The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 22: Games in Education
@claw09 Aw just got me xP. Great episode guys, I think the search for ways to make education more engaging is one of the most important pursuits are country is currently pursuing, and games of all kinds (pen and paper And electronic) are going to be an important part of making widespread implementation of these ideas possible.
I completely agree with the fact that games being voluntary and using that voluntary desire to explore and teach is always going to be a stronger motivator than "listen and you will learn." I've spent more time exploring the formula for bullet drop in Battlefield 3 and trying to get that formula calculated in under 5 seconds than I have spent more time learning algebra or geometry.
You raise some good points, but frankly, I'm not sure how schools would implement this. It's already intended to pique curiosity in a sort of gamified way, with points rewarded at intervals in competitions or tests and things. So I don't think that's actually the issue here. In fact, I'd argue the issue isn't how to make curiosity more evident, but how to make impact more evident. People care about the arg or the stats in the game a lot more because it's obvious how things are interacting. People care far less about some abstract concept like algebra, unless you have the patience or the foresight to see how it can be used for something in real life, or how annoying life would be without it.
aberdasher; check out "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal. I think she spends a good chapter on a high school that uses an ARG system based on leveling instead of testing for grades. testing is not a positive reinforcement system, and everyone knows that animals don't react well to negative reinforcement, only positive. if you do poorly on a test, you failed. if you do well, you passed. you didn't get stats, you didn't win a prize. you just "did what was expected". maybe you don't remember high school, but i remember only caring about stuff that i cared about, and my assignments were just assignments. i didn't make goals that i cared about and make progress. i straight up wasn't engaged in classes that weren't hard sciences. i'm about to go back to school again and i know already that this is going to be my biggest hurdle; being engaged in subjects i'm not already interested in.
I want James to read this I think it would help clear some things up.
What you guys are suggesting is wonderful, the school system HAS to change because it fails on so many levels. However, if this is not used correctly it could have the same trappings as the current school system.
The biggest problem with today is that we as educators are forced to teach to the test otherwise if we do not and the kids fail the end of the year tests the school loses funding and then it helps no one. If gaming was implemented as a study aide then there could be real change for students, but from what I am hearing from the videos is that the game should be teaching. The game should reinforce what the teacher has taught not the other way around.
My idea is based on what I have observed with students who are low income and first generation college students and how they act towards learning. Many students tend to view learning as difficult and are discouraged by the fact that it is so difficult. That does not mean that they do not want to learn. I have tutored many a student who fought tooth and nail on not sitting down to learn/relearn the material, but after they have figured out what was wrong they get this look of accomplishment (which is what educators do their jobs for) and this accomplishment pushes them to want to learn more. THAT is where the game comes in.
If a student sits in a classroom for an hour and does not pay attention then they will not do well on their tests, and therefore will become even more discouraged. However, if that same student has a reason beyond failing the course to pay attention there is more of a chance that they will succeed. If a student has trouble with a particular subject they get "lab time" where in the school there is a room/set of rooms that houses these games. The student is told to go there and play a specific game that will help them with that subject.
I realize that the game being voluntary is ideal but we do not live in an ideal world. At some point you have to make the student play one of these games in order for them to learn it is no different than lectures in school. The best way to minimize this however is to make sure that the games themselves are engaging. If the games are engaging they will WANT to come back after having to be TOLD the first time.
Unfortunately there is a reason for the A,B,C,D, and F grades it was supposed to keep kids accountable. If the student believes they can simply skate by with just doing their best when they get to the real world they will not know how to adapt. If their best is not good enough they have to learn to change something, but the only way that a student knows they need to change is by grading them. There are no grades in the real world just pass/fail, so if they do not learn how to pick themselves back up when they fail and to change their strategy then they will not succeed in life. Preparing them for college and the real world is what those grades should be for not simply a punishment but a lesson in it of itself.
I realize that I wrote A LOT but it is simply because I have a passion for my students and all students that I believe that given the right information what you guys here at Extra Credits and Games for Good could really benefit them and the world in the future. The students of today are the leaders of tomorrow, that is true but if the leaders today don't do anything to help the students of today nothing will change. Thank you all for the work you do and I personally hope that this can help to make the change so desperately need in the school systems.
I would recommend that in order to better communicate with educators you take a look at the SAT or ADDIE Process (Systematic Approach to Training) (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation). These tools are used heavily in the corporate, industry and military worlds for task based training. The idea of which is to determine what needs to be learned to accomplish a given task and then using references and experts to create training that meets the need.
I would also take a look at Bloom's Taxonomy to understand cognitive levels. A great book that I have read on this as a supplement is Brain Rules by John Medina.
To provide an example that I am currently using: We have a task Electrical Troubleshooting that we train electricians to work through, this is a higher cognitive function class as it uses base knowledges from other training and requires that you apply them (ohm's law, use of a digital multimeter, print reading, etc) and analyze a system with a fault to determine what the most likely faulty component is. In the course we use a video game like tool from the company BIN95 to provide circuit simulations that the students apply the company's troubleshooting process to in order to determine the most likely fault and test for it. They then compare that to the simulation's inserted fault to determine if they are right. We have received positive feedback on both the training and from supervision in the field's observations of the results in timely correct analysis of faulted equipment.
They are required to attend the training to become qualified to troubleshoot, but they find the game that we use in the training supplemented with standard methods of instruction like lecture and case studies to be effective, engaging and challenging.
For years I've been lamenting the work/play dichotomy. The notion that work is what you have to do and play is what you want to do, and that these things are separate. Long ago I realized that this is something we are trained to believe, and it happens at school. It's probably not intentional, but it seems to be a fairly universal consequence of education as it has been practices for at least 100 years. I thought long and hard about how that could be fixed, what systems could be employed or what methods could be used. Then I found out that somebody already did that (no surprise). They did it over 50 years ago. They got better results from academic rejects and the mentally handicapped than "normal" teachers could get from "normal" students. It didn't change much in the grand scheme of things because education is one of the most stubborn social institutions we have, but if you've never taken a look at the Montessori model of education I would highly recommend it. It's exactly what you are talking about in this video and is widely misunderstood. It's something I hope to pursue a deeper understanding of as I'm about to have my first child and need to start thinking about this whole "making a human" thing, but it's definitely a place to start looking for the answers to these questions. I can't say for certain it's THE place to look, but it's a starting point. Might as well stand on the shoulders of someone who's been there an done that, right?
eta: Talking about testing as if it were bad for the education system is a red herring. Yes, it's stupid to teach to the test, but it's not just stupid for human education, it's also stupid if you want high test scores. Tests aren't the problem. The problem is that we have an education system that binds and blames teachers for failures that are obviously systemic. If you are looking for superman to stand in the front of every classroom then there is something wrong with your structure that only the absolute best can make it work.
