Gamifying Education - Is it the right direction?

[Wowbagger]

This page builds, what I think is, a very excellent case for using various game design techniques to improve education: From Experience-Point-like grading to Alternate Reality projects, etc.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3167-Gamifying-Education
(warning: it is possible that advertisements might play before the main video.)

What does everyone else think of this sort of approach?

If you don't think it's a smart direction, what else would you suggest to motivate students to learn?

[DallasDad]

deleted

[MysterOnyx]

Something that interests the children is necessary for keeping them engaged. Adding game elements may work for those who like to play games.

[Wowbagger]

Something that interests the children is necessary for keeping them engaged. Adding game elements may work for those who like to play games.

It might even work, in a more subtle sense, if they don't like playing games.

Good games manipulate human psychology in a pleasing manner. Some of the same strategies they employ could manipulate children into learning things, in a pleasing manner.

It might even work better if you don't inform them that it is a "game". It would make the learning process seem more "organically" interesting.

[MysterOnyx]

Implicit games occur every day in classrooms with token (reward) systems. Children know that their behavior and academic performance is tied into whether they receive a reward or not.

[Wowbagger]

Implicit games occur every day in classrooms with token (reward) systems. Children know that their behavior and academic performance is tied into whether they receive a reward or not.

But, do these implicit games you are referring to address the sense of agency, and external motivation, that the ideas in this video talk about?

Merely going on expectation of reward is potentially problematic, because

1. Skinner-like operative conditioning is sufficient for reward expectation, but is hardly the direction one wants to go, if you want to impart agency, and external motivation, etc.

2. It does not address the cynical students, who do not fully trust that there will be an adequate reward for the efforts they put into school.

And possibly other reasons.

[MNBrant]

I don't know. A game about the holocaust might diminish the experience rather than expand it even though it might be fun to play.

[Wowbagger]

I don't know. A game about the holocaust might diminish the experience rather than expand it even though it might be fun to play.
You wouldn't make a "game about the holocaust". You could use elements of game psychology within the lessons, to make learning about the holocaust more engaging and meaningful.

Remember: "Gamifying Education" is not necessarily about turning lessons into games. It is more about using a game-like approach to some elements in how the lessons are taught. See the subtle difference?

A good way to understand the subtle difference is watch the first major point made in the video, about grading. The actual grade doesn't change, only the approach in how they are assessed.

[Dancing David]

Here is a direct use of game style math skills (not exactly what Wownagger was talking about):

http://www.arcademicskillbuilders.com/games/

Pretty amazing motivator for kids who normally 'hate math'.

[MNBrant]

You wouldn't make a "game about the holocaust". You could use elements of game psychology within the lessons, to make learning about the holocaust more engaging and meaningful.

Remember: "Gamifying Education" is not necessarily about turning lessons into games. It is more about using a game-like approach to some elements in how the lessons are taught. See the subtle difference?

A good way to understand the subtle difference is watch the first major point made in the video, about grading. The actual grade doesn't change, only the approach in how they are assessed.

You couldn't make a game about the holocaust without some kid saying lets go though the gas chambers again. That was fun!

On the other hand they would probably learn from this little text balloons located in the game for the hard core gamer types

[kedo1981]

I’m trying a similar approach with industrial training, we sell a very complicated machine and the operators very quickly become apathetic and drop the ball on the maintenance, causing the machine to break and causing our warranty costs to go way up.
What I’d like to do is have a kind of “facebook” page for each unit and all the people involved becoming followers and how they contribute to the machines success will determine points or something.

[Wowbagger]

You couldn't make a game about the holocaust without some kid saying lets go though the gas chambers again. That was fun!

On the other hand they would probably learn from this little text balloons located in the game for the hard core gamer types

Again, we are not talking about building educational games. We are talking about integrating elements of game psychology into lessons.

Did you even watch the video?

I am not entirely sure how the subject of Holocaust would be tackled in this manner, specifically. But, I might start with an examination of Hitler's mind: See if students can find links between his ideals and those of Theosophy and other mystical manners; and (perhaps more importantly): What modern science has to say on those subjects. What do we now know that negates a lot of these ideas? They can use the "Plot Your Route" activity, described in the video, for this sort of thing.

