ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games
as Constructivist Learning Environments:
A Delphi Study
by
Mark Douglas Wagner
M.A., National University, 2000
B.S., California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, 1998
Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Educational Technology
Walden University
August 2007
ABSTRACT
FORMAL K12 EDUCATION REMAINS MUCH AS IT DID A CENTURY AGO, BUT IN THE ERA OF THE INTERNET, CELL PHONES, AND VIDEOGAMES, STUDENTS HAVE CHANGED. VIDEOGAMES AND SIMULATIONS, PARTICULARLY MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING GAMES (MMORPGS) SHOW GREAT POTENTIAL AS ENGAGING AND MOTIVATING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. HOWEVER, DESPITE A BREADTH OF RESEARCH ABOUT VIDEOGAMES AND LEARNING IN GENERAL, THE POTENTIAL USES OF MMORPGS IN FORMAL EDUCATION ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD. THEREFORE, THIS STUDY AIMS TO INQUIRE INTO POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS FOR MMORPGS AS CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN FORMAL K12 EDUCATION , AND TO UNDERSTAND RELATED BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS. THIS PROPOSAL IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT AIMS TO EXPLORE A TECHNOLOGY WITH THE POTENTIAL TO IMPROVE (AND PERHAPS REVOLUTIONIZE) EDUCATION FOR 21ST CENTURY STUDENTS AND EDUCATORS. THIS STUDY WILL EMPLOY THE DELPHI METHOD OF INQUIRY. A PANEL OF EXPERTS WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE PREDICTIONS IN RESPONSE TO MULTIPLE ITERATIONS OF A QUESTIONAIRE. THE PANEL WILL CONSIST OF THIRTY TO SIXTY ADULT EXPERTS DRAWN FROM THE FIELDS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND VIDEO GAME DEVELOPMENT, WITH A FOCUS ON THOSE WITH CONSTRUCTIVIST PHILOSOPHIES AND THOSE WITH EXPERIENCE IN DIGITAL GAME-BASED LEARNING. BOTH INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS AND ACADEMICS WILL BE REPRESENTED IN THE POPULATION. AFTER EACH ITERATION OF THE QUESTIONAIRRE, RESPONSES WILL BE CODED AND ANALYZED BY THE RESEARCHER. FOLLOWING ITERATIONS WILL BE MODIFIED IN LIGHT OF THESE RESPONSES. PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES WILL ALSO BE ANONYMOUSLY SHARED WITH THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS SO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALTER THEIR RESPONSES FOR THE NEXT ITERATION. THE CONCENSUS OF THE PANEL’S PREDICTIONS, AND ANY OUTLYING OR DISSENTING PERSPECTIVES, WILL BE REPORTED IN THE FINAL DISSERTATION.
.
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games
as Constructivist Learning Environments:
A Delphi Study
by
Mark Douglas Wagner
M.A., National University, 2000
B.S., California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, 1998
Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Educational Technology
Walden University
August 2007
CONTENTS (short)
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 26
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 329
REFERENCES 392
APPENDIX 409
CONTENTS (long)
TABLE OF FIGURES VIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Context of The Study 1
Background 2
Problem Statement 8
Professional Significance of the Problem 9
Nature of The Study 11
Research Questions 12
Hypotheses 14
Research Objectives 16
Detailed Discussion 16
Delimitations 16
Definitions 17
Organization of The Proposal 24
Conclusion 25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 26
The Search Process 27
Video Games as Constructivist Learning Environments 31
Constructivism 31
The Core Constructivist Belief 31
Corollary Constructivist Beliefs 33
Constructivist Learning Environments 36
Motivation and Engagement 37
Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants 38
Hard Fun 40
The Value of Play 42
Intentional versus Incidental Learning 43
Games Are No Panacea 44
Context-Embedded Learning 45
Learning By Doing 46
Flow 53
Microworlds 54
Transfer 60
Situated and Distributed Understanding 62
Identity 64
Role Playing 66
Inquiry-Driven Learning 71
Active Learning 72
Asking Questions 74
Discovery Learning 75
Problem Solving 77
Self Regulation 79
Individualized Learning 81
Gateway Learning 85
Islands of Expertise 86
Relevance 87
Creativity 88
Socially Negotiated Learning 90
Experience is Social 90
Social Negotiated Meaning Making 93
Development is Social 94
The Zone of Proximal Development 96
Scaffolding 101
Culture Impacts Development 103
Communication effects Development 106
Cooperation and Collaboration 106
Transfer 112
Social Relevance 113
Video Games are Social 115
MMORPGs are Social 117
Role-Playing and Meaning Making 122
Reflection 126
Supporting Reflection 127
Reflection on Experience 128
Metacognition 130
Reflection and Social Change 132
Reflection and MMORPGs 132
Reflection and Organizational Change 133
21st Century Skills 135
Digital Age Literacies 138
Inventive Thinking 142
Effective Communication 149
High Productivity 151
The Role of The Teacher 152
Planning 154
Designing Learning Environments 156
Positive Support 159
Knowledge of Subject Matter (and Pedagogy) 160
Coaching 161
Providing Guidance and Leadership 163
Assessment 164
Helping Students Become Their Own Teachers 165
A Higher Calling 165
Trying Games Themselves 167
Social Change 169
Dewey 169
Vygotsky 171
Bruner 172
Shaffer 174
Squire, Steinkuehler, and Others 176
MMORPGs 178
Conclusion 179
Implementation of Video Games in Education 180
Video Games in Education 180
Edutainment 181
Web-Based Games 181
Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Games 182
Modifying Games 185
Games for Education 186
Serious Games 187
Games for Change 188
Games for Health 189
Creating Games 190
MMORPGs in Education 193
Video Game Design 193
What Players Want And Expect 197
Elements of Gameplay 199
Unique Elements of Electronic Games 204
Systems Content and Simulation 204
Software Agents and AI 208
Non-Linear Storytelling 209
Electronic Game Design Considerations 212
The Metagame 214
Inclusive Game Design 216
Females and Video Games 217
Female Characters and Avatars 220
Conflict Resolution, Learning, and Communication Styles 222
Females and Reward Systems 225
Gender and Stimulation Physiology 227
Microworlds, Role Playing, and Storytelling 229
Individually Inclusive Design 231
Creating Emotion in Games 234
Storytelling in Games 236
Emotioneering 241
Role Playing 244
Conclusion 254
Organizational Change 256
Facilitating Organizational Change 257
Respect the Realities of Change 257
Establish Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals 262
Focus on What’s Important 266
Use Systems Thinking 270
Support Personal Learning 272
Support Collaborative Learning 274
Develop Leadership 277
Develop Teaching 284
Overcoming Organizational Resistance 288
Respect Resistance 289
Remember Psychological Factors 292
Respond to Obstacles, Challenges, and Barriers 295
Develop Learning 299
Sustain The Process 303
Organizational Change and Society 313
Include Family and Community 313
Effect Positive Social Change 317
Conclusion 321
Call For Research 323
Summary of Previous Research and Relationship to This Study 323
Potential Benefits of MMORPGs and Need for This Study 326
Conclusion 327
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 329
Purpose of The Research 329
Theoretical Framework 332
Research Design 334
Qualitative Research 335
The Delphi Method 337
Overview 338
History 341
Process 343
Strengths 353
Concerns and Criticisms 356
Definition: Expert 359
Definition: Consensus 363
Research Questions and Subquestions 365
Role of the Researcher 368
Participants 371
Measures For Ethical Protection of The Participants 373
Data Collection Process 377
Data Analysis Process 380
Validity and Reliability 383
Exploratory Study 389
Conclusion 391
REFERENCES 393
APPENDIX 409
Table of Figures
FIGURE 1: FLOWCHART FOR THE DELPHI METHOD (JOPPE, N.D.) 351
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
THIS FIRST CHAPTER OF THE PROPOSAL INTRODUCES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING GAMES HAVE POTENTIAL AS CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS PROVIDED, AND THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED DELPHI STUDY IS EXPLAINED, AS ARE DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY. IN ADDITION NEW, AMBIGUOUS, OR SPECIAL TERMS ARE DEFINED, AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS PROPOSAL (AND EVENTUAL DISSERTATION) IS ESTABLISHED.
Context of The Study
Formal k12 education remains much as it did a century ago, but in the era of the Internet, cell phones, and videogames, students have changed. Videogames and simulations, particularly massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) show a good deal of potential as engaging and motivating learning environments. However, despite a breadth of research about videogames and learning in general, the potential uses of MMORPGs in formal education are poorly understood. This study aims to inquire into potential applications for MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education, and to understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of such applications. A brief description of the background supporting this study, an articulation of the problem statement, and an explanation of the significance of the study follow.
Background
Nearly a century ago Dewey (1915, 1916, 1938) laid out a progressive new approach to education. He called for schools to break away from the traditional medieval model of education in which teachers handed down pre-defined knowledge to relatively passive students. He believed that experience is the best education and created a system of education that would focus instead on learning-by-doing. Today, many young people learn by doing in a virtual context while using computer-based simulations – or even video games meant for entertainment purposes.
If Dewey believed that all education is experience, then Vygotsky (1978, 1986, 1997) believed that all experience is social. It follows that all education is social. Furthermore Vygotsky believed that all human development (even human thought) is social. He introduced the concept of the zone of proximal development (the ZPD), which is now familiar to educators world wide. This concept suggests that a student can perform more sophisticated tasks with help than they can unassisted. Based on this paradigm, educators can provide support, or scaffolding, for students to help them improve their unassisted performance. Ideally, educational tasks will fall within the ZPD and so provide a challenge without totally frustrating a student. Good video games excel at challenging players without frustrating them; a video game cannot be successful without doing this in an individual and differentiated way for each player. What happens instantaneously in a video game is difficult for teachers to reproduce in a classroom environment, even with considerable preparation, planning, and skill.
Piaget (1929, 1950, 1952) introduced the formal constructivist concepts of assimilation and accommodation, which describe the way in which a student constructs his or her own meaning as they experience the world. This philosophy is in keeping with Dewey’s focus on learning by doing and Vygotsky’s focus on social learning (particularly in Piaget’s later work). Piaget’s student, Papert (1980, 1993, 1996) applied these concepts to his work with children and computers. He believed that if a student can use a computer, they should be able to program the computer. The children’s programming language Logo was the result of his work. Using Logo students could actually create their own video games, Papert came to believe that if students can play video games, they should be able to program video games.
Bruner (1966, 1971, 1986, 1990, 1996) built upon the constructivist philosophies of Dewey, Vygotsky, and Piaget as he explored the process and the culture of education. Like Papert, other educational technologists, such as Jonassen (1992. 1999, 2000, 2003) applied these mature theories of social constructivism to the implementation of educational technologies. Jonassen focused on the use of technology to support intentional rather than incidental learning. While there is now little disagreement that a good deal of incidental learning takes places in video games (after all, this is what people presuming takes place when they fear that video games will make children more violent), it may also be possible to harness the technologies of video games for purposes of intentional learning in formal k12 educational institutions, just as Jonassen harnessed the incidental learning that happens when browsing the web for intentional purposes.
This approach may border on being necessary to engage and motivate 21st century students. Prensky (2001b) introduced the metaphor of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants, in which students who have grown up in a time of cell phones, email, instant messaging, ubiquitous Internet access, and –of course – video games are considered Digital Natives who speak “digital” fluently. People who were born before these technologies were invented (including most educators) are then Digital Immigrants who must learn to speak “digital” as a second language. Digital Natives expect to be engaged and motivated and they expect individualized and differentiated attention. Video games can provide this for them as entertainment, and they may be able to provide this for educational purposes as well.
Though constructivist pedagogy may arguably be a better way to teach the traditional curriculum, and though video games may be helpful tools in this task, society is now changing so quickly that entirely new skills may be required for students to be successful in the 21st century. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory or NCREL (2003) has identified a number of 21st century skills that schools should aim to develop in students. These are categorized into digital age literacies, inventive thinking, high productivity, and effective communication. Digital age literacies include not only basic, scientific, and economic literacy, but also technological, visual, information, and multicultural literacy. Inventive thinking includes not only adaptability, managing complexity, and self-direction, but also curiosity, creativity, and risk-taking. Effective communication includes elements you might expect, such as collaboration, interpersonal skills, and interactive communication, but it also includes ethical elements such as personal, social, and civic responsibility. High productivity, of course, includes prioritizing, planning, and managing for results as well as the effective use of real-world tools. Some of these skills, such as multicultural literacy, risk-taking, social responsibility, and the effective use of real-world tools can be difficult to teach in a traditional classroom environment. However, the medium of video games may provide a new way for students to develop these skills. Video games require and encourage risk taking, and a virtual world could help students learn about other cultures – and about ethics and responsibility.
A good deal has already been written on the use of video games in education. Prensky (2001, 2006) showed how video games are being used for training purposes in the military and corporate world, and he explained to teachers and parents what students can learn from various genres of video games. Gee (2003, 2004, 2005), a linguist and cognitive scientist explored 36 principles of learning that good games embody that many classrooms do not. He also discussed ways in which video games might be better for student’s academic performance than traditional teaching methods. Aldrich (2004, 2005) focused on the educational benefits of simulations, and even created a simulation to help players develop a traditionally difficult to teach soft skill, leadership. Shaffer (2006), like Gee, was interested in using games and simulations to help students develop new identities, particularly professional identities that include innovative ways of thinking. Other dissertations have also been dedicated to exploring the effectiveness of learning in video games. Squire (2003) researched the use of Civilization III with high school students, and Steinkuehler (2004) explored the learning by apprenticeship that happens in MMORPGs. Others have written about games that are explicitly created for purposes other than entertainment. Michael and Chen (2006) discussed games meant to educate, train, or inform. Such “serious games” include games for change such as the World Food Program’s Food Force and Impact Games’ Peacemaker, which hint the power of video games to not only educate, but to effect positive social change of the sort Dewey and other early constructivists sought.
If this promise is to be realized, then educators and video game designers will need to collaborate to create such games. Luckily, some video game designers have already addressed relevant issues. Rouse’s (2005) list of things players want and expect looks a good deal like what students might want and expect from the ideal constructivist classroom. Graner Ray (2004) has already addressed issues of gender inclusive game design, which will be important for any educational game designers, and Freeman (2004) has already explored ways to include a wider variety of human experience and emotion in video games. Designers of educational video games can also look to the tradition of tabletop role-playing games as they aim to create games in which students take on new roles and develop new identities. Mackay’s (2001) efforts at establishing a critical academic discourse about tabletop role-playing games may prove valuable in this regard.
Finally, if such games are going to be designed and implemented in education, then a good deal of organizational change will be necessary in traditional institutions of learning. Again, a rich body of literature already exists on this subject. Educators can look to the work of Senge (1990, 1994, 1999, 2000), who proposes the use of systems thinking and to school change experts, such as Evans (1996), who focuses on the human side of school change. Others such as Fullan (1993, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005) have provided a good deal of material meant to guide leaders through organizational change in education. The DuFours (1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006) and others have worked to create professional learning communities in schools in order to help make such change possible and sustainable. Establishing a professional learning community might be considered a pre-requisite for educational change as significant as the integration of video games on a scale larger than early adopters and pioneering teachers.
In short, four pillars of theory support this study. These are constructivist learning theory, digital game-based learning theory, video game design theory, and organizational change theory. The primary underlying theory of learning supporting this study is constructivism, as typified by the works of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. In addition the theories of constructivist educational technologists such as Papert and Jonassen form a foundation for this inquiry. Existing digital game-based learning theories have also been influential in the development of the research problem, including those of Prenksy, Gee, Aldrich, Schaffer, Squire, Steinkueler, Yee, Beck and Wade, Michael and Chen, and others. Video game design theories of Salen and Zimmerman, Rouse, Koster, Wolf and Patterson, Cassell and Jenkins, Graner Ray, Freeman, Mackay, and others have also played a role. Finally, organizational change theory is important for the application of this study in educational institutions. The works of Senge, Evans, and Fullan have been influential as have the professional learning community theories of DuFour and DuFour, Wald and Castelberry, Huffman and Hipp, Roberts and Pruitt, Hord, Stone and Cuper, and Kaagan.
Problem Statement
Based on the background information above and the literature reviewed in chapter two it seems that massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) may be a genre of video games with a great deal of potential as constructivist learning environments. In addition, they provide a persistent-world, which could be used to facilitate on-demand and just-in-time learning, thus helping to meet the needs of Digital Native students. The persistent worlds of MMORPGs are also designed to be immersive, which may not only be engaging and motivating, but also may provide a context for learning. These virtual worlds tend to be open-ended, which may also provide students opportunities for individualized and differentiated opportunities for inquiry within the game. Also, of course, a massively multiplayer game is massively social, providing a rich environment for collaboration and socially-negotiated learning. At their best, such games also encourage meaningful role-playing, which may be useful for helping students to explore and develop new identities. Finally, MMORPGs may also be a virtual environment in which students can learn difficult to teach real-world skills such as leadership and other 21st century skills, including risk taking.
However, with the notable exception of Steinkuehler (2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b), who investigated the sort or informal apprenticeship learning that takes place in MMORPGs, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding learning and MMORPGs. Other video game theorists, including Prensky (2001, 2006) and Aldrich (2004, 2005) discuss MMORPGs as a learning platform, but only briefly, and when they do, they disagree about the value of the games for learning.
Therefore, this study aims to explore the potential of massively multiplayer online role-playing games as constructivist learning environments, with a particular focus on formal k12 education. The study is thus guided by two overarching questions:
1. What are the potential benefits of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
2. What are the potential problems related to using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
As an exploratory study, the following research will also include an investigation of related issues, including the sorts of video game design and organizational change that will be necessary to make implementation of MMORPGs in education a reality. See the section on the nature of the study below for additional research questions, hypotheses, and objectives. Chapter three then offers an in depth discussion of the method proposed for this study.
Professional Significance of the Problem
The goal of this dissertation is to identify potential applications of massively multiplayer online role-playing games as constructivist learning environments in the context of formal k12 education. The purpose is to identify the potential benefits and drawbacks of such applications and to recommend courses for future research by academics, future game development by industry professionals, and future organizational change by public educators. This study is significant because it aims to explore a technology with the potential to improve (and perhaps revolutionize) education for 21st century students and educators
In many ways existing educational institutions have failed to effectively implement the constructivist pedagogies developed by Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bruner. Similarly, existing 21st century schools have largely failed to implement educational technology in the revolutionary ways described by Papert and Jonassen. It is no surprise that more than five years after Prenksy wrote Digital Game-Based Learning, very few schools have also adopted the use of video games in their curriculum. An exploratory study of the kind proposed here may help raise awareness about the potential value of MMORPGs to education, particularly if they hold the potential to make good on many of as yet unrealized promises of progressive education, constructivism, and educational technology.
More importantly, video games, including MMORPGs, may be an effective medium for teaching Digital Natives such as many of today’s students. Educators are bound to meet the needs of these students, and as such should investigate the potential these games offer. Perhaps most importantly, these games may help close the gap between traditional classroom learning and real-world learning-by-doing. Any educational technology that may result in a greater transfer of skills form the educational environment to the real-world is worthy of investigation. Ideally, the development of persistent open-ended online learning environments in which students are able to take on new roles in a meaningful context may offer an opportunity to develop a better and more accessible educational system that would be available to students world wide.
It is the researcher’s hope that this exploratory Delphi study will serve to inform further and more specific studies about the use of MMORPGs in education. It is also hoped that this study may help to convince educational institutions to consider the idea of using video games, even MMORPGs, in their curriculum – if indeed the results are positive and warrant such consideration. Conversely, it is also hoped that this study – if the results are positive – might convince game developers that creating such games would be a worthwhile goal, at least socially if not economically.
If the promise of MMORPGs and video games in general is what it seems it may be, this study may be an early entry in a field that may come to dominant the meaning of educational technology. There may one day be a time when educational technology will be nearly synonymous with video games and simulations, and when the educational MMORPG will be a part of growing up in modern schools.
Nature of The Study
This qualitative study will employ the Delphi method of inquiry. A panel of experts will be asked to make predictions in response to multiple iterations of a questionaire. After each iteration, responses will be coded and analyzed by the researcher. Following iterations will be modified in light of these responses. Participants’ responses will also be anonymously shared with the other participants so they have an opportunity to alter their predictions prior to the next iteration. Through this process, the panel will move toward concensus in their predictions. Outlying or dissenting predictions will be consideration by the researcher as well.
The research population will be a panel of approximately sixty adult experts drawn from the fields of educational technology and video game development, with a focus on those with constructivist philosophies and those with experience in digital game-based learning. Both industry professionals and academics will be represented in the population. The researcher will draw upon this population by asking them to complete three iterations of a Delphi questionaire over a period of no more than six weeks. Each iteration will require one hour or less of their time. Those who complete the study will be compensated for their time. It is hoped that of the initial sixty at least thirty (or fifty percent) will complete all three rounds of the study.
Research data will be collected in the form of participants' written responses to the Delphi study questionnaire. This data will be coded and analyzed by the researcher after each iteration so that results can be presented to the participants and the following iteration of the questionnaire can be composed.
Research Questions
This study aims to explore the potential of massively multiplayer online role-playing games as constructivist learning environments, with a particular focus on formal k12 education. The study is thus guided by two overarching questions:
1. What are the potential benefits of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
2. What are the potential problems related to using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
As an exploratory study, the following research will also include an investigation of related issues, including the sorts of video game design and organizational change that will be necessary to make implementation of MMORPGs in education a reality.
The following 12 additional research questions will be used to focus the initial round of the Delphi study:
1. Motivation and Engagement: How might MMORPGs be used to motivate and engage students, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
2. Context: How might MMORPGs be used to provide a context for student learning, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
3. Inquiry: How might MMORPGs be used to provide students with opportunities for inquiry-based learning, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
4. Social Negotiation: How might MMORPGs be used to support social negotiation of meaning (including facilitated collaboration, cooperation, and competition), and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
5. Reflection: How might MMORPGs be used to encourage student reflection and metacognition, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
6. 21st Century Skills: How might MMORPGs be used to help students develop 21st century skills (as defined by NCREL, 2003), and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
7. Role-Playing: How might MMORPGs be used to support meaningful role-playing and development of new identities by students, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
8. Role of The Teacher: What might be the role of the teacher in supporting the use of MMORPGs in formal k12 education?
9. Organizational Change: What sorts of organizational change would need to take place before MMORPGs might be accepted and effectively implemented as an educational technology in existing schools?
10. Social Change: How might MMORPGs used in formal k12 education be used to effect positive social change?
11. Inclusive Game Design: How might game designers create MMORPGs for education that are inclusive of both genders and that represent a wide range of human emotion?
12. Game Design: What other issues will designers of educational MMORPGs need to consider?
Delimitations
This study is delimited by several boundaries and by limits to the generalizability of the results. Most importantly, this is a Delphi study meant to provide useful predictions about the future. The results of this study will not be a description of any existing phenomena, except as a description of whatever consensus in expert opinion that may be reached through the process of the Delphi questionnaires. This study aims to make predictions about the potential benefits of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments, and about the potential problems related to such use. Predictions, of course, should be treated only as predictions, not as guarantees of any particular results.
Also, this study is focused specifically on the use of MMORPGs in a formal k12 educational environment. Results will not necessarily be gerealizable to other genres of video games or to other learning environments. Similarly, this study explores the use of MMORPGs with respect to constructivist pedagogy and results may not be generalizable to other schools of thought such as traditional or behaviorist pedagogy.
The particular identities of the experts on the panel and their particular expertise and experiences will also limit the scope and generalizability of this study. The particular limits that this factor imposes on the study will not be known until after institutional review board approval of this proposed study and after a panel of experts is recruited. It is projected, though, that the panel will be made up of primarily English speaking North American academics, game designers, and educational technologists. As such, their expert opinion may be subject to particular biases related to such demographics.
Definitions
This section includes definitions of special terms used in this proposal. This list does not include terms that are generally understood by those in the field of educational technology. However, it does include definitions for some terms that are relatively new to the field, terms that are sometimes used ambiguously, and terms that are used in a more (or less) specific way than their general use. No new terms were invented for use in this proposal.
21st Century skills: a set of skills identified by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group that are not often included in academic standards but which may help students to succeed in the 21st century. These include digital age literacies, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity. See for more information.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): techniques used in computer and video games to produce the illusion of intelligence in the behavior of non-player characters (NPCs). See for more information.
Avatar: the representation of a player within a video game, often in the form of a three-dimensional “body.” See (icon) for more information.
Blog: short for web log or weblog, a blog is an easily created, easily updated website on which the authors entries or posts appear in reverse chronological order and on which visitors can leave comments back to the author. See for more information.
Chat: A form of group (or one-to-one) text-based communication that occurs in real-time via the Internet. See for more information.
Commercial off the shelf (COTS) games: video games (primarily meant for entertainment purposes) that are ready-made and available for sale to the general public.
Complex games: video games that require some combination of the following - many hours to complete or master, a variety of skills or strategies, outside research or collaboration, ethical dilemmas or decisions, and assumption of new identities or ways of thinking.
Computer game: See video game.
Digital game: See video game.
Digital game-based learning: learning that is facilitated by playing a digital game (a computer game, an electronic game, a video game, or simulation).
Edutainment: a form of entertainment designed to educate as well as to amuse. See for more information.
Electronic game: See video game.
First person shooter (FPS): a genre of video games which is characterized by an on-screen view that simulates the playable characters perspective and a focus on the use of ranged weapons such as guns. See for more information.
Flow: the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing, characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity.
Gamer: a person who plays video games, particularly someone who spends as much of their leisure time as possible playing games or reading about games. See for more information.
Gamemaster (GM): a player in a multiplayer role-playing game who acts as the organizer, primary storyteller, and referee. The GM also controls (or role-plays) all non-player characters (NPCs). See for more information.
Games for change: a movement and community of practice dedicated to using computer and video games for social change. An individual video game may also be referred to as a "game for change" if it is produced by this community or shares its ideals. See or for more information.
Games for health: a community and best practices platform for the numerous games being built for health care applications. This is a subset of the games for change movement. See for more information.
Global Positioning System (GPS): a system of satellites that transmit precise microwave signals enabling devices that receive the signal to determine location speed and direction. Some handheld computers include GPS receiving devices, and some video games make use of GPS signal to create gameplay that is sensitive to the player’s real-world location. See for more information.
Instant Messenger (IM): a form of one-to-one (or group) text-based communication that occurs in real-time via the Internet. See for more information.
Knowledge Area Module (KAM): a comprehensive research paper (of approximately 100 pages) that includes a broad review of literature, a more indepth review of a specific topic, and a report on a practical application of the concepts reviewed. KAMs are a core element of the Ph.D. programs at Walden University. See for more information.
LOGO: a programming language designed for educational use, particularly in conjunction with construcitvist pedagodgy. See for more information.
Ludology (ludologist): the still-young field of analyzing video games from a social science or humanities perspective. A lugologist studies ludology. See for more information.
Massively multiplayer online game (MMO): a type of video game that is played online, allowing large numbers of players to interact with one another. This is a more inclusive term that MMORPG (below), which specifies role-playing games in particular, but for brevity’s sake MMO is often used in place of MMORPG.
Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG): a genre of video games (and subset of role-playing games) that is played online, allowing large numbers of players to interact with one another in a persistent virtual world. See for more information.
Metagame: a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Metagame can also be a verb meaning to take any such action. See for more information.
Microworld: a virtual world inside which a student can explore alternatives, test hypotheses, and make discoveries.
Mod (Modding): a modification of an existing game, often with new settings, characters, items, and storylines. Many commercial off the shelf games come with toolsets for modifying (or modding) the game. See for more information.
MUD, MOO, MUSH, and MUCK: a multi user domain (MUD) is a text-based multi-player online computer game that combines elements of role-playing games and chat rooms. MOOs, MUSHs, and MUCKs are subtly different variations on this core concept. These games are the predecessors to modern MMORPGs.
MUVEE: a multi-user virtual environment experiential simulator is a an engaging way to improve educational outcomes using museum-related multimedia and virtual environments for teaching and learning science. A MUVEE is similar to an MMORPG, but is not massively multiplayer and has an educational focus. See for more information.
Non-player character (NPC): a character in a role-playing game (computerized or not), or a character in any video game, whose actions are not controlled by a human player. See for more information.
Player character (PC): a character in a role-playing game (computerized or not), or a character in any video game, whose actions are controlled by a human player. See for more information.
Player-versus-player (PvP): a form of play (usually in a video game) in which one player competes directly against another, often in combat. See for more information.
Professional learning community (PLC): a collegial group of administrators and school staff who are united in their commitment to student learning. See for more information.
Read/Write Web (Two-Way Web, Web 2.0): a term that refers to websites that are easy to create and update and that allow two way communication. Examples include blogs, wikis, podcasts, social bookmarking, photosharing, videosharing, and social networking sites. See for more information.
Real time strategy (RTS) game: a genre of video games which take place in real-time, where resource gathering, building, technology development and direct control over individual units ("harvest, build, destroy") are key components, which distinguishes it from related strategy genres, such as turn-based strategy and real-time tactics. See for more information.
Really Simple Syndication (RSS): a web technology (similar to HTML or XML) that allows users to subscribe (usually for free) to updates (or feeds) from news sites, blogs, podcasts and other sources. See for more information.
Role-playing: a social activity in which participants adopt and act out the role of characters that may have identities different from their own, including different personalities, motivations, backgrounds, and ways of thinking. Role-playing is a form of performance, and often occurs in theater, games, and education. See for more information.
Role-playing game (RPG): There are two kinds of Role-Playing games discussed in this proposal. The first is a tabletop role-playing game, a type of game (played with paper, pencils, and dice) in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games. A human gamemaster prepares, facilitates, and referees the story in addition to playing all non-player characters. The second kind of role-playing game is a video game in which the player (or players) assume the role of a fictional character in the game, but in which they have considerably less flexibility to determine their actions due to the limits of computers to improvise and react to human improvisation. See also or for more information.
Serious games: a type of game (or simulation) that is meant for a purpose other than education, for instance serious games may be meant to educate, train, or inform, and may be used in many fields including education, government, health, first response, science, and the military. See or for more information.
Simulation: an imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process. The act of simulating something generally entails representing certain key characteristics or behaviors of a selected physical or abstract system. In the context of this proposal, a simulation is usually computer-based and usually meant for educational purposes. Some simulations may appear very like video games, and the terms may sometimes be used interchangeably or in close proximity. See for more details.
Systems thinking: an approach to analysis that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system will act differently when isolated from its environment or other parts of the system. Systems thinking concerns an understanding of a system by bringing the linkages and interactions to bear between the elements that comprise the entirety of the system. It depicts all human-activity systems as open systems, that they are affected by the environment in which they exist. This is a common philosophy in organizational change and school change – and in video game design. See for more information.
Turn-based strategy (TBS) game: a video game in which the game flow is partitioned into well-defined and visible parts, called turns or rounds. For example, when the game flow unit is time, turns represent units of time, like years, months, weeks, or days. A player of a turn-based game is allowed a period of analysis (sometimes bounded, sometimes unbounded) before committing to a game action, ensuring a separation between the game flow and the thinking process. See for more information.
Video game: a computer-driven game with a user interface and a video display. Video game as it is used in this proposal is a term that includes games played on consoles (such as the PS2 or XBOX360), Personal Computers (with operating systems such as Windows XP or Mac OS X), the World Wide Web, handheld devices (such as a PSP, Nintendo DS, Palm, PocketPC, or cell phone), or other electronic device. For the purposes of this proposal video games include and are synonymous with computer games, digital games, and electronic games. Because video games and educational simulations often share many elements in common, these terms may also be used interchangeably or in close proximity. See for more information.
Web-based games: a type of video game that is not run on a console, PC, or other specific device, but is instead stored on a web server and run in a web browser from any device that can access the web server, such as an individual PC. Web based games do not need to be installed on an individual machine, but are usually limited in the computing resources and display resources they can utilize because they are run in a web browser. See for an example that is also a serious game, or for many examples that can also be considered edutainment.
WebQuest: a research activity in which students read, analyze, and synthesize information using the World Wide Web. The WebQuest is valued as a highly constructivist teaching method, during which students actively build their own understanding of a topic. "Authentic," or real-world questions or problems are often researched, and students work cooperatively to find solutions. See for more information.
Note: These definitions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Several definitions include material from the Wikipedia at . Specific Wikipedia articles are referred to within specific definitions. In many cases the material presented here is a derivative (rather than an exact reproduction) of text offered in the Wikipedia on June 22, 2007.
Organization of The Proposal
This proposal is organized into three chapters. This first chapter is an introductory chapter that includes an introduction to the study, background information, the problem statement, the significance of the study, the nature of the study, research questions, hypotheses, research objectives, delimitations and definitions of terms.
Chapter two includes a comprehensive review of literature relevant to the study. This includes a description of the process used to search for and analyze resources, an overview of research related to the use of video games as (or in) constructivist learning environments, an overview of issues related to the implementation of video games in education, an overview of the organizational change that is necessary to implement video games in educational institutions, and a clear articulation of the need for this study.
Chapter three includes an in-depth discussion of the methods proposed for use in this study. This includes a description of the research design, the role of the researcher, research questions, the context for the study, measures for ethical protection of the participants, criteria for selecting participants, the data collection process, and the analysis process. In the final dissertation this chapter will also include information related to the actual experts who participate in the Delphi panel.
The final dissertation will also include a fourth chapter discussing the results of the study, including the data collection process, the systems for keeping track of data and emergent understandings, the analysis of the data, findings, discrepant cases and nonconfirming data, and a brief discussion of any patterns, relationships, and themes evident in the results. Finally, in the dissertation, a fifth chapter will include an interpretation of the findings, the relationship of the findings to previous research, potential implications for practice – and for social change. This will include recommendations for educators, game designers, academics, and researchers who hope to expand on the study.
Conclusion
This first chapter has introduced the question of whether or not massively multiplayer online role-playing games have potential as constructivist learning environments. Background information has been provided, and the nature of the proposed Delphi study has been explained, as have delimitations of the study. New, ambiguous, or special terms have been defined, and the organization of the proposal (and eventual dissertation) has been established. Please see chapter two for a detailed review of relevant literature and chapter three for a detailed discussion of the proposed methodology.
CHAPTER 2:
LITERATURE REVIEW
THIS SECOND CHAPTER OF THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LITERATURE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED STUDY. THE CHAPTER BEGINS WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS USED TO SEARCH FOR AND ANALYZE THE RELEVANT LITERATURE.
This description of the search process is followed by an overview of research related to the use of video games as (or in) constructivist learning environments. The overview begins with a brief introduction to constructivist learning theory. The remainder of the overview is organized based on elements of a constructivist learning environment, such as context-embedded, inquiry-driven, and socially negotiated learning. It also includes sections on motivation, reflection, and 21st century skills. It concludes by discussing the role of the teacher and the use of video games to effect positive social change.
The next section of this chapter is focused on issues related to the implementation of video games in education. The section begins with a description of current uses for video games in education, including the use of web-based games, commercial off the shelf (COTS) games, modified games (mods), and explicitly educational games. The description also introduces the serious games movement and its sub-movements, games for change and games for health. The creation of video games by teachers and students is also addressed. Next, the issues related to creating educational games are discussed in more depth, including the need for inclusive game design and the need to represent a broader spectrum of human emotion and experience in games. The legacy of tabletop role-playing games and their importance to future computerized educational role-playing games, including MMORPGs, is covered here as well.
The following section of this chapter then focuses on the organizational change that is necessary to implement video games in educational institutions. This section synthesizes existing research to present several guidelines for facilitating organization change, overcoming organizational resistance, and integrating organizational change with the larger society.
The chapter concludes with a summary of this research and it’s relationship to the proposed study. This includes speculation about the potential benefits of using Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) as constructivist learning environments. The need for this study is also clearly articulated in this conclusion.
The Search Process
The search process began with a search of the Walden University library databases, including the EBSCOE Databases and the Walden University Dissertation database. The Academic Search Premier was the EBSCOE Database that produced the most relevant resources. Primary search terms included “video game,” “computer game,” “digital game,” “electronic game,” and “simulation.” These were often combined with terms related to constructivist learning environments such as “inquiry” or “collaboration.” Unfortunately, these databases produced few relevant sources early in the process. The researcher also subscribed to the online library at , which made several relevant books and articles available in full text electronic format. Search terms similar to those mentioned above were used at Questia with some success. In addition, the researcher purchased a membership to the library at the University of California, Irvine, which is local to the researcher’s home. This allowed easy access to print resources, particularly older volumes by early constructivist theorists. However, most resources were found through means other than searching libraries and library databases.
Some specific web search techniques produced more useful results. The web-based search engine Google was often used successfully to locate specific sources. Other search services were also used to create RSS feeds via really simple syndication (RSS). This technology allowed the researcher to be updated on the appearance of new sources without having to perform a search a second time. For instance, a search for “video games” + “education” was performed on Google News Search, Technorati (a blog search engine), and MSN search; each of these then provided an RSS feed to which the researcher subscribed. Updates were then sent to the researcher via RSS for the duration of the search process. (The researcher is still subscribed to these feeds.) This also led to the discovery of several blogs related to video games in education, which the researcher subscribed to for further updates and links to additional useful resources.
Video Games as Constructivist Learning Environments
This section presents an overview of research related to the use of video games as (or in) constructivist learning environments. The overview begins with a brief introduction to constructivist learning theory. The remainder of the overview is organized based on elements of a constructivist learning environment, such as context-embedded, inquiry-driven, and socially negotiated learning. It also includes sections on motivation, reflection, and 21st century skills. It concludes by discussing the role of the teacher and the use of video games to effect positive social change.
Constructivism
Literature extolling the educational virtues of video games often relies on a foundation of explicitly constructivist beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the process of learning. This section of the chapter will provide an overview of constructivist philosophy to serve as a framework for making sense of the literature on video games and learning.
The Core Constructivist Belief
In contrast to the empirical behaviorist view that knowledge about an objective reality can be simply and reliably passed on from teacher to student, the kernel of constructivist philosophy is the belief that all knowledge must be actively and subjectively constructed in the mind of each individual. Dewey articulated this core belief nearly a century ago:
"Why is it, in spite of the fact that teaching by pouring in, learning by a passive absorption, are universally condemned, that they are still so entrenched in practice? That education is not an affair of 'telling' and being told, but an active and constructive process, is a principle almost as generally violated in practice as conceded in theory." (Dewey, 1916, p. 38)
Piaget (1950) formalized this thinking several decades later, when he identified two complimentary cognitive processes responsible for learning - adaptation and organization (p. 105). The process of adaptation described the way in which a mind takes in data from the environment, while organization described the way in which that information is stored and used. Piaget considered adaptation to be the most fundamental of these two processes, and he described it as “an equilibrium between assimilation and accommodation” (1952, p. 6; 1950, p. 9). Assimilation, then, accounted for both the act of incorporating new data into existing mental structures (or schema) and also the construction of entirely new schema into which data could then be incorporated (1952, p. 6, 410, 416). In contrast, accommodation referred to the ways in which existing schema are modified to account for new input (1952, p. 7).
Many other constructivist theorists also subscribed to this view. Vygotsky (1986), for instance, believed that “direct teaching of concepts is impossible and fruitless” (p. 150). By the late twentieth century, Bruner (1986) was explicitly interested in thought as a way of “constructing reality” (p. 11) and in what he then called “constructivism” (p. 44). He believed that "contrary to common sense there is no unique 'real world' that preexists and is independent of human mental activity and human symbolic language; that what we call the world is a product of some mind whose symbolic procedures construct the world" (p. 95).
This core belief of constructivists such as Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner continues to inform the work of 21st century researchers, including those exploring the educational potential of video games. For example, Shaffer (2006) sites Dewey, Vygotsky, and Bruner extensively in How Video Games Help Children Learn, and the foundation of Schafer’s theories is Piaget’s schema view of learning (p. 149). Even game designers Salen and Zimmerman (2005), who are not writing with an educational end in mind, base their theories on the importance of the schemas (p. 103) and cognitive frames players develop to “interpret actions and events” (p. 374). Steinkuehler (2006b) has studied similar forms of meaning making within the cultural context of existing massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs) created for commercial and entertainment purposes. Video games, including MMORPGs created for educational purposes might be able to harness these core processes.
Corollary Constructivist Beliefs
This core constructivist belief is also associated with several corollary beliefs that have become hallmarks of constructivist pedagogy. The most important of these corollaries is captured by the adage of learning by doing. Constructivist philosophy holds that the learner should take an active rather than passive role in the learning process, and that the tasks required of the learner should have an authentic context and purpose. It is under these conditions that the transfer of learning from the educational experience to the “real-world” is believed to be most successful. Again, Dewey expressed well the contrast between traditional educational methods and this constructivist belief in active learning:
"To imposition from above is opposed expression and cultivation of individuality; to external discipline is opposed free activity; to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill, is opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is opposed making the most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is opposed acquaintance with a changing world." (Dewey, 1938, p. 19-20)
Dewey (1938) called for “education of, by, and for, experience” (p. 29). This sentiment is echoed in the work of video game scholars such as Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, & Tan (2003), who explain that “knowledge developed through game play is not pointless information to be recalled for tests, but is valuable information when confronting new challenges and solving problems” (p. 6). Even commercial game designers, such as Koster (2005), understand that “when you're playing a game, it exercises your brain” (p. 39). Slator (2006), who is explicitly interested in constructivism (p. 10) and authentic instruction (p. 15), finds value in “virtual role based worlds for education… constructed purposefully for student immersion” (p. 11). MMORPGs might offer a means of connecting students in virtual worlds where they can learn by doing many things that might be impractical or impossible in a classroom situation. MMORPGs have the added value of also providing a social network for student learning.
After all, learning is often considered by constructivists to be a social process, involving the negotiation of meaning between individuals and the distribution of knowledge over social networks. It is commonly accepted that individual learners can complete more sophisticated tasks with the aid of mentors or peers than they can on their own. Dewey (1915) discussed the notion that mind “is developed in an environment which is social as well as physical, and that social needs and aims have been most potent in shaping it identified” (p. 99). Later, Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD), a cornerstone of constructivist pedagogy, was defined as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Constructivist educators often focus on providing students with tasks that fall within the students’ ZPD – tasks that will challenge them without frustrating them. Today, video game scholars recognize this concept at work when students play games:
"Games confront players with limits of space, time, and resources, forcing them to stretch in order to respond to problems just on the outer limits of their current mastery. The best games can adjust to the skills of their players, allowing the same product to meet the needs of a novice and a more advanced student. Indeed, the concept of advancing in 'levels' structures the learning process such that players can't advance without mastery - something that curriculum- and test- designers have struggled to build into their work." (Holland, Jenkins, & Squire, 2003, p. 28)
Prensky (2006), too, noted this “adapticity” in games (p. 91-95), and Shaffer discussed the use of computer games as scaffolding to help students move toward mastery of skills in their zone of proximal development (p. 152).
It is also commonly accepted by constructivists that individual learners will have different interests as well as different strengths and weakness. Gardner (1993) has identified ten independent capacities for aptitude in individuals: linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, special intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, naturalistic intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and existential intelligence (p. 41-64). In addition to being able to engage students through multiple modalities and to allow students to exercise more of Gardner’s intelligences than a traditional classroom assignment might, video games can also work to help players develop their weaker intelligences:
"instead of adapting to the player's style, as is most often done in education, [a game can be] designed to do the opposite... this idea of exercising and stretching the learner, rather than just making him or her more comfortable, is typical of the innovative learning techniques built into the modern complex electronic games our kids play." (Prensky, 2006, p. 95)
Constructivist Learning Environments
Criticisms of constructivism often focus on the lack of structure provided to students, however many constructivist educators insist on a structured environment in which students’ knowledge construction can be facilitated. Such an environment is one in which students are challenged without being frustrated, and in which they are focused on intentional (rather than incidental) learning (Jonassen, 1992, p. 146).
At a minimum, a constructivist learning environment will motivate and engage learners. Most importantly, it will also provide a context for learning, opportunities for inquiry or discovery, and a framework for collaborative learning. The value of all of these elements is increased if the environment also facilitates reflection and metacognition on the part of the learner. Such an environment can also be useful for the development not only of traditional school skills but also difficult-to-teach “soft” skills and “21st century skills”, such as digital-age literacies, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high-productivity (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group, 2003). Within such a learning environment, the role of the teacher in providing support to students is especially critical.
Each of these elements constructivist learning environments will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Each section will explore traditional constructivist perspectives, the contributions of educational technologists, and the more recent literature on video games and education.
Motivation and Engagement
One of the fundamental properties of an effective constructivist learning environment is that it engages and motivates students.
Engaging and motivating students has been a primary concern of the constructivist movement since long before computers and video games. Now, though, modern complex video games offer a new multi-modal medium for engaging students and a wide variety of new strategies for motivating their participation.
For more than a century, traditional classroom lessons - including lectures, reading, and written assignments - have often failed to effectively or reliably engage and motivate students. As Dewey (1938) noted, many students come to “associate the learning process with ennui and boredom” (p. 27), and as Slator (2006) explained, these “uninspired students often create difficulties for instructors and themselves” (p. 10).
In recent decades, video games (and other interactive media) may have exacerbated this problem. Students, particularly gamers, are now coming to school with higher expectations of engagement and interaction. Papert (1993), a student of Piaget, made the argument that video games encourage in students “an industriousness and eagerness that school can seldom generate” (p. 3-4) and that “school strikes many young people as slow, boring, and frankly out of touch” (p. 5).
Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants
Prensky (2001b) introduced the metaphor of digital natives and digital immigrants, in which students who have never known a time without the Internet, email, cell phones, and video games are considered digital natives – and in which adults who have to learn these technologies later in life are considered digital immigrants. Prensky (2006) makes the case that today’s students, the digital natives, “are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (p. 30). He cites research suggesting they think differently, particularly on account of playing video games (2001c, 2006 p. 32-39). He explained several differences in their cognitive style (2001a, p. 52) and ways in which they interact differently than digital immigrants (2006, p. 41-50). In short, he concluded that “immigrants teaching natives causes problems” (2006, p. 29). Carstens and Beck (2005) also found that “gamers showed a range of different opinions and behaviors” compared to non-gamers (p. 23), and they suggested that gamers have comparatively little respect for traditional authority and training.
However, these same technologies, including video games, can also offer a solution to the problem. Papert (1993), for instance, believed that “video games teach children… that some forms of learning are fast-paced, immensely compelling, and rewarding” (p. 5). Prensky (2001a), too, felt that video games are “one of the few structures that we currently have that is capable of meeting many of the Games Generation’s changing learning needs and requirements” (p. 65). Shaffer (2005) wrote that “computers and other new technologies can help make learning engaging and relevant in ways Dewey suggested” (p. 6), and that students can have “intense and intensive” experiences playing a game as part of a class project (in press, p. 3). Shaffer and Gee (2005) concluded, “contemporary video games are profoundly engaging and motivating to young people” (p. 15). Gee (2005) also discussed the motivating pleasures even simple games such as Tetris can bring a player (p. 13). He went on to say that “cognitive science… has shown quite clearly that feeling and emotion are not peripheral to thinking and learning” (p. 30), and that “if learners are to learn… deeply… then they need to feel and care about the world… in which they are playing” (p. 30). An interactive game space can offer “rewards from the beginning, customized to each learner’s level, effort, and growing mastery and signaling the learner’s ongoing achievements” (Gee, 2003, p. 67). Gee even shared an anecdote about a video game motivating very young students to learn to read (Prensky, 2006, p. 163). Because video games can thus empower the learner, games can be used as part of a motivating “loop of rewards and reinforcement – [giving] a taste of empowerment and ownership, leading to more engagement, which, in turn, allows further empowerment and so on” (Jonassen, 2003, p. 114).
Hard Fun
There is little doubt that modern video games are deeply motivating and engaging to many of the same students that struggle to pay attention in school – despite the fact that games continuously and consistently challenge students, often to the brink of frustration. It has been clear for some time that these games are fun not in spite of being hard, but precisely because they are hard. Video games provide “the kind of fun that Seymour Papert characterized as hard fun: the kind of fun you have when you work on something difficult, something that you care about, and finally master it” (Shaffer, 2006, p. 21). Papert’s (n.d.) concept of hard fun suggests “that everyone likes hard challenging things to do.” Papert (1993) himself felt that video games are not only fun, but they “are hard, with complex information – as well as techniques – to be mastered” (p. 4). Johnson (2005), too, pointed out that “the experience of playing today's video games… [is] fiendishly, sometimes maddeningly, hard” (p. 25). But, as Jenkins (2005a) shared, the worst thing students can say about homework is that it’s too hard, while the worst thing they can say about a video game is that it’s too easy. Ideally, to be fun (and thus commercially successful), a video game has to remain squarely in Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, challenging but not frustrating players – even players of significantly varied skill levels.
This property of video games to deliver hard fun can be an educational asset. Caperton (2005), a student of Papert, believed that hard fun was the essence of good video games, and concluded that good games can help students to learn concepts and ways of thinking that might otherwise be beyond them. Schaffer (2006) also believed that “games based on the training of professionals - high standards, hard work, and all” can be fun for students (p. 131), in part because they “are fascinated by efficacy: the things they can do in the world and the sense of their own power that comes from being able to make things happen” (p. 131) He suggests that good video games “thus fulfill young people's basic need to make things happen in a positive and constructive way” (p. 132). Jenkins and Wright (2005) imagined the educational games of the future, but concluded that students are already living the education of the future when they get home from school and play video games.
Massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs), in particular, often require players to perform repetitive tasks that seem suspiciously like work, and yet these games are among the most compellingly immersive experiences available. Shaffer (2006) notes that many things that players do in an MMORPG “don’t, on their own, seem like fun” (p. 22). He quotes one player as saying, “I’m just running some boring errands in the game” (p. 22). However, there are at least four types of players with different motivations and reasons for playing an MMORPG: those who enjoy “achievement within the game context,” those who enjoy “exploration of the game,” those who enjoy “socializing with others,” and those who enjoy “imposition upon others” (Bartle, 1996). According to Steinkuehler (2006a), MMORPGs have a “capacity for sustained engagement” (p. 7) and are becoming “a compelling means of enculturation into the globally networked community” (p. 7).
The Value of Play
Traditionally, constructivists have found a great deal of value in children’s play, and have considered it an important element of education. Dewey (1926), for instance, considered play, or “native tendencies to explore, to manipulate tools and materials, to construct, to give expression to joyous emotion, etc.” (p. 194), an important part of education, allowing the whole pupil to be engaged and reducing the “artificial gap between life in school and out” (p. 195). Piaget (1950) identified symbolic play as one of the early manifestations of assimilation and accommodation (p. 138-140). Vygotsky, too, “identified play as a key factor in causing [children] to move from one level of development to the next” (Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p. 79). In fact, Vygotsky (1978) believed that “play creates a zone of proximal development [for] the child” (p. 102) and that “play contains all developmental tendencies in a condensed form and is itself a major source of development” (p. 102). Bruner (1966) agreed that “a good deal of [children’s] play must be understood as practice in coping with the environment” (p. 119) and that “games go a long way toward getting children involved in understanding language, social organization, and the rest; they also introduce… a theory of these phenomena” (p. 95).
Modern game scholars share these perspectives. For example, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) consider play valuable for developing meaning (p. 33-34), social relations (p. 462), and identity (p. 519), among other things. For Salen and Zimmerman, as for Prensky (2006), the complexity of the game is an important factor in whether or not the play is meaningful (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 170). Koster (2005) expressed the value of complex social play succinctly: “from playing cops and robbers to playing house, play is about learning life skills” (p. 61). Slator (2006) concluded that “the value of play in learning can hardly be overemphasized” (p. vii). Others, such as Prensky, Gee, Aldrich, and Shaffer have made the value of play a cornerstone of their theories.
Intentional versus Incidental Learning
Despite advocating for the value of fun and play in education, the constructivist perspective does not recommend an environment free of structure. In contrast, the hope is to harness the strategies of motivation and engagement responsible for the incidental learning that takes place in many good games and put these strategies to use for the purposes of intentional learning in formal educational environments. Dewey explained that with games:
"an educational result is a by-product of play… in most out-of-school conditions. It is incidental, not primary... Play tends to reproduce and affirm the crudities, as well as the excellencies, of surrounding adult life. It is the business of the school to set up an environment in which play and work shall be conducted with reference to facilitating desirable mental and moral growth. It is not enough just to introduce play and games... everything depends upon the way in which they are employed." (Dewey, 1926, p. 196)
Bruner (1971), too, “wanted to highlight the role of intention and goal directedness in learning and the acquisition of knowledge” (p. 117). Jonassen (1999) echoed these ideas when he discussed the importance of intentionality in learning. He believed that people “think and learn more [when] they are fulfilling an intention” and that “ articulating the intention is essential for meaningful learning” (p. 9). Video games meant for educational purposes “should require learners to articulate what they are doing, the decisions they make, the strategies they use, and the answers that they found” (p. 9). Video games might also serve students as a tool to use when working intentionally toward a meaningful goal; this is the role video games play in Shaffer’s (2006) epistemic games, which aimed to help students learn to think, act, and innovate like professionals. Squire (2005b) found that about 25% of students given the opportunity to learn about history and geography by playing Civilization III in school “loved playing the game, thought it was a ‘perfect’ way to learn history, and considered the experience a highlight of their school year” (p. 2). Many of these students were considered academic underachievers, but at the conclusion of the study these students had “developed new vocabularies, better understandings of geography, and more robust concepts of world history” (p. 2).
Games Are No Panacea
Video game scholars caution, though, that not all games will appeal to all students, even those that consider themselves gamers. Squire (2005b), for instance, found that another 25% of students who played Civilization III in school “complained that the game was too hard, complicated, and uninteresting, and they elected to withdraw from the gaming unit and participate in reading groups instead” (p. 2). He also found that “some students (including gamers) rejected the game experience in school… because playing Civilization III in a school context was compulsory” (p. 4). In addition, it is not surprising that video games are not a terribly effective instructional medium for students that consider themselves non-gamers. Littleton (2005) found that students who do not play video games for entertainment were less likely to be motivated by (or learn from) video games in the classroom. Of course, even among students who consider themselves gamers, some will have strong preferences for or against particular video game genres.
Aldrich (2005) also warns against what he calls motivatism, a philosophy of learning “that suggests if a learner is sufficiently motivated, he or she will pick up everything needed on his or her own” (p. 82). Dewey, too, “said that enjoyment on its own is not enough to make an experience education” (Mooney, 2000, p. 15). An educational video game must be more than motivating. It must also support students with a context for learning and opportunities to for inquiry, collaboration, and reflection. These elements are discussed in the following sections.
Context-Embedded Learning
Perhaps the most fundamental property of a constructivist learning environment is that it offers a context for student learning.
Context-embedded learning has been a cornerstone of the constructivist movement since at least the early 1900’s. Now, nearly a century later, video games and simulations can offer new contexts for student learning that would not have been available to students in the past. Video games are able to provide students with a context that allows them to learn by doing, remain in a state of flow, explore microworlds that allow easy transfer of learning, develop situated and distributed understanding, exercise new identities, and benefit from role-playing.
Learning By Doing
While traditional teaching and learning tends to be a passive experience for the student who receives knowledge from the teacher, constructivist pedagogy emphases learning by doing, learning from experience, and problem solving in context. In order to learn by doing, a student must not simply read from a textbook or listen to a lecture. Rather, the student must engage authentic (or real-world) problems in their authentic context.
Dewey (1915), for instance, felt that school work was “remote and shadowy compared with the training of attention and of judgment that is acquired in having to do things with a real motive behind and a real outcome ahead” (p. 12). He later noted that “one trouble [with traditional education] is that the subject-matter in question was learned in isolation” (1938, p. 48). Dewey (1915) was much more interested in students “having a part to do in constructive work” (p. 17). Consequently, he called for each student to be “given, wherever possible, intellectual responsibility for selecting the materials and instruments that are most fit, and given an opportunity to think out his own model and plan of work, led to perceive his own errors, and find out how to correct them” (p. 133-134). He believed that “thinking... arises from the need of meeting some difficulty, in reflecting upon the best way of over coming it, and thus… planning [and] projecting mentally the results to be reached, and deciding upon the steps necessary and their serial order” (p. 135).
Bruner (1966), too, urged educators to “consider education and school learning in their situated, cultural context” (p. x). He believed that “in a [traditional] detached school, what is imparted often has little to do with life as lived in the society” (1966, p. 152). He was interested more in history as a discipline than as a curriculum and he believed “it is a lame excuse to say children can’t do it” (Bruner, 1996, p. 91). Invoking Piaget’s little scientist, he also expressed that “learning to be a scientist is not the same as 'learning science': it is learning a culture, with all the attendant 'non-rational' meaning making that goes with it” (Bruner, 1996, p. 132). Ultimately, Bruner was interested in “knowing as doing” (p. 150) and “understanding by doing something other than just taking” (p. 151).
Modern video game scholars have argued that video and computer games can help provide such a context for learning. Prensky (2001), for instance, highlighted several relevant concepts; games have rules, goals, outcomes/feedback, conflict/competition/challenge/opposition, problem solving, interaction, representation, and story (p. 106), including character (p. 134, 118-127). Regarding goals specifically, Prensky suggests elsewhere that the goals must be “worthwhile” (2005a, p. 9), or specifically “worth it to [students]” (2005, p. 4), to be effective. When he covers game design, he considers the way in which a game must be balanced so that “the game is neither too hard nor too easy at any point” (Prensky, 2001, p. 133). A well-designed game, particularly an RPG or MMORPG, can also include elements of exploration and discovery as well (p. 136). In his projection of the future of digital games, Prensky (2001) predicts that games will be “much more realistic, experiential, and immersive” and include “more and better storytelling and characters” (p. 404).
Prensky later wrote about five levels of learning by doing. The first of these was the How level; as Prensky (2006) explained, “the most explicit kind of learning in video and computer games is how to do something” (p. 64). The second level is learning What to do (and what not to do) in any particular instance (p. 65). The third level of learning is the Why level; “strategy – the why of a game – depends on, and flows from, the rules” (p. 67). Why lessons include cause and effect, long term winning versus short term goals, order from seeming chaos, second-order consequences, complex system behaviors, counter intuitive results, using obstacles as motivation, and the value of persistence (p. 67-68). The fourth level, Where “is the context level, which encompasses the huge amount of cultural and environmental learning that goes on in video and computer games” (Prensky, 2006, p. 68). Finally, there is the whether level, in which “players learn to make value-based and moral decisions – decisions about whether doing something is right or wrong” (p. 69).
Like Prensky, Gee discussed ways in which video games can provide a context for learning. Gee (2003), a linguist and cognitive scientist asserted that “words, symbols, images, and artifacts have meanings that are specific to… particular situations (contexts)” (p. 24). He argued that a good game can provide a “context within which to understand and make sense of what one is going to do” (Gee, 2004, p. 64). He also suggested that “the theory of learning in good video games is close to… the best theories of learning in cognitive science” (Gee, 2003, p. 7).
Gee (2003) focused on the way that video games can provide a learning environment that is “set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning” (p. 49). He believed that active critical learning was based on experiencing (seeing, feeling, and operating on) the world in new ways (p. 23), and on being able to not only “understand and produce meanings” in the domain being learned, but also being able to “think about the domain at a ‘meta’ level as a complex system of interrelated parts” (p. 23).
Even at a more basic level, Gee (2003) believed that “basic skills are not learned in isolation or out of context; rather… a basic skill is discovered bottom up by engaging with the domain” (p. 137). Gee also suggested that learners should get “lots of practice in a context where the practice is not boring (i.e. in a virtual world that is compelling to learners on their own terms and where the learners experiences ongoing success)” (p. 71).
Gee offered the following recipe for providing students with a context for learning.
“The recipe is simple: Give people well designed visual and embodied experiences of a domain, through simulations or in reality (or both). Help them use these experience to build simulations in their heads through which they can think about and imaginatively test out future actions and hypotheses. Let them act and experience consequences, but in a protected way when they are learners. Then help them to evaluate their actions and the consequences of their actions (based on the values and identities they have adopted as participants in the domain) in ways that lead them to build better simulations for better future action. Though this recipe could be a recipe for teaching science in a deep way, it is [also] a recipe for an engaging and fun game. It should be the same in school.” (Gee, 2005, p. 63)
Gee (2005a) also expected good games to allow learners to practice skills “until they are nearly automatic, then [to have] those skills fail in ways that cause the learners to have to think again and learn anew” (p. 27) in cycles of expertise. In addition, virtual contexts can provide a greater amplification of input for the learner; in other words, “for a little input, learners get a lot of output” (Gee, 2003, p. 67). Because of these elements, and because of the tireless replayability of a game (as opposed to a teacher who may quickly tire of explaining things more than once), games can offer learners “a context where the practice is not boring” (p. 71) so that “they spend lots of time on task” (p. 71). Learners should also be given “ample opportunity to practice, and support for, transferring what they have learned earlier to later problems, including problems that require adapting and transforming that earlier learning” (p. 138).
Aldrich (2005) quotes Will Thalheimer on the role of context in simulations:
“The first thing that makes simulations work is context alignment. The performance situation is similar to the learning situation… when the learners enter a real situation, you want the environment to trigger the learning. That results in a 10 to 50 percent learning impact” (Will Thalheimer, as quoted in Aldrich, 2005, p. 84).
When Aldrich (2004) discussed the objectives of designing an interface system for a simulation, his most important points were that a simulation interface should “represent the actual activity at some level” (p. 173) and “be a part of the learning” (p. 174) in the sense that simply learning the interface would help a user learn about the subject being learned. Though he advocated for keeping a simulation interface simple and streamlined (p. 175), he was interested in fidelity where it impacted learning. He suggested that a simulation interface should operate in real time such that “all options are available all the time”(p. 175). Similarly, he called for simulation design that, like the real world, included all three types of content, linear, cyclical, and open-ended (p. 99). He also opposed simulations that presented the world as it should be rather than as it is, even if this is done in the name of political correctness (p. 215).
Shaffer (2004), too, noted that “new technologies make it easier for students to learn about the world by participating in meaningful activity” (p. 1403). He tied this directly to constructivist tradition, saying that “new technologies support Dewey’s vision of bringing the ‘life of the child’ into an environment for learning” (p. 1404). Shaffer aimed to apply the following philosophy to the design of educational video games:
"pedagogical praxis seeks to create environments that are thickly authentic. Resnick and I (Shaffer & Resnick, 1999) argued that authenticity is an alignment between activities and some combination of (a) goals that matter to the community outside of the classroom, (b) goals that are personally meaningful to the student, (c) ways of thinking within an established domain, and (d) the means of assessment. Thickly authentic learning environments create all of these alignments simultaneously. For example, in the case of pedagogical praxis, when personally meaningful projects are produced and assessed according to the epistemological and procedural norms of an external community of practice." (Shaffer, 2004, p. 1406)
Shaffer’s epistemic games “are about having students do things that matter in the world by immersing them in rigorous professional practices of innovation” (Shaffer & Gee, 2005, p. 12). As Shaffer and Gee explain, “in this approach, students do things that have meaning to them and to society, supported all along the way by structure, and lots of it—structure that leads to expertise, professional-like skills, and an ability to innovate” (p. 12). They point out that “the key step in developing the epistemic frame of most communities of innovation is in some form of professional practicum… environments in which a learner acts in a supervised setting and then reflects on the results of his or her action with peers and mentors” (p. 14), and they aimed to use video games to provide this practicum. In such epistemic games “students learn facts and content in the context of innovative ways of thinking and working… in a way that sticks, because they learn in the process of doing things that matter” (p. 24). Such epistemic games exemplify the learn-by-doing philosophy. In these games, “students were learning to solve real problems by working on real problems, learning how to think about things that matter in the world by actually doing things that matter in the world” (Shaffer, 2006, p. 6).
