Wainess Phd Qualifying Exam

16

WAINESS PHD QUALIFYING EXAM

Qualifying Examination

Richard Wainess

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

to

Dr. Harold O’Neil (Chair)

Dr. Richard Clark

Dr. Edward Kazlauskas

Dr. Janice Schafrik

Dr. Yanis Yortsos (Outside member)

14009 Barner Ave.

Sylmar, CA 91342

Home Phone: (818) 364-9419

E-Mail:

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy in Education in

Educational Psychology and Technology

1. Review the theoretical and empirical literature on the impact of games on learning and motivation. Please, focus on training of adults and include a discussion of various game characteristics, such as fun, competition, fantasy, and challenge.

The purpose of this review is to describe: the differences between games and simulations; the motivational aspects of games; how game are currently being used; possible learning outcomes attributed to games; and some issues pertaining to individual differences, such as gender. While instructional games have been touted as the next great educational tool, research hasn’t supported these hopes or claims. Richard Clark’s famous remarks that media, such as video games, do not improve learning, they are simply a means of delivering content (CITE) continue to prove true. Therefore, the question becomes, “If instructional games do not improve learning, then why bother creating them?” The answer is relatively simple. As Clark (YEAR) states, media do not improve learning. That means books and lectures, which are both mediums (i.e., delivery vehicles for instruction), do not improve learning either. And that’s correct. A lecture, in and of itself, does not improve learning. Neither does a book. It’s the instructional methods that are incorporated into the book or into the lecturer that cause learning (Schacter & Fagnano, 1999).

According to Cobb (1997), while there may be no unique medium for any job, that does not mean that one medium isn’t better than another or that determinining which is better is not a worthwhile empirical question. We use books and lectures because they’re practical—they achieve some form of efficiency. Books are portable, can be read just about anywhere, and provide a convenient way to reaccess large amounts of information. Lectures provide an opportunity for spontaneous changes to presentations and for engaging in real-time dialog with the instructor and among classmates. Video games also have the potential to work well for specific situations. As Cobb (1997) argued, no medium is instrinsically better than another, but one may be better than another depending upon instructional needs.

If computers can provide opportunities for learning, they should be considered, and not patently rejected. However, they should also not be patently accepted. Computers are not teaching devices. The instructional content they deliver and the instructional methods embedded in that delivery are the teaching devices (CITE). Computers are simply powerful instruments with robust capabilities for delivering experiences that are either unique from other media or, in certain circumstances, more practical than using other media. For example, computers can deliver games with a combination of features and capabilities not available with other electronic media.

Researchers generally agree that games provide motivational outcomes (CITE). What is questioned is learning outcomes, as measured by retention, and more importantly, transfer. While there is inconsistent evidence of learning outcomes (Lee, 1999; CITE), agreement on the role of motivation in learning (CITE) is relatively stable. Many, if not most, of the current models of learning and problem solving include affective components, including motivation, as critical to learning (e.g., the CANE model: Clark, 1999; O’Neil’s Problem Solving Model: O’Neil, YEAR; GIVE MODEL NAME: Waller, Knapp, Hunt, 2001). While it can easily be argued that motivation does not mean learning will occur (CITE), it can equally be argued that motivation supports learning by encouraging mental effort and persistence (CITE).

Researchers have cited a large number of benefits of computers and, particularly, of computer games. Taylor, Renshaw, and Jensen (1997) commented that technology, in the form of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), incorporates a wealth of techniques that promote motivation, and has the potential to tremendously improve educational effectiveness. It has also been argued that some empirical evidence exists that games can be effective tools for enhancing learning and understanding of complex subject matter (Cordova, & Lepper, 1996; Ricci, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). And LeemKull, de Jong, de Hoog, and Christoph (2003) argued that games and simulations provide students with a framework of rules and roles through which they can learn interactively through a live experience, the students can tackle situations they might not be prepared to risk in reality, and they can experiment with new ideas and strategies. Mayer, Mautone, and Prothero (2002) also commented that when learning by doing in a physical environment is not feasible, learning by doing can be implemented using computer simulations. Mayer, Mautone, Prothero further commented that, in learning by doing in virtual environments, students actively work in realistic situations that simulate authentic tasks for a particular domain.According to Cross (1993), experiential learning is the process of gaining knowledge through experience and behavior, and games are commonly used tools for experiential learning.