They can learn a lot more about how evil comes to power AND the science of evolutionary theory along the way, in a manner more engaging than a slideshow of concentration camps, and more dignified than a "game about the holocaust".

I’m trying a similar approach with industrial training, we sell a very complicated machine and the operators very quickly become apathetic and drop the ball on the maintenance, causing the machine to break and causing our warranty costs to go way up.
What I’d like to do is have a kind of “facebook” page for each unit and all the people involved becoming followers and how they contribute to the machines success will determine points or something.

That sounds soooo cute!

[Cavemonster]

You might be interested in Jane McGonigal if you're not already familiar with her work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM

She works from the principle "Reality is broken". We do all kinds of things in needlessly unpleasant ways and all too often run by the principle that important things must not be enjoyable.

[themusicteacher]

You might be interested in Jane McGonigal if you're not already familiar with her work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM

She works from the principle "Reality is broken". We do all kinds of things in needlessly unpleasant ways and all too often run by the principle that important things must not be enjoyable.

I can't watch the video from work but saying "important things must not be enjoyable" is a thinking error. This is nurtured by an instant-access infotainment culture that makes things seem "boring" because they don't tickle our most prurient and base desires regarding pleasure and laziness.

[Mark6]

Who is in error? Jane McGonigal, or people she is pointing at? If the latter, you seem to be in agreement with her.

And yes, I think game-like system of reward points, and breaking down goals into clearly defined subgoals with rewards along the way is a great way to motivate students. Maybe not to study Holocaust, but to study MANY other things, from math to insect biology to less-emotionally-charges parts of history.

[Mark6]

I’m trying a similar approach with industrial training, we sell a very complicated machine and the operators very quickly become apathetic and drop the ball on the maintenance, causing the machine to break and causing our warranty costs to go way up.
What I’d like to do is have a kind of “facebook” page for each unit and all the people involved becoming followers and how they contribute to the machines success will determine points or something.
Why don't you make such Facebook page?

[Cavemonster]

I can't watch the video from work but saying "important things must not be enjoyable" is a thinking error. This is nurtured by an instant-access infotainment culture that makes things seem "boring" because they don't tickle our most prurient and base desires regarding pleasure and laziness.

I must not have made myself clear.
McGonigal's approach is that work and play are not opposites. She is condemning a culture that insists that work should not be enjoyable.

You sound awfully puritan if you're railing against pleasure tickling our base desire, but perhaps I misunderstand you.

[Mark6]

Major appeal of MMORPG's and similar games is that you know what it takes to get a particular reward. It takes certain number of experience points to reach next level or certain number of shards/essences/whatever to craft your next magic sword, and you know exactly how far along the process you are. That applies not only to computer/online games but to all games based on experience points, like D&D. It is amazing a) how appealing the concept of defined reward is to most people, and b) how rarely it occures in "real life". In school, on job, and (most of all) in business, you can never know with certainty that effort A will bring result X, and effort B will bring result Y -- and can consciously decide which goal you should strive for. In games you do.

I do not know WHY human brain seems to take so much pleasure in a process which generally does not occur in reality (and could not be even defined before invention of arithmetic), but it does. Why not make use of it?

[AvalonXQ]

Major appeal of MMORPG's and similar games is that you know what it takes to get a particular reward. It takes certain number of experience points to reach next level or certain number of shards/essences/whatever to craft your next magic sword, and you know exactly how far along the process you are. That applies not only to computer/online games but to all games based on experience points, like D&D. It is amazing a) how appealing the concept of defined reward is to most people, and b) how rarely it occures in "real life". In school, on job, and (most of all) in business, you can never know with certainty that effort A will bring result X, and effort B will bring result Y. In games you do.

I'm not sure I agree. Most of these games use random tables to generate treasure; there is always an element of unpredictability involved.
In business, you might make sales presentation knowing that less than 2% of your attempts will result in a sale; in WoW, you might go after a boss knowing that it drops the awesome weapon 2% of the time. In both cases, you know that performing certain tasks gives you a better shot of getting the result you want, even if there's no actual certainty.

