247

Making Games not Work: Paradoxes Embedded in Game­Based Training and Concepts for Overcoming Them

Phillip N. Jones; Taryn CuperMYMICLLC

phillip.jones@mymic.net; taryn.cuper@mymic.net

Abstract: An interest in game-based training solutions is natural. All one has to do is watch someonefully engaged in a modern game to see the potential of harnessing that attention for training. However,the reality of game-based training has not fully satisfied these expectations. This paper explains twoparadoxes that must be overcome for games to support training. These paradoxes are a result of therealities of the basic human condition clashing with the requirements of learning theory. 80th paradoxesarise from the concept of "engagement" that is central to games. The first comes from a more robustdefinition of engagement, which is the condition of Flow or Optimal Experience. Flow is the state gamedevelopers want to see in users. One aspect of Flow is loss of sense of self as the individual becomesimmersed in the experience. The paradox arises because this loss of self directly contradicts the learningrequirement of self-reflection. The second paradox comes from theories of play, which state in part thatplay requires a level of individual freedom. The contradiction arises when game-based play must beharnessed to an organizational training program or regimen. The paper will discuss these paradoxes inthe context of an effort to design a game-based training modality to train combat medics and will closewith a review of compensating strategies identified by the designers. The paper will provide informationimportant to anyone interested in conceptualizing and designing game-based training.

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper describes the identification of andstrategies to overcome two key paradoxesinherent in leveraging "games" to supportorganized learning or training, or the creation of"serious games." The genesis of this work wasa six month effort to conceptualize and design acomputer-based modality for training CombatMedics and Corpsmen to react to an ImprovisedExplosive Device (lED), specifically in terms ofsite management. As the intended trainingaudience is assumed competent in specificmedical diagnostics and treatment, the trainingsolution focuses on higher level cognitiverequirements, or decisions on the managementof casualty care in a complex and hostileenvironment. A key requirement for thecomputer-based training modality was that it be"sim-game based", or more specifically, of the"simulation I strategy game genre."

In order to maximize value to the eventualcustomer, the research team approached theconceptualization and design of this systemgrounded research into operational and trainingenvironment requirements and constraints. Forthis project, that grounded research included,among other efforts, a review of both operationaland theoretical literature as well as input fromsubject matter experts. The review of theoreticalliterature, which will be described in detail here,

included examining the concept of games ingeneral and serious games in particular.

The intent of the research into games andserious games was to provide cognitive rigor tothe advantages of pursuing effective learningthrough a serious game strategy such that theeventual conceptualization and design wouldincorporate these advantages. Theinvestigation, however, identified issues in arigorous definition of the game construct thatculminated in the identification of two trueparadoxes. Having identified the twoparadoxes, the team built strategies to mitigatetheir impact.

2. DEFINING THE GAME CONSTRUCT

Anyone who has observed another immersed ina computer-based game can appreciate theattraction of serious game-based training. Thelead author has many times observed theintense commitment of his teenage childrentowards advancing their fantasy character orbuilding a better virtual community, wishing hecould transfer that commitment to far morecritical but less exciting pursuits, such as mathor English. A search of Google Scholar for"game based" returns over 17,400 hits; 778 ofthose hits are for the first eight months of 2009.Thus, it is no surprise that stakeholders inorganizational and individual performance are

248

pursuing serious game based learningapproaches more and mOre. Despite theirincreasing efforts, the author still does not haveto tell his teenagers to get off the math gameand get to bed.

The first question when asked to develop agame-based solution is: What is a game? Theanswer is not obvious. There are multiplecharacterizations of a game, seemingly basedupon individual perspectives [1]. Webster's NewWorld Dictionary defines game as, "any form ofplay or way of playing; amusement; recreations;sport; frolic; play" [2]. Clark Abt,who pennedthe term serious game in his 1970 book, pre­artificial intelligence (AI), Serious Games [3],defined a game as:

Reduced to its formal essence, a game is anactivity among two or more independentdecision-makers seeking to achieve theirobjectives in some limiting context. A moreconventional definition would say that agame is a context with rules amongadversaries trying to win objectives. We areconcerned with serious games in the sensethat these games have an explicit andcarefully thought-out educational purposeand are not intended to be played primarilyfor amusement.

