Digital Game Based Learning: Defining a Road Map to In Game Achievement

In a world of “Digital Natives” Digital Games Based Learning is becoming a desired instructional strategy in different educational environments. However, there is much trepidation in the community about the promising demonstrations of effectiveness, due to Shavian reversals in the “edutainment industry” where early attempts at creating learning environments from games resulting in the worst instructional practices combines with the most boring game formats (Van Eck, 2006). As confidence builds due to the growing numbers of studies demonstrating games are effective learning tools and environments, it is important to create a design framework to ensure games continue to be a successful media for instruction, rather than reverting to prior failed mergers.

So Games Can Be Effective, Now What?

Researchers agree that there is plentiful research supporting the effectiveness of games. However, most of these evaluations answer the simple “yes” “no” question of “Is Digital Game Based Learning effective?” (Van Eck, 2006). It is agreed that games are largely effective due to a combination of engagement and interactivity (Prenksy, 2001). Although the question of “why are games effective?” still needs further empirical study, there are many theories and suggestions as to why games work for instruction in skills, such as creative problem solving and creativity, that are notoriously difficult to measure (Van Eck, 2006). Games provide a meaningful learning context and allow a continue construction of cognitive disequilibrium where the learning actively participates in hypothesis making (Van Eck, 2006). Prenksy cites work by Ahlers and Garris that suggests games 1) provide chances for success, 2) curiosity, 3) simulated danger, and 4) social reinforcement. This still leaves us with the other question, how do we construct effective and engaging Digital Game Based Learning?

Effective DGBL Design is Effective Learning Design

Ultimately, an important take away is that effective DGBL is absolutely effective learning design. When a master teacher designs a lesson, it is engaging and produces achievement. Ideally, this is exactly what is warranted in DGBL. As such, there is important pieces to consider in the design process.

The first thing to consider is the student body or audience. When a teacher plans or tailors a unit, they consider their class first. Who is in their class? How old or what grade level are they? How many are male and female? How many are special education students? What ethnicities and cultural backgrounds are represented? What socioeconomic backgrounds? What is the subject? What is their prior knowledge on this subject (and sometimes they administer a pretest to find out exactly what the prior knowledge is)? What resources and technology is available? Is there access to funding for more resources? Will the principal or superintendent approve? These questions correlate to Prensky's discussion on the “How” of DGBL: audience, subject, business and political context, technology, and resources. By doing formative research, one can align the curriculum with appropriate learning strategies, in the case of DGBL represented by potential types of games (Prensky, 2001).

Another consideration is types of learning and instructional methods that should be embedded in the core mechanics of the game. These methods can include, but are not limited to, Learning by Doing, Discovery Learning, Constructivist Learning, Situated Learning, and Task-based Learning (Prensky, 2001). With all of the differences and possibilities, how does one begin to design an effective game for learning? This is where a framework or roadmap for design planning becomes essential.

Using Universal by Design as a Roadmap for DGBL Planning

These is a need for a framework to guide the development of DGBL. I propose adapting the Backwards Design Model from Understanding by Design (UbD), a method of designing instruction developed by Wiggins and McTighe (1998). Although there is much more useful material in UbD, perhaps Backwards Design is the easiest to discuss in the context of developing a framework, as it resembles in structure to the PRECEDE-PROCEDE model in health communications that has already been effectively used.

Stage 1: Identify Desired Outcomes

In this stage an instructor forms the goals and objectives of the unit , in DGBL of the game. These should include “enduring understandings” that get to the heart of the discipline, include abstract ideas, and have the potential to deeply engage students (Wiggins et al, 2005). Engagement is a key idea in maintaining the “play” in meaningful play.

These overarching, terminal objectives can be phrased in the form of questions. However, perhaps for the purpose of DGBL they should be actions so that they can then directly correlate to created core mechanics of the game. Also important to add is that, in particular for games, there should be a breakdown of these terminal objectives into “enabling objectives” so that both the content specialist and the game designers are aware of the prerequisite skills for each “enduring understanding” to better be able to scaffold within the game environment. It is simply not enough to say: Players will be able to (I'll call it PWBAT) evaluate how an organism's structure allows it to survive? You must know what other knowledge and skills will enable a player to do this.

So we have:

Terminal objective: PWBAT evaluate how an organism's structure allows it to survive.

Enabling Objectives: PWBAT identify specific aspects of a specific organism's structure that allow it to survive.

PWBAT understand that an organism's structure allows it to survive.

PWBAT define organism and structure.

And so on.

Stage Two: Measurement and Evaluation of Outcomes

In this stage, one designs the assessment (s) for the above outcomes (Wiggins et al 2005). In DGBL it is feasible to do multiple evaluations in different evaluation styles. UbD uses (though there are more in the realm of education and beyond that would be applicable to games).

1. Performance Task: This evaluation is very well suited to the game environment. Players would be asked to use knowledge and skills gained in the unit in a situated learning environment.
2. Criteria Referenced Assessments: These are more traditional classroom assessments that should be carefully constructed if used in a game environment, such as quizzes and tests. However, there provide quantifiable evidence of learning. They could feasibly used as an after game summative assessment.
3. Unprompted Assessment: These are assessments like those done by Barab et al. They are primarily observational in nature, and can involve observation and dialogs. This is qualitative evidence and should not be dismissed in the DGBL environment.

Stage 3: Plan Learning Experience and Instruction

Now that the outcomes and assessments have been planned, the design team can begin to design the learning experience, in our case the game, so that players learn desired objectives and perform them against the pre-planned measurements. Notice in this model the game (or media for the message) is planned after designing the evaluation.

The Backwards Design model from Understanding by Design provides an example of a framework for how to create Digital Game Based Learning. By using this structure and keeping in mind Wiggin's “Heart of the Discipline” and student/player engagement, a team should be able to get the best of the worlds of instruction and gaming, rather than defaulting to a Shavian reversal (Van Eck, 2006; Wiggins et al, 2005).

Works Cited

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 17-30.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. 2^nd Ed. Virginia: ASBD.