Theory and Design
Having spent time in a K-12 classroom in the United States, I find it hard to argue against a concept of evidence-based and theory-based design. In education, the concept of “best practices” guides teachers in selecting methods for instruction that are proven to increase student achievement, thus avoiding failures. These practices, like propositions, are based in cause and effect. Teacher action equals student action. Therefore, to create a quality instructional environment, one must modify teacher practice to achieve the best student outcomes. In the world of education, student achievement in a given subject becomes Briggs's “Phenomenon of Interest” (2006).
Those are my personal connections, but here we are talking about technology, particularly serious games. In the world I am entering this semester it is important to note that one large difference between education and serious games is that in education, instruction (often led by a teacher) is the mechanism of change. With serious games, the mechanism of change is the game (or specific mechanics within the game). In order for the mechanism of change to be effective, there must be some evidence based strategies in place. This leads to the idea that design should also be evidence based and in order for a relatively new technology to be evidence based, it must be attached to theory on some level.
In order to chose an appropriate theory, the “need” (outcome, phenomenon of interest, effect) must be explicitly defined (Briggs, 2006). Again, Briggs's sensibilities has a corollary in good teaching. The NIH reading also expounds on this, emphasizing “targeted behaviors” and “the environment in which they occur.” In order to design an effective lesson or unit, the teacher must begin with a terminal objective. Usually, above that is an aim, which is more general. Some outcomes I would define as aims include knowledge gain, health behavior change, civic engagement, recruitment, etc (Ritterfield et al, 2009, p119) and aims are wonderful in helping to classify content (Ritterfield et al, 2009, pp11-22). In education, planning from the terminal objective or goal backward is deemed the straightforward name of “backwards planning.” So far as “backwards planning” is concerned, I identify with Briggs's analogy to a road map, as once you know a destination it is much easier to fill in the route with best practices and content.
Both the phenomenon of interest and environment (or context ) are important explaining an effect, as no single theory can act as an umbrella, providing every answer. Contexts can include scenarios such as formal and informal learning (Ritterfield et al, 2009, 119p). Again, I come back to education: there is a reason when preparing for an evaluation, a teacher is asked to include the demographics in his/her classroom, including percentage of males/females, ethnicities, and whether or not the student is a part of the special education program. Effective instructional design utilizes the desired outcome and context in order to prepare instruction, in order to step backwards from the outcome, designing enabling objectives to make it achievable.
Learning, Design, and Fun
One of the major pitfalls I see with focusing on theory, is that it is too easy to displace the need for fun in the context of learning. One of my favorite statements on education is a poster hanging in Miss Cindy's room that shows all of these children running around the classroom in what could easily be perceived as chaos. One adult asks the other, “what exactly are they learning?” and the teacher highlights each activity with a caption such as “she is developing self esteem,” “they are learning to take turns,” “he is learning problem solving.” Of course, it is a poster advocating learning through play—something very much connected to fun and very much connected to games. Actually, my statement of purpose for entrance into TISM focused on some of my very personal arguments for play as being serious. Had I read the texts by Ritterfield et al and Prensky, I would have surely included them as support for my arguments.
The truth is, just as Prensky points out, we remember the teachers (and practitioners) that make learning or change fun (2001). I have a list, the most influential of which was Mrs. Hoover, whose amazing unit on Japan in first grade compelled me to learn Japanese, study abroad, and intern abroad at Ohio University. Fun is a powerful motivator. Why, fun produces intrinsic motivation for achieving a goal or completing a task (Ritterfield et al, 2009, p27). In Teach For America, we called this kind of motivation: “I want” (Teach for America, 2006). The other piece of Teach for America's intrinsic motivation is “I can” which kicks us back to theory and the “phenomenon of interest.”
Moving on, we have a large question: what is fun? Why is an experience or a game, enjoyable? Thankfully, there has been some study on the elements of fun in games (Ritterfield et al, 2009, pp25-44). These elements are presented in such a way, that I feel I could feasibly create a kind of “game enjoyment rubric” from the information at hand. If there is such a thing as a Teaching as Leadership (TAL) Rubric, then there could certainly be a “game enjoyment rubric.” The essay even proceeds to rate the most important elements of enjoyment in this fashion: playability threshold, enjoyment threshold, and super fun-boosting factors (I picture this as a pyramid, with the base being the playability threshold). Each level, like Bloom's Taxonomy in learning, is supported by the one below. This is a great tool for novice game designers, as it emphasizes the importance of certain elements at different levels. The “enjoyment threshold” does no good if certain playability criteria are not met.
Ultimately, theory and fun are not so totally separate courses. If you use theory appropriately you can create quality meaningful play. This play may be sparked perhaps by intuition, but refined with theory. This week's readings have further entrenched my stance with one foot in design and the other in theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment