This website has been created for SPGS 9500 Winter 2017 in order to guide educators through the uses of Games for Learning (G4L). This section outlines the locations of various G4L materials, as well as serving as a convenient order to examine that material. By examining this material educators will be able to identify when G4L is appropriate for their teaching and what specific types of G4L works best for different types of course learning outcomes.

In the interest of full disclosure, while G4L can be an enjoyable experience for both teachers and learner, to date there is not a lot of empirical evidence on effectiveness of games for learning. [1]

A link to all the pages can always be found at the top of the page.

A convenient reading order would start with the Background section below, followed by watching the short talk in the following Video section. After the video is a section detailing the process of how to apply games for learning in your educational practice. Finally, at the bottom of this main page is the grading Rubric for both this website and the in-class presentation.

If you develop an even greater interest in Games for Learning please consult one or more of the Reference Articles in the Resources page. These are the articles the authors consulted to create this website.

Finally, we encourage educators to play the 'Choose your own adventure' (CYOA) text game located on the Text Game page.

As always a link to all the pages can be found at the top of the page.

'Games for learning' is a way of understanding the possible ways for learners to interact with material. The operational definition presented here is: "Activities in an educational context, in classrooms or online, that allow students to take on the role of players within a constructed environment, often in the form of rules."

Three types:

• Individual Learning Games: These are often education Computer games
• Cooperative Games/Roleplay: These games often simulate a real world situation
• Competitive Games/Gamification: Learners are provided motivation (rewards), ability (controls over outcomes) and triggers (something to tell the user when to complete the task) [2]

Brief History:

• Some argue that teaching is inherently a game because students work to earn grades (rewards) [3]
• Other reward systems, such as stickers for good behaviour, have been in schools for many years [4]
• More recently, gamification has been related to the integration of current technology into school games [5]

Before detailing when and how to use G4L a few potential pitfalls should be noted.[6] First, it can be difficult to tie game elements to specific course learning objectives. Second, implementing G4L can cause student to experience a sense of unfamiliarity or discomfort. Time ought to be given for reflection in order to connect the games to learning outcomes. Third, there are circumstances in which adopting G4L results in no real change in learning outcomes. Finally, there can be diminished returns on time investment. The amount of time an instructor takes to prepare for a game in class or online may not result in desired outcomes or effectiveness.

When planning to use G4L there are several qualities of the learners that may seem important to keep in mind. Following is a current list of student variables and their impact on G4L learning outcomes [1]:

• Gender: no gender effect on G4L outcomes
• Socioeconomic status: can cause different attitudes towards G4L, but no evidence of different outcomes
• Prior knowledge or ability: lower ability students have greatest benefit
• Age: interest is inversely proportional to age
• Play time: no conclusive effect of play time on performance
• Motivation: high motivation tends to result in better outcomes, but this is not unique to G4L.

Finally, G4L is better suited some high-level learning outcomes and not others. The current state of evidence suggests the following points of application [1]:

• Attitudes: G4L is associated with developing positive attitudes in learners
• Enjoyment: G4L tends to increase student enjoyment
• Engagement: G4L also has a positive effect on engagement
• Metacognition: G4L has no effect
• Self-perception: unable to determine if G4L has an effect on student self-perception
• Behaviour: unable to determine if G4L has an effect on student behaviour
• Cognitive learning outcomes: G4L appears to have a positive effect, but there is no conclusive effect

Following is three lists of games that fall under each of the three categories of G4L, they are specific tools that can be used by educators:

The specific type used will depend on the learning outcomes of the course. This means that it is largely up to the judgement and experience of the instructor. However, a few hypothetical case studies will follow to help illustrate the possibilities.

Case 1: An astrophysics class with many students would be a good case for an individual learning game. The subject matter is not inherently cooperative or competitive and a large class size makes large scale interactions potentially disruptive with no specific payoff. A good choice would be the Universe Sandbox software.

Case 2: A large business administration class would be a good opportunity for more classical gamification. Like the previous case the large size makes many types of cooperative games impractical, but the subject matter lends itself competitive gameplay. Any game that allows for immediate classroom assessment could be a good choice, such as Kahoot.

Case 4: A small paramedic training class could be a good chance to use cooperative games. Perhaps a lesson on treating sprained ankles could have the students pair off each taking turns to roleplay as the medic and the patient. This has the additional benefit of mimicking the final accreditation process, the OSCE.

1. Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Game based learning: A review on the effectiveness of educational games. In M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Serious Games as Educational, Business, and Research Tools (pp. 628-647). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
2. Muntean CI (2011) Raising Engagement in e-learning through gamification. ICVL: 323-9
3. Lee J, Hammer J (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother?. Academic Exchange quarterly. 15(2)
4. Reisner, EH (1922) Nationalism and Education since 1789: A social and political history of modern education. Macmillan; Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. 15^th international mindtrek conference.
5. Rughnig R. (2013) Gamification for productive interaction: Reading and working with the gamification debate in education. CISTI.
6. Deborah Moore-Russo, Andrew Wiss & Jeremiah Grabowski (2017): Integration of Gamification into Course Design: A Noble Endeavor with Potential Pitfalls, College Teaching, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2017.1295016