I see potential for games in all of the core subjects. It is a matter of finding designers who can come up with ideas that engage in core subjects. The biggest issue I have with having games in the classroom is how designers and teachers will coordinate their efforts. Is the game there to start engagement or is it there to maintain the engagement? Does the game get the student excited about the subject or does the student need to keep playing the game to get the benefit of learning about the subject?
As I think about games in the education system, it feels like the electronic age requires schools to be redeveloped. I don't think a boardgame or an electronic game is appropriate for how a classroom is currently built. I think a library system is a more appropriate classroom from at least the beginning of high school. Have all the computers and laptops ready for students to use with the proper infrastructure to support computers and laptops. Have subject specialists be available for students with questions and guidance. The only time where the old classroom is appropriate is at the younger ages until grade 5 where students are learning basic skills that can be taught in a batch system. this is where I see games being very useful.
Thing is education isn't really about learning, it's about indoctrination. If your view of education wouldn't be at home in 1984 it really isn't ever going to hit the mainstream.
@D-Mac7979
"Unfortunately there is a reason for the A,B,C,D, and F grades it was supposed to keep kids accountable. If the student believes they can simply skate by with just doing their best when they get to the real world they will not know how to adapt."
Well if this is the case, then the school system has failed me as a straight A student, and it sort of explains why I've had so much trouble working through problems with vague feedback once I got out.
On topic: The things that I think games teach really well are the skills necessary to progress in the game itself. For example, playing FPS games (without a mic) is a great way of teaching typing skills because of the small windows of downtime that you have to relay messages to the team. Alpha Centauri (turn-based strategy) is a great way of teaching a certain amount of math, as figuring out resource costs to rush out productions requires quick multiplicative/division skills.
These are very basic examples, but the idea is you build a fun game around the skills you want learned at a base mechanical level. So that improvement in the skill drives progress through the game, and the player is rewarded for this.
You may run into a few problems though. Not everyone likes FPSes or turn-based strategy games, and similarly I wouldn't expect 100% uptake rate for whatever game is deployed. I don't know how acceptable that would be to the curriculum, and so you would have to run parallel activities that better suit the less receptive students. And if standardised testing sticks around, you still have to teach for the test somewhat so the game-learners don't freak out because of the change in format at the end of the year.
Still, teaching through games seems pretty doable, and one of my favourite ideas is still the fantasy setting where wizards have to perform complex maths if they want to predict their spell effects, where you can still "dabble", but conservation of energy and diffusion and other such physical systems get inherently taught through the rigorous study of the stuff. The hook being spell-casting would be much more freeform than any other game out there.
Of course, this would lead to the absurd scenario of in-game professors teaching in real-life classrooms. But that might not be so bad. Throw in a set of Rifts to the class and the teacher can teleconference in wizard garb.
I am a teacher currently pursuing a Masters in Educational Technology and taking serious-game design courses for my electives. Additionally, I read a lot of discussion about instructional design on social media, as I think there is great parity between great instructional design for adults and for secondary students. However, one recent thread I came across discussed the average amount of time an instructional designer should spend to create one hour of high-quality training content; the answers ranged from 20-40 hours. Thus on the low-end, assuming three different "preps" during a school day (I've always had four or more), a teacher would need to spend 60 hours per school day, 300 hours per week to plan lessons at the level of high-quality instructional design. Perhaps one could argue that these lessons could be "re-used" from year to year, but in my experience re-using lessons without tailoring them to the current students or changes in standards is not good practice. I find that planning an engaging inquiry-based or game-based lesson takes me at least a ratio of 4 hours for every one hour of class-time, which means that I simply can't do that on a regular basis, nor does inquiry-based learning work for every standard (and we as teachers have to teach "the standards").
Personally after some consideration, reading, and trial and error I think that rather than trying to force students to play games (even though they are likely more engaging than lecture) it is better to create a framework or environment for students to explore and advance based on their learning rather than their age. This is something that would require a sea-change in education.
A key aspect of game design that can rather easily be implemented into the classroom is the idea of student choice, a proxy of the voluntary play alluded to in the video. I try to give my students as many choices as possible, be it how they do a final project, deciding the topic for a final project, or day-to-day giving them multiple options for how they want to learn material.
I think there is as much to be explored in evolving teaching through the use of game mechanics and gaming psychology as there is in discerning what the shape of actual games that might be played by kids could be.
I think the idea of adding game incentives to learning makes a lot of sense, but I suspect part of doing that is actually making finding/acquiring/and using the knowledge we would normally just sit in class and soak in via lecture as fun an involved a process as it is when we are maximizing dps in mmo's or figuring out how to build an empire in Civilization type games. Making the information we need to learn vital to accomplishing our goal while still having the game be fun is certainly a challenge and I wonder what it might be like to develop a math curriculum where a student has to discover the pythagorean theorem themselves and then through using and mastering surpass obstacles they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. I just don't know that it's enough to find ways to tweak current genre options to make them viable, when I suspect what we are looking at is a whole new (or old depending on whether you consider educational games like ones put out by The Learning Company back in the day as a genre) type of game.
I would also add from personal experience that I think I got a little lost going from high school to college and into my post grad work on a Masters. A lot of my friends did. We didn't really know what we were passionate about. But in a world where you had to decide quickly what you were going to major in if you didn't want to end up needing an extra year or two of expensive college, you just sort of shot in the dark. To this day I still have friends who don't really know if they ended up in the right vocation. I think this is something that early education should explore. Help kids find the things they love are passionate about. Make it so that the education that they receive over the 12 or 16 or however many years they end up in school is not just giving them a breadth of knowledge but also a depth of understanding in the things they are passionate about. (personal opinion - feel free to debate) To that end, I think games offer a wonderful way of finding these things out. From choices internal to game (e.g. mmo's that offer different paths to take (exploring, pvp, crafting, merchanting, building, etc...) to the external choice of what games we chose to play. Do we like working in teams or do we lone wolf? Do stories draw us to games, or is it the honing of one's reflexes in an fps or platformer. Do we enjoy solving puzzles and finding missing pieces or do we find such task stressful and frustrating? I think games can enlighten players and educators as to what kinds of things kids might want to do when they grow up, and what their strengths and weaknesses are far more than the current testing methodologies used these days.
