How I reviewed literature related to GBL when I was a PhD student

When I was a PhD student (2008 - 2011), I learned how to review literature. I found the following notes which I did not use eventually in my thesis, but I am using them to show my students how literature review can be a fun dialogue I have with other academics!

Evidences of effective game-based learning:

Author	Claims	My perception
Molenda & Sullivan, 2003	Among problem solving and intergrated learning systems, games and simulations are among the least used technology applications in education.	I think this evidence is a bit out of date. By the time I completed my dissertation next year; this would be nearly 7 years ago. So I need newer evidence to support my agreement upon his statement.
Cole, 1996	Long-term game playing has a positive effect on students’ learning.	Although this evidence is outdated, it seems worth to dig out the nature and context of Cole’s study. Like what kind of game playing? How long is considered long? What is the positive effect, ie which domain of learning?
Gredler, 1996	Intellectual skills and “cognitive strategies” are acquired during academic games (p. 525).	Another out-of-date evidence. Why scare quote? What does she mean by academic games?
Gredler, 1994	Certain games require only simple skills such as recall of verbal or visual elements rather than higher-order skills and as a result, provide environments for winning by guessing.	Agree with her claim.
Prensky, 2001; Provenzo, 1992	Especially with the non-stop speedy games, the opportunity to stop and think critically about the experience is lessened.	Need to look to the similar claim in Prensky (2007).
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990	During an enjoyable activity, insufficient amount of time is devoted for thinking and reflection.	The key text on the effect of GBL.
Greenfield, 1984	Games are claimed to have cognitive development effects on visual skills including “spatial representation”, “iconic skills”, and “visual attention”.	Good evidence. Need to find out what does he meant by those visual skills. Secondary citation, need to trace from Prensky, 2001, p.45.
Greenfield et al, 1994	As players become more skilled in games, their visual attention becomes proportionally better.	On what basis they made this claim? It would be interesting to see how Greenfield retained or changed his thought after 10 years.
Rieber, 1996	Critical thinking and problem-solving skills,	I can said since the beginning of game used in education, its potential had been identified in 80s, 90s and 2000s. It would be worth to table the research done by others chronologically.  But in old days, games were not as multimedia-rich as nowadays.
Price, 1990	Drawing meaningful conclusions,
Gorriz & Medina, 2000; Greenfield, 1984, cited in Prensky, 2001; Price, 1990	Some inductive discovery skills like observation, trial and error and hypothesis testing
Prensky, 2001; Provenzo, 1992	Some strategies of exploration
Subrahmanyam  et al, 2001	Playing computer games con provide training opportunities for gaining computer literacy.
Prensky, 2001	Games can be used in order to help people gain some familiarity with the computer hardware.
Rieber, 1996	Games motivate learners to take responsibility for their own learning, which leads to intrinsic motivation contained by the method itself.	See Rieber above.
Malone (1980) and Malone & Lepper (1987)	Define four characteristics of games that contribute to increases in motivation and eagerness for learning. These are challenge, fantasy, curiosity, and control. Challenges in a game tend to fight students’ boredom and keep them engaged with the activity by means of adjusted levels of difficulty. Fantasy in a game increases enthusiasm by providing an appealing imaginary context, whereas curiosity offers interesting, surprising, and novel contexts that stimulates students’ needs to explore the unknown. Finally, the control characteristic gives learners the feeling of self-determination.
Rieber (1996)	Gaming elements have a relationship with enjoyable activities that enable the ‘flow’ stage	Maybe he is the first who link flow stage and game playing.
Prensky, 2001	Gaming activities have the potential to engross the learner into a state of flow and consequently cause better learning through focus and pleasant rewards.
Rosas et al, 2003	increasing their motivation and attainment
Gredler, 1996; Prensky, 2001; Price, 1990; Provenzo, 1992	Other characteristics that ensure the effectiveness of GBL are their engagement and interactivity, and active participation	Must dig out all literature.
Gredler, 1994; Melone, 1980; Prensky, 2001; Rieber, 1996.	Games provide a great deal of highly interactive feedback, which is crucial to learning
Prensky, 2001	“Practice and feedback, learning by doing, learning from mistakes, goal oriented learning, discovery learning, task-based learning, question-based learning, situated learning, role playing, coaching, constructivist learning, multi-sensory learning” are applicable interactive learning techniques, when learning through games (p. 157).	Prensky’s claims are not research-based.
Dempsey et al, 1998; Dempsey et al, 1996	Computer games can be considered powerful tools for increasing learning.
Prensky, 2001	Learning can best take place when there is high engagement, and he proposes “digital game-based learning” which has potential for achievement of the necessary “high learning” through “high engagement” (p. 149). High engagement, interactive learning process, and the way the two are put together will guarantee the sound working  of digital GBL.

Akili, G.K. (2007) Games and simulations: a new approach in education? In Gibson, D., Aldrich, C. and Prensky, M. (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: research and development frameworks (pp. 1-20), London, Information Science Publishing.

Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B. A., Haynes, L. L., & Casey, M. S. (1998). Instructional applications of computer games. In J.J. Hirschbuhl & D. Bishop (Eds.), Computer studies: Computers in education (8th ed., pp. 85-91). Guilford, CT: Dushkin/MaGraw Hill.

Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996). The instructional gaming literature: Implications and 99 sources (Tech. Rep. No. 96-1). Mobile, AL: University of South Alabama, College of Education. [available] http://www.coe.usouthal.edu/TechReports/TR96_1.pdf [broken link]

Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521-539). New York: Macmillan.  

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Turkle, S. (1984). Video games and computer holding power. In The second self: Computers and the human spirit (pp. 64-92). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Author(s)	Genre	My views
Prensky, 2001	Action, puzzle, educational, fighting/combat, sports, racing, role play/adventure, flight, shoot’em, violence, non-violent sports, sports violence, and simulation games.	I need to clearly demarcate them according to author and source.
Alessi & Trollip, 2001
Funk et al, 1999
Media Analysis Laboratory, 1999
Yelland & Lloyd, 2001

References:

Alessi, G. K. & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon Publication.

Funk, J. B., Hagan, J., & Schimming, J. (1999). Children and electronic games: A comparison of parents' and children's perceptions of children's habits and preferences in a United States Sample. Psychological Reports, 85(3), 883-888.

Media Analysis Laboratory, Simon Fraser University, B.C. (1998). Video game culture: Leisure and play of B.C. teens [online] http://www.mediaawareness.ca/eng/ISSUES/VIOLENCE/RESOURCE/reports/vgames.html [broken link]

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Yelland, N. & Lloyd, M. (2001). Virtual kids of the 21st century: Understanding the children in schools today. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 13(1), 175-192.

Academics’ definitions

Author(s)	Definition	My views
Baudrillard, 1983	An interactive abstraction or simplification of some real life.	Need demarcation
Heinich et al, 2002
Alessi & Trollip, 2001	Any attempt to imitate a real or imaginary environment or system	Need demarcation
Reigeluth & Schwartz, 1989
Thurman, 1993
Tessmer et al, 1989	A simulated real-life scenario displayed on the computer, which the student has to act upon (p. 89).
Prensky, 2001	Depending on what it is doing, a simulation can be a story, it can be a game, it can be a toy (p. 128).	Check with version 2007
Akili, 2007	Game-like learning environments, which are authentic or simulated places, where learning is fostered and supported especially by seamless integration of motivating game elements, such as challenge, curiosity, and fantasy.	So, it is only game-like, not actually a game.

Association between game and simulation

Jacobs & Dempsey, 1993:

The distinction between simulation and games is often blurred, and that many recent articles in this area refer to a single “simulation game” entity.

