Game-Based Learning
Authored by: Tessa Kamat and Deandrea Cannon-Dixon
Games have evolve tremendously over the years. They have matriculated from singular use to multi player and gone from using little to no thought for play to developing strategies to compete and win. With such a commanding audience the question arose: how can games be used in learning? Game-based learning dates back to the 1970s with games like The Oregon Trail that are geared toward education. More recently, education-oriented games like Atlantis Remixed (formerly Project Atlantis) as well as a large collection of games offered in partnership with leading educational game design companies through Brainpop’s GameUp are providing learning opportunities across the curriculum. There are many definitions of game based learning, but they seeming have a similar core understanding. Simply put: game-based learning is a type of game play with defined learning outcome. GBL is often confused with gamification, but they are not the same thing. Gamification is first and foremost about encouragement mechanics and the system that promotes them, while game-based learning is first and foremost about the game and its cognitive residue (whether from the game’s content, or academic content).
Concepts/Ideas
There are many concepts and ideas that surround game based learning. Below is a list of concepts that are more connected to the classroom environment.
Motivation
The motivational function of games is their most frequently cited characteristic. The argument is that games for entertainment have been shown to be able to motivate learners
to stay engaged over long periods through a series of game features that are of a motivational nature. These features include incentive structures, such as stars, points, leader-boards, badges, and trophies, as well as game mechanics and activities that learners enjoy or find interesting
Player Engagement
Related to motivation, one of the most frequently cited reasons to consider digital games for learning is that they allow for a wide range of ways to engage learners. Which types of engagement are implemented depends on design decisions that reflect the specific learning goal, learner characteristics, and setting. Games that do not achieve cognitive engagement are not
likely to be effective in helping the learner achieve their learning goal. All forms of play have the potential to result in all four types of engagement (affective, cognitive, behavioral, sociocultural). However, the actual type of engagement will differ by game and within a game, as different games features elicit different types of engagement in different context and for different learners.
Adaptivity
Learner engagement is facilitated in part by the many ways of making a game adaptive, customizable by the player, or personalized. Adaptivity is the capability of the game to engage each learner in a way that reflects his or her specific situation. This can be related to the learners’ current level of knowledge, to cognitive abilities, to the learners’ emotions, or to a range of
other variables.
Graceful Failure
Another argument for game-based learning is that it allows for graceful failure: Rather than describing it as an undesirable outcome, failure is by design an expected and sometimes even necessary step in the learning process .The lowered consequences of failure in games encourage risk taking, trying new things, and exploration.
*Model of Game-Based learning*
Theoretical Foundations Supporting the Use of Game Based Learning
While game-based learning may be relatively recent as an instructional strategy, games and play have been a part of learning since “at least the Middle Ages.” (Dempsey & Reiser, p277) And when we say games have been a part of learning since at least the Middle Ages, we are looking at gaming in a formal education setting. Yet play is an instinctive, natural aspect of growth and development not only for humans, but for other species as well. Yet much of the research regarding game-based learning revolves around the question of whether or not game-based learning is an effective strategy. Many people struggle to take games seriously as an instructional strategy because they view it in opposition to work, yet there is significant research that demonstrates the effectiveness of game based instruction. A meta-analysis conducted by Clark, Tanner-Smith, and Killingsworth in 2014 illustrates that game-based instruction resulted in a .33 standard deviation increase in learning as compared to non game-based instruction. In addition, they found that well-designed games accounted for a .37 standard deviation increase in learning compared to non well-designed games.
