The BBC reports West Nottinghamshire College teachers used Atari's Neverwinter Nights to reach "disaffected" students and improve their literacy and numeracy skills. Research on the project found that successful learning of key skills had tripled, to 94%. Over 700 learners played the modified game, which cost $25 million to develop from the original game.
Long before I got into video game theory I was working as a instructional designer for e-learning tutorials (my lawyers tell me not to disclose any further information on my employers). Anyhoo, I read a lot about the use of 'interactive' tools like games for learning, with many e-learning folks in favor and traditional book-learning people against. The whole design of online learning is geared toward mainly basic skills such as grammar, writing well, etc. because the quick delivery method is posited to lend itself well to lower-wage, perhaps non-English learners without the time or money to go to the community college for courses. Furthermore, rather than pedantically telling the learner the parts of grammar, these tutorials largely teach through examples, scenarios, questions, and tests, thereby immediately putting all knowledge into action.
We have known for a long time that there are many kinds of learners, tactile, auditory, by-experience... Most of these courses work on all levels, comprising audio elements, learn-by-doing activities, etc. And to me, games always seemed an excellent avenue for this.
Later, I read a chapter in the Video Game Theory Reader on an experiment at MIT where a few games were developed with loads of money to teach university-level students. The most compelling game was one that allowed students to better understand the obscure physics theories that could not be experienced in life through game mechanics. Instead of memorizing a theory, they were feeling it as they hurtled through space. Genius, I thought. Too bad most places do not have a third of MIT's budget, or $25 million to mod Neverwinter Nights.
But do we need that much money? Are we spoiled forevermore by the graphics, interfaces, and engines of commercially-produced games, to the point that anything lesser would be more remarkable for its cruddiness than its lessons? Why did that college need to use such a sophisticated game to teach area and volume anyway?
Perhaps the best route for delivery of teaching games would be through the same companies that make textbooks. If the cirriculum endorsed a game made by a familiar name, they would be in the schools and the bookstores. But I cannot envision a game labeled McGraw-Hill Ryerson, can you?
Long before I got into video game theory I was working as a instructional designer for e-learning tutorials (my lawyers tell me not to disclose any further information on my employers). Anyhoo, I read a lot about the use of 'interactive' tools like games for learning, with many e-learning folks in favor and traditional book-learning people against. The whole design of online learning is geared toward mainly basic skills such as grammar, writing well, etc. because the quick delivery method is posited to lend itself well to lower-wage, perhaps non-English learners without the time or money to go to the community college for courses. Furthermore, rather than pedantically telling the learner the parts of grammar, these tutorials largely teach through examples, scenarios, questions, and tests, thereby immediately putting all knowledge into action.
We have known for a long time that there are many kinds of learners, tactile, auditory, by-experience... Most of these courses work on all levels, comprising audio elements, learn-by-doing activities, etc. And to me, games always seemed an excellent avenue for this.
Later, I read a chapter in the Video Game Theory Reader on an experiment at MIT where a few games were developed with loads of money to teach university-level students. The most compelling game was one that allowed students to better understand the obscure physics theories that could not be experienced in life through game mechanics. Instead of memorizing a theory, they were feeling it as they hurtled through space. Genius, I thought. Too bad most places do not have a third of MIT's budget, or $25 million to mod Neverwinter Nights.
But do we need that much money? Are we spoiled forevermore by the graphics, interfaces, and engines of commercially-produced games, to the point that anything lesser would be more remarkable for its cruddiness than its lessons? Why did that college need to use such a sophisticated game to teach area and volume anyway?
Perhaps the best route for delivery of teaching games would be through the same companies that make textbooks. If the cirriculum endorsed a game made by a familiar name, they would be in the schools and the bookstores. But I cannot envision a game labeled McGraw-Hill Ryerson, can you?
So I am happy to announce and revel in the completion of my Master's thesis defense, where my 144-page tome was 'accepted as submitted', which is as good as it gets. I had a very lively and dare I say fun Q&A session with my committee which included Dr. Leslie Shade, Dr. Marty Allor, and Dr. Kim Sawchuk.
