Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal
Among the text I have recently read about learning games, "Moving learning games forward. obstacles, opportunities and openess" (Klopfer E., Osterweil S., Salen K. 2009) is in my opinion the most comprehensive, insightful and likely to provide a good basis for beginners in this research area.
First it synthesizes efficiently the common views of learning games and of the relations between games and schools, without caricaturing the situation. Second it considers in a contrasted and balanced way digital games and learning games from an economical and a functional perspective (what they are for). Third the paper survey ideas and principles about the design and use of learning games, covering most of the aspects be they technological or cognitive, educational or institutional.
One the one hand, some claim that games are so efficient to favour and enhance creativity and learning that the value of school is questionable, they even may not hesitate to abandon schools. Others consider that games are not relevant or manageable in school context and hence tend to exclude their use. The authors, considering the arguments, argue that there is room for the use of games, and that this use can enhance learning, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. A first condition is that the school context does not kill the basic characteristic of game-play which is "freedom", while drawing attention to the fact that a game is based on a structured set of rules with "win" states criteria (so "freedom" must not be read in a naive way). The game structure guarantees "fairness by being applied transparently and equitably to all players" (p.5); a point which is important because it allows ending a game not depending on an (apparently) arbitrary decisions of a teacher. In other words, if a game is ruled by some knowledge, then it is this knowledge which will serve to end the game. A principle which is at the core of the theory of didactical situations (*); later in the paper this takes the form of principle: find the game in the content.
After a discussion of commercial games, the authors conclude that "learning games can also be fun and have mass market appeal" (p.9) and suggest that they have not to mimic the high-tech look and feel of video games. One must leave common sense ideas about what a game should be (e.g. game=virtual world) and understand the fundamental characteristics which may make them relevant for learning: "feedback, structure, goals or path to progress" (p.14). Eventually, they propose criteria to characterise learning games: "they target the acquisition of knowledge as its own end and foster habits and understanding that are generally useful within an academic context." (p.21). A puzzling thing here, is that they make a difference between learning games and training games, and seems to associate tightly school and academia. A position which can be understood if "training" is viewed in a very limited way, and vocational studies is marginalized -- what would be a mistake.
Eventually: "what is the magical recipe for a good educational game?" (p.27). Luckily, the authors dare to ask such a question but do not respond by a recipe, but rather by a set of principles and tips (some) borrowed from Castranova (quoted by Baker 2008): "making a game out of learning will most certainly not be the way to approach the development of learning games. However, "finding the fun in that learning" and devising ways to focus on and enhance that fun as a core game dynamic is a good strategy", and "go to the right tech". Then 14 principles of design are listed. A list not homogeneous, addressing different levels and layers. I would retain only a few of these:
Among the text I have recently read about learning games, "Moving learning games forward. obstacles, opportunities and openess" (Klopfer E., Osterweil S., Salen K. 2009) is in my opinion the most comprehensive, insightful and likely to provide a good basis for beginners in this research area.
First it synthesizes efficiently the common views of learning games and of the relations between games and schools, without caricaturing the situation. Second it considers in a contrasted and balanced way digital games and learning games from an economical and a functional perspective (what they are for). Third the paper survey ideas and principles about the design and use of learning games, covering most of the aspects be they technological or cognitive, educational or institutional.
One the one hand, some claim that games are so efficient to favour and enhance creativity and learning that the value of school is questionable, they even may not hesitate to abandon schools. Others consider that games are not relevant or manageable in school context and hence tend to exclude their use. The authors, considering the arguments, argue that there is room for the use of games, and that this use can enhance learning, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. A first condition is that the school context does not kill the basic characteristic of game-play which is "freedom", while drawing attention to the fact that a game is based on a structured set of rules with "win" states criteria (so "freedom" must not be read in a naive way). The game structure guarantees "fairness by being applied transparently and equitably to all players" (p.5); a point which is important because it allows ending a game not depending on an (apparently) arbitrary decisions of a teacher. In other words, if a game is ruled by some knowledge, then it is this knowledge which will serve to end the game. A principle which is at the core of the theory of didactical situations (*); later in the paper this takes the form of principle: find the game in the content.
After a discussion of commercial games, the authors conclude that "learning games can also be fun and have mass market appeal" (p.9) and suggest that they have not to mimic the high-tech look and feel of video games. One must leave common sense ideas about what a game should be (e.g. game=virtual world) and understand the fundamental characteristics which may make them relevant for learning: "feedback, structure, goals or path to progress" (p.14). Eventually, they propose criteria to characterise learning games: "they target the acquisition of knowledge as its own end and foster habits and understanding that are generally useful within an academic context." (p.21). A puzzling thing here, is that they make a difference between learning games and training games, and seems to associate tightly school and academia. A position which can be understood if "training" is viewed in a very limited way, and vocational studies is marginalized -- what would be a mistake.
Eventually: "what is the magical recipe for a good educational game?" (p.27). Luckily, the authors dare to ask such a question but do not respond by a recipe, but rather by a set of principles and tips (some) borrowed from Castranova (quoted by Baker 2008): "making a game out of learning will most certainly not be the way to approach the development of learning games. However, "finding the fun in that learning" and devising ways to focus on and enhance that fun as a core game dynamic is a good strategy", and "go to the right tech". Then 14 principles of design are listed. A list not homogeneous, addressing different levels and layers. I would retain only a few of these:
"4. Put learning and game play first" (p.31) adding this warning: "There may be some fixed set of constraints on both the technology and learning goals that are unchangeable--and of course, sometimes the combination just won't work";
"5. Find the game in the content", including the quite strong claim that "in any academic discipline, there are elements that are fundamentally game-like", moreover adding that "an educational game should put players in touch with what is fundamentally engaging about the subject matter" (p.28). Such statement converge in a very interesting way with the Brousseau's claims about the game of knowledge when in the 70's he coined the theory of didactical situations (**). Including the refutation of the idea that "games single-handly teach the subject matter". I would add that learning games need a well designed didactical framework (including the teacher).
"11. Define the learning goals" (p.36), this seems to be common sense but I agree with the authors that there is a common view that learning in a game context will happen naturally and be of value. But if we ask "what are kids supposed to be learning?", then the role and outcome of the game is anything but obvious.To conclude this reading note, let me emphasise this call: "it is imperative that researchers and developers more clearly define their learning goals and corresponding assessment tools be developed and shared openly" (p.37). Definitely this paper is more than a survey, it is a research programme and could be now read as such. Many of the statements hide difficult questions, the game now could be to discover them, state them and propose a research strategy to address them.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire