Over the course of this summer and fall, I have worked with a student researcher to create a video game experience that will help demonstrate information literacy skills. I will go into more detail about the project in the coming posts, but I wanted to start off with this video mapping out our character interactions.

After spending a few months this summer looking through online games and not finding anything that provided the depth we wanted within a limited playtime experience, we decided to mod an existing game. After creating the characters and most of the dialogue, we needed to see where our gaps in quest logic and character interactions were.

Student Fellowship: Morrowind Critical Thinking Mod from Paul Waelchli on Vimeo.

Mapping it out allowed us to identify that our critical thinking quest was too straight forward and made creating more characters and dialogue easy to plug in. With the additional characters and dialogue, I think that we've created a quest that will force players to question and evaluate the information that they receive.

Back in the fall of 2007, I was a guest lecturer for a video game theory course on our campus. While I've blogged and expanded about much of the content from that lecture, I have not provided my powerpoint slides. The slides focus on the work of Gee and Bogost and how it is relevant for the students in game design. Some of the slides are a little bare but I hope this is helpful for those who've asked in the past.

Educational Games: Games that Teach, not Preach: Slide Show

The students used three articles as required readings for my lecture:

Good Video Games and Good Learning by James Paul Gee

and 2 Gamasutra articles

• Who Says Video Games Have to be Fun? The Rise of Serious Games by Bryan Ochalla
• Persuasive Games: How I Stopped Worrying about Gamers and Started Loving People Who Play Games by Ian Bogost

In addition to these classroom resources, here are my individual posts about applying some of Gee's principles to information literacy instruction:

• Production
• Design
• Agency
• Interaction
• Risk Taking
• Identity
  
• Just in Time
• Situated Meaning
  

At the LOEX 2007 conference in San Diego, Fred Roecker and members of the design team spoke about the process and challenges of their orientation game project. Their power point presentation and handout can be found here under “A Game Based Approach to Library Orientation.” The design team consisted of Roecker, Nancy O’Hanlon, Karen Diaz, Tingting Lu, and Jim Muir. Since I introduced the game yesterday, I want to take some time to provide more background on how it was developed. The following is a write up my notes from OSU's LOEX presentation.

Groundwork for Game

The game was created around a desire to reach each of the approximately 6,000 incoming students at OSU. In years past, OSU had a 1 credit orientation but even then the library component was optional. But that course was no longer offered. As of 2006, there was not a library orientation and this game was designed to fill that gap.

With data that showed students decided about staying in college within the first six weeks of a semester. , the team wanted to create a positive library experience. The design team benefited from administrative support to create some type of orientation that both parents and students could be involved in. This opportunity and support lead to the initial planning of an orientation game back in May of 2006.

Initially the team surveyed students to find out some specific needs that the orientation could address. Of the students surveyed, 60% had visited one of the libraries but only 29% had some library introduction. Students also didn’t know what the library offered for resources and didn’t know where to find the different libraries around campus.

Initial Game Design

Based on these student responses the team started planning for a game that would include a series of quests that the student would complete to find out information. The information would be disseminated through digital stories, games, puzzles, and video clips. The concept for the game included students guiding an avatar through the quests, interacting with non-playable characters who helped advance the narrative, and answering questions after each quest.

After some initial feedback, the team realized that this linear design approached the game more like an assignment than a game. In addition to the linear initial design, the game was envisioned as a CD based game but student feedback suggested that incoming students would not use a disc based orientation experience. The original designed included many diverse learning objectives which were ultimately pared down to create a more focused experience.

Once again and from the top – Successful Revision

Realizing the flaws in their initial design, the team scrapped their concepts and started fresh. The design team began using Marc Prensky’s work and others that discuss game based learning. The team wanted to incorporate those principles into their development. They focused on opening up the structure, removing the linear nature, reducing the number of learning objectives. The concept of “Head Hunt” emerged out of these discussions.

