Experts State: Do Not Banish - Instead, Manage Violent Video Game Play

According to Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson, the authors of Grand Theft Childhood, those people examining violent video game play may in fact be asking the wrong questions and making incorrect assumptions. As but one example, the authors note that “instead of looking for a simple, direct relationship between video game violence and violent behavior in all children, we should be asking how we might identify those children who are at greatest risk for being influenced by these games.”In addition, Kutner and Olson stipulate that parents and educators should examine the entire gaming spectrum when thinking about video game play. As the authors note, “Some of the most popular games, even among teenage boys, are not violent.” That leads the Harvard professors to note, “We should ask whether children who spend a lot of time playing video games are failing to learn important interpersonal and social skills.”When it comes to video game play and those video games deemed violent, the authors recommend a balanced approach that follows the basics of good parenting. Instead of trying to banish the games and create a “forbidden fruit” concept, a step most parents find simply does not work, these researchers offer a more manageable set of expectations around game play.Appropriate Game Play
According to Kutner and Olson, parents should not think of the issue as a boxing match. “It’s aikido,” note the authors. In other words, successful parents don’t try to meet force with force by banning nor do they throw their hands up in the air and abdicate control. The key is “to work with and redirect your child’s skills and interests.”

The first suggestion is one that forms the basis for good parenting every step of the way. Stay involved. And according to the authors, one of the best ways to do so is to learn the games and the terminology, then spend some time playing the games with your child.

The author suggests learning such terms as “first-person shooter” (Doom or Halo) versus “third-person shooter” games such as Grand Theft Auto or Tomb Raider? Find out what a MMORPG (A Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game like World of Warcraft) is. Learn what is meant by a cheat code?

In learning these terms, Kutner and Olson suggest having your children teach you these game terms. As you begin discussing the terms you can move to the various game genres to see why your son or daughter like some types of games but not others? The basic key is to get the discussion going.

Finally, learn the game console and begin playing the game. Here again, having your son or daughter by your side teaching you is a great way to keep the conversation going and help you navigate the game. Parents may initially find the skills and dexterity very challenging but abandonment is not the answer. Here the Harvard professors cite Michael Jellinek, M.D., professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, who says that a parent’s awkwardness “can be used to your advantage when it comes to strengthening relationships with your children.”

In fact Jellinek has “prescribed” video games that parents and kids can play together in his work. According to Olson and Kutner, Jellinek has prescribed “golf, football or car racing games” as therapy. “It changes the dynamic of the parent constantly teaching the child, to the child teaching the parent.”

Two researchers who have conducted studies in the Netherlands have “found that parents who played video games themselves had a different perspective on the risks and benefits of those games on their children.” Drs. Peter Nikken and Jeroen Jansz note that parents knowledgeable of such games were not only more likely to play such games with their children, they “were more optimistic about the positive effects and less worried about the negative effects” of game play.

Keep a Proper Perspective
With greater involvement with your children regarding such game play, appropriate discussions can follow. Here, it is interesting to note how Kutner and Olson reframe the issue.

The authors note several negatives that are often sighted as correlates with anti-social or risk taking behavior and teens who play M-rated video games. The authors reveal that “violent video game play can be a marker of increased risk for certain behaviors.

For example, girls who played any M-rated game ‘a lot’ were three times as likely to say that they’d damaged property just for fun during the previous year, compared to girls who played E or T games. M-gamer boys were more than twice as likely as non-M-gamer boys to do so.”

Given that data, the researchers note that “the actual number of kids who do these things is pretty low.” For example, though one might not be concerned with the fact that “15 percent of the M-gamer girls said that they’d damaged property for fun” it must be noted that “85 percent of the M-gamer girls said that they had not.” According to Kutner and Olson, this was carried through their research, that “for almost all of the problem behaviors we measured, the majority—and often the vast majority—of M-gamer kids didn’t do those things.”

In addition, the authors rightfully note that a correlation is not the same as a causation. Simply stated, it is not possible to determine if playing M-rated games inspires some kids to act in a certain way or if those who act that way are more drawn to play M-rated games. Or perhaps, it may well be that something else entirely is going on.

