Several factors have recently converged to propel learning applications for computer-based games.
Popularity and Access
First, games are widely popular and accessible as entertainment; the Canadian video game market will increase from $732 million in 2005 to $1.3 billion in 2010, while global video game spending is expected to rise from $27.1 billion in 2005 to $46.5 billion in 2010 (Forest, 2006). A 2002 US survey found that 92 percent of children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 played video games, and more than two-thirds of all children ages 2 to 18 lived in a home with a video game system (Kaiser Family Foundation 2002). As well, 61 percent of Canadian households and 75 percent of US households used mobile phones in 2005 (Wright, 2006). Using games for learning builds on their familiarity and relatively easy access.
Player Engagement
Computer games are highly engaging. Today’s games offer motivating, absorbing, interactive, collaborative experiences that draw in players and keep them playing for many hours, often developing complex social networks in the process.
A growing body of literature analyzes aspects of games that foster player engagement and motivation. Asgari and Kaufman (2004) cite three categories of factors that sustain a game’s intrinsic motivation so that a player will play for his/ her own interest and enjoyment, even in the absence of external rewards:
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): Intrinsically Motivating Features of Games (Asgari & Kaufman, 2004)
| Feature Category |
Examples |
| Psychological: those that meet individual needs |
Features that meet needs for competence, self-determination, interest-excitement, enjoyment. |
| Structural: related to the inner structure of a game |
Complexity, novelty, unpredictability, uncertain outcomes, challenge, feedback, fantasy, curiosity, control, interactivity, competition |
| Implementation: related to the way a game is implemented and presented to the player |
Graphics and sound, having multiple players, using well-known characters or settings, high speed, useful interface, “save game” capability |
Prensky (2001a) lists twelve elements that make computer games engaging:
Table \(\PageIndex{2}\): Twelve Elements that make Computer Games Engaging (Prensky (2001a), quoted in Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004)
| Game Characteristic |
Contribution to Players’ Engagement |
| Fun |
Enjoyment and pleasure |
| Play |
Intense and passionate involvement |
| Rules |
Structure |
| Goals |
Motivation |
| Interaction |
Doing the activity |
| Outcomes and feedback |
Learning |
| Adaptive |
“Flow” state |
| Winning |
Ego gratification |
| Conflict/competition/ challenge and opposition |
Adrenaline |
| Problem solving |
Sparks creativity |
| Social interaction |
Social groups |
| Representation and a story |
Emotion |
Another analysis of games’ engaging quality focuses on players’ experience of “flow”, a state of intense concentration and focus in which they have a balance between ability level and challenge, a sense of personal control over the situation, and a sense of intrinsic reward from the play (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Welldesigned games do this by, among other things, having multiple skills levels so that players face new but achievable challenges as they develop mastery of lower levels.
Gee (2003) explains player engagement in terms of semiotic domains (worlds of symbols, meanings, practices, and experiences). He points out that games can be very challenging and time-consuming, yet young players who might spend little time on schoolwork become absorbed in games and learn complex knowledge, responses, and behaviours in order to win. In his words,
A game like Pikmin recruits from our six-year-old a complex identity composed of various related traits. The game encourages him to think of himself as an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes; one who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning. It encourages him to be the sort of problem solver who, rather than ritualizing the solutions to problems, leaves himself open to undoing former mastery and finding new ways to solve new problems in new situations.
Gee suggests that players take on and master lengthy, complex games because they become involved in new semiotic domains and affinity groups, resulting in new identities (e.g., a game character with abilities, faults, and decisions to be made) and situated learning that can be transferred to other domains. Squire (2005) suggests that this focus on new identities is leading to new computer-based games that build new attitudes and behaviours for players in simulated management and advertising settings.
Theory-Based Support
Computer-based games embody current learning theories. For example,
- Constructivist learning (Boethel & Dimock, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978): When requiring exploration, collaboration, and complex problem-solving, games can help players to explore, discover, articulate, and create their own understanding of complex phenomena;
- Situated cognition, cognitive apprenticeship, and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984; Schank & Neaman, 2001): When they create simulated authentic contexts and activities that involve social interaction, games can support both understanding and skill development. Also, skill development increases with learning by doing, and feedback in a safe environment;
- Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Kaufman et al., 2000): Through learner control and increasing achievement levels, games can provide opportunities for successful experiences to help develop self-efficacy and positive attitudes concurrently with knowledge and skills.
- Learner-cent-redness (McCombs and Whistler, 1997): Games can transform traditional teacher and learner roles so that learners shift from a passive to an active role, and from learner to teacher through active exploration, experimentation, discovery, and collaboration with peers.
Evidence of Learning Outcomes
A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of games for cognitive, emotional and psychomotor learning. For examples, see Baranowski et al. (2003), Kirriemuir & McFarlane (2004), Lieberman (2001), Roubidoux (2002), Sauvé et al. (2005b), and Steinman & Blastos (2002). According to these, games motivate learning, offer immediate feedback, consolidate knowledge, support skills development and application, aid learning transfer, and influence changes in behaviour and attitudes, all pointing to greater learning effectiveness with simulations and games.
New-Generation Learning Model
Finally, some observers argue that new generations of learners are developing new cognitive processes and a culture that is changing the nature of learning. Learning may be evolving into a much more “unruly,” less controlled process than we have been accustomed to in our classrooms (Seely Brown, 2002). Prensky (2001a) and others suggest that the “game generation” has developed a new cognitive style characterized by multitasking, a short attention span, and learning through exploration and discovery; today’s games provide their ideal learning environment.
Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)
Case studies of Lineage (Steinkuehler, 2004) and World of Warcraft (Lau, 2005) describes how these MMOGs develop online communities of practice that foster learning as social practice through “situated understandings, effective social practices, powerful identities, shared values, and shared ways of thinking” (quote from Lau, 2005).
