History and Background

Shelton et al (2013) state that most researchers who study games and education recognise that close ties have existed for centuries. Several theorists support this, such as Ginsburg (2007), who asserts that educationalists recognise play is an important element for learning development. Bedrova and Leong (2003) and others state that children have traditionally learned through imaginative play and Ke (2009) argues that the opportunity to play is not necessarily a distraction from learning but rather an integral part of learning and intellectual development. However, Shelton et al (2013) point out that the acceptance of games in a traditional class room based education setting was frowned upon through the early and middle parts of the twentieth century, possibly they suggest, because the term “game” was associated with leisure and therefore not widely welcome by serious educationalists. They argue this perception has changed in the latter part of the twentieth century, driven primarily by the rapid advances in computer based technology. Garris et al (2002), Squire (2003), Prensky (2005) and others all reaffirm this point and note that there has been a fundamental shift in the field of learning brought about by developments in computer and video games, resulting in games traditionally thought of as pure entertainment now being recognised as powerful tools to support

learning. In conclusion, Shelton et al argue that technology development has now reached such a point that it can support many aspects of classic learning and development theory.

4.7.3 Definition and theory

It is evident from reviewing the theory of game-based approaches that several definitions are used by theorists, some of which cross-over. As a result it is helpful to review the theory based on these definitions and therefore provide clarity.

(i) Game and Gaming – A basic definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) defines a game as “an activity or sport with rules in which people or teams compete against each other”. This is differentiated from Gaming through the action of doing. Gaming is defined as “the action or practice of playing a game”. McClarty et al (2012, p.2) extend this and specifically apply the term “Gaming in Education” to the playing of digital games in education (defined below as digital game based learning).

(ii) Game Based Learning – Trybus (2015) defines game based learning as the borrowing of gaming principles and applying them to education settings, to engage users. Bainbridge (2007) earlier proposed a similar definition for game based learning, it being the use of game play to provide defined learning outcomes. Bainbridge expanded this to explain that game based learning is designed to balance subject matter with gameplay and thereby enhance the ability of the participants to retain and apply the subject

matter in the real world. He asserts that in a successful game based learning environment, choosing actions, experiencing consequences and working towards goals allows participants to make mistakes through experimentation in a risk-free environment. There is a strong link to simulation, Edelheim and Eueda (2007) highlight that participants in simulations can make difficult decisions without the risks that may be associated with failure.

Charles et al (2011) assert that game based learning has gathered momentum due to the view that the approach helps to make learning more fun and allows the introduction of competition. They state that for effective game based learning the primary goal of participants should be to understand the rules and thereby compete to ‘win the game’. They recommend that points should be allocated to the achievement of tasks in relation to the rules and scores used as feedback to students. Charles et al go on to develop this in the context of digital game based learning which is considered further below.

Ebner and Holzinger (2007) asserted that game-based learning provided a logical link to problem based learning, in that specific problem based scenarios can be placed within a game framework. This provides a further link to the simulation theory put forward by Anderson and Lawton (2009) and others who advocated the use of simulations as a means of enhancing problem based approaches.

(iii) Digital Game Based Learning - Prensky (2005) differentiates digital game based learning from the learning dimensions of basic game

approaches, in that digital game based learning introduces the use of computer based games. A concept that combines computer games and learning theory in a structured format.

Charles et al (2011) support this concept and highlight that in a computer game approach many of the components defined within learning theory can be delivered in a digital game format. For example, achievements within games can be acknowledged by pop-up messages and points can be awarded to acknowledge player’s successes. These points can be added to the player’s overall game scores, therefore providing immediate feedback.

Charles et al provide a case study to illustrate the application of one of these concepts within a computing degree course. In the case study an experiment was conducted at the University of Ulster in 2008. A digital gaming feedback approach was applied to provide 4th year computing students with individual feedback on their engagement with aspects of the course. Points were awarded to students based on their level of participation for areas not formally assessed, such as completing extra tasks in laboratory work, using discussion boards and asking questions in class. Seven hundred points were made available to students over a period of six weeks. The rules on how to obtain these points were provided to students and the points scores were fed back digitally in graphical format. Anonymous tables of scores were published regularly, which allowed students to see their position in the overall class. Charles et al observed that students were more motivated, participated better and attendance improved. Thus Charles et al cite this as

evidence that the digital feedback aspect of game based learning can significantly enhance educational feedback and student engagement.

Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) ascertained that computer games are a growing part of our culture, finding that 75% of young people regularly play computer based games, however they claim there is little research evidence for the theoretical and actual implications for learning. They reason that the theory cannot be mapped onto one traditional research discipline with the epistemology spanning computer science, education, psychology, media and cultural studies.

Neville and Shelton (2010, p.612) also acknowledge that this is a rapidly emerging area and suggest the learning aspects of three-dimensional games are the next avenue for further development. They state this technology offers the potential to entirely immerse the learner in what they term “the otherness of the game world”. The point they are making is that technology development will enable learners to be completely engaged in a virtual world and as such, three-dimensional game technology will require an entirely new typology or genre for learning categorisation. This is clearly an important and fast-moving area of development, but one that is far from decided at this point in time. In view of this and to keep this research within a manageable boundary of knowledge, the application of digital formats to learning and their future development has not been included within the scope of the study. It is however, an area of research that will emerge and become an important part of digital learning in the future.

