Wednesday, October 20, 2010

On Interactions with the Community


Roel Cantada

Learner-Community Interactions

We could think of the community as a group of players, a group of students, or a school. Whereas the interactions between learner-learner are interactions between individuals, we are dealing here with an individual interacting with a group. That group has norms and values. Much had been said about the norms and values held by groups of players in the previous post (Steinkuehler, 2005; Siitonen, 2007) but there is still the matter of how these norms affect the use of games in teaching and learning.

Gamers' communities are seen as social networks (Steinkuehler, 2005; Siitonen, 2007) wherein reciprocal forms of teaching and learning occur in all directions throughout the social network (Steinkuehler). I think that the issue is not only how the individual as an agent will create ties with an existing network but also how the network (with pre-existing structure and rules of linking) will constrain or promote ties.

The ideal community is a community of practice. This community is not only a group of people sharing similar interests but a group that is actively participating to advance the knowledge and expertise about a topic. There is evidence that a community of gamers can socialize novice players but the culture of gamers appears to contrasts with school culture. School experience in the Philippines are organized into 45 minutes to 1 ½ hours subjects. Around six subjects a day. Each subject is usually taught by a single teacher. In my opinion such an organization of student experience is a hindrance to the openness, persistence, and length of time needed to play games and develop gamer culture that fosters collaborative learning. The idea that games need to be adapted to the school culture appears to limit how games can be used in teaching. On the other hand changing the school culture to afford the use of games e.g. providing flexible time and allowing open enrolment (class scale is not limited by teacher/student ratio) may be difficult to achieve in traditional face-to-face education. There may be hope for distance education where these barriers are being broken down but I think the traditional model of credit-hour class is still strong. Clearly there is a need for advocacy on the acceptance of games among stakeholders in education in the Philippines. This post will not deal with these socio-cultural and policy issues and leaves it to future researchers to study.

Teacher-Teacher Interactions

Teacher acceptance of the use of games in their classroom may be influenced by other teachers. In the case of the non-digital game in Hanghøj study one of the teachers who was reluctant to participate eventually did after hearing the experience (2008) of his colleagues in using the game. But this may also work in reverse; teachers who had failed in their use of games in the classroom may influence others not to adopt video games for teaching.

In Italy it has been reported that teachers had organized themselves into a community of practice in the use of video games in the classroom. The COP's formation had been briefly described this way:

First, a group of teachers who design educational games is set up, and brings in other people with more technical expertise; then a larger community of teachers tests these games in their own classrooms to identify their strengths and weaknesses and recommend or suggest improvements; and finally the improved games are made available online for a large group of teachers to use them in their everyday teaching. (Wastiau, Kearney, & Van den Berghe, 2009)

I believe that organizing such a community in the Philippines will not only improve pedagogy with educational games, but may also be used to produce games that are affordable and accessible to students. Opensource games projects may provide models of software production for such a COP. Hopefully other researchers will be able to explore this topic further.

Community-Game Content Interactions

The community being referred to in this section is the society in general. It appears that video games gets bad press in the media which reinforces the negative attitude of teachers and parents about video games. Of course this is not without reason as described in the post that mentioned video game overuse. This is especially acute when parents experience their children going to internet cafes and spending their allowances there instead of going to school. I wonder how parents would react when they are told that the video games will now be brought to school?

A concern among adults about video game content is the presence of sex, violence and bad language in commercial video games. The United States of America, Canada and Europe had responded to this by setting up rating systems similar to that used in film and television. The Pan European Game Information (PEGI) rating system use age categories and content categories. The age categories are 3, 7, 12, 16, and 18. While the content information includes violence, bad language, fear, sex, drugs, discrimination, gambling, and online (Felicia, 2009).

In the U.S.A. and Canada the self-regulatory agency Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) provides age and content ratings (ESRB-FAQ, n.d.a.). The age rating symbols include early childhood, everyone, everyone 10+, teen, mature, adults only, and rating pending. The content descriptors are more detailed than PEGI's and includes alcohol reference, blood, violence, comic mischief, crude humor, drug reference, language with moderate profanity, sexual content, simulated gambling, etc. (ESRB, n.d.b.).

Although providing tags or metadata on the affordable learning actions of video games will not substitute for the teacher play testing the game it may still be useful in game selection especially if there are many games on a particular topic. Teachers may create an online database of educational games and tag them for pedagogy, topic covered, length of game play, etc. The games may also be linked to researches on those particular games that will guide teachers on its effectiveness and problems that need to be resolved with out-of-game extensions. Exploring this possibility is outside the scope of  my project.

Teacher-Community Interactions

To overcome the apprehension of the school community in the use of games in teaching and learning it is recommended to inform and even involve parents and the community in the evaluation of the implemented video games. The community should be regularly briefed about how the games are being used, the objectives, the outcomes and the evaluation (Wastiau, Kearney, & Van den Berghe, 2009).

Game researchers in the United States of America and Europe seem to be more concerned with educators interacting with the commercial/prorietary games developer community. Projects had been set up to encourage commercial game developers to invest in the development of educational games and to dialogue with researchers and educations stakeholders. It is said that commercial game companies avoid educational games because of the collapse of the first wave of the popularity of educational games in the market in 1990's (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). I am not aware of a similar effort with  opensource games developers.

Community-Community Interactions

I believe that a COP of teachers and learners advocating video games for learning and teaching will give the educational community a voice in the development of educational games. It will allow the educational community to dialogue (and be taken seriously) with game developer communities, parents, and the media about the realities of video game use for teaching and learning. Again this interaction and that preceding it are beyond the scope of my project. I can only hope that future researchers and practitioners will explore this topic further.


Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment. Exploring the educational potential of computer games. Doctoral dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen.  Retrieved March 8, 2010, from

Entertainment Software Rating Board. (n.d.b). Game ratings & descriptor guide. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from

Felicia, P. (2009). Digital games in schools: A handbook for teachers. Belgium: European Schoolnet. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from

Hanghøj, T. (2008). Playful knowledge: An explorative study of educational gaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from

Siitonen, M. (2007). Social interaction in online multiplayer communities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from; Available at

Steinkuehler, C.A. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: A critical approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from

Wastiau, P., Kearney, C., & Van den Berghe, W. (2009, May).  How are digital games used in schools? Complete results of the study. Belgium: European Schoolnet, EUN Partnership AISBL. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from

Monday, October 18, 2010

On Game Content-Subject Matter Content Interactions


Roel Cantada

The following discussion focuses on history as subject matter content.

The content-content interaction of distance education proposed by Garrison and Anderson referred to computer programs interacting with one another to create a synthesized adaptive learning content (Anderson, 2003, pp. 139-140; 2008, pp. 59-60). An example would be the use of a blog list in another blog. The programs involved are a RSS (Rich Site Summary) harvester and a feeder. I think of them as small client and server scripts. The blog where the RSS feeds are collected are able to pull or receive new information from feeder blogs whenever there is a new post. The feeder blogs push or send RSS scripts to the destination blogs. The destination blogs or harvester gets updated automatically.

This subsection will discuss automated interactions between programs in a video game but I would like to go beyond that and discuss the relationship between the substantive content of the video game and curricula. I think the design of the computer programs that will interact in an educational video game will be based primarily on this relationship.

Substantive content interaction

One of the content options on the video game side of this interaction is either to learn by playing games or to learn by making games. Yasmin Kafai labelled these approaches instructionist and constructionist respectively. Kafai questions what she calls the hidden premise of instructional games, “that we need games to sweeten the learning of difficult ideas (2001).” Educational games had been criticized as what I would call sugar-coated ampalaya (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005, p. 38). But I don't think the desire to make learning fun is hidden or bad. Playing games for fun is compatible or complementary with making games for learning; there is no need to pit one against the other. Another point is that students will appropriate the games for their own goals and create metagames not intended by the designers (Squire, 2004). So playing complex games does not preclude making games.

Learning by making games may be integrated my project in the same way that role playing or diorama making is assigned in face-to-face history classrooms. Such projects are particularly suitable to MUVEs where learners may create and modify digital objects in a virtual world. Perhaps here, playing and producing may require learning only the game software without going into computer programming or learning software for manipulating the game platform. But creating a game in a virtual world without any knowledge of programming would mean that there will be very little automation. The players would have to supplement the game rules and events with manually constructed rules and direct action, just as in non-digital games in real life.

Another issue with game content that is relevant to this project is whether to emphasize story telling or game mechanics. The narrative approach would usually result in a more constrained game play such that the player is forced to follow the path of the story. In strategy games there is no narrative to follow but what is emphasized are the rules of interaction. Like in chess it's a matter of winning by capturing the enemies' king. In strategy games like chess the king is a token and not a character. Chess players do not give unique names to king, they are simply tokens with specific allowable moves. In this case one square at a time, in all directions. In MMOGs and MUVEs a player is given a unique identity but the path of the game is open ended. In MMOGs a player may want to level up and do quests but there is no predetermined story. Of course the player may not want to do quests and simply explore or socialize. In MUVEs the players is pretty much left to do what he/she wants to do.

