Content uploaded by Begoña Gros
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Begoña Gros on Nov 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Begoña Gros
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Begoña Gros on Feb 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Integration of Digital Games in Learning and e-
Learning Environments: Connecting
Experiences and Context
Begoña Gros
Abstract
Researchers and educational practitioners are increasingly turning their attention
towards the effects of the use of digital games for learning. Many games satisfy
the basic requirements of learning environments and can support the teaching and
learning process. However, an in-depth understanding is needed of the different
possibilities that digital games can provide in order to successfully integrate edu-
cational methods and game design.
The main goal of this chapter is to analyse how the use of digital games could be
integrated into learning with special emphasis on the importance of games for
connecting experiences, context and learning.
The chapter starts with a description of the different terminology used in the field
of game-based learning. Then, we provide a summary of the main results obtained
by researchers regarding the potential of digital games to support learning and we
analyse the main directions for using game-based learning.
Introduction
The use of electronic games in education has experienced a significant evolu-
tion. Initially, electronic games were developed in the entertainment market with-
out considering their impact on learning. However, since the 1980s several studies
have identified the potential of games for learning (e.g., Gee 2003; Kafai and Chin
1996; Malone 1981; Prensky 2001; Squire 2002). These authors’ main argument is
that some commercial video games, especially strategy games, simulations and
role-playing games, are based on well-developed theories of learning in order to
engage players and teach them how to play the game (Gee 2003). Many suggest
that by situating players in these virtual worlds, where they can move and act
freely, the games can promote problem-solving, goal-oriented behaviour, engage-
ment and motivation (Prensky 2010; Shaffer et al. 2005). Others argue that games
help to develop strategic thinking, group decision-making and higher cognitive
skills (Arnseth 2006; Clark, et. 2014; de Freitas 2006). Some researchers claim
2
that games permit constructive, situated and experiential learning, which is en-
hanced by active experimentation and immersion in the game (Squire 2008;
Hainey et al. 2011). Generally, it seems that games could be particularly useful for
generating a deeper understanding of complex settings (Gros 2007), mainly when
dealing with multifaceted variables.
In spite of this potential, some studies also report problems with the use of digi-
tal games for learning (Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2006; Ferdig 2007). Among the most
notable issues are the lack of acceptance of games as an educational tool, the prob-
lem of integration into formal schooling, the tension between game play and learn-
ing objectives, and the problem of transferring knowledge gained in video games
to the real world.
The findings of games studies are conflicting and even contradictory due to the
broad nature of the studies. However, interest in this topic is increasing thanks to
the continuous expansion of this technology, not only in schools and colleges, but
also in universities (New Media Consortium [NMC] 2012).
Researchers and educational practitioners are increasingly turning their atten-
tion towards different types of games: such as epistemic games, serious games,
multiplayer games and social games. The growth of online gaming may also pro-
duce more learning experiences connecting learning at work, home and formal
learning institutions.
The aim of this chapter is to analyse how the use of digital games could be in-
tegrated into learning with special emphasis on the importance of games for con-
necting experiences, context and learning. The chapter is divided into four sec-
tions. Firstly, we will establish a distinction between different concepts related to
game-based learning. Secondly, we will summarise the main results obtained by
researchers regarding the potential of digital games to support learning. Next we
will describe some challenges to integrating digital games into e-learning and fi-
nally, we will analyse the main directions for using game-based learning.
From Video Games to Gamification
There is a rich vocabulary around the use of digital games. In this section, we dis-
cuss the main terminology to clarify the evolution of electronic games and the dif-
ferent types and applications.
The general label of ‘video game’ or ‘digital game’ can be applied to many dif-
ferent types of games. We can identify multiple genres or categories of computer
games including, but not limited to, action games, adventure games, simulation
games, sports games, strategic games, puzzle games, and role-play games.
It is possible to categorise the games based on many factors such as method of
game play, content, type of goals, style, or interactivity. However, as technology
continues to evolve, digital games have developed into ever more complex games
which have enhanced some possibilities and have added new ways of playing and
3
new types of platforms. Some genres are combinations of others. For instance,
most sports games, like the FIFA Football series, contain information needed to
manage a team and combine simulation with characteristics of strategy games.
What is relevant is that most of the well-known games (with their constantly up-
dated versions) contain features of simulation and adventure. Elsewhere, strategy
is also present in most historical simulations, such as Age of Empire, Civilization,
Imperium. In other words, there is a tendency to produce games that provide com-
plex environments in which content, skills and attitudes play an important role
during the game.
The way to play has also changed. Most of the video games created in the last
decade are played individually. However, video games are increasingly being de-
signed for multiple players. We can distinguish among: online games, massive
multiplayer online games and social games.
Online games are video games played over a computer network (Rollings and
Adams 2006). The expansion of online gaming is based on the overall expansion
of computer networks and ranges from simple text-based environments to games
incorporating graphics and virtual worlds populated by many players simultane-
ously.
Massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs) provide a common online plat-
form that draws players together from all over the world and they have come to
dominate the digital entertainment industry (Magnussen and Misfeldt 2004). The-
se games are an evolution of games formerly known as Multi-User Dungeon or
Domain or Dimension (MUDs) and are referred to as ‘virtual worlds’ as they are
not simply games in the traditional rules-based sense, but rather open-ended narra-
tives where players are largely free to do as they please. A central element in mul-
tiplayer games is that the interaction enables players to communicate and collabo-
rate in the game sessions.
