This project has been influenced by several theoretical frameworks - psychological, epistemological, and social. The project is constructivist in nature, a term used metaphorically (and often times haphazardly) in education to refer to learning as a process where individuals construct their own knowledge through meaningful interactions with the world. Learning is considered an active, controllable process that builds upon a student's prior knowledge and is grounded in meaningful, social contexts (Hooper & Rieber, 1995). This view is contrasted with "transmission models" of education which view learning as passing knowledge from one person (e.g. teacher) to another (e.g. student) (Grabinger, 1996). Modern interpretations of constructivism have been influenced by the work of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Dewey (see Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, for a review). Play and imitation are central to Piaget's notion of equilibration, a process based on the tension of living in an ever-changing environment while seeking an ordered, balanced world (Piaget, 1970). Play supports the assimilation of new ideas into a person's existing knowledge structures, whereas imitation supports accommodation, a process which expands a person's cognition as they build new knowledge structures which do not fit already existing structures (see Phillips, 1981, for a good review of Piaget's theory).
Piaget's theories are often criticized for neglecting the social aspects of learning. Vygotsky's work is often presented in contrast to Piaget's, though their approaches are far more complementary than adversarial (see Fowler, 1994, and von Glasersfeld, 1993). In fact, we have found it useful to blend Piaget's idea of how an individual constructs understanding with Vygotsky's ideas of social learning, such as Vygotsky's construct of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Vygotsky (1978), ZPD "is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86). This implies that individuals on the threshold of learning may be unable to do so without the aid or support from others. The extent to which one's knowledge can exist apart from its social context is a constant source of controversy (see Garrison, 1995).
The educational philosophy of John Dewey (see also John Dewey Links) has also influenced us, especially his progressive views of democratic forms of education (Dewey, 1916). Students should have a say in what they learn and how they learn, what Papert (1993) refers to as the "right to intellectual self-determination" (p. 5). This does not mean that education should be a "free for all" without purpose, goals, or expectations. Indeed, these expectations come from both sides of a student's desk. In a democratic learning environment, students do not decide for themselves what will be learned, but rather have varying degrees of choices in negotiation with the teacher. As students show they can make choices responsibly, they are given even more latitude. Likewise, it is reasonable for students to expect school to be a place where they will be engaged in meaningful activities that connect to their lives in honest ways. It is not reasonable for school to ask students to postpone relevance to some distant, future time. School is not preparation for life, but a part of life itself.
Democratic ideals are rarely practiced by schools. As Glickman (1996, p. 11) notes, "The contradiction is that the public school is the only institution with an explicit democratic purpose, yet it shows in its everyday educative actions and decision making among adults and students that democracy is not a practiced belief. .... Instead, one finds most schools composed of advisory groups or site-based councils of positional authority making decisions for everyone else." Even the term "progressive" has been a source of misunderstanding. As Garrison (1995, p. 731) notes, "...what Dewey meant by progressivism is that progressive societies grow while other kinds merely reproduce themselves." While Dewey's relevance to current educational problems should not be overdone (Paringer, 1990), his fundamental ideas of learning through democratic and social means seem as true today as they were at the beginning of the twentieth century.
The inherent technological grounding of this project is most directly related to a particular instantiation of constructivism referred to as constructionism, a word coined by Seymour Papert (1991) to suggest another metaphor, that of "learning by building":
The act of learning by building is both a personal and social act. On one hand, transforming one's understanding of a domain into an artifact suitable for public display is evidence of an individual's cognitive processing. However, building something also provides the opportunity to get (and anticipate) feedback from one's peers, teachers, and parents, thus promoting relevancy before, during, and after the construction process. The range of things that one can build and put on public display is large. Traditional artifacts have included over the years such things as essays, term papers, and papier-mâché models. More recent examples include multimedia reports and presentations. However, as more children produce computer-based multimedia projects, there has been a tendency to shift the focus toward the technology itself (the graphics, sounds, and animations of the project) and away from the design process, leading educators and parents alike to justly wonder what do children learn from these projects (Troutner, 1996).