Hmm...this post ended up longer than i thought. I'll leave my initial thoughts at that. To be honest I grew up on educational games, with my dad allowing my twin and I to gorge ourselves on Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, the early Sim games (Farm, Earth, City, Health), and a vast number of Learning Company games. I didn't really start playing other genres till I was in high school. And I'd say I learned a lot from those games, evidenced by my fifth grade teacher being rather shocked that I knew what irrigation and aqueducts were and how they helped in agriculture (thanks Civ!). So I definitely think that games can play a huge role in helping kids learn, and I am excited to see what innovations we as a society come up with over the next twenty years.
I've thought on this rather often..and yeah the crux of the matter is..getting people to want to do it.
Anything can teach..ANYTHING. But someone needs to be willing to listen/learn the lesson. And sometimes all a game, all play..all anything needs to do to facilitate learning...is give you a good reason to learn that skill.
The old examples for us non-geeks, was stuff like the people who were into sports..baseball..heavily. Some of the stats for players..are ratios, some are figured in one way or another. You want a kid interested in math? Ask a baseball lover if they'd like to be able to figure out their favorite players batting average. Their RBI..or any statistic. You'll prob have them sitting down and listening to your lesson, wanting to learn.
This is to say..I think looking at games as a teacher...as something to directly teach you a lesson is wrong. At least for the current day. Right now the better bet, is to have a game that gives you a reason to learn. And make it engaging. Once they have a reason to learn..something they want to apply knowledge to..they'll want that knowledge and they will search out a source of that knowledge all on their own. At that point you need to make sure they have a good solid access to that knowledge.
And games do this to a degree already, take any game that has a random drop. We'll say Monster Hunter for now..as its one I'm familiar with to a degree, and this is something we've actually done on the boards for the game. Lets say you want the gem drop from Rath (I think his ruby?). Well to pull numbers out of my butt. Lets say you can get lucky on a 'carve' drop and get it 2% of the time. But if you capture the monster (instead of kill) you can get it 4% of the time.
But here's the rub..on a carve you can manage to get up to 4 carves...so you have 4 chances at 2%....but on a capture you can only get 2 that will give you said gem. So that's 2 chances at 4%.
Given that you want that item..and you want it now..fast as possible. What is better to do? Go for the 4 carves from killing..or go for the 2 rewards from captures? In order to have the highest chance to get at least 1 of them.
You figure that out..and you've learned a part of statistics that involve probability. And there was an entire board that worked on this while I tried to remember how to do the math.
So i think thats what people trying to teach through video games need to do right now. Don't try to actually have the game directly teach the subject (except to have it as a reference). Instead have the game apply the subject, that'll get people to want to learn and will make the process much easier.
I know this is easier said than done, but the entire key is just figuring out how to design a game so that it makes the subject being learned actually fun. Subjects like history are typically made into fact-knowing tests in games. Like jeopardy is just you know the facts or you don't. But what if history was made into a series of roleplaying games? Make it more like star wars the old republic than wow(so that people actually hear characters talking and explaining the context for the situation), and basically just create quest lines that tell actual events in history.
I'm a gamer, but have also worked in School Districts since my Senior Year of High School as a technician. I've now got 13 years under my belt, and after seeing countless games in education, I see the biggest break downs occur in what they're used for, and that is drilling facts.
Games seem to have started to realize the value in creating the escalating power associated with RPG's that create addictive gaming, but fail in that attempt by making the exercises feel like just that. An exercise. And it's a very cart before the horse scenario.
Here's another way of looking at it. Using exercise as an example, you focus on the goal of excercise. That is to become healthier. Enjoying the pursuit is great, and the structure of repeat physical activity will achieve the outcome, but most games I've seen for education have got the execution backwards.
So with exercise, my preference would be to engage in a sport or a game. Through the play of that game I may decide that focused practice would help me to play that game better. So after playing basketball, I may realize that picking up a few aerobics classes may help me to develope my game better. The end result is achieved in that either practice I'm achieving my end desired result of being healthier.
In what I've seen in Educational Gaming, most often the practice, (or the aerobic class) is the game, and you are minorly rewarded for it's completion with an almost unrelated game. We've all seen this in the blaster and typing games.
The games should focus on what you want the desired outcome of abilities to be, what you can use those skills for, rather than focusing on the skills themselves, while practice may be available as a skill builder, more like minigames.
Keep a frankenstein body alive by managing the organs of the body to produce what they're supposed to produce, or function as the organ should, investing in a continually failing body. Have catastrophic failures that require activation of several body parts. So that knowing what the function of the organs is, becomes the beneficial knowledge needed to respond to a crisis.
Create a mystery game that requires knowledge of artistic works by artists in order to solve the problem. Have clues be solved by recreating artistic processes.
We need more Carmen Sandiego's, and less "Memorize the state capitals for a prize" games.
I'm not a religious person, but I just had to say AMEN to this episode! The bit about curiosity versus fear of punishment really resonated with me. I can't tell you how much more I've learned due to my own curiosity and research in the past few years than I ever did in almost twenty years of formal education. Not to mention how much more FUN I had in the process.
The universe is a fascinating place, but the U.S. school system (in particular, but among other *coughreligiouscough* institutions) seems to stifle curiosity and imagination rather than encouraging them. Games (among other new media) could go a long way towards creating a truly effective education system, with a focus on exploration and inciting curiosity about the world, rather than seemingly arbitrary memorization and test preparation that is common in so many classrooms today.
@babarce I agree with you. I loved Carmen Sandiego and like games in elementary school. There was always a waiting list for computers at the library for those who wanted to play Oregon Trail or Amazon Trail in Middle School. I learned to type with Reader Rabbit. We need more games like that. Ones that are fun, engaging, and not just do this and you'll get a prize.
I personally loved Number Munchers. Trying to move quickly to avoid the enemies and eat the numbers, but only the ones that followed a rule given (such as "prime numbers" or "multiples of 6") led to using the "twitch gaming" parts, but also learning to process numbers faster so that it could keep up (eating a wrong number had a penalty).
