3. Games for Understanding: Games

How can tabletop games be used to teach understanding in the primary classroom?

2: What is an educational game?

Introduction

In the last article we considered what ‘understanding ‘ actually is, or least how it could be conceptualised; in this article we turn to games. In the same way we briefly deconstructed what may be meant by understanding, in this article we attempt to break down the different parts of an educational game.  We start by considering what the definition of a game is and the different types of games that may be played in the classroom. We then  explore the different layers that exist within a game for understanding, and finally argue that these educational games have an additional layer that is not present in commercial games.

Defining a Game

A table-top game is a game played with physical components rather than digital ones. ‘Table-top’ is used here instead of ‘board’ so as to incorporate games with physical components that do not include an actual board, such as card games (For example Coup1)  and  book-based games (for example Sherlock Holmes2).

The definition of a game is variously debated3; however, Hoy4 brings together the key elements of in his definition of games:

‘At their core, games are non-obligatory, unproductive, and pleasure-providing activities that are bound by rules and contain meaningful choice.’

Hoy omits the need for a game to have a goal or game objective which players are trying to reach; whether this is through accruing a certain amount of points, completing a task, or eliminating other players. This objective should be added as they are present in competitive, cooperative and collaborative games5 and provides an important reason for engaging in itself6.

Games used in the classroom should also have a further characteristic which is related to the learning objective that they are being used to support. This is the learning ‘element’ of games used for education and the justification for a game used in the classroom is based on its purpose6 which defines what type of game it is. This purpose may be for the acquisition of knowledge, the memorisation of facts, or the development of social interaction. Here we will focus features of games which support understanding of classroom objectives and therefore could be called games for understanding.

The component layers of a classroom game

The component parts of a table-top game provide a framework in which the game is played. There is extensive discussion about the main features of a game which include elements such as culture7, aesthetics, narrative8,  interactivity9, as well game mechanics10. Here a simplified component model of an educational game will be presented which consists of three layers: the mechanics of the game, the strategy of the game, and the educational objective of the game.

The game mechanics or mechanisms are actions that a player can carry out in playing the game which are defined by the rules of the game11. In this way the mechanics of a game define the framework in which the players operate by  identifying what can be done, how it can be done, and the concrete consequences of any actions12. As a result, players must learn the game mechanics in order to play the game. Once the mechanics of a game are learned, partially or completely, players can determine how to use them in order to meet the game objective.

A visual representation of the Mechanics layer of a game.

Depending on the game, there may be multiple routes for a player to take in order to meet the game objective. The choice of route is part of the strategy of a game. They not explicitly described in the rules and must be constructed by the players. Although the game mechanics provide the framework for such strategies, players may draw on other factors outside the game in order to construct their strategies such as their experience of playing other games and even the social interaction during the game. The number of strategies that can be constructed depends on the game and its mechanics: a game with very limiting mechanics may only offer players one route to the objective (Snakes and Ladders, for example) whereas games with a wider range of mechanics offer the opportunity for more strategies (for example, Pandemic13). This is not to say that games require a large quantity of mechanics to allow for many strategies, Santorini, for example, has very few rules yet multiple strategies14.

These two layers are present in most table top games; however, classroom games often require a third layer to them which is their justification for use in the classroom: the educational objective15. This objective depends on the choice of the teacher and could be for the acquisition of knowledge and broader cognition skills16 drawn from the National Curriculum or elsewhere. Ito17  discusses the educational objectives for games mainly in terms of acquisition of knowledge (for example, to know the names of the planets), whereas Swiderska et al13 argue that games can also be used to ‘stimulate’ higher order thinking. Games for understanding would focus on the latter use and the educational objective would be aiming to foster this. For example: to understand the role of independence in the growth of human settlements. These kind of objectives would then have a structure of information, connections and relationship that the teacher is trying to help their pupils understand.

The third layer in an game for understanding : the concept or idea that the game is aiming to teach pupils.

A classroom game therefore comprises of three layers and it is in the connections between these layers in which the construction of understanding can be supported, both as a way of creating an interactive, external model and as a context in which understanding can be performed.

In the next article we bring together our explorations of understanding and games by examining how game mechanics can act as a means for modelling understanding and therefore providing a support for the construction of understanding.

< Back to Article 2

_______________________________________________________________________________

  1. Tahta,2012
  2. Edwards, 2011
  3. Plass et al , 2015
  4. 2018, p. 2
  5. Zagal et al, 2006
  6. Mayer, 2014
  7. Bayeck, 2017
  8. Ke, 2015
  9. Amory et al, 1999
  10. Plass et al, 2015
  11. Ke, 2015; Salen and Zimmerman, 2004
  12. Ang, 2006
  13. Leacock, 2007
  14. Hamilton, 2016
  15. Plass et al, 2015
  16. Swiderska et al, 2013
  17. Ke, 2015

Click here for full bibliography.