The Case for Greater Investment in Serious Games by Commercial Industries Abstract



Download 90.88 Kb.
Date09.01.2017
Size90.88 Kb.
#8422

Scott Schroeder

CCTP 797


Final Project


The Case for Greater Investment in Serious Games by Commercial Industries

Abstract: The use of video games for learning has garnered a great deal of attention in academic, private, public, and military sectors over recent years, partly as a result of staggering amounts of capital invested in the gaming industry, but mostly because of the ability of video games to captivate the attention of players and hold it for extended periods of time as players develop complex skills and accomplish objectives.[1]1 In 2011, the research firm Gartner predicted that more than 50 percent of organizations that manage innovation processes would “gamify” those processes by 2015.[2]2 The same research firm also predicted that 80% of gamified applications would fail to meet business objectives by 2014, primarily due to poor design.[3]3 Skepticism surrounding return on investment coupled with numerous examples of educational computer games which produced lackluster results prevented industries from devoting more precious resources toward these ventures. However, with effective design, these educational computer games are powerful tools which can develop cognitive skills which will better prepare players to successfully navigate through complex situations they may encounter in the workplace. This paper explores the question of whether commercial industries should invest more heavily in serious games which enable players to collaborate and compete with peers in fun, challenging, and educational virtual environments in situations which are germane to their duties and responsibilities.

Introduction: Computer games have come a long way since Atari released Pong in the 1970’s. Technological advancements over the previous few decades coupled with consumer demand have made home computers and computing devices much more affordable and accessible. This growth in computer availability created a booming computer gaming industry. In 2014, the United States spent $15.4 billion in computer and video game sales.[4]4

In addition to entertainment, computer games and tutorials have been widely used in education since the time computers were made available to the public. Computers have been used at elementary through collegiate levels in academia to teach basic academic skills and develop advanced conceptual proficiencies. Outside of academia, computers have been utilized in industry and government to facilitate continued professional learning as well. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) was a pioneer in the field of computer assisted learning, developing programs and interactive games to augment service member training. The DoD even coined the term “serious game” to make the programs more palatable to Congress in order to appropriate funds for their development.[5]5

By and large, organizational success and productivity correlate directly to the professional knowledge of the organizations’ employees. However, scheduling instruction during normal work hours or pulling employees away from their normal duties to attend professional development courses upsets operational tempos in the workplace and can cause temporary declines in productivity. Motivating employees to participate in work-study programs outside of work hours or during periods of low activity can be difficult. The challenge organizations face is developing engaging continued learning programs which will capture the interest of employees.

A new generation of digital natives are now entering the workforce. Many of these digital natives are confronted with considerable learning curves to adapt to their entry-level positions, while more seasoned veterans face challenges adjusting to changes in environmental factors. Numerous studies exist validating the learning value of computer games and computer tutorials. This paper will explore the question of whether or not commercial industries would be well served, in aspects of resource efficiency and proficiency gains, by investing in serious games to promote continued learning in their respective fields.



Key Terms

  • Affordances – The allowable actions specified by the environment coupled with the properties of the organism. In distributed cognition, affordances can be considered as distributed representations extended across the environment and the organism.[6]6

  • Cognitive Affordance – Affordances provided by cultural conventions. (i.e., for traffic lights, red means “stop”, yellow means “prepare to stop”, and green means “go”).[7]7

  • Distributed Cognition – A scientific discipline that is concerned with how cognitive activity is distributed across internal human minds, external cognitive artifacts, and groups of people, and how it is distributed across space and time.[8]8

  • HCI – Human-Computer Interaction; also called human-computer interface design.[9]9

  • Hybridization – The techniques and representational formats of previous physical and electronic media forms, and the new information manipulation techniques and data formats unique to a computer are brought together in new combinations.[10]10

  • MMOG – Massively Multiplayer Online Games.[11]11

  • Remix – Different media types get remixed together, forming new combinations, in the process of computer metamedium development.[12]12

  • Serious games – Educational computer games which place players in roles and situations where they are forced to exercise strategizing, hypothesis testing, or problem-solving skills for the purpose of exploring interpersonal development and cognitive processes to better enable them to manage challenges.

Method: Computer-based learning and computer games are very broad topics. This paper will focus on the use of situation-focused serious games by industry to better prepare their employees to manage complex scenarios they may encounter in the course of their duties. The paper will reference journals and articles from academia and the computer industry to define serious games, describe effective game designs, and examine how serious games improve learning.

Findings

  • What are Serious Games?

