Tag: games

Oregon Trail was the example of an educational game we described in the first edition of Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning and it is included in the latest update. Other educational games might make better current examples, but the game was so ubiquitous and part of the K12 experience of so many that the familiarity of the game represents a touchstone we can rely on to make a connection between what we describe as attributes of educational games and a personal experience. The game continues to exist (the point of this post) and also provides the opportunity for a hands-on experience we can direct interested parties to explore. 

In case the game was not part of your elementary school experience, the game asks players to take on the role of the leader of a wagon train making the journey from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon. The wagon master makes decisions along the way involving issues such as what supplies to purchase, when to hunt for food, when to stop and when to push on. Hunting for deer is what I remember as the only skill-based action component of the game. The focus was mostly on decision making and how such decisions were successful in dealing with random events one might encounter – e.g., disease, storms, breakdowns. In my opinion as a nongamer, the information provided was minimal and the repetitive process of moving through the game was tedious. As an educational activity (see book), I have always recommended that gameplay be supplemented with other reading and writing activities. Still, a history of Oregon Trail available on Wikipedia indicates that through 2011 sixty-five million copies of some version of the game had been sold. The game was inducted into the video game hall of fame in 2016 and is considered among the most influential early examples of serious games. 

Versions of Oregon Trail have been developed by different companies and this continues. A recent offering from GameLoft available through Apple’s Arcade game subscription service represents a good example. The game is more sophisticated with more options and more challenges, but perhaps the most interesting feature is the attempt to be more sensitive to the true history of westward expansion and the impact on Indigenous inhabitants of the lands through which the wagon trains of the game traveled. This NPR story describes the efforts of Gameloft to more accurately represent Indigenous people in its representation of the Oregon Trail. The company brought in three Indigenous histories to offer advice on the way Native people were represented.

The new version of Oregon Trail is designed to be played repeatedly and the opportunity to fashion different groups making a trip changes the experience depending on the members of the group. Each segment of the trip involves multiple choice points that route the party through different locations with different experiences. The perspective of Native Americans is presented in alternate “journeys” using similar game components.

I have spent a few hours with the new game and my assessment of the educational impact remains pretty much the same. I also don’t see this game gaining traction in classrooms because of the Apple game subscription system used to make the game available. The efforts to improve the historical accuracy of the game are certainly to be appreciated. 

If you follow my  work, you can probably guess that I spend little time promoting the educational value of digital games. But, I realize that games are an important learning option promoted by many in the ed tech community. Because I make a serious effort to influence other practicing and future educators, I try to be analytical when I find my own priorities in disagreement with what others propose.

I think I see games as adding unnecessary layers to the learning process. It is not that games are not productive, it is that this productivity comes at a cost. Games provide an experience to interpret, but my analysis suggests that it takes several layers of activity to generate this experience. Game play itself represents one layer. Playing a game requires engagement with the scenario of the game, following the rules of the game, generating the actions required by the game, etc. Expending the mental effort to engage in the scenario according to the rules of the environment provides experiences. The second layer involves an interpretation of these experiences. One must process this experience to identify facts, principles, rules, etc. Finally, one must integrate these nuggets with existing internal knowledge.

Contrast this series of activities with direct instruction. One interpretation of direct instruction might be that an author or a presenter attempts to identify facts, principles, rules for you and you then must engage in only the final stage of the learning process. There is some amount of interpretation of the external experience, but there is also some “preprocessing” by the individual serving as the source. There is no “game play” layer at all.

I am more a fan of simulations (or life) as a way to provide experiences. There is some effort involved in engaging a simulation or living, but I would describe this effort as authentic with some future transfer value. When we see value in providing learners experiences in processing primary sources as a component of learning, it makes more sense to me to engage with experiences that are as close as possible to the future experiences we expect learners to have to process.

I am also a fan of direct instruction. Why not skip the outer layers and provide learners in as succinct a fashion as is possible the facts, rules, principles we want them to understand and retain. Learning, when you get right down to it, is about the processing of an input by each learner. Each individual must do the work to modify his or her existing models of the world or find links between new experiences and what they already know. These are not easy tasks and overburdening learners with other simultaneous requirements may be damaging to the success of this final and most important stage.

Surprisingly, I have developed and evaluated learning games. My interest was in the development of reading skills. I still see this as a little different. The external “layer” of learner experience in such games is reading. Applying (or attempting to apply) the skill of interest served the goal of the game. There were no layers to get through to get to the priority process.

It also seems possible I am just not a game person. I do believe our own experiences play a role even in how we understand professional pursuits. I seldom play games that involve mental skill as a form of entertainment. If people want to socialize, I would rather talk rather than play cards and talk. I recognize that games provide a certain motivational component for some people. There than may be the trade-off to be considered – motivation vs. added cognitive demands.

Having said all this, I do recognize the serious approach some take to developing and evaluating games. I tend to promote learners be exposed to a variety of learning experiences with consideration given to the proportion of each activity. This has more to do with learning to learn rather than the acquisition of content knowledge/skills.

One of my colleagues, Richard van Eck, has been a noted supporter of serious games for some time. In a recent Educause Review column, he contemplates the past ten years of his experience with educational games. I certainly encourage any ed technologist to review his comments as they provide a solid overview of the topic.

A press release from the 2008 convention of the American Psychological Association summarized papers presented on the topic of video games. The results seem mixed:

• playing video games can improve cognitive and perceptual skill
• surgeons who played video games requiring spatial skills and hand dexterity and then performed a drill testing these skills were significantly faster
• those who played more entertainment games did poorer in school and were at greater risk for obesity
• those playing violent games were more hostile, less forgiving and believed violence to be normal compared to those who played nonviolent games.

Many types of games and many different consequences.

If you are interested in video games, you might find a site from PBS to be of interest. The site offers supplemental material associated with a program entitled the Video Game Revolution. The site does contain video segments from the program and a flash approximation of a classic game (similar to Galaga).

The Washington Post has a nice piece on the consequences of playing violent video games. The article references several studies that appear to come down on opposite sides of the issue (i.e., leads or does not lead to violence). This appears to be a useful starting point for those wanting to become acquainted with the issue and contrasting positions.