First of all, games are packages of images, rules, and movable cardboard parts. This makes educational games, of course, a technology, but also a type of multimodal pedagogy. Most instructors already perceive the value in bringing at least some multimodal pedagogy into their classrooms, given that visual media surrounds their students, and students should reflect upon it.
According to Selfe and Takayoshi (2008), instructors also desire to use multimodal pedagogy because they believe students are able to reason and communicate effectively in such spaces (such as blogs and social networks), and these spaces can make writing and reasoning instruction more relevant to them (p. 3-5). Additionally, games as multimodal simulations are already common in business, social sciences, nursing, and history, disciplines interested in testing models or “case studies” for how the world works, since a good simulation of reality can help teach the “underlying human, social considerations that help shape decision-making” (Troyka, 1975, p. vi).
Not only are games already used in writing classrooms, but the collection of teaching principles that make up the mechanics of game play were complex enough to warrant educational theorists creating a new field called “game-based learning.” Yet the individual principles behind game-based learning are nothing new. I am going to show you how game-based learning is grounded in one of the most important rhetoric and composition theories of all: process writing.
Process writing teaches the iteration of prose through revision, but also through the use of more quickly generated outlines or “exploratory” writings, which are later critically reflected upon and reshaped. Process writing often involves two kinds of thinking, what Elbow (1983a/1994) describes as “first-order” thinking and the more careful “second-order” thinking:
-
[First-order thinking is] intuitive and creative and does not strive for conscious direction or control. We use it when we get hunches[…], when we sense analogies[.…] We use it when we write fast without censoring[….] Second order thinking is conscious, directed, controlled [….] what most people have in mind when they talk about “critical thinking.”
-
Each kind of thinking has its own characteristic strengths and weaknesses. (p. 25)
Elbow explains that you can’t adequately jump to 2nd order thinking without doing first-order thinking: “If you want to get people to seem dumber then they are, try asking them a hard question and then saying, “Now think carefully.” Thinking carefully means trying to think about thinking while also thinking about something else [….] (p. 25).”
Let’s consider how Elbow’s first and second-order thinking is represented in a game like Scrabble. In Scrabble, you are mentally testing letter combinations to quickly see if they can be transformed into words. Once you have a few word options, this testing process slows and deepens, the possibilities checked more carefully against the board’s scoring options. In fact, any game with even the smallest pockets of strategy has these same quick-paced progressions of exploratory thought, which lead to a more comprehensive system of trial-and-adjustment I call “process play.”
Take, for example, “brainstorming,” a common element found in many games. Just as in writing, games allow you to create “exploratories” or “rough drafts” of a route you might take. When the pace of the game is slower, you can more deeply reflect back on the routes you’ve chosen, observe your mistakes, and make changes towards your goal: see the process for the trees. It is in these reflective moments where second order thinking, or critical thinking, steps in.
Poorly designed games, like most trivia games, do not allow you to learn from your mistakes, thus robbing players of opportunities for critical thinking. On the other hand, games cannot involve just critical thinking either because, as Elbow mentions with regard to writing, that would be overwhelming. In order to generate a recursive process of brainstorming and revision, or “process play,” the best games must start out with just enough information, as to not paralyze a player with all the possible decisions (aka, writer’s block).
Colby and Colby (2008) also linked play to recursive writing, though they focused on the story-making possibilities allowed by computer game play, suggesting that “narrative’s counter[part] in computer game theory—play—[could be] the more organic and recursive process of writing later emphasized in composition classrooms” (p. 301). Additionally, they compared traditional instructor-chosen assignments in a “pedagogy of progression” against a more playful “emergent pedagogy” of student-controlled assignments:
-
In a classroom based on a pedagogy of progression, one assignment or reading leads to the next with little variety or exploration. Students have little ownership of the assignments they do, so there is little to keep them immersed. With an emergent pedagogy, teachers introduce writing principles and strategies in order to open up a studio-like space for students to work through those strategies on their own. When gameplay such as WoW [World of Warcraft] is added to an emergent pedagogy, students discover exigencies within the gamespace that need to be addressed through playing the game. [….] Thus, this pedagogy creates a playful space that allows students to pursue their own discovery process and create their own challenging assignments. (p. 305)
What makes a student-controlled space “playful”? Partly, it is the students’ lack of awareness that they are learning anything at all in an environment traditionally associated with top-down content delivery. A student-controlled learning environment gives students a comfortable, casual pace for exploring the material, as well as the tools to do work they wanted to do anyway. Speaking enthusiastically about their digital writing game Ink, Sheridan and Hart-Davidson (2008) agree: “The writing happens (you might not even notice it) in order to get the fun stuff done: the proposal that you submit to city council; the brochure you distribute to elicit interest in your latest project” (p. 324). Although both authors are focusing on the playful, rhetorical space that opens up when students write to an audience of video game players, their ideas still apply to non-digital, tabletop games.
Allowing students to perceive their teacher more casually, as a kind of playmate in discovery rather than an opponent waiting to beat them, was also reflected upon by Elbow (1983b):
-
Student defensiveness makes our teaching harder. We say, “Don't be afraid to ask questions,” […] But when we are testers and graders, students too often fear to ask. […] they must play it safe, drive defensively, not risk them-selves. This stunts learning. When they trust the teacher to be wholly an ally, students are more willing to take risks, connect the self to the material, and experiment. Here is the source not just of learning but also of genuine development or growth. (p. 329)
When Elbow goes on to compare student defensiveness to the power of a dean who is observing our class, educators might relate to the students. The dean wants to have a friendly chat about our teaching, but because of her power over us, “we will be tempted not to reveal our weaknesses and failures. […] We need an ally, not a judge” (p. 329). In addition to the informal, risk-taking atmosphere games can create in the classroom, some games can even judge or assess a student’s performance without you, the instructor, needing to open your mouth (which is particularly useful when many students are working independently on a lesson). Thus, I would argue, the teacher takes on more of the role of a coach than a supervisor, and the student finds it easier to recognize the teacher as someone who is helping him in the short-term assessment space (the game), rather than as someone who is holding him back in the long-term space (the grade).
We’ve seen the benefits of process writing and process play working through games, as well as the comfortable classroom environments games encourage. Next, I’ll discuss the rest of the learning principles that make game-based learning so flexible and powerful.