Dr. Elaine Raybourn, a Principal Member of the Technical Staff in Cognitive Systems at Sandia National Laboratories, defines serious games as “the use of interactive digital technologies for training and education.”[13]13 She goes on to explain that most games identify some sort of conflict, rules, structure, goals, and uncertain outcomes as salient elements; and serious games can include role-play experiences and immersive simulations for the purpose of exploring interpersonal development, adaptive thinking, combat tactics, emergency response, diplomacy, governance, health, education, management, and leadership.[14]14 Serious games have been used in public, private, and government sectors to develop cognitive skills and prepare personnel to better manage complex situations.

Serious games have been developed to address a diverse range of activities and issues. Serious games have been used in the military to prepare soldiers to engage local nationals overseas in shuras, or traditional Middle Eastern meetings. On the geopolitical, social, and commercial sides, serious games have been developed to advocate sustainable development, defined as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the subsequent generations to cater to their future needs.[15]15 Examples of these serious games include Climate Challenge in which the player assumes the role of the President of European Nations and must tackle climate change while maintaining enough popular support to remain in office; EnerCities in which the player serves as the mayor of a city and decides on residential building types to be developed, the business and industries that are needed, environmental actions, citizens’ well-being through services offerings, and the source for generating energy to support city needs; and Shortfall which focuses on the supply chain management of an automotive plant that comprises five echelons: (a) raw materials, (b) second-tier materials, (c) parts producer, (d) car producer, and (e) the consumer.[16]16



Climate Challenge

BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Challenge



EnerCities

Enercities



Shortfall

shortfall

Not all education games fall into the category of serious games. Therefore it is important to distinguish serious games from some of the other forms of game learning. Edutainment games are those which follow a skill and drill format in which players either practice repetitive skills or rehearse memorized facts.[17]17 Edutainment games are suitable for elementary school levels or for developing foundations for specific subjects, but they do not incorporate the strategizing, hypothesis testing, or problem-solving skills inherent in serious games. A more overarching term used by members of the computer gaming industry is gamification. Gamification is defined as the use of game attributes outside the context of a game with the purpose of affecting learning-related behaviors or attitudes.[18]18 These behaviors or attitudes influence learning by strengthening the relationship between instructional design quality and outcomes (a moderating process) and/or by influencing learning directly (a mediating process).[19]19 This differs from a serious games approach in which manipulation of game attributes is typically designed to affect learning without this type of behavioral mediator.[20]20

As much acclaim as computer game learning has received, instructional computer games still have their detractors and critics. Richard Van Eck, graduate director of the Instructional Design & Technology department at the University of North Dakota, commented that both edutainment and instructional computer games have received a terrible reputation for being the worst type of education.[21]21 Seymour Papert characterized instructional computer games as Shavian reversals, referring to offspring that keep the worst traits of the parents and lose the good traits.[22]22 For serious games to be effective, they must stimulate the learner’s imagination, elicit emotional responses, and adhere to effective design.



  • Effective Design Principals for Serious Games

An industry’s objective for developing serious games is to develop cognitive skills within their employees to better prepare them to manage complex, stressful, and challenging situations they may encounter on the job, and to positively influence their decision making processes. According to Jean Lave’s Situated Learning Theory, learning is situated; “as it normally occurs, learning is embedded within activity, context, and culture. It is also usually unintended rather than deliberate,” a process Lave refers to as “legitimate peripheral participation.”[23]23 Lave continued, “Knowledge needs to be presented in authentic contexts – settings and situations that would normally involve that knowledge. Social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning – learners become involved in a “community practice” which embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired. As the beginner or novice moves from the periphery of a community to its center, he or she becomes more active and engaged within the culture and eventually assumes the role of an expert.”[24]24

By participating in serious games, learners develop cognitive skills through legitimate peripheral participation, at times not even discerning that the activity they are participating in is building a foundation of situational knowledge. This learning is accelerated when participants interact and collaborate with peers in community practice through distributed cognition. However, if the game itself is not enticing to players, does not assimilate practical lessons which may be applied to real-world scenarios, or does not challenge the player’s problem-solving skills, then the game will not achieve its desired outcome. “The game characteristics enable the formalization of play by transforming play from a free form activity to a structured, organized activity that is still fun.”[25]25 Serious games must therefore follow effective design principals to create multimedia virtual environments which balance learning and entertainment. In her article, “Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature,” Mary Jo Dondlinger identified four elements of effective video game design (motivation, narrative context, goals and rules, and interactivity and multisensory cues) which are applicable to effective design for educational computer games.[26]26 This paper will add the addition element of multimedia effects, which may be the most captivating element of serious games.



