|
|
COMPUTER GAMES AND LEARNING
Why do we think it's worth talking about computer games and learning in the same breath?
By Keri Facer, Head of Learning Research, Futurelab |
- Pre-set scenarios: having pre-set scenarios that could be run would allow children to a) learn the basic elements of games play and b) allow targeted and direct relation to the curriculum, if teachers were allowed to edit these scenarios this would reduce teacher preparation time.
- Accuracy of content: simulations need to be based on accepted conventional models, and the models upon which they are based need to be clearly identified. This is true for both historical and economic models, but also in terms of environments in which actions are based on rules of the 'natural world'.
- Saving and restarting: need to be able to save and restart games where an individual or group has left off (or have navigation allowing easy return to last point). Need to have capacity to save the full class numbers.
- Information to the teacher: need to give teacher synopsis, information on models, ideas of how to use. Teachers need a record of what each group has achieved in each session of gaming.
- Sound: need to be able to control sound coming from resource in classroom setting.
- Progress: tasks need to be progressive, games need to be adaptable to different ability levels. Games should offer 'non-identical' repeats. Suitable stopping points in complex games environments are needed to prevent student frustration.
- Interface: user interface needs to be obvious with no need for written instructions. Reading age of any on-screen text needs to match reading age of target children.
- Challenge and collaboration: developing environments that encourage collaborative problem solving - ie requiring time away from the computer to develop responses, or finding it helpful to work with someone else - so, moving away from less direct questioning towards the need for inference of possible actions.
- 'Real world' expertise: developing environments in which children's already existing knowledge and understanding can be drawn upon.
- Time: building environments in which the length of time to complete is dictated by the user rather than the computer.
ASSESSING LEARNING THROUGH GAMES
One of the thornier issues to face designers interested in making a role for games in learning is the question of assessment. At present we know that games allow players to rapidly evaluate their own progress through the game - indeed, the responsive and rapid feedback provided to players is seen as a key factor in enabling gamers to progress. However, at present there is little communication between the games industry and educational researchers that might enable further development of these mechanisms to enable evaluation of more complex acquisition of skills and understanding.
For example, if we consider that complex strategy games are supposed to enable the development of strategic thinking, planning, decision making and team working - how might we come to assess this from the feedback built into the game? How do we know, for example, what the decision to enable a player to progress to the next level of civilisation in Age of Empires reflects? What evidence is there within the game that the games designers build upon in order to accurately determine when an 'upgrade' to the next level is justified. More pertinently, for educators, how can we link the demonstrated behaviour of achieving a higher level of civilisation with understanding whether the player has understood the processes involved? And further, how do we know whether we are simply assessing the ability to play the game or the acquisition of skills that might be transferred to other settings?
At present, I would think it unlikely that the games play itself might serve as a basis for 'high stakes' assessment. Within a classroom environment where children are encouraged to reflect upon their achievement within the games environment, however, the current mechanisms for denoting success in games (feedback, levels, acquisition of points etc) might serve as a basis for formative and peer evaluation.
In future, as we develop our understanding of the limits and potential of games environments, and as we develop collaborations between educators, games designers and assessment bodies, it is possible to speculate that we might learn from games environments in the design of assessment mechanisms. Interestingly this might lead to a revision of what, in fact, we come to consider appropriate for assessment. At the moment, for example, we might argue that it is possible to get to the next stage through trial and error and through using cheats, and say to designers that their assessment mechanisms (rewards, points etc) are not sufficiently rigorous to enable assessors to identify these practices. In future, however, we might argue that trying things out, getting lucky, even finding cheats and using these opportunistically, are valuable strategies for children to acquire.
In this area at least, the future of games for learning is wide open to debate.
COMPUTER GAMES, CHILDREN AND CONTEXT
A different take on games and learning is in evidence in a number of studies that have paid close attention to children's use of games as part of their leisure activities out of school. These studies are characterised by close attention to the ways in which games fit into children's day to day lives and home and family context. The first major study was conducted by Toni Downes in Australia. Downes reported that children's pleasure in computer games was mainly derived from the processes of games play (a finding broadly in line with the Malone and Prensky arguments above): 'variously, they liked the challenge, the creativity, the unexpectedness, the discovery, the choices, the excitement, the complexity, overcoming obstacles, "beating the baddies" and, of most significance, winning' (p203). According to Downes, these processes were rated by children as more important than either games features such as graphics qualities or content. Importantly, Downes also emphasised that 'children of all ages, gender and communities affirmed that pleasure and fun were not associated with ease. They enjoyed facing challenges and meeting complexity' (p203).
