I'm Serious.net

Hope to see you...

Next week, I will be attending the eLearning Guild's Annual Gathering in Orlando. If you, too, are planning to attend, I hope you will make both the ILS Symposium (I'm one of the presenters) on Monday and my featured session, "Quick and Easy Ways to Get Started with Serious Games," on Wednesday afternoon.

I look forward to seeing you and hearing about your projects. And if you can't join us, I'll say "hi" to Mickey for you.

I'm Serious,
Anne

You Know You Wanna

We just finished up with the ILS Report webinar. If you were unable to join us, a recording of it is available here. You can also download the report at the eLearning Guild's site. Great stuff in each!

I'm serious,
Anne

White Men Rule

Greetings from San Francisco and the Game Developers Conference. It's rainy and cold here, so staying indoors talking to and learning from some of the best and brightest in our industry is exactly the right thing to be doing.

The past two days have been dedicated to, among other things, the Serious Games Summit. Each day has been filled with presentations about the work being done around the world. Did you know that in Japan there are some 300 (!) commercial serious games on the market? Canadian national, regional and provincial governments are investing heavily in serious games. The West Midlands region of England has recently launched the Serious Games Institute, which includes an incubator of sorts for small SG development houses at the University of Coventry. The French Minister of Culture recently announced the French government's intention to promote certain regions of France as game development centers for the European Community.

And yet, with all this activity, I'm face-to-face with the stark truth that this industry is fueled by young(ish), white men. From my non-scientific observation, women represent less than 15% of conference attendees. Other than a sizable representation from the Asian community, many of whom are here from their homelands, there are very few people of color here. And, as you might expect, the over-50 crowd is quite poorly represented.

This troubles me. Until the designer/developer community reflects the audience/consumer community, serious games will have a hard time hitting their mark. Why? Because a closed system RARELY provides opportunities for true innovation.

More importantly, the effectiveness of a serious game rests in large measure on the development team's ability to penetrate the psyche of the target audience on an individual and collective basis. When the team's demographics do not correspond to those of the audience, a deep understanding of who the audience is and what motivates them becomes far harder to access. This potential disconnect can lead to disenfranchisement of the audience - the kiss of death for learner/player engagement and serious learning.

While this may be a "chicken and egg" problem, the fact is that this situation must change. Employers and team leaders must pay close attention to team demographics even while focusing on team skills. As development teams better reflect the characteristics of the audiences they are trying to touch, buyers will have greater confidence in the team's ability to touch the minds - and hearts - of the learners.

I'm serious,
Anne

Mirror and Metaphor

Happy New Year from London, where I’ve just seen the new King Tut exhibit. It’s every bit as enjoyable and impressive as the exhibit that toured the world 30 years ago. One addition (if memory serves) are the games that were found in Tut’s tomb. Apparently, 12 “board” games were placed in the tomb’s innermost chamber with the body so that Tut could have some amusements in the afterlife. As with just about everything shown in the exhibit, these games told stories that were both instructive and served to assist Tut in his dealings with the gods he would encounter. Each game tells a different story. Each has its own board layout with pieces that represent various of the story’s characters. Some of the games are single-player, some are multi-player (hmmmm, that would be Tut and ???????).   

 

As with so many of the great civilizations, difficult concepts were understood through stories in ancient Egypt. Metaphors were most helpful in explaining life’s mysteries. For serious game designers, there are interesting take-aways from this awareness.      

 

Once a serious game designer has completed the analysis work (who is the audience and why are they coming to the game? what is the nature of the content? what is the environment in which the audience will apply the content?), s/he is ready to take on the conceptual and detailed design work. And the very first design question s/he asks is whether the learners will be best served by a game motif that relies on metaphor and story-telling, or is a straight-forward simulation, or mirror, of the real world more likely to yield the desired outcomes?

 

This is not an easy, if-then question. However, general guidelines may prove useful.

 

Where desired performance is critical and exact, particularly when unerring group performance is the goal, mirror worlds are called for - with the “mirror” as finely tuned as possible. I would not be satisfied knowing my surgeon learned anatomy and surgical technique playing Milton Bradley’s “Operation”.