Shaffer (2006) argues that “video games can change education because computers now make it possible to learn on a massive scale by doing the things that people do in the world outside of school” (p. 9). Citing Gee’s principle of performance before competence, Shaffer (2006) explains that with video games students can “learn by doing rather than learning first and doing later” (p. 68), and that the “difference… between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge, or being able to explain something and being able to actually do it – is fundamental to education as we know it” (p. 92). Again invoking Dewey, Shaffer stated that “the process of moving from interest to understanding, according to Dewey, was learning by doing – or, to be more precise, learning by trying to do something, making mistakes, and then figuring out how to fix them” (p. 124). Because epistemic games can “develop professional skills, knowledge, and epistemology in the context of professional values,” Shaffer suggests that, “epistemic games are thus a potentially important part of children’s development” (p. 132).
Several other scholars have demonstrated the value of video games in providing a learning context. Like Shaffer, Squire and Jenkins (2003) advocate the use of games “in conjunction with real-world simulations” (p. 9). They also noted that “students learning in the context of solving complex problems not only retain more information but tend to perform better in solving problems” (p. 28). Holland, Jenkins, and Squire (2003) explained that “embedding challenges within the tool requires users to actively monitor their performance, observing, hypothesizing, acting, and reflecting” (p. 37). As they point out, “In addition to being potentially more motivating for learners, engaging in such critical thinking processes is generally thought to be the basis of meaningful learning... knowledge developed in the context of solving problems is typically recalled better than knowledge learned by rote and more readily mobilized for solving problems in novel contexts” (p. 37). Video games that can exercise such thinking processes “give students a sense of the practice for which they’re being trained” (p. 40).
McMahan (2003) also discussed the value of the presence and immersion offered by video games (p. 68-77). And, as Filiciak (2003) expressed it, players “desire the experience of immersion, so we use our intelligence to reinforce rather than to question the reality of the experience” (p. 99), a factor that can work both for and against the instructional goals of video games.
Flow
Ideally, the student in an environment where they can learn by doing will be challenged without being frustrated, and thus remain in a state of flow, an ideal state of learning (or performance). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) described flow experiences as “exceptional moments” (p. 29) that tend to occur “when a person's skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just about manageable… a fine balance between one's ability to act, and the available opportunities for action” (p. 30). This bears resemblance to Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development, which also describes the way in which students learn when challenged just beyond the horizon of their mastery, but not so far beyond that they become frustrated. Early in his description of the optimal experiences that generate flow states, Csikszentmihalyi (1997) noted that “it is easy to enter flow in games” (p. 29), at least in part because games, like other flow activities, “provide immediate feedback” (p. 30).
Videogames, in particular, are designed to provide individualized levels of challenge and feedback for players. Shaffer (2006) made the connection between video games and Csikszentmihalyi’s work, pointing out that “we learn best when working on things that are neither too easy nor too hard” (p.125). Shaffer went on to point out that, as Dewey suggested “the obstacles have to be relevant to the thing you are trying to do: They have to push back on issues that are related to the task at hand, rather than being something irrelevant or extraneous that you have to overcome in order to keep working” (p. 125). Relevance, which is treated in more detail below, is key to the use of flow experiences for learning – and needs to be present in educational games. Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) are a medium in which such relevance might be easily incorporated; as Steinkuehler (2004b) points out, in an MMORPG “information is given ‘just in time,’ always in the context of the goal-driven activity that it’s actually useful for – and made meaningful by – and always at a time when it can be immediately put to use” (p. 7), thus facilitating playing and learning in a state of flow.
Microworlds
In order to support student’s early efforts, the learning context can be a microworld, or simplified version, of the real-world context in which similar skills might be used – and to which students’ new skills will eventually be expected to transfer. Microworlds model only the elements of the experience that are important to a student’s developmental level, while limiting other distractions.
Papert (1980) originated the concept of microworlds as incubators for knowledge (p. 120). This concept of microworlds stems from Papert’s belief “that learning physics consists of bringing physics knowledge into contact with very diverse personal knowledge, [and that] to do this we should allow the learner to construct and work with transitional systems that the physicist may refuse to recognize as physics” (p 122). Microworlds, then, can be considered simply “transitional systems.” Papert explores a set of criteria for creating microworlds. The first of these is that the design should be very simple and accessible (p. 126). It must also offer the “possibility of activities, games, art, and so on… to make the activity in microworlds matter” (p. 126). Finally, microworlds should be designed such that “all needed concepts can be defined within the experience of that world” (p. 126). Later, Papert (1993) explained a Microworlds as “simple, restricted worlds” (p. 56) that are “limited enough to be thoroughly explored and completely understood” (p. 59). “In an analogy between ideas and people,” he explained that “microworlds are the worlds of people we know intimately and well” (p. 59).
Jonassen (2000) described microworlds as “primarily exploratory environments, discovery spaces, and constrained simulations of real-world phenomena in which learners can navigate, manipulate or create objects, and test their effects on one another” (p. 157). He also made the observation that “video-based adventure games are microworlds that require players to master each environment before moving onto more complex environments” (p. 157). In Jonassen’s description, a well-designed microworld is one in which “instruction proceeds from simple to complex skills” (p. 159), and the environment exploits “the interest and curiosity of the learner” (p. 159). Microworlds should also be “simple, so they can be understood, general, so they apply to many areas of life, useful, so the ideas are important to learners in the world, and syntonic (resonant with one’s experience), so learners can relate them to prior experience” (p. 159). These elements may be what some games lack, and making these judgments will be one of the challenges of creating good educational games or simulations to serve as microworlds.
The goal of a microworld, according to Papert (1980), is to help students “get a feel for why the world works as it does” rather than “to establish a given truth” as the goal would be in traditional pedagogy (p. 129). Papert points out that “we learned how to build and use theories only because we were allowed to hold ‘deviant’ views… for many years” (p. 132). In microworlds, unlike in most schools, false theories are tolerated (p. 132). Learning in microworlds is also product-oriented, such that the child is learning new concepts “as a means to get to a creative and personally defined end” (p. 134). Perhaps most importantly, children are able to practice bricolage, or tinkering, and to become bricoleurs, or tinkerers (p. 173, 175, 223), when learning in a microworld.
The advantages of microworlds are many, and their disadvantages few. Jonassen (2000) considers microworlds to be environments that “encourage active participation” (p. 168), “provide instruction that is situated in rich, meaningful settings” (p. 169), and “support self-regulated learning” (p. 169). However, “their openness can be frustrating at first” (p. 169), and overcoming this may require students to acquire skills they do not posses.
Microworlds can be an example of what Prensky (2006) calls a complex game (p. 58). In his discussion of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants, Prensky (2006) describes Digital Immigrant’s games as trivial pursuits (or mini-games), except for a few exceptions, such as “chess, go, strategy games, and Dungeons and Dragons” (p. 55). Complex games:
• “Can take from 8 to over 100 hours to complete.
• Require players to learn a wide variety of often new and difficult skills and strategies, and to master these skills and strategies by advancing through dozens of ever-harder levels.
• May require both outside research and collaboration with others while playing.
• Often require players to assume alternate identities.
• Frequently present players with ethical dilemmas or life-and-death decisions.
• Often take from 20-60 hours to master.
• Include just about very electronic game that comes in a box, either for a PC or a console (PlayStation, Game Cube, or XBox), a well as many that are made for handheld devices such as GameBoys. Most simulation games (Sim City, Airport Tycoon, etc.), history strategy games (Civilization III and Rise of Nations), military strategy games, and sports games are complex games.” (Prensky, 2006, p. 58)
However, just as not all video games are microworlds, Prensky (2006) cautions that not all video games are complex; “One-on-one arcade-type fighting games such as Virtua Fighter and other similar ones are just glorified mini-games" (Prensky, 2006, p. 59). It is the adaptability, worthwhile goals, and meaningful decision making that keeps kids playing complex games despite their relative difficulty (p. 60-63), and Prensky believes that “complex games, already educating our kids after school, also have the potential to be a huge boon to formal education” (p. 63).
If one of the benefits of games is that they can provide an authentic context for student tasks, they can also provide support within this context, such that “learning even at its start takes place in a (simplified) subset of the real domain” (Gee, 2003, p. 137). This Gee (2003) called the Subset Principle (p. 137), and later “fish tanks” (2004, p. 61 and 2005a, p. 27), “supervised fish tanks” (2004, p. 65), “supervised sandboxes” (p. 66), “unsupervised sandboxes” (p. 70), and simply “sandboxes” (2005a, p. 27), but this might have been called a microworld by Papert and others. In a well-designed microworld, learners will see, “especially early on, many more instances of fundamental signs and actions than would be the case in a less controlled [context]” (Gee, 2003, p. 137).
In the tradition of Papert’s microworlds, Aldrich (2004), too, is interested in the way “simulations describe small worlds” (p. 152) as a context for learning. The simulation he designed, Virtual Leader, provides a microworld in which players learn about leadership, a skill that is typically difficult to teach (and assess) in a traditional classroom environment.
Shaffer offered several other examples of video games providing a microworld (or part of a microworld) in which students can learn and pursue meaningful goals. He was explicitly interested in “computational microworlds, which Hoyles, Noss, and Adamson (2002) define as 'environments where people can explore and learn from what they receive back from the computer in return for their exploration' (p. 30)” (Shaffer, 2005, p. 18). Shaffer (2006) later noted that “Every computer program creates a world: what Seymour Papert and others have called a Microworld” (p. 67). One example was an epistemic game called Escher’s World, in which students take on the role of a designer in training and in which a computer program called Geometer’s Sketchpad creates a mathematical microworld in which students can complete their designs (p. 84). In another epistemic game called , students “write using a journalism microworld whose features push back on specific elements of writing to formula and writing as a watchdog” (p. 152). Each of the other epistemic games Shaffer discussed, including The Debating Game, Digital Zoo, The Pandora Project, and Urban Science also provide students with a microworld in which to learn by doing and thus practice thinking, acting, and innovating like a professional. Like Prensky, Shaffer believed that the “video games… of children’s culture today demand strategic thinking, technical language, and sophisticated problem-solving skills” (p. 6). And, in the tradition of Dewey, he believed that video games can provide a “simulated ‘world of hard conditions’” (p. 127).
Another example similar to Shaffer’s epistemic games, is Supercharged!, a game discussed by Holland, Jenkins, and Squire (2003). They explain that “games present players microworlds; games offer players (students) contexts for thinking through problems, making their own actions part of the solution, building on their intuitive sense of their role in the game-world” (p. 28). The game was based on the concept that:
"students have difficulty grasping core concepts of elctromagnatism because they run counter to their own real world experiences, yet playing a game that requires mastery of those principles in order to win may give them an intuitive grasp of how they work that can be more fully developed in the classroom" (Holland, Jenkins, and Squire, 2003, p. 35).
Even so, they “do not believe that Supercharged! will ever replace Physics teachers, textbooks, or other educational materials. Rather, Supercharged! can be used as an instructional tool or resource within a broader pedagogical framework" (Holland, Jenkins, and Squire, 2003, p. 36).
There are many ways in which even commercial off the shelf video games can serve as valuable microworlds for learning. Shaffer, Squire, and Gee (2005) explained that “video games are important because they let people participate in new worlds” (p. 105). Also, as Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, and Tan (2003) explained, games can be “motivating and authentic” without being “dangerous and expensive” (p. 7). Furthermore, video games allow learners to “manipulate otherwise unalterable variables… [and] view phenomena from new perspectives” (Squire, 2003, p. 6). Ideally, a game used as an educational microworld will be similar to MIT’s Revolution, in which “the game world is big enough so that each student can play an important part, [and yet] small enough that their actions matter in shaping what happens” (Squire & Jenkins, 2003, p. 16). While it seems that role playing games, and in particular multiplayer games, can fit this bill, it is debatable whether or not MMORPGs are appropriate in this respect. Still, MMORPGs may be some of the best commercial examples of microworlds. As Steinkuehler (2005b) pointed out, “MMOGaming is participation in a multimodal, and digital textual place” (p. 98). She also explained that “within video games… the reader becomes or inhabits a symbol, enabling him or her to interact with signs as if they are the very things they represent” (p. 99), a property of video games that supports learners in transferring new skills to other environments.
Transfer
The transfer of skills from a learning situation to a real-world scenario is one of the goals of any educational system. Shaffer (2006) wrote that “impacts that transfer form one context to another are, in some sense, the holy grail of education, and certainly the ultimate goal in the development of educational games” (p. 157). Slator (2006) expressed this mandate by writing that “students who learn through simulations should acquire content-related concepts and skills as a consequence of playing the game, and this learning should transfer to knowledge contexts outside the game” (p. 4). In a serious game, such as biohazard, “understanding is to be performed in certain contexts” (Holland, Jenkins, and Squire, 2003, p. 38), and “games such as Escher’s World can accomplish, in a very general but very important sense, the elusive educational goal of producing worthwhile effects that transfer from one context to another” (Shaffer, in press, p. 4). Specifically, in the case of Escher’s World, “students were able to use the practices of the design studio to transfer the epistemic framework of developing and defending expressive solutions to open-ended problems from graphic design to mathematics” (Shaffer, 2004a, p. 1411). Pillay (2005) also established that skills acquired in a computer game do transfer to other similar activities, though the games and activities he studied were comparatively unsophisticated.
In any case, while this sort of transfer may be the goal of any educational game, it is important to note that a game alone is unlikely to reliably produce this effect. As Squire (2002) warned:
“playing Civilization might be a tool that can assist students in understanding social studies, but playing the game is not necessarily participating in historical, political, or geographical analysis. Therefore, building on our earlier discussion of transfer, there is very good reason to believe that students may not use their understandings developed in the game - such as the political importance of a natural resource like oil - as tools for understanding phenomena outside the game, such the economics behind The Persian Gulf War or contemporary foreign policy, even in a game as rich as Civilization III” (Squire, 2002, p. 9).
The role of the teacher in supporting the development of student understanding remains important when games are used in formal education. (The role of the teacher will be addressed in greater detail in a later section.
Situated and Distributed Understanding
Learning that happens within a microworld (or other authentic context) is what constructivists consider situated learning, and allows students to develop a situated understanding of the skills they are developing and problems they are solving. Bruner (1996) believed that all knowledge is “always ‘situated,’ dependent upon materials, task, and how the learner [understands] things” (p. 132). Duffy and Jonassen (1992) also explained that constructivists “emphasize ‘situating’ cognitive experiences in authentic activities” (p. 4). Phrased another way, they believed that “we must aid the individual in working with the concept in the complex environment, thus helping him or her to see the complex interrelationships and dependencies” (p. 8). It is significant, especially in terms of microworlds and educational technologies, that they point out “the context need not be the real world of work in order for it to be authentic… rather, the authenticity arises from engaging in the kinds of tasks using the kids of tools that are authentic to that domain” (p. 9).
In the constructivist tradition, Gee (2003) argued that learning involves situating (or building) meanings in context, and that “video games are particularly good places where people can learn to situate meanings through embodied experiences” (p. 26). He highlighted examples in which “the player (learner) is immersed in a world of action and learns through experience, though this experience is guided or scaffolded by information the player is given and the very design of the game itself” (Gee, 2005, p. 59). Gee (2003) understood that “meaning and knowledge are built up through various modalities (images, text, symbols, interactions, abstract design, sound, etc.)” (p. 111), which video games can provide in spades.
Many scholars believe that video games and simulations can provide environments in which such situated learning can occur. Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, and Gee (2005), for example, stated that “the virtual worlds of games are powerful because they make it possible to develop situated understanding” (p. 106) and that “video games take advantage of situated learning environments” (p. 108). When discussing the new ways in which a student engaged with her world after playing the epistemic game Madison 2200, the authors wrote that “this is situated learning at its most profound – a transfer of ideas from one context to another that is elusive, rare, and powerful” (p. 109). Later Shaffer (2006) wrote about a journalism class (J-828) that inspired the epistemic game ; “As the situated view of learning suggests, novice journalists in J-828 learned by becoming members of a community, and they came to see themselves as members of the community by learning to do things that members of the community do” (p. 148). Dede (2005), too, found that learning situated in virtual environments and augmented realities was important because of the capacity for transfer of learning to real problems. Steinkuehler, who studied MMORPGs specifically, was also interested in “the situated meanings individuals construct, the definitive role of communities in that meaning, and the inherently ideological nature of both” (p. 17).
Just as they may provide students an opportunity for situated learning, many microworlds (and other authentic contexts) offer opportunities for students to develop a distributed understanding of skills and problems. Unlike in traditional testing situations, students do not need to memorize all of the answers to their problems and information required in the learning context. They can call upon tools and other individuals within the context to aid them in their efforts. As Bruner (1996) expressed it, intelligence is “not simply 'in the head' but [is] 'distributed' in the person's world - including the toolkit of reckoning devices and heuristics and accessible friends that the person could call upon... intelligence, in a word, reflects a micro-culture of praxis" (p. 132). Gee (2003) considered this one of the principles of good learning that many good video games do well; in good games “thinking, problem solving, and knowledge are ‘stored’ in material objects and the environment” (p. 111).
Identity
As students develop situated and distributed understanding within a learning context, they are essentially exploring an identity within that context – a way of acting and thinking that is specific to the context and problems at hand. Constructivist educators purposefully and explicitly support the development of educationally beneficial identities by their students. Some modern constructivists strive to help students develop professional identities that may be useful in their adult future, particularly professional identities that emphasize sophisticated or innovative ways of thinking, doing, and problem solving.
Shaffer, Squire, and Gee (2005) believed that “the virtual worlds of games are rich contexts for learning because they make it possible for players to experiment with new and powerful identities” (p. 106). Shaffer articulates this well, with respect to his epistemic games:
“the ability of students to incorporate epistemic frames into their identities (or portfolio of potential identities) suggests a mechanism through which sufficiently rich experiences in technology-supported simulations of real-world practices (such as the games described above) may help students deal more effectively with situations in the real-world and in school subjects beyond the scope of the interactive environment itself.” (Shaffer, in press, p. 19)
Gee (2003) was most interested in the way that good games can facilitate learning by requiring players to take on a new identity and form “bridges from [their] old identities to the new one” (p. 51). He felt that “all deep learning – that is active, critical learning – is inextricably caught up with identity” (p. 51), and he tapped into the tradition of Piaget’s little scientists when he offered the example of “a child in a science classroom engaged in real inquiry, and not passive learning, [who] must be willing to take on an identity as a certain type of scientific thinker, problem solver, and doer” (p. 51). This concept he extended to the many roles that students might play in good role-playing video games, which he reported made him “think new thoughts about what [he as a player] valued and what [he] did not” (p. 56). He suggested that game designers and teachers “need to create a game-like biology world in which learners can act and decide as certain types of biologists” (Gee, 2005, p. 85) in order to help students become “authentic professionals [with] specific knowledge and distinctive values tied to specific skills gained though a good deal of effort and experience” (p. 51). Gee felt that good games can facilitate learning that “involves taking on and playing with identities in such a way that the learner has real choices” (p. 67).
Citing Gee, Shaffer (in press) identified three levels of identity that can be developed in a game: “the real identity of the player… the virtual identity of the character or role the player has in the game… [and] a third projective identity, which is the kind of character the player wants to be in the game” (p. 19). He also discusses the importance of developing possible selves in a game; “possible selves give form to a person’s hopes for mastery, power, status, or belonging, and to a person’s fears of incompetence, failure, and rejection” (Shaffer, 2006, p. 158). With his epistemic games, Shaffer aims to “give adolescents new possible selves that are based on authentic experiences with innovative thinking that matter in the world” (p. 158). This experience can also extend to selves that are impossible in the real world. As Lahti illustrated, “this becomes a safe way [for players] to try on being a different race or sex” (p. 168). Steinkeuher (2006a) studied the nuanced development of such new identities in MMORPGs in particular (both in and out of game identities), suggesting that MMORPGs too might be a medium in which students might develop meaningful new identities.
Role Playing
One particularly powerful strategy for supporting this sort of identity development is to facilitate true role-playing experiences for students, in which each student takes on a specific role within a cognitively immersive environment. Story telling, especially in conjunction with student role-playing, can also be a powerful tool.
Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) discussed “Role-Playing on the Web” (p. 33) and the creation of web-based simulations and games; they were especially interested in the promise of new technologies to allow even “elementary students [to] build simple to complex microworlds” (p. 33). Role-playing appeared again in their discussion of visualizing with technology when they suggested that students might “role play press conference(s)” (p. 66). This theme recurred yet again in their treatment of learning by constructing realities with hypermedia, where they shared a handful of examples of “anchoring instruction in hypermedia learning environments” (p. 92), which provide a scenario for the student to explore and play.
Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999) also mentioned the promise of text based MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons, and later Multi-User Domains) and MOOs (Object Oriented MUDs) as a powerful role-playing context for students (p. 140), where students can “can assume a virtual persona different from their real-world persona” (p. 141). These environments were also associated with “facilitat[ing] dialogue and knowledge building among the community of learners” (p. 200). Although “children enjoyed opportunities to choose their own paths through the environment, with some eventually learning to construct their own rooms and environments” (p. 141), there were some potential drawbacks to the use of these games in education; “boys seemed to show more interest than girls… [and] older children (11-14) participated more than younger children” (p. 141). Modern Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) are direct descendents of these early text based games, and may share some of the same potentials and drawbacks.
Jonassen (2003) also put forth this compelling vision of MUDs in the classroom, a vision that applies as much or even more so to modern MMORPGs:
“Imagine, for instance, a MUD in which a student is placed on the main street in a small community in colonial America, with the option of entering stores, blacksmith shops, pubs, jails, homes, and other buildings of the period. Inside each building would be descriptions of the people and artifacts it contained. Students would make decisions and express their choices, to which the MUD’s characters and objects (and other students) would react. Imagine, too, that teachers and their classes could work together to develop new buildings. This option (which is often provided in MUDs) could be great incentive for research, collaboration, problem-solving, and other high-level activities.” (p. 104)
These environments (MUDs or MMORPGs) also make natural microworlds, which Jonassen (2003) is still concerned with. Central to his philosophy is his belief that “transfer of learning, particularly higher order kinds of learning, requires well-developed mental models” (p. 190) and that “in order to construct mental models, learners must explore and manipulate phenomenon, observe the effects, and generate mental representations of those phenomena” (p. 190). This can occur in MMORPGs if they adhere to the four essential characteristics of a microworld, as Jonassen interprets Papert:
• “simple to understand
• reflects generic characteristics that can be applied to many areas of life
• presents concepts and ideas that are useful and important to learners in the world
• reflects syntonic characteristics, which allow learners to relate prior knowledge and experience to current phenomenon being studied” (p. 191)
Jonassen later added the following:
• “Provides a meaningful learning context that supports intrinsically motivated and self-regulated learning
• Establishes a pattern whereby the learner goes from the “known to the unknown”
• Provides a balance between deductive and inductive learning
• Emphasizes the usefulness of errors
• Anticipates and nurtures incidental learning” (p. 193)
In addition to the above, MMORPGs, like other games in general, “can embed cognitive, social, and cultural factors within the environment… which can help learners transfer skills from play and imitation to real situations that they will experience” (Jonassen, 2003, p. 191). Those that allow user creation within the game environment can tap into the idea that “the creation process is an important component of learning (Papert, 1980), which is supported with students constructing their understanding of a phenomenon in a microworld” (Jonassen, 2003, p. 197). Jonassen also points out that “as is the case with most instructional design projects, the people who learn the most are the designers and developers, not the target audience” (p. 191). With respect to virtual reality environments, which modern MMORPGs provide, Jonassen also suggests that active decision-making in the environment “gives students the feeling of participating in a real-world environment, and also transforms learning into exploration” (p. 205).
More recent game scholars add a great deal to Jonassen’s work. Squire and Jenkins (2003) suggest that “games encourage role playing, which can… help students… to adopt different social roles or historical subjectives” (p. 28). For example, Jenkins, Klopfet, Squire, and Tan (2003) discuss the prototype Revolution, which “builds on… the value of combining research and role-playing in teaching history, that is, the game offers kids the chance not simply to visit a ‘living history’ museum… but to personally experience the choices that confronted historical figures” (p. 9). Shaffer (in press) concluded that by playing his epistemic games “students developed useful real-world skills and understandings in computer-supported role-playing games” (p. 3).
The use of story in role-playing games can be a powerful tool for providing an emotionally meaningful context for student actions. As Grodal (2003) wrote, “video games are… the medium that is closes to the basic embodied experience” (p. 139). He went on to explain that in games the story is “developed by the player’s active participation, and the player needs to posses a series of specific skills to ‘develop’ the story, from concrete motor skills… to a series of planning skills” (p. 139).
Squire (2003) subscribes to the view that “interactive digital storytelling should emerge as a legitimate art form in the upcoming years, and video games seem to be paving the way” (p. 9). Holland, Jenkins, and Squire (2003) believe that “the heart of the game is its dramatic force; rather than a lecture, the player is compelled by a visceral or an emotional logic” (p. 39). Echoing core constructivist philosophy, they also note that “rather than regurgitating context-free facts, the player [of a role playing game] must take the next step and utilize knowledge in tense contextually rich situations” (p. 39)
Naturally, such learning does not require a computer. Shaffer (2006) shared the example of The Debating Game, a face-to-face role playing unit in which “students step into the roles of debaters and judges and play by the rules that define those roles” (p. 25). He notes that like Dungeons and Dragons, a pen and paper (tablet-top) role-playing game, “The Debating Game is a fantasy role-playing game… in which players take on the roles of debaters and judges to inhabit an imagined world in which they are making judgments about the morality of historical actors and about the skill of their own peers” (p. 25).
The importance of role playing with respect to learning in video games will be addressed in greater detail in a later section.
Providing a context for learning is an important element of a constructivist learning environment, but that context is much more powerful if it provides students with opportunities for inquiry.
Inquiry-Driven Learning
Another fundamental property of constructivist learning environments is that they facilitate inquiry-driven learning. Like Dewey (1916), many constructivists believe that “purely external direction is impossible… [because] responses [to the environment] proceed from tendencies already possessed by the individual” (p. 24).Dewey (1915) suggested instead that educators tap into students’ “interest… in inquiry, or dining out things,” which he considered one of “the natural resources, the unvested capital, upon the exercise of which depends the active growth of the child” (p. 48). He considered a failure to do so a waste not of money or things, but of “human life, the life of the children while they are at school, and afterward because of inadequate and perverted preparation” (p. 64). In the same vein, Bruner (1996) believed that “the procedure of inquiry, of mind using… is central to the maintenance of an interpretive community and a democratic culture” (p. 98). Though constructivists have long maintained that their pedagogies can help, computers and video games can now be used to expand the opportunities students have to exercise their powers of inquiry. As Shaffer (2005) wrote, “computers expand the range of what students can realistically do… far beyond what the Pragmatic Progressive Dewey might ever have imagined … by making it possible to create virtual worlds” (p. 16-17).
Active Learning
According to constructivist pedagogy, meaning is made, knowledge is created, and learning happens when the learner is an active and critical participant in the process. Ideally, students are empowered to some degree to determine the direction of their own learning.
Dewey (1915) discussed the importance of a student’s impulse running “up against the actual world of hard conditions, to which it must accommodate itself” (p. 38) and he sought instruction that “was not given ready-made; [that] was first needed, and then arrived at experimentally” (p. 53). He was interested in “enlisting the [student’s] own participating disposition in getting the result desired, and thereby of developing within him an intrinsic and persisting direction” (Dewey, 1916, p. 27).
Papert (1993) used personal anecdotes and reflections on the work of Piaget to elucidate his own theory on the importance of “personal thinking” (p. 22) on learning. He was “convinced that the best learning takes place when the learner takes charge” (p. 25) and is able to develop an “intellectual identity” (p. 29), and that children learn to love learning, or particular domains of learning, “for reasons that are as personal and in a sense as irreproducible as those that determine any kind of falling in love” (p. 27).
As such, Papert (1993) criticized school for giving “more importance to knowledge about numbers and grammar than to knowledge about learning” (p. 85). He was much more interested in teaching heuristics (or the art of intellectual discovery) and principles of problem solving (p. 85), such as “trying to think of other problems that are similar to the one in hand” (p. 86), the principle of dividing and conquering to solve a problem as a series of smaller problems (p. 86), and the principle of “taking time” (p. 87-89) when engaging a new problem. Developing these proficiencies would take “more than technical aids” (p. 92) according to Papert; it would also require developing a complex and nuanced system of psychological support (p. 92, 94), which would replace the common “one-dimensional concept of ‘being motivated’” (p. 94).
The potential for games to offer opportunities for inquiry also appears in Prensky’s work. According to Prensky (2001), the digital natives, or the games generation, prefer “random access vs. step-by-step” (p. 54) instructions, and feel constrained when required to follow a single path or thought instead of being allowed to make their own connections (p. 54-55). They also prefer “active vs. passive” (p. 59) learning in which they learn by experimentation.
Gee’s work, like Prensky’s, illuminates the potential of video games to provide learners with opportunities for inquiry. Implicit in the Active Critical Learning Principle (Gee, 2003, p. 39) is the presumption that interacting with the learning environment in a way that is not passive involves a measure of learner initiative, which can be inquiry-driven by their individual interests and strengths. The Probing Principle (Gee, 2003, P. 107) makes this element of inquiry explicit, suggesting not only that a learner should be “probing the world (doing something)” (p. 107), but that they should be forming, testing, and re-forming hypotheses about the world. Naturally, the direction this cycle of probing and re-probing takes, will be driven by the learner’s own curiosity. This sentiment is formalized in the Multiple Routes Principle, which values learning that allows “learners to make choices, rely on their own strengths and styles of learning and problem solving, while also exploring alternative styles” (p. 108).
Gee (2005b) also encourages educators and game designers to empower learners; he asserts that “good learning requires that learners feel like active agents (producers) not just passive recipients (consumers)” (p. 25). In this respect he felt that “the best commercial video games are already state of the art learning games” (Gee, 2005, p. 1).
Asking Questions
The heart of inquiry-driven learning is the opportunity for students to ask questions and seek answers (in an authentic or real-world context). Dewey (1938) believed that “traditional education tended to ignore the importance of personal impulse and desire” (p. 71). Ideally, though, in his progressive education, “the child has a question of his own and is actively engaged in seeking and selecting relevant material with which to answer it, considering the bearings and relations of this material - the kind of solution it calls for” (Dewey, 1915, p. 148). Bruner (1986), too, hoped to see a shift from “the products of scientific and humanistic inquiry to the processes of inquiry themselves” (p. 44).
However, Dewey (1938) cautioned that “in an educational scheme, the occurrence of a desire and impulse is not the final end. It is an occasion and a demand for the formation of a plan and method of activity... the teacher's business is to see that the occasion is taken advantage of” (p. 71). Instead, he called for students to work things out for themselves, but “aided by questions and suggestions from the teacher” (Dewey, 1915, p. 21).
Now, video games can provide both the opportunity for inquiry and the structure to support it. As Squire (2003) pointed out, video games allow learners to “pose hypothetical questions to a system” (p. 6). Furthermore, they allow players a degree of choice in how they approach playing; the educational game supercharged!, for instance, allowed male and female players to enjoy very different learning experiences (Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, & Tan, 2003, p. 6). Squire and Jenkins (2003) noted that when playing Civilization III in the classroom students’ “questions are… driven by the students’ personal histories” (p. 14). Their experience with Civilization III also lead Squire and Jenkins to conclude that “’What if?’ questions can motivate further reading or discussion, helping [students] to refocus on why the actual [historical] events unfolded the way they did” (p. 14). Game scholars Klopfer and Yoon (2005) made the familiar constructivist call for “the learning of science [to be] more like the practice of science” and they considered “inquiry-based learning, developing skills for systems thinking, harnessing the tools and technologies of scientific practice and creating scientific investigations that reflect current understanding… all components of this focus” (p. 40).
Discovery Learning
An integral element of inquiry-driven learning, perhaps even the goal of inquiry-driven learning, is the possibility of student discovery. As students explore the learning context for an answer to their questions, they experience moments of discovery, which can be a powerful motivating factor.
Dewey (1915) supported discovery learning in schools, but again cautioned a structured approach, explaining that “we can direct the child’s activities, giving them exercise along certain lines, and can thus lead up to the goal which logically stands at the end of the paths followed” (p. 37). He notes that “occasions which are not and cannot be foreseen are bound to arise wherever there is intellectual freedom” (Dewey, 1938, p. 79), and calls for teachers to put these teachable moments to good use. However, he also notes that “there is a decided difference between using them in the development of a continuing line of activity and trusting them to provide the chief material of learning” (p. 79).
Bruner (1966) recognized that “curiosity is… one of the motives for learning” (p. 117). Advocating a slightly more radical approach than Dewey, Bruner (1971) described the process of discovery teaching as involving “not so much the process of leading students to discover what is ‘out there,’ but rather, their discovering what is in their own heads” (p. 72). He was interested in “acts of discovery” (Bruner, 1996, p. xiii) and he was concerned with “the crucial role of self-generated discovering in learning a subject matter” (Bruner, 1996, p. 39).
In modern video games students can enjoy “opportunities to choose their own paths through the environment, with some eventually learning to construct their own…environments” (Dyke and Waldorf, 1995, as cited in Jonassen, 2003, p. 103). According to Prensky (2001), a good game “includes exploration and discovery” (p. 136). This philosophy also surfaces in Gee’s (2003) Discovery Principle (p. 138), in which he suggests that good games keep overt telling to a “well-thought-out-minimum, allowing ample opportunity for the learner to experiment and make discoveries” (p. 138). Shaffer (2005) explains that in good educational games “freedom to explore can be both meaningful and motivating for students, affording them a sense of control and personal investment in their inquiry” (p. 28). Slator (2006), in his description of “other-dependent learning” in virtual worlds, also focuses on the importance of “conditions of informally guided discovery” (D’Andrade, 1981, p. 186, as cited in Slater, 2006, p. 11).
Problem Solving
This process of posing questions and discovering answers naturally encourages students to make new connections in their mind, the essence of building schema in the constructivist philosophy. It also involves a good deal of sophisticated problem solving on the part of the student.
Dewey (1916) sought this sort of problem solving in his method of education. As he explained,
The essentials of method are… identical with the essentials of reflection. They are first that the pupil have a genuine situation of experience -- that there be a continuous activity in which he is interested for its own sake; secondly, that a genuine problem develop within this situation as a stimulus to thought; third, that he possess the information and make the observations needed to deal with it; fourth, that suggested solutions occur to him which he shall be responsible for developing in an orderly way; fifth, that he have opportunity and occasion to test his ideas by application, to make their meaning clear and to discover for himself their validity." (Dewey, 1916, p. 163)
Jonassen (2003), an educational technologist, believed that “solving problems can… be the most meaningful kind of learning activity in formal educational settings” (p. 20) and that “the primary, if not exclusive, purpose of all education should be to teach students to solve problems” (p. 20). Problem solving “is more interesting than memorizing” (p. 25) and provides students with a sense of ownership of the material because they are “conceptually engaged” (p. 25). Jonassen suggested that once a problem is identified, then technologies can help students “to seek information needed to solve the problem, model the system or domain in which the problem occurs, make decisions about how to solve these problems, and design different technology-enhanced representations of these systems” (p. 25). Video games are a new technology that can offer these opportunities in new ways, particularly in the ways they can present interactive systems content.
The concept of intentionality in problem solving was also important to Jonassen, particularly with respect to moving from information to knowledge through the process of inquiry. With respect to the Internet, Jonassen (2003) wrote that while “browsing does not necessarily cause thinking... a self-regulated learner who keeps his or her information-seeking goals in mind and makes good decisions can find the WWW an essential information resource during intentional learning” (p. 40). The same can be true of a video game’s virtual world. As an example of a structured inquiry-oriented cooperative Internet learning activity, Jonassen offers Bernie Dodge’s WebQuests, which can “incorporate cooperative learning, consideration of multiple perspectives, analysis and synthesis of information, and creation of original products that demonstrate knowledge gained” (Jonassen, 2003, p. 47). Jonassen also values the element of fun that can be provided by a WebQuest (p. 47). He takes a similar approach to open-ended, student directed research projects (pp. 49-55), web publishing (pp. 55-59), and virtual travel (pp. 60-67). Again, it seems video games are another natural choice of technology to provide students these benefits.
Squire and Jenkins (2003) noted that in video games “students can draw meaning from every element in their environment to solve problems that grow organically from their own goals and interests” (p. 15). In addition to organically grown questions and problems to solve, good open-ended video games can also offer “an infinite number of potential resolutions” (Shaffer, 2006, p. 101). In Escher’s World, for example, students’ “task was to develop a unique solution, to understand that solution, and to convey in worlds, diagrams, and models how the solution they chose met the demands of the original problem” (p. 101). Ultimately, in a good video game, as in a good classroom lesson, “students learn by working together on problems that matter to them” (p. 179).
Self Regulation
While educators can encourage inquiry and support student discovery, constructivists hope that students come to learn the importance of self-regulation (or discipline and diligence) in pursuit of their goals. Dewey (1938) felt strongly about this writing, “there is… no point in the philosophy of progressive education which is sounder than its emphasis upon the importance of the participation of the learner in the formation of the purposes which direct his activities in the learning process” (p. 67). Earlier, he explained that “for the child to realize his own impulse by recognizing the facts, materials, and conditions involved, and then to regulate his impulse through that recognition, is educative" (Dewey, 1915, p. 40). He explained the dynamic between students’ interest and the discipline they must develop to realize their interests thus:
“Interest and discipline are correlative aspects of activity having an aim. Interest means that one is identified with the objects which define the activity and which furnish the means and obstacles to its realization... To have an interest is to take things as entering into such a continuously developing situation, instead of taking them in isolation... Discipline or development of power of continuous attention is its fruit... subject matter of learning is identical with all the objects, ideas, and principles which enter as resources or obstacles into the continuous intentional pursuit of a course of action." (Dewey, 1916, p. 137-138)
Many students are interested in video games, but in order to master them, they must develop a good deal of discipline. Squire and Jenkins (2003) found that “exactly what students learn from the game-playing experience depends heavily on the goals they set for themselves” (p. 13). In light of the fact that different learning styles appeal to (and work for) different people, Gee (2005b) suggested that “people cannot be agents of their own learning if they cannot make decisions about how their learning will work” (pp. 25-26) and he advocates allowing learners to customize their experience. Good games, particularly RPGs and MMORPGs, allow learners to heavily customize their experience, even including their identity by manipulating such things as their appearance, physical attributes, and skills. This addresses Gee’s belief that “deep learning requires an extended commitment and such a commitment is powerfully recruited when people take on a new identity they value and in which they become heavily invested” (p. 26). Shaffer explains that:
“Players bring a lot to the simulation to make it a game: They bring their own interests and desires. They bring their own experiences... even when the simulation sets up goals - things you have to do to move from one level to another - players decide when and how to take up those goals. The game is always something more than the simulation by itself. The game provides the framework in which we make sense of what happens when we interact with the simulation." (Shaffer, 2006, p. 69)
If it is inevitable that students will bring so much of their own interests and experiences to a game (or any learning activity), it is imperative that the activity include opportunities for them to develop the self-regulation necessary for successful pursuit of their interests.
Individualized Learning
Because different individual students will ask unique questions and bring unique experiences to the learning environment, inquiry-driven learning is necessarily individualized. The learning environment (and the educators) need to be adaptive, allowing for differentiated experiences for each learner. Dewey (1915) believed that unless Students’ own “personal and vital experience” is tapped for relevant motivations to learn, then students will approach books “without intellectual hunger, without alertness, without a questioning attitude, and the result is the one so common: such abject dependence upon books as weakens and cripples vigor of thought and inquiry” (p. 112). The solution, according to Dewey, was “to furnish the child with a sufficiently large amount of personal activity in occupations, expression, conversation, construction, and experimentation, so that his individuality, moral and intellectual, shall not be swamped by a disproportionate amount of the experiences of others” (p. 112-113). Dewey (1938) believed so strongly in individualized learning that he later declared, “a single course of studies for all progressive schools is out of the question; it would mean abandoning the fundamental principle of connection with life-experiences” (p. 78). Bruner (1966), too, advocated for “the personalization of knowledge” (p. 160). He explained that:
"the fact of individual differences argues for pluralism and for an enlightened opportunism in the materials and methods of instruction... if a curriculum is to be effective in the classroom it must contain different ways of activating children, different ways of presenting sequences, different opportunities for some children to "skip" parts while others work their way through, different ways of putting things. A curriculum, in short, must contain many tracks leading to the same general goal." (Bruner, 1966, p. 71)
Prensky (2001) suggests that well-designed video games can provide an interactive environment which allows digital natives to learn in this way, and which adapts to their needs, allowing them to remain in a flow state of optimal learning (p. 106). While a game will include the structure of rules, goals, and objectives, it can also offer interaction and individualized feedback in ways that classrooms often do not (p. 119). This is because good games will keep “a constant focus on the player experience” (p. 134) and remain “highly adaptive [in order to] be fun for a variety of players” (p. 135).
Many of Gee’s (2003) thirty-six learning principles (that good games embody and many classrooms do not) also address or necessitate an individualized learning experience. Most importantly, the multiple routes principle states that “there are multiple ways to make progress or move ahead. This allows learners to make choices, rely on their own strengths and styles of learning and problem solving, while also exploring alternative styles” (p. 209). As Gee suggests, the learning environment should take advantage of multiple learning modalities and the students’ multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1999) - by both building on their strengths and also addressing their weaknesses. The committed learning principle also echoes Dewey with its call for learners to “participate in an extended engagement (lots of effort and practice) as extensions of their real-world identities in relation to a virtual identity to which they feel some commitment and a virtual world that they find compelling” (Gee, 2003, p. 208). Other principles imply or require individualized learning, particularly the active critical learning principle, the metalevel thinking principle, the achievement principle (which is “customized to each learner’s level, effort, and growing mastery” p. 208), the practice principle, the regime of competence principle, the situated meaning principle, and the discovery principle. Also, because “human beings are quite poor at using verbal information (i.e. words) when given lots of it out of context and before they can see how it applies in actual situations” (Gee, 2005a, p. 27), perhaps the most obvious form of support a game world can provide learners is the availability of “information both on-demand and just-in-time, when the learner needs it or just at the point where the information can best be understood and used in practice” (Gee, 2003, p. 138).
Another video game scholar, Shaffer (2005), was also interested in opening “multiple legitimate pathways to learning…. in which the different backgrounds and perspectives of students are respected as legitimate points of entry into the educational landscape” (p. 28-29). Here Shaffer parts ways from Dewey (1915), who - though had called for multiple pathways to learning – still felt that educators should control the individual experiences of students “as to make the child feel the need of resort to and command of the traditional social tools - furnish him with motives and make his recourse to them intelligent” (p. 112-113). Shaffer (2005) advocated instead for “a view of education that focuses on diverse educational goals rather than diverse pathways to a single pedagogical end—and thus a view of learning more suited to the diverse ways of thinking and living that characterize our increasingly integrated world” (p. 2). As Shaffer explained “Dewey’s multiculturalism celebrated multiple pathways to understanding, but multiple pathways to a single form of understanding. His multiculturalism… was a multiculturalism of means, rather than a multiculturalism of ends” (p. 6). Ultimately, Shaffer states simply that “curricula must be adapted to the needs and abilities of learners” (p. 7), and he believes that one way to achieve this is to channel students’ “individual intentions into reflective media—that is, into media in which the constraints and affordances are relevant to the processes of inquiry being developed” (p. 10-11). Naturally, he considers video games to have the potential to serve as such reflective media.
Of course, the nature of students’ individuality guarantees that no educational game will appeal to all students. Koster (2005), a game designer, notes that “since different brains have different strengths and weaknesses, different people will have different ideal games” (p. 105). This truth of commercial game design has proven true in classroom situations as well (Squire, 2005b; Littleton, 2005).
Gateway Learning
One key to individualized learning is to discover something each student is interested in or passionate about – something that can be used as a gateway to other learning. For example, Dewey (1915) discussed the use of an interest in sewing as a “point of departure from which the child can trace and follow the progress of mankind in history, getting an insight also into the materials used and the mechanical principles involved” (p. 20). Dewey felt that educators should seek such “points of departure whence children shall be led out into a realization of the historic development of man” (p. 19). Furthermore, Dewey felt that:
“The primary root of all educative activity is in the instinctive, impulsive attitudes and activities of the child, and not in the presentation and application of external material, whether through the ideas of others or through the senses; and that, accordingly, numberless spontaneous activities of children, plays, games, mimic efforts, even the apparently meaningless motions of infants - exhibitions previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil - are capable of educational use; nay, are the foundation-stones of educational method." (Dewey, 1915, p.117)
Papert (1980) brought a similar philosophy to the use of educational technologies. He wrote about how his childhood love of mechanical gears led to his interest in mathematics – and eventually computers, and he designed a programming language for students (LOGO), which used their knowledge of their bodies and the physical world as a gateway to teach relatively sophisticated geometry and programming concepts. Papert (1993) also felt that if students are to play video games, they should also program video games. In this way a student’s interest in video games themselves can provide a gateway to other learning. This transfer of interest isn’t limited to technical skills, though, as interest in video games can often engender interest in other knowledge, skills, and media, as shown by Squire’s (2005b) research into the use of Civilization III in the classroom and Dave McDivitt’s (2005) use of Making-History with his students.
Shaffer agrees with Dewey that “the challenge is in finding a way to channel students’ inherent interests into the development of ‘discipline, culture, and information” (Dewey, 1915a, p. 37, as cited in Shaffer, 2005, p. 8). Shaffer (2006) also points our that “some educators are interested in games because they can be used to create progressive learning environments where young people learn by doing things they are interested in” (p. 126). He is also careful to caution that “learning takes place only as part of a coherent system” (p. 179). Unfortunately, if students’ studies are disconnected from their interests, the system of education loses coherence for the students.
Islands of Expertise
Also, while student interests serve as gateways to new learning, students will develop islands of expertise that may be unique. Though many constructivists advocate helping students develop certain commonly important concepts, they tend to resist a hegemony of the curriculum. Bruner (1966) noted that “we get interested in what we get good at” (p. 118), a phenomenon that creates a sort of positive feedback loop in which each student to develop islands of expertise in the areas that they are already interested in and good at. An island of expertise is “any topic in which children happen to become interested and in which they develop relatively deep and rich knowledge” (Crowly and Jacobs, 2002, p. 333, as cited in Shaffer, in press, p. 5). This expertise develops “as the culmination of a long series of collaborative interactions that are opportunistic and relatively unremarkable when viewed individually, but which collectively create a powerful linkage between understanding and interest. Shaffer’s effort to use video games to help student develop epistemic frames, which “have a basis in content knowledge, interest, identity, and associated practices (Shaffer, in press, p. 10), is very much an effort to help students develop new (and valuable) islands of expertise.
Relevance
Ultimately, allowing student inquiry to drive student learning, constructivists build in a measure of relevance into the learning experience. Ideally, the experience can also tap into student interests, desires, and cares. Dewey felt that:
“Reading and writing, as well as the oral use of language, may be taught on this basis. It can be done in a related way, as the outgrowth of the child's social desire to recount his experiences and get in return the experiences of others, directed always through contact with the facts and forces which determine the truth communicated.” (Dewey, 1915, p. 56)
As Dewey (1915) said, “there is all the difference in the world between having something to say and having to say something” (p. 56). He explained that “direct modes of activity, constructive and occupation work, scientific observation, experimentation, etc., present… occasions for the necessary use of reading, writing (and spelling), and number work… as organic outgrowths of the child's experience” (p. 113-114). This principle is also at work behind the hope that video games can help students learn valuable skills.
Relevance is a key ingredient in Shaffer’s epistemic games. Shaffer (2006), believes that “[meaningful] learning requires that you care about what you are doing. You have to care enough to persist in doing it in the face of obstacles significant enough that over-coming them leads to real learning” (p. 126). He is particularly concerned with students learning to be innovative and notes that “you can do standardized work as an automaton, but innovation requires engagement with the tasks at hand. You have to care about what you are doing” (p. 132). Video games can be a way to engage and motivate students, but they will be most meaningful as a learning context if the content is also relevant to the students.
If important information is embedded into the learning environment such that it is available on-demand and just-in-time to support student inquiry, then this information too will have greater relevance to the students, as Gee (2003) pointed out in his explicit information on-demand and just-in-time principle quoted above (p. 211).
Creativity
Ideally, students will learn to be innovative and creative as they ask their own questions and solve their own problems. That is why video games (or other learning environments) must provide learners with the tools necessary to manipulate elements within the learning context, for as Gee (2005b) says, “humans feel expanded and empowered when they can manipulate powerful tools in intricate ways that extend their area of effectiveness” (p. 26).
Aldrich (2005) quoted Will Wright, creator of the Sims, as saying that “the more creative the players can be, the more they like the simulation” (p. xxx). Conversely, Aldrich also quoted Wright as saying “one way kills creativity” (p. xxxii). Aldrich considered computer games to be “empowering activities” because the player is the key to success (p. 136). Aldrich also acknowledged that “no single game… appeals to everybody” (p. 149), but envisioned a world where “students everywhere… truly engaged (and ultimately created) wondrous new environments” (p. 271).
Citing Papert, Jonassen suggests that those video games which allow user creation within the game environment can tap into the idea that “the creation process is an important component of learning (Papert, 1980), which is supported with students constructing their understanding of a phenomenon in a microworld” (Jonassen, 2003, p. 197). Jonassen also points out that “as is the case with most instructional design projects, the people who learn the most are the designers and developers, not the target audience” (p. 191). For that reason, many educational technologists and video game scholars, including Papert (1993) and Aldrich (2005b), have suggested that students should be creating video games. Prensky (2001) suggested that future players will be allowed even greater freedom in determining the direction of their individual inquiries, because “we will create the games we want” (p. 405).
“We will have the ability to set enormous amounts of parameters, from who we are, to where the game happens, to who the players and opponents are, to how much challenge we want that day. In addition, the games will learn about us as we play, and adapt on the fly to what we enjoy. We will be able to take any perspective and viewpoint we choose. We will input our own individuality and creativity into our games as we do into our houses and clothes. In this sense, we will all design our own games.” (Prensky 2001, p. 405)
Even without designing entire games, students can benefit a great deal from being creative within a game framework. For instance in the epistemic game Prospero’s Island students can “reshape the world and rework the narrative of the original [Shakespearean] play” (Squire & Jenkins, 2003, p. 21). Similarly, in Digital Zoo, “building in the game focused [students’] attention on how they could make things that they thought were interesting, rather than on whether they could find the right answer to the question on a test” (Shaffer, 2006, p. 47). Even the metagame can inspire creativity. As Steinkuehler (2005b) shares, MMORPGs can serve as the object of inquiry resulting in creative works such as fan fiction set in the game world (p. 96). Steinkuehler (2004b), p. 7 also highlights the “socially-sanctioned precociousness and wonder” that games can inspire.
Socially Negotiated Learning
A constructivist learning environment does not leave a student in isolation, but rather facilitates socially negotiated learning. Early constructivists believed not only that all learning is experience, but also that all experience is social - and that thus all learning is social. In fact, some social constructivists maintain that meaning is not so much made within an individual mind, but socially negotiated and shared between individuals.
Experience is Social
Dewey (1938) was interested in social forces, social issues, social conditions, and social planning (p. 80-81). Like many social constructivists to follow, he believed that “all human experience is ultimately social” (p. 38). Furthermore, Dewey (1916
) believed that “all communication (and hence all genuine social life) is educative” (p. 5). Unfortunately, as he explained, when a social arrangement such as a traditional school “becomes cast in a mold and runs in a routine way… it lose[s] its educative power” (p. 6). He did, however, acknowledge the importance of intentional learning when he noted that there is “a marked difference between the education which every one gets from living with others… and the deliberate educating of the young. In the former case the education is incidental” (p. 6). Ultimately, for Dewey, “education must involve the social world of the child and the community” (Mooney, 2000, p. 4).
Piaget (1950) also assigned a great deal of significance to “social factors in intellectual development” (pp. 171-182), and is careful to establish that “the term ‘social’ must not be thought of in the narrow sense of educational, cultural, or moral transmission alone; rather, it covers an interpersonal process of socialization which is at once cognitive, affective, and moral” (1969, p. 95). His observations lead him to claim that “society, even more, in a sense, than the physical environment, changes the very structure of the individual, because it not only compels him to recognize facts, but also provides him with a ready-made system of signs, which modify his thought” (1950, p. 171). Elaborating on this theory, he suggested that “social life affects intelligence through the three media of language (signs), the content of interaction (intellectual values), and rules imposed on thought (collective logical or pre-logical norms)” (p. 171). These social signs, values, and norms are of course also subject to assimilation and accommodation as they are integrated into an individual’s mental organization, and as such they take on a new “half-individual, half-socialized” (p. 175) meanings in an individual’s mind.
Like Dewey and Piaget, Vygotsky (1997) thought that “experience is ‘socially impregnated’ through and through” (p. 53). Vygotsky believed that even individual cognitive development was a social process because “the mechanism of social behavior and the mechanism of consciousness are the same” (Vygotsky, 1979, p. 1, as quoted in Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p. 78). According to Vygotsky, “human life presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 88). He explained that “the adult, even in his most personal and private occupation, ... thinks socially, has continually in his mind's eye his collaborators or opponents” (Vygotsky, 1923/1974, p. 59, as cited in Tryphon & Voneche, 1996, p. 146). Ultimately, Vygotsky believed that:
“for man the environment is a social environment, because even where it appears to be a natural environment, nevertheless, in relation to man, there are always definite social elements present. in his interaction with the environment, man always makes use of his social experience.” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 53-54)
Bruner (1966), like Vygotsky, also considered thought “an internal version… of dialog” (p. 19). Dialog, which implies a social relationship, is the foundation of all meaning-making, even if it is merely internal dialogue.
Like these seminal constructivist theorists, video game scholars such as William and Facer (2004) are similarly interested in “how children's existing habits when playing computer games are situated within social contexts and practices, and how these practices, rather than the games software on which they are centered, might provide insights of relevance to more formal educational settings” (p. 256). William and Facer “discussed playing games in peer groups (p. 259), expert gamers (p. 260), wider social resources for learning about games (p. 262), social contexts for learning in online games (p. 263), gender (p. 261), socio-economic status (p. 261), and “the potential applications of games practices to the formal educational setting” (p. 264). Others also discussed ways in which multi-player video games might provide a context for learning and a framework for collaboration (Winograd, 2005, p. 39-40).
Social Negotiated Meaning Making
Early constructivists came to believe that meaning is not so much made within an individual mind, but socially negotiated and shared between individuals. Dewey (1916), for instance, believed that “meaning depends upon connection with a shared experience” (p. 15), and that “persons modify one another’s dispositions” (p. 31). Bruner (1986), who was even more concerned with the influence of culture on cognitive development wrote that “most of our approaches to the world are mediated through negotiation with others” (p. 68), and he went on to say that “it is this truth that gives such extraordinary force to Vygotsky’s theory of the zone of proximal development (p. 68). Bruner (1996) was concerned with “the making and negotiating of meanings... the cultural 'situatedness' of all mental activity” (p. x), and shared negotiable ways of thinking. According to Bruner, "learning is an interactive process in which people learn from each other, and not just by showing and telling" (p. 22). He explained that intelligence is located not in a single head and “not only in your particular environment of books, dictionaries, and notes, but also in the heads and habits of friends with whom you interact, even in what socially you have come to take as given” (p. 154). Bruner was also careful to point out that “making sense jointly need not be hegemony... nor unanimity, but more consciousness. And more consciousness always implies more diversity” (p. 96-97).
Today many social constructivists maintain that “access to knowledge, including literacy, is socially constructed” (Cutts-Dougherty, 1991, as cited in Dixon-Krauss, 1996, p. 176). Squire and Jenkins (2003) note that even in effective military simulations, “Learning is guided by more experienced members of the military community, and the meaning of these activities is negotiated through social interactions” (p. 9) These philosophies are now evident in many modern volumes on video games and learning, most notably including Gee’s (2003) and Shaffer’s (2006) work.
Development is Social
Constructivists are often primarily concerned with students’ individual cognitive development, and this too is a social process. Dewey (1915) conceived of “individual mind as a function of social life – as not capable of operating or developing by itself, but as requiring continual stimulus from social agencies, and finding its nutrition in social supplies” (p. 99).
Vygotsky’s theories were particularly important in establishing the social nature of cognitive development. As Dixon-Krauss (1996) wrote, “Vygotsky claimed that human development is relational… [he] highlighted one aspect that has been left out of… Piaget and other psychological theorists: the social origin of psychological ideas” (p. 78).
Vygotsky’s approach, according to Dixon-Krauss, “starts right where the real world is: in authentic social interaction… and encompasses the social and affective dimension as well as cognitive development” (p. 80). Dixon-Krauss also noted that based on Vygotsky’s work, “collaborative learning can have a positive effect on [student’s] cognitive development” (p. 80). Rieber and Robinson (2004) noted that according to Vygotsky, “higher mental functions arise from collective social forms of behavior” (p. 472). They also noted that “only in the process of working with other children does the function of the child’s logical thinking develop” (p. 472) and that “the development of the child’s thinking depends on his mastery of the social means of thinking, that is, on his mastery of speech” (p. 62). Tryphon and Voneche (1996) discussed the way the child “transfer(s) external social behavior into intra-psychic functions” (p. 6). They explained that based on Vygotsky’s theories, “the child’s verbal productions fulfill… a “social” function of communication and interaction with the setting” (p. 91). According to Mooney (2000), Vygotsky thought that “personal and social experience cannot be separated. The world that children inhabit is shaped by their families, communities, socioeconomic status, education, and culture” (p. 82). Mooney also highlighted that “Vygotsky… showed that children's cognitive development is affected not only by their physical development, but also by their social surroundings and interactions” (p. 85). In short, Mooney believed “Vygotsky has shown the importance of learning as an interactive experience” (p. 90).
Fundamentally, Vygotsky believed that “every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level and, later, on the individual level... all the higher functions originate as actual relations between human individuals” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57, as quoted in Tryphon & Voneche, 1996, p. 17). He conceived of development progressing not “from the individual to the social, but from the social to the individual” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 36). So Vygotsky (1978) was concerned with social experience as a source of “changes occurring in the internal structure of the child’s intellectual operations” (p. 22). Vygotsky explained:
“When children develop a method of behavior for guiding themselves that had previously been used in relation to another person, when they organize their own activities according to a social form of behavior, they succeed in applying a social attitude to themselves. The history of the process of the internalization of social speech is also the history of the socialization of children's practical intellect.” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 27).
In Vygotsky’s (1978) view, “from the very first days of the child's development his activities acquire a meaning of their own in a system of social behavior” (p. 30). Similarly, he believed that “education, in every country and in every epoch, has always been social in nature, indeed, by its very ideology it could hardly exist as antisocial in any way” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 47). He also believed that “the nature of man’s education… is wholly determined by the social environment in which he grows and develops” (p. 211). In fact, he considered intentional education “possible only on the basis of an appropriately guided social environment” (p. 210).
Bruner (1996), too, thought that “human mental activity is neither solo nor conducted unassisted, even when it goes on ‘inside the head’” (p. xi).
The Zone of Proximal Development
The zone of proximal development is an important (and practical) concept to come out of the social constructivist movement. Vygotsky (1978), who originated the concept, defines the zone of proximal development (ZPD) as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). He goes on to explain that “the zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation... the 'buds' or 'flowers' of development rather than the 'fruits' of development” (p. 86) and that “the development process lags behind the learning process” (p. 90). Put another way by Bruner (1986), the ZPD is the “capital… that exists between what people can recognize or comprehend when present before them, and what they can generate on their own” (p. 76).
According to Tryphon and Voneche (1996), “Vygotsky argued that what children can do with the assistance of others is ‘even more indicative of their mental development than what they can do alone’” (p. 146). They also explain that “what children can do now in social interaction becomes, in time, part of their independent repertoires” (p. 147). Dixon-Krauss (1996) adds that the “tools used to reach [the potential performance level] are interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogues or collaboration” (p. 78). Though this concept has found common usage in modern schools and teacher preparation programs, Vygotsky (1978) cautions that “there are highly complex dynamic relations between developmental and learning processes that cannot be encompassed by an unchanging hypothetical formulation” (p. 91).
Rieber and Robinson (2004) pointed out that according to Vygotsky’s theories, “mental abilities can emerge during childhood form many different sources… both internal and external to the organism” (p. 4). Vygotsky (1978) himself noted that children “enlist the assistance of another person in accordance with the requirements of the problem posed for them” (p. 29). In this way, “children’s learning begins long before they attend school” (p. 84) and continues even when school is not in session. Based on this line of thinking when students are challenged playing video games and they turn to game guides, fan sites, and other players for help they are engaged in a very natural form of learning and progressing through a zone of proximal development. (It’s important to note that Vygotsky believed there were “indefinitely many” developmental zones and that “intellectual development is viewed… as a ‘ladder’ in Piaget’s account, and as a ‘web’ in Vygotsky’s account” [Tryphon & Voneche, 1996, p. 113].) Others including Mooney (2000) have taken Vygotsky’s work to mean that “interactive situations… allow students to stretch and grow mentally” (p. 91).
As for the educational implications of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory for schools – and for video games, he recommended that “learning should be matched in some manner with the child’s development level” (p. 85). Furthermore, he suggested that “learning which is oriented toward developmental levels that have already been reached is ineffective from the viewpoint of a child's overall development” (p. 89). As he went on to say, “the notion of a zone of proximal development enables us to propound a new formula, namely that the only ‘good learning’ is that which is in advance of development” (p. 89). Regarding assessment, Vygotsky believed that “how much help is required provides a better index of students' future learning trajectories in a domain than do static tests” (p. 163).
Though Vygotsky is credited with originating the concept of the ZPD, Rieber and Robinson point out that the concept reaches quite a bit further back in history:
“[The ZPD] refers to the brute fact, perhaps first celebrated by Plato in the Meno, where he discusses the young slave's apparent "knowledge" of geometry while being questioned appropriately by Socrates, that ignorant learners can do far better in understanding a matter when prompted or "scaffolded" by an expert than they can on their own. The idea of the ZPD focuses attention on the role of dialogue as a precursor to inner speech, in this case the dialogue between a more expert teacher and a less expert learner. Once a concept is explicated in dialogue, the learner is enabled to reflect on the dialog, to use its distinctions and connections to reformulate his own thought. Thought, then, is both an individual achievement and a social one.” (Rieber and Robinson, 2004, p. 12)
Dewey also “thought that children need assistance from their teachers in making sense of their world" (Mooney, 2000 p. 6). As Johnson (2005) acknowledged, in recent years “cognitive scientists have argued that the most effective learning takes place at the outer edges of a student’s competence: building on knowledge that the student has already acquired, but challenging him with new problems to solve” (p. 177).
Gee wrote about a “Regime of Competence” (p. 71) when he explained that good games allow learners to “operate within, but at the outer edge of, his or her resources, so that at those points things are felt as challenging but not ‘undoable’” (p. 71). Later he reverted to Vygotsky’s term, the “Zone of Proximal Development” (Gee, 2004, p. 66), and illustrated how games can “help learners (players) pull of more than they could on their own and yet still feel a sense of personal accomplishment” (Gee, 2004, p. 66). Gee even expected a game to be “pleasantly frustrating” (Gee, 2005a, p. 26) such that “learners feel – and get evidence – that their effort is paying off in the sense that they can see, even when they fail, how and if they are making progress” (p. 26). Also, because “people don’t like practicing skills out of contest over and over” (p. 27), good games allow learners to “see a set of related skills as a strategy to accomplish goals they want to accomplish” (p. 27).
