Content uploaded by Nathan Ryan Holbert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nathan Ryan Holbert
Content may be subject to copyright.
Constructionism 2010, Paris
1
Bringing Constructionism to Action Game-Play
Nathan Holbert, nholbert@u.northwestern.edu
Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
Lauren Penney, lauren.penney@u.northwestern.edu
Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
Uri Wilensky, uri@northwestern.edu
Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
Abstract
As technology has become cheaper and ubiquitous, children are spending more time playing
video games. Surveys suggest that that video game play is an activity that children participate in
almost universally and that the amount of time spent playing games is enormous (Lenhart et al.,
2008). While new research makes a compelling case for the educational potential of video
games, some categories of games are rarely represented. Action platform games in particular,
while incredibly popular among today’s youth, are seldom mentioned in video game research.
Constructionism is a powerful design tool for transforming passive activities into highly engaging,
thought-provoking, educationally rich experiences (Papert, 1993a). While constructionism has
been utilized successfully in programs that encourage children to design video games (Harel &
Papert, 1991; Kafai, 1995), we believe that constructionism has a place in the playing of video
games as well. We propose that action platform games should be designed to incorporate a
constructionist paradigm. By incorporating constructionism into action platform video games we
believe that such games can become powerful spaces for identity formation and problem-solving
skill development.
We believe a constructionist redesign of action platform games will include an opportunity for
player-character construction, an open and flexible system for building objects in-game to
overcome obstacles, and a medium for sharing game-play with other players. By allowing for the
personally meaningful construction of unique in-game characters, players will be allowed to
incorporate their own identities into that of their digital avatar (Gee, 2003; Harel & Papert, 1991;
Kafai, 1996a; Papert & Harel, 1991). Designing levels so that components, rather than complete
objects, are utilized in overcoming obstacles allows the player to systematically build various
solutions to problems and to develop new relationships with their constructions as well as with
the problem they’re building to solve (Cavallo et al., 2004; Wilensky, 1991). Finally, by providing
an integrated system that allows player to share their game-play, action platform games can
become a space that nurtures a community of learners as players deconstruct one another’s
methods and construct new ideas and solutions (Kafai, 2006; Papert, 1993a; Papert & Harel,
1991).
We hope that these suggestions will serve as a starting point for a broader dialogue on a wider
adoption of constructionism in video games.
Keywords
video games, informal, play, problem solving, identity
Constructionism 2010, Paris
2
Introduction
Constructionist designs have been successfully applied to a wide range of domains including
math education (Eisenberg, 2000; Feurzeig, 1989; Noss & Hoyles, 1996; Papert & Harel, 1991;
Roschelle, Kaput, & Stroup, 2000; Wilensky, 1996), science education (diSessa, 1997;
Sengupta & Wilensky, 2008; Wilensky & Reisman, 2006), computational literacy (Berland, 2006;
Hancock, 2001; Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai, 1996b; Wilensky, 1999), and engineering education
(Blikstein & Wilensky, 2004; Martin, 1996; Resnick & Ocko, 1990). However, the design of video
games, a domain currently being explored with much enthusiasm by educational researchers,
rarely considers constructionism. Video games have always been of interest to constructionist,
and many have designed constructionist environments that appoint children the role of game
designers. Such research has shown game design to be a powerful way for youth of both
genders and varying learning types to make personal connections to content and problem
solving (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai, 1995, 1996a). While we are very excited by this work we
believe that the playing of video games could also benefit from a constructionist design. In this
paper we propose a set of level design strategies for transforming action platform games into
constructionist environments where the player constructs her own solutions and paths through
game levels. Such a design would encourage the player to construct sharable characters and
artifacts as a means of overcoming obstacles and solving puzzles and provide a medium for
sharing these designs. It is our hope that these design ideas will begin a conversation about how
to infuse constructionism into game-play where it has traditionally been absent.
Motivation
Video games constitute an important part of the lives of children and youth in today’s world. The
PEW Internet and American Life Project claims that as many as 97% of all American teens
(regardless of gender, age, or socioeconomic status) play video games in some way and 50%
play games daily for an hour or more (Lenhart et al., 2008). Such numbers are commonly
explained simply by assuming that video games are fun – of course kids like to play them!
