Taking Serious Games Seriously in Education [Research] by Dr. Kristen DiCerbo offers the unique perspective of how the industry leader, Pearson, designs and builds games as learning tools. As she shares her experience in research and game innovation, DiCerbo also demonstrates how well-designed games can address multiple curriculum needs, enable pain free assessments, and offer immediate feedback for students. Such games can enhance not only the learning experience for the students, but the teachers as well.
Her scientific stance to games offers hope in comparison to Blake Montgomery’s article, Is the Education Industry Falling Into the Same Trap It Did 20 Years Ago? He talks about the previous collapse of the edutainment industry due to poorly designed games and to the misuse of the word “educational”.  Conversely, DiCerbo’s explanation of design decisions and careful use of language around today’s serious games exemplifies what all learning games should strive to become.

DiCerbo (2015) highlights new benefits of serious games in her words, “As learning scientists have engaged with them, games have become stronger learning tools because of:

1. Tighter ties to research-based learning progressions,
2. Better links to elements of professionalization, and
3. Better design for assessment,” (2015).

These principles lay the foundation for exemplar games such as Mars Generations One: Argubot Academy EDU.

Mars Generation One was a collaborative effort by GlassLab, the Educational Testing Service, and Pearson. This futuristic game teaches middle schoolers skills in reasoning, persuasion, and decision making. In order for the students to influence the construction of a new civilization, they must arm their robots, also called argubots, with arguments for battle. The best argument wins. As students build their arguments, learning progressions, introductions to professionalization, and assessments are being seamlessly built upon and tracked.

A key feature of Mars Generation One is that it relied upon research to set the predefined learning progression. This means the game assesses what level each student is at and how s/he is improving. DiCerbo provides the example that students begin their learning journey with a single reason in their argubot, next progress to multiple arguments in an argubot, then continue to multiple arguments with supporting evidence, and so on as they learn to more effectively argue their points.

Another clever feature of Mars Generation One is that there is a component of role play and/or identity. The games touches on the professions of astronauts, politicians, lawyers, engineers, and writers. These early beginnings of identity formation are similar to identities taken on in commercial games such as a wizard, but have a more applicable stance in the real world (DiCerbo, 2015).

The coolest aspect of Mars Generation One is the use of invisible assessment. Rather than employing the old method of quiz making, taking, and grading, students are assessed as they play the game. Teachers and students have immediate feedback on progress as well as how a student solves problems. This is a huge benefit since old testing methods are time consuming and do not show the student’s thought process.

DiCerbo’s article illuminates game making as a science. I have learned it is critical to implement high standards of learning progressions, professionalization cues, and invisible assessments for both a positive and credible learning experience for all involved. May all educational games and their marketing efforts strive to keep serious games seriously credible.

References:

DiCerbo, K. (2015). Taking Serious Games Seriously in Education. Retrieved February 14, 2016 from http://www.pearsoned.com/education-blog/taking-serious-games-seriously-in-education-research/

Montgomery, B. (2016). Is the Educational Games Industry Falling Into the Same Trap It Did 20 Years Ago? (EdSurge News). Retrieved February 14, 2016, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-02-07-is-the-educational-games-industry-falling-into-the-same-trap-it-did-20-years-ago

 
Set Up

I opted to play chess with my boyfriend, Ben, for the sake of game reflection, dissection, and journalling in my Games and Learning course at CU Denver. When we began to play at a quaint coffeehouse, I felt quite confident that I could showcase a couple interesting moves, but Ben did not mention that he was quite skilled at the game. What began as fun, turned into a fierce competition and ended in checkmate, Ben’s favor.

Key Questions

I asked myself the following questions while playing the game:

• What is Ben’s skill level?
• Are we comparable?
• What is is Ben’s strategy?
• How many moves ahead is Ben planning?
• How long does he take to decide his next move?
• How should my strategy change to combat Ben’s strategy?

Difficulties & Surprises

As we played, I realized Ben was much better than he let on. I quickly saw by his third move, he was playing the long game. He wasn’t interested in my pawns, but more about setting the board up to his advantage. This posed as both a surprise and increased difficulty for me. I gathered that he was planning more than three moves out, which was beyond my mental capabilities. His moves began to put me on the defense rather than the offense. Not long after that, I was begrudgingly obliterated.

Game’s Design

Chess is the perfect game that requires strategy, planning, composure, and skill. I was constrained by my lower skill level and inability to hide my emotions. I kept telling Ben to play his game and not let me win. Ben kept asking if I was sure about that, indicating that his constraints were to not upset me. I might go so far as to say the game was a reflection of our relationship. We both can play the game, but I want a partner who will challenge me. Ben certainly does just that!

Scholarly Connections

Ben and I achieved the first question of Will Wright’s litmus test for a game’s engagement and success, “Can we try?” (Salen, 2008, p. 11). There was also a critical moment for Ben when he decided to fully play his best even though he knew he had the advantage. As the game progressed and I began losing, I asked the second important game question, “Can I save it?” (Salen, 2008, p. 11). I played my best until I realized I couldn’t save the game. After my ego healed, I felt I needed to learn from Ben’s superior chess playing abilities.

We have not yet played again, but our next game’s goal is to employ Gee’s theory, “learning should be a collaborative dance between the teacher’s guidance and the learner’s actions and interpretations,” (2004, p. 68). I see Ben as the teacher since he has a better grasp of chess. If we slow the game down and talk through moves, then I have a greater opportunity to learn. Our last game was not necessarily fun for either of us because we came from a place of competition rather than curiosity. True, I learned a bit, but I would benefit much more by learning Ben’s skills than acting like I can play at his level.

Implications

My experience of playing chess seemed like inception. Chess is complex even without the added challenge of playing one’s significant other. I learned about the dynamics of our relationship through play. One major realization being that I sometimes ask for what I cannot handle. It would be wise to remember this experience and apply it in my daily life. I should ask myself, “Am I really capable of challenging Ben now or would this be a better opportunity to slow down, communicate, and learn from Ben?”

Photo Credit: http://www.motaen.com/wallpapers/source/id/38025