Games and Game-based Learning in Instructional Design

Running head: GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

1

Games and Game-Based Learning in Instructional Design Sam von Gillern and Zina Alaswad

This is the initial submission version of the article that was later published in The International Journal of Technologies and Learning

Abstract This paper highlights the value of games and game-based learning as a tool for instructional design. In education, games can promote motivation, engagement, and learning, which presents an appeal for the use of games in instructional design. This article begins by exploring relevant literature related to games, game-based learning, and instructional design. It then examines both digital and non-digital games as useful mechanisms for promoting student engagement and learning, and provides an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of digital and non-digital games in education. Finally, implications and directions for future research are proposed. Keywords: game-based learning, digital game-based learning, instructional design, games, educational technology, motivation, engagement

GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

2

Games and Game-Based Learning in Instructional Design Introduction Game-based learning has become an important focus for many scholars in recent years (Prensky, 2005; Russell & Laffey, 2016). Many scholars recognize that games can promote motivation, engagement, and learning (Gee, 2007; McGonigal, 2011; Sheldon, 2011). Given this, games and game-based learning have significant implications for instructional design. As researchers and educators, we care about students’ experiences and learning, which is a primary reason for the increased focus on games in education in recent years, as games are often exciting and create a fun learning atmosphere. This aligns well with Keller’s (1987) classic ARCS Model of Instructional Design, which illustrates the importance of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction in learning experiences. Games command the attention of players of all ages. Teachers can design and incorporate games that are relevant to their educational goals. Students can develop confidence through repeatedly practicing key skills during gameplay. People who play games generally get satisfaction from gameplay, which is a reason for the widespread popularity of games and a reason people continue to play throughout their lives (Entertainment Software Association, 2015). Scholars have recognized the connections between instructional design and game-based learning. In a recent article, Author (2015) suggested a framework that connects instructional design to game-based learning. In this perspective, the development of learning goals and assessments in instructional design can guide the creation and selection of games that are meaningful and relevant to the educational activities under design.


3

This article expands on existing ideas in the field and illustrates the value of games and game-based learning in education and instructional design. Additionally, this article provides insight about both the use of digital and non-digital games as tools in instructional design and examines their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, implications for game-based learning in instructional design are discussed and directions for future research are proposed. Digital and Non-Digital Games in Education A variety of scholars have explored the roles of games in learning and education. Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky (1978) pioneered the study of play and games and their value in children’s development and learning. Non-digital games can be played in a variety of disciplines and educational contexts (Kamii & Devries, 1980; Zuckerman and Horn, 1973). More recently, in tandem with a revolution of digital technology and computers, scholars have investigated how digital games can promote learning (Gee, 2007; Lynch, R., Mallon, B., & Connolly, 2015; Malone, 1980; Prensky, 2005; Squire, 2011). Malone (1980) posits that a game's ability to create an intrinsic factor of motivation is the key behind their success in teaching without teaching. While Malone primarily focuses on instructional computer games, his gaming elements (challenge, fantasy and curiosity) can be used in a variety of educational settings with both digital and non-digital games to achieve fun in learning. Scholars such as McGonigal (2011) and Prensky (2005) also recognize the value of games in learning and education in that they can promote motivation and engagement, two factors that impact learning (Hattie, 2009). While both digital and non-digital games can promote learning and engagement, there has been a greater focus in recent years on digital games due to a few primary factors: continuous research, disengagement of today’s generation with traditional instruction, and


4

increased popularity and investment in games (Van Eck, 2006). This focus is understandable as new digital games are created frequently and offer an array of benefits to educators and students alike. Nonetheless, it is also important to recognize the value of non-digital games in offering significant benefits to educators and students. As both non-digital games and digital games are useful tools for educators and those interested in instructional design, we examine each in more detail in the following sections. Non-Digital Game-Based Learning People have been playing with and learning from games long before the personal computers (Avedon & Sutton-Smith, 1971; Juul, 2011). Learning is an inherent component of games and the instructional design process. In order to improve one’s performance during gameplay, one must learn through his or her game experiences. More experienced players are typically more skilled than less experienced players, because they have learned skills and strategies that, when implemented, improve their overall performance. This is true both when games are played in recreational or academic settings. For example, when playing games ranging from chess to basketball to billiards, people learn both from specific instruction and strategies, from other players and coaches, as well as from their their own experiences, experimentation, and actions. In relation to academic environments, educators have regularly used non-digital games to promote learning in a variety of disciplines for many years (Author, 2016; Kamii & DeVries, 1980; Zuckerman & Horn, 1973). A likely reason for teachers to include games in education through their instructional design is that educators recognize that their students enjoy playing games, which influences their attention and satisfaction with the activities, aligning with the ARCS model (Keller, 1987). Therefore, when the curricular content can be presented through


