play think learn

It’s quite a busy week this week so I haven’t had time to explore any of the following links in detail, but thought I would get them down in one place before they disappear into the ether (i.e. the section of my bookmarks list that goes off the end of the page).

First, a couple of different takes on a game-based learning institution. Quest to Learn is a school based around gaming principles, which describes itself as “a school that uses the underlying design principles of games to create highly immersive, game-like learning experiences.” In contrast, the WILL Campus online learning environment provides access to “socially responsible interactive video games” (although from the demo it looks like these are really video-supported decision trees with fairly limited interactivity).

I’ve also recently come across this report from Learning and Teaching Scotland on the use of the Mangahigh maths game in Scottish schools. The research shows that greater use of the game (i.e. greater maths practice) leads to better results. Says more about the importance of control groups to me than about the value of Mangahigh.

Finally, I’m glad that Alan Titchmarsh has taken the time to add his considered and well-researched opinions to the video games and violence debate. Don’t know about video games, but I’m sure that listening to too many ill-informed media pundits could be proven to lead to violence.

New research has just been published (full paper in pdf) showing the results of an experiment carried out by the BBC to investigate whether ‘brain-training’ games make any difference to overall brain power.

The results of this study (n=11,430) seem pretty conclusive: they don’t.

These results have been criticised because the researchers used a sample aged 16-60 when most games of this nature are aimed at the over 60s (the age at which one switches from a sentient being to an absent-minded simpleton) and because the time spent playing the games was relatively short (4 hours on average over 6 weeks). These may be valid criticisms, but the question this research really raises for me is: why did anyone assume that playing this sort of game would improve overall brain power in the first place? The idea that repeatedly playing a series of cognitively low-level and disparate games will in some way enhance overall brain function seems very strange to me. (But, hey, if someone wants to prove it I’ll be the first to be converted)

This research both pleases and troubles me. The former because there is finally some robust research being carried out that opens up the debate about these type of games rather than simply following the hype put forward by those who produce them. The latter because I worry that the media will equate this research with ‘games not good for learning’ and put back the case for games - complex, rich, sophisticated games - for learning back 20 years.

I was sorry to have missed being able to attend GamesBasedLearning 2010 in London last week, but found I was able to follow it surprisingly well via twitter. Alex Moseley has a good write-up of the event.

Paul Hollins presented our joint paper, Ten things educators might learn from the games industry, and from what I hear it went down very well (poor quality Wii-related jokes aside). We now intend to write this up as a full journal paper and were hoping to be able to use the audience criticism on the day to develop the lines of argument further - the only problem is that there wasn’t very much of it. So if anyone would like to read the paper - with as critical an eye as possible, be harsh, please (I may regret saying that) - and give us some feedback (either as comments or to me directly) it would be very much appreciated.

I don’t really need another thing to fill up time in my life, but somehow my DSi turned up at Christmas and slotted right in. My only real complaint with it is that I can’t seem to get hold of the types of game I like (adventure, mystery, puzzles). I played my way through Professor Layton One and Two, and enjoyed them despite the extrinsic puzzles because the story was fun and I liked collecting the hint coins. I had no real enthusiasm for the daily tedium of Professor Kawashima and found myself just getting a bit too much eye strain from Mystery Case Files.

Then along came Zelda and the Phantom Hourglass and made me rethink what I know about the types of games I like. It involves fighting and killing things and doing things in a certain time and I really shouldn’t like it. Oh but I do. Thinking back to the work I’ve been doing on what makes ARGs engaging, it ticks some of the boxes:

• Collection - there are lots of things to collect, coins, ship parts, objects, map pieces…
• Narrative - interesting storyline and loads of characters you can talk to.
• Puzzle-solving - lots of it, and neatly embedded into the game play.
• Creativity - different puzzles can be approached in different ways.

However, there’s more to it than that. This got me thinking about what other aspects of the game I find so compelling:

• Surprises - new things keep appearing, new places to explore, new things to collect, new things to do.
• Tactile play - I love using a stylus, writing, blowing candles out and really interacting with the potential of the device.
• Simple pleasures - there’s something very basely satisfying about smashing a rock with a ‘crash’ or swiping the top of a flower with a ’swish’.

I’m sure that as I keep playing the game will continue to evolve, so I may well be adding to this list on another occasion (or adding a rant about being stuck because it has suddenly got really hard). At the moment however, thank you Zelda for broadening my horizons.