Simulation & Gaming

Simulation & Gaming http://sag.sagepub.com

Pervasive learning games: Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes Siobhán Thomas Simulation Gaming 2006; 37; 41 DOI: 10.1177/1046878105282274

The online version of this article can be found at: http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/41

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Association for Business Simulation & Experiential Learning International Simulation & Gaming Association Japan Association of Simulation & Gaming

North American Simulation & Gaming Association Society for Intercultural Education, Training, & Research

Additional services and information for Simulation & Gaming can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://sag.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/37/1/41

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 SIMULATIONThomas / PERVASIVE & GAMING LEARNING / March GAMES2006 ARTICLE10.1177/1046878105282274 Pervasive learning games: Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes

Siobhán Thomas Yammy Ltd., UK

Pervasive gaming has tremendous potential as a learning tool and represents an interesting development in the field of video games and education. The literature surrounding video games and education is vast: For more than 20 years, educationalists have been discussing the potential that exists for the application of video games to learning. Advances in pervasive and ubiquitous computing offer the potential for significant innovation in the use of games and education. Pervasive learning games build on the framework provided by commercial video games and the theoretical foundation (design and practice) offered by the field of games and education. Commercial pervasive games such as NOKIAGAME and Electronic Arts’MAJESTIC used multiple media platforms—mobile phones, computers, PDAs, fax machines, television, and newspapers—to deliver game content in real time. While the structure of these games is derived from a digitally created gameworld, the games are framed by the players’real-life physical surroundings and the players’interac- tions with these surroundings. This article presents a theoretical overview of pervasive games and pervasive and ubiquitous computing, looking specifically at the benefits these areas offer learning.

KEYWORDS: ambient learning; immersive games; mobile games; pervasive computing; pervasive games; pervasive learning; pervasive learning games; serious games; ubiquitous computing; ubiquitous learning; urban mobile games.

Advances in pervasive and ubiquitous computing offer the potential for significant innovation in the field of games and education. Since 2001, when the first pervasive game, THE BEAST, demonstrated how everyday spaces could be digitally enabled to provide opportunities for play, hundreds of pervasive games have emerged that dem- onstrate the motivational power of ad-hoc networks of connected players. Pervasive learning games take advantage of this motivational power by building on the framework provided by pervasive and ubiquitous computing, commercial pervasive games, and the theoretical foundation (design and practice) offered by the field of games and education. Pervasive learning games seem to be a viable way to tackle some of the key challenges that currently exist when incorporating digital games in education (Kikin-Gil, 2005; openDoor, 2003), such as how to allow for collaboration and cooperation or how to offer inbuilt opportunities for reflection and mediation. Simi- larly, advances in pervasive and ubiquitous computing seem to herald considerable benefits for the learner. Plymale (2005) suggests that pervasive and ubiquitous learning offers, among other benefits, improved capabilities for communications, coordi- nation, collaboration, and knowledge exchange; removal of time and space constraints for accessing information; enhanced decision-making abilities based on receiving and

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 42 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006 processing up-to-date organizational and environmental data; and expanded user awareness of the environment through resource and service discovery. However, in order to realize these and other benefits, consideration needs to be given to the quali- ties and characteristics of the pervasive spectrum that could be useful to the construc- tion of pervasive learning games. In this article, I examine the implications of pervasive gaming and pervasive and ubiquitous computing for learning, suggesting that of primary importance is not the use of so-called pervasive technologies but the social processes that connect learners to communities of devices, people, and situations. These processes may or may not necessitate the use of technology. The article first provides a historical overview of pervasive gaming, highlighting key background and influences. It then defines pervasive and ubiquitous learning and discusses some of the key challenges facing the development of pervasive learning environments. Finally, it concludes with a discussion of some existing pervasive learning-game projects. Because pervasive, ubiquitous, and ambient computing are terms that are often used interchangeably, throughout this article, I will use the term pervasive learning to refer to pervasive, ubiquitous, and ambient learning.

Background and influences

In “All the World’s A Botfighter’s Stage,” Sotamaa (2002) draws attention to the fact that “the whole concept of pervasive gaming seems to be in conflict with classic definitions of ‘play’and ‘game’that emphasize the nature of games as something sepa- rated from any real-life actions.” Classic works on play—Johan Huizenga’s (1950) Homo Ludens and Roger Caillois’s (2001) Les jeux et les hommes (Man, Play and Games)—consider, in part, the nature of play an autonomous endeavor that is sepa- rated from real-life. Of course, distilling Callois (2001) and Huizinga (1950) in such a manner is simplistic and inevitably means that much of the context and subtlety of each author’s ideas is lost (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004); however, the element of each author’s definition that is contested by pervasive gaming is the idea that play occurs in a strictly defined place at a set time that is outside of and protected from everyday life (Caillois, 2001). Traditionally, a game starts and stops with a signal: The umpire’s whistle breaks the spell and sets “real” life going again (Caillois, 2001). Current developments in gaming seem to contravene this seminal “law.” Digital games can now be played almost anywhere, at anytime (think Sony’s Play- Station Portable, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), and java-enabled mobile phones), which is intriguing enough in its own right, but games have become considerably more tempting to the general public over the past 4 years, with developments in online gaming. According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), strategy and roleplaying games are the number-one selling PC games. These games become even more infectious online. Massively multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMOPRGs) such as ASHERON’S CALL and EVERQUEST are busy cultural landscapes that have