“Head Hunt” used a simplified story, centered around campus as the narrative. The game design became nonlinear as clues and games were located at each of the libraries locations on the game map. The design required games to be completed successfully to solve the larger mystery of the missing head. While games were required to advance, the order was left to the student. In addition, not all games needed to be completed to solve the puzzle.

The design team used Google Maps as a base for navigation. Hot Potatoes was used to create the minigames (matching, crossword, and others). Adobe Captivate was used for screen shots within the games. The entire game was designed to be completed in 30 minutes or so. The web based game allowed the team to track what students logged in, how long they played for, how many times they played, and if they completed the puzzle of the missing head. In addition to the usage statistics, the game included an evaluation at the end.

The team spent a lot of time and effort creating, applying, and analyzing their game based orientation. If you haven’t tried it yet, please do so here and leave the team your thoughts and feedback.

This week I had a conversation with Karen Markley from the University of Michigan about her information literacy game, Defense of Hidgeon. Karen had just finished getting feedback from a student focus group and was already preparing for the next iteration of the game. As theshiftedlibrarian’s post stated, Karen is looking for additional partners for the next step in the game. I hope that anyone interested will Karen. Karen has a good base of a game to begin the project with and her group has learned a lot through the development and implementation of the first game. Below are some of the notes from my conversation:

A Soc110 class of 75 students played the game from the beginning of November until Thanksgiving break. At the end of November, Karen held a discussion group with some of the students involved in playing the game. What follows are some of the notes from a conversation I had with Karen during the first week of December.

The group of 75 students consisted of mainly freshmen. But there were a larger number of sophomores and juniors in the introductory class than initially expected. This shift in the numbers of older, and potentially more experienced students, may reflect some of the negative feedback on the game.

The students played in groups of four to answer the questions. The teams of four played on a one game board with the ideal of working together to answer each of the research questions. Even working in groups was not enough to improve the student’s game experience. According to Karen, the students “hated” the topic of the Black Death. They stated, “I did this in High School” and wanted “something relevant” for a topic. The students felt the topic was not connected to the content in their class, and felt more like extra work than an enjoyable way to research.

Students also discussed how some of the additional challenges in the game frustrated them. The players had to go to the library and ask a reference question in order to get their character out of prison. While the idea of getting students into the physical building and interacting with the librarians was good in theory, the students felt the challenge distracted them from the game. They expressed concern that any additional challenges would not remove them from the game.

*****

A lot of the student feedback sounded realistic when Karen described it. The students were looking for a “video game” type of experience, but the additional “big game” type of tasks was different than their expectation of a traditional video game. Some of the student's expressed lack of interest in completing the game may be their expressed disconnect with class content. I believe that some of the less than positive reviews also stems from a less than compelling game experience. The linear experience of the game and the limited freedom to explore or choose a direction might have contributed to limited engagement with the game.

While the feedback from the students felt negative, Karen was not deterred. She is positive and excited about the next phase in the process. She has already began discussions with the Comprehensive Studies Program at the University. It is a class of about 150 incoming Freshmen (with coverage in the Humanities and Sciences). The class has one research writing assignment. Karen is discussing applying the game with this class and tying it into their research assignment. The next iteration will seek to provide more detail and specifically take students through a variety of sources. Her hope is to have a grade attached to the game, in order to provide additional incentive to finishing the game.

The future of the game will end up taking a different form than it's current context in the Middle Ages. After watching the gameplay and having a chance to play it, the foundation of the game is good and some game design changes could create a more engaging experience for students. Opening up the game space and creating more than one path through the "board" are game design decisions that may help engage students, but will also result in more complicated design, scripting, and planning in order to make it work.

While there is a lot of work ahead for Karen, her team, and any new partners in the project. I'm looking forward see how the game develops.