[Mark6]

I'm not sure I agree. Most of these games use random tables to generate treasure; there is always an element of unpredictability involved.
In business, you might make sales presentation knowing that less than 2% of your attempts will result in a sale; in WoW, you might go after a boss knowing that it drops the awesome weapon 2% of the time. In both cases, you know that performing certain tasks gives you a better shot of getting the result you want, even if there's no actual certainty.
True, and I thought about it when I made previous post. However:

In my admittedly unscientific experience, these random drops appeal to a minority of players. I do not play WoW, but I know that DDO has several very powerful items with insanely low drop rate. People who run the same quest over and over in hopes of getting Bloodstone or Eardweller are considered by the rest of DDO community... well... insane.

Second even these players want to know what exactly their chances are. If drop rate of a certain item is 2%, some will say "OK, it is worth running the quest 50 times". Others woudl say "Forget it. But if it were 10%, I would go for it." IOW, they can estimate how long the process will take even when they cannot know it for certain. In real life, even that is rarely present.

[Wowbagger]

I do not know WHY human brain seems to take so much pleasure in a process which generally does not occur in reality (and could not be even defined before invention of arithmetic), but it does. Why not make use of it?Knowing the odds is better than reality, that's why. And, humans often like to indulge in the fantasy of near-perfect information, when they can.

[Wowbagger]

You might be interested in Jane McGonigal if you're not already familiar with her work.
Yes, I remember seeing that. She makes some relevant points, though she does talk about specific games, rather than general game-like approaches to learning.

I must not have made myself clear.
McGonigal's approach is that work and play are not opposites. She is condemning a culture that insists that work should not be enjoyable.
Good of you to emphasize this. I was about to do the same. Your original wording was too easily misunderstood.

[Cavemonster]

Yes, I remember seeing that. She makes some relevant points, though she does talk about specific games, rather than general game-like approaches to learning.


Yeah, she's working on that end of the problem. And I do think she's hyperbolicly optimistic about games saving the word and such, but she does have a lot of ideas and projects that apply in general to gamification in general and using play as a productive force.


Good of you to emphasize this. I was about to do the same. Your original wording was too easily misunderstood.

I seem to be doing that a lot today :(

[whiterabbit1996]

I'm still in high school education, and of course I'm much more motivated by anything which will gain me some sort of reward! I suppose that's why class work goes down the toilet when we have supply teachers; as we'll not have the same teacher again, there is not the same motivation to impress as with constant teachers, who we build more of a relationship with. Not sure if that's totally relevant, but mehhhh.

Watching the start of the video linked in the original post, I'm liking the points idea...I tend to get A* in most things at the moment, so the current system works well for me, but I think that some friends who are usually graded lower would prefer the whole points thing. It looks far more positive.

Oooh bum I have to go to school nowish, but...I may return later (:

[KingofMadCows]

1. Skinner-like operative conditioning is sufficient for reward expectation, but is hardly the direction one wants to go, if you want to impart agency, and external motivation, etc.

That's not true. Skinner actually addresses this problem. When learning a skill, there is a point at which enough mastery is achieved that reinforcement is the "natural" consequence of the application of that skill. For example, when someone achieves enough fluency with a language that they are able to gain information or enjoyment from reading or when someone knows enough about physics that they can use the knowledge to build a toy. The consequence becomes reinforcing with or without whatever reinforcements the teacher gave the student while the student was learning the skill.

The teacher can provide the student with other forms of reinforcement when the "natural" reinforcing consequences are not strong enough. The teacher can also guide the student in a direction in which practice of the skill achieves some automatic reinforcement.

[Wowbagger]

Just updating the location of the video, in case someone digs this up, later:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/gamifying-education

The Extra Credits series was forced to move from The Escapist to Penny Arcade for various legal reasons, most of which were rather stupid on the part of The Escapist.

[Drachasor]

Major appeal of MMORPG's and similar games is that you know what it takes to get a particular reward. It takes certain number of experience points to reach next level or certain number of shards/essences/whatever to craft your next magic sword, and you know exactly how far along the process you are. That applies not only to computer/online games but to all games based on experience points, like D&D. It is amazing a) how appealing the concept of defined reward is to most people, and b) how rarely it occures in "real life". In school, on job, and (most of all) in business, you can never know with certainty that effort A will bring result X, and effort B will bring result Y -- and can consciously decide which goal you should strive for. In games you do.

