"Play is a very serious matter.... It is an expression of our creativity; and creativity is at the very root of our ability to learn, to cope, and to become whatever we may be." (Rogers & Sharapan, 1994)
I agree with Rogers and Sharapan's observation that play is a very serious matter. As humans, we have all experienced and observed this phenomenon. Young children cannot grasp the complexities of formal education. However, at an early age, they begin to learn through play. This "play" begins to build the foundation of knowledge that is eventually used for more advanced learning. The introduction and ever-increasing use of computer games has prompted educators to debate and research the merits for using computer games as learning tools.
The body of research is substantial. However, the research supports multiple points of view for both the benefits and the challenges for using computer games as learning tools. This article provides an introduction and overview for the use of computer games in education. It will explore the term "edutainment," the benefits and challenges of educational gaming, the architecture of educational games and gaming design theories and how their use may prepare our students with the skills required to compete in the "knowledge" and global economies.
Commercial digital games are widely available and used by most college, high school, middle school, and even elementary school children. This trend underscores the evolution of the digital and information age and its corresponding technologies. It is easy to see that our children are comfortable with using technology. This "global" collective experience provides a lens from which our young people will learn, work, and live in ways not experienced by previous generations. These collective experiences evolve from their ability to explore virtual worlds and to work individually and collaboratively using technology (Green & McNeese, 2007). Our young people communicate using a new universal technical language.
WHAT IS EDUTAINMENT?
Edutainment is defined as education that has been placed within the framework of entertainment. This software genre is designed and developed to target parents and teachers and is specifically designed to focus on academic subjects while commercial gaming software is developed to target players for purely entertainment purposes (Gros, 2003).
Edutainment software, the Internet and other multimedia products rely heavily on images, animations, sounds, and other components that engage learners' senses, and can provide immersive learning experiences. Education games can also provide students with experiences that simulate real life. For example, simulations can recreate lifelike scenarios that can be used to learn to fly airplanes or to perform knee surgery.
Aldrich (2004) suggests that simulation games should include a balance of simulation elements, game elements, and pedagogical elements. Too much simulation can produce dry and often frustrating learning experiences while distracting learners from the task of learning. This process can leave learners with the feeling that they are mindlessly following directions. The task for developing effective edutainment software and other multimedia products requires the use of education psychology to achieve a balance between entertainment and learning (Okan, 2003).
Commercial game architecture consists of competition, a well-defined beginning and end, and provides rewards for game players. In addition to these attributes, education games should require players to use skill and teamwork or knowledge rather than pure luck to complete games. According to Baranich & Currie (2004), effective games should contain elements of suspense, competition, drama, and cooperation.
Edutainment games should include the use or acquisition of knowledge in defined subject areas, use intellectual skills that apply to specific course content, and provide interactive feedback. The attributes of high quality edutainment software should include learning goals and objectives that are clear and concise. Games should also provide concept reviews for new content and a vehicle for questions and answers. Games should be fun. When gamers are enjoying themselves, they are more relaxed, energetic, alert, responsive, and are less fearful and more open to learning (Baranich & Currie, 2004; Klaila, 2001).
THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES
Although education games are becoming more prevalent, they are no match for the quantity and the quality of games that are produced and are available solely for "entertainment" purposes. It is difficult for education games to compete because of the high cost of game development and production. Most education institutions cannot afford to finance such projects (Gros, 2003; Sawyer, 2004).
According to Sawyer (2004), building a pedagogically sound game is expensive and time-consuming. It can cost between $500,000 and $2.5 million, and can take from 12 to 24 months to complete. Many commercial games require peripheral hardware or game devices such as the Xbox. They also require a large block of time for players to complete. These criteria are not readily available to K-12 or higher education institutions. In addition, education games are not designed and created to correlate with specific school curricula. They tend to operate as stand-alone products. This practice allows for commercial games to be utilized by a wider authence.