This concept falls in line with Gee’s Insider Principle, where “the learner is and insider, teacher, and producer (not just a `consumer`)” but goes beyond that. It is not simply being able to produce an end product, but to reshape and build the world itself. The example on the sides is of the upcoming PS3 game “Little Big Planet” where the player is given the tools to create a world or stage of their own design, populating it with whatever environments, obstacles, and physics they desire. The game provides an open canvas for the player to create, experiment, and adjust the game to individual taste. These worlds can be saved and shared with other players, creating a unique game experiences from every creation. Creating game content is nothing new, Real-time-strategy and First-person shooters have used map editors and modders have created whole new game experiences based on the original game’s engine, which create more investment and motivation from the player.

I used the example of “Little Big Planet” because the initial game itself is player created, not modified from it’s original intent. Production in our classrooms can and should be similar. Student created content, questions, or topics is not a distraction or diversion from the lesson’s original intent but essential to the comprehension and retention of the lesson’s objectives. On a surface level this includes using student questions and topics to shape the direction and focus of a lesson. If a concept not clear or students are struggling we spend more time to clarify. But peel that standard interaction back and how much content do students produce that shapes our information literacy sessions?

Now the easy answer is, of course they produce content they are finding sources, writing papers, giving presentations and many other projects based on the materials they find from an information literacy session. Is that really producing content that shapes their experience? They produce an end product required by their course, but do they have influence over it? Does that production happen in our library instruction or as a result of it?

Following the Production and “Insider” principles means letting the students create and shape the direction of the lesson within the bounds of the objectives. They could be the ones creating and sharing the examples for the class. They could be demonstrating how they located a specific resource of the quality or source required in the assignment. They become “teacher” as well as “student.” An example for this current semester was taught by a colleague of mine. We created a lesson where the students worked in groups to create incorrect APA citations in an attempt to stump not only the other groups, but the professor, librarian, and writing center – the “experts.” The students were empowered and motivated to create content and implicitly needed to not only understand APA basics, but the more obscure details in order to be able to explain their citation errors. It worked. There was laughter coming out of the classroom and the students wanted to stay longer to go through more citations.

Now how often can we say that?

This month I've started (and will continue) to walk through the learning strategies that Gee has focused on in the required reading I used for my guest lecture. While the reading grabs most of the core learning principles (or combines them into broader concepts), there are a few that were not discussed specifically. Throughout the month, I'll highlight a few other of Gee's principles and how we should be using them in information literacy. And so my month of Gee continues...

Active, Critical Learning Principle- All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning.

It’s a basic learning principle. We learn best through doing. We want to get our students active, engaged, and involved in the practice, testing, and application of the material we are trying to teach. During my student teaching for my Teaching Masters active learning and critical thinking were stressed above all else. It should come as no surprise that games incorporate this since they require the player to actively take part in the action and decision making (at least most games do). I’ve talked about critical thinking in video games before (link) and information literacy and critical thinking go hand in hand.

The success of the application of active learning also includes when it is used. Librarians that teach in a lab may claim they are always using active learning because the students have time at the end to practice the process of research. While this is active, it is not as effective as it should be. Video games include active learning throughout the process; players are constantly doing. Video games (at least most) do not give you 30 – 40 minutes of a instruction before letting the player play. Granted some games do give lengthy tutorials but here brief instruction is immediately followed by practice and active learning. Library instruction would do well to model the tutorial model present in many games

Design Principle- Learning about and coming to appreciate design and design principles is core to the learning experience.

Pedagogically this is more important for us as librarians. Students are aware of lesson design and the experience, but the awareness often happens when there are problems. Students may not be able to define what makes the lesson work, but they can sure tell you when it doesn’t. Gameplay and game design are similar experiences for most players. They may not be able to tell you what “works” about a game, but they can sure tell when it falls apart. If our lessons and sessions are not incorporating good design our students and their learning will struggle to process.

Gee describes “Agency” as a game creating a sense of ownership in the player. The player is now invested enough in the game that they care about and feel a sense of responsibility for what happens in the game. The sense of ownership and responsibility developed through “agency” also drives a player forward. That ownership makes them what to see a game through to the end (which could be 6, 12, 20, or 50+ hours).

