrooms. However, gamification of work has been the focus of some attention recently. The Economist published an article earlier this month titled: ‘More than just a game: Video games are behind the latest fad in management’ (click here for an online version).
The article talks of the general gaming trends and how people will spend a lot of time, money and real effort playing games. At work, people are essentially bribed to do repetitive tasks, but have no trouble spending hours building up their characters in online role playing games, meticulously caring for their plants on virtual farms, chasing high scores and pursuing the tops of leader boards. Management gurus have harnessed this power and installed some of gaming’s basic elements such as badges, levels and leader boards into workplaces.
However, the article argues several things. Firstly, elements such as rewards (money), leader boards and employee of the month competitions have been around for a long time. They refer to arguments that say gamification is simply a cunning way of exploiting human psychology to make a profit (akin to gambling). Another argument against gamification is that people may soon become bored of the trivial, faddish interpretation of gamification and even see it as patronising. Others argue that employees may become cynical of methods of boosting productivity that cost their organisation nothing and that enjoying work in itself, without the need for a reward is the best motivation.
These arguments are completely valid. However, they are valid for the simple, shallow form of gamification that the article is addressing. In my previous post, I talked about how gamification can be understood in two broad ways: harnessing more games based learning and gamifying the classroom (or in this case, workplace) in a more general sense. The general sense I am referring to is using gaming principles such as badges and levels to monitor and encourage good behaviour and attainment (productivity).
I do think that badges and competitions have their place. They can be powerfully motivating. However, I also see that their success could be short lived and seen as patronising, manipulative and not universally engaging. Further than this, I think the main problem is the changes produced are short term and shallow. By this, I mean that they may encourage competition and productivity. But to work long term, the employees’ interest would have to be sustained. There are some people who are just not competitive and others who would wonder why they should work harder for a badge and not a bonus or a promotion.
Gamification needs to be richer than this. There is a lot more to World of Warcraft than simply gaining achievements. Granted, you cannot turn work fully into a game, however, let’s just revisit the definition of gamification. It involves taking game principles and using them in non-games. In the workplace, this could involve making more use of games based learning. For example, training is a great way of bringing games into the workplace. Tailor made training games can involve complex challenges that lead to meaningful rewards: deep, long lasting learning. These can have a real impact on the organisation and do not simply involve training vocational skills. They can also be used to reduce silo thinking and increase collaboration, enhancing creativity, innovation and reducing wastage (and, in turn, money). Some games can also train employees to be more environmentally friendly, which is good for both the CSR department and the Finance department. For more information, see our previous blog articles: ‘Adult Games Based Learning and sim-uni’ and ‘Proof of the Pudding Part Three’.
Making every day working life resemble a game is also the way many offices seem to be going. Google have slides, giant bouncy balls, scooters, foam baths, lava lamps and dogs in their offices. They believe that this environment is perfect for generating creativity and innovation. Some workplaces have aerobics sessions in the morning to wake people up and small logic puzzles to get the brain going. These are already great way of getting short games and fun into the working day. How about having Wii Sport, Just Dance or Wii Zumba breaks? What about doing a level / mission of a game to get your brain going? How about a game of sudoku, a crossword puzzle or an exercise on Nintendo’s Brain Training? These could be done in groups or at a whole office level, which would integrate team building into everyday life, in a fun way.
Gamification is young; therefore it seems churlish to right it off as a fad. I have seen many figures that suggest gamification is on the rise and will be one of the most important trends in the business world in terms of employee (and customer) engagement. I feel that, to work, gamification needs to be given a little more credit and needs to be more rich than it is currently understood to be. Have a look at this TemboSocial infographic for some of the statistics. Gamification could be a powerful tool and I feel that it could be big, if properly utilised.
Recently, I was privileged enough to be asked to guest post at gamifeye.com. I wrote them a post about gamifying the classroom. This phrase can be understood in several ways. First, games based learning is a hot topic right now and teachers are wanting to bring games into their classrooms. Secondly, teachers want to gamify the classroom in itself, in terms of monitoring progress and behaviour and so on. I offer lots of ways that teachers might go about easily bringing gamification into the classroom; the best practices. Click this link to read the whole post.
