The Becker Blog

Approximate Reading Time: 6 minutes

These are public postings of my writings for the first course of the Graduate Certificate Program in Serious Game Design and Research at Michigan State University.

Each week, we are required to post three responses/reactions to queries posted by other members of the class in the previous week. These are mine.

I have paraphrased the queries to preserve my classmates’ privacy.

Please note: these posts are not intended as any kind of commentary on or assessment of the course I’m taking, or its instructor, OR of Michigan State University or the College of Communication Arts and Sciences, or the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media. They are solely my thoughts and reactions that stem from the readings.

Feel free to comment, disagree, or what have you.

Week 12

These are the readings we had last week (Topics: Serious game implementation challenges):

• Ritterfeld et al. (2009) Ch 14 Kafai, Y. B. (2009). Serious games for girls? Considering gender in learning with digital games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.). (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 221-235). New York: Routledge.
• Van Eck, R. (under review). Bringing ‘discipline’ to the study of games and learning. Research challenge. Information Design Journal.
  • Optional: Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 17-30.
  • Optional: Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J., Thompson, D. I., Buday, R., Jago, R., Griffith, M. J., et al. (2011). Video game play, child diet, and physical activity behavior change: A randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, 33-38.
  • Optional Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J., Thompson, D. I., & Buday, R. (2011). Behavioral science in video games for children’s diet and physical activity change: Key research needs. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 5, 229-233.

Response 1:[Week 12 KB dialog 1/3]  Is making a game a better learning experience than playing one?

What are your thoughts about the educational benefits of making games versus playing games? Could making a serious game about a subject be an even better educational activity than playing a serious game on that subject?

I don’t think it’s possible to answer this question definitively one way or the other. There are situations where playing a game would be a better way to learn and other situations where making a game would be a better way.

In general though, I’d say that if the thing you are trying to teach is very complex, then making a game is probably not the way to go. In order to make a game, you need to understand the thing you are trying to teach well, but that’s not enough. To make a game you also need to understand about game design – and if the subject or objective is a complex one (like, for example, ethical and moral issues surrounding gender reassignment), there is a tendency to get bogged down in the game design details and lose sight of the learning objectives. When working with complex subjects, I think the learners are likely to get more out of a well-designed game that sets up various scenarios and perspectives than they would from trying to design a game.

That having been said, I think there can be a lot of value in learning from building something. I think kids can learn lots from designing games to teach relatively straight-forward concepts (like basic geometry or nutrition), and they can certainly learn from designing games that deal with facts (like taxonomies, or states and capitals), but trying to design a game to deal with complex subjects adds another layer of complexity that is more likely to confuse the issue than to clarify it.

Response 2:[Week 12 KB dialog 2/3] What is it that we’re doing here?

Ok, now that we’re 11 weeks into our Serious Game Design certificate program, I thought it would be fun to ask what it is that we’re actually doing.  What would you call it?

I ask because Van Eck begins his article by stating his preference for “game-based learning” as the term for what we’re doing, as opposed to “serious games” or “edutainment” or “gamification”.  So now Van Eck and Bogost have both made strong cases for why these titles matter.

Which title do you prefer?  Both in your places of work/study, and in talking to your friends?

I usually use the term ‘serious games’ – and unless I already know the people I’m talking to know what that is, I usually follow that with a matter-of-fact definition (games and game technology designed for purposes other than, or in addition to entertainment).

That’s the definition that Ben Sawyer uses. It covers a bunch of things that I think are excluded if you use DGBL, because not all serious games are about learning – not really.

If you look at Ben’s taxonomy (http://www.ieducate.eu/admin/upload_data/Pages/Documents/serious-games-taxonomy-2008_web.pdf), education is only one row of the table. Advergames are serious games too. We made one for a local company earlier this year. They make and sell ice cream, so the game we made is called “War of the Swirls” (http://minkhollowmedia.ca/doku.php?id=swirls) and I’d hate to try and justify the “learning” that happens in a game like this one. Then there’s something like PSDoom (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/chi/chi.html). psDooM is a process monitor and manager for *nix systems. It could be considered a graphical interface to the ‘ps’, ‘renice’, and ‘kill’ commands. psDooM is based on XDoom, which is based on id Software’s ‘Doom’ (http://psdoom.sourceforge.net/) I would still call this a serious game, though it really isn’t about learning.

I have nothing against Rick Van Eck (I quite like him actually), but I have found that there is a tendency for people in Education to view their perspective as the only one there is in serious games. While I would say that all games are about learning to some extent, only some are about Education. Learning happens all the time – it’s one of our defining features as Homo sapiens. I view education as a proper subset of learning. Education is value laden and what counts as education is dependent on the society in which it takes place. Likewise, there is a tendency for Educators to see simulations as only those things with which they are familiar, namely simulations designed for education. It creates a distorted view of the field. It would be like assuming that you know all about canines because you know about poodles.

