Introduction

There is little doubt that we are a nation addicted to gaming, in one sense or another. Whether it is Angry Birds on the iPhone, interacting with the Sims on the laptop or indulging in mayhem in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) such as World of Warcraft, gaming is hugely popular with a substantial proportion of the global population. This growth has been possible as a result of wider access to broadband connectivity, advances in technology and relative reductions in costs. In 2008, in the United States, the Pew Internet and American Life Project surveyed 1,102 12 and 17 year olds and found that that 97 per cent – both boys (99%) and girls (94%) – played some type of digital game (Lenhart, Kahne, et al., 2008). De Freitas and Liarokapis (2011) showed that the video-game industry sold 84.64 million Nintendo Wii consoles, 50 million Microsoft Xbox 360s and 50 million Sony PlayStation 3s. In 2006 the income of the global online gaming market had reached $4.5 million; this amount tripled in the following 5 years and is predicted to reach $82 billion by 2017 (see de Freitas & Liarokapis, 2011). While the economic benefits of this thriving industry are there for all to see, the psychosocial benefits, particularly within educational contexts, are hotly disputed.

Video games have gone from being seen as irrelevant or dangerous, to being the darlings of the media and educational industries. There is often a generational divide in our perceptions of video games. For many parents and teachers, the perception of learners sat for hours in front of a television screen or laptop playing on games is rather negative and damaging to their educational development. For many, the stereotypical video gamer player conjures up an image of a reclusive individual who spends hours in his or her bedroom because of an inability to operate in the real world. However, this does not match gamers’ perceptions of themselves as highly socialized individuals. Pejorative terms such as nerd (passionately pursues intellectual or esoteric knowledge) and geek (inordinately dedicated to and involved with technology) are often used to describe such individuals. The perceived link between such obsessive behaviour and the manifest popularity of technology-based games for students of all ages is a nightmare scenario for many and it places game playing at the forefront of the debate on the ills of Internet and technology in general. Is gaming being falsely accused? Is there little or no merit in an activity that so many of our children enjoy? It is becoming increasingly apparent, despite anecdotes of aggressive and violent behaviours, that video games do provide opportunities for learning and development that often go unrecognized (Ferguson & Olson, 2013). It is these positive impacts on learning and the potential ways in which games can shape education that we focus on in this chapter.

The Nature of Games

Technology-based games are highly varied and difficult to classify with any precision. Over the years, gaming has taken on a range of different formats, ranging from Atari’s ping-pong, which dominated the scene in the 1970s, to the best-selling Mortal Combat, rated the top game in 1993, to the more recent MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft and the virtual worlds of Second Life. Many of the early games were mini-games in Prensky’s (2001) parlance, as are the majority of educational games currently available on the Internet. In contrast the virtual worlds epitomized by the MMORPGs are complex games. These too have their parallels in the education world, for example, Economics 201.¹ Prensky (2006) argues that mini-games are not ‘bad’ for learning although they tend to be restricted to single skills while the learning from complex games is multifaceted. Such virtual worlds, it is argued, present exciting new opportunities to education (Gee, 2003). In these rich virtual environments learning is inherently social. However, the experience of playing a game like the Sims or Civilization III, which requires a cerebral blend of planning, building, managing, and competing with other civilizations, is very different from playing games, such as World of Warcraft, which require rhythm and timing as they encourage participants to immerse themselves in complex virtual societies.

Non-gamers usually imagine that mastering a game is largely a matter of learning to push buttons faster, which no doubt accounts for all the ‘hand-eye coordination’ clichés. But for many popular games, the ultimate key to success lies in deciphering the rules, and not manipulating joysticks:

(Johnson, 2005, pp. 42–43)

The proficiency required for playing video games is more than the physical coordination of pressing buttons on a keypad: it requires the development of quite sophisticated cognitive skills, which include strategic planning, reasoning and sophisticated problem solving.

Simply Addicted to Games?

