Game Characteristics

When implementing motivational theory, several authors identified that interest and attention can be captured in a learning environment by using examples, stories, fantasy, paradox, incongruity, ambiguity, surprise, mystery, uncertainty, novelty, complexity, curiosity, humor, inquiry arousal, and variability. Not coincidentally, simulations and games use many of these same characteristics.

It is not actually simulations and educational games that increase learning and motivation; rather, it is the characteristics inherent to simulations and educational games that cause the effect.

I've summarized some different author's analysis of game characteristics:

• Belanich et al. (2004) Challenge, Realism, Control, Exploration


• Crawford (1984) Interaction, Safety, Conflict, Representation
  
• Dickey (2005) Interaction, Challenge, Story, Role Play


• Garris et al. (2002) Fantasy, Rules/Goals, Sensory Stimuli, Challenge, Mystery, Control


• Kapp (2007) Goals, Player Control, Feedback, Challenge


• Malone (1981a, 1981b) Fantasy, Challenge, Curiosity


• Prensky (2001) Rules, Goals, Conflict, Feedback, Story, Interaction

Characteristics common to the body of literature in both motivational design and educational games and simulation include: fun, learner control, relevance/importance, challenge, curiosity, and encouragement/feedback.

I would be naive to think that I have a complete list, so I'm interested to hear of other game characteristics readers have found to be motivating.

---------------------------------------------

* Belanich, J., Sibley, D. E., & Orvis, K. L. (2004, April). Instructional characteristics and motivational features of a PC-based game. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (Research Report 1822).

* Crawford, C. (1984). The art of computer game design. Berkeley, CA: McGraw Hill & Osborne Media.

* Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(2), 67-83.

* Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.

* Kapp, K. M. (2007). Gadgets, Games, and Gizmos for Learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

* Malone, T. (1981a). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333-369.

* Malone, T. (1981b). What makes computer games fun? BYTE, 6(12), 258-277.

* Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Key Learning Blogs

I came across this website while reading a post from Dr. Karl Kapp on Training Day. For the benefit of those who haven't read the Training Day Blog or who may be new to the field, here is a link to the Training Pageflakes page containing the key blogs in the field. This is a great one-stop-shop for the key blogs in the field.

WARNING: Opening this page opens an invaluable resource to the field containing hours of information and thousands of links. Prepare to spend a lot of time reading!!!!!

Added Value (The Importance of Research and Evaluation)

Since I am wrapping up my dissertation, the topic of "research" and showing results has been on my mind a lot. Interestingly enough, I got a double whammy when I returned home from vacation. As I started catching up on blog posts, I came across two separate blogs addressing the issue of research and evidence-based learning. The first was Dr. Karl Kapp's post on the Value of Research, and second was Dr. Will Thalheimer's post on Evidence-Based Learning. I strongly recommend reading those articles and applying their recommendations.

The first issue is to differentiate research and evaluation. Research is a systematic investigation in a certain aspect of a discipline, undertaken to discover or establish facts or principles. Evaluation is to judge or determine the worth or quality of something (or to appraise it).

The importance of research, evaluation, and evidence-based learning will never go away in this lifetime (that is, there will never come the point when the industry can say, "We've made it and we have all of the answers to performance and learning needs"). As new colleagues, technologies, research tactics, techniques, and strategies enter the field, there will be a continual need to conduct research and show evidence of the value of what we are doing as learning and performance improvement professionals.

As I've always contested, true value is not just found in conducting smiley sheet surveys. While those surveys certainly have their value, the important question has been and will always be, "How does this intervention/solution impact the bottom line?" That bottom line may be measured in different ways (usually money, but not always) for different organizations, but the value of what we are doing comes in identifying the business' metrics for success and then showing evidence for how well we did in improving that metric. I am a firm believer in not stopping once Kirkpatrick's Levels 1-3 are done. The real added value comes in Level 4. I credit individuals in the Performance Improvement field (such as Dennis Mankin and Harold Stolovitch) with really helping me to understand this is the value in what we do.