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 43

TABLE 1: Characteristics of a Pervasive Game

Anywhere Anytime Player’s location is relevant to and/or affects gameplay Game has no set states, always in a state of flux Game is always on, 24 hours a day (persistent world) Leverages available technology to simulate pervasive state Incorporates digital media and traditional media Emphasizes community (competitive and collaborative) gameplay Game contacts player Real world is game arena: Gameworld is constructed on the real world Emphasizes journey rather than end outcomes Game world, real world influence each other NOTE: Pervasive gaming is a nascent form whose characteristics and allegiances, hereditary and historical acknowledgements, will only emerge with some sort of clarity after years more games have been created. Thus, this list of characteristics should be considered a work in progress. developed from a network infrastructure that was originally designed to support the transfer of scientific papers (Oliver, 2002). ASHERON’S CALL, from Microsoft, was released in October 1999 and had about 80,000 players after 5 months on the market.1 After only a few years into its life, Sony’s EVERQUEST had more than 3,500,000 players, roughly 85,000 of which played at the same time (Sony Online Entertainment, 2001). (The term massively multiplayer refers to the fact that a large number of players playing are online simultaneously.) LINEAGE: THE BLOOD PLEDGE developed for the Korean and Japanese gaming markets, claims a monthly subscriber base of 2,500,000 to 8,000,000 players (Stern, 2002). MMORPGs are intensely social, persistent worlds. They run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and cannot be completed or “won” (Filiciak, 2003). Players immerse themselves in playgrounds meant to continue indefinitely (Rollings & Adams, 2003)—MMORPGs continue even when players are not playing—and game developers have become very adept at prolonging the moments of ecstasy. In fact, some argue that MMORPGs are no longer “just games”; they are a monthly service provided indefinitely to highly committed paying subscribers (Stern, 2002). Thus, a virtual 3-D landscape where players “interact with thou- sands of players roaming vast worlds of many interlinked levels and villages and castles, fighting monsters and other players, making alliances, thieving, betraying” is a fantasy that has an undeniable impact on the “real” (Shirley, 2000). Suddenly, games are no longer the easy on, easy off, autonomous processes alluded to in classic game definitions: MMORPGs do not have “on/off” switches. If the concept of the “on/off” switch is complex when applied to MMORPGs, consider how much more complex the concept becomes when applied to a discussion of pervasive and ubiquitous games (see Table 1 for a list of characteristics). However, I must point out that pervasive gaming is a nascent form whose characteristics and allegiances, hereditary and historical acknowledgements, will only emerge with some sort of clarity after years more games have been created. Thus, this list of characteristics should be considered a work in progress. Pervasive and ubiquitous gaming is a broad category of gaming that includes location-based games, urban

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 44 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006

TABLE 2: Pervasive Game Definitions

Mobile game Mobile games are played on a mobile device (e.g., mobile phone, NintendoDS) rather than on a stationary device (e.g., Xbox console). Note the difference between a portable mobile game (one where a user plays a game that could be played on a stationary device while on the move) and a contextually rich mobile game that incorporates a user’s context into gameplay (e.g., location, weather, emotion, etc.). Location-based game Location-based games incorporate a user’s geographic location into gameplay. These types of games are related to location-based technologies, location-based services. Examples of location-based games include MOGI and BOTFIGHTERS. Urban mobile game Urban mobile games are mobile games that incorporate urban spaces into gameplay (e.g., UNCLE ROY IS ALL AROUND YOU). Cross-media/mixed-media Cross-media or mixed-media games use multiple devices and media chan- game nels for gameplay (e.g., MAJESTIC). Urban superhero game Urban superhero games are played in an urban environment and bestow superhero powers and abilities upon their players (e.g., GO GAME). SuperGaming Supergaming is massively collaborative play made possible through digital network technologies. SuperGaming is massively scaled (supersized gaming), embedded in and projected onto everyday public environments (superimposed gaming), bestows spectacular new powers and abilities upon its players (superhero gaming), and harnesses the play of distributed individuals into a high-performance problem-solving unit (supercomputing gaming). The predecessors of supergaming are flash mobs, urban superhero gaming, flash mob supercomputing, and flash mob gaming (e.g., I LOVE BEES) (McGonigal, 2005). Alternate reality gaming Alternative reality gaming (also known as beasting, unfiction, immersive gaming, viral marketing, or interactive fiction) is an interactive fusion of creative writing, puzzle-solving, and team-building, with a dose of role playing thrown in. It uses several forms of media in order to pass clues to the players, who solve puzzles in order to win pieces of the story being played out (source: http://www.unfiction.com/history). The first alternate reality game was THE BEAST (2001), created to promote the movie AI. mobile games, cross-media or mixed-media games, immersive games, urban superhero games, SuperGaming, unfiction (www.unfiction.com), and alternate reality games (www.argn.com). Pervasive games such as NOKIAGAME2 and Electronic Arts’ MAJESTIC3 are played in real-time and exploit the power of multiple-media platforms—mobile phones, computers, PDAs, fax machines, televisions, and newspapers—to deliver game content at any time of the day or night. The framework for these games is constructed from the players’ real-life physical surroundings. In location-based games such as BOTFIGHTERS, where the game depends on physical location to be played out, the players’ real environment becomes even more important. For instance, in BOTFIGHTERS, the mission of the game is to locate and destroy other players (bots); the player’s physical position (determined from the cells that divide up a mobile phone network) is the determining factor that dictates gameplay. BOTFIGHTERS is always

