Video gaming gets a bad rap. I believe a lot of people feel as though it’s unproductive and waste of time. Those that play video games, especially online video games, are stereotyped as being geeks or brainiacs. I think most of this stems from the older generation of adults who grew up without video games and see them only as a luxury item or a toy of sorts. That is the main reason why the subject matter of games and learning is so interesting. Traditionally, students would rather be playing video games than doing homework and now there is scholarly research around using video games as a learning tool? Who’s idea do you think that was, the student’s or the parent’s?

As we have studied games and learning throughout the semester and dissected a number of articles from various scholars, I cannot help but feel that this has been the elephant in the room, which perhaps as not really been addressed. Certainly, many of the authors have argued, in some cases rather defensively, for the use of gaming in education as well as a call for revamping the current education system. With these thoughts in mind, I decided to critique a short piece that discusses the psychology behind those that play video games. Specifically, our class’s online hypothesis discussion raised a question that I thought was interesting and, in which, I didn’t really have a good answer or opinion. In this day and age, video gaming is readily available to anyone who can access the internet. The truth is some of the stereotypes of video gamers are true (of course there must be a few instances for a stereotype to even be born) – there are some people who indulge in video gaming to the extent that it produces negative side effects, including addiction. The question I had, therefore, is that even though academia is finding positive utility for video games as a learning tool, when we implement them with our learners are we playing with fire?

Mark Griffiths, with the International Gaming Research Unit at Nottingham Trent University, wrote the article titled, “Online video gaming: what should educational psychologists know?” that was published in the journal, Educational Psychology in Practice. Special thanks to Darren Blackman who pointed out the potential scholarly critique article from this cycle’s reading! This article provides an overview of the issues surrounding excessive video game play among young people. In this piece, Griffiths gives a clear and concise perspective on the differences in gaming and what the signs of addiction are. He also lists several benefits to video gaming and offers some advice to parents – who seem to contact him regularly regarding these issues.

My biggest takeaway from the article is that, just because someone likes to play video games an excessive amount of time, it does not mean that that person suffers from an addiction. Really, we need to understand the psychology behind addictions before we endeavor to make any bold claims. What is interesting, though, is that some of the advice Griffiths offers are some of the very same characteristics that are beneficial to learning such as encouraging kids to play video games in groups of people instead of alone. This allows the youth learn virtual interpersonal skills and conduct collective problem solving activities.

The article posits that any type of activity can lead to addiction. Some people play excessively simply because they can. That does not rule out the educational benefits that games can provide. Certainly prudence and moderation are important characteristics to maintain no matter what our undertaking.

After reading Bavelier’s article, “Brain Plasticity Through the Life Span: Learning to Learn and Action Video Games,” in this past cycle’s reading lineup, I became intrigued on the concept of learning to learn. Bavelier sums up the main issue surrounding learning in his own words:

“The ability of the human brain to learn is exceptional. Yet, learning is typically quite specific to the exact task used during training, a limiting factor for practical applications such as rehabilitation, workforce training, or education.”

His words immediately caught my attention as someone who highly involved in workforce training in my profession. I see this all the time. I try to teach an employee a simple task to perform in the software yet whenever some unforeseen variable comes along they are immediately thrown off track – because that variable wasn’t in the original training. In fact, I’m ashamed to admit, I often tease that such employees have maxed out their intellectual hard drives and are unable to learn anything new. Thanks to Bavelier, my narrow-minded thinking has been put right in front of me. For this reason, I wanted to drill down on the concept of learning to learn and found, among many articles, a piece by Rob McCormack, Geri Pancini, and Dan Tout of Victoria University in Australia titled, “Learningful work: Learning to work and learning to learn”.   

                

In this article, the authors posit that the meaning of the term “learning” must undergo some fundamental transformations due emerging technologies, organizational structures, and new demands on skills and knowledge. They call this becoming liquid or adaptable. The study focuses on learning in the workplace. However, instead of education preparing one for work, they focus on how the work-place becomes a place for education or learning to learn.

Although these authors examine the workplace, I believe this study mirrors the world of games and learning. I personally believe that games and play are a simulation of real life. We, as students, can study theoretical knowledge on a given topic but there is nothing experiencing the real thing. Learning on the job can be very similar to jumping into a game. In fact, the game I wrote about for my play journal this week did exactly that – I was plunged into action with little to know explanation or orientation.