Recently we have also seen social games connected with specific social net-
works like Facebook. According to Revuelta and Bernabe (2012), not all social
games are the same. Some video games use the social network only as a distribu-
tion medium. In other cases, the social network facilitates finding other players at
a given time (e.g., poker games or UNO) and some games use the social network
in the different layers of communication that this provides. The game can be
played among the ‘friends’ who have accepted and, at the same time, globally
among all network users. A good example of this type of game is Farmville. This
game uses Facebook to offer something that would otherwise be truly unachieva-
ble in any other platform.
The production of games for mobile phones and tablets has also increased the
social dimension. According to Klopfer, “mobile games allows the creation of
flexible and ever-changing complex games, promotes the ability to adapt games to
a number of different styles such as competition and collaboration, creates situa-
tions in which players learn specialised communication, and produces a social dy-
namic in which players need to construct arguments and strategies with and
against other players” (2008, p. 38).
4
In many products–like Civilization, Zoo Tycoon, Rise of Nations, and The
Sims–models and simulations are an integral part of the game. In all these exam-
ples the game stresses first and third person player experiences. In some cases, the
whole game is a model of the practice and culture of the particular topic. For in-
stance, in Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater players can design their own skaters, clothes,
boards, skate parks, and so on. They build a mode and interact with a set of more
abstract models of environments that help to build a more realistic context.
According to Van Eck (2006), there are three main approaches to creating
games that provide cognitive growth for the gamer. These three approaches are:
building games from scratch created by educator, creating games from scratch by
the students, and integrating commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products.
The use of COTS games in the classroom means that teachers have to integrate
commercial games. In this case, it requires teachers to have adequate self-efficacy
concerning the use of these games and their technology. Most COTS do not have
an educational goal. However a number of successful uses of COTS in formal ed-
ucation settings have been documented (Ulicsak and Williamson, 2010; Sandford
et al. 2007). One example is Blunt’s adoption of COTS management simulation
video games (Industry Giant II, Zapitalism and Virtual U) for business studies
(Blunt 2009). Other COTS games already being used in the classroom include
Civilization (history), Age of Empires II (history), CSI (forensics and criminal jus-
tice), The Sims 2 (building complex social relationships), Rollercoaster Tycoon
(engineering and business management), and SimCity 4 (civil engineering and
government). For some of these there is a clear match between the game’s explicit
content and the classroom subject; for others there is a match between the aims
and skills involved in the course of study and the game’s underlying strategies and
gameplay (Sandford et al. 2007).
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of educational games due to the
rise of the serious games movement. Michael and Chen consider that serious
games are those “in which education (in its various forms) is the primary goal, ra-
ther than entertainment” (2006, p. 16). These serious games may be differentiated
from educational games because of their focus on the post-secondary market and
training. This growing interest in serious games is also linked to economic consid-
erations because companies need to instruct employees and individuals need to
update or innovate their skills from a lifelong learning perspective. In addition, se-
rious games are also entertaining and this should encourage people to spend their
free time on educational activities. The production of serious games is especially
important in the field of business/management, healthcare and military training.
Epistemic games are another interesting type of game designed primarily for
training professional skills. The main goal of epistemic games (Shaffer and Gee
2006) is to help players learn to think like professionals. This concept is based on
the idea of ‘epistemic frames’—the way in which a profession or other community
of practice thinks and works—and entails a situated and action-based form of
learning built around the ways in which professionals develop these epistemic
frames. Shaffer (2008) argues that this approach makes it possible to create epis-
5
temic games in which subjects learn to work as doctors, lawyers, architects, engi-
neers, journalists and other valued professionals; in this way they develop the
skills, habits and concepts of a post-industrial society. These games help them to
develop ways of thinking and knowing that are valued in the world, giving them a
way to imagine the future person they might someday become.
Game Based Learning (GBL) refers to the use of video games to support teach-
ing and learning. “It encompasses the use of both games designed expressly for
fulfilling learning objectives (educational games) and ‘mainstream games’—i.e.,
those games that are developed for fun when used to pursue learning objectives”
(Kirriemuir and McFarlane 2003, p.19).
Due to the success of games used for learning, some didactical proposals are
introducing the concept of gamification. Kapp describes gamification as “the care-
ful and considered application of game thinking to solving problems and encour-
aging learning using all the elements of games that are appropriate” (Kapp 2012,
p.12). The main idea is to use the mechanics and game-design techniques to en-
hance non-game scenarios (Zichermannand Cunningham, 2011) to increase the
learner’s motivation and engagement. The idea is to introduce something normally
used in a game, such as incentives, immediate feedback, and rewards, into an
online subject or into the classroom. For instance, in e-learning it is possible to in-
troduce a specific quest with a gamified formative assessment. Game-based learn-
ing and gamification often overlap. In a gamified classroom, it is possible to use
games throughout the unit or it is possible to create a gamified unit using a serious
game. In summary, game-based learning can be a small component of the learning
process or a descriptor of the entire pedagogical model. Gamification, on the other
hand, refers to changing the entire model of instruction to be a game or game-like.