I wouldn't use MMOs as a great example of this. They turn people off because they aren't a lot of fun. They use behaviorism to get people to keep playing and paying despite it not being fun. This is, of course, because the companies want players who will keep paying a subscription fee. It's all about maximizing profits.

When you look at how many people play MMOs of various sorts and compare it to the game industry as a whole or even just RPGs as a whole, the MMO playerbase is not that impressive.

That said, there's no reason why similar principles couldn't be used to make education more fun and engaging. As someone has noted, the fact you are picking up actual skills would help a lot in making it feel rewarding (as opposed to an MMO where you pick up fictitious items that must be replaced in a couple months).

A lot could also be done with educational software. Right now the state of such software is pretty horrible. Last I checked it hadn't advanced much in the last 20 years (talk about embarrassing). That could easily be linked to a rewards-based system and allow people to study on their own. Granted, not everything can work this way, but a lot of stuff can.

Heck, you could get teachers in on the action via social networking to handle the stuff computers can't. Need a paper looked over? Put it online and a teacher will get back to you, maybe more than one. Teachers would get rewards of some sort for this too, encouraging them to spend their time doing it. Same with tutoring, though of course students who have mastered the material could also tutor.

There's no reason why this would have to be limited to education, but it is certainly a good place to start.

Edit: Btw, Extra Credits is indeed very awesome.

[Yithmas]

I think taking a games-approach to education is a good idea if you do not take it too far. You need a leaver to grab kids' attention and games are a good way.
I also think the ideas presented in this video point in the samee (and generally good) direction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXMLzlwnfAs&feature=player_embedded

[Jeff Corey]

That's not true. Skinner actually addresses this problem. When learning a skill, there is a point at which enough mastery is achieved that reinforcement is the "natural" consequence of the application of that skill. For example, when someone achieves enough fluency with a language that they are able to gain information or enjoyment from reading or when someone knows enough about physics that they can use the knowledge to build a toy. The consequence becomes reinforcing with or without whatever reinforcements the teacher gave the student while the student was learning the skill.

The teacher can provide the student with other forms of reinforcement when the "natural" reinforcing consequences are not strong enough. The teacher can also guide the student in a direction in which practice of the skill achieves some automatic reinforcement.

It's good to see that someone else here understands one of the basic principles of applied behavior analysis - the goal of a program is to have the client or student independent of the trainer or teacher.
There are a number of techniques to achieve this goal: behavioral traps (as described above), leaning out the schedule of reinforcement, and others.
What's telling here is the general use of "rewards" rather than the technical term "reinforcement". "Rewards" are what people think are going to work, like gold stars on a chart, while reinforcement is some consequence that empirically increases behavior.

[Mark6]

A lot could also be done with educational software. Right now the state of such software is pretty horrible. Last I checked it hadn't advanced much in the last 20 years (talk about embarrassing).
Any idea why? And is this true worldwide, or just in US?

[Drachasor]

Any idea why? And is this true worldwide, or just in US?

I don't really know. That's just what I've noticed when I looked at educational software and from what I've seen in various college classes (what there is of software for physics anyhow).

It's probably a bit exaggerated to say there have been no advances, but it doesn't compare to how gaming and scientific software has improved.

I don't think there's been much of an effort to develop educational software. It's a really niche market, since schools don't use a lot of it (not enough computers), and it isn't bought that much by private citizens. Probably the biggest advances have been with software for learning languages, because businesses and governments can use them.

I'm not remotely an expert on this mind, but I've looked from time to time since I figured with modern technology there should be some really cool stuff out there. Sadly, there isn't from what I can tell.

Imho, it would be well worth it for say the USA to invest heavily in developing educational tools available to everyone and covering K-12 as well as college level classes. Software, digital books, etc, all free and in an national database anyone could access. I'm sure it would save a lot of money in the long run. Competitive contracting for educational software could make a huge drive in innovation.

[DarthFishy]

This is a subject near and dear to my heart partially as it is part of my research topic for my PHD and secondly as I'm attempting to use techniques like these in my own courses I teach.

There is a definite movement within the Digital Game Based Learning research community away from the idea of just using games for their content and rather focusing on how gameplay elements can actually enhance learning.

