CSS: General | Presentation CSS: General | Presentation
KymBuchanan.org > Playful Interest Bridging >
Fall 2003
Course: CEP 911 Intellectual History of Educational Psychology
Instructor: David Wong, PhD
College of Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan, USA
Computer games are a new, complex, dynamic phenomenon, with influence and potential value in education. Many researchers and companies are trying to leverage this potential in formal and informal educational settings. Games studies is a new field, so accepted approaches are still being developed or transplanted from other fields, including media studies and commercial game design. Various myths and crude models from these fields have have also been applied to games, with unfortunate results. In particular, exclusively behaviorist models create a dilemma surrounding the transfer from game behavior to "real" behavior. Behaviorism fails to solve this dilemma, as the social nature of gaming demands a perspective less focused on individual conditioning by a single source. Thus, behaviorism has definite but limited influence and utility in studying computer games.
While computer games have been evolving for more than forty years, they have received little attention through formal research. (Smith, 2002) Many games researchers are either young or migrants from other, proximal fields (e.g. media studies). Since games research is still emerging, leading researchers depend heavily on these proximal fields. While games research hasn't been shaped by popular trends in theory (e.g. behaviorist, cognitive, situative), these trends have influenced the proximal fields. For example, narratology (the study of narrative) is heavily influenced by cognitive models, deliberately rejecting behaviorist theory for descriptions of reasoning and reflective processes in a reader/audience. Similarly, performance studies is more influenced by the situative perspective than by behaviorism. When applied to games, the situative perspective supports descriptions of projective identity and similar social models. (Mortensen, 2002)
While narratology or performance studies present intriguing explanations of gaming in general, there are few studies based on empirical interventions in education. There's a growing body of intriguing qualitative descriptions of game-based learning, especially in corporate and military settings. (Prensky, 2001) Most current projects in educational psychology are based on cognitive and situative perspectives (e.g. MIT's Games-to-Teach Project). The absence of a behaviorist heritage is dangerous for game studies. As researchers construct increasingly complex models, they may evaluate ideas by internal coherence and external cohesion to others' work. But a beautiful spiderweb must be securely anchored or it may blow away. In the absence of extensive empirical observations, theoretical models of gaming may be vulnerable to yet-unseen disruptions.
James Paul Gee's recent book illustrates the fragile nature of games research. Gee's What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy demonstrates little of the empirical or "disciplined" inquiry that any emerging field needs. Rather, Gee primarily synthesizes research from proximal fields, and depends on rhetoric to support hypothetical models and principles. His arguments are still compelling, drawing strength from semiotic theories like affinity groups. However, Gee himself asserts that game studies must evolve through rigorous research as well as intriguing mental experiments, since "we have no idea yet how people 'read' video games, what meanings they make from them." (Gee, 2003)
When games research depends on surrogate models like narratology or semiotics, actual player behavior can be neglected in favor of descriptions of mental representations and social interaction. In reaction, ludology (literally, the study of games) places more emphasis on gameplay mechanics and design. Although ludology seldom calls explicitly on behaviorism, effective design depends on understanding and controlling stimulus-response behaviors. For example, player choices should result in clear, timely feedback. Rewards and punishments should be proportional to the behaviors that trigger them, and such feedback should perpetually shape toward desired behavior. Most games teach a player progressively complex behaviors and associations, through progressively difficult challenges followed by regular positive reinforcement (e.g. progressively difficult enemies, each of whom yields new and better spoils).
As artifacts, games inherit the design and research methodologies of programming, multimedia, and interface design. Many of these fields have strong behaviorist roots. (P. Mishra and M. Koehler, personal communication, September 12, 2003) For example, interface design researchers depend heavily on observing user behavior. In general, fun gameplay can be fostered with behaviorist principles. People continue to play games when they're rewarded with novel, satisfying experiences. These experiences are often very physiological (e.g. the satisfaction of mastering a complex sensorimotor behavior, attended by an audiovisual success animation). But not all games are physiologically demanding or rewarding. For example, an account of multiplayer role-playing games seems to require studying more internalized phenomena.