In both cases the main goal is the same: student engagement. And, in both cases,
there must be a paradigm shift in the educator from ‘sage of the stage’ to ‘guide on
the side’ (King, 1993). Regardless of which method or pedagogy is employed in
the classroom, games provide an opportunity for students who may not have been
fully engaged in learning to go on to achieve success.
The use of games has been shown to be successful for encouraging student par-
ticipation and maintaining contribution. Developments in gamification, serious
computer games, and game-based learning are becoming important for virtual
learning environments (VLEs).
Foundation of Digital Games for Learning
In the 1980s, computer games were presented as a potential learning tool based on
the idea that games improve learners’ motivation. According to Ke (2009), most
of the literature on the use of digital games was based on authors’ opinions regard-
ing the potential of instructional games or proposals about how games could be
developed to be instructionally sound. During that period of time, few articles
6
documented the effectiveness of instructional games, much of the work was de-
scriptive (Dempsey et al. 1996) and the real use of games for learning was very
scarce. However, in the last decade, the amount of research into game-based learn-
ing has increased considerably (Ke 2009; O’Neil et al. 2005; Hwang-Wu 2012;
Mayer 2012). Currently, we can find studies in a variety of learning settings: ele-
mentary education, secondary education, adult education, business management,
military and healthcare. Some studies focus on general problem-solving and skills
development (Hwang-Wu 2012) and there are also an important number of studies
based on the use of games in learning subject areas such as mathematics, language
arts, reading, physics, health, natural sciences, and science.
Despite the diversity and scope of the studies, this is still an area with consider-
able weaknesses. Mayer (2012) considers that there is an increase in publications,
methods, tools and findings, but there is not a methodology for digital games re-
search and most of the experiments are very short and do not provide longitudinal
data. According to Hwang-Wu (2012), most research is mainly focused on the in-
vestigation of students’ motivations, perceptions and attitudes toward digital
games.
The central consideration supporting the use of digital games for learning is
based on the idea that video games provide a good learning environment in ac-
cordance with the main principles of active learning (Gee 2003; Kafai and Ching
1996; Malone 1981; Prensky 2001; Squire 2008). Players have to understand the
internal design and the social practice that determine the activity of the game.
Along these lines, Gee (2003) has proposed 36 learning principles that provide a
comprehensive account of the potential of games for creating engaging learning,
problem solving skills, cooperation and practical participation. In summary,
“games are powerful contexts for learning because they make it possible to create
virtual worlds, and because acting in such worlds makes it possible to develop the
situated understandings, effective social practices, powerful identity, shared val-
ues, and ways of thinking of important communities of practice” (Shaffer and
Clinton 2004, p.7).
Some studies intended to explore whether digital games play any role in sup-
porting educational goals. The analysis of the available studies by subject matter
reveals that some knowledge domains are particularly suited to gaming, such as
mathematics, physics and language arts (Hays 2005; Ke 2009). Researchers also
explore how game-based learning activities should be organised. For instance,
Sandford et al. (2007) report that teachers’ facilitation plays an important role in
an effective use of instructional games in the classroom. These studies consider
that the investigation into computer games for learning should focus on how
games can be aligned with pedagogical strategies or learning conditions to be ben-
eficial (Hwang and Wu 2012).
Few studies analyse the learner characteristics; only gender has been examined
(Dempsey et al. 1996; Haynes 2000; Hays 2005). However, if the use of games
can support personalised learning, it is important to analyse the profile of play-
ers/learners. Games should present players with challenges that are matched to
7
their skill level in order to maximise engagement (Kiili 2005). A game has to be
able to provide the opportunity for appropriate guidance or collaboration in order
to help players meet the next challenge. “The key is to set the level of difficulty at
the point where the learner needs to stretch a bit and can accomplish the task with
moderate support” (Jalongo 2007, p. 401).
Generally, instructional computer games seem to facilitate motivation and en-
gagement across different learner groups and learning situations. This finding is in
agreement with Vogel et al.’s (2006) quantitative meta-analysis conclusion that
the effect size of games versus traditional teaching methods is highly reliable for
attitude outcomes. “Games contain the pieces necessary to engage students and
help them enter a state of flow where they are fully immersed in their learning en-
vironment and focused on the activity they are involved in” (McClarty et al.
2012). When complete attention is devoted to the game, a player may lose track of
time and not notice other distractions. Games support many of the components of
flow (Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura, 1979) such as clear goals, direct and im-
mediate feedback, balance between ability level and challenge, and sense of con-
trol. These components can increase student engagement, and student engagement
is strongly associated with student achievement (Shute, Ventura, Bauer, and Zapa-
ta-Rivera 2009).
Another contribution offered by games is the support of problem-solving ac-
tivities. Some authors consider this contribution intrinsic to gameplay (Gee 2007;
Kiili 2007; Hung and van Eck 2010). However, some designers consider it im-
portant to establish dialogue and collaboration between instructional designers and
game developers to gain a better idea of what types of gameplay will most appro-
priately afford given learning goals and objectives (Hung and van Eck 2010). Sim-
ilar efforts have been made with serious games by mapping identifiable steps or
events in game interaction against general learning activity frameworks. One ref-
erence adopted for interpreting game pedagogy is Bloom’s taxonomy and Gagné’s
nine events of instruction (Hung and van Eck 2010).
