Games Based Learning – A Danish Experience

Recently, I was lucky to be invited to Aarhus in Denmark by the British Embassy Copenhagen / UKTI (UK Trade & Investment) to exhibit and network at the Knowledge is Great Conference. The conference was an opportunity for British and Danish companies along with educators and civil servants to discuss the future of games based learning.

So what did I take away from Denmark regarding games based learning? Firstly, schools get 50% funding towards the purchase of existing or bespoke digital resources. The Danish games based learning professionals were concerned about what would happen when the funding was removed in the coming years. A valid comparison was made to the demise of e-Leaning credits in the UK. Investment by schools could simply fall off a cliff. Civil servants from the Ministry of Education recognised this as an issue but were happy to let the market take control. Personally, I couldn’t help feeling that it would be nice to have a UK funding cliff to fall off, but I believe there is a place pump prime the industry.

But encouraging take up is not all about pump priming the supply side. There are demand side deficiencies as well. Specifically, teacher take up of games based learning. Here there are strong parallels to the UK situation. Teachers, while intrigued by games based learning, are reticent to take the leap rather like a novice player in a platform game. Pernille Korzon Dünweber from Serious Games Interactive made the point that there was a place for funding teachers in the use of games based learning.

Kristian Emil Andreasen (kanda) observed that the conference wasn’t attended by any entertainment games companies. I responded that there wasn’t intrinsically a problem with that; because while games based learning and entertainment games are obviously related, their design premise differs. Specifically, games based learning should be designed with learning at the forefront and not be crow barred in at the end. But, I think Kristian's point does have a broader significance, which was the point he was really raising, that games based learning needs to be fun and not just worthy, else students will reject it.  Designers need to strike a balance between game play and learning outcomes.

Following on from the importance of game design, at the start of a group discussion, the facilitators asked the group to name their favourite game of all time. While this was a simple ice breaker, it revealed the Achilles Heel of part of games based learning industry. Of the 20 people in the room, half struggled to name a computer game that they had ever played. Clearly, for a lot of people at the event, computer games are more theory than practice.

Kathleen Stokes from Nesta spoke enthusiastically about games based learning from a UK perspective and talked about students becoming makers as well as consumers. Roll on the Year of Code, I say.

All in all, I would say Denmark and the UK are similar in terms of games based learning. There seems to be an enthusiastic but slightly frustrated band of developers, a government that is keen to promote games based learning and an education system that is still getting to grips with what it all means.

Highlights of the trip other than games based learning were happening upon the Aarhus Cathedral which, while fairly utilitarian from the outside, has an amazing interior with some spectacular frescoes. Vivien Life (British Ambassador to Denmark) kindly hosted a lovely evening meal at Nordens Folkekøkken. Also, I had a chance to visit the art gallery (ARoS). Your rainbow panorama by Olafur Eliasson on the roof of the gallery is a unique and amazing experience. I am told that Den Gamble By open air museum is also very impressive, but I didn’t have time to see it.

Please follow @paulladley on Twitter, games-ED on Pinterest and like games-ED’s Facebook and Google+ pages for blog updates and interesting games based learning findings.

g-Learning: Is this the learning term that we have been looking for?

In a previous blog (A Games Based Learning Manifesto: 10 Thoughts for Discussion), we stated “Use the “G” word sparingly”. Using games in the title is great if we want to sell to the innovators and early adopters, which as developers we probably are doing. But - and it is big but, I won’t lie - is that innovators and early adopters often need to get buy-in from others who don’t quite get it.

At pixelfountain, we have been selling games since 1998 and have needed to avoid the G word. In the early days we used the term Virtual Training. This seemed to fit nicely with what we were doing which were exploratory adventure style games where users interacted with characters and objects in simulated organisations and sites. As it happens, we now use Situated Training for this type of product / pedagogy as it is built on the theory of Situated Learning. By the early noughties, we had started developing resource management games or simulations. Thus, we started using the term Learning Simulations. To date we still use this term for this type of game, but the problem is that it is a subset of all learning games of which there is no overall nomenclature in the way there is for entertainment games (simulations, first person shooters, platform and so on).

In a terrible spoiler, I have already stated my preferred term g-Learning in the blog title - note to self, must create more suspense if I am ever to make it big as a novelist. But, let me appraise the current contenders, before announcing g-Learning as my winner (doh, I’ve done it again).

Games Based Learning: For me, this term conjures up education and includes the G word. We called our blog Games Based Learning as we had originally planned to just talk about education, but we have partially drifted away from that narrow focus.

Serious Games: “Serious Games” has gathered some traction but is somewhat of an oxymoron - games are supposed to be fun. I appreciate it is the outcome that is serious not the game, but that is not clear from the term. Also confused with serious games meaning hardcore commercial games.

Learning Simulations: As previously stated, this is my preferred term for simulations (obviously) but it doesn’t encompass the array of game styles.

Learning Games: Too vague (doesn’t imply digital) and contains the G word. So in the tradition of judging recent UK Eurovision song entries; that will be nil points from me.

Gamification: The term of the moment, but it is too encompassing describing everything from badges, leader boards through to complex simulations.

The case for g-Learning:

• It only sneakily hints a games - it is the Assassins Creed of learning terms.
• It sounds like advanced e-Learning, which I guess it is.
• It fits in with the learning nomenclature: e-Learning (electronic learning), m-Learning (mobile learning).
• It sounds techie and sounds like a category (see bullet above).
• It is succinct.

So, I Googled g-Learning to see what I could find: a few people are using it in the same way that I am suggesting; there is a training company in the UK trading with the name (they don’t do games); a blogger is using g-Learning as in Google learning and another is using it to mean Green Learning. So with that little amount of research, I don’t think there is a reason why we shouldn’t annex the term, what do you think?

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?