1.
WHAT'S YOUR GAME-PLAN? MEET YOUR STUDENTS IN THE
GAME WORLD WITH LUDIC LEARNING
Janey Oliphint Flanagan
City University of New York, Borough of Manhattan Community College (UNITED STATES)
jflanagan@bmcc.cuny.edu
Abstract
How can educators incorporate learning through play into teaching pedagogy? Before a child enters
formal schooling, ludic learning occurs naturally and is responsible for much of the basic learning he or
she acquires at an early age. Inquiry, exploration, and play, such as playing in the sandbox, help
children learn cognitive concepts, as well as social and language skills. As children mature into adults,
educators should mirror the concepts of ludic learning to take advantage of human aptitude to learn
through play and experience. Instructional design for adults can be transformed through the use of
these same ludic or game-based learning strategies. Experiences during play have the potential to
enlighten our students and build intrinsic motivation, while developing self-confidence—all acquired by
progressing through hard, but engaging problem solving.
Public schools and universities must embrace new teaching methodologies and immerse students in
experiential learning focused on critical thinking and decision-making. The surplus of information made
so readily available by new technologies, make it critically important for today’s student to possess
skills in evaluating, synthesizing and constructing new information. Using games to help students
“level-up”—the actual movement through activity-based progressions—is taking an education problem
historically approached in a linear fashion and changing it to a nonlinear pattern of learning. Research
indicates that when students have the opportunity to make choices about what they learn in a natural,
non-linear pattern, the result is better understanding and retention of information.
Participants in this breakout session will explore and discuss important aspects of ludic learning such
as peer collaboration, failing forward, and authentic assessment and feedback loops.
Keywords: Instructional design, ludic learning, games-based pedagogy, learning through collaboration,
failing forward, assessment and feedback loops, examples of good pedagogy.
1 INTRODUCTION
Many educators around the world have argued successfully that in order to engage students, we
ought to meet our students where they are. While ludic or games-based learning (GBL) continues to
attract innovative faculty at many educational institutions each year, this teaching and learning
strategy is still an outlier in so far as being a recognized part of the curriculum and one that receives
consistent institutional support. In my research and through my experience teaching and directing
educational technology programs, it has become clear that in GBL we have a true opportunity to meet
our students where they are and where there interests lie, thereby helping them reach their academic
goals. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the effectiveness of GBL as pedagogy and to provide
strategies and examples of implementation at several colleges and universities.
The term “edutainment,” used to describe GBL, was coined when instruction was primarily teacher-
centered and focused on memorization of content, drilling, and assessment. In many parts of the world
where Internet access is available, knowledge building is no longer challenged by the issue of access
to information and by the necessity of memorizing information for recall. There is a surplus of
information readily available for consumption through credible Internet resources. That fact makes it
much more important for students in the 21
st
century to possess skills in evaluating, synthesizing and
constructing new information (Laufenberg, 2010).
Edutainment in the form of educational gaming in its early stages resembled passive consumption of
information delivered by an instructor. What was once another form of “skill-and-drill” has morphed
into immersive GBL experiences. In fact, good learning games are quite different from other forms of
edutainment such as YouTube videos. In learning games, the responsibility for game activity and
advancement (or “leveling up”) lies with the player’s ability to learn, develop strategies, and make
decisions, rather than passively listening or watching. Inquiring, playing, creating, and visiting virtual
spaces are activities at the heart of game-based experiential learning.
Proceedings of EDULEARN12 Conference.
2nd-4th July 2012, Barcelona, Spain.
ISBN: 978-84-695-3491-5
3433

2.
The term edutainment conveys a negative association of educational gaming with the entertainment
industry, likening the use of this innovative educational strategy to wasting time (Gee, 2007) or to
superficial schemes that engage students, but add little value to their actual learning. If educators
hope to correct these conclusions and create more authentic GBL initiatives, a major cultural
transformation will need to occur at educational institutions and in the popular culture. That
transformation must begin with a new term for edutainment, more appropriately applied to its
experiential learning qualities.
This paper will demonstrate how developing an authentic GBL experience can help students level-up,
or advance through required coursework. It will describe how GBL is currently being used and will
explore several successful models. Further, this paper will show how progressive community college
faculty can be successful both in improving student successes and challenging the existing culture of
learning that is deeply engrained in the bureaucratically institutionalized mindset of public higher
education.
2 CHANGING THE CULTURE OF LEARNING
Implementing a radical change in the delivery of college courses will first require a change in culture.