This is perhaps also why there is the dismal failure of educational games and software that we currently experience (and to my knowledge this is not limited to the US). In my reading for my PHD I came across this following quote:

“Seymour Papert (1998) referred to edutainment and instructional computer games as Shavian reversals. Shavian reversals are offspring that keep the worst traits of the parents and lose the good traits.”

Essentially they are saying that educational games take the worst parts of educational content (generally that they are boring) and combine them with the worst parts of digital games (from an educational perspective).

My personal experience involved attempting to use the development of a game to motivate my 2nd year programming students. Though this doesn't directly speak to gamifiying education, it was part of my intention to bring game like elements into my class. I wanted to do things like XBox style achievements, rankings, levels etc. Admittedly I haven't really had the time or energy to implement this.

What was interesting within my own class, was that I though giving the students game-based examples to do would be more exciting than boring business based examples, some of the feed back we have received indicated they preferred the business based examples, possibly because in general they were somewhat easier to accomplish.

[Wowbagger]

I was talking to some folks about this on the weekend (which is why I discovered the link was out of date).

I think it would be important to emphasize that: As long as the skills learned in the "the game" are actual skills they can use, in the real world, the game approach should be successful.

I would steer away from strategies that are too many degrees of separation from that. MMOs are usually too abstract. The Training Routines of Scientology are very much out-of-wack with reality, even though they are often game-like. Etc.
(I bring up scientology, because that also entered into the discussion this weekend.)

Thanks, everyone, for the posts!

[Drachasor]

“Seymour Papert (1998) referred to edutainment and instructional computer games as Shavian reversals. Shavian reversals are offspring that keep the worst traits of the parents and lose the good traits.”

Essentially they are saying that educational games take the worst parts of educational content (generally that they are boring) and combine them with the worst parts of digital games (from an educational perspective).

This has been my anecdotal experience as well. You get stuff like an electrodynamics game where you place fixed charges to attract/repel a moving charge to a goal. Being good at this game teaches you nothing, and it isn't even very fun. Horrible.

There are some interesting possibilities outside the current educational games. Minecraft let's you literally create a basic computer in game -- manually creating the lines signals are transferred over, creating logic gates, RAM, etc, etc, bit by bit. It's easier with some mods (which allow you to actually place a logic gate by itself, rather than having to fashion a logic gate over a much larger area). Someone literally took a classic text on designing a microprocessor and made the example microprocessor from that book in the game. Pretty incredible, and you learn something doing that. Of course, the game wasn't made for educational purposes.

[DarthFishy]

Wowbagger. I agree entirely. What is interesting is how many "game skills" are transferable to real life. And how many of these kinds of skills are part of education already. Any game that is played in a team teaches about teamwork (without even really trying). Similarly any competitive game teaches about competition. Even basic "game elements" require concentration, memory, planning etc.

Where gamifying education can really shine if these kinds of skills are made more explicit. Making teamwork more of a challenge by adding an additional set of rules, for example, can really encourage students to work on their teamwork skills.

Of course going overboard with this merely for the sake of having game like elements in an educational setting is beyond worthless.

Drachasor, I think that's an excellent example. Another wonderful thing a well designed game does is gives students (or anybody who's playing really) the opportunity to explore what they've learnt in a safe environment.

[gabeygoat]

It might even work, in a more subtle sense, if they don't like playing games.

Good games manipulate human psychology in a pleasing manner. Some of the same strategies they employ could manipulate children into learning things, in a pleasing manner.

It might even work better if you don't inform them that it is a "game". It would make the learning process seem more "organically" interesting.



I agree in many ways, but worry about the potential for propaganda. Really, all you (whomever the propagandist is) has to do, is make their view the winning tactic.
I thought of this in light of what I, as a skeptic would want in a game. So, from what I think of as good intentions (to win you must demonstrate critical thinking skills.) but there's not garuntee that some group (most likely religious) would be able to take these things over quickly.

[DarthFishy]

I agree in many ways, but worry about the potential for propaganda. Really, all you (whomever the propagandist is) has to do, is make their view the winning tactic.
I thought of this in light of what I, as a skeptic would want in a game. So, from what I think of as good intentions (to win you must demonstrate critical thinking skills.) but there's not garuntee that some group (most likely religious) would be able to take these things over quickly.

That is a very valid point. I was thinking about the inherent ideologies within the games we play already and to what a degree they impact not just the storyline but also the gameplay itself. (As you mention about the winning tactic).

