Happy as I am that some educators have recognised the value and importance of videogames for learning, I’m increasingly concerned about approaches that I think will suck the life out of gaming and play. I’ve already written about meaningful approaches to learning about and with games (which touched on gamification) but I felt a follow up was in order to get at gamification specifically:
1) gamification: the notion that the use of selective game mechanics constitutes a game (or, as I’m using it, selective games as “texts” removed from their cultures or environments in which they are typically played and recontextualised according to schooly purposes).
2) additive: that games are merely a vehicle that learning is dumped into by “expert” educators/subject teachers.
3) creepy treehouse: the act of locating games and play within a context of evaluation, surveillance and assessment (the pedagogical influence of power relations that are largely not acknowledged reflexively on the part of power holders).
Without a real love or investment in the larger culture of gaming, there is a potential to negate a cultural expression that holds real meaning for learners. This may do far more “violence” to their minds and hearts than Call of Duty. In essence, the act of colonizing and inscribing play.
Let’s face it, a lot of what we enjoy and call play isn’t stuff we would say or do in a classroom or any space where we are being observed by power holders (or if we do, we do so out of their gaze). A boss might think a game of paintball, golf tournament or a night out at Appleby’s is a fun night and playful icebreaker. But most employees experience it differently. The un-reflexive lets-play-videogames together teacher is not unlike The Office’s boss Michael Scott, whose total absence of perspective on power relations results in uncomfortable moments for his staff. As teachers, we often do the same thing when we unpack “fun” activities that our students are obligated to participate in – often forgetting that having to do things and wanting to do them are two different things. But how could anything fun feel forced?
Have a look at this historical document on children’s play from Peter and Iona Opie’s Children’s Games in Street and Playground (Oxford University Press) 1969. What they have to say about children’s play resonates with me a lot right now in relation to the location of gaming in the classroom – and notions “adult” teachers have of what this play is and “ought” to be – and where adults situate themselves in relation to children’s authentic cultures and games. Replace the word adult with teacher and consider the parallels to contemporary discourse and media frames. Consider also games with videogames and it becomes apparent that our impulses to control and inscribe children’s play is nothing new:
“During the past fifty years shelf-loads of books have been written instructing children in the games they ought to play, and some even instructing adults on how to instruct children in the games they ought to play, but few attempts have been made to record the games children in fact play. It seems to be presumed that children today (unlike those in the past) have few diversions of their own, that they are incapable of self-organization, have become addicted to spectator amusements, and will languish if left to rely on their own resources. It is felt that the enlightened adult is one who thinks up ideas for them, provides them with ‘play materials,’ and devotes time to playing with them.’
I love the use of the word “addiction” – one often associated with videogames in moral panic media reports (and a common assumption among non gamers about the time gamers spend engaging in their cultures – playing games) the reference to “incapable of self organization” reminds me of the endless commentaries of those who wish to “teach” kids to be more critical about the games they play (reading only the surface aesthetics or themes of game rather than knowing what it is the learners enjoy). These same frames are still very present in the language of adults and teachers when speaking of children and the presumed literacies they do not possess. As well, the commentary on the “enlightened” adult “who thinks up ideas for them” is very much the classroom2.0 teacher bringing in blogs, social media and other ostenisble “play materials” to “play” with them — without considering how different their experience is when they have autonomy, privacy and freedom to do so unobserved or assessed. Consider this also in relation to Opies comments about peer-to-peer learning v. top down, adult-to-child learning:
‘Our vision of childhood continues to be based on the adult-child relationship. Possibly because it is more diffficult to find out about, let alone understand, we largely ignore the child-to-child complex, scarcely realizing that however much children may need looking after they are also people going about their own business within their own society, and are fully capable of occupying themselves under the jurisdiction of their own code.”
And the Opies made it clear that they were talking about the way kids play when they are alone, away from adults. Not playing sports or any activity requiring “supervision”:
“we are concerned solely with the games that children, aged about 6-12, play of their own accord when out of doors, and usually out of sight. We do not include, except incidentally, party games, scout games, team games, or any sport that requires supervision; and we concentrate for the most part on the rough-and-tumble games which, though they may require energy and sometimes fortitude, do not need even the elementary equipment of bat and ball.”
