Games-to-Teach Project Year 1 Research Results

1. Games-to-Teach ProjectYear 1 Research Results Kurt Squire, MIT Comparative Media Studies; Indiana University Henry Jenkins, MIT Comparative Media Studies

2. G2T Context MIT / Microsoft iCampus grant • MIT Comparative Media Studies • Goal: improve MIT education

3. G2T Context Most educational games have failed • Edutainment = Bad lectures + bad games Create “next-generation” educational games • Tangible Vision to discussions • Exemplify design principles • Ideas for actual development “pre-production” Deliverables: • Dialogue: educators, designers, media scholars • 10 Conceptual frameworks

4. Gaming Context • Games gross $9-$12 Billion domestically • Games are attracting new audiences • Sims = 18 million copies • Super Mario Brothers III = 25 million copies • Mario is more popular than Mickey Mouse (Sheff, 1992) • Games are the new “lively art” (Jenkins, 2002) • Most educators are ignorant

5. Pedagogical Potential • Games are intrinsically motivating (Lepper, 1981) • Fantasy, control, challenge, and curiosity • Games are social experiences • Competition, collaboration • Learning through Play (Rieber, 1996) • Construction • Experimentation • Constructivist pedagogies

6. Research on Gaming • Lacking a coherent theoretical framework (Gredler, 1996) • Lacking ties to learning theory (Gredler 1996) • Signs of increased motivation (Ehman & Glenn, 1991) • Few studies show learning gains in content knowledge (Clegg, 1991) • Instructional context more important than the media (Clark, 1983; White & Frederickson, 1998) • Large disconnect between educational games & “state-of-the-art” games and (Squire, in press) • Perception that “educational games suck” (Herz, 1997)

7. Challenges • What are the principles of good game design? • How do we leverage these principles in the design of educational games? • How do these principles need to be adapted to educational contexts? • What are the pedagogical potentials of games? • What are the risks to using games? • Competition (Provenzo, 1991)

8. Design Research Goal: Create theoretical framework for designing “next-generation” educational games Outcomes: Language, vocabulary

9. Design Research Interviews • 12 MIT faculty • 5 Game designers • 5 Educational researchers • 3 MIT Undergraduates Design Sessions • Brainstorms, collaborative design, reviews Surveys • MIT student body 653/4000 responding

10. Interview Participants • Educational Researchers • Howard Gardner, Mitchell Resnick, Chris Dede, Steven Pinker • Media theorists • Henry Jenkins, Justine Cassell, Nick Montfort • Game Designers • Bryan Sullivan (Ironlore), Doug Church (Thief, Deus Ex), Eric Zimmerman (gamelab), Brenda Laurel (Purple Moon), Chris Weaver (Bethesda), Alex Rigopulous (Harmonix) Kent Quirk (Cognitoy), Matt Ford (Microsoft) • Teachers & MIT Faculty • Bonnie Bracey (K-12), Woodie Flowers (MIT), John Belcher (MIT) • Students • Three MIT students

11. Interactive Discussions • Design Reviews • Eric Zimmerman, Alex Rigopulos, Matt Ford • Collaborative Brainstorms • Will Wright, Chris Weaver, Alex Rigopulos • Faculty Reviews and Collaboration • John Belcher, Woodie Flowers

12. Analysis Identify Themes Revise Framework Share Work Design Prototypes

13. Game Designers Interviews with game designers • Morrowind, Frequency, Deus Ex, Age of Empires, and others… • Semi - structured

14. Game Designers Leverage what games “do well” Problem solving / decision making • “Role play” (who uses information?) • Access to authentic digital tools Visualize and experience “abstract” systems • Adopt new perspectives (micro / macro) Representing complex systems • Manipulate unalterable variables (SimEarth) • Resource management (time, money)

15. Game Designers Media genre expectations • Interface, control decisions • Narrative patterns Leverage design elements • Power-ups • Character investment • Inventory management

16. Game Designers Appeal to broad audience • Inviting colors • Simple controls • Gender neutral play space • Collaboration • Non “directly threatening” situations Embed strong characterization • Customize characters • Strong backstories

