Annotated Video References

Annotated References

Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008, October). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 511-537. Retrieved January 7, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2

This qualitative article provides the back story of the development of an evaluation rubric that can be used to provide standardized assessment of educational games. The evaluation model is based upon a synthesis of Keller’s (1983) ARCS model of learner engagement and Gagne’s (1985) Nine Events of Learning model. Using a one-shot case study research model, Gunter, Kelly and Vick use their model to evaluate two popular children’s educational software titles.

Their conclusions are not particularly surprising, given that their sample consisted of only two subjects. I also felt that the article focused mostly on the development of the rubric and not enough on its application. Although helpful, given the general lack of guidance on these matters, the researchers’ rubric does not prove to be an unimpeachable model, merely a useful tool that applies a good dose of common sense.

Lim, C. (2008, November). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996-1003. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_1.x

The companion article to Prensky (2008) cited below, this qualitative article uses a phenomenological method to examine the culture of gaming, and sets the stage by exploring the reasons that video games are so interesting to children. Among the factors cited are the elements of immersion into a new world, as well as the factor of engagement by the player(s) who use critical thinking skills to overcome increasingly challenging situations.

Lim also cites the fact that players are able to take risks and engage in new patterns of thinking and behaviors without the traditional consequences that doing so in a normal classroom setting would incur. He then points out the fact that games in schools traditionally do not work because the expectation of maintaining a standard power structure and an orderly and structured schedule tend to override spontaneous learning opportunities, such as those provided by gaming.

He ends with the conclusion that in order to have success in using games in schools, students should design the games that their peers will play in order to learn predetermined lessons and knowledge.

Liu, E., & Lin, C. (2009, January). Developing evaluative indicators for educational computer games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 174-178. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00852.x

This article was interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their mixed methods approach that included a Delphi study. Their Delphi panel incorporated a broad demographic of experts, ranging from game developers and educators to students. 196 educational computer games were analyzed, and 43 evaluative indicators were identified by the Delphi experts. These were divided into five categories: game information, multimedia, interface design and structure, content, and feedback. All of these are factors that I would consider to be important in the creation and development of a game.

The conclusions of this article constitute a useful resource for developers of educational games, as the factors identified are all important characteristics of good games in general, and particularly good educational games.

Moschini, E. (2006, September). Designing for the smart player: usability design and user-centred design in game-based learning. Digital Creativity, 17(3), 140-147. Retrieved January 24, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Another case study in the qualitative tradition, this article describes the creative process involved in creating a single serious game designed to teach information gathering, libraries and resources, bibliographic research, and discouraging plagarism to undergraduate and graduate students. The article explores the iterative process involved in the game’s development, as well as the changing demographics of game players. She points out that many gamers today are older, and a significant percentage of them are female, defying the image of the young adolescent male gamer.

Key to the iterative process Moschini describes is the use of target student audiences to playtest the game and provide feedback to the game designers. Each iteration of game development incorporates this end-user feedback, and the end product (still in the final development stages as the article was published) should be a serious game that engages the players and provides the underlying learning process in an effective and memorable manner.

Pannese, L., & Carlesi, M. (2007, May). Games and learning come together to maximise effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 438-454. Retrieved January 24, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00708.x

This article was a mixed methods study, incorporating several specific case studies of using serious games to support corporate training initiatives. Learner outcomes and reactions were captured and quantified, and the results are presented for the reader.

Because their target audiences were all adult professionals, many of whom did not have a high degree of computer skills, several of the games cited were simply verbal branching scenarios that led the user down a decision tree path to the proper conclusion and result. As a practicing human performance professional, I was impressed at the level of analysis the researchers put into their training efforts, and was gratified to note that their results were positive and showed good outcomes.

Prensky, M. (2008, November). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004-1019. Retrieved February 9, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x

Prensky’s article picks up where Lim’s article left off: should students be designing games for other students? His take on this continues the qualitative phenomenological tradition of Lim, and concludes early and often that not only should they design games, but they have already done so in many cases, which he cites. Additionally, he points out that most games designed by adults tend to re-create the status quo of power, and “smell like school”.

Prensky continues with the thought that we should incentivize game development by students,

and gives a number of examples of different approaches and solutions for doing so. He ends with

an extensive series of guidelines for game design, as well as a host of possible scenarios to

provide students with incentives to develop games.