Several studies have explored whether these games play a role in supporting
current educational objectives. In most cases (de Freitas and Oliver 2006; Gros
2007) Gros and Garrido 2008; Sandford et al. 2006), the most common obstacle
facing the use of digital games in schools is identified by the teachers and refers to
some practical difficulties. They identify the use of the games as positive learning
experiences, but mention a number of problems and limitations: the lack of time
available to familiarise themselves with the game, the problem of selecting the
game and the difficulty in persuading other colleagues of the benefits and the lack
of educational games to support the curriculum. Assisting teachers with game-
based learning may therefore require more flexibility in terms of lesson duration,
as well as measures to ensure adequate time for lesson preparation and good tech-
nical support. Teachers require guidelines and frameworks for supporting innova-
tive practice, “achievement of educational objectives was more dependent upon a
teacher’s knowledge of the curriculum…than it was on their ability with the
8
game” (Sandford et al. 2006, p. 3). In summary, the teacher played a central role
in scaffolding and supporting students’ learning.
The Use of Digital Games in e-Learning
Games can be used in traditional face-to-face classrooms, but there is also a very
promising use of games in virtual learning environments. In this section, we de-
scribe some of the main challenges and problems of using digital games for e-
learning.
E-learning can be used as a general term that includes all forms of educational
technology in learning and teaching. However, in this case we use the term as the
modality of asynchronous teaching and learning. E-learning describes education
that occurs in a distance education mode using the web as the sole medium for all
student learning and contact. The value of e-learning lies in its ability to train any-
one, anytime, anywhere. E-learning or blended learning (the combination of face-
to-face with virtual activities) must provide a complete environment to support
students’ learning processes.
Traditional models of e-learning have focused on content as the most important
element of the courses. However, the evolution of technology is fundamental in
the evolution of e-learning. Innovation in ICT is providing new ways to deliver
online learning. E-learning can be viewed as “an innovative approach for deliver-
ing well-designed, learner-centred, interactive and facilitated learning environ-
ments to anyone, anyplace, anytime by utilising the attributes and resources of
various digital technologies along with other forms of learning materials suited for
open, flexible and distributed learning environments” (Khan 2005, p. 33).
Bates (2011) considers that e-learning allows the development of important
skills for the knowledge society: skills related to the use of technology, independ-
ent study, searching for information, problem-solving, collaborative learning, per-
sonalisation and lifelong learning. However, we can find a lot of games for e-
learning based on a behaviourist approach of learning and mainly focused on the
transmission of content and not on complex learning activities. In fact, there are
many companies and some open software that provide templates to produce e-
learning games based on training games, quizzes and polls.
Personalisation in e-learning is an important challenge that can be achieved by
tapping into the interactive potential of games. The most obvious type of adapta-
tion in video games is the inclusion of different levels of difficulty; trying to adjust
the challenge to different levels of skill. However, the potential is even greater
thanks to the high interactivity of games, which can be used to implement much
more fine-grained adaptation mechanisms. Some advanced games can even carry
out this adaptation transparently to the user. For example, the Left4Dead™ saga
(http://www.valvesoftware.com/games/l4d2.html) includes an artificial intelli-
gence engine that customises elements like pathways through the game world, en-
9
emy populations and also the game atmosphere and environment through adaptive
music, sound and visual effects according to the player’s style of play.
An important dimension of digital games is connecting the game worlds to real
worlds, either by adopting advanced technologies or by building communities of
practice. With proper technology and storylines, digital games could extend learn-
ing from the virtual game world to the real world, providing students with more
authentic experiences. Squire and Klopfer (2007) and Rosenbaum et al. (2006) il-
lustrate examples of using augmented reality technology to explore the real world
through digital games.
The integration of video games or 3D immersive virtual worlds into e-learning
is not new. However, implementing communication between the game and the vir-
tual learning environment (VLE) it is not always easy.
A VLE is an e-learning education system based on the web that provides a vir-
tual space equivalent to classes. It contains the content of the course, homework,
grades, assessments, social space where students and teacher can interact through
threaded discussions, social tools, and other external resources such as website
links.
In the last decade, there has been much debate about the benefits of using VLEs
because it is difficult to create standards for integrating other resources developed
outside the virtual learning environment. This is mainly the situation related to the
use of digital games.
In order to use digital games for learning purposes, games and VLEs need to
establish active and bidirectional communication to support the exchange of data.
Current e-learning standards were not designed to support this kind of communi-
cation. Some standards address the communication between VLEs and content
(e.g., Sharable Content Object Reference Model [SCORM]) or the adaptation of
the learning flow, but we still need to deal with the current diversity of VLEs and
with a lack of specific standardisation support for the peculiarities of game-based
learning. According to Moreno-Ger, Burgos, and Torrente (2009), a game devel-
oper who wants to integrate a game into a VLE must identify which stand-
ard/specification will be used in the VLE to store the data and how the games will
exchange information with the VLE. Given the current situation, with diverse
standards available, this does not guarantee the full interoperability of the con-
tents, leaving the investment unprotected.