And as near as I can remember, it was never (or not once it was introduced) "this is the game we're playing now." Just an Apple IIe sitting there ready to be used, with disks for things like Oregon Trail and Number Munchers, and time to use it in.
The wonderful thing about this is that Proteus has no text in it. So it was all about encouraging children to think of games differently, and using new experiences to inspire expression through writing. The same teacher uses Minecraft in teamwork building lessons. There's lots of great examples on his blog
@discrider
Exactly the problem discrider. The education system is very much flawed as it tries to teach to the lower half of the student body. The school systems should be focused on challenging the students as oppose to feel good grades. The student used to be accountable for their grades as some were held back or even put in remedial classes and while it is sure to be embarrassing for the student it acts as a motivator to get themselves out of that situation as soon as possible. Is it harsh? Yes, but tough love is needed here.
These days students are less challenged every day. At the school I tutor at there is a state mandated test that has the stipulation that if they do not pass by their senior year they will not be allowed to graduate, however they continue to promote the student to the next grade level regardless. Some it is because they failed the test but passed their classes and for those cases it is not the school system itself to blame but the disconnect between the state and the school. Other cases on the other hand they fail their tests and their classes and are still allowed to move to the next grade level because we coddle them and don't want their feelings hurt.
If the school systems cannot oblige the lower half like they target and miss on giving challenge to the upper half then what does the school system do exactly? Exist, that is it. It does not help the lower half by lowering expectations to meet theirs and it hurts the upper half more by making the minimum less. By doing this the few teachers that are willing to take the time to make it more challenging for their students to help them grow have overfilled AP/honors classrooms because of the lowered standard. Then the students who should be in a regular classes are lost on the material because it is too advanced for them.
With standards being lowered to make the kids and on a global scale America seem smarter than they are all it does is hurt all involved. If we are to compete on the global scale again as an intelligent nation how we handle the school systems and learning in general has to change completely. We cannot be caught in the trappings of yesteryear. While we can use proven older methods to help teach today's youth it is a new age and the school systems must catch up with the times and adapt and change to better fit today's hurdles in life.
I seem to have gone off on a tangent from what you were saying and got a little preachy. I do that from time to time; sorry. Although as for you yes the A students are not challenged and therefore have a harder time adapting to real life. That is probably where stereotypes like nerds and geeks come in because they knew how to be good in school and that was it. I am by no means saying that is you I am just saying that because you were a straight A student you never had the problem of almost failing. You never had to reevaluate how you did things and make adjustments. It is much harder to change like that in the real world as opposed to in school where there are many safety nets to catch you when you do fall. So yes, the school system did fail you and it can fail many others if we as a nation continue to let it.
This doesn't have to be restricted to video games. I can see this being used in board games with a little effort on the part of the parents. For example I remember this game called "Journey Through Europe". You were a tourist and had to visit X number cities drawn at random. Now instead of a board, take a real map and write down a bunch of major cities in each country and use those instead. You may have to tweak the rules a little bit for things like using airports, trains, or driving. But a game like that would teach geography. An enterprising parent could even mix current events like "Greece is undergoing an economic turn down. Driving cost one extra movement point due to poorly maintained roads and higher gas prices." And if you REALLY want to get involved, incorporate a money system. "You need to buy a German Stein for 20 DM, how much is that in US currency?"
One of the things I take out of it and is a different perspective of "Games in Education" is we should borrow from the RPG genre in how students learn. Every student shouldn't just start in Grade one but "Level One". In every category. If a student is intelligent enough to finish their assignments and move to the next level? Let them. Let them progress at their own pace. The teacher should be there as both assistant and mentor, ensuring the students are doing their assignments properly, answering questions and helping them through the subjects. Ensure they are not obsessing on one subject and ensuring they pass all subjects by the end of the year. That way students can stay experienced in all forms of education but they can also stay challenged in the subjects they are strong in. By the eighth grade, they should be at "Level Eight" for every subject but based on student strengths and weaknesses, some students may already be at a twelfth grade level in English or Math. This allows them to now specialize when they get into high school, as well as know what they really need help in in order to get to where they want to be in college/university.
Also, Math, History and Science are great subjects to apply with video games. English? Not so much.
So, one of the earliest PC games I played as a kid was Midnight Rescue. For those who don't know or don't remember, it was a reading and critical thinking comprehension game set around a mystery theme.
While it did have the usual education portions that just couldn't feel anything but forced, it still relied heavily on one of the best educational elements in games as an educational aid. It gave you a small number of clues to narrow down a character, out of several with randomly assigned traits, as the culprit. You were never given the entirety of the clues, and if you dawdled too much you'd end up losing. The reading education portions were feeble, but that mystery game element forced the player to use context clues and critical thinking far beyond that boiler plate educational material.
More games need to rely on the mechanics to educate. Teach critical thinking by asking the player to think for themselves with in-game consequences. Teach math by making leveling and stat systems that make the player think about what they're putting points into, how they're working, and why they work like that.
Damn it, did I just end up describing Skyrim as a education game?
I think it would be cool to have something like a Battle School system in Ender's Game. All students in the school are enrolled in a school-wide game, but the things they learn in their classes help them get better at the game. Just like how in Ender's Game, mastering trigonometry let soldiers calculate their flight trajectories in combat. Maybe there's a school scoreboard so everyone can see how they rank against their peers. Calculus students learn the mathy stuff in class, but then outside of that there's a Calculus gaming group for something like Worms or Gunbound. I have always thought that part of what makes games interesting is the fact that you get fast feedback on how good you are: if you're good you win, if you're bad you lose. In real life, if you think you're awesome at knitting you can't go to a knitting competition and see how you rank against others. But in games, you can encourage competition by allowing people to evaluate their ranking.
@Omegathorion
They call it GPA in the US, and most students don't give a damn.
But if you could make it all inclusive to all the subjects taught it would be..what? Life?
I counseled one board game design contest being held in my alma mater, and the main piece of advice I gave them was: Do not design exams with dice. All of them thought that educational game = trivia game, because education is seen as being mainly about gathering knowledge than learning to think and solve problems...
