Production 3: DGBL and Serious Play
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, and existing in a space that is enjoyable are important to the experience of game-playing. Yet, the concept of play 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 the hack-a-game exercise fosters "affinity spaces" and "communities of practice" for players, leading to more meaningful learning.
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 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 because it allowed for "critical play": it was effective 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 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 had to 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, one needed to identify its core mechanics and rules, and then modify them in whatever way one liked. These two factors, I posit, created the parameters for an affinity space within play. I felt engaged in the exercise because its creative aspect allowed for personal engagement, while its "critical play" side, of thinking about game rules and systems, demonstrated to me how changing the rules of a game drastically changes its effect. In other words, learning became "meaningful", active, and constructive, to use Nolan and McBride's terms, because an affinity space of creative possibilities and engagement formed around it.
Moreover, the hack-a-game became an important social space: Nolan and McBride assert that play spaces ought to be flexible and informal, a "community of practice" where "traditional structures of authority" are de-stabilized and teacher-student roles emerge naturally. In my group's play-space, this is exactly what happened. One of us came up with game rules, another tested if said rules worked, and another kept track of these changes in writing. The hack-a-game encouraged a kind of "in-room" space that Nolan and McBride describe, where participants took up roles spontaneously and naturally. Thus, hack-a-game play led to an affinity space, and, by extension, meaningful learning, not just because of its critical and creative parameters, but because it created a collaborative community of practice.
In all, then, the hack-a-game class was a rewarding, "making-through-learning" experience. Rather than positioning making, "as a vehicle to engage students and to teach programming and computational literacies," it fostered an affinity space where players could interact with making using their own use values and interests, and encourages them to, as Jenson et. al explain, "invite learners to analyze game models...and explore how game mechanics and procedural systems work."
