Simon
Egenfeldt-Nielsen
Assistant professor, PhD
Dept. of Digital Aesthetics & Communication
IT University of Copenhagen
Rued Langgaards Vej 7
DK - 2300 København S
Phone: +45 72 18 50 25
Mobile: +45 4010 7969
sen@itu.dk
|
1 Research
Focus
What traditionally binds games and learning together is the desire for
learning to become more entertaining. This is the first argument brought
forward by researchers, educators and teachers in the field and, only
secondarily is the quality of learning through games discussed. In this
sense computer games to a large degree follow other media surges. It seems
that every new media invention is bound to go through a stage of being
considered of potential high value for educational purposes, where you
combine the magic of the new media with the traditional need for conveying
information to new generations. It has been so for the book, television,
cinema, computer and lately the computer game is warranting still more
attention.
Although games are in some senses like other media they are different
in their potential for interaction. When computer games work they draw
the users into the experience, makes him loose sense of time and place,
and put extraordinary strain on the users concentration, focus and energy.
Games challenge the user to his limit and the user loves it. For every
action the game demands a counter-action - a constant and high-paced ping-pong.
It is this strain that lead some people to compare games with sports.
It is also this phenomenon that makes researchers and educators believe
in the learning potential of games and its superiority compared to other
media. This despite the fact the evidence that computer games can provide
a better learning experience than other learning forms is ambiguous.
The desire to use computer games for learning purposes is as old as the
fear for the violent content in games and dates back to when the first
games became popular among a wider audience in the late 1970's. Both learning
and violence are a part of the same story. When addressing violence in
games the fear is that kids will pick up unhealthy behavior from the games.
It is this presumed link between games and reality that we try to exploit
and control when talking about learning in games: How can we make sure
that what goes on in the games are transferred to other contexts. A natural
extension is the discussion whether it is possible to construct games
that are both entertaining, engaging and have learning potential.
With the current development in games and notions like interactivity,
emergence, immersion, narratives, virtual worlds, virtual reality and
increased realism, we are moving back to a world of doing. We are seeing
games that could be real alternatives to real life learning especially
considering that the skills needed to get on in real life to a higher
degree require symbolic and abstract processing. Today the majority of
people have no use for learning how to saw, use a hammer, build ships
or similar practical skills - but rather symbol manipulation. It is this
form of learning that this project will explore more in depth. Not only
establishing that this kind of learning takes place but also how it happens,
when it is effective, and the limits of learning in games.
1.1 Current
status in the field
Up till now the use of computer games for facilitating learning has not
been very successful and is a scattered field without internal consistency
and successful application (also see Squire, 2002). Furthermore the current
attempts have primarily focused on either adventure genre or simulation
genre, which are two of the smallest genres in term of players and revenue,
and the ones with the smallest appeal to younger age groups. The development
of games with learning potential have also to a large degree been lead
by the 'faction' called edutainment, which is an invention made more by
businessmen than people interested in the learning potential of games.
Edutainment is short for education and entertainment but the genre has
been more about entertainment than education. Games in this genre are
for example The adventures of Ulysses, Versailles series and Egypt 1156
BC. Some researchers have tried to qualify the notions of edutainment,
for example Prensky (2001) but without much success. Edutainment has taken
patent on learning in games, and have established a frame that is not
effective, and is not drawing on the expanding knowledge and fast development
in the game industry. The edutainment genre seems to be lost in a narrow
perception of learning, as a thing that goes on in school and can easily
be measured and tested like for example arithmetic, the alphabet, words,
sorting things or similar not very complex undertakings. Alternatively
become a fuzzy concept like problem solving, system understanding and
overview, which can be applied to almost all games and indeed; it is true
that all games (as all human activity) have an intrinsic learning potential.
When learning is present in a game it is often presented in split-screens
or separated from the game play (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2002). These attempts
have yielded poor results in respect to learning despite this the educational
game titles continue to sell. The encompassment and successful use of
learning in games is often more based on vague assumptions than empirically
derived and tested facts with few notable exceptions like the work of
for example Debra Lieberman (2001), Leyland (1996), Yasmin Kafai (1995)
and the Playground project . Learning and educational games lack the necessary
depth and resources to make them viable alternatives to existing learning
contexts. One of the least highlighted problems is the game play aspect
although lately some project like Games-to-Teach at MIT and Through The
Glass Wall have taken this broader approach to games, where game play
is seen as critical for the development of successful educational titles.
