Article Preview
TopBackground
Problem-Based education has been put forward as the most fruitful approach when it comes to serious game design (Aldrich, 2009; Gee, 2005). In Problem-Based learning, students start with a problem. This problem is rather loosely defined as something ‘for which an individual lacks a ready response’ (Hallinger, 1992, p. 27). Problem-Based education distinguishes between well- and ill-defined problems. Ill-defined problems are those ‘in which one or several aspects of the situation is not well specified, the goals are unclear, and there is insufficient information to solve them’ (Ge & Land, p5 in Ertmer et al., 2008). Shaffer’s (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005; Shaffer, 2008) suggestion for epistemic games, in which players adopt the perspective of a professional to confront complex problems in simulation-like game, aligns with Problem-Based learning approach.
Drill & Practice learning teaches the ‘what’ and the ‘when’, but not the ‘why’ and the ‘how’. Ke (2008) suggests that students in Drill & Practice Learning merely memorize facts. As a result, this kind of learning may not facilitate creative thought or stimulate problem-solving skills. Or, as Reeve et al. (2004) state, it may not present students with the opportunity to experiment, explore and struggle with the learning content to find the truth for themselves. Games such as Math Gran Prix (Atari Inc., 1982), Math Blaster (Davidson & Associates, 1994), and Dr. Kawashima’s Brain Training (Nintendo SDD, 2005) align with the Drill & Practice learning. In these games, there is only one solution to a mathematical challenge, and players are prompted to input the correct one.