What type of ownership would make a student see an assignment through a 20 hour process?

That is an unfair question to start off with. While that may be an ultimate goal, we can develop agency by starting much smaller. The screen shot in the slide is from the Xbox 360 game, Mass Effect. Mass Effect starts with a create-a-character, like many other games, but the sense of agency develops through series of choices that how the character and the game develops. It is this series of choices that creates the sense of ownership. The player and the student will not develop this immediately. The choices need to be continually offered and they need to be significant. The choices need to shape the class in both the direction and the discussion. Ownership can begin to grow with a question as simple as, “Where should we start?” The choices should continue throughout a lesson. “What search terms?” “Which source will you use?” The questions and choices are important for developing ownership in the student.

Asking questions is important, but it is essential for agency that the questions we ask are followed through on. Nothing will kill a sense of student ownership faster than judging something as the “wrong” answer. These are not questions that have a “right” answer. Granted some of the responses may not be the choices we want them to make or even will gain the best results, but those “not ideal” choices create learning opportunities. As I discussed with the “risk taking” concept we can look to these “dead ends” and poor sources as teaching opportunities. Create and facilitate a discussion on the results of these choices. Every choice creates a potential discussions and learning opportunities.

Over the course of the last year, I've worked on trying to incorporate developing ownership into lessons including an open ended research reviews (including reflection and student feedback for fall & spring semesters) and branching lectures where the students make the choice.

The question we, as librarians, need to continue to ask along with all these choices is, "Why?" Agency develops with meaningful choices and learning comes from understanding the ramifications of those choices.

Okay, so all games require some interaction with the player. Just as “engagement” assumes interaction with the students. The key for us as librarians and educators is the degree and integration of that interaction. This is not simply a time for questions or discussion and pedagogically we understand that.

The example of “Duck Amuck” for the Nintendo DS (pictured) is a good example of maximizing the interaction. A player draws events and items that are used, uses the microphone to “blow out” candles, closes the lid for Daffy to “look in the dark,” and a host of other mini game applications that make use of every input the DS has. The game uses these various inputs at every stage of the game requiring continued interaction from the player.

The continuous interaction through a variety of inputs (learning styles) is a wonderful goal, but can often be challenging for librarians faced with a one-shot session trying to cram all the “necessary” information in. Now I know that putting “necessary” in quotes may be put off some people, but I mean no disrespect. I’m guilty of filling a session with useful information. But with a high degree of interaction, the useful “necessary” information still comes through, but it does so in a student initiated shared experience, rather than a librarian one.

This is the challenge. It takes time to plan this level of integration and time to practice it… and one-shots make that challenging. Maybe this is where the “try and fail” mindset (link here) is important. It takes time faith, but the success can be great. Last semester, I took what would have been a basic database review & workday and turned it into a narrative with constant choices for the class that determine the direction at each step. The interaction was limited through discussion and a student response system, but the student’s interaction was required for each step and decision. The class resulted in an increased student experience. Their interaction with the material and each other resulted in students discussing and debating with each other about the search and evaluation process.

Now the lesson did take a couple hours to plan, map out, and create, but the payoff for the students was worth it. They stayed engaged in the class and the content because they saw a value in it but also had a say in it. Their interaction was genuine and integral to the class, not separated from the content. Designing classes like this is not always possible, but the effort is still beneficial for our students.

There is a variety of good literature out there on student engagement and interaction is only one piece of it. But when designing lessons incorporating that interaction is key. The more the students can push, poke, prod the content (and us) they will be more invested in the class and the material.

Gee’s also called this the “Psychosocial Moratorium” Principle where learners can take risks in a space where real-world consequences are lowered.

Ah, if only this could be the case with information literacy. This should be the case in our classrooms, labs, and campuses. We can create environments in our classrooms and at our reference desks, where students recognize that research is a messy process. Not passing the level or finding just the right material on the first try is natural. Students need to know they can take risks and fail within the research process. Now, granted those risks may not have the same impact as dying within a game, but the tension and frustration can be just as high. A student with a deadline or frustrated with a search feels just as much tension, if not more, than the gamer.

