Why Games Don’t Teach

My claim isthat games don’t teach. Not that games can’t teach, but that advocating gamesas a main or even frequent instructional strategy is misleading. Here’s why.

What is a game?

If you ask a group of trainers to define what they mean bythe term “game,” you will likely hear a rather eclectic mix of features orexamples. Kapp defines games as “a system in which players engage in anabstract challenge, defined by rules, interactivity, and feedback, that resultsin a quantifiable outcome often eliciting an emotional reaction.” Mayer identifiesthe following four features that characterize all games: 1) rule-based 2)responsive 3) challenging and 4) cumulative. I have no argument with thesedefinitions. However, they encompass such a broad range of possibilities thatI’m sure we can come up with a lot of items that we could call a game but whichwould not necessarily lead to learning.

So whatabout a taxonomy of games? There are several of these around, based primarilyon the major types of entertainment games you’ve likely seen or played. Commoncategories include action, action-adventure, adventure, roleplay, strategy,simulations, puzzle, sports, board, and card games. My guess is that we couldclassify many specific games into two or more of these categories. And I’m notsure that any of these categories relate to the instructional effectiveness ofa game.

We need ataxonomy of games or game features that link to desired instructional outcomes.Let me give an example from a different common instructional strategy:graphics. Chopeta Lyons and I defined graphics from three perspectives in orderto organize their potentially relevant features. First, we defined graphics interms of surface features such as still graphics versus animated graphics. Second,we identified communication functions such as decorative graphics orexplanatory graphics. Third, we listed psychological functions of graphics orgraphic features such as promoting encoding, focusing attention, or minimizingextraneous mental load. I believe game categories such as adventure or strategytell us a bit about the surface features of games but little about theirinstructional potential. My challenge to game advocates is to develop ameaningful taxonomy that connects game features to learning outcomes.

There is little evidence for learning value of games

A couple ofrecent technical reviews have carefully evaluated documents on games, lookingfor credible evidence of what works. The consistent conclusion is that there isinsufficient well-designed experimental research on which to base manyconclusions. For example, Hays initially identified 274 documents on thedesign, use, and evaluation of games. Of these, he discarded 62 percent becausethey were opinion-based rather than data-based. His final review included 105documents, of which 48 reported empirical evidence of game effectiveness. Basedon the 48 studies, he concluded that there is no evidence to indicate thatgames are the preferred instructional method in all situations, allowing,however, that some games can provide effective learning for a variety oflearners for several different tasks such as math, electronics, and economics.

Sitzmann alsoreviewed research studies that compared the learning effectiveness ofcomputer-based simulation games with a comparison group. Although she weighedin favor of simulation games, her analysis shows that when the comparison groupinvolved some form of active learning (versus listening to a lecture orreading), learning was less effective among the simulation-game learners. Specifically,she concluded, “computerized tutorials were much more effective than simulationgames.” Overall I read her analysis as support for active learning, be it in asimulation game or a computer tutorial. Take a look at her report and see whatyou think.

Moving beyond game hyperbole

Becausegames come in so many varieties and are useful for so many purposes, I hopethat we will move beyond hyperbole and start to consider what specific featuresof games will promote learning of a particular type. Mayer and his colleagueshave conducted a series of experiments in which they create two or moreversions of the same game and identify how specific features promote or depresslearning. From these experiments he is building a repository of guidelines forgame design.

For example,using a circuit game which he describes as a puzzle game intended to teach howelectrical circuits work, he has found that encouraging learners to engage inself-explanations by clicking on a rationale for a game move resulted in betterlearning than the same game without the self-explanation additive. In anotherexperiment with the circuit game, Fiorella and Mayer report that adding aninteractive paper-based game principles sheet improved learning from the game amongthose who correctly identified the principles. Furthermore, learners using thepaper-based aids enjoyed the games more than those who played the games withoutthe aids. As these types of experiments accumulate, we will have a number ofprescriptions for how games can be made more effective for learning as well aswhat to avoid.

So, can games teach?

Certainlygames that align to the instructional goals, and that offer the right balanceof challenge and guidance, can support learning. I’m a language learner, andone game used to stimulate vocabulary learning is a digital version of Concentration.You see 16 facedown cards on the screen and you can click on any two. Half ofthe cards have pictures and the others have vocabulary words. If the two thatyou select match, the game eliminates them. You continue clicking on pairs ofcards until you have eliminated all of them. What’s the problem with this gamedesign for learning vocabulary?

Here’s my analysisas a player. Since the goal is to learn vocabulary, it’s a good idea to havesome drill and practice activity that involves matching pictures and words. Learningvocabulary is a rather tedious process, so putting a game face on a drill-and-practiceexercise is a good idea. The problem, however, is that the task of having torecall the location of a particular picture or word among the cards addsirrelevant mental load to learning vocabulary. The game requires me to matchwords and pictures (good), but at the same time to recall the location of specificword and picture cards (irrelevant to learning a language).

How would Idesign a more effective game? A better version involves displaying 16 cardswith pictures facing the player. Then by audio (or print) the game presents aword and the learner must click on the correct picture. As the words becomemore automatic, response time would be faster. Therefore the basis for the scorecould be the time to identify all of the words. Displaying a record of scoresover game trials would allow the player to see learning progress. These twogame versions illustrate how the instructional goal of accurately and quicklymatching a word to a meaning could be slowed or enhanced based on the designfeatures of a game.

Conclusion

Althoughmany games don’t teach, that’s not to say that they can’t teach. Our challengeis to empirically identify and catalog game features that align to learninggoals and build a repertoire of principles for game design. Meanwhile, weshould work to implement games that will encourage the mental processesrequired by the learning objectives and add features to these games such asself-explanation questions known to improve learning.

References

Clark, R.C., Lyons, C. (2011). Graphics for Learning – 2^nd Edition. San Francisco:Pfeiffer.

Fiorella, L, & Mayer, R.E. (2012). Paper-based aids forlearning with a computer-based game. Journalof Educational Psychology, 104, 1074-1082.

Hays, R.T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games:a literature review and discussion. Technical Report 2005-004. Naval AirWarfare Center Training Systems Division. https://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA441935

Kapp, K.M. (2012). TheGamification of Learning and Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Mayer, R.E. (2011). Multimedia learning and games. In S.Tobias & D Fletcher (Eds.), CanComputer
Games be Used for Instruction? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publisher.

Sitzmann, T., (2011). A meta-analytic examination of theinstructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489-528.