As alluded to in the previous chapter, addiction to technology is a real concern and this is most apparent when we consider the nature of gaming. Some behaviour patterns do give cause for concern. For example, in a sample of over 7,000 gamers just fewer than 12 per cent fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of addiction in relation to their gaming behaviour, although in this study there was only weak evidence of a link between aggressive behaviour and excessive gaming in general (Grüsser, Thalemann, & Griffiths, 2006). A study of over 4,000 gamers ranging from 14 to 40+ years old, using Gaming Addiction Short Scale (GAS) that covers seven criteria including salience, withdrawal and conflicts, found only 3.7 per cent of gamers could be considered problematic users, that is met at least half of the seven conditions. The percentage of problematic gamers among adolescents was higher at 7.6 per cent. High GAS scores were associated with aggression, low sociability and self-efficacy, and lower satisfaction with life. Additionally, these scores correspond with intensive use and preferences for certain gaming genres across all age groups (Festl, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2012).

However, the research is beginning to show just how complex the situation can be between video games and aggression. In fact the claim that video games cause real-life aggression may be seen as a gross oversimplification. For example, Adachi and Willoughby (2011) assert that only one of the many investigations into the links between violent and aggressive behaviour and the playing of violent video game used an unambiguous measure of aggressive behaviour. The overwhelming majority of experimental studies have used a measure of aggression that may also serve to measure competitiveness and so from these studies it is not possible to establish with any certainty whether the games are engendering aggression or competitiveness. Of course it is important to measure what you say you are measuring but a further criticism of this body of research is that if competitiveness is what is actually being measured then why was this not controlled for when selecting test games? Another claim by Adachi and Willoughby (2012) is that there is no study to date that has equated the violent and non-violent video games on competitiveness, difficulty and pace of action and this is crucial given the research instruments that are being used. Their study is a telling indictment of a body of research that is having considerable influence over policy makers and, through the media attention, parent groups. Unsurprisingly, following the tenor of their argument, in a later study Adachi and Willoughby (2011) suggest that video game play may meet, or may be related to, positive outcomes such as flow, cooperation, problem-solving and reduced in-group bias, that is, that gaming engenders the twenty-first century skills deemed so essential by Larson (2000) for the cultivation of positive youth development (see Chapter 1 for an extended review of Larson’s theory and intrinsic motivation).

Although media speculation has suggested that specific features of game play may be associated with problematic behaviour including addiction and a propensity for aggressive and violent behaviour, new evidence undermines these claims. A meta-analysis by Johnson, Jones, and Burns (2013) shows an emerging body of research focusing on the potential positive influences of video games. While admitting that excessive engagement is not good for mental health and can be associated with negative outcomes, such as anxiety and insomnia, they found that game playing can have a positive influence on young people’s emotional state and is associated with higher self-esteem, resilience and well-functioning social relationships. They argue that video games can help the young to manage their own mental health, wellbeing and psychological distress with little evidence of the adverse effects from video games often found within the social media (Ferguson & Olson, 2013).

Russoniello, Fish, and O’Brien (2013) add further support to this therapeutic view of game playing. They conducted a randomized controlled clinical study of the impact of casual game playing on individuals’ suffering both mild and severe depression. Depression is a debilitating illness usually treated with expensive pharmaceuticals or behavioural techniques such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which are often stigmatized. Their study asked whether a prescribed regimen of casual video gaming would reduce symptoms associated with depression, a question answered in the affirmative. They demonstrated that such game playing resulted in a significant decrease in depression both in the short and long term and was equally effective for both mild and severe cases of depression. They also recorded no negative or adverse effects during game playing and so argued that the use of games in this manner provided a safe therapeutic experience. While these results may seem surprising at first sight and no explanations were provided by the researchers as to why these effects occurred there is a simple possible explanation. Depression tends to narrow an individual’s perspective and sustains that situation. Game playing is absorbing and if an individual is to be a game winner they must focus outward on the game and not on the negative aspects of their life that have led to their depression. So a simple refocusing of attention may be an effective clinical treatment. This might be of some assurance to parents concerned about their child and they may be keen to see moderate game playing as an adolescent stress buster.