Creating this atmosphere is comes from both class structure and personal attitude. I’ve failed plenty of times in front of a class. When I started teaching information literacy a few years ago, I dropped canned searches for our instructions sessions. At the time it was done to increase the relevance of the material and engagement of the students. But what it has created is an atmosphere where failure is okay. Failure is a talking point. I welcome the unsuccessful search (unless it’s because I can’t spell and now the class knows). It provides the opportunity to talk about why searches fail or don’t get the desire results and how to adjust for additional searches. Failure in a search shows that the research process is messy and even libraries aren’t perfect. We try and fail just like them. I’ve seen it successful break down barriers for students asking for help. If I got stuck, and they got stuck, they are more willing to ask for help. Failure equalizes the power relationship.

Failure equalizes it, but it does not take power away from students. Creating an atmosphere and culture where failure is encourage doesn’t happen overnight. But it can happen and we should be modeling it in our classes and at the reference desk. Research is a messy process, taking risks, recovering from failure, learning, and risking again is an important information literacy skill. Failure is not always fun, and with “first page and done” search habits accepting failure can be too quickly judged.

Allowing students to take risks, fail, and modeling patience and learning through failure helps create successful information literate students.

During my blogging vacation I was fortunate enough to be invited as a guest speaker for an undergraduate Game Theory class on campus. My presentation was entitled, "Educational Games: Games that teach, not Preach." Here is the continuation of that application...

How do we create a sense of identity in information literacy and library instruction?

Do we have to since the identity is already created – it’s our students playing the role of our students. There is some identity already given when students walk into a classroom setting. They “are” invested because their success in the class/school is tied to their ability to succeed in the classroom and on an assignment. But is that enough?

Are our students invested in library research because they are passionate about their grade? Really? Who’s the lucky librarian with a class filled with these students? Library instruction, when there even is library instruction, can be met with a student attitude of “Just finish talking so I can go grab it off the internet.”

Can we create situations that invoke an investment from our students? Yes, but how? In the examples from the slides, the first game is Half – Life 2 where the player plays the role of Gordon Freeman, but most of the personality is derived from the players responses not game created reactions. Every player plays a little differently and attaches meaning based on those experiences. In a classroom setting, this type of identity comes from the students caring about their research and creating their own meaning for the assignment. We can help our students do this by showing meaning in their research, tying their research to a larger community, and help them see the significance of findings to their assignment.

The second example in the slide has the player playing the role of James Bond. The student becomes invested because they already care about the character or that there is a context created to grab the student and help them care. A little role-playing by the student. We can create a role for the student outside of just simply a student in class for an instruction session. I’ve done a PR class where the students “played” the role of agents at a PR firm and they were given portfolios on their “clients” to research on. It through the students into a different mindset for the research session, captured their attention, and even allowed for some creativity in their approach and presentation of material. Creating alternative roles or situations for our classes can help create a sense of identity for our students and increase their involvement in a class.

During my blogging vacation I was fortunate enough to be invited as a guest speaker for an undergraduate Game Theory class on campus. My presentation was entitled, "Educational Games: Games that teach, not Preach." Here is the continuation of that application...

Isn’t this the question we ask ourselves about the difference between stand alone library instruction classes and sessions embedded within an existing class?

If the skills we teach are not tied to meaningful context (class), how successfully will the students retain the skills?

This is not a new debate within academic librarians and I am not pretending to bring something new. The significance here is how connected game design is with educational design… and why it is worthwhile for us as educators to look at our instruction programs through the lens of a gamer.

When skills and concepts are taught outside the full game, there needs to be enough of a connection for students to see the application in the full game situation (as an uncontrolled environment). The examples shown in these two slides come from the Metal Gear Solid series and specifically the VR Missions. The VR missions exist both as a tutorial for the player to learn moves and strategies and as a challenge to demonstrate mastery over those skills in some of the more complicated scenarios. The VR missions give a player a safer environment to practice their initial skills and try out new strategies within a safe environment (the scenarios have no overall impact in the larger story driven game).