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 45 on, always running, 24 hours a day and like MMORPGs it keeps playing even when a player stops. In pervasive games, the game world is the everyday world. But the social implications of pervasive gaming do not end at the mere fact that the games are part and parcel of everyday life. Sotamaa (2002) suggests that pervasive games alter the social landscape in which the player exists: just as the real environment infers meaning on the game, the game informs the real world. “[U]sing streets as a game board not only questions the definition of gaming but also brings new nuances and levels to the production of urban space. If the mobile gaming ideal is to free players from the chains of time and place, location-based gaming on the contrary operates through creating new meanings to familiar locations” (Sotamaa, 2002). Creators of the GO GAME (www.thegogame .com), Ian Fraser and Finnegan Kelly, agree. The mission statement for their company Wink Back confirms, from a game-design perspective, the rationale for transforming ordinary spaces into meaningful gamescapes: “By utilizing the latest in wireless technology and building upon people’s intrinsic need for fun and connectivity....Our game encourages players to realize the magic and creativity that surrounds them daily . . . to see their world as the enriching playground it can be” (p. 21). McGonigal (2003) points out that Wink Back’s mission statement captures well the core philosophy of pervasive games: “everyday environments can and should be places for group play” (p. 21). The emphasis on the everyday highlights the fact that pervasive games are not only about future technologies but about seeing the “inex- haustible and often overlooked opportunities for play” (McGonigal, 2003, p. 21) that surround players. This is a key way that pervasive learning games differ from traditional video games. Videogame designers construct digital microworlds for players to explore. They build rooms in castles and terrors in dungeons. Players explore ready- made spaces. Even simulation-type games like CIVILIZATIONinvolve the manipula- tion of set variables within the game environment. If videogame designers create microworlds, pervasive learning designers are required to construct macroworlds. Macrodesign involves working with monolithic, living and breathing gamescapes.

Pervasive and ubiquitous learning: An overview

Pervasive—or ubiquitous or ambient—learning relies on the “always on” concept that is fundamental to pervasive games. It is “always on” education that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, anywhere, at any time. Pervasive learning is a social process that connects learners to communities of devices, people, and situations so that learners can construct relevant and meaningful learning experiences, that they author themselves, in locations and at times that they find meaningful and relevant. This definition points to four key elements of pervasive learning (Thomas, 2005):

• Community: Pervasive learning is a social process that connects learners to communities of devices, people, and situations, including other pervasive learning situations. Learners

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 46 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006

are not “taught” by one teacher. They are educated by the community (of which they play a central part), and educate others in the community as well. • Autonomy: Learners author learning experiences themselves and, in doing so, they take control of and direct their own learning processes. They have power over their own learning and have the ability to perform actions and intervene as they deem necessary. They are freed from power politics that see one central authority figure or authority structure directing the course of learning. They become comfortable with the knowledge that in the world, questions do not necessarily have a single, correct answer, but that there are many variations and possibilities and learning feedback comes from a variety of sources. • Locationality: Learning occurs in locations and at times that are meaningful and relevant for the learner. Learning is not just for the classroom but for the world outside classroom doors, of which the classroom is a part, a persistent world where learning has no “on/off” switch. • Relationality: Learners construct meaningful and relevant learning situations to which they can relate. Because learners are learning concepts within their own personal environments, they can understand better the implications of what they are learning and can construct ways to relate this knowledge to their lives.