Johnson (2005) cited Gee’s regime of competence principle (p. 209) and believed it might work on a social scale as well; discussing the effects of a generation growing up playing good video games (that challenge without frustrating) he suggested that “eventually you get a generation that welcomes the challenge of new technologies, that embraces new genres with a flexibility that would have astonished the semi-panicked audiences that trembled through the first black-an-white films” (p. 178). Johnson, though, explained that “game designers don't build learning machines out of charity, of course; they do it because there's an economic reward in creating games that stay close to that border. Make a game too hard, and no one will buy it. Make it too easy, and no one will buy it” (p. 177).
Shaffer (2006), a video game scholar, considers the ZPD to be “the things we are ready to learn” and believed “the way we learn is by doing things with help and then progressively internalizing the process” (p. 99). He went on to explain that “the idea behind internalization is that learning is always about brining inside of ourselves what once was help from someone else” (p. 99). This concept is critical to Shaffer’s efforts to teach students to be innovative. He believes that “innovative professionals find creative solutions to complex problems by constantly working just beyond the boundary of what they can already do by themselves… it is how the keep learning and growing in their work” (p. ???). Consequently, in the epistemic games he designed and discussed “thinking was spread out, or distributed” (p. 148). In each game “there was a link between the problem space (the things to be done) and the social space (the things each person was doing)” (p. 148). In his view, “a practicum is about learning by doing, but the learning takes place because experts have divided the task into the right chunks for novices to be able to do” (p. 148-149).
Scaffolding
The concept of the ZPD has given rise to the concept of scaffolding, which suggests that teachers can provide structure and support for students as they build their own understanding – structure and support that helps them bridge the zone of proximal development, the gap between what they can do on their own and what they can do with help. Not only can teachers provide this structure, but as Bruner (1996) notes, “learners ‘scaffold’ for each other as well” (p. 21). He also recognized that a professional community often “provides ‘scaffolding’ for novices” (p. 21).
Like Bruner, Shaffer (2004b) noted that in professional practicum, “novices learn by observing and getting feedback from peers” (p.5), a concept he applies in his epistemic games. He also incorporated the concept of error correction, noting that “understanding also developed through the need to respond to critical challenges from peers” (p. 17). In addition he explained that in cooperative activities “a learner develops understanding, in part, by observing work done by his or her peers within… the horizon of observation of the learner: the parts of the task he or she can observe from his or her role in the activity” (p. 16).
Video games and simulations can be used to offer students opportunities for error correction and to effectively expand students’ horizons of observation. Squire and Jenkins (2003) found that “games encourage collaboration among players and thus provide a context for peer-to-peer teaching and for the emergence of learning communities” (p. 29). Similarly, Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, and Tan (2003) described games that “provide greater scaffolding… by analyzing patters of investigation and suggesting to students when it might be appropriate to switch modes if they are relying too heavily on one source of data or another” (p. 8).
MMORPGs in particular inherently provide a measure of scaffolding that allows opportunities for error correction and for students to expand their horizon of observation. Steinkuehler (2004b) notes that MMORPGs “are not mastered by overt instruction but rather through apprenticeship” (Gee, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988 as cited in Steinkuehler, 2004b, p. 5). As Steinkuehler (2004b) pointed out, “newcomers [in an MMORPG] learn the game through full participation in genuine game play with more knowledgeable/skilled others… [they] have to play with others if [they] ever hope to develop genuine expertise” (p. 7). Steinkuehler (2006b) also observed that “gamers who have already mastered the social and material practices requisite to game play enculturate, through scaffolded and supported interactions, newer gamers who lack such knowledge and skill” (p. 3). She explained the way a more experienced MMORPG player:
“scaffolds her students by modeling successful performance, focusing her attention on key material, social, and contextual aspects that are crucial to its success... entrusting more and more control over the ongoing actions to the apprenticeship, and allowing numerous opportunity for practice and situated feedback” (Steinkuehler, 2004b, p. 7)
In designing his epistemic games, Shaffer (2004) used “the ways in which professionals are trained as a model for learning environments” (p. 1404). He believed that “professions such as accounting, architecture, mediation, engineering, journalism, law, and medicine can provide particularly powerful models for developing technology-based learning environments in which young people can learn important skills, habits, and associations” (Shaffer, 2004, p. 1405). He articulated the benefits of this approach by explaining that:
“(a) pedagogical praxis can be used to design effective programs for students from a range of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds; (b) environments based on professional learning practices can support learning in a range of domains (including mathematics, biology, ethics, communication arts, and civics), leading to significant changes in attitudes and mores as well as the refinement of cognitive skills; and (c) learning practices from a range of professions (including architecture, mediation, and journalism) can inform the development of learning environments for middle and high school students... teachers, curriculum developers, and other practitioners might borrow from this work in developing new and innovative curricula to expand the range of pedagogies used in traditional classrooms, which has in fact happened in several instances.” (Shaffeer, 2004, p. 1416)
Culture Impacts Development
The culture (or cultures) within which learning takes place can affect student development, making the culture of the learning environment another important aspect for educators to consider. Dewey (1915) saw “the school itself as a community of individuals” (p. 64) and was particularly interested in “its relations to other forms of social life” (p. 64). Culture was also important in Vygotsky’s work. According to his theories, “with the development of inner speech and verbal thought… the nature of development itself changes, from biological to sociohistorical” (Vygotsky, 1968, p. 94). Vygotsky believed that “social institutions are first in foremost in determining what makes the world the way it is” (Reiber & Robinson, 2004, p. 8).
Bruner (1996) was particularly interested in the role of culture in learning, and in the “cultural ‘situatedness’ of all mental activity” (p. x). Over the course of his career, his philosophy moved from what he considered constructivism to what he called culturalism (Bruner, 1996, p. 3). He acknowledged that he was initially “too preoccupied with solo, intrapsychic processes of knowing” (p. 1).
According to Bruner (1996), “reality construction is the product of meaning making shaped by traditions and by a culture's toolkit of ways of thought” (p. 20). Earlier he wrote that “mental growth is in very considerable measure dependent upon growth from the outside in - a mastering of techniques that are embodied in the culture and that are passed on in a contingent dialogue by agents of the culture” (Bruner, 1966, p. 21). In his view, “native endowment may be as much affected by the accessibility of symbolic systems as by the distribution of genes” (Bruner, 1996, p. 11). Also, he believed that “emotions, cognitions, and actions… [are] aspects of a larger whole that achieves its integration only within a cultural system” (Bruner, 1986, p. 117) and that “learning, remembering, talking, imaging: all of them are made possible by participating in a culture” (Bruner, 1996, p. xi). Like Dewey, he recognized education as occurring not only in classrooms, “but around the dinner table when family members try to make joint sense of what happened that day, or when kids try to help each other make sense of the adult world, or when a master and apprentice interact on the job" (Bruner, 1996, p. xi). He explains that:
"meaning making involves situating encounters with the world in their appropriate cultural contexts in order to know 'what they are about.' Although meanings are 'in the mind,' they have their origins and their significance in the culture in which they are created. It is this cultural situatedness of meanings that assures their negotiability and, ultimately, their communicability" (Bruner, 1996, p. 3)
Furthermore, Bruner (1986) believed that “a culture is constantly in process of being recreated as it is interpreted and renegotiated by its members” (p. 123). In this respect, he explains that “man’s intellect… is not simply his own, but is communal in the sense that its unlocking or empowering depends upon the success of the culture in developing means to that end” (Bruner, 1971, p. 7). He also notes that a person’s “growth as an individual depends… not upon a history reflected in genes and chromosomes but, rather, reflected in a culture external to man's tissue and wider in scope than is embodied in any one man's competency” (p. 50-52). Bruner even quipped that “culture-free is intelligence-free” (p. 22).
Bruner (1990) also discussed the importance of narrative, including fictional and empirical narratives, in creating and passing on knowledge (p. 43, 50, 52). Such narratives can “have the effect of… promot[ing] negotiation and avoid[ing] confrontational disruption and strife (p. 67). Even autobiographical narratives were important to Bruner – and he considered these, too, to be a function of culture (p. 33, p. 99). Naturally, video games, especially role-playing games such as MMORPGs can provide a narrative structure (including a sort of autobiographical narrative) for meaning making and the social negotiation of meaning, and this property of role-playing games might be harnessed for intentional educational purposes. Bruner (1996) believed that “education must be conceived as aiding young humans in learning to use the tools of meaning making and reality construction” (p. 20), so it follows that any such games would need to contribute to this purpose. Video games have the potential to be something “a culture does to assist the development of the powers of mind of its members is, in effect, to provide amplification systems to which human beings, equipped with appropriate skills, can link themselves” (Bruner, 1971, p. 53).
Communication effects Development
Communication, particularly the development and use of language, is a critical element of learning – and of a constructivist learning environment. As Dewey explained:
“Any experience, however trivial in its first appearance, is capable of assuming an indefinite richness of significance by extending its range of perceived connections. Normal communication with others is the readiest way of effecting this development, for it links up the net results of the experience of the group and even the race with the immediate experience of an individual." (Dewey, 1926, p. 217)
Dewey (1916) advocates an educational use of language that is “more vital and fruitful by having its normal connection with shared activities” (p. 38). Many educational technologies, such as blogs for instance offer the opportunity to expand the scope and reach of students’ authentic communication with others outside of the school. Now, multiplayer online games such as MMORPGs can also offer this opportunity.
Cooperation and Collaboration
In order to support dialog and social negotiation of meaning, one aim of a constructivist learning environment is to promote cooperation and collaboration between students, as opposed to isolating students and placing barriers between them, common effect (if not common goals) of traditional learning environments. Facilitating cooperation and collaboration has the additional benefit of helping students to improve their social skills and teamwork.
According to Dixon-Krauss (1996), cooperation or collaboration, to a large extent, makes up the backbone of Vygotsky’s theory. Taking the human social context into consideration, Vygotsky highlights the significance of this element in teaching and learning” (p. 77). Dixon-Krauss also points out that “collaboration, derived from Vygotsky’s theory, serves as a powerful vehicle of socialization in human psychological development” (p. 79).
Prensky (2001) saw the potential of video and computer games to provide a framework for collaborative learning. Whether in-game (as opponents or teammates), or in the activities surrounding the game (as fellow players and fans of the game), most good games offer players a degree of interaction with social groups (p. 106). Prensky considers this interaction between players more important than their interaction with the computer running the game (or with non-player characters in a game), and suggests that players tend to prefer playing with others, even going so far as to say that “like the internet, computer games are bringing people into closer social interaction – although not necessarily face to face” (p. 123).
“One key lesson many of [the digital natives’] games are teaching them is the value of people working together and helping each other” (Prensky, 2004, p. 1). In their games, they are able to “coordinate their activities online, and to run projects that may involve hundreds of people” (Prensky, 2004b, p. 7). This is such a powerful effect that the US Army turns to games in order to help them “take individuals and mold them into well functioning teams” (Prensky, 2001, p. 303). This is also one of the more motivating and engaging elements of modern games, particularly MMORPGs (Prensky, 2004, p. 4).
Prensky predicts that digital games of the future “will be fully online, wireless, and massively multiplayer” (p. 404) and that “communication and cooperation will become more important elements” (p. 405). With respect to learning, he projects that teachers and learners will be “hooked up to massive, persistent, multiplayer games where learning can be constantly happening, revisions input, students evaluated, and scores compared and tabulated” (p. 407).
Like Prensky, Gee also found a good deal of value in games as a framework for collaborative learning and socially negotiated meaning making. His concern that “children are expected to read texts with little or no knowledge about any social practices within which those texts are used” (Gee, 2003, p. 16) lead to his initial focus on the importance of connecting learners with affinity groups, or “insiders” who are “into” a certain semiotic domain and share “certain ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, and believing” (p. 27). He explained that people who play particular games, or genres of games, are able to connect with an affinity group (online or gathered around a game console), even if the game is not multiplayer (p. 27). In a way, even players of a single player game are also collaborating with the game designers in co-creation of the story line (p. 81).
These ideas initially culminated in Gee’s (2003) Affinity Group Principle, which focused on the need for learners to be a part of “a group that is bonded primarily through shared endeavors, goals, and practices... not shared race, gender, nation, ethnicity, or culture” (p. 197). However, he later refined this idea and focused more on affinity spaces (Gee, 2004, p. 77). Though he continued to validate the importance of a “community of practice” (p. 77), he turned instead to focusing on the “space in which people interact” (p. 77). In addition to the original Affinity Group Principle, he added that in an affinity space newcomers are not separated from masters, both individual and distributed knowledge are encouraged, dispersed knowledge is encouraged, tacit knowledge is encouraged (and honored), there are different routes to status, and leadership is porous (and leaders are resources) (pp. 85-87).
The Intuitive Knowledge Principle, which concerns the construction of tacit knowledge “through repeated practice and experience” (p. 111), suggested that this happens “in association with an affinity group” (p. 111) as well. In addition, three more of Gee’s principles related to Cultural Models. He advocated that learning should be set up (and is in many good video games) such that “learners come to think consciously and reflectively” (pp. 166-167) about their cultural models regarding the world, learning, and semiotic domains.
When Gee (2003) addressed multiplayer games, including MMORPGs such as Everquest, he wrote explicitly about learning as a social process that happens in the game (p. 169). He discussed the way meaning and knowledge are both “distributed across the learner, objects, tools, symbols, technologies, and the environment” (emphasis added, p. 197) and “dispersed in the sense that the learner shares it with others outside the domain/game, some of whom the learner may rarely or never see face-to-face” (emphasis added, p. 197). Very much in keeping with the constructivist tradition, Gee felt that the learner should be “an ‘insider’, ‘teacher’, and ‘producer’ (not just a ‘consumer’) able to customize the learning experience and domain/game from the beginning and throughout the experience” (p. 197).
Gee (2003) also wrote a chapter concerning “the ways in which content in video games either reinforces or challenges players’ taken-for-granted perspectives on the world” (p. 140). He predicts that
“this is an area where the future potential of video games is perhaps even more significant than their current instantiations. It is also an area where we enter a realm of great controversy, controversy that will get even more intense as video games come to realize their full potential, for good or ill, for realizing worlds and identities.” (Gee, 2003, 140)
Though Aldrich (2005) quoted Will Wright as saying that “getting people to engage other people with what they learned is critical” (p. xxxii), Aldrich himself was unconvinced of the value in multiplayer games and simulations. In terms of Role Paying Games in particular, Aldrich (2004) felt that role playing “is an incredibly high-pressure environment that forces traditional, not experimental behavior” (p. 87). He debated whether or not Virtual Leader should be an MMORPG, but concluded that there were several reasons not to follow a multiplayer design. “Role playing environments are highly public… [and] people in a role play don’t act ‘normally’” (p. 101). Similarly, “groups of people act differently from one another” (p. 101) and “real people act erratically” (p. 101). He later called online multiplayer games unpredictable (Aldrich, 2005, p. 68). Some of his objections are related to the logistical expense required for getting people together at the same time and in the same place (or virtual place), issues which are avoided by single player games (Aldrich, 2004, p. 101). Also unlike single player games, multiplayer games (and certainly massively multiplayer games, especially ones in which players are actually role-playing) do not allow for repeatability of scenarios (p. 101). At one point, Aldrich even poses the following question: “why are so many teachers and trainers obsessed with multi-player computer games, especially since most have never played them?” (Aldrich, 2005, p. 95)
Aldrich (2005) did acknowledge the value of role playing games as the “most life like, reflecting the long-term career and life decisions most of us make” (p. 142). He felt they could teach “the scarcity of development opportunities and the absolute need to align development with strategy” (p. 142). He also suggested that during the stage in which learners are fully engaged by a simulation, people are most successful when learning in groups (p. 244). However, he does not consider that MMORPGs might provide a framework for this. When he does discuss the potential of MMORPGs to “teach how to meet strangers and… form deep relationships with which to perform heroic quests carefully balancing each other’s strengths and weaknesses” (p. 142), he is also quick to point out that players can “alternatively cheat, rob, and kill” each other (p. 142).
Ironically, given his objections to MMORPGs, Aldrich (2005) advocates live role playing as a powerful learning experience (pp. 96-105). In his vision, a computer might be used simply to facilitate the use of rules in the game (pp. 96 and 104). This may be in part because of his focus on the importance of support provided by an instructor (p. 245).
Shaffer (2004b) explored “collaborative learning in a setting marked by competition as much as cooperation” in which the “processes of collaborative learning... were fundamentally similar to collaborative learning processes observed in more cooperative contexts” (p. 2). Fundamentally, he believed that “collaborative learning environments reflect the fundamentally social nature of the learning process, and the importance of developing contexts that foster constructive and productive interactions in support of learning” (p. 3). Games such as Muzzy Lane’s explicitly educational Making History can provide such opportunities for both cooperative and competitive student collaboration (DeKanter, N., 2005).
Another benefit of cooperation and collaboration between students is that individual students can complete tasks with the help of others that they would not be able to perform independently. Student’s intelligence can actually be distributed among others in the learning environment, a situation that constructivists consider common in real-world scenarios. For this reason, constructivist learning environments often encourage the development of learning communities or communities of practice.
Transfer
Constructivists maintain that the skills that students develop when collaborating in a learning community will transfer to real-world contexts more successfully than those skills developed in isolation with traditional teaching techniques. Shaffer’s (2004b) research showed that skills acquired in simulated negotiation not only helped players of an epistemic game acquire negotiation skills, but also helped students understand the issues involved from multiple perspectives (P. 15). He explained that:
“by participating in professional learning practices, students can internalize and transfer these epistemological norms to new situations... Thoughtful enactment of a practice necessarily involves making decisions about ways of knowing, ways of deciding what is worth knowing, and ways of adding to a collective body of knowledge and understanding. In learning to participate in a practice, students internalize these ways of thinking, which they are able to apply in other venues.” (Shaffer, 2004, p. 141)
Ultimately, Shaffer (in press) argued that games based on socially valued practices “have the potential to help students develop ways of thinking that persist beyond the game environment… [and to thus] provide an alternative model for organizing our educational system” (p. 19) This is possible because students who play such games “learn through participation in authentic recreations of valued work in the world, and thus give educators an opportunity to move beyond disciplines derived from medieval scholarship constituted within schools developed in the industrial revolution” (p. 19). Shaffer calls this “a new model of learning for a new mode of learning through immersive game technologies” (p. 19). If this is the future of education, though, educators and game designers alike should heed Squire’s (2002) suggestion that “socio-cultural learning theory, activity theory, and educational research on transfer are three theoretical traditions that might also be of use to game studies” (p. 7).
Social Relevance
Ideally, constructivists hope not only for a transfer of skills, but that the learning that occurs in schools will itself have relevance to the student and to the greater society as well. Dewey (1926), in particular, was concerned with education’s “social ends” (p. 201). In his view, “intellectual organization is not an end in itself but is the means by which social relations, distinctively human ties and bonds, may be understood and more intelligently ordered” (Dewey, 1938, p. 83). He believed that treating learning as something that occurs separate from life outside of school “tends to preclude the social sense which comes from sharing in an activity of common concern and value” (Dewey, 1916, p. 39). He went so far as to say that “isolation of subject matter from a social context is the chief obstruction in current practice to securing a general training of mind” (p. 67). As such, he hoped to see students engaged with “active occupations having a social origin and use, and proceed to a scientific insight in the materials and laws involved, through assimilating into their more direct experience the ideas and facts communicated by others who have had a larger experience” (Dewey, 1926, p. 192-193). For Dewey (1938) “the primary source of social control resides in the very nature of the work done as a social enterprise in which all individuals have an opportunity to contribute and to which all feel a responsibility” (p. 56). He believed “students should be introduced to scientific subject-matter and be initiated into its facts and laws through acquaintance with everyday social applications” (Dewey, 1916, p. 80), and he called for society to “have a type of education which gives individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure social changes without introducing disorder” (p. 99). Ultimately he wanted to see a “connection of the acquisition of knowledge in the schools with activities, or occupations, carried on in a medium of associated life” (Dewey, 1926, p. 345).
Modern video game scholars also subscribe to this need for social relevance. Shaffer (2004), for instance, looks to epistemic games as a way to teach ethics; in one case study, “enacting professional learning practices helped… students think about ethical dilemmas using the epistemological framework of professional negotiation and dispute resolution. In this case, learning through simulated negotiation supported both a change in perspective taking and the development of conceptual understanding" (p. 1414).
Video Games are Social
Many video game scholars maintain that video game playing is a often a deeply social experience and that well designed games can provide a learning environment that facilitates socially negotiated learning. Shaffer (2005) explained that video games “make it possible for more students to learn about the world by participating in a broader range of meaningful activities… [and] make it possible to dramatically expand the reach of… Dewey’s ideas” (p. 20). Shaffer discussed “virtual worlds in which students can interact using a wide range of practices” (p. 19) and he believed that computers “make it possible for students to participate in adult activities that are hard to access, or even inaccessible with traditional materials” (p. 19). In particular, he was interested in ways computers and video games could help bring together in communities of practice, or groups “of individuals who share a repertoire of knowledge about and ways of addressing similar (often shared) problems and purposes” (Shaffer, in press, p. 10).
Squire (2003) asserted that “gaming, fundamentally, is a social phenomena, occurring in social groups distributed both through traditional social networks (work, school, family) and through the internet” (p. 10). To Squire “these groups resemble communities of practice; they have their own practice (game playing), language, and socially acceptable ways of behaving” (p. 11). Shaffer, Squire, & Gee (2005) also wrote that “game playing can also be a thoroughly social phenomenon” (p. 106). They noted that video games “create new social and cultural worlds – worlds that help [players] learn by integrating thinking, social interaction, and technology, all in service of doing things [people] care about” (p. 105). As they suggested, “the virtual worlds of games are powerful… because playing games means developing a set of effective social practices” (p. 106). They went on to explain how “part of the power of games for learning is the way they develop shared values… the situated understandings, effective social practices, powerful identities, and shared values that make someone an expert” (p. 107). Steinkuehler (2004b) pointed out that “the mechanisms for learning entailed in gameplay in virtual cultures/worlds are contingent on the game not only as a designed object but also as a social practice” (p. 8).
Even outside of the games themselves, video games generate rich social interactions. Squire (2003) wrote that “video game playing is situated in social and cultural spheres that are perhaps more important than the game itself” (p. 10). Put simply:
“video game playing occurs in social contexts; video game playing is not only a child (or group) of children in front of a console, it is also children talking about a game on the school bus, acting out scenes from a game on the playground, or discussing games on online bulletin boards” (Squire, 2003, p. 10)
Squire and Jenkins (2003) use the term meta-gaming to describe “the conversation that goes on around the game, becom[ing] a form of literary analysis” (p. 22).
MMORPGs are Social
Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) in particular, are inherently social and require dialog, cooperation, and collaboration between players. Learning communities and communities of practice are commonplace in MMORPGs and though it may not be common among casual players, the games are designed to promote role-playing within the environment.
Jonassen’s (2003) discussion of building technology-supported learning communities on the Internet is significant for its approach to MUDs, MOOs, and role-playing games. In contrast to the usual classroom dynamic where students are “disconnected or competing with each other” (p. 72), Jonassen is interested in fostering learning communities where students “share common learning goals or interests” (p. 72), and where emphasis is “placed on the social and cognitive contributions of a group of learners to each other, with students collaborating and supporting each other” (p. 73). Such communities “depend heavily on both student and teacher buy-in, responsibility, and continuing motivation, as well as a rich collection of information and learning resources to support them” (p. 73). In addition to commonplace technologies such as e-mail and instant messaging, MUDs and MOOs can support such learning communities. These “internet-based multiuser environments… are engaging learners in high-level conversations that support personal reflection” (p. 101). In addition, “users can enter the virtual environment and travel between locations – for example, homes, museums, coffee shops, or science labs” (p. 101). MUDs and MOOs were originally text based, but modern massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) now offer similar experiences in 3D graphical virtual environments. In the text based games, “visitors not only interact, but, depending on their level of experience, can participate in the design and construction of the environment itself” (p. 101) and this is beginning to be true of graphical games as well; most allow players to craft items, and some, such as Linden Lab’s Second Life rely on user creation of almost all elements of the online environment.
Such an environment would be ideal for sort of mentoring that Jonassen (2003) advocates (pp. 108-109), and would also be an environment in which a teacher could foster community, provided the infrastructure would allow for communication – especially feedback (p. 111), attention to student differences (pp. 111), shared culture (pp. 111-112), adaptation to the needs of student groups (p. 112), dialogue (pp. 112-113), access to information (p. 113), membership (pp. 113-114), and motivation (p. 114). Jonassen offers the advice to teachers that “the concept of learning communities is [only] an ideal” (p. 114), that “technology, resources, and models can help” (p. 115), that “it’s not all or nothing” (p. 115), and to “respect [their] own knowledge and situation” (p. 115).
Steinkuehler (2006a) shares a view of “cognition as (inter)action in the social and material world” (p. 3) and she considers MMORPGs to be “social simulations” (2006b, p. 4). She explains that MMORPGs are “learning environments, albeit naturally occurring, self-sustaining, indigenous ones dedicated to play rather than work or school” (p. 3). Her ethnographic work lead her to characterize MMORPGs as “rich settings for reciprocal forms of teaching and apprenticeship, [because] successful in-game problem solving often requires access to the collective intelligence… of the communities attending them” (p. 3). She considered such games to be “rich spaces for social interaction and enculturation, requiring complex cognitive/cultural knowledge and skills” (2006a, p. 25) and she believed they operated as “sites for socialization, enculturation, and learning” (2005, p. 30).
Squire and Steinkuehler (in press) stated that “understanding [MMORPGs] as cultures and not just environments is crucial… [because] these communities are defined by and through their cultural practices – the shared customs, procedures, rituals, and beliefs” (p. 3). They also maintained that “despite frequent public dismissals and indictments, [MMORPGs] do constitute complex and nuanced sets of mutli-modal social and communicative practices” (p. 4). After all, as Stenikuehler and Williams (in review) point out, “the basic medium of multiplayer games is communication” (p. 11). MMORPGs allow "socially [and] materially distributed cognition [to] aid [players] in unpacking the situated interactions of individuals with their environment, tools, artifacts, representations, and other actors" (Steinkuehler, 2005b, p. 96).
According to Steinkuehler (in press), “video games are sites for socially and materially distributed cognition…. identity work, individual and collaborative learning… and rich meaning-making,” and she considered MMORPGs “the quintessential example of such communities” (p. 4). As she suggests, these games “instantiate the notion of social construction – that oftentimes, the sense [people] make of events, contexts, and other people are sociocultural products, not natural facts” (p. 6). In MMORPGs “individuals can project themselves into roles that may not have available to them in the everyday offline world – not just fantasy roles, such as an elf or princess, but also sociocultural roles, such as the powerful leader of a successful campaign” (Steinkuehler, 2006a, p. 14). This is possible because MMORPGs allow “individuals, through their self-created digital characters or 'avatars,' to interact not only with the gaming software (the designed environment of the game and the computer-controlled characters within it) but with other players’ avatars as well” (p. 6). Thus, “collaborative activity is the hallmark of MMOGaming and few people who log in remain social isolates” (p. 19). Steinkuehler also notes that “experience… is distributed across members of the ‘party’ and… the individuals participating profit from such collaboration” (p. 18). Ultimately, MMORPGs are “complex social spaces of affiliations and disaffiliations, constructed largely out of shared (or disparate) social and material practices” (p. 24). Steinkuehler’s work also highlights several shared elements in MMORPGs, including interests, goals, activities, discursive resources, textual practices, social interaction, ways to coordinate, folk theories, systems of value, and epistemologies (p. 18-19).
Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, and Tan (2003) found “the power of a multiplayer game is that it is a living community, in which each student has a different set of experiences” (p. 9). Squire and Jenkins (2003) also noted that “deploying a multiplayer framework allows the [players] to become a real social community, reflecting… differing opinions and competing interests” (p. 17). Like Gee and Shaffer, Squire and Steinkuehler (in press) were also interested in the power of MMORPG social structures to mobilize player’s identities (p. 4).
Squire and Steinkuehler also noted that that MMORPGs are “neither designed nor wholly emergent, but rather arising at the intersection of player goals, expectations, and design features” (p. 7). This is because an MMORPG “as a world and culture is not solely the result of design decisions but also of the goals and intentions of players” (p. 14). As a result, “player practices do not always align with the intentions of designers” (p. 17). In this way Squire and Steinkuehler saw a parallel with “the similar challenges faced by educators designing classroom and school cultures” (p. 7).
Outside the games themselves, like other games MMORPGs in particular can generate rich social interactions. As Steinkuehler (in press) pointed out, “the online affinity groups that emerge around games… [engage] members in identities, values, and practices markedly similar to the intellectual and social practices that characterize high level, conceptual communities of innovation in fields such as science, technology, and engineering” (p. 3-4). Citing Jenkins’ work on participatory cultures, Steinkuehler noted that in MMORPG communities “consumption is production, manifested in gamer-authored practices, products, and social networks” (p. 9). In short, she found that gamers use the game to create their own cultural artifacts and social interactions (p. 9-10). She also described MMORPGs as “a thoroughly collaborative space… beyond the game (in fan sites, discussion boards, game information databases, etc.)” (p. 4). She explains some of the potential value of these communities for learning purposes:
"the networked learning communities that emerge around game play exhibit many of the features originally sought after by research communities such as Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL). Game communities also exhibit characteristics and properties heretofore theoretically and practically underemphasized, such as interaction among community members with a wide range of skill, age, and maturity; reciprocal forms of teaching and learning that occur in all directions throughout the social network (in contrast to movement from “periphery” to “core;” Lave & Wenger, 1991); and interwoven forms of competition and collaboration that appear to foster the high levels of engagement (Seay, Jerome, Lee, & Kraut, 2004; Yee, 2005) that periodically concern the American nongaming public and press (a discussion typically framed in terms of “addiction”). Understanding such indigenous, voluntary, self-sustaining, naturally occurring learning environments may prove quite crucial to the future theorization and development of contexts for learning, both online and off, particularly as the “Nintendo Generation” grows up with expectations shaped by just such experiences. " (Steinkuehler, 2006, p. 4)
Role-Playing and Meaning Making
Whether the context is a traditional classroom or an MMORPG, within a collaborative learning community each student can play an important role. In this way, role-playing as an educational strategy can also be a way students can develop socially as well as individually.
According to Filiciak (2003), “role playing is one [of] social life’s basic elements and is used in… everyday functioning” (p. 92). Also, Filiciak noted that “compared to past years, the number of social roles [individuals] play has considerably multiplied” (p. 93). With allusions to Freud, Jung, and Lacan, Filiciak suggested that such roles are “an integral part of [individuals’] personality and shaped according to the need to match… with cultural requirements” (p. 93). In short, being able to take on and fulfill multiple roles in society is an important skill for students to learn. In fact, Filiciak identified a digital divide between wealthy and educated people who “construct and develop their personal identity, using any means available, redefining their social position and maintaining their mental balance under the new conditions” and the masses “who have less opportunity to take advantage of the transformative potential of technology” (p. 96). Not only is role-playing an important life-skill, but it also contributes to quality of life; Filiciak argued that “if people play games eagerly to be able to shift their identities, they must be deriving pleasure from that” (p. 98) and that video games “induce some emotions on the [player] and thus constitute a part of the [player’s] life experience” (p. 98).
The value of role-playing in education has been well established elsewhere, but Slator and associates (2006) explored the intersection between role-based learning and educational technology. They considered “the process of passing ideas and behaviors through a social group” a key element of what they called role-based learning (p. vii). Roles, to Slator and his associates, are “social statuses or identities to which are attached culturally shared and agreed upon sets of rights, duties, obligations, and levels of expected specialized knowledge and ability” (p. 16). They stressed the importance of “students [being] given authentic goals and afforded the opportunity to learn through experience” (p. vii). Most importantly, they believed that “educational technology should capitalize on the natural human propensity for role playing” (p. 4). Thus they recommend that that educational simulations be designed to be – among other things - role-based (p. 5) and multi-used (p. 6). Like Shaffer’s epistemic games, their role-based games are based on a “cognitive apprenticeship” model (p. 9). They believed that to learn in this way students would need to “engage virtual objects, virtual avatars (software agents), and real-time personas of real people coresident in virtual space” (p. 12). They were committed to designing games that allowed students to interact with others, particularly others who might serve as change agents (p. 13). Ultimately, they believed that “the more students interact with objects, agents, and persons, the more possible is engagement of other-dependent learning and, through that, diffusion of knowledge” (p. 13).
Shaffer (2006) believed that “young people lack role models and mentors” (p. 8) and also looked to video games to provide students with new opportunities to experiment with new roles and identities, particularly those of innovative professionals. Because he also believed that “a practicum is always an opportunity for a novice to act as a professional and get feedback on his or her actions from other novices and from experts in the field” (p. 97) he designed his epistemic games to recreate the experience of professional practicum.
Iverson (2005) noted that MUDs and MOOs took advantage of role-playing via computer network long before modern MMORPGs, and he suggested that a “mini-MOO… can add the flavor of role playing without the complications of a full-scale [MMORPG]” (p. 32). One sample exercise he provides “involves [students] taking on a character or role” in a synchronous chat environment (p. 73). Another also asks students to “participate in a role play delivered synchronously though online chat” and to then “review the saved role play script and ‘rewrite’ their lines… given time for review and consideration” (p. 81).
Quinn (2005) defined role-playing games (RPGs) as “games in which players control a character or team of characters that combat and gain skills over time” (p. 42) and a MMORPGs as “persistent worlds where many players come and o as they please, interact, and pursue goals individually or in groups” (p. 43). He acknowledges that “the social aspects [of MMORPGs] have as yet unexplored potential for learning” (p. 43) and believes that “once we have more intelligent software agents… and massive persistent worlds that have lots of educational opportunities, we may be able to set up situations where learning can occur, much as Montessori schools work now” (p. 171). Like Slator, Quinn suggests that real people can play in-game roles that are difficult to model (p. 172).
Game designers Salen and Zimmerman (2004) note that in many role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons and MMORPGs are open-ended with “no ‘winner,’ no final objective, and [a] campaign [that] grows and changes as [the game] matures” (p. 81). They consider such games to not be games in a strict sense, but rather “a larger system that facilitates game play within it, giving rise to a series of outcomes that build on each other over time” (p. 82). For example, in a Sims simulation, “players can turn it into a game by constructing their own goals” (p. 82). These “emergent” (p. 83) goals are used by players to craft their own game narratives (p. 403), which gives rise to Salen and Zimmermans’ view of role-playing games as “narrative systems” (p. 404) or “systems for generating narrative play” (p. 406).
Prensky (2006) considered the extension of the game system beyond the game itself. His model includes the games themselves, reviews, fan sites, blogs, IM/chat, magazines, and official web sites (p. 98). As he states, “today’s computer and video games… don’t exist in a vacuum, but are part of a huge learning and social system in which [a] game playing kid is typically deeply enmeshed” (p. 96). In Prensky’s view, “one of the most important lessons video games teach is the value of people working together and helping each other” (p. 106). The social system surrounding the game aids in the realization of this lesson.
Aldrich (2005) also noted that role-playing games can “teach the scarcity of development opportunities and the absolute need to align development with strategy” (p. 142). In the case of MMORPGs, he noted that they can also teach how to “meet strangers and… form deep relationships with which to perform heroic quests carefully balancing each other’s strengths and weaknesses” (p. 142). However, he is also concerned that MMORPGs might also teach players to “cheat, rob, and kill” each other (p. 142). Still, he acknowledged the value of group learning and recommends creating groups of learners with diverse backgrounds who can thus play a variety of roles (p. 244-245).
The value of role-playing games will be further discussed in greater detail in a later section.
Reflection
A fifth fundamental property of constructivist learning environments is that they support reflection and metacognition. To constructivists, reflection is a powerful mechanism for meaning-making, particularly as students sort out relationships between the actions they take, the consequences of their actions, and other variables affecting their experiences. Metacognition, the practice of thinking about one’s own thinking (including decision making and strategies), is also a powerful tool for students to promote their own cognitive development. It’s no surprise, then, that constructivists call for learning environments which embrace reflective thinking, as opposed to prescriptive thinking - environments that support (or require) reflection on experience and reflection on action rather than mimicry of the teacher’s thinking.
Supporting Reflection
Prensky (2006) noted that digital natives seem to have “less and less time and opportunity for reflection” (p. 37), a loss that concerns many constructivist educators. Since Dewey (1938), constructivists have believed in the importance of reflection and “extracting at each present time the full meaning of each present experience… [which Dewey believed was] the only preparation which in the long run amounts to anything” (p. 49). Bruner (1986), too, was a proponent of reflective education, writing that “much of the process of education consists of being able to distance oneself in some way form what one knows by being able to reflect on one’s own knowledge” (p. 127). Reflection (along with agency, collaboration, and culture) was one of the four elements of life that Bruner (1996) wanted to see extrapolated into the educational process (p. 87). Jonassen (2003), who followed in the constructivist tradition of Dewey and Bruner, called for educational technologies to be used to support reflective education rather than what he called prescriptive education (p. 15).
Video games may be a natural technology for encouraging such reflective education. After all, video game players “frequently and willingly reflect” on gameplay (Gee, in press, as cited by Squire and Steinkeuhler, in press, p. 16). Meaningful reflection is more likely to occur if time is set aside after gameplay for the explicit purpose of reflecting on the game. When Aldrich (2004) first urged teachers to explore the experience of playing video games by saying “log in a few hours of playing” (p. 17), he followed this closely with the suggestion to “then spend a few minutes sizing up the experience” (p. 17). Aldrich even suggested that learning from simulations might require brief “learning sabbaticals” from a normal work or home environment (Aldrich, p. 214). Prensky (2006), too, believed that “one of the most interesting challenges and opportunities in… teaching Digital Natives is to find ways to include reflection and critical thinking in their learning, either built into the instruction or through a process of instructor-led questioning and ‘debriefing’” (p. 37). Though Shaffer (2006) focused more on explicitly education epistemic games, he also acknowledged that even a commercial off the shelf game such as SimCity could become “a much better opportunity for learning when [players] talk about what happens in the simulation” (p. 190). Squire and Jenkins (2003) suggest that a game “can be consumed by individual students on their own time and then brought into the classroom as an object for analysis and interpretation” (p. 20). Squire (2003) also notes that:
“However, the educational value of simulations does not necessarily lie in the program itself, but rather in the overall experience of the simulation... learners need opportunities to debrief and reflect, and the amount of time spent on reflection should equal the amount of time engaging in a game or simulation... Instructors play an important role in this process fostering collaboration, promoting reflection, and coordinating extension activities” (Squire, 2003, p. 6)
Reflection on Experience
Some theorists also suggest that good learning environments encourage the sort of automatic reflection that occurs as students encounter new experiences, measure them against their past, and make a decision about how to act. Prensky (1996), for instance, notes that not all reflection-on-action is conscious and separate from gameplay. He points out that “the rules of video and computer games force a player… to reflect – at least subconsciously and compare the game to what they already know about life” (p. 66). Still, constructivist theorists also suggest that educators support students in practicing conscious and explicit reflection as well.
This idea of explicitly reflecting on experience is an important one to many constructivists and video game scholars. Dewey (1916) was interested in “reflection in experience” (p. 169) and in analysis to see what “bind[s] together cause and effect, activity and consequence” (p. 170). He believed that students need to first “have a genuine situation of experience” (p. 163), then solve a problem within that context, and finally have the opportunity to reflect on that action. Shaffer (2006), too, wants to see more “reflection on action” (p. 97-98). He believes that students should learn like innovative professionals – through iteration; as he points out, “professionals learn by repeatedly taking action and reflecting on that action (p. 100) and by reflecting on their work “with each other and with more experienced [professionals]” (p. 141-142). Ideally, a learning environment will include formal processes for such reflection and such support from the teacher. In each of his epistemic games, Shaffer aims to include a “formalized process for reflection-on-action” (p. 97) modeled on professional practicum. Game designers of future educational video games might do well to also follow this lead.
Metacognition
A video game or simulation can offer many opportunities for reflection, both in game and out of game. Beyond gameplay itself, video games encourage metacognition. Constructivists such as Bruner (1996) have been interested in the role of metacognition in learning for years. Bruner (1996) discusses “making sense, going ‘meta,’ turning around on what one has learned through bare exposure, even thinking about one’s thinking” (p. 88). In the same tradition, Gee (2003) presented the principle of metalevel thinking about semiotic domains as something that good video games encourage though many classrooms do not: “learning involves active and critical thinking about the relationships of the semiotic domain being learned to other semiotic domains” (p. 206). Gee saw the importance in being able to “think about the domain at a ‘meta’ level as a complex system of interrelated parts” (p. 23). Iverson (2005) also looked to constructivist learning theory as a guide for building elearning games and considered it important for learning environments “to encourage metacognition, self-analysis, self-regulation, reflection, and awareness” (p 17).
Constructivist and educational technologist, Papert (1993) suggested that educators encourage “learning about learning” (p. 49-50) by “engaging children about strategies for learning” (p. 50) when they are playing video games. He even suggested the meta-activity of creating “a family game out of collecting strategies” (p. 50) related to games (and other pursuits). Similarly, Quinn (2005), who also wrote about designing e-learning simulation games, was also interested in what he called meta-learning, or learning to learn (p. 184); for Quinn, “the goal is to have people aware of how they learn and solve problems to optimize their approaches and broaden their repertoire of elearning skills” (p. 184). He suggests that e-learning games can both “keep a record of action to reflect on or share with a mentor” (p. 184) and provide built in coaches “that can watch for particular behaviors… to commend or remediate” (p. 185).
Frasca (2003) also wrote about the importance in video games of meta-rules, or rules that state “how rules can be changed” (p. 232), and Grodal (2003) discussed video games’ meta-narratives, or “all the divergent options and trajectories within the game world” (p. 153). Steinkuehler (2006), was also interested in the metastrategies developed by MMORPG players, and the way they debrief and theorize about games (p. 3). These practices of MMORPG players commonly lead them to become part of a social meta-group, or a group outside of the game that revolves around the game (Freeman, 2004, p. 2411-2412). Game designers Salen and Zimmerman (2004) also noted the role of metacommunication, or communication outside of the game, in meaning making and gameplay (p. 374). Squire and Jenkins (2003) called this “meta-gaming, the conversation that goes on around the game” (p. 22), and Salen and Zimmerman (2004) suggested that “when players become producers, their activities are a form of metagaming, as they interact with the game outside the bounds of [the game]” (p. 554). Presumably, an awareness of meta-learning, meta-rules, meta-narrative, metastrategies, social meta-groups, metacommunication, and even meta-gaming would serve players well in other real-life contexts.
Reflection and Social Change
As with other elements of constructivist learning environments, it is best if the processes of reflection and metacognition also hold some real-world relevance for students – or even for society. According to Dewey (1916), “reflection… implies concern with the issue – a certain sympathetic identification of [the student’s] own destiny… with the outcome of the course of event” (p. 172). Conversely, reflection can be a powerful way to learn about ethics. Prenksy (2006), in his discussion of video games and learning, suggests that “a far better way to learn about ethics is through dialogue, discussion, and reflection. All three of these factors are vital to the ethical learning process, because ethics is a subject that is full of situational specificity, judgment, opinion, and even contradiction” (p. 109). If follows that a game meant to teach ethics or encourage social change needs to both be relevant to the players and also include elements of reflection, probably in meta-gaming (and perhaps face-to-face) capacity.
Reflection and MMORPGs
Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), in particular, offer opportunities for groups of students to reflect on the consequences of their in-game actions – perhaps using formal processes such as after action reviews. Jonassen (2003) noted that “internet-based multiuser environments [such as MUDs, MOOs, and MMORPGs]… are engaging learners in high0level conversations that support personal reflection” (p. 101). Prensky (2001), too, noted that RPGs and MMORPGs can include elements of reflection (p. 167), the inclusion of which Prensky (2001b) considers “one of the most interesting challenges and opportunities” of teaching digital natives (p. 5). As Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, & Tan (2003) point out, “the power of a multiplayer game is that it is a living community… students [can] pull back from the immediate play experience and reflect on the choices they have made” (p. 9). Steinkuehler (2006) suggested that MMORPG game play “includes all the traditional characteristics of problem solving… [including] debriefings [and] theorizing about the problem space” (p. 3). These practices of MMORPG players commonly lead them to become part of a social meta-group, or a group outside of the game that revolves around the game (Freeman, 2004, p. 2411-2412).
Reflection and Organizational Change
Organizational change theorists recognize the importance of reflection in organizational learning, and acknowledge the role video games and simulations might play in supporting such learning. Senge (1990), for instance, placed reflection on a par with inquiry and dialogue as an important skill for organizational leaders to cultivate in themselves and their organizations and acknowledged the importance of pausing for reflection (p. 248). Reflection and inquiry skills are a recurring theme in his work (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, p. 264), and he later believed that “people start discussing ‘undiscussable’ subjects only when they develop the reflection and inquiry skills that enable them to talk opening about complex, conflictive issues without involving defensiveness” (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smtih, 1999, p. 9). He considered reflection the act of “slowing down our thinking processes to become aware of how we form our mental models” (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000, p. 68). Based on his experience, the most successful change initiatives “seek to balance action and reflection” (Senge et al., 1999, p. 43) and also “afford people an increased amount of ‘white space:’ opportunities for people to think and reflect without pressure to make decisions” (p. 43). He recommended an environment that “encourages awareness and reflection” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 273). Senge (1990) recognized early on that computer-generated microworlds will “prove to be a critical technology for implementing the disciplines of the learning organization” (p. 315). He later believed that “major payoffs for organizations will only occur when tools like microworlds become integrated into the fabric of how organizations operate” (Senge et al, 1994, p. 530). Ultimately, Senge thought that “educational practice must be informed by critical reflection” (Senge et al. , 2000, p. 318) and that microworlds such as video games and simulations can help develop such reflection.
Other educational change theorists, including Evans (2001), also acknowledged that organizational communication (and learning) “improves best not with practice alone, but with practice and collegial reflection” (p. 222). DuFour and Eaker (1998) advocated reflection on the collective inquiry process” (p. 26) and believed that “reflection and dialogue were… essential to the workings of the school” (p. 37). According to DuFour and Eaker, “once team members have been working together for a while, they should be asked to reflect on how the team is functioning” (p. 127), and the process of staff development should “result in reflection and dialog on the part of the participants” (p. 276-277). Like many constructivist theorists, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) believe that “learning by doing… focus[es] on character growth, teamwork, [and] reflection” (p. 131). Video games and simulations can help encourage lifelong learning by closing the knowing-doing gap and by helping players to build “the capacity to continuously reflect on oneself as a learner and on the learning” (p. 118).
Wald and Castleberry (2000) also agreed that reflection on group processes supports collaborative learning (p. 17) and that an important stage of the collaborative learning process is to reflect (p. 52). Roberts and Pruitt (2003), too, recommended that leaders encourage reflection among their teachers (p. 17) and advocated a cyclical process of reflection that included trust building and a willingness to approach problems from different perspectives (p. 17-19). They called for “job-embedded professional development strategies…[that] are collaborative and offer opportunity for conversation, reflection, and inquiry” (p. 55) because they believed “it is important that… faculty members continuously reflect on their practice” (p. 157). Even Fullan (2006) suggests that leaders provide “opportunities for the team to debrief and reflect on [their] practice and progress” (p. 94). It follows that a game designed to promote learning - particularly group, organizational, or societal learning – aught to include a support system for personal and collaborative reflection.
21st Century Skills
Though it may not be considered a fundamental property of a constructivist learning environment, any environment designed for 21st century students can also be designed to help them develop the skills that they will need to be successful in the 21st century.
Constructivists have long recognized the need for educational institutions to change their focus from traditional content areas to new skills that will better serve students in the future. Forty years ago Bruner (1966) realized that global society was “entering a period of technological maturity in which education will require constant redefinition, [and that] the period ahead may involve such a rapid rate of change… that narrow skills will become obsolete within a reasonably short time after their acquisition” (p. 32). He also recognized that “we probably have little better sense of where the culture is heading than did the French in 1789” (p. 83). Still, as Vygotsky (1997) wrote, “adapting the child to the environment in which he will have to live and function is the ultimate goal of every form of education” (p. 205). It follows that the current educational establishment might serve students better by leaving behind (or at least moving beyond) specific skill-based standards and focus instead on helping students develop the meta-skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century.
To this end the North Central Regional Education Laboratory and the Metiri Group (2003) have defined a broad spectrum of 21st century skills, which they’ve organized into four categories: Digital Age Literacies, Inventive Thinking, Effective Communication, and High Productivity. Many of these concepts might be better called “timeless skills for success” and have been advocated by constructivists for at least a century now.
It was also this sort of thinking that led Papert (1996) to base his third and final book on the premise that there are “many more important and long-lasting topics than office computer skills” (p. 28) for students to learn, among them “the study of learning” (p. 28). Aldrich (2005), an educational simulation designer, believed that learning how to learn is one of the most important things people can learn from playing computer games (p. 137). Prensky (2006) agreed, explaining that “the kids who play today’s ‘complex’ video games… learn to think: through experimentation and what real scientists call 'enlightened trial and error,' they learn to understand and manipulate highly complicated systems” (p. 8). Prensky understood that “in order to ‘beat’ their complex games kids must learn, through complex reasoning, to create strategies for overcoming obstacles and being successful – skills that are immediately generalizable” (p. 8). Shaffer (2006) took this one step further with his belief that “young people today need to be able to use their learning muscles to innovate and create, and ultimately to adapt and transform themselves several times over in one lifetime” (p. ix). This is why his epistemic games were “fundamentally about learning to think in innovative ways” (p. 10) and aimed to develop in students new epistemic frames, or “collections of skills, knowledge, identities, values and epistemology that professionals use to think in innovative ways” (p. 12). Ultimately, his work focused on using computer games to help students “develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes they need to succeed in a changing world” (p. 13). Even pop culture critic, Johnson (2005) acknowledged that the important learning that happens during gameplay is “the collateral learning that goes beyond the explicit content of the experience” (p. 40). In short, video games may be useful in helping students develop the sort of 21st century skills constructivists would advocate for.
Digital Age Literacies
NCREL and the Metiri group (2003) define eight digital age literacies: basic literacy, scientific literacy, economic literacy, technological literacy, visual literacy, information literacy, multicultural literacy, and global awareness. Though the increasing rate of technological change continues to transform these literacies, many have been important for generations. Now, though, video games scholars highlight ways in which games and simulations can be powerful new tools for helping students develop many of these literacies. In fact, Shaffer (2006) argues that “children today are learning more about art, design, and technology from their video games and other digital technologies than they are from our technologically impoverished schools” (p. x).
With respect to scientific literacy, Shaffer (2006), like many constructivists, believed that learning about science is not the same as learning to practice science. He believed that the scientific method, which most schools teach, “tells [students] little about how professionals understand the world unless [they] look more closely at he epistemology that guides… experimentation” (p. 130). Naturally, he advocated the use of video games and simulations to close this gap between book knowledge and a more closely examined experience.
Economic literacy is another which may be better taught through games and simulations than textbooks. Johnson (2005) shared a common anecdote about a student learning about economic principles, such as the relationship between industrial tax rates and commercial development, by playing video games such as SimCity, and Prensky (2004b) discussed the ways in which players learn principles of economics and management while playing an MMORPG. Beck and Wade (2004) discussed many ways in which game playing employees and executives are succeeding in, and reshaping, business.
One of the 21st century skills that most obviously benefits from learning through video games and simulations is technical literacy. As Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, & Tan (2003) point out, “games often ship with their own level editors or other mod tools allowing amateurs to customize the content, design their own ‘skins,’ and develop their own environments” (p. 3) and students are acquiring technical skills in order to use these tools to modify or create their own versions of their favorite games. Prensky (2006) noted that because most Digital Immigrants don’t know how to program, they are slow to teach their children to program, yet “they are teaching themselves through many of their games, and especially though ‘modding’” (p. 50). Steinkuehler (in press) also points out that “we know videogames are a push technology, providing people entrée into other important technologies, such as computers” (p. 3). In this way, video games can serve much the same purpose as Papert’s (1980) gears, which led to his love of mathematics, and Dewey’s (1915) sewing, through which he believed an educator could teach any subject. Aldrich (2005) also believed computer literacy was among the top five things people learn from playing video games; after all, “people who spend time playing with computers become very comfortable with computers [and] computer games present an increasingly complete exposure to computers, including installation, learning new interfaces, networks, even file structures for the advanced users” (p. 137).
Naturally, video games can help students develop their visual literacy. Shaffer even reported that “participation in a graphic design role-playing game helped [some students] develop key elements of the epistemic frame of a graphic designer” (p. 18). Gee (2003) also articulated a design principal which stated that “learning about and coming to appreciate design and design principles is core to the learning experience” (p. 49) in many good video games.
In the case of information literacy, constructivist have been concerned with “the ability of problem solvers to use information correctively” (p. 52) since at least Bruner’s (1966) time. Now, theorists such as Shaffer, Squire, and Gee (2005) argue that “gamers become critical consumers of information” (p. 106). Squire and Steinkuehler (2005) explain that “game cultures promote various types of information literacy, develop information seeking habits and production practices (like writing), and require good, old-fashioned research skills” (p. 1).
Video games and simulations can be valuable in terms of developing players’ multicultural literacy, too. Bruner (1996) felt that “children should... become aware that knowledge is dependent upon perspective and that we share and negotiate our perspectives in the knowledge-seeking process” (p. 65). Games can now help build this awareness. Shaffer suggests that video games can help students “investigate and determine how cultural assumptions, frames of references, perspectives and the biases within a discipline influence the ways that knowledge is constructed” (Banks, 1996, p. 21, as cited in Shaffer 2005, p. 30). Shaffer’s epistemic games provide examples of this, as do serious games such as Carnegie-Mellon’s PeaceMaker, which allows students to play as either the Israeli Prime Minister or the Palestinian President. Aldrich (2005) also suggested that simulations can be used to help learners develop their cultural literacy, citing Age of Empires and First Flight – The Wright Experience Flight Simulator as examples (p. 178-179). Squire and Steinkuehler describe the cultural literacy skills required to successfully participate in an MMORPG:
"The demands to participate in the game space require players to engage in complex literacy practices that embody most aspects of what it means to be literate within a given community (c.f. Gee, in press). Players invent language, negotiate power relations, present identities, and engage in complex argumentation. What should be particularly encouraging to educators, we find that participants frequently and willingly reflect on this discourse, even creating language designed to critique practices. Being literate in an MMOG culture means not only getting one’s language right but getting one’s practices right as well. Language mediates practice and organizes activity as players collaborate in joint tasks, enabling players to engage in sophisticated practices. In short whereas many have feared that participants in MMOGs are “doing nothing” or “wasting their time,” we find that MMOG participants are engaging in complex practices where they invent and reinvent themselves in powerful ways." (Squire & Steinkuehler, in press, p. 16)
Similarly, video games can also help students develop their skills of global awareness. For instance, Shaffer (2006) argues that “globalization isn't only about trade in goods and services… being an informed citizen means learning to make decisions about complex, science-based public health issues… and The Pandora Project is an epistemic game designed to help players do just that” (p. 107).
Video games can also help students develop additional 21st century literacies not identified by NCREL and the Metiri group (2003). Gee (2003) described the way that video games can help develop a student’s multimodal literacy (p. 14). This idea reappeared in his semiotic principle, which expressed the way in which students understand “interrelations within and across multiple sign systems (images, words, actions, symbols, artifacts, etc.)” (p. 49). Shaffer (2006) believed “to be ‘literate’ in the digital age is not about reading and writing but about solving problems using simulations… [and] learning to use the computer to do things that neither you nor it could do alone” (p. 65). Steinkuehler (2005b) asserts that “video games are cutting-edge examples of digital technologies [that] represent a rich site for anticipating the new kinds of literacies emerging” (p. 99), and she explains that MMORPGs in particular “are new ways of reading and writing – are new forms of literacy… [and suggest] new definitions of what literacy is or could be” (p. 97).
Inventive Thinking
Video games are even more powerful tools for developing what NCREL and the Metiri (2003) group have called Inventive Thinking. This is broken down into several distinct skills: adaptability and managing complexity, self-direction, curiosity, creativity, risk-taking, and higher order thinking and sound reasoning.
Games and simulations allow students to develop adaptability and practice managing complexity. Squire and Jenkins (2003) note that in games students “don’t memorize facts, they mobilize information to solve game-related problems” (p. 14). Squire and Jenkins don’t see games as a replacement for traditional resources, but they point out the cognitive importance of “causing perturbations in students’ thinking, helping them see where their current knowledge and beliefs break down, and only then providing them with structured information such as lectures or readings” (p. 25). They also argue that “good games are about choices and consequences, and good educational games force players to form theories and test their thinking against simulated outcomes” (p. 28). Gee (2003) points out that “learning about and coming to appreciate interrelations within and across multiple sign systems (images, words, actions, symbols, artifacts, etc.) as a complex system is core to the learning experience” (p. 49) in many good video games. Furthermore, he suggests that in good games, “learning involves active and critical thinking about the relationships of the semiotic domain being learned to other semiotic domains” (p. 50). Prensky (2006) discusses the importance of situational awareness, stating that “game players get good at taking in information from many sources, pulling together data from many places into a coherent picture of the world, and making good decisions quickly” (p. 9).
According to Steinkuehler (2005), MMORPGs players are frequently adapting and managing complexity by “researching equipment, making maps, managing resources, investing currencies, building models, designing strategies, debating facts and theories, and writing” (p. 2). An MMORPG often includes “several overlapping well-defined problems as its core mechanics… with a host of ill-defined problems enveloping them” (Steinkuehler, 2006, p. 3).
Ultimately, according to Koster (2005), a game designer, “games are largely about getting people to see past the variations and look instead at the underlying patterns” (p. 81). Thus learning to master a game can also be an opportunity to develop the concepts of systems thinking. Squire (2002) points out that “games such as SimCity depict social bodies as complex dynamic systems and embody concepts like positive feedback loops that are central to systems thinking” (p. 4). In Civilization III, “players encounter history not as a grand narrative but as the product of several dynamic interrelated forces” (Squire & Jenkins, 2003, p. 14). Such video games allow learners to “observe systems behavior over time… [to] visualize a system in three dimensions… and compare simulations with their understanding of a system” (Squire, 2003, p. 6). While “classrooms and books teach linear, or process, skills” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 212) and could probably even be used to teach the digital age literacies, Aldrich suggested that “simulations teach dynamic skills” (p. 212) through cyclical, linear, and systems content (p. 231). He also wrote that in computer games “there are very complex and intertwined systems at play” (Aldrich, 2005, p. 136). Gee (2005a), too, discussed the appropriateness of video games as a way to teach systems thinking (p. 28). As Johnson (2005) points out, “modeling complex simulations is now ordinary behavior for most consumers of digital age entertainment. This kind of education is not happening in classrooms or museums; it's happening in living rooms and basements, on PCs and Television screens” (p. ???). MMORPGs are among the games that can teach systems thinking; as Steinkuehler (2004b) describes, “from the very outset of play, the individual engages in the virtual social and material worlds as a complex, ill structured, dynamic, and evolving system” (p. 7).
Good games promote the skill of self-direction as well. Constructivists such as Vygotsky (1997) have long believed that “education should be structured so that it is not the student in education, but that the student educates himself” (p. 48). Gee (2003) observes that when playing a video game “the child, through action and reflection, becomes a ‘self teacher’” (p. 91). With time and experience gamers can become what Gee calls “shape shifting portfolio people” (p. 91), who are “adept at taking on new identities, adept at using and interacting within affinity spaces, and are well connected in networks” (p. 97). Aldrich (2005) believes that the most important thing a person can learn from playing a video game is that they are the key to their own success (p. 136). Unfortunately for traditional educators, the following is also true of gamers:
“They expect for the environment to get harder gradually as they get better. They expect to go at their own pace, They expect to be fully engaged. They expect to be involved at a tactile level and at a high-level intellectual level at the same time.” (Aldrich, 2005, p. 137)
Curiosity and creativity can also be promoted by good video games and simulations. Shaffer (2006) discussed the importance of creativity in the sort of innovative professional thinking he hoped to encourage in his epistemic games (p. 94). He considered a professional to be “anyone who does work that cannot be standardized easily and who continuously welcomes challenges at the cutting edge of his or her expertise” (p. 95).
Good games also promote higher-order thinking and sound reasoning. Bruner (1966) expressed the constructivist approach to critical thinking well: “we teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on the subject, but rather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting” (p. 72). Bruner was interested in “stimulating problem solving” (p. 158 ) and subscribed “to the view that the child should be aware of her own thought process” (p. 64). Iverson (2005), who wrote about designing elearning games, also noted that problem solving and higher order thinking are a key element in the constructivist pedagogy on which he based his games. Shaffer (2006), too, sought to use game and simulations to avoid schools’ emphasis on knowledge over skills, which was “part of John Dewey’s critique of schools a hundred years ago” (p. 92). According to Johnson (2005), “games force you to decide, to choose, to prioritize… to make the right decisions: weighing evidence, analyzing situations, consulting long-term goals, and then deciding… [by making] some… snap judgements, [and] some long-term strategies” (p. 41). This practice decision making helps students develop skills that Johnson calls probing and telescoping. Players need to figure out what to do in a game by probing “the depth of the game’s logic to make sense of it… by trial and error, by stumbling across things, [and] by following hunches” (p. 42-43). Johnson equates this process to Gee’s “probe, hypothesize, reprobe, rethink” cycle (Johnson, 2005, p. 43). Players also need to become adept at telescoping by tracking and managing simultaneous and nested objectives (p. 48, 54), a concept closely related to Prenksy’s (2006) idea of complexity. Johnson notes that “there is something profoundly lifelike in the art of probing and telescoping” (p. 56).
More importantly, games require and reward risk taking, an important (and traditionally difficult to teach) skill for success in the 21st century. NCREL and the Metiri Group (2003) defined students who are risk takers in part as those who “share and advocate ideas they believe in, even when those ideas are unconventional” and who “are willing to be incorrect and willingly take on tasks that might result in errors” (p. 42). It goes almost without saying that traditional schools do not support or encourage this kind of risk taking in students; instead, students are rewarded for right answers and penalized for incorrect answers (and often for incorrect methods when they are required to turn in note cards and drafts - or to show their work). NCREL and the Metiri Group suggested that "in order to take risks that lead to intellectual growth, students must be in environments that they perceive to be safe - places in which to share ideas, reflect on and discuss perspectives, and learn new things” (p. 42). This is what teachers can do to help students develop risk taking skills: provide a learning environment that encourages and rewards risk taking. If, instead of being told to focus on right answers students are instead “encouraged to engage in discussions about numerous approaches - and potential solutions - to a problem” (NCREL and the Metiri Group, 2003, p. 42), then educators are on their way to providing a collaborative and open ended learning environment. In addition, such an environment that encourages risk taking can help encourage students to be innovative; as Shaffer (2006) pointed out, innovative thinking means more than just knowing the right answers on a test” (p. 12). Instead, risk taking is intimately bound up in innovative thinking.
Video games, particularly open-ended games such as MMORPGs can help provide this kind of environment and facilitate risk taking and innovative thinking. As game theorists Salen and Zimmerman explained:
"A risk is an outcome with a known probability of happening. An uncertain outcome is complete unknown to the player. It is rare to find a game of pure certainty, risk, or uncertainty. Most games combine some degree of risk and uncertainty." (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 189)
Quinn (2005) noted that for a game to be interesting “the challenge needs to adapt to the learner” (p. 59). Gee (2003) articulated this concept in his Regime of Competence Principle, which described good games as those that allow learners to “operate within, but at the outer edge of, his or her resources, so that at those points things are felt as challenging but not ‘undoable’” (p. 71). In this way the challenges in games can be seen as risks rather than certainties or uncertainties as identified by Salen and Zimmerman above. Similarly, Aldrich (2004) said that simulations should be challenging and frustrating (p. 214), an ideal environment for the sort of creativity and risk taking that makes learning exhilarating (p. 214).