Another recent study further highlights some of the complexity of the impact of gaming (Happ, Melzer, & Steffgen, 2013). Students were asked to play Midway Games’ Mortal Combat versus DC Universe on the Playstation 3: a fighting game in which the player controls an on-screen character and engages in close combat with an opponent. The game scenario is built around known fantasy characters. The ‘good guys’ Raiden (Earthrealm’s god of Thunder) and Superman (protector of the Earth) repel invaders from their worlds but a consequence of their actions is that there is a merging of Mortal Kombat and DC villains. Inevitably these heroes and anti-heroes clash and screens full of gratuitous violence ensue. This is the type of game that causes consternation among parents and those charged with developing the next generation.

To return to Happ, Melzer, and Steffgen’s study (2013) that had a two-by-two design in which students either played as the morally good character Superman or as the Joker, one of the arch-villains in the Batman films. The two groups were further divided with half of the participants acting as Superman or as the Joker reading a bogus Wikipedia article about their character. In the first case it was designed to encourage the player to empathize with Superman while the Joker brief described how he had suffered abuse in his childhood. Apart from these differences, the game experience was the same for all participants. In all four groups players spent their time in hand-to-hand combat against a variety of other computer-controlled game characters.

After the game, the participants were asked to rate a number of faces on how hostile they looked. There were both angry and neutral faces, but participants who had played the Joker were more likely to perceive hostility in neutral faces (a marker of an aggressive mindset), as compared with the participants who played Superman. For Superman, empathy led participants to interpret neutral faces as less aggressive. When playing the evil Joker, however, empathy was seen to encourage hostile perceptions. Happ and colleagues (2013) interpret this as showing that empathy may not be positive per se and that it may backfire depending on the interaction of game characters and the empathy players feel for them. So, while media violence is suspected of leading to a violent and desensitized personality this analysis shows individuals with this type of character are affected differentially depending on the level of empathy they have for that character. No bonding with the character or playing the ‘good guy’ protects the individual from aggressive perceptions.

Games and Learning

As we know all too well, many students are disengaged from the academic and social aspects of school life. Student engagement, the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institution, is central to effective schooling. Engagement in learning has been identified as a valuable indicator of students’ academic performance (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Hancock & Betts, 2002; Underwood, 2009). Specific aspects of engagement, such as involvement, time on task and quality of effort, have repeatedly been linked to positive outcomes. One explanation that has been put forward for the reported benefit of video games is that they can serve to enhance arousal levels, which in turn boosts motivation and interest levels to maintain focus on a task (Slusarek, Velling, et al., 2001). Engagement and motivation are often perceived as interchangeable. Maehr and Meyer (1997) suggest that motivation answers the question, ‘Why am I doing this?’, while engagement reflects a person’s active involvement in the activity. Students who are engaged are attracted to their work, persist in their academic activities despite challenges and obstacles, and take visible delight in accomplishing them. It is unsurprising, therefore, that different approaches have been developed and evaluated to foster students’ engagement with games and these offer great potential for educational learning (see Shaffer, 2006).

Such engagement is apparent in the majority of, if not all, video-game players. Indeed game designers build their products to ensure such engagement as it then results in customer loyalty. Engagement can be at the behavioural, cognitive or emotional level. Behavioural engagement is essentially a willingness to take part and is expressed through effort, persistence, attention and the absence of disruptive behaviours (Appleton, 2008; Fredericks, et al., 2004). Cognitive engagement requires an investment on the part of the individual, whether pupil or game player, to achieve deep understanding and expertise. It implies a desire to go beyond the basic requirements of a task, and to relish challenges (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Emotional engagement occurs with enjoyment and positive attitudes about learning (Appleton).

There are a wide variety of reasons as to why individuals are involved in gaming. People engage in gaming, in general, in order to socialize, as a distraction from the stresses of everyday life, to develop new skills and because gaming is associated with highly positive psychological experiences as proposed in entertainment theory. Player enjoyment is key to game playing and is often used as a measure of intrinsic motivation. Entertainment theory (Vorderer, Klimmt, & Ritterfeld, 2004) posits that media users actively work on their enjoyment experience. Establishing a link between performance and enjoyment, results in players using the game complexity to maximum enjoyment. If a player is experiencing failure, frustration increases and self-esteem declines but task completion leads to growing self-esteem and a highly enjoyable experience. This sense of enjoyment then reduces anxiety and helps the player feel confident about their success. Learning though games can then lead to higher levels of enjoyment, lower task anxiety and better performance, that is, effective learning.

