Integrating games and e-learning (pt. 1)
The pressure of completing my thesis in time made me miss the self-imposed weekly deadline to write here that I was proudly accomplishing until this weekend. As a quick fix, here’s an excerpt of the motivation of my research, stolen from the introduction to my thesis.
In his book Learning by Doing
If these first developments are successful and show potential, the expectation grows and both marketing divisions and the media start making promises about the future of the technology. Then, institutions and corporations assume this may be the “next big thing”: it’s the Magic Bullet stage and, driven by the hype, vast amounts of money and resources are invested in exploring further. But as more solutions are tested, the results do not always live up to the expectations. The idea suddenly does not look so interesting and the Confusion stage starts.
The next step, which Aldrich names Strategic Advantage is the second, more refined implementation the idea, tackling the issues that generated the previous crisis and providing real value to adopters. After that stage, the new technology eventually becomes Infrastructure.
The idea of using games or videogames as learning tools has been around for some time. It’s origins trace back to seminal works by Malone on the 80s and the major contributions by Leutner, Porter, Lepper, Cordova, Rieber and many many others.
In the last few years, the exponential increase in the technology and complexity of modern videogames has turned them into one of the biggest entertainment industries. Meanwhile, the idea of using games for education has gained momentum in these first years of the 21st Century. New scholars (Prensky, Garris, Gee, Squire, Jekins…) have pushed the idea and successfully argued that videogames contain precisely the elements required to improve the learning experiences in order to match the requirements of the Information Society. The work of these authors has finally made an impact and, in the last 5 years, the use of videogames and game-like simulations in educational environments has moved on from the academic Theory stage towards the Innovation stage with the development of several initiatives and pilots. And then quoting Van Eck in 2006:
After years of research and proselytizing, the proponents of digital game-based learning (DGBL) have been caught unaware. Like the person who is still yelling after the sudden cessation of loud music at a party, DGBL proponents have been shouting to be heard above the prejudice against games. But now, unexpectedly, we have everyone’s attention.
This sudden attention marks the transition to the Magic Bullet stage which often leads to the corresponding Confusion stage. That critical stage has already started. Even though the initial pilots hint a great potential and learning benefits, it has not been possible to quantify such benefits precisely and this lack of evidence, bringing back the images of the principle and fueling a new critical debate.
The academic debate has thus moved on to new grounds. One of the key questions now is, assuming that videogames provide a quality learning experience, is this experience significant enough so as to justify its enormous cost when compared to traditional contents? This question, by now, lacks a broadly accepted answer.
Another critique often heard is that merely interacting with an educational game does not guarantee that the student learns the lessons, and that games should be a part of more bigger educational models. How can we introduce educational videogames and game-like simulations in the current educational system without disconnecting them from the rest of the curriculum? Changes in the educational system are always introduced with caution. Given the stakes, it is not feasible to overhaul the educational system due to unaffordable costs and a lack of absolute guarantees of a risk-free transition.
Therefore, if the idea is to become a common element in our learning experiences, we need ways to overcome the current Confusion stage and refine the successful elements of the current approaches, eliminate the bad approaches and eventually move on to the Strategic Advantage stage.
How can we achieve this? Some suggestions next week…
