Computer and video games are a cultural and economic force drawing increasing attention from educators, anthropologists, economists, media scholars, journalists, and art critics (King, 2002; Perron & Wolfe, 2003; Poole, 2000).

Computer games have grown in sophistication and brought innovative models of interactive storytelling that is entertaining and inspiring millions of people.

Games have grown not only into an important economic force (grossing roughly US$11 billion), but a cultural force -- a medium of choice for many members of the millennial generation that educators should understand.

While some educational critics have derided games as pointless, it is still important for educators to understand why games have such appeal and understand what design principles underlie them.

Dodlinger's (2007) academic literature review focuses on 35 publications addressing educational video game design spanning the last ten years in order to "identify elements of game design that promote learning as well as the learning theories that conceptualize how video games foster learning" (p. 21).

Dodlinger notes that "While there is widespread consensus that games motivate players to spend time on task mastering the skills a game imparts, some disagreement over the specific characteristics that provoke that motivation exists" (p. 28).

Elements of game design that promote learning

Moreover, Dodlinger's (2007) review identified six distinct design elements that could be deemed necessary to stimulate desired learning outcomes. These elements include:

• Narrative context -- for situating and contextualizing learning -- the storyline
• Goals and rules -- objectives and guidelines - short term, medium term, long term
• Rewards -- (associated w/motivation) -- signals achievement
• Interactivity and multisensory cues -- direct attention, introduce new sensory perspectives, provides feedback cues for error correction

Learning outcomes from educational video games

In terms of learning outcomes from educational video games, Dodlinger (2007) points to research that suggests that well-designed games support the development of 21st century learning skills (e.g., play, performance, navigation, resourcefulness, negotiation, synthesis, collaboration, team work, judgement, discernment) but also other higher order thinking skills such as deduction and hypothesis testing, complex concepts and abstract thinking, and visual and spatial processing.

While exploring the potential for games in educational contexts, there seem to be a handful of challenges to widespread adoption and game integration:

• Understanding the value of games
• Finding appropriately designed games
• Getting games into educators' hands
• Integrating games into curricula, i.e.,  getting them into kids' hands
• The ethical roles and responsibilities associated with gaming
• The lack of clear evaluation standards associated with work produced utilizing games
• How do we guarantee that the rich opportunities afforded by the expanding educational gaming landscape are available to all?

[I'm sure there are more, these are just a few that sprung to mind.]

Class activity:
Let's take a look at a couple of online educational games and see to what extent they incorporate the six design elements listed above.

Examples:
Tut pup --  basic math and spelling games -- http://tutpup.com

Getty Games -- basic puzzle games based on museum pieces in the Gettty collection --  http://www.getty.edu/gettygames/

Villany, Inc. -- Thwarting World Supremacy through Mathematics storytelling, problem-solving and mathematics -- http://villainyinc.thinkport.org/mission1/default.asp?autoload=1

Free Rice -- social action and educational game -- http://www.freerice.com/

ADDENDUM:
More Educational Games:
Games Multimedia Materials -- a wiki housing several good examples of educational games.

Game Research Site:
Game Research - The art, business, and science,  of video games.

Major Reference:
Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1): 21-31. Retrieved 23 July 2008 from http://www.eduquery.com/jaet/JAET4-1_Dondlinger.pdf.

My del.icio.us "games" links
 

[Note: This post is a brief introduction to video and computer-based games in education. It is the basis for a lesson plan associated with EME2040 Introduction to Educational Technology Summer C 2008.]

Image from 1up.com.

http://xl-medium.net/WPblog/2008/02/24/online-learning-commu

This essay is a review of the following article written by V. Charalambos, Z. Michalinos, and R. Chamberlain entitled The Design of Online Learning Communities: Critical Issues, published in Educational Media International (2004), v. 41(2), pp. 135-143. Elements of this essay are incorporated in a literature review I am working on associated with peer-reviewed journal articles that focus on online learning communities.

In this study, the authors share lessons learned in the creation of an online learning community sponsored by the United States Distance Learning Consortium called STAR-Online (Supporting Teachers with Anywhere/Anytime Resources), a Web-based educational technology teacher professional development program/model.

According to the authors more than 20,000 teachers have participated since its inception in 2000. Each participant registers online, takes a pre-survey as a means for directing them to suggested learning modules which he or she can complete as directed. All participant data and modules he or she completes is stored in a personal online portfolio. Participants are given access to a number of professional development resources. These include Teacher Resources (lesson plans, digital artifacts, audio and video), communication tools (listserv, chat room, and online bulletin boards.

