Mind Games
Looking to Video Games for Instructional
Design Best Practices Darlene Redmond 2006
Purpose
Instructional Designers are taking notice of the
hours children spend playing computer games. As
they play, they are exploring, creating, solving,
learning, and enjoying.
What is it about these games that captures their
attention and imagination?
Should we be using game design methodologies
for educational purposes?
Can a video game provide an ideal constructivist
learning environment?
Darlene Redmond 2006
Educating the Natives
There is no reason that a generation that can
memorize over 100 Pokémon characters with all
their characteristics, history and evolution can’t
learn the names, populations, capitals and
relationships of all the 181 nations in the world. It
just depends on how it is presented. (1)
Mark Prensky, 2001
Darlene Redmond 2006
The times they are a’
changing…
Video games were a $6 billion industry in the US in 2000, growing
into an $11 billion dollar industry by 2003. The games are in 80
percent of American homes with children, and 60 percent of
Americans play video games. (2)
Today’s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of
their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not
to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email,
the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts
of their lives. (1)
Darlene Redmond 2006
And so are the
Students…
Children raised with the computer “think differently from the rest of
us. They develop hypertext minds. They leap around. It’s as though
their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential.” (3)
Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to
parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their
text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like
hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant
gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.
(1)
Darlene Redmond 2006
The Twitch
Generation
Their world is much more vital, colorful, and engaging than their
educational one. (4)
Consequently, John Katz, who coined the term “Twitch
Generation”, says most traditional educational tasks we put
before our students seem meaningless and desperately boring to
many of them. They set out about getting their diplomas with as
little effort and time as possible. (5)
Linear thought processes that dominate educational systems
now can actually retard learning for brains developed through
game and Websurfing processes on the computer.(6)
Darlene Redmond 2006
Traditional vs. New Environments
Traditional environment
New environment
Theories
Instructivist
Constructivist, Collaborative, Active
Learning, Connectivist
Strategies
The learner gets organized
information, even in inquiry
based methods
The independent learner is at the
core of the learning process,
Students learn in a self-discovery
environment
Objectives Acquire knowledge and
understanding
Create a product (research task or
project)
Content
The teacher constructs the
knowledgebase for students
Interdisciplinary, Students construct
their own knowledgebase
Resources
Textbooks, guides, activity
sheets, and lab kits
Online resources, computerized
simulations, games, blogs,
podcasts, electronic
communication
Traditional vs. New Environments
Traditional environment
New environment
Presentation
Static linear form through
text or pictures
Modular, connected, dynamic and
visual
Activities
Text-based exercises and
problem solving tasks
Cooperative activities and
simulation; construction and
manipulation of objects
Environment
Defined time and place
involving the teacher and
the classroom
No defined time and place
Outcome
Individual achievement
Piece of work created by the
individual or the group
Assessment
Learning is measured by
testing and grades are
issued.
Portfolios, learning process and
products determined and developed
by the learner
Sources (8 – 10)
Instructivism vs. Constructivism
The basic idea of instructivism is that teaching is just a matter of
giving facts to students.
Instructivist classes work in transmission mode. This means that the
flow of information is one way, from the teacher to students. The
students are simply passive receivers of knowledge. [8]
The basic idea of constructivism is that knowledge cannot be
instructed by a teacher, it can only be constructed by a learner.
This means learning is not just a direct result of listening to a teacher.
The students have to organize and develop what they hear and read.
[8]
Darlene Redmond 2006
From Constructivism to Active
Learning
In active learning,
knowledge is directly
experienced, constructed,
acted upon, tested, or
revised by the learner. The
question is, how can we
design a creative learning
environment that promotes
active learning? [9]
Darlene Redmond 2006
The Active and Connected
Learner
Another body of research on collaborative or cooperative
learning has demonstrated the benefits of children working with
other children in collective learning efforts. When children
collaborate, they share the process of constructing their ideas,
instead of simply labouring individually. [9]
A
relatively new theory is George Seimens’ connectivist theory.
On his blog, Siemens offers a taxonomy of connectivism, “a staged
view of how learners encounter and explore learning in a
networked/ecological manner”, that sounds very much like the
process of mastering a complex games space. Siemens explains
how the learner explores his environment, discovers tools,
discovers uses for them, and finally impacts his own environment
by controlling events and outcomes. [10]
Darlene Redmond 2006
Making the Connection with New
Theories and Methods
Emerging Pedagogies focus
on:








Engaging the learner
Continuously challenging the
learners skills
Giving the learner control of the
environment
Providing resources but not
solutions
Providing immediate feedback
Rewarding knowledge transfer
Encouraging expertise
Encouraging collaboration
Educational Theories
Methodologies
Student
Darlene Redmond 2006
Knowledge
What can Instructional Designers
Learn from Video Games?
T.K. Malone (1981) identified three main elements that make
video games fun:
Educational programs should have:





clear goals that students find meaningful
multiple goal structures and scoring to give students feedback on their
progress
multiple difficulty levels to adjust the game difficulty to learner skill
random elements of surprise
an emotionally appealing fantasy and metaphor that is related to
game skills [11]
What can Instructional Designers
Learn from Video Games?
Mark Prensky (2001) argues it must first be a great game,
and only then a teacher. He identifies six structural elements of a
game: [13]






Rules
Goals and objectives
Outcomes and feedback
Conflict/competition/challenge/opposition
Interaction
Representation or Story
Darlene Redmond 2006
What can Instructional Designers
Learn from Video Games?
To succeed, game designers incorporate principles of learning that are
well supported by current research. Put simply, they recruit learning as
a form of pleasure. [14]
James Paul Gee, Author of
“What Video Games have to Teach
us about Learning and Literacy”, suggests that successful games
have sound learning strategies built in. Since good video games
are long, complex, and difficult, designers must incorporate into
the games strategies for children to learn them if they are to be
successful.
Darlene Redmond 2006
Would you rather read about it
or experience it?
If you were to take part in an interactive, online, multiplayer game,
in which one of the following historic places and periods would you
most want to be?
a) In Troy, during the war between the Trojans and the Greeks (1200
B.C.).
b) In Great Britain, during the Roman conquest (43 A.D.).
c) In America, during the Revolutionary War (1776).
d) In the United States, during the Civil War (1861).
e) In Europe, during World War I (1914).
[16]
Think about it
Your standard computer game can
take 50 hours to play. Imagine if a
student loved spending 50 hours
learning a language. We have a lot
to learn from video games. [17]
Darlene Redmond 2006
References
1. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Retrieved February 24, 2006, from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
2. Children Spend More Time playing Video Games than Watching TV. (2004).
Newswise. Michigan State University. Retrieved February 25, 2006 from
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/504080/
3. Gee, J.P. (2003). High Score Education: Games, Not School, Are Teaching Kids to
Think. Wired 11, no. 5. Retrieved February 24, 2006 from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.05/view.html?pg=1 The Educational
Potential of Electronic Games: From Games-To-Teach to Games-To-Learn
4. Winn, William D. (n.d.). Director of the Learning Center, Human Interface Technology
Laboratory. University of Washington. Quoted in Moore, Inferential Focus Briefing ,
(See 5)
5. Katz, Jon. (2000). Geeks: How Two Lost Boys Rode the Internet out of Idaho.
Random House, New York, NY. Quoted by William A. Kennedy. (See 18)
Darlene Redmond 2006
References
6. Peter Moore, Inferential Focus Briefing, September 30, 1997, quoted in Prensky in
Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think differently? (See 7)
7. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part II Do They Really think
differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9. Retrieved February 24, 2006, from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
8. MacMillan English Dictionary. (2002). MacMillan Publishers Ltd.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/glossaries/instructivism.htm
9. Mitra, S. (2000). Minimally Invasive Education for mass computer literacy Centre for
Research in Cognitive Systems, NIIT Limited Presented at the CRIDALA 2000
conference, Hong Kong, 21-25 June, 2000. Retrieved February 25, 2006 from
http://www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper01.pdf
10. Siemens, George. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.
elearnspace. Retrieved February 19, 2006 from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Darlene Redmond 2006
References
11. Malone, T.W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically
motivating computer games. (Report CIS-7). Palo Altao, CA: Xerox Palo Alto Research
Center. Quoted by Squire, (See 12)
12. Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent
Simulations and Gaming. Retrieved Feb 14, 2006 from
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~myoung/IJIS.doc
13. Prensky, M. (2004). Digital Games: Concept Overview. Teach Online, Michigan State
University. Retrieved February 25, 2006 from
http://teachonline.msu.edu/public/designers/featured_approaches/index.php?page_n
um=5
14. Gee, J. P. (2005). The Classroom of Popular Culture: What video games can teach us
about making students want to learn, Harvard Education Letter . Retrieved February
25, 2006 from http://www.edletter.org/current/gee.shtml
15. Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy.
New York: Palgrave/Macmillian. Quoted by Squire. (See 12)
Darlene Redmond 2006
References
16. Sohn, E. (2004). What Video Games Can Teach Us. Science News for Kids. Retrieved
February 25, 2006 from
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20040121/Feature1.asp
17. Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2004). Harnessing the power of games in education.
Insight, 3(1), 5-33. Retrieved February 14, 2006 from
http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/manuscripts/insight.pdf
18. 2003. Teaching at Tech: Educating the Twitch Generation, MichiganTech Center for
Teaching, Learning and Faculty Development, Retrieved February 25, 2006 from
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/ctlfd/twitch.htm
Darlene Redmond 2006