Aldrich (2005) also suggested that in a computer game the player is the key to success and that “mistakes are necessary on the path to success” (p. 136). Slator (2006), who dealt specifically with role-based computer games, advocated for the “educational game principles of leaving the players in control and letting them make their own mistakes” (p. 28). As Steinkuehler (2004b) notes, failure also functions as feedback for students (p. 7). Allowing players to fail is important not only for students’ learning and self knowledge, but also because “errors provide the opportunity for [teachers to gain] insight into [students’] previous knowledge constructions” (Iverson, 2005, p. 17).
Salen and Zimmerman (2004) theorized that “the social contract [of a game]… ensures that play spaces are ‘safe’ spaces where players can take risks with fewer consequences than in the real world” (p. 488-489). Gee (2003), too, discussed the way in which a game space, as opposed to a real space, may allow learners to take risks where consequences are lowered (p. 67). While this relative safety of games can be beneficial to learning, others point out that players are not taking any true risks when playing a game. For instance, Eskelinen and Tronstad (2003) believed that the kind of risk players take within the context of a game is “not the kind of risk that may transgress the boundaries of the game and affect the player on a personal level” (p. 205). While this is often true, it is equally true that players’ moods and personal lives are sometimes affected by the events or outcome of a game.
Prensky (2001) acknowledged that risk taking is not only a part of game playing, but also a part of implementing game-based learning. To implement these new technologies (video games and simulations) that provide a risk tolerant learning environment for students will require a measure of risk taking on the part of educators as well.
Effective Communication
Helping students to become effective communicators has long been a goal of constructivist educators. NCREL and the Metiri Group (2003) into the areas of teaming and collaboration, interpersonal skills, personal responsibility, social and civic responsibility, and interactive communication (p47). Video games can also help students develop and practice their skills in many of these areas.
Teaming and collaboration are key features in a constructivist learning environment that promotes socially negotiated meaning making and are also key features in many good games, including massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Gee’s (2003) Semiotic Domains Principle touched on the importance of learners being able to participate in an affinity group associated with a domain of study (p. 49). This includes elements of “teaming and collaboration” (NCREL and The Metiri Group, 2003, p. 48), as well as “social and civic responsibility” (p. 54), and “interactive communication” (p. 56).
Naturally, a large part of the purpose of Aldrich’s (2004) Virtual Leader was to provide players the opportunity to develop their interpersonal skills of effective communication in the workplace. Good video games can also help develop intrapersonal skills, as Gee’s (2003) self-knowledge principle suggests: “the virtual world is constructed in such a way that learners learn not only about the domain, but about themselves and their current and potential capacities” (p. 67). Gee was also interested in games that challenge learner’s thoughts and values (p. 56).
As the games for change movement demonstrates, video games can also be an effective way for students to develop a sense of personal, social, and civic responsibility – or to learn ethics. Gee (2003) discussed the value of games that included moral dilemmas for teaching ethics (p. 79). Prenksy (2001), too, agreed that games would be a valuable medium for teaching ethics (p. 263, 283). Later he wrote that “video games are our kids’ first ethics lessons” (Prensky, 2006, p. 109). He believed that “with some positive guidance from parents, video and computer games can provide some of the most important ethical, moral, and values lessons of our kids’ lives” (p. 109). Games can provide opportunities for “dialogue, discussion, and reflection” (p. 109), elements that Prenksy considered “vital to the ethical learning process, because ethics is a subject that is full of situational specificity, judgment, opinion, and even contradiction” (p. 109). On the other hand, others have argued (in defense of video games as entertainment) that because gamers tend to see the underlying patterns in a game, “they are dismissive of the ethical implications of games – they don’t see ‘get a blowjob from a hooker, then run her over.’ They see a power up” (Koster, 2005, p. 81-83). The value of video games for ethical education seems to require the support of teachers or parents.
High Productivity
As with any educators, high productivity has always been a goal of constructivist educators. In fact, many would argue that their methods would be more effective at producing highly productive students and citizens. NCREL and the Metiri Group (2003) identified three subcategories of high productivity: prioritizing, planning, and managing for results; effective use of real-world tools; and the ability to produce relevant high-quality products (p. 58).
Ideally, a constructivist learning environment, including a video game or simulation, will help students develop skills of prioritizing, planning, and managing for results (NCREL and the Metiri Group, 2003, p. 60). The design principle discussed by Gee (2003) addresses these skills as students “learn about and come to appreciate design and design principles” (p. 49). As Shaffer (2006) explains, “in the real world, skills, knowledge, and epistemology go together. Thinking like a designer… means linking ways of knowing and ways of doing” (p. 94).
Just as constructivists hope that students will learn in an authentic context, they hope that students will learn to effectively use real-world tools and be able to produce relevant, high-quality products (NCREL and the Metiri Group, 2003, p. 62, 64). Gee’s (2003) design principle also addresses this need (p. 49). So do Shaffer’s (2006) epistemic games. For instance, “players of The Debating Game were thinking more like real historians than like students trained to answer multiple-choice questions about historical facts from a textbook” (p. 29). Shaffer noted that “the epistemology of most high school history classes does not match the epistemology of historical inquiry” (p. 31). Instead, he advocates the use of “a role-playing game in which the roles players take on require them to think and act in ways that matter in the world” (p. 34). The epistemic game , for example, taught students “to think and feel like journalists, and to use the skills, knowledge, and values that go with that way of thinking” (p. 157).
The Role of The Teacher
An active teacher plays an important role in a constructivist learning environment. Dewey (1926) refuted the notion that “a pupil operating with… material will somehow absorb the intelligence that went originally into its shaping” as fallacious (p. 198). Just as he expected students to actively use such material purposely, he expected teachers to actively provide students the necessary support. For instance, he believed that students must learn how to use tools in the process of purposeful learning (p. 199). As Dixon-Krauss (1996) interpreted Dewey’s work, they believed that the concept of “‘active learner’ does not imply a passive teacher who overemphasizes discovery learning… instead, the teacher actively mediates the child’s learning within the zone of proximal development through social interaction and collaboration” (p. 20). Bruner (1996) famously said, “you cannot teacher-proof a curriculum any more than you can parent-proof a family” (p. 84); the active participation of the individual educator was too important.
This is still true when video games are brought into the classroom. In a discussion of epistemic games, Shaffer and Gee (2005) wrote that “the structure that supported learning [the desired] skills and abilities was built into the design of the game, and supported by adults who held the players accountable to professional standards of excellence” (p. 17). Most scholars who explore video games and learning, including Shaffer, Squire, and Gee (2005), believe that “video games… make it possible to ‘learn by doing’ on a grand scale – but not just by wandering around in a rich computer environment without any guidance” (p. 108). Shaffer (2006) reminded readers that “the game is what players make of it” (p. 192), and that a teacher can play an important role in how students play a game. In fact, according to Aldrich (2004), Instructors might also serve to help learners avoid reaching the point where they become “cynical and try to exploit the cracks” (p. 219) in a simulation. Though “instructor supported simulations are significantly more costly to deploy, [they] are more flexible to evolve on the fly, can provide more handholding, and result in more transformational experiences” (p. 61). Aldrich considered the face-to-face symposia conducted with a roll out of Virtual Leader to be critical to its success (Aldrich, 2004, p. 207). In fact, he concluded that with the use of simulations, classrooms will not disappear, but will rather be used as “set-up and support of a simulation’s core learning” (p. 215). However, he did caution that “everything [live instructors] say to everyone more than a few times should eventually be encapsulated in the technology [because] the goal is not to replace instructors, but to keep them adding customized, user specific coaching” (p. 257).
Prensky (2001) laid out a variety of other new roles for teachers, including being a motivator, a content structurer (integrator/reformulator), a debriefer, a tutor (individualizer, steerer, selector, adjuster, guide, facilitator), and a producer/designer (pp. 374-353). Of these, the role of the teacher in facilitating debriefings following game play may be the most vital (p. 240). Furthermore, Prensky (2002) reported that the difference between results of one-on-one tutoring and classroom learning is two standard deviations (p. 10). However, video and computer games can offer more one-to-one learning time – more student-to-computer time, and, because many students are engaged with the computer, more student-to-teacher time. Applied strategically, computer games and teachers can be a powerful combination.
In short, an active teacher who can plan, produce, and design learning environments in which students are engaged in a positive and supportive learning community is still critical. Also, teachers still need to serve as coaches, providing guidance and leadership to students. Naturally, teachers are also responsible for assessing students learning, and – more importantly – for helping students to become their own teachers.
Planning
Planning is a key element of active teaching. Dewey (1916) was interested very early in “education as a deliberately conducted practice” (p. 332). Later, he was careful to make it clear that “it does not follow that progressive education is a matter of planless improvisation” (Dewey, 1938, p. 28). He believed that “the planning must be flexible enough to permit free play for individuality of experience and yet firm enough to give direction towards continuous development” (p. 58), and he considered it a great mistake to treat freedom (in the classroom) as an end in itself (p. 63). Rather, he considered teacher’s plans a “co-operative enterprise, not a dictation” (p. 72), developed in conjunction with the students. He acknowledge, though, that this is a more difficult undertaking than traditional teaching (p. 76). In fact, he considered the greatest danger to his progressive way of teaching to be “the idea that it is an easy way to follow, so easy that its course may be improvised, if not in an impromptu fashion, at least almost from day to day or from week to week” (p. 90). According to Mooney:
"Dewey believed that the path to quality education is to know the children well, to build their experiences on past learning, to be organized, and to plan well. He also believed that the demands of this new method make observing, documenting, and keeping records of classroom events much more important than when traditional methods are used." (Mooney, 2000 p. 7)
This path is no different given the inclusion of video games in education. Shaffer (2006) still believed that “good teaching [doesn’t] simply mean turning kids loose in a media jungle…. good teachers read and play and talk with children” (p. 6-7). He advocates that teachers “think about the skills, knowledge, identities, values, and especially the epistemology of the games… children play” (p. 193). Like, Dewey, Shaffer explains that:
"Wandering around in a rich computer environment without guidance is a bad way to learn. Learners are novices, and letting them work in a simulation without support leads to the very real human tendency to look for patterns and to develop creative but spurious generalizations" (Shaffer, 2006, p. 68)
Designing Learning Environments
In a sense, an active teacher becomes the producer and designer of the learning environment. Dewey (1916) believed that it is impossible to educate students directly and that it is only possible to “educate indirectly by means of the environment” (p. 18-19). Thus, he asserted that “the immediate and direct concern of an educator is… with the situations in which interaction takes place” (Dewey, 1938, p. 45). According to Dewey (1916), three of the more important functions of a learning environment are: “simplifying and ordering the factors of the disposition it is wished to develop; purifying and idealizing the existing social customs; creating a wider and better balanced environment than that by which the young would be likely, if left to themselves, to be influenced” (p. 22). These tasks all fall to the active teacher to complete.
Vygotsky (1997) presented a similar formula for the educational process: “education is realized through the student's own experience, which is wholly determined by the environment, and the role of the teacher then reduces to directing and guiding the environment” (p. 50). Vygotsky elaborates further:
“An active role is the lot of the teacher in the course of education. The teacher fashions, takes apart and puts together, shreds, and carves out elements of the environment, and combines them together in the most diverse ways in order to reach whatever goal he has to reach. Thus is the educational process an active one on three levels: the student is active, the teacher is active, and the environment created between them is an active one." (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 54)
When a teacher brings a video game or simulation into the classroom, their responsibility as the producer and designer of the learning environment is in no way diminished. Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, and Tan (2003) noted the importance of developing customized curricular materials and instructional activities even when using commercial off the shelf (COTS) games - such as SimCity, Civilization, and Railroad Tycoon - in the classroom. Squire and Jenkins (2003) looked to the science fiction novel Ender’s Game as a model; in the book “teachers monitor the game play to increase their grasp of each student’s potential. The teachers are counting on the holding power of games to push… students to their limits” (p. 7). In this context, Squire and Jenkins considered many factors, such as how much to emphasize cooperative versus competitive gaming, to be best left up to teachers (p. 24).
Despite looking to science fiction for inspiration, Squire (2003) noted that “educators have used simulations and games to foster learning for decades, and many are already leveraging advancements in gaming and technology” (p. 4). Prenksy (2006), too, acknowledged that “some creative (and brave) teachers have already tried bringing commercial games right into the classroom” (p. 11). Even when no game is being used in the classroom, Squire passed on the suggestion that educators “use video games as a model for improving learning environments, by providing clear goals, challenging students, allowing for collaboration, using criterion based assessments, giving students more control over the learning process, and incorporating novelty into the environment” (p. 4). After all, Squire recognized that “the educational value of simulations does not necessarily lie in the program itself, but rather in the overall experience of the simulation” (p. 6). He believed that “learners need opportunities to debrief and reflect, and the amount of time spent on reflection should equal the amount of time engaging in a game or simulation” (p. 6). To Squire, “instructors play an important role in this process [by] fostering collaboration, promoting reflection, and coordinating extension activities” (p. 6). Shaffer (2006) also offered the suggestion that teachers focus on finding “games that build in teachable moments – which is not the same as expecting the game will do the teaching for you” (p. 103).
Most importantly, the active teacher must plan and design an environment in which students are engaged. Bruner (1971) identified six subproblems of “transferability of learning”: the attitude problem, the compatibility problem, getting the child activated, practice in the skills related to the use of information and problem solving, the "self-loop" problem, handling information flow manageably so that it can be used in problem solving (Bruner, 1971, p. 71-72). Each of these issues is critical to engaging students in the learning environment, and each is the responsibility of an active teacher. Squire (2002) found that “the instructional context that envelopes gaming is a more important predictor of learning than the game itself” (p. 5). He concluded that
“the educational value of the game-playing experiences comes not from just the game itself, but from the creative coupling of educational media with effective pedagogy to engage students in meaningful practices... the pedagogical value of a medium like gaming cannot be realized without understanding how it is being enacted through classroom use.” (Squire, 2002, p. 9)
Later, Squire (2003) suggested that teachers can use video games as “new ways to engage learners in digital environments” (p. 9). He also suggested that “educators could benefit by studying these communities that form around gaming, in order to understand what non-game elements contribute to the engaging activity that is video game playing” (p. 11). Gee (in Prensky, 2006) used an example of a parent helping a young student develop an island of expertise related to his interest in dinosaurs as the sort of role a teacher might play in engaging students and facilitating their learning – with or without video games (p. 161-167).
Positive Support
The responsibility for developing a positive and supportive learning community within also falls to the active teacher. This begins with the teachers attitude, which Dewey (1916) believed should consist of “straightforwardness, flexible intellectual interest or open0minded will to learn, integrity of purpose, and acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of one’s activity including thought” (p. 179). Dewey (1926) also believed “it is more important to keep alive a creative and constructive attitude than to secure an external perfection by engaging the pupil’s action in too minute and too closely regulated pieces of work” (p. 197). Similarly, Vygotsky (1997) believed that “what is required of the teacher is enthusiasm, and it is with such inspiration that the teacher may nourish the students” (p. 341). To this end, Vygotsky understood that “the teacher’s educational work, therefore, must inevitably be connected with his creative, social, and life work” (p. 345) because “only he who exerts a creative role in real life can aspire to a creative role in pedagogics” (p. 346). Bruner (1986) also added the concept of intellectual “scaffolding” to the sort of positive support teachers can offer students (p. 74). Video game scholars Squire and Steinkuehler (2005) have since suggested that teachers must also “find creative ways to support people in forming sites of collective intelligence, searching information, working within social networks, and producing knowledge” (p. 4) or else risk becoming obsolete. Aldrich (2004) also believed that teachers might serve to help learners avoid reaching the point where they become “cynical and try to exploit the cracks” (p. 219) in a game or simulation.
Knowledge of Subject Matter (and Pedagogy)
A constructivist teacher needs to not only have knowledge of subject matter, but also of sound constructivist pedagogy and of the individuals whom they teach. Dewey (1938) recognized that “some experiences can be mis-educative” (p. 25). He believed that “it is [the educator's] business to arrange for the kind of experience which, while they do not repel the student, but rather engage his activities are, nevertheless, more than immediately enjoyable since they promote having desirable future experiences” (p. 27). As Mooney (2000) wrote with respect to Dewey’s philosophy, the teacher’s guidance “assured that… experimenting was turned from mere experience to learning experience” (p. 10). In order to do this the teacher must be something of an expert in the subject being learned by the students. At the very least, “teachers must be willing to tap their general knowledge of the world to help children make sense of their surroundings and experience” (p. 10). More so, as Vygotsky (1997) put it, “the teacher has to know a lot… he must posses a complete grasp of the subject which he teaches” (p. 342) and more importantly, the teacher must “posses exact knowledge of the laws of education” (p. 344). Even so, Vygotsky acknowledged that “the real secret of education lies in not teaching (p. 339). He understood that “the teacher must shoulder a new burden [as] director of the social environment” (p. 339). According to Vygotsky, when a teacher “is simply setting forth ready-prepared bits and pieces of knowledge, there he has ceased being a teacher” (p. 339). The difference between this kind of teaching, and the kind that Dewey, Bruner, and Vygotsky advocated is now seen in the difference between lectures and video games. Squire (2003) noted that lectures and video games are “different pedagogical technique[s] which usually embod[y] different values on the part of the instructional designer and [are] suited for different types of learning experiences” (p. 6). The active teacher must make the determination of when and how to use video games and simulations in conjunction with other traditional (and other constructivist) methods.
Coaching
It is not enough for a teacher to be a master of the subject matter and pedagogy; a teacher must also be able to serve as a coach (and diagnostician) to individual students. According to Dewey (1938), a teacher must “have that sympathetic understanding of individuals as individuals which gives him an idea of what is actually going on in the minds of those who are learning” (p. 39). In addition a teacher must be sure that “all individuals have an opportunity to contribute something” (p. 56). Dewey acknowledges that this is “another reason why progressive education is more difficult to carry on than was ever the traditional system” (p. 40), at least in part because “adaptation of the method to individuals of various degrees of maturity is a problem for the educator” (p. 88). In short, while his methods may be more rewarding and effective, “the road of the new education is not an easier one to follow than the old road but a more strenuous and difficult one” (p. 90).
Bruner (1966) also believed that teachers should serve as a coach to students by “providing aids and dialogs for translating experience into more powerful systems of notation and ordering” (p. 21). According to Bruner, teachers can also help to mediate students’ thinking and help them to distance themselves form what they know by reflecting on their own knowledge (p. 127).
Because of the importance of reflection, the role of an instructor was also critical to Aldrich (2005). In his autobiography, sports great Wayne Gretzky (1990) explained that even though there were twelve players on the ice during a hockey game, his goal was to create as many 2 on 1 situations as possible. In education, even through there are 30 students in the classroom, the teachers’ goal is to create as many 1 on 1 situations as possible. Aldrich (2005) recognized this when he wrote that an instructor’s value comes from “one-on-one contact with students” (p. 245), and that with the use of simulations, instructors could move to “the higher-value role of coaching and diagnosing, rather than the lower-value role of lecturing and grading” (p. 131).
Prensky (2006) proposed a “radical thought experiment” in which he suggested teachers be considered “learning counselors” (p. 200). He suggested that teachers:
• “Give the kids objectives and goals, and require them to self-organize to reach them.
• Make sure the groups they form are multi-player, creative, collaborative, challenging, and competitive.
• Measure students’ progress by letting them evaluate each other through tasks they have to do in public (say in co-op programs), through projects and games they complete and through how much they help their peers.
• Control outrageous behavior through peer pressure, and, when necessary student-led attitude reforms.” (Prensky, 2006, p. 200-201)
Providing Guidance and Leadership
Active teachers are also needed for their guidance, particularly in facilitating deliberate and intentional learning – as opposed to the sort of incidental learning that takes place despite a lack of guidance. As Dewey (1916) stated it, “one of the weightiest problems with the philosophy of education has to cope is the method of keeping a proper balance between the informal and the formal, the incidental and the intentional, modes of education” (p. 9). Later he noted that “growth is not enough; [teachers] must also specify the direction in which growth takes place, the end towards which it tends” (Dewey, 1938, p. 36). He considered it important for teachers to ask whether or not any particular growth set up “opportunities for continuing growth in new directions” (p. 36). In Dewey’s vision, the teacher’s guidance (based on their own knowledge of the world) assured that students’ experiences became learning experiences (Mooney, 2000, p. 10). Teachers can also serve as leaders to students, constantly challenging them and expanding their horizons. According to Dewey (1915), “the pupil must learn what has meaning, what enlarges his horizon, instead of mere trivialities” (p. 78). The active teacher can lead a pupil over new horizons.
Vygotsky (1997) had a similar vision in which education “must be guided in such a way as not to conceal and not to mask the stern features of the true ‘discontent’ of childhood, but to push the child into a confrontation with this discontent in the sharpest way possible and as often as possible, and to force him to conquer it” (p. 340). Vygotsky believed that “sometimes it is a guide or leader which represents the most active” direction for a student to take (p. 349). Ultimately, Vygotsky (1986) showed that “concepts evolve under the conditions of systematic cooperation between the child and the teacher” (p. 148). Similarly, Shaffer, Squire, and Gee (2005) expressed the importance of teachers not allowing students to wander around in a game or simulation aimlessly and without any guidance (p. 108).
Assessment
Of course, teachers are also responsible for assessment of student learning. Constructivists, though, call for assessments to be authentic and embedded in student tasks, in contrast to the isolated and relatively context-free assessments usually associated with traditional education methods. Holland, Jenkins, and Squire (2003) discuss several ways games can aid constructivist teachers in their assessment efforts:
"Games... may enable teachers to observe their students' problem solving strategies in action and to assess their performance in the context of authentic and emotionally compelling problems. Teachers may stage a particularly difficult level during a lecture, comparing notes on possible solutions. And the gaming world represents a rich model for sharable content, putting authoring tools into the hands of consumers and establishing infrastructures for them to exchange the new content they have developed. The question for educators, then, is not whether games could someday work to teach students; they already do so. The question is how to help these two worlds, that of gaming and that of education, to work together." (Holland, Jenkins, and Squire, 2003, p. 29)
According to Slator (2006), assessments can easily be embedded in a video game or simulation because “assessment is the completion of the task” (p. 19). Slator also suggests that scenario-based assessment can also be used with video games and simulations; both before and after playing the game students are asked to answer open-ended questions related to a problem presented in a narrative scenario. Successful learning will be evident if learning in the game transfers to learning in the problem-based scenario (p. 85-91). Shaffer (2006) suggests a similar method of assessment that he calls “transfer scenarios” (p. 118-119). In addition, Shaffer promotes assessment by mental maps, asking students to create mental maps of the subject being studied both before and after playing an epistemic game (p. 117).
Helping Students Become Their Own Teachers
Ultimately, a constructivist teacher aims to help students become their own teachers capable of driving and monitoring their own progress. As Bruner (1966) noted, “teachers also gain pleasure when a student learns to recognize his own progress well enough so that he can take over as his own source of reward and punishment” (p. 30). Video games may do more harm than good if they are used as a replacement for this sort of intrinsic motivation. Rather, they can be another means of empowering students to think and do independently. Bruner (1986) later suggested that “the introduction of a mode of schooling in which one ‘figures out things for oneself’ changes one’s conception of oneself and one’s role, and also undermines the role of authority that exists generally within the culture” (p. 131); video games can help provide this mode of schooling and thus change the attitudes of students and educators.
A Higher Calling
Finally, though educating an individual student is important work, a teacher will ideally work with a higher calling in mind and the goal of implementing positive social change. Dewey (1916) considered education “a fostering, a nurturing, a cultivating process” (p. 10) for the continuous self-renewal of society. He was concerned, though, with establishing better and more deliberate means to accomplish this renewal. Dewey (1938) considered the style of teaching he recommended to be “more in accord with the democratic ideal to which our people is committed” (p. 33) and more humane than traditional educational practices. Vygotsky (1997), who wrote very much in the same tradition as Dewey, predicted that
“in the city of the future , there will not be any one single building from which we might hand the sign, "school," because the very word "school"... will be absorbed altogether in work and in life, and schools will be held in factories, and in the public square, in museums and in the hospital and the churchyard.” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 346)
A video game or simulation can help close the gap between traditional schools and Vygotsky’s vision.
Vygotsky (1997) also called for education to be tightly bound up with life in society, even suggesting that because “the inculcation of a concrete social force in any one individual is a bitter struggle, now concealed, now explicit, between teacher and students… [pedagogics] must not and cannot be politically indifferent” (p. 348). In other words, education must (and cannot help but) have a political or social change agenda. The same is true of any video game, and while many parents and teachers are concerned that video games can be a negative force in society, movements such as the serious games, games for change, and games for health are evidence to the contrary. (These movements will be discussed in more detail in the next section of this literature review.) Even so, Prensky (2006) recommends that parents and teachers talk to kids “about their games… providing counter-messages” (p. 24) when the games portray values different from those they hope their students will develop.
Trying Games Themselves
As Squire (2003) noted, “the cognitive potential of games [has] been largely ignored by educators” (p. 2). One way an active teacher can overcome this ignorance is by trying and playing video games themselves.
Many video game scholars recommend this, including Aldrich (2004), who urged teachers to explore the experience of playing video games by saying “log in a few hours of playing” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 17), and following this closely with “then spend a few minutes sizing up the experience” (p. 17). Prensky (2006) recommended parents and educators not only “try it [themselves]” (p. 204) but also “talk to [their] kids [and] value what they know” (p. 139). Prensky recommended several steps parents and educators can take to learn more about the value of video games: educate themselves (p. 141), start asking their kids the right questions (p. 142), educate their family by sharing articles and quotes (p. 144), look over their kid’s shoulder as they play (p. 145), go game browsing with their kids (p. 147), play a game or two themselves (p. 147), or even help organize LAN parties or start a game club (p. 148). Shaffer (2006) also suggested that “one of the best things adults can do to help children learn form computer and video games is to play the games with them” (p. 190). As he said, “SimCity is not Urban Science, but it becomes a much better opportunity for learning when you talk about what happens in the simulation the way a planner does” (p. 190). Shaffer recommends that teachers and parents ask themselves questions about games, such as “what kinds of skills, knowledge, identities, values, and epistemology does the game encourage?” (p. 166). Ultimately, "the only way [educators] can help young people become discerning players is to become literate [themselves]" (p. 192).
Squire and Steinkuehler (2005) even suggested that educators “carry games in libraries… set up workstations with games or host gaming nights… [and] ask who has checked out a book form the library based on an interest generated through gameplay” (p. 3). Squire and Steinkuehler (in press) also noted that “educators, policy makers, and cultural critics need to understand the complexity of MMOGs and the sophistication of MMOG play as a social practice” (p. 16).
When teachers have become literate and understood these things they will then be able to exercise the freedoms Dewey hoped they would have. He believed that teachers should have “a positive and leading share in the direction of the activities of the community” (Dewey, 1938, p. 59). As such, he felt that:
"The teacher must be absolutely free to get suggestions from any and every source, asking herself but these two questions: Will the proposed mode of play appeal to the child as his own? Is it something of which he has the instinctive roots in himself, and which will mature the capacities that are struggling for manifestation in him? And again: Will the proposed activity give that sort of expression to these impulses that will carry the child on to a higher plane of consciousness and action, instead of merely exciting him and then leaving him just where he was before, plus a certain amount of nervous exhaustion and appetite for more excitation in the future?" (Dewey, 1915, p.120)
Such teacher freedom will be important in the implementation of video games in education. Teachers must ask, and must be able to ask, these same questions when selecting games for their students’ use.
Social Change
A constructivist learning environment is not complete without explicit social goals. Societal development is as much a part of the constuctivist philosophy as individual development. Constructivist thinkers have long focused on the cultural importance and implications of educators’ work. Modern educational technologists and video game scholars, too, are concerned with how educational technologies, including video games and simulations, can effect positive social change.
Dewey
According to Mooney (2000), “it was largely the influence of his wife that brought Dewey to the study of education. [She] was interested in social problems and their relationship to education” (p. 1). As a result, Dewey himself urged parents and educators “to think of new ways they could all find to help children learn to be socially responsible people, without trying to cling to times gone by” (Mooney, 2000, p. 3). Dewey asserted that:
“when a school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within [the] community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guaranty of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious” (Dewey, 1915, p. 29).
Therefore, according to Dewey (1915) the function of the school “is to train children in co-operative and mutually helpful living; to foster in them the consciousness of mutual interdependence; and to help them practically in making the adjustments that will carry this spirit into overt deeds” (p. 111). In short he wanted school to broaden students’ horizons and prepare them for a life of service to society. In fact, Dewey aimed to “construct a course of studies which makes thought a guide of free practice for all and which makes leisure a reward of accepting responsibility for service, rather than a state of exemption from it” (p. 261). Modern serious games for change such as Food Force, Peacemakers, and A Force More Powerful aim to use leisure time to broaden players’ horizons and motivate them to service in ways that might have excited Dewey.
For Dewey (1926), a part of this preparation of students for social service was an effort to develop their moral character (p. 320). As he expressed, “unless the learning which accrues in the regular course of study affects character, it is futile to conceive the moral end as the unifying and culminating end of education” (p. 360). He aimed to develop in students “a character which not only does the particular deed socially necessary but one which is interested in that continuous readjustment which is essential to growth” (p. 360). Naturally, any good video game requires that players continually readjust their strategies to progress in the game, and it is not difficult to imagine that this encourages a similar attitude to transfer into other areas of a player’s life. Of course, if this were explicitly designed into an educational game, this might be an intentional learning outcome.
Equity and diversity were also important to Dewey (1926). He was concerned with providing such a moral education not only to upper class students, but to all members of the democracy (p. 290). This was in part because he was interested in creating schools that supported “individual diversities” (p. 305). Dewey explained that “a progressive society counts individual variations as precious since it finds in them the means of its own growth” (p. 305). Thus he believed that “a democratic society must… allow for intellectual freedom and the play of diverse gifts and interests in its educational measures” (p. 305). One advantage of video games is that they can easily appeal to players of various socio-economic backgrounds, and many open-ended games allow for (and even reward) a diversity of playing styles.
Ultimately, Dewey wanted students to have the “desire and ability to share in social control, the ability to become masters of their [own] fate” (p. 320). Many gamers experience this sort of empowerment in game-worlds on a daily basis.
Vygotsky
Rieber and Robinson (2004) characterized Vygotsky’s learning theory as “a theory of cultural transmission as well” (p. 172). They explained that Vygotsky gave “an account of how, in the end, man uses… the toolkit of culture to gain control of the world and of himself” (p. 172). In short, Vygotsky saw education as a means to a social end. In fact, he believed that “an education system without definite, positive societal goals is impossible” (p. 174). He also believed that an educational environment could be a very powerful tool for social change; according to Vygotsky (1997), “it is only necessary to change the social environment, and human behavior likewise changes at once” (p. 48). He defined education as “a systematic, purposeful, intentional, and conscious effort at intervening in and influencing all those processes that are part of the individual’s natural growth… a process of social selection… [that] creates… the outward personality [from multiple potential personalities of each child]” (p. 58). Video games that students play at home are a part of the incidental education (or cultural transmission) that creates 21st century student’s personalities. Educators and parents can be careful to regulate these games or at least provide counter-messages to mitigate their effect on students. More importantly, educators and parents can choose serious games (and games for change) for educational purposes. It is important, though, that they have a social goal or goals in mind when making these selections.
Bruner
Echoing Vygotsky, Bruner (1966) suggested that in the modern world, society needs “as never before, a way of transmitting the crucial ideas and skills, the acquired characteristics that express and amplify man’s powers” (p. 38). Later he wrote that “a culture is constantly in process of being recreated as it is interpreted and renegotiated by its members… [and that] education is (or should be) one of the principal forums for performing this function” (Bruner, 1986, p. 123). This rested on his belief that “at the heart of any social change one often finds fundamental changes in regard to our conceptions of knowledge and thought and learning” (p. 121). Still later, Bruner (1996) remarked that “education is not an island, but part of the continent of culture” (p. 11). As such, educational institutions might strive to harness the power of the video game medium for intentional educational purposes rather than resist the medium as frivolous and without educational value.
Bruner (1986) also wanted each individual student to develop powers of reflection and a sense of self that allows him to become “a member of the culture-creating community” (p. 132). He aimed to “make children aware that there is a structure in a society and that this structure is not fixed once and for all” (p. 83). To this end he believed that “the language of education is the language of culture creating, not of knowledge consuming or knowledge acquisition alone” (p. 133). He wanted “schools and classrooms [to] be designed to foster… tradition inventing (Bruner, 1996, p. 27). According to Bruner, education’s central concern should be:
"how to create in the young an appreciation of the fact that many worlds are possible, that meaning and reality are created and not discovered, that negotiation is the art of constructing new meanings by which individuals can regulate their relations with each other... the power to recreate reality, to reinvent culture" (Bruner, 1986, p. 149)
The video gaming culture already encourages such culture creation. Players not only modify existing games to produce their own versions, but also write a great deal about the games they play: reviews, walkthroughs, fan fiction, and more.
Bruner (1966) believed that “by [exploring the limits of man’s perfectibility, education] can… have its major social impact by keeping lively the society’s full sense of what is possible” (p. 38). When it came to individual students, he was interested in “developing human potential as fully as we can” (Bruner, 1996, p. 82-83). He noted that "even under the least favorable conditions - psychologically, fiscally, educationally - we still succeed in giving some children a sense of their own possibilities" (p. 76). He also noted that “the good school and the healthy classroom can provide even the child of poverty, even the outsider immigrant child, some working vision of how a society can operate” (p. 79). Such schools can “become rather like countercultures – centers for the cultivation of a new awareness about what it is like living in a modern society” (p. 82). Thus Bruner suggests that “successful school cultures… should be considered as ‘countercultures’ that serve to raise the consciousness and meta-cognition of their participants as well as enhancing their self-esteem” (p. 78). Ultimately, Bruner challenged educators to “move beyond regulations, [and to] focus on renewal” (p. 85). Video games and simulations might be one force for such renewal in today’s schools, and they might also help more students to feel empowered to exercise and explore their own inherent potential as they take on new roles and develop new skills while playing.
Shaffer
Shaffer was interested in just this sort of renewal. His work was not so much about “how computer and video games can help kids do better in school… [but rather] about how computer and video games can help adults rebuild education for the postindustrial, high-tech world by thinking about learning in a new way” (Shaffer, 2006, p. 5). He argued that society should “move away from thinking about education in terms of the traditional organization of schools” (p. 11) and towards teaching new, innovative, and socially responsible ways of thinking using new media such as video games and simulations. He was openly concerned with “the future of our kids and of our country” (p. 15). His epistemic games aim to help students “to value someone else’s perspective as much as much as [or more than their] own” (p. 121), to shift focus “away from what is interesting to [them] and toward what matters to others” (p. 132), and to understand how their actions impact society (p. 135). After playing , for example, students “spoke about [the ethical issue being studied] more in terms of its social impact than its place in the curriculum” (p. 156).
Like Bruner, Shaffer was explicitly interested in educational equity across demographics; he considered “the key to solving the current crisis in education [to be the use of] computer and video games to give all children access to experiences and interactions that build interest and understanding” (p. 8). He also considered “the ability of computers to make epistemic games widely available provides an opportunity to think about our system of education in new ways” (p. 167). Shaffer concluded that “epistemic games may be a way to rethink, and perhaps rebuild our system of education” (p. 181), and that “education based on epistemic games could also go a long way toward solving other problems that plague our schools today” (p. 185). However, he acknowledged the conflict between the culture of games and the culture of school, and the difficulty teachers have finding the time and support to pursue the innovative use of video games and simulations in the current educational culture, particularly in the United States (p. 183). Like Papert, Shaffer looks outside of schools for an immediate answer; he looks to “clubs, after-school programs, summer camps, and community centers” (p. 183) as places to implement epistemic games. Unfortunately, his games, as currently conceived, cannot be run without the involvement of a university researcher. They are not yet scalable or reproducible. However, serious games for change, such as “A Force More Powerful, which was designed as a teaching tool for nonviolent activists” (p. 133), are beginning to emerge and find widespread use both in and out of schools.
Squire, Steinkuehler, and Others
Shaffer is not alone in his efforts to use video games in education for positive social change. Along with Squire and Gee, Shaffer wrote that “video games have the potential to change the landscape of education as we know it” (Shaffer, Squire, & Gee, 2003, p. 111). As they noted, “Our students will learn from video games. The questions we must ask and answer are: Who will create these games, and will they be based on sound theories of learning and socially conscious educational practices?” (p. 111). They believed not only that games could be used to teach the innovative ways that professionals think, but also that games “can help transform those ways of thinking for experienced professionals” (p. 111). They challenged “game and school designers alike… to understand how to shape learning and learning environments to take advantage of the power and potential of games and how to integrate games and game-based learning environments into [schools]” (p. 110). However, they also noted that “even if we sanitize games, the theories of learning embedded in them run counter to the current social organization of schooling” (p. 110). Elsewhere, Squire and Gee (2003) explained:
"The real problem is that the kind of immersive, experiential learning that games support runs directly counter to contemporary trends in education. Games may be seen as suspect in an era of standardized tests, where knowledge is considered measurable by scan-tron sheets, where teachers are held in suspicion for their practices, and where education debates center around what instructional methods produce the largest increases in standardized test scores." (Squire & Jenkins, 2003, p. 30)
In the wake of constructivists such as Bruner, even game designers Salen and Zimmerman (2004) believed that “all games reflect culture, reproducing aspects of their cultural contexts” (p. 513). As such, they believed that games “have an ideological dimension: they are one context through which society passes on its values” (p. 534). They also believed that “some games also transform culture, acting on their cultural contexts to affect genuine change” (p. 513). Put another way, “games are social context for cultural learning… games replicate, reproduce, and sometimes transform cultural beliefs and principles” (p. 516). As evidence, they cited the New Games Movement, which at one time was widely implemented in elementary schools and which “sought to create positive social change through play” (p. 529). What Salen and Zimmerman called transformative cultural play occurred when such a game or movement “leads to an exchange between the meanings of a game and culture at large, [thus] changing the context of the game” (p. 554). They discussed the use of games (and game design) as cultural resistance focusing on culturally transformative play (p. 569). This is the aim of many serious games, particularly games for change.
Unlike narratives such as a history text, a game or simulation is built on the basic assumption that change is possible (Fresca, 2003, p. 233). Fresca, a ludologist, distinguished four “different ideological levels in simulations that can be manipulated in order to convey ideology” (p. 232). The first is shared with narrative media and includes the representation of characters, setting, and events (p. 232). The second is unique to games: the underlying rules determine “what the player is able to do within the model” (p. 232). The third level is a matter of goals given to the players, “what the player must do in order to win” (p. 232). Finally, the fourth level deals with what Fresca calls meta-rules, rules that state how the rules of the game can be changed (p. 232). Fresca’s “typology of simulation rules… [illustrate] how the designer’s agenda can slip into the game’s inner laws” (p. 233). This ability to model reality for students can be put to good use by game designers and educators to effect positive social change, but it can of course also be abused. An important part of game literacy or simulation literacy is understanding that the underlying rules of a game, including a serious game, may not necessarily model reality accurately. The player must consume this new media at least as critically as a reader would consume the printed word.
MMORPGs
Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) may be a particularly powerful genre of game for effecting positive social change. Steinkuehler and Williams (in review) found that MMORPGs “function as one novel form of a new ‘third place’ for informal sociability” (p. 2). These games are a low profile, playful, accessible, and accommodating neutral grounds (and social levelers) where conversation is the main activity and where regulars can find a home away from home (p. 8-17). Steinkuehler and Williams noted that participation in MMORPGs “affects participants’ social capital in terms of both broad but week social networks… and deep but narrow social networks” (p. 3). They found that MMORPGs can also serve as “a window into new worlds of people and ideas” (p. 22) and that players have the ability to “explore, construct, and resist” dominant culture (p. 13). In terms of formal k12 education it may be even more important that in MMORPGs it is common for teenagers to mentor “adults twice their age and education in how to lead” (p. 20) and that “large percentages of MMOGamers play online with ‘real life’ romantic partners, family members, co-works, and friends” (p. 15). Though the genre is largely untapped for education purposes, these properties suggest that MMORPGs may be an ideal format for a serious game for change.
Serious games and games for change will be explored in more detail in the following section of this literature review.
Conclusion
From a constructivist perspective it is clear that video games have the potential to provide a great deal of support for student learning. First and foremost, video games are a medium that can engage and motivate students. Video games can also provide a context for learning, opportunities for inquiry, and a framework for socially negotiated learning. Ideally, video games can also be used to facilitate reflection and metacognition, as well as to support the development of other 21st century skills. If video games are used in this way, the teacher still plays a critical role as facilitator and coach, just as the teacher would in any constructivist learning environment. Also, because video games can be used to provide such support for learning they can be used as a tool to effect positive social change. Though there is some indication that massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) can provide all of these support structures as well, this genre of games is not as well represented in the literature as others and may require further study before implementation in a formal educational context.
Because of the promise that video games show, many enterprising researchers and practitioners have already begun implementing them in the classroom with students. The following section discusses current ways video games are used in education and several issues related to such implementations.
Implementation of Video Games in Education
This section of the chapter is focused on issues related to the implementation of video games in education. The section begins with a description of current uses for video games in education, including the use of web-based games, commercial off the shelf (COTS) games, modified games (mods), and explicitly educational games. This description also introduces the serious games movement and its sub-movements, games for change and games for health. The creation of video games by teachers and students is also addressed. Next, the issues related to creating educational games are discussed in more depth, including the need for inclusive game design and the need to represent a broader spectrum of human emotion and experience in games. The legacy of tabletop role-playing games and their importance to future computerized educational role-playing games, including MMORPGs, is covered here as well.
Video Games in Education
Video games and computer simulations have been used in education since their appearance nearly three decades ago. I recent years, however, new and powerful ways of using video games and simulations in the classroom have become available, and pioneering educators are innovating new ways to incorporate these technologies. Early “edutainment” games have been eclipsed by free web-based games, more sophisticated commercial entertainment games, modifications of commercial games, and a new breed of explicitly educational games. Also the serious games movement, including games for change and games for health, is particularly relevant to education.
Edutainment
Many of the video games in use in schools are merely edutainment, games meant first to entertain and second to educate. Often such games are the worst of both worlds – neither entertaining nor particularly educational. Edutainment games also often fall back on traditional educational strategies such as repetitive drill-and-skill activities that are only more engaging or motivating than a worksheet or quiz because of their multi-media and interactive nature. As Squire and Jenkins (2003) wrote, “frankly, most existing edutainment products combine the entertainment value of a bad lecture with the educational value of a bad game” (p. 8). Naturally, they then asked, “what if we could turn that around?” (p. 8). Prensky (2006), too, urges parents and teachers to move past edutainment (p. 183). Today, such popular titles as Reader Rabbit and Math Blasters are considered edutainment.
Web-Based Games
Many web-based games are mere edutainment, but others are both entertaining and truly educational. Web-based games have the benefit of playing right in a web browser, meaning nothing needs to be installed on a school computer and little or no technical support is necessary. Such games are also generally free. Many are engaging and content related. Examples can be found at , , and dozens of similar sites online. (See for over 60 other examples.) Such web-based games tend to be ideal for younger students, but some games, such as are beginning to appear for older students. Many of these, including PeterPacket, which teaches about IT concepts and global poverty, can also be considered serious games for change. (See below for more on serious games and games for change.)
Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Games
Of course, in addition to web-based games, educators can provide desktop games (or console games) for students to play in the classroom (or at home). Although teachers may not have the resources to develop cutting edge video games and simulations, many existing commercial off the shelf (COTS) games meant primarily for entertainment can be repurposed for educational use. Many of the most popular and successful games are not violent or overly sexualized – and many address topics of educational value. Such games can serve as an engaging gateway to further learning. Downes (2005) suggested that “instead of embedding a game into learning, it is possible to embed learning into a game” (p. 1). Prensky (2006) also recommended “using a commercial off-the-shelf game, that was not specifically designed for education, in class” (p. 193). Prensky further believed that kids can learn a good deal by playing games on their own, and he encouraged such “disintermediation” (p. 193).
A single COTS game, such as Civilization III, for instance, can provide students the opportunity to learn social studies concepts and practice strategic thinking. Civilization III is often discussed by video game scholars, in part because of its ability to teach non-linear cyclical or systems content in ways that textbooks cannot (Foreman & Aldrich, 2005). Shaffer (2006) noted that the game “is based on an historically accurate model of advances in technology, religion, and th arts, and as players master the game system, they can begin to ask and play out historical experiments” (p. 39).
Squire (2005b), who wrote his dissertation on the use of Civilization III in the classroom, suggested that the game developed skills of “problem identification, hypothesis testing, interpretive analysis, and strategic thinking” (p. 5). Civilization III also has the educationally beneficial properties of complexity, flexibility, and replayability; more importantly, the game is very simulation-like and encourages student choice, experimentation, and learning through failure (p. 3-4). Of course, individual students will learn different things playing such a game, and the teacher plays an important role in mediating student understanding. Also, such a game will not be engaging and motivating for all students. Squire noted that “roughly 25% of students in school situations complained that the game was too hard, complicated, and uninteresting” (p. 2). However, “another 25% of the students (particularly academic underachievers) loved playing the game, thought it was a ‘perfect’ way to learn history, and considered the experience a highlight of their school year” (p. 2). In short, not all games will appeal to all students, not even all gamers. Research has also shown that video games may not be an effective learning tool for non-gamers; Littleton (2005) found that students who do not play video games for entertainment were less likely to be motivated by (or learn from) video games in the classroom. Of course, even among students who consider themselves gamers, some will have strong preferences for or against particular video game genres.
Other COTS games, including Age of Empires and Age of Mythology, are often mentioned by game researchers such as Gee (2003, 2005) and Prensky (2006). Shaffer (2006) discusses the value of SimCity specifically (p. 169), but also notes it’s shortcomings, such as the fact that “players act as virtual dictators” (p. 171) instead of working in committee as real life city planners must do. The Tycoon series of games, including Roller Coaster Tycoon are also appear frequently as examples of games with educational value. Shaffer notes that “the game incorporates several complex simulations, including a physics simulations of the rides, a social simulations of the patrons, and a business simulation of the finances of the park” (p. 102). Shaffer also mentions Gran Turismo 4 (p. 177) and Full Spectrum Warrior (p. 165). Gee (2003, 2005) discussed the value of the later in some detail as well. Kadakia (2005) suggests the use of Morrowind to teach characterization, cause and effect, and storyline. For a relatively low cost, teachers can begin using any of these games with students.
Even if COTS games cannot actually be played in the classroom, Prensky (2006) recommends “bringing games played outside of class into the classroom through discussion” (p. 189). He also recommends “game-based homework” (p. 190), or at least using the principles behind good games when planning classroom activities (p. 193). Similarly, Gee (2003) discussed thirty-six principles of learning that good games embody that many classrooms do not. Gee didn’t necessarily suggest that teaches should use video games to teach, but rather that they should emulate the successful learning principles at work in good games.
Modifying Games
If a COTS game is not available that meets a particular educational need, teachers (or their students) can modify (or mod) existing games. Many existing games come with toolsets that allow modification of game environments and in some cases game rules. For example Neverwinter Nights comes with Aurora, a gamemaster’s toolset that allows creation of new items, characters, settings, and entire adventures. The Educational Arcade (2007), a project of MIT’s Comparative Media Studies program, created a proof-of-concept using the Aurora toolset. They turned Neverwinter Nights, which is a sword and sorcery role playing game, into a simulation of colonial Williamsburg during the revolutionary war. The resulting game, Revolution, allows up to 64 students to take on a wide range of rolls in the town, from slaves and bar maids to loyalists and rebels. NeverWinter Nights II comes with a similar World Editor, as does a similar game called Dugeon Seige. Bradley (2007) has even used the Unreal Engine, which powers the first person shooter (FPS) Unreal Tournament, to teach chemistry. Many other COTS games, including Civilization IV, The Sims 2, and even the newer Grand Theft Auto titles include similar Modding tools. Using these toolsets, explicitly educational games can thus be custom built for a particular purpose.
Games for Education
Increasingly, though, explicitly educational commercial games are becoming available. In contrast to earlier edutainment games, these games are meant to be educational first, and entertaining second. In many cases they have been successful in capturing the best of both worlds. They are both powerfully educational and genuinely entertaining. Prensky (2006) notes the arrival of such games (p. 183) and suggests to teachers “playing in class a game specifically designed for education” (p. 192).
Many proofs-of-concept have been completed in academia, including the Revolution mod introduced above. The Education Arcade (2007) is also responsible for an augmented reality game called Environmental Detectives, an online puzzle game designed to promote math and literacy called Labyrinth, and Supercharged!, a game that teachers electromagnatism. Others similar projects include Shaffer’s (2006) epistemic games (Digital Zoo, Urban Science, , , The Pandora Project, and Escher’s World; see also ), Dede’s (2005) MUVEEs (including River City), and MIT’s now defunct Games-To-Teach project, which created games such as the following:
“Dedalus' End (Civil Engineering Ethics), Dreamhaus (Structural Engineering), Cuckoo Time (Physics/Mechanics), Haestaphus (Mechanical Engineering), La Jungla de Optica (Optical Physics), Extreme Sports Tycoon (Introductory Algebra, Physics, Strategy), Replicate (Virology/Immunology), Periodista (Foreign Languages), Soul Survivor (Psychology), Dream Tracker (Cultural Theory, Aboriginal Studies, and Game Maven (Systems Theory, Construction)” (Social Impact Games, 2005)
In addition to these academic proofs-of-concept, commercial educational games are beginning to appear. The game Making-History, a multiplayer World War II simulation, is a commercial effort designed for the educational market. The game has been successfully piloted and includes features that capture student input and decision making for later assessment by the teacher. DeKanter (2005), vice president of Muzzy Lane Software, which developed the game, discussed ways in which networked game simulations can provide opportunities for inquiry and collaboration, and ways in which they can provide support for constructivist teaching and learning. Mauriello, Stuckhart, DeKanter, Snow, and Squire (2005) provided tips for managing Making-History in the high school classroom. Another commercial educational game that is beginning to gain traction is Tabula Digita’s Dimenxian, which maps the game-world onto the Cartesian plane and requires students to master algebraic concepts in order to progress in the game.
Serious Games
These new games for education might be considered a subset of serious games, or games created for a purpose other than entertainment. These are games meant to educate, train, or inform (Michael & Chen, 2006). Examples exist in education, government, health, first response, science, and – of course – the military (Serious Games Summit, 2006). Michael and Chen (2006) defined serious games as games in which “education (in its various forms) is the primary goal, rather than entertainment” (p. 17). Citing Ben Sawyer, co-founder of the Serious Games Initiative, they noted, however, that the “’serious’ in ‘serious games’is intended to reflect the purpose of the game, why it was created, and has no bearing on the content of the game itself” (p. 23). Serious games are still meant to be fun to play; fun is an important, even required, element of a serious game. According to Michael & Chen, serious games “move past the limited focus of edutainment to encompass all types of education and all ages” (p. 24). They conclude that “serious games can extend the value of training films and books by allowing the players to not only learn, but also to demonstrate and apply what he or she has learned” (p. 27).
Games for Change
A particular brand of serious game, games for change, includes games created with the goal of effecting positive social change. Shaffer (2006) mentioned A Force More Powerful, “which was designed as a teaching tool for non-violent activists” (p. 13). Other examples include the World Food Program’s Food-Force, which teaches about world hunger and what is being done to alleviate it, and Impact Games’ PeaceMakers, which was originally developed at Carnegie Mellon to teach American high school students about conflict in the middle east by allowing them to play both the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian President. Some of these games, including A Force More Powerful and PeaceMakers cost a nominal amount. Others, like Food-Force and the web-based Peter Packet mentioned earlier or the web-based Dean for Iowa, are free. These games are beginning to see use in classrooms around the world, and in some innovative programs, such as Global Kids’ Playing For Keeps program, students are actually creating their own serious games. One cohort of students developed a game about racial profiling in airports, for example.
Games for Health
Another subset of serious games is games for health, which are being created by researchers, medical professionals, and game developers for health care applications (Games for Health, 2007). Developers aim to use game technologies to create new ways of improving the management, quality, and provision of healthcare worldwide.
For example, with a subtly constructivist perspective, Noble, Best, Sidwell, and Strang (2000) explored an "interactive approach" (p. 404) to drug education for children. In a formal study they tested the effects of "an interactive CD-ROM based arcade-style motorcycle racing game" (p. 405) on students' understanding of the drug cocaine. Through analysis of interview responses gathered from 101 students aged 10 or 11, the authors concluded the game was successful in transmitting their message to the students, in large part because of "high levels of acceptability, even enthusiasm" from the students (p. 405). They did, however, caution that implementing the program would require "careful piloting and ongoing management" (p. 406).
More recently, Prensky (2006) wrote of games designed “for self-management of asthma and juvenile diabetes, and for smoking prevention” (p. 123). He also mentioned Squire’s Quest, which “increased fourth-graders’ daily fruit and vegetable intake by an average of one serving a day” (p. 123), and Re-mission, which was “designed to help teens and young adults who have cancer feel better about themselves, feel more motivated to go through their treatment regimens, and stick to their meds” (p.124). Prenksy also touched on the phenomenon of “exertainment” in which students get exercise through:
• “Dancing (Dance Dance Revolution)
• Twisting and Jumping (Anti-grav with the Eye Toy)
• Lifting, bending, and shaking (maracas in Samba de Amigo)
• Bicycling (using specially designed bikes as controllers)
• Isometrics (the Kilowatt game controller)
• Power drumming (Taiko Drum Master)” (Prensky, 2006, p. 124).
Creating Games
If a COTS game or serious game does not exist to meet a particular educational need, and no game can be modified to meet the need, a new game can be created from scratch. In the same way that teaching a subject is one of the best ways to learn it, designing a game or simulation about a subject is another great way to gain a deeper understanding of a subject. Ideally, students can design the new game, even if the game is never produced.
Papert (1996) described the way in which an instructionist might create a game to teach, while a constructionist would ask students to make a game themselves (p. 46-47). Asking children to program a video game was also used as an example of how a constructionist solution might solve several ethical dilemmas in education. When a child is designing a game “nobody ‘does anything to the child’” (p. 69), thus avoiding the problems of deception and a lack of respect (p. 65) which are often found in educational software. The concepts of bricklayer – or the process of trial and error (p. 86) and bricoleurs – or tinkerers (p. 87) also appear in Papert’s discussion about children making a video game (p. 147-148).
Jenkins, Klopfer, Squire, and Tan (2003) noted that the approach of creating games in schools “not only provides schools with customized [games], but can involve students and teachers in the game-creation process as they design [specific scenarios]” (p. 46). They also pointed out that “by creating their own games, they can build an ever deeper understanding of the issues at hand” (p. 46-47).
Actual implementation of the games can be beneficial, as this would exercise students’ technical literacy, effective communication (as they would work in teams), and high productivity (as they would be creating a real-world product with relevance to their lives). This can be done using tools and technologies readily available in schools. For example, Greenberg (2005) challenges students to “learn HyperStudio and make computer games that would teach the material [they are] studying” (p. 41). Although most professional game design tools are prohibitively technical (and expensive) for many teachers or students to use, newer easier (and less expensive) tools are being developed and put to use. Some examples include Garage Games’ Torque engine and ThinkingWorld’s system built on cognitive tasks (instead of damage and hit points, for instance), though each of these still requires considerable scripting skills. Many professors in higher education are also starting to use Linden Labs’ Second Life as a platform for creating educational games and other projects.
Regardless, as Aldrich (2005b) suggests, students and teachers can use common tools such as spreadsheets to design the simulations that will drive the game, and they can illustrate screen shots or storyboard important game sequences. This still exercises the design skills necessary to create a game, and it requires an in-depth working knowledge of the subject being simulated in the game.
Jenkins (2005) offers guidelines for applying the theories of games, learning and media literacy to game design, though no game is designed in the MIT Games Literacy Workshop. Teachers may find these guidelines helpful if their students are to design games.
Similarly, Prensky (2006) suggests that students inventing a game about a subject they are studying can use “no technology at all, but only thinking” (p. 194). He then recommends a handful of “useful questions such student game designers should ask themselves” (p. 194):
• “What are the interesting decisions to be made about this subject?
• What kinds of gameplay would be both fun and instructive?
• How could the learning be incorporated ‘stealthily’ into the game so that it is not just a dry drill?” (Prensky, 2006, p. 194)
Some school programs, and after school programs, already exist for the purpose of helping students create their own games. For example, in the Global Kids Playing for Keeps program mentioned above, at-risk students create a serious game in an after school program. For example, one cohort of students developed a game about racial profiling in airports. Also, the final project for students in the Gobal IT Acedemy in the Brea-Olinda School District is to create a video game using their newly developed programming skills.
MMORPGs in Education
Though they are largely unavailable for educational use at the present time, massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs) hold a great deal of potential to serve as constructivist learning environments. Thomas (2005) explored the extension of such games into the classroom and how the dynamics of gameplay created a new space for student interaction and learning. Unfortunately, these games are often designed for players 18 or older. One notable exception is the Second Life teen grid (for 13 to 17 year olds). This game is particularly important for its rich avatar creation system, its support for user-created content, and it’s open-ended play, complete with a sophisticated in-game economy, but it has the opposite problem – adults are not allowed. Some educators are now creating a private “island” in second life on which they and their students can meet. Though Conklin (2005) suggests a number of educationally appropriate uses for Second Life, more research is required in this area to determine the potential applications, benefits, and problems related to the use of MMORPGs in education.
Video Game Design
If educators are to become involved in designing educational video games, they will need to become familiar with certain video game design principles and issues. Even if a teacher is merely going to select an existing game for use in the classroom, an awareness of these things will be valuable in making an informed decision. Naturally, if students are going to be designing games in class (whether or not the games are actually produced), this knowledge will be particularly valuable to teachers and their students. Several general principles and issues of video game design are relevant in this context.
When Gee (2005), a linguist and cognitive scientist, asked what a state of the art video game would look like, his answer was the suggestion that “the best commercial video games are already state of the art learning games” (p. 1) because they allow learning to take place situated in activities and experiences. Even though Gee advocated for the importance of teachers, and for a balance between telling things to students and letting them experience things on their own, he believed that educators might benefit from professional game designers’ experience.
Prensky (2006) advocated the use of “a highly effective combination of the most compelling and interactive design elements in… video and computer games with specific curricular content” (p. 15), but he acquiesced that “the tricky part is putting the two together in ways that capture, rather than lose the kid’s interest and attention” (p. 15). Kirley and Kirkley (2005) were also concerned with how to “balance the design tensions between meeting learning objectives and creating engaging and fun learning environments” (p. 42).
Shaffer (2006), on the other hand, approached the issue from a different direction with the suggestion that building games that teach innovative ways of thinking “means really understanding what innovators do, and how they learn to think about the problems the solve” (p. 70). Shaffer believed that educational game designers can not only design the game, but also “influence when and how the game is played – and, more important, how the game is discussed and evaluated” (p. 71).
Though there is much ground to be covered between these theorists’ ideas and a practical implication in ordinary schools, some projects, such as MIT’s Games-to-Teach, have been started “to encourage a greater public awareness of the pedagogical potentials of games by developing a range of conceptual frameworks that show in practical terms how games might be deployed to teach math, science, and engineering” (Holland, Jenkins, & Squire, 2003, p. 27). As Gee suggested, this program borrows much from the practices of commercial game designers.
According to Rouse (2005), a commercial game designer, game design determines the form of gameplay, including:
“what choices players will be able to make in the game-world and what ramifications those choices will have on the rest of the game… what win or loss criteria the game may include, how the user will be able to control the game, and what information the game will communicate to him, and…how hard the game will be.” (Rouse, 2005, p. xxi)
Master game designer, Sid Meier was interviewed by Rouse (2005). In this interview, Meier recommended that designers “first figure out what [their] topic is and then find interesting ways and an appropriate genre to bring it to life as opposed to coming the other way around” (Rouse, 2005, p. 21). Most importantly, he suggested that designers “figure out what is the really cool part, the unique part, the interesting part of [the] topic, and find a way to turn that into a computer game” (p. 30). Teachers might benefit from this advice when designing any lesson, not just a game, for their students. Meier also recommends that games need to have both depth and an ease of entry (Rouse, 2005, p. 34). Rouse recommended a series of questions that designers should ask themselves about a game they are envisioning. Again, these offer a meaningful model for educators or educational game designers:
• “What is it about this game that is most compelling?
• What is this game trying to accomplish?
• What type of experience will the player have?
• What sort of emotions is the game trying to evoke in the player?
• What should the player take away from the game?
• How is the game unique? What differentiates it from other games?
• What sort of control will the player have over the game-world?” (Rouse, 2005, p. 70).
Similarly, Shaffer (2006) believed that “epistemic games are always built by asking a series of questions” (p. 180):
• “What is worth being able to do in the world?
• Who knows how to do this kind of thing, and how do they learn how to do it?”
• How can we make these learning practices available for others?” (Shaffer, 2006, 180-181)
Ludology, or the discipline of studying games, particularly video games, is a more academic approach to game design that is particularly concerned with the ways games differ from traditional narrative (Frasca, 2003, p. 222). Salen and Zimmerman (2004) are game designers who might also be considered ludologists; aimed “to establish a critical discourse for game design” (p. 2). Their approach focused on iterative design, play-based design, and the “cyclic process that alternates between prototyping, playtesting, evaluation, and refinement” (p. 11), and was concerned primarily with game design, not game development (p. 13). Also, from their perspective audio and visual elements are not usually considered part of the structure of the game (p. 149).
What Players Want And Expect
First, and perhaps most importantly, educators need to become familiar with what video game players want and expect. In many ways these things are not so different from what students want and expect in a classroom. For instance, players need to learn in order to play (and enjoy) a game. Similarly, games need to teach (and challenge) in order to be fun. Games need to support beginning players, easing them into the game, and yet also have the depth to challenge advanced players. Rouse (2005) offered a list of things players want, which can easily be used by educators as a list of what students want from an educational game, if not from any learning experience:
• “Players want a challenge” (p. 2).
• “Players want to socialize” (p. 3).
• “Players want a dynamic solitary experience” (p. 5).
• “Players want bragging rights” (p. 5).
• “Players want an emotional experience” (p. 6).
• “Players want to explore” (p. 6).
• “Players want to fantasize” (p. 7).
• “Players want to interact” (p. 8).
Rouse (2005) also offers a similar list of what players expect. Again, this list can be considered by educators to be a list of things students expect of an educational game, if not any learning experience:
• “Players expect a consistent world” (p. 10).
• “Players expect direction” (p. 10).
• “Players expect to accomplish a task incrementally” (p. 11).
• “Players expect to be immersed” (p. 12).
• “Players expect some setbacks” (p. 14).
• “Players expect a fair chance” (p. 14).
• “Players expect to not need to repeat themselves” (p. 15).
• “Players expect to not get hopelessly stuck” (p. 16).
• “Players expect to do, not to watch” (p. 17).