The standardisation of learning games does not seem to be very systematically
developed. Livingstone and Hollins (2010) report that various technical standards
for gaming can be used, such as different standards in 3D technologies, browser
languages and also different kinds of multimedia standards like Flash or, more re-
cently, HTML5, for use with mobile devices. Interactive storytelling has a specific
relevance to the design of learning games and the IMS-LD (International Man-
agement System-Learning Design) standard has been shown to have this potential.
Kelle et al. (2011 p. 527) describe two design methodologies (Figure 1), start-
ing the design cycle from the gaming or the e-learning standards perspective.
10
Fig. 1 The use of e-learning standards
By starting the design from the side of learning, it is possible to model the educa-
tional process and then iteratively integrate game elements into the instructional
design. From the game perspective, the methodology links game elements with
learning activities and outcomes. According to Kelle et al. (2010), both models
have limitations and the ideal situation would be to have both directions in one
learning game.
Despite the fact that the standards implemented by VLEs are diverse, a small
number of these are starting to dominate the market share (for instance, Moodle,
Blackboard) and consequently it is more feasible for developers to develop the
games for specific VLEs.
We have discussed some aspects related the technological issues that must be
taken into account in order to integrate digital games into e-learning. However, the
main challenge is not technical but is largely a methodological issue. In the next
section, we will discuss how to integrate digital games for learning.
Pedagogical Challenge for the Integration of Digital Games into
Learning
The way that digital games are implemented for training is strongly influenced by
the evolution of technology. One of the most important features in the advance of
digital games is the interaction between the game and the player. Although some
games still use the keyboard, many others require a device to be pointed at a
screen (Nintendo’s Wii), direct interaction with full-body motion (Kinect) or using
finger movements on the screen. A number of technologies are on the horizon to
provide an even more immersive environment than is possible today (such as 3D
11
and augmented reality.). Haptic computing, which adds the sense of touch to the
simulated or virtual environment, is already being used in medical training. Nin-
tendo’s Wii platform has brought awareness of haptics to the consumer market,
opening the door to new learning design and gaming innovations. For this reason,
the application of video games in training is very varied (e.g., social science, phys-
ics, mathematics, sport), and we cannot establish a unique methodological ap-
proach for game-based learning. A systematic meta-analysis of the uses of digital
games for learning (Clark, et al., 2014) reveal that games with augmented designs
for learning improve learning relative to standard versions. This finding highlights
the importance of design in learning outcomes. Comparing multiple game-based
interventions to one another indicate that certain types of game structures may be
more effective for certain types of outcomes. It is very important the design be-
yond simple choice of medium when discussing the affordances of digital games
for learning. Although this conclusion is quite obvious, the role of design does not
appear in debates over whether digital games are “better” or “worse” than tradi-
tional instruction. For this reason, it is very important to consider this finding
when interpreting the media-comparison analyses. In this section, we will describe
the main elements to take into account when designing the use of digital games in
formal education.
Despite the benefits of digital games mentioned previously, their integration in-
to formal education is scarce and different problems have been identified. First
and most notably, there is a lack of acceptance of games as educational tools
among the majority of educators (Egenfeldt-Nielsen 2006; Felicia 2009; Hwang
and Wu 2012; Wastiau et al. 2009). Some teachers perceive the use of games as a
leisure time activity with no pedagogic value. In addition, teachers have problems
integrating games into a regular classroom. There are many products and it is dif-
ficult for them to select the appropriate game for each educational purpose. For
this reason, some associations are developing networks of teachers to promote the
use of digital games by providing examples and criteria for selecting games (de
Freitas et al. 2012; Wagner 2012).
Another important problem to take into account is that playing in an informal
situation is not the same as playing in a formal setting. For instance, a meta-
analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games reveal that “be-
tween leisure computer games and serious games is that the former are chosen by
the players and played whenever and for as long as they want, whereas the type of
game that is used and the playing time are generally defined by the curriculum in
the case of serious games. Within the instructional context, it is possible that the
lack of control on these decisions has attenuated the motivation appeal of serious
games” (Wouters et al., 2013, 260)
The main goal for a player is to have fun and not to learn. For this reason, im-
plementing games for learning purposes requires designing activities in which the
game is part of a learning scenario. Learning does not just end with the game.
These problems are not only related to primary and secondary education. The
Horizon Report for Higher Education (NMC 2011; 2012) mentions the use of se-
12
rious games as a promising area to support learning in universities and identifies
the time-to-adoption for games and gamification as 2-3 years. However, the real
adoption and institutional implementation of games in postsecondary education is
still at an experimental stage—we can find some isolated experiences but there is
no systematic implementation (Epper et al. 2012). De Freitas and Oliver (2006)
consider that there are four aspects to take into account when planning to use digi-
tal games for learning: learner modelling and profiling, the role of pedagogic ap-
proaches for supporting learning (e.g., associative, cognitive and situated), the rep-
resentation of the game itself (how high the levels of fidelity need to be, how
interactive the game is and how immersive the game might be), and the context
within which learning takes place (e.g., discipline and setting).
The elements of the games detailed above are quite varied; however, they all fit
into one of the four mentioned categories: learner, context, pedagogy and repre-
sentation. For this reason, van Staalduinen and de Freitas (2011) have proposed
joining up the elements (see Table 2).