In relation to history teaching players may create stories in these environments that may be useful to exploring counterfactual history. But history teaching is first and foremost about telling what happened as narrated by historians using historical evidences. In other words there would be a need for the teacher to constrain the path of game play towards a predetermined narrative (predetermined by historical texts). In order to do this the video game must allow for chaining of events i.e. any player moves in a time slice will have an effect on subsequent moves in the next time slice. History content is chronologically sequenced. Strategy games do have this temporal sequencing but the emphasis is on rules or laws of the game. Chess is not about what individual pawns did or did not do, but about the patterns of game play as constrained by the rules of the game. The strategy game genre appears to me more suited to social sciences where laws and generalizations are emphasized rather than unique events. It may be suitable for teaching some types of history as espoused by Fernand Braudel. He classified history into three types based on time. The first is the history of events which is journalistic in nature, dealing with day to day or year to year events. The second is the history of conjunctures, which are conditions that cycle around every decade or so like the economy. And finally the longue durée--conditions that persist for hundreds if not thousands of years like religion and culture. The last changes very slowly (Braudel, 1982). Strategy games may be useful for teaching the history of conjunctures’ and longue durée but they would be very weak in teaching the history of events.

I think the most promising video game genre for teaching the history of events is the adventure game. Adventure games integrate game mechanics and story. The player is asked to perform actions that move the story forward. In turn a predetermined story limits the freedom of the player in the game in favour of completing the game (Fernandez Vara, 2009).

Of course  history is not just about facts. Both Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) and Squire (2004) discussed the need to look at the game as a simulation of a historical model. Not only should students learn to play a game, or to accept games as learning tools or as a learning environment, but they must also change their view of history in order to get the most out of games. A systemic view is necessary to appreciate games as historical simulation. That is, changes in one aspect of society will result (usually emergent or unexpected) in other aspects of society. The premise of a simulation is that initial conditions will have an effect on the system. In history, the learner should consider that decisions by people in the past will have an effect on the present. And that these decisions were not destined to occur. Historical agents had options just like game players. And their choices led to consequences just like players in a video game.

In relation, a systemic view of history allows for counterfactual history (Squire, 2004). Counterfactual history is an alternative history that may be used to experiment on histories that challenge traditional power structures and overturn historical outcomes. Counterfactual history had been dismissed by some historians as trivial entertainment (Carr as cited in Ferguson, 1997). But the study of counterfactual history is a great way to drive home the point that historical figures did not know their future, just like us today. They considered options just like we do about the school we are going to study in, our career choices, our political choices. Sometimes there are records of these choices like plans A and B of military generals. This allows us to look at alternative histories that were actually considered by the contemporary characters of that time (Ferguson, 1997). This also allows us to eliminate fantastic and mythical explanation of what happened by considering if an antecedent event did not occur would the consequent event occur? The more important lesson   for students is that if history is not destiny then we can change our own future history.

Aside from history, it is also recommended to teach students to think about the epistemological and historiographical issues of historical works. Peter Lee listed the following concepts as important to the study of history: time, change, empathy, cause, evidence, accounts (2005). He called them second order concepts (the historical facts are first order concepts). It is taught in face to face teaching by looking at historical sources (that may appear to be contradictory), and asking the sources questions that these sources were not meant to answer. The comparison and contrasts of these sources in terms of the second order concepts will reveal varying assumptions about history—by historians and by the students themselves. In learning theory terms this is teaching metacognition.

The challenge for the teacher is to correct misconceptions about the past like the belief in the “deficit past” i.e., that people in the past could not do what we can and were not as clever as us today (Ashby, Lee, & Shemilt, 2005). And then to guide them towards ever more sophisticated assumptions about how we know about the past. A progression of assumptions could range from viewing this knowledge about the past as “an information problem” to a “problem about working things out using evidence” (Ashby, Lee, & Shemilt, 2005, p. 123).

How can we use games to teach these second-order skills? Squire suggests that the adoption and defence by students of different interpretations of game events may be connected to different positions on history. And the exploration of games with contrasting underlying assumptions may be an effective way to introduce students to historiographical issues (2004).

Let me now turn to the question of how we can integrate learning content with a game. Habgood (2007) suggested ways to intrinsically integrate content with video games in the previous post. Riding on the flow experience without interrupting it seems to mean that the learning content must be needed to win the game. It has been observed that students will ignore information (including the manual) that is not needed in their immediate game play. But this only applies in a game genre with a win situation. In games that encourage exploration like MUVEs, collateral learning (Becker, 2008) seems acceptable. In addition it there will be a need to interrupt game play for reflection. Finding the balance between sustaining motivation and reflection would be a challenge. Gamers do not like (an understatement) being interrupted.

In terms of role-playing games it appears to me from reading the literature that there may be some tension between playing some other role and still needing to keep the role of a student. There might be value in the student keeping the role of a student in the game rather than trying to be something else. This way there would be consistency between real life and the game. What I mean is that instead of playing Andres Bonifacio in a history game, his/her avatar could still be a student playing Andres Bonifacio. The value of such a design needs to be studied further.

Software interaction

I would now like to turn to the technical integration of subject matter content with video game content. This is where the interactions of intelligent programs come in. The most common approach is not to interact with an external program but to use pop-ups. Pop-ups are dialogue boxes with the text of the learning content that pops-up during the game to teach the student something. Imagine you are playing a Katipunero in the 19th century. You are fighting Spaniards. It’s a shooter and your busy blasting the enemy, then a pop-up appears telling you about the battle of San Juan. The game is interrupted, and the usual response of students is to ignore the text, close the dialogue box, and blast away. And if there are too many pop-ups you get a very angry player, not at the digital enemy but the lame game. It's not a recommended design (Egenfeldt-Nielsen).

An approach may be to put the text in digital letters of dead soldiers (see Grossman, 2003, p. 11). If real historical letters are used then the students can use them as primary source materials. This approach is cheaper (in terms of computer power and internet bandwidth) than making Non-Player Characters (NPC), Mobile Objects (Computer characters that gives experience points when killed), or Bots (Artificial Intelligent characters) that provide interactive content. But if the processing power is available then it would be interesting to see Jose Rizal being interviewed by students while being led to his execution at Bagumbayan. The technical requirements of doing this in an MMOG is beyond the capability of my project but it may be possible to demonstrate it in a MUVE. The approach will require external software independent of the game, with a database of sentences that the digital character is to say if queried by players. One can see that those sentences may be text from historical documents thus there would be an interaction between the Bot software and the game software (Rock, 2010).

Another possible interaction is between an LMS like Moodle and a MUVE like Open Simulator. The MUVE can create digital objects that represent activities in the LMS. The interaction of players in the MUVE is tracked by the LMS. Tracking of student activity is one of the strengths of a LMS that is absent in games. This integration is now available in the software called SLOODLE. SLOODLE will allow the 3D clients for Open Simulator to view Moodle in a 3D virtual world,  replacing text-based webpages. It will also allow teachers to use Moodle as a back-end database for virtual world courses (Livingstone, 2009).

Video games can also be embedded in an LMS as a SCORM package of Java or Flash games. The e-Adventure platform developed in the Universidad Complutense de Madrid can produce such games (Torrente, Lavín-Mera, Moreno-Ger, & Fernández-Manjón, 2009). In adventure games the factual and counterfactual histories can be turning points in the games that may be explored as if in a branching interactive story.

Finally, I feel we should not restrict ourselves to a single game genre. Perhaps there is a way to chain two or more games together to deliver the appropriate content to learners.


Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: recent developments and research questions. In M.G. Moore, & W.G. Anderson (Eds.). Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144).  New Jersey:  Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning, (2nd. ed).  AU.

Ashby, R., Lee, P.J., & Shemilt, D. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Teaching and planning. In M.S. Donovan, & J.D. Bransford (Eds.),  How students learn.  History, mathematics, and science in the classroom.  A Targeted Report for Teachers, Center for Studies on Behavior and Development, National Research Council (pp. 79-178).  Washington, D.C.:  The National Academies.  Retrieved August 11, 2009, from

Braudel, F. (1982). On history. (S. Matthews, Trans.). University of Chicago. (Original work published 1969).

Becker, K. (2009). Games studies theses. Serious Game Pathfinder. Retrieved June 3, 2010, from

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment. Exploring the educational potential of computer games. Doctoral dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen.  Retrieved March 8, 2010, from

Ferguson, N. (Ed.). (1997). Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Fernandez Vara, C. (2009). The tribulations of adventure games: Integrating story into simulation through performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA. Retrieved June 3, 2010, from

Grossman, A. (Ed.). (2003). Postmortems from Game developers. San Francisco, CA: CMP.

Habgood, M.P.J. (2007, July). The effective integration of digital games and learning content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, UK. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from

Lee, P.J. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Understanding history. In M.S. Donovan, & J.D. Bransford (Eds.),  How students learn.  History, mathematics, and science in the classroom.  A Targeted Report for Teachers, Center for Studies on Behavior and Development, National Research Council (pp. 31-77).  Washington, D.C.:  The National Academies.  Retrieved August 11, 2009, from

Livingstone, D. (2009). November. Online learning in virtual environments with SLOODLE, final project report. July 5, 2010, from

Kafai, Y.B. (2001, October 27). The educational potential of electronic games: From games-to-teach to games-to-learn. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from

Rock. (2010, January 21). Radegast and the A.L.I.C.E. bot. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from

Squire, K.D. (2004).  Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.  Retrieved January 22, from

Torrente, J., Lavín-Mera, P., Moreno-Ger, P., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Coordinating Heterogeneous Game-based Learning Approaches In Online Learning Environments. Re-published in Transactions on Edutainment II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5660, pp 1-18. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from

Sunday, October 17, 2010

On Learner-Game Content-Learner (Peer) Interactions


Roel Cantada

Just like the preceding forms of interactions,  peer interactions among learners in distance education are mediated by communication technology. Nevertheless, I would like to discuss the finding s of two studies that observed learner-learner interactions in a face-to-face classroom before moving on to those that were mediated by online games. One is by Kurt Squire and the other by Thorkild Hanghøj.

