Gee and Mayer on the Science of Learning, Problem Solving, and Games

Gee and Mayer on the Science of Learning, Problem Solving, and Games

In What Games Have toTeach Us About Learning and Literacy, literacy scholar James Paul Gee writes:

“What we are really looking for is this: the theory of human learning built into good video games. This theory is built into not just the games but also gamers and the gaming community. Of course, there is an academic field of cognitive science (or, better put, a part of it sometimes called “the learning sciences”). So we can, then, compare the theory of learning in good video games to theories of learning in cognitive science. Who’s got the best theory? Well, it turns out that the theory of learning in good video games is close to what I believe are the best theories of learning in cognitive science. And this is not because game designers read academic texts on learning” (Gee, 2007, p. 4).

In his chapter, “Multimedia Learning and Games,” from Tobias’ and Fletcher’s anthology, Computer Games and Instruction, cognitive scientist Richard Mayer writes:

“Many strong claims are made for the educational value of computer games, but there is little strong empirical evidence to back up those claims […] In order to provide guidance to game developers, it would be useful to have research-based principles for how to design educational computer games (i.e., a science of instruction) and a research-based theory of how people learn from educational computer games (i.e., a science of learning)” (Mayer, 2011, p. 281-2).

In one corner, we have Gee telling us that using a semiotics-based framework to reflect on playing games, to study the ways games are designed, and to study games, can help us not only understand the learning that happens in existing games (e.g. off-the-shelf commercial games like World of Warcraft) so that we can design educational games, but also principles of learning, motivation, and assessment that can help us remodel formal education in school systems towards a system of in-class and out-of-class learning experiences that fit “better with the modern, high-tech, global world today’s children and teenagers live in than do the theories (and practices) of learning that they sometimes see in school” (Gee, 2007, p. 5).

In the other corner, we have Mayer telling us that we still need to build an empirical base of research-supported instructional design principles for designing educational games that effectively help students achieve learning objectives, and that the existing base of multimedia learning principles can help us reframe the science of game-based learning and educational game design practices towards a body of research-supported principles that can operate with existing instructional design principles (287-8).

Who is right, Gee or Mayer?

Well, right about what—game design, instructional design in general, or the fit between k-12 and higher education learning experiences with learners entering them? All three of these things can be addressed separately with respect to the usefulness or strengths of Gee and Mayer’s positions. Below I address Gee and Mayer’s positions on game design and instructional design in more depth, but first I quickly address their positions on the fit between k-12 and higher education learning experiences with the learners entering them.

Designing Education for Digital Natives

In “Digital Natives, DigitalImmigrants,” Marc Prensky writes that widespread access to and use of digital technologies in and since the 1990s (in the U.S.) by those born into this digital revolution has been an irreversible event that should be accounted for in the design of learning experiences in formal education (p. 1). Prensky coins the terms digital native and digital immigrant to emphasize this fundamental difference in students before and after the digital revolution in terms of they ways in which they learn and process information, not just in terms of their birthdays and technology use. In short, a digital native is a person who thinks and processes in certain ways from use of digital tools and toys, prioritize consumption of information from computers, prefer digital media over reading text, prefer fast delivery of information and immediate results or feedback, and, generally speaking, prefer shifting their attention to creation and sharing of digital content.

Gee seems to marry the need to design learning experiences that fit digital natives and digital immigrants to his semiotics-based framework.

To my knowledge, Mayer does not espouse a digital native-based theoretical approach to studying instruction, learning, problem solving, or games. Presumably, Mayer is interested in principles of instructional design and evidence about learning experiences that will hold true across people and scenarios regardless of whether or not the participants in the research studies are “digital natives,” “digital immigrants,” or just plain computer illiterate. I think I have seen at least one Mayer study mention the relevance of computer literacy to their research on games. If Mayer—or someone with the same interests and understanding of multimedia learning principles and the science of learning—has not already operationalized the concepts of digital native in relation to (interactive) multimedia and studied the impact of the potential advantages or disadvantages of digital native dispositions, I would like to see whether or not this kind of research study would result in evidence of a set or cluster of individual differences in relevant dispositions, characteristics or traits between digital natives and digital immigrants (or computer illiterate).

Designing Games with Learning Objectives

Imagine that you are to design a learning experience that facilitates development and transfer of a kind of problem solving (e.g. solving algebraic equations) for your learners, and you want a set of principles to help guide your design.

I worry that Gee’s last statement, “And this is not because game designers read academic texts on learning” borders on something that Ntiedo Etuk, founder of DimensionU, said about game designers and designing games for learning; see one of my previous posts about game-based learning for this. It’s as if both Etuk and Gee are suggesting that ordinary game designers (those who don’t read academic research on the learning sciences) use intuition or reflections on private experiences during gameplay to design the game, and then test the design of the game via playtesting. If Etuk and Gee are not saying this, then I would ask for more clarification about their positions, but I will continue reflecting on this intuition-reflective design-playtest model anyway.

‘Intuition’ could mean (a) the passive ability to acquire knowledge without use of any sort of reasoning abilities (deductive or inductive) or (b) recollection of prior knowledge of any kind. I am more likely to accept the relevance of the second sense of intuition to instructional design than I am the first, especially if intuition in the second sense is in no way polluted by intuition in the first sense. Intuition in the first sense is blind of both experience and prior knowledge; I don’t believe it exists, and if it did, it wouldn’t be useful. Insofar as intuition in the second sense does not hinge on intuition in the first sense, and people have active control over experience, inference, construction of meaning and knowledge, and recollection of prior knowledge (they do), it can be useful, but may not always be accurate if beliefs about others’ experiences (e.g. gameplay and learning) are only grounded in one’s personal experiences. If this intuition-reflective design-playtest model of game design processes is polluted by intuition in the first sense about how other people will experience or learn from gameplay, or it does not account for relevant differences beyond the designer’s personal experience, implementing this intuition-reflective design-playtest model of game design risks counterproductive design of game features. Plus, if playtesting procedures used do not accord with the virtues of academic experimentation, and the design of the game was meant to facilitate learning, then the playtesting and design together may sacrifice validity, reliability, and conduciveness to facilitating learning for those who end up playing the game.

Designing Instruction

Interestingly, there are some similarities in their learning principles. Aside from shared commonalities here, I agree with Mayer that instructional design of any kind should not only align formal or informal learning objectives with appropriate features of learning environments, but also be evidence-based. I also agree with Gee that we should view cognitive achievements during and as a result of gameplay with an eye for what is not just an individual achievement, but also a social or cultural achievement.