Games are helpful in many ways for students. They can both enhance and transform learning experiences. It is, however, important to know both affordances and constraints of games. It’s also important to know the extent to which enhancement or transformation is possible with games.
An example of ‘effects of’ games on learning is perhaps the emotional charge that games provide as students think and problem solve. Emotional charge helps focus attention and evaluate and store information deeply while better integrating it with prior knowledge (Salen, 2008, p 35).
Some ‘effects with’ games are of distributed cognition. Distributing knowledge and skills between real and virtual players can lead to the creation of cross-functional teams that can help to leverage ‘deep learning and high performance’ (Salen, 2008, p 32).
Finally, games are also transformative, and there are ‘effects through’ games on learning. Depending on what mental models a game affords, it can lead students to approach problem-solving in new ways and can lead from “concreteness to abstraction” (Salen, 2008, p 32). As Gee (2008) mentions, they can help students “interrogate and generalize from experience” (Salen, 2008, p 30).
The effects above were mentioned in a more conceptual manner than an experimental one. These effects could perhaps be better justified through more empirical studies. For instance, Malone (1987) included experiments and developed a ‘taxonomy’ for games and spoke about elements like curiosity, challenge, choice, fantasy, etc, that are important elements in games. It’s important for researchers and researcher developers to continue to research and focus on what makes games ‘work’ so that we can cater to students in a manner that’s most beneficial!
———-
Malone, T. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 223-253.
Hi Sukanya! I like that you distinguished between conceptual and experimental effects. I definitely agree that these effects need to be more thoroughly documented in research, particularly effects *through* technology. I tend to be skeptical of research involving technology because I wonder how many of the positive effects found by researchers are the result of novelty. Of course, I think technologies are beneficial to education, but I question most claims that they truly transform education. Do they make things easier? Yes. Do they make things more enjoyable? Yes. Does it reorganize cognitive processes and learning for students? I’m not so sure. I think you are absolutely right that more focused research needs to be done to justify claims to this extent.
Hi Sukanya, I strongly agree with your suggestion that these conceptual effects should be investigated through empirical research. Are cognitive processes being reorganized or are learners simpling developing processes that are in response to the game? Chase & Simon’s (1973) experimental study found that increased perceptual recall in expert players was only in situations specific to chess scenarios. Experts showed no advancements in perceptual recall compared to novices when the chess scenarios were randomized. Recently researchers compared the cognitive performances/processes of individuals undergoing a Lumosity intervention and a video game control group. Neither video games nor Lumosity (cognitive training game) has made significant differences in individual’s cognition. The researchers concluded that there is “no evidence for relative benefits of cognitive training with respect to changes in decision-making behavior or brain response, or for cognitive task performance beyond those specifically trained” (Kable et al., 2017).
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive psychology, 4(1), 55-81.
Kable, J. W., Caulfield, M. K., Falcone, M., McConnell, M., Bernardo, L., Parthasarathi, T., … & Diefenbach, P. (2017). No Effect of Commercial Cognitive Training on Brain Activity, Choice Behavior, or Cognitive Performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(31), 7390-7402.
Hi Sukanya – you made a clear argument and I especially resonated with your point about needing more work that gets at the mechanisms by which games work. It would be interesting to understand the affordances of academic games versus non-academic games (i.e. World of Warcraft, Sims, etc.). This particularly gets at the idea of effects “through technology.” Salomon and Perkins state “the use of new technologies qualitatively and sometimes quite profoundly reshapes activity systems rather than just augmenting them” (p. 79). I think that the development of new games for academic purposes can be thought of as reshaping old games, the same way we think about traditional and digital literacies. What are your thoughts on this?
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)