Similarities
Gredler, 1996	Both contain a model of some kind of system In both of them learners can observe the consequences of their actions, such as changes occurred in variable, values, or specific actions
Jacobs & Dempsey, 1993

Differences
Author(s)	Game	Simulation
Gredler, 1996	Participants are attempting to win the objective of games	Participants are executing serious responsibilities with privileges that result in associated consequences.
	The event sequence is typically linear: The player or a team in many games respond to a content-related question and either advance or do not advance depending on the answer, which is repeated for each player or team at each turn.	The event sequence is non-linear: Participants are confronted with different problems, issues, or events caused mainly by their prior decisions made at each decision point.
	The mechanisms that determine the consequences to be conveyed for different action taken by the players.
	Games consist of rules that describe allowable moves, constraints, privilege, and penalties for illegal (non-permissable) actions. The rules may be totally imaginative, unrelated to real world or events.	A simulation is based on dynamic set(s) of relationships among several variables that change over time and reflect authentic causal processes. The processes should possess, embody, and result in verifiable relationships.
Prensky, 2001	In order to become games, simulations need additional structural elements—fun, play, rules, a goal, winning, competition, etc (p. 212)

Characteristics of games:

Author(s)	Characteristics of games	My views
Price, 1990	One or more players (decision makes), rules of play, one or more goals that the players are trying to reach, conditions introduced by chance, a spirit of competition, a strategy or pattern of action-choices to be taken by the players, a feedback system for revealing the state of the game, and a winning player or team (p. 52).
Alessi & Trollip, 2001	Turn-taking, fantasy, equipment, and some combination of skill versus luck (p. 271).

Educational Use of Games and Simulations

History / Background

Author(s)	Evidence	My views
Dempsey et al, 1998	There is evidence that the use of games as instructional tools dates back to 3000 B.C. in China	This is a very good starting point which I could use to set the overall scene for games used in education. However, the author had to stick to “games and simulations” instead of “games” alone—a problem I don’t have to face.
Gredler, 1996	Nevertheless, games and simulations did not become a part of the formal field of instructional design until the early 1970s, despite their entrance into the educational scene in the late 1950s	Hopefully, there are some examples of titles provided in the original source.
Seels & Richie, 1994	In those times audio-visual specialists saw the potential of games and simulations but not of video or electronic games	What do the authors mean?

Problems

Author(s)	Evidence	My views
Gredler, 1996	There are two major problems that instructional designers encounter: -          There are no available comprehensive design paradigms -          The lack of well-designed research studies.	I agree with this.
	While the literature on games and simulations is growing, a majority of the research studies report on perceived student reactions preceded by vague descriptions of games and simulations or on comparisons of simulations versus regular classroom instruction.
Dede, 1996; Dempsey et al, 1998	The more important questions that need further research remain unanswered: -          How to incorporate games into learning environments? -          How do students learn best through games and simulations? -          What are the significant impacts of games and simulations on learning that differentiate them from other forms of online teaching?	Am I trying to answer one or some of these questions?
Rieber, 1996	Technological innovations provide new opportunities for interactive learning environments that can be integrated with and validated by theories of learning.	I disagree as I buy Prensky’s idea on how to learn what.
Prensky, 2001	Underscores the need for change in instructional design by claiming that much of the instruction currently provided through computer assisted instruction and Web-based technologies does not contribute to learning, rather it subtracts. People do not want to be included in such learning “opportunities” offered via “new wine into old bottles” innovative technologies, unless they have to, since these learning “opportunities” possess still the same boring content and same old fashioned strategy as traditional education (pp. 92-92).

