A discussion wouldn't be complete without some arguing... Anyway, here's some arguments both for and against games in the classroom (to help think about some of the aspects involved):
So while the idea of and freedom of games (and interactivity) does appeal to the average learner, the actually goal of educational games or other games for learning (that is, the goal of "learning") is negatively affected by that same freedom. Garris et al. (2002) noted that, although students generally seem to prefer games over other, more traditional, classroom training media, reviews have reported mixed results regarding the training effectiveness of games. Druckman (1995) concluded that games seem to be effective in enhancing motivation and increasing student interest in subject matter, yet the extent to which that translates into more effective learning is less clear. As a note of caution, Brougere (1999) commented that anything that contributes to the increase of emotion (such as the quality of the design of video games) reinforces the attraction of the game but not necessarily its educational effectiveness. Similarly, Salas et al. (1998) commented that liking a simula tion does not necessarily transfer to learning. Salomon (1983) went even further, by commenting that a more positive attitude can actually indicate less learning. And in an early meta-analysis of the effectiveness of simulation games, Dekkers and Donatti (1981) found a negative relationship between duration of training and training effectiveness. Simulation games became less effective the longer the game was played (suggesting that perhaps trainees became bored over time). Clark and Sugrue (2001) described a novelty effect where student effort and attention is high when a medium is novel (new) but which tends to diminish over time as students become more familiar with the medium.
- Richard Wainess, Ph.D.
Senior Educational Researcher, UCLA
http://www.cse.ucla.edu/
Email to the 'Serious Games' email list
What frustrates me about the gaming and learning debate is that its detractors seem to want us to prove the game itself in isolation... not accounting for production quality, design quality, embedded instructional quality, context, media perceptions, audience readiness, or instructor. It's just nutty.
- Ben Sawyer
email to Serious Games email list
"It's like when you see the phrase 'making learning fun'. It's ALWAYS a lie."
- Kent Quirk's Son, Serious Games email list
I think the bottom line is this: making a good game is hard (the overwhelming majority of computer games fail), and making a good game about the Krebs Cycle is really hard. Studies based on bad games are pointless.
I also agree wholeheartedly that all studies should be accompanied by an independent review of the game involved, and corrected for game quality in some fashion (I have no idea how). Concluding anything about whether games are effective teaching tools (which is the title of this thread) without including some mention of game quality is impossible- the question should be "are good games effective teaching tools", or, even better "how can games be made to be effective teaching tools?". A study about how students learned nothing by being bored in front of a computer is pointless.
- Pete Border, Ph.D.
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
email to Serious Games email list
What we need here is to dissolve the rift between game designers and instructional designers. The arguments of both camps are equally valid (you know the old tit-for-tat: "Instructional designers suck all the fun out of a game" and "Game designers suck all the learning out of a curriculum"). We need a formal method of game design that is founded on the principles of player-centered game design AND instructional design. The game design portion of a serious game must be developed from the start with the curriculum in mind, and the instructional design portion of the serious game must be developed to support the game design. To harness the power of games (motivation, fun, the willingness to keep at it for 64 hours straight without a shower...), instructional elements must appear as *any other* game element -- we must not break immersion, engagement or the flow of the game (e.g. throw a mental speed bump at the player).
- Erik H. Vick, Ph.D.
http://www.dm.ucf.edu/~evick
email to Seroius Games list