Perhaps a solution to the high cost of developing and creating games is to take a game's basic architecture and modify it to fit specific curricula and learning experiences. This practice results in the final products having similar game formats as their original counterparts while having varied learning objectives. Some teachers have the programming skills to adapt gaming software so that these games can maximize learning potential regardless of the games' initial purpose (Gros, 2003).
There are critics who object to the use of educational games. These objections have been based on their observations children while playing commercial computer games. Two concerns are: the addictive nature of computer games and the violence that children are exposed to while playing games. According to Okan (2003), computer games are not culturally neutral. This has raised concerns among educators, business people, and the general public. They fear that technology is sweeping through all levels of education without the benefit of input from individuals who can help to shape and restrain this forward momentum. It is thought that only those earning the profits have a voice. They are quick to point out that history may be repeating itself. They claim this happened with the introduction of radio and television. Initially, control of the airwaves was in the hands of a few big corporations such as RCA, AT&T, Westinghouse, and General Electric (Barnouw, 1990).
It can be argued that although educators and students do not have control over how new technologies evolve, they do have control over how technologies are being used to promote learning. They have learned that technology is a great tool for accessing information, connecting students to experts and other students all over the world. However, technology cannot perform the more important task of transforming information into knowledge. This is an active process that must occur internally and is learner specific. Salomon (2002) noted that accessing information using technology is different than constructing knowledge. He contends the process of constructing knowledge from gathered information is a dynamic process in which technology plays a minor role.
Acquiring technology skills while learning in the classroom should be of secondary importance and it should be noted that these skills although secondary are very important. By integrating technology into pedagogy, students learn cognitive and technology skills at the same time. More traditional parents and educators are skeptical of using technology especially edutainment software. They believe that if students are playing or being entertained they are not learning. They fear that technology will undermine learning processes, while at the same time encourage parents and teachers to spend scarce education dollars on technology. They suggest that this encourages a watering down of the learning process. Other concerns are that edutainment technology teaches students that learning does not require perseverance, reading critically, making connections between new information and what is already known, and that collaborating with peers is outdated and unnecessary. In other words, in addition to teaching the curriculum, technology has an unintended effect of discouraging serious learning (Okan, 2003).
Another argument against using computer games in education is the concern that technology will be used only for the sake of "using technology." Using technology does not guarantee academic success.
There is a concern that technology is being used because it is available and that parents approve its use for reasons other than enhancing learning outcomes. A study by McDonald and Hannafin (2003) showed mixed results with regard to the impact of technology on learning outcomes. Their research used game formats from Jeopardy and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. They found that students taught by playing games using technology earned higher scores (but not significantly higher) than those students taught by playing traditional games. However, they observed that students using technology games were more motivated and excited about their learning experiences. They stated that the less-than-significant increase in test scores can be attributed to the uncontrolled variables in the study. For example, the differences in teachers and the inability to control home study. According to McDonald and Hannafin, the gains in student achievement cannot be attributed to the use of technology, but instead to the differences in instructional methods, lesson content, and the "novelty" effect resulting from the use of a new medium (technology). They note that the novelty effect wears off with the passing of time.
Salomon (2002) points out that using technology is a new approach to teaching and that teachers are trying to fit a new medium into traditional teaching methods. Based on his research, Salomon suggests that traditional classrooms produce a better mastery of recalled information. Alternatively, less traditional technology- and constructivist-based classrooms produce improved skills for developing questions, formulating hypotheses, and the ability to intelligently address new problems. According to Okan (2003), the use of technology results in acquiring passive information in the form of entertainment rather than though the more challenging critical thinking process. It is argued that, when used effectively, digital games develop critical thinking skills through the process of active problem solving (Hostetter, 2002). In other words, the choice between technology and traditional pedagogy depends on the desired outcomes.