This example is relevant to us. It provides a safe environment in which to learn and practice skills but still connects the user to the larger application. The skills are not learned in a vacuum. The larger context is understood by the player/student. As we create information literacy sessions, this connection and context is important to keep in mind. The activities we design for our students, the skills and strategies they encounter, and their understanding of future applications depend on making this context meaningful. Most databases that our students have access to are filled with a great wealth of features for advanced users, but how many of these features will have a meaningful context attached and create situated meaning for our students?

During my blogging vacation I was fortunate enough to be invited as a guest speaker for an undergraduate Game Theory class on campus. My presentation was entitled, "Educational Games: Games that teach, not Preach." I focused mainly on the work of James Paul Gee and Ian Bogost. The objective was to give the students a different framework to view game design through (Gee's learning strategies) and how games help players understand a real life topic (Bogost's persuasive games). Here are the readings the class used for both Gee and Bogost.

My plan over the next week or so is to walk through the content of the slides and discuss how these concepts fit information literacy and library instruction...

I’ve talked about the “just in time” principle earlier this fall when responding to the lack of it in one of our sessions. But this is a concept that all teaching librarians need to consider.

How many new skills are students introduced to before they have a chance to practice?

If we are not giving students a chance to apply the skills/strategies we are suggesting right away what is stopping us? What content is more important the helping cement a concept with direct application? We all learn more by doing and doing when it makes sense, not when it fits into the instructor’s flow – when it fits the students’. In a research class session where we may be introducing new or reviewing old databases or strategies we should provide opportunities to “try” those strategies out. Even if the “trying / testing” component is short, the continued engagement should be worth it. We are very mindful of this in our instruction, even to the point where the first time through a few sessions this fall felt disjointed. But after a session or two, the flow finds a rhythm and the students start to respond. They respond to the chance to try things out and still have continued guidance.

Does all the instruction happen up front with the student exploration and applying happening later?

If so why? It’s easier, sure. But is it more productive? We can comfortable toss our “knowledge” out there and then “turn ‘em loose” but what do we gain? We need to not only supply our students with successful strategies for research but also a context in order to successful apply those strategies in.

In my effort to process everything over the last few weeks, I continue to highlight some useful articles and discussions over the past month. Clark Aldrich's Style Guide is an excellent collection of ideas, terms, and concepts. Aldrich brought up four key considerations for those studying, creating, and applying educational games and simulations.

1. Situational awareness: what do experts see when they come to a scene that others don’t?
2. Understanding of actions: what do experts see as viable options, and trade-offs of each? How and when should one calibrate responses?
3. Awareness of patterns: how and why do things play out? What are small steps now that can have a big impact?
4. Conceptual dead reckoning: understanding the opportunities, committing to a vision, and then navigating towards it.

The questions not only address what should be considered when designing a game, they also work for designing information literacy sessions. In creating lesson plans and research sessions, we should not only consider these questions but find answers for them as well.

1. Situational awareness: Our learners enter the "game" with all ranges of experiences, what do experienced researches see and apply that "newbies" don't. What do we want our students to "see" and understand about a given situation?

2. Understanding actions: Why do our students make the choices in research and sources that they do? What choices should they make? How can we help them understand why certain decisions make sense - and why others do not.

3. Awareness of patterns: Students fall into both patterns of success and patterns of failure. We want to help create productive patterns that will increase their success and efficiency for the future.

4. Conceptual dead reckoning: Create the goal / thesis and develop the path to reach it. If we can help our students create those goals and give them the tools to reach then.

These are good questions that we as educators should consider, not only for our individual lessons but for information literacy programs as a whole.