It is important to point out that the “substance” of pervasive learning is not new. Many of the concepts, ideas, and influences presented here will seem familiar. For instance, pervasive learning draws on concepts of learning theories such as constructivism and cooperative learning, pedagogical models such as Computer Sup- ported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and mobile CSCL, delivery methods such as distributed learning and multimodal learning, as well as a myriad of others. Table 3 outlines some of the aspects of these influences that are particularly relevant for pervasive learning.4 Pervasive learning goes beyond the concept of classrooms, Web quests, e-learning, or mobile learning. Pervasive learning involves finding connections between these experiences and the situations, devices, and people that learners have available to them and helping learners put them together in a way that makes sense for each individual learner. Although designers can construct infrastructures to support learning, it is anticipated that connections will be made and patterns will be found by the individual learner. Pervasive learning is not a form of delivered instruction; instead, it is a social process that happens at a time and place of the learners’choosing. Pervasive learning sup- ports spontaneous, unscripted learning from the environment. Pervasive learning environments are organic. They mutate and adapt. They become part of the fabric of society. Learning is realized in a social framework. This is the effect of pervasiveness, of ubiquity. Weiser, Gold, and Brown (1999) highlighted that as they were pursuing their ubiquitous computing research vision they learned the importance of concentrat- ing on “human-to-human” interfaces rather than human-to-technological ones:

At the same time, the anthropologists of the Work Practices and Technology area within PARC, led by Lucy Suchman, were observing the way people really used technology not just the way they claimed to use technology. To some of the technologists at PARC, myself included, their observations led toward thinking less about particular features of a computer—such as random-access memory and number of pixels or megahertz—and much more about the detailed situational use of the technology. In particular, how were

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 47

TABLE 3: Learning Influences on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Learning

Learning Influence Example Aspects Related to Pervasive Learning

Constructivist learning Learners are not passive recipients but instead they use their existing knowledge (Bruner, 1966; Piaget, 1929) to actively construct new knowledge. Constructivism emphasizes rich authentic problem-solving environments that represent the complexity of the real world (Dewey, 1938; Honebein, 1996; Wilson & Cole, 1991). Technology is a tool that gives learners control and that learners use to actively manipulate information (Papert, 1980). Cooperative learning Learners learn in groups and receive rewards based on their groups’ performance (Slavin, 1995). Cooperative environments require positive-goal interdependence (Cohen, 1994), positive-resource interdependence (Cohen, 1994), positive-reward interdependence (Cohen, 1994), group- evaluation opportunities, and individual accountability (Hymel, Zinck, & Ditner, 1993). Situated learning Learning is a function of the activity, context, and culture in which it occurs (i.e., it is situated) (Lave, 1988). Knowledge needs to be presented and learned in authentic contexts. Learning requires social interaction and collaboration (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Social development theory Social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978). Another relevant aspect of social development theory is the “zone of proximal development”: the zone between what a learner can do independently and what potential he or she could reach with the support of others. Computer-supported CSCL emphasizes social interaction. Learners work together collabor- collaborative learning atively to achieve a common goal. CSCL is not only about learning (also mobile-CSCL) through collaboration but about learning about collaboration (Resnick, 1992, 1996; Zurita, Nussbaum, & Sharples, 2003). Distributed learning Learning is distributed between diverse contexts and not tied to formal institutions. Technology, new and old, is used for mediation (Lave & Wenger, 2002; Lea & Nicoll, 2002). Multimodal learning Learning occurs over multiple modes and meaning is communicated through a synchronization of modes. Examples of modes include move- ment, gesture, color, animation, music, and sounds (Jewitt, 2002; Kress, 2004; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001).

computers embedded within the complex social framework of daily activity, and how did they interplay with the rest of our densely woven physical environment (also known as “the real world”)? (P. 2)

It is important to clarify, therefore, that there is a vast difference between a pervasive or ubiquitous learning experience and pervasive or ubiquitous technology. One misconception regarding pervasive learning might be that the sole differentiating factor between a pervasive learning experience and a traditional learning experience is that a pervasive learning experience relies on pervasive and ubiquitous technology. Technology commonly associated with pervasive and ubiquitous computing includes handheld computers, mobile phones, smart cards, sensors, global positioning systems,

