They play. So far, so good. But, what do they learn?

Retrieved from a post of Nicolas Balacheff on the SOA scientific portal on February the 26th, 2010
 
Martin Oliver and Caroline Pelletier contribution to the edited book "Digital Generations" is quite interesting and stimulating, taking up the challenge of contributing to our effort to understand "what, if anything, people are learning by playing games" (p.69) Their contribution is based on activity theory, referring primarily to Vygotsky, built on the system formed by the Tool as a mediator between the Subject and the Object (the latter meaning the intention of the subject) and its contemporary extension by Engeström and others which takes into account the social determination of both the Subject and (his/her) Object(ive). The authors make the relevant remark that taking a systemic perspective means that properties which may be identified cannot be ascribed to the Subject as an isolated part of that system. What raises a theoretical and methodological difficulty when the problématique is to understand learning (or Subject semantic/meaning attached to a behaviour). Meeting this difficulty with the cK¢ model [*], I solved it (if I may say so) by considering what could be seen as the projection of the system model onto one of its components, the learner (or onto the Tool). In the case of cK¢ it leads me to propose the (P, R, L, Σ) quadruplet to model the learner conception (what could be mirrored by a quadruplet of the same kind to model the Tool). So, it is clear that I am interested in the method of analysis which the authors propose in order to operationalize the theory.

Then, looking precisely at the proposed methodology, I see a few issues which may be interesting to discuss: contraction, action/operation and in the end the reference to learning and the related question "what is learned?"

Contradiction is a difficult concept to manipulate from a methodological point of view. As Piaget analysed it, contradiction exists if there is a witness of its existence and it can be noticed only if there is an explicit awareness of an objective or an expectation. So there may be a contradiction from the point of view of the observer and not from the point of view of the Subject. How to decide on that? Which observed behaviours can inform the observer? These are difficult questions but critical ones when learning is at stake (as pointed by the authors). So we cannot diagnose a contradiction if there is not an evidence that it is the case for the Subject and hence if we cannot state what is the Object from the Subject point of view. This points a new question: is the Object what the designers or the researchers or the observers claim to be? This question which is important to model the game-playing activity is indeed critical from a learning perspective (it is directly related to identifying learning outcomes). The authors identified in the discussion section, in relation to the interpretation and classification of observed behaviours, the "such claim are difficult to justify without assuming (rather than knowing) the intention of the player" (p.83). My own position is that this is a central issue for learning and that our research effort must start from that point : an explicit hypothesis on the learner intention.

The delicate distinction between action and operation could be better addressed if it was contextualised by such a claim about the intention of t he Subject or the Object of the activity. The authors express their expectations of a progress if a finer grained reading of the actions or the behaviours (eg eye tracking) was possible. My claim is that it may be of no help if the observer cannot relate it to an intention or an objective. Actually it is the identification of the Object in the system and/or the intended learning outcomes (at least as research hypotheses) which will determined the reasonable level of granularity we have to reach.

Eventually, in my opinion, the question "what is learned?" cannot be answered without responding to the question of the objective, intention, aim of the game and the situation which contextualises it. If we do not start from that point, we will progress as blind researchers and in the end respond "they learn how to play" (p.86), which may be a disappointing and quite unhelpful answer. We may agree that this applies also to the problem of understanding the Subject intention, then the nature of the Object and in the end the whole question of learning in a game environment. This issue may be peripheral from a strict game-play perspective, where whatever is learned the motivation and the interest in the game is the thing which counts, but it is critical from an educational point of view.

Note: - Piaget et al. (1974) Recherches sur la contradiction Paris: Presses univ. de France, 2 volumes. - (P, R, L, Σ) stands for Problem, Operators (in French "règles"), Representation (semiotic system), Control structure

A note after the reading of: Oliver M., Pelletier C. (2006) Activity theory and learning from digital games: developing an analytical methodology. In: Burckingham D., Willett R. (eds)  Digital generations (pp. 67-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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. 

Why do learners (not) blog?