Over the past 10 years serious, educational or persuasive games have emerged to fulfil a range of non-entertainment purposes, such as training and education, advertising, awareness-raising, intercultural empathy, therapy and business and manufacturing support (see, for example, Vannini, et al., 2011). Why should game playing be an effective mode of learning? According to Chatfield (2013), during his TED Global 2010 talk, ‘7 ways games reward the brain’, games are highly rewarding and he cites seven ways that gaming rewards the player:

1. Games provide ‘experience bars’ to measure continual progress or a profile of the avatar showing continual progress. Every time the player takes action the experience bar, or avatar profile, is updated by the reward so the player is able to visualize the progress being made. This should lead to more reflective learning and motivation, as players are able to make immediate links between their actions and consequences.
2. Games provide multiple long- and short-term aims and having multiple tasks provides the motivation for the player to break things down and make choices, which, it can be argued, will lead to more tactical decision-making.
3. Games reinforce effort and attempt to encourage the player to keep on trying.
4. Games give rapid and clear feedback. Effective learning develops because players are able to make immediate links between their actions and consequences.
5. Chatfield talks about the ‘neurological goldmine’ that is generated by the element of uncertainty in games, which while a known reward excites people, the uncertainty of reward increases in the level of the neurotransmitter dopamine that is associated with pleasure, learning and with reward-seeking behaviour. There are increases in confidence and pleasure and decreases in stress and anxiety – developed when increases in dopamine create an emotional feeling of wellbeing.
6. Games that add controlled elements of uncertainty can predict learning and enhanced engagement because when dopamine levels increase, confidence levels increase, and players become braver, more willing to take risks and are more motivated.
7. Games often add ‘other people’ and peer and group collaboration is a powerful tool in increasing human motivation and as such can lead to increased team skills and increased empathy for members of a group.

Chatfield also recognizes the neurological rewards for game playing, that is, how the uncertainty of reward increases the level of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is associated with pleasure, learning and with reward-seeking behaviour. More broadly, we can see how digital games may have elements in common with many features that we associate with effective learning. They offer the opportunity to personalize learning, include scaffolding, provide flags for navigation, and incorporate the main components of flow: clear goals, direct and immediate feedback, balance between ability level and challenge, and sense of control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Malone & Lepper, 1987). Challenge has been shown to be central to engagement but also to many digital games, suggesting that the latter are potentially engaging learning experiences for students (Connolly, Boyle, et al., 2012; Prensky, 2001). Finally, games can help promote automaticity of cognitive skills (Underwood & Everatt, 1996).

Discussion of games allows us to explore many of the more important factors affecting the learning process such as motivation and the role of feedback. Games can stimulate content-specific skills, that is, understanding and problem-solving as well as content-independent skills including collaboration, communication and self-regulation. Depending on the characteristics of the game, gaming will potentially result in affective communicative, cognitive and kinetic skills-learning outcomes (van den Bos, van Dijk, et al., 2009). This means they may promote skills-based learning including technical and motor skills, cognitive outcomes including declarative, procedural and strategic knowledge, or change players’ attitudes, beliefs or emotions (affective learning) (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith, & Tosca, 2008; Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002).

Learners as game players inevitably start with failure – errors lead to learning – testing the rules of a game system like Civilization III, with tens of thousands of interacting variables, results in a deeper-level conceptual development. This learning cycle is critical to both intellectually engaging gameplay and academic learning, which illustrates the potential of educational games. Squire (2003, 2005) offers a warning: this testing of the system is in fact a test of the learner also. This act of failing or elicitation of rules as Johnson (2005) might put it, was a critical precondition for learning as students found themselves confronting gaps or flaws in their current understandings through cycles of recursive play accommodating new information with old. Students who become comfortable with this very testing form of learning develop a deeper understanding of the subject in hand along with a range of high-order cognitive skills. However, for other students the lack of certainty and the demands for intellectual rigour proved too onerous and the reading class became a safe and familiar haven. However, once over the hurdle and into the game, effective learning can take place.