Lastly, the authors note that playing such games demands active parenting. In other words, violent video game play is in fact a marker of increased risk for anti-social behavior. By paying close attention to the potential behavior issues that are often associated with the teen years, parents can help guide teens towards appropriate behaviors. Such management and involvement is critical. The authors note that it is a far healthier approach than attempting to ban all such game play.

In their research, Kutner and Olson note that Richard Falzone, M.D., indicates a growing number of children act as if they’re addicted to video games. Falzone tells the tale of a 15-year-old boy that would spend 10-12 hours a day playing the World of Warcraft. At times the teen did not make it to school because he would sleep through the day after playing video games all night. Eventually, as the game took over his life, the teen became hospitalized for depression and for cutting himself.

Such situations are extremely rare but give rise to the notion that video games could in fact be addicting. Kutner and Olson do note that “playing video games that involve a lot of action has been associated with increased levels of two neurotransmitters in the brain, dopamine and norepinephrine, that help brain cells send messages to each other. These neurotransmitters are involved in both learning and in addiction.”

Kutner and Olson go on to explain the symptoms associated with addiction. They list three: a compulsive, physiological craving for a substance, an increased tolerance (needing a higher dose to get the same effect) following early use, and well-defined and uncomfortable physiological symptoms during withdrawal.

But as for being an addiction, the authors state that these “supposedly addicted game players may be behaving normally—but not in the ways that the adults around them believe to be normal.” Kutner and Olson note that “many young children and pre-adolescents have difficulty making the transition from one activity to another, especially when the initial activity is pleasurable.” The researchers indicate that the desire to continue to play a game children enjoy is not an addiction, it’s normal.

They also note that when a “child plays basketball or plays the piano for four hours per day, we may describe him or her as a dedicated athlete or musician. A teenager who knows all the game statistics and trivia about a local professional football team, and who spends a lot of money buying jerseys and other memorabilia, is considered a true fan. It’s a socially acceptable hobby; in fact, it’s encouraged. But if that child takes the same approach to playing video games, spending hours each day at the computer and reveling in the details and strategies of play, we may worry about an addiction.”

According to Kutner and Olson, parents and clinicians tend to focus on easily measured behaviors like the amount of time a child spends playing video games. More useful indicators would be the answers to questions such as: “Is your child finishing his schoolwork? Is he establishing balanced and reciprocal friendships with peers?”

Once again, if game play occasionally involves the parent it will be far easier to control and balance this time factor.

Many Other Practical Recommendations

Kutner and Olson offer many more valuable tips in their book and on their web site. They discuss concerns about sexual implications of such games and note what types of media tend to really scare teens. There are separate sections regarding game play and children with learning disabilities as well as the implications for teen girls. There are even sections that discuss racial aspects relative to these games.

Parents and educators seeking a pronouncement that all violent video games are bad and must be avoided will not find reinforcement from Kutner and Olson. Instead, parents and educators will see a balanced approach to a complex topic, an approach that matches up with the various teachings of other experts as to what constitutes effective parenting.

Perhaps most notably, the work of Kutner and Olson explains why most well-adjusted teens and adults never display any anti-social behavior despite their enjoyment of video game play. It is an explanation that has caused this writer to reconsider his views on this complex topic.

Author: Tom Hanson, OpenEducation.net, 18th March 2008

Article available here.

Author Reveals “The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games”

An interview with Dr. Cheryl Olson,
author of Grand Theft Childhood

In my previous post, I acknowledged a long-standing personal concern regarding the potential detrimental effects of playing violent video games, especially the impact such play might have on teens. That stated, in our prior piece we referenced the latest research from two Harvard professors, research that quite frankly contradicts some of the long-standing thoughts of this writer.

In this post we talk with Dr. Cheryl Olson, one of the researchers of a ground-breaking study and a co-author of the book, Grand Theft Childhood. Her research and subsequent text call in to question many of the beliefs held as universal truths regarding this issue.

Dr. Olson takes a head-on approach to challenging the core beliefs of educators like myself. Acknowledging the complexity of the issue, I was very impressed by the fact that Dr. Olson’s work does not attempt to either simplify the question or the answer.

We present our interview here and then follow it with some of the statements often held as universal truths regarding this issue but that are instead deemed as myths by Olson and her co-author, Dr. Lawrence Kutner.

