Pitfalls of White Label Educational Games
And How to Avoid Them
Games are learning systems
All games are learning tools. Any game requires a player to learn skills that exploit or develop winning strategies. Even games that seem completely random like Match 3 have a great deal of strategy built in that good players know how to use. Games are great systems to use to teach but making a good teaching game is hard. It requires knowing how to use a game system to exposes learning concepts that can be external to the game system itself. This requires customization of the game to the learning content which means longer development times, user testing and lots of iteration.
Sometimes that isn't possible so developers and program managers use familiar game structures like Match 3 or a platformer to add in elements of fun around testing quiz questions. While this isn't optimal for learning new concepts, using game elements for assessment can work. But there are several pitfalls that can happen that developers and instructional designers should be aware of.
Learning Vs Assessment
White labeling games isn't ideal for learning new materials. That's because when people are learning something new, they need to focus on content and to understand it in context. What is being taught and how can a game system support understanding, exploring and learning those concepts? Games can help with this but rarely can white label games. Game systems needs to support the core subject matter making it essential that the game system be structured around the learning objectives. White label games allows for any kind of content being placed into a pre-existing game system. The game system doesn't change so it can't be flexible enough to support specific concepts in the same way that it could if it were custom. If the core concepts are already understood and assessment is desired, then using white label games can work.
Integrate Content by Aligning the Game Goals
Some games naturally are built for white label training content such as Trivia. These games are built around the assessment of information and showcase players' knowledge.
When using other types of games like Match 3 or a platformer, more consideration needs to be placed on what the player is doing and how that action unlocks content. Progress in the game needs to reflect unlocking and answering assessment content.
Content is Game Progression
If assessment and progression aren't aligned it can be common for the game performance, which is different from the assessment performance, to actually hinder the serving of assessment questions. If I'm just not a good platformer player and I die from falling off platforms, I won't actually be served assessment questions. My game score can then have little relationship to my assessment performance. This can lead to bad data and frustrated players.
It is important to make the action you do in the game a part of unlocking and answering content. Have the questions become the platforms I'm moving to or the questions be the actions that I want to choose from. In Match 3 have the matches unlock the questions. Use the questions to determine level over or level advancement. The important thing to remember is that questions
become an important part of playing the game, not a separate layer inserted over the game.
Content Unlocks Should be Expected
If content is well integrated with game progression, there should be a clear expectation from players when they trigger an assessment. The outcome of that assessment should be well known along with its impact on the game. If this isn't the case players could be confused or lost as to what happened to their game and why they are seeing assessment content. But bad integration doesn't just confuse players. It can have adverse effects to the assessment content if it isn't integrated well becoming the thing that stops players from playing. Users can then make an association that the training is boring, unfun or uninteresting. In turn engagement and retention of materials decreases.