Motivation

Well-designed serious games are not regarded by players as training requirements they must participate in to increase professional knowledge. They are fun to play. Players are motivated to perform well by a number of factors to include the challenge of mastering a skill, joining in competitive contests with others, and vying for rewards. Denis and Jouvelot contend that effective game design considers both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for play, distinguishing the two rewards as follows: “Intrinsic motivation pushes us to act freely, on our own, for the sake of it; extrinsic motivation pulls us to act due to factors that are external to the activity itself, like reward or threat.”[27]27

Numerous experts in gaming view motivation as the interplay between desire and pleasure, the desire to be competent and the pleasure one feels when one is, and argue that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are factors that affect motivation.[28]28 As learners continue to play and improve their skills and competence, the games become more pleasurable which increases their desire to continue to play and improve. In keeping with Lave’s Situated Learning Theory, the cognitive lessons and skills players develop while playing the games are unintended rather than deliberate.

Narrative Context

Possessing a captivating narrative is a critical element in motivating players and sustaining the player’s attention. Transmedia storytelling is an effective technique for building an attractive narrative. Henry Jenkins contends, “A transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole.”[29]29 Dr. Raybourn agrees, affirming that, “transmedia storytelling for learning allows learners to engage with expanded parts of a narrative for a variety of reasons – to learn more deeply, gain a different perspective, or to reinforce.”[30]30

Serious games may also enable players to inject themselves into the narratives using avatars, enabling them to interact with other players’ avatars and with characters they’ve developed personal connections with. The U.S. Army revolutionized training games by developing a capability where each soldier’s actual performance and abilities are accurately represented in their personal gaming-avatar, thus enhancing the realism of the game.[31]31 The military’s Human Dimension Modeling (HDM) program included attributes such as soldiers’ height, weight, body fat content, gender, race and performance attributes of weapons proficiency and aerobic fitness to produce accurate avatars that represented the soldiers’ realistic capabilities.[32]32 When players control characters that represent themselves and are designed in their likeness, the players will be motivated to perform well to a much greater extent.

The narratives may revolve around simulations which can be either experiential or symbolic in construct. Experiential simulations place players in a professional roles that require decision making in a changing problem state to accomplish tasks or goals.[33]33 Symbolic simulations place players in a context where they are free to both experiment with different strategies and confront misconceptions to explain events, principles, or best practices.[34]34 Symbolic simulations may be constructed so students can learn about the unobservable or work safely with dangerous materials or situations within a narrative in which time is manipulated to facilitate learning.[35]35

The narrative is a part of the overall context of the game. Context is the setting, narrative, story, scenario, characters, back story, and problem set for the game play, all of which enhance the game’s authenticity.[36]36 Michele Dickey commented that spatial and narrative contexts offer learners, “a cognitive framework for problem-solving because the narrative storyline in games provides an environment in which players can identify and construct causal patterns which integrates what is known with that which is conjectural yet plausible within the context of the story.”[37]37 Though the lessons learned from playing serious games must be applicable to real-world problems, a certain amount of fantasy is applied to context to enhance pleasure and stimulate the players’ imaginations.

Fantasy as applied to learning games can be categorized as either exogenous or endogenous.[38]38 Exogenous fantasy is used as reinforcement for correct behavior or response to a challenge and the exogenous aspect is typically given as a reward upon completion.[39]39 Endogenous aspects have little to no disconnect between the game and the learning as the game’s fantasy aspects are not just a reward, but help develop the gamer’s knowledge.[40]40 Most serious games would be classified as endogenous fantasy.[41]41 Regardless of how much fantasy is used in the context of the game, the learning content must align with the narrative plotline in order for serious games to be effective learning tools.



Goals and Rules

Goals and rules provide structure to serious games, both empowering players with control and restricting them with constraints to ensure the intended learning outcomes remain at the forefront of the gameplay. Dondlinger explains that although they are integrated within a narrative context, goals and rules are not subordinate to context; they are equally important elements of it.[42]42 Swartout and van Lent further elaborated on goals in effective video games, finding that goals of different levels help motivate learners to continue playing.[43]43 “Game designers often seek to keep players engaged by creating three levels of goals: Short-term, lasting, perhaps, seconds; medium-term, lasting minutes; and finally, long-term, lasting the length of the game” and that the “interplay of these levels, with the support of the environment, is crafted to draw players into the storyline of the game.”[44]44

Goals and rules provide players with choices within the boundaries of the games. Choice refers to the number of options and decisions a gamer has prior to and during game play.[45]45 Three different types of choice are expressive, strategic, and tactical: Expressive choices are those that the learner makes which may have little effect on learning, but can improve learner motivation; strategic choices are those that affect the manner in which a game is played; and tactical choice refers to the gamer’s ability to make decisions about how they play the game, for example the player decides to do ‘‘x’’ instead of ‘‘y’’ in a given situation.[46]46 Players learn from making good choices and receiving rewards, and learn from making bad choices which result in adverse consequences. The aim of serious games is for players to learn from their bad choices while playing the game so they won’t make the same poor choices in the real world.