(vi) Gamification – Deterding et al (2011) define gamification as the use of game thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context to engage users and define problems. Sutter (2010) agrees, stating that gamification takes some game elements and applies them to non-game settings. A number of organisations are developing these concepts, including professional bodies, such as The Association for Project Management (2014) who have adopted these concepts as a means to develop professionals. The APM state that there are four main game elements falling under the gamification banner. These are:

• Points – something for participants to earn

• Rewards – something for participants to spend their earned points on

• Badges – something to show peers the achievements of participants

• Leader boards – a method of showing real-time feedback that is visible to all participants

Deterding et al (2011) state that the enthusiasm for gamification among its proponents has met with some critical responses from portions of the games community, as it can create an artificial sense of achievement. Deterding et

al also assert that that gamification can encourage unintended behaviours.

An example of this might be where participants focus exclusively on a desire to ‘be top of the leader board’ rather than the content or learning aspects of a game.

The review of literature suggests gamification is an emerging area with potential for use within a game based learning methodology, including the built environment sector. This is supported by Briggs and Giffin (2013) who assert that gamification offers the potential to develop project managers through increased motivation and enhanced engagement within the project process.

(v) Game Theory and Competition Based Learning – Myerson (1991) defined game theory as a study of strategic decision making. More specifically, it is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision makers. Binmore (1994) considers that game theory provides useful mathematical tools to understand possible strategies that individuals may follow when competing or collaborating in games. He argues that this is a branch of applied mathematics, which is used in social sciences (mainly economics), biology, engineering, political science, international relations, computer science and philosophy to predict the outcomes from problems or scenarios. Initially it was developed to analyse competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense, termed zero sum games. The classic case cited is that of the prisoner’s dilemma.

Burguillo (2010) also notes that game theory is well established in applied mathematics, he suggests that there is a significant body of knowledge surrounding its use in areas such as, economic behaviour including predicting the behaviour of companies, markets and consumers, however, he

states that the approach is not widely applied as a tool to support educational learning theory. To develop this application Burguillo proposes the concept of combining game-based learning and problem-based learning with game theory in an approach he terms competition based learning (CnBL). CnBL is a methodology where learning is achieved through competition, but the learning result is independent of the participant’s score, thus the learning results from competing rather than the final score that is achieved. Burguillo applied this concept to a number of undergraduate courses in Telecommunications Engineering, over a five year period. Students were divided into pairs and worked one against the other in a series of practical tasks. As in the prisoner’s dilemma they had the option of working together or against each other in different elements of the tasks. Burguillo found that the percentage of students passing the course was higher in the five years where the CnBL approach was used (96.56%), compared to 90% in years without use of CnBL. From the study Burguillo concludes that the use of CnBL enhances the learning experience and stimulates the students’ motivation. He deduced that the prime element is cooperative competition and it is this that provides the motivation and thereby helps increase student performance. This links to the work of Jeffries (2005) with regard to simulation theory, Jeffries also acknowledged that competition is usually a motivator, however he counselled against its use if it is likely to cause anxiety and stress to learners. The point Burguillo is making is that cooperative competition is the key element in this context and does not exceed the

threshold where it become negative and is unlikely to result in anxiety and stress.

Pivec and Dziabenko (2004) assert that most researchers conceptualise learning as a multidimensional construct of learning skills, cognitive learning outcomes, such as procedural, declarative and strategic knowledge and attitudes. They consider that the game based learning model addresses all of these concepts and is used in formal education very successfully, in particular in military, medical and physical skills training. The main characteristic being that instructional content is blurred with game characteristics. They assert that games address learning theory through motivation, so that learners are encouraged to repeat traditional learning cycles within a game context. The effect is that enjoyment is related to the learning activity with the result that learning becomes viewed as a desirable outcome by participants.

Prensky (2005) asserts that the main reason people play games is because the process of game playing is engaging. Games address the attitude element of learning theory, wanting to learn (see Race, 2007 in Section 4.2.3) by bringing together a combination of motivating elements. Examples adapted from Prensky’s list being:

• They are fun

• They provide play

• They have characters/stories

Van der Meij et al (2011) argue that an important aspect of learning theory which game based approaches can provide is the incorporation of collaboration. In this sense they define collaboration as a situation in which two or more people share and construct knowledge to solve a problem. There is a link to earlier simulation learning theory in which Anderson and Lawton (2009) advocated working in groups to solve problems and Alliger and Jank (1989) highlighted the learning benefits of working together. Van der Meij et al assert that the advantage of collaboration over solitary work is the stimulating effect from verbalisation, they point out however that not all verbalisation contributes equally to the learning development. As an example, general social ‘chit-chat’ can be disruptive to learning tasks. Van der Meij et al state that they tested the collaboration theory of gameplay using a controlled test, in which the test participants in the experimental condition played a game in pairs, whilst those in the control condition played the game in solitary mode. Van der Meij et al expected the results would show that the paired learning outcomes would be higher, due to the fact that paired participants articulate and explain their thoughts. However, they found that this collaborative gameplay did not always positively influence the scores, because partners tended to be side-tracked into discussing superficial game features, rather than collaborating to solve the game problems. To address this issue, Van der Meij et al recommended scripted collaboration as a possible solution, where learning partners are assigned different roles/tasks and provided with prompt questions in the form of a

script. In conclusion, Van der Meij et al showed that the balance of evidence supported collaborative learning through games, provided that the issues of non-contributory discussion are fully considered.