Our Interview

On your web site, a summary sentence states, “What they found surprised, encouraged, and sometimes disturbed them.” During your research, what was the biggest surprise for you and why was this so surprising?

A number of our findings went against common wisdom. One surprise was how many preteen girls played M-rated video games. About a fifth of girls rarely or never played video games. But another fifth had played Grand Theft Auto “a lot in the past six months.” Based on some of their comments, we suspect that girls play these games differently and for different reasons than boys. Since we bought into the myth that girls don’t like violent games, we didn’t recruit them for focus groups in this set of studies. We hope to talk with GTA-playing girls in future studies.

What did you find most encouraging and why did this leave you encouraged?

One very encouraging finding was how sophisticated middle-school boys were in their understanding of violent games. They could enjoy playing bad guys without wanting to be them. As one boy told us, “When I play violent games like (Grand Theft Auto) Vice City, I know it’s a videogame. And I have fun playing it. But I know not to do stuff like that, because I know the consequences that will happen to me if I do that stuff.” We were especially struck by how protective these boys were of younger kids; in fact, their concerns about video game influence were almost identical to those expressed by parents. But their biggest concern was not violence; it was “swears.” Another boy said, “I don’t like my little brother or sisters to watch me play Vice City because they might swear at other people, ‘cause of how they do in Vice City. They always give people attitude and take swears at other people. That could make my family look bad, like my mom isn’t raising us regular.”

And what was the most disturbing finding and why was it so disturbing to you?

One disturbing finding was the correlation between playing M-rated games and bullying. Boys who had more M-rated titles on their most-played lists were more likely to report bullying other kids. But even so, most boys who play M-rated games are not bullies. And this was only a correlation; it’s impossible to show cause and effect from a one-time survey.

Would any of these reactions be different if you spoke first as a parent instead of as a researcher?

As a parent, this did not lead me to restrict my own son’s M-rated game play, because I know what kind of kid he is. As a researcher, I’d like to study this further - and I’m concerned that people will jump to the unsupported conclusion that playing M-rated games promotes bullying.

In your article “Children and Video Games: How Much Do We Know?” for the Psychiatric Times you state: “We found that 68% of boys and 29% of girls aged 12 to 14 years included at least one M-rated (for those aged 17 years and older, often because of violent or sexual content) game on this list of frequently played games.” I was surprised to learn that such a high percentage of young adolescents had access to games rated mature. Are parents unaware of this or have they given implicit agreement to allow these early teens to experience these games? And how important are these ratings for parental decision-making processes?

Among parents we surveyed, ratings had the most influence on their decision to buy or rent a game for their child. As one focus-group parent said, “I see the ‘E,’ I know it’s for everyone. When I see the Teen, I know the 10 year old, he can’t have it. Then I see Mature: that’s when I say, ‘Okay, I’m going to read to see exactly what’s going on here.’” Parents were less clear on the details of the rating system.

Several things probably drive the high rate of M-game play:

· Young teens play the games when parents aren’t around – at a friend’s house, or in their bedroom.

· Not all violence is equal in parents’ eyes; for example, they are less concerned about shooting “trolls” or aliens than realistic-looking humans.

· Many (but not all!) parents see game violence as a bigger risk for other people’s kids. One mom said, “I know that there are a lot of kids out there that do act out - I’ve read anyway - from movies or games. I don’t have any fears of my son going out and doing things that’s in the game. I talked to him about it in the past, and he’s like, ‘I’m not that stupid.’” And she is probably right.

In that same article, you state: “a child plays basketball or plays the piano for 4 hours a day, we may describe him as a dedicated athlete or musician. But if that child takes the same approach to playing video games, spending hours each day at the computer, and reveling in the details and strategies of play, we may worry about an addiction.” Can you categorize or summarize for parents what might be a healthy versus an unhealthy (an addiction) approach when it comes to video game play? Is this a function of time, of the type of game played, or something else?

To put it simply: If your child is doing well in school, has friends, does his chores without too much fuss…he probably needs few restrictions on his game play. If he stops spending time on other activities, has a drop in grades, is increasingly isolated, plays games instead of sleeping…this needs looking into. The video game play may be the cause of problems, a symptom of problems (such as depression), or a bit of both. Talk to a pediatrician or mental health professional.

