Games-to-Teach ProjectYear 1 Research Results

Kurt Squire, MIT Comparative Media Studies; Indiana UniversityHenry Jenkins, MIT Comparative Media Studies

G2T Context

MIT / Microsoft iCampus grant– MIT Comparative Media Studies– Goal: improve MIT education

G2T Context

Most educational games have failed– Edutainment = Bad lectures + bad games

Create “next-generation” educational games– Tangible Vision to discussions – Exemplify design principles– Ideas for actual development “pre-production”

Deliverables:– Dialogue: educators, designers, media scholars– 10 Conceptual frameworks

Gaming Context

• Games gross $9-$12 Billion domestically• Games are attracting new audiences

– Sims = 18 million copies– Super Mario Brothers III = 25 million copies

• Mario is more popular than Mickey Mouse (Sheff, 1992)

• Games are the new “lively art” (Jenkins, 2002)

• Most educators are ignorant

Pedagogical Potential

• Games are intrinsically motivating (Lepper, 1981)

– Fantasy, control, challenge, and curiosity

• Games are social experiences– Competition, collaboration

• Learning through Play (Rieber, 1996)

– Construction– Experimentation– Constructivist pedagogies

• Lacking a coherent theoretical framework (Gredler, 1996)

• Lacking ties to learning theory (Gredler 1996)

• Signs of increased motivation (Ehman & Glenn, 1991)

• Few studies show learning gains in content knowledge (Clegg, 1991)

• Instructional context more important than the media (Clark, 1983; White & Frederickson, 1998)

• Large disconnect between educational games & “state-of-the-art” games and (Squire, in press)

• Perception that “educational games suck” (Herz, 1997)

Research on Gaming

• What are the principles of good game design? • How do we leverage these principles in the design of

educational games?• How do these principles need to be adapted to

educational contexts?• What are the pedagogical potentials of games?• What are the risks to using games?

– Competition (Provenzo, 1991)

Challenges

Design Research

Goal: Create theoretical framework for designing “next-generation” educational games

Outcomes: Language, vocabulary

Design Research

Interviews – 12 MIT faculty– 5 Game designers– 5 Educational researchers– 3 MIT Undergraduates

Design Sessions– Brainstorms, collaborative design, reviews

Surveys– MIT student body 653/4000 responding

• Educational Researchers– Howard Gardner, Mitchell Resnick, Chris Dede, Steven Pinker

• Media theorists– Henry Jenkins, Justine Cassell, Nick Montfort

• Game Designers– Bryan Sullivan (Ironlore), Doug Church (Thief, Deus Ex), Eric

Zimmerman (gamelab), Brenda Laurel (Purple Moon), Chris Weaver (Bethesda), Alex Rigopulous (Harmonix) Kent Quirk (Cognitoy), Matt Ford (Microsoft)

• Teachers & MIT Faculty– Bonnie Bracey (K-12), Woodie Flowers (MIT), John Belcher (MIT)

• Students– Three MIT students

Interview Participants

• Design Reviews– Eric Zimmerman, Alex Rigopulos, Matt Ford

• Collaborative Brainstorms– Will Wright, Chris Weaver, Alex Rigopulos

• Faculty Reviews and Collaboration– John Belcher, Woodie Flowers

Interactive Discussions

ReviseFramework

Analysis

Design Prototypes

Identify Themes

ShareWork

Game Designers

Interviews with game designers– Morrowind, Frequency, Deus Ex, Age of Empires,

and others…– Semi - structured

Game Designers

Leverage what games “do well”Problem solving / decision making

• “Role play” (who uses information?)• Access to authentic digital tools

Visualize and experience “abstract” systems• Adopt new perspectives (micro / macro)

Representing complex systems• Manipulate unalterable variables (SimEarth)• Resource management (time, money)

Game Designers

Media genre expectations– Interface, control decisions– Narrative patterns

Leverage design elements – Power-ups

– Character investment

– Inventory management

Game Designers

Appeal to broad audience– Inviting colors– Simple controls– Gender neutral play space– Collaboration– Non “directly threatening” situations

Embed strong characterization– Customize characters– Strong backstories

Findings

12 Highly Interested Respondents– High interest in GTT among respondents– Near 100 % participation

Faculty will use simulation games at MIT– Robotics & computer competitions– Many use interactive technologies– Teach in highly specialized areas with digital tools

“Games are motivational tools”– “Students don’t finish problem sets”– Emphasis on challenge & reward– Fewer said “modeling & visualization”

Faculty Findings

Findings

Faculty skeptical about fantasy– Concerns about “accuracy”– Social implications – “Transgressive Fantasies” problematic for many

Many faculty want interactive simulations – Consistent with “information transmission” paradigm

