G AMES -T O -T EACH P ROJECT Summer 2002

1. GAMES-TO-TEACH PROJECTSummer 2002 Kurt Squire: Research Manager, Comparative Media Studies, MIT Henry Jenkins: Director, Comparative Media Studies, MIT Randy Hinrichs: Group Research Manager, Learning Sciences & Technology, Microsoft

2. G2T Project Goals • Explore the potentials of “next-generation gaming” • Why gaming? • Lively Art (Jenkins, 2001) • Culture work (Laurel, 2001) • Appealing pedagogical properties • Create a vision for game-based learning • Lead cross-industry dialogue • Ground speculative discussions • Learning Sciences + Comparative Media Studies • Explore research questions • Development issues, gender, assessment • Competition / Collaboration

3. G2T Activities • Design research • Interviewing teachers, game designers • Collaboration with games industry • Brainstorms, reviews • 15 leading game designers • Working with content partners • Colonial Williamsburg, FAS, CMU, MIT Professors Peter Senge, John Belcher, Bruce Blumberg, Steven Pinker, Pauline Maier… • Design 15 conceptual frameworks • Link emerging pedagogies and game play • Developing four prototypes • Supercharged, Replicate, Environmental Detectives, • Biohazard / Hot Zone (with Carnegie Mellon)

4. ElectromagnetismSupercharged!

5. Grokking Electromagnetism • Cognitive Challenges • Subject non-intuitive • No first-hand experience of phenomena • Routinized knowledge of mathematical procedures • “Qualitative” Physics (Forbus, 2001) • Motivational Challenges • Relevance • Supercharged • Platform flying simulation game • Goals • Robust qualitative understandings • Deep understanding of core relationships • Use laws to identify problem types • Visualize abstract concepts

6. Supercharged! • Show goals • Place Charges • Ship / crew dialogue • Flying Driving • Real-time control • Gather power - ups • “Win” Review Path • Visualize level • Publish / share levels • Assess & Review • Aggregated Data

7. Supercharged!

8. Supercharged!

9. Supercharged!

10. Game-Based Pedagogy Demonstrations Just-in-timelectures Web-basedResources Texts Game Student E&MPhysics Problem Sets Peers Classroom Context

12. Assessment • Game Data • Levels completed, time per - problem, solution paths • Observations • Notes & Video-taped • Pre & Post - tests • Content “Interviews” • Written tests & Surveys • Dynamic tasks (zero, near, & far transfer) • Interviews with Instructors • Controlled comparisons with “traditional groups”

13. Game Properties • Students bring in experiences with media • Game / genre conventions • Leveraging game conventions for pedagogical ends • Power Ups-Ways of altering variables • Resource management – tools / resources • Win / Loss • Ways of addressing misconceptions • Inducing metacognition through social interactions • Shareable artifacts • Publishing winning / creative solutions • Emotional Engagement

14. Join us! • Information: • http://cms.mit.edu/games/education/ • To participate in pilot program • Email: cms-g2t-pilot • Contact: • Henry Jenkins: henry3@mit.edu • Randy Hinrichs: randyh@microsoft.com • Kurt Squire: ksquire@mit.edu

15. ElectromagnetismSupercharged

16. ElectromagnetismSupercharged • Demo Game

17. Join Us! • Prototypes 1-10 online • Documentation and media • Designs, pedagogy, technical notes, art • http://cms.mit.edu/games/education/

18. Grokking Electromagnetism • Robust qualitative understandings • Experts use laws to identify problem types • Deep understanding of core relationships • Ability to visualize abstract concepts • Can use knowledge to solve everyday problems

19. Grokking Electromagnetism • Broader Challenges • Functional use value – “Why learn this?” • Developing interest in science • Identity of “Self as scientist” • Science as “memorization of immutable facts.”

20. ElectromagnetismSupercharged • Why Supercharged? • Robust, real time, interactivity • Depict abstract relationships in 3D • E&M laws as basis for flying / driving game • Familiar gaming genres and science fiction • Challenges to Supercharged • Qualitative, not quantitative interactions • Constrained to computer • Getting learners involved in hard thinking & creating

21. Pocket PC • GPS / Wireless / Location – based gaming • Multiplayer real time role playing game • Observing, testing, analyzing, predicting • Implementation Contexts • Edgerton Center • Terrascope Project • MIT Classrooms • Cambridge Schools

22. Game-Based Pedagogy Game Student E&MPhysics Collaboration

23. Game-Based Pedagogy Just-in-timelectures Peers Web-basedResources Texts Game Student E&MPhysics Demonstrations

24. Questions

25. Game-Based Pedagogy • Importance of instructional context • set-up, debriefing, and reflection • Leveraging collaboration (e.g. Koschmann, 1996) • Reflection • Power of local culture & conditions (Squire et al., 2002) • Adoption & Adaptation • Teacher support and professional development • Communities of teachers

26. Game-Based Pedagogy Yuro Engestrom, 1992

27. “Endogenous Game Play” • Immersive Learning Environments • Students developing and testing hypotheses • Role playing Games • Solving “authentic problems” • Access to authentic tools / resources • Visualization and Simulation • Leveraging potential contests • Spatial Conquests • Remediating physical laws

28. Engaging Media • Control, Challenge (Malone, 1981) • Instantaneous feedback • Adjusted Difficulty level • Choice • Fantasy, Exploration • Narrative, whimsy, fantasy, discovery • Social Contexts • Collaboration, Competition

29. GTT Research 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 • Super Mario Brothers 21 • Tournmanet 12 • Snood 12 • Madden Sports 8 • The Sims 6