When it comes to direction, Rouse (2005) explains that teaching the player “does not mean that [the] game has to be dumbed down or simplified, merely that [the designer] must introduce the complexity of [the] game-world gradually through the gameplay instead of through the manual” (p. 127). This approach is in keeping with the constructivist philosophy of helping students to learn by doing rather than by listening or reading. Rouse further points out that “it is important during the introduction of [game] controls players are in a safe environment that engenders learning” (p. 127). For this purpose, Rouse recommends the use of tutorials prior to full game-play (p. 128-131). According to Rouse:
"the key is to give players success early on, to draw them into the game, to make them think that they know what the game is all about, and that they are better than it... and then, when the game becomes suddenly more challenging, players will already have been drawn into the game and will be much more likely to see the challenge as a reasonable one, one that they can surely overcome." (Rouse, 2005, p. 128)
Significantly, Rouse (2005) also points out that “players do not know what they want, but they know when it is missing” (p. 18). Part of Rouse’s “anticipatory school of game design” (p. 116) is not only anticipating what players might do in a game, but also asking what players might want from a game. This is another reason why educational designers should look to experienced professional designers; even asking students what they want may not produce satisfying results.
Also, as with a good constructivist learning environment, a good video game will engage and motivate players, provide them opportunities to act (and learn) in context, and allow them to explore their own routes through the game or develop their own solutions to problems. Also, good games will facilitate social interactions, particularly in the case of multiplayer games, which can be either cooperative or competitive. Ideally, a game will prompt players to reflect on their actions, decisions, and strategies.
Elements of Gameplay
Educators must also be aware of specific elements of gameplay and how those effect the potential educational applications of a game. The sort of conflict presented in the game, whether it is cooperative or competitive for instance, can be important. According to Salen and Zimmerman (2004), game conflict can be individual or team based, cooperative or non-cooperative, direct or indirect, or any mixed and matched combination of the options (p. 265). They noted that all games are competitive because “players struggle against each other or against a game system” (p. 265). They also noted that all games are cooperative because even a single player is “engaging with the shared meanings of the game” (p. 265).
In designing the competitive and cooperative elements of a game, educators will need to keep the kind of players into account as well. For instance, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) identified five types of players: a standard player, a dedicated player, an unsportsmanlike player, cheaters, and spoil-sports (p. 284). Particularly for the later two categories, Salen and Zimmerman recommend that designers “empower players to be more like game designers by creating games with rules that are meant to [be] broken and modified” (p. 285). Such empowerment can also play a role in developing the sort of innovative thinking patterns that Shaffer (2006) pursued. In addition to the types of players, educational designers should also consider the different levels of game experience, including visual, auditory, motor responses, concentration, and perceptual patterns of learning (Sutton Smith, 1986, p. 69-72, as cited in Salen and Zimmmerman, 2004, p. 315).
The system of reward and punishment is another element of gameplay that educational designers cannot ignore. Luckily, the theories behind this may be more familiar to educators. Salen and Zimmerman turn to familiar behavior theory, including simple conditioning when they suggest that “rewards and punishments can be used to teach players how to behave in a game from moment-to-moment, as well as create an experience that rewards players for their participation over time” (p. 361).
The core mechanics of a game can provide students with some structure for their learning, but some games may or may not be appropriate for specific students or specific learning objectives. The core mechanics of a game rely on interactivity, which according to Grodal (2003) “means that the user/player is able to change the visual appearance of a computer screen (and/or sounds from the speakers) by some motor actions via an interface” (p. 142). Salen and Zimmerman (2004) define the core mechanic of a game as “the essential moment-to-moment activity players enact. A core mechanic is repeated over and over in the course of a game to create larger patterns of experience” (p. 327).
Salen and Zimmerman also consider good games to be emergent complex systems (p. 152) that allow “player-unique solutions to situations in the game” (p. 117). In their view, if emergent (or player generated) strategies “do not completely break the game, they need to be viewed as a boon to the game’s depth and a direct result of good game design” (p. 118). The same could be said by constructivists with respect to student solutions to teacher assignments. Ultimately, “a game system-based understanding of how games function can greatly improve a game-designer’s ability to anticipate how changes in a game’s rule-structure will ramify into a play experience” (p. 171).
Ideally, a game system will be designed to help students enter and remain in a state of optimal performance, or flow, as often and as long as possible. Csikszentmihalyi (1997) described flow experiences as “exceptional moments” (p. 29) that tend to occur “when a person's skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just about manageable… a fine balance between one's ability to act, and the available opportunities for action” (p. 30). Based on Csikszntmihalyi’s work, Game designers Salen and Zimmerman (2004) identified seven components of flow: a challenging activity that requires skill, the merging of action and awareness, clear goals and feedback, concentration on the task at hand, the paradox of control, the loss of self-consciousness, and the transformation of time (p. 337-338). Each of these is a worthy goal of an educational game, but Salen and Zimmerman also note several “challenges in applying glow to game design… flow is not unique to games… flow is more about the player than the game… [and] flow is not a universal phenomenon” (p. 339). Most importantly, Salen and Zimmerman point out a concept very like Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development; “if the challenge of a game is too high of a player’s skills, anxiety results. If there is not enough challenge boredom results. Ideally, games provide a balanced challenge at all moments [to all players]” (Salen and Zimmerman, 2004, p. 361). This is one of many reasons why “in game design, player experience should always trump so-called realism” (p. 353).
Grodal (2003) was interested as emotional experiences for players. He believed that “video games are based on acting out the emotions, and the games may therefore even create some kind of catharsis” (p. 151). He explained that “video games provide personalized experiences that are based on playing (that is: pleasurable repetitive learning processes), backed up by emotions that change over time not only because of the events but also due to the development of the learning processes” (p. 153). He also noted that the emotional experience of a game will change over time for a particular player because:
"a player of a video game is personally responsible for the outcome of...a confrontation. It is the player's evaluation of his own coping potential that determines whether the confrontation... will be experienced as fear... despair... or triumphant aggression... this entails the emotional experience will vary over time, because of the learning processes leading to a change in coping potentials." (Wolfe & Perron, 2003, p. 150)
Several other design issues related to support of the learner were highlighted by Aldrich. He considered “one of the biggest long term issues” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 212) to be the balance of free play versus guided play, or how much the designer should help players along. This balance is related to the success of what Aldrich (2005) called “the frustration-resolution moment” (p. 243), the first encounter with frustration in which “students should expect to resolve their frustration in the learning experience” (p. 243). Another issue was the need for simulation designers to resist the temptation to model too much, and to instead “aim carefully, narrowly, and then go deep” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 216) in their modeling.
Much of what Prensky (2001) discussed related to how games (and teachers) can provide the necessary support for effective teaching and learning to take place. For instance, games have rules that give players structure (p. 106). Also, in order to focus on player experience, good games must “mak[e] the game accessible to their entire audience, including new players who might find challenging what has become trivial to the designers” (p. 134). Not only must good games be easy to learn, but they must be hard to master, thus “providing hours, or even lifetimes of challenge” (p. 135) In order to be successful, games must have a strong structure that is well thought out in advance, yet they must remain highly adaptive and “fun for a variety of players” (p. 135). They must even remain fun by “walk[ing] that fine line between not too hard and not too easy, and do it for a variety of players” (p. 135). Ideally, a good complex game “adapts to each player’s skills and abilities through highly advanced artificial intelligence programs that sense just how a player is doing, and then change[s] the game slightly whenever the player leaves the ‘flow zone’ in order to move that player back into it” (Prensky, 2005a, p. 8).
Another support element that might be considered rewarding is a concept that Prenksy (2001) calls “mutual assistance – one thing helps to solve another” (p. 136); in other words “clues about one puzzle or task can be embedded into another puzzle or task” (p. 136). In good games, the things that players learn early on help them be successful later in the game.
Drawing explicitly on constructivist and cognitive research, educational psychologist Dickey (2005) also discussed ways in which "the strategies of design which lead to engagement" (p. 67) in video games might by put to use by instructional designers. She discussed point of view, narrative, setting, characters, and interactive elements, or hooks. Throughout the article, Dickey gives special attention to the importance of multiplayer games.
Unique Elements of Electronic Games
Video games have specific elements that are not present in the sorts of board games or face-to-face games teachers may have used in the classroom in the past. Eskelinen and Tronstad (2003) tout several benefits of computer games over games in other media. Computer games can be responsive to players’ wishes, serve as a referee, handle administrative tasks, provide an intelligent opponent, and provide new game structures via telecommunications (p. 196). Salen and Zimmerman (2004) offer a similar list of “four traits that summarize the special qualities of digital games. These traits are also present in non-digital games, but digital games generally embody them more robustly” (p. 91). Digital games allow for immediate (but narrow) interactivity, manipulation of information, automated complex systems, and networked communication (p. 91).
Systems Content and Simulation
More importantly, computer driven games can model systems content. Frasca (2003) noted that long before digital games simulations have been used by scientists to model complex systems and have even been a element of other toys and games. He defines simulation as “to model a (source) system through a different system with maintains (for somebody) some of the behaviors of the original system” (p. 223).
Salen and Zimmerman (2004) considered a simulation simply a limited system (p. 440) or “a procedural representation of aspects of reality” (p. 457). They also described simulations as “abstract, numerical, limited, and systemic” (p. 457) and they noted that “a simulation cannot be both broad and deep” (p. 457). Most importantly for education, they believed that “simulations are a powerful way of thinking about narrative because procedural representation is an approach to storytelling that directly emphasizes the player’s experience” (p. 457). Some element of simulation or modeling of reality, and thus of player’s experience, is present in most video games.
In fact, Rouse (2005) wrote that “games can be seen as modeling life or some aspect of life while leaving out the boring parts” (p. 125). He noted that “in the end, most players only want more realism if it means they get to do more interesting and fun things, not if it make their game experience more frustrating” (p. 126). This approach may be difficult to reconcile with the need for educational results to transfer effectively into real-life contexts, but if a game bores a player it will be of little educational value. As Slator (2006) noted, “designing educational simulations is an exercise in balancing tradeoffs. Educational content should be foremost, but should not occlude playability and simple fun” (p. 4). Still, Slator recognized that “students who learn through simulations should acquire content-related concepts and skills as a consequence of playing the game, and this learning should transfer to knowledge contexts outside of the game” (p. 4). Slator also sought to “choose the best level of description so that important concepts are revealed against the noise of excessive detail” (p. 19) and did not implement any level of realism which did not have pedagogical value.
More importantly, Rouse aimed to create systems within his games in which “players’ creativity can lead them to solutions that [he] had not envisioned… instead of [him] dictating everything” (p. 116). With such systems in place, Rouse considers the game “more of a simulation and less of a hard-coded puzzle” (p. 117). He believes that “the more designers recognize the value of simulation over hard coding and emphasize… complex and interconnected systems in their games, the deeper their games become” (p. 117).
Frasca (2003) addressed the fact that “simulation authors or ‘simauthors’ can also incorporate different degrees of fate (through hard-coded events, cut-scenes, or by manipulating pseudo random events) into their games” (p. 227). Even though “simulation challenges [narrative authors] because it takes away their source of power… simauthors ‘educate’ their simulations… the key trait of simulation media is that it relies on rules: rules that can be manipulated, accepted, rejected, and even contested” (p. 229).
Creating simulations for educational purposes is an endeavor wrought with paradox. Aldrich (2004) identified seven simulation paradoxes, reproduced below with slight alterations relevant to education:
• “Simulations cost millions to build, and yet must be financially accessible to the smallest [organizations].
• Simulations take years to develop, and yet must be responsive to instant changes in [content areas].
• Simulations are e-learning, yet they are completely different from e-learning.
• Simulation development is risky, and yet the results have to be predictable.
• [Students] have to learn how to use a simulation, yet every movement within a simulation has to be valuable.
• Simulations borrow heavily from computer games, and yet they are not like any computer game.
• Simulations have to be realistic, but selectively so.” (Aldrich, 2004, p. i)
Aldrich (2004) also noted that in an educational simulation all subsystems need to be easy to customize (p. 99) and that even if this is accomplished, localization can be difficult (p. 218). Because of this, he believed that once successful simulation models have been developed and propagated , then simulation toolkits will become more effective and popular (p. 218). He also acknowledged the difficulty of identifying appropriate subject-matter experts or SMEs (p. 213) and other talent required to create a state-of-the-art simulation, such as “level and sound designers, 2D and 3D artists, animators and modelers, and… lead engineers” (p. 216-217). Ultimately, he emphasized that “the problem with dynamic content is… that it has traditionally been expensive and unpredictable for a training group to rigorously deploy” (Aldrich, 2005, p. 62). Dynamic content he discussed as belonging to two groups: systems-based content and cyclical content. “Systems based content exposes users to complex, intertwined relationships [and] includes the components parts, pieces, attributes, relationships, rules, and principles that govern the operation of a system” (p. 70). In contrast, cyclical content “addresses tiny activities that can be infinitely combined to impact an environment and create an outcome… bundles of discrete action, timing, and magnitude” (p. 73). Traditional textbooks are poor at communicating such skills to students, but simulations are the next best medium to real-life experience. Aldrich explores whether existing computer games are fit to serve as the learning simulations educators are looking for and concludes that most of their attributes are both assets and liabilities, including the fact that they are generally cheap (p. 148), fun (p. 149), dynamic (p. 151), and countercultural (p. 159). Also, unlike explicitly educational simulations, COTS video games are genre-driven, hit driven, consumer-focused, retail-focused, and lightweight on the pedagogical elements (p. 152-153).
Software Agents and AI
Another one of the clear benefits of electronic games and simulations is that software agents can “simulate roles that would normally be carried out by humans” (Slator, 2006, p. 23). Slator identifies three types of software agents in simulations: atmosphere agents “that simply add’ to the texture of the simulation by providing entertaining or diverting interactions” (p. 24), infrastructure agents that “add’ to the game-play by taking actions that can affect the success of a player” (p. 24), and intelligent tutoring agents that “monitor’ player moves and visit’ players to give them advice” (p. 24). He then discusses three types of diagnostic tutoring agents that can be used in a virtual role-playing environment, an equipment tutor that helps players learn to use the tools of the game, an exploration tutor that helps players learn about the game world, and a content tutor (in Slators case this was a science tutor specifically) to help players understand the material that needs to be mastered (p. 24-29). Slator’s vision of a “dynamic online help system, involving human agents with an intervening software agent… [may be a] way to extend virtual worlds to create a better learning environment” (p. 29) and may be a vision compatible with future educational MMORPGs.
At their most sophisticated, software agents might be considered artificial intelligence (AI), which is another important component of an educational simulation. Rouse (2005) noted that “determining what the AI will do and actually programming that behavior are two fairly distinct tasks” (p. 153). He stressed that “a game’s designer should be intimately concerned with making sure the game’s AI behavior is as well conceived as possible and performs the actions most likely to provide players with a challenging and compelling gameplay experience” (p. 153). He also stressed that “providing a reasonable challenge for players must be the primary goal for AI in any computer game” (p. 154), however this is debatably not true for non-player characters that serve another specific pedagogical role as identified by Shaffer above. Rouse does note that “game AI can be used to further a game’s story” (p. 159) and even to “create interesting interpersonal relationships” within a game (p. 162). However, game designers do not need to program all elements of a game with AI; as Rouse points out, human beings will often find meaning even in random data (p. 168), and sometimes “a combination of dynamic AI with predetermined paths and scripted behaviors may create the most exciting experience possible for the player” (p. 168). Rouse, like freeman, also offers tips for dialog and scripting with respect to AI agents (p. 170).
Non-Linear Storytelling
Another feature of video games and simulations that is significant to educational efforts is the capacity for creating meaning through non-linear storytelling. As Rouse (2005) articulated, “non-linearity gives interactivity meaning, and without non-linearity, game developers might as well be working on movies instead” (p. 119). Storytelling is one of four kinds of non-linearity identified by Rouse; the others were multiple solutions, order, and selection (p. 119-120). In Rouse’s opinion, “just as a great novel will have multiple layers to its story and different meanings that different readers will take away, even more so a game should allow players to find their own way through the game-world and empower them to craft their own unique experience” (p. 123). Nonlinearity provides players with “meaningful authorship in the way they play the game” (p. 123). Echoing constructivist educational theory, Rouse cautioned, though, that “nonlinearity is not about having players wander around the world aimlessly” (p. 124). He explained that “somewhere between ‘on a rail’ games and total freedom lays an ideal middle ground, where players are left with a sense of freedom accompanied by a sense of guidance” (p. 124).
Because of it’s non-linear nature, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) consider “the creation of a game narrative [to be] the creation of a narrative system” (p. 404). From this perspective, a role-playing game such as the table-top Dungeons and Dragons (and arguably, modern MMORPGs) can be seen as “a system for generating narrative play” (p. 406). In a table-top roleplaying game the gamemaster “provides… the narrative elements, describing each setting the players enter, role-playing allies and enemies the players encounter, and slowly revealing the… mysteries and unexpected plot twists of the ongoing story” (p. 406). In an MMORPG, the computer largely plays this role, though it is conceivable that this task might be shared between a human gamemaster (perhaps even a teacher) and a computer. Such interactions would be considered emergent narrative elements, which “are created on-the-fly as the player interacts with the game” (p. 418); in contrast, embedded narrative elements are pre-generated narrative components such as video clips and scripted scenes” (p. 418). It is the emergent elements that make video games a significantly new narrative medium.
In fact, Frasca (2003) argues that using storytelling as a model for designing video games is not only inaccurate but it also limits designers understanding of the medium and ability to create even more compelling games (p. 221). He believes that while “simulations and narratives do share some common elements ( characters, settings, and events) their mechanics are essentially different… [and] offer different rhetorical possibilities” (p. 222). Designers focused on creating educational games may therefore need to be careful not to look to previous storytelling (or textbook) models if they hope to fully exploit the video games’ capacity for non-linear storytelling. Designers will also need to consider the issue of balancing storytelling and interactivity. The story can help bring meaning to the game, but often at a loss of agency for the player.
Of course, the interactivity inherent in non-linear storytelling means that games “require non-trivial effort and more than mere interpretive activity and engagement form the users… in games [players] have to produce, encounter, and respond to variable sequences of action” (Eskelinen and Tronstad, 2003, p. 195). It follows that games “have the potential of manifesting themselves differently every time they are used” (p. 198), which - as Aldrich pointed out in the simulation paradoxes above - may be troublesome for instructional designers that prefer predictable outcomes.
Storytelling techniques will be covered in greater detail in the section on creating emotion in games below.
Electronic Game Design Considerations
In general, game systems need to be designed to provide relatively transparent input and output interfaces, an issue that is equally critical for educational purposes as it is for entertainment. If students are expected to learn the content of the game, having to learn the interface is only a distraction, unless of course it is directly related to the content being learned, which is ideal. Rouse (2005) calls the design of input and output systems “an ‘invisible’ art in that the goal of their creation is for them to be transparent to players” (p. 131). He acknowledged that interface design is not an area in which designers should indulge their creative urges (p. 134). He also noted that “most people think visually instead of in numbers or words… [which] explains the superiority of the health bar over a health number or percentage” (p. 138-139).
Prensky (2001) also agrees that the game interface must be helpful to players rather than a hindrance (p. 136). For Prenksy this meant that in addition to being transparent, ordinarily an interface must provide “the ability to save progress,” thus allowing players the flexibility to continue a game from the point at which they stopped and saved (p. 136).
One of the design criteria that Aldrich (2004) used for Virtual Leader was that “all subsystems would reflect and enrich the learning” (p. 98) and he aimed to create an interface that would “represent the actual activity at some level” (p. 173). At the same time he struggled with how to score a simulation because “tight metrics and open-ended play” seemed incompatible (p. 190-191). Also, as Eskelinen and Tronstad (2003) noted, current video game interfaces have other disadvantages: “the poor I/O rate, single user orientation in the hardware design, and the harsh requirement of programmability” (p. 196).
However, new and potentially useful interfaces, such as biofeedback elements, are also becoming available. Salen and Zimmerman discussed games as cybernetic feedback systems (p. 214-226), which could be either negative, thus stabilizing a game, or positive, thus destabilizing a game (p. 224). But others, such as Lahti used the term cybernetic in another way; Lahti (2003) argued that “video games epitomize a new cyborgian relationship with entertainment technologies, linking our everyday social space and computer technologies to virtual spaces and futuristic technologies” (p. 158). He believed that “much of the development of video games has been driven by a desire for a corporeal immersion with technology” (p. 159). This can be seen not only in the “rumble pack” controllers that offer home video game players force-feedback, but also in “arcade games… [in which the players are] astride a motorcycle or… on a pair of skis… using their whole bodies” (p. 163). Already, games such as Dance Dance Revlolution are finding use in school physical education classes. Other new games include elements of biofeedback so that the game can be adjusted based on the physical state of the player; for instance, the player’s heart rate affects the character avatar in the game The Wild Divine. Ultimately, Lahti concluded that:
“Increasingly, it is precisely the carnal pleasures of gaming that are bing mobilized by producers and sought out by consumers. If something is left behind when we play, it is not the body. We may be toying with the body when we play, but we remain flesh a we become machines” (Lahti, 2003, p. 169).
New interfaces can also interact with the surrounding environment, as in GPS enabled handheld games. Squire and Jenkins (2003) discuss such ubiquitous gaming, which “can be played anytime, anywhere and often… across multiple media” (p. 22). Dede (2005) found learning situated in such an augmented reality context to be important because of the capacity for transfer of learning to other real-life problems.
Several other design issues related to support of the learner were highlighted by Aldrich. He considered “one of the biggest long term issues” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 212) to be the balance of free play versus guided play, or how much the designer should help players along. This balance is related to the success of what Aldrich (2005) called “the frustration-resolution moment” (p. 243), the first encounter with frustration in which “students should expect to resolve their frustration in the learning experience” (p. 243). Another issue was the need for simulation designers to resist the temptation to model too much, and to instead “aim carefully, narrowly, and then go deep” (Aldrich, 2004, p. 216) in their modeling.
Prensky (2001) projected that future games will have many “new game forms and subject matters” (p. 405), many of which will be suited to intentional formal learning. He also predicted that games will become “even more engaging” (p. 406), which will support student learning. In terms of developing these games, Prensky (2002b) suggested an open and collaborative model not unlike that of the existing open source software movement (p. 3).
The Metagame
Educators, like designers, also need to be conscious of the metagame – what students are doing before, during, and after the game that is not a part of the game itself. Salen and Zimmerman (2004) define the metagame as “the relationship of a game to elements outside of the game” (p. 489), and they identified four elements of the metagame: what the player brings to a game, what a player takes away from a game, what happens between games, and what happens during the game other than the game itself (p. 481-482). Grodal (2003) also identified the meta-narrative, which players might engage outside the context of the game, as “all the different options and trajectories within the game world” (p. 153). Each of these elements can also be used to promote and enhance learning, and a designer can create a game with this goal in mind. Ideally the metagame, like all elements of a game, can be designed (to the degree possible) to support and enhance learning.
Games that provide rules (or even tools) for modifying the game or creating new games have added a great deal to the metagame. Salen and Zimmerman advocated creating games that let users design and create (p. 11) and they promoted a view of games as open culture, in which – among other things - players could also be producers (p. 537). According to Salen and Zimmerman “the player-as-producer paradigm is a design approach and social phenomenon in which players are given the opportunity to act as creative producers within the system of the game, modifying it on formal, experiential, or cultural levels" (Salen and Zimmerman, p. 554). This is a form of metagame as players interact with the game outside of the bounds of the game itself (p. 554). As in Prensky’s vision above, Salen and Zimmerman saw this as ideally following the open source model (p. 537).
More importantly for education, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) discussed the creation of not only individual games, but game-systems that could be used to create many individual games (p. 546). They identified game systems as “sets of components that can be used to play different games” (p. 554) and noted that game systems can be digital, such as an open source game engine, or non-digital such as the books and dice of tabletop role-playing games (p. 554). They discuss the Siege Editor in Dungeon Siege as an example of such a system that “gives players the freedom to rework nearly every aspect of the game, making Dungeon Siege not only a game, but also a role-playing platform for those who want to create their own characters, spells, and dungeons – or even entire worlds” (p. 548). Neverwinter Nights’ Aurora Engine and World Editor are additional examples, used by MIT to create the Revolution mod that recreates colonial Williamsburg during the revolutionary war. Teachers and students, too, can learn by modifying or designing games related to the subjects they are studying.
Specific issues related to inclusive game design, creating emotion in games, and promoting role-playing are covered in additional detail in following sections, as are the issues related to designing serious games for change.
Inclusive Game Design
If any new technology is to be used in schools, it is important for the designers and the educators who are implementing it to be sure it is inclusive of all students. Though video games show a great deal of promise as an educational technology, it would hardly be appropriate to implement something that could potentially alienate half of the student population. It has long been recognized that boys seem to show more interest than girls in playing video games – and that older children participate more than younger children (Dyke & Waldorf, 1995, as cited in Jonassen, 2003, p. 103). Though these things may be changing (Prensky, 2006, p. 179-182), educators (and game designers) must pay particularly close attention to gender inclusive game design (or game selection when choosing from existing games). As Castell and Bryson (1999) stated, “if education does have a role to play [in the development of technological resources for girls], it must relinquish its grip on outmoded, essentializing, and fundamentally undermining concepts of gender” (p. 252). Also, gender isn’t the only demographic variable that should be considered.
Females and Video Games
When it comes to gender in particular, educators and game designers need to cultivate an understanding of the historical relationships between females and machines, as well as gender differences in attitudes toward technology. For example, according to Graner Ray (2004), a female will generally “approach the machine as a tool and attempt to work with it in a cooperative manner… the machine is a collaborative partner and an extension of her power of communication” (p. 6). This is in contrast to the way a male might attempt to dominate a machine and use it rather than work with it. Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999) pointed out that “women and girls tend to value persuasion, not conquest… [but] it is harder to simulate persuading somebody – the interaction is more nuanced” (p. 83). They also suggested that “Rather than leaving their mark on the world by conquering territory or even by amassing resources, girls might like to make a difference in a social situation, right an injustice, save a whale or two, or discover a cure for cancer” (p. 85).
Graner Ray (2004) noted that despite the ready access to computers in schools today, early gender-based differences in socialization with computers have not been overcome (p. 4):
“While there are certainly more computers in schools, access to them is not always equitable. In the majority of schools, computers are located in the math or science classrooms, areas that are historically hostile to girls. Also… when the number of machines is not equal to the number of students, boys will dominate them by physically 'crowding out' the girls” (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 4).
Cassell and Jenkins (1999) explained that this is a problem because boys and girls early “differential preferences are associated with differential access to technological fields as children grow older, and this differential access threatens to worsen as technological literacy increasingly becomes a general precondition for employment” (p. 11). Cassell and Jenkins believed that “computer and video games provide an easy lead-in to computer literacy…. and [that] those children who aren’t playing them at young ages may end up disadvantage in later years” (p. 11). It follows that helping girls to enjoy video games might be a road to improving their computer literacy. Graner Ray (2004) also concluded that “ideologically, it is vitally important that girls play and enjoy computer games because it increases their comfort level with technology, and this is essential for them to maintain economic parity with males in today's society” (p. 6). So, an understanding of how girls relate to (and play) video games – and a familiarity with the history of girls’ games – is particularly important.
Many video games for girls have been created based on “the existing predilections of girls” (Cassell & Jenkins, 1999, p. 18). Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (1999) noted that “the early attempts to make video games appealing to girls largely consisted of having female protagonists and making the content nonviolent… [and] by the advertising, promotion, and packaging of the games in the ubiquitous pink and purple boxes” (p. 48). Barbie Fashion Designer is one successful example of such a game. Cassell and Jenkins caution, though, that “if we target games toward girls, we may find ourselves falling into the trap of targeting only the most stereotypical aspects of current girlhood” (p. 36). Also, unfortunately, games designed for girls were often “strictly learning tools with little to no entertainment factor… [despite the fact that] instructors have long known that both males and females learn better, and enjoy the learning experience more, when the information is presented in a ‘play’ format” (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 7).
Another breed of new games for girls has been motivated by the same feminist philosophy that “in the 60’s saw children’s toys, books, and media as playing a major role in socializing children to accept gender-specific and highly restrictive social roles” (p. 18). These games tend to include stronger female characters and an effort to market existing game genres to female customers (p. 29). Tomb Raider, released in 1997 staring the heroin Lara Croft, was an early example of such a game.
Cassell and Jenkins (1999) also pointed out that “women often use… existing genre elements as a backdrop for elaborating on themes of romance, friendship, partnership, and community” (p. 31). Cassell (1999) offers Star Trek as a classic example of a commercial product that “consciously [built] in both action and character elements” (p. 313).
In studies where children designed their own games “the girls’ games were activity based… there were no objects to be recovered or won [and] gameplay centered on the activity and how well the player could perform it” (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 8). In addition:
"the girls' games dealt with failure in a completely different fashion. The consequence for a wrong move in the girls' games was usually passive feedback. Something was withheld from the player, or the player's progress was blocked. In no case was the player forced to start over from the beginning of the game. There was an element of forgiveness and an opportunity for the player to correct their error and try again." (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 8)
Ultimately, Cassell and Jenkins (1999) asked “whether opening the girls’ market involves changing the generic base of the game industry… or shifting the kinds of cultural competencies recognized with the existing generic repertoire” (p. 32). Graner Ray, though, felt that this was not an either or decision and concluded that “women are coming to discover computer games slowly and steadily. And the titles that are bringing them in are the ones that take female entertainment criteria into consideration when they are designed” (p. 9).
Female Characters and Avatars
According to Graner Ray (2004), “a well constructed avatar will encourage the player to identify with the character… will increase the players comfort level within the game… [and] create an enjoyable gaming experience, building ‘stickiness’ and replay quality” (p. 94). The need to design and choose games that present strong female characters for girls to relate to is therefore a critical part of gender inclusive game design, as is the ability for girls to choose or create female avatars that they can identify with. After all, "terrific game balance, great graphics, and a screaming engine don't mean a thing if the player doesn't feel the game is for her" (p. 95). Graner Ray considers it “itally important to provide avatars that are female… [and] equally and fairly represented” (p. 100).
Creating games with female protagonists was a part of early attempts to make video games appealing to girls (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 1999, p. 48). There is a danger, though, in drawing too heavily on traditional girl stereotypes – or traditional male ideals of sex appeal. Despite the success of characters like Tomb Raider’s Lara Croft, Cassell and Jenkins (1999) warn of “the dangers of linking female empowerment to images couched in terms of traditional sex appeal” (p. 30). Graner Ray (2004) pointed out that “male characters are presented as males would like to be in the game… [and that] it is extremely unlikely that male players would be comfortable with or enjoy playing a game in which their sexuality and sexual receptiveness was exaggerated” (p. 104). However, female characters are also portrayed as male players would like them to be, and “women are likewise uncomfortable playing a sexually exaggerated character” (p. 104). This was one of the reasons Graner Ray (2004) suggested that successful marketing of games for girls would require “artists that are willing to rethink how they present avatars” (p. xvi). She argued that “through this one simple change, it is possible to remove the single largest barrier to attracting” more girls to play video games (p. 105).
MMORPGs, in general, seem to have made earlier strides in this direction. As Graner Ray points out:
"Today, the majority of well-presented female avatars exist in on-line role-playing games, such as Ultima Online or Asheron's Call. Their female figures are feminine without being hypersexualized. Their armor is equivalent to the male's in coverage and look, except that it is formed for the female figure. When stripped of all clothing, the female avatar is clad in simple undercloths, not exotic lingerie. It is also interesting to note that currently, he online games have a higher percentage of female players than traditional, single-player titles or console games" (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 105)
Conflict Resolution, Learning, and Communication Styles
Female players tend to play games differently and relate to games differently. Generally, they tend to have different conflict resolution styles. Most notably, violent action is a barrier for girls (Cassell & Jenkins, 1999, p. 50). Naturally, educational games will need to address the issue of violence in video games in such a way as to avoid putting off females (Prensky, 2001, p. 139). This may not mean that violence needs to be removed from a game altogether (though this may still be expected in an educational context); Graner Ray (2004) reported that in one survey of junior high school girls in 1995 “eighty-six percent of the girls responded that they didn't mind the violence, itself, in the games. What they didn't like was the repetitive nature of the violence” (p. 84).
In addition to a tradition of violence, according to Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999), video games have traditionally privileged victory over justice, competition over collaboration, speed over flexibility, transcendence over empathy, control over communication, force over facilitation (p. 81-82). It is not difficult to imagine a new breed of gender inclusive games that might reverse these elements. This is the sort of design Graner Ray (2004) was calling for when she suggested that successful design of video games for girls is “going to take designers that are willing to look at different conflict resolution styles” (p. xvi). Specifically, she recommends activity-based design (p. 9-11) that allows players to work with the machine rather than against it (p. 11) and includes ways “to ‘forgive a player’ rather than punish them” (p. 14). Such a game would be sensitive to gender differences in conflict resolution, such as females’ tendency to “choose negotiation, diplomacy, and compromise over direct confrontation” (p. 43) and females’ preference for “team oriented or indirect competition” (p. 45). Graner Ray also suggested including “a well crafted [and deep] story that encourag[es] the player to attempt methods of conflict resolution other than direct confrontation” (p. 47).
Female players’ different conflict resolution styles are related to differences in their learning styles as well. Graner Ray (2004) notes that “it might not seem very important to consider how players learn when designing a game, but actually it is key to the game's success” (p. 68). She also acknowledged that “while everyone has a distinct and specific learning style, general style differences have been noted that distinguish men and women” (p. 68). Specifically, females and males have different strengths in special relations. Males tend to excel at locating a moving object in an uncluttered field, while females are generally better at finding a stationary object in a cluttered field (p. 68-69). Graner Ray suggested that “by offering the player a varied landscape with strategically placed, distinct, and unique details, the female player will feel more comfortable navigating through the territory” (p. 69).
Male and female players also show differences in their approach to risk taking. Graner Ray (2004) cited research that concluded “females are less willing to take risks when learning; they want to know how something works before they attempt it” (p. 70). While this is certainly debatable, especially on an individual level, she suggested that any surprises in a game should be related to the content and context of the game rather than “the technology or mechanics of making the game work” (p. 71). In short, “to design games that appeal to both genders, designing an extremely intuitive interface is a top priority, and will lessen the amount of experimentation that is needed to play the game” (p. 71). In addition, Graner Ray suggested that “the documentation needs to be intuitive as well – even personal… in a more casual, ‘friendly’ tone” (p. 77). Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (1999) similarly suggested that “games with explicit instructions might be more appealing to players with less game experience, compared to games… in which the player has to figure out playing strategies and tricks by trial and error” (p. 61). Cassell and Jenkins (1999) agreed that “girls would prefer games that do not reward such a trial-and-error approach” (p. 61).
Graner Ray’s call for a personal tone in documentation (and the game interface) also taps into a difference in male and female communication styles. As she suggested, “to keep the female player involved, communication needs to contain some elements of empathy. It should give her the feeling that someone is communicating 'with' her, not 'at' her” (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 73). In addition, “if designers feel that sexual humor is necessary to their title, then they need to make sure the humor is indeed funny to all players, not just the males” (p. 80). Done tastefully, humor can be another asset to attract girls to a video game (Brunner, Bennett, and Honey, 1999, p. 83).
Females and Reward Systems
Female players also tend to respond to different reward systems. “While boys are strongly motivated to achieve the highest scores possible, girls place much less importance on it” (Graner Ray, 2004, p. 84). Similarly, girls tend not to care as much about who wins and who loses (p. 84). Instead, “females want the ability to take a chance without an error being terminal” (p. 85) and are “comfortable with a satisfying emotional resolution for the game” (p. 86). Generally, girls “prefere triumphs of a more personal sort… interesting stories, and meaningful problems to solve” (Brunner, Bennett, & Honey, 1999, p. 82). Graner Ray (2004) pointed out that allowing characters to die is antithetical to good game design because it “forces the players out of the game, which raises the strong possibility that they will not re-enter the game” (p. 89). She suggests that designers instead keep two things in mind: “the first is females prefer forgiveness for errors rather than punishment. The second is they prefer a temporary block in progress rather than restarting the game from the beginning” (p. 90). She also recommends the capacity for cooperative play in which “players work together to achieve an agreed-upon goal” (p. 85). Puzzle games are another format recommended by Graner Ray, though these games may not be as emotionally engaging (p. 110-115). Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999) also recommend puzzles and obstacles as opposed to zero-sum challenges in games for girls (p. 83). The bottom line is that:
“We need game environments that offer players options - where you can pick and choose from a range of personas, decide on varying strategies, and discover that different actions result in variable outcomes. We need a more complex relationship between actions taken and results obtained, and we need contexts that offer rich and varied opportunities for exploration.” (Brunner, Bennett, and Honey, 1999, p. 82)
Kafai (1999) came to a similar conclusion, writing that “ultimately, we need play environments that support children's versatility in expressing themselves - environments that support bounded limits of their imagination rather than confined by boundaries of gender stereotypes” (p. 110). Also, “with the exception of PvP play, the online world is an indirectly competitive one” (p. 120).
Graner Ray noted that online games such as MMORPGs already “support different play styles through a variety of reward systems” (p. 119), including optimizing characters, guilds and social play (with hierarchy), leveling, Player versus Player (PvP), questing, and exploration. In online games “interaction with real people gives the player an opportunity to build relationships and an identity within the world. For female players this is an enticing fact” (p. 120). As for improving on the design of online games to be further inclusive of female gamers, Graner Ray suggests more non sci-fi settings (p. 121), “tutorials that take different learning styles into consideration” (p. 123), increasingly intuitive interfaces (p. 123), and inclusive language in design documents (p. 134). She also sees the emerging market of wireless handheld gaming as an opportunity to develop more gender inclusive online games.
Gender and Stimulation Physiology
The differences between male and female gameplay preferences are at least partly due to some fundamental differences between male and female physiology and what forms of stimulation they respond to best. According to Graner Ray (2004), “understanding the different stimulation types and the responses each elicits is a valuable tool for building motivation and interest in computer game titles” (p. 52). In short, males have evolved a strong response (including adrenalin) to visual stimuli, specifically moving objects in an uncluttered field (p. 52-54), and this is what most current video games rely on to stimulate players. In contrast the female stimulation response relies more on emotional and tactile stimulation (p. 54). Graner Ray noted that “the traditional way to develop emotional stimulus is through the use of story” (p. 54) and that some story elements relevant to game design are “Non-Player Character (NPC) characterization and the game premise” (p. 55), including in-depth world building (p. 64). She also suggested creating games that allow players to provide “mutually beneficial solutions to ‘socially significant’ situations” (p. 56). Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999) made the related suggestions that success through sacrifice would provide good material for adventure games that might appeal to girls (p. 83) and that “femininity is related to social justice” (p. 83). In addition, Graner Ray (2004) pointed out that “with a little planning and attention to the title’s back story, it is possible to add an emotional element without having to drastically change the genre or hurt the integrity of the title” (p. 61). For tactile stimulation, she suggested force feedback technology “that allows games to provide tactile feedback through an input device such as a joystick or mouse” (p. 58). She concluded that “by harnessing this [physiological] stimuli response in both genders, it is possible to capture both markets” (p. 60).
One particularly powerful way to create emotional stimulus, as Graner Ray suggested, may be through characterization and story, or particularly by focusing on relationships and themes that will appeal to female players. Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (1999) noted that “girls are less enthusiastic than boys about the thematic embedding of good versus evil in story narratives” (p. 53). Instead, they “are more affiliative… and more interested in social activities… that portray the gentler aspects of interpersonal relations rather than adventure, sports activities, violence, or science” (p. 53). Subrahmanyam and Greenfield suggest conflicts that allow girls to use “skills such as diplomacy, negotiation, compromise, and manipulation” (p. 54), and they speculate “mystery-based themes are likely to appeal to girls in computer games… if they involve cooperation and positive social encounters” (p. 55). Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999) also advocate the use of mysteries in girls’ games (p. 83) and suggest games in which players will be “figuring out people’s motivations and relationships rather than establishing facts” (p. 86). They caution, though, that such activities “can be applied to a wide range of content girls are interested in, not just to catching a boyfriend” (p. 86). They were concerned that games might reinforce stereotypical thinking about gender and “enlarge an already gaping gender divide” (p. 81). They also point out that in adventure games, “girls do not just want to get rescued, they want to do the rescuing – without having to abandon femininity to do it” (p. 83).
Again, online games, such as MMORPGs, may have an edge in this regard. One female player interviewed by Cassell and Jenkins (1999) reported that “online gaming has brought [her] hundreds of new friends, both male and female” (p. 336). As Rouse (2005) pointed out, “a large number of people playing massively multi-player games… today primarily do so in order to socialize” (p. 248) and “these games have attracted a lager female fan base” (p. 248).
Microworlds, Role Playing, and Storytelling
Typically, female players prefer games like MMORPGs that are more like open-ended microworlds, a preference that is not dissimilar from their stereotypical love of toys such as dolls or dollhouses. Laurel (1999) felt that “the game industry has missed... the tremendous attraction for girls of complex characters and narratives and materials for narrative construction” (p. 122). She believed in the importance of “self construction” (p. 124), and advocated for games that included opportunities for this. Games that provide a microworld for players to inhabit and construct can provide this, particularly if they also provide a system for narrative creation. While most MMORPGs do provide this, most are set in fantasy or science fiction settings and Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (1999) suggested that games could appeal to more girls if they were set in real-life contexts (p. 55-57).
Barbie Fashion Designer might be considered a microworld with a girl friendly focus. Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (1999) noted that this game was more of a tool: “the software does not engage the player in any kind of electronic pretend play… it helps the player create objects that can be used for the kind of role play that girls find compelling” (p. 58).
Games that enable role-playing in the game and give authorship to the players can also be appealing and empowering to female players. Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999) note that “one of the functions of playing games... is to rehearse and explore what it means to have a gender… [and to] deliberately expand our sense of who we are” (p. 81). The opportunity to develop new identities is an important benefit of role-playing, particularly when it comes to gender inclusive game design. Kinder (1999) aimed “to create a game that allows kids to play around with images or their own gender and sexuality without fear – to challenge cultural stereotypes and to realize these concepts are largely socially and historically constructed” (p. 221). Similarly, Cassell’s (1999) work was “largely about allowing children to… engage in the serious business of learning about themselves, constructing a social identity, and collaborating with others in the process of understanding that identity” (p. 299). She was particularly interested in “how [to] build girls’ games in such a way that the game itself participates in the construction of a child’s gender and other aspects of the self without a preconceived notion of what a girl is” (p. 299). She believed that “children can use computers in order to try out identities and to explore the possibilities of expression, in such a way to make sense of their social sphere and develop an understanding of themselves” (p. 300). Again, she noted that “one very important way for children to learn about themselves, and to construct their selves, is through first-person storytelling and other kinds of participatory narratives” (p. 301). She suggested that principles of feminist software design can be applied to games in order to turn the storytelling over to the player. She called for designers to transfer storytelling authority to the player, to value both subjective and experiential knowledge, to allow a multiplicity of viewpoints, to give the student a voice, and to encourage collaboration (p. 304-305). Ultimately, she proposed the creation of interactive storytelling games “because telling one's own stories and constructing one's own storytelling software can allow the finding of one's voice, a key way to distribute authority and an important tool to give to girls (and boys)” (p. 302).
Individually Inclusive Design
Though designers should make every effort to be inclusive of female players, particularly if designing for a formal educational context), individual differences between students may be far more significant than gender. After all, “there is… some recent evidence that the play styles of American boys and girls are converging” (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1999, p. 52). Kafai (1999) reported that gender differences in play performance disappear after extended exposure [to video games]” (p. 90”) and that “girls are moving closer to boys in their identification with heroic figures, adventurous achievement, and pretend aggression” (p. 109). Kafai also suggested that “gender differences are not as consistent as one might believe” (p. 90), and that “it is possible that children display more versatility and range in their play interests and that particular factors such as game structures or context settings might have an impact” (p. 90-91). She believed that “there is a much richer picture behind what motivates and interests children [than gender alone]” (p. 93). Also, Blumberg and Sokol’s (2004) data did not support their hypothesis that girls would show greater inclination toward external strategies (of learning and problem solving) and that boys would show greater inclination toward internal strategies. Blumberg and Sokol suggested that the age of the players and their self-efficacy as frequent gamers may have been more significant variables. Cassell (1999) cites the universal appeal and effectiveness of Papert’s logo for engaging students and helping them to learn about programming, and about their world (p. 306). Brunner, Bennett, and Honey (1999) also concluded that “we have to engage both boys and girls with electronic games that can incorporate multiple perspectives and varying themes (p. 81). Consalvo (2003) also studied sexuality in video games and advocated games that allow players to choose their gender, race, appearance, personality, and other factors (p. 184), including sexual orientation (p. 180).
On the other end of the spectrum, Jenkins (1999) argued that it is important for video games to remain viable spaces for boys. He examined the “’fit’ between video games and traditional boy culture” (p. 265) and noted that “video games constitute virtual play spaces which allow home-bound children… to extend their reach, to explore, manipulate, and interact with a more diverse range of imaginary places than constitute the often drab, predicable, and overly familiar places of their everyday lives” (p. 263). He also pointed out that “rather than beating each other up behind the school, boys [who play video games] combat imaginary characters, finding a potentially safer outlet for their aggressive feelings” (p. 272), and that parents who now have to confront this violent boy culture in their living rooms should not be overly concerned. He argues that “our sons - and daughters - need an unpoliced space for social experimentation, a space where they can vent their frustrations and imagine alternative adult roles free of inhibiting parental pressure” (p. 276). This is not so different from Brunner, Bennett, and Honey’s (1999) call for games in which girls “can take their own side, act out, throw caution to the winds and watch what happens… games in which they survive, again and again, until they have achieved a state of grace that makes them happy” (p. 87).
Even as he defends boys’ games, Jenkins (1999) argues for new games that will offer “play spaces for girls that adopt a slower pace, are less filled with dangers, invite gradual investigation and discovery, foster an awareness of social relations and a search for secrets, and center around emotional relations between characters” (p. 290). In an effort to avoid segregation in video games – and to encourage development of the whole child, he suggests developing more boy-like games for girls (p. 291) and more girl-like games for boys (p. 292). Cassell and Jenkins (1999) also came to the following conclusion:
"if we target games toward girls, we may find ourselves falling into the trap of targeting only the most stereotypical aspects of current girlhood... with time we expect that, by pushing at both ends of the spectrum of what games for girls look like, a gender neutral space may open up in the middle, a space that allows multiple definitions of both girlhood and boyhood, and multiple types of interaction with computer games of all sorts" (Cassell & Jenkins, 1999, p. 36)
Ultimately, game designers and educators should also aim to include students of all races, religions, cultures, sexual orientations, interests, language skills, and disabilities. In so doing, though, they must be careful to avoid segregation in the name of inclusion. In may be that “separate but equal” is no more appropriate in game design than it is in schooling. Luckily, established principles of inclusive software design can be applied to video game design as well. It will also seem natural to educators that games should therefore take advantage of various learning modalities and appeal to students with different learning styles. Making an effort to create games that draw upon a greater breadth of human experience is another way designers and educators can ensure that video games are more inclusive than they have been in the past. The following section will address the importance of creating emotion in games.
Creating Emotion in Games
Designing games that stimulate a broader spectrum of human emotions will be an important part of creating video games for educational purposes. Sadly, profound emotional experiences are rare in most video games (Freeman, 2004, p. 8). However, emotion is one of the things that players want from a game. Emotion can be a powerful motivator (and may be considered the only motivator). For instance, any personal or societal change will be motivated by emotions such as dissatisfaction, hope, or inspiration. A broader range of emotions in games will allow expanded demographics to enjoy the game. Most importantly, a greater variety of emotional stimuli may help video games appeal to a broader range of players, including more female players.
Early constructivists recognized the fundamental worth of expressing emotions, and noted that traditional educational practices fail to adequately stimulate student emotions. Dewey (1926) touted the fundamental worth of expressing emotions and suggested that ordinary educational practices fail to adequately stimulate students’ emotions (p. 194-195). Vygotsky (1978) considered play critical to emotional development and noted that game play can serve as catharsis. Bruner (1986) believed that emotions are part of a whole individual and a part of integration with a cultural system (p. 117).
Modern constructivists and video game scholars understand that emotion is central to learning and is also a critical part of rational decision making. Squire (2003) noted that video games elicit powerful emotions in players and that they can offer a degree of emotional support for players (p. 2). Grodal (2003) considered the emotional experience of playing a video game a personal experience (as opposed to the impersonal experience of watching a film) and suggested that this emotional experience will change over time along with players’ competency and confidence with a game (p. 150). Holland, Jenkins, and Squire (2003) also suggested that emotion is part of a learning context, and advocated that students be asked to solve authentic and emotionally compelling problems (p. 39). According to Gee (2005), cognitive science shows that emotion is central to learning (the degree of emotional involvement is important) and that emotion is a critical part of rational decision making (p. 30). Shaffer (2006), too, expressed the importance of emotion in the learning process (p. 6). Game designers such as Rouse (2005) also acknowledge that players want an emotional experience (p. 6). Ideally, a game can help build emotional intelligence. Games can also be designed to help form the emotional disposition of students.
Even organizational change theorists acknowledge the importance of emotional development. Senge (1990) acknowledged the importance of emotional development in an organization. Evans (1996) noted that leadership taps into emotion and that great leaders have emotional intelligence and build emotional bonds within the organization. Fullan (2001b), too, saw emotion as a source of energy in an organization, and DuFour (1998) sought to tap into emotions to create professional learning communities (PLCs) – and hoped to use PLCs to offer educators emotional support. In short, emotional engagement is an important part of a constructivist learning environment, a good video game, and an effective educational institution.
Storytelling in Games
Including elements of story in a game can be emotionally engaging and stimulating. Story can facilitate powerful teaching and learning, and it can provide cohesiveness to a learning experience. Often, benefits can be gained by simply adding back story even if a game lacks narrative elements in the game play. However, it is always best if the story (or back story) influences – or is an integral part of – game play.
Rouse (2005) cautions, though, that “the more [designers] flesh out the story, the more [they] remove the interactivity and the more [they] remove the player from the game” (p. 202). He described what might be considered the educational idea for including stories in interactive games:
"Imagine all the power of a story in a novel, with its ability to grab hold and captivate the reader, to make her care about the characters in the story, to change her perception of the world, and, in some special instances, to change the way she lives her life. Now imagine how much more powerful that would be if, instead of reading about the action of other characters, the reader was the main character in the story and was able to make choices that would affect the shape, direction, and outcome of the story. This interactive reader could see the ramifications of different choices made in different situations, and since it was her own choices that determined the nature of the story, the interactive story's draw would be that much more compelling than a traditional story." (Rouse, 2005, p. 203)
Rouse (2005) also considered pen-and-paper role-playing games “another example of truly interactive storytelling” (p 203-206). As in such games, non-interactive storytelling may have a place in video games, “but designers need to be aware that it must supplement and not detract from an exciting gaming experience” (p. 207). After all, video games “are an interactive form and the fact that players do not experience every last element of the story is part of the nature of interactivity” (p. 215). This is in alignment with the constructivist philosophy that having student experience every element of the curriculum is not necessary for powerful inquiry-based, problem-based, or project-based learning. Similarly, Rouse (2005) subscribes to the belief that “the gaming equivalent of the ‘show, don’t tell’ rule is ‘do, don’t show’” (p. 216), which is in keeping with the constructivist ideal of learning by doing. With this in mind, Rouse acknowledges some of the shortcomings of games; he notes that “until technology advances to the point where games are able to simulate conversations significantly better than they do currently, game stories need to center around actions that games do well... what the path may lose in drama it makes up for in players' feelings of ownership” (p. 218).
Like Gee, Rouse (2005) also made a distinction between the story created by the designer and the story created by the player (p. 203-206). Rouse believed that “the goal of game storytelling is to create a story in which players feel they can play a significant role that may affect the outcome” (p. 223). To this end suggested that “the more abstract the notion of the character, the more the audience will be able to fill in the blanks with themselves... the advantages of having players feel that they are the hero outweigh the advantages of having a strong character” (p. 221). He also calls for player generated story as much as possible; he wanted to see “the audience in the work to a much greater degree, switching them from a passive role to an active one” (p. 223). Naturally, Rouse also considered “one of the most important parts of creating a story for a computer game [to be matching] the story with the gameplay as much as possible” (p. 224). Ultimately he aimed for “a truly interactive story, where the narrative can change radically depending on the players' choices, while retaining the emotional resonance and power of a story told in a novel” (p. 226).
Grodal (2003) also believed that games are a storytelling medium (p. 147). In some ways he considered games a form more like life than narrative: “video games provide an aesthetic of repetition, similar to that of everyday life... this aesthetics of repletion is based on the sequence: first unfamiliarity and challenge, then mastery, and finally automation” (p. 148). Similarly, he believed that “suspense in video games… supports coping, not passive expectations” (p. 149). He stressed, though, that “to experience… exertion of agency and free will… not only do [players] need to have a choice between a series of different options, [they] also need to ‘feel’ that they are real options” (p. 150). Also, he noted that because players get better at a game as they play, “the experience of interactivity and agency is a subjective one that varies over time, not something that is a static feature of a given game” (p. 150). Ultimately, Grodal believed that “That video games are based on repetitive playing and on interaction has important consequences for the emotional experience in comparison with films. The player's experience is a personal one.” (p. 150).
Frasca (2003) focused on other differences between narrative and simulation (including games). He noted that “traditional narrative media lacks the ‘feature’ of allowing modifications to the stories… [but] in a game, going through several sessions is not only a possibility, but a requirement of the medium… the knowledge and interpretation of simulations requires repetition” (p. 227). Despite the free agency of game players, Frasca did note that “simulation authors or ‘simauthors’ can also incorporate different degrees of fate (through hard-coded events, cut-scenes, or by manipulating pseudo random events) into their games” (p. 227). He used very constructivist language, which also smacked of systems thinking, to describe the way that narrative authors or ‘narrauthors’ “’train’ their stories… [while] by contrast, simauthors ‘educate’ their simulations… the key trait of simulation media is that it relies on rules: rules that can be manipulated, accepted, rejected, and even contested” (p. 229).
Perron (2003), though, saw the interactive movie as an oxymoron (p. 239). Even so, he believed that “the type of game that is generally referred to as most faithfully approximating the liberty and the creativity of this goal is the MMORPG, in which the players personify characters inhabiting a virtual universe that they themselves make evolve” (p. 249). As Rouse noted:
"Regardless of win or loss, the player's ability to socialize in a collaborative and social game such as a massively multi-player RPG can lead to emotionally charged alternate realities, where players can get married and will mourn the passing of a friend when they stop playing the game" (Rouse, 2005, p. 239)
Rouse (2005) also addressed design considerations relevant to multiplayer games. For instance he discussed the importance of a varied pace since pausing is not possible (p. 242), “letting players know what they are getting into before they start up a game [in order to] encourage them to play games all the way through (p. 243), and handling dropouts well (p. 244). More importantly, he suggests “allowing players to customize their avatar in the game-world… [so] players feel that they are actually putting themselves into the game” (p. 244), and “allowing for multiple players’ tactics to lead to success” (p. 244). Here again he looks to table-top RPGs for inspiration:
"[table-top RPGs] allow players to play together in a group, with the [gamemaster] creating a dynamic game experience for the other players in a way a computer never can... nevertheless, the more successful online games include components that force players to socialize as part of the game mechanics, and thereby make the social interplay of the game that much richer. This includes seasoned players coordinating their tactics in team-based multi-player games like... the recreation of the [gamemaster] experience in Neverwinter Nights." (Rouse, 2005, p. 245)
This focus on a dynamic social experience is relevant to educational efforts. Rouse (2005) noted that many people play MMORPGs in order to socialize and that this may explain why these games have attracted more female players who are interested in a more involved social experience (p. 248). He emphasizes that “for an online game, the designer will need to go out of his way to facilitate player socialization” (p. 249) and that “every feature or play mechanic you add to your multi-player game should be examined to determine how it impacts the player’s social experience” (p. 251).
Rouse’s (2005) philosophy of protecting new players is similarly relevant to efforts to create educational games: “Newbies are the most vulnerable players, and it is the game designer's job to do everything he can to keep them protected long enough for them to become familiar with the game's mechanics and tactics” (p 246). He recommends both a mentoring system “where more veteran players are appropriately rewarded for watching over the newer players” (p. 248) and “keeping features to a minimum and controls as simple as possible” (p. 248).
Emotioneering
Freeman (2004) has pioneered new techniques for creating emotion in games by focusing on making many elements of a game deeper and more interesting. His goal was to “put a breadth and depth of emotion into games… [through] a wide assortment of ways” (p. 11). He offered many reasons for putting emotion into games; most were business oriented, but several were directly relevant to education. He aimed to expand the demographics that video games appeal to, which will be necessary if games are to be used in education (p. 14). He also aimed to make games that don’t seem “amateurish” in comparison to films, and again this will be necessary if educational games are to hold students’ attention. Finally, he aimed to encourage “an inspired and dedicated creative team” (p. 14-15) of developers, a goal that sounds much like the goal of may educational institutions and professional learning communities. It is also clear that emotionally compelling games can be a stronger force for positive social change; change always begins with an emotion - dissatisfaction, hope, or inspiration for example.
Freeman (2004) noted that there are many things screenwriters don’t know about writing for games, most notably how to overcome the challenges of non-linear storytelling (p. 17). He also explains that a screenwriter “might think that giving a game a story is the only way to make a game emotionally engaging” (p. 24), but as sports and racing games have demonstrated, this is far from true. Freeman also points out that “if the game, or the story in the game, casts the player in a role - say a space pilot - that doesn't mean automatically that the player feels like a space pilot. The screenwriter needs to know techniques for getting the player to identify with a role” (p. 20). Conversely, Freeman (2004) identifies reasons game designers find writing for games difficult as well (p. 31). Among other things, they do not have the experience and discipline of screenwriters (p. 33).
For these reasons, Freeman (2004) rejected the term writing to describe the creation of emotion in games and instead introduced the term emotioneering (p. 35). Good emotioneering, like good writing, should go unnoticed and unappreciated by most players (p. 38). And, just as he does for his screenwriting students, Freeman identifies specific techniques for emotioneering students; these are generally focused on making an element of a game deeper or more interesting. He notes that deep isn’t necessarily interesting and that interesting isn’t necessarily deep (p. 40). At times, educational games will need to be one or the other – or, more likely, both.
Freeman (2004) identifies 32 categories of emotioneering techniques and over 300 individual techniques. Many of these are focused on making game elements such as non-player characters (NPCs, p. 45, 61, 113, 119, 127), dialog (p. 71, 79), and plot (p. 199, 219) more interesting – or deeper. He also aimed to improve the “chemistry” and relationships between NPCs (p. 103) and between the player and NPCs (p. 139, 151, 159). Defining interesting and deep groups of NPCs was also addressed (p. 89, 99), as were group bonding techniques (p. 165). More importantly, Freeman also provides techniques for creating emotionally complex moments and situations (p. 173), and for creating character arcs in NPCs (p. 119). He even considers character arcs for player characters and players themselves as part of his “world induction” techniques (p. 231). Ideally an emotioneer will leave a player changed by the experience of playing the game (p. 255).
For example of these techniques at work, consider Freeman’s approach to NPCs. His perspective was that “if you want to sustain emotional immersion in [a] game, then don’t let boring NPCs jar the player out of the flow” (p. 45). Instead, he advocated giving each important character a “character diamond” of three to five complementary traits to keep them interesting (p. 47). He also recommended covering a real emotion with a false one or carefully laying emotions as ways to deepen NPCs (p. 62-68). Emotions below the surface (p. 84) and emotional ambivalence (p. 87) can also deepen dialog. Layers of feelings can also contribute to the chemistry between characters (p. 113), as can techniques such as having characters thinking in the same way, talking warmly in the other’s absence, reading hidden feelings, and having shared “bits” (p. 104-110). Ultimately, such techniques work because they resemble life itself, and are thus emotionally engaging (p. 153, 161). As Freeman stated, “creating emotionally complex moments and situations is one of the best ways to mirror the complexity of life itself” (p. 198). Such mirroring can be ideal from a constructivist perspective and in terms of promoting transfer of skills from a game back into real life.
In designing any video game for education and attempting to include a broad spectrum of human emotions in the game, designers will have to remain wary of emotional oversimplification. Like other elements of good education and good instructional design, this too will be a time consuming challenge.
.
Role Playing
The educational benefits or role-playing in the classroom are well-documented elsewhere and well accepted, at least in constructivist circles. Similarly, tabletop role playing games (RPGs) have a well-established history and tradition going back of more than thirty years. These games have heavily influenced the video games that followed – both single player and massively multiplayer RPGs. However, much of the experience of tabletop RPGs has yet to be captured by a computer-based game, and much of the benefit is not yet available. The questions of how computers can best support meaningful role-playing remains as yet unanswered. However, studying tabletop RPGs may enlighten the development of future computer-supported RPGs, including those created for educational purposes.
Mackay (2001) set out to establish a tradition of critical discourse focused on tabletop role playing games, and his work can serve as a foundation for understanding the appeal and potential of these games. An avid role-player himself, he believed that “role-playing is an art and is being practiced as such by thousands of committed artists throughout America and the world” (p. xi). He defined the role-playing game as “an episodic and participatory story-creation system that includes a set of quantified rules that assist a group of players and a gamemaster in determining how their fictional characters’ spontaneous interactions are resolved…” (p. 5). In the past many of the quantified rules have relied on the use of dice, a function that computers can easily assume, but Mackay explained that “in recent years.. the dice-based system – a remnant of the role-playing game’s war-gaming roots – has received less attention in the pages of many role-playing game books” (p. 7) as the more artistic elements of portraying a character and generating a story have taken on greater importance. In video games, including massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) computers have taken over this role as referee and number-cruncher. A modern tabletop RPG is much more than a wargame, though; it is a system that facilitates game-play with a narrative structure to it. Within this system, players (especially the gamemaster) create their own goals and stories. Though tabletop games have their own limitations, they have accomplished a balance of story and interactivity that has so far eluded computer-driven games.
Increasingly, “the action of the game is based in the minds and imaginations of the participants” (Mackay, 2001, p. xiv). As Mackay wrote, “Before computer games were invented, however, players in tabletop role-playing games had to (and still do) imagine their character's interaction with other characters and nonplayer characters, which takes place in an immersive, wholly imagined, virtual environment” (p. 23). Mackay noted that over time these games have also attracted “a literate, educated following” (p. 15).
One of the most educationally significant properties of tabletop role-playing games is that “an inherent part of the game is cooperation among players” (p. 9). Games such as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (AD&D), one of the first and still one of the most widely known tabletop RPGs, were designed “with a built-in pedagogical function in mind” (p. 9). According to Mackay, “the class-based system contributes to this pedagogical function by bestowing each character with a built-in array of powers that increase with experience... and with certain weaknesses that only teamwork and clever, spontaneous decision making will overcome” (p. 9).
Mackay (2001) documented role-playing games’ reciprocal relationship with fantasy literature (p. 17-20), and the fact that “computer adventure and computer role-playing games… owe an enormous dept to the table-top role-playing game” (p. 23). He explained that “the designers of computer adventure games... have followed the role-playing game's lead... the computer serves as surrogate gamemaster” (p. 24). Early in the history of networked computer games, MUDs, MOOs, MUSHes, and MUCKs were “a textual form of role-playing due to the lack of face-to-face communication and the oral/gestural performances common in table-top role-playing games” (p. 25). The intention of these games, and of modern graphical MMORPGs (which were beginning to become popular when Mackay wrote his book) is not unlike the intention of a table-top RPGs’ gamemaster:
“This attempt to convey an immersive experience of verisimilitude - an authentic, realistic fantasy world that exists and is continually changing and developing - is integral to the gamemaster's intention to engross his players, to transport them far from their everyday lives and convince them that his fantasy world is a worthwhile place to visit for a few hours every week.” (Mackay, 2001, p. 28)
Similarly, the goal of engrossing students in a simulated but authentic educational experience might be considered the goal of any educational game. Educational game designers (and teachers) might want to convince students that the educational world is a worthwhile place to visit for an hour a day. In addition, the ability of a role-playing game to serve as a “shared world” (p. 29) or shared mythology (p. 33) can have educational value. Most mythologies, after all, are intended to instruct as much as entertain. Mackay explained that “the shared experience of a particular role-playing game becomes the nucleus around which role-playing game groups, or idiocultures, form” (p. 50). As education is fundamentally an effort at creating a shared culture, the educational benefit of such games is obvious.