I thought I’d talk about something a little different this week. In general, our blog posts talk about how games based learning can be used in schools to teach children a whole host of things. However, obviously games based learning is not limited to children. The benefits of games based learning that we have discussed in the past (motivation, meeting the needs of different types of learners, collaboration and so on) are just as true and relevant for adult learners.
According to the Entertainment Software Association:
The average gamer is 37 years old and has been playing for 12 years.
Eighty-two percent of gamers are 18 years or older.
Today, adult women represent a greater portion of the game-playing population (37 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (13 percent).
Twenty-nine percent of game players are over the age of 50, an increase from 9 percent in 1999.
As adults seemingly have so much experience of games and play them so frequently in their recreation time, why can they not be trained using games? Games based learning is for everyone, not just the youngest portion of society. People like learning through games because it is fun; you don’t stop wanting things to be fun when you reach a certain age! Pike’s Five Laws of Adult Learning say that learning is directly proportional to the amount of fun you have. This is partly because the more fun you’re having, the more relaxed you are and the more open you are to the learning process. For more information, visit this website. This blog is brought to you (as you can see on the right) by games-ED. games-ED produces games based learning (learning simulations) specifically for the education market (from people of primary school age up to university age). However, the parent company, pixelfountain, designs, develops and delivers learning simulations (games based learning) to adult learners. Therefore, we have a pretty strong background in this arena. The following table measures our pixelfountain learning simulations against Pike’s Five Laws of Adult Learning. This also can be applied to learning simulations (and games based learning) more generally.
Pike’s Law
Learning Simulations
Law 1: Adults are babies with big bodies
Learning simulations are
games that allow delegates to learn quickly, on a relevant exercise, without
the pressure of the day job.
Law 2: People do not argue with their own data
Learning simulations
based workshops allow delegates to construct their understanding. The workshop is not about telling people
what to do; instead it is showing them what they could do.
Law 3: Learning is directly proportional to the amount
of fun you are having
Learning simulations
(serious games) are fun. We pride
ourselves on the fact that people leave our workshops with a smile. But, the real proof of the pudding is that
we have had individuals do the same
simulation a number of times!
Law 4: Learning has not taken place until behaviour
has changed
Learning simulations
accelerate understanding and shift thinking.
Long-term evaluation of our programmes shows that learning outcomes
have been sustained and changes incorporated. Follow on work, in the organisation, enables the delegates to
take the learning forward.
One journal article that I have come across gives a good summary of some of the themes that occur across the research on games based learning (Foster and Mishra, 2009). The reported effects of games are split into several sections:
Physiological – such as coordination and motor skills but also aggressiveness and obesity
Practical skills – innovation / creativity, data handling and technical literacy etc
Cognitive skills – systemic thinking, critical thinking and memorising etc
Social skills – collaboration, interpersonal skills and informed citizenry etc
Motivation – confidence, immediate feedback and exploration etc
The reported positive effects of games definitely outweigh the negatives. There are many positive examples of how games can be used in training and development programmes to teach and develop specific skills and expertise. For example, IBMs Innov8 is a serious game that explains business process management to non-technical people. However, training games also have wider benefits, which is one of the reasons they work so well. For these reasons, we continue to be active in this market. pixelfountain’s latest learning simulation, sim-uni, has just recently been piloted with our partners, The University of Manchester’s Staff Training and Development Unit, at their institution. The learning simulation is used to train staff across the university, to reduce silo thinking and understand that collaborating across functions can benefit the university much more than working alone. The pilot was a great success and a short case study of the day can be found here: http://www.sim-uni.co.uk/case-study.html.
This is what Paul Dixon, head of the University’s Staff Training and Development Unit had to say: “The University of Manchester were attracted to working with pixelfountain on their particular style of business simulation as it doesn’t become an exercise in mastering the technology or reducing the learning experience to all huddling around a PC. Instead sim-uni facilitates a rich experiential learning experience and can be used flexibly to achieve a variety of learning outcomes as dictated by the user – be it planning and strategy appreciation, team work and communications or decision making. Our early experience of sim-uni suggests it can be used effectively as a learning vehicle in its own right or as an adjunct to leadership and management development programmes.” For more information about sim-uni visit our website or download our flier. You can also follow us on Twitter: @sim_uni. If you want to learn more about pixelfountain and our portfolio of products, visit: www.pixelfountain.co.uk. And as ever, please follow @paulladley on Twitter, games-ED on Pinterest and like games-ED’s Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and other interesting games based learning things.