This change can be achieved through obtaining buy-in from several distinct stakeholder groups
including faculty, administrators, and students.
First, faculty will need to be the primary advocates for the pedagogical theories behind educational
gaming. They will need to embrace these methodologies as effective in curriculum design. Educational
gaming must grow out of faculty initiatives, where faculty drive both pedagogical design and actual
teaching. GBL initiatives must be vetted through faculty research to determine if they improve learning
outcomes and student preparedness, given that traditional teaching methods are not leading to
desired results.
Educators should challenge the mindset of college faculty who are focused on “pouring in” knowledge,
rather than cultivating it (Freire, p. 17, 1970). Memorization doesn’t provide critical thought within the
context of reality. Alone, memorization and drilling will not give the students the ability to transfer
information outside of the original context and apply it to something new. To truly understand what is
learned means that the student can apply and transfer the acquired knowledge to other, unrelated
situations, where similar skills are utilized (Vygotsky, 1978). Opportunities for knowledge transfer are
abundant in well-designed interactive learning games.
Despite convincing evidence, the ACT’s National Curriculum Survey of April 2007 indicates college
teachers found the most important prerequisites for success lay not in higher-order talents such as
critical thinking—which enthusiasts of technology often underscore—but in lower-order thinking skills,
that is, the basic mechanics of spelling, punctuation, and arithmetic (Bauerlein, 2009). Thus,
educational gamers have a significant hurdle in convincing their faculty peers that learning through
ludic pedagogy can be an effective means to improving learning outcomes. Achieving documented
results through data collection and studies with pilot groups will be necessary before faculty will be
ready to transform their teaching with the use of games.
In addition to gaining faculty support, it will be critical to find administrators who champion this
approach. College administrators must provide strong leadership and stress the importance adopting
new forms of instruction guided by learning science, rather than objective testing-based assessment
(Belfield and Crosta, 2012). We should not rely on standardized test scores as a sole measure of
learning outcomes. Experiential game-based learning opportunities with built-in assessment and
feedback loops provide authentic assessment—tasks that demonstrate the application of essential
knowledge and skills.
Finally, the most important stakeholder population is arguably the students. College students must
embrace the product that is built, not only for its educational value, but for its “stickiness,” the aspect of
the game that makes students want to return and play more. When students are engaged in authentic
learning related to a topic of their own interest, their motivation for learning increases, as does their
self-efficacy when they progress to increasingly harder challenges. This concept suggests that a non-
linear approach to learning subject matter may be more appealing and effective than the traditional
linear approach.
3434

3.
2.1 Student Readiness for a Technology-Based Gaming Solution
Surveys of student and faculty use of technology indicate that a wide gap exists between student
technology skills and those of the faculty. Students are using technology in all aspects of their lives,
whether related to education, work, social interests, gaming, and various other purposes. Students
have rich “virtual lives” in addition to other varied and often complex responsibilities. Compared to the
amount of technology used for personal reasons, they are required to use very little advanced
technology in their academic programs.
A recent IRB approved opportunity sampling of 23,500 students at an urban college in New York City,
yielded 818 student responses. The survey was conducted to determine the likelihood of implementing
a successful educational gaming initiative at the college. It indicated that 87.1% of student
respondents play electronic games on a computer, box system, or other technological device. When
asked for major reasons students would participate in games to assist learning, 37.8% said they would
do so to be a part of a social network. In fact, 60.4% of students responded that they visit social
networking sites on a daily basis and only 8.8% said they never visit social networking sites. Most
importantly, the majority of students surveyed own at least one electronic device needed to access
online technology, such as laptops, desktops, e-book readers, iPads, iPhones or comparable Andriod
devices. A conclusion drawn from this survey is that students who responded would be receptive to
the use of online learning games, especially one that incorporates a collaborative social network.
Figure 1 – Ownership of Electronic Devices.
2.2 Games-Based Learning and Pedagogy
How can the larger construct of formal education encompass learning through play? Before a child
enters formal schooling, ludic learning, another term to describe GBL, occurs naturally and is
responsible for much of the basic learning he or she acquires at an early age. Inquiry, exploration, and
play, such as playing in the sandbox, help children learn cognitive concepts as well as social and
language skills. As children mature into adults, educators should mirror the concepts of ludic learning
to take advantage of human aptitude to learn through play and experience.
