Production 3: DGBL and Serious Play
Tactile space, that is, the environments in which people situate themselves, is an important aspect of play, especially concerning video games. One's positioning, relation to others, sights, smells and sensations all contribute to the experience of game-playing. Yet, the concept of physical spaces remains an underexplored topic in game studies. Reviewing Jaakko Stenros' meta-analysis of "game" definitions, one finds that discussions of game spaces are sparse: the only theorist to mention space is Caillois, who defined a "game" as being, "in limit of not only space but also time." As Nolan and McBride note in their critique of game-based learning, however, thinking about actual spaces, social situations and communities is a way to realize a more meaningful "vision" of play. They write, "in order to support ‘freedom’ to play or learn in an open-ended manner, we must first be able to recognize what it looks and feels like." In this mini-essay, I will consider how space contributes positively to play in relation to learning-through-games, using the hack-a-game exercise as a case study.
In their analysis of games in classrooms, Jenson, Thumlert, and de Castell submit that constructionist theories of game-based learning, especially those targeted towards teaching technical skills, "tend to focus less on dynamic, socially-situated dimensions of making and sharing games, emphasizing instead technical skills development." This fault, of ignoring the "situated" dimensions of games, the authors believe, disconnect students and game players from, "the purposes of learners and makers themselves," or the ability to produce purposeful play. Nolan and McBride propound a similar theory. They assert that play comes with its own culture, attitudes, and, above all spaces, what Gee and Kafai call "affinity spaces", "where players locate their interests in a personally meaningful and intrinsic "semiotic domain"." Per Nolan and McBride, effective play is reliant on creating physical and digital spaces of "informal learning", where people maintain a sense of familiarity, flexibility, and, above all, privacy. "If we are to introduce a meaningful and inclusive curricula of [games-based play and learning]," Nolan and McBride propound, "environmental considerations such as privacy cannot be overlooked." In sum, then, play becomes more meaningful when participants are able to create their own social "affinity spaces", free of authoritative boundaries, limits, or roles, and where participants become personally interested in the material they are either creating or engaging with. The hack-a-game exercise that the class experimented with, I argue, was capable of creating an affinity space while also teaching "serious play": it was effective, both socially and intellectually, because its participants were able to define their own interests and parameters, in other words, their own cultures, within its spaces of play.
Jenson et. al, like Nolan and McBride, believe that learning through play is best enacted, "in relation to use value and...learner designs," where students consider the "critical" elements of games, including procedural logic, mechanics, economies of values, and game systems. This is precisely what the hack-a-game exercise does. Instead of teaching players "skills", players instead engage critically with the rules of the game, in this case of our class, the rules of the Space Race board game. In order to hack the game
[Notes to self:
I. Social space = social learning II. Role-creation III. Personal engagement and creativity instead of fixed learning goals IV. Lack of surveillance in space allowed for engagement ("children will do rote tasks if they are not TOLD to do so)]
