Digital games in the twenty‐first century

Marc Prensky, in ‘Computer games and learning: digital game‐based learning’, asks a key question of digital games and learning: ‘Why might we want or need to consciously design and use computer and video games for learning?’ (2005, p. 97). His question implies the fundamental assumption that one can learn though games. This is an interesting assumption and one that many of the articles in this issue support through various case studies. Videogame scholar James Paul Gee (2003) takes this assumption one step further and asserts that one does not have to design a game specifically for an educational purpose for there to be learning. He believes that all video games promote learning, just maybe not always the content‐based learning supported in school systems. However, games in schools and games for children comprise the majority of the studies involved with game‐based learning and was even an impetus for this special issue.

The editorial board of Learning, Media and Technology incorporating Education, Communication & Information felt that a special issue on digital games and learning would provide a timely insight of educational uses of a media genre that previously might have been more closely associated with leisure activities. Underpinning this was the growing international interest in the educational benefits of both playing and developing games, together with a pervasion of these new forms of media in the classroom, offering rich opportunities for researchers and practitioners to explore and debate impact and potential.

Yet the idea of ‘edutainment’ games is not a new concept. Games like The Oregon Trail have been produced since the 1970s to be played both in schools and as a learning tool at home. However, there are more ways to address the issue of learning through gaming than just standard analysis of edutainment games. The following articles show a diverse range of scholarship. All revolve around digital games and learning, but that is where the similarities stop. What exactly is being learned through these games can also vary widely, covering educational topics such as literacy and mathematics; life lessons dealing with humour and motivation; and skills that advance us into the future. This diversity shows the range of discussions that can formulate under the general topic of digital games and learning. While the articles may not have many common themes except learning through games, most articles do use a similar methodology of case or field studies. Each article uses participation from a particular sample through which to test and evaluate its thesis.

Additionally, the following articles also illustrate that gaming and the study of learning via gaming is not confined to one or two countries, with articles originating from Belgium, Canada, Italy and the UK. While no author studies a cross‐cultural effect of video games in their given topics, it would be a worthy research project to conduct the same study in multiple countries. For example, if a scholar reproduced Steven Malliet’s interview process with adolescents from another country would the conclusion be the same about video games and reality? We encourage scholars reading this issue to pursue such scholarship and continue the global and intercultural investigations of the worldwide entertainment and education medium of digital games. Conferences such as the one in Australia titled ‘Interactive Games and Learning’ in June 2006 (http://www.ictlic.eq.edu.au/IGL2006/) and the biannual DiGRA 2005 (http://www.gamesconference.org) do support this global endeavour and help bring scholars together to discuss digital games in a learning capacity. Moreover, it is a testament to using digital games for learning that such a wide swath of scholars are researching this topic around the world.

Not only is learning through digital games a global field of study, but it is also a rapidly changing area of research that incorporates multiple disciplines. Juul commented in 2005 that: ‘The young field of computer game studies is in a state of productive chaos. It is an amalgam of researchers from different disciplines bringing wildly contradictory assumptions to the table, yet also an area with its own set of conferences, associations, and journals’. The following year Habgood (2006) argued that: ‘Games have finally become an area of serious academic study, with computer scientists, sociologists, educationalists, and psychologists all getting in on the act’. Each disciple brings a unique perspective into the field and learning is ever‐present.

All digital games involve learning to a greater or lesser degree. The inherent potential for introducing digital games to academic curricula cannot be ignored. Classical Game Theory (Olsen, 2003; Baillie‐de Byl, 2004) informs us that there are three types of games to consider: games of strategy, games of skill and games of chance. We can find amongst the types of games such genres as action games, simulation games, interactive fiction, role‐playing games, fighting and sports games, strategy and board games, and finally A‐Life or Artificial Life games. Naturally, game types cannot be mutually exclusive due to the inherent design of games. All games are played in distinct ways (Bateman & Boon, 2006) and the player/learner’s interaction and knowledge acquisition with a game depends on its content and design, but with every game, players are learning.

In the following articles, one will see various examples of the use of games of skill and strategy to foster successful learning. This is no simple task because as Smith (2002) points out: ‘It is a characteristic of games that they often don’t deliver knowledge in a form that is easily measured or evaluated by fixed standards. It is more appropriate to speak of general skills like level‐headedness, analysis and the ability to understand and interact with rapidly changing environments’. It is to their credit that several of the authors in this edition have attempted to contradict Smith, describing how games can specifically be used to facilitate the analysis and synthesis of knowledge content and can allow player/learners to reflect upon and evaluate this knowledge.