13
Table 2. Game elements grouped according to the four-dimensional work (Source: van Staaldu-
inen and de Freitas 2011)
Hanghøj and Brund (2010, p.17) state: “Game-based teaching can be understood
as a complex series of pedagogical choices, practices and meaning-making pro-
cesses, which can be analysed through the complementary notions of teacher
roles, game modalities and positioning”. To a certain degree this teacher-centred
standpoint can be seen as an alternative, or complementary, take on the four-
dimensional model. The proposal (see Table 3) identifies a repertoire of different
roles that teachers assume throughout the process, namely that of instructor, play-
maker, guide and explorer. These correspond to different phases in the deploy-
ment process and can be mapped onto axes according to the type of knowledge
(curricular/game) and perspective (outsider/participant) involved (Magnussen and
Hanghøj, 2010). This proposal provides a general framework for gaining a more
concrete understanding of game-based learning dynamics from the educator’s per-
spective.
14
Table 3 The relationship between different game-based teaching roles (Source: Hanghøj and
Brund 2010)
It seems clear that to successfully integrate digital games it is essential to align the
direction of learning, instruction and assessment. The design of the game must fit
with the pedagogical design and the content area or the intended learning out-
comes. This is most evident in the use of commercial video games as they do not
have an educational purpose and, therefore, it is necessary to plan how to integrate
the resource. It is easier to integrate serious games that have been created for edu-
cational purposes. Moreover, debriefing is critical for using games in education as
it provides the connection between learning in the game and applying those skills
to other contexts (Ash 2011; Gros 2007). Teachers can facilitate the transfer of
skills by leading pre- and post-game discussions, which connect the game with
other things students are learning in class.
The ultimate aim of integrating games into learning can be very varied. We
propose six important directions based on the predominant reasons for integrating
games: to teach 21stcentury skills, to improve motivation, to teach content, to im-
prove learning experiences, for authentic assessment, and for design and creativi-
ty.
Games to Teach 21st Century Skills
There is a growing awareness that teaching 21st century skills “frequently requires
exposing learners to well-designed complex tasks, affording them the ability to in-
teract with other learners and trained professionals, and providing them with ap-
propriate diagnostic feedback that is seamlessly integrated into the learning expe-
rience” (Rupp et al. 2010, p. 4). Consequently, the use of digital games is closely
related to skills like collaboration, innovation, production and design. For this rea-
son, digital games are frequently cited as important mechanisms for teaching 21st
century skills because they can accommodate a wide variety of learning styles
within a complex decision-making context (Squire 2006).
15
Games to Improve Motivation
A year-long pan-European study that included over 500 teachers found that the
great majority of the teachers surveyed confirmed “motivation is significantly
greater when computer games are integrated into the educational process” (Joyce,
Gerhard, and Debry 2009, p.11). Most games provide clear goals, tasks and chal-
lenges, and reinforce feedback, which are important elements for improving moti-
vation. For this reason, games are often used as a starting point for improving mo-
tivation.
Games to Teach Content
Commercial games or serious games can be used to teach some specific content in
the curriculum. In many cases, the main challenge is the integration rather than the
use of the game for learning, and to focus on solving complex problems. Most
video games provide complex learning environments in which players have to be
able to control many different variables, take decisions, establish strategies and
constantly compare the effects of their actions in the system.
Games to Improve Learning Experiences
Kiili (2005) has developed an experiential gaming model to link gameplay with
experiential learning in order to facilitate flow experience. Experiential learning
describes the acquisition of knowledge in a learning cycle with four successive
stages (Kolb 1984): concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract concep-
tualisation and feedback or active experimentation. The core of Kolb's four-stage
model is a simple description of the learning cycle which shows how experience is
translated by reflection into concepts, which in turn are used as a guide to feed-
back or active experimentation and planning new experiences or creating alterna-
tive methods of action. In this way it helps learners to understand the process of
acquiring concepts, skills and attitudes from their own point of view.
The design cycle (Figure 2) describes the main phases of game design and
works as a guideline in the design process. The design process is presented ab-
stractly because it may vary among the different game genres. The model empha-
sises the importance of considering several flow antecedents in educational game
design: challenges matched to the skill level of a player, clear goals, unambiguous
feedback, a sense of control, playability, gamefulness, focused attention and a
frame story (Kiili 2006).
16
Fig. 2 Experiential gaming model (Kiili 2005: 18)
Using this approach allows us to highlight a very important aspect: the gaming
experience is not the same in a formal context as it is outside the school setting.
Including games in a learning context aims to leverage the advantages of digital
game design to enhance learning. It is important to stress that the pedagogical ex-
ploitation of video games involves bringing the game into the classroom under the
guidance of teachers, who must work to make the experience of playing a reflec-
tive experience.
Games for Assessment
It is important to note that video games are inherently assessments. Assessment
occurs naturally in a game due to the immediate feedback. Players make progress
or they do not; they advance to the next level or try again. According to Ash
(2012), the challenge lies in assessing the appropriate knowledge, skills or abili-
ties.
The opportunity for games to be used as assessments is greatly enhanced be-
cause of their capacity to collect data about students. Shute (2013) refers to this
embedded gathering of information about players as “stealth assessment”, an evi-
dence-based process by which assessment can be integrated directly into learning
environments. Moreover, Shute and Kim (2011) demonstrate how assessments can
be embedded within a commercial game to examine the learning of educationally
relevant knowledge and skills.
