Games are not always fun...

When I say I'm working on a game where players become engineers, people often ask me: but will that be fun? Of course, what makes a game a game isn't that it is fun, but that it is motivating--it makes you care about what you are doing and thus want to do it. In a recent test of Digital Zoo that involved a class of 4th/5th graders, we were interested in comparing the children's focus during the game to their focus during school. The children's classroom teachers observed the game and had the following types of things to say about their students:

"[He] has lasted longer than he would have at school, even with hands-on activities."

"I'm AMAZED that this activity engaged her for 2.5 hours."

"[One Design Advisor] has a couple of boys who can easily get distracted and goof around but also really don't like each other (and one has been accused recently of teasing the other) but you'd never know it from their group behavior."

This teacher's observations, which sound like pretty strong endorsements, will be helpful as we investigate new ways to introduce epistemic games to schools. These observations indicate that the children participating in the game were able to focus in ways that they typically don't in school. But the reason this teacher was surprised that the children were so engaged was not only that they were behaving differently from how they usually would in school, but also because of the nature of the tasks in the game. Digital Zoo is fun, but it is also hard and frustrating!

The children were willing to focus and work hard for long periods of time because they were invested in the premise. Once they accepted the fiction that they were engineers, they were willing to struggle to fulfill the expectation of being an engineer. They were willing to play the game, even when it wasn't "fun." This phenomenon is clearly something missing in schools, where all too often students are motivated by grades, if they are motivated at all.

China and the US admire each other's lawns

Re-education, a recent article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, illustrates a classic case of the grass being greener, with the future of two countries at stake.

The article describes how Chinese educators, "concerned that too many students have become the sort of stressed-out, test-acing drone who fails to acquire the skills — creativity, flexibility, initiative, leadership — said to be necessary in the global marketplace.... are trying to blend a Western emphasis on critical thinking, versatility and leadership into their own traditions."

Meanwhile, on this side of the planet, "American educators seek to emulate Asian pedagogy, a test-centered ethos and a rigorous focus on math, science and engineering."

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but if the Chinese are not happy with their system, why are we trying to copy it? And vice versa?

Maybe, just maybe, neither system is working. Perhaps it is time to experiment with an entirely new type of education system. What might such a system look like?

Well, my research group is asking that very question. Check out our website, epistemicgames.org to see some of our potential solutions.