When student are having fun, they are motivated to persist for longer periods of time or to approach the learning activity more often. According to Rieber (2001), motivation is inseparable from learning and is considered by some to be the most important learning factor. When students are motivated, they spend more time ontask and learning becomes an incidental part of the activity. Alternatively, some think that technology, although motivating, often diminishes the need to review prior knowledge, to strategize, to analyze, to make new connections and to engage in other high-level learning activities. However, through solving puzzles, conquering enemies, and creating digital cities and theme parks, students are categorizing, analyzing, and using prior knowledge for problem solving (Hostetter, 2002).
Unfortunately, there is little research that examines the relationship between play behavior, learning motivation, and the use of education games (Rieber, 2001; Squire, 2003).
Playing digital games enhances emotional intelligence. This is a result of game players keeping a delicate balance between being cool, relaxed, holding attention and being adrenaline-driven to win the game (Neto, 2001). The gaming generation loves randomness and learning by the discovery method. Also, digital gamers tend to have a more vivid imagination since many of the games they play are set in a fantasy world (Gros, 2003; Hostetetter, 2002). Game players are required to quickly discern what is relevant, what must be discarded and what must be fulfilled resulting in skills for dealing with new situations (Neto, 2001).
EDUCATION GAME STRUCTURES
People interact with systems such as computer games by using many of the same social and communicative conventions that are seen in interactions between people in normal contexts (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Consequently, the cooperative nature of the gaming experience sets expectations for the behavior for both the game and its players. As computer and console games become more storyoriented and interactivity within these games becomes more sophisticated, this cooperative contract between game and user becomes even more central to the enjoyment of games and gaming experiences.
GAME TYPES
According to Rollings and Adams (2003), games have traditionally been grouped into nine categories (see Table 1).
GAME CHARACTERISTICS
According to Gee (2003a), high-quality digital games have six characteristics (See Table 2).
SEVEN RHETORICS
Sutton-Smith (1997) defines the seven rhetorics of play: progress, fate, power, identity, imaginary, frivolous, and self. Each of these elements can be used to maintain or increase the motivation of students to continue to play educational games. Students need to experience success and to not be challenged beyond their capabilities in order to maintain their motivation. A major challenge for educational game developers is to transform learning into play. These seven elements can be used to bridge the learning process between the domains of learning and the elements of play.
Bridging the learning process between the domains of learning and the elements of play must be a process that is fluid. This can be accomplished by following a standard known as the narrativeAudic causality. This standard combines the appropriate pacing of information and action. This balances the rhetoric elements that combine a narrative or story and incorporates fun while carefully placing the games' information and action.
DESIGNING EDUCATION GAMES
According to Young (2001), the greatest game design challenge is the maintenance of the balance between the control of the game (system) and its users. If a game design removes all control from the user, the resulting system is reduced to conventional narrative forms such as literature or film. Conversely, if a game design provides the user with complete control, the narrative coherence of a user's interaction is limited by the knowledge and skill of the user.
Most interactive games have taken the middle ground by specifying at the time of design sets of actions the user can select at fixed intervals throughout a game's story. The resulting collection of narrative paths is structured so that each path provides the user with an interesting narrative experience and ensures the users' expectations regarding narrative content are met.
On the other hand, Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) provide the benefit of what can be considered customized instruction. ITS enable the participants to practice on their skills by carrying out tasks within highly interactive learning environments. Unlike most other computer-based training technologies it assesses each learner's actions. A model is created for each of the participants' knowledge, skills, and expertise for the learning the game's learning domains. These domains have been structured by domain experts (Beai, Beck, Westbrook, Atkins, & Cohen (2002). In addition, the ITS has imbedded "pedagogical" agents that provide teaching strategies and corresponding resources that are placed in the learning environments. These agents function as virtual tutors and virtual students (Thalmann, Noser, & Huang, (1997).
PROFESSIONAL GAME DEVELOPERS
The most popular games played by students and adults are typically developed by professional game developers. These games are popular and profitable because game developers know what appeals to their target authence. To build quality edutainment type software, game developers and education psychologists should work together with other professionals as a team to formulate the education content. Game developers are very familiar with the latest 3-D graphics, sound technology, and artificial intelligence. They are adept at creating believable friends and enemies. Game developers know when to use real data and when to use derived data to best fit the games' interface. They understand the importance of periodically updating the game to maintain novelty for the target audience.