However, this off-handed dismissal neglects the reality that video games are generally difficult
and require a very large time investment to master (Gee, 2003). Papert (1993b) suggests, “some
forms of learning are fast-paced, immensely compelling, and rewarding. The fact that they are
enormously demanding of one’s time and require new ways of thinking remains a small price to
pay” (p. 5). Like constructionism, video games are motivating and interesting, despite their
difficulty, because they “empower children to test out ideas about working within prefixed rules
and structures” (Papert, 1993b, p. 4).
A large body of work has shown that video games contribute to epistemic literacy (Gee, 2003),
mimic proven and effective learning environments (Stevens, Satwicz, & McCarthy, 2008),
positively impact learning motivation (Orvis, Horn, & Belanich, 2008), alter quantitative reasoning
(Satwicz & Stevens, 2008), and can be effective at leveraging expertise in formal learning
environments (Shaffer, 2006). Despite the positive nature of this literature, it is clear that
different games have different strengths and that some games may be seriously deficient in
educational value.
While children play a wide variety of video games, the action platform game is one genre with
which nearly every child has experience. The basic structure of these games varies drastically,
however, the defining characteristic of an action platform game is the need to overcome
obstacles with quick reflexes. This basic game-play structure makes up a huge proportion of
some of the most popular console games (Mario, Donkey Kong, and Sonic the Hedgehog are
some classic examples) and leads to the quick and exciting play often preferred by younger
audiences. Unfortunately, the literature rarely cites such games as having educational value. We
believe that bringing a constructionist design to action platform video games that allows players
Constructionism 2010, Paris
3
to construct characters, construct tools and artifacts within the game, and provides a medium to
share designs and strategies will transform passive reflex-driven interactions into an opportunity
for thoughtful, reflective, and interesting game-play.
Character Construction
A key characteristic of action platform games is their linear nature. While these games have
always allowed for some amount of exploration, players are always pushed towards a specific
locational goal. For example, in the popular and extremely successful action platform game
LittleBigPlanet (a game that we feel comes the closest to integrating constructionist design
aesthetics) players can find additional “prize bubbles” by exploring out-of-the-way areas in a
level. However, despite the slight bonus for curiosity, players are inevitably forced to get back
onto the main pathway to finish a level. In addition, many action platform games have
dramatically limited the way in which players can reach this goal. Even when offering various
tools and powers as was done in the Super Mario Bros. series of games (flowers that allow the
player to shoot fireballs, or a feather that gave the player the ability to fly), levels generally have
a “best solution.” This tendency to push players to a particular path is at least partially due to the
inflexibility of the player character – when characters are designed only one way, there becomes
only one logical path for level completion.
Constructionism places a very high premium on making learning experiences personal. In
Mindstorms, Papert (1993a) suggests that learning (in this case physics) is about bringing
content “into contact with very diverse personal knowledge” (p. 122). Constructionist
environments allow learners to build artifacts that reflect their interests and goals – to take
ownership of learning and to develop an “intellectual identity” (Papert, 1993b, p. 24). Whether it’s
turtles, gears, or LEGOs that are especially salient to the learner, constructionist designs
generally allow the learner to “own” and customize this artifact. In addition, cultural and gender
differences are not only supported by the environment, but also leveraged in artifact construction
(Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai, 1996a; Papert & Harel, 1991). The uniformity of player characters
and consolidated game-play found in action platform games severely limits the possibility for
personally meaningful construction.
One key difficulty in designing constructionist levels for action platform games is the limited
abilities of the player character. In a game like LittleBigPlanet, where the player character can
only push, pull, and jump, obstacle designs are severely constrained. We believe a
constructionist design should allow the player to customize character traits and abilities. There
are a variety of possible ways one might achieve this. One method, which we refer to as the
“backpack design,” is based on the classic game Lemmings. Lemmings allows the player to
activate various character abilities in order to solve complex puzzles. Every lemming in the world
is the same, however every level has a selection of backpack abilities (dig down, build stairs,
climb up) the player can assign to any lemming. Most of these abilities are temporary; when the
lemming runs out of materials or is unable to continue (digs through the wall or climbs up to the
top), he turns back into a basic walking lemming. The player solves the level by assigning
lemmings abilities that will remove obstacles and bypass hazards, allowing the remaining
lemmings to travel safely to their home. We believe a “backpack design” which allows the player
to obtain temporary special ability is a powerful idea to consider when building constructionist
action platform games. The available abilities could change dynamically throughout the level or
the player could preselect abilities before beginning levels. Classic action platform games such
as Super Mario Bros. 2 and more modern games such as Trine, have explored the notion of
preselected or dynamic unique abilities to great effect. In these games predefined characters
that each have different strengths or abilities allow players to move through the level and solve
puzzles in character-specific ways. We believe that tweaking such a design to allow for flexible
ability assignment would allow for puzzle and level completion that is player-specific. In addition,
such an approach could lead to especially interesting results in multiplayer situations. In a
Constructionism 2010, Paris
4
multiplayer level players would select complimentary backpack abilities that they could then
coordinate as they moved through the level.
