This is a discussion that recently started on one of the LinkedIn lists I’m on. It’s a really good question, but one without a simple answer.
Suggested answers have included:
- There isn’t one thing – games are complex.
- Must be fit for purpose.
- Must be engaging.
- Appropriate interface design.
- Must be addictive (this one I don’t agree with AT ALL – it implies an approach to design that misses the point. Besides, I suspect that ‘addiction’ is rather a dirty word in education and is best avoided))
- Immediate feedback.
- Comprehensive integrated instruction (although this is about as fuzzy a term as “good” – and nearly as hard to measure).
- Cover a complete lesson (at least). I don’t think all games need this. Actually, I KNOW that not all games need this. There remains a place for short-form, single concept games. Short-form, single concept (and even, yes… drill and practise games) are a great way to soften people up to the idea of using games in class.
- Must address different learning styles (again, I’m not sure I really agree with the whole “learning styles” movement – at least not in the way it is usually embodied.)
Here’s my response:
When dealing with a game intended for use in formal settings (schools, etc.) there are a few external things that are crucial:
- explicit ties to the curriculum
- assessments (ingame or otherwise) that align with accepted practices
- teacher support (about the game, how to use it, lesson plans, etc.)
As much as it pains me to say, I would even go so far as to say these things are more important to the “success” of a game (i.e. selling it) than whether or not the game itself is any good.
It is really (REALLY) important to remember that edugames are targeted at two, often very different audiences:
- The people who will be playing the game (and hopefully learning from it.
- The people who make the decisions about whether or not to buy / use this game.
The first group care more about whether or not it’s a good game. The second, about whether it will fit into the curriculum.
There’s an old adage (about spacecraft design) that goes “A bad design with a good presentation is doomed eventually, but a good design with a bad presentation is doomed immediately.”
This applies to games too. If a game is to be taken up in formal settings it has to have the elements that will make it possible to ‘drop’ it into an existing (albeit largely broken) system.
This applies to games too. If a game is to be taken up in formal settings it has to have the elements that will make it possible to ‘drop’ it into an existing (albeit largely broken) system. Whether we like it or not, most schools need to justify time spent in class by highlighting an activity’s relevance to the official standards. Teachers need to be able to get information out of the game that they can easily translate into assessments for reports and administrators. Finally, most teachers have neither the time nor the experience to develop lesson plans using games. They do not have time to play the game and figure out how best to use it. They need ‘canned lessons’, at least in the beginning.
That’s not to say the the game must contain all these things; I am saying that these things must be included as part of the materials that come with the game.
Without this, even most good edugames (take note – there are precious few of those) won’t get a second look.
Changing the educational system is going to be accomplished in small steps, not landslides.