Take for example something like Medal of Honour vs Monopoly. One would think Medal of Honour would have the greater possibility for propoganda, being set during WWII. But yet victory in the game is independent on whether you play the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'. Whereas to win at Monopoly you have to adhere to a specific ideology, in this case a relatively extreme form of Capitalism. If you were someone who was more of a socialist or communist you would have to play against your basic ideological beliefs to win.

This all leads back to the point that 'game like elements' or rules are a lot more effective at effecting change than merely adding some appropriate content.

[JJM 777]

what else would you suggest to motivate students to learn?
I think televisions should have the same language and subtitle options as DVD movies have, except that it should be possible to select two subtitle languages at the same time (one on top and one on bottom, or both on bottom). If you study Spanish, instead of browsing through boring books you might watch the latest Hollywood movie, or the Simpsons or the news, dubbed in Spanish, with Spanish subtitles and English translation on the screen.

This is what I am trying to do, but as I don´t have the option of getting two subtitle languages on the screen, I get only the English translation but fail to recognize most of the Spanish spoken words, or then I get all the Spanish words as text but fail to understand their meaning.

[AmandaM]

I wouldn't use MMOs as a great example of this. They turn people off because they aren't a lot of fun. They use behaviorism to get people to keep playing and paying despite it not being fun.

I think this is entirely too broad a statement. "They aren't fun" -- for whom? Yes, I'm sure some of the 11 million people who play Warcraft do so out of some kind of addiction, but for most of us, there is certainly an element of "fun" to the experience, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

Everyone comes to games for their own reasons. My husband's sole interest in Warcraft (for several years) was buying and selling things on the auction house. He never killed anything or set foot in a dungeon. He was intrigued by the in-game market, and liked to play "day trader" with crafting materials. He really truly enjoyed that, and when he could "make money" he would proudly relate that achievement to me. One of my friends couldn't care less about crafting and quests, but enjoys the social aspect of voice chatting with people in her guild while they run dungeons or just chitchat. Other people play in a more traditional fashion, but again -- the MMO experience is so vast and so multi-faceted that you can't argue there is one goal for every player, or that people don't have fun participating in the game in their own way. (There are days when I only log in to chat with guildies. My character doesn't even move.) To each his/her own.


In the original video, if I recall correctly, the example of "leveling" was used, and how early levels are easier to master, while later levels require more effort or time or whatever resource. I'm reading a lot now about motivating your child to succeed, and this is a common tactic -- encourage and praise pretty much all early efforts, but as the child grows in "experience," allocate the praise accordingly. I also see this in the workplace with adults. Adults learning a new skill need a lot of reassurance that they're doing it right and a lot of praise for doing it. As the person's experience rises, the praise goes down, ideally creating a situation where only a person who really goes the extra mile or puts forth additional effort gets the praise. I think in theory this is supposed to be motivating to employees. In theory.

Educational games, imo, lack one major factor -- interactive parental involvement. We used to love a "monopoly" style game called The Farming Game. (It's the first one on this page: http://www.farmgame.com/) In design, it's the exact same formula as Monopoly or Risk or Payday, just with different variables. (Instead of passing Go, you sell your harvest. Instead of going to jail you are unable to plant for so many turns.)

But what really made the game for me was my Mom's involvement -- explaining the real impact of a drought or a blight on crops; talking about her own life on a farm and how tractors replaced horses, going to the county fair and putting all those "community chest" style cards with scenarios on them into a real live context.

Without interactivity I think most of the educational games out there ARE boring. Because they can't ever put the game material into a context in reality. It takes a teacher or a parent to do that, doesn't it?


One more thing on Monopoly -- my friends and I thought the original rules were waaaay too boring and we really weren't interested in bankrupting each other, so we changed the rules to suit our play. I think all kids do this in some way or another. Instead of learning about capitalism, we learned that you DON'T have to charge your friend rent when he lands on your property, but you also can't charge your other friends rent or they will get mad. And we learned we could lend money without interest. And that kid who hoarded all the railroads? Nobody would play with him. We learned quickly how to get along in our artificial Atlantic City, and it was a lot like getting along in the real world.