This TED talk from Dr. Richard Van Eck brings up some very interesting points. I would greatly recommend watching the video, but as it is 20 minutes long and not everyone will have the time, I will summarise the main points here for you. If you have watched the video, please feel free to ignore the summary, just skip to the black text later on.
Why raise test scores when they don’t measure what we need them to in the 21st century?
If we really cared about learning, we would individualise it to each student – not ready to do this.
There are two main modes of change / reform:
Changing because if we don’t adapt, we can’t survive.
Disruptive technologies – new technology that solves problems that we face but in a way that forces us to change our behaviour.
The Industrial Revolution changed the education system to produce workers. Children were all taught the same things, in the same place, at the same time. We now live in an ‘information age’ where ideas are the new commodities.
Situated cognition - if you are going to teach someone something, you should teach them in the environment that they will use the knowledge – learn by doing. This promotes faster learning, better retention of knowledge and the transference of knowledge to the real world. Games allow this.
Games promote systems thinking – currently education teaches discrete facts, not connections and systems.
Games promote collaboration – social negotiation of skills, collective intelligence, collective problem-solving all prevalent in games.
Games promote problem-solving. The problems presented require new knowledge to be generated to solve it. There is a value for the learner in solving the problem. Schools sometimes get the first aspect but usually try and persuade children to “just do it, trust me it will be important later.”
Games produce engagement (engagement is not about fun or motivation but cognitive effort). The challenge should be optimal – too hard and they’ll quit, too easy and they won’t want to play. Zone of proximal development: some things so easy we don’t need help to do them, some things too difficult no matter how much help, some things where the challenge is ‘just right’. This is where all the best learning occurs as it keeps people operating at the maximum of their ability. This is what games do – can choose difficulty at start and can’t move on until mastered initial skills.
But, games are disruptive technologies and this has practical consequences. Games will require fundamental shifts in the education system.
Current tests don’t measure 21st century skills and tests might not be able to ever measure these skills.
Collaboration vs. cheating – how will we adapt to these new ideas?
Individualised instruction – currently we fit education to the lowest common denominator, which means that some children are not optimally challenged. If we individualised learning, some children would take 2 months to complete the curriculum and some, 2 years. Practical and financial consequences.
If we bring in games, we will have to adopt everything that comes with them. Disruptive technologies by definition, destroy things; revolutions are messy.
Games may not save the education system, they may destroy it and this might be exactly what is needed.
Dr. Richard Van Eck makes some great points, I completely agree that our current education system is somewhat ignoring these 21st century skills. I also agree that the education system needs a revolution. However, I thank that games can be integrated into our current education system very easily and this could produce change for the better now. People, on the whole, are scared of change and the idea of a revolution, whilst headline grabbing, might not be feasible. I am not sure if he meant it to come across in this way, but it seems that Dr. Van Eck is arguing that there is an either / or choice to be made: either we stay the same or we have a revolution. I think there could be some middle ground.
What exactly are 21st century skills? This is another good article, which lists the essential competencies for a student in the Information Age:
Ways of thinking - Creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making and learning.
Ways of working - Communication and collaboration.
Tools for working - Information and communications technology (ICT) and information literacy.
Skills for living in the world - Citizenship, life and career, and personal and social responsibility.
In a dynamic and competitive knowledge economy, innovation, creativity and problem solving are everything. We exist in a world dominated by the likes of Apple and Google. For these firms to survive, they must innovate. They require a workforce of creative critical thinkers. Furthermore, to survive in this economy and obtain employment, these are the skills that students need to be learning too. Games are a great way of encouraging the development of these skills. Succeeding in playing a game often requires problem solving, critical thinking and most definitely decision making. These skills can be practiced in a safe environment. For example, puzzle games such as Portal require explicit problem solving involving physics. However, all games involve some form of thinking skills such as these. How do I fulfil my Sim’s life ambition? How can I make my theme park more popular? How can I make my town more sustainable (an example of our learning simulation, Sustainaville)?