I’d love to have gaming recognized as an important part of our culture and one that ought to be engaged as a form of learning and literacy like any other (not even as a text but as a method of learning). If anything, games could play an important role in radically reconfiguring school according to the more meaningful mechanics of engagement found in games (i.e., low to no stakes skill mastery v. high stakes testing – see James Gee’s definitions of these affordances).
Open assessment in situated learning spaces v. school
One idea of doing gaming right involves thinking about allowing learning to happen in the spaces it really happens and exploring the integration of open assessment in peer spaces with accreditation in schooly ones. Here’s what the Peer to Peer University is working on:
- Courses are no longer simply confined to classrooms or expensive universities, but instead open education initiatives such as MIT OpenCourseWare, Peer-2-Peer University (P2PU) and OERCommons capitalize on the openness of the web and peer networks.
But we also have to deal with the disposition problem – i.e., the ideological, social or cultural values within a teacher that contribute to their assessment of “good” and “bad” games for learning and their very notion of learning, play or power relations. We have to think about the space of the classroom – in relation to more authentic peer to peer “situated” learning spaces. If we’re going to do gaming, maybe we ought to situate those games within the spaces they are played and explore the idea of peer and community assessment rather than inscribing with our own ideas of what that literacy looks or feels like?
A call to action
While I try to focus on the positive exceptions of in-school gaming that are coming from wonderfully reflexive gamer educators I still believe there are some ethics we need to unpack around coercing game-play within a context of assessment and power (a creepy-treehouse). I’ve written about some of the ways we could bypass creepytreehouses and gamification but was recently struck by another idea while talking to a student about minecraft: if the students themselves were actually involved in the curriculum development we might actually get this right (though I think students should be involved in contributing to every aspect of school).
I will be reflecting a bit more in future posts about some of the ideas students themselves have shared with me about the prospect of gaming in schools and the way they situate themselves as gamers within particular gaming cultures and approaches to gameplay. In the meantime, talk to your kids or your students – what games do they play? What do they like about these different games. Or if you are a student, tell your teachers your idea of gaming in school – or whether you even like this idea.
Non gamer teachers: take a night off or a weekend and play some games. Think about what makes that fun for you and use that as your starting point. If you’re like me, it might be the discovery that you’d rather spend several hours just roaming around and dying (“noobing it up” without any goal or objective but exploration) than looking up tutorials and going about things in a prescribed way. I wonder how I might have “taught” minecraft a few years ago given how much my own thinking has changed.
Me, noobing it up, in minecraft.
RELATED:
Sarah ‘Intellagirl’ Robbins offers some great definitions of games in her article “This game sucks: How to improve the gamification of education”, which she argues that higher ed is already gamified via “pointsification.”
Mozilla and Peer to Peer University explore the idea of open assessment for learning outside of schools
So much to think about in this post. I’ll only touch on two.
Gamification – what does it mean? I don’t use the term and I don’t quite understand the intent or appropriation by those who do use it.
Teachers and students bringing in games to play in school = I’m not sure how much I agree or disagree with your statement, maybe because I consider myself the teacher who enjoys technology and brings it in for her students to ‘play’ with. I think when teachers talk about or play games that students know and like, students feel validated. You may then argue, what about the first-person shooter games or “less acceptable” games. I’d counter that those should be talked about too. They are, in our division wiki. One of my grade 4s asked if we could play Fantage at school. I said sure. He showed me a bit about it and I showed it to my own kids at home. He initiated it. How does that fit into the explanation about schools and adults/teachers in authentic kids’ games? Am I co-opting it by letting be “tarnished” by playing it at school? I hope not, because if we put too many parameters on what can and can’t, should and shouldn’t be said and done about games, then … I don’t want to take away their fun but I don’t want to pretend that what they play doesn’t matter or doesn’t exist. (I’ll end my ramblings here before they get more random.)