Interactive and Multisensory Cues

Interactivity is an important aspect of the learning component of serious games. Players must have freedom to exercise options and make decisions. The degree of control a player has correlates directly to the interactivity of the game. Swartout and van Lent reasoned that the best games are “highly interactive, deliberately generating tension between the degree of control the story imposes and the player’s freedom of interaction,”[47]47 assessing that games which afford players complete freedom of action result in boring and unchallenging play.[48]48 Contrarily, when the context imposes too much control, the player becomes a passive observer rather than an active participant.[49]49 Effective game design balances these extremes and offers players, “the perception they have free will, even though at any time their options are actually quite limited.”[50]50

Multisensory cues serve as teaching aids which help guide learners toward better decisions and avoid poor decisions. A study by Salzman, Loftin, Dede, and McGlynn found that multisensory cues are a significant component of gaming, concluding that, “Multisensory cues can engage learners, direct their attention to important behaviors and relationships, help them understand new sensory perspectives, prevent errors through feedback cues, and enhance ease of use.”[51]51 Multisensory cues combined with interactivity keep players engaged and interested while curbing players within the boundaries of the learning environment.

Multimedia Effects

An important element of serious games is the multimedia appeal which stimulates the senses of the player and helps to afford an illusion of realism to the virtual world the game is played in. Serious games are played on computers, which possess the defining representational affordances of being encyclopedic, spatial, procedural, and participatory.[52]52 These affordances enable Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) through multiple interfaces which allow players to receive input and deliver output to the computer, as well as communicate with other players, with almost complete abstraction from the various complex protocols and interfaces which occur throughout the entire sociotechnical system. The affordances and combinatorial design of the computer also enables the remixing and hybridization of media, which enables the computers to create the stimulating virtual worlds environments.

The multimedia agency of computers enables serious games to employ the essential element of fidelity. Fidelity is the art of using graphics, audio, and video to create three-dimensional virtual worlds and artificial intelligence in order to authentically represent reality and provide true-to-life images, landscapes, sound, and dialogue which creates an exciting and immersive context.[53]53 The degree of fidelity may be important for achieving the defined learning goals of the games, such as pilots requiring exact replicas of cockpit consoles, because the authenticity will help transfer knowledge to the real world.[54]54 The realism projected by the metamedia artifacts the games are played on facilitate the ability of the players to immerse themselves in the context of the game and internalize the lessons being imparted.

In addition to utilizing high-definition graphics and avatars in visually realistic settings, serious games need to make effective use of cognitive symbolic technologies to transmit learning objectives and to provide the players means to efficiently navigate the games. Humans are cognitively wired for symbolic representation. Charles Sanders Peirce distinguished between three categories of referential associations: Icons which are mediated by a similarity between sign and object; indices which are mediated by some physical or temporal connection between sign and object; and symbols which are mediated by some formal or merely agreed-upon link irrespective of any physical characteristics of either sign or object.[55]55 Serious games must possess the ability to employ all three categories concurrently in high tempo games.

Humans possess an innate symbolic faculty which affords them an inherent ability to link associations between technology, industry, and society. However, the utilization of referential associations is futile unless the associations within the symbolic system have uniform meaning among the game designers, users, and industry. Regis Debray argued in his book Transmitting Culture that the means of transmission, or the mediating vehicles of a symbolic system, have a double nature: The technical devices (which in the case of serious games would be the computer screen display) are added to the organic devices (organizations the players work for, the laws and regulations which govern us, and the human and machine languages used within the sociotechnical system).[56]56 Debray argues that it is the presence of a hierarchical institution (government or industry) which distinguishes an act of transmission from a simple act of communication.[57]57 If the symbolic system lacks cognitive affordance or uniform meaning to all within the sociotechnical system, the associations will be lost in translation. It is therefore critical that the game designers and the game users possess identical understandings of the referential associations standardized within industry and society.

Fidelity and the effective use of referential associations promote effective transmission of clear and understandable messaging from the digital artifact to the player. Effective multimedia design architecture promotes effective HCI between the player and the digital artifact. To promote effective multimedia design architecture, serious game designers may follow the Universal Principals of Design as described by Lidwell, Holden, and Butler to foster greater player enjoyment and learning.



Affordance: The utilization of effective referential associations leverages “our knowledge of how those items (digital representations) function in the real world and, thus, suggest their function in the software environment.”[58]58 The affordance of digital media tools such as keyboards, joysticks, cameras, and microphones when used in accordance with their intended functions enable players to interact directly with the game and with other players, abstracting the complexities of these interfaces with the sociotechnical system.

Chunking: This technique seeks to accommodate short-term memory limits by formatting information into a small number of units.[59]59 If the games inundate players with media or information overload, not only will short-term memory limits be diminished, the player will lose focus. Chunking enables the game to highlight the lesson objectives within the context of the game, fostering learning goals.

