"Don't build an educational game
This bit of advice is pretty specific and probably does not apply to most people (since most people would not dream of doing this in the first place). But the question to ask yourself is, what is a game doing for you that a straight-forward presentation of the information is not? If it is specifically an *educational* game, the answer is, "nothing." You're not getting new users, you're not presenting material in any way that's easier to understand, you're not adding to motivation. You're simply disguising the old 'teach and test' methodology as a game. Nobody will be fooled well, except maybe purchasers of fad educational products." - Steven Downes (Link)
I think the key to this is the phrase, "If it is specifically an *educational* game, the answer is, 'nothing.'" The reason I believe that is the many examples of games made to teach, compared to games that draw on curriculum for game mechanics. It's a subtle, but profound difference in game design. For example a flight simulator draws on real facts and behaviors to make the game more fun, compared to a flight simulator made to give pilots experience.
The rest of the quote is based on the game being made specifically to teach curriculum. Since they are not games with educational value, but games to teach, I can understand the description. That doesn't mean I agree. First I'll cover why I don't think the games he refers to should be made as games. Then I'll come back to the his description of those games.
Why those games shouldn't be made, as games:
There are certain things that make an interactive model a game. These can be the hardest parts of making a game from an idea. Fine tuning the timing, balance, subtle guidance and more are a part of fine tuning the gameplay. This is time consuming and costly for a lot of games. Yet there is another way for the interactive models to be used for educational purposes while still being fun.
Allow people to play with the models, like a toy. Poke it. Prod it. See what happens. It's only a bit of code and data, so mistakes and normally bad events become something to watch. The fun is seeing what you can do with it. Examples and tips to get interesting results can help a lot. Hmmmm, sounds like low cost experiments. Make them freely accessible and you've got something truly useful.
When presented as something students can freely play with to help their comprehension, they aren't expecting quality gameplay. Yet, the principles of good gameplay can make these models better than the boring ones I've seen. While they are helpful, they aren't interesting. Worse, most don't provoke much thought.
The potential for games from these models:
"You're not getting new users, you're not presenting material in any way that's easier to understand, you're not adding to motivation. You're simply disguising the old 'teach and test' methodology as a game. Nobody will be fooled well, except maybe purchasers of fad educational products." - Steven Downes (Link)
That's what he said. I think there are several things that are not accurate in this quote, if designers approach their projects correctly. That's a BIG "if", as game industry history shows. No new users? Not easier to understand? Not adding motivation? Simply disguising an old method? Well, I'm not so sure. I'd say that this video of James Gee answers this well, but I have some additional things to say.
No new users?
Depends on what this means. Some would say that every person that plays the game that have not played is a new user. Others might say something about new users not being as important as returning users and people who spread the word. My guess is that if a teacher shows the game to their students and gets a good response from the students, more people will use the game.
Not easier to understand?
I'm an oddball. Telling me the rules to a game like Pinochle, I can grasp and apply the rules immediately, most people can't. While the text book may be boring, people do sometimes read them. Yet through school I've found most students find the textbooks are lacking, as is the standard lecture.
Not adding motivation?
Interactive, engaging private practice sounds like the kind of homework, or self learning tool, that fits the descriptions of good education. Having fun practicing skills, applying knowledge and solving problems really helps me want to do things that help me learn. Why? Games that reward deeper understanding is one example, where I learn to do better in relevant application of knowledge.
There is an immediate understanding of potential value inherent in games that use realistic application of knowledge. Just think about the success of shows like MacGyver and Myth Busters. They had/have an avid following of fans, who had examples of science in action.
Simply disguising an old method?
If I am playing through simulations of building bridges using calculus, physics and engineering, I can try it, test, learn and try again if I want. To me that sounds like iterative design in action. When I try that in, and out of, school I find I learn more than just memorizing facts or doing a one time through. It's also easy to make open to the public.
Plus there is the interesting memory result. Ask somebody about fun times and games they've played, then ask them about what they learned in their classes. I find that personally I remember far more about the games I've enjoyed playing than the classes I enjoyed. With that comes the facts and understanding.
Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan
View Blog Reactions
9 comments:
It's 'Stephen'. With a 'ph'. Thanks.
I'm so careful about that too. Oh well, time to edit for typos.
I hate the term "educational games" because I think all learning should be game-like. I also hate the term "serious games" because that seems to suck the fun out of the interaction. However, I don't have a better nom to proffer.
I love the idea of using games to teach:
* They are fun. Lectures are rarely fun.
* You can do things you can't do in real life (or do easily; or do without life-threatening consequences).
* They encourage trial and error and failure without penalty. The only way you learn a game is to fail.
* Every instance of a game (at least in a MMOG) is unique, just as every real-world issue is unique.
* Game modding is a constructivist activity.
* Online gaming is communicative and social and a truly connectivist implementation.
* The most popular games are built on a strong narrative thread and embed users (learners) in problem-based environments.
At the same time, creating a skateboard game to teach trig (angle the ramp to make the jump) seems somewhat trivial; what's worse are the "educational games" that require the learner to answer a question in order to move to the next level. What we need to do is deconstruct the big ideas of a discipline and then construct multiplayer online game environments that allow learners to explore those ideas among themselves. I'm not necessarily in favor of eliminating the role of the academy; perhaps novice players are assisted by mentors (although these might simply be more advanced learners/gamers). This is how I see my own children doing their homework anyway: a dozen IM windows open: a debate on a local band in one window; helping someone with a History assignment in another; receiving help on a Calculus problem in yet another.
I think that the original post on why not to build an educational game is vastly oversimplified, and assumes a homogeneous notion of what is an educational game. That being said, one of the big challenges that I've found with educational gaming, or what I've seen offered as an educational game in the past, is that I've yet to really see a good balance between production costs and pedagogical benefit. Some of Chris Dede's work, for example, is very interesting, but is so resource intensive as to make it grossly out of reach of what most of us are doing. The work going on at the University of Wisconsin Madison, from the little I know of it, seems to suffer from the same challenges. Most of the rapid development models that I've seen people present on over the years seem to emphasize drill and kill, behavioristic learning. Is there a way to develop rich, interactive gaming environments that allow instructors to teach robust, conceptual knowledge and that allow students to explore and construct meaning and build complex schemas that *doesn't* require a prohibitively huge investment? Perhaps I'm being naive in asking...
Regardless, thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Much to chew on.
@Michael: Personally I'd use a skateboard game for projectile physics. Knowing the angles that give the best height, distance and other such projectile physics would be helpful. Grinding offers another set of physics. Practical knowledge of relevant physics makes it more robust.
@higgypiggy: It is possible. Content, access and usability combine to become easily remixable. I currently don't know of an operating set-up like that. That's part of what I want to accomplish with the content module I'm building, in the long run.
Kia ora
The 'game' as such has been utilised appropriately as an approach to teaching and learning. There is nothing new in this idea. Good teachers have been using the idea for centuries.
So-called digital educational games have used this approach and simply followed the logical evolution that came with the advent of elearning.
Where it all goes to mush is in the commodification of the digital educational game. The reusable learning object (RLO) got the commodification disease and within much less than a decade, what could have been a useful teaching device became scornmed (sic). RLOs became expensively useless.
The same is likely to happen with digital educational games and for the same reasons.
Catchya later
from Middle-earth
I think the important part to note is that good teachers use this, not most teachers.
Most learning video games are not well done, or so I've found over the years.
As for the commodification, there is a distinct trend towards making sure it doesn't ruin the efforts. So I have hope for the future.
Sometimes I think the word "educational" in this context is similar to the use of the word "very". Nine times out of ten, you don't need to say "I'm VERY sad" or "I'm very sorry you broke your leg". Usually, games don't need the word "educational" in front of them - the educational aspect is inherent to the game (at least the good ones!)
I believe that comes under the same distinction as good teacher. Just because it is teaching, or a game, doesn't mean it's all that educational. More than that, the standard games are not intended for real life oriented learning, which an educational game is specifically designed for. It also happens to be a big place for designers to foul up the design, but that's another matter.
Post a Comment