Key to this design, and what distinguishes it from traditional action platform games, is the player
directed nature of ability choice and the flexibility of level design to accommodate these choices.
In a constructionist action platform game the player should be able to construct the character
identity in a way that is personal and meaningful for them and obstacles and puzzles in the level
should be designed in such a way that different abilities make for novel and interesting solutions.
Object Construction
Because action platform games are designed for a quick pace, elements encountered during
game-play are already pre-fabricated. While a player might need to find a tool or utilize a vehicle
in order to overcome some obstacle, there is usually only one correct way to solve these
challenges. In LittleBigPlanet, complex vehicles that players could easily build in the game’s
highly constructive “create” mode,” are simply there, waiting for the player to press the button to
turn them on in the completely separate “play” mode. The tendency for action games to provide
the player with complete objects to use allows for the possibility of speed, but removes a golden
opportunity for construction.
Constructionism claims that by building and sharing personally meaningful artifacts learners
become not only more aware of their own methods and style of problem solving, but also more
aware of the nuances of the problem (Papert, 1993a; Kafai, 1996). By providing learners with the
“pieces” with which to build solutions to problems, the learner is able to focus on different
aspects and features of the design as they become necessary. As described by Cavallo, Papert,
and Stager (2004), such an approach allows for “out of the box” thinking that can lead to creative
and surprising designs. Constructionism’s focus on components, rather than finished objects,
allows the player to imagine a variety of possible endpoints. This increase in connections with
the components and representations of the constructed objects increases the quality of the
relationship the player will have with their final construction (Wilensky, 1991).
One way to make action games more constructionist would be to provide pieces of useful or
necessary objects that could be put together in multiple ways, allowing each player the
opportunity to build one of a number of different solutions – each of which could be used to solve
the same challenge. In other words, rather than provide the player with the object used to
overcome obstacles, the player would be provided with the materials to make such an object.
One example of this would be to have the player build a vehicle rather than just providing it for
her. A large variety of components would be provided and the player would have the opportunity
to construct their vehicle in a way that is meaningful to her. In one case the player may create a
small vehicle made of light material so that it can easily jump an obstacle of boxes, while another
player may construct a metal vehicle with large wheels that can simply crash through the boxes.
In this way players are not only encouraged to think about the design of their solution, but also to
consider the many nuances of the obstacle for which they’re designing a solution. In addition,
the flexibility of design would likely encourage in-room interactions as other players or even non-
playing friends and family members offered their suggestions and advice on the “best” object
design. These in-room interactions have been shown to be an especially powerful aspect of the
learning environment created by video games (Stevens et al., 2008).
Sharing
The public sharing of artifacts is a concept that is vital to constructionism and completely absent
from the design of nearly every action platform game. Games and software that encourage
players to create content – and these games are increasing in popularity – are often very
successful at incorporating a public sharing component, but as mentioned previously, the
Constructionism 2010, Paris
5
“playing” aspect of video games lack this important feature. For example, when in
LittleBigPlanet’s “create” mode players have the opportunity to share object and item
constructions as well as entire levels. However, once the player switches to “play” mode, nothing
about the action is shareable. The absence of a public space or method to share the
constructions that we propose should happen while playing action platform video games is a
problem that must be solved before such games can be considered constructionist.
In constructionism, the words public and sharable are always present (Papert & Harel, 1991).
Stemming from Lave and Wanger’s (1991) idea of legitimate peripheral participation, and
Papert’s interest in Brazilian samba schools (1993a), public constructions give learners an entry
point at all levels. Working side by side both novices and masters are able to participate at all
levels of construction. Whether building a computer program or a tangible object, learners
should have the ability to see other’s ideas, borrow from them, deconstruct them, and to present
one’s own ideas. A constructionist design creates a community of learners much wider than the
traditional model of only teacher and student (Kafai, 2006).