[Drachasor]

I think this is entirely too broad a statement. "They aren't fun" -- for whom? Yes, I'm sure some of the 11 million people who play Warcraft do so out of some kind of addiction, but for most of us, there is certainly an element of "fun" to the experience, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

I meant that they only appeal to a relatively small number of gamers. The design turns a lot of people off. There's a reason why they aren't supremely popular, despite the popularity of the basic concept. I mean, I could go into the various manipulations a game like that uses and the cognitive dissonance, etc, etc. None of that matters that much. I'm just saying that the particular design elements of a game like WoW would not be good to use for educational gamism. Honestly, I think a lot of them wouldn't even be able to be ported over.


In the original video, if I recall correctly, the example of "leveling" was used, and how early levels are easier to master, while later levels require more effort or time or whatever resource. I'm reading a lot now about motivating your child to succeed, and this is a common tactic -- encourage and praise pretty much all early efforts, but as the child grows in "experience," allocate the praise accordingly. I also see this in the workplace with adults. Adults learning a new skill need a lot of reassurance that they're doing it right and a lot of praise for doing it. As the person's experience rises, the praise goes down, ideally creating a situation where only a person who really goes the extra mile or puts forth additional effort gets the praise. I think in theory this is supposed to be motivating to employees. In theory.

Imho, this means having proper feedback and pacing. Good pacing to ensure you don't get problems/tasks that are too hard or too easy. Good feeback helps you realize when you make a mistake and how to fix it as well as when you do something well. At some point information on how well you compare to others is helpful (a more global context), though this is perhaps discouraging at first. Hmm, I wonder if there's any good research on this.


But what really made the game for me was my Mom's involvement -- explaining the real impact of a drought or a blight on crops; talking about her own life on a farm and how tractors replaced horses, going to the county fair and putting all those "community chest" style cards with scenarios on them into a real live context.

Without interactivity I think most of the educational games out there ARE boring. Because they can't ever put the game material into a context in reality. It takes a teacher or a parent to do that, doesn't it?

Well, the basic idea of this thread isn't just educational software. It is using the principles of gaming and behaviorism in the classroom to encourage and reward learning and skill acquisition. That said, I think games CAN provide context, but they have to be designed to do that -- for instance, a farming game could have various feedback about how well you are keeping people fed, even having that as a part of judging how successful you are. It could even have video of people talking about their food/farm related struggles.

[The Man]

There is an old saying (can’t for the life of me remember who said it)…

“Tell me and I will forget,

Show me and I may remember

But involve me and I will learn.”


I’m for anything that increases student involvement in learning.



What was interesting within my own class, was that I though giving the students game-based examples to do would be more exciting than boring business based examples, some of the feed back we have received indicated they preferred the business based examples, possibly because in general they were somewhat easier to accomplish.

Could it also be that the business based examples gave the direct appearance of real world applications?


I was talking to some folks about this on the weekend (which is why I discovered the link was out of date).

I think it would be important to emphasize that: As long as the skills learned in the "the game" are actual skills they can use, in the real world, the game approach should be successful.

I would steer away from strategies that are too many degrees of separation from that. MMOs are usually too abstract. The Training Routines of Scientology are very much out-of-wack with reality, even though they are often game-like. Etc.
(I bring up scientology, because that also entered into the discussion this weekend.)

Thanks, everyone, for the posts!


Certainly I would agree about the real world applications and steering away from those too separated, but what of the affect of just perceived separation?

Programming a system to calculate increased revenue based on different investment strategies could in all ways (other than just really terminology I think) be the same as a system to calculate increased proficiency based on different tool or weapon use in some game.

While the real world application of the first should be readily apparent the other may not.

Gaming approaches might work better for some but others might prefer more obvious real world applications, results and consequences.

In the 2 year automation design class I took in the 80’s we actually had to build an automated system for some customer in the last year. At that point in my education (before embarking on a career in design, engineering and automation) I think that was the best approach. However when I was younger and not really that focused on real world applications (or education much for that matter) the type of approach mentioned here might have gotten me more interested and involved at that time. I don’t think there is any one fits all approach or even a one fits all times approach. So increasing diversity of approaches might seem best with the student selecting (probably naturally) from the approach that most interests them at that time.

[Wowbagger]

Cracked has a tangently related article, today:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-real-skills-video-games-have-secretly-been-teaching-us/

Somehow, I think the article is exaggerating a bit.

