play think learn

I’m currently at my first British Educational Research Association (BERA) conference and feeling a bit overwhelmed by the sheer number of people, conceptual difficulty of some of the papers, and unpleasantness of Heriot Watt food.

Been to a couple of papers on games this morning.

Graham  Downes and Susan Haywood from Bath Spa University presented first with a talk entitled Gaming and Learning: Computer Games and Education. They presented a model of computer games as ‘ludic texts’ with both narrative and ludic elements, and a continuum from stories (picture books) to talking stories (with hotspots, music, narration, embedded games) to games.

Their research has been carried out in the context of children’s computer gaming, and they put forward the following characteristics of children playing computer games: a) compulsive problem-solving; b) simultaneous objectives; c) multimediation (simultaneous activity); d) flow. They suggest that there is an issue of home-school dissonance and that the integrity of games are lost when they are moved into a classroom context.

Secondly, Harry O’Neil from UCLA/CRESST presented a talk called Instructional Interventions to Make Computer Games a Learning Environment. His background is with adults in a training environment and was interested in whether games increase players’ problem solving and whether there are instructional strategies that can be added to commercial off-the-shelf games to make them more effective.

He first presented a model of learning with five outcomes: 1) content understanding; 2) problem-solving; 3) self regulation (metacognition and motivation); 4) communication; and 5) collaboration, and argued that whether a game is to be used in-class or out-of-class is critical to the choice of game, as the two learning environments are so fundamentally different. He presented empirical work on the effectiveness of different supplementary activities  to increase problem-solving knowledge from off-the-shelf games, concluding that worked examples offer the best opportunity.

While this was an interesting talk, I fundamentally disagree with Harry on two points, first, his assertion that you have to use off-the-shelf games for the game to have appropriate production values, and secondly, that games that use “inductive instructional strategies” (discovery learning) are not appropriate for learning.

(Also known as the Emergent Game part 2.)

Niki Pugh has just blogged about Call and Return, a multi-cultural mission-based urban game running from 19 September and currently recruiting players worldwide. She says “as well as negotiating their immediate surrounding, players must also negotiate interactions with other people across different geographies, languages and time zones”. Time to dust off my beaver then…

I’d also recommend a visit to the Ludogeographic Society.

… even if it’s only one of these other virtual worlds.

The Social ‘Virtual’ World’s a Stage by Gary Hayes provides a whistle-stop tour of over forty social virtual worlds in under seven minutes.

An interesting post from John Rice over at Educational Games Research, on seven questions to ask before using games in the classroom.

Some good points here, and I particularly agree with point five: does the game train or teach? The thinking here ties in very much with my own views on the potential value of games as constructivist learning environments (rather than training environments).

Not sure I agree with point seven though: are the graphics and gaming quality on par with contemporary entertainment titles? Have had some really interesting debates with various colleagues on this very point - I would argue that the graphics are secondary as long as the game design is good (particularly in the case of HE, although I appreciate this post is focused on children).

(A related  article that I’ve been meaning to post for a while is Todd Bryant’s From Age of Empires to Zork: Using Games in the Classroom.)

I’ve just got back from a lunchtime gym session (a bit sad, I know, but I am in serious training to fit into a bridesmaid’s dress) and was delighted to find an option on the rowing machine called ‘The Fish Game‘. In this game you have to use your rowing pace to move your fish up and down and get points by eating littler fish and avoiding scary sharks. While, in principle, this is a great idea for adding motivation to what is otherwise a pretty tedious activity, there is a subtle flaw in this game - after a couple of minutes I worked out that the best strategy for avoiding sharks and catching fish was to mooch around at bottom, using little (or no) effort at rowing.

Point scoring - high; chances of actually being able to do my dress up before the wedding - low.

Another article from Gamasutra, this time on the Tao of game design, which, the author (Ernest Adams) concludes, is: ‘know thyself, know thy player‘. Sounds very like the principles of user-centred design…

Interesting post in Educational Games Research recently about a large-scale (n=375) randomised-controlled comparative study that provides evidence as to the effectiveness of the Re-Mission cancer education game. Much as the quantitative researcher in me appreciates the experimental design behind this research, I can’t help thinking that it would be very difficult to apply (and justify?) in education.

Here’s the journal article.

Okay, this isn’t anything to do with games, and I can only tenuously link it to e-learning but I think it’s an excellent example of the power of the user-generated web and rich media to engage others, share concerns and drive political debate.

My friend, Richard Hall, has started a video diary as a means of reflecting on his disillusionment with football (although don’t worry, if like me you have no interest in football whatsoever - this isn’t really about football). He says “this video is the opening salvo of a season-long project looking at whether football is redeemable for me.” I look forward to the next installment.

A new survey recently published by the Entertainment Software Association provides some interesting facts about the American gaming industry. According to this report:

• the average age of a gamer is 35 years;
• 26% of gamers are over the age of 50;
• 40% of gamers are female;
• 59% of gamers play games with other people in person;
• the best selling genres of computer game (as opposed to video game) in 2007 were strategy (33.9%) and role playing (18.8%), followed by shooters (11.6%) and adventure games (5.0%).

There have been a few really interesting articles on Gamasutra recently; it’s about time I took them out of my blog feed and put them here.

The State of the Casual Gaming Industry provides a good introduction to what are casual games, where the industry is now, and where it might be going in future.

Emotion engineering: a scientific approach for understanding game appeal presents a complex analysis of the ways in which the interactions that take place can affect the players’ emotions. Includes a table that relates specific emotions to variables in the game. There isn’t much evidence to back up this theory (other than common sense) but I think it’s an interesting perspective nonetheless.

What do older gamers want? According to this article it’s repeat tutorials, printed manuals, legible text, removal of jargon, a wider variety of subject areas, family play, not having to stand up, a comfortable playing environment, collaborative online play at a distance, and shorter game length. (Although there is no indication of exactly how many people took part in this research or how generalisable it is.)