Mackay (2001) explored the formal structure of tabletop role-playing games, thus providing a valuable model for educational computer-based RPGs. Ultimately, according to Mackay, “the imaginary-entertainment environment [of a tabletop RPG] is a simulation” (p. 37). RPG rules are of course created to simulate elements of life, though not necessarily realistically so. As Mackay mentions, when players create characters from rules “the quantification of the character allows them to simulate reality” (p. 66). Mackay points out that “simulation is not just imitation, but it is a reworking or reality and belief” (p. 38). As “a game system structures the performed experience of the imaginary-entertainment environment in a role-playing game” (p. 40) it may emphasize or downplay elements of reality in favor of more dramatically appropriate rules. It will be important for designers of educational RPGs to note that while beginning players may benefit from a very story-based system of rules, more experienced players may feel hindered by story-based rules and may create less formulaic stories with a system that has fewer rules to govern the development of story (p. 48).
Table-top role-playing games include several frames of interaction, or levels of meaning within the role-playing performance (Mackay, 2001, p. 53-56). The first frame identified by Mackay is the “social frame” inhabited by the person playing the game (p. 56). This frame includes social interactions between players that are not a part of the game, such as what to eat or what’s happening in their lives. Second is the “game frame” inhabited by the player (p. 56), in which discussions of game rules might occur. The third frame is a sort of third person frame in which players describe the actions of their characters; this is the “narrative frame” inhabited by the raconteur (p. 56). The fourth frame includes second-person interactions (such as a gamemaster telling players “you see…”); Mackay calls this the “constative frame” inhabited by the addresser (p. 56). Finally comes the “performative” frame inhabited by the character. Unlike good tabletop role-players, most MMORPGs players are stuck in the first two frames. The player (and the computer) sometimes inhabit the third and fourth frame, but rarely is the player in the fifth frame of truly role-playing a character. This will need to change if an educational MMORPG is to tap into the full benefits of role-playing as a cognitive and educational activity. In Mackay’s experience, he “found three or four players to be the optimum number, and… would shy away from inviting more than five” (p. 60).
The three to five player barrier may be primarily a limit of human gamemasters. A computer system can handle a thousand times as many players, but has other limits, such as an inability to respond intelligently to unique situations, including unique dialog between players and non-player characters. Such limits are among the primary reasons why so little actual role-playing occurs in MMORPGs. It may be that educational MMORPGs might need to focus on smaller groups of player-students, even if it takes place within a larger massively-multiplayer environment. Perhaps a game that is multiplayer, but not massively so, and that allows a human gamemaster to intercede in the automated systems, would be a better choice for supporting role-playing and thus for educational purposes. This might also mitigate some of the unpredictable nature of the co-created (and emotionally charged) emergent realities in MMORPGs, an issue of potential concern for educators and educational institutions.
Mackay (2001) also explored the social structure of tabletop role-playing games, shining more light on structures that educational games might look to emulate. One of the first social structures he identified was that “the role-playing game is a specific kind of ritual… efficacious for the small group of role-players who coalesce around a particular narrative” (p. 63). Role-playing groups then form when “like-minded role-players congregate because of a shared experience with a role-playing game or games” (p. 69). Within such a group, the success of any individual role-playing performance is as dependent on the receptivity of “fellow role-player’s imaginations as it is upon the role-player’s technique” (p. 80). This is no less true in a MMORPG, and this may explain the general lack of role-playing (and attempts at role-playing) in many popular MMORPGs. This is a hurdle that must be cleared for educational MMORPGs to have their full impact. Then in MMORPGs, as in tabletop RPGs, “the artistry of the role-playing game… [will be] confirmed through bonding with fellow players – through an awareness of the emotion that flows behind the creative distance or the role that players voluntarily assume” (p. 80). Such a game “encourages players to bring their affective selves, their subjective selves, to the table” (p. 82), a kind of encouragement often missing in traditional education. Such a game also requires interaction with other people, an element of constructivist pedagogy also often missing from traditional education. As Mackay noted, “this experience of connecting with another human being is one of the unique aspects of the role-playing art” (p. 82). This is also one of the reasons that
“community is established among the role-players who continue to role-play” (p. 85). Ideally, though the creative distance afforded by playing a role (p. 112), a role-playing game also offers players the chance to become someone they are not – or someone they’ve always wanted to be (p. 81), a goal very much in alignment with the efforts of video game scholars such as Gee (2003) and Schaffer (2006), who aim to help students develop powerful new identities through games. At best, this can also be a cathartic experience for players (Mackay, 2001, p. 113).
Mackay (2001) noted that “online gaming is not face-to-face like tabletop role-playing is, so the online role-player can get away with much more in terms of identity experimentation” (p. 83). For instance, it is easier for a student to play a character of the opposite sex (or another age or race) in an online game than it might be in a face-to-face game. Still, Mackay argues that face-to-face RPGs are “much more real in the emotions they evoke” (p. 84) than computer-mediated video games, and he considers “each players’ degree of emotional involvement… [to be] the most important factor determining” the success of a role-playing session (p. 89). Educational game designers aiming to create more emotions in their games will need to be creative in finding ways to recreate the table-top experience online to harness the best of both worlds.
Mackay (2001) himself was something of a constructivist, and saw the educational potential of role playing games. He believed that “education is an ongoing process, a structural process, in which… certain forms or models of power actually create the subject” (p. 92). He also saw “the role-playing game… [as] an extension of the process of educating the subject” (p. 93). One can look to his description of a gamemaster’s role for a suggestion of the role a teacher might take in an educational role-playing game: “most creative GM’s [gamemasters] take at least part of the role of game-designer on themselves, altering written rules, settings, and scenario plots” (p. 98).
Mackay (2001) also acknowledged the potential for role-playing games to create a sense of “total engrossment… [or] flow” for the players (p. 85). He notes that “satisfaction remains and flow persists as long as the emotion is present and communication between friends is uninterrupted” (p. 85). It follows that the presence of emotion and communication between friends could be another goal of educational RPGs and MMORPGs.
Mackay’s ideas, such as his focus on performance in a role-playing game, are in alignment with those of modern video game scholars interested in education. Consalvo (2003), for instance, wrote that “a game is not simply a text to be read, but an experience to be had – and so we must also consider the performance level of gameplay” (p. 173). Consalvo was also interested in breaking down the barriers between player and character to increase the identification of the player with his or her role (p. 177). Citing research on tabletop games, Consalvo appreciated the way that heavy players come to care for their characters in a video game as well (p. 177). Ideally, for Consalvo, “the player is encouraged to identify closely with [their character], to care for and wish to develop the character, if not take on the temporary identity of the character” (p. 179). He also cited examples of players using a character in a video game to “[come] to terms with real life problems” (p. 187).
Eskelinen and Tronstad (2003) also sought to use video games to question “the identity of the player through the player’s identification with the actions of her character” (p. 206). Their hope was that by “becoming aware of herself and her role in the ‘game,’ [the player] may come to realize what would in fact be the ‘real’ consequences of her choices” (p. 206). They acknowledged the value of MMORPGs to support this sort of experience because they involve “a wide variety of roles [for players] to assume” (p. 207). Like Mackay, Eskelinen and Tronstad also discussed the fact that role-playing games, including online games, are never “audienceless” (p. 196), and an authentic audience is often a goal of constructivist educators for providing context for a student learning.
Also like Mackay, Koster (2005) talked about game playing as an art. He advocated for games “with more than one right answer, puzzles that lend themselves to interpretation” (p. 147). He stated that “for games to reach art… the mechanics must be revelatory of the human condition, and that means the puzzles should be a bit more interesting than animalistic concepts like ‘territory,’ ‘aiming,’ or ‘timing.’” (p. 181-183). Role-playing games may offer the game-mechanic with the greatest potential for generating experiences and performances requiring such sophisticated interpretation. As Koster put it, making games as art “may involve making games with uncomfortable subject matter because having respect for players implies giving them real challenges, challenges as sophisticated as the best stories give them” (p. 213-215). Koster concludes that “someday… games will have their Shakespeare” (p. 219).
Rouse (2005), too, addresses the design of role-playing games as a sort of performance theater; he wrote that “if a computer game is like improvised theater, where players get to be directors of the primary character or group of characters, then all of the other actors in the play are controlled by the artificial intelligence” (p. 152). In this respect the AI is taking on the role of the human gamemaster in a tabletop role-playing game.
Grodal (2003) wrote of a vision of games with “stories that would… appeal to… active social skills and social emotions, like establishing a friendship, exerting care, feeling jealously, falling in love, and so on” (p. 151), areas of human experience that can be portrayed in tabletop roleplaying games. However, he acknowledged that “there are, however, important technical problems that have to be solved before video games can have holodeck-like or filmlike stories” (p. 151).
Slator (2006) explicitly believed “that educational technology should capitalize on the natural human propensity for role playing” (p. 4). He further believed that “students are willing to assume roles if the environment makes it easy to do so, and if the environment reinforces role playing through careful crafting of the explicit tutorial elements of the game” (p. 4). To achieve this educational game designers would do well to explore the model offered by tabletop RPGs in addition to successful video games with role-playing elements.
Evan game designers Salen and Zimmerman (2004) used tabletop role-playing games as an example of a game in which “the game is a system for generating narrative play” (p. 406). Educational game designers need to consider these models and consider the question of how computers can best support meaningful and emotionally immersive role-playing. The ideal educational game might be part movie, part tabletop RPG, and part video game. Automating the tabletop games’ systems of collaboratively creating a meaningful narrative will be one of the most important technical challenges to realizing this goal.
Conclusion
Pioneering educators are already using existing video games in a variety of ways. Edutainment titles are still in use. Free web-based educational games are increasingly available for a variety of content areas, and many teachers are now repurposing commercial entertainment games for educational uses. Others are modifying commercial games to create educational games, and in recent years a new breed of explicitly educational games has come to market. In addition the serious games movement has produced many games with educational value, including games for change and games for health. Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) show a good deal of promise as well, but are not yet seeing widespread use in education, particularly at the k12 level where the ability to play such games is often restricted by age.
If new games are to be created for educational purposes, including any educational MMORPGs, then elements of video game design must be considered by educational designers. Knowledge of video game design can also aid educators in choosing existing games for their students. For educational purposes it is particularly important that designers and educators aim for game designs that are inclusive of a broad range of players, including females. To this end, efforts should be made to include a wider variety of human experiences and emotion in educational video games (or to choose games that already include a wider variety). Elements of traditional tabletop role-playing games can be particularly powerful in an educational content, so these should be considered as games are designed or chosen as well. In some ways MMORPGs can facilitate such role-playing, but in other ways they may be more of a barrier to meaningful role-playing. More research may be required before designing educational MMORPGs or implementing existing games in an educational context.
Despite the fact that video games show a great deal of promise in their ability to support learning in (or as) constructivist learning environments, and despite the fact that pioneering educators and game designers are already beginning to implement video games in education, a good deal of organizational change will be required for video games to be implemented on a greater scale. The following section explores ways that educational technologists and other change agents can facilitate organizational change, overcome organizational resistance, and integrate their proposed organizational changes with the greater society.
Organizational Change
Video games show a great deal of promise as educational technologies. However a great deal of organizational change is required for schools to fully adopt and take advantage of all that video games have to offer. Efforts to implement video games in the classroom will likely be met with significant resistance. It is important for educators, educational technologists, and administrators to understand the nature and complexity of school change, and to act with this knowledge in mind when video games into educational practice.
Many of the theorists discussed in the previous sections of this literature review are interested in the process of organizational (and societal) change. Papert (1996), for example, appeals for “megachange” in the school of the future (p. 160). Dede (2005) explicitly acknowledged the need for professional development and other support for change that will be needed to implement video games and simulations for educational purposes, as did Klopfer and Yoon (2005). Prensky (2006) also hoped to see a reinvention of the school system (p. 202). However , though they may have a good deal of first hand experience with the difficulty of effecting positive change in educational institutions, these educational technologists are not the experts in school change.
Therefore the purpose of this portion of the literature review is to synthesize the work of organizational change theorists to produce a set of guidelines to support the process of integrating video games and simulations, including MMORPGs, as educational technologies in a constructivist learning environment. Fifteen such guidelines have been identified, including eight that relate to facilitating organizational change, five that relate to overcoming organizational resistance, and two more that relate to integrating organizational change with societal change.
Facilitating Organizational Change
Eight guidelines for facilitating organizational change when integrating new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, have been identified. These are to: respect the realities of change; establish mission, vision, values, and goals; focus on what’s important; use systems thinking; support personal learning; support collaborative learning; develop leadership; and develop teaching.
Respect the Realities of Change
To be successful, change agents must respect that organizational change is a complicated, difficult, and time-consuming process – especially in an educational institution.
The need for change in schools is clear, and the failure of past change efforts is evident. Fullan (1999) noted “so far, schools are much more a conservative agency for the status quo than a revolutionary force for transformation” (p. 10). Although the need for change is clear, schools have largely failed to enact and sustain meaningful changes. Unfortunately, as Evans noted, “changes that deal with the essentials of schooling - teaching and learning - seem to prove weak and temporary, but changes that enlarge and enhance the administrative bureaucracy seem to prove strong and enduring” (Elmore and McLaughlin, p.4, as cited in Evans, 1996, p. 79).
Fullan (1993) wrote, “to break through this impasse, educators must see themselves and be seen as experts in the dynamics of change” (p. 4). He suggested that “we need a dual approach working simultaneously on individual and institutional development” (p. 12) and identified several individual capacities (personal vision building, inquiry, mastery, and collaboration) reminiscent of Senge’s five disciplines, and several institutional counterparts (shared vision building, organizational structures, norms, and practices of inquiry) that also appear in the Professional Learning Community literature. Fullan’s new paradigm of school change included elements of complexity theory (1999, p.4, 2003, p.21-23), evolutionary theory (1999, p. 6), and capacity building (p. 9). Ultimately, he concluded that "working through the complexities of change until we get shared meaning and commitment is the only way to get substantial improvement" (Fullan, 2001b, p. 272).
Each of these authors identified concepts that can help educational change agents work through these complexities. Chief among these was Senge’s (1990) concept of a learning organization, an organization “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). Senge et al (2000) later dealt with schools as learning organizations, as did Fullan (1993), who recognized several common ingredients for successful restructuring: getting clear on the focus of change, making change organizational and systemic, managing the ongoing change process, and "the recognition that structural changes would not be sufficient without changes in ideas, beliefs, and attitudes" (p. 78).
Closely related to their focus on ideas, beliefs, and attitudes, was a focus by all three of these authors on the purpose (or moral purpose in Fullan’s case) behind educational change. Evans (1996) called for focus and clarity in educational change initiatives, especially in response to the questions of what, why, and how (p. 75). Later, Evans (2004) took a very Senge-like (and business-like) stance when he suggests that discussions about purpose in schools should start with questions such as “'what are we really good at?' ' as a school what do we do best with students?' [and] 'what do we really value and how do our actions show our values?’” (p. 75). Fullan (1993), of course, felt that “education has a moral purpose… to make a difference in the lives of students regardless of background, and to help produce citizens who can live and work productively in increasingly dynamic complex societies” (p. 4). He felt that the moral purpose of school should include facilitating critical enculturation, providing access to knowledge, building an effective teacher-student connection, and practicing good stewardship (p. 8-9).
The DuFours and their co-authors also expressed the complex nature of change in many ways. DuFour and Eaker (1998) reviewed the failures of previous school change efforts including A Nation at Risk, the excellence movement, Goals 2000, and the restructuring movement (p. 1-9). They also reviewed the failures of the industrial age educational system in general (p. 19-23). Their conclusion was that this system, and the efforts to reform it, have failed “for a number of reasons: the complexity of the task, misplaced focus and ineffective strategies, lack of clarity on the intended results, failure to persist, and lack of understanding of the change process” (p. 17). DuFour and Eaker knew that school change was a messy and unpredictable process; they considered “problems and conflict... [to be] the inevitable byproducts of serious reform” (p. 49). They believed that “if schools are to be significantly more effective, they must break from the industrial model upon which they were created and embrace a new model that enables them to function as learning organizations” (p. 15), which they prefer to characterize as professional learning communities. DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) believed that changing an organization is not a matter of top-down directives, but rather that “changing an organization begins with changing the conversation within the organization” (p. 183). And, like Senge, they believed that the skills of systems thinking would play an important role in making sense of the complexity inherent in the change process (p. 94, p. 218).
Other authors writing about professional learning communities noted similar complexities in the process of facilitating organizational change. Wald and Castleberry (2000) discussed what they call “the roller coaster of change” (p. 42), a process which at its best is still an emotional journey of getting aboard, generating a vision or idea, encountering constraints, experiencing despair, entering into dialogue, engendering hope, planning, taking action, and finally getting results. The path is neither an easy one nor a straight one. Huffman and Hipp (2003) consider how many elements are necessary in order to provide the right supportive conditions for school change; these include caring relationships, trust and respect, recognition and celebration, risk-taking, a unified effort to embed change in the culture of the school, resources (such as time, money, materials, and people), facilities, and communication systems (p. 144). Lists of necessary conditions cannot only begin to capture the nuances of organizational change; as Roberts & Pruitt (2003) point out, “meaningful and continuous conversation among teachers about their beliefs, their teaching, their learning, and what they have learned about teaching is necessary for teachers to develop into a community of learners and leaders” (Kruse, Louis, Bryk, 1995, as cited in Roberts & Pruit, 2003, p. xi) capable of successful school change. Hord’s (2004) model for professional learning communities includes such diverse and complex elements as “supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application of that learning, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice” (p. 1). Kagaan (2004) points out that even if such elements are formalized, there is still a “distinction between theories-in-action and espoused theories - the differences between what school professionals really do and how they really interact, as opposed to what the mission statement mounted on the wall of the school foyer says about what they do and how they interact” (p. 4). Kagaan was writing about the oft noted difference between theory and practice. Ultimately, team work in a professional learning community is daunting; members of the community must show respect for each other, keep an open mind, talk about difficult issues, be flexible, and be clear (Stone & Cuper, 2006, p. 9-11).
A change agent attempting to integrate constructivist pedagogy or new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, into a school will encounter all of these levels of complexity as well. The challenges of introducing new teaching techniques and new technologies to a school are largely the same challenges that professional learning communities are designed to overcome. The efforts of change agents will be much more fertile in an environment characterized as a professional learning community than in traditional school structures. To some degree, a change agent hoping to introduce a new technology such as video games into a school would do well to help the school build its capacity as a professional learning community in order to increase the chances of success with their initiative
Establish Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals
Establishing a professional learning community (PLC) is important to the success of school change initiatives, and a critical step in establishing a PLC is to generate a shared sense of mission and vision as well as shared values and goals.
In order for any large-scale or long-term change to be successful in an educational institution, the organization must have a sense of mission, or what DuFour and Eaker (1998) also called a shared “sense of purpose” (p. 59). This is not unlike the imperative of moral purpose that Fullan called for. According to DuFour and Eaker (1998), a school mission statement must answer the question “why do we exist?” (p. 58). Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) described the need for a cultural shift from generic mission statements to specific “statements that clarify what students will learn... how we will know what the students are learning... [and] how the school will respond when students do not learn” (p. 13). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) stated this economically when they explained, “a mission statement is a brief, succinct statement that explains the purpose for which a school exists” (p. 30). Without such a mission statement it would be impossible to know whether or not a change initiative, such as the implementation of video games and simulations as constructivist learning environments would help the school achieve its purpose.
The vision statement, then, answers the question “what do we hope to become? Whereas mission establishes an organization's purpose, vision instills an organization with a sense of direction” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 62). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) described a shared vision as “a shared image of what you desire your school to look like in the future” (p. 30). DuFour and Eaker suggested that the process of crafting a vision statement include representatives of the school, district, parents, community, and local businesses (p. 67). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) agreed, noting that it is particularly “important that teachers be involved from the inception of the vision building process if they are to share in and commit to putting the vision into practice” (p. 30). DuFour and Eaker (1998) cautioned, though, that “informed decisions require informed groups and individuals” (p. 69) who are “operating from a research base” (p. 70). If a diverse selection of stakeholders is to be responsible for a school vision, school leadership must invest in building the representatives’ capacity for vision building. Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) also described the need for a cultural shift from “average statements (or wish lists) that are dictated (or developed by a few) and that are often ignored to... statements that are research based, credible, focused on essentials, used as a blueprint for improvement, and widely shared through broad collaboration” (p. 14). Huffman and Hipp (2003), inspired by Hord’s model (discussed above) included shared vision in their model of the professional learning community as well. Once the vision is established, it should play “a significant role in all aspects of the daily work life of a principal and its importance should be reflected in the principal's behavior” (Roberts & Pruit, 2003, p. 36). As Wald and Castleberry (2000) wrote, “to sustain this communal energy and hope, the leader must hold the vision high for all to see, constantly revisit it, expand on it, and continuously help members of the community connect with it and find ways to personalize it and make it their own” (p. 20). This is especially true – imperative even - for change agents who are helping educators learn to use new technologies, such as video games and simulations, to improve learning in their schools.
Values are even more specific than mission and vision statements. DuFour, and Eaker (1998) explain that “while a mission statement asks the school to consider why it exists, and a vision statement asks what it might become, a statement of core values asks people to clarify how they intent to make their shared vision a reality” (p. 88). Despite the increased specificity, they recommend that schools write value statements that are few in number, brief, linked directly to the vision statement, and focused on behavior (rather than beliefs) – and on the school (rather than others, such as parents or the district) (p. 95-97). Later, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) described the need for a cultural shift from “from values that are random, excessive in number, articulated as beliefs, an focusing on the self to... values that are linked to vision, few in number, used as a blueprint for improvement, and are articulated as behaviors and commitments” (p. 16). Huffman and Hipp (2003), inspired by Hord’s model (discussed in the previous section) also included shared values in their model of the professional learning community. Wald and Castleberry (2000) identified “the next challenge of leadership… making visible these mutually held values and beliefs” (p. 22), and this is as much a challenge for an educational technologist as it is for a principal.
Finally, goals describe what steps will be taken and when (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 100). DuFour and Eaker noted that it is especially important that “a school improvement plan must be attentive to creating some clear, discernible victories, not just hoping for them” (p. 101). They went on to explain, “effective goals will specify:
• Exactly what is to be accomplished
• The specific steps that will be taken to achieve the goal.
• The individual or group responsible for initiating and/or sustaining each step toward achieving the goal.
• The timeline for each phase of the activity
• The criteria to be used in evaluating progress toward the goal.” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 101-102)
Again, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) described the need for a cultural shift:
“From statements that are random, excessive in number, focused on means rather than ends, impossible to assess or measure, and not monitored, to... statements that are linked to the vision, few in number, focused on desired outcomes, translated into measurable performance standards, monitored continuously, and designed to produce short-term wins and also stretch aspirations” (Eaker, DuFour, &DuFour, 2002, p. 17)
For Wald and Castleberry (2000), it was important that “members of the [professional learning] community are aligned around common goals” (p. 4). Huffman and Hipp (2003) identified “a set of attainable reform goals with long time lines for accomplishing them” (p. 4) as one of the characteristics of reforms with the most promise. Hord (2004), too, called for “clear goals for high-quality learning” (p. 12) as part of her model for professional learning communities.
An educational technologist or change agent responsible for the integration of video games and simulations into the learning culture of a school must offer this level of specificity and guidance in order for their visions (or more importantly, the school’s shared vision for these technologies) to be realized. Each of these levels, mission, vision, values, and goals, must be addressed for a change initiative to have the best chance of success. Naturally, this will be most likely if the school has already developed the culture of a professional learning community.
Focus on What’s Important
School change of any kind involves so many variables, it is imperative that change agents focus on what is important. This ability to focus only on what is important is also a critical characteristic of successful professional learning communities.
DuFour and Eaker (1998) pointed out that “schools communicate what is important to them and what is valued by what they focus on” (p. 107). For instance, celebration, which plays an important role in sustaining a professional learning community, “reinforces shared values and signals what is important” (p. 143). However, this focus is also more than just a tool for clear communication. Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour, 2002, described a cultural shift in professional learning communities from “a focus on a wide variety of things and an effort to 'get the plan turned in' and then subsequently ignoring it to... a focus on a few important goals that will affect student learning... a vehicle for organized, sustained school improvement” (p. 24). This cultural shift is not limited to the organization; Hord recommended “recruiting external change agents who can ask the important questions” (p. 149) as a part of establishing and maintaining organizational focus.
Most importantly, professional learning community theorists call for schools to focus on student learning. DuFour and Eaker (1998) assert that “the curriculum is a critical component of a school that functions as a professional learning community” (p. 178) and that “the curriculum should reduce content and enable all parties to focus on essential and significant learning” (p. 179; see also Eaker, DuFour and DuFour, 2002, p. 19). Huffman & Hipp (2003) expressed a different but related take on this focus, saying that a professional learning community “focuses, first and foremost, upon learning on the part of professionals in the school as the way to increase learning on the part of students” (p. 76). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) agreed “the ultimate purpose of the movement to the learning community model is to improve learning opportunities and outcomes for students” (p. 11). They also believed that “the primary focus of professional development is student outcomes; it is results driven and focused on curriculum and standards” (p. 52). As she explained the importance of developing collective values and visions, Hord (2004) described the importance of becoming student focused (p. 45). This focus on student learning is no less important to an educational technology initiative, including one that would include video games and simulations. In fact, improved student learning (and achievement) is the purpose behind introducing such technologies into schools.
This focus, in fact, is what DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) later identified as Big Idea #1 with respect to professional learning communities, “ensuring that students learn” (p. 32; see also DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2006, p. 2). These authors offered two other big ideas that professional learning communities, and in a broader sense any change initiative, should focus on. Big Idea #2 is a focus on “a culture of collaboration” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 36; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 3), a key to successful organizational change. Stone and Cuper (2006), too, advocated collaboration (p. 19, 46, 83), as do Hord (2004, p.52, 152), Huffman and Hipp (2003, p 62), and Roberts and Pruitt (2003, p. 137, 179). Big Idea #3, then, is to “focus on results” (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 44-45; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 134-148, 175; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 20, 31, 39; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 4), or in other words to “focus on outcomes rather than on inputs or intentions” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 63). Wald and Castleberry (2000) included this focus on results not only as a means for change, but also as the end of their “roller coaster of change” process (p. 42). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) also described professional learning communities that were “results driven and focused on curriculum” (p. 52), and Hord (2004) advocated, “researching for results” (p. 124). It follows that any attempt to integrate educational technologies such as video games and simulations should maintain a similar focus on ensuring that students learn, creating a culture of collaboration, and on achieving results.
Capacity building is another important focus of professional learning communities. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) explained their expectations by stating that “members of a PLC are not 'invited' to work with colleagues: they are called upon to be contributing members of a collective effort to improve the school's capacity to help all students learn at high levels” (p. 8). They also believed that “leaders must start… shifting their focus from evaluating and supervising individuals to developing the capacity of both teams and the entire school to work collaboratively" (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 239). Similarly, one of the outcomes of professional learning communities that Hord (2004) sought was an increase in “organizational capacity… the capacity of the staff to work well as a unit” (p. 12). Hord observed “of equal importance to establishing shared decision-making structures was the ability of the principals to increase decision-making capacity among their staff” (p. 49) so that the staff had the necessary skills to make a distribution of leadership possible. Huffman and Hipp (2003), too, called for professional learning communities to focus on “increase[ing] individual and organizational capacity” (p. 11; see also p. 31), and Kaagan (2004) discussed “collective capacity building” (p. 3). Stone and Cuper (2006) were even interested in developing students’ capacity; they promoted a philosophy of "each one, teach one... [which] designate[d] student peer leaders in the classroom" (p. 146). Once again the importance of risk-taking in the culture of a professional learning community is evident, as it is a necessary element of capacity building; Wald and Castleberry (2000) point out that “a climate that encourages risk taking is fundamental when staff members need to stretch beyond what they know and explore frontiers” (p. 24).
While the very act of focusing efforts on what has been identified as important to the organization can improve the likelihood of success for any change initiative, there are also particular elements worthy of focus in many cases. Based on the work of these professional learning community theorists, it seems that any school change effort, including the integration of video games and simulations as educational technologies, might benefit from a focus on ensuring student learning, creating a culture of collaboration, achieving results, and building capacity at all levels of the organization.
Use Systems Thinking
Systems thinking, as opposed to linear or rational-structural thinking, can be a positive tool for change agents to understand and use in educational institutions. Senge (1990) noted that “we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated parts of the system, and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get solved” (p. 7), and he introduced “a conceptual framework… to make the full patterns clearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively” (p. 7).
This framework included the laws of systems thinking (Senge, 1990, p. 57), many of which can serve as powerful reminders to educational change agents. These include the concept that “the harder you push, the harder the system pushes back” (p. 58), “the easy way out usually leads back in” (p. 60), “faster is slower” (p. 62), and “small changes can produce big results - but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious” (p. 63). He also identified systems archetypes that can be used by change agents to understand larger patterns. These included concepts such as limits to growth (p. 95), shifting the burden (p. 104), reinforcing processes (Senge et al, 2000, p. 84), balancing processes (p. 86), and delays (p. 91). Senge et al. (2000) also believed that “in any effort to foster schools that learn, changes will make a difference only if they take place at… three levels” (p. 11), the learning classroom (including teachers, students, and parents, p. 12), the learning school (including school leaders, principals, superintendents, school board members, and representatives of higher education, p. 14), and the learning community (including community members and other lifelong learners, p. 16).
Senge et al. (1999) developed a perspective that assumed “human groups, processes, and activities are self-organizing, like ecological niches” (p. 144). Fullan (2001a) later applied four principals of living systems to educational organizations: equilibrium as the precursor to death, the edge of chaos as a source for new solutions, self organization as a source of emergent solutions, and disturbance as a more reliable tool for change than direction (p. 108-109). Fullan warned, though, "there is a time to disturb and a time to cohere" (p. 116). He looked to concepts in complexity science (formerly chaos theory) to describe the process of coherence-making; strange attractors, for instance, “involve experiences or forces that attract the energies and commitment of employees… they are not predictable in a specific sense, but as outcomes are likely (if not inevitable) in the process we are describing” (p. 215).
Fullan (2003b) also suggested that change agents “must be cognizant that changing their schools and the system is a simultaneous proposition” (p. 4). This understanding will help them avoid what he calls the if-only dependency: the assumption “that the system must get its act together before people can start doing their jobs" (p. 19). He went on to note system-imposed barriers to change, such as centralization or decentralization (p. 21), role overload and role ambiguity (p. 22), limited investment in leadership development (p. 23), neglect of leadership succession (p. 24), and the absence of a system change strategy (p. 25). To over come such barriers, he suggested that systems must enter a cycle of push and recovery, just as individuals do (Fullan, 2005, p. 44).
There will be many barriers to the adoption of video games and simulations as educational technologies. The change agents responsible for these initiatives will need to understand and use systems thinking if they hope to lead their organizations through the cycles of push and recovery necessary for the integration and diffusion of new innovations.
Support Personal Learning
Any organizational change begins with individual change, which requires individual learning. Any change agent hoping to facilitate organizational change would do well to first support personal learning. As Senge (1990) explained, “organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs” (p. 141). To that end, two of Senge’s five disciplines support personal learning - personal mastery, and mental models.
Senge (1990) described personal mastery as “the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively” (p. 7). He went on to explain that it “starts by clarifying the things that really matter to us, of living our lives in the service of our highest aspirations” (p. 8). He then laid out several practices and principals critical to personal mastery, including personal vision (p. 147), holding creative tension between current realities and personal vision, (p. 150), commitment to the truth - especially about current reality (p. 159), and using the subconscious (p. 161). He also included systems thinking as part of personal mastery and focuses on the importance of integrating Reason and Intuition (p. 167), seeing our connectedness to the world (p. 169), compassion (Senge, 1990, p. 171), and commitment to the whole (p. 171). He also notes “people with a high level of personal mastery are acutely aware of their ignorance, their incompetence, their growth areas” (p. 142).
Senge et al. (2000) saw teachers as “coaches in personal mastery for students” (p. 59) and believed that “the epitome of personal mastery in the classroom is helping children to decipher their passions, to explore whether they believe these are possible, and to nurture their courage to delve into it, without judging them right or wrong” (p. 111).
An important part of personal mastery for anyone involved in a change effort – or anyone involved in learning, including students and teachers – is an ability to question mental models. Senge (1990) defined mental models as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 8). He went on to explain that “the discipline of working with mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth out internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny” (p. 9). Unexamined mental models can thus limit people’s ability to change; as Senge et al (2000) pointed out, “in any new experience, most people are drawn to take in and remember only the information that reinforces their existing mental models” (p. 67). Senge (1990) also pointed out “most of our mental models are systematically flawed. They miss critical feedback relationships, misjudge time delays, and often focus on variables that are visible or salient, not necessarily high leverage" (Senge, 1990, p. 203).
Fullan, too, believed that organizational change starts with personal learning. He wrote “personal purpose and vision are the starting agenda. It comes from within, it gives meaning to work, and it exists independent of the particular organization or group we happen to be in” (Fullan, 1993, p. 13). He felt that “personal vision in teaching is too often implicit and dormant” (p. 14) and he believed in the “the central importance of teachers' learning, individually and in relation to colleagues” (p. 62). Purpose came into play here again for Fullan; he explained, “paradoxically, personal purpose is the route to organizational change” (p. 14).
Change agents responsible for implementing emerging technologies, such as video games and simulations, in schools will need to support personal learning (both related to the new technologies, and related to the mission of the school). This support will need to include development of personal mastery, the ability to scrutinize mental models, and a sense of personal vision for everyone involved in the change effort.
Support Collaborative Learning
Personal learning is a necessary condition for organizational change, but it is not sufficient; there must also be a degree of collaborative learning as well. As Fullan (2001b) stated, “we have long known the value of collaboration and the debilitating effects of isolation” (p. 6). Two more of Senge’s five disciplines support this need for collaborative learning: shared vision and team learning. Evans’ philosophy acknowledges the difficulty of this, and Fullan argues it’s critical importance for schools.
Senge (1990) warns that “if people do not share a common vision, and do not share common ‘mental models’ about the… reality within which they operate, empowering people will only increase organizational stress and the burden of management to maintain coherence and direction” (p. 146). How then do organizations build shared vision? According to Senge (1990), building shared vision “involves the skills of unearthing shared 'pictures of the future' that foster genuine commitment and enrollment instead of compliance” (p. 9). Senge et al. (1994) identified five stages of shared vision: telling, selling, testing, consulting, and co-creating (p. 314). The further an organization is to the right on this scale (the co-creating side), the more likely a shared vision will engender genuine commitment.
Senge (1990) noted, “Shared visions emerge from personal visions... [and that] organizations intent on building shared visions continually encourage members to develop their personal visions” (p. 211). However, he also noted “alignment is the necessary condition before empowering the individual will empower the whole team” (p. 235). The practice that helps bridge the gap between personal visions and shared visions – and that helps to ensure alignment – is team learning.
Senge (1990) writes that “the discipline of team learning starts with 'dialog,' the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine 'thinking together” (p. 10). Team learning is a “collective discipline” (p. 237) that “requires practice” (p. 238). Critical elements of team learning include “the need to think insightfully about complex issues” (p. 236), “the need for innovative coordinated action” (p. 236), and the skills of “dialogue and discussion, the two distinct ways that teams converse” (p. 237).
Evans supported the collaborative development of vision, but recognized the difficulty of focusing shared vision. He noted that shared vision statements, for instance, often fail on account of length, fragmentation, and impracticality – not to mention clichés (Evans, 1996, p. 208). He also identified an organizational dysfunction he called processitis: "a preoccupation with procedure and interaction that affects many self governing groups” (p. 239). Fullan’s new professionalism captured many of the same solutions Evans suggested for dealing with such dysfunctions; it was “collaborative, not autonomous; open rather than closed; outward-looking rather than insular; and authoritative, but not controlling" (Fullan, 2001b, p. 265).
For Fullan (2001b), “professional development is not about workshops and courses; rather, it is at its heart the development of habits of learning that are far more likely to be powerful if they present themselves day after day” (p. 253). Several of these habits (or characteristics) of successful collaborative cultures include fostering diversity while trust building, provoking anxiety and then containing it, engaging in knowledge creation, combining connectedness with open-endedness, and even fusing the spiritual, political and intellectual (Fullan, 1999, p. 37). Also, like Evans, Fullan (1993) shared words of caution for those who would support collaborative learning. Collaboration, he notes, “is not automatically a good thing” (p. 82). In fact, “unless one understands deeply why and how collaboration functions to make a difference it is of little use” (Fullan, 1999, p. 40). Without focus (and moral purpose), collaboration may be little more than what Fullan (2005) and others have called “coblaboration” (p. 48).
It is clear from Senge, Evans, and Fullan’s work that change agents who support personal learning must also support focused and purposeful collaborative learning if they hope to facilitate the sort of organizational change necessary to implement video games and simulations as educational technologies in constructivist learning environments. This collaborative learning must build shared vision and exhibit the characteristics of successful collaborative cultures, while avoiding the pitfalls such as processitis and coblaboration.
Develop Leadership
Fullan writes that he knows of no school that has improved without strong leadership (Fullan, 2001b, p. 141). Both personal and collaborative learning are necessary for organizational change, but even these two are not sufficient without strong leadership. Change agents who hope to bring about positive change in schools must also take steps to develop leadership at all levels of their organization. Senge, Evans, and Fullan each share in this belief.
Senge’s (1990) thoughts on leadership began with a simple core strategy: “be a model. Commit yourself to your own personal mastery” (p. 173). However, Senge expected much more of a leader. He was interested in “leaders who have a sense of vision... [and] communicate that in such a way that others are encouraged to share their visions” (p. 212). The leader’s new work, according to Senge, is to serve as a designer (of the ship, rather than as captain, p. 341), as a steward (p. 345), and –most importantly – as a teacher (p. 353). With regards to systems thinking, he believes that “leaders should especially focus on understanding the limiting processes that could slow or arrest change” (Senge et al., 1999, p. 8). With a focus on “leadership communities rather than hero-leaders” (p. 16), Senge et al. recommend developing leadership at all levels, including local line leaders (p. 16), internal networkers or community builders (p. 17), and executive leaders (p. 18). Under his new model of educational leadership, leaders are responsible for the engaging the members of the organization, providing systems thinking, and leading learning (Senge et al., 2000, p. 412-418).
Evans (1996) had a similar view of leadership, but he also dealt with the many chronic tensions that leaders must resolve in order to be successful, including managing versus leading (p. 148), resources versus demands (p. 149), the paradox of power – or the dependency of the leader on his followers (p. 150), symbolism versus substance (p. 151), and isolation in a fishbowl, part of the personal toll of leadership (p. 151). Two capacities that leaders need to successfully balance these tensions “are marketing, to find out what constituents think and want, and public relations, to keep constituents informed about the school's own goals and needs” (p. 127). What Evans considered authentic leadership also demands integrity in action, personal ethics, vision, belief in others (p. 185), problem solving savvy (p. 190), clarity and focus (p. 206), participation without paralysis (p. 229), recognition of others (p. 254), and a willingness to avoid avoidance, even if confrontation is necessary (p. 272). In keeping with Fullan’s focus on the moral purpose behind school change, Evans (1996) believed that such authentic leaders derive their authority from two sources, their professional position, and the moral force of their goals (p. 172-173). Further, he believed that “purpose and followership form the heart of transformational leadership” (p. 167). To cultivate both of these, he suggested “traditional management is to be replaced by shared governance and traditional teacher isolation by collaboration and collegiality” (p. 231). He later wrote “no task is more important for a school leader than to be... 'the voice of the covenant' - to take primary responsibility for nourishing, celebrating, and protecting the core values and behavioral norms of the school community” (p. 172). Ultimately, “staff must feel that the leader is committed to the change but also to them. Principals, then, need to expect the grief and tolerate the mourning” (p. 201).
Using the language of Senge, Fullan (1993), too, wrote, “the leader's new work for the future is building learning organizations” (p. 70). To do this, he believed that leaders need to display the personal qualities of hope, enthusiasm and energy (Fullan, 2003, p. 93), while acting from a mind set of “moral purpose, an understanding of the dynamics of change, great emotional intelligence as they build relationships, a commitment to new knowledge development and sharing, and a capacity for coherence making” (p. 93). He explained that:
“Leadership, if it is to be effective, has to (1) have an explicit "making-a-difference" sense of purpose, (2) use strategies that mobilize many people to tackle tough problems, (3) be held accountable by measured and debatable indicators of success, and (4) be ultimately assessed by the extent to which it awakens people's intrinsic commitment, which is none other than the mobilizing of everyone's sense of moral purpose” (Fullan, 2001a, p. 20-21)
Effective leaders, according to Fullan (2001a), “listen effectively” (p. 123), “don't panic when things go wrong in the early stages of a major change initiative” (p. 124), and “mobilize the collective capacity to challenge difficult circumstances” (p. 136). Leaders need to be what Fullan (2005) calls energy creators: people who, among other things, “are enthusiastic and always positive… stimulate and spark others… and wish to improve on their previous best” (p. 37). Systems thinking also plays a role in Fullan’s philosophy on leadership; he calls for “developmental leaders (systems thinkers in action) who do not stand back and conduct passive analysis, but because of their immersion and system perspectives learn to size up situations quickly and intuitively, using concepts discussed in this book” (p. 102). However, effective leaders at the top of an organization cannot fulfill the need for leadership in an organization; “internal commitment... cannot be activated from the top... there must be many leaders around us” (p. 133). What is needed for successful and sustained organizational change is what Fullan calls pervasive leadership, “leadership at many levels of the organization” (p. 137). In fact, Fullan (2003) felt that “we should be selecting leaders in terms of their capacity to create the conditions of other leaders to flourish and make a continuing impact beyond our terms” (p. 106).
A professional learning community cannot exist without leadership. Hord (2004) “found clear evidence that the administrator is key to the existence of a professional learning community” (p. 20), while Huffman and Hipp (2003) also noted that in a successful professional learning community, “leadership pervades the organization” (p. xvii). It follows that change agents who hope to bring about positive change in schools by developing professional learning communities must also take steps to develop leadership at all levels of their organization, in administrators, in teachers, and even in students.
According to DuFour and Eaker (1998), “to have the greatest impact, principals must define their job as helping to create a professional learning communities in which teachers can continually collaborate and learn how to become more effective” (p. 184). In addition, principals must model “behavior that is congruent with the vision and values of the school” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 193), remain results-oriented (p. 194), and find a balance in the paradox between urgency and patience within the change process (p. 195). Later, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) wrote that principals should model lifelong learning (p. 120) and serve as a “leading learner” (p. 121), or “head learner” as Roberts & Pruitt (2003, p. 26) called it. Huffman and Hipp (2003) also considered principals “co-learners” who modeled the “the level of learning expected from the professional staff” (p. 14). Furthermore, the goal of the principal should be to “build a staff of lifelong learners” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 121).
Walde and Castleberry (2000) also saw a leader as an “architect of relationships” (p. 27). This is a very different sort of leadership than the traditional top-down authoritative model that has been expected of principals in the past. DuFour and Eaker (1998) expected “principals of professional learning communities [to] lead through shared vision and values rather than through rules and procedures” (p. 184). Rather than directing others what to do, “principals of professional learning communities involve faculty members in the school's decision-making process and empower individuals to act” (p. 185). Huffman and Hipp (2003) thought “the ability of principals to relinquish power is essential for the support of professional learning communities” (p. 14). It is critical for principals to avoid micro-managing a professional learning community. Principals do, however, need to provide direction by providing staff “with the information, training, and parameters they need to make good decisions” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, 186). In fact, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) viewed administrators as "leaders of leaders” (p. 22). Huffman and Hipp expressed this by saying that:
"In PLCs, principals are not coercive or controlling, but seek to share power and distribute leadership among staff. In turn, staff increasingly become open to changing roles and responsibilities. Principals let go of power and nurture the human side and expertise of the entire school community. Shared responsibility is apparent through broad-based decision making that reflects commitment and accountability." (Huffman & Hipp, 2003, p. 38)
If principals are leaders of leaders, then clearly the teachers, too, must serve as leaders in a professional learning community where leadership is shared. Hord (2004) advocated building teacher leadership within a traditional school structure (p. 140). She felt that “principals must be both willing to share leadership and able to develop conditions and communicate expectations that will advance shared leadership among school professionals” (p. 140). Huffman and Hipp (2003) described this kind of leadership saying, “it's not like a leadership that's passed around; it's worn at all times by anyone who wants it" (p. 32). They called this “pervasive leadership” (p. 34). For Hord (2004), the development of shared (or pervasive) leadership enhances, and is enhanced by, team teaching (p. 9). As Stone and Cuper (2006) wrote, teachers come to “rely on each other's areas of strength… [and] to support, help, and laugh with each other” (p. 101). For this reason, Stone and Cuper also advocated “collaboration pods” (p. 19), not unlike the teams suggested in the DuFours’ model. Stone and Cuper also understood that:
“The finest educational leadership... it is the leadership of teachers - big-spirited, compassionate, and inventive teachers who lead through their willingness to reach out to their colleagues and their communities. It is the leadership of teachers who are always on the lookout for ways to enhance their practice through the use of new technologies, through professional development, and through discovering and sharing the talents of the people living in their communities” (Stone and Cuper, 2006, p. xi)
Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002), too, viewed teachers as “transformational leaders” (p. 22). Similarly, Huffman and Hipp (2003) noted, "setting expectations often begins with the principal, but in the high-readiness schools at the implementation phase, the teachers quickly assumed the responsibility for continuing to develop and to sustain those expectations" (p. 42).
Many of these theorists even advocated that leadership reach down to the student level. DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour (2005) acknowledged that “"the principal who joins with the faculty and students in learning activities is the one who changes the school culture into one that is hospitable to lifelong learning" (p. 121); student are included in the creation of this culture. Earlier, Roberts and Pruitt explained, “leaders are not limited to the administrative ranks. Leaders may be staff members, parents, community members, or even students" (p. 176). Huffman and Hipp (2003) had documented schools in which “"teachers teach the students to lead one another, so there's a bunch of leaders in [the] school" (p. 32), and later Stone and Cuper (2006) advocated that educators “designate student peer leaders in the classroom" (p. 146).
Developing meaningful and effective leadership abilities at each level of the organization - administrators, teachers, and students - requires a good deal of capacity building. After all, as Hord (2004) points out, “at the beginning, most teachers did not have experience with site based decision making, and principals often had to provide training on new roles and responsibilities” (p. 47). She noted “of equal importance to establishing shared decision-making structures was the ability of the principals to increase decision-making capacity among their staff” (p. 49). She went on to explain several principal capacities that help build leadership in others, including listening (p. 146), knowledge of teaching and learning (p. 146), and consistency of follow through (p. 147). Hord also recommends recruiting external change agents to help with this process (p. 149).
If a change agent, internal or external, is helping an organization develop a professional learning community so that other change initiatives, such as the integration of video games and simulations into teaching and learning, might be more effective, then in addition to respecting the realities of change, establishing mission, vision, values, and goals, and focusing on what’s important, they must also be sure to develop leadership at all levels of the organization. Clearly efforts at building the leadership capacity of administrators are important, but these efforts should also be extended to include teachers (and even students) so that a culture of shared leadership can be developed at the school. There is no need to delay a change initiative in order to develop this leadership capacity, but this need for leadership development should be addressed as a part of any school change effort.
Develop Teaching
As Hord (2004) pointed out, the most effective principal will be one who has a deep understanding of teaching and learning (p. 146), and one of the main benefits of developing a shared vision is the opportunity to then use that shared vision to recruit quality staff (p. 46). Developing a professional learning community necessitates not only a need to develop leadership, but also a need to develop high-quality teaching at the school. Ultimately the ability of an organization to teach and learn will be the determining factor in the success or failure of any change initiative, including any effort to introduce video games and simulations as educational technologies. For this reason, schools must overcome the cultural belief that they cannot honor or identify good teaching because it will “lead to unhealthy competition and bad feelings among teachers” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004, p. xiv).
The DuFours and their co-authors put the development of quality teaching and learning at the heart of their professional learning community model. “First and foremost,” they said, “the potential benefits of collaboration will never be realized unless educators work together in matters directly related to teaching and learning” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 125). They described a professional teacher as one who emphasizes learning rather than teaching (p. 216), emphasizes active student engagement with significant content (p. 217), focuses on student performance and production (p. 218), routinely collaborates with their colleagues (p. 219), and consumes research as a student of teaching (p. 220, see also DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2006, p. 83). For DuFour and Eaker, professional teachers also serve as leaders (p. 226). The DuFour’s constructivist approach to inquiry also plays a role in their concept of a professional teacher; they consider “the focus of collective inquiry… both a search for best practice for helping students learn at high levels and an honest assessment of the current reality regarding teaching practices and student learning” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 21). They also call for an interactive sort of teaching, including patterns of calling on students, responses to student answers (such as cuing, wait time, expressing confidence, asking the question in a different way, and validating what is right about a student's answer while pointing in another direction; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 92), giving help (such as useful cues; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 92), dealing with errors, assigning tasks, offering feedback on student performance, and displaying tenacity as a teacher (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 90-91). In order to make this sort of teaching possible, they also suggest that school schedules be carefully designed to include “consistent and large blocks of teaching and learning time” (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 63), and to include collaborative structures with a focus on teaching and learning (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 196-199).
Hord (2004) also called for the professionalization of teaching; her model included critical self-consciousness (p. 155), practical expertise (p. 157), trustful relationships with students (p. 158), and collegial regulation among fellow teachers (p. 159). Hord shared that in “he most successful schools functioned as professional learning communities, where teachers helped one another, took collective (not just individual) responsibility for student learning, and worked continuously to improve their teaching practices” (p. 12). She also noted the importance of “providing the structures necessary for learning (e.g., team meetings, grade-level meetings, study groups, etc.) and look[ing] for other opportunities for… teachers to collaborate around meaningful teaching and learning issues” (Hord, 1997, as cited in Roberts & Pruitt, 2003, p. 47). Hord wasn’t alone in believing that “meaningful and continuous conversation among teachers about their beliefs, their teaching, their learning, and what they have learned about teaching is necessary for teachers to develop into a community of learners and leaders” (Kruse, Louis, Bryk, 1995, as cited in Roberts & Pruit, 2003, p. xi). Wald and Castleberry (2000) advocated a similar practice, writing that as teachers reflect on themselves “as learners in a larger community… [they] will have new insights about cooperative learning in heterogeneous groups, learner-centered teaching, and the inquiry-based approach to learning” (p. 17). Stone and Cuper (2006) conclude that teacher education programs must be dedicated to fostering the concept of being a lifelong learner in professional educators so that they might pass this on to their students (p. 88-89).
Professional development is an important part of building educators’ capacities as teachers. DuFour and Eaker (1998) recommend that the content of staff development programs should “be based on research”, focused on “both generic and discipline-specific teaching skills”, and used to “expand the repertoire of teachers to meet the needs of students who learn in diverse ways” (p. 276). They also recommend that the process of staff development should “attend to the tenets of good teaching,” “provide the ongoing coaching that is critical to the mastery of new skills,” “result in reflection and dialogue on the part of participants,” “be sustained over a considerable period of time,” and “be evaluated at several different levels, including evidence of improved student performance” (p. 276). Finally, they recommend that the context of staff development should “be focused on individual schools and have strong support from the central office”, “be so deeply embedded in daily work that it is difficult to determine where the work ends and the staff development begins”, and “foster renewal” (p. 277). Stone and Cuper (2006) further recommend, “enriching and extending teaching through professional conferences” (p. 102). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) recommend steps for designing staff development, including relating it to the school vision, deciding on areas of focus, identifying competencies needed by the staff, and developing a plan for professional development (p. 67-68).
At the heart of any school change effort should be an attempt to improve teaching. Change agents who hope to help educators adopt video games and simulations as educational technologies need to be sure their efforts focus on such improvements as are recommended by the professional learning community theorists above. Games and simulations may even serve as natural means of helping teachers practice and hone their teaching and learning skills.
Overcoming Organizational Resistance
Five guidelines for overcoming organizational resistance when integrating new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, have been identified. These are to: respect resistance; remember psychological factors; respond to obstacles, challenges, and barriers; develop learning; and sustain the process.
Respect Resistance
Change agents who respect the realities of resistance will be more likely to successfully deal with and overcome challenges. Resistance is after all a healthy and necessary reaction to organizational change.
Resistance to change often occurs because the organization is exhibiting what Senge called a learning disability. Senge (1990) identified several learning disabilities, including “I am my position” (p. 18), “the enemy is out there” (p. 19), “the illusion of taking charge” (p. 20), “the fixation on events” instead of processes (p. 21), “the delusion of learning from experience... when our actions have consequences beyond our learning horizon” (p. 23), and “the myth of the management team,” most of which engage in “skilled incompetence” rather than raising difficult questions and dealing with complex issues (p. 24). Senge also identified defensive routines (p. 237) as a force of resistance. Later, Senge et al. (1999) explicated ten challenges to implementing, sustaining, and rethinking change. The implementation stage may face the most challenges, including the lack of control over one’s time, inadequate support, lack of relevance, and a lack of clarity and consistency from management (p. 26). Sustaining change faces the challenges of fear, anxiety, negative assessment of progress, isolation, and arrogance (p. 26). Even efforts to redesign or rethink change initiatives are challenged by the difficulties of balancing autonomy against chaos, diffusing innovations, and maintaining organizational strategy and purpose (p. 26). Familiarity with these disabilities and challenges will aid change agents in discovering and addressing the root cause of resistance.
With his focus on the human side of school change, Evans (1996) pointed out that “any transition engenders mixed feelings” and that “understanding these feelings is vital to the successful implementation of change” (p. 26). He dealt with change as loss (p. 28) and acknowledged that change challenges competence (p. 32), creates confusion (p. 34), and causes conflict (p. 35). Most importantly, he urged change agents to respect the fact that “ambivalence – especially… resistance - needs to be seen as part of the solution, not just part of the problem; it demands the attention and respect of all who seek innovation” (p. 38).
Fullan focuses on other obstacles and problems, including the problem of transferability. The obstacles to change are many, and each of them is a potential source of resistance. Obstacles identified by Fullan (2003) included lack of trust in teachers, lack of risk taking culture, lack of time, lack of leadership, lack of coherence, and the general lack of confidence, knowledge, and training (p. 78-80). He also identified overload, fostered dependency, loss of what has been gained, and the threat of recent accountability measures as additional obstacles (p. 78-80). The increasing threat of innovation overload and the observation that “schools and school districts do not have the capacity to sort out which programs to pursue, or even the capacity to say no in the face of innovation overload” (Fullan, 2001b, p. 27), is another problem that Fullan addressed, arguing again that a focus on the moral purpose behind the change is essential. Regarding the problem of transferring innovations from one context to another, he stated simply, “ideas acquired with ease are discarded with ease” (Fullan, 1999, p. 64). The capacity for transferability in a social system is a function of the quality of the infrastructure” (p. 75), including the capacities for continuous learning, generating accountability data, promoting feedback, and stimulating innovation.
Fullan also noted that “successful organizations don't go with only like-minded innovators; they deliberately build in differences” (Fullan, 2001a, p. 43). In keeping with Evans’ thinking, Fullan (2001a) recommended instead that “we need to respect resisters [because]… they sometimes have ideas that we might have missed, especially in situations of diversity or complexity or in the tackling of problems for which the answer is unknown” (p. 42). Also, “resisters are crucial when it comes to the politics of implementation... being alert to differences of opinion is absolutely vital” (p. 42).
Change agents who are attempting to overcome resistance to new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, must therefore respect not only resistance, but also those who resist. They must endeavor to build the capacity necessary to properly deal with such resistance in addition to other obstacles, problems, and challenges that resist change, including organizational learning disabilities. This will require a deep understanding of organizational change on the part of the change agents, which must be pursued through continuous learning on their part, and which must be diffused throughout the organization through continuous sharing with others. Significant or fundamental change will not happen quickly and will not happen without resistance. Those who are frustrated and give up in the face of resistance, rather than respecting this reality, will not be successful.
Remember Psychological Factors
Evans (1996) warns, “when we are trying to understand people's resistance to change, it is never just the logical we are dealing with but the psychological” (p. 26). Change agents who are able to heed this warning will be better able to cope with resistance to organizational change.
Many organizational change theorists, including Evans, cite Senge’s (1990) seven degrees of support for change initiatives (p. 219-220). The possible attitudes that an individual can have toward a change initiative Senge sorted into three categories, which can be described as committed, compliant, and noncompliant. Within the committed category, people can be truly committed, or merely enrolled, in which case they still want the change to happen. Within the compliant category, people can be genuinely compliant, formally compliant, or grudgingly compliant depending on the degree to which they see the benefits of the vision. Finally, in the noncompliant category, people can be noncompliant, or even simply apathetic about the change. Being able to understand where members of an organization fit on this scale, and how they might be moved, is important for a change agent to be successful.
In order to help people move toward greater commitment, change agents would do well to reject “easy optimism” (Evans, 1996, p. xiv); it only raises hopes and encourages later frustration when the inevitable challenges appear. Instead, Evans suggested, “a genuine respect for the sober realities of experience is crucial to success” (p. xv). He called for change agents to “counter naive assumptions... [because] reform, if it is to succeed, must accept the realities of human nature” (p. 51). He acknowledged that change agents must “straddle a fault line between pressure and support, change and continuity” (p. 58). But this balance is critical. Members of an organization must trust a change agent or leader. As Evans pointed out, “people assess the desirability of any change not just by its 'what' but also by its 'who.' A change proposed by someone we trust and respect is more credible than it would be if proposed by someone we distrust” (p. 83). Therefore, “mistrust is a primary issue that must be resolved first” (p. 126). In general, “change must be accompanied by a high degree of both psychological safety and professional safety. Without this, change is unlikely, no matter how intensely people are pressured to alter their practice” (p. 86).
This sort of psychological safety must permeate the culture of the organization, especially during professional development efforts. Evans (1996) explained that “to help teachers develop new competence, training must be coherent, personal, and continuous” (p. 63, emphasis added). Furthermore, “training must include continuing opportunities for teachers to consider, discuss, argue about, and work through changes in their assumptions. Without this, the technical changes they are exposed to during training are unlikely to make a deep, lasting impact” (p. 65). Even outside of training, Evans suggests “personal contact that is oriented toward both task performance and emotional adjustment rather than just one or the other facilitates staff progress from loss to commitment” (p. 62). Such progress is essential to change efforts; as Evans says, “building of commitment among a critical mass of staff ranks among the most important goals change agents can set for themselves” (p. 69).
Later Evans (2004) summarized “five early steps... to help reduce resistance and build commitment among teachers” (p. 201-203):
• Join the early resistance rather than try to override it.
• Identify (rather than hide) weaknesses in the school's own functioning.
• Refrain from demonizing students or parents or exaggerating an 'us versus them dichotomy.’
• Present the situation as 'pay me now or pay me later.'
• Make a strong personal commitment.
• Leave lots of time for questions.
Most importantly, Evans (1996) concluded that “of all the factors vital to improving schools, none is more essential - or vulnerable - than hope” (p. 290).
Fullan (2001b), too, felt that “real change then, whether desired or not, represents a serious personal and collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty” (p. 32). He went on to say that “the anxieties of uncertainty and the joys of mastery are central to the subjective meaning of educational change, and to success or failure thereof - facts that have not been recognized or appreciated in more attempts at reform” (p. 32). He, like others, notes that “restructuring... occurs time and time again, whereas reculturing (how teachers come to question and change their beliefs and habits) is what's needed” (p. 34). In this respect, he considers innovation a multidimensional undertaking, including new materials (such as video games and simulations), new teaching approaches (such as constructivist pedagogy) and new beliefs (such as perceptions of the value of video games or constructivism) (p. 39, 43, 46).
Fullan (2001a) placed “a premium on understanding and insight rather than on mere action steps” (p. 46). Like Evans, Fullan believed that “collegiality, caring, and respect are paramount” (p. 57). He elaborated on this, writing that “a culture of caring... is vital for successful performance... in five dimensions; mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, lenience in judgment, and courage” (p. 82). He also knew that “leading in a culture of change means creating a culture (not just a structure) of change… [that produces] the capacity to seek, critically assess, and selectively incorporate new ideas and practices” (p. 44). However, the leader or change agent should also remember that they, too, are human, and be sure to “seek sources and situations that push the limits of their energy and engagement, coupled with rituals or periodic breaks that are energy recovering” (Fullan, 2005, p. 35).
Resistance to organizational change is inevitable, but change agents responsible for the integration of video games and simulations as constructivist learning environments will cope with the inevitable more productively if they remember psychological factors. They will be able to move members of their organizations toward enrollment and commitment by building trust and psychological safety. This is the only route to truly reculturing an organization.
Respond to Obstacles, Challenges, and Barriers
As Hord (2004) reported, “changing schools is highly challenging, complex, and messy work - and change is rarely welcomed” (p. 3). There are a variety of obstacles, challenges, and barriers to successful school change, including resistance from faculty and others. However, many professional learning community theorists have addressed these elements of resistance. They have offered strategies for responding to obstacles, challenges, and barriers – and for overcoming organizational resistance.
One of the first and most obvious obstacles is people in the organization who actively resist change. DuFour and Eaker (1998) point out that “principals often make one of three mistakes as they struggle with this problem” (p. 188). They either “pay too much attention to the resisters… vilify the resisters… [or] focus on attitudes rather than behaviors” (p. 188-189). DuFour and Eaker share that “the most effective way to change negative attitudes is to focus on behavior… [thus] providing them with new experiences [that] can become a catalyst for transforming attitudes” (p. 190, see also DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 85). There are a variety of other objections or problems that schools must overcome: the claim that “there is not enough money or personnel” to support the necessary changes, or that “there is not enough time for frequent teacher collaboration” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. xiv). These issues must be creatively and carefully accounted for in school schedules and budgets. Even so, there will be no denying that “building a professional learning community is difficult due to the many demands on teachers and administrators; the growing accountability issues; the increasingly diverse needs of students; teacher isolation and burnout; and many other unmanageable stressors" (Huffman & Hipp, 2003, p. 5). Increasing a school’s capacity for flexibility and adaptability is critical for successful change efforts, but ultimately, “the level of distrust, the lack of structural flexibility, debilitating levels of turnover among school and district personnel, lack of resources, and other obstacles combined to make PLC implementation a truly heroic effort” (Hord, 2004, p. 151).