Caroline Pelletier and Martin Oliver, in ‘Learning to play in digital games’, offer us an important methodology for observing and evaluating exactly how players learn to play and argue that such a methodology is essential if we are aiming to integrate digital games into educational curricula. The authors support their analysis with three case studies where they implemented a refined version of Activity Theory in order to improve upon the research method and instrumentation. The conclusion highlights that within this paper there are important and engaging implications for both educators who attempt to evaluate the actual learning that is taking place in play and for game designers who seek to exploit the interest and motivations of potential audiences.

In ‘Using games and simulations for supporting learning’, Sara de Freitas differentiates games as a ‘voluntary activity, separate from real life’ from simulations which ‘represent aspects of reality’ as part of evaluating the perceptions about the use of both in a wide variety of educational settings. The data from this large range of sources is highly revealing and the results inevitably cover a near‐comprehensive array of important issues; from integration and problem‐based learning to engagement, assessment and accreditation. The conclusion emphasises the pedagogical implications that have arisen because a strict differentiation has not yet been made between the ‘perceptions’ of game and simulation‐based learning and the actual research evidence up to now.

Rosa Maria Bottino and Michela Ott’s paper, ‘Mind games, reasoning skills, and the primary school curriculum’, aimed their research project at testing and helping to strengthen several cognitive and strategic competencies in primary‐aged school children. They achieved this by introducing a number of mental ability games such as brainteasers, puzzles and board games into an Italian school curriculum and evaluating the young participants. The SoLE project was small‐scale and long‐term (over four years) and involved the collaboration of a team of educational technologists, psychologists and, importantly, primary school teachers. The results show positive impacts upon a range of subject areas in addition to the expected improvements in mathematics. The authors also describe their future research aims and areas of high potential and possible exploitation.

Steven Malliet uses in‐depth interviews of 32 adolescents from Flanders, Belgium in ‘An exploration of adolescents’ perceptions of videogame realism’ to investigate videogame realism. Taking a ludological stance, he questions perceptions of reality in adolescent players by asking three main research questions: ‘What are the meanings adolescents most commonly associate with videogame realism? To what degree do gamers’ understandings of videogame realism conform to the dimensions of media realism that were developed by researchers who have investigated traditional media realism? To what degree do the insights provided by ludology conform to the perceptions adolescent players have of videogame realism?’ Malliet’s article indirectly makes a significant point about players and the games they are playing. While his subjects were 16–19 years old, the games discussed, such as Tactical Ops, Unreal Tournament and Halo have a Mature rating by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), which means they are suitable for players age 17 and older. Most of the games in the Grand Theft Auto series hold a Mature rating, while one, GTA: San Andres, holds an Adults Only rating for 18 and above. Most videogame players are playing games rated above their appropriate age level, according to the ESRB, and this could have a significant impact on not only their perception of the reality of the game but also their learning through the game.

Even though Malliet’s article demonstrates otherwise, the general public might assume that video games, like comics and cartoons, are aimed at a primary audience of children. But according to the Entertainment Software Association, the average game player age is 33 (http://www.theesa.com). Educators tend to focus on children in gaming situations because children are still in formal educational settings and are perceived to be more influenced and affected by games and learning. While more of the articles in this special edition do focus on children and adolescents in the role of learner, Maria Kambouri, Harvey Mellor and Siobhan Thomas include the under‐explored topic of Adult Education in ‘Playing the literacy game: a case study in adult education’. Hopefully their research will spur more classes such as the one described being offered by the University for Industry.

Not only can gamers be of any age, but the types of learning that happen with games can be unexpected. Sometimes games teach us more than content‐based learning. Games can use laughter, not as the best medicine as the old adage states, but as the best teacher. Claire Dormann and Robert Biddle address this topic using the funny side of a gaming activity to promote prolonged learning, in their article ‘Humour in game‐based learning’. As a piece of serious research, Dormann and Biddle created Antarctica NWN, a role‐playing game based on Neverwinter Nights, to teach climate change and through which to demonstrate their case for humour. Combining activity theory with the mediation of humour, gamers can be more engaged and entertained in the activity of learning through video games. But it isn’t all fun and games. Dormann and Biddle identify important issues to consider when integrating humour.

It is exciting to consider the consequences and added incentives for game players in their game‐facilitated learning. Recently in the College Journal, an article appeared on using games as assessment tools for M.B.A.s moving into the business world. ‘Recruiters are using games to assess M.B.A.s’ (Alsop, 2006) addresses going beyond an educational setting and taking digital games into the professional world of business. Digital games are not only for the classroom. In diverse settings and with varied content, learning can and does happen through digital games.