I enjoyed writing my compact Evidence for humaginarium.com. So much has been published about the utility and efficacy of games for learning, games for impact, games for change, games for health. Some of it substantiated and reliable, and some merely personal opinions. I tried sticking to facts.
What could I state about the value propositions of Humaginarium that is evidence-based and beyond reasonable doubt? How could I say it for an audience that doesn’t read scholarly papers, doesn’t care about video games or health education, and maintains a laser focus on controlling financial risk? I’m referring to investors and sponsors seeking assurance that Humaginarium will produce meaningful outcomes if it works as planned.
After posting Evidence I shared it with a few of the subject-matter experts whose research it epitomizes. I asked for feedback, in particular about whether it includes things that are false or misleading or leaves out things that are important.
I received several thoughtful responses including a vital observation by a co-editor of Computer Games and Instruction. It has a kind of sum-up-to quality so I quoted him at the new end of the deck. Here’s what he wrote:
“The big thing that Sig and I noted was that learning is substantially enhanced by helping learners reflect on underlying concepts of game actions, not leaving that to the learners to discover by themselves.” John Dexter Fletcher, email on April 4, 2019
I think the crucial point here is that games require non games to capture their full value. Without the addition of non game experience that dovetails with play, the cognitive and behavioral gains of play may not be realized or sustained. That’s consistent with findings I didn’t originally include in Evidence, demonstrating that games are not self-teaching. As another scholar put it: Instructor guidance must be applied during crucial states in game play to ensure that learning closure occurs. Players must be guided, prompted, motivated and sometimes forced to learn from their experience.
That’s going a bit far, in my opinion, but my opinion isn’t the organizing principle of Evidence. I accept empirical research as factual. Yet it’s also problematic here because entertainment and education don’t always coexist peacefully. One may try to destroy the other as they compete for dominance. Is there a way to forge a peace that allows us to reap the benefits of both at the same time?
I think Humaginarium has found that way. We have integrated extremely important non game experience into our model unit before and after game play.
Non game experience first occurs in a virtual arcade that helps consumers form a robust mental model of biological homeostasis: in other words, the healthy human body. With that model in mind, they enter a fantasy world of video games that are sheer and shameless entertainment. I don’t condone serious games that “force” folks to learn from their experience. Consumers must always have – and feel they have – the unfettered choice to learn and also to play without learning.
After a game is played, consumers can choose to start a diagnostic activity that helps them understand structural differences between the healthy human body they want and unhealthy body they actually have; the body that they are beginning to understand and engage for the first time thanks to playing the game. The diagnostic activity is where “instructor guidance” takes place in Humaginarium: not in game, where it may interfere with flow and fun, but right after the game when consumers have decided that they’re ready to reflect on their experience and make resolutions to take better care of themselves.
Can we be sure we won’t lose them in the interstices between game and non game experience? I think so. We use tech known as stealth assessment. Game mechanics trigger behaviors in players that make palpable their conditions, and symptoms, and beliefs, and worries, and longings. Stealth assessment is seamlessly woven directly into the fabric of game play. It’s quiet yet powerful technology by which consumer performance data are continuously gathered during the course of playing and learning, with inferences made about the level of legacy and emerging competencies.
Stealth assessment design has to include a competency model (what knowledge and skills should be assessed), an evidence model (what behaviors or performance should reveal those competencies), and a task model (what tasks will elicit behaviors that comprise evidence). The data generated by such tasks in game, and captured by stealth assessment, build bridges from the homeostatic paradigm to the fantasy of play to the urgent reality of illness and wellness.