Comments on: Games & Meaningful Interactivity

By: Gamifica el aprendizaje con juegos serios – TAEC Blog

Gamifica el aprendizaje con juegos serios – TAEC Blog — Mon, 07 Sep 2020 16:03:43 +0000

[…] Clark Quinn’s Game Space Theory […]

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:01:57 +0000

Curtis, I suggest that pure knowledge isn’t of much value, except in the context of meaningful work. So I like to put the meaningful application front and center (and if knowledge needs to be ‘in the head’, e.g. medical vocabulary, make the situation such that they need to know it). Then (and only then) might you make available a mechanism for drilling that knowledge into the head (and those are the ‘very limited circumstances’ I refer to).

But too often we resort to knowledge when it won’t make a difference, so put the meaningful application first, and follow up if/when necessary with your frame-based extrinsics. As you suggest, there *are* instancesâ€¦just not as many as we tend to believe.

By: Curtis Pembrook

Curtis Pembrook — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 16:24:46 +0000

I agree, but… what about a purely “knowledge-based” topic, which is a very common in K12/Higher Education? For example, teaching students to recognize the elements in the Periodic Table… A Jeopardy or other frame-based game is effective in helping students learn characteristics of elements in the table, and the challenge is a motivator. Of course this is very rote, but aren’t there instances when frame-based games and extrinsic motivation is appropriate?

By: Bryan Austin

Bryan Austin — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:32:47 +0000

Thanks for these thoughts, Clark, completely agree. Knowledge-based games can be helpful if they better engage the learner than traditional lecture or elearning. But we need more training (games or otherwise) that effectively develops and anchors critical business skills. I’m clearly biased, but think the learning models leveraged via serious games can be exceptionally effective in accomplishing this.

By: Julie Dirksen

Julie Dirksen — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:10:43 +0000

I like this framing. To me the question isn’t “Is Jeopardy a game?” I don’t really care (thought for the record, I think it IS a game, it’s just a crappy game).

The value question is a *much* more useful framing. The real question is “Is Jeopardy a valuable learning experience?” In my opinion, not so much.

My biggest issue with Jeopardy style games for learning is the lack of context. We are taking the information and putting it in a context that will never occur in the real world, and are missing out on all the benefits that good context can provide (http://willthalheimer.typepad.com/files/aligning-learning-and-performance-contexts_v2009.pdf).