 

By turn, the right metaphor can help elucidate content better than a straight-forward explanation. Metaphors can cement deep-learning, can help break “bad habits” in favor of “good performance”, and can erode stereotypes. Role-playing games such as World of Warcraft have been cited numerous times for their contribution to team-building, for example. Picking the right metaphor can be tricky business; pre-alpha user testing is essential to ensure you are on the right track. Accounting for learning transference is also a must.

 

Whether your game is a mirror or a metaphor, I send you best wishes for 2008 here in the real world!

 

I'm serious,

Anne 

 

Proving Our Worth

"The widespread interest in the learning and motivation benefits of serious video games has not been balanced by a robust discussion about evidence for their pedagogical effectiveness.... As of now, the evidence is solidly against the proposition that [serious] games will replace direct instruction," asserts noted academic Richard E. Clark in his article in the May/June 2007 issue of Educational Technology (pp. 56-59).

Clark's piece also quotes B. Sawyer in addressing entrepreneurs: "We still are dealing with a huge research gap in serious games, but so far it hasn't hurt things because people are still getting new projects online. At some point, however, the justification and design issues related to determining the return on investment and outcomes from game-based approaches may become too hard to overcome without more and better research."

While I disagree with Clark that the question is whether serious games are going to replace classrooom instruction, my own recent review of the literature supports these concerns about evaluation. In fact, although there is more and more ink being devoted to information about serious games in academic publications and market analysis reports, there is a paucity, if not absence, of literature reflecting the results of empirical research.

"But why," one might ask, "must I bother with evaluation if I'm already doing assessment? After all, if learners/players learn what they are supposed to, the design/development of the serious game is obviously good."

(Read this if you wondering about the difference between assessment and evaluation.)

Program or product evaluation seeks to answer comprehensive questions about the effectiveness of the product in addressing a stated problem. These include:
- Do learners accomplish the learning objectives, reliably and repeatably? Do they do so better or less well than if another instructional medium had been used?
- Do learners transfer new learnings from practice to performance environment? Do they do so better or less well than if another instructional medium had been used?
- Are there positive cost-benefit ratios associated with the serious game? How do those ratios compare if another instructional medium had been used?

The astute reader will observe that these questions go to business issues just as much as to pedagogical concerns. Without being too cynicial, every business manager ultimately is concerned with just one question, the last bullet point: is this the best way for me to spend my money on this problem?

Precious few of us have real answers to this question.

Now is the time for academic and other research organizations to put the serious questions to the test. In order for them to do so, they need projects-in-development from the practitioner/developer community. The interest in forming these partnerships should come from both sides. And funding must be allocated to their efforts to ensure valid, reliable, and robust research studies are conducted and analyzed.

Sawyer's prediction came in 2005. The day of reckoning is coming for serious games. Will we be able to prove our worth to the budget-keepers?

I'm serious,

Anne

Curriculum design - where to put the game?

In the process of doing research for a client's white paper, I've come across some interesting implementations of serious games on a broad scale. At Wharton business school, faculty frequently turn to the school's Learning Lab for their help in developing a game or simulation to support a course. At Wharton, games are just as likely to provide students with a baseline experience to launch a class or topic as they are used as a simulation model for students to run as a homework assignment. "Our philosophy is that games don't presume to teach anything," says Alec Lamon, co-Director of the Learning Lab. "It's an experience to refer to later."

3Dsolve, by turn, develops large-scale games for military and defense customers (among others) - the largest takes 121 hours to complete! These programs are frequently the culminating event in a course or curriculum. The tools that students have previously learned to use are available in-game, and students face scenarios that use and integrate all the material and learnings that have preceded them.

These are two very different approaches to the use of serious games, of course. Regardless of what approach you base your course or curriulum on, I cannot adequately emphasize the importance of following a rigorous learning design process. In particular, and as I've discussed in past columns, designing for and supporting learning transference is crucial to the success of any curriculum that includes serious games. (In my view, every meta-design document ought to include a discussion of what learning transference strategies will be employed and why.) The serious game must have a lasting effect for transference to occur, and learners' attention must be focused on the desired outcomes - before, during, and after the game is played.

What makes the supporting role of games work at Wharton is that professors recall the gaming experience during subsequent class sessions, and tie together that experience with the new concepts being presented. Conversely, 3Dsolve's model requires all the information that the student will need to complete the "end" game be presented to students as sort of conceptual "legos" that form the foundation for the framing that the game provides.