Communication and collaboration are also extremely important. On a purely practical level, flatter organisational hierarchies require good communication skills. This is common in a knowledge economy. Further than this, the most successful companies have realised that their workforce are their best resources. They have also found that collaboration can encourage innovation and so on. For example, Google have special areas of their offices specifically designed to stimulate ‘spontaneous’ communication and collaboration with people that they wouldn’t usually come into contact with. They also have small collaboration zones such as yurts and huddle rooms.
Image from Marcin Wichary on Flickr.
Games can encourage collaboration in different ways. First, multiplayer games can obviously provoke communication and collaboration. For example, players in games such as World of Warcraft, Halo, Portal and so on need to work together to succeed in their mission / level. In our games-ED learning simulations, players make up sub-teams that need to work together to achieve the overall outcomes of the whole group. The sub-teams are in control of one sector / building e.g. local council, health sector, private sector which must work together to improve the virtual community that they have been put in charge of.
Single player games can also encourage communication such as “Guess what I did on Fifa last night?” or “Have you been on this quest in Skyrim?” However, they can also encourage collaboration such as “How did you do that pass / goal celebration?” or “How did you defeat that boss / find that item?” While talking about communication and collaboration, I’d just like to bring your attention to this Swedish classroomless school. This innovative new school in Sweden has no classrooms, focuses on 21st century skills and children are split into grades based on their level rather than age. One of their main priorities is the promotion of collaboration along with all the other 21st Century skills mentioned. Is this the school of the future? For more information on communication and collaboration see ‘The Art of Conversation’.
It goes without saying that IT skills should be encouraged through the use of IT based games. However, what about the final bullet point above: skills for living in the world? These benefits might not come about from all games. However, they will in many. For example, semi-realistic life and career skills are simulated in The Sims. You must manage your sim’s life, made up of physical needs, social life, love life, career, family life and so on. Other games such as Second Life and World of Warcraft have pretty strict rules about social etiquette and citizenship.
Our games-ED learning simulations are designed to educate learners about some of these areas. For example, The Climate Game teaches students about climate change and environmental responsibility and Young People First teaches students about young people’s issues such as teen pregnancy, worklessness and anti-social behaviour. For more information on how game-ED aims to encourage these 21st Century (or Personal Learning & Thinking) skills click here.
To conclude, these skills are needed in the 21st Century. Needed by job seekers, employers, organisations and our future leaders. In my experience, these are the skills that people are after (employers often just require you to have a degree, not a degree in a specific area) more than the knowledge of facts and figures. Some specific knowledge is needed sometimes, such as medicine and law. However, in many fields, knowledge needs to be gained on the job anyway. Why then, is so much emphasis placed on this type of knowledge in education when it will be forgotten? Why not put more emphasis on 21st Century skills?
Further Viewing
If you have the time, you might want to watch this video from Dr. Tony Wagner about what he calls, the ‘global achievement gap’ (the gap between what is being taught and what is needed to be taught in the 21st century).
One of our readers has pointed me in the direction of a great website: informED! It is full of fantastic features about education and learning and is well worth a look. I have picked out a couple of their posts that are of particular interest to me below, but there are loads more.
‘15 Ways to Engage Students and Prevent Online Drop-outs’ by Miriam Clifford. This post offers tips to engage students and prevent drop-outs including: plan interactive exercises, [use] different types of technologies and develop a ‘collaborative code of conduct’. It is easy to see then, how games based learning could help, in these ways, to increase engagement and reduce drop-out rates.
Kinesthetic: Using touch and taste to explore the information
Logical: A more mathematical approach to concepts
Interpersonal: Learning in groups
Intrapersonal: Learning alone
The article then gives comprehensive advice on how to use this knowledge to encourage successful learning. It also covers other tips such as using technology and creating space.
‘How to Ignite Passion in your Students: 8 Ways Educators can Foster Passion-based Learning’ by Miriam Clifford. This great post gives lots of ways to encourage passion and engagement from learners including: allow time for collaboration and allow time for play. Again, it is easy to see how games based learning can foster this passion-based learning when incorporated with the other strategies.