In Squire's study, affinity groups emerged from the game play (2004). Even though they were playing single-player games, students inside a computer laboratory would interact with one another, even leaving their computer games (during long pauses in the game) and observing the others. They examined each other’s games, advised one another, and shared solutions to certain problems. These affinity groups were the ones that created metagames among themselves. In one class of students “taken as shared meanings arose ... as students played their games and asked one another for advice, examined the consequences of decisions, and predicted how events from one game might relate to the unfolding of others (Squire, 2004).” None of these activities were designed in the game; they developed naturally among the learners. But as was previously presented in Squire's curricular outline for using the game Civilization III, the emergence of affinity groups took time or they grew out from existing friendships.

In Hanghøj's (2008) non-digital debate game we get to see how students interact with one another in a game about interaction. Unlike in Squire's case, the interaction here is designed in the game rather than outside the game. We also see the interactions directly without the mediation of technology unlike the next examples. Hanghøj found out that the students needed three competencies to successfully play the debate game. These are social, communicative, and scenario competencies (Hanghøj, 2008). These competencies were in the context of playing the role of a professional politician. I found most insightful is the varied ways by which the students played out their communicative competency. Hanghøj classified it as parodic, personalised, professionalised and/or reproductive. This finding may be useful in teaching history especially when students are asked to role play historical characters online.

What strike me about the design of these games is that we can afford learner-learner interaction in a game by incorporating it in the rules as a learning goal or task; or by making the game too complex or too difficult for an individual to successfully complete. Simply allowing students to group themselves but giving them a task that can be accomplished individually will neither encourage peer interaction nor greater learning gain for group learning (Boland, 2009). In fact in the latter case the demands of group interaction may just be an added burden. The learning goal and task should demand group work to be accomplished. In Hanghøj case a student can't debate with himself/herself, and in Squire's case the game was so complex that sharing solutions increase the likelihood of successful game play.  This theme will manifest itself again when we look at MMOGs like Lineage in Constance Steinkuehler's study and Anarchy Online in Marko Siitonen's research.

There are times when we may wish to replicate these results in distance education. But can students in distance education walk around and observe each other's game play like in face-to-face classrooms?  My answer is a qualified yes. Certain genres of games allow us to observe each other's game play via avatars. In MMOGs and MUVEs, avatars are digital representation of the learner. Depending on the extent by which an avatar can be customized it can represent ones gender, ethnicity, and clothing style (Dickey, 1999). It can even represent a user as a fantasy character in the virtual world.

An avatar differentiates the collaborative experience of learners in a text based forum or chat, from a graphical virtual world because the learners presence in the world is communicated to other players simply by placing the avatar in the virtual world (Taylor, 2002).  In a forum or chat one has to act consciously by posting messages so that others will know that you are present in the forum. In the virtual world it's the reverse, people may actually think you are present in the virtual world and ignoring them if you do not type afk (away from keyboard) in the in-game chat box.  According to Kong Siu Lung, “co-presence is the sense of being there in other places and being together with other people (Biocca et. al., as cited in Kong, 2008). It is the fundamental prerequisite of collaborative learning and it is claimed to be one of the crucial social components of computer-mediated communication (Spears & Lea, as cited in Kong, 2008).” And that “ is an essential design of multiplayer computer games which facilitates social behavior online (Vogiazou & Eisenstadt, as cited in Kong, 2008, p.8).”

Current MMOGs and MUVEs also allow avatars to move, display gestures, and even show facial expressions. The translation of real life non-verbal behaviour to the virtual environment, usually through an avatar is called embodiment (Dickey, 1999). Rune Klevjer claims that the “... relationship between the player and the avatar is a prosthetic relationship; through a process of learning and habituation, the avatar becomes an extension of the player’s own body (2006). He further said, “The avatar is the embodied manifestation of the player’ engagement with the gameworld; it is the player incarnated (Klevjer, 2006).” In 3d virtual worlds avatars not only serve as a visual representation of the user but also as a camera (Dickey, 1999; Klevjer, 2006). MMOGs and MUVEs usually allow a first person and third person camera view. In the first person view, the camera is in the avatar and the player sees what the avatar sees but cannot see the avatar. In the third person view the camera is outside the avatar and the player sees the world as well as the avatar. When the avatar's head is turned left, right, up or down, the camera follows thus enhancing the feeling of embodiment.

Another affordable action of avatars commonly discussed in the literature is identity experimentation. Identity in virtual worlds is established by unique usernames and personalization of avatars. The avatar allows a player to distinguish himself/herself from other players and to establish a reputation in the virtual world. Identity is essential for establishing trust and accountability (Dickey, 1999), that in turn is important to establishing long term social relationships online. Other players know you through your avatar. Since players may also be allowed to have more than one avatar and to change their avatars, they can experiment with other identities. This is very useful for role playing in history as players can take on different genders, age, race, form etc. and see how people or things were treated by others in different times and different cultures.

The other affordable actions allowed by avatars included richer communication, affiliation, and socialization (Taylor, 2002). In communicating with others the player is no longer confined to emoticons and may include a limited set of body and facial expression. Players can also signify their affiliation by giving their avatars the same look as the group they belong to. Within the virtual world  you can hold almost any social activity that involve gathering somewhere like dances, conferences, and even virtual classrooms. An avatar affords the player to act on a game world. It is a virtual body that inhabits an environment and allows us the metaphor of place-of being somewhere in the game.

A feature of MMOGs and MUVEs that encourage social networking (and a virtual economy) is the persistence of the game. Participants of MMOG cannot restart the game or practice “save-and-load” strategy, and restore the game play progress back to their desired state, therefore when they disconnect from the game and return later on the results of the social activities and game play will remain. It creates an in-game history and in-game biography for an avatar. The game ends only when it is abandoned by the company that created it.

MMOG and MUVE's virtual world had been praised for affording the establishment of communities of learners and communities of practice. The difference between the two learning communities is that the community of practice is more dedicated to some professional activity. This had been lauded as a natural environment for learning, that is, people come there to learn voluntarily.  They organize themselves and sustain their communities by learning from one another (Steinkuehler, 2005). Would it not be great to see self-driven, self-organizing students who can sustain their own learning in a collaborative learning community? Perhaps by briefly looking at the dynamics of community building and disbandment in online multiplayer games we could learn how to design games that will afford this form of collaborative learning.

How gamers form communities

As previously mentioned MMOGs were studied by Steinkuehler and Siitonen. Siitonen in particular observed two types of communities of gamers, the casual gamers and the competitive gamers (2007). The casual gamers emphasize getting along and having fun rather than winning and efficiency. In certain MMOG these communities are called guilds or clans.

These communities could start from players who do not know each other or from players with real life relations such as relatives, friends or work mates (Siitonen, 2007). Those who found the community form the initial core group of the social network. Then they recruit other members based on the emergent values and norms of the communities. Casual gamers for example would recruit members who are fun to be with and easy to work with, while competitive players may value game skills over interpersonal skills. The new members and occasional players compose the periphery of the network, and moving to the core requires commitment and participation. Each community has leaders. The leaders manage the activity of the community, like quests, meetings, and other projects. Some leaders are autocratic, while others are more democratic. This brief description would already have suggested to the reader that online multiplayer communities are just like real life communities or groups.

In MMOGs players take on roles to do quests collaboratively. The quests are usually very difficult such that an individual cannot complete it by himself/herself. Sometimes there are too many monsters to kill in a dungeon. The roles may then be divided into those who fight and those who heal the fighters so they could fight longer. Of course we know from Bartle (1996) that there are players who prefer to just socialize with other players rather than kill monsters. We may need to provide a safe venue for socializers in same way that course designers usually put a General Discussion forum in an LMS.

Online gamers' communities according to Siitonen last only for months. They are then disbanded and the players move on to other communities or even to other newer online games. Sometimes the community is disbanded because of conflict among members. Misunderstanding could arise, or there are conflicts in the interpretation of the norms and values of the community. Sometimes the community just withers away as members lose interest; or their real life situation changes that affect their time to play (Siitonen, 2007). Again let me reiterate that the lesson here is that social networks or social relationships may be developed in a game even when players or learners are geographically separated.

What do gamers learn in a community?

Of course in terms of content one learns in-game content rather than school subject matter content. But as Becker (2008) had shown with single player games, the content is irrelevant to the fact that games have the appropriate pedagogy to teach novices. Learning is through full participation in genuine game play with more knowledgeable or more skilled others (Steinkuehler, 2005). The manuals are supplementary materials to learning. Contrast this with the traditional face-to-face classroom were the textbook or manual takes precedence in learning. The virtual world looks more like a richer learning environment than common impoverished classrooms in the Philippines not only because of the digital objects in the virtual world but also because of the many potential mentors that you can meet (just like in the real world outside the school). In the school students are limited to one teacher every 45 minutes or 1 ½ hour.

Note that nothing stops learners in a virtual world to organize a more intentional and formal class as shown by Magine's class in Michele Dickey's study (1999). Magine is a player who organized a class on building digital objects. Her class is part of the player organized Active Worlds University that offered virtual classes on technical stuff about digital objects in the MUVE Active Worlds.