Both these approaches are quite successful. What makes them work is careful devotion to good learning design.

I'm serious,
Anne

Cohort Learning Experience

As designers of all kinds know, "experience" is the new black: user experience, buyer experience, patient experience, player experience... So why not cohort learning experience?

Not so surprisingly, I'm serious. The particular value of cohort learning, of course, is the experience that derives from working and learning as a team. Within a game environment, that experience cannot develop completely organically, since game mechanics constrain player capabilities. Experience is as much a function of design as learning is. In fact, learning design and cohort experience design must go hand-in-hand for successful cohort learning to occur.

Serious games designed for learning cohorts favor social constructivism as their educational theoretical foundation. In Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, C.T. Fosnot describes this viewpoint of learning as "an interpretive, recursive, building process by active learners interacting with the physical and social world," fully implying that learning is a social process. In other words, a design that focuses the learners' attention and activities on PRACTICE-PRACTICE-PRACTICE, or even PRACTICE-REFLECT-PRACTICE, ignores the benefits of communications for information-sharing, relationship-building - and learning. One might reasonably argue, even, that a cohort-learning design without communications tools is instead a parallel-play design.

For a cohort learning experience to be satisfying and successful for learners, serious game designers - in ways casual game designers needn't - must be mindful of the larger learning experience that surrounds the game in question. What brings learners to the game? Is the cohort already intact, or does it come together for the purposes of the game? What happens to learners after the game? What happens to the cohort?

When designing a serious game for cohort learning, consider the following design components for your overall design:

- Bring the cohort together (physically or virtually) prior to starting the game. This will enable learners to meet cohort members they don't know, and to establish a baseline understanding of the game's purpose and the reason for the cohort. Cohort should review rules of interaction, if necessary.
- During gameplay, cohort members should have communications tools that enable group organization and collaboration. Depending upon your design, those tools might also extend beyond the cohort, even beyond the game.
- Convene the cohort (physically or virtually) after the game is completed in order to discuss and cement key learnings, and plan for learning transference. Strategies for maintaining the learning cohort beyond the game may be appropriate.

By focusing on the critical experience components of the learning cohort, you will promote your learners' engagement with the game and the other cohort members. You will also enhance the effectiveness of your overall serious game design.

I'm serious,
Anne

A Call for Standards

It's back. Another episode is on its way. The new title says it all - "Survivor: Virtual Worlds." The race is to see which serious game engine and which environment are going to take over the game industry. Many players have been announced: Multiverse, Second Life, Torque, Big World Technology... Others are in the wings.

And, yes, we all get to vote. With our purchases, certainly, but with our voices, even more so. As with so many elections, the majority of those affected by the outcome of this race will not register an opinion. This is a mistake. Here's why.

At stake is more than power, flexibility, ease of use, multi-platform compatibility, and all the bells and whistles that make us "ooh" and "aah". Yes these, and some other really critical things. In particular, I return to two fundamental issues: learner-generated content, and assessment. (I hope you count yourself, dear reader, among those who feel these are integrally linked.)

Several companies have announced not just game engines, but whole ecosystems. Second Life and Multiverse, for example, provide technology that enables players to move from one game/title/island to another without leaving the uber-verse that is their proprietary system. This portal notion is initially intriguing from a player perspective (single login, portable identity, portable avatar, portable content) and from a developer perspective (large developer community, cross-title fertilization, built-in business models).

But if I'm a learner/subscriber to a Second Life title and a Multiverse title (just for example's sake), I can't leap back and forth between the two. Most importantly, I have to learn two sets of tools to generate my own content (like I have time for that). Consequently, I can't leverage what I learn in one environment when I'm in a different environment based on a different tool set.

This is equivalent to saying, "I can't show you my video project, because it's on a VHS cassette and yours is a Betamax." Or, "I can't read your diskette, I have a Mac."

Assessment presents its own headaches. I've made clear my feelings about learning-management systems and assessment vis-a-vis serious games. Still and all, I'm making my peace with the fact that most of you will be looking for ways to tie your serious games to your LMS. Or you'll be looking for ways to tie LMS functionality into your game engine.

Remember the early days of eLearning? Remember when you had to commit to a single-vendor solution for both content and LMS because of lack of compatibility? Same problem.