Ultimately, in your research did you find any pluses from video game play, specifically those violent or shoot-em-up games that concern parents? If so what were those pluses and did they help adolescent’s in some ways in dealing with the difficulty of teen years?

There are a number of potential pluses. Here are just a few:

· Some violent game play seems to improve visual-spatial skills – but it’s the fast, unpredictable action, not the violence, that does it.

· Video game skill can give kids social status; this is especially valuable to kids who have disabilities or ADHD.

· Games help some kids cope with negative feelings. As one said, “If I have a bad day at school, I’ll play a violent video game and then, it just relieves all my stress. If you ever got a bad test grade or had a fight with a friend or something, my advice would be, play a violent videogame.”

Lastly, why do you think so many adults (politicians included) are convinced that these games have to be detrimental to the mental health of teens? Is it an aversion or fear of the specific content? Is it a lack of understanding as to why kids like the games? Is it just a simplistic response to try to explain away other societal issues?

All of those play a role. It’s upsetting to see a group of boys laughing as they watch one game character literally rip the guts out of another. But when you know more about the context, motivations and other factors involved, you may see this differently. Also, for politicians it’s an issue that they can campaign easily on, even if the scientific data don’t support their claims.

Exposed Myths
In addition to our interview, we offer here excerpts from the web site of Grand Theft Childhood. One of the most interesting aspects of their site is the author’s findings relative to several statements held by most people as factual. Kutner and Olson insist many of these statements are in fact “myths.”

One such statement or myth is that the growth in violent video game sales is linked to a growth in youth violence across the country. According to Kutner and Olson, the fact is that “Video game popularity and real-world youth violence have been moving in opposite directions. Violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining ever since. School violence has also gone down. Between1994 and 2001, arrests for murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assaults fell 44 percent, resulting in the lowest juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes since 1983.”

A second such myth is that Girls do not play violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. According to Kutner and Olson, the fact is that “Our survey of more than 1200 middle school students found that 29 percent of girls who played video games listed at least one M-rated game among the games they’d ‘played a lot’ during the previous six months. One in five specifically listed a Grand Theft Auto game. In fact, among these 12- to 14-year-old girls, the Grand Theft Auto series was second only to The Sims in popularity.”

Yet another purported myth involves the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech that sought to link Seung-Hui Cho’s violent behavior to video game play. Note Kutner and Olson, “Media darling and pop psychologist Phil McGraw, appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, stated, Common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society….The mass murders [sic] of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.” According to Kutner and Olson, “The official report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel specifically dismissed the purported links between Cho’s use of video games and his extremely violent behavior. In the chapter on Cho’s mental health history, video games are mentioned on only three pages. When he was nine years old, he was enrolled in a Tae Kwon Do program for awhile, watched TV, and played video games like Sonic the Hedgehog.”

And yet another myth debunked is that school shooters fit a profile that includes a fascination with violent media, especially violent video games. According to Kutner and Olson, “The U. S. Secret Service intensely studied each of the 37 non-gang and non-drug-related school shootings and stabbings that were considered ‘targeted attacks’ that took place nationally from 1974 through 2000. (Note how few premeditated school shootings there actually were during that 27-year time period, compared with the public perception of those shootings as relatively common events!). The incidents studied included the most notorious school shootings, such as Columbine, Santee and Paducah, in which the young perpetrators had been linked in the press to violent video games. The Secret Service found that that there was no accurate profile. Only 1 in 8 school shooters showed any interest in violent video games; only 1 in 4 liked violent movies.”

Next up, given the findings of Kutner and Olson, what advice do these experts provide parents and educators regarding teens playing violent video games.

Author: Tom Hanson, OpenEducation.net, 17th March 2008

[More from this author soon.]

Article available here.

Futurelab Research Discussion Day at RIBA - Learning Spaces

“Learning Spaces was one of three themes covered during discussion day. The presentations and outcomes will be available shortly. I’ll start with a short summary and then follow up with posts about issues that arose or particularly interest me.

