The essence of a learning game is tough to pinpoint—and itcan be an even bigger challenge to identify which aspects of learning gamesactually enhance learning.
Some L&D professionals believe that it is sufficient tosimply add some game-like features to learning content and, voilà,they have a learning game. But gamification is not sufficient to turn eLearningcontent into an eLearning game. And there are no guarantees that turningsomething into a game makes it a better learning tool.
Elements of a game
Game designers, such as Sharon Boller and Karl Kapp, authorsof Play to Learn, and researcher Richard Mayer list several essential elementsof games:
- Players must face a challenge or be asked toreach a goal
- The game’s rules govern how they may go aboutmeeting the challenge that forms the heart of a game
- The players interact with the game environment,with other players, or with both
- Players receive feedback and are able to assesstheir progress in the challenge or toward the goal
- The game results in a defined outcome—allplayers know what it means to win, to lose, and to meet the challenge
- Ideally, challenges become more difficult asplayers progress and/or they are faced with short-term and longer-term goalsand challenges, offering opportunities to learn from errors
A learning game, as distinct from gamified eLearningcontent, is a unit of eLearning that has been specifically designed as a game andthat comprises the above elements. Dressing up an eLearning course with badgesand scavenger hunts might make it more engaging for some learners, but thatgamification does not quite bring the content into the realm of serious learninggames.
What sets learning games apart from recreational games isthat the content is built around a set of learning objectives and a body ofknowledge that players are expected to master. While it is possible to use awell-known game framework to present eLearning content, perhaps creating a Jeopardy-type game whose questions allpertain to content that learners need to know, this may not be the bestapproach for real learning.
Build better learning games
According to Ruth Clark, president of Clark Training and Consulting,gamification of content tends to be less effective than true learning games.“As a general rule, games that are designed specifically to require learners torespond in ways that match the cognitive requirements of the learning objectiveare more effective than games that use a predefined frame such as Concentrationor Jeopardy,” she said in an email interview.
If a learning game is designed well, learning through playbecomes inevitable. “The power of games is to create a learning experience inwhich, by simply engaging with the game, learning will happen,” Clark said.
An important consideration in game design is cognitive load. If a game requires learners to expend effort to learn and rememberintricate rules, those learners have less mental energy to invest in the actualcontent. On the other hand, players may quickly lose interest in a game that istoo simple. “Much learning will depend on repeated play—at an optimal level ofchallenge, which can increase as learning occurs through mechanisms such aslevels of play,” Clark said. Thus the game design and the challenge must strikea balance: compelling enough to hold learners’ interest over time, but not socomplex that learners are overtaxed.
Other game features can help or harm learning. Clark cites researcherRichard Mayer, whose work looks at the “value added” when an instructionalmethod, such as explanatory feedback, is added to a learning game. His researchwas a response to strong claims for games’ ability to enhance learning—butlittle evidence backing up those claims. Mayer:
- Measuredwhether people learned from playing a game
- Evaluatedwhich features of a game enhanced and which detracted from learning
- Compared theperformance of learners who had played learning games with that of learners whoused conventional instructional media
Mayer’s work “has assembled a growing list of methods (manyalready shown to enhance traditional tutorials) that improve learning from agame,” Clark said. “For example a base game responds with a ding and points fora correct answer, while the enhanced game adds explanatory feedback: ‘Yes, thatis correct because …’” Another finding was that players learned more when gameinstructions and content were presented in a conversational style, rather thanusing formal language.
Many gamification proponents emphasize the lure of winningor beating colleagues in focusing on game elements like points and leaderboardsas a way to engage learners. But, according to Clark, competition could bedetrimental. “Mayer’s research so far has actually shown that competition can reduce learning compared to thesame games that do not have a competitive element,” she said. But she cautions:“We do not yet have enough research on competition versus non-competition tomake a definitive statement.”
Rather than trying to best colleagues, learners might focusinward. “A better form of ‘competition’ might be self-comparison of scores oroutcomes over time,” Clark said.
Dive into game design at DevLearn 2017
Join us at DevLearn 2017 Conference & Expo, where Ruth Clark is presenting a session, “Beyond the Hype: Evidence-Based Digital Games,” that will help you understand howgames can enhance learning. DevLearn 2017 is October 25 – 27 in Las Vegas,Nevada.
Sharon Boller and Karl Kapp are presenting a daylong pre-conferenceworkshop, “Play to Learn—Designing Effective Learning Games,” on Tuesday, October 24. ThisBYOL (Bring Your Own Laptop®) session will walk participantsthrough the design of a learning game.