In addition to these obstacles, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) identified “three daunting challenges” (p. 9) to professional learning communities. The first is the challenge of “developing and applying shared knowledge” (p. 9), which is highly individualistic and dependent on context. The second is the challenge of “sustaining the hard work of change” (p. 10), which requires considerable effort and focus, particularly in the early days of a professional learning community. As DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour pointed out, there are “no easy shortcuts... it will require a staff to find common ground and to exert a focused, coherent, consistent effort over time" (p. 11). The third and most daunting challenge is that of “transforming school culture (p. 11), which the authors explain this way:
"Significant school transformation will require more than changes in structure - the policies, programs, and procedures of a school. Substantive and lasting change will ultimately require a transformation of culture - the beliefs, assumptions, expectations, and habits that constitute the norm for the people throughout the organization" (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 11)
The DuFours and others offer still more warnings about additional barriers. For instance, the sorts of logistical barriers that Richard DuFour overcame at Adlai Stevenson high school included the teacher’s association (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 68), instituting a new concept of supervision (p. 69), providing staffing (p. 71), revisiting the grading system (p. 72), continuing to handle discipline issues (p. 73), and working together to find solutions (p. 77). Many of these same issues will need to be addressed or revisited when a technology such as video games or simulations are introduced to a school culture. More “fundamental barriers to professional learning communities” were identified by DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005, p. 162). First among these was “a lack of clarity regarding vales, intentions, and beliefs” (p. 162). Clearly maintaining a focus on mission, vision, values, and goals will be important to overcoming this barrier. The next was a “dependence on those outside of the school for solutions to problems” (p. 162), which can only be overcome by building the problem solving capacity of the faculty, staff, and community of the school. The worst barrier was a “sense of resignation that robs educators of the energy that is essential to the continuous improvement of teaching, learning, and relationships in schools,” (p. 162), which can only be overcome through inspirational leadership, frequent celebrations, and consistent attention to the human side of school change. Elsewhere in the same volume, DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour offer an additional “ten barriers to action and how to overcome them” (p. 227-248). Hord (2004) pointed out additional structural barriers, such as “lack of training, lack of time, lack of a culture of collaboration, and lack of leadership support for shared practice” (p. 152), and the fact that “for the most part, American teachers work in high-volume, short term relationships with students” (p. 153).
To overcome these barriers the principal (or other change agent) must “constantly nurture those who under[stand] the value of becoming a PLC and persuade those who [have] yet to recognize the strength of a PLC” (Hord, 2004, p. 23). This is important because, according to Hord’s observations, “professional learning communities provide the means through which teachers can be enabled and emboldened to develop individually as professionals, and collectively as a profession" (p. 153). Moreover, “those who begin the PLC journey and the cultural shifts that it requires should not only anticipate but should also welcome challenges to PLC concepts" (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 168). After all, as Hord (2004) explained, “the most successful PLC schools… were catalyzed by an external crisis or opportunity and lead by a powerful administrator who transformed the external force into energy for internal change” (p. 4).
Clearly change agents responsible for the introduction of new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, will need to respond to similar obstacles, challenges, and barriers. Luckily, similar solutions to those used in professional learning communities should be helpful. For instance, focusing on behaviors rather than attitudes may be a more efficient way to help educators accept the use of new technologies.
Develop Learning
Hord (2004) wrote that “substantive change is never simple, and any change requires learning” (p. 57). Ultimately, the sustained success of a professional learning community, or any individual change initiative, is dependent on the ability of the organization (or school) to learn. Change agents should focus first and foremost on developing the learning capacity of their organizations, and the individuals in those organizations.
The DuFours focused on schools as learning organizations (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 15). Even though developing teaching skills is important, these authors describe a cultural shift from a school that is primarily focused on teaching to one that is primarily focused on learning (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 18; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 173; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 83), and from a culture of average learning to a culture of individual learning (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 177). They advocate “learning for all versus teaching for all” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 12). They call for the principal to model lifelong learning (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 120) and to focus on developing a staff of lifelong learners (p. 121). Among their tips for celebrations, a key to sustaining professional learning communities, the DuFours even recommend sharing professional learning at weekly team meetings and monthly staff meetings (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2006, p. 91).
Other professional learning community theorists also emphasized the importance of learning for sustained change in schools. Wald and Castleberry (2000) focused on certain assumptions about adult learning; according to their model adult learning is an active process that occurs over time (p. 10), is driven by the learner around meaningful issues (p. 11), is experimental by nature (p. 11), and is fueled by rich, diverse, accessible sources of information (p. 12). They also felt that “inquiry into underlying assumptions deepens the learning process” (p. 9). For Wald and Castleberry a professional learning community would be one in which “the learner not only hears and processes the information but also experiments with it and then documents and reflects on the results” (p. 10). It is also important that “opportunities exist for the expert to learn from the learner and for the learners to learn from each other and from their own fund of knowledge and experience” (p. 12). In addition, Wald and Castleberry write that:
“Yet other rich and diverse sources of information can be found inside and outside the school walls... sharing know-how and ideas among staff... discussing success and failures, and... supporting each other in experimenting and reflecting... network with other teachers; access consultants and university faculty; and tap into multiple forms of technology, such as video, computer, and telecommunications.” (Wald & Castleberry, 2000, p. 12)
Roberts and Pruitt (2003) advocate a variety of means for members of a professional learning community to learn. One is to learn through a study group, or “a gathering of people who meet on a regularly scheduled basis to address issues that the group members have agreed to study” (p. 92). After all, “conversations among administrators, supervisors, and teachers are a critical aspect of building the professional learning community needed for successful school reculturing” (p. 91). They also suggest learning through a professional portfolio, or “a thoughtful document demonstrating a teacher's approach to teaching or an administrator's approach to leadership... and reflection about it” (p. 159).
Huffman and Hipp (2003) point out that a professional learning community “focuses, first and foremost, upon learning on the part of professionals in the school as the way to increase learning on the part of students” (p. 76). This process of learning and application includes an early phase of “establishing a school culture that values sharing information” (p. 45). Meanwhile, “gaining knowledge, skills, and strategies often is accomplished by traditional staff development, including workshops, mini-workshops, conferences, district inservices, and university courses” (p. 47). It is critically important to throughout this process that the principal, as a co-learner, “models the level of learning expected from the professional staff” (p. 14).
Kagaan also wrote:
“Professionals who believe that the 'whole' of collective efforts is infinitely greater than the 'sum' of individual efforts. Professionals who are convinced that their own learning is prerequisite to the learning of students - and that the learning of students is enhanced by their own learning” (Kagaan, 2004, p. 1)
Kagaan (2004) also recommended several principals of staff development, including the expectations that “participants take responsibility for their own learning”, “exercises reflect higher-order thinking”, and “exercises engender collective energy” (p. 5).
Like Huffman and Hipp, Hord (2004), focused on “collective learning and application of that learning” (p. 1) and like Wald and Castleberry, she also focused on “making opportunity for teachers to learn” (p. 25). In addition to the sorts of experiences advocated by Huffman and Hipp, Hord emphasized the importance of teachers “learn[ing] from and teach[ing] each other by focusing their attention collectively on issues that they identified themselves” (p. 37).
Being primarily constructivist in their pedagogy, many of these theorists focused on the context of professional learning. Huffman and Hipp (2003) for instance believed that professional development should be “an activity that is embedded in the various educational processes of operating schools - curriculum development, student assessment, and the development and evaluation of instructional strategies” (p. 10). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) also advocated “job-embedded professional development strategies… [because] they are collaborative and offer opportunity for conversation, reflection, and inquiry” (p. 55). They also recommend that adult learners need to have “a practical use for the knowledge and think it will benefit them in real life” (p. 60), and they recommend that learning be an active and interactive process (p. 61). Similarly, DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) warn that “to transform data into information requires putting data in context” (p. 61) and recommend this as part of professional development efforts.
A great deal of adult learning is involved when new educational technologies are integrated into a school’s teachng and learning routines. For this reason, change agents responsible for the integration of new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, must address the needs of the adult learners who will be implementing the new technologies. Professional development should be collaborative, context-embedded, and congruent with the principals of a professional learning community.
Sustain The Process
Any effort a change agent puts into facilitating organizational change or overcoming resistance to change is lost if the changes, or more importantly the change process, cannot be sustained. “Sustainability,” says Fullan (2005), “is the capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose” (p. ix). Senge, Evans, and Fullan each had a great deal to offer on the subject of continuous improvement.
Senge (1990) suggested the concepts of openness, localness, and balance were important to sustained change initiatives. Openness was a call for leaders to invite members of the organization to participate and reflect openly (p. 276-277) in the change making process, to let go of the illusion of their own certainty (p. 281), and to “make information more transparent” (Senge et al., 1999, p. 455). Similarly, localness referred to the need for leaders to achieve control without controlling (Senge, 1990, p. 297, 292) and to give up the illusion of being in control (p. 292), by allowing decisions to occur at the lowest level of the hierarchy as possible. Balance, then, referred to the need to allow members of an organization to make healthy choices even in stressful times (Senge et al., 1999, p. 48), to at the very least end the war between work and family (Senge, 1990, p. 360).
Within these constraints, Senge (1990) recommended creating time for learning within organizational structures (p. 302-305). He also recommended establishing a pilot group in the early stages of a change initiative (Senge et al., 1999, p. 39). This would be an excellent opportunity to follow Senge et al’s (1994) steps for breaking through organizational gridlock by identifying problem symptoms, mapping quick fixes, identifying undesirable impacts, identifying fundamental solutions, mapping addictive side effects of quick fixes, finding interconnections to fundamental loops, and identifying high leverage actions (p. 169-172). Senge et al. (1999) also offer these five strategies for sustained change:
• Don't push too hard for growth (p. 61).
• “Looking ahead to identify the most significant challenges facing you, the sources and nature of that resistance, and its potential impact on your group" (p. 62).
• Think about the future today (p. 62).
• Conduct experiments (p. 63).
• Reset the goals by examining your mental models (p. 63).
• Trust yourself (p. 64).
For his part, Evans (1996) recommended that “planning should not be objective, linear, and long range - but rather pragmatic, adaptable, and medium range” (p. 7). He rejects what he calls hyperrational planning in favor of “pragmatic, adaptable approaches that acknowledge the nonrational, unplannable aspects of an organizational life and the importance of being ready to respond to external change” (p. 14), and he recommends that leaders rely “on experience and intuitive judgment in decision making” (p. 15). Like Senge, Evans too recommends making time for learning; he points out that it is common in business to dedicate 5% of an employee’s time to professional development, which in education “would amount to nine or ten days per teacher per year” (Evans, 1996, p. 137).
Fullan (2005) acknowledged, “centrally driven reforms can be a necessary first start... but can never carry the day of sustainability” (p. 7). Several lessons of implementation that Fullan has shared are relevant as well. For instance, professional development is key, evaluation – early and often – is critical, and accountability systems are necessary (Fullan, 2001b, p. 73). Fullan (2005) also hit on the fact that “there is no chance that large-scale reform will happen, let alone stick, unless capacity building is a central component of the strategy for improvement” (p. 10-11). Capacity building “is not just workshops and professional development for all. It is the daily habit of working together, and you can't learn this from a workshop or course” (p. 69). Teachers need personal contact for this to happen, “one-to-one and group opportunities to receive and give help and more simply to converse about the meaning of change” (Fullan, 2001b, p. 124). Perhaps the most important part of capacity building, what Fullan (2005) calls “the essence of Leadership and Sustainability [is] the deliberate fostering of developmental leaders who act locally and beyond, all the while producing such leadership in others” (p. 51). Fullan (2001b) also concluded that coherence-making “is the key to dealing with the nonlinear fragmented demands of overloaded reform agendas” (p. xi), and he recommended the simple strategy of “win small, win early, win often” (Fullan, 2001a, p. 33).
If change agents responsible for integrating video games and simulations into educational institutions are able to implement these strategies for sustainability, they will be better able to facilitate organizational change and overcome organizational resistance in the long run. The technologies will have a better chance of being used, becoming a part of structure of future schools, and making a difference in teaching and learning.
Establishing a professional learning community and then responding to obstacles, challenges, and barriers can go a long way toward improving the chances that school change initiatives will be successful. However, these efforts are easily wasted if the process is not sustained over time. Not surprisingly, professional learning community theorists also offer advice for sustaining the process. They explore the human needs for passion and persistence in addition to more structural changes.
Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour believed that “what the PLC model offers is a process, not a program” (p. 107), a process that DuFour and Eaker (1998) described as nonlinear and persistent (p. 282-283). A critical first step in this process is to build shared knowledge of the school’s current reality (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 95). It is also “imperative that the school develop a critical mass of personnel that accepts both the desirability and feasibility of transforming the school” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 286). To accomplish this and other steps, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) recommended creation of a guiding coalition of school leadership (p. 61). The next step is the process of laying the foundation of shared mission, vision, values, and goals (p. 62-63). Then school structures, such as the schedule and organizational hierarchies, must be aligned with the professional learning community model, including time for teachers to plan or collaborate (p. 63-64). Over time, the ability to enhance team productivity by analyzing data, identifying strengths and weaknesses, reaching consensus on the reality of the past, and identifying a goal (p. 65). Perhaps most importantly, professional learning communities should “limit the number of collective commitments to a handful; five or six is plenty” (p. 103). These “collective commitments also serve as a guide for confrontation” (p. 104) when some staff are not fulfilling their commitments to the community. Huffman and Hipp (2003) articulated “five dimensions characteristic of schools with successful professional learning communities in place” (p. 6), including shared professional practice (p. 11) and “an environment that values such endeavors is enhanced by processes that encourage teachers to share their personal practices with one another... peer review and feedback on instructional practice in order to increase individual and organizational capacity” (p. 11). Finally, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) warn, “the process need not and should not use a cookie cutter approach” (p. 81). Or, as DuFour and Eaker wrote in 1998:
“When the challenge of creating a professional learning community is reduced to a recipe or formula, it is easy to overlook the fact that this task is a passionate endeavor. A school becomes a professional learning community... by tapping into the wellsprings of emotions that lie within the professionals of that school.” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 280)
Other human “needs and yearnings that the professional learning committee seeks to address” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 280) include the “desire to succeed in one’s work” (p. 280), the “desire to belong, to feel a part of a collective endeavor” (p. 281), and the “desire to live a life of meaning, to serve a higher purpose, to make a difference in this world” (p. 282). Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) also addressed the importance of meeting often unmet needs for educators, such as the “need to feel a sense of personal accomplishment” (p. 52), the “need to belong” (p. 53), and the “need to feel our life has meaning” (p. 53). Ultimately, the professional learning community should set out to create “a community of caring and mutual concern” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 281). Wald and Castleberry (2000) also add that “to sustain… communal energy and hope, the leader must hold the vision high for all to see, constantly revisit it, expand on it, and continuously help members of the community connect with it and find ways to personalize it and make it their own” (p. 20). However, like Evans, DuFour and Eaker (1998) caution “optimism must be tempered by tough-minded recognition of the difficulties that lie ahead” (p. 286). DuFour and Eaker (1998) wrote that passion and persistence are key to sustaining a professional learning community (p. 279), and in 2002 Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour were insistent that sustainability was a matter of “persistence, persistence, persistence” (p. 27). As they explained, “the difficult times are inevitable and can be overcome only through the tenacity and persistence that are byproducts of passion” (p. 105). Hord (2004), too, acknowledged that successful professional learning communities “had a realistic understanding of change as a process that requires an ongoing commitment that oftentimes simply reduces to perseverance” (p. 23).
There are ways, of course, to persevere wisely. DuFour and Eaker (1998) advocated observance of “the three Cs of sustaining an improvement initiative - communication, collaboration, and culture” (p. 106). They focused on “the need for clear, constant communication in support of [objectives]” (p. 106), the “shift from a culture of teacher isolation to a culture of deep and meaningful collaboration” (p. 10), and “embedding change in the culture of a school” (p. 131). Hord (2004) shared “strategies for increasing staff capacities for continuous learning” (p. 23), including “focusing on staff and student success” (p. 24), “making opportunities for teachers to learn” (p. 25), “inviting teachers into decision-making and implementation” (p. 25), “nurturing new ways of operating” (p. 26), and “connecting professional development to school improvement goals” (p. 51). Kagaan (2004) believed that “staff professional development should in significant part be about finding allies, colleagues, even soul mates for ideas that are worth pursuing” (p. 3) and that “good professional development should counter this sense of isolation... [teachers] should return to their daily responsibilities uplifted, renewed, and ready to assume new challenges” (p. 3). He supported “collective capacity building” (p. 3) and recommended three guiding principles of professional development:
• “Participants take responsibility for their own learning
• Development exercises reflect high-impact learning
• Development exercises engender collective energy” (Kaagan, 2004, p. 5)
“Most important,” Kagaan (2004) wrote, “the exercises have to stimulate and inspire, providing a sense of anticipation that will be rewarded and a challenge that will be fulfilled" (p. 6).
Wald and Castleberry (2000), for their part, focused on establishing “environments characterized by high levels of trust” (p. 62). These environments included elements such as openness, sharing, acceptance, support, and cooperative intention (p. 62). Hord (2004) also frequently addressed the theme of building trust in a professional learning community (p. 31, 33, 36, & 43). Wald and Castleberry (2000) also recommended five communication norms that facilitate collaborative learning: listening carefully, sharing relevant information, developing shared meaning, making assumptions explicit, and deciding by consensus (p. 64). In addition, they shared several “group practices that support collaborative learning” (p. 69): establishing ground rules (p. 69), exploring trust and task roles (p. 70), documenting information (p. 71), and reflecting on group processes (p. 71). Similarly, Huffman and Hipp (2003) identified “five dimensions characteristic of schools with successful professional learning communities in place” (p. 6): supportive conditions (p. 13, including “the people capacities of those involved and the physical, or structural, conditions” p. 12), restructured time in the school day (p. 13), and the abilities of principals to both relinquish power and model learning (p. 14). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) recommend that principals follow ten specific steps to sustain their professional learning communities, including taking “every opportunity to educate [the] staff and the broader school community about the characteristics of learning communities” (p. 47), demonstrating the value of learning “by actively participating in learning activities with the teachers” (p. 48), and consistently focusing on instructional outcomes (p. 48). They also shared many strategies for overcoming barriers to effective teamwork, including providing “time enough for the group process” (p. 72), paying attention to “issues of equity and diversity” (p. 74), and providing “training in team skills” (p. 77). They even address ways that conflict between team members can be managed (p. 83). Most importantly, “to ensure shared leadership is sustained” (p. 186), they recommend the continual development of new leaders at the school. This process can include strategies such as a mentoring program (p. 144-147). Another strategy recommended by Hord (2004) was to commit funding “for teachers to attend conferences and visit other schools to observe effective practices” (p. 39), after which those teachers would then be “responsible for imparting their new knowledge to the entire staff afterward” (p. 39).
Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour describe a cultural shift from a culture where "improvement efforts frequently shift as new fads or trends come along" (p. 28) to a culture in which commitment "to 'stay the course' in the attainment of the school vision [ensures that] new initiatives are only implemented if it is determined that the change will help the school achieve its vision of the future" (p. 28) and in which "the leader's role is to promote, protect and defend the school's vision and values and to confront behavior that is incongruent with the school's vision and values" (p. 28). Hord (2004) describes this process as long-term transformation taking three years (115-120). In year one, a new professional learning community is “fighting the status quo” (p. 115). In year two, the school encounters what she calls “speed bumps on the path of transition” (p. 117), and year three finally brings “transition to transformation” (p. 120). She also points out that “three years is not long enough to develop professional learning communities, though” (p. 162) a sustainable seed can be planted in that amount of time.
Regarding the assessment of a school as a professional learning community, Huffman and Hipp (2003) warn that “while many principals and faculties conceptualize their schools as organizations operating as learning communities, they rarely meet the operational criteria” (p. 67) and they developed the School Professional Staff as Learning Community questionnaire as an instrument for objectively evaluating schools as professional learning communities (p. 68). Such an instrument is in keeping with Roberts and Pruitt’s (2003) philosophy of teachers learning through classroom observation (p. 118).
Many of the lessons learned by those who have sustained professional learning communities year after year can be valuable to change agents responsible for other long-term change initiatives, such as the integration of video games and simulations as educational technologies in schools. Such change agents, whether administrators or educational technologists, can benefit from considering the change initiative a process, in which human needs must be met over time with passion and persistence. They can also benefit from proceeding as wisely as possible by implementing the advice of the authors discussed above.
Organizational Change and Society
Two guidelines for integrating organizational change with societal change when integrating new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, have been identified. These are to: include family and community, and effect positive social change.
Include Family and Community
Schools do not exist – and school change does not happen – in isolation. Change agents working to integrate educational technologies such as video games and simulations into a school, must consider not only the changes necessary in the school, but the effect that these changes will have on the community. There may even be changes necessary in the community for the project to be successful, or the project may need to allow changes to accommodate the needs of the community.
Senge et al. (2000) recognized this interconnectedness of the school and community when they suggested that “the single most powerful thing that a community can do is to provide children with high-quality preschool experiences from birth through age five” (p. 309). Conversely, they believed that faculty and students must make a commitment to their communities (p. 320), and they encouraged changes in the school that might influence positive changes at home (p. 421). Senge (1990) wrote about learning organizations. Senge et al (2000) applied this idea to communities, writing that “all communities can learn” (p. 461), a process in which schools can play an important part. They also offered strategies for a family-supported school (p. 535-536), including the need for collaborative leadership and for caring classrooms that improve children's learning while enhancing teachers' and parents' efficacy - goals that must be kept in mind even when integrating new educational technologies, such as video games.
Evans (2004) pointed out that “the ever-escalating pace of change that brings unprecedented opportunities also invalidates traditional certainties, the continuity on which childrearing has always depended” (p. xviii). In turn he argued that schools
“Need to rethink the ways they have been addressing the changing nature of students and parents. This will not be a matter of simply improving their traditional efforts... but of fundamentally reshaping the experience of membership in the school community and the relationship between the school and the family” (Evans, 2004, p. xiv-xv).
In keeping with his philosophy on organizational and educational change, Evans (2004) believed these childrearing dilemmas “will not yield to quick fixes” (p. 143). Even so, he proposed “practical steps educators can take to be helpful, not only to their academic mission but to the lives of parents and students directly” (p. 144), and he called for educators to "think more strategically about structuring the entire experience of membership in the school community” (p. 144). He asks “How can we imagine any broad, significant, enduring improvements in school outcomes without a corresponding improvement in the family as a 'readier' and 'sustainer' of students?” (p. 158). The answer, according to Evans, begins with “ perspective, not programs” (p. 159) and “requires a systematic effort to build and sustain consensus throughout the school community about two key facets of school life: purpose and conduct - core values and basic responsibilities” (p. 160). He stressed the role of parent education in this process (p. 161-162) and he believed in the importance of parent involvement in the life of the school, and in the lives and learning of their children (p. 184, 187). Ultimately, he found that
“The schools that encounter the fewest boundary-breaking problems and preserve the best relationships with their families are those that are the clearest about what they stand for (purpose) and what it means to be a part of their school community (conduct)... [because] true community cannot exist without these kinds of shared understandings” (p. 165).
Fullan also agreed that communities and schools can and should influence each other. He cites Senge’s (1990) concept of the “'divisible whole', the realization that the earth is both small and of utmost significance to us" (Fullan, 1993, p. 98). He also firmly believed that “the closer the parent is to the education of the child, the greater the impact on child development and educational achievement” (Fullan, 2001b, p. 198). He shared from his experiences and his research that “teachers in moving schools [schools successfully implementing changes] saw parents as part of the solution” (p. 201). He also related that “researchers still find parent involvement as a crucial and alterable variable regardless of parents' education and ethnic background” (p. 207), and suggested that “it is only when the majority of teachers are collaborating with the majority of parents that any sizable impact on student learning will occur” (p. 202). He even provided guidelines for parents, including:
1. Press governments to create the kind of teachers you want.
2. Leave nostalgia behind you.
3. Ask what you can do for your school as well as what your school can do for you.
4. Put praise before blame. (Fullan, 2001b, p. 214)
DuFour and Eaker (1998) look at parents as partners (p. 238), and they offer a framework for school-parent partnerships that consists of six standards. The first is that “communication between the home and school is regular, two-way, and meaningful” (p. 241). The second standard is to promote and support the development of parenting skills in the community (p. 244). Third, they recommend that schools encourage parents to “play an integral role in assisting student learning” (p. 245). Fourth is the requirement that parents be welcome in the school, and that their support and assistance are sought (p. 246). The fifth standard is that parents be made “full partners in the decisions that affect their children” (p. 248). Finally, they recommend collaboration with the community such that “community resources are used to strengthen schools, families and student learning” (p. 249). DuFour and Eaker also include “representatives of parents” (p. 67) in the process of developing shared mission, vision, values, and goals. Later, Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) include involving parents among their strategies for responding to students who are not learning (p. 71). DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004) then recommended parent workshops organized by grade level (p. 108).
Roberts and Pruitt (2003) also explore ways to “collaborate with parents in learning communities” (p. 153). Like the DuFours, they offer tips for home-school communication, parenting, parent involvement in student learning, parent volunteering, parent-inclusive decision making, and collaboration with the community (p. 153-155). In short, Roberts and Pruitt believed that “students, parents, and teachers benefit when parents assume the role of learners” (p. 15) and that parents, too, can be school leaders (p. 176). Similarly, Huffman and Hipp (2003) viewed “a united effort from school staff, parents, and community members [as being] critical to embed effective practices and values into the culture of the school” (p. 64). Hord (2004) also included parents and other citizens as part of external support in her model of professional learning communities (p. 12). Similarly, Stone and Cuper (2006) counted community among their three C’s of education: a classroom, a community, and collaboration (p. 46). This framework, too, is accompanied by numerous tips that might help aspiring change agents to leverage parents and the community for successful school change.
In order to draw on all available resources and to maximize the chances of success and sustainability for their change initiatives, change agents should involve parents and community members in all phases of the change process from planning to implementation and on into assessment and re-evaluation. This is true even of efforts to incorporate new educational technologies such as video games and simulations. Parents and community members may poses valuable expertise and at the very least will be able to understand a broader perspective on the influence of new technologies on the lives of students. Many obstacles, challenges, and barriers may be avoided or more easily dealt with on account of parent and community input into a change process. In addition, they are stakeholders, too, and deserve a voice in the process.
Effect Positive Social Change
Not only does school change not happen in isolation, but also it is not an end in itself. Schools have been created to serve the greater good, and any school change initiative – even the adoption of new educational technologies such as video games and simulations – must also serve to better society. In essence, any effort to change a school for the better should be part of a greater effort to effect positive social change.
Senge et al. (2000) were interested in the moral dimensions of schooling. They acknowledged, “the primary goal of public schools is to educate children for the responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy” (p. 317). In addition they feel that educators should not only provide “access to knowledge,” but also “nurturing pedagogy” and “responsible stewardship of schools” (p. 280). They also resisted the trend toward standardized rote education, arguing that school is not meant merely for making people civic-minded, keeping kids off the streets, or even providing students with information; instead, they argued for a more constructivist approach of spending “ten years grappling with evidence, because so much of science is counterintuitive” (p. 559).
Evans (1996) advocated “an approach to change that emphasizes people's need to find meaning in their life and work and the role of the school in providing that meaning” (p. xiii). He also believed that all teachers have at one time harbored "an urgent belief in the possibility of enormous social change" (p. 110), and he sought to tap into this as a motivation for school change.
Fullan, with his focus on the moral imperatives of school change, spent more time on this topic than Senge and Evans. He explained “moral purpose means acting with the intention of making a positive difference in the lives of employees, customers, and society as a whole” (Fullan, 2001a, p. 3). Like Senge and Evans, Fullan (2001b) believed that “a strong public school system is necessary for a strong democracy, ... [and that] the public system is weakening rather than getting stronger and that is a system problem, that is, a societal problem” (p. 212). He felt that “the best case for public education has always been that it is a common good” (Fullan, 2003b, p. 3). Furthermore, he suggested, “developing… capacity [for change in schools] means understanding the relationship between democracy and the public school system” (Fullan, 1999, p. 11). In keeping with his constructivist tendencies, he was concerned with “the unfinished legacy of John Dewey... [because] Dewey never addressed the problem of how… a public school system could develop let alone thrive in a society that it was to help make over” (Fullan, 1999, p. 10). Part of Fullan’s (1993) answer was that “individual moral purpose must be linked to a larger social good” (p. 38). Similarly, for Fullan, school change efforts “must be linked to a broader social, public purpose” (p. 11). Ultimately, he believed that “those engaged in education reform are those engaged in societal development" (Fullan, 1999, p. 84), and that “the ultimate aim of education is to produce a learning society, indeed a learning globe” (Fullan, 1993, p. 135).
Fullan saw pragmatic benefits to this focus on social change. He considered the public “a third ally - in addition to policymakers and educators - not yet mobilized” (Fullan, 2003, p. 15). He also knew that “organizations must be actively plugged into their environments responding to and contributing to the issues of the day... [at least in part because] expectations and tensions in the environment contain the seeds of future development” (Fullan, 1993, p. 39). More importantly, he knew that “the reason that the twin forces of greater knowledge and greater moral commitment beyond individuals are related to sustainability is that they begin to improve the social/moral environment” (Fullan, 2003, p. 19). Perhaps most importantly, though, he wrote that "there is nothing more satisfying than seeing hordes of people engaged to do good together because of the leadership you helped produce" and he encouraged readers, writing “don’t give it another armchair thought" (Fullan, 2005, p. 104).
Those enterprising and risk-taking change agents who are already implementing video games and simulations as educational technologies are exemplifying Fullan’s ‘just do it’ philosophy, especially those who are a part of the serious games and games for change movement. As others attempt to replicate the success of these early adopters, they must keep in mind the moral purpose behind the changes they propose, and they must be sure they are introducing new technologies not for their own sake or for any other reason other than to effect positive change in society.
The DuFours in particular support this view, from their philosophy of service leadership (Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002, p. 54) to their efforts to "building engines of hope" (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 110). In short, they believe that the “most powerful fuel for sustaining the initiative to improve a school is not the desire to raise test scores but rather the moral imperative ...the professional learning community concept offers the best strategy for connecting educators to that moral imperative” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004, p. 11-12). Put another way, school change is made “not for the sake of improved test scores, but for the sake of the dreams and aspirations of the children whose lives they touch” (p. 192).
Others in the field espouse similar philosophies. Wald and Castleberry (2000) suggested that educators “see each other as human beings brimming with possibility and potential” rather than “as part of an assembly line” (p. 14). Roberts and Pruitt (2003) were interested in “in identifying, celebrating, and modeling on an ongoing bases those behaviors and accomplishments that reinforce the positive aspects of the culture” (p. 177). Hord (2004) was also interested in being sure that “students of all social backgrounds benefit equally, regardless of race, gender, or family income” (p. 12). Acknowledging the interconnectedness of education and societal change, Stone and Cuper (2006) concluded that “"we must be forever vigilant in our search for creative and unique solutions to help us meet the educational needs of our students and prepare them for the society and world these changes will bring" (p. 89). Stone and Cuper also captured the spirit of education for social change when they wrote that:
“Recognizing the global nature of educating our children has provided the children the opportunity to take their education into their own hands and act as leaders in the community. It has given parents input they had been denied, creating a more positive relationship with the school. It provides the greater community a chance to give back and act as stewards for the environment and the children who live there. No one is left in doubt as to his or her contribution to each child's education or his or her role in creating a positive change in the world.” (Stone and Cuper, 2006, p. 53)
The use of new educational technologies, such as video games and simulations, is not an end unto itself. The change agents responsible for the implementation of such technologies must always keep in mind the question of whether or not the greater social good is being served by the changes they propose.
Conclusion
If video games are ever to be implemented as an educational technology on a large scale, a great deal of organizational change may be required. Curriculum will need to be developed, professional development executed, infrastructure updated, and funding located. All of this will need to be monitored and evaluated – and all of it may meet a good deal of resistance. However, educational technologists and other change agents interested in implementing video games in education can look to organizational change literature (and school change literature) for guidelines. Organizational change can be facilitated by respecting the realities of change, focusing on what’s important, using systems thinking, supporting personal learning, supporting collaborative learning, developing leadership, and developing teaching. In addition, educational leaders can be sure to establish a mission, vision, values, and goals to drive any organizational change efforts, including the implementation of video games. Organizational resistance can be overcome by respecting that resistance, remembering psychological factors, developing learning, and sustaining the change process. Also, educational leaders must respond to obstacles, challenges, and barriers as they pursue new initiatives. Finally, school change efforts are most effective when they are integrated into society at large. This can best be achieved by including the family and community, and aiming to effect positive social change.
Additional research into the potential benefits and concerns related to the implementation of video game in education might also help reduce resistance to such an implementation in educational institutions. This is particularly true with respect to massively multiplayer online role-playing games, about which comparatively little research has been conducted.
Call For Research
This section of the chapter includes a summary of the research discussed above and it’s relationship to the proposed study. This includes speculation about the potential benefits of using Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) as constructivist learning environments. The need for this study is clearly articulated in this section.
Summary of Previous Research and Relationship to This Study
From a constructivist perspective it is clear that video games have the potential to provide a great deal of support for student learning. First and foremost, video games are a medium that can engage and motivate students. Video games can also provide a context for learning, opportunities for inquiry, and a framework for socially negotiated learning. Ideally, video games can also be used to facilitate reflection and metacognition, as well as to support the development of other 21st century skills. If video games are used in this way, the teacher still plays a critical role as facilitator and coach, just as the teacher would in any constructivist learning environment. Also, because video games can be used to provide such support for learning they can be used as a tool to effect positive social change. Though there is some indication that MMORPGs can provide all of these support structures as well, this genre of games is not as well represented in the literature as others and may require further study before implementation in a formal educational context. Therefore, this Delphi study aims to explore the potential benefits and pitfalls of implementing MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments.
Because of the promise that video games show, many pioneering educators are already using existing video games in a variety of ways. Edutainment titles are still in use. Free web-based educational games are increasingly available for a variety of content areas, and many teachers are now repurposing commercial entertainment games for educational uses. Others are modifying commercial games to create educational games, and in recent years a new breed of explicitly educational games has come to market. In addition the serious games movement has produced many games with educational value, including games for change and games for health. MMORPGs show a good deal of promise as well, but are not yet seeing widespread use in education, particularly at the k12 level where the ability to play such games is often restricted by age. This Delphi study will therefore also explore potential ways MMORPGs might be effectively and practically implemented in education.
If new games are to be created for educational purposes, including any educational MMORPGs, then elements of video game design must be considered by educational designers. Knowledge of video game design can also aid educators in choosing existing games for their students. For educational purposes it is particularly important that designers and educators aim for game designs that are inclusive of a broad range of players, including females. To this end, efforts should be made to include a wider variety of human experiences and emotion in educational video games (or to choose games that already include a wider variety). Elements of traditional tabletop role-playing games can be particularly powerful in an educational content, so these should be considered as games are designed or chosen as well. In some ways MMORPGs can facilitate such role-playing, but in other ways they may be more of a barrier to meaningful role-playing. More research may be required before designing educational MMORPGs or implementing existing games in an educational context. This Delphi study will therefore also investigate issues related to designing MMORPGs for education, including issues of inclusive game design, creating emotion in the game, and facilitating meaningful role-playing.
Despite the fact that video games show a great deal of promise in their ability to support learning in (or as) constructivist learning environments, and despite the fact that pioneering educators and game designers are already beginning to implement video games in education, a good deal of organizational change will be required for video games to be implemented on a greater scale. Curriculum will need to be developed, professional development executed, infrastructure updated, and funding located. All of this will need to be monitored and evaluated – and all of it may meet a good deal of resistance. However, educational technologists and other change agents interested in implementing video games in education can look to organizational change literature (and school change literature) for guidelines. Organizational change can be facilitated by respecting the realities of change, focusing on what’s important, using systems thinking, supporting personal learning, supporting collaborative learning, developing leadership, and developing teaching. In addition, educational leaders can be sure to establish a mission, vision, values, and goals to drive any organizational change efforts, including the implementation of video games. Organizational resistance can be overcome by respecting that resistance, remembering psychological factors, developing learning, and sustaining the change process. Also, educational leaders must respond to obstacles, challenges, and barriers as they pursue new initiatives. Finally, school change efforts are most effective when they are integrated into society at large. This can best be achieved by including the family and community, and aiming to effect positive social change. Because of the importance of organizational change to the successful implementation of any educational technology, this Delphi study will also explore ways in which such change might best be facilitated if MMORPGs are to be used in existing educational institutions.
Potential Benefits of MMORPGs and Need for This Study
Very little of the research summarized above was focused on the use of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) in education. What little research is explicitly focused on MMORPGs suggests that they are particularly engaging for young players and that a good deal of incidental learning takes place in the games. They clearly have the potential to provide a context for learning, opportunities for inquiry, and a framework for collaboration. Players are already learning 21st century skills and other soft skills, such as leadership, by playing the games. Even so, there is some disagreement about whether or not educational games should be massively multiplayer, if multiplayer at all. The persistent world and the requirement to coordinate a time and virtual place to meet within the game replicate many of the down-sides of face-to-face learning. Therefore, this Delphi study aims to explore the potential benefits and pitfalls of implementing MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments.
MMORPGs are not yet seeing much use in education, even among pioneering educators. Implementation is particularly difficult in a k12 environment because so many existing games allow only those over 18 to create an account. Also, few existing MMORPGs have a clear educational purpose and are clearly appropriate for use in a school. For this reason, this study will also explore potential ways MMORPGs might be effectively and practically implemented in education. This study will also investigate issues related to designing MMORPGs explicitly for education, including issues of inclusive game design, creating emotion in the game, and facilitating meaningful role-playing. Finally, because of the importance of organizational change to the successful implementation of any educational technology, this Delphi study will also explore ways in which such change might best be facilitated if MMORPGs are to be used in existing educational institutions.
Conclusion
If the medium of video games has a great deal of educational potential from a constructivist perspective, then MMORPGs have an even greater potential, particularly with respect to collaboration and socially negotiated learning. However, MMORPGs may bring additional challenges and logistical issues that single player or merely multiplayer games may not. If the potential of this genre of video games is going to be harnessed for intentional formal education, particularly in the k12 arena, then a study such as this proposed Delphi study is necessary to determine the potential benefits and problems associated with implementation of MMORPGs in education. If the vision of persistent educational worlds in which students from all over the world can collaborate and learn-by-doing is ever to become a reality, then studies such as this one will need to pave the way before such educational MMORPGs are designed and piloted.
CHAPTER 3:
RESEARCH METHOD
THIS THIRD CHAPTER OF THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES AN IN DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN. THE CHAPTER BEGINS BY REVIEWING THE CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH. THEN THE RESEARCH DESIGN IS DESCRIBED, INCLUDING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, THE QUALITATIVE NATURE OF THE STUDY, AND DETAILS ABOUT THE DELPHI METHOD. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY AN ARTICULATION OF SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS. THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER IS EXPLICATED, AS ARE THE MEANS FOR SELECTING PARTICIPANTS AND THE MEASURES PLANNED FOR ETHICAL PROTECTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS. FINALLY, THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS, DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS, AND EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY WILL BE EXPLAINED. AN EXPLORATORY QUANTITATIVE STUDY IS ALSO DESCRIBED. THE CHAPTER CONCLUDES WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF THIS STUDY.
Purpose of The Research
The context of this study was established in chapter one. In short, students today are different than the students of past generations. Current students are Digital Natives (Prensky, 2001b) who have never known a time without cell phones, the Internet, and video games. Unfortunately, most educators are Digital Immigrants who have had to learn these technologies as a “second language.” These educators need new ways to engage and motivate the Digital Natives in their classes. Not only have the students changed, but the skills they will need to be successful in the 21st century have changed as well. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory or NCREL (2003) has identified a number of 21st century skills that schools should aim to develop in students. These are categorized into digital age literacies, inventive thinking, high productivity, and effective communication. Educators also need new means of helping students to develop these skills, many of which (including risk taking – an element of inventive thinking, for example) are particularly difficult to teach in a traditional classroom environment. The research reviewed in chapter two suggests that video games may be an instructional medium well suited to both of these new tasks.
As was demonstrated in chapter two, a good deal has already been written about the use of video games for serious purposes (other than entertainment), including education. Pioneers and early adopters are already using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) games in the classroom. Others are modifying these games for educational purposes. Still others are beginning to use a new breed of explicitly educational games considerably more complex than the edutainment games of the past. The efforts of these pioneering educators - in both the k12 realm and in academia – have given rise to a variety of face-to-face conferences dedicated to the topic of games and learning. The Serious Games Summit has occurred twice a year for the last several years, including an annual appearance in Washington, D.C. For three years MIT hosted the Education Arcade conference the day prior to the commercial video game conference E3, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison has hosted three annual Games, Learning, and Society conferences. Despite the writing, research, and face-to-face conferences dedicated to exploring and disseminating innovation with video games in education, very little has effort has been focused on the use of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) in education - despite the fact that these games are not only some of the most commercially successful but they also show some of the greatest potential as a social constructivist learning platform. This is at least partially due to the fact that in most MMORPGs generally require a paid subscription, do not include explicitly educational content, and do not allow children under the age of 18 to create their own accounts (or to play in the same world with adults).
Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative Delphi study will be to understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in a formal k12 educational context. The study is thus guided by two overarching questions:
1. What are the potential benefits of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
2. What are the potential problems related to using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
As an exploratory study, the following research will also investigate related issues, including the sorts of video game design and organizational change that will be necessary to make implementation of MMORPGs in education a reality. The intent is to make predications that might serve as a roadmap to educational institutions and to game developers interested in implementing MMORPGs in formal k12 education. As such, participants in the study will be experts drawn from the fields of education, educational technology, academia, and video game design. All will be chosen for their familiarity with MMORPGs and with current literature related to the use of video games in education. In order to tap into the knowledge of experts around the globe, data will be collected and shared with participants online.
In developing this statement of purpose the researcher was influenced by the work of Creswell (2003), who suggested that “a good qualitative purpose statement contains important elements of qualitative research, uses research words drawn form the language of that inquiry… and employs the procedures of an emerging design based on experiences of individuals in a natural setting” (p. 88). Specifically, as this statement and the following research design illustrate, this study focuses on a single phenomenon and uses an “emerging design… enhanced by nondirectional language rather than predetermined outcomes” (p. 89). In addition this statement identifies the strategy of inquiry, the nature of the participants, and the online nature of the data collection (p. 90).
Theoretical Framework
According to Merriam (1998), a theoretical framework “is derived from the orientation or stance that [the researcher] brings to [the] study… the structure, the scaffolding, the frame of [the] study” (p. 45). This framework is largely determined by the researchers’ “disciplinary orientation” (p. 45). In this particular case, the researcher is an educator (a former high school English teacher) who was trained in constructivist pedagogy when he earned his credential and masters degree in cross-cultural education. The researcher then took on a role as an educational technology coordinator at the site level. This lead to positions at the district and then county levels as well. One year prior to writing this proposal the researcher left the public sector to found an educational technology company focused on providing consulting, professional development, and school change services to schools, districts, county offices of education, and other educational institutions. The researcher remains constructivist in his approaches. He has also spent the last three years exploring issues related to the use of video games in education.
Merriam (1998) also suggests that the “outermost frame [of] the theoretical framework is the body of literature… drawn upon to situate the study” (p. 47). In this respect, the theoretical framework for this study has been further established in chapters one and two. In short, four pillars of theory support this study. These are constructivist learning theory, digital game-based learning theory, video game design theory, and organizational change theory. The primary underlying theory of learning supporting this study is constructivism, as typified by the works of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. In addition the theories of constructivist educational technologists such as Papert and Jonassen form a foundation for this inquiry. Existing digital game-based learning theories have also been influential in the development of the research problem, including those of Prenksy, Gee, Aldrich, Schaffer, Squire, Steinkuehler, Yee, Beck and Wade, Michael and Chen, and others. Video game design theories of Salen and Zimmerman, Rouse, Koster, Wolf and Patterson, Cassell and Jenkins, Graner Ray, Freeman, Mackay, and others have also played a role. Finally, organizational change theory is important for the application of this study in educational institutions. The works of Senge, Evans, and Fullan have been influential, as have the professional learning community theories of DuFour and DuFour, Wald and Castleberry, Huffman and Hipp, Roberts and Pruitt, Hord, Stone and Cuper, and Kaagan.
The problem statement represents a second (inner) frame of the theoretical framework (Merriam, 1998, p. 47). As such, the purpose of the research articulated above and the research questions detailed below further establish the theoretical framework of the study.
Research Design
This study will employ a qualitative Delphi method. A qualitative method was selected due to the relatively new and emergent nature of the field being studied. Despite the fact that much has been written in recent years about the use of video games in education, relatively little formal research has been conducted. Also, very little of what has been written has focused on the use of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) for learning. Because MMORPGs in particular are not actually currently being used for explicitly educational purposes (with the notable exception of Second Life, which while massively multiplayer is not technically a game in and of itself), there are therefore no current or emergent phenomena to study; therefore, the Delphi method was chosen in order to make predictions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using MMORPGs in formal k12 education.
Qualitative Research
Trochim (2001) defines qualitative measures as “any measures where the data is not recorded in numerical form), [including] short written responses on surveys; interviews; anthropological field research; video and audio data recording; and many other approaches” (p. 152). Trochim suggests that qualitative research can play an important role in developing new theory - and can help the researcher achieve a deep understanding of the related issues (p 152). Because the development of new theory to guide educators and serious game designers is a goal of the researcher – and because the researcher aims to develop expertise in the field, a qualitative methodology is an appropriate choice.
Creswell further defines a qualitative approach as:
“One in which the inquirer makes claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives (i.e., the multiple meanings of individual experiences, meanings socially and historically constructed, with an intent of developing a theory or pattern) or advocacy/participatory perspectives (i.e., political, issue-oriented, collaborative, or change oriented) or both.” (Creswell, 2003, p. 18)
Merriam (1998), too, considers “the view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds” (p. 6) to be a “key philosophical assumption” (p. 6) of qualitative research. Because of the present researcher’s constructivist theoretical framework and because of the focus of the study on effecting positive social change through the implementation of MMORPGs as an educational technology, a qualitative approach appears once again to be an appropriate choice.
This focus on social change (and organizational change) necessitates that the data collected by the researcher not be simplified. Leedy and Ormrod (2005) suggested that all qualitative approaches focus on “phenomena that occur in natural settings –that is, in the ‘real world’” (p. 133) and on “studying those phenomena in all their complexity” (p. 133). Again, the qualitative approach is a good match with the nature of the proposed study. Also, Leedy and Ormrod suggest that qualitative research typically serves to provide description, interpretation, verification, or evaluation of the phenomena being studied (p. 134-135). In the case of this study, the focus will be on description and interpretation. As such the study aims to “reveal the nature of certain situations, settings, processes, relationships, systems, or people” (p. 134) and to “enable [the] researcher to (a) gain new insights about a particular phenomenon, (b) develop new concepts or theoretical perspectives about the phenomenon, and/or (c) discover the problems that exist within the phenomenon” (p. 134). The proposed study will describe the consensus that the participating experts reach via the Delphi method and will interpret these findings to make predictions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using MMORPGs in formal k12 education. This study thus also falls under Glesne’s (1999) umbrella term for qualitative inquiry – that is, interpretivist research.
In addition to her aforementioned constructivist view or qualitative research, Merriam (1998) also considers another characteristic of qualitative research to be that “the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Data are mediated through this human instrument, the researcher, rather than through some inanimate inventory, questionnaire, or computer.” (p. 7). Through the use of a qualitative approach, this researcher hopes to be responsive to the context and adaptable to the circumstances of the study as well as to expand the knowledge in this field through nuanced analysis, clarification, and summary of the data (p. 7). Merriam also considers qualitative research an inductive strategy that “builds abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, or theories rather than test[ing] existing theory” (p. 7). As is often the case, this study is being undertaken “because there is a lack of theory” (p. 7). Finally, Merriam notes that “since qualitative research focuses on process, meaning, and understanding, the product of a qualitative study is richly descriptive. Words and pictures rather than numbers are used to convey what the researcher has learned about a phenomenon” (p. 8). Due to the researcher’s background as a writer, a student and teacher of literature, and a blogger, the choice of a qualitative approach is particularly well suited to his talents.
The Delphi Method
The Delphi method is used to help a group of purposefully selected experts come to a consensus regarding the answer to a question, particularly if the answer requires making predictions about the future. This section of the proposal provides an overview of the Delphi method, a brief history of its development and application, and a step-by-step discussion of the process. The potential strengths of the method are explained, as are potential concerns and criticisms related to the method. The key terms of expert and consensus are also defined.
Overview
The Delphi method is a flexible technique with many permutations. Lindstone and Turoff, who authored a well-respected volume describing the process in 1975, defined the Delphi in general terms:
“Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem. To accomplish this ‘structured communication’ there is provided: some feedback of individual contributions of information and knowledge; some assessment of the group judgment or' view; some opportunity for individuals to revise views; and some degree of anonymity for the individual responses.” (Lindstone and Turoff, 2002, p. 3)
According to Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007), “the Delphi method is an iterative process to collect and distill the anonymous judgments of experts using a series of data collection and analysis techniques interspersed with feedback” (p. 1). They explain that “the questionnaires are designed to focus on problems, opportunities, solutions, or forecasts” (p. 2). In the case of this present study, the questionnaires will focus on forecasting the potential benefits and drawbacks of using massively multiplayer online role-playing games in formal k12 education.
The purpose of the Delphi method is “to collect information about an issue or probable event to use as a basis for planning and decision making” (MG Taylor Corporation, 1983, p. 208). Most importantly, “the Delphi method can be used when there is incomplete knowledge about a problem or phenomena” (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007, p. 2). As Rowe and Wright (1999) pointed out, “Delphi is not a procedure intended to challenge statistical or model-based procedures… it is intended for use in judgment and forecasting situations in which pure model-based statistical methods are not practical or possible because of the lack of appropriate… data” (p. 354). Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) also note that “the Delphi method is well suited as a research instrument when there is incomplete knowledge about a problem or phenomenon” (p. 1). They suggested that “the Delphi method works especially well when the goal is to improve our understanding of problems, opportunities, solutions, or to develop forecasts” (p. 1). Put simply, “the Delphi is used to investigate what does not yet exist” (p. 2). Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn also explain that “researchers may want to look forward to see what will be the key… issues… ethical dilemmas… and lessons early adopters will learn” (p. 2). As such, there are many meaningful and worthwhile inquiries for which no other method of research is well suited. For example:
“In many instances, such as projecting the effects of a new product or technology, quantitative forecasting methods are not an option because historical data is typically not available. In such cases a reliable forecast must be obtained using qualitative means. The Delphi Method is a reliable and unique methodology appropriate for these instances.” (Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, & Swanson, n.d., p. 1)
According to Ludwig (1997), “today businesses, government agencies, and organizations are using Delphi methods to predict or forecast future events and relationships in order to make appropriate and reasonable plans or changes” (p. 1). Rowe and Wright (1999) noted that Delphi is often used in the field of education in particular. Hartman (1981) concluded that “the Delphi technique is a forecasting tool with proven benefits for long-range educational planning.”
The Delphi method is thus an appropriate choice for this present study. The field of video games and learning is only in its infancy; it is not well defined, well understood, or well quantified. The researcher hopes that the results of the study will be useful for planning and decision-making as educational institutions and game developers work to take advantage of the MMORPG medium. Due to the lack of existing implementations of MMORPGs in education there is very little known about the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an implementation. Statistical or model-based procedures are inappropriate in this context, and development of an MMORPG for use with test subjects (and not with a control group) would require time and resources far beyond what is available to the researcher. The researcher is thus investigating something that does not exist yet. Even so, the researcher aims to improve the current understanding of the effects of using MMORPGs, a new technology, in a formal k12 educational context – and he aims to develop forecasts useful for taking full advantage of the medium.
Ultimately, the Delphi method “operates on the principle that several heads are better than one in making subjective conjectures about the future… and that experts will make conjectures based upon rational judgment rather than merely guessing” (Weaver, 1971, as cited in Ludwig, 1997, p. 1). Ludwig (1997) added that:
“Delphi is a group process and its goal is to help a group reach consensus. Rather than gathering people together for oral discussion, individuals provide written responses to questions. This is an advantage when persons possessing the knowledge and expertise to address the problem are not in close proximity” (p. 1).
Similarly, Rowe & Wright (1999) note that “Delphi is intended for use with disparate experts” (p. 371). Again, this makes the Delphi an appropriate choice for this study; the leading theorists studying video games, simulations, and learning are scattered around the nation and the world. According to Wong (2003), “Delphi exercises have typically been conducted by mail, on-site meetings, in-person visits, or telephone. These implementations reside in the generally higher-cost [methods of conducting a Delphi]” (p. 17). Wong finds an e-Delphi, conducted via email, and a web Delphi, conducted via the web, to be considerably cheaper and to require less time. "In the web technique, the Internet is used as the medium and the exercise and the material are generally posted on a web site. Participants log onto the Web site during a specified period (e.g. a week) and provide inputs at times compatible with their individual schedules" (Wong, 2003, p. 18). In this case, both “Macs and PCs could be accommodated. Hence, participants could use the computer equipment they already had in their offices. No additional hardware or software would be required" (Wong, 2003, p. 20). In light of these benefits, this present study will utilize the web Delphi format. Specifically, the online survey service will be used to conduct each iteration of the Delphi. Initial contact with the participants, as well as instructions for each round of the Delphi, will be communicated via email.
History
The Delphi technique is named for the Oracle of Delphi, “where the ancient Greeks were said to be able to forecast future events (Williams & Webb, 1994, p. 181). Bowles (1999) related that “in Greek Mythology, Apollo was master of the City of Delphi. He ‘spoke’ through a medium guarded by priests at the Oracle of Delphi and predicted the future” (p. 32). The priests apparently functioned as “a number of informants to deliver the ‘truth’, enhanced as a result of data from many sources” (Kennedy, 2004, cited in Baker, Lovell, & Harris, 2006, p. 60).
Though “the first Delphi-type study sought to forecast the outcome of horse races” (Bowles, 1999, p. 32), formal use of the Delphi technique began with defense research conducted by the RAND Corporation for the United States government in the 1950’s (Helmer & Rescher, 1959, cited in Williams & Webb 1994, p. 181). This study, called Project Delphi, aimed to “predict the outcome of Russian nuclear bomb strikes on the USA’s munitions capability” (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963, cited in Bowles, 1999, p. 32). Dalkey and Helmer, who worked for the RAND Corporation then published a study in 1963, are often credited as the developers of the formal Delphi technique (Baker, Lovell, & Harris, 2006, p. 60). Following their work, the Delphi method then became more widely used (Bowles, 1999, p. 32).
The Delphi technique has now “developed into a more established method and has been increasingly used in mainstream research in recent years” (Williams & Webb, 1994, p. 181). According to Ludwig (1997), “today businesses, governmental agencies, and organizations are using Delphi methods to predict or forecast future events and relationships in order to make appropriate and reasonable plans or changes” (p. 1). Rowe and Write (1999) agree that “since its design at the RAND corporation over 40 years ago, the Delphi technique has become a widely used tool for measuring and aiding forecasting and decision making in a variety of disciplines” (p. 353). Baker, Lovell, and Harris (2006) wrote that the Delphi is seeing “usage in commerce and government… and [has a] widespread history in healthcare settings and social research” (p. 60). As of 1994, the Delphi method had been used in at least 1,000 published research projects (McKenna, 1994, cited in Bowles, 1999, p. 32). Even so, the Delphi is considered “an under-used methodology” (Ludwig, 1997, p. 1).
In recent years, the Delphi, which was traditionally administered by mail, has often been administered by email (the e-Delphi) or via the Web (the Web Delphi) (Wong, 2003, p. 18). This proposed study will implement the Delphi method via the web.
Process
The Delphi process begins with a research question that cannot best be addressed using more traditional quantitative or qualitative research - a question concerning a poorly defined, poorly understood, and poorly quantified field, for instance – and/or a question in which the researcher hopes to make predictions about the future. Once the problem is defined, a panel of experts who have knowledge, experience, or authority in the field are recruited to anonymously answer a series of questionnaires. After each questionnaire, the results are analyzed and feedback is provided to the participants. Then a new iteration of the questionnaire is composed and administered to the same panel of experts. The process continues until the group reaches a consensus regarding their answer to the research question, at which point the final report is developed. This section of the proposal will provide an introduction to the key features of the Delphi method, the process of selecting participants, and the development (and implementation) of the survey instruments.
Key Features. The classical Delphi has four key features. These are anonymity of the participants, various iterations of the survey instrument (or instruments), controlled feedback, and statistical aggregation of group response (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007, p. 3). Rowe & Write (1999) also considered these four key features “as necessary for defining a procedure as a ‘Delphi’” (p. 354). As they explain, “anonymity is achieved through the use of questionnaires” (p. 354). There are many versions of the Delphi method, but in all “anonymity of respondents during the process is an important aspect” (Ludwig, 1997, p. 1) This allows iterations to be productive, because “with the iteration of the questionnaire over a number of rounds, the individuals are given the opportunity to change their opinions and judgments without fear of losing face in the eyes of the (anonymous) others in the group” (p. 354). The mechanism for this is the controlled feedback provided by the researcher between rounds so that the participants “are informed of the opinions of their anonymous colleagues” (p. 354). Though many classic Delphi studies include statistical aggregation of group responses in a quantitative form, some studies have also been conducted in a purely qualitative fashion. For example, MG Taylor Corporation (1983) documented studies in which the researcher would “send the same question out to the same people a second and third time, [including] the responses with the question so that respondees can read the other opinions and adjust their own opinions” (p. 208). Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) also indicate that quantitative ranking of responses is not a necessary element of the modern Delphi (p. 4) and suggest that different types of questions and analysis can be used in each round (p. 5). This proposed study will remain qualitative throughout for the reasons discussed above.
As with a classical Delphi, this proposed study will maintain the anonymity of the participants through the use of online questionnaires. The study will also include at least three iterations of the questionnaire, making this a three round Delphi study (see below for more discussion of number of rounds included in a Delphi study). After each round the researcher will provide participants with structured feedback in two forms: a summary of all participants responses, and access to the raw results returned from each (anonymous) participant. The summaries will be provided for the participants’ convenience, and access to the raw responses will be provided in order to allow participants to verify the validity and reliability of the researcher’s judgments and to make their own if they disagree with the summary. Unlike the classical Delphi, this study will not include quantitative statistical aggregation of group responses. See the discussion of - and justification for – a qualitative methodology above.
Participants. The number of participants recruited for the Delphi panel varies widely. Rowe and Wright (1999) provided a summary of the methodological features of various Delphi experiments with panel sizes ranging from 3 to 98 respondents (p. 357). Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) revealed some large panels of over a hundred respondents (p. 6), and even one with 345 respondents (p. 17). However, Ludwig (1997) reported that the majority of Delphi studies “have used between 15-20 respondents” (p. 2), and he later recommended a slightly smaller group size of 12-15 (p. 2). According to Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007), “where the group is homogeneous, then a smaller sample of between ten to fifteen people may yield sufficient results” (p. 10) Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, and Swanson (n.d.) reported similar numbers, concluding that 10-18 participants is normal (p. 2). There is a trade-off between quality of the Delphi results and the manageability of the study. As Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn explain, there is a reduction in group error (or an in-crease in decision quality) as sample size increases. However, above a certain threshold, managing the Delphi process and analyzing the data becomes cumbersome in return for marginal benefits” (p. 10). Naturally, it is recommended that researchers use “the minimally sufficient number of respondents” (Debecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson 1975, as cited in Ludwig, 1997, p. 2). CITATION NEEDED ON THE MINIMUM NUMBER – SEE JAREK’S PAPER. This proposed study will begin with 20 participants, in the hopes that at least 12-15 participants will complete all iterations of the study.
Participant selection is a critical element of any Delphi study. According to Ludwig (1997), “because the group number will be small (12-15), the researcher needs to locate and target individuals who are ‘expert,’ have knowledge and experience to base their futuring activities upon, and are self-motivated” (p. 2). Unlike many other methodologies, in a Delphi study, “randomly selecting participants is NOT acceptable” (p. 2). A detailed discussion of how this study will define the term “expert” and how expert participants will be selected appears later in this section.
In some cases, members of the Delphi panel are organized into sub-panels. Okoli and Pawlowski (2004), for example, divided their experts into panels (p. 4). This proposed study will recruit participants with the intention of dividing them into sub-panels of educators, academics, game designers, and other.
Instrument Development and Implementation. The development of the survey instrument is another critical element of a successful Delphi study. According to Ludwig (1997), “the first questionnaire could take several forms, but would most likely be one or two open-ended questions related to a broad problem or issue” (p. 2). Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn (2007) took a similar stance, writing that “the initial questions are typically broad, open-ended questions so as to widely cast the research net” (p. 10). Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, & Swanson (n.d.) also wrote that “the first questionnaire usually consists of one or two questions” (p. 2). Accordingly, this proposed study will begin with a first round questionnaire including two broad open-ended questions. The researcher will avoid directing participants answers as much as possible by refraining from including more specific questions inspired by the literature review until the second round of the Delphi.
The second round questionnaire includes two major parts, a review of the first round responses, and an additional round of questions written in light of the first round responses. First, as Ludwig (1997) explained, “during the second round, the second questionnaire asks participants to review all items identified by the first round of the Delphi” (p. 2). As mentioned above, in order to provide the element of structured feedback, the researcher in this proposed study will provide a summary of initial responses and also provide participants with access to each others’ raw responses. At this point in the process “the experts… are allowed to review their responses in light of the opinions of other experts, add comments, and change their responses if desired” (Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, and Swanson, n.d., p. 3). Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) explain that “participants are… given the opportunity to verify that the Round One responses did indeed reflect their opinions and are given the opportunity to change or expand their Round One responses now that the other research participants’ answers are shared with them” (p. 4). They also point out that in quantitative or mixed studies, “ranking and rating the output of the first round is common” (p. 4), but in this proposed qualitative study that element of the classical Delphi will not be included.
In addition, “from the original open-ended questions, a series of structured items are developed by the researcher” (Ludwig, 1997, p. 2) for the second round questionnaire. These “new questions formulated by the panel director are posed to the panel… members [who] then return the answers to these questions, along with any revisions to their previous answers, to the [researcher]” (Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, and Swanson, n.d., p. 3). The second round questionnaire in this proposed study will thus also include several more-specific yet still open-ended questions. These questions will be composed based on both the participants’ first-round responses and the researcher’s previously conducted literature review. In short, the researcher will “design another survey based on the responses to the first one and then readminister it, asking respondents to revise their original responses [and] answer the other questions based on group feedback form the first survey” (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004, p. 19).
In a classical Delphi “during the third, and any additional rounds, the Delphi respondents re-rate each item” (Ludwig, 1997, p. 2) in a quantitative manner. However, this proposed study will remain qualitative in the third round. Even so, the third round (and any subsequent rounds) will include three major parts:
First, they include the answers to all previous questions, along with… data so experts can view how their responses related to those of other panel members. Second, they include comments and reasoning that panel members included with their answers. Third, they provide an opportunity for experts to review and revise any of their previous answers. Once again, panel members fill out the questionnaire and return it to the [researcher[“ (Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, and Swanson, n. d., p. 3).
Because of the qualitative nature of this proposed study, participants answers to previous questions and their comments and reasoning may not necessarily be separate items, since all questions will be open-ended, allowing participants to include any comments and reasoning they feel necessary. Like the studies described by MG Taylor Corporation (1983), this proposed study will send the same questions out to the same people multiple times so that they can adjust their own opinions based on the responses of others. In addition, the third round may include “additional questions to verify the results, to understand the boundaries of the research, and to understand where these results can be extended” (Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn, 2007, p.4).
A fourth round and any additional iterations of the survey will be performed if necessary. Ludwig (1997) explained that “Delphi rounds of questionnaires continue until a predetermined level of consensus is reached or no new information is gained” (p. 2). Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) also wrote that “the process stops when the research question is answered: for example, when consensus is reached, theoretical saturation is achieved, or when sufficient information has been exchanged” (p. 2). For a detailed definition and discussion of what will be considered consensus in this proposed study, please see the definitions section below.
It is anticipated that a fourth round will not be necessary. “A review of literature (Altschuld, 1993) found that in most instances three iterations were enough and not enough new information was gained to warrant the cost of more iterations” (Ludwig, 1997, p. 2). Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) also agreed that “if the goal is to understand nuances (a goal in qualitative research) and the sample is homogeneous, then fewer than three rounds may be sufficient to reach consensus, theoretical saturation, or uncover sufficient information” (p. 11).
Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) recommend that one objective when developing the various iterations of the Delphi questionnaire should be “to ensure that no single questionnaire should take more than 30 minutes to complete” (p. 23-24). In this proposed study, the researcher will aim to comply with this recommendation by limiting the number and scope of questions included in each round. However, due to the level of detail desired – and the expected dedication level of the experts to be recruited – the researcher will tell participants to expect to spend from 30 to 60 minutes on each round.
Similarly, Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) suggest that “quick turnaround times help to keep enthusiasm alive and participation high” (p. 11). Therefore, in the proposed study the researcher will aim to provide quick turnaround time. Participants will be asked to complete each round of the Delphi within one week. The researcher will then take no more than one additional week to analyze the results and prepare the second round questionnaire. At most, a participant will wait two weeks between completing a questionnaire and receiving the results and he next round questions. This also means that the three rounds of the Delphi will be expected to take no more than six weeks in all.
In Figure 1 Joppe (n.d.) provides a simple illustration of the Delphi process.
[pic]
Figure 1: Flowchart for the Delphi Method (Joppe, n.d.)
Strengths
The Delphi method has a variety of strengths. Chief among them is its flexibility. Williams and Webb (1994) pointed out that “the Delphi method has a flexibility which allows considerable diversity in its application” (P. 181). Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) also explained that “the Delphi study is flexible in its design, and amenable to follow-up interviews” (p. 18). The flexibility of the method gives it a wide range of situations in which it might be applicable and useful. For instance, Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) report that “the Delphi has been used in research to develop, identify, forecast, and to validate in a wide variety of research areas” (p. 5). They also suggest that “there is no ‘typical’ Delphi; rather… the method is modified to suit the circumstances and research question” (p. 5)
Williams and Webb (1994) point out several other advantages of the Delphi method, including “the fact that it provides consensus of expert opinion, without the bias which can readily occur in comparable techniques” (p. 181). Similarly, Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) suggest that the Delphi method “permits the collection of richer data leading to a deeper understanding of the fundamental research questions”(p. 18) than is possible with other comparable methods. Other benefits include the use of an expert panel, controlled anonymous feedback (with less pressure on panel members to conform than in a committee), systematic refinement, development of consensus, and easy, inexpensive access to a large number of experts who may be geographically distant (Bowles, 1992, p. 32). It is also valuable to the broad research efforts in the field that researchers can “build bridges” between participants (Phil, 1971, as cited in Bowles, 1999, p. 32). Rowe and Wright (1999) compared the Delphi method to other comparable methods by examining which predictions were more accurate. Delphi was more accurate than “staticized group” by 12 cases to 2 (p. 364), and more accurate than “interactive groups” by 5 cases to 2, with 2 “ties” (p. 365). Several other methods were also found to me less accurate than the Delphi (p. 366). Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) “judged the Delphi method to be a stronger methodology (than traditional surveys) for a rigorous query of experts and stakeholders” (p. 18). Janio (2007) also pointed out that the Delphi method has several advantages over phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case studies (p. 89). Unlike in a phenomenological study in which the researcher must “consciously suspend any previously held views and expectations… the Delphi method focuses on actively seeking professionals who are already familiar with the phenomena studied” (p. 90). Similarly, the panel of experts is missing from a grounded theory study, though a qualitative Delphi and a grounded theory study may share a good deal in terms of data analysis techniques (p. 91). Also, a Delphi study allows the researcher to draw on the expertise of geographically distant experts, which would be impossible in an ethnographic study requiring immersion into a local culture (p. 92). A simple case study is similarly limited to a specific time and place (p. 93), and all of the methods mentioned above fail to address the need to make useful predictions about the future. The need to make such predictions in a field that is not well understood or quantified is the primary reason behind the choice of Delphi as the method for this proposed study.
Furthermore, the Delphi has many of the same advantages of traditional surveys. For instance, “Delphi is desirable in that it does not require the experts to meet physically, which could be impractical for international experts” (p. 18). This is of particular advantage to the proposed study, which will draw on experts from across North America and the globe. Also, “the questionnaire can include questions that solicit quantitative or qualitative data, or both” (p. 19). As discussed above, this study will focus on qualitative data, despite the fact that the classic Delphi was a mixed method. More importantly, “non-response is typically very low in Delphi surveys since most researchers have personally obtained assurances of participation” (p. 19). This is expected to hold true in this study as well; the researcher has spent nearly three years connecting with and building relationships with the world experts in the field of video games and learning.
In addition, this researcher is explicitly interested in theory building as a result of this study, and as Okoli and Pawlowski point out, “researchers can use the Delphi method in a number of ways related directly to theory building” (p. 19). In this respect, the Delphi method bears some resemblance to the grounded theory method, in which “the researcher attempts to derive a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study” (Creswell, 2003, p. 14). Like a Delphi study, a grounded theory study is also a “complex iterative process” (Trochim, 2001, p. 160) and it “involves using multiple stages of data collection and the refinement and interrelationship of categories of information” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998, as cited in Creswell, 2003, p. 14). According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005), “the major purpose of a grounded theory approach is to begin with the data and use them to develop a theory” (p. 140). Though this is not he primary purpose of this proposed study, the researcher does hope to be able to make a theoretical contribution based on the findings. As Merriam (1998) pointed out, “the constant comparative method of data analysis [used in grounded theory] is widely used in all kinds of qualitative studies, whether or not the researcher is building a grounded theory” (p. 18). This proposed study is one such study. It will also involve the practices of identifying core concepts, linking the participants’ responses, coding responses, and aiming for conceptual density in the findings, as a grounded theory study might (Trochim, 2001, p. 160-161).
Finally, those who read and evaluate the study will appreciate that “the uniqueness of Delphi lies in its reliability, given the variableness of human opinion” (Bourgeois, Pugmire, Stevenson, Swanson, and Swanson, n.d., p. 1). See the discussion below for more details regarding the validity and reliability of this proposed study.
Concerns and Criticisms
Despite it’s evident strengths, there are significant concerns and criticisms related to the Delphi method. In this proposed study, every effort will be made to minimize these concerns.
The flip side of the Delphi method’s flexibility is the lack of specific guidelines for implementing an effective Delphi study. Williams and Webb (1994) note that “there is no agreement regarding the size of the panel, nor any recommendations concerning sampling techniques” (p. 182). Bowles (1999) also expressed concern that “the concept and definition of expert have been questioned” (p. 32) and that “the ideal panel size has not been identified” (p. 32). Baker, Lovell, and Harris (2006) shared this concern that “the unconvincing definition of expert [is] one of [the] major flaws in the Delphi method” (p. 60). In this study, the recommended panel sizes discussed above will be implemented. See the section below for a detailed discussion of how the researcher will identify experts for this proposed study.
Once experts have been identified and recruited, there are additional concerns about the lack of a well-defined metric for consensus. Williams and Webb (1994) criticized the “arbitrary level of consensus [in a typical Delphi study because] many researchers do not attempt to set a level for consensus prior to the enquiry. Instead, they make a decision after the data have been analyzed” (p. 183) Bowles (1999) also points out that “few researchers have defined consensus in clear… terms” (p. 32). Rowe and Wright (1999) also question “whether a reduction in variance over rounds reflects true consensus (reasoned acceptance of a position)” (p. 363). They suggest a process of post-group consensus, which measures “the extent to which individuals – after the Delphi process has been completed – individually agree with the final group aggregate” (p. 363). In this proposed study, consensus will be pre-defined (see the following section of this proposal) and the researcher will test for post-group consensus.
Unfortunately, Rowe and Right (1999) also found that “ respondents with more extreme views were more likely to drop out of a Delphi procedure than those with moderate views… suggest[ing] that consensus may be due – at least in part – to attrition” (p. 364). Williams and Webb (1994) also noted that attrition might affect response bias (p. 184). Bowles (1999) agreed that attrition may contribute to sample bias (p. 32). The researcher will make every effort to discourage attrition, and will also include any members who have dropped out of the study in the final post-group consensus check discussed above.
Another concern related to participants is a challenge to the value of anonymity. Bowles (1999) suggests that valuable data are lost because panelists cannot interact directly. Though this is a limitation of the method, this concern is outweighed by the power of anonymity to remove ego, defensiveness, and a tendency to bandwagon from the process. Regardless, the researcher plans to reveal participant identities at the end of the study so that they might benefit from future work together – and to make their qualifications as experts entirely transparent in the final report of findings.
Finally, there is even concern over the Delphi’s reliability. Williams and Webb (1994), for instance, questioned whether the same results would be achieved “if exactly the same information was given to two (or more) panels who had been carefully selected using the same criteria” (p. 182). They were also concerned by the “additional strand of subjectivity… introduced when the investigator puts a personal interpretation” (p. 184) on the data – or even on the level of consensus. Bowles (1999) also believed that “there is potential for researcher bias at all stages” (p. 32). In particular he pointed out that researcher optimism may affect results in the form of “self-affecting predications” or “catalytic validity” (p. 33). In addition “all the questionnaire design issues of a survey also apply to a Delphi study” (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004, p. 19). Naturally, “being certain steps are taken to eliminate the chance of research bias is important throughout the Delphi process” (Ludwig, 1997, p. 2). See the detailed discussion later in this chapter for an overview of how validity and reliability are being addressed in this proposed study.
Quality and transparent feedback will be an important part of ensuring the validity of the study. Rowe and Wright (1999) suggest that “feedback is the means by which information is passed between panelists so that individual judgment may be improved and debiasing may occur” (p. 370). However, another concern of theirs is that “although feedback of reasons or rationales behind individual’s [responses] has sometimes taken place… this form of feedback is rare” (p. 369), despite the fact that it is associated with “the greatest degree of improvement in accuracy over rounds” (p. 371). Therefore, this proposed study will include such feedback. Participants will be able to read a summary of previous results, and be able to access the raw responses as well.
Finally, Bowles (1999) raises a concern over the cost of the Delphi; he suggests that “the multiple iteration design central to the Delphi may be more costly and more cumbersome than a survey that uses a single mailshot. The time, money and effort needed to conduct a Delphi study may deter single-handed and small scale researchers” (p. 370). However, the researcher does not expect this proposed study costly to implement. The researcher already owns all necessary software and has already paid for an annual subscription to the online survey tool. The greatest costs will be the researcher’s time and the monetary cost of compensation for the participants.
Definition: Expert
The selection of experts to participate in a Delphi panel is critical to the success of a Delphi study. It stands to reason that the quality of the results depends directly on the expertise of the participants. Indeed, according to Rowe and Wright (1999) “there is evidence that panels composed of relative experts tend to benefit from a Delphi procedure to a greater extent than comparative aggregates of novices” (p. 368). Furthermore, they found that “accuracy increased over rounds for expert groups but not for inexpert ones” (p. 371). Unfortunately, this is “the most important yet most neglected aspect of the Delphi method – choosing appropriate experts” (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004, p. 16). This section of the proposal is intended to ensure that selection of experts is well planned and well executed in this proposed study.
Though there is no widely accepted definition of expert used in all Delphi studies, Baker, Lovell, and Harris (2006) have identified key themes “that have emerged from the various definitions of expert, including knowledge and experience, and ability to influence policy” (p. 62). With respect to knowledge, they suggest that “the authoring of materials such as books or peer-reviewed articles may demonstrate knowledge within an area and this has been utilized as a criterion for selecting an expert” (p. 63). Regarding experience, “Delphi research often concentrates on professional (qualification and experience) expertise” (p. 64). However, they caution against using a number of years experience as a factor. In addition, “a number of papers have cited positions such as… consultant or chief executive as part of a qualification of expertise, or positions within key organizations” (p. 65).
In this present study all three indicators of expertise identified by Baker, Lovell, and Harris will be considered. First priority will be given to experts who have published work related to the issues being studied (particularly video games and learning), including books, peer-reviewed articles, and doctoral dissertations. An effort will be made to also include educational practitioners with experience using video games and simulations with their students. Practitioners will also be recruited from the video game design industry, particularly those who are involved in serious game design. In many cases these practitioners may be chosen based on non-academic writing they have produced on the subject, including magazine articles, and online resources such as blogs or wikis that relate their experiences. Television and podcast interviews may also be considered. Finally, the researcher will also seek participants who hold a professional position directly related to the subject, such as university professors or leaders in educational technology organizations or video game design organizations – again with a particular focus on those involved in serious game design.
This may be considered heterogeneous to a panel - to a point. It will be a heterogeneous panel because these criteria for expert will allow the inclusion of educators, educational technologists, academics, game designers, and other expert stakeholders. However, it may be considered a homogenous panel from the perspective that each of the participants will be experts in the use of video games and simulations for educational purposes, and as the literature review has demonstrated, their expertise and philosophies may overlap to a great degree with each other – and with the researcher.
Baker, Lovell, and Harris (2006) further caution that “care is needed… in ensuring that experts who are known personally to the researcher are not invited… [because] this can cause difficulties when experts come from a small group of individuals who know each other” (p. 63). Though the researcher will be recruiting experts whom he has met professionally, these experts are not his colleagues at his place of work, they will be drawn from universities, educational institutions, and game development studios from around North America and the world. Baker, Lovell, and Harris also caution that there is a “potential for bias in the recruitment process” (p. 63). The researcher acknowledges this and will make every effort to recruit a panel representative of the variety of opinion in the field, not just those he agrees with. Even so, most experts in the field of video games and learning may be likely to be proponents of the use of video games and simulations for educational purposes. However, their views on the potential benefits and concerns related to the use of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Games as Constructivist Learning Environments varies widely or is unclear, as revealed in the literature review presented in chapter two of this proposal.
The researcher will also follow Baker, Lovell, and Harris’ advice to require “the expression of conflict of interest… of any potential panelists” (p. 64).
Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) also suggest that Delphi participants should meet four requirements to be considered experts fit for the study:
“i) knowledge and experience with the issues under investigation; ii) capacity and willingness to participate; iii) sufficient time to participate in the Delphi; and, iv) effective communication skills (Adler & Ziglio, 1996). Commitment to participate in a multi-round Delphi can be inferred by the round-by-round response rate (Keil et al., 2002). It is our experience that those true experts in a field have great insight; unfortunately, they are often very busy and may not be able to participate fully. Engaging, concise, and well-written questions can often entice their participation. Those with marketing skills often excel at sample development and a high response rate. Often the student's supervisor is a valuable resource to colleagues who qualify as experts.” (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007, p. 10)
The researcher will of course make every effort to identify experts who exemplify each of these qualities. However, the invitation to participate in this proposed study will also make these requirements explicit to potential participants so that they might self-select themselves and remove themselves from consideration if they do not meet all four requirements.
Finally, Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) suggested that “one also needs to be cognizant that the views of the sample participants may not be representative of a wider population… which impinges upon results generalization” (p. 11). In order to ascertain the degree to which generalization from the chosen experts to a wider population might be suspect in the case of this proposed study, demographic information will also be collected for each participant. However, it also needs to be pointed out that the selection of an elite group of experts as defined here is the greatest advantage of a Delphi study over a random sampling that might be more reliably generalized in a traditional sense.
Definition: Consensus
The conclusion of a Delphi study occurs once the participating experts reach a consensus. It is thus critically important that the researcher also provide a working definition of consensus. One definition that has been used is that the results are “at least acceptable to every member, if not exactly as they would have wished” (Reid, 1988, as cited in Williams & Webb, 1994, p. 182). This will serve as the working definition of consensus for this proposed study; consensus is achieved when the results are at least acceptable to every member if not exactly as they would have wished. During the third and any additional rounds – and during the final consensus check – participants will be asked to indicate their level of agreement with individual results, according to the following scale:
a. I am not in agreement with many of the results and do not accept the results.
b. The results are acceptable, though they differ from my expert opinion in minor ways.
c. I am in full agreement with most or all of the results.
Participants will be prompted to elaborate on their reasons for disagreeing with the results. Any dissenting opinions will be included in the findings.
Williams and Webb (1994) also recommend specifying a range of consensus levels at the outset of the project in order to be able to identify a high level of consensus or a low level of consensus in the findings. Therefore the this proposed study will use the following levels of consensus, based on participants’ responses to the scale above.
• Very High Level of Consensus: 95-100% of participants indicate full agreement with most or all of the results, and any remaining participants indicate that the results are acceptable.
• High Level of Consensus: 75-94% of participants indicate full agreement with most or all of the results, and the remaining participants indicate that the results are acceptable.
• Medium Level of Consensus: 50-74% of participants indicate full agreement with most or all of the results. Remaining participants indicate that the results are acceptable. (OR, 75-100% of participants indicate full agreement, but the remaining participants do not all indicate that the results are acceptable.)
• Low Level of Consensus: 34-49% of participants indicate full agreement with most or all of the results, and the remaining participants indicate that the results are acceptable. (OR, 50-74% of participants indicate full agreement, but the remaining participants do not all indicate that the results are acceptable.)
• Very Low Level of Consensus – 00-33% of participants indicate full agreement with most or all of the results, and the remaining participants indicate that the results are acceptable.
• No Consensus – 00-49% of participants indicate full agreement, and the remaining participants do not all indicate that the results are acceptable.
This scale will allow the researcher to identify and report a level of consensus after three Delphi rounds and yet still acknowledge and report any dissenting opinions as well.
Research Questions and Subquestions
“A research project is an effort to remedy the ignorance that exists about something” (Glesne, 1999, p. 24), and “it would be a fruitless undertaking to embark on a research journey without first identifying a research problem” (Merriam, 1998, p. 55). Therefore the researcher always starts with a question in mind. In some cases, these questions can be quantified and explored through quantitative methods, but according to Creswell (2003), “in a qualitative study, inquirers state research questions, not objectives (i.e., specific goals for the research) or hypotheses (i.e., predictions that involve variables and statistical tests)” (p. 105). As a qualitative Delphi study, this proposed research will therefore begin with a focus on two broad questions. The guiding research questions take a general form “so as to not limit the inquiry” (p. 105) from the outset. Creswell also recommends that the questions be open-ended questions beginning with the words what, how, or why.
This study aims to explore the potential of massively multiplayer online role-playing games as constructivist learning environments, with a particular focus on formal k12 education. The study is thus guided by two overarching questions:
1. What are the potential benefits of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
2. What are the potential problems related to using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
Creswell (2003) suggests that “research questions assume two forms: a central question and associated subquestions” (p. 105). Therefore, this proposed study will also include a number of subquestions.
The associated subquestions that will be explored in the second and later rounds of the Delphi process are as follows. At this point these are primarily informed by the literature review performed for Chapter Two, and they may change form based on the responses of the first round Delphi survey. The evolution of research questions is to be expected in qualitative research (Creswell, 2003, p. 107). The following are the proposed 12 initial subquestions:
13. Motivation and Engagement: How might MMORPGs be used to motivate and engage students, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
14. Context: How might MMORPGs be used to provide a context for student learning, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
15. Inquiry: How might MMORPGs be used to provide students with opportunities for inquiry-based learning, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
16. Social Negotiation: How might MMORPGs be used to support social negotiation of meaning (including facilitated collaboration, cooperation, and competition), and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
17. Reflection: How might MMORPGs be used to encourage student reflection and metacognition, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
18. 21st Century Skills: How might MMORPGs be used to help students develop 21st century skills (as defined by NCREL, 2003), and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
19. Role-Playing: How might MMORPGs be used to support meaningful role-playing and development of new identities by students, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
20. Role of The Teacher: What might be the role of the teacher in supporting the use of MMORPGs in formal k12 education?
21. Organizational Change: What sorts of organizational change would need to take place before MMORPGs might be accepted and effectively implemented as an educational technology in existing schools?
22. Social Change: How might MMORPGs used in formal k12 education be used to effect positive social change?
23. Inclusive Game Design: How might game designers create MMORPGs for education that are inclusive of both genders and that represent a wide range of human emotion?
24. Game Design: What other issues will designers of educational MMORPGs need to consider?
Role of the Researcher
As Creswell (2003) wrote, “qualitative research is interpretive research, with the inquirer typically involved in a sustained and intensive experience with participants” (p. 184). Furthermore, as Merriam (1998) pointed out, “in a qualitative study the investigator is the primary instrument for gathering and analyzing data” (p. 20). Defining the role of the researcher is therefore critical to the success of a qualitative study.
Merriam (1998) recommends that a qualitative researcher must have “an enormous tolerance for ambiguity” (p. 20), must be sensitive or “highly intuitive” (p. 21), and must be a good communicator who “empathizes with respondents, establishes rapport, asks good questions, and listens intently” (p. 23). Though auditory listening is not required by this study, the researcher is confident that he embodies each of these attributes. Merriam also stressed the importance of being a careful observer when conducing qualitative research (p. 94). Though there is no formal face-to-face observation of the participants, the nature of the field of inquiry means that the experts will be easily observed in a virtual fashion. The researcher will follow their blogs, podcasts, speaking engagements, and appearances in the media throughout the study. He will also consider his past experience observing those who ultimately elect to participate in the study. In this way, the participants’ responses may be judged in the context of their work as a whole. As such, the researcher’s powers of observation will still play a significant role in the analysis of data in this proposed study.
The researchers’ own career and work also provides a context for the proposed study and will undoubtedly also impact the results of the study. Creswell (2003) suggested that researchers should “identify their biases, values, and personal interests about their research topic and process” (p. 184). In the spirit of full disclosure, this researcher thus makes the following statements:
1. In his professional role, the researcher is a former high school English teacher who has for the past six years been dedicated to the field of educational technology. In his current role he serves primarily as a consultant and professional developer to schools, districts, county and regional offices, professional organizations (of educators), and other educational entities.
2. His pedagogical philosophies are explicitly constructivist, and for the past three years his academic work has been focused on exploring the use of video games and simulations for teaching and learning. (Though he is not a gamer himself, the researcher has during this period spent a significant amount of time playing a number of games that have appeared in the studies he has read - and a number of additional MMORPGs as well.)
3. In addition to his exploration of the literature in this field, he has also attended a variety of face-to-face conferences where he has been exposed to newer ideas and where he has been able to personally meet many of the experts in the field.
4. Perhaps more importantly, he has blogged about his experiences both as a professional and as a student (including many drafts of this document). This process has brought him into contact with still more professionals in the field of video games and learning, many of whom he plans to invite to participate in the proposed study.
5. The researcher also has personal experience with meaningful role-playing using traditional tabletop role-playing games, and his interest in this medium has colored his exploration of the literature and his design of this study.
In the proposed study, the researcher will be personally responsible for all aspects of implementing the Delphi process. He will recruit all participants, compose all questionnaires, analyze all data, and interpret all findings. Though he will retain all responsibility for these elements, he may from time to time employ clerical help to aid him in dealing with each of these elements.
Participants
The participants in this proposed study will be experts in the field of video games and learning. Participants will be educators, educational technologists, academics, video game (and/or simulation) designers, and other stakeholders with expertise in constructivist education, educational video games, and/or serious game design. See the definition of expert above for a more detailed discussion of how the term expert is being defined within the context of this study. Participants will also be chosen based on their availability for the study and on their communication skills, particularly their skills of written communication.
Merriam (1998) identified two basic types of sampling used to select study participants, probability and nonprobability sampling (p. 60). Because the proposed study is qualitative in nature, “probabilistic sampling is not necessary or even justifiable” (p. 61), and this study will therefore use nonprobabilistic sampling. More specifically, this study will use a form of purposeful sampling, which “is based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 61). The researcher will be purposefully seeking experts who can serve as “information-rich cases… from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (Patton, 1990, p 169, as cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 61).
Because the proposed study will be using the Delphi methodology, all of the participants selected will be experts in the field being studied. This means that typical strategies for sampling will not apply. Glesne (1999) defines several strategies for selecting research participants for qualitative research, including typical case sampling, extreme or deviant case sampling, homogenous sampling, maximum variation sampling, network sampling, and convenience sampling (p. 29). As the researcher will be actively recruiting experts for this study, he will explicitly not be using typical case sampling, network sampling, or convenience sampling.
However, the selection of experts might be considered a form of extreme case sampling, which “selects cases from the extremes, cases that are unusual or special in some way” (Glesne, 1999, p. 29); experts in the field of video games and learning are unusual among the ranks of educators and academics. Also, the selection of experts for this study might be considered homogeneous sampling, which “selects all similar cases in order to describe some [subject] in depth” (p. 29; despite coming from various walks of life, all the participants will be experts in the field of video games and learning. (Conversely, the sample might be considered heterogeneous because the experts will be culled from a variety of fields.) In addition, the researcher might be considered to be engaging in convenience sampling to some degree because he will focus his efforts on the experts he has made contact with over the past three years of investigating this topic. Though convenience sampling is generally considered “low credibility and… inappropriate for anything other than ‘practice’” (p. 29), the reason behind this is the unlikelihood that the researcher will recruit the best people for the purposes of his study. However, considering the researcher has spent three years investigating the topic under investigation and making contact with the preeminent experts in the field, this matter of convenience will not compromise the integrity of this proposed study.
In Delphi studies it is recommended that the researcher recruit at least two respondents for every question being investigated (Alder & Ziglio, 1996, cited in Janio, 2007, p. 6). Based on the number of subquestions articulated in the section above, the researcher will aim to recruit at least 24 participants for this Delphi study. This number of participants will also allow the researcher to recruit approximately six participants in each of the primary subcategories of expert: educators, educational technologists, academics, and video game designers. Additional participants will be acceptable in order to protect against attrition. However, in order to maintain a manageable panel size, the researcher will at no time invite more than double this number (48) of experts to participate.
Measures For Ethical Protection of The Participants
All research must be conducted in an ethical manner that protects the participants. Fortunately, the potential ethical issues related to this proposed study are minimal. No protected classes will be involved and no participants will be at risk of any harm as a result of their participation (nor will any issues of a person’s right to service come into play, as there is no service being rendered and no control group in the research design). Also, because the research will be conducted via email and the web, there are no issues related to gatekeepers and access to research sites. Nevertheless, the researcher will take every reasonable precaution to ensure the ethical protection of all participants in the study.
Participation in this proposed study will be voluntary; that is, “people will not be coerced into participating in the research” (Trochim, 2001, p. 24). As Leedy and Ormrod (2005) suggest, “research participants should be told the nature of the study to be conducted and given the choice of either participating or not participating” (p. 101). The researcher will therefore provide participants with “sufficient information to make informed decisions about participating in [this] study” (Glesne, 1999, p. 114) and will receive informed consent from each participant; each will “be fully informed [in writing] about the procedures and risks involved in [the] research” (Trochim, 2001, p. 24) before being asked for their written consent to participate. Also, participants will be told that “if they agree to participate, they have the right to withdraw from the study at any time” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 101). In the case of this proposed study, there is no dilemma related to how well informed the participants should be or whether or not to deceive them; there is no value to keeping information from participants (other than the identity of the other participants) and they will therefore be fully informed about the nature of the study. Based on Leedy and Ormrod’s recommendations, the informed consent form will include the following:
• “A brief description of the study
• A description of what participation will involve, in terms of activities and duration
• A statement indicating that participation is voluntary and can be terminated at any time without penalty.
• A list of any potential risk and/or discomfort that participants may encounter
• The guarantee that all responses will remain confidential and anonymous
• The researcher’s name, plus information about how the researcher can be contacted…
• An offer to provide detailed information about the study (e.g., a summary of findings) upon its completion
• A place for the participant to sign and date the letter, indicating agreement to participate” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 101-102).
According to Trochim (2001), “almost all research guarantees the participants confidentiality… [by assuring] that identifying information will not be made available to anyone who is not directly involved in the study” (p. 24). However, as Leedy and Ormrod (2005) indicated, publishing a participant’s identity is permissible if “the participant has specifically granted permission, in writing, for this to happen” (p. 102). In the case of this proposed Delphi study, being able to share the identity of the participants (and thus their specific qualifications as experts) in the findings may lend validity to the results of the study in the mind of readers. Therefore, confidentiality will be optional and it is hoped that most, if not all, participants will agree in writing to release their identities along with the results. Despite this lack of confidentiality following the study, participants will still be anonymous to each other during the study; such anonymity is critical to the success of the Delphi process.
In order to encourage an environment of reciprocation between the researcher and participants, the researcher will involve participants “in the design and research questions… [and] actively [seek] their support during all phases of the research” (Creswell, 2003, p. 65). Indeed, such collaboration is inherent in the iterative process of a Delphi study, and particularly in the element of feedback that the researcher provides to participants (and seeks from them via the questionnaires in each round). The researcher will also be “monetarily rewarding research subjects for their time” (Glesne, 1999, p. 126), though the amount will be nominal. The researcher will also make every effort to reciprocate and aid the participants in their own research or work in gratitude for their participation.
In addition, to maintain a level of complete honesty with professional colleagues, the researcher will of course report his findings in a complete and honest fashion, without misrepresentation (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 102). After all, “there is simply no ethical alternative to being as nonbiased, accurate, honest as is humanly possible in all phases of research” (Diener & Crandall, 1978, p. 162, as cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 216). The researcher will also take care to always give credit where it is due through proper citations and acknowledgements.
Also, in lieu of traditional copyright, the study will be published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. This will allow the participants, the researchers’ colleagues, and anyone else who is interested, to use the publication in any way they see fit as long as they give attribution to the researcher and as long as they share any derivative works under the same license.
Following the conclusion and publication of the study, all data will be retained by the researcher in electronic format for a period of at least five years. After this time it will be discarded “so that it does not fall into the hands of other researchers who might appropriate it for other purposes” (Creswell, 2003, p. 66).
Additional efforts to ethically ensure the accuracy of the findings will be discussed in the section on validity and reliability below.
Data Collection Process
The data collected during this proposed study will be written qualitative data provided by purposefully selected experts in the field of video games and learning.
The Delphi method requires collection of data via anonymous written surveys. For this proposed study, this will be accomplished via a web-based interface.
Specifically, the researcher will use the service at to distribute surveys and collect responses. This service allows the researcher to compose a survey using simple online forms (or to cut and paste existing questions into these forms). The researcher will then have a variety of options for disseminating the survey, including placing a link on an existing webpage or emailing a link to each participant. In this case, the researcher will choose the later. Each email will be sent separately (or addressed via the BCC field) so that participant identities are not revealed in the To or CC field of the message. Participants click on the link sent via email; this opens a web page which presents the survey questions and prompts participants to enter their answers. (The questions will suggest to participants that they compose their answers in a text editing or word processing program and then post their answers into the web interface in order to avoid losing any work if their web browser were to fail for any reason.) Once participants have entered their complete responses they will click a button to submit their answers. The researcher will then be able to access and download participants’ answers via the admin interface at .
The participants’ responses will be used to compose feedback for the participants and to compose the next iteration of the survey. The above process will then be repeated for each iteration of the survey, and for the final consensus check.
The role of the researcher in this process will include locating and enlisting the cooperation of suitable expert participants (as defined above), motivating respondents to perform well, clarifying any confusion or concerns, and monitoring the quality of responses (Trochim, 2001,p. 125). The researcher will also be responsible for “training the interviewers” (p. 126), by describing the entire study, explaining his own biases, and explaining all procedures and schedules (p. 126-127).
The round one survey will include only two broad and open-ended questions. These will be identical to the research questions driving this study:
1. What are the potential benefits of using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
2. What are the potential problems related to using MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education?
In the second round of the Delphi, the questions will be based on the literature review conducted by the researcher and on the participants’ responses. Based on the literature review, the second round questions might appear identical to the subquestions being explored by this study:
1. Motivation and Engagement: How might MMORPGs be used to motivate and engage students, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
2. Context: How might MMORPGs be used to provide a context for student learning, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
3. Inquiry: How might MMORPGs be used to provide students with opportunities for inquiry-based learning, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
4. Social Negotiation: How might MMORPGs be used to support social negotiation of meaning (including facilitated collaboration, cooperation, and competition), and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
5. Reflection: How might MMORPGs be used to encourage student reflection and metacognition, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
6. 21st Century Skills: How might MMORPGs be used to help students develop 21st century skills (as defined by NCREL, 2003), and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
7. Role-Playing: How might MMORPGs be used to support meaningful role-playing and development of new identities by students, and what problems might be associated with using MMORPGs for this purpose?
8. Role of The Teacher: What might be the role of the teacher in supporting the use of MMORPGs in formal k12 education?
9. Organizational Change: What sorts of organizational change would need to take place before MMORPGs might be accepted and effectively implemented as an educational technology in existing schools?
10. Social Change: How might MMORPGs used in formal k12 education be used to effect positive social change?
11. Inclusive Game Design: How might game designers create MMORPGs for education that are inclusive of both genders and that represent a wide range of human emotion?
12. Game Design: What other issues will designers of educational MMORPGs need to consider?
The questions above are expected to evolve during the course of the Delphi study. See the discussion of the Delphi process above for more detail about the iterative development and implementation of the survey instruments.
Data Analysis Process
Following the collection of responses for each round of the Delphi survey, the researcher will review and analyze the data. Simply put, “data analysis is a process of making sense out of data” (Merriam, 1998, p. 192).
Merriam (1998) explained “rigor in a qualitative research derives from the researcher’s presence, the nature of the interaction between researcher and participants, the triangulation of data, their interpretation of perceptions, and rich, thick descriptions” (p. 151), so it is clear that the role of the researcher in data analysis is paramount. The researcher’s first step in this process will be to “organize and prepare the data for analysis” (Creswell, 2003, p. 191). Then the researcher will “read through all the data” (p. 191). This will be important for the researcher to “obtain a general sense of the information and to reflect on its overall meaning” (p. 191).
Next, the researcher will “begin detailed analysis with a coding process” (p. 192). According to Creswell, “coding is the process of organizing material into ‘chunks’ before bringing meaning to those ‘chunks’… It involves… segmenting sentences (or paragraphs)… into categories, and labeling those categories with a term” (p. 192). Merriam (1998) defined coding as “nothing more than assigning some sort of shorthand designation to various aspects of your data so that you can easily retrieve specific pieces of the data” (p. 164), and Trochim (2001) defines it as “a process for categorizing qualitative data and describing the implications and details of these categories” (p. 160). These categories, according to Merriam (1998), should reflect the purpose of the research and be exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and all of the same level of abstraction (p. 184). Glesne (1999) explained coding as “a progressive process of sorting and defining and defining and sorting those scraps of collected data… that are applicable to your research purpose” (p. 135). To facilitate this coding process the researcher will use qualitative analysis software, such as TAMS Analyzer for Mac OS X, an open source qualitative analysis tool that supports complex hierarchical codes. The coding process is especially appropriate for a Delphi study because it can help the researcher “develop a more specific focus or more relevant questions” (p. 133).
The results of the coding process will then be used to “generate… themes for analysis” (Creswell, 2003, p. 193). Following the first and second iterations of the survey, these themes will inform the composition of the next iteration of the survey. Following the third (or final) iteration of the survey, these themes will then serve as the basis for the findings. In the final report, “a narrative passage [will be used] to convey the findings of the analysis” (p. 194). Finally, the researcher will make an interpretation as to the meaning of the findings (p. 194-195). At this point, the researcher will be theorizing, or “thinking about data… [and taking] a step toward developing a theory that explains some aspect of educational practice and allows a researcher to draw inferences about future activity” (p. 188), which is of course the goal of a Delphi study. In this respect the researcher’s role in the proposed study will be to build “from the data to broad themes to a generalized model or theory” (p. 132).
Because of the iterative nature of the Delphi study, the researcher’s analysis of round one responses will amount to a form of early data analysis, in which “data analysis done simultaneously with data collection [which will enable the researcher] to focus and shape the study as it proceeds” (Glesne, 1999, p. 130). The researcher will also keep a research log in order to practice memo writing (or memoing) “by getting [his] thoughts down as they occur, now matter how preliminary or in what form” (p. 131). As Merriam (1998) points out, “data collection and analysis is a simultaneous activity in qualitative research” (p. 151), and “data that have been analyzed while being collected are… illuminating” (p. 162).
The nature of the Delphi study also means that the participants will play a role in the analysis of data as well. In addition to generating the responses to be analyzed, after each iteration of the survey they will receive feedback from the researcher allowing the previous responses (from other participants) to influence their responses on successive iterations of the survey.
Issues related to verifying the validity and reliability of findings during the data analysis process will be covered in the following section.
Validity and Reliability
Every effort will be made to ensure the validity and reliability of this proposed study. In a qualitative study, and in a Delphi study, these terms take on a slightly different meaning than in traditional quantitative research, but there are still clear steps the researcher can take to improve the quality of the study. Ultimately, steps will be taken to ensure that this study is credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable.
Trochim (2001) defines construct validity as “the degree to which [the researcher] is measuring what [he] intended to measure” (p. 105). However, in this proposed qualitative study, there are no values being directly measured. Moreover, “some qualitative researchers reject the framework of validity that is commonly accepted in more quantitative research… [because] they reject the basic realist assumption that there is a reality external to our perception of it” (p. 162). Still, there are other standards for judging the validity of qualitative research. Trochim shared “four criteria for judging the soundness of qualitative research” (p. 162): credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
“The credibility criteria involves establishing that the results of the qualitative research are credible or believable form the perspective of the participant in the research” (Trochim, 2001, p. 162). This form of credibility is to some degree integrated into the Delphi process. After each iteration of the Delphi questionnaire, feedback is provided to the participants, who are then able to react to the researcher’s interpretations of their responses and to affect the direction of the study through their responses to the next round questionnaire. In addition, the final consensus check will be an opportunity for the participants to indicate their level of agreement with the consensus identified by the researcher. This is not unlike what Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) suggested when they wrote that “the Delphi method can employ further construct validation by asking experts to validate the researcher’s interpretation and categorization of the variables” (p. 19). Perhaps more importantly, the weight of this credibility will depend a great deal on the credibility of the participants, in a colloquial sense; if the participants are highly credible (i.e. published and recognized experts), then the study will be more credible. Therefore, the plan is to recruit those experts with the most knowledge and experience in the field, as discussed above. As Baker, Lovell, and Harris (2006) pointed out, “within consensus methods of research, especially Delphi panel techniques, the use of ‘experts’’ is fundamental to reliability” (p. 59).
“Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of qualitative research can be generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings” (Trochim, 2001, p. 162). This is primarily the responsibility of the researcher, who will in this case make ever effort to “enhance transferability by doing a thorough job of describing the research context and the assumptions that were central to the research” (p. 162). The thick rich narrative planned for the final report of the findings (based on the researchers notes throughout the data collection process detailed above) will help ensure the transferability of the results.
According to Trochim (2001), “reliability is the consistency or repeatability of your measures” (p. 88), and “the traditional view of reliability is based o the assumption of replicability or repeatability” (p. 162). In much qualitative research, though, neither is anything being measured nor can the study be performed in exactly the same way twice. So, the concept of quantitative reliability may be replaced with the concept of qualitative dependability, which “emphasizes the need for the researcher to account for the ever changing context within which research occurs” (p. 163). Again, in this proposed study, the researcher will take responsibility for describing the changes that occur [throughout the study] and how these changes affect the way the researcher approached the study” (p. 163).
Confirmability, then, “refers to the degree to which the results could be confirmed or corroborated by others” (Trochim, 2001, p. 163). In order to enhance the confirmability of this proposed study, the researcher will document the data analysis procedures throughout the study, identify a colleague to serve as a devil’s advocate to the results (and document the result), and will actively search for and document any dissenting opinions among the panel of experts (p. 163).
Creswell (2003) also recommends several strategies for validating the accuracy of findings in a qualitative research study (p. 195-197). The researcher aims to employ these following eight strategies to varying degrees: triangulation, member-checking, rich thick description, bias clarification, negative or discrepant information, prolonged time in the field, peer debriefing, and an external auditor (p. 196).
Glesne (1999) defines one form of triangulation as the use of multiple data sources (p. 33). Creswell (2003) suggests triangulating “different data sources of information by examining evidence from the sources and using it to build a coherent justification for themes” (p. 196). Merriam (1998), too, recommends triangulation (p. 204). The Delphi process ensures that the researcher will be triangulating data from various sources - the experts, who will be assembled from a variety of disciplines and widely dispersed geographical locations.
Furthermore, the Delphi rounds and the final consensus check will be used throughout the process to determine whether the participants consider the findings accurate. This will serve as a form of member checking, which Glesne (1999) defines as sharing interview transcripts, analytical thoughts, and/or drafts of the final report with research participants to make sure [the researcher is] representing them and their ideas accurately” (p. 32). Creswell (2003) suggests the use of member-checking to “determine the accuracy of the qualitative findings through taking the final report or specific descriptions or themes back to participants and determining whether these participants feel that they are accurate” (p. 196). Merriam (1998) relates that “a number of writers suggest doing this continuously throughout the study” (p. 204). She also recommends
involving participants in all phases of research” (p. 205). Both will happen in the case of this proposed study. As Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007) explained, “continuous verification throughout the Delphi process is critical to improve the reliability of the results” (p. 4).
Ultimately, the researcher will provide a rich, thick description of the study and the findings, which will give the reader a sense of sharing the experience of the researcher (Creswell, 2003, p. 196). By definition, Glesne (1999) considers thick, rich description to be “writing that allows the reader to enter the research context” (p. 32). This description will also include an open and honest self-reflection and clarification of the researcher’s own biases with hopes that this will “resonate well with readers” (Creswell, 2003, p. 196). In addition the researcher will record how he monitors his own bias throughout the research, as recommended by Glesne (1999, p. 32). Also, as mentioned above, the descriptions in the findings will feature a “conscious search for negative cases and unconfirming evidence” (p. 32) among the expert responses – those responses that do not contribute to the group consensus. After all, “because real life is composed of different perspectives that do not always coalesce, discussing contrary information adds to the credibility of an account for a reader” (p. 196).
Glesne (1999) recommends that the researcher spend “extended time in the field so that [he is] able to develop trust, learn the culture, and check out [his] hunches” (p. 32). Similarly, Creswell recommends that the researcher “develops an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study and can convey detail about the site and the people that lends credibility to the narrative account” (p. 196). Merriam (1998), too suggests “gathering data over a period of time in order to increase the validity of the findings” (p. 204) . Though the researcher is not performing any formal field work, he has spend the last ten years working in or with the public education system and the last three years investigating video games and learning (including face-to-face conferences, and including many hours of hands-on gaming); more importantly, the researcher is tapping into experts who have dedicated their career to the field of video games and learning.
Creswell (2003) suggests the use of “peer debriefing to enhance the accuracy of the account” (p. 196), and Glesne (1999) also suggests seeking “external reflection and input on [the researcher’s] work” (p. 32). Similarly, Merriam (1998) called for “peer examination [by] asking colleagues to comment on the findings as they emerge” (p. 204). During and following the implementation of the Delphi study, the researcher will therefore consult with at least one peer who is not participating and ask this fellow researcher to review the findings and ask “questions about the qualitative study so that the account will resonate with people other than the researcher” (p. 196).
If time and funding permit, the researcher will also “use an external auditor to review the entire project. As distinct from a peer debriefer, this auditor [will be] new to the researcher and the project” (p. 197). This person will examine “the research process and product through ‘auditing’ [the researcher’s] notes, research journal, analytic coding scheme, etc.” (p. 32). The resulting audit trail will serve to improve the rigor of the study (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007, p. 11).
Publication of the findings will then include “the instrument[s] and key data” Skulmoski, Harman, & Krahn, 2007, p. 12), which are necessary to gauge the validity and reliability of a Delphi study. In order to be easily (and well) assessed as a qualitative research study, the report will also be purposeful, explicit about assumptions and biases, rigorous, open-minded, complete, coherent, persuasive, useful, and representative of true consensus (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 154-155). Finally, the researcher will “recommend further study to refine and verify [the] results… to investigate related sets of research questions… to extend the results to a similar sample… or to an entirely different sample” (Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn, 2007, p. 12).
Exploratory Study
The researcher conducted a related exploratory study in the fall of 2004. The study was conducted as part of a research methods course that included instruction in statistical analysis. As such, the study was a quantitative exploration of teacher perceptions of massively multi-player online role-playing games (MMORPGs) as constructivist learning environments.
This study aimed to investigate Teachers' Perceptions of Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) as Constructivist Learning Environments. The study postulated that MMORPGs have the potential to serve as constructivist learning environments for students. However, in order to help teachers to accept and embrace this technology, their perceptions of these games must be understood. Marc Prensky (2001) suggested that the "games generation" of those born after 1960 having a markedly different perspective on video games and on learning. It remained to be seen if this is true regarding teachers' perceptions of MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments. This study investigated whether teachers born in 1960 or before have a significantly different perception of MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in comparison to teachers born after 1960. A survey of 20 closed-ended questions and an interview protocol of similar but open-ended questions were used for data collection.
Statistical analysis of the quantitative survey data was used to determine that the sample did not provide enough evidence to support the claim that teacher perceptions of the potential of MMORPGs to serve as constructivist learning environments differed based on their age, but it did reveal that younger teachers are more comfortable playing MMORPGs in their personal life than teachers born in 1960 or before. Analysis of the qualitative data did not shed additional light on the answer to the research question, but did provide greater insight into the younger teacher's perceptions and additional inspiration for future research.
In addition to the quantitative data collected, participants were given the opportunity to offer qualitative comments to explain their answers. The qualitative data collected for this study suggested a variety of additional studies to explore the following concerns:
• High quality game design that encourages learning
• An educational "engine" to encourage and capture student learning and understanding
• Integrated assessment tools
• The balance between open endedness and structure for learning
• Modern and motivating graphics that are not overly violent or sexual
• Privacy issues
• Protected environment issues
• Inclusion of a wide-range of students and interests
• Engaging and accurate story lines
The present proposed study was in part inspired by the results of this exploratory study.
Conclusion
This third chapter of the proposal provided an in depth discussion of the research design. The chapter began by reviewing the context and purpose of the research. Then the research design was described, including the theoretical framework, the qualitative nature of the study, and details about the Delphi method. This was followed by an articulation of specific research questions. The role of the researcher was explicated, as were the means for selecting participants and the measures planned for ethical protection of the participants. Finally, the data collection process, data analysis process, and efforts to establish validity and reliability were explained. An exploratory quantitative study was also described.
Videogames and simulations, particularly massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs) show great potential as engaging and motivating learning environments. However, despite a breadth of research about videogames and learning in general, the potential uses of MMORPGs in formal education are poorly understood. Therefore, this study aims to inquire into potential applications for MMORPGs as constructivist learning environments in formal k12 education , and to understand related benefits and drawbacks. This proposal is significant because it aims to explore a technology with the potential to improve (and perhaps revolutionize) education for 21st century students and educators.
REFERENCES
ALDRICH, C. (2004). SIMULATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF LEARNING. SAN FRANCISCO: PFEIFFER.
Aldrich, C. (2005a). Learn by doing: a comprehensive guide to simulations, computer
games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Aldrich, C. (2005b). Personal Interview.
Baker, J., Lovell, K., & Harris, N. (2006) How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse researcher. 14 (1). 59-70.
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit MUDs, Retrieved April 16 2006 from
Beck, J. C. & Wade M. (2004). Got game: how the gamer generation is reshaping business forever. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bently, R. (1998). Speed secrets: professional race driving techniques. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International.
Blumberg, F. C., & Sokol, L. M. (2004). Boys' and girls' use of cognitive strategy
when learning to play video games. The Journal of General Psychology. 131 (2), 151-158.
Bourgeois, J., Pugmire, L., Stevenson, K. Swanson, N., Swanson, B. (n.d.) The Delphi method: a qualitative means to a better future. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from
Bowles, N. (1999). The Delphi technique. Nursing standard. 13(45), 32-36. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from
Bradley, J. C. (2007) Edufrag. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Ma: Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1971). The relevance of education. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
Inc.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
Brunner, C., Bennett, D., and Honey, M. (2003). Girl games and technological desire. In Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Carstens, A., & Beck, J. (2005). Get ready for the gamer generation. TechTrends. 49
(3) 22-25.
Cassell, J. (1999). Storytelling as a nexus of change in the relationship between gender and technology: a feminist approach. In Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Castell, S. D. and Bryson, M. (1999). Retooling play: dystopia, dysphoria, and difference. In Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Caperton, I. (2005) For Seymour Papert "hard fun" is the essence of good games
AND good education. Telemedium: the journal of media literacy. 52 (1 & 2) 16-19. Madison, WI: National Telemedia Council.
Conklin, M. (2005). 101 uses for second life in the classroom. Presented at the Games,
Learning, and Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, June 23, 2005.
Consalvo, M. (2003). Hot dates and fairy-tale romances: studying sexuality in video games. In Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches. (2ND Ed.) Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: the psychology of engagement with everyday life (1st ed.). New York: Basic Books. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from Questia database:
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillenial learning styles: implications for
investments in technology and faculty. Educating the Net Generation Educause. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
DeKanter, N. (2005). Gaming redefines interactivity for learning. TechTrends. 49 (3)
26-31.
Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. (2nd Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: how engagement strategies in popular
video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 53 (2) 67-83.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom: media literacy instruction and
assessment. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Downes, S. (2005). Places to go: Apolyton. Innovate: journal of online education. 1 (6).
Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.) (1992). Constructivism and the technology of
instruction: a conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: best practices
for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R., (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: the power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2006). Professional learning communities at work
plan book. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G., (Ed.). (2004). Whatever it takes:
how professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Eaker, R., DuFour R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Easin-Watkins, B. (2005). Implementing PLCs in the Chicago public schools. In DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: the power of professional learning communities (pp. 193-207). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Education Aracade. (2007). Revolution. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from
Eliott, S., Kratochwill, T., Littlefield, J., & Travers, J. (1996). Educational psychology:
Effective teaching, effective learning. Madison: Brown & Benchmark.
Eskelinen, M. & Tronstad, R. (2003). Video games and configurative performances. In Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York: Routledge.
Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: reform, resistance, and the real-life
problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, R. (1998). Changing families changing schools. Independent School Magazine. Winter 1998. Washington, DC: National Association of Independent Schools.
Evans, R. (2000). Why a school doesn’t run – or change – like a business. Independent School Magazine. Spring 2000. Washington, DC: National Association of Independent Schools. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Evans, R. (2004). Family Matters: how schools can cope with the crisis in childrearing.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, R. (2005). Reframing the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan. May 2005. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan International.
Filiciak, M. (2003) Hyperidentities: postmodern identity patterns in massively multiplayer online role-playing games. In Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York: Routledge.
Foreman, J. & Aldrich, C. (2005) The design of advanced learning engines: an interview
with Clark Aldrich. Innovate: journal of online education. 1 (6). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Fresca, G. (2003). Simulation versus narrative: introduction to ludology. In Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depth of educational reform. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequal. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Fullan, M. (2001b). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001a). The new meaning of educational change. (3rd edition). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2003a). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fullan, M. (2003b). The moral imperative of leadership. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M. (2005a). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M. (2005b). Professional learning communities writ large. In DuFour, R., Eaker, R. & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: the power of professional learning communities (pp. 209-224). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin
Press.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from Questia database:
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004) Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling.
New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Gee, J. P. (2005a). Learning by design: games as learning machines. The Journal of
Media Literacy. 52(1 & 2). National Telemedia Council.
Gee, J. P. (2005b). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like?
Innovate. 1 (6). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Gee, J. P. (2005c). Why video games are good for your soul: pleasure and learning.
Australia: Common Ground Publishing.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. New York:
Longman.
Graner Ray, S. (2004). Gender inclusive game design: expanding the market. Hingham,
Ma: Charles River Media, Inc.
Greenberg, M. (2005). Arcade academics: creating video games that teach. The journal of
media literacy. 52 (1 & 2) 37-40.
Gretzky, W. with Reilly, R. (1990). Gretzky: an autobiography. New York: An Edward
Burlingame Book, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers.
Grodal, T. (2003). Stories for eye, ear, and muscles: video games, media, and embodied experiences. In Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York: Routledge.
Hartman, A. (1981). Reaching consensus using the Delphi technique. Educational Leadership. 38 (6). P. 495-497.
Hipp, K. K. (2003). Trust as a foundation in building a learning community. In Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. K. Reculturing schools as professional learning communities (pp. 109-120). Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.
Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2004). Two professional learning communities: tales from the field. In Hord, S. M. (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: changing schools through professional learning communities (pp. 71-83). New York: Teachers College Press.
Huffman, J. B. & Hipp, K. K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning
communities. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Holland, W., Jenkins, H., Squire, S. (2003). Theory by design. In Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York: Routledge.
Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: changing schools through professional learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Iverson, K. M. (2005). E-learning games: interactive learning strategies for digital
delivery. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Jenkins, H. (1999). “Complete freedom of movement”: video games as gendered play spaces. In Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jenkins, H. (2005a). Technology and Education: Games. Webcast. Costa Mesa, Ca:
Orange County Department of Education. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Jenkins, H. (2005b). The MIT games literacy workshop. The journal of media literacy. 52
(1 & 2) 37-40.
Jenkins, H., Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Tan, P. (2003). Entering the education arcade.
ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1 (1), article 08.
Jenkins, H., & Wright, W. (2005) "Buy these problems because they're fun to solve!"
Telemedium: the journal of media literacy. 52 (1 & 2) 16-19. Madison, WI: National Telemedia Council.
Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you. New York: Riverhead Books.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivistic learning. In Duffy, T. M., &
Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.) (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: a
constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: engaging critical thinking.
(2nd Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill an imprint of Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve
problems with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Joppe, M. (n.d.) The Delphi method. The research process. Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada. Retrieved July, 23, 2004 from ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/ResearchProcess/841TheDelphiMethod.htm
Jossey-Bass. (2000). The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kadakia, M. (2005). Using Morrowind to teach characterization, cause, & effect, and
storyline? Presented at the Games, Learning, and Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, June 24, 2005.
Kafai, Y. B. (1999). Video game designes by girls and boys: variability and consistency of gender differences. In Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kagaan, S. S. (2004). 30 reflective staff development exercises for educators. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kirkley, S. E. & Kirkley, J. R. (2005). Creating next generation blended learning
environments using mixed reality, video games, and simulations. TechTrends. 49 (3) 42-53.
Klopfer, E., & Yoon, S. (2005). Deveoping games and simulations for today and
tomorrow's tech savvy youth. TechTrends 49 (3) 33-41.
Koster, R. (2005). A theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press,
Inc.
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Vygotsky’s
educational theory in cultural context. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.) (1975). The Delphi method: techniques and applications. (Electronic version). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Littleton, F. (2005) Game boys and game girls in higher education. Conference poster presented at the Games+Learning+Society (GLS) Conference, June 23-24, 2005.
Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: have you considered using the Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension. 35 (5). Retrieved July 11, 2007 from
Mackay, D. (2001). The fantasy role playing game: a new performing art. Jefferson, NC:
MacFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Mauriello, C., Stuckhart, D., DeKanter, N., Snow, B. , & Squire, K. (2005). Managed
gaming in the college & high school classroom: best practices. Presented at the Games, Learning, and Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, June 23, 2005.
McDivitt, D. (2005). Technology and Education: Games. Webcast. Costa Mesa, Ca:
Orange County Department of Education. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
MG Taylor Corporation. (1983). Delphis. The manual. p. 208. Boulder, CO: Taylor Management Centers. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: games that educate, train, and inform.
Boston: Thompson Course Technology PTR.
Mooney, C. G. (2000). An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, &
Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Noble, A., Best, D., Sidwell, C., & Strang, J. (2000). Is an arcade-style computer
game an effective medium for providing drug education to schoolchildren? Education for Health. 13 (3) 404-406.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge
21st century skills. Naperville, Il: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Okoli, C. & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool. Information and Management. 42, 15-29. Retrieved December 23, 2006 from the Google cache html version of
Papert, S. (n.d.). Hard Fun. Retrieved April 16, 2006 from
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer.
New York: Persues Books, L.L.C.
Papert, S. (1996). The connected family. Atlanta, Georgia: Longstreet Press.
Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world. (J. Tomlinson & A. Tomlinson, Trans.) Savage, MD: Littlefield Adams Quality Paperbacks. (Original work published 1929.)
Piaget, J. (1950). The origins of intelligence in children. (Trans.) Guilford, CT: International Universities Press (Republished, 1992.)
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children (Cook, M., Trans.). New York:
International Universities Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child (Weaver, H., Trans.). New
York: Basic Books.
Pillay, H. (2005). An investigation of cognitive processes engaged by recreational
computer game players: implications for skills of the future. Journal of research on technology in education. 34 (3) 336-450.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon. 9(5). NCB
University Press. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Prensky, M. (2001c). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part ii: do they really think
differently. On the horizon. 9(6). NCB University Press. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Prensky, M. (2002a). “e-Nough!” On the horizon. 11(1). NCB University Press.
Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Prensky, M. (2002b). Evolving instruction? Seven challenges. On the horizon 10(2).
NCB Univsersity Press. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Prensky, M. (2002c). Open collaboration: finding and polishing “hidden gems.” On the
horizon 10 (3). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
%20Open%20Collaboration%20-%20OTH%2010.3.pdf
Prensky, M. (2003a). “But the screen is too small…”: sorry, “digital immigrants” – cell
phones – not computers – are the future of education. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
%20is%20too%20small.pdf
Prensky, M. (2003b). Escape from planet Jar-Gon: or, what video games have to teach
academics about teaching and writing: a review of What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy by James Paul Gee. On the horizon 11(3). NCB University Press. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Prensky, M. (2004a). A lesson for parents: how kids learn to cooperate in video games.
Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
How_Kids_Learn_to_Cooperate_in_Videogames.pdf
Prensky, M. (2004b). Beyond the lemonade stand: economics and business lessons for a
10-year-old from a computer game. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from writing/Prensky-Beyond_The_Lemonade_Stand.pdf
Prensky, M. (2004c). The emerging online life of the digital native: what they do
differently because of technology, and how they do it. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf
Prensky, M. (2005a). “Engage me or enrage me”: what today’s learners demand.
Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Prensky, M. (2005b). In educational games, complexity matters: mini-games are trivial –
but “complex” games are not: an important way for teachers, parents, and others
to look at educational computer and video games. Educational Technology 45(4). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Prensky, M. (2006a). Don’t Bother Me Mom – I’m Learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon
House.
Prensky, M. (2006b). Social Issue Games. Website. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from, from
Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging learning: designing e-learning simulation games. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Rieber, R. W. & Robinson, D. K. (Eds.). (2004). The essential Vygotsky. New York:
Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
Roberts, S. M., & Pruitt, E., Z. (2003). Schools as professional learning communities:
collaborative activities and strategies for professional development. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.
Rouse III, R. (2005). Game design theory & practice. (2nd Ed.) Plano, TX: Wordware
Publishing, Inc.
Rowe, G. & Wright, G. (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International journal of forecasting. 15, 353-375. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from
Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: game design fundamentals.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A.
(2000). Schools that learn: a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Currency Doubleday
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of
change: the challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline
fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Serious Games Summit (2006). Serious games summit. Retrieved May 31, 2007 from
Shaffer, D. W. (2004a). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for post-industrial
education. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401-1421.
Shaffer, D. W. (2004b). When computer-supported collaboration means computer-
supported competition: Professional mediation as a model for collaborative learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 15(2), 101-115.
Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Multisubculturalism: Computers and the end of progressive
education. Under review by Teachers College Record.
Shaffer, D. W. (in press). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers and
Education.
Shaffer, D. W., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Before every child is left behind: How epistemic
games can solve the coming crisis in education. Under review by Educational Researcher.
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the
future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (2), 105-111.
Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education. Volume 6.
Slator, B. M. et al. (2006). Electric worlds in the classroom: teaching and learning with
role-based computer games. New York: Teachers College Press.
Social Impact Games. (2005). MIT Games-to-Teach (Designs). Sponsored by . Retrieved May 31, 2007, from
Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game studies, 2 (1).
Retrieved May 24, 2006, from
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International journal of intelligent
simulations and gaming, 2 (1). Retrieved May 24, 2006 from
Squire, K. (2005a). Toward a media literacy for games. The journal of media literacy.
52(1&2).
Squire, K. (2005b). Changing the game: what happens when video games enter the
classroom? Innovate: journal of online education. 1 (6). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2004a). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3
(5), 7-33.
Squire, K. & Steinkuehler, C.A. (2005). Meet the gamers. Library Journal. April 15,
2005. Retrieved May, 24, 2006, from article/CA516033.html
Squire, K. D. (2004). Replaying history: learning world history through playing
Civilization III. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Squire, K. D. & Steinkuehler, C. A. (in press). The genesis of 'CyberCulture': The case of
Star Wars Galaxies. In Cyberlines: Languages and cultures of the Internet (2nd ed.), Gibbs, D. & Krause, K-L. (Eds). Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas Publishers.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004a). A Discourse analysis of MMOG talk. In J. H. Smith & M.
Sicart (Eds.), Proceedings of the Other Players Conference, Copenhagen: IT University of Copenhagen.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004b). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B.
Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (p. 521–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2005a) Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online role
playing games: a critical approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2005b). The new third place: Massively multiplayer online gaming
in American youth culture. Tidskrift Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 3, 17-32.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006a). Massively multiplayer online videogaming as
participation in a Discourse. Mind, Culture, & Activity. 13(1),38–52.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006b). Why game (culture) studies now? Games and Culture, 1(1),
1-6.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (in press). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online
games. In D. Leu, J. Coiro, C. Lankshear, & K. Knobel (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New Literacies. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinkuehler, C.A., Black, R.W., & Clinton, K.A. (2005). Researching literacy as tool,
place, and way of being. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 7-12.
Steinkuehler, C. A. & Williams, D. (in review). Where everybody knows your (screen)
name: Online games as “third places.” Manuscript in submission.
Stone, R., & Cuper, P. H. (2006). Best practices for teacher leadership: what award-
winning teachers do for their professional learning communities. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.
Subrahmanyam, K. and Greenfield, P. M. (1999) Computer games for girls: what makes them play? In Cassell, J. & Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Thomas, D. (2005). Teaching (not so long ago) in a galaxy far, far away: using Star
Wars Galaxies (in/as) the classroom. Presented at the Games, Learning, and Society Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, June 23, 2005.
Triola, M. F. (2005). Elementary statistics. (9th Ed.). New York: Pearson, Addison
Wesley.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2001). The research methods knowledge database. (2nd Ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.
Tryphon, A. & Voneche, J. (Eds). (1996). Piaget - Vygotsky. UK: Psychology Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, Florida: St. Lucie Press.
Wald, P. J., & Castlebury, M. S. (2000). Educators as learners: creating a professional
learning community in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Williams, P. L., & Webb, C. (1994). The delphi technique: a methodological discussion. Journal of advanced nursing. 19. p. 180-186.
Williamson, B., & Facer, K, (2004). More than 'just a game': the implications for
schools of children's computer games communities. Education, Communication, & Information. 4 (2/3) 255-270.
Winograd, D. (2005). Chris Dede on emerging technologies that enable distributed-
learning communities. TechTrends. 49 (1) 39-40.
Wong, C. (2003). How will the e-explosion affect how we do research? A documented briefing prepared for the RAND corporation. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from pubs/documented_briefings/DB399/DB399.pdf
Wolf, M. J. P., & Perron, B. (Eds.). (2003). The video game theory reader. New York:
Routledge.
Yee. N. (2006). The Daedalus project: the psychology of mmorpgs. Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
Zibit, M. & Gibson, D. (2005). simSchool: the game of teaching. Innovate: journal of
online education. 1 (6). Retrieved December 17, 2006 from
APPENDIX
[INSERT APPENDIX HERE]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- abstract for chemistry lab report
- experimental biology 2019 abstract submission
- experimental biology abstract deadline
- biology abstract example
- experimental biology 2019 abstract deadli
- experimental biology 2019 abstract deadline
- experimental biology 2019 abstract submi
- chemistry lab report abstract example
- experimental biology abstract submission
- abstract lab report example
- biology lab report abstract example
- abstract report example