Webibliography: Simulations and Games in e-Learning
Summary
The mental process or today’s generation functions differently than any other generation to exist previously. Most learners today have been inundated with various electronic stimuli since near birth age. According to Clark and Mayer (2008) this has caused a legitimate neurological difference in the way that this generation learns. It is believed that due to overstimulation and an acceptance of multitasking today’s learners are bored with traditional directed learning methods. One new approach to reaching these learners is through the use of games and simulations.
Simulations and games offer much to the “digital native”, but the article is concerned more with a best practices approach. According to the authors there is far more that is not known about the integration of games and simulations than there is known. This situation exists because there has been a plethora of research into the area from which to draw some basic principles, but that research has lacked the sound empirical practices to establish a solid taxonomy regarding these new advances.
Though the research is shaky at best Clark and Mayer (2008) have managed to construct five general principles to use towards the development of effective educational games and simulations. The principles are as follows:
Though the research is shaky at best Clark and Mayer (2008) have managed to construct five general principles to use towards the development of effective educational games and simulations. The principles are as follows:
1. Match Game Types to Learning Goals.
a. Different types of games such as arcade style or jeopardy style promote particular types of learning and response.
b. One example of a failed match is the use of Oregon Trail game to teach students about frontier life and economics. Most students were more caught up with shooting animals and racing to the end point.
c. It is important to evaluate what you want students to learn and choose a game or simulation that will encourage those behaviors.
2. Make Learning Essential to Progress.
a. Many times designers try to build objectives into the background of the game or bring irrelevant information to the forefront.
b. One example was taken from the game America’s Army where learners where able to answer 75% of questions related to relevant information, but only able to answer 60% of questions related to irrelevant information.
c. It is important that the objectives themselves are built into the game’s plot and that some identifiable means of meeting those objectives be required prior to advancing in the game
3. Build in Guidance.
a. Without guidance learners can teach themselves the software and perform well on the game, but may not meet the learning objectives.
b. One of the major ways to build in guidance is by incorporating explanations as feedback and between segments of the game.
c. Optimizing the visuals is another way of providing guidance. By keeping the detail for non-relevant aspects low and going higher on the relative details learners can be kept on track.
4. Promote Reflection on Correct Answers.
a. One of the largest issues with games is that the high levels of interactivity do not allow for reflection on what has been learned.
b. When time for reflection is allowed learners may be reflecting on bad information if corrective feedback has not been given.
c. The key is to provide feedback and time for reflection so that learners can reflect on the correct answers to problems.
5. Manage Complexity.
a. Complexity can be managed several ways. One of the primary means is through goal progression.
b. Training wheels and faded design are fairly similar concepts that also allow for managing complexity by providing higher levels of support at first and then allowing more user control as they progress.
c. In an attempt to reduce cognitive overload fast paced games should be avoided, learner paced interaction is most desirable.
Reflection
While Clark and Mayer (2008) propose some great concepts that I can see as extremely useful the most pertinent fact that sticks in my mind is that all of these principles are still based on weak research. Many practices seem obvious, but when sound research principles are applied we find that they are not nearly as effective or obvious as we had once thought. This is my concern with much of this chapter until additional empirical evidence is produced.
Aside from the lack of research the concept of matching the type of learning to a particular style of game or simulation is something I could see as a very useful. Specifically in our ISD project where we are attempting to teach a learner a specific principle I would think that most games would not be appropriate. Considering that the lesson will also be provided free of charge I would not think that the cost-benefit would be in our favor. However, a simple simulation where a learner is provided with situations and then asked to select the best response from a bank of choices might be inexpensive, effective, and appropriate.
References
Clark, R., Mayer, R. (2008) e-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA. Pfeiffer.
"Without guidance learners can teach themselves the software and perform well on the game, but may not meet the learning objectives."
ReplyDeleteThis is my biggest worry with gaming and simulation. I've seen students using typing software in schools who would rush through the lessons to be able to play the games at the end of each one. They really didn't learn the lesson, and there was some incentive to actually stay on a lower level lesson to improve their scores. I also had a bad experience with a Cold War simulation when I was in high school -- nobody really took any of it seriously, and the United States ended up nuking the Soviet Union because of a garbled intelligence intercept.
If you're going to use gaming or simulation, it has to be designed well enough that it will actually teach something other than how to beat the game.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating that the authors say that the exposure to “electronic stimuli” has created “a legitimate neurological difference in the way that this generation learns”. In the 15 years that I have been teaching, I have heard many educators talk about how they have to entertain this generation more than the ones before. It seems like we can take two paths: expect them to not need the stimulation to which they have grown accustomed or teach them in a new way. If the next generation is truly wired differently, it makes sense that we will have to teach differently. I agree with you that more research is needed.
Happy Easter!
Christy
The more I read new ideas in education, the more I am reminded of what has been common practice in well-functioning classrooms already. Much of what has been labeled as "new" is only a re-imaging of old, well proven concepts.
ReplyDeleteEach successive generation of students has its own unique characteristics that must be fed in order for those students to achieve.
Video and computers have reduced the attention span of students to fewer than five seconds. We, as teachers, must be attuned to the needs of our students.