This is an interesting topic. It is true that voluntary is far better. Ask anyone who enjoys reading. They didn't start with books they force you to read in school. We started by using the free time at school to look at the stack of simple word picture books! I still remember that dark dark house down that dark dark road better than anything else that happened in first grade....or any of grade school for that mater. But I digress. I was playing a game recently called Dino Pets for my phone. One of my friends from the Tadpool works over at microclips, so I have been sorta beta testing for her. And one thing I noticed that amazed me: They suggested and urged that we use the diamonds to rush the process of building things and such, but if you want to wait a minute, that's allowed. So many games, especially educational ones, try to force you to follow their rigged scheduled, instead of letting you take the game at your own pace, and just enjoying it. That seems to me to be a big part of the problem. If the educational games became more voluntary in mechanics, then people would want to play it more. Or at least, I would.
I think there may be two problems when it comes to education and games. From what I can remember in high school when they tried having us use several educational games, they weren't amusing, the mechanics were terrible and didn't fit together, and all the graphics, challenges, and even what little story there was to a few of these things were just a painted-on mask for more homework.
Also, and I admit this might just be my own pessimistic bias talking, but it seems like as goes the attitude towards education in the United States, they want to take the easy way out, the quick fix, so to speak. It seems as though they'd rather have a system based around punishment and the fear of failure rather than have a system that works with the students to encourage their will to learn.
Why?
It's easier. It'd be cheaper and less effort-demanding of the school board, teachers, and so on to essentially just be lecturers who can dole out punishment for a lack of progress rather than to be the mentor/guide/friend that students need, and unfortunately this world isn't merit-based and one's life doesn't necessarily benefit from the amount of effort, study, and struggle they put into it; money controls all, and thus it would make sense if they, the schools, just wanted to make a profit first, and worry about actually doing their jobs second.
Talk to Speech and Debate coaches. Though many of them have classrooms and formal lesson plans, our students, especially the ones we are successful with never stop learning. Our students drive themselves, developing new strategies, new approaches, even entirely new ways to do public speaking, rewriting the rules when they get tired of the previous generations' approach to their hobby. I think the roadmap is there...
I think there may be two problems when it comes to education and games. From what I can remember in high school when they tried having us use several educational games, they weren't amusing, the mechanics were terrible and didn't fit together, and all the graphics, challenges, and even what little story there was to a few of these things were just a painted-on mask for more homework.
Also, and I admit this might just be my own pessimistic bias talking, but it seems like as goes the attitude towards education in the United States, they want to take the easy way out, the quick fix, so to speak. It seems as though they'd rather have a system based around punishment and the fear of failure rather than have a system that works with the students to encourage their will to learn.
Why?
It's easier. It'd be cheaper and less effort-demanding of the school board, teachers, and so on to essentially just be lecturers who can dole out punishment for a lack of progress rather than to be the mentor/guide/friend that students need, and unfortunately this world isn't merit-based and one's life doesn't necessarily benefit from the amount of effort, study, and struggle they put into it; money controls all, and thus it would make sense if they, the schools, just wanted to make a profit first, and worry about actually doing their jobs second.
It has nothing to do with easing burden on the teachers or administrators. Any politician or school board member who says that kind of bull is simply lying. School Board members exist to get re-elected and they do that by trying to not make waves. That means doing nothing most of the time. Politicians are perfectly happy to sit by and let it happen because they know that if they try and fail it's worse for their career than never trying at all.
Public education is stuck in an ancient system because local change isn't going to happen unless there's an uproar about something and nation-wide change is going to be almost universally terrible because no one is going to fund that change.
This touches on something I was actually thinking about this past week. I was coming back on a flight from CA, I had finished my books while I was in CA so I decided to pick up a few games on my Ipad to fill the time. One of the games I grabbed was Minecraft.
Now I am an Architecture student going into my 3rd year. I had been exposed to Minecraft but never found it that interesting or compelling. But this time I went at it from a slightly different angle. I started looking at the environment around me looking for interesting places to build. I was using what I had learned through school to have fun in the game and using the game to brush the dust off my brain so I could fiddle around doing some design work.
And now just listening to this I had the idea of; What if one of my teachers used Minecraft in an assignment? Just a simple, Hey here is this game, take the class time to get yourself familiar with it. Now over the next week I want you to go into the environment of this game and design 3-4 houses that meet requirements a,b,c,d,e... You will be judged on: creative use of environment, material and details, and whatever else they want. With this they are free to go as deeply into the game as they want and they get rewarded for their hard work with the game as they learn it, have fun with it, and create. I would love such an assignment
Looking from the perspective of someone who wants games to come to the class room, the best chance for success would be some sort of role-playing game. This is because one of the most important players in educational games is the teacher. The DM is the perfect role for the teacher. Not only because they extend potential learning of a game, but because teachers would be a main target demographic for educational games. Ideally, this game would continue every week so that kids have time to digest and research.
My favorite recent educational game is Dragon Box (http://www.dragonboxapp.com/). My girlfriend used it in her classroom as a reward for the students when they finished their work early, and the whole classroom was engaged.
This conversation will be easier with time as more subject matter experts come from people who grew up playing games.
[PATV] Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 22: Games in Education
Posts
I want James to read this I think it would help clear some things up.
What you guys are suggesting is wonderful, the school system HAS to change because it fails on so many levels. However, if this is not used correctly it could have the same trappings as the current school system.
The biggest problem with today is that we as educators are forced to teach to the test otherwise if we do not and the kids fail the end of the year tests the school loses funding and then it helps no one. If gaming was implemented as a study aide then there could be real change for students, but from what I am hearing from the videos is that the game should be teaching. The game should reinforce what the teacher has taught not the other way around.
My idea is based on what I have observed with students who are low income and first generation college students and how they act towards learning. Many students tend to view learning as difficult and are discouraged by the fact that it is so difficult. That does not mean that they do not want to learn. I have tutored many a student who fought tooth and nail on not sitting down to learn/relearn the material, but after they have figured out what was wrong they get this look of accomplishment (which is what educators do their jobs for) and this accomplishment pushes them to want to learn more. THAT is where the game comes in.
If a student sits in a classroom for an hour and does not pay attention then they will not do well on their tests, and therefore will become even more discouraged. However, if that same student has a reason beyond failing the course to pay attention there is more of a chance that they will succeed. If a student has trouble with a particular subject they get "lab time" where in the school there is a room/set of rooms that houses these games. The student is told to go there and play a specific game that will help them with that subject.