I think sometimes individuals are "scared" away from evaluation, research, and the whole concept of results, because they don't differentiate evaluation and research. They feel pressure to have academic rigor (or at least they feel obligated to publish their findings). Those are all very useful process that are definitely needed, but they should not deter the practitioner from conducting evidence-based investigations into their work.

Learning Trifecta (from Clark Aldrich)

Clark Aldrich has a post on his blog called "The Learning Trifecta" which examines three overlapping learning goals applied to everyday life. The three stages are: 1) learning to be, 2) learning to do, and 3) learning to know. While these three stages are a nice concise way of looking at learning development, Clark makes his real point at the end of his post when he states that "learning to know" has been the cornerstone of schools and training programs.

This is an important issue. By starting out with the "learning to know" goal, learning is flipped upside down. When viewed in light of common learning theories such as Anchored Instruction, Subsumption Theory, Relevancy, and Situated Learning, beginning with the "learning to know" goal only anchors information to other "learning to know" information. Perhaps this is one of the reasons so many students claim that they don't see the relevance in what they are learning.

Return from OBX

I just returned from a vacation to the Outer Banks, which was very relaxing. The house we rented did not have any Internet connection, so I was a bit "unplugged". I did have my Blackberry, but only had a minimal signal. There were a few things I realized while on the vacation.

Every so often, it is very good to go on vacation where you do not check Internet/Blackberry/cell phones/etc. I believe this "technology vacation" should just be work related, because there were times that I wish I had more technology to have a better vacation. For example, we sat in traffic for way too long (both down and back), and I am looking forward to the day when our mobile devices can give real time traffic and weather updates (the currently available technologies aren't quite there).

The other pitfall of not having technology is the fact that the next work day after the vacation is usually exponentially more stressful. I will be facing a couple hundred emails come Monday morning, but in the end, I would rather a week of freedom and deal with the one day of catch-up.

Tying Performance to Business Results

I was playing catch-up on some of my workload given the 4th of July extended week I took and my upcoming trip to the Outer Banks. Unlike my colleague Dr. Kapp who virtually visited the beach in Second Life, I will actually be visiting the beach :-)

Anyway, as I was reviewing one document, I was reflecting on ASTD's Human Performance Improvement Model, and I realized how little "we" (the collective learning industry) has failed to tie solutions back to business results. I know it is being done in some cases, but I have not seen the emphasis that is needed on business results.

As the HPI model indicates, the entire analysis stage should start at the Business Analysis. Without doing that analysis first, nothing else really matters. We should always ask ourselves, "If I build/design/develop/etc. this, will it make a different to the business' bottom line?" Also, we sell ourselves short when we just do something like levels 1-3 on Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model.

The Magic Question

Will Thalheimer has an interesting post on his website regarding the "Magic Question". He notes that the most important question Instructional Designers can ask is:

What do learners need to be able to do, and in what situations do they need to do those things?

He also observes that many Instructional Designers focus on topics, content, and knowledge which leads to boring training filled with too much information and not enough realistic, practical exercises. He notes that framing learning design around this question stops Instructional Designers from overloading the learners with information and focuses Instructional Designers on using relevant and engaging scenarios.

One important application of this question is that it will also open Instructional Designers up to the field of Human Performance Improvement. For Instructional Designers to be able to accurately and honestly answer the "Magic Question", they must be willing to recognize that not all knowledge/skill/ability (KSA) deficiencies warrant a training solution.

No Enjoyment in Games

As I was writing my dissertation, I came across an interesting article by Rabbit, Banerji, and Szymanski (citation below). They noted that:

People who discover that they are adept at learning new video-games will tend to play them more often; but not all potentially adept learners may discover, or necessarily enjoy, their latent ability (p.252).

Obviously, not everyone enjoys playing video games. Has anyone come across individuals like this when they were trying to implement an educational game? Also, there has been a lot of talk about Second Life being the next version of the Internet. Is that possible with people who don't enjoy video games?

------------------------------------

*Rabbit, P., Banerji, N., & Szymanski, A. (1989). Space fortress as an IQ test? Predictions of learning and of practiced performance in a complex interactive video-game. Acta Psychologica, 71, 243-257.