Motivation, Engagement and Learning through Digital Games

Digital games can be powerful learning environments because they encourage active learning and participation within “affinity groups” (Gee, 2004). However, the use of games in formal educational environments is not always successful (O’Neil et al., 2005). There is a need to update existing theories of motivation and engagement in order to take recent game-related developments into account. Understanding the links between why people play games, what keeps them engaged in this process, and what they learn as a result could have a significant impact on how people value and use games for learning. This paper examines key research that relates to motivation, engagement, and informal learning through digital games, in order to highlight the need for empirical studies which examine the activities that occur in and around everyday gaming practice. DOI: 10.4018/jvple.2011040101 2 International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(2), 1-16, April-June 2011 Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. on to look at traditional conceptualisations of motivation and engagement in the research literature, in the light of new kinds of games, interfaces, online interactions and new audiences of players. It is suggested that work by Calleja (2007a, 2007b) on involvement offers the potential for a fuller account of how contextual aspects relate to the gaming experience. Consideration is also given to the suggestion of Boyle and Connolly (2008) that reversal theory can be helpful in understanding certain emotional flips that people can experience whilst playing games. A number of methodological challenges are raised, and it is suggested that a multi-method case study research approach—including interviews, surveys, game-play recordings and physiological measures—could help address some methodological limitations of previous research. The paper concludes with an illustration of the kind of research that could be useful. gAmes: FormAl And InFormAl leArnIng Academic interest in gaming and learning seems to stem from the fact that digital games are considered to be effective motivational tools and learning environments (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004; Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004; de Freitas, 2006). Games can promote “active” and “critical learning” both within the game and the “affinity groups” of players that surround specific titles and genres (Gee, 2004). However, the literature often fails to explore the potential links between what motivates players to play a game (motivation), what keeps them engaged in the game (engagement) and the learning that occurs as a result of game-play and participation in gaming practices (informal learning). This is important because when games are used within formal educational environments, the links can break down. For instance, de Castell and Jenson (2003) argue that educational games have “not been hugely successful at taking up and exploiting the resources digital technologies make available for learning” (p. 656) since there is often only a tenuous connection between the game-play and the learning tasks within the game. Furthermore, learners do not all agree that they find games intrinsically motivating within an educational context (Whitton, 2007) and it has also been found that when commercial games are used to support learning in educational environments, the games used do not always appeal to all students (Squire, 2005). In the area of games and learning, a distinction is often made between formal and informal learning. This distinction usually refers to the context in which the learning takes place, as opposed to whether the game in question has been explicitly designed for educational purposes. There are several different ways to classify informal learning but Vavoula (2005) presents a typology which focuses on defining formal and informal learning in terms of control over the processes and goals of learning, and also with respect to the intentionality of the learner. For instance, when using a commercial game in the classroom, the teacher would have explicitly prescribed both the process and goals, while the student is there for the purpose of learning; so this can be seen as an example of intentional, formal learning. However, when the focus of research is on the learning that occurs whilst someone plays a game in their spare time at home during game-play—usually a voluntary, leisure time activity—this could be classified as focusing on unintentional, informal learning. In relation to the use of games for formal learning purposes, O’Neil et al. (2005) reviewed the literature and found a total of 19 studies that met their criteria for review. The studies included had to be peer-reviewed published journal articles which used adult participants and also contained some quantitative or qualitative information about the effectiveness of the games used. O’Neil and colleagues concluded that “the evidence of potential is striking, but the empirical evidence for effectiveness of games as learning environments is scant” (O’Neil et al., 2005, p. 468). However, the authors note that learning outcomes seem to depend on how instructional strategies around the game are International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(2), 1-16, April-June 2011 3 Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. employed. Similarly, Pivec (2009) in a report commissioned by BECTA, agrees that the evidence for the effectiveness of game-based learning is mixed, suggesting that it is not just the game but how it is used within a specific environment (what he terms the “meta-game”) which helps lead to effective learning. It seems likely, then, that at least some of the issues that affect formal game-based learning are due to the context in which the game-play occurs. Further, it is also possible the lack of empirical support in the area “may indicate that learning through immersive worlds involves a more complex understanding of learning, one that is not so easy to tie to specified learning outcomes” (de Frietas, 2006, p. 18). This suggests that there is a need to further our understanding of what occurs during everyday game-play practices in order to examine how and what players learn when playing games during leisure time. By taking the context and socio-cultural factors around the game into account, as researchers such as de Castell and Jenson (2003), Squire (2005), Pelletier and Oliver (2006) suggest, we can identify how successful commercial games support learning within and around game-play and start to think more about how to support learning in more formal contexts. An account of informal learning that attempts to consider the context around gameplay in more depth is provided by Gee (2004) in his book ‘What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.’ Gee (2004) describes how people learn to play games from their individual efforts to master the progressive challenges provided by the game to their participation in “semiotic domains” and “affinity groups.” This could be described as an account of how people learn informally, through games, since Gee (2004) is discussing game-play in terms of people playing commercial games outside of educational environments. EgenfeldtNielsen, Smith, and Tosca (2008) describe Gee’s (2004) approach to the analysis of game-play activity as socio-cultural since digital games are viewed as “tools for constructing viable learning experiences” that “mediate discussion, reflection and analysis” (p. 216). Gee (2004) argues that “critical learning” occurs when people learn to play new video games as they are actually learning a new literacy. This literacy includes multi-modal texts and graphical representations. Through gaming, players learn to participate in “semiotic domains” made up of words, pictures, and/or anything that is used to communicate different types of meaning. These domains are associated with specific “affinity groups” of players whose knowledge, skills, tools and resources contribute to form complex systems of distributed parts. These essentially make up a community of practice (Lave & Wegner, 1991; Wegner, 1998) where players can gain resources from fellow members to help them to solve problems within, and sometimes outside of, the specific domain. Gee (2004) sees this as evidence of “critical learning” which occurs when a player thinks about “the domain at a meta-level as a complex system of interrelated parts” (p. 23). Further, Gee (2004) points out that his ideas fit in well with the view that “learning is a change not just in practice, but in identity” (p. 190), as researchers such as Lave and Wegner (1991) suggest. With respect to games, Gee (2004) talks about learning that occurs from the adoption of and experimentation with different identities, as well as being able to reflect upon the relationship between old and new identities. While Gee (2004) argues that all deep learning is tied in with the notion of identity, “critical learning” will only occur when the player is willing to see him or herself as someone who can learn, use and value the new semiotic domain. This can only happen in the space where the learner can “transcend the limitations both of the virtual identity and the learner’s own real world identity” (p. 66) resulting in a more powerful learning experience. However, Gee’s (2004) writing is based mostly on his own experiences and observations, so there is a need for further empirical research to substantiate his account. It is not clear whether everyone who plays games engages with them in the same sort of way and whether they would all get the same benefits from doing so. It can be argued that further studies are 4 International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(2), 1-16, April-June 2011 Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. needed to examine the different ways in which games are played in practice. In addition to finding out more about why players choose to play different games and what happens when they do, it would also be useful to explore what motivates players to put more effort into their game-playing experiences. gaming capital and Paratexts In understanding the socio-cultural aspects associated with games, the concept of “gaming capital” may be a useful one, not just in relation to game-play but also in relation to the activities that occur around it. Consalvo (2007) developed this concept from Bourdieu’s (1984) notion of “cultural capital” in order to: capture how being a member of game culture is about more than playing games or even playing them well. It’s being knowledgeable about game releases and secrets, and passing that information on to others. It’s having opinions about which game magazines are better and the best sites for walkthroughs on the Internet. (Consalvo, 2007, p. 18) Consalvo (2007) discusses how “paratexts” can help players to acquire gaming capital. Paratexts are external resources that can “surround, shape, support, and provide context for texts” (p. 182). With respect to gaming, games themselves can be considered to be the primary texts, whereas some examples of paratexts include walkthroughs, previews, YouTube videos, blogs, reviews, magazines etc that relate to games. Players can thus increase their knowledge about games and game-play practices by using different forms of paratext. Some of this knowledge may also translate to greater competence within specific games. Both the concept of gaming capital and the idea of paratexts could be helpful for considering motivation and informal learning in relation to community membership. They could also be useful for discussing game-related activities that occur outside the experience of play e.g., consulting a game guide. motIvAtIon And engAgement It has been suggested above that there is a need for empirical examination of the context and socio-cultural factors around everyday gamesplaying, in order to provide further insight into the effectiveness of games used for learning e.g., Squire (2005). It can also be argued that socio-cultural factors are important in relation to research into aspects of motivation and engagement associated with games. In terms of theories about what makes games motivating, the most influential work comes from Malone and Lepper (1987) Malone proposed a theory of intrinsic motivation in games, based on experimental manipulations of different games, which suggested that games are rewarding due to a combination of challenge, fantasy, and curiosity (Malone, 1981). “Fantasy” refers to the way players can imagine themselves in contexts using vivid realistic images provided by the game. A distinction is made between extrinsic or exogenous fantasy (where the fantasy depends on the skill) and intrinsic or endogenous fantasy (where the skill and fantasy depend on each other). “Challenge” depends on the degree of difficulty and level of uncertainty to drive players. The four attributes of challenge are goals, uncertain outcome, selfesteem and toys vs. tools (where toys are used for their own sake with no external goal and tools are used to achieve an external goal). In order for the challenge to be an effective motivator, a balance must be struck with the game being neither too difficult nor too hard. Finally, “curiosity” refers to the way players continue to play a game in order to find out what will occur after certain actions are taken. A further distinction is made between sensory curiosity (attention-attracting changes that involve our senses) and cognitive curiosity (driven by a desire to bring coherence to our knowledge structures). In order to take into account the impact that social factors have on motivation, later work added the element of control, and three International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(2), 1-16, April-June 2011 5 Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. interpersonal motivators; recognition, competition and cooperation (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Games can give players a powerful sense of control though it is worth noting that it is the player’s perceived control that can increase motivation, as opposed to the level of control they actually have. To increase a sense of control the game needs to be contingent on the player’s responses, provide the player with a number of choices, and enable the player’s actions to have “powerful effects,” where the difference in outcomes between choices is obvious. The three interpersonal motivations (cooperation, competition and recognition of our efforts by others) help motivate players by increasing their sense of satisfaction through helping others, comparing themselves favourably to others, and/or having their efforts recognised by others. Malone and Lepper (1987) do note that these can be decomposed into individual motivations (e.g., competition can be used to increase a sense of challenge) and that they can sometimes be considered extrinsic (e.g., recognition). However, they also point out “these interpersonal factors do provide intrinsic motivations that would not be present in the absence of other people” (p. 242). Empirical research carried out by Malone and Lepper (1987) provided support for this theory of intrinsic motivation in games (Malone & Lepper, 1987; Cordova & Lepper, 1996). However, Habgood, Ainsworth, and Benford (2005) question the claim that intrinsic fantasies are “more instructional than extrinsic fantasies” (Malone, 1981, p. 361), regarding this as an untested hypothesis, noting Malone (1981) did not measure any learning outcomes in his original study. Moreover, Habgood et al. (2005), question the usefulness of the concept of endogenous fantasy for understanding the differences between games in relation to learning. As an alternative to intrinsic fantasy, Habgood et al., suggest that the experience of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988), how the information is represented and how players make meaningful decisions within the game, are factors more likely influence the integration of motivating factors and learning content within