Gamification is used critically within the gaming community and uncritically by marketers who promote this idea. I’ve now linked the term to a great post others often cite. In all contexts it refers to the notion that selecting parts of a game constitutes a game. In my case, I’m suggesting that selecting only parts of game culture (and only certain games) and divorcing them from their cultures constitutes a form of gamification (in much the same way marketers are trying to “borrow” selected parts of games and suggesting that this engages people in the same way games engage people). I understand your reluctance to use this term though I’d argue that it’s presently the basis of a pretty expansive conversation that includes a lot of stakeholders in gaming – including players, game designers and scholars.
RE; bringing games in and telling them how to play. This was meant to be provocative. I myself brought games into my classes and had the students do so as well. But I had them demo the games and explain the gameplay. I also had them co-develop the assignment and the assessment criteria. So we collaborated. The frame (from Opie) is really about what does it mean for you and I to bring in our “toys” or our idea of toys and then define their play – on our terms.
Ideally, the kids bring their own games or we have games for them. But there are a lot of questions we need to ask about social class, access to toys and etc. And where the school fits in in terms of providing access to gaming hardware/software as an educational technology.
Re; playing games they actually want to play – that was precisely my point. As for whether we’re “tarnishing” authentic gameplay that really depends on what kinds of practices we’re talking about – and the accompanying dispositions. It’s the combination of unreflexive, decontextualised and dispositionally mediated practices that result in the “tarnish” – but I suspect approaches like yours, which appear to be all about their games and interests (even shooters!) is the kind of non judgmental, open and playful context that I am thinking of when I refer to those who have a passion for games as well as teaching.
As well, I’m interested in situated learning right now – not the stuff we do in formal learning spaces. I’ll leave it to others to talk about the innovative things they’re doing within the institutional structure. But I will continue to ask how the institutional structure mediates *everything* that happens within it via internalized and learned power relations, policies and rules that define what and how we learn. We can do all sorts of cool stuff within that space but the space itself – and who gets to teach in that space (and how learners experience it) is a critical inquiry few within it are willing or interested in critiquing. Instead, what’s dominating right now is an uncritical, unreflexive show and tell of in-school projects.
A lot of what I’m saying here is based on the current discourse around gaming in schools – and the lack of critical context that around (yet another) “innovative” teaching practice that is being colonized and disconnected from larger culture in which it is situated. Mozilla and Peer to Peer university are working overtime to realize a vision of assessment for open learning cultures. I share their belief in this vision and wish them success so that we can all start learning within more authentic spaces of learning – from those who have a deep affinity and mastery of those worlds.
To reiterate what I DO want to see:
- self reflexive teaching that reflects on power relations, ethics of participation
- situating learning in affinity cultures v. learning in institutional spaces (I’ve talked about the affordances of the former in many other posts)
- embracing the whole culture of gaming – not just the parts we like or approve of
- engaging in gaming culture before proceeding to “teach” others “how”
[...] Higher EducationMelanie McBride’s most recent entry was about a concept in the classroom that she calls Gamification. The term was new to me and a [...]
[...] always-thoughtful Melanie McBride offers a skeptical, and useful, take on gamification as yet another creepy treehouse problem: Let’s face it, a lot of what we enjoy and call play isn’t stuff we would say or do in [...]
I just watched 3 hours of PD in which the presenter, talking about DI, talked at us about how we should differentiate in “respectful, meaningful ways” which means, “according to the book I’m hawking.” This tends to be the education approach to freeing up curriculum approaches; ratchet them tight as soon as you can.
I fear application of gaming culture to education will kill it stone dead. As soon as they are able, edu-marketing will have us itemize, categorize and grossly simplify what happens in gaming. The product (and I use the word literally, monetizing this process will be why it gets integrated into edu-marketing) will be a simplistic, bordered, dead thing that has no unsafe edges and no freedom to explore. Once it gets plunked into curriculum, it’ll be a drooling zombie of its former self.
