Bridging Game Development and Instructional Design

Bridging Game Development and Instructional Design

James Belanich (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, USA), Karin B. Orvis (Old Dominion University, USA), Daniel B. Horn (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, USA) and Jennifer L. Solberg (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, USA)
Copyright: © 2009 |Pages: 16
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch063
OnDemand PDF Download:
$30.00
List Price: $37.50

Abstract

Instructional video game development is occurring in both the commercial game development and the instructional design/development communities, but regularly in isolation from one another. While many proclaim that game-based learning offers an instructional revolution, the empirical results on instructional effectiveness have been mixed. These mixed findings may be due to the contrasting approaches utilized within these two communities. These communities differ with respect to prioritizing goals and design/development processes. However, the creation of an effective instructional video game—one that both motivates and teaches—is dependent on the successful partnering of these communities. Accordingly, this chapter elucidates the commonalities and differences in the development goals and approaches of these communities and discusses how best practices of each community should be blended for optimal instructional video game design. This chapter also includes relevant experiences from an instructional PC-video game development project, illustrating challenges faced and new opportunities afforded via a collaborative development effort.
Chapter Preview
Top

Introduction

With traditional instructional methods, such as formal classroom instruction, one fundamental challenge can be motivating students to fully engage in the instructional content. PC-based instructional video games have become an increasingly popular instructional medium, as many proclaim that video games engage and motivate learners in ways that traditional instruction hasn’t in the past (Gee, 2003; Herz & Macedonia, 2002; Prensky, 2001). Further, some proponents of instructional video games suggest that today’s learners (and game-players) are wired differently than learners of the past, and that game-based learning leverages this difference, capturing their motivation to learn (e.g., Prensky, 2001).

While many assert that game-based learning offers a new revolution in instruction (Gee, 2003; Herz & Macedonia, 2002; Prensky, 2001), the empirical results concerning its effectiveness with respect to student knowledge acquisition and retention have been mixed to date (Hays, 2005). Thus, utilizing this engaging medium may help alleviate the concern of low student motivation; however, motivation alone is not a sufficient condition for learning. This suggests that the important question for instructional game developers is not whether a learner is fully engaged in game play; rather, is the “engaged” learner actually learning the instructional objectives embedded in the video game or merely playing the game? In short, both student motivation and pedagogical structure are necessary determinants of the effectiveness of instructional video games.

The development of instructional video games represents new territory. Experts in the instructional design/training development community have typically developed tools used for instruction, while commercial game development experts have mastered the development of video games for entertainment purposes. Video games designed specifically for instructional purposes represent a gray area, with training game development occurring in both communities but many times in isolation from one another.

It is possible that the demonstrated mixed effectiveness of instructional video games (e.g., Beal, 2005; Hays, 2005) can be attributed to the contrasting approaches utilized within these two communities. Many believe that the commercial game development and instructional design/training development communities differ greatly with respect to their fundamental goals (i.e., entertainment versus learning) and processes involved in design/development (i.e., game development versus instructional design processes).

The creation of an effective instructional video game—a game that motivates and also successfully teaches the intended instructional objectives—is dependent on the successful partnering of these two communities. While these communities may hold different goals or definitions of a successful development initiative, these goals are not incompatible. Further, while on the surface these communities may appear to utilize unique design/development approaches, these two communities actually embrace complementary approaches. Accordingly, the purpose of this chapter is to elucidate the commonalities and differences in the development goals and approaches of these two communities, and discuss how the best practices of each community should be blended for optimal instructional video game design.

The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. First, the overarching development goals of both game developers and instructional designers are described. This includes how these goals differ, as well as overlap. Next, is a description of the different developmental processes that game developers and instructional designers are likely to follow in product development. Again, differences and similarities in the product development processes of both communities are highlighted.

Key Terms in this Chapter

Storyboard: A graphic means of presenting the story line of a video game, movie, or cartoon. In serious games, this depicts the plot of the video game in which learning objectives are embedded.

SME (Subject Matter Expert): An individual with a high level of knowledge in a particular domain—subject matter to be taught. Although an SME typically may not have an expertise in training or instructional design, he or she can play an integral role in the design of instructional games.

Iterative Development: A model of system development in which the ability to rework and revise aspects of the software is scheduled. In this approach, the developer benefits from prototype evaluation during the development process.

Instructional System Design: The practice of creating and organizing media in a way that enables individuals to learn effectively. Instructional system design incorporates a variety of disciplines including education, psychology, information technology, graphic design, and others.

ADDIE: The ADDIE model is commonly used in instructional systems design. The acronym stands for analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The output of each stage serves as the input for the subsequent stages.

Learning Objective: A specific, measurable task (or class of tasks/actions) a learner should be able to perform as the result of training. It should include the conditions under which the task should be performed as well as the criteria by which performance will be judged.

Spiral Development: An iterative model of system development in which software is built in progressive phases. In each phase, a prototype of the software is reviewed by the customer and evaluated prior to further development. Following the review, another prototype is built and evaluated. This process continues until the final product is delivered.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset