WHY GAMES?

Educational games in higher education are often aimed at creating learning within a specific topic through social interaction and professional development, as well as changing the students’ attitude and perception (Leith et al., 2019). The term “serious games” is used to describe games that are intended to create learning. Serious games contain a high degree of interactivity and, unlike many other game genres, are not necessarily focused on the element of “winning” as the final goal (Cain & Piascik, 2015). The existing research in the area thus indicates that games with an implemented holistic and educational design can strengthen and support educational elements such as active learning, cognitive abilities, motivation, reflection, problem-solving skills and situational learning (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013; Ben et al., 2018; Leith et al., 2019;

Melero & Hernández-Leo, 2014; Morris et al., 2013; Sourmelis et al., 2017). According to Squire (2006), educators, therefore, “ought to pay closer attention to video games because they offer designed experiences, in which participants learn through a grammar of doing and being” (Squire, 2006, p. 19). Cassie (2018) also talks about

CIRCLE

Time Space

Rules

MAGIC

Games as

Figure 18 ‒ Johan Huizinga’s idea of games as a “magic circle”.

games as formative assessment, which can support the teacher’s ability to facilitate the students’ learning process through the game design as a safe “playground” shaped by the students (Cassie, 2018; Nørgård et al., 2017). It means that the teaching moves away from the traditional teacher-centred approach towards a more active and involving learner-centred approach that scaffolds and empowers the students toward autonomy (Ben et al., 2018; Luttikhuizen, 2018). In that context, the importance of the concept of

“gameplay” is an essential and fundamental component when developing educational games, as it defines the entire aesthetic experience of playing and thereby constitutes the learning process (Cassie, 2018; Leith et al., 2019). Educational games, therefore, typically deal with many different types of multimodal activities or representations that when combined arbitrarily motivate students to work in depth through different pacing strategies while creating an integrated autonomy (Fabricatore & López, 2014; Woo, 2014). Here it is crucial to rethink the educational content so that the current domain can be conceptualised through games as the mediating factor. The inclusion of Game-Based Learning goes beyond the traditional notion of education as exposure to content by reformulating it to designed experiences represented by challenges, curiosity, goals and activities (Squire, 2006, 2018).

Multiple trajectories of participation and meaning making

A literature review by Sourmelis et al. (2017) shows several studies that indicate that gaming activities can facilitate the development of particular problem-solving skills among users. They write, for instance: “[…] can instigate players to analyse new situations, interact with people that they don’t really know, solve problems, think strategically and collaborate effectively, all of which are essential skills for the knowledge workers of the 21st-century workspace” (Sourmelis et al., 2017, p. 42).

However, Qian and Clark (2016) state in their literature review that despite growing rhetoric about the positive effects of Game-Based Learning’s ability to develop analytical and reflective competencies, there is still no model for how it is done most effectively (Qian & Clark, 2016).

However, they agree that the understanding of Game-Based Learning is about improving students’ acquisition of knowledge and skills through activities that involve problem solving using game principles (Gee, 2007; Qian & Clark, 2016; Signori et al., 2018). Here, a number of studies point out that the core understanding of learning as constructivism with the goals of (1) engaging, (2) providing the opportunity to explore, articulate and represent knowledge, (3) challenging existing conceptual perspectives, and (4) examining the impact of new ideas is covered by the underlying principles of Game-Based Learning (Ben et al., 2018; Gee, 2007; Kim et al., 2009; Melero &

Hernández-Leo, 2014; Qian & Clark, 2016; Ravyse et al., 2017 et al.), as well concepts such as “learning by doing”, where the student explores and works in a problem-oriented manner through game mechanisms, by constructing concepts in authentic contexts (Farber, 2015; Melero & Hernández-Leo, 2014; Ravyse et al., 2017; Warren et al., 2008; Woo, 2014). In discussion with Matthew Farber (2015), Katie Salens explain the link between problem-based learning and Game-Based Learning:

Games are spaces of inquiry, spaces of problem solving[…]. The notion is a stylisation of behaviour or mechanic that gets repeated over and over again – it affords choice to the player […]. You can constrain the problem space enough so you can anticipate types of choices a player might make. […] the philosophy of learning is the same – it’s problem-based, it’s inquiry-based. (Farber, 2015, p. 133)

Well-designed educational games based on a complex holistic problem-based educational environment can thus support active and situational learning and therefore be seen as the engine for the development of future learning design (Ben et al., 2018;

Gee, 2007; Han, 2015; Qian & Clark, 2016). In addition, games are perceived as motivating and entertaining, which is both a natural and essential part of any human learning and development process (Dicheva et al., 2015; Iliya et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2009; Nørgård et al., 2017; Warren et al., 2008). Kretcmar (2018) argues, for example, that regardless of the importance of theoretical understanding, it is crucial for any learning process that it contains an active and practical know-how experience formation, and here games in the broadest sense offer an interesting approach (Kretchmar, 2018). The argument is that when games are used in teaching, the student is encouraged to combine knowledge from different areas while deciding on a direction at any given time in the process. Marone et al. (2016), for example, describe how games

“provide a structured and non-judgmental environment in which students can explore open-ended problems and reflect on possible solutions derived from the metacognitive strategies presented” (Marone et al., 2016, p. 113). It is necessary to ensure that the gaming elements create a process of activities that are targeted transformations of a preliminary understanding towards the desired and final goal – including overcoming obstacles, and the development of new knowledge along the way. Thus, games create metacognitive strategies or metacognitive agility that help the student to consciously reflect on a systematic level (Fabricatore & López, 2014; Marone et al., 2016). It is the game’s procedural approach that naturally motivates the students to discuss and negotiate future steps in their process. A distinct and essential element is that the students are continuously encouraged in the process to test how a given outcome changes based on decisions and actions (Frost et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2009; Marone et al., 2016). A study by Fabricatore and López (2014) describes how selected successful commercial computer games are analysed for developing learning designs that can support students’ perception of academic disciplines. They identified five general patterns that characterised the games’ activities: quest structure, strategic, open-ended, non-linear progression, Challenge-based reward (Fabricatore & López, 2014). The open and dynamic quest structure creates an autonomy that reflects an inner desire to take control of one’s situation and act on personal and meaningful choices (Deterding, 2012; Frost et al., 2015; Holden et al., 2016; Squire, 2018). Frost et al. (2015) write: “Incorporating autonomy allows a person to make choices and experience the result without experiencing serious ramification of their actions”

(Frost et al., 2015; p. 61). This argument points towards Game-Based Learning as something primarily being about creating multiple trajectories of participation and

meaning making. According to Squire (2006), a prevailing model of game theory is about giving students a situational experience through activities through which they can develop new ways of thinking, knowing and being in worlds (Holden et al., 2016;

Squire, 2006, 2018). The result of Fabricatore and Lopez’s (2014) study indicated that the use of Game-Based Learning resulted in an autonomy created by a frame of clear expectations, goals and strategies in a situational and meaningful context. The students thus experienced the freedom to plan and adjust their learning rhythms. The quest structure, in particular, was an influential factor for the instructive design by facilitating the acquisition of academic competencies with a problem-solving nature (Fabricatore & López, 2014). The key is thus whether the game is designed in such a way as to improve users’ chances of accomplishing through an effective scaffolded learning process (Melero & Hernández-Leo, 2014).

Playing with fun-failure

Many computer games are designed in a way where it takes time to complete, combined with being built around difficult and tough challenges, also called fun-failure (Boskic

& Hu, 2015; Morris et al., 2013). When educational games are designed as “multiple trajectories of participation and meaning making”, it then means, according to Squire (2018), that an innovative behaviour supports the students’ journey of learning.

Squire states:“What may be a good project at the beginning of a group’s life cycle may not be a good project later, when more forward learning projects might drive innovation” (Squire, 2018, p. 25). The innovative approach is further enhanced by the fact that gaming in its essential nature is dangerous, dabbling with risks, creating and destroying, and keeping a careful balance between both (Holden et al., 2016; Sicart, 2015). Several studies of commercial computer games have also shown that these games have a culture where the process is repeated until the goal is reached. This leads the player to continually force errors and through those develop new solutions, which creates momentum in the game (Deterding, 2012; Erenli, 2013; Kim et al., 2009;

McGonigal, 2011; Morris et al., 2013). This behaviour can be characterised as being innovative, analytical and reflective, which the two anthropological studies of Bonnie A. Nardi (2010) and Mark Chen (2012) also confirmed (Chen, 2012; Nardi, 2010). The ability of video games to suppress the fear of failure through a platform or framework that serves as a kind of safe zone is therefore markedly different from the conditions that apply to problem- and process-oriented teaching, where errors often lead to a lack of motivation (Berliner & Berthelsen, 1989; Gyldendahl-Jensen, 2018; Illeris, 2007;

Janas, 1998; Madsen, 2013). In the book Reality is Broken from 2012, Jane McGonigal describes how game developers know better than anyone else how to inspire extreme efforts, and facilitate collaboration and co-creation at a high level. Knowledge of game theory and game design in a learning context is thus not just about technical aspects (McGonigal, 2011). For example, Fabricatore and López speak about translating and understanding, respectively, computer games and education courses as problem-based activity systems in which key elements are identified as the correlation between the core game mechanisms, the contextual information, and motivating and engaging gameplay (Fabricatore & López, 2014). This approach to Game-Based Learning,

therefore, opens up new opportunities for how academic topics can be learned in a much more process-oriented and explorative way. What is interesting here is how it is possible to facilitate the acquisition of generic academic skills through explorative learning inspired by Game-Based Learning as an overall designed teaching strategy.

Nørgård et al. (2017) talk about the potential of the game to be able to create what they call “a signature pedagogy of playful learning in higher education to consider the possibilities of an educational system that recognises the importance of openness, curiosity, risk taking and failure in learning” (Nørgård et al., 2017, p. 273). The study by Fabricatore and López (2014) shows that the students felt challenged by the activities, but it motivated them to continue and complete the tasks despite their difficulty. The students worked with various cognitive and behavioural strategies to be able to cope with the requirements of the teaching programme. They had to define their team project and their goals (objectives), manage their own time and coordinate the completion of tasks (Fabricatore & López, 2014). Jane McGonical (2011) states that the ability of commercial game developers to create the perfect balance between tough challenges and attainability results in “always playing on the edge of competencies”.

This is a state of mind the players want to stay in – neither quitting nor winning will be a satisfactory outcome (Cassie, 2018; Han, 2015; McGonigal, 2011; Ravyse et al., 2017).