Foundation for
problem-based gaming
Presenter: Hsiao-lan Lee
Professor: Ming-Puu Chen
Date: 01 / 19 / 2009
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394-404.
Introduction (1/3)
Higher education often has not managed to develop students’
abilities to apply their knowledge in complex, ill-defined practical
situations.
– difficulties in applying theoretical subject knowledge in solving illdefined problems
– the lack of contextualising or anchoring the content being learned
Properly designed games can be used to answer these needs.
– focus on the game design issues separated from learning
– not utilize the powerfulness of games as an interactive context-free
media
The field of educational technology lacks research on how to
design game environments.
– foster knowledge construction
– deepen understanding and problem solving
2
Introduction (2/3)
Kiili (2005) developed the experiential gaming model：
– founded on the principles of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) and
constructivism (Phillips, 1995)
– not provide a clear account for reflective thinking that can be
considered as the key factor in problem-based learning
The most important contribution of the experiential gaming
model to the educational game design is the design principles
of engagement (Kiili & Lainema, 2006).
The aim of this research is to develop an empirically allocated
model about problem-based gaming.
– provide means to design pedagogically meaningful games
– evaluate the proposed model
3
Introduction (3/3)
Problem-based gaming model
– PBG = PBL + Game + Experiential Learning + Constructivism
• base on learner’s prior experiences
• form an appropriate playing strategy
1
• govern variables
in order to
generate better
playing strategies
and solutions to
problems
• test the strategy and possible hypotheses
• observe the consequences of the learner’s
actions
2
• base on only one
particular strategy
3
• recapture the experience,
• think about it,
• mull it over and evaluate it
• strengthens only
those schemata
that are related to
this strategy
• provide the feedback from a learner’s actions
• support reflective thinking and knowledge
construction by focusing a player’s attention to
relevant information
Figure1: Problem-based gaming model describes the learning process with games
4
Method
Participants:
– 12 students of Turku School of Economics
– age between 20-30
– All had some experiences about other business games before.
Materials:
– Realgame business
simulation game (Lainema, 2004)
– give learners a realistic view
of business processes
through case-based learning
– reflect realistic time-dependent
decision making
Measures:
– semi-structured interviews
– two themes: games in education and problem-based gaming
5
Results and discussion (1/4)
About educational games:
1. Educational games aroused interest among players.
• All players liked the playing experience of Realgame.
2. The role of the games was seen more like applying previously
learned knowledge than studying totally new issues.
3. Games seem to support the perception of things as a whole.
6
Results and discussion (2/4)
About the main principles of the PBG approach:
1. Learners saw that authenticity is a very important element in
educational games.
• Some simplifications needed to be made in simulation games,
but did not disturb their playing experiences.
• Gaming strategy is based on trial and error.  aware about
their incomplete strategy and realize that they could have utilized
a more strategic approach
2. All learners felt that it was fruitful to play the game in teams.
• Knowledge sharing during gaming facilitated learning.
3. Learners felt that games are effective because they involve
learning by doing.
• involve with the experience
• not absorb knowledge by rote learning
7
Results and discussion (3/4)
About the structure of the PBG model:
1. The results clearly supported the structure of the PBG model.
• actively form playing strategies and hypotheses and test them
2. Some learners were more sensitive for double-loop learning and
were willing to even take risks to discover more optimal strategies.
3. One thing that may lead to single-loop learning is the lack of
challenge.
• virtual players that are challenging to beat in to the game
• motivate the leading human team to perform better
8
Results and discussion (4/4)
About reflection in PBG:
1. It is important to consider the game elements that triggered
reflection.
• The demand of products was experienced as a basic trigger of
reflection.
2. The most powerful thing that pushed learners to consider their
performance was the conflicts that they faced.
• The conflicts in the game should be designed properly.
3. Factor disturbing reflection:
• game design: Too fast playing tempo does not provide a
possibility for learners to reflect on the consequences of their
actions appropriately.
• the complexity of the game:
cognitive  include new concepts and many changing variables
overload  The user interface requires much cognitive processing.
9
Conclusions
PBG model can help to address the gap between pedagogy and
game design.
Reflection that arouses double-loop learning enhances learning
because learners tend to aspire to a better understanding of the
problem domain by actively testing different strategies.
Conflicts and the performance were found to be the most
important triggers of reflection.
Too fast a game tempo and cognitive overload can disturb
reflection process.
Collaboration and learning by doing were found to be most
important characteristics of effective educational games.
Games were seen as good tools to understand cause and
consequence chains.
10