Constraints: Constraints limit the possible actions that can be performed within the game.[60]60 Constraints restrict the players from having unlimited freedom of action, preventing players from playing outside of the scope of the learning objectives.

Control: “The level of control provided by a system should be related to the proficiency and experience levels of the people using the system.”[61]61 Without control in serious games, players are not able to exercise their decision making process or experiment with solutions.

Feedback Loop: Positive feedback loops create effective change within the gameplay, acknowledging the player is performing well, while negative feedback loops create negative consequences, encouraging players to adjust tactics and strategies.[62]62

Hierarchy: “Increasing the visibility of the hierarchical relationships within a system is one of the most effective ways to increase knowledge about the system.”[63]63 Multimedia functions can highlight the most important features of the game scenario and draw the attention of the players to learning objectives or decision points.

Layering: “The process of organizing information into related groupings in order to manage complexity and reinforce relationships in the information.”[64]64 Layering is a characteristic which organizes the inputs and outputs of the gameplay so that the progression of the game and outcomes are understandable to the player.

Mental Model: Serious games simulate environments and situations based on mental models developed from player experience.[65]65 Those mental models will be much more defined with players with more practical experience working in the field the game is modeled after. Effective use of affordance will assist those who lack that practical experience.

Modularity: “Modularity is a structural principle used to manage complexity in systems. It involves identifying functional clusters of similarity in systems, and then transform the clusters into interdependent self-contained systems (modules).”[66]66 Modularity in multimedia design enables players to focus on specific clusters of data so they will be less distracted by inconsequential noise.

Progressive Disclosure: By using the principle of progressive disclosure, only those commands and functions available to the player at that moment will be visible so the player can focus more so on strategy and decisions, and less on managing the interface with the game.[67]67

Recognition Over Recall: “Memory for recognizing things is better than memory for recalling things.”[68]68 Affordance and effective use of referential associations enable players to recognize elements of the game more than relying on recall.

Visibility: “According to the principle of visibility, systems are more usable when they clearly indicate their status, the possible actions that can be performed, and the consequences of the actions once performed.”[69]69 Effective visibility principals will prevent players from making errors as a result of not understanding the commands, functions, and interfaces with the digital artifact.

  • How Do Serious Games Promote Learning?

When designed effectively, serious games generate emotional responses from players. Players develop personal connections with characters and exciting storylines in well created narratives. Realistic avatars of the players’ likeness and abilities cultivate imaginative fantasies which amalgamate the player and the avatar. The multimedia effects create realistic virtual worlds which stimulate the players’ senses. Competition with the game or with other players also generate passionate responses. These emotional experiences enhance learning progression both within the individual player and amongst a group through cognitive distribution.

Internal Learning

The reason serious games driven by engaging narratives are successful with advancing the learning process is that the human brain is wired to pick up messages crafted as stories because people feel real emotions when they connect with content or a character in a story.[70]70 Joseph LeDoux explains that the brain’s limbic system (thalamus, amygdala and hippocampus) reacts to information by interpreting sensory organ impulses sent by the thalamus to produce an emotion in the amygdala, and that perceptions (thalamus) and emotional responses (amygdala) always occur first, followed by judgments of like or dislike formed in the hippocampus.[71]71 LeDoux adds that the limbic system generates emotional memories which make it easier for humans to categorize and remember information.[72]72

The amygdala also receives highly analyzed input from all the sensory cortices, to include visual input from the inferior temporal cortex, which appear to supply the amygdala with highly analyzed signals that can be given emotional significance.[73]73 The interactive graphics and video created by the multimedia players to produce the three-dimensional virtual worlds of the serious games stimulate and send signals to the inferior temporal cortex. These visual signals are therefore given emotional significance, which aids in committing the lessons learned while experiencing the multimedia output to memory.

In addition to receiving information, the amygdala also sends information back to the sensory cortices, known as backprojections.[74]74 Through backprojections to the sensory cortex, the amygdala could activate emotional memories or direct attention to simuli that are relevant to the current emotional and motivational state.[75]75 Another type of backprojections passes through the basal forebrain and may be involved in the formation of emotional memories by enhancing the learning in emotional situations.[76]76 Experiments have shown that the formation of sensory categories in auditory cortex can be controlled by the amygdala, which may be stimulated by the multimedia audio output of the game.[77]77



Collective Learning

Players may compete and/or collaborate in the serious games with other players when the games take the form of MMOGs, or massively multiplayer online games. When playing in multi-player games, cognitive processes and learning objectives may be distributed across the players in the group, a process referred to as distributed cognition. As Lave asserted, social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning as learners become involved in a “community practice.”[78]78

Zhang and Patel state that, “people’s intelligent behavior results from interactions with external cognitive artifacts and with other people, and people’s activities in concrete situations are guided, constrained, and to some extent, determined by the physical, cultural, and social contexts in which they are situated.” The serious games and the digital artifacts they are played on bring learners together and fabricate the situations and context in which players interact and collectively exercise their cognitive skills. The players’ actions and input are shared amongst the group in entertaining virtual environments, promoting emotional, situated learning.

