I note that a recent paper by Amri Yusoff, Richard Crowder, Lester Gilbert, and Gary Wills from the Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia Research Group, School of Electronics and Computer Sciences, University of Southampton, UK, have recently presented their Conceptual Framework for Serious Games at the 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, held on 15 - 17 July 2009, in Riga, Latvia. offers "A conceptual framework for serious games".
They say in the abstract:
"Due to a lack of clear standards and guidelines for game developers, it is difficult to justify
claims that a specific game meets the learner’s requirements and/or expectations."
The problem with this kind of framework activity is the assumption that there is an "answer", and that if there is an answer then there must be a good question. "Standards" imply we have sufficient practice to codify what should be in and what should be out. We are nowhere near that position. I actually hope we never get there - I hope we learn that learning is so beautifully complex that the best bits come from the same places as imagination, invention and excitment.
The second issue is "giving guidelines". The author's claim "The game attributes are developed based on the critical thinking resulting from the literature review on behaviourist, cognitive, constructivist, educationist, and neuroscience perspectives. " Wow.
Within these traditions there are belief systems that are very hard to reconcile. Do I follow a tradition set by BF Skinner or Jerome Bruner or Lev Vygotsky? Advice from one would contradict the other. From time to time, if I am challenged, I can draw on one tradition or another to justify what I say an do. However I am aware I am pulling a (recovering) academic's hat trick. Even if I were able to reconcile these beliefs into a universal theory - it would be yet another mighty step to turn the hypothesis into rules for engineering.
Applying rules for engineering in education has produced some of the most boring learning imaginable - and often dressed up in game clothing.
Two well known (even acclaimed) serious games in which I played a significant part in conceiving, Savannah and Racing Academy , could not and would not have been developed by that sort of guidline. I am afraid it is not that easy.
Design of successful games still needs a dialogue between learner, teachers, programmers, imagineers, story tellers, picture makers to craft make and mould good experiences - team work like most other game titles. Its just that the team got a bit bigger. You test to see if stuff works, you follow hunches.... you get more experience, you increase your repertoire. Stick to a formula and you get formulaic games.