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 48 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006 and so on (i.e., anything that allows a learner to access and exchange information while on the move). However, pervasive learning does not need to be restricted to the use of mobile, location-based, or other types of so-called ubiquitous or pervasive technologies. Pervasive environments also include those “ubiquitous technologies” that have ceased to be viewed or are not necessarily perceived as “technological”; for instance, pen and paper or voice phone calls. Furthermore, because, ironically, pervasive and ubiquitous technology is neither truly pervasive nor truly ubiquitous—but instead is part of a “trend towards increasingly ubiquitous, connected computing devices in the environment”— pervasive environments need not be comprised of pervasive or ubiquitous technology. Instead, in order to facilitate pervasive learning experiences, pervasiveness can be “manufactured” by creating ad-hoc networks of devices, people, and situations, including other pervasive learning environments. An ad-hoc network is one where the key “players”—devices, people, and situations—can enter, exit, and move at any time (Thompson et al., 2004). Each device, interaction, and situation can be thought of as an interchangeable “module” that can be added, removed, or altered as necessary. Perva- sive or ubiquitous technology, therefore, informs, rather than consumes, dictates, or directs, the learning process. In fact, the key technological requirement within a pervasive scenario is that technology recedes into the background, that it is unobtrusive, inconspicuous—it does not attract attention. In some cases, this means complete invisibility, where the computing dimension is cloaked. Walker and Winters (2005) call this “non-interactive” computing and in their research they explore the value provided to the learner when he or she is given the ability to interact with a computer merely by moving around in space. In other situations technology will be visible, but is so common and expected that it recedes into the background and the user takes its presence for granted (e.g., a TV or stereo). Weiser (1991) elaborates, “The most profound technologies are those that dis- appear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistin- guishable from it” (p. 94). Thus, it is not pervasive technology that is the emphasis but the connections that pervasive technology helps to make happen. It is a daunting task to think on the pervasive scale. Pervasive learning games are not isolated to a single geographic location such as a classroom; instead, they are focused on allowing learning to happen anywhere at any time. It is relatively easy to conceptu- alize how a classroom session might take shape or how an elearning module might be delivered because they are finite structures. But how can sense be made out of a network of connected modules that are always changing, particularly in such large-scale environments? From a development and evaluative standpoint, it is important that pervasive learning games meet the four key criteria of pervasive learning mentioned pre- viously: community, autonomy, locationality, and relationality. A pervasive learning game should be a social process that connects learners to communities of devices, people, and situations so that learners can construct relevant and meaningful learning experiences, that they author themselves, in locations and at times that they find meaningful and relevant.

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 49

Challenges facing pervasive and ubiquitous learning games

If something cannot be programmed into a string of numbers—it also means that it has an element of unpredictability. And risk. And uncertainty. This uncertainty encompasses, but is not limited to, technological “shortcomings” such as loss of battery life or inconsistent network coverage, social considerations such as the negative implications of how users privatize their public space, and privacy and security concerns.

The challenge of connectivity

In complex computer systems gaps or seams emerge. Chalmers et al. (2005) define a seam as a “break, gap or ‘loss in translation’ in a number of tools or media designed for use together as a uniformly and unproblematically experienced whole” (p. 1). Within the field of pervasive computing, the ideal of invisible computing is often ex- pressed as a variation on seamlessness: “a seamless whole,”5 “seamless, integrated system,” 6 or “seamless interaction” 7 (MacColl, Chalmers, Rogers, & Smith, 2002). However, some designers have embraced Weiser’s (1994) concept of seamful design and exploited the limitations of seams, capitalizing on the physical limits that are char- acteristic of a design medium instead of viewing them as scars to be healed or fissures to be mended (Chalmers et al., 2005; Oulasvirta, 2004). For instance, BILL, a treasure- hunt game played on Wi-Fi and GPS-enabled PDAs, was “designed so that players move in and out of wireless network coverage, taking advantage of the connectivity within a wireless ‘hotspot’ and also of the lack of connectivity outside it” (Chalmers et al., 2005, p. 1).

Social implications of pervasive learning

In addition to technological uncertainties, there are social implications that need to be considered. With the introduction of any new technology, there is a period of soci- etal adjustment to that technology (Levitt, 1965; Norman, 1998). The proliferation of mobile devices has raised an abundance of privacy concerns. Camera phones are a convenient and easy way to document life, allowing users the convenience of captur- ing a moment at any time, but they also permit the invasion of privacy on a mass scale. Ng (2005) suggests that camera phones are ushering in “a new age of voyeurism,” because they permit the surreptitious recording of anything, anywhere. Some schools in the United Kingdom have issued a complete ban on mobile phones8 because they have been linked to bullying,9 robbery, and, most recently, to a disturbing trend called “happy slapping,” 10 where teenagers slap strangers and film the assault on mobile phones. Nor are adults immune. The Highways Agency in the United Kingdom has been forced to erect giant shields around car accidents in an effort to alleviate the traffic jams caused by camera-happy motorists using their mobiles to take footage and then posting it to the Internet (“Screens to Shield M-way Crashes,” 2005).