The competition of gameplay, either player against player or the cooperation of players against the game, follow the principles of the “cognitive niche,” as described by Steven Pinker. The theory of the cognitive niche is that “in any ecosystem, the possibility exists for an organism to overtake other organisms’ fixed defenses by cause-and-effect reasoning and cooperative action – to deploy information and inference, rather than particular features of physics and chemistry, to extract resources from other organisms in opposition to their adaptions to protect those resources.”[79]79 The goal of any game is to win. In serious games, the context represents the ecosystem in which players use information and inference to overcome the defenses of opposing players or the game itself. Through cooperative action, players struggle to survive the gameplay using their collective knowledge. In cooperative games, this struggle fosters learning not only of the lesson objectives of the game, but develops vital teamwork skills required for success in the real world.

Players learn while playing the game and interacting with other players. However, to reinforce lessons learned, players need to reflect on the gameplay. Two techniques which may be employed by the serious game architecture to assist in the reinforcement of learning objectives are debriefing and coaching. Debriefing occurs when the learner reflects on their performance with an instructor or other learners in order to analyze their performance and generalize that performance to the real world.[80]80 Debriefing can be accomplished outside the game, after the game, or be part of the game.[81]81 Coaching typically occurs while the game is in progress, and just as with debriefing, coaching can be oral or written and performed by an instructor and/or other learners.[82]82 Coaching can be very prominent at the beginning of the game and scaled back as the learner progresses or needs to learn how to be autonomous.[83]83 Social media also provide effective platforms for debriefing and coaching to transpire.

Conclusion

Educational computer games cannot replace traditional methods of learning. However, the effectiveness of educational computer games cannot be denied as numerous studies have been conducted affirming the success these games have had with supplementing other mediums such as textbooks, classroom instruction, and practical exercises. Educational computer games capture the imagination of learners, keep their attentions engaged, and motivate learners with the elements of fun and challenge. While playing educational computer games, learners experience emotional responses as they personally connect with the characters and narratives, stimulating the brain’s limbic system which enhances the memory of the experience. While playing multiplayer games, the cognitive processes and learning objectives of the game may be distributed across the players in the group as social and cultural influences enrich the overall learning experience.

Serious games are educational computer games which place players in roles and situations where they are forced to exercise strategizing, hypothesis testing, or problem-solving skills for the purpose of exploring interpersonal development and cognitive processes to better enable them to manage challenges. Although serious games have attracted a great deal of popularity, many in commercial industries may be skeptical about embracing serious games as a vehicle to advance professional development within their ranks as a result of poor performance with some educational computer games. However, the lackluster performance of some games should not an indictment of the conception of serious games. These poorly performing games are generally the outcome of ineffectual design. If serious games follow the architectural design outlined in this paper, the prospective of positive results will be much greater.

Hollan, Hutchins, and Kirsh commented, “For human-computer interaction to advance in the new millennium we need to better understand the emerging dynamic of interaction in which the focus task is no longer confined to the desktop but reaches into a complex networked world of information and computer-mediated interactions. A central image for us is that of future work environments in which people pursue their goals in collaboration with elements of the social and material world. We think that to accomplish this will require a new theoretical basis and an integrated framework for research.”[84]84 Serious games embody the instrument to advance HCI in future work environments and provide a catalyst to advance technology which will help people pursue their professional goals in collaboration with the social and material world.

Therefore, commercial industry would be well served to invest more heavily in the development and advancement of serious games in their respective fields to not only further the professional development of their employees and better prepare them to deal with challenging situations, but to better connect their people with the social and material world through more efficient HCI. The leaders of industry will learn from serious games as well as their employees as players of serious games experiment and develop new solutions, techniques, and protocols to existing and emerging problem sets these industries face. With the resources these industries will save on traditional training programs and the value they will gain with a better prepared and more competent workforce, investing in serious games will pay great dividends in the end.

Endnotes
[1] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[2] (Goasduff & Pettey, 2011)

[3] (Pettey & van der Meulen, 2012)

[4] (Computer and video game sales in the United States from 2000 to 2014 (in billion U.S. dollars), n.d.)