It is true, in the workplace, we often train people to perform specific tasks. This could be similar to teaching someone a specific position on a football team. If something occurs outside of that position or outside of that job position, we often hear the phrase “that’s not my job”. Learning to learn or, as the article states, doing learningful work can help a person to expand their role, strategize, or master new concepts.

Social dimensions can also impact learning. In the study done by Victoria University, students were placed as rovers in campus libraries to assist students. The idea was that people would feel more comfortable reaching out to a peer rather than to staff. Within gaming, there also appears to be a horizontal social component where people are aided by those closely associated. I see this at work as well. New employees often feel more comfortable asking peers for help rather than authorities for fear of asking a “stupid” question.

I just got back yesterday from a two-week business trip so I apologize for posting this journal entry so late in the cycle. I anticipated having some down time at the hotel in the evenings but that quickly evaporated into late dinners and meetings…bleh! All this was due to a fairly recent company merger. Anyway, although play is usually the desire of my heart, it hasn’t been on my mind much. So as I was sitting in the San Jose airport this afternoon with a couple hours to kill, I decided to scroll through the ol’ Google Play Store and see what app I could jump into. And wouldn’t you know, right there advertised on the main page is Family Farm Seaside.

This game caught my attention not because I’m interested in it but rather the opposite – I’m not interested in it. Yet I see this game advertised ALL THE TIME. And every time I do see an ad for it I ask myself, “Why?......Is this supposed to be fun?” So, this time around I decided to turn my disdain into curiosity and decided to download the app.

Family Farm Seaside is exactly that – a family farm…by the seaside. The player has a landscape view of a farm with various activities: grow flowers, harvest fruit trees, milk the cow, make cheese, collect honey, make jam – all within a specified area which area looks to have the potential to grow. There are also some unfinished tasks (such as building a dock or opening a fruit stand) that are available after unlocking later levels. Completing tasks accrues coins or other rewards which are then used to acquire more land or farm resources.

I naturally wanted to approach this game from a learning perspective and pay particular attention 1) how did the app teach me, a first-timer, how to play and 2) How can this game be used as a learning tool?

Once the game loaded, I was immediately plunged into a pre-set farm with tasks already laid out for me. An instructional finger appears to orient me on how to complete tasks – which I do to move on to the next thing. I became immediately frustrated because that is not how I want to learn a game. I want an overview and an objective BEFORE I dive into specific actions. So far, I cannot seem to find a goal or objective at all. There is a path for progress but to what end? Is the point to just build a farm, make money, and keep growing the farm? The only thing I know is the process for growing the farm.

The main thing that has been on mind going into this game is the recent reading by Bavelier and the focus on “learning to learn”. Many times, in my career, I have seen employees learn a task only to be thrown off completely by a new variable. Without a clear objective to Family Farm, I fail to see how intuitive learning can take place.

Then…I handed my phone to my five-year-old. He immediately took over and didn’t ask a single question. He simply started pushing buttons and figuring things out on his level. He wasn’t worried about an objective, he simply played. Perhaps there needs to be less focus on crossing the finish line and more emphasis on the race.

“Abstraction Through Game Play” by Antri Avraamidou, John Monaghan, and Aisha Walker examines the results of a real-world experiment in game play involving an 11-year-old boy from Cypress and the popular game, Sims 2. I sought out this type of example in light of the current affinity project our class is undertaking where do a deep dive into an active affinity space. Plus, with all of the literature we have been consuming around games and learning, I hoped to find some kind of real life case study or example to illustrate these concepts. Young 11-year-old Costas did just that!

As a brief overview, the experiment was designed to create a non-classroom, natural learning environment for the boy with as few restraints as possible. To implement the design, the video was accessed online in the boy’s bedroom and mediator was on-hand to guide the sessions. Costas qualified for the study in that he 1) had prior video game play experience, 2) had the ability to read and understand English, and 3) was perceived to be willing to express himself throughout the study. Costas played the game for a total of three hours over four different periods and was ultimately tasked with building two houses in the sandbox-style game. This was as close as the researchers could get to simply observing a child at play.