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 50 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006

Problematic, too, are the technologies—from portable game consoles to iPods— used to privatize public spaces. For instance, iPods have been accused of fuelling social “iSolation” (Sng, 2005); they, like the Sony Walkman, Sony Discman, and other “personal stereos” that preceded them, make it easy to shut out the world (St. John, 2004). A private school in Sydney, Australia received international press when it banned its pupils from listening to their iPods (Orlowski, 2005). Sng (2005) points out that technological cocoons “may insulate you, for better or worse, from urban life” (p. 4). On the positive side, Bull (2005) suggests that personal technologies such as the iPod let users personalize their environments and cater entertainment to their environment or mood much more successfully. Personal technologies allow users to carve out a sense of privacy in public situations, help them block out noise, ward off chatty col- leagues, or give them an “excuse” to ignore unwanted attention (Bull, 2005). Still, the dark side of mass consumerism cannot go unnoticed. The criminal element has ridden on the high of the iPOD craze, targeting anyone who has the tell-tale white cables dan- gling from their ears. For instance, in New York City, subway crime rose 18% in the first 3 months of 2005 but, if iPod thefts were taken out of the equation, crime actually dropped 3% (MacMillan, 2005).

Privacy and security

In addition to the social implications that need to be considered when introducing technological components into learning situations, there are also privacy and security concerns that need to be acknowledged. Being able to provide a user with valuable context-specific learning material requires that users’locations be identified; however, “monitoring a user’s location and transmitting this to other users, or storing it centrally, has the potential to seriously compromise individual privacy” (Benford, 2005, p. 12). Solving issues surrounding privacy and security is not a task faced by the field of pervasive and ubiquitous computing alone; instead, privacy and security are challenges faced by any field or industry that deals in the digital domain (e.g., online banking, air traffic control, or national security). Gupta et al. (2005) note that as an increasing number of simpler, more constrained devices such as home appliances, personal medical devices, or factory monitoring equipment are connected to the Internet, the applications associated with their use will have security requirements:

Even seemingly innocuous data such as temperature and pressure readings may need to be secured. Consider the case of a chemical plant where sensors are used to continuously monitor the reactions used in manufacturing the final product. Without adequate security, an attacker could feed highly abnormal readings into the monitoring system and trigger catastrophic results. (P. 247)

Resolving security issues using technical means such as encryption are high on the list of computing professionals, but Benford (2005) argues that solutions to the privacy and security dilemma need to go beyond the “technical.” Legal considerations such as data protection and freedom of information legislation need to be explored. In

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 51 addition, users need to be made more aware of the privacy and security implications of pervasive and ubiquitous technologies. Some designers are tackling these issues head on and are illustrating the value of allowing the user to see directly the social implications of the technologies they are using. The whole point of Chang’s and Goodman’s (2004) game FIASCO was to promote new uses for public spaces: “We designed FIASCO to encourage ‘ordinary’New Yorkersto imagine and publicly perform responses to an increasingly commercialized and surveilled public sphere. In doing so, we hoped to transform citizens’and players’ attitude towards public space. By linking game success to exploration of territory, we also encourage players to question their own relationship to ‘turf’, and to move beyond habitual haunts into new territories” (p. 4). Moving out of habitual haunts and into new territories is what this article is about. Thus far, I have attempted to provide an introduction to pervasive gaming and pervasive and ubiquitous computing and to illustrate some of the value that pervasive games have for learning. I realize, though, that I have presented an abstracted overview of pervasive learning games. To ground such a discussion requires examples. However, examples are far and few between. In 2001, intrigued by the idea of marrying learning with what was so compelling about the pervasive games I had played; namely, always- on gameplay, the ability to play anytime, anywhere, on the technology I had available, with a large community of players, I searched for an example of where pervasive gaming had been applied to education. Groundbreaking projects such as HUNTING OF THE SNARK (2001), demonstrated the power and potential of incorporating pervasive technologies into gameplay. However, although these projects were innovative, they did not meet the four key criteria (autonomy, relationality, locationality, and community) of pervasive learning. Often they were restricted to particular technologically enabled environments, which meant that they were not available anytime or anywhere the learner wanted. Thus, to look at whether pervasive learning games would really “work,” to see if learners would find such games compelling and would actually learn while playing them, I needed to develop a pervasive learning game. Over 9 months I developed PROJECTY, an intricate immersive mixed-media “who dunnit,” intended to teach economic and political theory. Although outside the scope of this article, information about the game’s development and results of a small-scale pilot study are available at www.pervasivelearning.org. In 2005, there is considerably more interest in pervasive, ubiquitous, and ambient learning. The InteractLab (Sussex University), The Knowledge Lab (Birkbeck Col- lege and the Institute of Education), and the Educational Technology Research and Advanced Interaction groups (The University of Birmingham) are UK centers of innovation. Pervasive and ubiquitous learning projects such as the Equator project’s Ambi- ent Wood II;11 Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand’s MagiPlanet;12 or New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program’s SqueezeMe13 explore the capabilities of nascent pervasive technologies. Still, even though interaction designers such as Erez Kikin-Gil are developing pervasive games to teach concepts such as systems learning,14 there is an acute shortage of pervasive learning games. In essence, then, this article is a call to action, an argument for the merits of

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 52 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006 exploring hybrid educational gamescapes, of embarking on research and development projects in largely uncharted territory.