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff  (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal

We have heard here and there claims and expectations about the so-called Learning 2.0 revolution. The rational is that learners will be able to share, collaborate, exchange in a more open and dynamic way, blowing the barriers that formal education and training may have raised on the way towards knowledge. Among learning 2.0 tools, there are blogs. All of us, I mean the blogers, know that bloging is not such an easy thing and having the tools is not enough. So a paper like the one of Behringer and colleagues is especially interesting in that it explores in a pragmatic and rigorous way the students motivation or lack of motivation to use blogs; among the latter there is a preference for direct communication and fear of a loss of privacy. May be not a surprise… a question one may have is that of knowing how far this is intrinsic or witnesses the weight of a culture and a lack of experience of these tools.

A note after the reading of: Andergassen, M, Behringer, R, Finlay, J, Gorra, A, and Moore, D. “Weblogs in Higher Education – why do Students (not) Blog?” Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 7 Issue 3 2009, (pp203 -215)

Could designed-based research become the TEL research standard?

Retrieved from Nicolas Balacheff  (2010) comments on papers available on the SOA scientific portal

Design-based research is a rather interesting framework for TEL research project,which although not new (the seminal papers go back to the early 90s) does not seem to have deserved all the attention it should in the European research area. Taking as an indicator the references of the EduTech wiki from TECFA (*), one may conjecture that it reached us in the early 2000, but since then I have not the feeling that it has spread very much within our research community. I don't see clear reasons for that. In my opinion we must spend some efforts, especially in a network like Stellar to consider this approach. From the presentation of Wang and Hannafin (ETR&D 53/4 2005), design-based research seems to be especially adapted to multidisciplinary research as well as to research which must be carried out in close connection to the field it explores. It may be the case that some researchers think that they are working in this paradigm while actually they do not, since there are at least two occasions of misunderstanding. The first source of misunderstanding is the emphasis of design-based research on iteration, an emphasis which is reminiscent of the life cycle of technology design. But here iteration is not only aiming at the improvement of the design, but also at critically revisiting theories to develop or refine them. What is valued is the practical use of theories (p.13), and the fact that theoretical and practical issues are tightly related. The second source of misunderstanding is that because of its close relationship to the field, design-based research may be confounded with action-research. This is missing the priority of design-based research, while acknowledging its situatedness, to transcend the particularities of the context in which the experiment is been carried out. This difficulty is very well identified in this paper, and addresses directly the main concern of our field which is of understanding what results we produce which could be of a general value beyond the specific project in which it has been obtained: "Generalizability […] must be verified according to the theory goals of the design and discipline requirements of the research. Researchers need to optimize a local design without decreasing its generalizability […]" (p.19). So design-based research is not a sophisticated conceptualisation of the life cycle of a technology, it is of a different nature and objective than action-research. To some extend it can be seen as a proposal for a new discipline with original problems of methods and rigour.

There is one point on which this paper passes a bit too fast. It is the meaning of "real", what could count as "real-word context". Any experiment or observation carried out in a classroom changes what it is as opposed to its normal functioning. This is well-known but  as a common sense fact and scientifically not enough documented. The authors acknowledge the complexity of reality, but do not catch the need to model it in an explicit way (with all the constraints of something which is out of reach of an exhaustive description, indeed). Any experimental science is faced to this need including natural science. The place where an experiment is carried out is an experimental apparatus, it has to be described as such even if it is embedded in a so called real context. (it means a context which is largely out of control but if which many features have no impact). This is a condition to be later on able to discriminate between generalizable results and "idiosyncratic" (p.19) adaptations or observations, and to sort out which of the data are relevant for further analysis. This dimension of design-research may well be the missing element to succeed in becoming the scientific standard it is ambitions.

Blog post based on the reading of: Wang F., Hannafin M.J. (2005) Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments.  Educational Technology Research and Development 53 (4) 5-23, DOI: 10.1007/BF02504682

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.

Teachers adopt technology, learners should

As Rosamund Sutherland notices, educational technology has entered the classroom, but in many cases in support of the teacher activity (e.g. the interactive white board used as an enhanced black board) and not so much in support of learners activity. But let's hear her view:
But may be this is the result of the incapacity yet for technology to respond to the proper ecology of the classroom which is complex either from a spatial, social or intellectual perspective. The classroom as a technology enhanced learning space, still a challenge.