The data and analysis of the study provided ample evidence to support the authors’ focus: abstraction can be accomplished through game play. In this case, Costas primarily constructed a mathematical abstraction in order to build his houses, especially the second house which required construction under greater restraints (budget, space, resources, etc.). From the outset, Costas was adamant about maintaining symmetry in house while still trying to implement his desired features (like a swimming pool in the middle of the house). To do so, Costas continually ran into “problems” which he needed to use math to solve. As the authors point out, in this case, the artefact mediated the mathematical learning that was accomplished through game play.

The evidence provided by the case study is very compelling and the authors adequately proved their hypothesis. In the end of the article the authors note that the mathematical abstraction constructed by Costas was not scholastic or “privileged” mathematics as what is taught in a curriculum. Costas’ use of math was based on objects and shapes – as you can see the grid system laid out in the illustration. There weren’t any numbers present. This brings to the forefront some questions. In grade school we learn mathematical concepts in the classroom and then try to exercise those concepts through simulations (word problems). In this case study, I believe the reverse was enacted. Costas was initially tasked with a blind simulation (I say blind because he was not specifically told to learn something) and then subconsciously used math to accomplish it. Instead of a teacher as a mediator, the game/artefact was the mediator. One could say that comparing the knowledge in each area is practical versus conceptual. The question I have is would one benefit from the other? Which is a better format? If Costas were given numerical constraints such as building a specific sized house with particular dimensions and features, would he be able to learn the same scholastic mathematics that are taught in the classroom?

Articles like these, in my mind, prove that games facilitate or mediate learning. I think the next question might be to ask – what can we learn through games?

My understanding of games coming into this course, I admit, was very basic. I’m a big fan of games and play. I love challenges, puzzles, and being competitive. So when I think of games and learning as a topic of study, I simply think of the games I like to play in my personal life or I think of the games I played in the classroom. Thanks to scholarly analysis, my eyes have certainly been opened to the depth on the subject.

I think the biggest contributions to better understanding the relationship between games and learning have come studying the course readings, reading and commenting on other students’ play journals, and interacting via hypothesis annotation. My personal definition of analysis is breaking something down into its simplest pieces and then asking questions. The readings, thus far, have done exactly that. By breaking down the ecology of games, affinity spaces, and situational learning, the authors provide a different perspective on games and learning and give the subject greater dimension. Games are not just a tool FOR learning, but they actually represent a model of learning that drastically departs from traditional classroom education. This understanding shines greater light in utilizing or designing games as a way of instructing or allowing people to instruct themselves.

In addition, participating in writing and reviewing play journals showcases an important component of instructional: getting to know your learners. These journals are a great insight into how people play or react to play. And so far, the biggest takeaway from this activity is the insight that 1) not everyone plays the same way and, therefore, 2) there is more than one way to play a game.

Everyone loves games. Who wouldn’t want to use game play to learn or as a teaching tool? Oh, and message boards are for geeks…

These are some of the preconceptions that I had coming into the course and the more I learn the more those preconceptions are turning into misconceptions. And misconceptions are almost always due to a lack of information. I am quickly learning that games and learning is like the universe – it is continually expanding. And despite its vastness game play is not one size fits all. People engage in play or define fun in different ways.

When it comes to social media, I sheepishly admit this is an area where I struggle to find a foothold. I do see the value in networking online as well as the value of gleaning useful information. The problem I have, though, is I feel like social media is a breeding ground for people who are starved for attention – and sharing my thoughts to the internet is not really my cup of tea. Although my twitter feed contains several useful and insightful posts, those nuggets are mixed with political rantings and other trivialities. I’m not at all sticking my nose up at social media, I’m really trying to say that I need to change my attitude when it comes to this form of collaboration.

I do want to say, though, that the Hypothesis annotations have been a learning delight. What a brilliant idea! There is no better way to discuss a reading than in the reading itself. The annotations have not only spurred hearty discussion among fellow classmates, they have also been extremely helpful in clarifying, and in some cases, deciphering the author’s texts. Such a practice allows for greater understanding and comprehension – at least on my part.

If, as before mentioned, one size does not fit all, how can we successfully design game play that will engage a group of students, co-workers, etc.?

Although the answer is not yet completely known, the key is in the design. Much like instructional design models, it begins with analysis. This is important because it should preclude a designer in thinking narrowly about games and fun. More answer to come..

My biggest curiosity relates to my previous question – how can we design game play either as a learning environment or learning tool to engage a particular group.