Obviously intrinsic motivation is a key factor here but the level of interactivity in the game plays a crucial role. The learner is placed within the role of decision-maker and is pushed through increasingly difficult challenges that allow learning to occur through trial and error procedures, each of which are equally important factors to consider. Decisions are often supported by rapid feedback that is beneficial. Educational games will be effective because knowledge or skills practised through gaming are more likely to be transferred than when practised on a single kind of problem. Once mastered, the knowledge and skills are practised further to provide overlearning (Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, & Papagianni, 2010). As a result knowledge and skills become automatized and consolidated in memory so that the learner can begin to focus consciously on comprehending and applying new information (Gentile & Gentile, 2008).

The potential advantages of video gaming extend beyond cognitive explanations. Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2006), for instance, argues that from a socio-cultural perspective, video games are the tools for constructing a viable, authentic learning experience. Video games mediate discussion, reflection, facts and analysis facilitated by individuals within and outside the classroom. Thus, video games are interesting not for their content but for the way in which new explorations initiate negotiations, and turn constructions and journeys into knowledge (Gee, 2003; Paraskeva, et al., 2010). This is not a comfortable mode of operating for some teachers or indeed learners.

There are psychological models that offer further support to the potential benefits of games for learning and education. The appeal of games has been summarized in Mayer’s (2005) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), which is based on two major theories in cognitive psychology. The first is Paivio’s (1986) dual-coding theory, which postulates that a learner’s cognitive system uses both visual and verbal cues to represent information and that these two types of information are processed along distinct channels in the human mind, creating separate representations for information processed in each channel. The second theory is Baddley and Hitch’s (1974) working memory model, which states that working memory has two largely independent subcomponents that tend to work in parallel – one visual and one verbal–acoustic. Presenting information that exploits these dual systems allows a learner to construct a better understanding of the material by integrating information from both channels. While the dual-coding theory has its limitations, it provides support for the efficacy of multimedia as a learning medium. It is not difficult to see why games, as a specific case of multimedia presentation, could and should enhance student performance. Furthermore, Green and Bavelier’s (2006, 2007) series of experiments suggest that action video game play may enhance some aspects of visual working memory and there is supporting evidence concerning the efficacy of game playing, much of which has been conducted using Tetris (e.g., Underwood, 2007).

The research evidence shows that gaming is a powerful tool that supports understanding and learning but that the nature of that learning can be constrained and is not always guaranteed. Griffith, Voloschin, et al. (1983) found that video-game users had better eye–hand coordination as measured by a pursuit rotor task. Drew and Waters (1986) also showed a relationship between increased video-game playing and improvements of eye–hand coordination, as well as manual dexterity and reaction time. As Southwell and Doyle (2004) point out, however, these studies have not identified a causal link and we are debating whether playing such games leads to skills development or whether players with the requisite skills are drawn to games.

Is Gaming a Panacea for Educational Ills?

The use of Tetris, and other video games, to explore problem-solving is a response to arguments about the artificiality of many earlier laboratory studies of learning, which it is argued fail to capture the superior performance of experts because such fixed tasks constrain the expert performer. On the other hand, sitting in front of a computer screen is the natural environment for the video-game player and so studying game playing not only provides a window on the expertise in context but also provides a learning environment in which engagement by the learner is generally ensured.

The recognition that games can engage the learner as well as having the potential to provide concrete learning experiences has resulted in both trials of commercial games in the classroom as well as the development and use of specially designed educational games (Sandford & Williamson, 2006). Studies, such as that by Annetta, Minogue, et al. (2009), show that games can increase student engagement during instruction, academic achievement in different domains, and skills, knowledge and attitudes, especially in the right environment and context. For example, Shaffer (2006) has shown that role-playing educational games using concrete examples of abstract mathematical concepts can be effective learning tools. So should we capture all that motivation, engagement and challenge inherent in games and make education fun and solve the learning crisis in our schools through the use of video games? If only it was so easy! Despite such innovations and potential educational benefits, the emphasis on using games to support learning within the classroom still remains highly contested.

So we ask why does this focused attention not lead to effective learning? This is the wrong question because it is based on a false premise. Game players, if they engage, will learn but not necessarily the knowledge and skills valued by educators. For example, Age of Empires is a series of games that focus on historical events from the Stone Age to the Classical Period. Each game has a historically relevant setting and the task is to manage resources and beat the opponent. However, gaining resources to win becomes the prime goal not running a successful culture. In Squires’ (2003, 2005) studies of Civilization those pupils that became immersed in the game did develop a deep conceptual understanding of a culture but they were a minority. Three decades ago we investigated the use of word processors as a tool to promote Lunzer and Gardner’s (1979) active reading approach to literacy acquisition (see Underwood & Underwood, 1990). This was a simple exercise in rejoining the first half of a sentence (top) with its tail (second half), and then ordering the reconstructed sentences to make a sensible historical statement. The learners, in this case children in years 7 and 8 (ages 12 to 13) in a UK school, were very adept at using the pick and put functions of the word processor to complete the task; however, a number were less adept at producing the coherent paragraph and when questioned were surprised that this was the objective of the exercise. They saw the technology skills as the goal not the reconstruction of the history. This focus on the technology or the game is seen elsewhere. Math Blaster, a game to teach algebra, involves shooting down asteroids, the consequence of which is the release of algebraic questions, which have to be answered. While the skills of algebra are practised, it has been argued that swiftness and shooting skills take up much space and sometimes work against really thinking about the algebra (see Koirala & Goodwin, 2000). On this basis, perhaps many teachers and educationalists are right to raise concerns over the pedagogic value of games for education.

A number of commercial off-the-shelf games have been applied in educational settings. For example Squire (2003, 2005) reported experiences where Civilization III was used to promote the historical understanding of 17 and 18 year olds. This trial was not an unmitigated success and is a clear example of horses for courses. Less-motivated or less-able students found the time required to get into the game very off-putting and elected to go to reading classes instead of game playing. There are, therefore, individual differences in how learners engage with different types of games, so ‘one size’ does not fit all.

More recent examples of games for educational learning include the use of games like the Sims 2: Open for Business (Panoutsopoulos & Sampson, 2012), Delta Force adapted for military training (Fong, 2006) or multiplayer role games as World of Warcraft (Dickey, 2005). It is no easy matter to link game objectives and content with those presented in the curriculum not least because it is difficult to identify the learning outcomes in commercial video games (McFarlane, Sparrowhawk & Heald, 2002). As a consequence, the skills and knowledge acquired by students may differ from educators’ planned learning outcomes and goals (Sandford & Williamson, 2006). However, Panoutsopoulos and Sampson’s (2012) study of the development of mathematical skills using Sims 2: Open for Business, for example, found no benefit of game-supported over non-computer-supported problem-based curricula as far as improving attitudes to mathematics or mathematical performance. However, students involved in the game-supported activities were more effective in meeting general educational objectives, such as formulating and testing their own hypotheses, observing the outcomes of their actions, comparing and contrasting data available from the game, and justifying and evaluating outcomes of performed actions.

However, whether a game will be successful in promoting desired attitudes and behaviours depends on the degree to which the game is tailored, not just to pedagogy and the learning outcome, but also to the individual learner. Orji, Mandryk, et al. (2013) have raised doubts about the effectiveness of such games, arguing that many are based on intuition rather than on a theoretically sound model of what is known to motivate change to more healthy behaviours, and also contend that many programmes have a one-size-fits-all approach. Using the gamer typology identified by BrainHex, which specifies seven gamer types (achiever, conqueror, daredevil, mastermind, seeker, socializer and survivor), they show the difference in their response to determining factors of healthy behaviours as defined under the Health Belief Model, that is, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefit, perceived barrier, cue to action and self-efficacy (Rosenstock, 1974). While perceived susceptibility, that is risk of any behaviour, has long been assumed to be central to behavioural change, Orji, Mandryk, et al. showed that only achievers, daredevils and socializers were influenced by this factor and that it had no effect on conquerors and masterminds. More surprising therefore was a negative effect on seekers and survivors that prevented these two groups from exhibiting the promoted healthy behaviour. While programmes which promote self-efficacy have been found to have a positive effect on achievers, masterminds, seekers and socializers, it had a neutral effect on other gamer types. So the integration of games for educational purposes needs to address not just potential learning outcomes, but also to cater for different groups of learners with various attitudes and perceptions towards gaming.

This need to match the game to the individual and not simply to the subject at hand requires a deeper understanding of a game than is held by many teachers. Many teachers show a reluctance in the use of games for educational learning and this, in part, may stem from their lack of engagement with games in general. If we consider the generational divide, teachers and parents often have negative opinions about video games. But successful integration into educational curricula requires teacher involvement. Changes to curriculum design require teachers not only to know what subjects and skills can benefit from a games-based approach, but when to use and how to manage such an approach, for the benefit of the disparate learners within the classroom. So teachers need to know the game well, propose specific learning paths, verify their effectiveness and most importantly set the gaming experience in a sound educational framework, which can be achieved via debriefing activities (de Freitas & Oliver, 2006).

Evidence of the discontinuity between the world of games and those within the teaching profession is presented in a FutureLab survey, which found a significant majority of teachers (72%) do not play games for leisure (Sandford, Uiksak, et al., 2006). The digital divide between teacher and student appears to be more a lifestyle choice than a generational gap, that is, many teachers choose not to play games, while peers in other occupations do. Both Sandford’s teachers and students agreed that games were motivating, resulting in increased student engagement; however, motivation was higher when playing leisure rather than educational games and when the students had a degree of autonomy in playing the game. In this study neither students nor teachers saw an educational benefit to gaming, which raises very real questions about whether gaming can contribute to formal learning.

Here we can pose one additional question. What happens when gaming takes place in a non-game situation? This problem is exemplified by a system that has proved to be an effective way of improving reading comprehension (Meyer, et al., 2010; Meyer, Wijekumar, & Lin, 2011; Wijekumar, Meyer, & Lei, 2013). While the reading comprehension programme delivers a set of learning objectives, some students treat the system as a game rather than as a tool to develop their reading. Such behaviour can be detrimental as key concepts or skills are not learned (Muldner, Burleson, et al., 2010). This has been called ‘gaming the system’ and has been shown to result in lower scores on learning measures than for students who do not game the system (Baker, Corbett, et al., 2004).

The Future of Games for Learning

Learning through game playing, either through serious games developed with educational intent or video games designed for leisure, may hold the key to a more effective educational system. Prensky (2006) argues that the move to student-driven learning will generate a demand for educational games, as they are natural environments for the digital natives now in our schools. Rather than being part of the problem, he argues that games are a powerful tool in any school’s armoury when dealing with adolescents who necessarily pass through a state of personal identity exploration when wandering attention comes to the fore. By providing problem-focused learning, games not only motivate but also provide the increasing complexity sought by such learners to develop psychologically.

There is considerable evidence that games promote thinking and learning. But why should game playing be an effective mode of learning? It is argued that games may promote skills-based learning including technical and motor skills, cognitive outcomes including declarative, procedural and strategic knowledge, or change players’ attitudes, beliefs or emotions. Through the process of trial-and-error, it promotes effective learning, problem-solving and processes of acquiring knowledge and new skills. However, the relevance of games for education and learning are less clear-cut and many teachers and parents fail to see how games can promote educational skills within the classroom.

So if there is to be an effective use of digital games for educational purposes then we cannot simply rely on the enticing power of gaming, and the thrill and excitement that this may offer. There must be alignment between the game features and the intended learning outcomes: selecting an appropriate pedagogical approach for framing game activities is highly important. There also needs to be a greater awareness by teachers regarding the perceived pedagogic value of games and their potential value in promoting educational skills and learning. As discussed within this chapter, while there are quite clearly potential benefits of integrating games into the context of learning, with notable benefits in the refinement of cognitive, linguistic, affective and social skills, the affordances are not recognized within educational settings. The way in which games can be effectively implemented into the school curriculum is an issue for more detailed consideration.

There is, however, a counterargument that says that the alignment between the game and the intended learning outcomes is not what we are about. Shute and Ventura (2013) make the case that an alignment with perceived current educational needs might actually be a false trail as it does not fit the needs of a generation growing up and working in the twenty-first century. As others before them, they point out that the developed world, our world, now relies on individuals who are able:

to deal with an array of complex problems, many with global ramifications (e.g., climate change or renewable energy sources). When confronted by such problems, tomorrow’s workers need to be able to think systemically, creatively, and critically.

(Shute and Ventura, 2013, p.13)

You might ask why we raise this issue here. It is because Shute and Ventura (2013) argue that well-designed games have the added potential of being an effective vehicle to assess learning. They argue that games can provide dynamic and ongoing measures of learning and offer students opportunities to apply complex competencies such as creativity, problem-solving, persistence and collaboration while at the same time helping to combat students’ growing disengagement with school. Shute and Ventura argue that current assessments are unable to capture deep learning or the acquisition of complex competencies or individual disposition that lead to effective learning, such as conscientiousness or related persistence (Underwood, et al., 2010). Embedding assessment in games allows multiple behaviours to become measurable. Exemplar measures would be how long a person spends on a difficult problem (where length of time is seen as a measure of persistence), the number of failures and retries before success, and returning to a hard problem after skipping it. All of these measures can be captured. So embedding assessments within games provides a way to monitor players’ progress toward targeted competencies and to use that information to support learning.

Risks, Skills and Opportunities

Games are an increasingly important part of our culture and afford many opportunities for the gamer, whether simply as an escape from everyday tensions or the immersion into alternative worlds. Despite strong evidence in support of the intrinsic motivation of games, and an engagement with multimodal learning (Gee, 2003), there are risks associated with game playing that need to be acknowledged (see Guan & Subrahmanyam, 2009) including not only aggression and violence but a feeling that computer games are responsible for eroding young people’s social lives. However, by contrast, it could be argued that games provide a safe environment for learners to take risks and to release tensions and arousal in a socially acceptable way. Opportunities for the use of games can be found: a game might be used in a motivational capacity as a reward for good behaviour or excellent performance. On another level, games can help disenfranchised individuals back into education through recognition of their role as expert gamers (Sandford & Williamson, 2006). Games can also provide learners with real-world, authentic contexts in which to learn; they can be challenging and adaptable while at the same time absorbing and highly immersive. However, learning in school is quite different from learning in less formal contexts, and the constraints imposed by the institution often make introducing games as potential learning tools much more challenging than is commonly assumed.

Conclusions

Despite the negative connotations and media hype concerning Internet addictions and gaming addictions, engaging with games can provide a wealth of positive experiences for the learner (Johnson, Jones, & Burns, 2013). These often include positive psychological (flow-like phenomena) and social (collaboration and social interaction) experiences and a general uplift in psychological mood associated with gaming achievements. Gaming is thought to provide the necessary skills required for the twentieth-century individual and games impact on the many essential processes that underpin learning, which include, among others: finely-attuned attentional skills, increased problem-solving and sophisticated reasoning skills (Shin, Sutherland, et al., 2012). Studies indicate that playing video games gives learners a ‘mental workout’, and the structure of activities embedded in such games develops a number of highly attuned cognitive skills (Johnson, 2007). However, despite these affordances, focused attention and game playing may not necessarily lead to overall effective learning. There is a need for educators to focus not just on the potential learning outcomes, but also on how video games can help to cater for different groups of learners. It is likely that video games can become a valued addition to classroom practice and, if we can develop games that are pedagogically driven, this may have unprecedented effects on the cognitive, behavioural and effective outcomes for the learner.