Over the past few days, I've started to pick my way through Ian Bogost's Persuasive Games book and James Paul Gee's Good Video Games and Good Learning. I've talked about both in the past when they first hit my radar, but now since I'm preparing to be the guest lecturer for a Game Theory course I'm able to dig into them. I'm speaking on learning through games, something to the effect of "Games that teach, not preach."

This includes Gee's principles from What Video Games have to Teach us about Learning and Literacy and his other work; Bogost's learning through games and what the play experiences teach us; and some targeted readings about serious games and learning. I'm excited about being asked, but my excitement is tempered by not having a syllabus yet to narrow in my focus.

I'll post more of my thoughts and responses to my readings soon, along with the contents of my lecture as they develop.

Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1):51-77.

The Game Object Model (GOM) explores the concept that educational games should be: relevant, explorative, emotive, engaging, and include complex challenges - all with authentic learning activities.

While the core of a game's learning process comes from the puzzles and quests within the game, their needs to be reflection and discussion about the process and the knowledge gained through play. I read Amory’s article on the flight to GLLS 2007, but I sat on it thinking of applications for libraries using video games and gamed based strategies. Before discussing the changes with version two, it is useful for a discussion of the first GOM developed by Amory in 1999.

Components of the first GOM:

• Game Space - Play, Exploration, Challenges, Engagement
• These are the core elements of a game identified by both game designers and game-based researchers. Games, both commercial and educational, use these to keep the player moving through the game. These components are not only important to maintain the interest of a player, they are important in maintaining the interest of our students as well. I experienced the success of creating these "game spaces" within traditional information literacy sessions. Using videogames in education and information literacy provides a wide variety of options to create these "game spaces." We should be planning and working to incorporate these elements within our classrooms.
• Visualization Space - Critical thinking, discovery, goal formation, goal completion, competition, Practice, story-line
• The visualization of the game addresses the physical and emotion experience the player goes through during the game. Most of these components are rooted in traditional educational theory. Creating (forming) goals, developing a process to reach them, completing them is standard for many process based issues (this includes the ACRL Information Competency Standards). I've briefly addressed critical thinking theory and video games before here and here. The success of competition within education is a mixed bag of blessings and curses that depends on a variety of factors (including the nature of participants and the result of the competition). The opportunities for successful practice is integrated in almost any lesson (whether written, oral of physical) the need to practice these skills to develop them is evident.
• Elements Space - Fun, graphics, sounds, technology
• Here are the gameplay elements within the GOM. How does the game play? Is it fun? Do the graphics engage the user? Do the graphics represent realism or are they stylized? Do the sounds help create an engaging experience or do they pull the player out of the game. Is the technology a help or hindrance for the player? These same questions can be raised in our lesson planning as well as in game-based learning. Are we incorporating fun, Engaging (yet not distracting) graphics, sounds that complement the experience, and technology for the benefit of our students (not just technology for technology's sake)? These elements can be implemented in a variety of setting (game-based and traditional) and see the benefits.
• Actors Space - Drama, interaction, gestures
• The physical actions and reactions of the players and students involved. How are students interacting with each other during gameplay and the lesson? Depending upon the physical demands of video game system, the way a player interacts with the game allows for additional requirements in this category.
• Problem Space
• Communications - Reading, writing, speaking
• Communication in some form is required in every classroom interaction. Communication, successful communication, happens often in a game without the player thinking about it. Reading, writing, and oral communication are important for both the success of a game and traditional lessons. This communication is not simply between player and game, but student and teacher and student to student peer relationships as well.
• Literacy - Visual, Logical, mathematical, computational
• Here is where many traditional educational skills & standards (libraries, education, subject discipline) would be inserted into the GOM.
• Memory - Short-term, Long-term
• Some skill sets are intended and reinforced for success for game play and studying in the short team. There may be specific skills in the video game that are intended only for the short term (a new attack or item to reach a new location / enemy). Long-term memory needs prepare the player not only for a specific action, they the player to understand the game. Traditional lessons have similar requirements: short term retention for specifics staged assignments and tasks; long term retention for the content, facts, analysis of the subject specific discipline.
• Motor - Manipulation, Reflex
• Here are the physical movements required by the game and lesson. What actions and movements are required? A consideration to those with physical disabilities can be considered here.