This perspective is a perfectly natural one, but it one I think we should be careful with. It’s as though each discipline is its own culture, and each one views the world its own way. It can be very fruitful to try looking at the world through other ‘cultures’:

• for a computer scientist, everything is an algorithm.
• to a musician, everything is a song.
• to a writer, everything is a story.
• to thespians, everything is a play.
• to a film-maker, everything is a movie.
• to a set designer, everything is a set.
• to an educator, everything is a lesson.

Response 3: [Week 12 KB dialog 3/3] Model validation for DGBL

 

Does anyone understand the term model validation when used to understanding DGBL?

I can tell you what “model validation” means in the simulation community.

In simulation (and math), a model is a precise description of some system. In order to validate that model, we need to check our model against the original system to make sure the model matches the system. It’s almost a circular kind of process.

One of my hobbies is raising rabbits, and I have a particular interest in the genetics of coat colors. It is possible to describe coat color genetics using statistical models. I can write out a bunch of statistical equations that will describe (i.e. model) what happens when I breed to rabbits together, given I know something about how their phenotypes and genotypes relate to each other. Once I’ve done that, I can build a simulation of the model. A simulation is an implementation of the model I have made. In order to have some confidence that my model is correct, I need to run my simulation a whole bunch of times and check my results against what really happens in rabbits. The simulation has to agree with the real situation. This is how I validate my model. If it doesn’t, I have to back and find out what’s wrong with my model.

When creating DGBL models we try to describe how people learn from games, or how to design games the will help people learn. Doing this for any DGBL model is much harder than it is for coat color genetics because the original system is so complex that it’s impossible to include everything that’s important in your model. In other words, there is no way to make a model that is complete. If you can’t be sure your model is complete, it is that much harder to validate it. People try it anyways. I think it’s important to realize that ‘validation’ of a model like this is orders of magnitude less trustworthy than the validation of a scientific model.

Approximate Reading Time: 6 minutes

These are public postings of my writings for the first course of the Graduate Certificate Program in Serious Game Design and Research at Michigan State University.

Each week, we are required to post three responses/reactions to queries posted by other members of the class in the previous week. These are mine.

I have paraphrased the queries to preserve my classmates’ privacy.

Please note: these posts are not intended as any kind of commentary on or assessment of the course I’m taking, or its instructor, OR of Michigan State University or the College of Communication Arts and Sciences, or the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media. They are solely my thoughts and reactions that stem from the readings.

Feel free to comment, disagree, or what have you.

Week 11

These are the readings we had last week (Topics: Games for social change; Theories of persuasion; Culture):

• Oinas-Kukkonen, H., & Harjumaa, M. (2008). A systematic framework for designing and evaluating persuasive systems. Paper presented at the The 3rd International Conference on Persuasive Technology (Persuasive ’08), Oulu, Finland.
• Atkin, C.K. (1994). Designing persuasive health messages. In L. Sechrest, T.E. Backer, E.M. Rodgers, T.F. Campbell, & M.L. Grady (Eds.), Effective Dissemination of Clinical and Health Information. Rockville, MD: U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. (AHCPR Pub. No. 95-0015).
• Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology, 27, 379-387.
• Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive Games: Exploitationware. Gamasutra, May 3. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134735/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php
• Optional: Khaled, R., Barr, R., Biddle, R., Fischer, R., & Noble, J. (2009). Game design strategies for collectivist persuasion. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games (Sandbox ’09), New Orleans, LA.
• Game: Dr. Transplant www.doctortransplant.org
• Game: Sweatshop www.playsweatshop.com
• Game: Harpooned harpooned.org
• Dr. Transplant www.doctortransplant.org Sweatshop http://www.playsweatshop.com

Response 1:[Week 11 KB dialog 1/3]  Other uses of “gamification”

 

In his 2011 Gamasutra article, Bogost rails against the term “gamification” and its common uses as “exploitationware” in commercial marketing. I wonder what he thinks of Lee Sheldon’s course-gamification approach, which incorporates more fundamental game mechanics (not just points & superficial rewards) ? Would he recommend that Sheldon use a different term, to avoid lending respectability to the more insidious forms of “gamification”? Can you think of a better term for Sheldon’s approach?

I suspect that this is the term that’s going to stick, like it or not. The terminology battles will probably continue for many years to come. We still have debates that break out regularly on the serious games lists about whether or not Serious Games is the right term. Here too, like it or not, this is the term that the corporate world and those in performance improvement recognize and use. At some point it no longer matters whether or not you like the term, or even if you think the term is appropriate.

It was only a few years ago that engineering associations were suing computer science departments for their use of the term ‘Software Engineering’ (SENG). Engineers were of the opinion that they were the only ones who should be allowed to use the word ‘engineer’ and that anyone who was not a ring-bearing engineer should not be allowed to use the term (or teach it I suppose). For my part, I have very little respect for most of the people who call themselves software engineers (the academics anyways), and software engineering isn’t really about engineering OR software, for that matter. (Computer Science isn’t a science either, just in case you were wondering). However, at some point we should just acknowledge that this is what this thing is called.

I think many of the things we are now classifying as gamification aren’t really new at all. I got gold stars on my stuff in grade 1, and we had Bristol boards with all our names on it posted in the classroom where everyone could see who did stuff (and who didn’t). That’s the same as badges and leaderboards.

Depending on how you use them, points (by whatever name) can be the same as ‘regular’ grades. Unless you do more than exchange percent for points, you’re not doing anything except skinning. In a course I taught this summer you needed 200 points for a full score, but it was possible to earn over 400 because there were a bunch of different things they could do. Extra ‘spilled’ over in to the non-gamified parts of the course, so much like in a game, the more you did, the better your score.

 

Response 2:[Week 11 KB dialog 2/3] Is there a fundamental difference between digital games and other games?

I’ve heard something similar to this question come up in a few dialogues throughout the semester, and it has stuck in the back of my mind.  Now, coming off the NASAGA conference where people are using all sorts of games for serious purposes (digital, mobile, board, card, alternate reality, simulation, geo-caching), I come back to this question.

What is lost in turning a non-digital game into a digital one?  Is there a fundamental divide that cannot be crossed?

I think that there actually is a fundamental difference. I make a distinction though between computer-mediated games and ‘pure’ digital games. Computer mediated games are those that have previous real life (analog) versions – like solitaire or chess. Computerizing these games does not change them in any fundamental way. Computer Solitaire is still solitaire. It is, however, much harder to cheat in the digital version than in the analog version. There are other difference too, but they mostly have to do with housekeeping. I can play computer solitaire for hours, but I have no interest in playing with real cards. I am interested in the ‘essence’ of solitaire if you will, and have no interest in trying to keep piles tidy, or shuffling, or even keeping score.

When we look at ‘pure’ computer games, the difference is profound. These are games that have no analog counterpart, and it includes everything from games like Tetris to MMOs.  Many of these do have origins in analog games, but WoW is not just a digitized version of something like Warhammer. They are quite different.

This is from my book, and outlines some of the ways that things change when you go digital:

 

Table 3-1: Digital vs Non-Digital Simulations and Games
	Digital	Analog
	Digital Simulations and Games (ALL)	Board & Card Games	Analog Simulation Games	Analog Role-Playing Games	Live Action Role-Play (including cosplay)
Model of Original System	Painstakingly and precisely defined	Many details taken for granted and never made explicit
Rule Enforcement	hard-coded	uses ‘honor system’	on the fly
Rule Structures	Pre-determined	Negotiable
Roles	accurate placement into context	Imagined, personally mediated	Determined by game rules		Imagined, personally mediated
Environment	Dynamic – same for all players	Static – unchanging	Combined static physical artifacts (boards & pieces) AND imagined		Imagined: personalized
Environment Resolution	dynamic	static physical	relatively static	relatively static	Individually mediated
Game Objects	can be autonomous	either inert or mechanical			imagined ( can include props)
Game Interaction (what people can do with / to the game)	consistent across all instantiations of the game	consistent only if the rules are followed			each instantiation can be different
Participants	there need only be one human participant	All participants are human

 

Response 3: [Week 11 KB dialog 3/3] Repeats

Dr. Transplant reminds me of several games I have played. Particularly an iOS game called Restaurant Story. The premise is to make food, sell it to people and collect money. Then you can upgrade your restaurant so more people can eat at it, you can cook more food and serve different types. This style of game has been duplicated again and again. I wonder, and since we can not play it yet, does Dr. Transplant teach us anything or is it something to take our minds off whatever we do in live. The information on the website talks about finding your local organ donate registry and etc. but is any of the included or conveyed in game? Will playing puzzles and upgrading your hospital make you any more likely to achieve any serious games goals?

I think you’ve hit on an important point. This basic scenario also sounds like Diner Dash and a host of other simplistic resource management games. I wonder why people make these kinds of games. Is it because they are easy to design, or do they really not understand what it is about a game that makes it a valuable learning experience? Is it games they don’t understand, or instructional design? Both?

There are still a lot of classroom teachers who think ‘Jeopardy’ qualifies as a game in the same way as Black and White or Rollercoaster Typhoon. Jeopardy may be a fun way to skin a drill exercise, but I would not call it a game in the same sense as the other two. I think Jeopardy has a place, as do Bingo games and others. Some things need to be memorized, and if wrapping them in a game makes them a little more fun, then that might not be a bad thing.

However, the idea that you can create 3 or 4 templates (like make stuff, sell it to customers, collect money, and buy more supplies to make more stuff) passes for actual game design is misguided. Personally, I’d like to see these kinds of games placed in their own category. If the content in the game can easily be converted to a worksheet, then I’d say it is not a game in the same way as a game where the learning goals are actually integral to the game itself. These are much harder to make, but I think they have the potential to deliver a much more powerful message.