Steinkuehler also emphasized the literacy learned in online multiplayer games (2005). Because players usually have to communicate through chat, reading and writing is an everyday activity. Not only have students had to learn to interpret a lot of symbols in the game. And they would even analyze games mathematically as well as write essays in blogs or websites about the game play. They would also discuss and even analyze strategies in forums. In this web environment they would manipulate not only text but multimedia like screenshots or video recording of their games.  Steinkuehler's study seems to suggest that gamers may produce more written material than a student in class. Players do not waste their time playing online games because it’s not all about pushing buttons. What advocates of using games in school are saying is that if only we could motivate students in school to organize themselves as learning communities like these gamers perhaps they will learn more and retain more of what they have learned.

Dangers in MMOGs and MUVEs

However, just like in the real world, when minors enter an open game world there are dangers. The persistence of games that affords social networking also affords overuse which may result in physical or mental health risks discussed above. At least with single player stand-alone video games there is a natural ending. And usually when a player finishes a video game, he/she loses interest in replaying that video game again. There may be a need to design pauses or breaks in MUVEs and MMOG used for teaching and learning not only to avoid overuse but promote reflection as well.

There are other perils aside from overuse. Commercial MUVE and MMOG internet services like Second Life and World of Warcraft have policies regarding misbehaviour in their games. Second Life does not allow users who are under 18 years old. In the teen version of Second Life only 13-17 years old are allowed to participate (Linden Research, 2010). Second Life and Teen Second Life have community standards, formal rules of behaviour. The goal of the Second Life community standards is stated as “...treat each other with respect and without harassment, adhere to local standards as indicated by simulator ratings, and refrain from any hate activity which slurs a real-world individual or real-world community (Linden Research, n.d.)”. Teen Second Life's community standard goal is to “...enjoy a safe, fun Second Life experience and always treat each other with respect. (Linden Lab, n.d.)”. In particular Teen Second Life has rules about respect for others, anonymity, password protection, privacy, vulgar language, expletives, nudity, sexual content, strong violence, harassment, assault, disturbing of the peace, etc (Linden Research, n.d.). This list reads like a student manual in school.  The list is self-explanatory except assault. How do you assault someone virtually? MUVEs like Second Life have simulated physics which allow players in to push, shove and even shoot others. This behaviour is restricted in combat zones or PVP (player versus player) zones.

There are players who misbehave intentionally and are known as griefers. According to Wikipedia a  griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that purposely irritates and harasses other players (Griefer, 2010). It is the equivalent of an internet troll in chats, forums, and blogs (Troll in Wikipedia, 2010). Internet games may even be used for cyber-bullying where the intention is to divulge embarrassing or hurtful information about people (Cyber-Bullying in Wikipedia, 2010). Hekki Jungman studied criminal and offensive behaviour in multi-user virtual worlds and found that common offenses and crimes is connected to money e.g. getting one’s account password   to steal the virtual assets, and sell them for real-world money (2009).

Second Life had dealt with minor offenses by suspending accounts and banishing people to a virtual detention centre called the corn field. When a player is sent to this virtual place he cannot teleport (travel to another place just by clicking a link or entering an URL address) elsewhere. He cannot communicate with anyone, and cannot create objects. All he will see is the corn field and a tractor. In other words the misbehaving player is punished with boredom (Walsh, 2006). But more serious offenses are punished differently. In World of Warcraft, a player who breaks the game play policy is punished in this order: warning, suspension, final warning, and account closure (Blizzard Entertainment, 2010). It would be wise to study the rules of existing MUVEs and MMOGs as part of the design of an educational game project.


Bartle, R. (1996, April). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDS. Retrieved February 13, 2010, from

Blizzard Entertainment. (2010). World of Warcraft account penalties policy. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from

Boland, I.T. (2009, March). Efficacy of the 3D Multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) Second Life for learning in cognitive constructivist and social constructivist activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minnesota, USA.  Retrieved March 23, 2010, from

Cyber-bullying. (2010, July 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 05:47, July 3, 2010, from

Dickey, M.D.(1999). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and limitations in Active Worlds, Blaxxun Interactive, and Online! Traveller; and a study of the implementation of Active Worlds for formal and informal education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Retrieved May 29, 2010, from

Griefer. (2010, June 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 05:46, July 3, 2010, from

Hanghøj, T. (2008). Playful knowledge: An explorative study of educational gaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from

Jungman, H. (2009, August). Criminal and offensive behavior involving multiuser virtual worlds. Thesis, Haaga-Helia, University of Applied Sciences, Finland.

Kong, S.L. (2008). Intention to learn in MMOG : examining the roles of peer intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Unpublished master's thesis, City University of Hong Kong. Retrieved June 19, 2010, from

Klevjer, Rune. (2006, July). What is the avatar? Fiction and embodiment in avatar-based singleplayer computer games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen, Norway. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from

Linden Lab. (n.d.). Teen Second Life community standards. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from

Linden Research, Inc. (2010, March 31). Second Life terms of service. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from

Linden Research, Inc. (n.d.). Second Life community standards. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from

Siitonen, M. (2007). Social interaction in online multiplayer communities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from; Available at

Squire, K.D. (2004).  Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.  Retrieved January 22, from

Steinkuehler, C.A. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: A critical approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from

Taylor, T.L. (2002). Living digitally: Embodiment in virtual worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 40-62). London: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved May 25, 2010, from

Troll (Internet). (2010, June 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 05:47, July 3, 2010, from

Walsh, T. (2006, January 3). Hidden virtual-world prison revealed. In Clickable Culture. Retrieved July 3, 2010, from

Saturday, October 16, 2010

On Teacher-Game Content-Learner Interactions

Roel Cantada

I am going to discuss learner-teacher interactions and teacher-game the interaction in this post. In distance education the interactions between learners and teachers are mediated by communication technology. In this case the technology is video game content.  Some online video games have embedded chat and message communication facilities, but others rely on external web applications. Even though I am talking about distance education the reader should bear in mind that some of the   studies (Squire & Egenfeldt-Nielsen in particular) referred to in this post were conducted in a face-to-face classroom environment wherein the teacher can directly talk to the student without the need for mediation by technology.

Teachers' attitude towards the use of games in education varies (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Hangøj, 2008; Jamison, 2008). John Jamison classified the attitudes towards learning Second Life among higher education educators as positive, neutral, and negative (2008). He reported that all groups experienced the same set of frustrations about learning the game but responded differently. The positive group treated the frustrations as motivational experiences, to which they responded by increasing flow experience. While the negative group were dissatisfied and wanted clear instructions from the researcher.  When they were unable to acquire the instructions during the orientation some of them gave up. The difference between the positive and negative group is that the positive group had personal intrinsic reasons for participating in the orientation while the neutral and negative group had professional extrinsic reasons only (Jamison, 2008).

The danger here is that teachers with negative experience with games tended to transfer their personal interpretation of that experience to others, including their students (Jamison, 2008, pp. 57-58). They generalized their point of view to all and in a way projected their weaknesses to their students. They think that if they can't learn to play a game, their students would not be able to as well. Of course this is not always the case.  Reverse socialization had been observed with new technology, in fact my seven year old nephew taught me how to play MMORPG.  In addition they think failure is bad. They are shocked to find that in a game as a learning environment “failure” is the norm. But of course teachers must learn to manage failure and frustration among students (Squire, 2004).  Kurt Squire puts it quite perspicuously,

 “...that managing students’ questions and failures may be particularly important early in the unit, as students orient to the game and adjust to the feelings of frustration and the failures common to game play.

Ultimately, how to support students in learning games and managing success and failure may be less an issue of particular instructional resources and more one of learning culture. It is worth reiterating the contradiction between predominant approaches to curriculum and instruction where information is broken down to easily processed chunks of information and “failure” is to be avoided, and game-based learning environments, where problem spaces are complex, information must be gathered from disparate sources, and failure is the norm. Learning in game-based learning units means resetting expectations so that problem spaces are way too large to be fully understood, information must be gleaned from multiple sources (particularly other games), and failure is accepted, even valued. Learning, as it predominantly occurs in game playing communities is driven by goals (which are often going unmet due to failure) and is iterative, multi-modal, and ongoing." (Squire, 2004)

I believe that the reason why we created artificial learning environments like schools is to minimize the dangerous consequences of failure but not to eradicate failure. Students have a right to fail. In a sense that their failure is a consequence of their action that resulted from experimenting with solutions to problems rather than the judgement of a teacher (as in a grade).

Jamison's  study is an orientation on Second Life for educators. It is worth noting here that he recommended the following for a successful orientation into the virtual world environment:

  1. Participants should have the option of being a part of an orientation process that includes formal social activities, or leaves all participants to seek out their own interactions.
  2. Participants should have the option of participating in structured activities early in the orientation that more directly introduce them to the specific concepts of the 3-D virtual space, and to the role of the avatar in that space.
  3. Participants in an effective orientation program should have the opportunity to select from a wide range of structured learning materials addressing the wide range of skills and behaviours required to function fully in the virtual environment.
  4. Participants should be asked to identify their motivation for participating in the orientation process, and this stated reason should be a factor in guiding the participant through the orientation.
  5. Provide a live mentor. (Jamison, 2008, pp. 85-87 )

In the previous post I mentioned that M.P.J. Habgood  said that “...educational computer games have been traditionally used by classroom teachers as a ‘hands-free’ mode of teaching: an individual reward for completing work, or simply just a way of keeping a class occupied while attending to other priorities (2007, p.246).”

If teachers use games in teaching then the hands-free mode criticized by Habgood above should be avoided. The different results can be seen from the findings of Kurt Squire (2004) and Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005). Squire actively interacted with the students while they were playing.  He gave prompts, technical advice, and just-in-time lectures. In my opinion Egenfeldt-Nielsen followed the hands-free mode. Most of the time he simply observed how the teachers and students used the game in a formal classroom. Of course he was playing the role of researcher.  But the problem with his situation is that the participant teachers were not experts in the game he used.