Instructional design can be transformed through the use of GBL principles to accelerate students
through their academic work. For example, a school district in Chicago has been successful teaching
students mathematical concepts by embedding them into classroom games and activities so students
learn fundamental math skills, reasoning, and logical thinking without realizing that they are doing
math at all (Banchero, 2011). Using games to help students “level-up”—the actual movement through
3435

4.
activity-based progressions—is taking an education problem historically approached in a linear fashion
and changing it to a nonlinear pattern of learning. Denis and Jouvelot (2005, p. 464) argue, “The main
characteristic that differentiates edutainment and video games is interactivity, because, the former
being grounded on didactical and linear progressions, no place is left to wandering and alternatives.”
The current public educational system prescribes a curriculum with built-in judgments based
objectives-based assessment, rather than natural intelligence or critical thinking. Testing doesn’t
adequately account for educational backgrounds, language barriers, and other problems associated
with non-native speakers or students from underprivileged communities. Even if a student possesses
critical thinking skills necessary for workplace success, a standardized test may not adequately
measure these abilities based on a recent study from the Community College Research Center,
Teacher’s College, Columbia (Belfield, Crosta, 2012).
When students are able to make non-linear choices about what they learn and when they learn it, the
result is greater understanding of the content. Learning should be situated in something that is
relevant to the lives of the learners in order to engage them and help them relate (Freire, p. 17, 1970).
If they are not progressing quickly based on their strategy and decisions, learning games may redirect
them on individualized paths to the mandated learning outcomes. Thus, students achieve the desired
learning, albeit arriving at the destination through a customized route appropriate to their existing skills
and knowledge. For some students, arriving at the destination may take longer than others; however,
well-designed games should ensure that as the student levels-up, they overcome challenging
obstacles through a collaborative support structure, and are prepared to move forward tackling
increasingly advanced problems (McGonigal, 2011).
The use of GBL strategies has the potential to enlighten our students and build intrinsic motivation,
while developing self-confidence. Motivation and confidence are acquired by progressing through hard
but engaging work. Public schools and universities must embrace new teaching methodologies and
immerse students in experiential learning focused on problem-solving and critical thinking, rather than
emphasizing test preparation solely for the purpose school accountability and funding. According to
the National Center for Fair and Open Testing (2007), teaching to the test “narrows the curriculum,
forcing teachers and students to concentrate on memorization of isolated facts, instead of developing
fundamental and higher-order abilities.”
2.3 Learning through Collaboration
The use of educational games with embedded social networks or affinity groups has the potential to
assist students in progressing through academic work at a faster pace. Learning occurs faster and is
more readily understood when students help each other master challenges. Students who support and
coach their peers will achieve a new level of mastery from being able to explain a topic or the solution
to a problem verbally or in writing. Anecdotal evidence suggests students with questions are often
more comfortable asking peers in their social network, rather than from their professor either privately
or during class.
Educators must provide students the opportunity to create and co-create new knowledge through
collaboration and a dialogic process with peers and mentors, as well as interaction with those who
have advanced experience in a topic of significance. Lave and Wenger (1991) assert, “movement
through the system with increasing expertise results in a pattern of overlapping expertise, with
knowledge of the entry level tasks most redundantly represented and knowledge of expert level tasks
least redundantly represented (p. 48)." Likewise, learning games should replicate what happens in the
“real world” and students should become “cognitive apprentices” to the experts. A cognitive
apprenticeship follows the conventional method of expert teaching novice, but applies it to the
educational environment (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989). When we learn about math, we learn to
think like mathematicians (Marra, 2011); when we learn about writing, we should learn to think like
writers. GBL immerses students in actual learning experiences that help students to adapt to these
roles.
In a well-designed educational game, students should be incentivized to seek and find other players
above their skill level so they can learn from students who have already developed expertise. This
open culture of learning provides an extra support framework in case questions arise or seemingly
insurmountable challenges are encountered.
3436

5.
2.4 Failing Forward
Teachers/professors must become comfortable with the idea of allowing students to fail as part of the
learning process. Failure is instructional by nature and games help students leverage failure to learn
and progress in their knowledge and skills (Laufenberg, 2010). According to Diana Laufenberg,
American culture is infatuated with the idea of the one right answer that can be bubbled in on a
standardized test. Rather, teachers must encourage students to take risks and learn from their failures
and mistakes instead of focusing on test scores. There is not one right answer. There are many ways
forward.
Good games are built on a constant feedback loop offering a reward system for successes. Indeed,
pedagogical games excel at creating predictive strategies to help students learn and advance. Games
such as Tetris cannot be won; however, players learn by failing forward as they use their losses to
develop different strategies in the next attempt. Students can gain valuable lessons and feedback from
failing in the safe environment of an educational game (McGonigal, 2011). In a game, taking risks and
making mistakes are the norm and are often not seen as a “failure,” but rather an opportunity for
reflection and learning (Gee, 2007).