[5] (Derryberry, 2007)

[6] (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

[7] (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

[8] (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

[9] (Manovich, New Media from Borges to HTML, 2013, p. 16)

[10] (Manovich, 2013, p. 176)

[11] (Charsky, 2010)

[12] (Manovich, 2013, p. 167)

[13] (Raybourn, 2014)

[14] (Raybourn, 2014)

[15] (Brundtland, 1987)

[16] (Katsaliaki, 2013)

[17] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[18] (Landers, 2014)

[29] (Landers, 2014)

[20] (Landers, 2014)

[21] (Van Eck, 2006)

[22] (Charsky, 2010)

[23] (Lave, n.d.)

[24] (Lave, n.d.)

[25] (Charsky, 2010)

[26] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[27] (Denis & Jouvelot, 2005)

[28] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[29] (Jenkins, 2006)

[30] (Raybourn, 2014)

[31] (Rolfe, 2013)

[32] (Rolfe, 2013)

[33] (Charsky, 2010)

[34] (Charsky, 2010)

[35] (Charsky, 2010)

[36] (Charsky, 2010)

[37] (Dickey, 2005, p. 2)

[38] (Charsky, 2010)

[39] (Charsky, 2010)

[40] (Malone & Lepper, 1987)

[41] (Charsky, 2010)

[42] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[43] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003)

[44] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003)

[45] (Charsky, 2010)

[46] (Hannafin & Peck, 1988)

[47] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003, p. 34)

[48] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[49] (Dondlinger, 2007)

[50] (Swartout & van Lent, 2003, p. 34)

[51] (Salzman, Loftin, Dede, & McGlynn, 1996, p. 2)

[52] (Murray, 2011, p. 51)

[53] (Charsky, 2010)

[54] (Charsky, 2010)

[55] (Deacon, 1997, p. 70)

[56] (Debray & Rauth, 2004)

[57] (Debray & Rauth, 2004)

[58] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 20)

[59] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 30)

[60] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 50)

[61] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 52)

[62] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 76)

[63] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 104)

[64] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 122)

[65] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 130)

[66] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 136)

[67] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 154)

[68] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 164)

[69] (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 202)

[70] (Raybourn, 2014)

[71] (LeDoux, 1996)

[72] (LeDoux, 1996)

[73] (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

[74] (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

[75] (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

[76] (Weinberger, Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning, 1995) (Weinberger, Tuning the Brain by Learning and by Stimulation of Nucleus Basalis, 1998)

[77] (Weinberger, Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning, 1995)

[78] (Lave, n.d.)

[79] (Pinker, 2010, pp. 8993-8994)

[80] (Charsky, 2010)

[81] (Peters & Vissers, 2004)

[82] (Charsky, 2010)

[83] (Charsky, 2010)

[84] (Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh, 2000)



References

Balkenius, C., & Moren, J. (2001). Emotional Learning:  A Computational Model of the Amygdala. Cybernetics and Systems:  An International Journal, 32, 611–636.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future (pp. 8–9). New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Charsky, D. (2010). From Edutainment to Serious Games:  A Change in the Use of Game Characteristics. Games and Culture, 5(2), 177–198.

Deacon, T. W. (1997). The Symbolic Species. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Debray, R. (2004). Transmitting Culture. (E. Rauth, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Denis, G., & Jouvelot, P. (2005). Motivation-Driven Educational Game Design:  Applying Best Practices to Music Education. Paper presented at the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Valencia, Spain.

Derryberry, A. (2007). Serious Games:  Online Games for Learning. Adobe Systems Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/resources/elearning/pdfs/serious_games_wp.pdf

Dickey, M. D. (2005). Three-Dimensional Virtual Worlds and Distance Learning: Two Case Studies of  Active Worlds as a Medium for Distance Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–451.

Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational Video Game Design: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1), 21–31.

Goasduff, L., & Pettey, C. (2011, April 12). Gartner Says By 2015, More Than 50 Percent of Organizations That Manage Innovation Processes Will Gamify Those Processes. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1629214

Hannafin, M. J., & Peck, K. (1988). The Design, Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed Cognition: Toward a New Foundation for Human-Computer Interaction Research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/273258/us-computer-and-video-game-sales/. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/273258/us-computer-and-video-game-sales/

Katsaliaki, K. (2013). Serious Games for Sustainable Development. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 889–894.

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning: Linking Serious Games and Gamification of Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.

Lave, J. (n.d.). Situated Learning Theory (Lave). Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/situated-learning-theory-lave.html

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2003). Universal Principals of Design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers, Inc.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making Learning Fun:  A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning. In Aptitude, Learning and Instruction III:  Cognative and Affective Process Analysis (pp. 223–253). Hilsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Manovich, L. (2013a). New Media from Borges to HTML. In The New Media Reader (pp. 16–25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Manovich, L. (2013b). Software Take Command (Vol. 5). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, Inc.

Murray, J. H. (2011). Inventing the Medium:  Principals of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Peters, V., & Vissers, G. (n.d.). A Simple Classification Model for Debriefing Simulation Games. Simulation & Gaming, 35, 70–84.