As for affinity spaces, I’m curious, as I explore the Terraria affinity space, as to how this type of environment truly lends to learning – much like the texts suggest.

I work in sales operations for a large security company. Sales operations is a lot like being a stage manager and the sales reps like the actors. However, in addition to a number of other responsibilities, I take an active role in training those sales reps in how to perform certain aspects of their job (I don’t think stage managers train the actors…). Sales reps can sometimes have personalities that make them difficult to train – big egos, low attention spans, complacency, etc. Therefore, with each new topic in this eLearning curriculum, I look for ways to more effectively engage and train.

I came across the article, “Games as an Interactive Classroom Technique: Perceptions of Corporate Trainers, College Instructors and Students”, in a search for games in corporate training. Although the article was published almost ten years ago, I found the authors’ study of interactive classroom teaching techniques between college faculty members and corporate trainers to be compelling. Their study consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of a survey among college faculty and corporate trainers to determine their classroom techniques and influences on teaching styles. Kumar and Lightner clearly place a focus on active learning versus passive learning approaches such as lectures or online learning. Their research indicates that interactive learning positively affects students, specifically adult learners, in memory, performance, social collaboration, and transfer of learning. They argue that games and simulations provide the perfect framework for active learning in the classroom. The second part of the study, five college faculty members volunteered to help develop new games that would replace lectures. After conducting the new game in the classroom, the five college instructors assessed the student learning and were interviewed on their experiences. In the first survey, data shows that corporate trainers utilized significantly more active learning strategies than college instructors. In the second part of the study, the five college instructors found increased student engagement and interaction through the use of the interactive game.

Kumar and Lightner’s findings are exactly what I would have assumed they would be - colleges focus more on lectures and corporate training uses more activities. The data adequately supports the notion that games can have a positive effect on learning, especially within the adult classroom. What the study did uncover are relevant questions around the social dimensions of using game play in adult learning. The college instructors felt in the second part of the study admitted to feelings of reluctance toward the use of games as well as some feelings of inadequacy in dealing with the formats. And, despite overall positive feedback, some students expressed that games in the classroom seemed childish or beneath them. Collective learning through interactive games does require engagement and “buy-in” among participants which may require breaking down social barriers or preconceived notions.

The study also brought to light several other questions relating to game play that, I believe, are launching points for further research. Foremost, the comments from instructors and students in the survey indicate that the actual design and implementation of the games influenced how they were perceived by students. This takes into consideration the delivery of such activities and how they can be most effective. In my opinion, I think many would agree that games are valuable teaching tools. The focus, therefore, needs to shift from the “why” to the “how”. My sales reps may be difficult to teach but one thing I do know is they love to play!

I am not really big into video games so for my first play journal I thought it best to cover what I do enjoy: board games (I’m sure I’ll delve into some video games in later journal entries). My siblings and I loved playing board games growing up. It helped that we’re all close in age so our ability levels were fairly comparable (except no one can beat my brother at Clue…not sure why). To this day, when we get together we enjoy gathering around the kitchen table with our favorite junk food and breaking out a game or two. For us, it’s more than just a game – it’s also a social component, which is a major component in playing board games. Amidst the strategy and decision-making, it’s fun to chat, laugh, and enjoy the company.

For Christmas, my wife got me a new strategic board game, Seven Wonders, which I had played only once or twice before. Seven Wonders is a card-based game with the theme being, you guessed it, the seven ancient wonders of the world. The object of the game is to get the most “victory” points, which one can accrue in seven different categories (the number seven is an important aspect). Here’s how the game goes:

Three to seven players are each dealt seven cards. Each player reviews their seven cards, selects one to acquire, and then passes the remaining cards to the left. Each card has a cost, either money or resources, which each player has been allotted. Once the cards are passed and the process is repeated until all the cards are used up. This is the phase one. Phases two and three are the same. At the end of the third phase, all the points are added up and the player with the most points wins. Each of the cards in one’s hand, at any given time, represent a way in which points can be accrued. Ultimately, there are seven different categories in which players can accrue points.

Seven Wonders is all about managing resources and creating a strategy for accruing points. Even though there are seven categories for gaining points, as you can imagine, it is virtually impossible to get the most points in every single category.