The GOM provides a potential set of guidelines for developing educational games. The components of the GOM while designed for educational video games, may actually work for traditional lessons as well. This is an application I will come back to in future posts.

Next… I’ll look at the changes made to the GOM II.



I started this post on Thursday night, but since I fell asleeeeeeeeeeeeeeep at the computer 2 nights in a row, I decided to wait until later to complete it... for the benefit of all involved.

I've been off for a few days with family in town and home improvement projects, which means I've been too sore the past few nights to do more than log a few battles in Puzzle Quest (download the free PC Demo here).

But I did start playing around with modding. I started playing around with the game editor for Freedom Force, a 2002 super-hero role playing game. I choose it based on a few key reasons that would make it easy to use at my library and ideally other libraries as well. The game has:

• A solid 3D engine
• Low system requirements
• Robust modding editor
• Mouse based game interface
• NPC characters in modern clothing
• Pre-existing urban maps
• Existing modding community

Based on these factors I feel that Freedom Force is a good first start. It may not result in a final product, but it should at least help me test out some design ideals and create a proof of concept. Now I just have to get over my intimidation of all the fields in the modding editor. Wish me luck.

As a result of the comments from the AZ State University Gaming project presentation, I’ve thought about my experiences growing up at the arcade. Gaming in the arcade was a social experience. I was reminded of this yesterday upon walking into the arcade here at the hotel. Suddenly memories of my childhood came rushing back at me. Playing the games, like The Simpsons side scrolling brawler, now make me realize one key fact:

I didn’t sink dozens of quarters into these machines because the gameplay was good, I did it because the experience was fun.

We shared the experience with friends and strangers alike. Quarter after quarter we came back for more. We played the game through with people standing next to you, commenting, condemning and commending along the way. Under this model, even single player games were a community experience.

But the question is, how can we adopt that social experience for library video games? The AZ State librarians were discouraged about the initial feedback (but thankfully they are still moving forward). George Washington’s Muckrackers game and staff are discouraged as well. GW was trying to make the game multi player, which is an excellent idea, but costly in terms of creation. The development time and money that is required to develop a multiple player game raise the barrier of entry for libraries. And that does not even take into consideration the logistics of administering to our students.

So in the short term, increasing reflection discussion time and promoting conversations throughout the game can promote that social experience for our students. Gamers are not silent people. We just need to tap into that natural desire to share and critique during gameplay into to create that social feeling of community.

Library games may never give players that same feeling that sinking quarters with friends at the arcade. But we learn from those experiences to engage our students more fully in gaming and learning.

I spent some time playing AZ State University's game on Monday after posting about Quarantined over at Bibliographic Gaming. I enjoyed the game and was able to complete it under the 30 minute time frame both with and without contracting the virus (which then reduces the amount of time allowed in the game). It does a nice job of introducing students to citations and how to begin searching for sources (books, articles, web). If you haven't tried it for yourself, I've provided the link with login and password here.

Take a moment and give it a try. Unfortunately, I only asked for permission to post the free trial for the Bibliographic Gaming blog, not over here. So please bear with the link jumping. The game itself still has a few improvements, but most of what I experience the team of Tammy, Bee and company are already working on them. There were a few times that I thought I needed to explore more, only to realize my path was very limited. Exploring buildings, library stacks and other locations are either not allowed or result in nothing. Although I assume this was a result of either time or programming. Overall I an very encouraged and excited about the work they did on the game.

I am disappointed by the feedback the students provided on the game were not as positive as the team expected and hoped. They found the results “kind of depressing.” I agree with Tammy's statement at LOEX that much of the current frustration and lack of enjoyment may stem from the multiple bugs in the current build.

The students also found the board game more engaging and successful, but why? Is it the content? The gameplay? Was it the social nature of playing the board game that motivated the students? What did you think of the game?