EduGaming

So, this week's topic is "EduGaming", games that teach.

I gues I'm what Marc Prensky would call a "Digital Native" (not a digital narrative, as my brain kept trying to fill in). I grew up with computers and so of course I used them in school. I remember the games we had at school being very simple. Often they wouldn't be "games" as such, more programmes that would attempt to make practising things like multiplication more entertaining by adding whimsical animations, etc.

But times have moved on and computers in schools are no longer dull grey boxes running Windows 3.1. Games have become larger and more complex and can therefore teach much more and in much more subtle ways. I mentioned Will Wright last time and his idea of "learning toys". The game SimCity is a good example of a game that teaches in subtle ways and doesn't just promote "twitch speed". On the surface of the game, you build a city and maintain it. A cursory glance will tell you that the game teaches things like planning and resource management. But looking deeper, you find you can learn things like statistical analysis. You learn things like multi-tasking, a skill that Prensky thinks is integral to being a "digital native".

While I'm mostly a casual gamer, I've found that I do have this multi-tasking capability. I have no trouble keeping track of multiple things in a game. I'm not just watching what's going on on the screen, I'm keeping track of what information it's giving me and what I'm doing with my controller. In my normal life I'm constantly multi-taking. Right now, I'm watching Top Gear while typing this blog. Sat in my system tray, I have multiple applications waiting for things to happen. I have a couple of instant messaging programmes, an RSS reader, a music player (on pause as I'm watching TV), e-mail, and a programme to download podcasts based off RSS feeds. While I'm not constantly interacting with these things, I'm seeing them in the corner of my eye, watching them for any change that might give me new information.

To give a gaming example of learning, I was playing Burnout 3 last night. I've said before that I'm not very good at racing games. I don't drive so I don't know much about how to manoeuvre a car at speed. I've never learnt where to brake and how hard in order to take a sharp corner. But, as I played trough various race events in the game, I found I could retry them. In order to unlock new events, I had to do well in the previous events, so I did retry the events and I found myself learning the tracks. I learnt what corners I could take at top speed and which I had to slow down for. I also learnt other tricks, like what to do in order to gain "boost" which would allow me to go faster (of course, I also learnt where was a sensible time to use this boost and where I'd end up plowing into a wall).

While I doubt I could now go out and drive a car (and definitely not what I was driving in the game), I've learnt skills that could help me in other driving games and also in other things. I've learnt things like analytical skills and the benefit of practising and retrying things. This takes us back to EduGaming and the idea that games that try to teach aren't always necessarily the best. Especially for children/people who may be somewhat resistant to traditional learning.

I are serious cat. This is serious game.

Some thoughts on Serious/Simulation gaming.

So, serious games are games intended solely for learning/training purposes. This raises a question; why are they used and why do they work? Looking at games in general, they all involve learning in some way. At the base level, you need to learn the various interfaces and control systems used in the game and (preferably) how to use these effectively. Then you need to learn the strategy level of a game. This is a broad level and depends on the game you are playing. In a game like Tetris, you simply need to learn how to get the most points and how to stay playing for as long as possible. In a more complex game, such as a real-time strategy or city management game, these strategies would be more complex and may seem counter-intuitive at times as complex games will not always offer a clear line of sight to your "end goal".

The question of why these games work can be answered by this look at games (meaning being able to play multiple games well, rather than just a specific game or a specific genre of games). The most effective way to be good at games is not to understand the "how" of playing a game, but to understand the "why" of playing the game. This means to understand the fundamental aspects of why what you do in a game works. This means you develop skills that can be applied elsewhere, rather than simply to one game.

This leads on to answering the question of why the games are used. While there are other concerns, such as cost or the fact that "on the job" training would be impossible (or irresponsible), the main reason should be this disambiguation of skills. You don't need to train people to push a button (or if you do, you don't need an expensive simulation to do it), you need to train people to understand why they are pushing a button. This is also useful as otherwise you'd end up with people trained to be good at simulations rather than real life situations.

This reminds me a lot of the training games in Ender's game, where the recruits play games in order to develop strategic skills. These games are basically simulations of the battles they would ultimately end up fighting, but they are still very unlike the battles themselves. In the end, the students end up playing a "game" that turns out to not be a simulation. (Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on America's Army compares it to these games).

This brings me to simulation games. Mostly it brings me to various games made by Will Wright (such as SimCity and The Sims). It makes me think of how, often the most effective games as learning tools, are ones where you don't realise you're meant to be learning. This took me back to a talk by Will Wright at TED, where he talks about designing games that are "learning toys" and his upcoming game, "Spore". In these games, the object is not to "win", as the games are open-ended (much like Tetris), but instead focuses on "not losing" for as long as possible.