Notes

1. As of March 2005, ASHERON’S CALL (AC1) had approximately 37,000 subscribers (Woodcock, 2005). 2. NokiaGame started in 1999 and ran every year until 2003. Over one million players participated in 2003, the last and, for now, final installment. 3. Majestic went offline in 2001 when Electronic Arts, Majestic’s publisher opted to suspend online subscriptions and ship a CD version of the game (http://info.ea.com/news/pr/pr146.doc). 4. This table is meant only to provide an overview of learning influences in pervasive learning. The implications of these influences on pervasive learning are discussed explicitly in Thomas (2005). 5. See http://www.computer.org/pervasive/faq.htm. 6. See http://www.ibm.com/pvc/pervasive.shtml. 7. See http://www.disappearing-computer.net/experience.html. 8. A total of 97% of 12- to 16-year-olds own a mobile phone in the UK (Wireless World Forum, 2004). Almost four million UK youth own a camera-enabled handset. This figure is set to double to eight million by 2007 (Wireless World Forum, 2005). 9. UK children’s charity, NCH, interviewed 770 children and found that 14% had been threatened or harassed by text and 1 in 10 had been victims of camera-phone bullying. For more information on digital bullying see Stoptextbully.com (http://www.stoptextbully.com) or Bullying Online: www.bullying.co.uk. 10. Although, some have questioned whether “happy slapping” is, in fact, a trend or whether it is media hype (Akwagyiram, 2005). 11. See http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/interact/projects/Equator/ambient_wood-II.htm. 12. See http://www.hitlabnz.org/route.php?r=page-view&page_name=projects_magiplanet. 13. See http://ubicomp.org/ubicomp2003/program.html?show=demos. 14. See www.tiltool.com.

References

Akwagyiram, Alexis. (2005). Does “Happy Slapping” exist? Retrieved 11 June 2005 from http://news.bbc .co.uk/1/hi/uk/4539913.stm Benford, Steve. (2005). Future location-based experiences. London: JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bull, M. (2005, April, May). iPod culture: Its meaning for consumers and our cultural understanding of sound (Keynote Address). Paper presented at Cybersonica 05: International Festival of Music and Sound, London. Caillois, Roger. (2001). Man, play and games. New York: University of Illinois Press. Chalmers, M., Barkhuus, L., Bell, M., Brown, B., Hall, M., Sherwood, S., & Tennent, P. (2005, May). Gam- ing on the edge: Using seams in pervasive games. Paper presented at Proceedings of PerGame 2005, Munich, Germany. Chang, M., & Goodman, E. (2004, April). Fiasco: Location-based, physical gameplay with a digital interface. Paper presented at Pervasive 2004 Workshop on Gaming Applications in Pervasive Computing Environments, Vienna.

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 53

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Edu- cational Research, 64 (1), 1-35. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt. Filiciak, M. (2003). Hyperidentities: Postmodern identity patterns in massively multiplayer online roleplaying games. In M.J.P. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The video game theory reader (pp. 87-102). London: Routledge. Gupta, V., Millard, M., Fung, S., Zhu, Y., Gura, N., Eberle, H., & Shantz, C. S. (2005, March). Sizzle: A standards-based end-to-end security architecture for the embedded Internet. Paper presented at Third International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, Kauai Island, Hawaii. Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon. Hymel, S., Zinck, B., & Ditner, E. (1993). Cooperation versus competition in the classroom. Exceptionality Education Canada, 3 (1&2), 103-128. Jewitt, C. (2002). The move from page to screen: The multimodal reshaping of school english. Visual Com- munication, 1 (2), 171-195. Kikin-Gil, E. (2005, May). Eco pods: Tangible user interfaces for early learning of thinking systems. Paper presented at PerGames 2005, Munich, Germany. Kress, G. (2004). Learning, a semiotic view in the context of digital technologies. In A. Brown & N. Davis (Eds.), Digital technology, communities, and education. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & VanLeeuwen , T. (1996).Reading images the grammar of visual design. London:Routledge. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Routledge. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In M. R. Lea & K. Nicoll (Eds.), Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice. London:Routledge Falmer. Lea, M. R., & Nicoll, K. (2002). Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice. London: Routledge Falmer. Levitt, T. (1965, November-December). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43, 81-94. MacColl, I., Chalmers, M., Rogers, Y.,& Smith, H. (2002, September). Seamful ubiquity: Beyond seamless integration. Paper presented at Concepts and Models for Ubiquitous Computing Workshop Paper Ubicomp 2002, Göteborg, Sweden. MacMillan, R. (2005). Somebody out there wants your iPod. WashingtonPost. Retrieved 11 June 2005 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042800461.html McGonigal, J. (2003, November). A real little game: The performance of belief in pervasive play. Paper presented at Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference, Utretcht, The Netherlands. McGonigal, J. (2005, June). SuperGaming! Distributed design for massively collaborative play, or, why I love bees. Paper presented at DIGRA 2005: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, Vancouver, Canada. Ng, D. (2005). Smile! You’re on my cell phone: Camera phones and privacy. legalzoom.com. Retrieved 11 June 2005 from http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article11121.html Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambrdige, MA: MIT Press. Oliver, J. H. (2002, June). The similar eye: Proxy life and public space in MMPORG. Paper presented at Computer Games and Digital Cultures, Tampere, Finland. openDoor. (2003). Pervasive learning [online magazine]. MIT Alumni Association. Retrieved September/ October from http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200309/ Orlowski, A. (2005). Australian school bans iPod. The Register. Retrieved 20 June 2005 from http://www .theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/australian_school_bans_sadpod/ Oulasvirta, A. (2004). Notes on seams, seamfulness and seamlessness—How designers can help users to exploit shortcomings of technology. User Experience Research Group, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology. Retrieved 11 June 2005 from http://www.hiit.fi/u/oulasvir/Haninge/ Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 54 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006

Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Harcourt-Brace. Plymale, W. O. (2005). Pervasive computing goes to school. EDUCAUSE Review, 40 (1), 60–61. Resnick, M. (1992). Collaboration in simulated worlds: Learning through and about collaboration. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 21 (3), 36-38. Resnick, M. (1996, April). StarLogo: An environment for decentralized modeling and decentralized thinking. Proceedings of CHI 96, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved 23 September 2005 from http://www .acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/demos/Resnick/mjr_txt.htm Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). On game design. Boston: New Riders. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Screens to shield M-way crashes. (2005, June 20). The Metro, p. 2. Shirley, J. (2000). Behind blown eyes: Further blurring of the boundaries between real, unreal and surreal: Online roleplaying games. Spark Online. Retrieved July 5 2002 from http://www.spark-online.com/ june00/printhappy9.0/shirley.htm Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sng, D. (2005). Does the iPod destroy the social fabric? dsng.net. Retrieved 11 June 2005 from http://www .dsng.net/2005/03/does-ipod-destroy-social-fabric.html Sony Online Entertainment. (2001). EverQuest turns two! Retrieved, from http://sonyonline.com/corp/ press_releases/eq2ndann031601.html Sotamaa, O. (2002, June). All the world’s a Botfighter stage: Notes on location-based multiuser gaming. Paper presented at Computer Games and Digital Cultures, Tampere, Finland. St. John, W. (2004, 15 September). The world at ears’ length. The New York Times, p. 1. Stern, E. (2002, June). A touch of medieval: Narrative, magic and computer technology in massively multiplayer computer role-playing games. Paper presented at Computer Games and Digital Cultures, Tampere, Finland. Thomas, S. (2005). Pervasive learning: Always on education. Unpublished MA, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Thompson, M. S., Plymale, W. O., Hager, C. T., Henderson, K., Midkiff, S. F., DaSilva, L. A., Davis, N. J., et al. (2004, September). Ad hoc networking support for pervasive collaboration. Paper presented at Ubicomp 2004, Nottingham, England. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press. Walker, K., & Winters, N. (2005, June). Learning with “non-interactive” technology. Paper presented at The IEE International Workshop on Intelligent Environments, Colchester, UK. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265 (3), 94-104. Weiser, M. (1994, November). Creating the invisible interface. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Marina del Rey, California. Weiser, M., Gold, R., & Brown, J. S. (1999). The origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s. IBM Systems Journal, 38 (4), 693-696. Wilson, B. G., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39 (4): 47-64. Wireless World Forum. (2004). mobileYouth 2004 report. London: Author. Wireless World Forum. (2005). mobileYouth 2005 report. London: Author. Woodcock, B. S. (2005). An analysis of MMOG subscription growth. MMOGCHART.COM. Retrieved 11 June 2005 from http://www.mmogchart.com Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning through the use of handheld computers in the classroom. In L. Chittaro (Ed.), Proceedings of mobile HCI 2003 (pp. 193-208). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009 Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 55

Siobhán Thomas is a researcher at the Institute of Education, University of London, and is a lecturer in the Game Cultures program at London South Bank University. She is interested in the educational potential of games and the applications of pervasive and ubiquitous computing and gaming to learning. She is founder of www.pervasivelearning.org and cofounder of www.gamesparentsteachers.com and is one of the directors of Yammy Ltd., a start-up that explores opportunities provided by developments in pervasive computing technologies.

ADDRESS: ST: Yammy Ltd., Flat One, 7 Ovington Square, London, SW3 1LH, UK; telephone: +44 207 584 5010 (h); fax: +44 (0) 207 581 4312; e-mail: [email protected].

Downloaded from http://sag.sagepub.com at TELE-UNIVERSITE on July 20, 2009