Squire had some success with some students. Students who played the game recursively were able to connect world history with their experiences in playing the game. One student even went so far as to consider the game as a simulation of world history. On the other hand, the teachers in Egenfeldt-Nielsen's study did not have the time to integrate the video game to their teaching. They failed to connect the student's game experience with learning history during their discussions. As a result their students failed to connect playing the game and learning history as well. Egenfeldt-Nielsen lists three lost learning opportunities in his study: First, students had no appreciation of the historical information embedded in the game because the teachers failed to point out the value of these facts to them. Second, there were rare times when the students appreciated historical facts in the game but the teachers were unable to exploit that teacheable moment, they instead went on with their lesson without relating it to the game. And third, when the some students did ask questions to explore the emergent nature of history in the game, the teachers failed to extend these moments to enrichment activities or assignments that would have tied the game content with the learning content (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). Egenfeldt-Nielsen emphasized the need for teachers to be explicit in linking game content with learning content.  Probably because the students are yet to be socialized in using games for learning. If teachers dismiss the game experience of students in order to cover their course content, then the students will dismiss the game as irrelevant to their learning.

Thorkild Hanghøj came up with an incisive classification of how teacher's pedagogical beliefs manifest in the way they value or make the game content relevant for the students. He found that:

"By comparing how the teachers taught with and reflected on the same game, three pedagogical approaches concerning the game emerged. More specifically, the teachers interpreted the game scenario as a scripted, a performative and an explorative form of teaching. The difference between the three approaches was particularly clear in the way that the teachers authorised the game results in the end-of-game discussion. Thus, one teacher promoted particular interpretations of the game which were only partially related to the students’ game experience. Two teachers chose to let the assertions and results of the game determine possibilities for interpretation, while two other teachers explored and validated multiple different interpretations of the game session.
These three pedagogical approaches also indicated three different epistemological views on the subject-related knowledge of the game scenario. The scripted approach mostly focused on the “facts” of the game and validated game-based knowledge as being either “true” or “false”. The performative approach viewed game knowledge as an entertaining contrast to the more “serious” knowledge of upper secondary education. Finally, the inquiry-based approach validated the students’ game-based knowledge as a construction and reconstruction of hypotheses." (Hanghøj, 2008, pp. 321-322)

Teachers can serve as a bridge or a barrier to the successful use of games in teaching and learning.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen's study suggests that there is a need for changing current teacher's practices in teaching. But teachers are resistant to this change. The successful use of games may have to wait for teachers to change their teaching practices (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005). Or an active program to retrain and reorient teachers to use games in teaching and learning would have to be developed.

What is the role of teachers in successfully using games in teaching and learning?

I doubt it if teachers should be expected to create their own games, or even to modify games. The skills needed for such activities may be beyond the knowledge and time of many teachers. The ideal is that there would be a course team of designers, developers, programmers, and artists who will design and develop games for specific courses. Another possibility is relying on a community of open source games developers, and a few in-house people who have the technical expertise to modify these games. This second approach is what I am exploring in my project.

But it does not matter if the game is created, modified, or acquired as a commercial off the shelf game, the first task of the teacher is to play the game. He/she needs to evaluate the game in terms of the learning goals of his/her course.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen said if the teachers only learn the game at the same time as the student, the use of games in education will probably fail. Teachers will not have enough time to integrate the game with their content and vice versa. As a result they will not be able to help students with their game play problems (2005). Clearly, the teachers should be knowledgeable in the game before the start of the course. Van Eck (2009) suggests the use of walkthroughs and cheats to speed up evaluation. There is no need for the teacher to be an expert gamer, or to be better than their students at game play. What he/she needs to be is a pedagogical scene setter (Wastiau, Kearney, & Van den Berghe, 2009). Someone who can prepare the learning environment that uses games, and ensures students learn the subject matter content from playing games.

Some of the things teachers must do during the implementation of the educational gaming is to exploit teacheable moments including errors and biases in the game (Squire, 2004). This will allow students to understand the systemic nature of games and compare these errors and biases with real life phenomena. The literature also recommends extending or supplementing the game with assignments and projects (Squire, 2004; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Watson, 2007).  It has been observed in online gaming communities which are considered learning communities (Steinkuehler, 2005) that gamers go beyond the game and create websites, forums, and even face-to-face meetings to share knowledge about the game among them. The creation of learning communities is one of the objectives of distance education, and it would be better if it is voluntary.

Teachers should also be prepared with back-up lessons and activities in case of technical difficulties, specially in the Philippines where random brownouts are common. If the game is delivered online, it is very frustrating for distance education students to experience server downtimes and not be redirected to a forum or website where they could receive further instruction onn what to do next.

Debrief students. It is important for reflection and analysis of the students' game experiences (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Wagner, 2008; Watson, 2007). Some of the possible guide questions for debriefing include:

  1. How did you feel while playing the game? (decompressing – feelings)
  2. What happened during the game? (describing – facts )
  3. How does this activity compare to other phenomena? (drawing comparisons – enhancing transfer)
  4. What might you plan to do differently in future activity? (deriving lessons – application). (Heinich et al., as cited in Squire, 2004).

Given the ambivalent attitude of students towards the validity of learning with games, students appear to dislike being graded on game play.  William Watson said “that the students strongly resisted the notion of being graded on their performance in a game. However, the students did not have an issue with being graded on an assignment related to the game, such as their reflection assignment. It seems likely that learner attitude towards the use of an educational game could be turned negative if the learners feel pressure to perform in the game. The focus on extrinsic reward, such as grades, could increase immediate engagement with the game but might damage long-term engagement with the topic, which is the driving goal behind the GATE theory. It is therefore recommended that educational games developed with the GATE theory should encourage a play experience which is intrinsically rewarding (Watson, 2007, p. 152)”. In the case of some students in Squire's study, grades do not motivate students, and they refuse to do anything they do not want to do (2004). On the other hand in Egenfeldt-Nielsen's study, a student commented that “she learned history in order to get good grades, so she could get into university.” This tells us again that the teacher should be sensitive to what motivates their actual students.

The methods of implementing a game in the William Watson's GATE instructional design theory provide further guidance for teachers’ use of games (See Watson, 2007).  In the next post I will discuss the findings of educational game literature regarding social play among learners.


Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment. Exploring the educational potential of computer games. Doctoral dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen.  Retrieved March 8, 2010, from

Habgood, M.P.J. (2007, July). The effective integration of digital games and learning content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, UK. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from

Hanghøj, T. (2008). Playful knowledge: An explorative study of educational gaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from

Jamison, J.B. (2008, May). Educators in a strange land: The experience of traditional educators when immersed into the virtual environment of Second Life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minnesota, USA. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from

Squire, K.D. (2004).  Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.  Retrieved January 22, from

Steinkuehler, C.A. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: A critical approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from

Van Eck, R. (2009). A guide to integrating COTS games into your classroom. In R.E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 179-199). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

Wagner, M.D. (2008, May). Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games as constructivist learning environments in K-12 education: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation proposal, Walden University, Minnesota, USA. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from

Wastiau, P., Kearney, C., & Van den Berghe, W. (2009, May).  How are digital games used in schools? Complete results of the study. Belgium: European Schoolnet, EUN Partnership AISBL.  Retrieved July 1, 2010, from

Watson, W.R. (2007, August). Formative research on an instructional design theory for educational video games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Retrieved May, 25, 2010, from

Friday, October 15, 2010

On Learner-Game Content Interactions

On Learner-Game Content Interactions
Roel Cantada

  1. Different types of learners interact differently with games in general, and with different genres of games. 
  2. Different games afford learners different learning action due to differences in features and constraints. 

To state it another way, not all learners like playing games either for learning or entertainment. Not all learners like the same type of games. A single game cannot possibly afford all the learning action that will satisfy all learning objectives of a course (meaning predetermined by other than the learner) or the learner. There may be a need to combine different genres of games.

These variations are what I have learned from the educational games literature.  The first focuses on the learner, the second on the afforded learning actions of the game.  The latter insight is grounded on Affordance Theory.

Not All Learners Like to Play Games

Kurt Squire declares “games are not good for all learners” (2004, p. 411). Squire's dissertation provides a rich description of how students interact with a video game that teaches history.  Some of the students actually dropped out of his class because they did not find the game engaging or they found it too hard. Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen had a similar experience. A group of students gave-up on his course within the first two weeks of the experiment. All these students had little experience with computer games and found the activity irrelevant to their studies (2005, p. 180).

Do learners learn from games?

The answer to this question is mixed and needs to be qualified by “what” they learn from games. If what they have to learn is how to play the game successfully then I think the literature is in agreement that games with the right design can teach a learner to successfully complete a game. In fact it was this perspective that Katrin Becker (2008) used in order to claim that good games embody good pedagogy. She said, “I'm pretending that what needs to be learned in the game is something that we care about and I'm going to identify how that game supports the player/learner so they can learn what they need to.”

Learners learn a lot from games. The question is whether what they are learning is valuable or not. Corollary to this question is “valuable to whom?”  James Paul Gee (2003) called this “the problem of content”. He illustrated this view with a six year old child who can play a rather complex game for hours. The child's grandfather remarked, “While it may be good for his hand-eye coordination, it’s a waste of time, because there isn’t any content he’s learning. (Gee, 2003, p. 20)” Recently, I heard a similar remark on national television from the head of the Philippine Department of Education who was complaining about internet cafes offering games to students, she said that students were wasting their time playing games instead of studying (DepEd , 2010).  In the Philippines, local governments are   forbidding computer games in internet cafes that are within a couple of meters (it varies from ordinance to ordinace; from 50 to 500 meters) from of a school.