[DarthFishy]

Could it also be that the business based examples gave the direct appearance of real world applications?



Well this was the initial reason for having them as examples. The course is within a BCom degree focused on IT in the business so having real world applications did make sense to us. The main problem we felt we had with the examples was that they did not teach the programming concepts well enough that the students had to learn. Building a game gives a much better insight to how concepts like Object Orientation work for example.

Whether this actually was successful we will have to see at the end of this semester though.

[INRM]

The problem is that not all knowledge should be interpreted as just fun and games; some knowledge is serious and carries with it very major moral and ethical ramifications.

[DarthFishy]

The problem is that not all knowledge should be interpreted as just fun and games; some knowledge is serious and carries with it very major moral and ethical ramifications.

All knowledge is serious. And all knowledge can carry those major ethical ramifications.

I don't think what people are implying is that we should turn this knowledge into fun and games, but we should use the techniques inherent in fun and games to teach this knowledge.

Take something pretty serious like economic models and their application. I think you'll agree that they can have some very serious moral implications. We can teach those implications easily through a silly game like monopoly (as was discussed early in the thread). By allowing people to 'play' with the ramifications of actions based on a specific worldview or ideology it is a lot easier to make it 'real' for them.

[DarthFishy]

After I had posted my previous post I did some reading (for my research) and came across an interesting quote, from one J. Huizinga in his book Homo Ludens:

"Play cannot be denied. You can deny, if you like, nearly all abstractions: justice, beauty, truth, goodness, mind, God. You can deny seriousness, but not play."

While I don't necessarily agree 100% with what he says, its interesting to note how important, inherent and primal he considers 'play'.

[The Man]

Well this was the initial reason for having them as examples. The course is within a BCom degree focused on IT in the business so having real world applications did make sense to us. The main problem we felt we had with the examples was that they did not teach the programming concepts well enough that the students had to learn. Building a game gives a much better insight to how concepts like Object Orientation work for example.

Whether this actually was successful we will have to see at the end of this semester though.


Exactly, so the real world applications tend to have a narrower focus, on the real world. While the gaming applications teach the programming functionality and concepts under a broader range of variables and thus potentially provide a better insight into those functionalities and concepts (as well as others mentioned here). The problem and question still remains that some may simply prefer the former for that direct real word applicability while not understanding the broader insight from the latter in the overall programming and real world applicability.

I sincerely hope both your teaching and your PHD research are successful.


After I had posted my previous post I did some reading (for my research) and came across an interesting quote, from one J. Huizinga in his book Homo Ludens:

"Play cannot be denied. You can deny, if you like, nearly all abstractions: justice, beauty, truth, goodness, mind, God. You can deny seriousness, but not play."

While I don't necessarily agree 100% with what he says, its interesting to note how important, inherent and primal he considers 'play'.


Indeed and we generally refer to "play" in a serious context as "experimentation". It is the potential lack of seriousness in "play" that permits us to experiment and learn (while hopefully having fun) without the serious consequences (though some can even take just play way too seriously). Again it is this inferred or just possible lack of seriousness in play that can steer some away from it as a learning tool feeling the potential lack of seriousness requires a lack of learning or just a lack of seriousness about learning.

[DarthFishy]

Exactly, so the real world applications tend to have a narrower focus, on the real world. While the gaming applications teach the programming functionality and concepts under a broader range of variables and thus potentially provide a better insight into those functionalities and concepts (as well as others mentioned here). The problem and question still remains that some may simply prefer the former for that direct real word applicability while not understanding the broader insight from the latter in the overall programming and real world applicability.

I sincerely hope both your teaching and your PHD research are successful.





Indeed and we generally refer to "play" in a serious context as "experimentation". It is the potential lack of seriousness in "play" that permits us to experiment and learn (while hopefully having fun) without the serious consequences (though some can even take just play way too seriously). Again it is this inferred or just possible lack of seriousness in play that can steer some away from it as a learning tool feeling the potential lack of seriousness requires a lack of learning or just a lack of seriousness about learning.

Thank you for you kind words of support :)

I'd never really considered that aspect of play as "experimentation", but yes there is a definite link. That is perhaps why doing experiments are so much fun (or can be). Interesting...