Tim Rudd (Senior Researcher in Futurelab’s learning team) kicked off the Learning Spaces sessions by looking at the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. He raised a number of issues detailing limiting contexts and practical constraints under three headings:
- Problems and challenges.
- Pre-engagement and visioning.
- Co-design and stakeholder participation.

Tim and Tash Lee have already stirred this pot in their posts ‘Who should be responsible for Building Schools for the Future?’ and ‘Building schools right now, very quickly, without thinking about the future too much.’

Tim discussed:
- Lack of alignment with current policy contexts, particularly personalisation.
- Lack of wider public debate about the ‘big questions’ - the nature of education etc.
- Re-designing learning spaces needs to support community regeneration.
- The need for digital tools to help people think differently.
- Absence of transformational visioning and a central repository / resource of ideas, alternative models of education and perspectives.
- BSF timescales discouraging upfront visioning.
- The barriers of institutional logic and a risk averse society.
- The need for pedagogically informed design.
- Weak co-design and stakeholder participation.
- The importance of the design process as experimentation - and the need for adequate time to do this.
- Future learning possibilities.”

Author: Peter Humphreys, Flux, FutureLab Blog, 22nd March 2008

Full article available here.

Memory, Reconsolidation and Big Questions…

I am a big fan of big questions. I think that sessions like the Game Design Challenge and its “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” cousin - “The Great ILS Challenge“(scroll down, its #800), force us to ask questions about what we can do. I love the Learning Circuits Blog Big Question of the Month (BQOTM) and think that it has really spurred some insightful discussions that might not have occurred otherwise. I do have to say though that the BQOTM has a big brother out there and it asks REALLY big questions.The Edge describes it’s purpose as “To arrive at the edge of the world’s knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.” The main way that Edge gets at these questions is ironically enough, through asking their annual question. You can see the past questions here, and if you doubt the bigness of their questions, past ones have included; What is your dangerous idea?, What’s you law?, What’s your question? and What now?

Author: Mark Oehlert, e-Clippings Blog, 20th March 2008

Full article available here.

Shoot-em Up Video Games - The Cause of Greater Anti-social Behaviors in Teens?

If you are a parent of a teen today you are no doubt concerned about what you hear regarding violent video games. Generally speaking, there appears to be a wide-spread consensus that such games are the bane of society and the source of growing anti-social and risk-taking behavior in teens.At the same time, if you have discussed the issue at length with other parents you are also likely confused about violent video game play. Because, quite frankly, many teens are playing such games without the slightest indication of any negative impact on their psyche or their mental health never mind a propensity to act in a violent way towards others.
Now comes the work of Drs. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson, the authors of the breakthrough book, “Grand Theft Childhood.” In their text the authors indicate that the politicians and even some health professionals may in fact have it all wrong.

One Who Has Previously Raised Concerns About Such Games
As a parent of two grown daughters, my early exposure to computer video games consisted of two very distinct categories. First, there were the earliest creations. PacMan, Donkey Kong, and the bubbly Mario all graced our computer and television screens. My children enjoyed these games, fervently trying to improve upon past accomplishments as they sought to find a way to reach the “next level”. These games, played individually or by two people together, were available to our children as a reward when other tasks were completed.

Later came the Sony’s PlayStation interactive games. The games that I became most familiar with were those that combined graphic caricatures of real professional athletes with very authentic strategies. Madden football or basketball were games that enticed teenagers and grown-ups alike. Though I never played them I was also familiar with the other popular game options based on skateboarding, skiing stunts, and the obnoxious world of professional wrestling.

I must admit, when I first became aware of shoot-em up games I had in mind games where a player might shoot spaceships out of the sky. Somehow I missed the initial release of the Grand Theft Auto series, becoming aware of the game only as Grand Theft Auto3 was to be released.

I was absolutely astonished to learn of the details within this game series. Using a joystick, the gamer controls a virtual thug. Basically, if it involves criminal-like behavior, the action is available to you as the game player through the virtual character you control.

The gamer can have his thug hijack cars, even police vehicles if he desires to. The gamer’s thug can rob a bank or opt to run a crime-laden vigilante organization.