17
Games for Design and Creativity
Another approach to using game-based learning is to ask the students themselves
to design digital games to teach others. Prensky (2008) states that students are ca-
pable of game design because they are the ones that are closely related to the
learning subjects and who understand most about the power of games for learning.
By learning through designing games, students can increase their understanding of
subject concepts, enhance their general problem-solving abilities and creativity.
This approach was very difficult to apply in the past; however, the software to
produce games has improved and now provides easy tools that can be used with
students. For instance, GameMaker1 and Scratch2 do not require professional pro-
gramming abilities and support the creation of video games.
Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed the current use and integration of digital games in edu-
cation and has analysed the foundations of game-based learning.
The use of digital games has been shown to be successful for encouraging stu-
dent participation. Possibly what is most important about digital games is the
combination of motivation, engagement, adaptivity, simulation, collaboration and
data collection.
Developments in gamification, serious computer games and game-based learn-
ing are becoming important for virtual learning environments (VLEs). However,
the main challenge is to improve the acceptance of games as an educational tool
and increase their real integration.
General perceptions of the usefulness of games to support learning are certain
to improve over the next few years, as the generations learning with games in the
classroom reach tertiary education and as teachers receive tools and guidance for
developing their own game-based learning activities with groups of learners with
different skills, levels and competencies.
We believe that research should no longer focus on whether games may be
used for learning, but instead should prioritise how games can be best used for
learning.
1http://www.yoyo games.com/gamemaker
2http://scratch.mit.edu
18
References
Arnseth, H.C. (2006). Learning to play or playing to learn: A critical account of the models of
communication informing educational research on computer gameplay. Game Studies: The
International Journal of Computer Game Research, 6(1).
Ash, K. (2012). Attention, videogames and the retention economies of affective amplifica-
tion. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(6), 3-26.
Ash, K. (2011). Gaming goes academic. Education Week, 30, 24-28.
Bates, T. (2011). Understanding Web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning.InWeb, 2, 21-41.
Blunt, R. (2009). Do serious games work? Results from three studies. eLearn Magazine, 12.
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & May, S. K. (2014). Digital Games for Learning: A System-
atic Review and Meta-Analysis. SRI Publication, Technical Report.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1979). The concept of flow. Play and learning, 257-274.
deFreitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review of game-based learning. London:
JISC.
deFreitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations
within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated?. Computers & Education, 46, 249–264.
deFreitas, S., Kiili, K., Ney, M., Ott, M., Popescu, M. (2012). GEL : Exploring Game Enhanced
Learning, 15, 289–292.
deFreitas, S., Ott, M., Popescu, M.M., Stanescu, I. (2013). New pedagogical approaches in game
enhanced learning: Curriculum integration. Hearsly: IGI Global.
Dempsey, J.V., Rasmussen, K., Lucassen, B. (1996). Instructional gaming: Implications for in-
structional technology. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational useof video games. Digi-
tal kompetanse, 1(3), 184–213.
Epper, R., Derryberry, A., Jackson, S. (2012). Game-based learning: Developing and institution-
al strategy. Educause. Research Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Felicia, P. (2009). Digital games in schools: A handbook for teachers. European Schoolnet's
Games in Schools Project. Retrieved
fromhttp://games.eun.org/upload/GIS_HANDBOOK_EN.PDF
Ferdig, R. (2007). Learning and teaching with electronic games. Journal of Educational Multi-
media and Hypermedia, 16(3), 217–223.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning. New York: Peter Lang.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 1-23.
Gros, B.,&Garrido, J.M. (2008). The use of video games to mediate curricular learning.
DIGITEL. (Proceedings of the 2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Digital Game
and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning), 170-176.
Hanghøj, T.,&Brund, C. E. (2010).Teacher roles and positioning when facilitating educational
games (Proceedings of ECGBL 2010, 4th European Conference on Game-Based Learning),
21-22 October, Copenhagen.
Hanghøj, T., & Meyer, B.(2010). How to study something that does not (yet) exist? Making de-
sign interventions with learning games (Proceedings of ECGBL 2010, 4th European Confer-
enceon Game-Based Learning), 21-22 October, Copenhagen.
Hainey T., Connolly T., Stansfield M. & Boyle E.A. (2011). Evaluation of a game to teach re-
quirements collection and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education level. Com-
puters & Education, 56, 21–35.
19
Haynes, L.C. (2000). Gender differences in the use of a computer-based mathematics game:
Strategies, motivation, and beliefs about mathematics and computers. ProQuest Information
& Learning, 60(9), 3328-3624.
Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discus-
sion (No. NAWCTSD-TR-2005-004). Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems.
Hung, W., & van Eck, R. (2010). Aligning problem solving and gameplay: A model for future
research and design. Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging Con-
cepts and Future Directions, 227-263.
Hwang, G.-J., & Wu, P.-H. (2012). Advancements and trends in digital game-based learning re-
search: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43, 6-10.
Jalongo, M. R. (2007). Beyond benchmarks and scores: Reasserting the role of motivation and
interest in children’s academic achievement. Association for Childhood Education Interna-
tional, 83(6), 395–407.
