A learning game… er… taxonomy?

I’ve been focusing a lot of time and energy over the past several months on games. Not games like Guitar Hero, Monopoly or even general shenanigans (although I enjoy all of those). Serious games, rather, and the myriad of ways in which they can be crafted to address learning needs. Most of my recent efforts have involved designing, writing, reviewing, and recommending games for various learning purposes. (Some of my favorite titles for recent game designs include Role Play Roulette, Heroes and Villains, Fortune Teller, and Screen Writer among many others)

In this post, I’d like to share some of the thoughts and strategies that have gone into my design decisions, and hope to generate a discussion where you can share your thoughts as well!

Games for learning can take on many forms with different mediums/delivery mechanisms, structures, and can be used to achieve varied desired outcomes.
• Learning games can be used as a strategy in and of itself for an individual learning event, or incorporated as a smattering of one or more smaller activities within an event.
• They can provide learners with opportunity for practice, and they can also be used as the culminating event of any learning experience, as a wrap-up or even an assessment.
• Learning games can be designed to be single or multi-player, to be played live in the real world (like ARGs and workshop games), with or without technology like mobile devices, GPS, or computers, and range from the simple (think omnipresent Jeopardy knock-off) to the very complex (like 3D war games that teach combat skills).

In a sense, determining a game strategy should not be all that different than the design of any other mechanism used to create a learning experience. It is another tool in the toolbox, albeit a valuable one, that should be considered as an option where it makes sense. As with any learning design strategy, it is essential to identify what it is that you want your learners to accomplish (all roads seem to lead back to those learning objectives, eh?).

Bloom’s taxonomy is a popular classification for different levels of skills and knowledge when crafting learning objectives. Desired behaviors and outcomes are organized into levels from lower order thinking skills to higher order thinking skills. If we think of our learning objectives in this manner, then it should follow that game strategy should mirror a similar pattern. That is, there should be a strong link between what we want learners to be able to do upon completion of the learning activity and the design of the game. Think about what type of game experience is suited to the goal. Just a few examples:
• If it’s important for learners to quickly recall data points, create a speed-timed game that requires fast recall (ever play Brain Buddies on Facebook?).
• If evaluation of information is a critical skill, create a storyline and characters (perhaps a courtroom scene?) who present their case with descriptions, data, counter-arguments, etc. and the learner is tasked with determining which is most appropriate to the situation.
• If it’s important for learners to determine when and how to call on others for information, data, and or involvement, allow for a multiplayer structure or an experience with multiple characters.

P.S. Creativity is critical! OK, the whole taxonomy thing might be bit academic. That is not to say that learning games can’t be fun. In fact, that is a requirement if you want people to play it and you actually want to call it a game. What’s a game if it’s no fun to play? Don’t limit yourself to traditional simulation-type designs that incorporate a score. Think beyond what you have already seen in corporate training. Think about games you actually play for fun and how you can be inspired by the structures of those games. Spend some time playing Wii, Nintendo DS, and poking around on sites like Kongregate (just log it as “research” on your timesheets. It is valuable time spent, I swear to you).

These of course, are not the only considerations for determining game design strategy. Many other factors besides desired skill level come into play, like target audience preferences, technology requirements, re-playability options… I could go on. But I think I’ll spare you for now and save it for another post.

"So what is it that you do?"

I find this one of the most difficult questions in life to answer, particularly with people who know me personally and for some odd reason want to know more about me professionally.

The funny thing is I'm totally incapable of explaining the what-is-it-that-I-do. From what colleagues have told me, this is not uncommon. Actually, I'm amused by my father's explanation that I do "something with computers, maybe programming." My father says this with the realization that I actually failed CSE 101, took it again to erase the F on my transcript, and succeeded in doing so with a very solid "D." That's what I call parental love...no doubt bolstered by a strong sense of poor ROI.

Not too long ago, a friend of over 20 years asked me "so what is it that you do?" since the company he works for is in need of client product training and he heard me yammering (excuse the social media pun) about learning initiatives and Twitter in the midst of a BBQ. I gave the practiced speech and bless his soul, he got it!