I admit that games can teach something good and something bad, but so do printed material, videos, music and everything else we use in school. The problem of content is rooted in the belief that the only valuable thing to study is what is listed in the nationally mandated curriculum for primary and secondary education, or the facts in the established academic disciplines for higher education (Gee, 2003).   Another cause is the belief that learning is an acquisition of facts, embedded in what has been criticized as rote memorization.  This is particularly acute in teaching history wherein students are socialized to expect memorization of dates, names, and places as the primary activity in a history course. Squire (2004) and Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) observes this with their participant students who tend to devalue the history they learn from games as being not factual. Squire also noted that the game Civilization III teach many concepts (233 concepts) but fails to provide deep understanding of those concepts (2003). This may be a problem of breadth over depth.  Egenfeldt-Nielsen on the other hand reported that “...the learning outcome of students do not differ in relation to whether computer games are used or not. However, it seems that retention is better when using computer games and students are more intrinsically motivated despite criticism of the actual historical content of the course. (2005, p. 239)” In another subject matter, Richard Blunt (2006) found that the academic achievement of students who use games in class was higher than those who did not use games.  He operationalized academic achievement as test scores in the course. Unfortunately, Blunt's study is ex-post facto and we don't know how the games were actually used by the students.

Becker (2008) seems to shed light on the problem of content when she used the idea of Collateral learning (things that are unintentionally learned) and Things we MUST learn in a game in her Magic Bullet design model of educational games. In relation we may be informed by the findings of Thorkild Hanghøj (2008). Some of his participants separated hard outcome, or pure subject matter content from soft outcome, which in Hanghøj “debate game's” case are discussing and arguing.  One student even said that the end result would be “a very, very stupid class of social studies students who don’t know much about social studies but are enormously good at arguing (2008, p.281)”. On the other hand experts in Wagner’s Delphi panel (2008) appear to be promoting soft-skills as part of the school curriculum.  They believe that “MMORPGs might be able to help students develop various 21st Century skills, as defined by NCREL and the Metiri Group”.  These skills include (Burkhardt, 2003):

  1. Digital-Age Literacy
  2. Inventive Thinking
  3. Effective Communication
  4. High Productivity

The third item in the above list would be considered soft-skills (Soft skills, 2010). The experts are encouraging schools to adopt a new set of skills in the curriculum rather than using games to teach existing subject-matter content.  This “change the school” or “change the game” issue is prevalent in the literature. The issue of how in-game and subject matter content may be interacted will be discussed in its own post later.

How long does it take for learners to learn from games?

Squire (2004) offers us a glimpse of the length of time before students get something relevant from games in his suggested curricular outline for Civilization III. The schedule is as follows:

Game Play

Facilitate appropriation of game

Master game basics; go over common “failure points;”

Fostering purposeful game play & communities of inquiry

Recursive play and examining Civilization (game) as a simulation

Finish games

The schedule suggests that it will take seven (7) days before students can play a purposeful game, which I interpret as playing to learn history. One thing video games have in common with web applications and even a Learning Management System is that the learner has to master the game interface and rules before they are able to learn from it.  Since games are more complex than Learning Management Systems, it may even take longer for learners to learn to play a game before being able to learn.  The reader should also note that the length of game play varies among video games.  Some games can be played within minutes; others as in the case of MUVEs and MMOGs never end until the company that maintains them decides to end the game or go bankrupt. The latter are called persistent games (Blunt, 2006; Steinkuehler, 2005; Qian, 2009). I will discuss the problem of lock-step scheduling and the time needed for playing in the post on community-game content interaction.

Types of Players

Richard Bartle (1996) created a taxonomy of player types based on their styles of playing. He mapped four types of players on two axes of a graph. The axes of the graph represent the source of players' interest in a MUD (See Bartle, 1996 for the graph). The x-axis maps whether the players are interested in other players or the world. While the y-axis maps whether they are acting on or interacting with the players or the world.  The four types are the following (Bartle, 1996):

  1. Achievers – interested in doing things to the game (acting on the world)
  2. Explorers – interested in having the game surprise them (interacting with the world)
  3. Socializers – interested in interacting with other players
  4. Killers – interested in doing things to other people (acting on other players). This term is associated with games that allow players to fight each other.

The types above can be mapped to Michele Dickey's ways by which learners learn from video games (1999). The first two learn from the world, the last two learn from other people.

Another classification of players is that of Marko Siitonen (2007) who differentiates between casual players and competitive players.  Siitonen's category has more to do with the norms of gamers' community.  It can roughly be mapped to Bartle, as socializers and explorers may be considered casual players, while killers and achievers are competitive players. We can use these types when designing and implementing games for learners, by reminding ourselves that not all learners appreciate competition.

Steinkuehler (2005), using Bartle's taxonomy as a starting point, created different dimensions for axes of the graph which she elicited from MMOG players. She came up with a more complex graph, one example having 13 axes (Steinkuehler, 2005, p. 66). I am not going into detail of Steinkuehler's graph; suffice it to say that she advocates the development of taxonomies of playing styles based on a study of the community of players rather than forcing Bartle's model on the data. One thing that I have noticed  though is that her reproduction of Bartle's graph has the label interveners instead of killers (Steinkuehler, 2005, p. 59). Steinkuehler points out the difference between players who do good things to other people, (like helping other players in quests and giving them game items) and those that are player killers.

I more inclined to adopt Squire's interpretation of Bartle's taxonomy. Squire (2004) focused on the fact that the types of players are differentiated by their goals. He thinks that “motivation is better conceptualized as a series of goals”. Furthermore he observed how students changed their goals (and therefore their playing style) as they play the game. He came to the conclusion that “students who appropriated the game as a tool for learning history, repurposed the tool and changed the goal of the game”.

It appears to me that Squire focuses on the intentionality of the learner in game play when he speaks of motivation.  The literature appears to have consensus on the commonly known capability of games to motivate players.  I will now turn to this aspect of the interaction between learners and game content.


The dictionary definition of motivation is “the act or process of motivating; the condition of being motivated; or a motivating force, stimulus, or influence (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2010).” It is synonymous with drive and incentive. The literature on motivation does not seem to be arguing over what behaviour is motivated behaviour. The argument which is relevant to game design is whether the cause of that motivated behaviour resides in the agent (drive) or the environment (incentive) (Motivation in Wikipedia, 2010). The terms used for this division is intrinsic and extrinsic motivation respectively. Intrinsic motivation in relation to learning is motivation that is in the act of learning itself, without any need for external rewards. Its opposite is extrinsic motivation, where learning is done because of the expectation of external rewards (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Those who focus on motives that reside in the agent (intrinsic motivation) may be further divided between mind and body. Those who attribute motivation to drives like hunger and sex focus on the body, and those who attribute motivation to for example curiosity, honour, (Reiss, 2005) goals, and dislike of cognitive disequilibrium (Müller, Carpendale, & Smith, 2009, p.126) focus on the mind. The last—cognitive disequilibrium is a Piagetian concept that refers to discontinuities prompted by a disparity between what is believed to be true and what is actually true (Van Eck, 2006). Richard Van Eck citing Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith said that “game playing is a voluntary exercise of controlling a system (i.e., the game) intended for a state of disequilibrium. In other words, game players continuously try out new methodologies and strategies during the game-playing process based on the system’s feedback until they achieve the game objectives or the equilibrium state (Van Eck, 2009, p. 1144)”.

Let me give a brief example of the motivation of players.  I have a six year old nephew just like the child in Gee's (2003) example mentioned above, who plays Lego StarWars (Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga, 2010). He can play for hours and knows all the options, buttons, and menus needed to play the game. No one taught him how to play this video game. And this six year old child can't even read his score beyond three figures. I am amazed at the dexterity he displays with the controls but disappointed that the game is not teaching him how to read.  But then again this game is not designed to teach six year olds how to read. One time I was baby-sitting my nephew while he was playing a difficult level where you shoot a couple of red circles that is supposed to be part of a ship and every time he failed (which brings him back to his last position) he would jump up, cry and say over and over in Tagalog, “Why doesn't it work?”. After that tantrum he would sit back again with tears in his eyes and try again. He repeated this probably more than ten times. I remember when I was trying to teach this child how to read and he'd give up after the first mistake, but with games he appears to be displaying what Seymour Papert dubbed hard fun (Papert, 2002). Students find games fun because it’s hard.  They are engaged and motivated by it even though it challenges them to the brink of frustration (Wagner, 2008).

But not all games are motivating to all learners. A designer of educational games is interested in what makes video games fun, motivating, and engaging. He/she is interested in harnessing this power of games for teaching and learning. The designer needs to identify specific features of a game that will elicit particular motivations.  Difficulty is not the only feature of a game that makes it fun.

Among the theories of motivation two stands out in the literature, Thomas Malone and Mark Lepper's Taxonomy of Motivations (1987) and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow Theory (1990).

Malone and Lepper constructed a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations that they hope “can be used in designing intrinsically interesting learning environments, not just in explaining why or predicting that some environments will be more interesting than others (1987, p. 224)”. Malone and Lepper's taxonomy or an earlier version had been cited by five (Becker; Egenfeldt-Nielsen; Squire; Vandeventer; Watson) of the dissertations on educational games that I have read. On the other hand flow theory had been cited by seven dissertations (Becker; Egenfeldt-Nielsen; Jamison; Squire; Steinkuehler; Wagner; Watson).