How does one share when playing an action game? One medium that players have adopted ad
hoc to make their game-play public is online videos. A quick search on YouTube reveals
thousands of videos recorded and cut by players to show game-play. These videos are often
recorded to show off successes or to illustrate how one overcomes a particularly difficult
obstacle. We believe this is one way action platform game-play could be shared publicly. Action
video games could include a feature that would allow the player to record their actions at any
given point in their play. This recording would then be tagged as relating to the player that
created the recording and relating to a specific area of a level. Another feature would be
available that would allow players to activate these videos when struggling with a construction or
obstacle. Either a random video recorded of the obstacle could be played, or a player could
choose specific videos made by a particular player. The previously recorded action would then
be overlaid on the player’s screen allowing her to see how other players have solved the
challenge. Some of the actions depicted on the video may be particularly useful, while other
actions might be irrelevant (perhaps the player who created the video has selected different
starting abilities than the watching player making some actions impossible). This feature allows
the player to deconstruct the actions of other players to find the useful bits, and it allows players
to present in a public forum their own play.
Conclusions
In this paper we’ve tried to argue for the inclusion of constructionist designs in action platform
video games. While there have been some interesting instances of constructionism in video
game creation – which has begun to be included in some popular commercial games – the
“play” aspect of games has been left without. We have argued that the opportunity to construct
the player-character would allow for flexibility in game-play and variety in problem and obstacle
solutions as well as a space for identity projection and experimentation. In addition, we believe
that players should build objects, tools, and vehicles within game levels. While action platform
games often create interesting opportunities to interact with such objects, we believe that
providing players with the components to construct personal versions of these objects would
necessitate systematic design thinking, highlight the power of emergent systems, and encourage
in-room interactions. Finally, no constructionist design is complete without an opportunity for the
public sharing of artifacts. We propose that action platform games should provide an opportunity
to share one’s game-play with other players and allow individuals to deconstruct and piece
together other’s strategies. Including these designs in the playing of action platform games will
potentially transform a fairly intellectually passive game type into a powerful constructionist
environment. We believe this is a starting point for a broader dialogue on a wider adoption of
constructionism in video games.
Constructionism 2010, Paris
6
References
Berland, M. (2006). Constructionist collaborative engineering: PVBOT. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2004). MaterialSim: An agent-based simulation toolkit for learning
materials science. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education,
Gainsville, Florida.
Cavallo, D., Papert, S., & Stager, G. (2004). Climbing to understanding: Lessons from an
experimental learning environment for adjudicated youth. International Conference on Learning
Sciences (pp. 113-120). Santa Monica, California
diSessa, A. A. (1997). Open toolsets: New ends and new means in learning mathematics and
science with computers. 21st Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Finland
Eisenberg, M. (2000). Superposed turtle walks. International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 5(1), 65-83.
Feurzeig, W. (1989). A visual programming environment for mathematics education. Paper
presented at the Fourth International Conference for Logo and Mathematics Education,
Jerusalem, Israel.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hancock, C. (2001). Children's understanding of process in construction of robot behaviors.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Seattle, WA.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning enviornment. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1(1), 1-30.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kafai, Y. B. (1996a). Gender differences in children's constructions of video games. In P. M.
Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with video (pp. 39-66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Kafai, Y. B. (1996b). Learning design by making games: Children's development of design
strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.),
Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Ligitimate peripheral participation. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, Video
Games, and Civics.
Martin, F. G. (1996). Kids learning engineering science using LEGO and the programmable
brick. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and
computers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Constructionism 2010, Paris
7
Orvis, K. A., Horn, D. B., & Belanich, J. (2008). The roles of task di!culty and prior videogame
experience on performance and motivation in instructional videogames. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24, 2415–2433.
Papert, S. (1993a). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic
Books.
Papert, S. (1993b). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New
York: Basic Books.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.),
Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In I. Harel
(Ed.), Constructionist Learning (pp. 121-128). Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory.
Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students' engagement
with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science
and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 47-76).
Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Satwicz, T., & Stevens, R. (2008). Playing with representations: How do kids make use of
quantitative representations in video games? International Journal of Computers for
Mathematical Learning, 13, 179-206.
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons
and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, (accepted /
in press).
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers and Education, 46(3),
223-234.
Stevens, R., Satwicz, T., & McCarthy, L. (2008). In-game, in-room, in-world: Reconnecting video
game play to the rest of kids’ lives. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth,
games, and learning (pp. 41-66). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for
mathematics education. In Constructionism. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Wilensky, U. (1996). Making sense of probability through paradox and programming: A case
study in a connected mathematics framework. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.),
Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected
Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology
through constructing and testing computational theories--and embodied modeling approach.
Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