As for random acts of violence, the gamer can bash into the rear end of a car plodding along too slowly or provide his/her thug a baseball bat as he roams the streets of a virtual city. On impulse, the game player can have the thug take the bat and strike any of the pedestrians he encounters, be they unsuspecting elderly people minding their own business or street-walking prostitutes soliciting customers.

A Failure to Understand the Lure of Such Games
Upon examination of the game I was at least relieved to see it carried with it a mature rating. The game certainly was not for young children. But upon further examination I personally couldn’t help ask who this type of game might be for?

At the time that Grand Theft Auto3 was the rage, Joanna Weiss of the Boston Globe published an article that featured interviews with some admitted game aficionados. What gave me the greatest concern were the words of the game players themselves.

Each indicated Grand Theft Auto contained graphics and interactive options that were so realistic that gamers felt immersed in the world the game simulates. According to Ms. Weiss, a 23 year-old computer programmer from York, England acknowledged the enjoyment the game gave him, especially after a grueling day of work. He stated, “Some people play squash after work. I just squash pedestrians.”

Weiss also noted an Emerson college freshmen reportedly calling GTA3 more exciting than other shoot-em ups. It’s a “different kind of violence,” she said, “because there’s no real good intent to any of it”.

Upon reading that article, I went on to write an op ed article for my local papers noting my concerns about these games. As a parent and educator, I noted the tremendous difficulty I had understanding the comments of the adults that Weiss spoke with. I also wrote how I could not comprehend what playing such games could do for the emotional psyche.

And lastly, for this writer, the concept of an interactive game that involves violence against people was even more troubling than the movies of Hollywood. My rationale was that the decision to make this rogue character act violently was based upon a conscious choice by the game player.

Simply stated, I found the unconscionable acts available to the player in the Grand Theft Auto series extremely troubling. At the time I was horrified by the thought that there might be many parents who thought of the bubbly Mario when thinking about video games. I expressed great concerns that many parents might be completely unaware of the content of this game, or even that such games exist.

Recent Developments - Contradictory Viewpoints
Soon, studies began to emerge that gave further rise to other concerns about such games. A University of Minnesota Professor and researcher released a number of articles noting some troubling findings. In one such study, Professor Sonya Brady, Phd, indicated that “violent video games create more permissive attitudes toward risky behaviors — such as using drugs — in youths who play those games.”

Over the past couple of years we have heard a number of politicians and children’s mental health experts rail against these games. In addition, many more reports had been released that indicated correlations between violent acts in school and a desire to play violent video games. Essentially, all of the material making its way before the public appeared to reinforce my personal view points regarding these games.

It was then that I stumbled across the work of Kutner and Olson, two researchers who happened to question this conventional wisdom. Back in 2004, they gathered together several researchers for a two year, $1.5-million multifaceted study of violent video games and children.

Their study involved researchers from a variety of fields: child and adolescent psychiatry, adult psychiatry, public health, clinical psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, and public policy. The goal was to examine the issue of violent video games from a broad set of perspectives.

It should be noted that unlike the prior work of Dr. Brady, they conducted a study instead of setting up an artificial experiment. For their data, they sought to “study real families in real situations.”

The researchers noted that much of what they uncovered surprised them. They noted, “The data were both encouraging and, at times, disturbing.” But they also noted, “It’s clear that the “big fears” bandied about in the press—that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that they will engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games—are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form.”

Acknowledging straight up that the findings surprised them proved to be the one hook to get this writer to read further. A second aspect, that Kutner and Olson note that “violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining ever since” created further questioning of my current assumptions.

As I delved further, I found a realistic treatment of an exceptionally complex topic and a study/book worthy of a thorough examination. Next up, we share with our readers an interview with Dr. Olson and a look at the various myths dispelled by her and Dr. Kutner’s research.

Author: Tom Hanson, OpenEducation.net, 16th March 2008

[More from this author soon.]

Article available here.

Before, beyond (and somewhere to the left of) Second Life

UPDATE: If you log in on the 18th at 11am GMT you should be able to join my (hopefully) live Google presentation by clicking THIS LINK. (Should allow you to ask questions using the chat interface!)

Later today (after I get some sleep!) I’ll be attending the Massively Multi Learner workshop at Anglia-Ruskin University.

I’ll be uploading my presentation in as many formats as possible to this post - and you may also be able to catch the live presentation online if you follow the instructions here.