Not surprisingly, this question comes up a lot with regard to Tandem Learning since the general tack in American business is to lead understanding by defining roles and responsibilities. This is well before presenting capabilities, showing any demonstrations, or detailing Tandem's products, services, and general offerings.

So, what is it that we do?

I often find bullet points very comforting in times of self-identification:

• We design and develop learning experiences across industries
  
• We believe that karaoke isn't a crime (and neither was skateboarding, by the way)
  
• We drive to become THE leading provider of innovative learning solutions
• We leverage game design and theory in our approach, particularly with regard to virtual worlds and immersive learning environments
• We manage a solution from kick-off to delivery without breaking a sweat or sweating a break
• We rock you like a hurricane

That's more or less the 8 miles high version of it anyway. The worm's eye view of the day-to-day events is wonderfully exciting to me but most people might find it a little geeky and a lot boring.

Or they may just call it "something with computers, maybe programming."

Ammo for Serious Games

As children, we are encouraged to play. Famed educator Maria Montessori had said of children that “play is their work”. In childhood, play is perceived as an essential learning and growth experience, but at what point does play become no longer a beneficial learning experience? Or does it continue to be an effective means of self improvement? As we “mature” and spend time in the grown-up world, playing becomes less important and something that is of little to no value from a professional growth perspective… or is it?

Recently, the Tandem team has been fortunate to engage with several clients who are not only open to the idea of serious games, but who believe in the potential of such games and are enthusiastic about implementing them to tackle organizational learning needs. However, for every one of those clients, there are many others (mostly in decision-making upper management roles) who cringe at the idea of a “game” and put the kibosh on the idea instantly for fear of employees obsessively playing Ms. Pac Man in favor of actual revenue-generating work.

One of the ways in which we can educate our clients on the value of serious games is by sharing research and published articles that support this learning strategy. In reality, play theory is a well-established concept that has been around for many years, not just in relation to childhood education, but related to adult education as well. There has also been recent research that shows the relevance of games for learning.

The following resources (mostly from Lloyd Rieber, a favorite from my grad school reading) provide validation for serious games used as learning tools, and can help educate our clients in support of the strategy in their organizations. I hope they help you in your efforts as well.

· Seriously Considering Play (Lloyd Rieber)
· The Value of Serious Play (Lloyd Rieber)
· Designing Learning Environments that Excite Serious Play (Lloyd Rieber)
· Serious Games Institute (a wealth of info; I’d suggest starting in the Research section)
· How are Games Educational? Learning Theories Embodied in Games (Katrin Becker) (love the parallels drawn to Gagne’s Nine Events)

If none of these resources are sufficiently convincing, try reiterating the words of one of our clients: “Having employees spending too much time on training efforts would be a great problem to have to address.”

What other tools and resources do YOU use to support the use of serious games to meet learning goals? I’d love to hear from you!

GDC thoughts: serious games… seriously?

Just back from an inspiring and enlightening, albeit exhausting, trip to San Fran for the Game Developer’s Conference (GDC), and I am reflecting on what I learned during the week. I saw some fantastic examples of games that combine beautiful art with addictive gaming strategy. The independent games were especially exciting, largely due to the fact that you get to hear right from the designers’ mouths the ways in which the games were created (Cletus Clay™ was my favorite. Check out how they went from clay to game!).

I spent most of my session time in the Serious Games Summit, hoping to learn from others who are creating games for learning purposes. While every session contained some valuable information, I was ultimately disappointed in the quality of instructional design and learning forethought of the serious games that were presented. What I saw were many examples where game design was carefully thought through, only to have learning goals and objectives considered as an afterthought: does the content fit within this game design? Can this game teach anyone anything? Learning seemed like a forced goal within the games. Like throwing spaghetti at the wall, it seemed to be left to chance that the games had any educational value.

It made me think of my days spent as an Information Architect and User Experience Designer, spotting programmer-designed interfaces from miles away. Serious games that have a game designer but no instructional design influence may be fun and beautiful, but are likely to fail from a targeted learning perspective. Until learning needs and objectives are considered and incorporated into the design of a game from the very beginning, it’s unlikely that the games will be effective and achieve consistent learning results.