However, for games to be effective, they must embed sound instructional strategies and appropriate content. According to Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002), recent research has begun to establish links between instructional strategies, motivational processes, and learning outcomes. The researcher argued that people learn from active engagement with the environment and this experience coupled with instructional support (i.e., debriefing, scaffolding) can provide an effective learning environment. GIVE OTHER EXAMPLES?

In the early 1970s, Duke (1995) developed a series of game for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for use in underdeveloped countries. The games showed promise as a way to quickly provide a cogent model for urgent problems, such as nutrition planning and economic planning. Also in the 1970s, a new type of client for gaming began to emerge as, increasing, leadership of large public and private organizations sought to locate new methods for developing strategic vision. These clients included international banks, railroads, pharmaceutical companies and chemical companies (Duke, 1995). Resnik and Sherer (1994) commented that computerized games and simulations can be used like any other professional tool to deal with clients’ conflicts, their current troubled situation, or with future dilemmas, and Rieber (1996) argued that games offer an organizational function based on cognitive, social and cultural factors all related to play. According to Salas, Bowers, & Rodenzer (1998), Simulation is a way of life in many aviation training environments. For example, military, commercial, and general aviation all use simulations to train a variety of tasks. And in the past decade, there has been considerable interest in using computer-simulated (virtual) environments (VEs) for training spatial knowledge (Waller, 2000).

DEFINITIONS

One of the first problems areas with research into game and simulations is terminology. Many studies that claim to have examined the use of games, did not use a game (CITE). At best, they used an interactive multimedia that exhibits some of the features of a game, but not enough features to actually be called a game. A similar problem occurs with simulations. A large number of research studies use simulations but call them games (CITE). Because the goals and features of games and simulations differ, it is important when examining the potential effects of the two media to be clear about which one is being examined. However, there is little consensus in the education and training literature on how games and simulations are defined.

According to Ricci, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (1996), computer-based educational games generally fall into one of two categories: simulation games and video games. Simulation games model a process or mechanism relating task-relevant input changes to outcomes in a simplified reality that may not have a definite endpoint. They often depend on learners reaching conclusions through exploration of the relation between input changes and subsequent outcomes. Video games, on the other hand, are competitive interactions bound by rules to achieve specified goals that are dependent on skill or knowledge and that often involve chance and imaginary settings (Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 1992).

Games

According to Garris, Ahlers, and Driskell (2002) early work in defining games suggested that there are no properties that are common to all games and that games belong to the same semantic category only because they bear a family resemblance to one another (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). Betz (1995) argued that a game is being played when the actions of individuals are determined by both their own actions and the actions of one or more actors. Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, and Casey (2002) commented that a game is a set of activities involving one or more players. It has goals, constraints, payoffs, and consequences.

A number of researchers agree that games have rules (Crookall, Oxford, and Saunders, 1987; Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, and Casey, 2002; Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Ricci, 1994). Researchers also agree that games have goals and strategies to achieve those goals (Crookall & Arai, 1995; Crookall, Oxford, and Saunders, 1987; Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Ricci, 1994). Many researchers also agree that games have competition (Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen, and Casey; 2002) and consequences such as winning or losing (Crookall, Oxford, and Saunders, 1987).

Betz (1995) further argued that games simulate whole systems, not parts, forcing players to organize and integrate many skills. Students will learn from whole systems by their individual actions, individual action being the student’s game moves. Crookall, Oxfodr, and Saunders also noted that a game does not intend to represent any real-world system; it is a “real” system in its own right. According to Duke (1995), games are situation specific. If well designed for a specific client, the same game should not be expected to perform well in a different environment.

