Video games are one of the most publicized (and controversial) technologies introduced into the classroom in recent years. You may or may not be aware but some people are adamant that video games will revolutionize and reshape the classroom like no previous advancement. But there are also many who do not agree.
Before we begin our readings and discussion on this topic, we need to ‘level the playing field’ a bit. For those of you who have taken EME 6465 – Interactive Learning Environments, you have discussed some of this material before. There is a bit of overlap between that course and this. Those who have been introduced to this topic before may be at a different place than the rest of you. Also, in order to provide you some of the foundational content from that course (in which we discussed the converse argument… do video games provide instructional models and techniques that we can use in a regular non-game playing situation? To get at some of those materials, click the tab below on Gamification of Learning. For those of you who have taken or are taking EME 6465, this is optional reading.
In order to tap into this debate, we offer you a few links:
- Learn by Playing: Video Games Win a Beachhead on the Classroom
- Serious Games: Incorporating Video Games in the Classroom
- Game Based Learning
- Let the Games Begin
- Yet another magic bullet” A tool for assessing and evaluating learning potential in games
It may be that too few have taken the time to actually evaluate games for instructional value. To give you some insights on this argument we provide a few more readings. A review of the literature reveals that very few have figured out what it is about games that work to be sure that all the teaching elements are there. We do have some insight to this, as we have been doing research in the area. In a review we completed recently, we discovered a few areas that games seem to be lacking.
The following are a four articles we published on the subject (CLICK the ‘PLUS SIGN’ TO OPEN).
In the first article we developed the rationale behind a rubric to review the educational soundness of games.
The second article is a yet to be published article that reviews a few more models to increase the instructional value of games.
In the third and fourth articles we discuss video games from the perspective as to why teachers have sometimes been shown to be reluctant to adopt games in the classroom.
The first of these was published last year:
the fourth one was published this year:
Take a look at this short presentation on the benefits and tactics to integrate games into learning environments. It does apply some of the elements of gamification into the process:
[pdf http://rkenny.org/shared_media/gameshow.pdf 800 600]
What is Gamification*?
The concept of gamification is found in its obvious root: –a game.
Salen and Zimmerman define a game as:
“a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict (i.e. challenge), defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.”
If you read the articles above you should see the common themes that relate to the teaching and motivation masters (rules (events) and challenge (the ‘C’ in the ARCS Motivation Model).
Koster, in his seminal work The Theory of Fun also adds the words ‘interactivity’ and ‘feedback’, which lead to an emotional reaction (a la Brenda Laurel’s ideas on suspending one’s disbelief), and a conceptualization of an abstract version of a larger system (i.e., Computers as Theatre).
Most people believe that the definition of a game rests on the concept of ‘fun’. But we should now begin to realize that it is much larger than that.
Let’s see if Wikipedia can be of any help to us (note the underlined words and their relationship to the concept of ‘interactivity’ we are building here):
Gamification is the use of game design techniques, game thinking and game mechanics to enhance non-game contexts. Typically gamification applies to non-game applications and processes, in order to encourage people to adopt them, or to influence how they are used. Gamification works by making technology more engaging, by encouraging users to engage in desired behaviors, by showing a path to mastery and autonomy, by helping to solve problems and not being a distraction, and by taking advantage of humans’ psychological predisposition to engage in gaming
Accordingly, Kapp* arrives at his definition (click on the spoiler to read a definition for each term):
Gamification is using game-based
and
to engage people,
promote learning, and
What Gamification is not
While games and gamification share many of the following concepts, gamification is NOT any one of these alone taken singularly:
- Badges, Points or Rewards – These are important but one of the lesser useful elements of games. Gamification focuses more on engagement, storytelling, visualization of characters, and problem-solving.
- Trivialization of Learning – If they indeed are designed to properly teach academic content (see the RETAIN Model in the Review section) then they certainly do not cheapen the experience or dilute it. Fun does not mean trivial or not important or authentic.
- New – Games (especially war games ) have been around since the 7th century.
- Perfect for every situation – this goes without saying?
- Easy to create – ditto?
- Easily understandable and universally adopted by teachers – Ditto again, if you have read the above articles about making games educational. (Again, the review module delves deeper into this).
* Source: Kapp, K.M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
For more information on this topic, you can review the remainder of the module on gamification from EME 6465
- Do you think video games have a place in the classroom? Why?/Why not?
- Do you play video games regularly? Why? Why not? What impact does your playing/not playing have on your decision to use them in your classroom?
- What is your take on the idea that teachers do not use games because they themselves are not as likely to play games as their peers who take on other professions?
- Do you think Marc Prensky has it right or is his concept based too much on anecdotal data?