Author: Daniel Livingstone, Learning Games Blog, 18th March 2008

Full article available here.

4th Annual Innovations in e-Learning Symposium (June 3,4,5)

(seriously, Sid Meier is a keynoter and it only cost $250 for the whole conference!)The George Mason University Instructional Technology Program and the Defense Acquisition University invite you to attend the 4th Annual Innovations in e-Learning Symposium to be held on June 3, 4 & 5, 2008 in the Johnson Center on the Fairfax Campus of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
The topics for this year’s symposium are:
* Mobile Learning and Gaming
* Web 2.0 and Cyber-infrastructure
* Innovation Design and Research Partnerships
* Collaboration in a Virtual World

Author: Mark Oehlert, e-Clippings Blog, 18th March 2008

Full article available here.

Game ratings under more scrutiny

Manhunt 2 will be released with an 18 certificate

Game ratings are under increased scrutiny following the decision to give Manhunt 2 an 18 certificate in the UK.

The game was approved for release after a nine-month battle between developers Rockstar and the the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).

Its release comes as the UK games industry awaits the Byron Review into the impact of technology on children.

A Private Members Bill proposing more government oversight of the BBFC was tabled last month but was talked out.

Author: Darren Waters, Technology editor, BBC News websit, 18th March 2008

Full article available here.

Newtoon Update

Newtoon update… (last mentioned here)A video has been added to the page at Futurelab, so you can see Newtoon being used/played by students - and being discussed by the developers. I have to say that I’d still be more tempted to use Phun based on what can be seen here. Phun looks far more powerful, and based on open-ended play.Author: Daniel Livingstone, Learning Games Blog, 12th March 2008

Full article available here.

MMORPGs in Education: Infrastructure & Logistics

The following is a summary of responses from an expert panel over three rounds of a Delphi study conducted as part of my doctoral dissertation. This is the sixth of six thematic summaries I plan to share on this blog.

In a final consensus check survey, the participating experts indicated a high level of consensus with this summary:

MMORPGs may require fewer hardware resources compared to many other video game genres, but implementing MMORPGs in existing schools would include many challenges related to infrastructure and logistics. With current student to computer ratios, students might experience limited access to the game at school. Many computers in schools might not meet the hardware needs of modern MMORPGs. The bandwidth available at the school might also be limited. Technical problems with the software, hardware, and network as well as the logistical and cognitive overhead necessary to play the games might outweigh the positive learning experience. (Outside of the school, many socio-economically disadvantaged students might also have limited access to the equipment necessary to play an MMORPG.) Filtering games for age appropriate content may also be a concern.In addition, MMORPGs require thousands of players to feel inhabited and provide a persistent sense of community; it may be difficult to achieve such a population in an educational game, and allow students to play commercial games in schools raises concerns about appropriate content and student safety. However, it is possible to populate a game world with richly interactive non-player characters (NPCs) controlled by the computer. Also, it may not be necessary for educational online role-playing games to be massively multiplayer in order to take advantage of the benefits of being multiplayer. Smaller scale multiplayer games (or MORPGs) might be more appropriate; these games would not necessarily need to be persistent worlds.

Funding an educational MMORPG would be expensive to start and difficult to sustain. Even if an existing engine is used, it would be expensive to develop the game and attract players and teachers to the idea. However, the costs of development could be distributed across many many schools and the potential benefits might justify the expense. In addition, existing game engines, digital objects, and environments could be imported from the entertainment industry. Gaming engines (and graphics) that are a generation behind the cutting edge would still be effective for creating an engaging educational game. Low cost easy to learn tools would be ideal. A well designed game concept could also attract the necessary developers, players, and educators.

The amount of time needed to implement such a game may be the greatest cost, including the time for students to learn the game and to spend time on the less educational fun elements of the game. MMORPG game play also does not fit neatly into traditional school schedules. In a truly massive multiplayer game, coordination of players with different school schedules (potentially even across different time zones) would also be a challenge. Single player training modes or the ability to solo might help alleviate some of these concerns. Also, coordinating large numbers of students together in the game world might be in conflict with the ideals of a constructivist learning environment in which students are engaged in individualize inquiry-driven learning, and so might not be a desirable use of an MMORPG anyway; self-organized groups of students similar to existing “guilds” in existing games might be more desirable.

Cultural resistance to video games in schools might also prove a challenge. The primary barriers might not be technical, but rather psychological, political, and cultural - including sometimes unconscious beliefs, assumptions, and values. Many educators and parents may not accept the potential educational value of video games, including MMORPGs. Even if the games are accepted, there will be a need to establish appropriate norms and ethics for the educational use of MMORPGs. For a MMORPG to take root in the current environment of high-stakes testing, the game may need to be accepted in terms of what schools now value. Moreover, games would need to be based on non-violent, appropriate, and non-trivial subject matter and content - and would need to include reasonable measures to ensure student safety. Naturally, student learning would ned to be measurable and demonstrable as well. Unfortunately, this might reduce the engaging and motivating elements of the games, and as Prensky says, “suck the fun out.”

A great deal of organizational change will also be necessary if games are to be accepted and supported in existing educational organizations. There would be a significant need for teacher professional development in order to ensure that teachers would have the necessary understanding to effectively implement the games and guide students with their reflection and transfer of skills. Establishing pilot programs that follow models set by similar technologies already in use would be critical to successful implementation.

However slowly, educational institutions are moving inexorably towards the ability to overcome these hinderances.

The following are a selection of significant dissenting opinions and/or final comments that members of the expert panel made in response to this final summary:

“The costs of current MMORPG infrastructures are a concern for any one school. There are many servers and other infrastructure required that is cost prohibitive for a small environment; also, consider the scalability of running the operations is a consideration. I think MMORPG environments must be at least across schooling districts with some consideration to scheduling and optimizing around what a base system can support in concurrent players (CCU).”“Due to the high costs of developing MMORPG and the little garuantee that this investment will be liked by students or that the intended benefits are achievable, I think it is critical that existing MMORPGs be adapted for education purposes. The storylines and quests can be adapted have better material. Often changing game play and adapting graphics can customize the environment for local norms and goals. At [our development company], this is exactly the complex analysis and localization processes that we use to bring successful games from other countries to India to resonate with a local population made up of many different cultures.”

“In general, I suggest let the students coordinate themselves. The gameplay is usually enticing enough to inspire play. With a large and distributed (across timezones) population of players, ensuring there is a mass of players will happen organically.”

“Cultural resistance to video games in schools might also prove a challenge.” This is a huge barrier. We need to provide accurate tools, feedback, and information to educate parents of the benefits. This should be a major focus for the education-gaming community. Like any new media (as TV and Radio at one point) the negative perception hinders the potential benefits. The Guttenberg printing press was a major concern for the governing powers of the day such as the church, because information and lessons could be disseminated in ways they could not control. Bad and good literature can be produced, but again, the benefits far outweigh the concerns. MMORPGs are no different. They offer a unique way to provide education, and teach things that other mediums are not as effective. This is a media to be embraced, not feared. I spent 6 years in NYC educational system while working for IBM in the K-12 division. The hardest part for the adoption of technology in classrooms was that teachers were lost, as they will be with MMORPG. It helps to provide a support organization for teachers to teach and learn. This will facilitate the use and measurable results of MMORPGs in Education.”

“People don’t take pilots seriously, no amount of “proof” changes people’s deep down beliefs. It’s naive to suggest that pilots or research studies would change anything.”

“Schools are not moving in this direction (last sentence). If anything, they are becoming more rigid and resistant to change. They are driving out the very teachers and administrators who would be able to create the systemic changes that would be necessary for games to play a larger part in education.”

“Interesting thing about computers and students is kids play nicely with each other. I agree with you, part of the logistics is the computer to kid ratio, but I also regularly see kids playing well with each other when using a computer.”

“Again, I think the idea of an educational MMORPG is a bad idea. I think if you modded a current COTS-MMORPG then that might work, but there are plenty of decent reasons to stay away from designing an educational mmorpg.”

I am interested in additional feedback from readers of this blog. What is your level of consensus with this summary? Are there any points you might want to elaborate on - or more importantly, disagree with? Please leave a comment.

Author: Mark Wagner, Educational Technology and Life Blog, 27th February 2008