Simulations

In contrast to games, Crookall and Saunders (1989) viewed a simulation as a representation of some real-world system that can also take on some aspects of reality for participants or users. Similarly, Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002) wrote that key features of simulations are that they represent real-world systems, and Henderson, Klemes, and Eshet (2000) commented that a simulation attempts to faithfully mimic an imaginary or real environment and content that cannot be experienced directly, for such reasons as cost, danger, accessibility, or time (Henderson, Klemes, & Eshet, 2000). Berson (1996) also argued that Simulations allow students to engage in activities that would otherwise be too expensive, dangerous, or impractical to conduct in the classroom.

Lee (1999) added that a simulation is defined as a computer program that relates them together through cause and effect relationships. Reiber (1992; 1996) discussed microworlds, a variant of simulations. He described microworlds as small representations of content areas or domains that can be recognized by an expert, and simulations as designed to mimic real life experiences, such as a flight simulator (Lee, 1999).

Thiagarajan (1998) argued that simulations do not reflect reality; they reflect someone’s model of reality. According to Thiagarajan, a simulation is a representation of the features and behaviors of one system through the use of another. Elements of a simulation correspond to selected elements of the system being simulated. Some simulations focus on the physical features of a real world object, such as a model airplane, while others focus on the processes and interactions of real world events, such as mathematical equations that predict the number of traffic fatalities during a holiday weekend (Thiagarajan, 1998). At the risk of introducing a bit more ambiguity, Garris, Ahlers, and Driskell (2002) proposed that simulations can contain game features, which leads to the final definition: sim-games.

Sim-Games

Thus, it is not too improper to consider games and simulations as similar in some respects, keeping in mind the key distinction that simulations propose to represent reality and games do not (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). Combining the features of the two media, Rosenorn and Kofoed (1998) described simulation/gaming as a learning environment where participants are actively involved in experiments, for example, in the form of role-plays, or simulations of daily work situations, or developmental scenarios. Being away from the real workplace, participants have the freedom to make wrong decisions and to learn from them.

This paper will use the definitions of games, simulations, and sim-games as defined by Gredler (1996), which combine the most common features cited by the various researchers, and yet provide clear distinctions between the three media. According to Gredler,

Games consist of rules that describe allowable player moves, game constraints and privileges (such as ways of earning extra turns), and penalties for illegal (nonpermissable) actions. Further, the rules may be imaginative in that they need not relate to real-world events (p. 523).

This definition is in contrast to a simulation, which Gredler (1996) defines as “a dynamic set of relationships among several variables that (1) change over time and (2) reflect authentic causal processes” (p. 523). In addition, Gredler describes games as linear and simulations as non-linear, and games as having a goal of winning while simulations have a goal of discovering causal relationships. Gredler also defines a mixed metaphor referred to as simulation games or gaming simulations, which is a blend of the features of the two interactive media: games and simulations.

A major design weakness in game studies is that most studies compare simulations to regular classroom instruction (lecture and/or classroom discussion). However, the instructional goals for which each can be most effective often differ. The lecture method is likely to be superior in transmitting items of information. In contrast, simulations have the potential to develop the students’ mental models of complex situations as well as their problem-solving strategies (Gredler, 1996).

MOTIVATIONAL ASPECTS OF GAMES

According to Garris, Ahlers, and Driskell (2002), motivated learners are easy to describe. They are enthusiastic, focused and engaged, they are interested in and enjoy what they are doing, they try hard, and they persist over time. Furthermore, they are self-determined and driven by their own volition rather than external forces (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). Ricci, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (1996) defined motivation as “the direction, intensity, and persistence of attentional effort invested by the trainee toward training.” Similarly, according to Malouf (1987-1988), continuing motivation is defined as returning to a task or a behavior without apparent external pressure to do so when other appealing behaviors are available. And more simply, Story and Sullivan (1986) commented that the most common measure of continuing motivation is whether a student returns to the same task at a later time. In general, these descriptions of motivation include the concept of continued motivation; persistence.