I realize that the game being voluntary is ideal but we do not live in an ideal world. At some point you have to make the student play one of these games in order for them to learn it is no different than lectures in school. The best way to minimize this however is to make sure that the games themselves are engaging. If the games are engaging they will WANT to come back after having to be TOLD the first time.
Unfortunately there is a reason for the A,B,C,D, and F grades it was supposed to keep kids accountable. If the student believes they can simply skate by with just doing their best when they get to the real world they will not know how to adapt. If their best is not good enough they have to learn to change something, but the only way that a student knows they need to change is by grading them. There are no grades in the real world just pass/fail, so if they do not learn how to pick themselves back up when they fail and to change their strategy then they will not succeed in life. Preparing them for college and the real world is what those grades should be for not simply a punishment but a lesson in it of itself.
I realize that I wrote A LOT but it is simply because I have a passion for my students and all students that I believe that given the right information what you guys here at Extra Credits and Games for Good could really benefit them and the world in the future. The students of today are the leaders of tomorrow, that is true but if the leaders today don't do anything to help the students of today nothing will change. Thank you all for the work you do and I personally hope that this can help to make the change so desperately need in the school systems.
I would also take a look at Bloom's Taxonomy to understand cognitive levels. A great book that I have read on this as a supplement is Brain Rules by John Medina.
To provide an example that I am currently using: We have a task Electrical Troubleshooting that we train electricians to work through, this is a higher cognitive function class as it uses base knowledges from other training and requires that you apply them (ohm's law, use of a digital multimeter, print reading, etc) and analyze a system with a fault to determine what the most likely faulty component is. In the course we use a video game like tool from the company BIN95 to provide circuit simulations that the students apply the company's troubleshooting process to in order to determine the most likely fault and test for it. They then compare that to the simulation's inserted fault to determine if they are right. We have received positive feedback on both the training and from supervision in the field's observations of the results in timely correct analysis of faulted equipment.
They are required to attend the training to become qualified to troubleshoot, but they find the game that we use in the training supplemented with standard methods of instruction like lecture and case studies to be effective, engaging and challenging.
eta: Talking about testing as if it were bad for the education system is a red herring. Yes, it's stupid to teach to the test, but it's not just stupid for human education, it's also stupid if you want high test scores. Tests aren't the problem. The problem is that we have an education system that binds and blames teachers for failures that are obviously systemic. If you are looking for superman to stand in the front of every classroom then there is something wrong with your structure that only the absolute best can make it work.
As I think about games in the education system, it feels like the electronic age requires schools to be redeveloped. I don't think a boardgame or an electronic game is appropriate for how a classroom is currently built. I think a library system is a more appropriate classroom from at least the beginning of high school. Have all the computers and laptops ready for students to use with the proper infrastructure to support computers and laptops. Have subject specialists be available for students with questions and guidance. The only time where the old classroom is appropriate is at the younger ages until grade 5 where students are learning basic skills that can be taught in a batch system. this is where I see games being very useful.
"Unfortunately there is a reason for the A,B,C,D, and F grades it was supposed to keep kids accountable. If the student believes they can simply skate by with just doing their best when they get to the real world they will not know how to adapt."
Well if this is the case, then the school system has failed me as a straight A student, and it sort of explains why I've had so much trouble working through problems with vague feedback once I got out.
On topic: The things that I think games teach really well are the skills necessary to progress in the game itself. For example, playing FPS games (without a mic) is a great way of teaching typing skills because of the small windows of downtime that you have to relay messages to the team. Alpha Centauri (turn-based strategy) is a great way of teaching a certain amount of math, as figuring out resource costs to rush out productions requires quick multiplicative/division skills.
These are very basic examples, but the idea is you build a fun game around the skills you want learned at a base mechanical level. So that improvement in the skill drives progress through the game, and the player is rewarded for this.
You may run into a few problems though. Not everyone likes FPSes or turn-based strategy games, and similarly I wouldn't expect 100% uptake rate for whatever game is deployed. I don't know how acceptable that would be to the curriculum, and so you would have to run parallel activities that better suit the less receptive students. And if standardised testing sticks around, you still have to teach for the test somewhat so the game-learners don't freak out because of the change in format at the end of the year.
Still, teaching through games seems pretty doable, and one of my favourite ideas is still the fantasy setting where wizards have to perform complex maths if they want to predict their spell effects, where you can still "dabble", but conservation of energy and diffusion and other such physical systems get inherently taught through the rigorous study of the stuff. The hook being spell-casting would be much more freeform than any other game out there.
Of course, this would lead to the absurd scenario of in-game professors teaching in real-life classrooms. But that might not be so bad. Throw in a set of Rifts to the class and the teacher can teleconference in wizard garb.
Something fundamental has to change and I'm pretty sure infrastructure changes take forever.
I am a teacher currently pursuing a Masters in Educational Technology and taking serious-game design courses for my electives. Additionally, I read a lot of discussion about instructional design on social media, as I think there is great parity between great instructional design for adults and for secondary students. However, one recent thread I came across discussed the average amount of time an instructional designer should spend to create one hour of high-quality training content; the answers ranged from 20-40 hours. Thus on the low-end, assuming three different "preps" during a school day (I've always had four or more), a teacher would need to spend 60 hours per school day, 300 hours per week to plan lessons at the level of high-quality instructional design. Perhaps one could argue that these lessons could be "re-used" from year to year, but in my experience re-using lessons without tailoring them to the current students or changes in standards is not good practice. I find that planning an engaging inquiry-based or game-based lesson takes me at least a ratio of 4 hours for every one hour of class-time, which means that I simply can't do that on a regular basis, nor does inquiry-based learning work for every standard (and we as teachers have to teach "the standards").
Personally after some consideration, reading, and trial and error I think that rather than trying to force students to play games (even though they are likely more engaging than lecture) it is better to create a framework or environment for students to explore and advance based on their learning rather than their age. This is something that would require a sea-change in education.
A key aspect of game design that can rather easily be implemented into the classroom is the idea of student choice, a proxy of the voluntary play alluded to in the video. I try to give my students as many choices as possible, be it how they do a final project, deciding the topic for a final project, or day-to-day giving them multiple options for how they want to learn material.