The site is definitely worth a look. I always appreciate hearing about these fantastic websites and new products, so please do let me know if you have found anything particularly inspiring. And as always please follow @paulladley on Twitter, games-ED on Pinterest and like games-ED’s Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and anything inspiring I find that I want to share with you.
For anyone who doesn't know, or who doesn't live in the UK, ‘Ofsted’ stands for The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills. They essentially inspect schools (and other children’s services) and grade them based on various criteria. This has a considerable effect on the school’s reputation.
The top ‘grade’ you can achieve through Ofsted is outstanding and teachers and schools all over the UK are striving to achieve ‘outstanding lessons’. But what does this mean exactly? How can games based learning help more lessons to be outstanding?
Outstanding lessons will obviously vary greatly depending on the lesson being taught. However, what is common to achieving this standard is the quality of teaching and learning. Ofsted say that outstanding teaching includes “a focus on pupils making exceptional progress as a result of inspiring teaching, from teachers having excellent subject knowledge and the innovative use of new technology” (information from http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/outstanding-lesson-11943).
In other words, one of Ofsted’s main criteria for outstanding lessons is the innovative use of new technologies. This, in itself, would be a good reason to use games in lessons. However, if we look at the criteria more closely, we can see how games based learning can tick more than one box.
Outstanding teachers must fulfil the following criteria:
Subject expertise and flair
The involvement of every pupil in the learning process
Intelligent questioning involving every pupil
The use of a wide variety of resources as appropriate including new technology
Involving pupils in the learning process and developing independent learning.
For me, it goes without saying that teachers should have a reasonable level of subject expertise. However, subject flair is a little more interesting and perhaps more difficult to prove. One cannot impose passion for a subject on teachers but a good way to exhibit it may be to use a related game in lessons. Being up-to-date on goings on in their field and finding new ways to instil knowledge that they find interesting is impressive and games exhibit this.
Good learning games should also involve every pupil in the learning process. Games can tap into multiple learning styles (‘Games Based Learning Supports Multiple Learning Styles’) meaning that all children should be able to access the learning at some level. Collaboration is also a great benefit of learning games. Although some technology limits the amount of players, the ideal situation is for all pupils to be learning collaboratively from one game (see the pedagogy page of our corporate website).
The next criterion is intelligent questioning involving every pupil. In my blog post ‘Unorthodox Uses of Games in Education’, I talked about a teacher using Angry Birds to teach his pupils. Pupils built catapults to launch real life angry birds and all the while the teacher asked them questions about the physics behind what they were doing. This can also be done with computer based learning games.
The final criterion involves developing independent learning. This is really about motivating and inspiring pupils. It is unlikely that children will become enthused about a topic if the lesson is uninspiring and involves a dull presentation with written exercises to follow. This is the bulk of most education. Children can become enthused by a topic and want to learn more about it on their own. If you make something fun, i.e. by using a learning game, surely they are more likely to do this.
Do they move from listening to being positively motivated?
Do they learn and make progress?
Do they obviously enjoy the lesson and have fun, and are they keen to discuss what they have learned and what they might be doing in the next lesson?
Do the pupils ask appropriate (and challenging) questions?
Do they show a keen interest in the tasks?
Are they proud of their work?
Are the pupils involved in deciding any part/content of the next lesson on the topic?
Most (if not all) of these criteria can be met with the use of games based learning as part of the curriculum. Games are excellent for engaging and motivating students and providing fun and enjoyment (see blog post: ‘Motivation, Motivation, Motivation'). A teacher observing one of our games-ED lessons said: “The children were fully engaged for all the session and the ‘buzz’ in the room was one of real active learning” (from 'Marrying up to the Situated Learning Theory'). Children also talked to their parents following the session about how much they had enjoyed the learning simulation and what they had learned. This is obviously a step up from the usual question of “What did you do today at school sweetheart?” being met with the response, “Stuff”.
Games are also a great way of showing progress. Many games have some sort of score, ratings, badges, achievements and so on to show progress. A teacher overseeing one of our games-ED lessons commented: “[The children] were genuinely interested to see the impact their purchases had made on the town. They were disappointed to see the results/consequences of their purchases in Year 2 and were keen to rectify them in Year 3!” One of the pupils in the primary school also commented, “I liked finding out what score you got at the end and looking at the improvements.” Playing a game multiple times enables you to clearly see skill / knowledge development.