Joyce, A., Gerhard, P., Debry, M. (2009). How are digital games used in schools: Complete re-
sults of the study. European Schoolnet.
Kafai, Y.B., &Ching, C.C. (1996). Meaningful contexts for mathematical learning: The potential
of game making activities (Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning
Sciences, pp. 164-171).
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer.
Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. Handbook of re-
search on effective electronic gaming in education, 1, 1-32.
Kelle, S., Klemke, R., Gruber, M., Specht, M. (2011). Standardization of game based learning
design. In Computational Science and Its Applications-ICCSA 2011 (pp. 518-532).Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Khan, B. (2005). Managing e-learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evalua-
tion. London: Information Science Publishing.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet
and Higher Education, 8(1), 13–24.
Kiili, K. (2006). Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology, 2(2), 187–
201.
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 38(3), 394–404.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching,41(1), 30-35.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2003). Literature review in games and learning.Futurelab Se-
ries, Futurelab.
Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented Learning Research and Design for Mobile Educational Games.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Livingstone, D., &Hollins, P. (2010). Virtual worlds, standards and interoperability. International
Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research (IJITSR), 8(2), 45-59.
Magnussen, R., &Misfeldt, M. (2004): Player transformation of educational multiplayer games.
In Proceedings of Other Players. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from
http://www.itu.dk/op/proceedings
Malone, T.W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6, 258-277.
Mayer, I. (2012). Towards a Comprehensive Methodology for the Research and Evaluation of
Serious Games. Procedia Computer Science, 15, 233-247.
McClarty, K. L., Orr, A., Frey, P. M., Dolan, R. P., Vassileva, V., McVay, A. (2012).A literature
review of gaming in education. Pearson’s Research Reports.
Michael, D.,&Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train and inform. Boston:
MA: Thomson Course Technology.
20
Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Torrente, J. (2009).Digital games in elearning environments. Cur-
rent uses and emerging trends. Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 669-687.
New Media Consortium [NMC]. (2011). The horizon report: Higher education edition. Retrieved
from http://www.nmc.org/horizon-project
New Media Consortium [NMC].(2012). The horizon report: Higher education edition. Retrieved
from http://www.nmc.org/horizon-project
O'Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence
from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal,16(4), 455-474.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Revuelta,F., &Bernabé,A. (2012). El videojuego en red social: un Nuevo modelo de comuni-
cación. Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura,6, 157-176.
Rollings, A. & Adams, E. (2006). New challenges for character-based game-design. Indianapo-
lis: New Readers.
Rosenbaum, E., Klopfer, E., Perry, J. (2006). On location learning: Authentic applied science
with networked augmented realities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1),
31-45.
Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of
epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(4).
Sandford, R., Ulisark, M., Facer, K., Rudd, T. (2007). Teaching with games. Learning, Media &
Technology, 32(1), 101-105.
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. D., Halverson, R., Gee, J. P. (2005). Videogames and the future of
learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111.
Shaffer, D.W. (2008). How computer games help children learn. New York: Pal-
grave/Macmillan.
Shaffer,D.W., &Clinton,K. (2004). Tool for thoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age.
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Shaffer,D.W.,& Gee,A. (2006). Before every child is left behind: How epistemic games can
solve the coming crisis in education (Working Paper No. 2005-7). University of Wisconsin-
Madison.
Shute, V. J. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2011). Does playing the World of Goo facilitate learning? In D.Y.
Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intel-
lectual growth and functioning (pp. 359–387). New York, NY: Routledge Books.
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious
games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning. Serious games: Mechanisms
and effects, 295-321.
Squire, K.,&Klopfer, E. (2007) Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal
of Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.
Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning for the interactive
Age. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games and learning (pp.
167-198). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Squire, K. (2002).Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game Studies, 2(1).
Squire, K. D. (2006). From content to context: Video games and designed experiences. Educa-
tional Researcher, 35(8), 19–29
Ulicsak, M., &Williamson,B. (2010). Computers game and learning. A Futurelab Handbook. Re-
trieved from
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Computer_games_and_learning.pdf
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless,
Educase Review, 41,2, 1-16
21
Van Staalduinen, J. P. (2010). A first step towards integrating educational theory and game de-
sign. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Improving learning and motivation through educational games. Her-
shey, PA: IGI Global.
Van Staalduinen, J. P., & de Freitas, S. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Linking
game design and learning. In. M.S.Khine (Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring the future of ed-
ucation with video games (pp. 29-54).New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Vogel JJ, Vogel DS, Cannon-Bowers J, Bowers GA, Muse K, Wright M (2006) Computer gam-
ing and interactive simulations for learning: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Compu-
ting Research34(3):229–243
Wagner, R. (2012). Learning with Digital Games: A Practical Guide to Engaging Students in
Higher Education–By Nicola Whitton. Teaching Theology & Religion, 15(1), 91-92.
Whiton, N. (2012). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher
rducation. Teaching Theology & Religion,15(1), 91-92.
Wastiau, P., Kearney, C., Van den Berghe, W. (2009). How are digital games used in schools?
European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://games.eun.org/upload/gis-
synthesis_report_en.pdf.
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-
analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(2), 249.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game me-
chanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media.