17. Findings Faculty Findings 12 Highly Interested Respondents • High interest in GTT among respondents • Near 100 % participation Faculty will use simulation games at MIT • Robotics & computer competitions • Many use interactive technologies • Teach in highly specialized areas with digital tools “Games are motivational tools” • “Students don’t finish problem sets” • Emphasis on challenge & reward • Fewer said “modeling & visualization”

18. Findings Faculty Findings Faculty skeptical about fantasy • Concerns about “accuracy” • Social implications • “Transgressive Fantasies” problematic for many Many faculty want interactive simulations • Consistent with “information transmission” paradigm • Can be used in lectures • Can be given as homework

19. MIT Student Survey Survey of MIT undergraduate student body • 653/4000 Respondents MIT students grew up with games • All respondents played a computer or video game • 88% played before age 10 Most MIT students are frequent game players • 60% spend more than an hour / week playing games • (compared to 33% for television, 57% reading) • 33% spend more than an hour per week watching television • 57% of MIT students spend more than an hour reading • 30% of respondents students play online games > 1 hour / week

20. MIT Student Survey 555 respondents listed at least 1 favorite game. • Final Fantasy series (I-VIII) 55 • Starcraft 46 • Civiliation I/ II 29 • Zelda 24 • Tetris 22 • Quake 21 • 33 Mario Franchises: Super Mario Brothers; Mario Kart • Unreal Tournmanet 12 • Snood 12 • Madden Sports 8 • The Sims 6

21. Educator Themes • Address misconceptions (don’t promote them!) • Ask hypothetical questions to system • Compare simulated system to reality • Generate data for assessments • Use fantasy to induce “situationality” • Make flexible for teachers’ use

23. Choices and Consequences • Agency(Murray, 1999) • “Delicious Interactions” (Church, 2001) • Information feedback Information Choice Feedback

24. Agency: Meaningful choices • Power-ups • Inventory management • Character development • Resource management

25. Embedded Information • Embedded Goals and Success states

26. Embedded Information

27. Goals, Failure, & Attribution • Learning through Failure (e.g. Schank, 1999) • Addressing Misconceptions • Open-ended gaming • Managing frustration

28. Collaborative Construction Designing objects for use in multiplayer worlds

29. Assertions • Teachers want games in traditional well as in “Open Learning Environments” • Games can record data which can be used for assessments • Have high production values & be aesthetically pleasing • Game play and disciplinary thinking need to be entwined • Role playing as people who think with information (doctors, engineers) • Thinking in Microworlds • Using narrative conventions • Design challenges • Good game design leverages pedagogical content knowledge

30. Implications Games allow classroom communication to become more rooted in shared mediated experience. • Games supplement other activities • Seed social experiences in game design Games leverage knowledge of media, genre, and interaction that students already possess. • Using gaming conventions to engross students in complex thinking • Games provide rich frameworks for evaluation and scaling of complexity. Games engage and reward students in powerful ways. • Failure is an important motivator of learning Games span simulations, narratives, toolboxes, & emerging models. • Definitions of games need to be expanded to include new experiences Games-to-Teach provides new perspectives on games, gamers, teaching, and learning, through a unique matrix of perspectives and expertise.

31. Contact Games-to-Teach Project http://cms.mit.edu/games/education Kurt Squire ksquire@mit.edu

32. MIT Student Survey MIT students had very divided attitudes toward gaming: • 61% “gaming is an important leisure time activity.” • 31% see gaming “as an important part of their social life.” • 37% felt that games stimulated their academic interest in math, science, engineering, or computer science. • 38% of the respondents feel that “games are a waste of time.” Respondents had low anxiety toward games • 88% agreed with “Games are just another medium.” • “Playing video games is no more or less a waste of time than any thing else you do purely for enjoyment, e.g. going to a play, going out dancing or reading a book - sports don't count because they improve your physical health.  If you think not working is a waste of time, well then like all of these playing video games is a waste.”

33. MIT Student Survey High interest in Games-to-Teach • Over half “very interested” in GTT • 210 / 653 offered comments or suggestions about the project in the final open-ended question (after responding to 40 items) • “If you could tap into the power of games, you’d own this university.” Skepticism toward Educational Games • “Educational games today are just cheesy.” • If people are going to learn from the games and want to play them, they'd better be damn good games (on par with commercial console games in terms of graphics, sound, and playability).  I've played "educational" type games a long time ago for the computer in middle school (remember Math Blaster?) and they sucked.