There are obviously other factors that are important for outstanding lessons and using learning games in every lesson would be considered inappropriate. However, it is extremely easy to see how using games in lessons can show evidence of outstanding teaching. And more than simply providing evidence, games could achieve these outstanding outcomes for students and make real improvements to the standard of lessons and their learning.
Video games can improve early literacy in 4 and 5 years olds, especially letter recognition and story comprehension.
More than 100 Fortune 500 companies, like IBM, Cisco, and Cold Stone Creamery, use some form of gaming for training purposes.
50 million real galaxies and celestial bodies were classified in the game Galaxy Zoo's first year.
Kids who played Tetris for 30 minutes a day for three months had a thicker cortex (believed to process coordination and visual information) than those who didn't play.
Click the image below for more interesting research findings and statistics.
Welcome to the first blog post in this series! I spoke briefly in my previous blog post about how pixelfountain and games-ED use Games Based Situated Learning (GBSL) as the theoretical underpinning of our products. In this series of blog posts, I will explain further what I mean by this and offer a case study of one of our products in particular: Sustainaville. This learning simulation is typical of our approach although all of our products are underpinned by the same theory. The series draws material from the Games Based Situated Learning paper written by the other author of this blog, Paul Ladley. The full paper can be found on the resources page of our corporate website.
The first part of the series will introduce briefly some of the theories that underpin our products and games based learning at large. The main focus of this series is Games Based Situated Learning, which we have discussed before, but several years ago and very briefly. I will also try to uncover whether Situated Learning can actually occur through games and simulations, i.e. is that situated enough?
I will then introduce one of our games-ED products: the learning simulation Sustainaville. I will explain the simulation and how it is used in a workshop including the plan > do > review stages.
The final and main part of the series will essentially be a judgement of Sustainaville using some theoretical principles outlined in the first part of the series (put forward by Jan Herrington and Ron Oliver, 1995). This checklist can be used to judge other serious games and learning simulations in a similar way. We will back up our judgements with both qualitative and quantitative feedback from our workshops.
Situated learning / cognition considers how knowledge is acquired in the context of authentic activity, defined as the common activity of experts or ‘community of practice’. Situated cognition considers that "representations are not at the center of the mind, but rather emerge from the interaction of the mental processes with the environment’, Clancey (1991). This notion overturned previous theories that explained the human mind as a biological computer. Knowledge is not the sum of what is currently held inside a person’s head, but the real-time formulation of understanding combining what was previously known with new experiences. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) state that ‘A concept will continually evolve with each new occasion of use, because new situations, negotiations, and activities inevitably recast it in a new, more densely textured form. So a concept, like the meaning of a word, is always under construction’
A critical aspect of the situated learning model is the notion of the apprentice observing the ‘community of practice’. Over time, the inexperienced novice moves from the periphery of community to the centre where they participate as experts. This process of enculturation occurs by means of involvement in authentic activity (real world / simulated as opposed to analogous activity) and interactions with experts.
The theory has moved away from the rigid apprentice model, and has been reconstituted as a classroom learning theory. A situated learning experience has four major premises guiding the development of classroom activities (Anderson, Reder, and Simon 1996; Wilson 1993): (1) learning is grounded in the actions of everyday situations; (2) knowledge is acquired situationally and transfers only to similar situations; (3) learning is the result of a social process encompassing ways of thinking, perceiving, problem solving, and interacting in addition to declarative and procedural knowledge; and (4) learning is not separated from the world of action but exists in robust, complex, social environments made up of actors, actions, and situations.
These four premises differentiate situated learning from other experiential forms of acquiring knowledge. In situated learning, students learn content through activities rather than acquiring information in discrete packages organized by instructors. Content is inherent in the doing of the task and not separated from the noise, confusion, and group interactions prevalent in real work environments. Learning is dilemma driven rather than content driven. Situations are presented that challenge the intellectual and psychomotor skills learners will apply at home, in the community, or the workplace (Lankard 1995).