A possible answer comes from Perkins (1986, p. 5) who suggests a model of "learning by designing" based on four questions: 1) What is its purpose? (i.e. what is it for?) 2) What is its structure? (i.e. what are its parts, what is it made of?) 3) What are model cases of it? (i.e. what are some good examples?) and 4) What are arguments that explain and evaluate it? (i.e. how does it work? how good a job does it do?). With these four questions, the depth and utility of learning can both be directed and evaluated. Perkins asserts that if a person is unable to answer all four questions for something they have learned, then that knowledge has limited use or application (also called "inert knowledge," a term first coined by Whitehead, 1929). Interestingly, the four questions apply equally well to everyday objects (e.g., screwdrivers) and also school knowledge (e.g. the Pythagorean theorem). Schools typically focus most attention on question two, the structure of content, but rarely ask students to understand the purpose of knowledge, nor ask them to evaluate the usefulness of knowledge. This might be one reason why students have such a difficult time with history. Memorizing names, places, and events without knowing their relationship to other historical events, let alone to people's lives today, leads to decontextualized "factlets." We contend that to produce a good game, one must be able to answer all four questions.
Children learn in the context of authentic settings drawing information from their lived and often shared experiences. Many of these experiences occur outside the walls of the K-12 school and serve as powerful mediators for learning, much more so than contrived activities that accompany text and workbooks. As Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) assert, "any method that tries to teach abstract concepts independently of authentic situations, overlooks the ways understanding is developed through continued situated use" (p.33). Children learn from their interactions with the world and from activities that are both challenging and personally meaningful. One way in which children participate in challenging, meaningful and enjoyable activities is in the playing of games. In engaging ways, games provide children with opportunities to learn skills and processes that schools identify as essential. Beyond the subject matter, many states (such as Georgia) have curriculum standards that include the development of problem solving skills, working with and respecting the views and ideas of others, and effectively communicating ideas (see http://admin.doe.k12.ga.us/gadoe/qcc.nsf for more information on Georgia's standards). These skills and abilities are all essential in the process of game design.
Not surprisingly, one common thread among children of various ages, genders, and backgrounds is the enjoyment of games. We found this to be true of all the elementary school students with whom we have worked. In our discussions about games and game playing with these students, they appeared almost alarmed that we were conducting a "formal" class discussion about what they undoubtedly considered "play." Certainly, to children of this age play is a meaningful pursuit. Games which they play or invent create an authentic and real experience into which they, generally, become immersed.
Although games have a long history in education (Dempsey, Lucassen, Gilley & Rasmussen, 1993-1994; Randel, Morris, Wetzel & Whitehill, 1992), they are, unfortunately, often associated with entertainment either as a diversion from school work or as a reward for when the work is done. The motivational appeal of games is well known (Malone & Lepper, 1987). However, limiting the discussion to motivation is apt to designate the role of games as a form of educational "sugar coating" - making the hard work of mathematics or language arts easier to "swallow." We take games much more seriously as we consider both their motivational and cognitive elements. Whereas most children play prepackaged games in school given to them by teachers, we are interested instead on the process of game design itself and how it can enhance learning.
Schools typically rely on extrinsic motivation, or incentives externally provided (such as grades, praise, and even threats of punishment). In contrast, intrinsic motivation is based on a person's own curiosity, interests, and values (Deci, 1985; Lepper, Keavney & Drake, 1996; Lepper & Malone, 1987). Perkins (1986) notes that it "seems much easier to undermine than to amplify" activities which are intrinsically motivating (p. 116). Intrinsic motivation characterizes students engaged in meaningful pursuits. Perkins lists five factors known to foster intrinsic motivation among students: 1) the project itself has intrinsic worth; 2) the students are personally in control of the project; 3) the project stimulates a sense of competence; 4) the students work under "optimal challenge" (the task is not too difficult or too easy); and 5) the activity in and of itself is enjoyable.
Project KID DESIGNER encompasses all five factors. The students were freed from the fear of evaluation of their project. They worked to satisfy their own criteria of what was good and what was not so good in their game design. As we will discuss in more depth later, the students themselves were empowered in this game design process. They readily accepted the responsibility and the ownership of the project. The students' confidence in their own ideas and abilities grew as the project unfolded. Through this stretching of their abilities, we believe that most students were "optimally challenged" by the game design project. Certainly, the students found the process enjoyable.
Much of the work carried out in this project reflected aspects of Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) Flow Theory. Simply defined, "flow" is the state in which we are so involved in something that nothing else matters. Csikszentmihalyi theorizes that experiencing flow activities, activities in which we are challenged, focused, and intrinsically motivated, pushes us to the extent of our present abilities and helps redefine us as more complex individuals. Additionally, these optimal experiences improve the quality of our life. Cultures, historically, have designed and played games to reflect the society's structure and roles; games provide practice for people to deal with conflicts typical to that culture in a nonthreatening way (Blanchard & Cheska, 1985; Roberts, Arth & Bush, 1959). We maintain that when designing games (and especially computer games) students construct their own "flow" experience. This was true for the children and adults who participated.