Games & Learning

1. Learning in the Game****: I needed to learn the language used in the game, which was not that much of a challenge, since the items and related actions were familiar, colloquial (or “vernacular”) words that one can attach herself with no extra effort (a possible aid for cognitive load or using a more unfamiliar vocabulary does not matter?). This is also in line with James Gee’s (2004) paradox that can be summarized as “in order to read you need to learn vocabulary, but in order to learn vocabulary you need to read.” In my humble opinion, since the terms were familiar (we know the vocabulary), learning the rules (read the game) was much more easy. Oh, yes, more importantly, I needed to learn the rules or the underlying algorithms in the game (Both learning the language and the rules are in line with Squire’s (2006) designed experience). This was a bit difficult, since our experts explain the rules haphazardly (due to our impatient questions, I guess), I need to ask for some of the rules twice (This is also an example for both creating and enacting an “expert” identity in the game, both Squire(2006) and Gee (2004) talks about). Regarding the rules, when we began playing the game, the most important learning that I conduct was the different strategies that I create and test in different situations, such as trying to building villages and upgrading them to cities to be able to collect development cards for victory, since “the longest road” was held by another player, whom I understood, was impossible to catch up with; or try not to keep more than four cards at hand, after loosing my cards to bandit, etc… By this way, I think, I could minimize the “chance factor due to dice-rolling” (Although, we were shocked by “9”s that we rolled). This “lessons-learned” approach that I used was also in line with the “experiential learning.” Gee (2004) states that people learn better, when it is possible to build and run simulations of one’s experiences in order to anticipate new things and actions in the world.
2. Learning with the Game: Probability concepts and problem solving skills, along with the scientific reasoning are the first ones that could be learned with playing this game (as a supplementary material). However, the transferability of the skills is of great importance, which brings us to evaluation methods/measurement problem for learning with games.
3. Learning by Games: I think this game can be adapted for learning mathematics (permutation, combination, mathematical logic, etc.), science (especially organic chemistry), environmental science, without losing the underlying algorithms/rules, but modifying and adding new ones to build a similar balance, economy, motivational framework, etc., i.e. a similar engaging “game system.” However, as mentioned before, we will also need some evaluation methods/measurements to be able to specify the success, effectiveness, etc. of the game in terms of learning.

* This turned out to be the most preferred strategy for formal learning environments (i.e. the most preferable strategy by teachers, who might think using games in their classes).
**However, in the following weeks, I found out that there is one more step further than “learning by gaming,” which was “learning by designing.”
*** Later on, this social aspect of the game became a part in our revised project for the class.


References:

• Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.
• Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8): 19-29.