5

gameplay, students can learn while having fun. While the types of games in education vary considerably, depending on the teacher, students, and discipline, games have the ability to promote fun, engagement, and learning. When taking an instructional design perspective, it is important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of a specific approach, and games are no exception. So, let’s examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of using non-digital games in educational environments. Strengths. One of the primary benefits of using non-digital games in education is that such games are highly customizable, which enables teachers to align games with relevant content and learning goals (Keller, 1987). Whether incorporating a game of Jeopardy, a race track board game, or a role-playing game, teachers can customize the content, questions, and gameplay to align with their discipline, students, and educational goals. A first grade reading lesson will obviously incorporate different types of games when compared to a fifth grade science classroom or a high-school social studies activity. With non-digital games, teachers can customize and create games with their discipline, students, and educational goals in mind, which will directly impact the students’ experiences and learning. Additionally, this customizability can allow teachers to create games in which students have choice during gameplay while providing tasks of a variety of difficulties through which teachers “structure the learning material as a ‘conquerable’ challenge (Keller, 1987, p. 5). Another benefit of incorporating non-digital games is that teachers are not restricted by access to digital technologies. Many classrooms lack on-demand access to expensive technologies such as computers, iPads, and software packages. With a little creativity, planning, and some basic non-digital technologies, such as pencils, paper, markers, whiteboards, and the physical classroom space, teachers can create a wide variety of engaging games to promote


6

student learning. For example, reading teachers can create word study games, including racetrack games, bingo, and memory, to help their students learn about word families, vowel patterns, or affixes. An economics teacher can create a game that simulates decision-making with scarce resources. The possibilities are customizable and nearly endless. Finally, non-digital games, particularly when compared to digital games, are great for promoting face-to-face interaction during gameplay, which can facilitate the development of important social skills and learning. Digital games often require players to look at computer screens for extended periods of time, but non-digital games often incorporate verbal interaction, eye-contact, and body language, which are valuable social skills to be developed in conjunction with the content to be explored and learned through the game. Weaknesses. It’s not secret that teachers are busy people. Teaching, brainstorming, lesson-planning, and grading take up a great deal of time, and a primary drawback of incorporating non-digital games in education is that they can be labor intensive. It can be a demanding process to decide which games to use and create based on the available resources, the students’ interests and levels of development, and the skills and concepts to be taught. This may require even extra effort from teachers who are not used to incorporating games as part of their instructional design. However, given that lesson planning can be quite consuming anyways, reframing one’s activities, concepts, and skills as games may not always require more effort than teaching the same ideas without games, particularly once a teacher figures out what works best for her and her students. Another drawback of non-digital games is that many of them are paper-based, and the accompanying resources, such as print-outs, game boards, and game cards can be damaged or lost, which results in a need for replacement. Keeping game materials organized and in good


7

shape can be a challenge when they are regularly handled by 25 to 100 children. Ultimately, though, while non-digital games often need to be maintained and/or reproduced over time, the benefits they can confer often outweigh such a cost. While non-digital games offer educators numerous possibilities to promote learning, engagement, and fun, digital games also have much to offer, which we will now examine below. Digital Game-based Learning Digital game-based learning can be defined as the meaningful use of digital technological tools to facilitate actual games or a collection of digital gaming elements in an educational environment to enhance student learning through increasing student motivation and engagement (Kapp, 2012; Prensky, 2005). The success and spread of the gaming industry contributed to introducing digital game-based learning in a variety of learning environments including K-12 and higher education (Squire & Jenkins, 2003). Digital games have become very accessible, easy to use, and fun. Therefore, educators have been using them to facilitate learning concepts and skills that were either too time consuming or rather disengaging for students (Ebner, & Holzinger, 2007; Huizenga, Admiraal, Akkerman,& Dam, 2009). Other educators have approached game-based learning by developing classes and instructional activities that simulate a gaming structure. Digital game-based learning, when used appropriately, can provide students and educators with a long list of affordances. Kapp (2012) suggests that a survey of research shows that digital game-based learning often facilitates better attitudes towards learning, increases student motivation, fosters higher-order thinking, influence personal real-life perceptions, impacts decision-making processes, and aides students learning achievement, and these affordances align well with the four elements of the ARCS instructional design model (Keller,