Education game developers need to build games that allow for extensive modifications. This can be accomplished by being open to allowing academics, scientists, and developers access to their code. Unlike commercial games, it is important that data from educational games be provided and used by trainers and teachers who monitor learner progress. Game developers also need to develop more detailed user's manuals and anticipate a need for more training and support (Sawyer, 2004). Commercial game developers typically design games to take advantage of the latest technology. Unfortunately, education settings typically do not have access to the latest technology. Therefore, developers must create the best possible game for low-end platforms, which tends to result in low-quality education games.
STORY LINE
Challenges and obstacles that are woven into a strong learning-related adventure develop higher-order thinking skills. The story line should help learners to work through issues and challenges that may normally occur in real life. Every game should be challenging, but not impossible to master. The emphasis should be on learning rather than on winning or losing. Students should never be penalized by being excluded from the game.
The building blocks of story and plot (characters, actions, and their causal relationships) are not new to researchers in artificial intelligence (AI). These elements make up most schemes in research that deal with reasoning about the physical world. They have been adapted in the Mimesis architecture to represent the hierarchical and causal nature of narratives that have been identified by narrative theorists (Bal, 1997; Rimmon-Kenan, 1983).
According to Young (1999), the question of balance between the narrative and user control will most likely not be answered by research into human-computer interaction or by modification of conventions that have been carried over from previous entertainment media. It seems more likely that the balance between interactivity and immersion will be established by the concurrent evolution (or by the coevolution) of the technology of storytelling and social expectations held by the systems' users.
Young (2001) states that if the successful completion of the user's action poses a threat to any of the story's structure, the system responds to ensure that the actions of the user are integrated as best as possible into the story's context. It is the interactive nature of a computer game that contributes most strongly to the unique sense of agency that gamers experience in the narratives that the game environment supports.
CHARACTER
The role of the gamer in a typical computer game is not one of director, but rather of lead character. The player experiences the story that unfolds around his or her character through the eyes of an audience member, the eyes of a performer, and through the eyes of the character. To uphold the player's portion of the cooperative game contract, the player must act the character's part and with limited perceptions and capabilities to change the games' environment. Consequently, the system creating the story line behind the scenes must bear most of the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of a coherent narrative.
To do this, designers must plan out ahead of time an interesting path through the space of plot lines that might unfold within the game's story. In addition, the game itself must keep constant watch over the story currently unfolding so the user does not deviate from the charted course. Fortunately, all aspects of a user's activity within the game's system, from the graphical rendering of the world to the execution of the simplest of user actions, are controlled. It is the mediated nature of the interaction between player and game environment that provides the hook needed to make the game's system coherent (Young, 2001).
GAMING: RELATION TO TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SKILLS
Considering how much time students play digital games, it is not surprising that gamers have different cognitive skills than nongamers. The gaming generation has learned to process information more quickly and to process large amounts of information simultaneously. Within a gaming environment, graphics are dominant and text is often complementary. As a result, game players have developed their visual intelligence because in order to succeed, they first look at icons (Green & McNeese, 2007).
Because games require players to do many things at one time, gamers have become good at multitasking, which requires a more diversified form of concentration. In the digital world of the Internet and games, information is not presented in a linear fashion. Students today are used to hyperlinks and accessing difficult areas of screens that are found in games. This is different from predigitai Internet learners, who used books, radio, and television. Games have caused students to be learners who are more active and less tolerant of passive learning situations such as lectures (Beck & Wade, 2004; Gee, 2003; Gros, 2003; Hostetter, 2002).