Professional development modules or lessons are built upon several components. Each contains an overview of the topic(s) to be presented, a set of competencies to be addressed, lessons/activities to engage in, a lesson plan development and integration activity, a sharing out feature which asks the participant to describe how the lesson plan worked, and what impact it had with students, and an evaluation form that is submitted to the module development team for feedback and assessment purposes.

Lessons learned After systematic research and evaluation, the authors suggest that there is no systematic formulae or step-by-step guarantees on how to build and structure successful, highly engaging, online learning communities. However, the authors do suggest that online learning community planners and developers can glean much from reviewing what others have experienced and learned from such endeavors. As such, the authors share what they believe to be successful characteristics of an online teacher professional development learning community.

Successful online communities have several of the following characteristics (pp. 138-139):

• They consist of people who cannot meet face-to-face because of place and time constraints and who meet online to work together on a shared task.
• The tasks and sub-tasks on which members work online are clearly defined and participants have a clear understanding of the expectations.
• A common sense of responsibility exists among participants towards the assigned task and peers.
• Easy access to technology and Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) tools is available to all members.
• The tools for communication are accessible and usable.
• There is good leadership and co-ordination of online activities.
• There are capable moderators that provide facilitation, help, guidance and support as needed to the members of the community.
• Ongoing interaction among members is based on constructive dialogue.
• A joint vision, control and ownership of the community, its goals and artifacts are equally shared among the members of the community.
• There is mutual support among its members and sub-groups.
• The rules that govern participation in the community are clearly defined.
• A system is in place monitoring member participation and behaviour and a system to sanction certain inappropriate behaviours.
• It is a safe environment where participants can freely express their opinion and ask questions without the fear of being 'attacked' by others.
• Activities completed are evaluated regularly and feedback is provided in a timely manner.
• There is a certain degree of structural dependence that establishes the need for members to interact and share resources.
• Smaller groups within the community provide a peer-support group smaller than the larger community (Levin et al., 1990; Palloff and Pratt, 1999; Salmon, 2000; Harasim, 2002) [authors' citations].

As a set of general principles or guidelines, the above list provides a set of ideas for online community designers and developers to consider. Combined, these principles relate to elements of Anklam's (2007) definition of a network. In this sense, networks are built upon "webs of relationships that we tap into in order to accomplish something that we could not do by ourselves" (Anklam, 2007, p. xi). As an organizational form, networks offer us a range of choices for managing and interacting with people, ideas, and work. Every such network has a particular purpose, an implicit or explicit organizational structure, a style or way in which participants engage and interact with resources and others, and such networks provide some form of value or the network itself probably would not need to exist. While networks will never replace hierarchical structures or markets, they can offer participants new ways to think and act.

As such I have difficulty accepting the authors belief that there are no systematic formulae or step-by-step guarantees on how to build and structure successful, highly engaging, online learning communities. Research on professional learning communities (DuFour, 2004), communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), and organizational networks (Anklem, 2007) suggest that there are specific steps that can be taken to create online learning communities that offer considerable value to participants.

The authors then go on to outline and consider questions and issues associated with planning the creation of an online community for professional development as well as offer practical recommendations derived from their work and the works of others.

While the planning and development suggestions are practical and offer meaningful insights, the authors only occasionally offer any real theoretical grounding for their suggestions outside their own experience. Team building, cooperative learning, and other models for organizing people to work and learn together are abundant. I am curious why the authors left these or other structural or organizational models out of their analysis of planning and creating online learning communities?

The authors conclude by acknowledging the complexity associated with learners, learning, and community design. They note that like learning itself, online learning communities involve a certain level of disequilibrium or struggle with the problems and possibilities of their own creation and capacity. Thus so much depends upon how structural decisions are negotiated among organizers and participants.

However, it does seem a bit disappointing to listen to the authors cite the importance of the experience and research of others in planning and creating online learning communities without offering reflections or citing the work of others in this growing field. As such, I find myself somewhat skeptical of their findings.

References:

Anklem, P. (2007). Net work: A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the world. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Charalambos, V., Michalinos, Z., & Chamberlain, R. (2004). The Design of Online Learning Communities: Critical Issues. Educational Media International, 41(2), pp. 135-143.

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a "Professional Learning Community"? Educational Leadership, 61(8), p. 6.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.