This Ted talk was a great look into
the psychological effects and powers gaming provides for its players. Below you
will find a couple of thoughts I had regarding the information found in the
talk and some general questions i'm now thinking about because of the video, I would eventually like
to look into.
The first thought I would like to
share is the power of casual gaming from an instructional breakout standpoint.
Games for a long time have provided gamers a concise set of instructions to
familiarize themselves with how to play the game. In other words, these games
did a good job at “teaching” us the fundamental gameplay. As a gamer however, a
lot of the controls and gameplay became familiar and took less time getting
used to. These learning segments are often called tutorials, and they set out
to teach the player essentially the in(s) and the out(s) of the adventure they
are about to take part in. You can look at it as a “hands-on” style syllabus
for a class. Thinking about this process from the perspective of what a
non-gamer would go through is where I started to draw a correlation to how well
video games and video game designers (Side note: not at all far from the
spectrum of instructional designers) embrace the teaching role of new learners(or
gamers). For instance, looking at Farmville and other games that have a similar
business model, you can see the rise of casual games. From a learning stand
point I think Farmville (and games like it) did a great job introducing
different kinds of people into "playing" a game. If you think about
the casual gamer that Farmville accessed, you will find that many had little to
no previous gaming experience. Through simplistic and systematic instructions the
player learns as they go and slowly gets rewarded for it. Gamers that
previously didn't exist before learned how to play with relative ease. Another
key component that Tim spoke about was the feedback aspect of learning. For
example, if you didn't build a water source you wouldn't have a good crop year
and you would end up losing in game currency or maybe even the game round, on
the other hand if you made a smart decision you would be rewarded more land or
a special house and that type of feedback taught the player. Few players probably sat back and went"
A-ha, I just learned something!” Now imagine if I had produced a game based on
the law of supply and demand for an introduction to economics class. The student’s
play a game like Farmville only they don't have enough widgets to meet demand
and realize they have a shortage and lose the game or round. If they do have
enough widgets, they gain extra income or in game currency and level up. All of
a suddenly I've crafted that A-Ha moment, except with an economics principal
some first year students struggle with! This showcases the power of gaming as
an educational medium to reach new markets and solidifies the power of such
gradual, reward; feedback based learning models like gamification.
The second notion I really connected
with to the world of education was the reward base notion. That feeling of
accomplishment is what we strive to accomplish for the students. In a regular
environment that accomplishment feeling is spread out. In my experience the
only real reward comes from writing small personalized messages on student’s
assignments that promote a positive message to keep them engaged and feeling
good about how they are coming along. This system works, however, it is far
from constant, and there are times students who don't turn in an assignment
will in return not get that positive message. That accomplishment is a similar
feeling to acing a really hard mid-term or final, that sense of accomplishment
is a driving force for students (or should be). That driving force is a student
retention goal for every institution. Again, the timing of such a reward based
system is inconsistent, at least in my experience. The good news this is
something quite easy to fix and incorporate without going full gamified
Wanting + likening = engagement.
This theory is a great representation on why student attendance seems to be
higher during core classes in their major and lower for say general education
courses. When teaching subjects that fit into the students’ wheelhouse we can
see their active engagement. A marketing project becomes a source of fun and
excitement where as an English paper (for a non-English major student in this example)
seems to be a labor intense process, that quickly could become frustrating. This
backs up: wanting plus likening equaling engagement. However, I think a good
educator can reach that engagement with students by being a superior performer,
orator, lecturer, or overall well rounded teacher. That still holds the theory
of wanting, likening and engagement true. Students will want to go to that instructor’s
class because they like the instructor (or the instructor’s style) and that
will lead to engagement.
I think the problem with the reward
schedule in education is the learning styles within a classroom. I teach a mix
of adult and young adult learners with a mix bag of nontraditional and
traditional students. While a generalized reward schedule would work. How to
reach this mix bag of students and how to engage them would present a problem.
I would also question would this type of education theory be lost and not work
at all for some students, or would this be employed to a specific demographic
of students.
Finally, I think the beauty in this video was the connection and potential, it drew for the Learning Theories of Constructivism to develop and be studied even more. Immediately as Tim was speaking about the single player and engaging multiplayer effects, I thought to social and individual constructivism. In Instructional Design 3rd Edition by Patricia Smith and Tillman Ragan they describe Individual Constructivism as growing knowledge from experience. They also write that learning results from personal interpretation of knowledge. I cannot think of a better way to interpret personal knowledge than through the sandbox that game design offers its players. For social constructivism they write that Learning is collaborative with meaning negotiated from multiple perspectives. In the massive multiplayer online worlds there an enormous sense of community and collaboration. These learning theories to me blend perfectly with the power of gaming. While I am new to this educational philosophy and have yet to explore the research done already linking the two, this Ted talk seemed to elude a promising future in education through the tenants of gaming.
No comments:
Post a Comment