To this point, there has been focused research on the question of whether or not games are an effective strategy. Actual research into the effective design of game based learning and gamification has been stunted by a focus on the medium of game-based learning and gaming as opposed to the design. As a result, to better understand game-based learning as an instructional strategy, it is beneficial to view the usefulness and effectiveness of game-based learning through the lens of established research such as Huizinga (1950) who distinguished between “playing a game” and being “at play.” The difference being that anyone can be told to play a game, to go through the motions of playing a game, but to be “at play” is to be in the cognitive space where “play” occurs. Meaning that while being “at play”, learners are not only engaged but intrinsically motivated and completely absorbed in the activity. The idea being that to simply play a game would not result in as effective or significant a learning outcome as being “at play” would produce. Piaget (1951) believed the play was foundational to children learning new concepts and building new mental models out of new ideas and activities as they experience them. This assimilation through play continues throughout life. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) flow theory and David Elkind’s (2007) theory of play, can both help shed light on not only the effectiveness and value of play, but on the design of game-based learning itself. Csikszentmihalyi proposes that it is necessary to create an optimal level of challenge to create a state of flow. This state of flow relates back to Huizinga’s (1950) idea of being “at play” and would result in active engagement. Csikszentmihalyi suggest that if the challenge is too overwhelming it would lead to a state of anxiety and a challenge that is easy would lead to boredom. To help establish an appropriate level of challenge and create a state of flow game designs should incorporate clear goals, consistent feedback, and provide opportunities for learners to give focused, sustained attention to the game.
David Elkind’s (2007) theory of play states that there are three instincts that drive human cognition and behavior throughout their life. Those are love, work, and play. Of these, play dominates early in life and then work begins to take dominance later in the early elementary years. The goal would be to have love, work, and play in a harmonious balance to achieve growth. This goal becomes complicated because often people feel that play and work are in opposition to each other. However, a balance of love, work, and play relates back to the ideas flow and can be foundational to the concepts of 21st century skills involving the need to work productively and collaboratively to solve complex problems.
Clark, Tanner-Smith, and Killingsworth conducted the “Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” with Vanderbilt University in 2014. It compared game versus non-game learning environments as well as learning environments with augmented instructional games versus standard game designs. It concluded that there was a statistically significant relationship between game based learning environments and an improvement in learning. It also concluded that augmented games made a statistically significant improvement over standard games. These findings support my personal experience as a teacher in a Title 1 school that struggled with low achievement related to middle grades math. In response to data, a Response to Intervention plan was implemented that included the use of a math instruction, practice, and review through the use of IXL Math as an immersive, adaptive game. Students were grouped based on ability and given 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week of focused time to “play” IXL Math. This instructional time took place over the course of 7 months. State assessments demonstrated a significant improvement in end of grade scores resulting in an improved College and Career Ready Performance Index score. Students were engaged and the game design was adaptive and provided immediate performance feedback. Within the game, students had choices of what types of games to play and what skills to address. The content and feedback was directly related and aligned to the states standards for math. This was school wide adoption of game-based learning that resulted in performance improvement.
Resources of Useful Information
https://www.edutopia.org/topic/game-based-learning
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-02-04-game-based-learning-is-changing-how-we-teach-here-s-why
https://thelearningcounsel.com/article/why-game-based-learning
https://www.teachthought.com/learning/difference-gamification-game-based-learning/
http://www.immersedgames.com/gamification-vs-game-based-learning/
http://inservice.ascd.org/the-difference-between-gamification-and-game-based-learning/
https://elearningindustry.com/gamification-serious-games-differences-benefits-elearning-pros-need-know
https://elearningindustry.com/tips-create-serious-games-online-learners-special-needs
Gamification Versus Serious Games
Gamification and Accessibility
Why is Accessibility Important
Benefits of gamification & serious games
All you need to know about serious games
Glossary of New Terms
Game Based Learning: game-based learning is a type of game play with defined learning outcome
Gamification: Gamification is the application of game-design elements and game principles in non-game contexts
References
Hodent, C. (2014). Toward a Playful and Usable education. In F.C. Blumberg (Ed.) Learning by Playing: Video gaming in education (pp.69-86). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Jan, M., & Gaydos, M. (2016, May-June). What is Game-Based Learning? Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430486
Kalyuga, S., & Plass, J. L. (2009). Evaluating and managing cognitive load in games. Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education ( Vol. 3, pp. 719-737).
Plass, L. J., Homer, D. B., & Kinzer, K. C. (2015). Foundations of Game-Based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), pp. 258-283
Thomas, D., & Brown, J.S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace