Accepting Games Into Education

Thanks to Ludology.org for pointing to a Chronicle Of Higher Education article discussing the emerging use of games as an academic subject and educational tool. Although there are sceptics, such as David Breneman from the University Of Virginia, who says: "Horsing around with these games might teach problem solving, but you don't learn anything about the world", it's suggested that educators could modify existing games: "An instructor who knows something about games or computers could customize The Sims or Civilization for a study of, say, Roman history", but that few game designers truly understand what makes a game educational: "People seem to think that anything you click on is a game... designers come out with products that have a shellac of quizzing on top of a game."

Comments

Real-life problem solving?

[PurpleFloyd]

The article mentions that games "don't teach real-world problem solving." So what? Most of the stuff taught in the K-12 phase doesn't. You probably remember memorizing your times tables; that wasn't necessarily done with 144 story problems.

While real-world applications of the material are a good thing, not everything can be reduced to "real-world problem solving." Some material is best taught in a drill setting, as old-fashioned as that may be. Games can help make memorization of facts (like those annoying times tables) fun. I still credit games like Math Blaster with helping me learn to do arithmetic quickly.

Edutainment design

[xenocide2]

What I feel is the most important concept for people designing edutainment games is the hierarchy fo learning. This hierarchy is also called "Bloom's Cognative Taxonomy." Rote memorization and drilling are good for immediate responses, but of very little value in the real world. If I remember correctly, its been theorized that knowledge is held longer as it is used in higher and higher level learning.

In the current edutainment area, there are two fields of game design. The first is a quiz and reward system. The student is presented with a quizing system and the actual game. The learning is supposed to come from the quiz. Depending on how well the student does, permission is given to play the game part for a little while, rewarding the player for doing well. It's a basic operant conditioning design. Learning here is very basic rote; trial and error learning.

The second common design is basic skills drilling. Number munchers, math blaster and that little spelling game where words marched down the castle wall and you had to type them before they got to you are all included in this area. Basically the game is timed drilling. The computer is used to encourage and engage the student, as well as to time them. Again the learning here is by trial and error. These sorts of games serve best as a reinforcement/recollection activity. If you know how to multiply numbers then they can help you instantly recall facts.

What I'd like to see more of these days is problem solving game design. This type merges the learning with the gameplay. It encourages experimentation, and extrapolation. Most REAL games operate in this manner these days; edutainment games should focus on making sure the lessons learned reflect reality accurately (or at least as best we know ;)). MIT's games-to-teach project is such a group of people working on edutainment games. If my friend Kurt is reading this, I'm sure he'll post more about their success stories. I'd just like to mention Hephaestus, a game based on engineering robots (I'm guessing remote controlled rather than AI)from lego like parts, although it looks like they've jumped on the current trends marketing bandwagon and its now an MMORPG of some sort, with energy as currency.