I think the idea of adding game incentives to learning makes a lot of sense, but I suspect part of doing that is actually making finding/acquiring/and using the knowledge we would normally just sit in class and soak in via lecture as fun an involved a process as it is when we are maximizing dps in mmo's or figuring out how to build an empire in Civilization type games. Making the information we need to learn vital to accomplishing our goal while still having the game be fun is certainly a challenge and I wonder what it might be like to develop a math curriculum where a student has to discover the pythagorean theorem themselves and then through using and mastering surpass obstacles they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. I just don't know that it's enough to find ways to tweak current genre options to make them viable, when I suspect what we are looking at is a whole new (or old depending on whether you consider educational games like ones put out by The Learning Company back in the day as a genre) type of game.
I would also add from personal experience that I think I got a little lost going from high school to college and into my post grad work on a Masters. A lot of my friends did. We didn't really know what we were passionate about. But in a world where you had to decide quickly what you were going to major in if you didn't want to end up needing an extra year or two of expensive college, you just sort of shot in the dark. To this day I still have friends who don't really know if they ended up in the right vocation. I think this is something that early education should explore. Help kids find the things they love are passionate about. Make it so that the education that they receive over the 12 or 16 or however many years they end up in school is not just giving them a breadth of knowledge but also a depth of understanding in the things they are passionate about. (personal opinion - feel free to debate) To that end, I think games offer a wonderful way of finding these things out. From choices internal to game (e.g. mmo's that offer different paths to take (exploring, pvp, crafting, merchanting, building, etc...) to the external choice of what games we chose to play. Do we like working in teams or do we lone wolf? Do stories draw us to games, or is it the honing of one's reflexes in an fps or platformer. Do we enjoy solving puzzles and finding missing pieces or do we find such task stressful and frustrating? I think games can enlighten players and educators as to what kinds of things kids might want to do when they grow up, and what their strengths and weaknesses are far more than the current testing methodologies used these days.
Hmm...this post ended up longer than i thought. I'll leave my initial thoughts at that. To be honest I grew up on educational games, with my dad allowing my twin and I to gorge ourselves on Civilization, Railroad Tycoon, the early Sim games (Farm, Earth, City, Health), and a vast number of Learning Company games. I didn't really start playing other genres till I was in high school. And I'd say I learned a lot from those games, evidenced by my fifth grade teacher being rather shocked that I knew what irrigation and aqueducts were and how they helped in agriculture (thanks Civ!). So I definitely think that games can play a huge role in helping kids learn, and I am excited to see what innovations we as a society come up with over the next twenty years.
Anything can teach..ANYTHING. But someone needs to be willing to listen/learn the lesson. And sometimes all a game, all play..all anything needs to do to facilitate learning...is give you a good reason to learn that skill.
The old examples for us non-geeks, was stuff like the people who were into sports..baseball..heavily. Some of the stats for players..are ratios, some are figured in one way or another. You want a kid interested in math? Ask a baseball lover if they'd like to be able to figure out their favorite players batting average. Their RBI..or any statistic. You'll prob have them sitting down and listening to your lesson, wanting to learn.
This is to say..I think looking at games as a teacher...as something to directly teach you a lesson is wrong. At least for the current day. Right now the better bet, is to have a game that gives you a reason to learn. And make it engaging. Once they have a reason to learn..something they want to apply knowledge to..they'll want that knowledge and they will search out a source of that knowledge all on their own. At that point you need to make sure they have a good solid access to that knowledge.
And games do this to a degree already, take any game that has a random drop. We'll say Monster Hunter for now..as its one I'm familiar with to a degree, and this is something we've actually done on the boards for the game. Lets say you want the gem drop from Rath (I think his ruby?). Well to pull numbers out of my butt. Lets say you can get lucky on a 'carve' drop and get it 2% of the time. But if you capture the monster (instead of kill) you can get it 4% of the time.
But here's the rub..on a carve you can manage to get up to 4 carves...so you have 4 chances at 2%....but on a capture you can only get 2 that will give you said gem. So that's 2 chances at 4%.
Given that you want that item..and you want it now..fast as possible. What is better to do? Go for the 4 carves from killing..or go for the 2 rewards from captures? In order to have the highest chance to get at least 1 of them.
You figure that out..and you've learned a part of statistics that involve probability. And there was an entire board that worked on this while I tried to remember how to do the math.
So i think thats what people trying to teach through video games need to do right now. Don't try to actually have the game directly teach the subject (except to have it as a reference). Instead have the game apply the subject, that'll get people to want to learn and will make the process much easier.
Games seem to have started to realize the value in creating the escalating power associated with RPG's that create addictive gaming, but fail in that attempt by making the exercises feel like just that. An exercise. And it's a very cart before the horse scenario.
Here's another way of looking at it. Using exercise as an example, you focus on the goal of excercise. That is to become healthier. Enjoying the pursuit is great, and the structure of repeat physical activity will achieve the outcome, but most games I've seen for education have got the execution backwards.
So with exercise, my preference would be to engage in a sport or a game. Through the play of that game I may decide that focused practice would help me to play that game better. So after playing basketball, I may realize that picking up a few aerobics classes may help me to develope my game better. The end result is achieved in that either practice I'm achieving my end desired result of being healthier.
In what I've seen in Educational Gaming, most often the practice, (or the aerobic class) is the game, and you are minorly rewarded for it's completion with an almost unrelated game. We've all seen this in the blaster and typing games.
The games should focus on what you want the desired outcome of abilities to be, what you can use those skills for, rather than focusing on the skills themselves, while practice may be available as a skill builder, more like minigames.
Keep a frankenstein body alive by managing the organs of the body to produce what they're supposed to produce, or function as the organ should, investing in a continually failing body. Have catastrophic failures that require activation of several body parts. So that knowing what the function of the organs is, becomes the beneficial knowledge needed to respond to a crisis.
Create a mystery game that requires knowledge of artistic works by artists in order to solve the problem. Have clues be solved by recreating artistic processes.
We need more Carmen Sandiego's, and less "Memorize the state capitals for a prize" games.
The universe is a fascinating place, but the U.S. school system (in particular, but among other *coughreligiouscough* institutions) seems to stifle curiosity and imagination rather than encouraging them. Games (among other new media) could go a long way towards creating a truly effective education system, with a focus on exploration and inciting curiosity about the world, rather than seemingly arbitrary memorization and test preparation that is common in so many classrooms today.
And as near as I can remember, it was never (or not once it was introduced) "this is the game we're playing now." Just an Apple IIe sitting there ready to be used, with disks for things like Oregon Trail and Number Munchers, and time to use it in.
