When considering pedagogy in a given delivery method, including games, there are always specific student-centered concerns. As in a regular classroom environment, one must take several factors into consideration. These factors include the learner, the desired outcomes or pedagogical objectives, the methodology, and the assessment of desired outcomes.
One factor that must be considered from the beginning of the design process is the learner. In educational game design, the learner is your target audience. As learners are not homogenous, it is essential to define your target audience. When considering the learner, many researchers suggest a variety of categories for developing the learner profile. Prensky emphasizes the importance of knowing the subject area knowledge, social and political views, technology access and skills, and other resources available to the target learners (2001). Another approach suggests considering the learning styles, needs, intelligences, and personality traits of the target learners (Felicia et al, 2008). Another factor to consider when designating a target group of learners is motivational factors (Asgari et al, 2008). It is important to note that including all of these categories in your target audience is not necessary, and in fact could be very limiting. However, focusing on one category could also potentially be insufficient in order to create a compelling methodology for instruction.
Another extremely important step in the early design process is determining a terminal objective. Briggs defines this as the “phenomenon of interest” and emphasizes that an objective provides a roadmap for planning any project with desired outcomes (2006). In order for this objective to be effective it must be messaged for the target audience (Atkin, 1994).
Once the objective is established, it can be used with the target audience to determine appropriate methodologies to apply within the game context to ensure the success of the learner. Gee suggests that there are many strategies embedded in current entertainment games that represent best practices in the education field, and used properly could facilitate achievement (2007). Examples include fish bowl, sand box, co-design, and more (Gee, 2007). Other authors include methodologies stripped from education that could be applied in a game context, such as situated learning, constructivism, discovery learning, and learning by doing (Prensky, 2001). Certain strategies will work better with different objectives and audiences.
A final consideration when employing a pedagogical agent in games is the method of assessment. In other words, how does one evaluate whether the target objective has been achieved? Ideally, there will be more than one type of assessment, with some forms deriving from feedback systems and tracking already utilized to keep score in entertainment games (Bente et al, 2009). There should be two types of assessments, formative and summative, so that the instructor can track the progress of the student playing the game and decide whether or not they achieved the objective (Bente et al, 2009). As exemplified in Barab et al's work on Quest Atlantis, there should also be a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collected for measurement (2007).
In conclusion, there are many instructional considerations that must be taken into account when designing a game that employs a pedagogical agent. These mimic the cycle of lesson and unit development, in that one must consider the target audience, the objective, the methodology, and the assessment.
References
Briggs, R.O. (2006). On theory-driven design and development of collaboration systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 573-582.
Asgari, M, & Kaufman, D. (2008) Motivation, learning, and game design. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp 1166-1182)/ Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Atkin, C.K. (1994). Designing persuasive health messages. In L.Seacrest, T.E. Backer, E.M. Rodgers, T.F. Campbell, & M.L. Grady (Eds.), Effective Dessemination of Clinical and Health Information. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. (AHCPR Pub. No. 95- 0015).
Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K., Jackson, C., Arici, A., Job-Sluder, L., Carteaux, R., Jr., Gilbertson, J., & Heiselt, C. (2007). The Quest Atlantis Project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The Educational Design and Use of Simulation Computer Games (pp 159-186). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Bente, G. & Breuer, J. (2009). Making the implicit explicit: Embedded measurement in serious games. In U. Ritterfield, M. Cody & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects (pp322-343). New York, U.S.A.: Routledge.
Felicia, F., & Pitt, I. (2008). Harnessing the emotional potential of video games. Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp 893- 910) Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gee, J. (2007). Good videogames + good learning, 22-68. New York: Peter Lang.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York:McGraw-Hill.
No comments:
Post a Comment