Misconceptions of games in education
I currently have the pleasure of playing through IBM’s Business Process Management (BPM) and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) game, Innov8. I met with a colleague who also had a chance to see the demo, talk to the IBM team, and play the game (although I question whether or not he’s even downloaded the beta).
He felt that the game was not a good educational tool, a good learning experience. People often have this reaction the first time they see an educational game or game-like tool. People also seem to bring up the same reason my colleague mentioned: it can’t standalone, at least not well. “It’s too linear, the students can’t make any decisions”. “There’s so much more that goes into BPM/SOA that the game doesn’t address”. “If only I could customize it and add more decision points”.
I’m not sure if I consider most of these complaints valid. Yes, in an *ideal* world the game would be all these things and more. But these things aren’t easy to design, develop, and implement. It’s not like words on a page or pictures and text on the web. I tried convincing my colleague that the game isn’t a standalone learning tool, and that the things he talks about (more decisions, more background on SOA/BPM, linear story, etc) can still take place OUTSIDE the game. The IBM team that put this together even told us that the game is one piece in a 3-piece learning module. There’s an introduction session to address the pre-requisite knowledge needed to play the game, then there’s the game (with 3 different levels), then there’s the debrief. I tried to tell my colleague that the facilitation piece AFTER students play the game is where you can address all your concerns via a discussion which becomes one of the key learning moments in the process. I don’t think I did a very good job convincing, but I did find a Jim Gee quote that could help with the same argument in the future:
Effects (good or bad) flow not from the game but from game + context. Played strategically, with reflective interactions with parents and peers, they have good cognitive effects…
I’m not trying to pick on just a single colleague here, I’ve heard this argument from other folks as well when they first examine a learning game. I’m not sure why educators have this preconception of a learning game being a perfect standalone learning experience. Instructors don’t solely rely on a lecture in a classroom, they often have electronic support like video, images, or slides, they have assignment support like readings, as well as labs and activities. I can’t quite make sense of where this notion comes from…
Educational games that stand alone are very rare. Most are designed to be part of an overall experience, as in the IBM one. The problem arises when people take the game out of the integrated design and expect it to stand alone. This will lead to poor results. The need for some up-front knowledge before the game play, and the need for reflective experiences post game play should never be ignored.