Forming an Educational Gaming Theory

Introduction

Over the last few months I have taken a deep dive into games and learning. How people learn from games, what they learn from games, and the best methods for doing so. This has been a self driven interest of my own for some time. Thinking of games in these new ways has sparked a sort of constrained creativity within me. How does one create educational games? Is it possible to make games that are still fun, but that you learn something along the way? I work at the Silicon STEM Academy and as a side benefit have free access to classes. In one of these classes I have learned the basics of a game development environment called Unity. It is a software platform that combines 3D models and graphics with code to create games. My two greatest interests in life happen to be games and learning. In many ways this intersection represents the capstone of all I have learned throughout the first part of this journey. In preparation of designing my own game I will be defining my own educational gaming theory which will guide the design of my own educational games moving forward. As Deterding (2014) so eloquently put it “the main task of rethinking gamification today is to rescue it from the gamifiers: to provide a positive vision of gamification that addresses the valid criticism it has received, and realizes the actual promise of learning from game design as a holistic, systemic practice“. The following is my attempt to rethink educational games and provide a framework to guide future game designs.

Educational Game Theory

Forcing learning into play doesn’t work

While making learning more playful has proven effective, forcing educational content into games usually does not. Especially video games. This “chocolate covered broccoli” (Bruckman 1999) feeling rings very true while playing educational video games. The main culprit I have witnessed this in is in educational coding games. The games just aren’t very good. On top of this they often force you to input your commands as code rather than intuitive controls that you are used to. The result is a product that comes up a bit short on both sides. While they do reinforce typing in a certain style and repetition, they do not touch on any of the theory behind the code. They do not teach you how to create objects and write scripts, most of the time they just have you typing arbitrary commands. This is often the result of taking something that is fun and forcing educational content into it. Rarely does this work. For an educational game to to create an authentic experience it must be created with the specific learning aspirations built into it from the ground up.

Create authentic gaming experiences with depth

As I reflect upon the games from which I have learned the most, there are a few characteristics that are common between them. The first is that they were authentic experiences that made me want to keep playing and digging deeper. These games push you to think about systems and solve complex problems in real time. As Salen (2008) points out about gaming literacy “many believe that education in the twenty-first century must focus on high literacy skills such as the ability to think, read, and interact critically, to solve complex problems in mathematics and science, and to express oneself persuasively through language and media”. Not only are these games authentic, they also generate a unique experience each time you play them. There is a complex system in place that allows for depth of exploration and divergent strategies. Magic: The Gathering, Civilization, League of Legends. All of these are great examples of providing an engine with enough variables to keep you on your toes and provide new opportunities to learn. The mechanics and game play need to be great in order to keep the users attention long enough to eventually learn something.

Drop knowledge Easter eggs

Given the first point in this theory, how can you actually deliver educational content through a game? My belief is that the best way to achieve this is through the use of Easter eggs. When you make learning experiences more playful, people will generally accept this and adapt. However, people will reject games if they are obviously forcing you to learn something. Doing something repetitively or overtly forcing tests down their throat is a sure fire way to flip that switch in their brain from fun to perceived work. Perhaps the better method is to utilize an Easter egg style that subtly provokes our natural curiosity and sense of wonder. If people feel like they are unlocking pieces of a puzzle on their own, they will often dig to find the answers. As Deterding (2014) points out “The persistent, principled design challenge gamification addresses is motivating users.” When I think of this design challenge I remember the television series “LOST”. Mixed in with the shows narrative were all kinds of Easter eggs which coaxed viewers into additional research outside of the show. This research led to an experience with far more depth as you could learn additional things about the characters you were following. I believe a successful educational game would be wise to use these self driven motivational tactics. Leading your users down a natural trail of curiosity with a pot of knowledge at the end is superior to pounding them over the head with rote tasks and interactions. This sense of autonomy is very important for keeping engagement.

Support Games+ features

In addition to designing the game itself, the designer must be aware of the ecology around games. Games have the ability to create spaces which allow players to become involved beyond the games themselves. Technological advancements have created amazing tools which allow for new forms of connectivity and creativity. Educational games can also utilize new tools to create powerful learning experiences. Games+ offer a great foundation for educational games and emphasize designing and creating. In this regard I echo Gee and Hayes (2012): “games that stress the involvement of players as designers in the first sense, by making game design a core game mechanic, facilitating modding, and encouraging robust design communities to develop around the game are, we believe, particularly good for fostering skills with technology, design, system thinking, and socio-technical engineering”. Design that incorporates this Games+ mentality from the start have the power to be far more engaging and ultimately successful.

References

Deterding, Sebastian, Eudaimonic Design, or: Six Invitations to Rethink Gamification (July 1, 2014). Eudaimonic Design, or: Six Invitations to Rethink Gamification. In: Rethinking Gamification. Edited by Mathias Fuchs, Sonia Fizek, Paolo Ruffino, Niklas Schrape. Lüneburg: meson press 2014, pp. 305-323. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2466374

Bruckman, Amy (1999). "Can Educational Be Fun?" Game Developers Conference, San Jose, California, March 17th, 1999.

Salen, Katie. “Toward an Ecology of Gaming."The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. Edited by Katie Salen.The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 1–20. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.001

Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing affinity spaces and game-based learning. In Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age (pp. 129-153). Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139031127.015