Building the Scientific Mind 2013. (Bandung/Lembang ... engaged in the development of a Baccalaureate in Science (BSc) in Computer Game Design and.
The Complex Game of Education Carlo Fabricatore & Ximena López
Building the Scientific Mind 2013 (Bandung/Lembang, Jawa Barat, Indonesia) Keywords: gaming, complexity, learning, education Statement of essence: building sustainable futures demands “learning for complexity”, which is attainable through video games better than other traditional learning environments. Extended Abstract “The Complex Game of Education” is the account of a journey into learning and (higher) education, explored through the lens of complexity and gaming. This journey began in 2010, when the authors engaged in the development of a Baccalaureate in Science (BSc) in Computer Game Design and Development (CGDD) at the University of Worcester (UK). The BSc had to be developed and delivered in a challenging scenario characterized by often conflictive aims. The context of development and delivery of the CGDD BSc was a complex system defined by interwoven challenges originated by non-fully predictable nor controllable factors, and by the need of facilitating learning through engaging experiences regardless of significant contextual constraints. This motivated the authors to leverage the conceptual frameworks of complexity and gaming to explore, make sense of and cope with such complex scenario. Based on these perspectives, the CGDD BSc was designed to engage students in learning experiences pivoting around team projects set in authentic scenarios. These projects required students to interact with real-world stakeholders, framing and integrating learning activities crafted to offer an appropriate mix of challenges, opportunities for the development of mastery, and related rewards. The learning activities were designed to foster student self-organization, support student heterogeneity, and facilitate the interplay between collective and individual learning. Activities focused students on the importance of learning for their development at an individual and collective level, and to achieve something relevant for their ‘community’. Data gathered over two years show the positive impacts of the BSc activities in terms of student achievements, motivation, engagement and development. Students demonstrated to be able to learn to cope with uncertainty and changing contextual conditions and constraints, appreciating the value of collaborative activities and working on meaningful issues in meaningful contexts, in terms of both personal development and motivation. The BSc has also demonstrated that study programs can actually be a good opportunity to integrate and benefit both society and academia. The CGDD BSc has been successfully conceived and developed as a program somewhat atypical if compared to other, more traditional courses delivered within and outside the University of Worcester. And the results have so far been atypical as well. These “atypicalities” made the development and delivery of the program a significant challenge in itself, considering that the program had to fit within a framework of “typical” constraints and requirements (e.g. institutional quality assurance procedures and standards; resource allocation strategies; etc.). Thus, from inception the CGDD BSc was a “game within the game”, requiring the educators involved in the program to be at the same time “game designers”, to architect the framework for the student experience (the “inner game”), and “game
players”, to cope with the context conditioning the development of the program (the “outer game”). In turn, the outcomes of the “inner game” generated perturbations eventually driving changes in the “outer game”. The seminar “The Complex Game of Learning” will highlight salient elements of the educational approaches underlying the CGDD BSc (i.e. the core mechanics of the “inner game”), presenting and discussing some of the most interesting outcomes of the program. Furthermore, the session will discuss the main challenges and approaches to playing the “outer game”, and some key elements of the interplay between the “inner game” and the “outer game”, and its consequences.
Session outline “The Complex Game of Education” is the account of a journey into learning and (higher) education, explored through the lens of complexity and gaming. This journey began in 2010, when the authors engaged in the development of a Baccalaureate in Science (BSc) in Computer Game Design and Development (CGDD) at the University of Worcester (UK). The BSc had to be developed and delivered in a rather challenging scenario, characterized by often conflictive aims. The contents and objectives of the BSc were to be aligned with industry state of the art and employability requirements, and the BSc had to be on par with similar programs offered by competing institutions. The BSc had to cater for a rather heterogeneous target public, comprising students with significantly diverse entry skills, backgrounds and motivations. Limited human, technological and logistic resources constrained the number of courses that could be delivered within the BSc, the amount of direct-contact time that tutors could effectively spend with students and the organization of learning activities. This situation, not quite uncommon in formal education (e.g. Hussey & Smith, 2010; Christensen, Johnson & Horn, 2008), was framed by an organizational culture driven by a strong focus on income generation through student enrolment, a notion of efficiency mainly aimed at minimizing the cost of delivery of directcontact hours, and a declared emphasis on the constant improvement of the quality of the student experience. Thus, the context of development and delivery of the CGDD BSc was effectively a complex system, defined by interwoven challenges originated by non-fully predictable nor controllable factors, and by the need of facilitating learning through engaging experiences regardless of the significant contextual constraints. This motivated the authors to leverage the conceptual frameworks of complexity and gaming to explore, make sense of and cope with such complex scenario. Complexity science regards learning as an on-going process of adaptive changes involving persons at individual and collective levels (Davis & Sumara, 2005, 2006; Visser, 2008). The interplay of individual understandings and knowledge within a group of diverse learners originates collective learning which transcends individual learning, and reshapes the collective of learners into a ‘better whole’ than if learners worked independently (Davis & Sumara, 2006). Emergent collective learning, in turn, feeds back into individual learning, generating results transcending what could be achieved by individuals alone (Davis & Sumara, 2005, 2006). Fostering such learning processes in conditions of complexity requires designing activities in an iterative and adaptive way, based on evidence emerging from on-going learning processes (Fabricatore & López, in press). Activities should be designed to: i) facilitate student shared knowledge development while at the same time nurture diversity; ii) promote student interactions and self-organization; and iii) influence organization and dynamics of the activities through constraints granting sufficient organization while at the same time allowing varied and flexible responses (Davis & Sumara, 2006; Fabricatore & López, in press). From the perspective of gaming, learning is an essential element of any gameplay activity. Games are systems in which players interact with each other and with other game entities, engaging in