I really enjoy this game. I think what makes it compelling are the constraints. There are hundreds of strategy board games out there and all them have similar components: cards, points, money, etc. It’s the rules of the game and deciding how to be successful within those rules that provides a fun challenge. In addition, not only is one impacted by their own decision, they are impacted by the decisions of others. To win the game, players need to be aware of the situation of others (all accrued points are viewable by everyone), manage resources, and strategize on the fly. The design and flow of the game are intricate, well thought out, and very efficient. And depending on how many players are involved, the game should last no longer than 30 to 45 minutes. There is a certain level of unknown in that the winner is truly decided once the score is tallied.

I believe all board games provide learning experiences because they are life simulations. Especially in strategic board games, the scenarios encountered require critical thinking. All of these skills benefit players in real life. I believe most people agree on this point. I believe the real question of value is how we can take a game/concept, like Seven Wonders, and use it to accomplish a learning objective. An interesting byproduct of this game, is the fact that I now, for the first time, can name all the seven wonders of the world!

SAMR: REDEFINITION. Image courtesy of Christina Moore 2016.

In recent years virtual reality (VR) technologies have gained popularity for enhancement of a myriad of industries and experiences. It’s hard to dispute VR has the potential to transform. It’s exciting to consider exploring these technologies for the purpose of education, but before putting VR into practice in the classroom, it’s important to apply the study of theory to VR potential. The SAMR model (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition) is a great way to apply rather basic theory to VR tech. Although it’s possible VR practitioners and learners can traverse SAMR, based on how VR is used, “redefinition” may be the most impactful way to demonstrate use of these technologies for learning. Redefinition, in regards to SAMR, refers to the ability for technology to “create tasks and ways of learning that were previously inconceivable.” (Technology Is Learning 2014)

From the perspective of a CAD and Interior Design instructor, at a career and technical college, the use of VR for architecture and design is exciting to consider in terms of redefining methods of teaching and learning. Consider students who are studying the histories of design, art, and architecture. The typical way we experience these courses and instruction is to explain history through text and pictorial representation. Imagine being able to virtually walk through a setting relevant to the study of history. This is particularly meaningful for design and art instruction where many times the experience and feeling of such places can not be effectively demonstrated. For example, Mies Van Der Rohe’s Core House is available online as a virtual study. When one applies VR goggles to this it’s possible to engage in the feeling and the experience of the physical space. This redefines how we learn about history by immersion in space rather than mere dictation of what it is like. In effect, students can determine what they discovered through the VR experiences and compare that to historical contexts to make conclusions. The ultimate goal of which, would be to apply their historical experience to actual practice in the design of their own spaces.

Perhaps even more exciting than virtually walking through history, is the ability to shape unique spaces with the use of VR. It’s already possible to model a building in VR, assign materials, and design the furniture and flow of the space. More importantly, the result of VR designs can be experienced in VR by the end users and the designers together, creating greater empathy and connections between them.


Most designers begin to learn how to design by 2D representation on paper and in 3D software. At the same time, designers learn about the dimensions of things, as well as codes, and anthropometrics. Things like standard counter heights, doorways, chairs, tables, ADA requirements, etc. Mostly these things are a given, but when all of the elements are put together, the space transforms into it’s own functional or dysfunctional place. In 2D and 3D softwares, one can only guess through experience and the “mind’s eye” what it would be like to experience the space. However, with VR one can simply assess the space while they are creating it. Rather than critiquing the space post design and planning. Dysfunctional designs and proportions become readily apparent immediately in the VR process. Everything is formatively assessed on the fly, versus a giant summative assessment in the form of a design presentation including plans, diagrams, renderings, etc. The whole design process is flipped, redefining it. Rather than creating plans and sketches first, designers create the space in VR and produce plans last when the space is mutually satisfactory for everyone involved.

Like many new technologies, it may take a while to take hold and become a new standard way of doing and being. For educators this is painfully true when it comes to budget allocation and accessibility for students. Because VR technology combines both hardware and software for use, the cost to implement and upkeep is greater than simply updating the software every year. Other concerns from accessibility standpoint would be students who suffer from motion sickness because of the visual interface, or physical disabilities, or fatigue from prolonged operation of VR devices. The final determining factor of this technology becoming more commonplace may be the willingness of the industry and employers to adopt it. Because of these things, it may be a challenge for VR to take off. However, I remain optimistic because of the ability to redefine the design process and experience.

VR goggles combined with hand-held controllers offers architects "a whole new way of designing" (May, 2016)