Let's get ourselves out of this mess before we get in it, this time.

We need a quick intervention on the part of relevant standards bodies to address both of these issues. Specifically, we need standards to address:

1. Cross-"world" compatibility for learner-generated content.
2. Integration/compatibility issues with serious games and LMSs.

And we need this to happen now, before a lot of time, energy, and money is spent as we all try to pick the right contestant before the "Survivor" episode is over.

I'm serious,
Anne

Learners’ Rights

One might be inclined to giggle (to oneself, of course) when the subject of the legal rights of learners arises. Certainly, learners have the right to expect a good and effective learning experience, as squishy as those terms may be. They have the right not to have their money or time wasted. But these are more ethical than legal assertions.

There is a very interesting case (Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.) before the court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Bragg alleges that, by terminating his account, Second Life (a California corporation) has unlawfully deprived him of access to his virtual possessions, which possessions are the plaintiff's alone. This case is pending, but a couple of weeks ago, the judge decided that Second Life's Terms of Service were too one-sided, and granted the plaintiff the right to sue Second Life in the plaintiff's home state of Pennsylvania. If I were Philip Rosedale, I think I'd be uneasy.

I'm vaguely uneasy anyway. These kinds of cases are being fought in jurisdictions all over the world. Whatever decisions are rendered will apply equally to entertainment and learning virtual environments - but not necessarily equally around the globe.

As I've made clear, I believe learner-generated content is a critical component to serious games. But as these cases make their way to the law books, serious game designers will need to stay current on the changing requirements.

Ultimately, if we are designing for a multi-national audience, we will be forced to level our designs to meet the tests of the most restrictive legal environment if we are to ensure that all learners have an equivalent game and learning experience. And at all times we must be sensitive to the sometimes emotional attachments we all develop toward our creations.

This issue will become even more vigorously debated, I'm sure, when some of the planned game portals are launched, including a few directed at serious games. These portals will offer features such as single logon, portable avatars, and portable game content.

More than anything else, planning ahead will keep us out of the crack on this issue. Designing the rules of game play up front - and making them clear to the learners - will accomodate the emerging cyberlaws without impinging on the experience of the learner.

I'm serious,
Anne

Thanks to reader Ovidiu Ciobanu for bringing this case to my attention.

Message to LMS Companies

I am an entrepreneur; I admire entrepreneurism and its spirit in others. I encourage forward-thinking and thought-through initiative. I enjoy creative energy and where it can take someone or some group. When these attributes are applied in the right balance to developing a business, great things can occur. And so, from that perspective, I understand the motivations of the LMS companies to begin eyeing serious game engine developers and serious game design companies as the next golden market opportunities.

That said, allow me to point out a few reasons that you are going after the serious game market far too soon.

1. This is a very immature market. Rapidly growing, yes. But still a toddler. We are still defining ourselves. We are not ready for you yet.

2. LMS companies are in the learning business. Most serious game companies have come to this work because they were first entertainment game companies. Teaching and learning are well appreciated on a lay-person level, but there are very few learning professionals who understand game design, and so brilliant game designers are shouldering the learning design role at the same time. Assessment and measurement, their desirability, their suitability, are all relatively new concepts.

3. Learning management systems are built around recognized industry standards and highly structured content and learning formats. Serious games are, in part and by nature, loosely structured. We're still trying to determine in what ways entertainment game engines must be modified in order to become serious game engines. We don't yet understand the problem you are rushing to solve.

Moreover, I contend that LMS technology is not appropriate for serious games at all. What differentiates serious games from just about any other form of learning (I know there are those who will argue this) is that they emphasize "the group": group dynamics, team-building, group communications and interactions, community-building, cooperation. Sure, an individual player can do many things alone, but if the group weren't important, why is there a group? Why isn't it just solitaire?

How do you indicate group learning in an individually-oriented assessment? Sure, I can explicate every group learning goal into discrete individual behaviors - but why? That's not the point. The point is getting the whole group - as a group - where they need to be.

So, my LMS friends, we have a lot of shaking out to do in our industry before we can be solid business partners to you. Along the way, we must decide whether your technology is suitable for our (and our customers'!) purposes. Don't be surprised if we take a pass.

I'm serious,
Anne