A purely behaviorist perspective can't account for internalized phenomena, and games are clearly far more than stimulus-response artifacts. Gaming is a social as well as technological phenomenon. Facing such a sophisticated phenomenon, the mainstream "pop academe" has erroneously seized on simple behaviorist models. These models are echoed in and perpetuated by the media. For example, some people believe that repetitive exposure to games has unavoidable, harmful effects. To wit, a schedule of regular reinforcement for anti-social in-game behavior (e.g. fighting fictional enemies) conditions a player to demonstrate anti-social post-game behavior (e.g. real school violence). Actually, the few empirical studies of such possible conditioning are conflicting, and proving definite causality may be impossible. (Smith, 2002) There are many confounds. For example, maybe people predisposed to violence also play violent games. Purely behaviorist models are premature at best, and superficial at worst.
While behaviorist models of transfer and generalization may be premature, they neatly highlight a critical dilemma in gaming. As Squire (2002) explains, games researchers assert that games can be used for learning. Yet they also generally deny that games condition anti-social behavior. The behaviorist perspective requires both possibilities to be true, or neither. Instead, gaming must be viewed as a social phenomenon. Behaviorism should continue to inform interface design and other mechanistic aspects of gaming, and games research should seek empirical data. But to answer to the dilemma of conditioning, games research needs a more cognitive or situative perspective.
A cognitive or situative perspective seems to better account for the apparent sophistication of gaming. Players report and demonstrate complex mental representations in order to solve in-game problems and to appreciate games and gaming. As a hobby, gaming is more than just playing games. Being a "gamer" can be a very social experience, ranging from accessing game-related Web sites and online discussion forums, to playing games with and against other human players, to forming "clans" or other clubs that persist over time, independent of any single game. Additionally, many gamers become hobbyist or professional game creators. Thus, the effectiveness of a game for conditioning pro- or anti-social depends on the larger context of gaming, including the reflection of the player and the influence of peers and other role models. For example, a social group that revels in anti-social behavior may promote the transfer of in-game behavior to real situations (e.g. from violent games to school violence). As with any new medium, alarmist reactionary rejection must give way to literate, judicious use. (Jason Wilson, personal communication, August 31, 2003)
The social nature of gaming leads researchers like Gee to believe that gaming can only be understood and explained by "native speakers." (Personal communication, February 21, 2003) Players who become creators or researchers necessarily apply their tacit knowledge when creating or studying games, illustrating the value of a situative perspective.
In more general research on play, experts are concerned that overly-deterministic technology is harmful to mental and social development, especially in early childhood. In other words, toys and games designed for specific, narrow purposes may cause strictly convergent thinking. For example, a fake McDonald's Happy Meal with plastic food only encourages a specific play experience: pretending to eat at McDonald's. (Meltz, 2002) People need more active, divergent thinking (e.g. imagination, creativity) to succeed in school, work, and especially in social relationships. A strict behaviorist perspective might compel toy- and game-makers to design their products for specific, narrow purposes. A cognitive or situative perspective supports less predetermined design. The computer games industry is tacitly aware of this principle. Games that offer open-ended, divergent play are typically the most popular and commercially successful (e.g. The Sims, Trash.EverQuest, Grand Theft Auto 3).
The growing commercial success and cultural influence of games is largely based their appeal to children and young adults. This appeal is and should remain the driving force in studying games. People play games because gaming is enjoyable, both as a task and as membership in a social group. Educators can co-opt this voluntary engagement to teach more meaningful content. For example, Foreman (2003) has suggested ways that gaming can transform the classroom in higher education, leveraging the engagement mechanisms of virtual space and dynamic feedback for more individualized, adaptive learning systems.
In order to achieve the vision of Foreman and others, researchers must approach games with a pluralist perspective. Just as gaming is a technological foundation for cognitive and social activity, games researchers should adopted an "enlightened" behaviorism. They should not ignore the behaviorist roots of design and moment-to-moment gameplay, but they also need to explore reflection and social interaction among gamers. Thus, behaviorism has played and should continue to play an important but limited role in studying computer games.
Foreman, J. (2003). Next-generation educational technology versus the lecture. Educause Review, 38(4), 12-22. Retrieved 7/14/2003 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0340.pdf
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meltz, B. F. (2002, December 5). Educators fear kids aren't getting right kind of play. Boston Globe, pp. ?.
Mortensen, T. (2002). Playing with players: Potential methodologies for muds. Game Studies, 2(1). Retrieved 10/24/2002 from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/mortensen/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, J. H. (2002, December). Computer game research 101 - a brief introduction to the literature. Game Research. Retrieved 12/11/2002 from http://www.game-research.com/art_computer_game_research.asp
Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game Studies, 2(1). Retrieved 12/6/02 from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/squire/
Created by Kym Buchanan | http://KymBuchanan.org | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
