The Educational Value of Cooperative Games
Barbara J. Millis
millis@unr.edu

Although most people think of games as purely recreational activities, in reality, games are effective learning tools for a number of reasons. They mesh with many theories of educational development, including adult learning theory with its emphasis on self-directed, goal-oriented learning. Games also appeal to a variety of senses, particularly the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, making them attractive to different types of learners. New developments in cognitive psychology and other fields (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) emphasize the role of emotions in learning: games create a positive association and also allow for the repetition and deeper processing that strengthens neural pathways. As El-Shamy (2001) reminds us, “’game playing’ does not necessarily mean silly or trivial . . . . It is possible to play a game that is both enjoyable and instructive” (p. 25). Thus, it is mistakenly narrow to view games merely as approaches to team-building. They should also be seen as powerful learning tools. Thiagarajan (1999), a well-known game expert, argues that games are valuable because, “Learners cannot master skills without repeated practice and feedback” (p. vii).

When cooperative elements are introduced, games can become even more effective. Students working in pairs or other sizes of small groups offers tremendous advantages over individuals competing against other individuals. For one thing, the anxiety level lessens when more than one head is involved, and the social context heightens team motivation. Furthermore, the discussion that occurs within the teams plan and play encourages higher order thinking such as analysis and evaluation. Feedback is enhanced by the immediate response of peers, leading to reflection and reinforcement. Instructors need to keep in mind the key principles behind cooperative learning including individual accountability (e.g., no undifferentiated group grades), positive interdependence (e.g., vested reasons to work together), and the need for group processing and feedback (Millis & Cottell, 1998). Additionally, teachers will want to place games where assignments and activities are carefully sequenced to encourage preparation, repetition, and reinforcement of learning (Millis, 2006). Students should be responsible for learning material on their own through homework assignments so that class time can be used beneficially for student-student interactions and active learning techniques that provide feedback on how well the material has been mastered.

A way to measure the efficacy of games as a learning tool is to place them in the context of Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) highly respected, “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.” These seven principles are explained below.

Good Practice Encourages Student-Faculty Contact

As academic games progress, the faculty member/facilitator constantly observes the students to assess their progress.  When teachers function as game show hosts or hostesses, they encourage students to perceive them as likeable and approachable. Games often require student input, which increases the communication channels, particularly through e-mail exchanges or submissions. As Chickering and Gamson (1987) emphasize, “frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement.”

Good Practice Encourages Cooperation among Students

Healthy competition between teams can promote interest and involvement. However, it is essential for students to see the value of working together. Thus, games should be designed to promote the peer coaching and sharing of information that leads to increased learning and camaraderie within the team.  Chickering and Gamson (1987) point out that “sharing one’s own ideas and responding to others’ reactions improves thinking and deepens understanding.”                      

Good Practice Encourages Active Learning

Games definitely promote active learning where students care passionately about learning outcomes. Games often involve physical as well as mental activity. “High fives” and cheers are as much a part of the process as the game rules. Chickering and Gamson (1987) succinctly remind us that “learning is not a spectator sport.”

Good Practice Gives Prompt Feedback

Numerous scholars, including Angelo and Cross (1993), emphasize the tremendous impact that feedback has on learning. Students must realize what they know and what they don’t know to focus their learning. Cooperative games offer immediate feedback from peers during the discussion period. When an answer is given, feedback is further refined. Finally, teachers can understand how well students have mastered their content by monitoring their performance level during play and by reviewing their worksheets after the game has concluded.

Good Practice Emphasizes Time on Task

As Chickering and Gamson (1987) put it, “Time plus energy equals learning.” During cooperative games, students are concentrating on the play, play that involves learning. Games typically progress rapidly and energetically to maximize learning within a short period of time because of the intense focus.

Good Practice Communicates High Expectations

Using cooperative games suggests to students that teachers not only care about their learning, but that they are also willing to let learning occur in an atmosphere of fun and cooperative competition with high expectations that students will prepare for the game and strive to succeed.  Chickering and Gamson (1987) remind us that “high expectations are important for everyone—for the poorly prepared, for those unwilling to exert themselves, and for the bright and well motivated.”  Because many games introduce an element of luck such as the roll of a die or the pick of a card, all students—regardless of their relative skill levels—have an opportunity to succeed, thus encouraging all students to strive for success. 

Good Practice Respects Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning

Cooperative games offer an exhilarating, motivating alternative to traditional lectures or discussions. They bring out talents that may be less apparent in more conventional classroom settings, thus perhaps providing more students opportunities to excel and to become well-respected team members.

References

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college
teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.  Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, A.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. `Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation, Inc./Wingspread. Available online at http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/ FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm.

El-Shamy, S. (2001). Training games: Everything you need to know about using games to reinforce learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Millis, B. J. (2006). Helping faculty learn to teach better and “smarter” through sequenced activities. In S. Chadwick-Blossy & D. R. Robertson (Eds.). To improve the academy, Vol 24. (pp. 216-230). Bolton, MA: POD Network and Anker Publications.

Millis, B., & Cottell, P. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix: ACE/Oryx Press (Now available through Greenwood Press).

Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Teamwork and teamplay: Games and activities for building and training teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  

Barbara J. Millis is Director, Excellence in Teaching Program, University of Nevada, Reno.