Below are the first two levels of Malone and Lepper's taxonomy (1987, pp. 248-249):

 1.Individual Motivations
   a) Challenge
   b) Curiosity
   c) Control
   d) Fantasy
 2.Interpersonal Motivations
   a) Cooperation
   b) Competition
   c) Recognition (See Malone and Lepper, 1987 for their Heuristics for Designing Intrinsically Motivating Instructional Environments checklist.)

Flow's characteristics or what Csikszentmihalyi dubbed as the elements of enjoyment are the following:

  1. The experience usually occurs when we confront tasks we have a chance of completing. 
  2. We must be able to concentrate on what we are doing. 
  3. The concentration is usually possible because the task undertaken has clear goals 
  4. The concentration is usually possible because the task undertaken provides immediate feedback. 
  5. One acts with a deep but effortless involvement that removes from awareness the worries and frustrations of everyday life. 
  6. Enjoyable experiences allow people to exercise a sense of control over their actions. 
  7. Concern for the self disappears, yet paradoxically the sense of self emerges stronger after the flow experience is over.
  8. The sense of the duration of time is altered; hours pass by in minutes, and minutes can stretch out to seem like hours. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 49)

Csikszentmihalyi further states that “the combination of all these elements causes a sense of deep enjoyment that is so rewarding people feel that expending a great deal of energy is worthwhile simply to be able to feel it (1990).”  Video games had been observed to induce this flow experience, and even lead to addiction.

Interpretation of flow theory emphasizes the need for matching available skills and the task challenges (De Freitas, 2009 p.56-57). Malone and Lepper had subsumed this theory under their category of challenge. They said “activities that are trivially easy or impossibly difficult will be of little intrinsic interest. Activities that provide some intermediate level of difficulty and challenge will stimulate the greatest intrinsic motivation (Malone & Lepper, 1987).”

Matthew Peter Jacob Habgood in his study "The effective integration of digital games and learning content (2007)" studied the effect of integrating learning content in a game to intrinsic motivation among primary school children aged 7-9 years old. The single-player game used was Zombie Division. It was used to teach division in mathematics. Habgood questions the value of fantasy in Malone and Lepper's taxonomy and prefers game mechanics to explain intrinsic motivation. He also used flow theory in his study. His guidelines for creating intrinsic integration and extrinsic learning content are worth mentioning.

Habgood's theoretical guidelines for creating intrinsic integration in video games are the following:

  1. Deliver learning material through the parts of the game that are the most fun to play, riding on the back of the flow experience produced by the game, and not interrupting or diminishing its impact. 
  2. Embody the learning material within the structure of the gaming world and the player’s interactions with it, providing an external representation of the learning content explored through the game’s core mechanics. (Habgood, 2007, p. 43)

While his guidelines for creating extrinsic learning content in video games are:

  1. Keep the learning material separate from the parts of the game that are the most fun to play, avoiding the distraction of the flow experience produced by the game. 
  2. Separate the learning material from the structure of the gaming world, providing a direct mapping of the learning content that must be completed in order to proceed with the game play. (Habgood, 2007, pp. 43-44)

Using learning content as the independent variable Habgood studied its effect on motivation, deep learning, reflection and transfer. He said that there are two ways to measure motivation. One is through self-reporting and the other is time-on-task. But he also considered there is more to intrinsic motivation than increasing time-on-task (see also Gentile, 2009; Charlton & Danforth, in press; albeit in relation to pathological behaviour). He found that intrinsically integrating learning content in a game is motivationally and educationally more effective than the extrinsic equivalent.  He also suggests the possibility of using video games for assessment aside from teaching/learning.

I am sceptical about the generalization of Habgood's study to college students in a distance education environment. I disagree with his devaluation of fantasy. He believes that as long as the game mechanics are the same the fantasy elements can be arbitrary and would not have much effect on the learning process. Thus he said he would have gotten the same effect had he substituted futuristic weapons for archaic weapons in his game. I don't think this would apply if he was teaching history. I can just imagine the confusion that will be brought about by teaching World War II using futuristic weapons like laser swords. Nonetheless, Habgood's study of motivation is a good starting point and his tabular breakdown of the design features of his game, as well as his well documented steps will be a good reference point for my project.

Issues about motivation

Intrinsic motivation had been emphasized by the educational games literature over extrinsic motivation. But Steven Reiss is critical of the concept of intrinsic motivation. One of his arguments is that the dyad intrinsic-extrinsic does not capture the multifaceted nature of motivation (Reiss, 2005). He also argues against the emphasis on enjoyment or pleasure (Reiss, 2004). He said that enjoyment is an effect rather than a cause. He proposes 16 basic desires or motives to explain motivated behaviour. The 16 desires are the following:

  1. Power – desire to influence
  2. Curiosity – desire to be autonomous
  3. Status – desire for social standing
  4. Social contact – desire for peer companionship
  5. Vengeance – desire to get even
  6. Honour -desire to obey a traditional moral code
  7. Idealism – desire to improve society
  8. Physical exercise – desire to exercise muscles
  9. Romance – desire for sex
  10. Family – desire to raise own children
  11. Order – desire to organize
  12. Eating - desire to eat
  13. Acceptance – desire for approval
  14. Tranquillity – desire to avoid anxiety, fear
  15. Saving – desire to collect, value of frugality (Reiss, 2004)

I have yet to see a research on video games that apply Reiss' theory, but it seems to elaborate Malone and Lepper's fantasy category. For example the popularity of the game Tamagochi, where the player takes care of a virtual pet may be explained by a desire to raise your own children. And there is an endless collecting in many adventure games.  I keep wondering why players would endure repetitive task to collect virtual items that only differ in colour or shape.
I feel though that Reiss had severed the individual from his environment.  His theory focuses on the agent rather than the agent's interaction with the environment.

Another issue with the power of video games to motivate people that parents are concerned with is the so-called “video game addiction”.  Scary stories like the death of a South Korean for excessively playing an online game (S Korean dies after games session, 2005) are picked up internationally despite being isolated cases, and without full investigation of other circumstances affecting the deceased.

After reading the relevant literature I found the term “internet addiction” is misleading. Internet addiction is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) (AMA Council on Science and Public Health, 2007). In the literature it is not associated with substance abuse addiction, but rather with impulse-control disorders particularly pathological gambling (Charlton & Danforth, in press; Gentile, 2009).

The inclusion of the term was proposed to be included in the next version of the DSM, but was rejected by the American Medical Association (AMA Council on Science and Public Health, 2007).
A report by the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health used the term “video game overuse” instead. The report did recognize potential detrimental health effects of videogame overuse like light-induced epileptic seizures and short-term increase in aggressive behaviour. But it called for further research.

A problem with accurately diagnosing “video game overuse” is a question of what symptoms to be included. The use of pathological gambling diagnosis has been shown by John Charlton and Ian Danforth (in press) to misdiagnose highly engaged video game players as being addicted. They identified six criteria associated with pathological gambling. The criteria are defined as follows: “salience – domination of a person's life by the activity; euphoria – a buzz or a high is derived from the activity; tolerance – the activity has to be undertaken to a progressively greater extent to achieve the same buzz; withdrawal symptoms – cessation of the activity leads to the occurrence of unpleasant emotions or physical effects; conflict – the activity leads to conflict with others or self-conflict; relapse and reinstatement – resumption of the activity with the same vigour subsequent to attempts to abstain (Charlton & Danforth, in press).” They found that the criteria cognitive salience, tolerance and euphoria are poor indicators of overuse. Overuse may be diagnosed with the criteria conflict, withdrawal symptoms, relapse and reinstatement, and behavioural salience. In other words pathological game use is not all about excessive play or high engagement (Gentile, 2009).

This discussion is important in that it should remind educators who use video games to do two things. Filter out learners who will potentially overuse games in a course that uses educational games by being explicit with warnings and using diagnostic tests. And/or provide counselling support and debriefing during and after the use of games in teaching and learning.

Neuroscience research appears to me to have had found physiological evidence for intrinsic motivation while playing video games and learning. Koepp (1998) found out that specific parts of the human brain releases dopamine while playing video games. They suggest that dopaminergic neurotransmission may be involved in learning, reinforcement of behaviour, attention, and sensorimotor integration. Dopamine is a chemical that naturally occur in the human body and has been associated with feelings of pleasure (Dopamine in Wikipedia, 2010). Dopamine increase is also known to be involved in substance abuse addiction but the processes are different from the natural release while playing video games and learning.

