pervasive learning games: explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes

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

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

DOI: 10.1177/1046878105282274

2006 37: 41Simulation GamingSiobhán Thomas

Pervasive learning games: Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes

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

can be found at:Simulation & GamingAdditional services and information for

http://sag.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://sag.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

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

What is This?

- Feb 16, 2006Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on October 22, 2012sag.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sag.sagepub.com/

http://sag.sagepub.com/content/37/1/41

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.absel.org/

http://www.isaga.info/

http://www.jasag.org

http://www.nasaga.org

http://www.sietarusa.org

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

http://sag.sagepub.com/subscriptions

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

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

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

http://sag.sagepub.com/content/37/1/41.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


10.1177/1046878105282274ARTICLESIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES

Pervasive learning games:Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes

Siobhán ThomasYammy Ltd., UK

Pervasive gaming has tremendous potential as a learning tool and represents an interesting development inthe field of video games and education. The literature surrounding video games and education is vast: Formore than 20 years, educationalists have been discussing the potential that exists for the application of videogames to learning. Advances in pervasive and ubiquitous computing offer the potential for significant inno-vation in the use of games and education. Pervasive learning games build on the framework provided bycommercial video games and the theoretical foundation (design and practice) offered by the field of gamesand education. Commercial pervasive games such as NOKIAGAME and Electronic Arts’MAJESTIC usedmultiple media platforms—mobile phones, computers, PDAs, fax machines, television, and newspapers—todeliver game content in real time. While the structure of these games is derived from a digitally createdgameworld, 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 pervasiveand ubiquitous computing, looking specifically at the benefits these areas offer learning.

KEYWORDS: ambient learning; immersive games; mobile games; pervasive computing; pervasivegames; pervasive learning; pervasive learning games; serious games; ubiquitous com-puting; ubiquitous learning; urban mobile games.

Advances in pervasive and ubiquitous computing offer the potential for significantinnovation in the field of games and education. Since 2001, when the first pervasivegame, THE BEAST, demonstrated how everyday spaces could be digitally enabled toprovide 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 onthe framework provided by pervasive and ubiquitous computing, commercial perva-sive games, and the theoretical foundation (design and practice) offered by the field ofgames and education. Pervasive learning games seem to be a viable way to tackle someof the key challenges that currently exist when incorporating digital games in educa-tion (Kikin-Gil, 2005; openDoor, 2003), such as how to allow for collaboration andcooperation or how to offer inbuilt opportunities for reflection and mediation. Simi-larly, advances in pervasive and ubiquitous computing seem to herald considerablebenefits for the learner. Plymale (2005) suggests that pervasive and ubiquitous learn-ing offers, among other benefits, improved capabilities for communications, coordi-nation, collaboration, and knowledge exchange; removal of time and space constraintsfor accessing information; enhanced decision-making abilities based on receiving and

SIMULATION & GAMING, Vol. 37 No. 1, March 2006 41-55DOI: 10.1177/1046878105282274© 2006 Sage Publications

41



processing up-to-date organizational and environmental data; and expanded userawareness of the environment through resource and service discovery. However, inorder 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 andubiquitous computing for learning, suggesting that of primary importance is not theuse of so-called pervasive technologies but the social processes that connect learnersto communities of devices, people, and situations. These processes may or may notnecessitate the use of technology. The article first provides a historical overview ofpervasive gaming, highlighting key background and influences. It then defines perva-sive and ubiquitous learning and discusses some of the key challenges facing thedevelopment of pervasive learning environments. Finally, it concludes with a discus-sion of some existing pervasive learning-game projects. Because pervasive, ubiqui-tous, and ambient computing are terms that are often used interchangeably, throughoutthis article, I will use the term pervasive learning to refer to pervasive, ubiquitous, andambient learning.

Background and influences

In “All the World’s A Botfighter’s Stage,” Sotamaa (2002) draws attention to thefact that “the whole concept of pervasive gaming seems to be in conflict with classicdefinitions 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 andGames)—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 amanner is simplistic and inevitably means that much of the context and subtlety ofeach author’s ideas is lost (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004); however, the element of eachauthor’s definition that is contested by pervasive gaming is the idea that play occurs ina 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’swhistle breaks the spell and sets “real” life going again (Caillois, 2001). Current devel-opments 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 mobilephones), which is intriguing enough in its own right, but games have become consider-ably more tempting to the general public over the past 4 years, with developments inonline gaming.