David Stein puts forward that “situated learning uses cooperative and participative teaching methods as the means of acquiring knowledge. Knowledge is created or negotiated through the interactions of the learner with others and the environment. Subject matter emerges from the cues provided by the environment and from the dialogue among the learning community. The structure of the learning is implicit in the experience rather than in the subject matter structured by the instructor.” For Stein, Situated Learning in the classroom integrates content, context, community, and participation.
To sum up, the main tenets of situated learning theory are:
Information must be given in a relevant context or setting.
Learning must take place within social interaction and collaboration.
On the surface, Computer Based Situated Learning seems a contradiction in terms. Hummel (1993) maintained that ‘instructional designers who apply situated learning theory by implementation in electronic media should realize that they take an important step away from this theory ... courseware becomes the learning environment and not the authentic situation’ (p. 15 Jan Herrington and Ron Oliver, 1995). But, the consensus has moved in favour of the feasibility of using computer methods to simulate authentic activity (Herrington and Oliver).
In fact, in some situations it is only possible to simulate such as emergency situations. In terms of authentic activity, simulation maybe as close as it is possible to get to the real thing. It is not just emergency training where simulation provides the only option. For example, it is only through simulation that young people are going to experience many scenarios that occur during adulthood. Logistical and cost barriers exist, but time is a key problem. Game can compress time and can simulate events in a different time period.
A well designed simulation that has been modelled on expert knowledge, which offers collaborative learning in the form of blended delivery provides a powerful experience that does not merely engage the learner, a benefit in its own right, but anchors the learning process by contextualising it with ‘real’ scenarios. Games based situated learning moves away from the pure “apprentice model” of learning but it still stays true to the key tenets with little modification, as shown below:
Information must be given in authentic simulated context.
Learning must take place within social interaction and collaboration.
Herrington and Oliver, who have written extensively on situated learning and multimedia, suggest 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.
These are the criteria by which we will judge our learning simulation Sustainaville (see next blog post: Introducing our Games).
This is the second blog post in the series. Click back to the index if you are lost.
games-ED current products can be described as resource management games. They are played in a classroom environment on a single computer by the whole class. The games narrative is structured around a relevant context such as a community – they are situated. The class is spit into sub-teams that have to collaborate to achieve common goals such as improving the community. Sustainaville is one such game.
The games have been used in schools, college and universities and are built on tried and tested adult learning products.
Using the Game in a Lesson
The game plays over a number of rounds (simulated years). The rounds are sub-divided into three phases (plan > do > review). The rounds progressively speed up, as the learners get to grips with the task at hand.
The class is divided into sub-teams. In Sustainaville, the teams are: Local Authority; Education, Learning & Skills; Health; Third Sector; Housing; Utilities; Transport and Enterprise Partnership. Each sub-team is presented with a mission outlining their objectives. Ultimately, the sub-teams work as one team with one score.
It is important to note that the game based lesson sits within a games based learning pedagogy. In essence, pre work, taught material, follow on exercises and assessment wrap around the game based lesson. As Francis notes (2006), games need to sit within broader games based pedagogy in order that a game might be effectively used in classroom contexts.
Phases of the Game Rounds (Plan > Do > Review)
Each round of Sustainville has three phases: plan > do > review:
PLAN:
Investigate the main graphic, which shows a virtual community with problems such as air and water pollution, congestion, poor housing, unemployment, poor health and rising waste.
Investigate report screen that help learners to make decisions. The reports show cause and effect and will enable the learner to see the impact their decisions.
Learners consider cross linkages with other sub-teams and understand that they can achieve more if they work together.
DO:
Having looked at their reports and developed a plan, the sub-teams can invest their budgets by making purchase decisions.
Negotiate with other teams and choose win-wins to create a sustainable community.
After all the budget decisions have been made, the sub-teams present their decisions to the whole group explaining what they have bought and why.
The purchases are input into the game by the teacher.
REVIEW:
The round is updated to the next year.
The learners consider the impact of their decisions (improvements made to the community):
The main graphic changes: wind turbines, less pollution, recycling facilities and more housing.
The sub-team reports change.
The score shows how the teams have performed as a whole group. The educator gives feedback on their performance, and the learners can reflect on the decisions they have made.
The learners now need to plan what they want to achieve in round 2.
.jpg)
.jpg)