Downes' major contribution, however, was in respect of exploring how children learn to play games. In contrast to the media view of children as games players sitting in isolation in a darkened room, she found that learning to play games often involved interactions with a wide range of resources, talking to parents, reading manuals, playing around, watching other people. Importantly, however, she provides evidence for some of Prensky's conjectures, that playing and practising are now part and parcel of the same activity. As one of the children in her study reported, 'every time you play a game. you always get up a level. you keep on doing it and doing it and you get better because there's clues and you've got to keep them in your head. And at the end you just keep going and start a new one' (p206).
Finally, she concludes her dissertation by arguing that through computer games play, children have come to see the computer as 'playable' - whether using it for games play or for other activities such as writing or drawing or information seeking.
Jo Tobin's research in the US into his own son's digital activities outside school also emphasises the potential role of games play in generating interests and activities above and beyond the actual game. He argues that the games provide the motivation and incentive for developing an interest in learning more about the games and, in so doing, encourage the development of skills in collaboration with peers, mentoring and learning from other peers, developing ICT skills and problem solving abilities (Tobin, 1998).
GENDER ISSUES
It would be impossible to conclude a review of computer games and learning without highlighting the key issue of gender that inevitably arises. Ever since the first computer game was developed it has been argued that games are predominantly a 'male domain', whether in terms of content or in terms of the degree to which games are a central part of boys/girls, men/women's daily lives. Henry Jenkins and Justine Cassell at MIT have published probably the key text in this area From Barbie to Mortal Kombat, exploring in detail the question of gender, games and identity. We would advise readers interested in these questions to turn to this text as it is impossible to convey in detail the issues in this area, and this book does so commendably. However, it is clear that there are two key areas of interest:
1. Representations - it is argued that many computer games simply represent a 'male' view of the world, relying heavily on stylised combat or traditional gender roles with female protagonists cast as victims to be rescued. This is, of course, not universally the case; Lara Croft, for example, is responsible for one of the greatest games success stories of recent years. Whether Lara represents a breakthrough or a throw back for female games engagement, however, is a matter for some debate.
2. Social cultures - games play, it is often reported, is not characterised only through playing the games, but through the systems of exchange and discussion that surround them - the purchasing of magazines, the swapping of software and cheats. All of these are seen as centrally important aspects of what makes games an important social activity. To date, however, these 'games cultures' seem to remain predominantly male. Certain commentators have argued, for example, that boys are more likely than girls to participate in these activities because games are seen as a 'safe' way for boys to maintain friendships, while girls are less reliant on these mechanisms (McNamee, 1998). Research for the Screen Play study reported that boys tended to dominate classroom discussion of games and, even where girls were games players, boys tended to retain the 'authority' in the classroom and peer group for determining which games were 'good'. Similarly, in the home, boys were seen to be significantly more intense games players, with 33% of boys compared with 13% of girls reporting playing games every day and, in detailed observations, boys were seen to 'own' the games technology in the home on a more regular basis. (Facer et al, 2003 forthcoming)
We might also want to consider the relationship between gender and games from an alternative perspective. In his discussion of the relations between 'play' and games, for example, Prensky repeatedly argues that senior managers have always felt free to 'play' with ideas, to exclude themselves from the hassles of daily life and engage in free flowing exploration of ideas and enjoyment:
In business, work and play mix regularly, starting at the highest executive levels. Deals are done on the golf course. Businesses have been bought and sold on bets. At Harvard Business School my fellow students played daily games of 'who gets called on bingo' and would shoot the person talking with water guns while the teacher was looking the other way during classes. They would, I have no doubt, do so as eagerly again 20 years later, many as multimillionaires' (p114).
To some extent, and possibly unintentionally, what this quotation highlights is that play is often associated with privilege - that is, the privilege of knowing that someone else is 'taking care of the daily grind'. Historically, the freedom to 'play' on the golf course has been dependent on someone, usually a wife, taking care of the kids, house and cooking. This extends back to childhood as well, with girls often taking the moral high ground and describing boys and games play as 'childish', while they get on with the real work of figuring out how to become a 'sensible' grown woman. If we want to think through the questions of games and learning, then, we may need to pay some close attention to the questions of how
(CONTINUE...)
|
|