challenging activities meaningful to pursue the game goals (Fabricatore, 2007; Fabricatore & López, 2012; Salen and Zimmerman 2003). The meaningfulness of gameplay activities is framed by the game context, which, through elements like settings and storylines, allows players to make sense of the purpose and implications of the dynamics and activities they can engage in (Fabricatore, 2007; Gee, 2007). When engaging in a game, players want to be challenged, exert agency to affect the state of the game, develop a sense of mastership and achievement, and be rewarded consequently (Fabricatore, 2007). Player engagement in gameplay dynamics is underpinned by articulated thinking processes eliciting problem-solving, decision-making and creativity (Fabricatore & López, 2012). Learning is a pivotal element in player engagement. In fact, game challenges require players to solve problems (Schell, 2008), and this in turn requires players to learn game mechanics necessary to engage in gameplay activities (Fabricatore, 2007). Based on these perspectives, the CGDD BSc was designed to engage students in learning experiences pivoting around team projects set in authentic scenarios. These projects required students to interact with real-world stakeholders interested in leveraging gaming to address problems of social relevance (e.g. promoting healthy-eating habits; enhancing youth experience in museums; etc.) The design of the CGDD BSc aimed at offering to students meaningful contexts, framing and integrating learning activities crafted to offer an appropriate mix of challenges, opportunities for the development of mastery, and related rewards. The learning activities were designed to foster student self-organization, support student heterogeneity, and facilitate the interplay between collective and individual learning. Activities focused students on the importance of learning for their development at an individual and collective level, and to achieve something relevant for their ‘community’. By extension, learning activities aimed at de-focusing students from the “final pass mark” goal. The CGDD BSc has so far generated very interesting outcomes. The authors gathered data over two years demonstrating the positive impacts of the BSc activities in terms of student achievements, motivation, engagement and development. For example, students across a broad spectrum of abilities appreciated being challenged by “complex” problems and issues, with no clear “right or wrong” answer, but with sufficient support and freedom to conceive and pursue their original approaches, and eventually set their own specific objectives. Students also demonstrated to be able to learn to cope with uncertainty and changing contextual conditions and constraints. Evidence suggested that learners appreciated the value of collaborative activities not only to produce results that individuals alone would not be able to generate, but also to learning achievements beyond what students could have done if they had “studied” on their own. Furthermore, students appreciated the value of working on meaningful issues in meaningful contexts, in terms of both personal development and motivation. The BSc also generated a positive resonance in the social community, demonstrating that study programs can actually be a good opportunity to integrate society and academia for the mutual benefit of students and the social community. The CGDD BSc has been successfully conceived and developed as a program somewhat atypical if compared to other, more traditional courses delivered within and outside the University of Worcester. And the results have so far been atypical as well. These “atypicalities” made the development and delivery of the program a significant challenge in itself, considering that the program had to fit within a framework of “typical” constraints and requirements (e.g. institutional quality assurance procedures and standards; resource allocation strategies; etc.). Thus, from inception the CGDD BSc was a “game within the game”, requiring the educators involved in the program to be at the same time “game designers”, to architect the framework for the student experience (the “inner game”), and “game players”, to cope with the context conditioning the development of the program (the “outer game”). In turn, the outcomes of the “inner game” generated perturbations eventually driving changes in the
“outer game”. The seminar “The Complex Game of Learning” will highlight salient elements of the educational approaches underlying the CGDD BSc (i.e. the core mechanics of the “inner game”), presenting and discussing some of the most interesting outcomes of the program. Furthermore, the session will discuss the main challenges and approaches to playing the “outer game”, and some key elements of the interplay between the “inner game” and the “outer game”, and its consequences.
References Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2005). Complexity science and educational action research: toward a pragmatics of transformation. Educational Action Research, 13(3), 453-466. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and Education: Inquiries Into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. London: Harper Collins. Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and game mechanics design: a key to quality in video games. Proceedings of the OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education (Vol. 14). Santiago, Chile: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/17/39414829.pdf Fabricatore, C., & López, X. (2012). Sustainability Learning through Gaming: An Exploratory Study. Electronic Journal of e-Learning (EJEL), 10(2), 209–222. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=194 Fabricatore, C., & López, X. (in press). Complexity-based course design: A Case Study in Higher Education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Hussey, T., & Smith, P. (2010). The Trouble with Higher Education: A Critical Examination of our Universities. New York, NY: Routledge. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: a Book of Lenses. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Visser, J. (2008). Constructive Interaction with Change: Implications for Learners and the Environment in Which They Learn. In J. Visser & M. Visser Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a Changing Learning Landscape (pp. 11-35). Berlin: Springer.