Failing at a game task does not result in the same loss of self-efficacy as would failing at a high-stakes
exam or even a whole course. In the gaming environment students are not only encouraged, but
incentivized to try again and again, not only by extrinsic game rewards and status, but also by intrinsic
motivation and feelings of accomplishment. Complete failure, such as game death, does not penalize
the student as it would in reality; for example, if a student were held back a grade level or left to linger
in developmental courses. Students can overcome their failure by restarting, which is much easier in
the context of an educational game, than in the real world of high-stakes assessments. Such failures
in our educational system damages student self-esteem. In the game world, once a player
successfully completes enough tasks and missions to build into an “epic win,” their self-efficacy
increases dramatically (McGonigal, 2011). In the context of an educational setting, the new confidence
they earned can help students succeed at the next level of learning.
2.5 Assessment and Feedback
The instructional design approach used in GBL allows students to play on the very edge of their skill
level. A balance between a hard challenge and achievability should engage the player and motivate
them to keep progressing. A good game, according to Reality is Broken author Jane McGonigal
(2011), will be attuned to a student’s performance and will challenge them to play on the edge of their
skill level through a constant loop of success, failure, and feedback. This in turn creates a “state of
flow” in which the gamer senses a heightened feeling of creative accomplishment. “Flow” is the
happiness felt by a player absorbed in satisfying hard work.
Flow can be achieved by starting with a clear goal (to learn a concept) and actionable next steps to
overcome obstacles. Overcoming these obstacles culminates in an epic win, or a win so great from
the perspective of the player that they and others would deem it “epic” within the context of the game.
In educational gaming this can be translated to the achievement of learning goals resulting in
advancement to a new challenge of significance, such as completing a course or degree. Flow
motivates students to work hard and achieve, whereas standardized tests and curriculum tend to
suppress the natural feeling of flow that is felt when a person is engaged in their academic work.
One challenge to overcome with the use of GBL in education will be figuring out how to translate “epic
wins” in a learning game, to achievement based on mandated standardized tests. We learn in Games
for Civic Learning (Raphael, et al., 2010, p. 201), “Most games do not align well with prescriptive
curricula defined by national or state learning standards, and most games are not easily modified to do
so.” If we are to succeed in changing the culture of learning, educators will need to develop ways in
which learning through play can help students yield passing test scores on state and federally
mandated standardized tests. Further, we must lobby our politicians to change the culture of over-
assessment for the purpose of accountability and funding.
3 SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL GAMES
Hundreds of learning games exist and are used to varying degrees at educational institutions;
however, they are problematic for several reasons. First, they were created primarily for students in K-
12. Secondly, entrepreneurs developed many games with little, if any, input from educators.
Furthermore, many of the games are not utilized as an integrated part of the curriculum, but in
3437

6.
afterschool and various other programs, thus implying the educational culture has not come to accept
the use of games as tools for learning.
Although use of GBL strategies are trending higher, many of the games for education are still focused
on “skill-and-drill” rather than immersive experiences meant to engross students in critical thinking and
problem-solving. To achieve a formal learning objective, a game should have a lesson, a game
mechanic, an action, continuous learning assessment, and a real-time feedback loop. It should offer
real incentives for student collaboration without limiting the experience to the use of discussion boards
and real-time video chat. These strategies only simulate a face-to-face classroom experience, rather
than transforming it. A truly interactive game-based course will challenge students through new
strategies for learning, problem solving, and critical thinking.
One game I tested while conducting research on GBL was “MathCar Racing” developed by Funbrain.
The game has an alluring title, but delivers little more than drill-and-practice of basic math problems.
Similar games are ubiquitous on the Internet including vocabulary and other casual games. While drill
games have demonstrated gains in student learning (Dondlinger, 2007), they lack the motivational
aspect or stickiness, which is the lure of a game that entices students to play on.
Many free educational games available online are geared toward children, especially those in grades
4-6. This reflects a cultural attitude that games are for kids and not for adults. Yet, the author of
Reality is Broken, Jane McGonigal (2011) cites the Entertainment Software Association’s annual study
of game play whereby 69% of heads-of-households play games, 97% of “youth” play computer and
video games, and 40% of game-players are women. She cites another study conducted by the
scientific journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking that 61% of surveyed executives
take regular game breaks at work. Gaming’s appeal spans across generational divides, encompassing
both digital immigrants and digital natives, and those with varying amount of technical skill. The
opportunity for transformation is ripe. Survey data mentioned above regarding the popularity of gaming
indicates that we have a great opportunity to meet students where they are, in an environment where
they feel comfortable and productive.
