Serious games, conjugaison de jeux d'apprentissage et de jeux de la connaissance

La notion de jeu est l'une des premières composantes de la construction de modèles dans le cadre de la théorie des situations didactiques (TSD):

"Modéliser une situation d'enseignement consiste à produire un jeu spécifique du savoir visé, entre différents sous-systèmes : le système éducatif, le système élève, le milieu, etc." Mais, écrit Brousseau (1986/ in 1998 p.80), "Il ne s'agit pas de décrire précisément ces sous-systèmes autrement que par les relations qu'ils entretiennent dans le jeu."
- Au regard de la connaissance : "le jeu doit être tel que la connaissance apparaisse sous la forme choisie, comme la solution, ou le moyen d'établir la stratégie optimale [...]" (ibid. p.80)
- Au regard de l'activité d'enseignement :"le jeu doit permettre de représenter toutes les situations observées dans les classes (sinon les déroulements particuliers) même les moins satisfaisantes dès lors qu'elles parviennent à faire apprendre à des élèves une forme de savoir visé. Il doit pouvoir engendrer toutes les variantes, même les plus dégénérées. Elles seront obtenues par le choix des valeurs de certaines variables caractéristiques de ce jeu." (ibid. p.81)

Ainsi le jeu, source de motivations, peut par ses règles, ses représentations et ses stratégies,  accompagner l'apprenant vers la connaissance enjeu de l'apprentissage.

Le diaporama ci-dessous a servi de support à un exposé introductif à une discussion lors d'un séminaire de l'équipe MeTAH en juin 2010 sur le thème des jeux sérieux. Il met en relation la problématique du jeu au sens de la TSD et la problématique des jeux sérieux.

Design heuristics for authentic simulation-based learning games

Just published in IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (TLT) : "Design heuristics for authentic simulation-based learning games", a paper based on the PhD research of Celso Gonçalves supervised by Muriel Ney who created and led the project Laboratorium of epidemiology, to which I was associated.

Here is the abstract :

"Simulation games are games for learning based on a reference in the real world. We propose a model for authenticity in this context as a result of a compromise among learning, playing and realism. In the health game used to apply this model, students interact with characters in the game through phone messages, mail messages, SMS and video. Perceived authenticity is measured after the game in 196 phone interviews
that yield quantitative and qualitative results. We show evidence of relationships between attributes of the game environment and perceived authenticity. This yields a list of parameters that can be adjusted to favour authenticity. We also study three situations of interaction and show when and why they are perceived as authentic, or not. These results lead to recommendations for the design of simulation games that can be perceived as authentic."

[Get the paper]

Retrieved from a post of Nicolas Balacheff on the SOA scientific portal on February the 27th, 2010

I recently read an article from Begoña Gros on the use digital games in education which offers a general overview of video-games and their contribution to learning, with an interesting discussion of their use in a school context. While focused on instructional design and not on computer science design, it still touches a few technological issues.

After a short history of the area from the research perspective, Begoña Gros reports on what we can learn from research on the contribution of games to learning. Several general cognitive competences are mentioned: improved spatial skills, iconic and spatial representations, ability to read images, divided visual attention, keeping track of events at multiple location on the screen, better developed attentional skills including metacognitive competence enhanced by the collective game play (sharing strategy, knowledge, sharing resources). "However, there is no research that actually documents a link between video games playing, attentional skills, and success in academic performance or specific occupations" (p.30). So it is not surprising that while most teachers acknowledge the contribution of games to the development of a variety of skills thay witness a resistance in adopting them in their everyday practice. One reason is the time needed to become familiar enough with a game so that a significant activity can be engaged. Another reason is that "it is difficult for teachers to identify how a particular game is relevant to some component of the curriculum, as well as the appropriateness of the content within the game" (p.35). This resonate with the remark that "game designers are not concerned with the accuracy of contents of the games and, on occasions, they are capable of producing contradictions or erroneous concepts with respect to the function of particular games used in learning activities" (p.36) This time, "design" means computer science design of game-based learning environments.

The main concern which is transversal to this paper is that of the challenge of adapting computer games to school and curricula. I would suggest an other challenge which is that of a closer collaboration between researchers in computer-science and education to design learning games not only adapted to the use in schools but also coherent with the game of knowledge.

Blog post after the reading of: Begoña Gros (2007) Digital Games in Education: The Design of Games-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40 (1) 23-38

A conversation on "debriefing", a key stage in the use of learning games

Based on a post on the SOA Science corner blog , originally published on Tuesday 23rd, February 2010 (18:58)

What may be the differences between games and simulations? A paper by Sara de Freitas and Martin Oliver [*] suggests that there is not much, and hence that it is quite natural that many of the learning issues that are relevant for simulations are also relevant for games. If there is one difference to mention, it comes mainly from the entertainment characteristic which is attached to games, and it is exactly this dimension which makes both of them appealing to education and difficult to use. This difficulty rests in the fact that "in educational contexts, there is a need not only to enter the 'other world' of the game or simulation, but also to be critical about that process in order to support reflective processes of learning as distinct from mere immersion in a virtual space" (p.255). The authors notice that the apparent mismatch between the game and the curriculum may be due to “the omission of a clear debriefing session” (p.260). Then, the key question of evaluation: what should be the characteristics of a game (more generally a simulation), so that the debriefing is made possible? This implies that we can tell what the game-simulation is vis-à-vis the knowledge at stake (i.e. the expected learning outcome). This dimension of the analysis which is, in my opinion a prerequisite, is not considered in the paper. Should we add it as a fifth dimension to the four already proposed (context, learner, internal representational world, processes of learning)? Or is it subsumed in a way that I didn’t catch in my reading?