8

1987). Game-based learning can grab and sustain student attention through strategies such as encouraging participation and interaction (Keller, 1987, p. 4). The ability of game-based learning to influence students real-life perceptions ensures relevancy of their learning by using analogies that are familiar to learners’ past experiences (Keller, 1987, p.4), while continuous decisions making points in the organized levels of a game increases student self confidence (Keller, 1987, p. 5). The rewarding aspect of game-based learning provides a sense of satisfaction for students by reinforcing their intrinsic and extrinsic pride when they accomplish a difficult task (Keller, 1987, p. 5). While games as instructional design tools can be helpful for promoting learning, the lack of a singular definition of digital game-based learning results in using many different ways of incorporating digital games into the learning process. In the following sections, we address the strengths and weaknesses of digital game-based learning approaches with two primary perspectives: the use of readily available digital games for learning purposes, and the design of digital game-like learning experiences. Strengths. In terms of strengths, designing digital game-like learning experiences succeeds in encouraging learners to think about problem solving in a systems-thinking manner, where the whole is more important than the individual parts (Gee, 2007; Senge and Fulmer, 1993). More specifically, digital game-based learning provides learners of diverse abilities and needs with opportunities to deeply experience enjoyable learning. Additionally, digital gamebased learning allows instructors to reach a comfortable medium where today’s learners can engage and become educated in a manner that fits their learning processes and speaks their language (Prensky and Berry, 2001). Through game-based learning, a higher instructional value


9

of educational activities is achieved when students can experience learning that is personally more relevant and satisfying. According to Griffiths (2003), educational video games can be used to help children with attention and impulsive disorders to gain social, instructional and organizational benefits. Well designed games can also provide authentic learning opportunities (Floyd, 2008) which can add to sense of relevance to instructional materials (Keller, 1987). Authentic learning opportunities through digital tools can facilitate situated learning in instructional settings (Herrington and Oliver, 2000). Additionally, non-educational commercial games have been shown to promote learning in a variety of areas ranging from history to communication to second language acquisition, a process influenced by both game features and content as well as player motivation and engagement (Peterson, 2013; Squire, 2011; Steinkuhler, 2007).While digital game-based learning can be a valuable instructional approach, it also has its weaknesses, to which we turn next. Weaknesses. Digital game-based learning, as any other learning approach, has its weaknesses. Instructors need to be cautious when using digital game-based learning as to not overlook opportunities to apply learning in real life contexts. Digital game-based learning can be a valuable approach to simulate real life applications when actual involvement in real life activities is not possible or feasible, but it does not necessarily replace physical involvement. For example, students in a science class can use actual seeds and small planter to understand the different phases of a plant life in real time rather than use a digital game-based application to convey the same simple concept. Also, instructors need to be aware of the extra time that they need to invest in preparing for a digital game-based learning class, and familiarizing students with programs and technology needed for a specific digital game (Becker, 2007). Moreover,


10

digital game-based learning is used in many different ways in educational environments. This prevents the creation of standard assessment and evaluation tools to measure the effectiveness of DGBL in achieving instructional objectives and learning outcomes (O’Neil, Wainess, & Baker, 2005). When using readily available digital games, instructors often have little to no customizability of the game narrative, structure, or other elements. This forces instructors to modify their own instruction to flow better with the digital game used or to use it as only a supplementary learning mechanism. Even when instructors design their courses in game formats or structures, they run into the inflexibility of the learning management systems adopted by the institute, or lack of resources to sustain the growing complexity of the course design. Additionally, many digital gaming applications require learners to sit at devices for long periods of time, often with limited face-to-face interaction with other students. In our current society, this can contribute to the growing problems of childhood obesity (He, Piche, Beynon, & Harris, 2010). Finally, digital games and the devices needed to play them, can be expensive, which can limit availability. However, while digital game-based instruction has its weaknesses, its opportunities for promoting motivation, engagement, and learning should not be overlooked, and thus, like all instructional approaches, the incorporation of digital game-based learning approaches should be influenced by educational goals, student needs, and available resources. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research People learn from both digital and non-digital games. Both types of game-based learning approaches offer teachers and students valuable opportunities to promote motivation, engagement, and learning. Hence, game-based learning aligns well with many aims of instructional design. This article illustrated the value of digital and non-digital game-based


11

learning and their respective educational affordances to help those in instructional design consider the use of game-based learning in their planning. While much is known about the uses and benefits of games in education, there is still much to learn. It is important that future research continues to explore how both digital and nondigital games can support teaching and learning. More specifically, empirical research that compares digital and non-digital game-based learning along with non-game-based learning in a variety of contexts would likely be valuable. Such research can illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of digital and non-digital games in learning environments and reveal how different people respond to and interact with digital and nondigital games given their varying contexts and resources. People, contexts, and resources will ultimately influence the possibilities and success of games in learning environments. Different goals, preferences, and resources will certainly make non-digital games stronger candidates than digital games for accomplishing particular educational goals in particular contexts. Conversely, digital-games will promote deeper learning than non-digital games in other situations. Further research should investigate how digital and non-digital games can be complementary and how they can both be used to support instructional design and deep learning. In order for game-based learning to realize its fullest potential, both digital and non-digital games need to be examined by researchers and included by educators in the instructional design of their diverse learning environments.


12

References Author (2015). Author (2016). Avedon, E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). The study of games. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Becker, K. (2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478-488. Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game-based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & education, 49(3), 873-890. Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R.(2014). An Investigation of the Interrelationships between Motivation, Engagement, and Complex Problem Solving in Game-based Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), pp. 42-53. Floyd, D. (2008) Video Games and Learning. Retrieved January 04, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0qRKjfX3s Griffiths, M. (2003). The therapeutic use of videogames in childhood and adolescence. Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 8(4), 547-554. He, M., Piché, L., Beynon, C., & Harris, S. (2010). Screen-related sedentary behaviors: children's and parents' attitudes, motivations, and practices. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 42(1), 17-25. Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332-344.


13

Hwang, G. J., Yang, L. H., & Wang, S. Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students' learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education, 69, 121-130. Hwang, G. J., Chiu, L. Y., & Chen, C. H. (2015). A contextual game-based learning approach to improving students' inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses. Computers & Education, 81, 13-25. Kamii, C. & DeVries, R. (1980) Group games in early education: Implications of Piaget’s theory. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Lynch, R., Mallon, B., & Connolly, C. (2015). The Pedagogical Application of Alternate Reality Games: Using Game-Based Learning to Revisit History. International Journal of GameBased Learning (IJGBL), 5(2), 18-38. Malone (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Random House. Miller, A., Christensen, E. M., Eather, N., Sproule, J., Annis-Brown, L., & Lubans, D. R. (2015). The PLUNGE randomized controlled trial: Evaluation of a games-based physical activity professional learning program in primary school physical education. Preventive medicine, 74, 1-8. O'Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455-474.


14

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton. Peterson, M. (2013). Computer games and language learning. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Do they really think differently. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-9. Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Computer Game Studies (pp. 97-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Russell, D., & Laffey, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of Research on Gaming Trends in P-12 Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Senge, P. M., & Fulmer, R. M. (1993). Simulations, systems thinking and anticipatory learning. Journal of Management Development, 12(6), 21-33. Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3(1), 533. Squire, K. (2011). Video Games and Learning: Teaching and Participatory Culture in the Digital Age. Technology, Education--Connections. Teachers College Press: New York, NY. Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(3), 297-318. Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16-30. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

GAMES AND GAME-BASED LEARNING IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN Zuckerman, D. W., & Horn, R. E. (1973). The guide to simulations/games for education and training. Lexington, MA: Information Resources, Inc.

15

Games and Game-based Learning in Instructional Design

Recommend Documents