Some gaming development for college learning is increasing in momentum. One example is Quest
Atlantis created by university researchers at Indiana University Bloomington. The game positions
players, grades 9-16, in a 3D multi-user virtual learning environment. It features situated learning,
collaboration, a character profile system, continuous learning assessment, learning analytics, and real-
time feedback. This project has effectively by combined insights from commercially successful video
games with scientific research on learning design. For example, Dickey (2006) found that 3-D
learning environments situate and contextualize learning, provide a narrative context, and also create
nonlinear relationships with the content.
A game platform such as Quest Atlantis incentivizes students to collaborate in multiple ways. First,
students create their real or fictitious identity with an avatar. A leader-board allows students to
measure their progress and compare with others completing the same learning objectives. Students
are given the impetus to both seek out help from leaders or to give help to those who need it. The
game may draw from principles of the social network Foursquare. Those who top the leader-board for
helping others, may be given a special designation, like the hard earned title of “Mayor.”
A team of professors at an urban college in New York City are developing a gaming platform that
combines learning management system functionality with social networking. The system was
designed to support students in any subject matter area, but especially those who place into non-
credit remedial courses. It provides incentives by awarding students with points and badges for
completing tasks, rather than course credits. Tasks vary widely depending on the subject and are tied
to learning outcomes. An example of one task is a “choose your own adventure” information quest. As
students work through tasks like this one, they receive points allowing them to stylize their avatar to a
greater extent with each new level. Students can receive points and/or badges for tutoring their peers.
When students excel at specific tasks they are identified as leaders through badges they have been
awarded.
Not every game developed must be electronic or Internet-based. Some paper and pencil games work
very well for in class use. In fact, due to the costly budget needed to develop electronic games, it is
wise to first to create a paper and pencil prototype to work out the game mechanics and to test it on
actual students before moving to an electronic version. One example of a board game developed at
the college has students use a modified Monopoly board to learn interviewing skills. As students work
their way around the board, they land on potential opportunities and problems. They can choose to
invest in the opportunity or not and must answer job interviewing questions from the “Chance” card
3438

7.
pile. Another game using custom-made cards helps students learn salary negotiation techniques.
These particular games have been very popular among students in the college’s Cooperative
Education program.
4 CONCLUSION
Educational learning games moved far beyond “edutainment” long ago. We are now creating engaging
and mind-bending learning opportunities, which have the potential to teach students through their
natural aptitude for learning. Cultural notions of the proper way for humans to learn has been
challenged since the time of Plato, when the published book was once considered a disruptive
innovation, and yet we have come to accept books as a central means to educate students. In the 21
st
century, the book, and more recently the e-book, is not considered edutainment, but an indispensible
tool for learning. So too will gaming platforms become commonplace, once data show their ability to
create more effective learning environments and outcomes.
We need to meet students where they are—in the game world!
REFERENCES
[1] Bauerlein, Mark (2009). The dumbest generation: how the digital age stupefies young
Americans and jeopardizes our future. New York, NY: Tarcher.
[2] Belfield, Clive R. & Crosta, Peter M. (Febrauary 2012). Predicting Success in College: The
Importance of Placement Tests and High School Transcripts. Community College Research
Center Teachers College, Columbia University.
[3] Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, Educational
Researcher, 18, 32-42.
[4] Denis, G., & Jouvelot, P. (2005). Motivation-driven educational game design: applying best
practices to music education. Paper presented at the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International
Conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology, Valencia, Spain.
[5] Dickey, M. D. (2006). “Ninja looting” for instructional design: The design challenges of creating a
game- based learning environment. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 conference,
Boston.
[6] Dondlinger, Mary Jo (2007). Educational video game design: a review of the literature. Journal
of Applied Educational Technology; Volume 4, Number 1., Spring/Summer 2007
[7] Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder
[8] Gee, James Paul (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd edition
[9] Laufenberg, Diana (December 2010). How to learn? From mistakes. TED Talks. Retreived from
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/diana_laufenberg_3_ways_to_teach.html.
[10] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Marra, Tiffany. (n.d.). Authentic learning. Retreived from http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~tmarra/authenticity/authen.html
[12] McGonigal, Jane (2011). Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can
change the world. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
[13] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978, March 7). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological
Processes, p. 86.
3439