Like our prescribed PD, designed the way it was to ensure our participation (no matter how passive), gamification will have its soul cut out by teachers anxious over time wasted or what is viewed as off-task behavior. If you’re going to apply gaming to learning, it needs to be in a wide open enough simulation that students can try creative, non-linear attempts, not get overly penalized for failure and don’t feel restricted by artificially small learning goals (all things education doesn’t do well IMO); and one of the deeper things I discovered after years of DMing in the 80s and 90s.
One of the joys of gaming is the minimal fear of failure we enjoy while trying new things. Games don’t overly penalize players for trying something bizarre, different or even hackerish. Education can’t handle that kind of open simulation, I wish it could though. Until then, all we’re trying is a Kobayashi Maru, with similar results.
A cautious approach to gamification is great advice.
I tend to not like the ‘gamification’, but I do like the extrapolation of game mechanics as a supplement to existing curriculum.
I’ve found with my own children (obviously, I am a gaming parent), that it’s quite easy to explain certain concepts by using examples they are familiar with– such as, percentages, multiplication/division. Taking concepts from health and experience bars, energy meters and such. Same goes for geographic understanding– maps, topography and such.
I think as a kid, yeah it would suck to HAVE to play, but knowing a teacher understands what we LIKE to do, might make it easier and hey, that teach might be a pretty cool person…. for a teacher. :)
Eric!
Ya, I want gaming in school – even though the title doesn’t convey that. but I only want it there if it’s going to be done right. I agree with what you’re saying about the importance of the teacher knowing what we like to do – the other part is that they understand the conditions that make it fun or not fun. One of the main things we know about play and games is that participation is voluntary. If it’s not voluntary it is something other than play. School is a context of involuntary participation. Not only is it involuntary but the social groupings are not our choice either (versus when we choose to play with certain friends because we like or trust or feel safe with them – particularly when we’re noobing it up). As well, we’re constantly being observed and evaluated.
When I play wow, which is usually at night, usually with a snack and beverage of my choice and the freedom to do whatever I want in the game. I also enjoy the fact that nobody is watching over my shoulder. With the exception of raiding, which most of us prepare for, the rest of our time in the game is pretty much up to us when we want to endure scrutiny (in a random) or search for herbs – or do sweet nothing just sitting on a dragon in front of Orgrimmar looking pretty. I realize it’s possible to do some cool stuff with this game in the classroom but I also wonder a lot about what it might be like to HAVE to play a game I enjoy at a time, place and social context that is NOT my choosing.
This is one reason I started to tire a bit of raiding. We had the set nights we raided. Things come up, you’re not in the mood. You might not feel well. Whatever. Having to play because you are obligated, part of a team, sort of sucks. Particularly if you haven’t had the time or inclination to watch the tankspot videos or deal with all the domestic negotiations involved in a raid night – for the other folks who share space with you. When WoW started to feel like a job that’s when I started to tire of it. There’s no question that there are great rewards for being part of a team and doing scheduled gaming but we got to have some freedom somewhere in all of that or else it’s not fun but playbor.
Tim – thanks for your comments. “cutting the soul” out of gaming was precisely what inspired this post. You get it 100% if we’re going to do really cool stuff in the classroom we need to understand that part of what makes it “cool” is not the thing itself but the context in which it occurs and the nature of what makes it cool. many wonderful things in life cannot simply be relocated or contrived on cue. I won’t list the examples but I’m going to leave it to you to think of some from your experience of life … try and imagine if we attempted to situate them in the classroom, with people observing and grading it. Surrounded by people we didn’t choose to learn with. The main problem is school itself. It simply doesn’t support much of what makes learning authentic and meaningful. And like you pointed out, it’s just empty talk to say “make it meaningful” nobody can MAKE somebody else experience meaning. You either experience it or you don’t. But much teacher talk is filled with hubris anyway – the very notion of “empowering” (when there is an external actor who believes they themselves willed that empowerment rather than the subject coming to it on their own).
[...] a thought provoking, passionate post by educator and game research scholar @melaniemcbride on Gamification in the classroom (and how to stop it) backed by comprehensive [...]