Simply put, the idea is that an increase in dopamine in the brain motivates learners, unchanged dopamine release does not.  In a study of monkeys, Jeffrey Hollerman and Wolfram Schultz found that dopamine increases in the brain when there is an error in the temporal prediction of reward during learning (1998; see also Schultz, 2000). My reading of their report is that the neurons that are responsible for releasing the dopamine are keeping track of this prediction error. They said that these neurons are “activated by rewards, and because they are activated more strongly by unpredicted than by predicted rewards they may play a role in learning. (Hollerman & Schultz, 1998)” Furthermore they suggest that “many behaviours are affected by rewards, undergoing long-term changes when rewards are different than predicted but remaining unchanged when rewards occur exactly as predicted . (Hollerman & Schultz, 1998)”

The findings above seems to contradict Reiss' argument against hedonistic (pleasure seeking) interpretations of motivation. On the other hand it supports the ideas of Malone and Lepper (1987) about challenge and curiosity. They said that the certainty of achieving or not achieving a goal is not a challenge. In addition they stated that some models of motivation specify that motivation will be maximal when uncertainty is maximal i.e., when the probability of success is exactly one half (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell as cited in Malone & Lepper, 1987). They listed four techniques to make computer games unpredictable:

  1. Variable difficulty levels 
  2. Multiple levels of goals 
  3. Hidden information
  4. Randomness (Malone & Lepper, 1987, p. 232)

Nevertheless, I feel that dopamine increases cannot explain everything about motivation. After all a study found that different dopamine releasing neurons react differently to the same stimuli among monkeys (Matsumoto, 2009). In relation, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) does not only emphasize enjoyment but also discuss the outcome of flow, that is, complexity. He said:

Following a flow experience, the organization of the self is more complex than it had been before. It is by becoming increasingly complex that the self might be said to grow. Complexity is the result of two broad psychological processes: differentiation and integration. Differentiation implies a movement toward uniqueness, toward separating oneself from others. Integration refers to its opposite: a union with other people, with ideas and entities beyond the self. A complex self is one that succeeds in combining these opposite tendencies (Csikszentmihalyi, p. 41).

Neuroscience has a lot to offer in support of and against educational theories.  But we should be careful in using its findings as we may be reading more than what neuroscientists are willing to say (Weisberg, Keil, Goodstein, Rawson, & Gray, 2008). I guess the best approach is to think of the neuroscience findings as metaphors in educational research, pending unequivocal assertions about neurons and learning from neuroscience. Neural networks is one of the metaphors in the learning theory supported in this blog--Connectivism.

Another issue regarding motivation to be considered is that raised by Michael Young (2001). He questions the existence of motivation as a variable. He suggests that motivation may be an epiphenomenon. An epiphenomenon is “the result of presuming such a variable exists and asking people to rate how much of it they have (Young, 2001).” It is a secondary phenomenon that is a by-product of another phenomenon (Zheng, 2005). Young reinterpreted motivation “as an on-going momentary personal assessment of the match between the adopted goals for this occasion and the affordances of the environment.” To him then the primary phenomena that explain motivated behaviour or action are goals and affordances. We keep coming back to affordance theory which I discussed in another post in this blog.

What is important with Young's interpretation of motivation is his belief that learners can change their goals during the learning process.  They could adopt new goals, generate new goals, or modify existing ones.  Malone and Lepper (1987) recognize the dynamism of goal setting with the idea of “emergent goals” under their category “challenge”. They defined “emergent goals” (also Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p.56) are goals that people can easily generate for themselves. They warn though that people may generate goals that are too difficult for their level of ability. This could lead to frustration and giving up.

The task then of instructional designers according to Young is to develop “contexts that induce students to adopt goals that will be afforded by the learning contexts they design”. But at the same time “instructional designers should not be surprised when the actions students take in a designed learning context appear unanticipated from the perspectives of the original designers” (Young, 2001). This takes us full circle to Squire's observation of students changing their goals as they play (2004). In fact players may create a whole new game from an existing game that was never the intention of the designers. This is called meta-gaming (Squire, 2004; Steinkuehler, 2005, p.114; Wagner, 2008).

According to Wagner, a metagame is a “broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game that transcends a prescribed rules set, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game (2008, p. 9).”

Transferability to Distance Education

The focus of this subsection is the interactions between learners and games. The literature shows that learners learn from games. They are motivated by games to learn. But not all learners will be motivated to learn from games. Among those who will learn from games there are different types of players with different learning goals and motivation. There may be problems with what learners are willing to learn from games, but there may also be a solution through integration of learning content in games. Using games in education will result in longer time schedules due to the overhead of learning to play the game, so there is a need to determine the cost and benefit of additional time and effort invested in the game as oppose to what will be learned. Problems of overuse need to be addressed through counselling support and debriefing.

Despite the fact that these studies were conducted on face-to-face learning, I think their findings are general enough to apply to distance education. I have also learned useful concepts, techniques, and instruments that can be used in modelling students for my project. Modelling students is necessary because design and development is very long and in formal schooling we are unable to assess students before the start of classes.  So a designer can only anticipate learner-player characteristics in designing games. I have also affirmed the necessity of using more than a single genre of games in teaching in order to be able to provide a rich assortment of features to address the variation in student types and motivation.

Before proceeding let me point out that the adoption and use of video games in education has barriers (Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen, 2009; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005, p.181), the same goes for distance education that uses other web tools. Noriko Hara and Rob Kling identified sources of students' distress with a web-based distance education course (2000). Two sources of frustration that stood out are technological problems that are exacerbated by the lack of technical support; and lack of prompt feedback and ambiguous instructions from the teacher. The first may be worst for games as games typically require more powerful computers to work properly. The provision of demonstration games for preview and testing of equipment and internet connection should be implemented before enrolling students in a distance education course that use games as primary approach to teaching. The second lies with the teacher and will be discussed in the next post. Unfortunately, as Habgood have said about how teachers use games in the classroom, “...educational computer games have been traditionally used by classroom teachers as a ‘hands-free’ mode of teaching: an individual reward for completing work, or simply just a way of keeping a class occupied while attending to other priorities (2007, p.246).” In the next post I will be discussing the role of teachers in the use of educational games in the classroom.


AMA Council on Science and Public Health. (2007, June). Emotional and behavioral effects of video game and Internet overuse. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from

Bartle, R. (1996, April). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDS. Retrieved February 13, 2010, from

Becker, K. (2008, January). The invention of good games: Understanding learning design in commercial video games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from

Blunt, R.D. (2006, August). A causal-comparative exploration of the relationship between game-based learning and academic achievement: Teaching management with video games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minnesota, USA . Retrieved, March 23, 2010, from

Burkhardt, G., (2003). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Illinois, & California, USA: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from

Charlton, J.P., & Danforth, I.D.W. (in press). Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the context of online game playing. Computers in Human Behavior.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.

De Freitas, S. (2009). Massively multiplayer online role-play games for learning. In R.E. Ferdig (Ed.),  Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 51-66). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

DepEd to watch Internet shops for class-cutting pupils. (2010, June 12).  GMA Retrieved June 18, 2010,from

Dickey, M.D.(1999). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and limitations in Active Worlds, Blaxxun Interactive, and Online! Traveller; and a study of the implementation of Active Worlds for formal and informal education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Retrieved May 29, 2010, from

Dopamine. (2010, June 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:28, June 20, 2010, from

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment. Exploring the educational potential of computer games. Doctoral dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen.  Retrieved March 8, 2010, from

Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.  USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gentile, D. A. (2009) Pathological video game use among youth 8 to 18: A national study. Psychological Science, 20(5), 594-602. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from

Habgood, M.P.J. (2007, July). The effective integration of digital games and learning content. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, UK. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from

Hanghøj, T. (2008). Playful knowledge: An explorative study of educational gaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Denmark. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from

Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2000). Students' distress with a web-based distance education course: An ethnographic study of participants' experiences. Indiana University.  Retrieved March 2, 2010, from

Hollerman, J.R., & Schultz, W. (1998, August). Dopamine neurons report an error in the temporal prediction of reward during learning. Nature Neuroscience, 1(4), 304-309. Retrieved, June 21, 2010, from

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K.  (2009). Moving learning games forward. Obstacles, opportunities & openness.  The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from

Koepp, M.J., (1998, May). Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 393, 266-268. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from

Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga. (2010, May 20). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 23:15, June 19, 2010, from

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction III: Cognitive and affective process analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Matsumoto, M., & Hikosaka, O. (2009, June). Two types of dopamine neuron distinctly convey positive and negative motivational signals. Nature, 459, 837-841. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from

Motivation. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from

Motivation. (2010, June 19). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:03, June 20, 2010, from

Müller, U., Carpendale, J.I.M., & Smith, L. (2009). The Cambridge companion to Piaget. Cambridge University.

Papert, S. (2002). Hard fun. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from

Reiss, S. (2005). Extrinsic and instrinsic motivation at 30: Unresolved scientific issues. The Behavior Analyst, 28(1), 1-14. Retrieved June 19, 2010, from

Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179-193. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from

S Korean dies after games session. (2005, August 10). BBC News. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from

Schultz, W. (2000, December). Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 1, pp. 199-207. Retrieved June 20, from

Soft skills. (2010, May 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:24, June 19, 2010, from

Squire, K.D. (2004).  Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.  Retrieved January 22, from

Wagner, M.D. (2008, May). Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games as constructivist learning environments in K-12 education: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation proposal, Walden University, Minnesota, USA. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from

Qian, Y. (2009). An investigation of current online educational games. In R.E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 67-80). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

Siitonen, M. (2007). Social interaction in online multiplayer communities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from; Available at

Steinkuehler, C.A. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: A critical approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from

Vandeventer, S.S. (1997, December). Expert behavior among outstanding videogame-playing children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from

Van Eck, R. (2006). An instructional designer looks at digital game-based learning (Powerpoint persentation & mp3 audio). Retrieved March 7, 2010, from &

Wagner, M.D. (2008, May). Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games as constructivist learning environments in K-12 education: A Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation proposal, Walden University, Minnesota, USA. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from

Watson, W.R. (2007, August). Formative research on an instructional design theory for educational video games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Retrieved May, 25, 2010, from

Weisberg, D.S., Keil, F.C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J.R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470-477. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from

Young, M. (2001). An ecological psychology of instructional design: Learning and thinking by perceiving-acting systems. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),   Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 169-177). The Association for Educational Communications and Technology.  Retrieved May 20, 2009, from

Zheng, H. (2005). WordNet dictionary for StarDict version 2.4.2 [Software]. Available at
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.