Pettey, C., & van der Meulen, R. (2012, November 27). Gartner Says by 2014, 80 Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to Meet Business Objectives Primarily Due to Poor Design. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2251015

Pinker, S. (2010). The Cognitive Niche: Coevolution of Intelligence, Sociality, and Language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 107(2), 8993–8999.

Raybourn, E. M. (2014). A new paradigm for serious games: Transmedia learning for more effective training and education. Journal of Computational Science, 5(3), 471–481. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2013.08.005

Rolfe, A. (2013, November 15). Human Dimension Modeling:  Extracting Gamesmanship from Serious Games. Retrieved from http://div46amplifier.com/2013/11/15/human-dimension-modeling-extracting-gamesmanship-from-serious-games/

Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., Dede, C., & McGlynn, D. (1996). ScienceSpace:  Lessons for Designing Immersive Virtual Realities. Vancouver, B.C.: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems:  Common Ground.

Swartout, W., & van Lent, M. (n.d.). Making a Game of System Design. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 32–39.

Van Eck, R. (2006, January 1). Digital Game-Based Learning: It’s Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/digital-game-based-learning-its-not-just-digital-natives-who-are-restless

Weinberger, N. M. (1995). Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (pp. 1071–1089). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Weinberger, N. M. (1998). Tuning the Brain by Learning and by Stimulation of Nucleus Basalis. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(2), 271–273.

Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed Cognition, Representation, and Affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333–341.



1 (Dondlinger, 2007)

2 (Goasduff & Pettey, 2011)

3 (Pettey & van der Meulen, 2012)

4 (Computer and video game sales in the United States from 2000 to 2014 (in billion U.S. dollars), n.d.)

5 (Derryberry, 2007)

6 (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

7 (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

8 (Zhang & Patel, 2006)

9 (Manovich, New Media from Borges to HTML, 2013, p. 16)

10 (Manovich, 2013, p. 176)

11 (Charsky, 2010)

12 (Manovich, 2013, p. 167)

13 (Raybourn, 2014)

14 (Raybourn, 2014)

15 (Brundtland, 1987)

16 (Katsaliaki, 2013)

17 (Dondlinger, 2007)

18 (Landers, 2014)

19 (Landers, 2014)

20 (Landers, 2014)

21 (Van Eck, 2006)

22 (Charsky, 2010)

23 (Lave, n.d.)

24 (Lave, n.d.)

25 (Charsky, 2010)

26 (Dondlinger, 2007)

27 (Denis & Jouvelot, 2005)

28 (Dondlinger, 2007)

29 (Jenkins, 2006)

30 (Raybourn, 2014)

31 (Rolfe, 2013)

32 (Rolfe, 2013)

33 (Charsky, 2010)

34 (Charsky, 2010)

35 (Charsky, 2010)

36 (Charsky, 2010)

37 (Dickey, 2005, p. 2)

38 (Charsky, 2010)

39 (Charsky, 2010)

40 (Malone & Lepper, 1987)

41 (Charsky, 2010)

42 (Dondlinger, 2007)

43 (Swartout & van Lent, 2003)

44 (Swartout & van Lent, 2003)

45 (Charsky, 2010)

46 (Hannafin & Peck, 1988)

47 (Swartout & van Lent, 2003, p. 34)

48 (Dondlinger, 2007)

49 (Dondlinger, 2007)

50 (Swartout & van Lent, 2003, p. 34)

51 (Salzman, Loftin, Dede, & McGlynn, 1996, p. 2)

52 (Murray, 2011, p. 51)

53 (Charsky, 2010)

54 (Charsky, 2010)

55 (Deacon, 1997, p. 70)

56 (Debray & Rauth, 2004)

57 (Debray & Rauth, 2004)

58 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 20)

59 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 30)

60 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 50)

61 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 52)

62 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 76)

63 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 104)

64 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 122)

65 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 130)

66 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 136)

67 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 154)

68 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 164)

69 (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2003, p. 202)

70 (Raybourn, 2014)

71 (LeDoux, 1996)

72 (LeDoux, 1996)

73 (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

74 (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

75 (Balkenius & Moren, 2001)

76 (Weinberger, Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning, 1995) (Weinberger, Tuning the Brain by Learning and by Stimulation of Nucleus Basalis, 1998)

77 (Weinberger, Retuning the Brain by Fear Conditioning, 1995)

78 (Lave, n.d.)

79 (Pinker, 2010, pp. 8993-8994)

80 (Charsky, 2010)

81 (Peters & Vissers, 2004)

82 (Charsky, 2010)

83 (Charsky, 2010)

84 (Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh, 2000)

Download 90.88 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©ua.originaldll.com 2024
send message

    Main page