– Can be used in lectures

– Can be given as homework

Faculty Findings

MIT Student Survey

Survey of MIT undergraduate student body – 653/4000 Respondents

MIT students grew up with games– All respondents played a computer or video game – 88% played before age 10

Most MIT students are frequent game players – 60% spend more than an hour / week playing games

• (compared to 33% for television, 57% reading)– 33% spend more than an hour per week watching television– 57% of MIT students spend more than an hour reading– 30% of respondents students play online games > 1 hour / week

MIT Student Survey

555 respondents listed at least 1 favorite game. – Final Fantasy series (I-VIII) 55 – Starcraft 46 – Civiliation I/ II 29– Zelda 24– Tetris 22 – Quake 21– 33 Mario Franchises: Super Mario Brothers; Mario Kart– Unreal Tournmanet 12– Snood 12– Madden Sports 8– The Sims 6

Educator Themes

• Address misconceptions (don’t promote them!)

• Ask hypothetical questions to system

• Compare simulated system to reality

• Generate data for assessments

• Use fantasy to induce “situationality”

• Make flexible for teachers’ use

Game Platform Genre Subject Pedagogy

Hephaestus PC XBox Online

Massively Multiplayer

Robotics Engineering

CollaborativeCommunity

DreamHaus PC Adventure / Design

Architectural

Engineering

Learning by Design

Biohazard PC / Xbox Action RPG Biology Learning by Doing

La Jungla de Optica PC Simulated World RPG

Optical Physics Anchored Instruction

Extreme Sports Tycoon

Web Multi-player Puzzle

Mechanical Physics

Learning by Design

Cuckoo Time Xbox Party Game Mechanical Physics

Playful Microworlds

Daedalus’ End PC Multiplayer Role-Playing

Engineering Ethics

Role-Playing

Replicate! PC / Xbox Action / Racing Biology / Virology Visualization

Supercharged! PC / Xbox Puzzle / Flying Electromagnetism Simulation

Environmental Detectives

Pocket PC Multiplayer Role Playing

Environmental Education

Participatory Simulation

Choices and Consequences

Information

Feedback

Choice

• Agency (Murray, 1999)

• “Delicious Interactions” (Church, 2001)

• Information feedback

Agency: Meaningful choices

• Power-ups

• Inventory management

• Character development

• Resource management

Embedded Information

• Embedded Goals and Success states

Embedded Information

Goals, Failure, & Attribution

• Learning through Failure (e.g. Schank, 1999)

• Addressing Misconceptions

• Open-ended gaming• Managing frustration

Collaborative Construction

Designing objects for use in multiplayer worlds

Assertions

• Teachers want games in traditional well as in “Open Learning Environments”

• Games can record data which can be used for assessments

• Have high production values & be aesthetically pleasing• Game play and disciplinary thinking need to be entwined

- Role playing as people who think with information (doctors, engineers)

- Thinking in Microworlds- Using narrative conventions - Design challenges

- Good game design leverages pedagogical content knowledge

Implications

Games allow classroom communication to become more rooted in shared mediated experience.

– Games supplement other activities– Seed social experiences in game design

Games leverage knowledge of media, genre, and interaction that students already possess.

– Using gaming conventions to engross students in complex thinking– Games provide rich frameworks for evaluation and scaling of complexity.

Games engage and reward students in powerful ways.– Failure is an important motivator of learning

Games span simulations, narratives, toolboxes, & emerging models.– Definitions of games need to be expanded to include new experiences

Games-to-Teach provides new perspectives on games, gamers, teaching, and learning, through a unique matrix of perspectives and expertise.

Contact

Games-to-Teach Project

http://cms.mit.edu/games/education

Kurt Squire

ksquire@mit.edu

MIT Student Survey

MIT students had very divided attitudes toward gaming: – 61% “gaming is an important leisure time activity.”– 31% see gaming “as an important part of their social life.”– 37% felt that games stimulated their academic interest in math,

science, engineering, or computer science. – 38% of the respondents feel that “games are a waste of time.”

Respondents had low anxiety toward games– 88% agreed with “Games are just another medium.”– “Playing video games is no more or less a waste of time than

any thing else you do purely for enjoyment, e.g. going to a play, going out dancing or reading a book - sports don't count because they improve your physical health.  If you think not working is a waste of time, well then like all of these playing video games is a waste.”

MIT Student Survey

High interest in Games-to-Teach – Over half “very interested” in GTT – 210 / 653 offered comments or suggestions about the project in the

final open-ended question (after responding to 40 items)– “If you could tap into the power of games, you’d own this university.”

Skepticism toward Educational Games– “Educational games today are just cheesy.”– If people are going to learn from the games and want to play them,

they'd better be damn good games (on par with commercial console games in terms of graphics, sound, and playability).  I've played "educational" type games a long time ago for the computer in middle school (remember Math Blaster?) and they sucked.