In 2005, Mike Zyda, Director of USC'sGamePipe Laboratory, provided a post-AIdefinition of a serious game as [4]:

"a mental contest, played with a computer inaccordance with specific rules that usesentertainment to further government orcorporate training, education, health, publicpolicy, and strategic communicationobjectives"

Both of these characterizations can encompassany number of training modalities, includi~g

modalities that the serious games communrtyprobably would not accept within their portfolio.In recognition of the untidiness present whendefining a game, the authors changed st~ategy,

opting away from a game as a discretephenomenon and towards defining a gameconstruct through a set of game traits, traits thatwould exist in various numbers and depth in thevariety of training modalities.

Following this new strategy, the literature reviewidentified twenty separate game traits, certainlyonly a partial list of total set. Several of these

traits were clearly classifiable under two meta­traits: Play and Optimal Experience or Flow.The exploration into how to incorporate thesemeta-traits within the serious game-basedsolution demonstrated a paradox associatedwith each meta-trait. These paradoxes stand inthe way of development of effective seriousgame-based training solutions.

3. GAME META-TRAITS

3.1 Play

As seen from the above and other definitions,play is an inherent feature of games. Gam~s

could be said to be the application of play. ThISraises the question of what is play, a question asdifficult to answer as the earlier question of whatis a game.

Again, the answer is not readily apparent. BrianSutton-Smith in his book, The Ambiguity of Play[5], takes the perspective that play is sointertwined in human experience and that thereis such diversity in the forms and manners ofplay that it cannot be separately defined. Rather,it can only be approached through discussion, or"rhetoric" of varied approaches towards thestudy of play.

French philosopher Roger Caillois studied playand identified six essential elements [6]. Theseare:

1. Free: in which playing is not obligatory;if it were, it would at once lose itsattractiveness and joyous quality asdiversion;

2. Separate: circumscribed within limits ofspace and time, defined and fixed inadvance;

3. Uncertain: the course of which cannotbe determined, nor the result attainedbeforehand, and some latitude forinnovations being left to the player'sinitiative;

4. Unproductive: creating neither goods,nor wealth, nor new elements of anykind; and, except for the exchange ofproperty among the players, ending in asituation identical to that prevailing atthe beginning of the game;

5. Governed by rules: under conventionsthat suspend ordinary laws, and for themoment establish new legislation, whichalone counts;

249

6. Make-believe: accompanied by aspecial awareness of a second reality orof a free unreality, as against real life.

The paradox that is serious play arises from theconflict between two of these essential elementsand training. Effective play requires freedom,uncertainty, and lack of productivity. Yet,training is an organizational imperative andtraining programs are evaluated based upontheir support to organizational objectives [7].Effective and focused training is conductedwithin a well defined program with designatedperformance objectives and time and otherresource constraints and synchronized withother training events. The conflict between thenecessary freedom of play and the requirementsand constraints of training is the first decisiveparadox to be overcome.

3.2 Optimal Experience

A second necessary meta-trait of games isengagement [8] [9]. Again, there is the questionof definitions. What is engagement and wheredoes it come from?

Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyl providedan answer with his theory on "Flow" or optimalexperience [10]. Through empirical research,Dr. Csikszintmihalyl identified a condition wherehuman happiness was obtained in a balancebetween individual capability and challenge, orwhen information coming into individualawareness is harmonious with individual goals.This harmonization creates optimal experience,or the opposite of psychic entropy.

Dr. Csikszentmihalyl identified eight elements forestablishing flow. These are:

1. The individual confronts tasks thathe/she has a chance of completing orchallenging tasks that require skills

2. The individual must be able toconcentrate on the activity

3. The activity has clear goals4. The activity provides feedback to the

individual.5. The activity provides a deep but

effortless involvement by the individual6. The activity allows the individual to

exercise a sense of control7. During the activity, the sense of self

disappears, but emerges strongerafterwards

8. The sense of time is altered

The fifth and seventh elements, the requirementfor deep but effortless work and the loss of thesense of self, generate the second serious gameparadox. Effective adult learning reqUiresrecognition by the learner that they possessbehaviors that, to reach individual objectives,necessitate change [11]. The learner has toperceive their actual abilities against desiredabilities as well as the path to close the gap.

In addition, learning requires cognitive effort.For example, in the theory of self-regulatedlearning, self-reflection is a significant part of thelearning process [12] and has been linked tosuccess in learning [13]. Similarly the AmericanPsychological Association identifies cognitiveand meta-cognitive learner-centered principles,to include [14]:

• The learning of complex subject matteris most effective when it is an intentionalprocess of constructing meaning frominformation and experience.

• The successful learner, over time andwith support and instructional guidance,can create meaningful, coherentrepresentations of knowledge

• The successful learner can link newinformation with existing knowledge inmeaningful ways.

• The successful learner can create anduse a repertoire of thinking andreasoning strategies to achieve complexlearning goals.

• Higher order strategies for selecting andmonitoring mental operations facilitatecreative and critical thinking.

• Learning is influenced by environmentalfactors, including culture, technology,and instructional practices.

Thus, in a serious game-based training event,the more perfect the game, the less perfect thelearning, as Flow indicates effortlessinvolvement and learning requires effort. Inaddition, Flow requires loss of the sense of self,while learning requires self-evaluation. Last,Flow requires cognitive focus towards theimmediate tasks, while learning requires focuson tasks over time and experience.

4. MITIGATING META-TRAIT PARADOXES

As previously stated, this investigation into thenature of games was initiated by a project toconceptualize and plan a game-based modalityto train Combat Medics on lED-ambush site

250

management. Along with identifying desiredgame traits for the eventual solution, the studyteam also conducted literature reviews andinterviews of subject matter experts to identifyperformance competencies as well asoperational and training conditions andconstraints. From this effort, the teamdeveloped an extensive set of training modalityrequirements and then compared over 100models and simulations to identify candidatesystems. Concurrently, the team developed thedesired user's experience to maximize learningeffectiveness and efficiency.

A central part of this conceptualization andplanning effort was the structuring of the trainingexperience to overcome or mitigate the effectsof the above paradoxes.

4.1 Mitigating the Play Paradox

The play paradox arises from the conflictbetween permitting the trainee a sense offreedom and supporting organizational learningrequirements through directing him/her along anorganizationally directed learning path. Theteam followed two strategies.

As part of the training solution design, the teamincluded a training matrix that would guide thelearner from novice towards expert performance.The training matrix incorporated two axes,cognitive load and environmental conditions. Asthe trainee progresses through the matrix, he orshe would experience greater cognitive load andmore complex execution conditions.

Mitigating ~he play paradox required theinclusion of freedom within this directive matrix.This was accomplished through the provision ofmultiple missions at each step within thedesignated training matrix, giving the trainee achoice over which mission he would play inorder to fulfill the current training requirement.Giving learners control over the manner in whichthey learn can be an effective approach toencouraging engagement [15] [16].

The team proposed that the combinedcoordinates of the two axes provide a small setof similarly challenging scenarios or missions.Each square in the 20 matrix would be aseparate scenario or mission. Thus, in a trainingmatrix defined by four cognitive load andenvironmental condition levels, the trainee wouldstart at the score of two, or at the first load andfirst environment level (1+1=2). Advancing to a

score of three would provide two scenarios(1+2=3 or 2+1=3) and so forth. One advantageof this solution was that as the trainee reachedthe end of the training matrix, options reduceduntil there was only one scenario remaining.This scenario would serve as a gate formovement to a higher matrix.

4.2 Mitigating the Flow Paradox

Mitigating the flow paradox was morechallenging and required some potentialsacrifice in the training design. This started withthe intent to create an environment conducive tothe trainee entering a personal flow experience.The first route to this objective was to prioritizeenvironmental and experiential fidelity. Thechosen game engine should be able tomaximize the realism of the lED-ambush sceneas well as accurately model lED-ambush relatedmedical trauma. The team assessed that thisdual realism would quickly inject the user into aflow state where they could lose their sense ofself.