Martin Oliver responded (February the 26th 2010) that...

Sara de Freitas is certainly interested in the kinds of games that resemble simulations - she likes to use the portmanteau "gamesim" to denote this category.

Personally, I think that attempting to draw clear definitions that distinguish games from simulations would be problematic - my opinion is that what makes them useful or not is how they get used. A game can be treated as a simulation, and a simulation can be played with; it's a matter of convention which side of the definitional line they are placed on.

The discussion in relation to the "other world" experience of the game reflects that Higher Education (rather than, say, training) values the ability to reflect upon and critique experience, not just improve it. (Obviously that's a value statement, and not universal, but I'd refer people to Ron Barnett's work for a more general discussion of this kind of issue.)

The debriefing session is an example of a pedagogic technique intended to help bridge differences between play and curriculum performance - in some ways, this could be understood as just one more example of the classic problem of learning transfer. What is learnt from play is unlikely, in itself, to map neatly onto the goals of the curriculum; the debriefing simply recognises that a process of reinterpretation or renegotiation may be necessary. I don't think that "debriefing" describes a well-defined pedagogic interaction - more a class of conventions about asking people to make sense of the experience they have just had. To this extent, all that's required of a game (or simulation) is that people have an experience to reflect upon. We haven't tried to engage with what makes some debriefings better than others; this is, I'm sure, a fruitful area to consider but it's not one we looked at. Matching the game design to that debriefing is then an obvious and sensible approach - but again, it was outside the scope of this particular paper (which focused on evaluation rather than design).

And the conversation continued (Nicolas Balacheff, March the 1st, 2010)

"Debriefing" is a concept worth to be discussed a bit further. In order to explain why I think this way, I will start from the idea that inviting students or trainees to play a game is always (I use this word on purpose), a teaching/training-learning context, with an agenda in mind. This agenda may be hidden to the learners, but it is a key reason why to choose a game and invite them to play it. This agenda can be described in terms of learning outcomes (from a piece of knowledge to a specific behaviour -- possibly at a meta level like in problem solving or socialisation). Even if the game is successful it is unlikely, because of the richness of the game-play and the short time given for the genesis of whatever mental construct, that the learners will realize what was important, new, worth to be made explicit, put in a certain form and kept for further use. It is even more difficult to imagine that they will be able to relate any interesting outcome to knowledge socially or culturally shared by the community they will join after this teaching/training-learning period. So, from an educational perspective, debriefing is critical. Within the frame of the theory of didactical situations this phase is called "institutionalization". Indeed, this is even stronger than "debriefing", it means that the teacher-trainer has a special voice and responsibility in acknowledging the learning outcome and the value of a learning game.

A note after the redeading of: de Freitas, Sara and Oliver, Martin (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers and Education 46 (3) 249-264. 

Moving research on learning games forward

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:

"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.

Scripts, games and situations

Retrieved from the TEL opinion blog, July the 28th, 2006

Recently issued, the book entitled “Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication” contains among several chapters concerning CSCL , all very stimulating, one about the design and evaluation of the use of scripts which seems to me rich of lessons for our research agenda.  The design, implementation and use of scripts is a topic largely addressed in Kaleidoscope (See CoSSICLE or CAVICoLA ), understanding their benefits and limits is surely critical. More precisely this chapter, written by a group of five leading researchers in the domain, addresses the case of social and epistemic scripts. 

What stimulated my curiosity is that the results of the research presented demonstrate that if social scripts seems to have a positive effect, it is not the case for the latter which have “no or negative effects on learning outcomes”.  

The authors suggest that by decreasing the cognitive demand of the learning tasks the epistemic scripts may lower the level of the knowledge construction.  Actually, when looking at the detail of the epistemic script, one may think that not only the level of cognitive demand is (possibly) less important, but that it may be the task itself which is completely modified. Or better said, the situation in which the students are involved is modified by the fact that there is this possibility to get hints to achieve the proposed task. Definitely, instead of “task” it may be “situation” which is here the right word to make sense of what is happening. While the social script to some extend forces mutual attention and learners commitment without any reference to the content at stake, the epistemic scripts do impact the content explicitly reducing the problem solving space of the learners. 
 

In the end, the question which comes after this reading could be: what is the game played by the learners? The difference then between the social and the epistemic scripts, is that the latter do de facto define the situation (they specify what the game is about) while the former stimulate the learners independently of the characteristics of the situation.
 

Then the question becomes: What is the role of the scripts in framing this knowledge game?
 

The book editors in their introduction to this chapter express a doubt that we will need scripts when CSCL will “have become an every day occurrence, like group work in the classroom”. The question I suggest here above, may show that the answer to this doubt is: yes we will need them, and they will be one of the best features of the CSCL environments. As we know, learning is not a natural characteristic of group work, and if there is any learning there is no evidence of the relevance of the outcome. CSCL scripts may reduce the contingent nature of learning outcome, especially the epistemic script as long as they will not be views as tools to facilitate the achievement of a task, but as means to frame stimulate the construction of the relevant learning game (situation) by the learners. The next step might be to characterise CSCL scripts epistemologically valid against a certain learning stake. Quite a challenge…
 

Armin Weinberger , Markus Reiser, Bernhard Ertl, Frank Fischer , Heinz Mandl: Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-meidated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In: Reiner Bromme, Friedrich W. Hesse and Hans Spada (eds.) Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 15-37). Berlin: Springer.