Losing Has Never Been So Much Fun!

My sister and brother-in-law have purchased the game Pandemic and all the expansion sets to go with it.  I have played it with them 4 or 5 times so far and we have not won yet., and I can't wait to play it again*. Pandemic, is a cooperative game of containing outbreaks and curing viruses/diseases.  Players are given their roles randomly and then have to coordinate their efforts with the other players to beat the game together.  The odds of winning are stacked against the players, and the gameplay can get quite tense as players try to manage outbreaks and get the research done needed to cure four different viruses.

For people like me, who enjoy role playing games and the cooperative nature of most fantasy/D&D styled games this is an instant win.  It is especially nice as it is not too complicated to follow; which is one of the biggest complaints I get from my friends when wanting to introduce them to my 'geek' games.  They often feel that the gameplay is too difficult to follow and that there is too much to remember.  (However, I actually believe that it is more of a problem with understanding the of semiotic domain of D&D, than the complexity of the rules and conditions.)  I have not played this game with my 'non-geek' friends yet, but I think this might be a good crossover game.  The premise is realistic with no spells, curses or Ogres to be seen anywhere, but has some of the flavour of a raiding party.  I'll let you know how that turns out

The reason I love this game is the same reason I enjoy so many of the games I play: the challenge.  I have not won yet, and I will not give up playing until I do!  And should I (we) actually beat the game, we can 'level up' by dialing up the intensity of the basic game, or add the expansions.  No one strategy that you tried the game before will necessarily help you win the next game, because the game is always changing.  There are a lot of elements you cannot control that will change they way you play.  For example, how many players you have changes what you can do, and not being able to pick your role, but getting it randomly handed to you changes the strategy you use too.  I have only ever played the same character twice, which was great, except all the other characters on the board were different.  The most random aspect of the game is where and when outbreaks happen.  You can only predict outbreaks to a certain degree, so you have to be flexible in your planning; two cards turned over could mean that you have to completely rethink the next 4 moves.  It takes a lot of game play (or some research) to really beat the game.

For my teacher peeps out there:  I think it would be interesting to play this game with my grade 5 students during our human body unit.  I wonder if losing would make them want to try again or give up.  I hope they try again.  But there are problems to overcome if I were to bring this to class like: where would I find the time for my students to play a game that could take up to an hour to play? What would the rest of my class be doing?  what if it is too complicated for them to follow?  I think I would be able to get some interesting reflections on how it feels to fail, and perhaps some -loose- connections to how stressful and challenging it must be to work in the various fields that deal with medical outbreaks.  I could even connect it with social justice issues in regards to access of medication and health education in developing countries (and perhaps developed countries too).  Who knows, I may be able to talk a few students into playing the game during a holiday party as a test run. (My class parties tend to be game based).

*The last couple of games nights have been devoted to Lords of Waterdeep and Drizzt.

What is Game Based Learning?

There are a lot of companies and people that claim to have great games for higher order thinking skills that are great for Game Based Learning (GBL).  Yet, even though they use the right words in their pitches, post, pintersets etc.. I am left feeling like Indigo Montoya in The Princess Bride: I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

At the same time I wonder if I know what those words mean.  There are a lot of people who talk about what Game Based Learning is, and how to incorporate it in the classroom, but some of the messages I am hearing/reading are often conflicting and contrary to my understanding and/or personal philosophy around GBL.  Is there a widely accepted definition of Game Based Learning?

Here are some of the things I believe about Game Based Learning, and please add to my understanding or correct something that I don't represent accurately:
-Student lead
-Engages students in creative critical thinking skills
-Not just computer games
-educational without having to be "Educational" -if that makes any sense
-Games students can 'break' and remodel, revise, rebuild
(Here is where I would normally wax poetic about Minecraft, but you can just peek at the gamingeducators wiki I belong to with @MzMollyTL and @liamodonnell)

What I think I am seeing is more of lately is Gamification being called Game Based Learning.  I really think there needs to be more clarification here because the two concepts are very different.

Gamification (click for an infographic) -in my opinion- is like a sticker program for behaviour.  Students complete certain game labeled task, and get a reward in; badges, exp. points etc...  Sounds cool and often is.  What I'm afraid of is that with this kind of program students, with time, will see through the educational modification to their regular program and stop buying into what is being 'gamified'.  Students who do not have as many badges as their peers being among the first to opt out of the program.  I won't lie, I have often become a slave to gaining achievements in games I play  *cough* W.O.W. *cough,*  but after time, and seeing my friends out achieve me, I stopped caring.  Now playing Diablo III I see that there are achievements, and I do experience some satisfaction when I gain an achievement, but I don't really care, nor do I try to game in a way that will purposefully gain more achievements.

Honestly, as a teacher of close to 10 years I have not yet seen this type of modification work for a whole year, whether because of student rebellion against it, teacher burn out from having to administer it, or a combination of both.  That being said, I know there are wonderful educators who are able to overcome both the obstacles I mentioned above.  There are some great looking gamification programs that have been built by educators too. But I still don't think that makes it Game Based Learning. 

I do believe the two approaches to using games in the class is motivated by the same basic goal: to engage, motivate, and scaffold students so they can achieve more.  Yet the two have very different strategies for reaching their goals.  Kinda like the whole language vs. phonics debates.

Perhaps I am being a bit pedantic by stressing the difference I see between Game Based Learning and Gamification.  But honestly, I see them as two different animals.

So what is Game Based Learning anyway? Who should I read?  Where am I misinformed?





(Note: I used the word "scaffold" because I think it appropriate and just in case my friend @nodycer decides to read this.)