One of the obvious problems with the field, even the more serious attempts,
is a lack of division between different ways of using games, a weak theoretical
knowledge of computer games as such, underdeveloped theory of how learning
is facilitated, and a confusion of the terms learning and education. The
first step in looking at learning in games should be to distinguish between
education being formal, structured and immense induced by school activity,
where the term learning should be considered a broader term.
1.2 Project
focus
A distinct feature of computer games is what you could call gameplay,
which means the most basic dynamics of a game. The gameplay in for example
Chess is to move pieces with different properties to achieve victory.
In Tetris you must fit falling pieces together to win and in Quake you
must shoot monsters to win. Games at its most basis level are not concerned
with smaller details but paint a broad picture, where you manipulate object
in accordance with abstract principles to win. Several game designers
like for example Sid Meier and Bruce Shelley like to present games, as
a set of interesting decisions. These, in the game, crucial decisions
are based on existing knowledge, time and space in the game. The player
manipulates these variables in accordance with his success criteria for
exampling getting a hi-score or building a neat city. In SimCity the player
learn that pollution are bad for the citizens and therefore move the industry
away from the residential areas. But the industry also needs easy access
to the work force, so it would be unwise to move them to far away. Furthermore
the residents don't want to drive that far to get to work. An interesting
choice. The player acquires some knowledge in the game and uses it more
or less successfully. From a learning perspective this is an interesting
setup - acquire knowledge, use knowledge and reflect on the results within
a short time span. The problems directly related to this are that often
the knowledge necessary in games are of a general nature, sometimes incorrect
and the transfer of it to other contexts are seldom successful (Egenfeldt-Nielsen,
2002). Leading some to say, that what you learn from playing computer
games, are playing computer games. The important challenge that this project
will take up is to determine if it is at all possible to facilitate specific
relevant knowledge to the player, without jeopardizing the game part.
At one level making games that are deep enough to deliver relevant knowledge
within subjects that are not traditionally used in games, and still maintaining
a good game play - the player must still make interesting decisions in
the game.
More popularly this could also be described as the balance between entertainment
and learning. This will include a search for a fitting learning paradigm
for facilitating learning through games and will spur discussions about
issues like the nature of games, history of learning in games, relevance
of current learning theories, realism, gameplay, simulation, relevance
and motivation in game settings.
2 Problem
Statement
This PhD project will explore learning in computer games with emphasis
on how it is possible to facilitate learning through games, while maintaining
a good gameplay. It is the project's goal to be able to frame the learning
experience in games, not as a clash between the learning material and
gameplay but rather to use learning material as compelling material that
supports and enriches the gameplay.
3 Theoretical
Background
The project will draw on a broad basis of theories as a natural extension
of the projects cross-disciplinary aim. The project will to a great extent
study existing games and learning potential first hand but also draw on
existing studies and additionally analysis of games in some amount, bearing
in mind that the interactive nature of both games and learning make the
use of game analysis quite hard.
An important first step in addressing learning theory is choosing what
perspective to take on learning. The last couple of years we have seen
several attempts by Danish learning researchers to combine the very different
learning perspectives for example by Hermansen (1997) and Illeris (2000)
into one unifying theory or at least to see the different learning theories
as different perspectives on the same phenomenon, where you stress different
areas. A general distinction is often set between three different areas:
A content dimension, a psychodynamic dimension and a social/societal dimension.
Therefore I believe it to be immature to choose not to include one of
these perspectives. Even so it is possible to narrow it down more. Below
I have sketched what I initially see as the most central questions to
address in relation to learning as:
- The Fundamentals
of learning: What goes on when you learn in the most basic way. What
theoretical stance is appropriate for studying and are some of these
fundamentals modified by computer games?
- The transfer
problem: How do we transfer skills and knowledge from one area to another,
from the representations on a screen to real life activities?
- Symbols
and emotions: The special traits of learning through computer games
are the use of symbols and the new status of emotions, which alters
important factors in the learning equation.
- The physical
entity: It's place in learning and the consequences of the alteration
and limited use of this in games - the learner's experience is not encapsulated
or orientated in a body.
|