Games and Education

I was a speaker at the recent Visual Web Conference along with Lord Puttnam, Margaret Robertson, and Dan Hon on Games and Education. Lord Puttnam's speech was really very good and I was impressed by the depth of his understanding on climate change, games and learning, and his passion for all three. Damn, but it was uplifting.

Dan and I gave short talks on our particular areas (you can download my presentation below) followed by a panel session, chaired by Margaret.

One speaker asked "what gave games developers the right to interfere in education". The question was a good one, and I thought it raised an interesting point. Do we, as games developers, have a right to get involved in the educational debate. After all every 4-5 years a new generation of politicians wade into education and then the teachers often have to spend the next few years adjusting to these changes. Are games companies any different?

My personal take on it is that we want to help, but that to do so we need to be able to justify our claims about the efficacy of serious games. So in our case, a vital part of this is that we have an inhouse educational team (Ian, our creative director, was a teacher for many years, and Hannah and Matt are both experienced scientific researchers). But he is right, games companies wading into the educational debate could be problematic.

But the truth is, the teachers we have worked with have welcomed our input. We have given them tools to engage the pupils which let the teachers get on with their jobs and build on that interest that we have sparked. The teachers we interact with are used to games, and just like me, have grown up with them and understand the uses and the pitfalls.

What also really inspired me was that many of the pupils who most engaged with our games were the ones typically described as "struggling", yet they were very active, and able to help and more importantly, teach their fellow class members.

Perhaps the focus of the question should be: how can games help break down the archaic divide between being taught at, and actually being part of the teaching process yourself.

Which brings me round to another point: Over the last few years Red Redemption has gradually shifted from being a regular games company making games purely for entertainment and profit (a perfectly reasonable goal itself) to making socially conscious, persuasive games for fun and hopefully to help people learn more about important issues like climate change.

One of the most interesting parts about this evolution has been that a set of very clear goals have emerged and become core to our games development. These goals are:

1. Socially-responsible: Consider the end use.
2. Fun to play: Obvious, but essential and too often missed Its a game not a simulation.
3. Focus on real-world: Even if you do so via the metaphor of a virtual world.
4. Scientifically accurate: Source the data!
5. Transparent: You have to build trust. Be open about limitations.
6. Scoring Techniques: You’ll learn while you play by scoring players based on demonstrable knowledge gain.
7. Non-Didactic: Don't preach!

I think that these goals provide a strong basis for discussion, but that is just a start, we need better communication with the education establishment, and more head teachers (like the group I met late last year in Southwark) who can take a practical and positive approach to using games where they can help, but not viewing them as a panacea for poor teaching.

You can download/view my presentation here (PDF, 1066KB).