The second route taken to mitigate the flowparadox was a willful decision to delay self­reflection until after the scenario was complete.This is an acceptance of risk as learning theorywould lean towards self-reflection immediatelyfollowing a learning experience. In the contextof Combat Medic training, this would mean apause from the simulated experienceimmediately after reaction to the lED. Thispause, however, would break the flow and sothe team opted to forego it. Instead, the Medicwould "stay in character", completing thescenario prior to an opportunity for thenecessary self-reflection. At higher levels withinthe training matrix, this might mean multiple IED­ambushes within the same scenario.

The team compensated for this delay inreflection by emphasizing self-reflection in a postscenario review phase. The review would beguided by an intelligent tutoring capability, butwould emphasize review of actions by thetrainee, including the recording of those actions.This in turn was intended to support long termlearning strategies necessary to learner­centered development.

5. CONCLUSION

Serious games do possess a promise of moreefficient and more effective learning. However,they are not a panacea. Preparatory work must

251

be accomplished in order to maximize theirpotential. This preparatory work includesunderstanding the real interplay between seriousgames and humans. This paper has addressedtwo aspects of that interplay, identified duringresearch into the conceptualization and designof a serious game meant to train CombatMedics. These aspects, Play and Flow,generate serious game paradoxes, which mustbe mitigated for a successful serious gameapplication.

6. REFERENCES

1. Akilli, G (2007) Games and Simulations:A new Approach in Education? In D.Gibson, C. Aldrich, and M. PrenskyGames and Simulations in OnlineLearning (pp. 1-20). Hershey, PAInformation Science Publishing.

2. Webster's New World Dictionary (4th

ed). (2007). Springfield MA: Merriam­Webster.

3. Abt, C. (1970). Serious Games. NewYork: The Viking Press.

4. Zyda, M. (2005). From VisualSimulation to Virtual Reality to Games.IEEE Computer. Vol. 38 (9), pp. 25 - 32.

5. Sutton-Smith, B (1997). The Ambiguityof Play, Cambridge, MA, HarvardUniversity Press.

6. Caillois, R. (1958). Man, Play andGames. (Meyer Baraxh, Trans.) UrbanaIL, University of Illinois Press

7. Kirkpatrick, D (1994) Evaluating TrainingPrograms: The Four Levels. SanFrancisco, CA, Berrett-KohlerPublishers.

8. Quinn, Clark N (2005) EngagingLearning: Designing e-LearningSimulation Games, San Francisco, CA,Pfeiffer

9. Becker, K. (2007) Pedagogy inCommercial Video Games, In D.Gibson, C. Aldrich, and M. PrenskyGames and Simulations in OnlineLearning (pp. 21-47). Hershey, PAInformation Science PUblishing.

10. Csikszentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: ThePsychology of Optimal Experience. NewYork, NY. Harper Perennial ModernClassics.

11. Knowles, M, Holton, E. and Swanson, R(2005). The Adult Learner, 6th Ed. SanDiego, CA. Elsevier

12. Zimmerman BJ. (1990). Self-regulatedlearning and academic achievement: Anoverview. Educational Psychologist.25(1):3-17.

13. Zimmerman BJ. (2002). Becoming aself-regulated learner: An overview.Theory into Practice. 41 (2): 64-70.

14. Alexander PA & Murphy PK. (1998).The research base for APA 'a learner­centered psychological principles. InHow Students Learn: ReformingSchools through Learner-CenteredEducation. American PsychologicalAssociation: Washington, DC. 1-22.

15. Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.R., & Baldwin,W. (1992). Learner control of contextand instructional support in learningelementary school mathematics.Educational Technology Research andDevelopment. 40:5-13.

16. Cordova 01 & Lepper MR. (1996).Intrinsic motivation and the process oflearning: Beneficial effects ofcontextualization, personalization, andchoice. Journal of EducationalPsychology. 88(4): 715-730.