The wonderful thing about this is that Proteus has no text in it. So it was all about encouraging children to think of games differently, and using new experiences to inspire expression through writing. The same teacher uses Minecraft in teamwork building lessons. There's lots of great examples on his blog
Exactly the problem discrider. The education system is very much flawed as it tries to teach to the lower half of the student body. The school systems should be focused on challenging the students as oppose to feel good grades. The student used to be accountable for their grades as some were held back or even put in remedial classes and while it is sure to be embarrassing for the student it acts as a motivator to get themselves out of that situation as soon as possible. Is it harsh? Yes, but tough love is needed here.
These days students are less challenged every day. At the school I tutor at there is a state mandated test that has the stipulation that if they do not pass by their senior year they will not be allowed to graduate, however they continue to promote the student to the next grade level regardless. Some it is because they failed the test but passed their classes and for those cases it is not the school system itself to blame but the disconnect between the state and the school. Other cases on the other hand they fail their tests and their classes and are still allowed to move to the next grade level because we coddle them and don't want their feelings hurt.
If the school systems cannot oblige the lower half like they target and miss on giving challenge to the upper half then what does the school system do exactly? Exist, that is it. It does not help the lower half by lowering expectations to meet theirs and it hurts the upper half more by making the minimum less. By doing this the few teachers that are willing to take the time to make it more challenging for their students to help them grow have overfilled AP/honors classrooms because of the lowered standard. Then the students who should be in a regular classes are lost on the material because it is too advanced for them.
With standards being lowered to make the kids and on a global scale America seem smarter than they are all it does is hurt all involved. If we are to compete on the global scale again as an intelligent nation how we handle the school systems and learning in general has to change completely. We cannot be caught in the trappings of yesteryear. While we can use proven older methods to help teach today's youth it is a new age and the school systems must catch up with the times and adapt and change to better fit today's hurdles in life.
I seem to have gone off on a tangent from what you were saying and got a little preachy. I do that from time to time; sorry. Although as for you yes the A students are not challenged and therefore have a harder time adapting to real life. That is probably where stereotypes like nerds and geeks come in because they knew how to be good in school and that was it. I am by no means saying that is you I am just saying that because you were a straight A student you never had the problem of almost failing. You never had to reevaluate how you did things and make adjustments. It is much harder to change like that in the real world as opposed to in school where there are many safety nets to catch you when you do fall. So yes, the school system did fail you and it can fail many others if we as a nation continue to let it.
My "go to" when it comes to changing education is RSA's changing education paradigms by Sir Ken Robinson:
One of the things I take out of it and is a different perspective of "Games in Education" is we should borrow from the RPG genre in how students learn. Every student shouldn't just start in Grade one but "Level One". In every category. If a student is intelligent enough to finish their assignments and move to the next level? Let them. Let them progress at their own pace. The teacher should be there as both assistant and mentor, ensuring the students are doing their assignments properly, answering questions and helping them through the subjects. Ensure they are not obsessing on one subject and ensuring they pass all subjects by the end of the year. That way students can stay experienced in all forms of education but they can also stay challenged in the subjects they are strong in. By the eighth grade, they should be at "Level Eight" for every subject but based on student strengths and weaknesses, some students may already be at a twelfth grade level in English or Math. This allows them to now specialize when they get into high school, as well as know what they really need help in in order to get to where they want to be in college/university.
Also, Math, History and Science are great subjects to apply with video games. English? Not so much.
While it did have the usual education portions that just couldn't feel anything but forced, it still relied heavily on one of the best educational elements in games as an educational aid. It gave you a small number of clues to narrow down a character, out of several with randomly assigned traits, as the culprit. You were never given the entirety of the clues, and if you dawdled too much you'd end up losing. The reading education portions were feeble, but that mystery game element forced the player to use context clues and critical thinking far beyond that boiler plate educational material.
More games need to rely on the mechanics to educate. Teach critical thinking by asking the player to think for themselves with in-game consequences. Teach math by making leveling and stat systems that make the player think about what they're putting points into, how they're working, and why they work like that.
Damn it, did I just end up describing Skyrim as a education game?
To this point I have nightmares about Mario's Time Machine and certain edutainment games for NES (unrelated to Mario).
They call it GPA in the US, and most students don't give a damn.
But if you could make it all inclusive to all the subjects taught it would be..what? Life?
Also, and I admit this might just be my own pessimistic bias talking, but it seems like as goes the attitude towards education in the United States, they want to take the easy way out, the quick fix, so to speak. It seems as though they'd rather have a system based around punishment and the fear of failure rather than have a system that works with the students to encourage their will to learn.
Why?
It's easier. It'd be cheaper and less effort-demanding of the school board, teachers, and so on to essentially just be lecturers who can dole out punishment for a lack of progress rather than to be the mentor/guide/friend that students need, and unfortunately this world isn't merit-based and one's life doesn't necessarily benefit from the amount of effort, study, and struggle they put into it; money controls all, and thus it would make sense if they, the schools, just wanted to make a profit first, and worry about actually doing their jobs second.
It has nothing to do with easing burden on the teachers or administrators. Any politician or school board member who says that kind of bull is simply lying. School Board members exist to get re-elected and they do that by trying to not make waves. That means doing nothing most of the time. Politicians are perfectly happy to sit by and let it happen because they know that if they try and fail it's worse for their career than never trying at all.
Public education is stuck in an ancient system because local change isn't going to happen unless there's an uproar about something and nation-wide change is going to be almost universally terrible because no one is going to fund that change.
Now I am an Architecture student going into my 3rd year. I had been exposed to Minecraft but never found it that interesting or compelling. But this time I went at it from a slightly different angle. I started looking at the environment around me looking for interesting places to build. I was using what I had learned through school to have fun in the game and using the game to brush the dust off my brain so I could fiddle around doing some design work.
And now just listening to this I had the idea of; What if one of my teachers used Minecraft in an assignment? Just a simple, Hey here is this game, take the class time to get yourself familiar with it. Now over the next week I want you to go into the environment of this game and design 3-4 houses that meet requirements a,b,c,d,e... You will be judged on: creative use of environment, material and details, and whatever else they want. With this they are free to go as deeply into the game as they want and they get rewarded for their hard work with the game as they learn it, have fun with it, and create. I would love such an assignment
Just a thought that your video inspired
This conversation will be easier with time as more subject matter experts come from people who grew up playing games.