EVAing Edheads: what makes a game?
I chose to play and review Edheads, mainly because I hadn’t yet seen it covered here (and because the military game, with the US Mil keeping the scores, creeped me out a little). I played a game that concerns stem cells. Having a fairly low science literacy, I was happy to learn what a stem cell is, and its importance to research. However, I was left wanting – at least from going in expecting to play a game. Does Edheads think of and market this as a game? What makes a game, anyway?
As I’ve been mulling over just what a game is this week, I find myself returning to the idea that it is a scenario, with a clearly defined objective (e.g. score a goal) and a set of rules. I couldn’t help but think of games as closely connected to user generated content; playing a game is about being actively engaged, all the time; indeed, the game falls flat unless the players are, well, playing. And so, games are less about content than about experience, and what we learn through games, we learn through experiences.
Now, as for Edheads. It didn’t feel much like a game as I’ve just described it, but rather as a digitally interactive lecture. It started off with a lot of content – and a lot of very interesting content – but not much experience. The experiential bit – where you got to click on a virtual pipette to grow your cell in different media – is less gamelike than a guided experience. In the Edheads Stem cell game (again, I don’t know if Edheads would describe this as a game), the bulk of the learning comes through content delivery rather than experiential experimentation and goal-setting.
In my EVA role – I think there could be a market for this product, but not as a game. I say this principally because stem cell research has been a topic of huge debate about scientific practice and ethics, and the material presented in this game could serve a role in educating a general public. I can definitely see an emergent market for interactive lessons (if not games) that engage with issues of broad public concern, such as stem cell research.
This activity has gotten me to really think about the difference between games and interactive learning experiences. I’m left wondering if everything is appropriate for game form. Reading some of the other reviews this week, I also wonder if a number of these games are too content-directed and didactic to be successful as *games*.
Posted in: Week 05: Game-Based Learning
Julie S 7:26 am on October 10, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Allie,
Excellent question. How does the market differentiate between interactive storytelling and games and if so how? Would ‘Create a Stem Cell Line’ be better marketed as an e-book, or as you put it, an interactive lesson. Is there room in the market to differentiate interactive lessons and then possibly further as ethical issues related to new technologies?
I read a chapter in a book recently where the authors question whether or not games can be successful as learning tools and suggests that interactive storytelling would be more successful.
Weib and Muller (2008) argue that ‘stories provide more explicit knowledge transfer’ (p.321) and further that ‘In general, the question on how to integrate learning successfully with elements of play and games is unsolved’. (p.323). Weib and Muller acknowledge Gee’s 36 principles of game play but argue that he misses the key concepts of fun and drama that games should provide.
They list principles specific to interactive storytelling as characters and the story world, a hook, user agency, dramatic arcs, and usability. I don’t know how the line could or should be drawn when there are successful commercial games that have significant story telling principles incorporated.
I’ve included the references to a couple of book chapters below if anyone is interested in learning more about the argument of interactive storytelling vs. games.
References
Numento, T., Uotila, F. (2009). Events as Organizational Stories an Event-Based Approach for Learning Media Production, in Multimedia and E-Content Trends. Bruck, P.A. (2009). Pp. 167-178.
Weib, S., Muller W., (2008). Learning with Interactive Storeis. , in IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Volume 281; Learning to Live in the Knowledge Society; Michael Kendall and Brian Samways; (Boston: Springer), pp. 321–328.
David William Price 8:38 am on October 10, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I’ve been thinking a lot about games as well. In my Intro to Educational Computing class in the Winter, a team presented about game-based learning. Even after reading the articles presented this week, I still struggle a lot with the breathless claims of authors I feel are ignoring a few millennia of history.
I’m not all that comfortable with the idea of turning all learning into a game because people enjoy games. Why? We’re making way too many assumptions about what a game is and what life is and what learning is.
Looking at people from an evolutionary perspective, what were the actions that led to survival of the human race? Hunting, gathering, taking risks, looking for cause-and-effect relationships, balancing the saving and spending of resources, etc. Do we need to turn learning into a game? No. Life already is a game. School is already a game. Learning is already a game. Games don’t create those behaviours… those behaviours are what made humans successful in the first place.
Consider the the phrase “gaming the system”. Students can “game” the system in schools. They can get great results with small amounts of concerted effort. I rarely did my French homework in high school. Instead, when class began, I’d choose three questions spread out over the assignment and work out the answers. Then I’d put up my hand to answer each of those questions.
Workers can “game” the system in the workplace. They can advance with small amounts of concerted effort. They can identify who they need to impress and what kind of activity impresses that person.
Lonely people can “game” the system in relationships. They learn how to identify likely matches and what buttons to push to make people like them.
“Game theory” is used in economics and negotiations.
People “game” systems all the time. “Gaming” is about turning the self into an active participant using strategy and tactics. Games are not things, they are mindsets. Instead of making games that teach, we can look at how we can shape mindsets instead– mindsets not only of students but also of teachers and designers.
Is learning to game school or game the workplace something we want people to do? In some respects, yes. In other respects, no. I would’ve learned a lot more French if I’d done all of my homework. While I adopted a gaming mindset, the particular game I played was not one that benefitted me in an optimal way.
I think it’s important to focus on assessment and really nail down the behaviours we want to see from people and think of the kinds of mindsets that will shape the behaviours we want to see.
If we assume that a “game” must look a certain way, and that we have to fit education into that mould, then we are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about what life is really like and we are focusing on medium (Kozma) instead of methods (Clark).
Allie 1:22 pm on October 11, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on my post, Julie and David.
David, I too immediately thought of other uses of the idea of games – such as the oldie-but-goodie psychology text “Games People Play.”
I think you make a great point in remarking that people’s desire to play the system (work or school) really depends on whether they feel attached to the dominant objective.
And perhaps that’s why games (now I’m reverting back to the standard idea of game) are useful in educational settings; they provide some kind of motivation for students to learn something they might not feel is worthwhile to do (playing hangman to learn spelling, for instance). Using games is a way to game education (to use your way of using game as a verb)