Play-based Learning 的研究困境

今天见到的那个教授，无奈地听他叙述游戏教学研究的惨况。他跟我说自1985年加入大学开始，“play”这个字眼一直在美国的学术界抬不起头。一旦把这个字眼换成比较先进的、实用性的字词，就比较有机会得到研发基金。他自己在过去的那么多年来都没有拿到任何大笔的研发资金。他认识的美国同行朋友也长期面对一样的问题。他称之为Ugly Duckling丑小鸭般的领域。新加坡的某个大学曾经邀请他参加面试，有意思要他跳槽，他最后拒绝了。我告诉他这个决定正确，不然他肯定会面对很大的工作文化冲击。依我看，他的问题在于无法结合科技，以至于夫妇俩苦苦撑着学前教育课程。年轻的教授讲师都不跟他们打交道。

1234567 of Gamification

1 aim: FUN
2 approaches: learning through game playing vs learning through game making
3 ways to engage: tactical, strategic or narrative immersion
4 types of players: Killer, Achiever, Explorer and Socializer
5 steps of gamification: gameplay, feedback, narrative and space
6 elements of game: goal, rules, interaction, challenge, feedback and story.
7 +/- 2

Basic UI design principles

I attended a talk of Dr Alex Mitchell from NUS on UI and UX Design

Mental models and interaction
= Players build up a mental model of how a UI works
= Players use this to decide how to interact.

= Mental models are developed through interaction
= Inaccurate mental model can lead to problems

Design principles (from Don Norman)
1. Affordances and visibility (what and how can I do it?)
== Connection between core mechanic and player
== Remember, player will be doing this over and over
2. Feedback
== What happened when I did something?
== Was the action successful? What should I do next?
3. Mapping
== How did my action relate to what happened?
== Helps the player figure out how to play to win...
4. Consistency and Convention
== Make sure interaction is consistent throughout the game, and across the platform
== build on conventions that your players know, e.g. how to select menu items
5. Focus of attention
== Players will be intently focused on the action in the game
== Take advantage of this when designing the UI

How to validate serious games

A PhD student of mine has done expert validation on his boardgame. After that he asked me whether what he has done were actually appropriate or not. Herewith my response:

Technological Validation
The technological validation should focus on the playability of the game. The fundamental question they address is: Is your game really fun to be played like other games? To address this issue, the constructs or aspects of validation should focus on the six structural elements of the game (Prensky, 2007): game goal, game rules, interaction, challenge (or problem), feedback and narrative (optional, depending on game genre. The first four elements form the gameplay of the game, so when you report in the thesis, the gameplay validation should cover all these four elements. Feedback is where learning actually happens, should the validation should focus on whether the learnability and helpfulness for playing the game (not necessarily learning the contents of lessons) actually work. The technological expert should be directed to assure the learning curve in the game world is not too steep. The learning should be maintained or balanced along the flow channel (see Cziksentmihalyi, 1989) and avoid boredom (the game is too easy to play) and anxiety (the game is too difficult to play).

Apart from the game design elements mentioned above, the technological expert validation may also cover technical aspects (whether there are bugs, particularly on the physical game board, pieces and other apparatus) and artistic aspects (graphics, printing, etc) of the game. With reference to your validation criteria, herewith my suggestion:

a) interface (game materials) - should cover the interaction here, and be part of the gameplay; game materials should be discussed separately)

b) gameplay (game mechanics) - should cover four structural elements here 

c) balance (should be related to flow channel)

d) interaction (should be discussed together with interface)

e) decision and analysis (should discuss feedback design, alongside with learnability and helpfulness)

f) rules (part of the gameplay)

G) Game materials and apparatus (discuss the technical and artistic aspects)

Content Validation
For content validation, the key focus should be the intended learning outcomes or ILOs. The content experts must assure that the ILOs in the game is actually  aligned to a specific syllabus or curriculum. Next, the constructive alignment (Biggs & Thang, 2007) of three components in ILOs must be correctly aligned to three structural game elements. In particular, the observable behaviors must be aligned probably to the game challenge; the conditions of learning must be aligned to the game rules; and the expected degree of achievement in learning must be aligned to the feedback design of the game. Only if the game elements are correctly aligned to ILOs then the experts would be directed to validate other criteria you listed because your study is involving edumetric tests, as opposed to attention, motivation, satisfaction, engagement, etc; unless you want to change your research questions.

test