Games can connect students with instant access to information through experts, friends, and families, as well as offer interactivity with fellow students, friends, and strangers playing multiuser games. As a result, players tend to develop and participate within a network of players who share ideas, experiences, and strategies. They learn to work well together or play alone when no partner is available. Games also have the potential to enhance motor development, intellectual development, affective development, and social development (Gros, 2003). If playing digital games has changed the way students learn, then it is necessary for teachers to change the way they present information to accommodate the needs of the gamer generation.
This first decade of the twenty-first century is a time during which, globally, the modes, the means, and the ecology of learning are being transformed by the activity of more than a billion globally networked people. Three change agents are responsible for these transformations, each related to the growth of a global digitally networked economy and society. The transformation of learning at the individual level will far outpace a very slow transition at the institutional and school level.
* Change Agent 1: The decreasing cost of connectivity, computers, related digital devices, and means of connectivity that are making global digital access a reality for millions.
* Change Agent 2: The most transformational aspect of learning during this decade is the development of "biliterate" communication and learning. This new way of enabling millions of people to coproduce essential human needs is being coproduced by millions of digitally connected consumers of all ages, ethnic groups, and languages, globally. This is made possible by the use of software that some of them have produced (producers) enabling of the rest of them (consumers) to effectively blend verbal (written and spoken) literacy skills with their newly learned (computer, digital media, and Web information) literacy skills. These efforts have produced a new form of human communication: "biliterate" global connectivity.
* Change Agent 3: The new flat world's ever-increasing access to an expanding global learning ecology and accessibility to an increasingly expanding population of an anytime, everywhere digitally connected world.
In today's expanding global learning, school-age youth are surrounded by many modes and means to use out-of-the-box learning. Learning options for what, how, and when to learn is great and readily accessible. Learning is going through a challenging transformation.
America needs to communicate to its youth that as learners they are to face vigorous competition from their peers on a global level. Every American youth needs to understand the degree to which their personal future and Americas' future depends on how astute they become in selecting and investing their time and attention in the use of quality learning opportunities. Teachers have a critically important role in guiding their students to produce their intellectual capital.
[Sidebar]
Table 1. Game Type
1. Action Games: These games are defined by the first and third person shooting games. There are two types: (a) Fast-paced run-and-gun shooter games, for example, Halo. (b) Slower-paced tactical games. For example, SWAT.
2. Adventure Games: These games require playing out an interactive story in which the gamer takes on the role of the lead character. For example, the game Grand Theft Auto.
3. Driving Games: These games simulate the experience of being behind the wheel in a fast-paced street, rally, or track race. For example, the game Grand Turismo.
4. Fighting Games: These are games that engage players against boxing or martial art opponents.
5. Flight and other Vehicle-simulator Games: These games are used to provide authentic training for operating transportation equipment. For example, Flight Simulators.
6. Puzzle Games: These games use a system of rules that challenge players to solve problems. For example, Tetris.
7. Role-playing Games: These games can be played by single or multiple players.
8. Sports Games: These games strive for authentic simulation of on-and off-field action and include football, baseball, and hockey. For example, Madden NFL.
9. Strategy Games: These games provide players with grand-scale (usually top-down) views of a world in which they manage people, armies, armaments and other resources. There are two types: (1) Role-playing games, for example, World of Warcraft. (2) Games that put players in a living, virtual world in which they live, work, fight or play over an extended period of time, for example, Civilization.
Table 2. Game Characteristics
1. The games' education components are hidden.
2. The games are interactive and nonlinear.
3. The games encourage exploration by rewarding players.
4. Players can choose to assume the "protagonist" character or the "antagonist" character so they may experience both perspectives.
5. The games encourage player creativity.
6. The games have more than one correct answer or a means for accomplishing the same objectives.
[Sidebar]
BECAUSE GAMES REQUIRE PLAYERS TO DO MANY THINGS AT ONE TIME, GAMERS HAVE BECOME GOOD AT MULTITASKING....
... GAMES HAVE CAUSED STUDENTS TO BE LEARNERS WHO ARE MORE ACTIVE AND LESS TOLERANT OF PASSIVE LEARNING SITUATIONS SUCH AS LECTURES.