According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), strategy and role-playing games are the number-one selling PC games. These games become even moreinfectious online. Massively multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMOPRGs) suchas ASHERON’S CALL and EVERQUEST are busy cultural landscapes that have

42 SIMULATION & GAMING / March 2006



developed from a network infrastructure that was originally designed to support thetransfer of scientific papers (Oliver, 2002). ASHERON’S CALL, from Microsoft, wasreleased 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 3,500,000players, 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 play-ers playing are online simultaneously.) LINEAGE: THE BLOOD PLEDGE devel-oped for the Korean and Japanese gaming markets, claims a monthly subscriber baseof 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 continueindefinitely (Rollings & Adams, 2003)—MMORPGs continue even when playersare not playing—and game developers have become very adept at prolonging themoments of ecstasy. In fact, some argue that MMORPGs are no longer “just games”;they are a monthly service provided indefinitely to highly committed paying subscrib-ers (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 cas-tles, fighting monsters and other players, making alliances, thieving, betraying” is afantasy that has an undeniable impact on the “real” (Shirley, 2000). Suddenly, gamesare no longer the easy on, easy off, autonomous processes alluded to in classic gamedefinitions: MMORPGs do not have “on/off” switches.

If the concept of the “on/off” switch is complex when applied to MMORPGs, con-sider how much more complex the concept becomes when applied to a discussion ofpervasive and ubiquitous games (see Table 1 for a list of characteristics).

However, I must point out that pervasive gaming is a nascent form whose character-istics and allegiances, hereditary and historical acknowledgements, will only emergewith some sort of clarity after years more games have been created. Thus, this list ofcharacteristics should be considered a work in progress. Pervasive and ubiquitousgaming is a broad category of gaming that includes location-based games, urban

Thomas / PERVASIVE LEARNING GAMES 43

TABLE 1: Characteristics of a Pervasive Game

AnywhereAnytimePlayer’s location is relevant to and/or affects gameplayGame has no set states, always in a state of fluxGame is always on, 24 hours a day (persistent world)Leverages available technology to simulate pervasive stateIncorporates digital media and traditional mediaEmphasizes community (competitive and collaborative) gameplayGame contacts playerReal world is game arena: Gameworld is constructed on the real worldEmphasizes journey rather than end outcomesGame world, real world influence each other

NOTE: Pervasive gaming is a nascent form whose characteristics and allegiances, hereditary and historicalacknowledgements, 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.



mobile games, cross-media or mixed-media games, immersive games, urban super-hero games, SuperGaming, unfiction (www.unfiction.com), and alternate realitygames (www.argn.com).

Pervasive games such as NOKIAGAME2 and Electronic Arts’ MAJESTIC3 areplayed in real-time and exploit the power of multiple-media platforms—mobilephones, computers, PDAs, fax machines, televisions, and newspapers—to delivergame content at any time of the day or night. The framework for these games is con-structed from the players’ real-life physical surroundings. In location-based gamessuch as BOTFIGHTERS, where the game depends on physical location to be playedout, the players’ real environment becomes even more important. For instance, inBOTFIGHTERS, 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 phonenetwork) is the determining factor that dictates gameplay. BOTFIGHTERS is always


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 userplays a game that could be played on a stationary device while on themove) and a contextually rich mobile game that incorporates a user’scontext into gameplay (e.g., location, weather, emotion, etc.).

Location-based game Location-based games incorporate a user’s geographic location intogameplay. These types of games are related to location-based technolo-gies, location-based services. Examples of location-based games includeMOGI and BOTFIGHTERS.

Urban mobile game Urban mobile games are mobile games that incorporate urban spaces intogameplay (e.g., UNCLE ROY IS ALL AROUND YOU).

Cross-media/mixed-mediagame

Cross-media or mixed-media games use multiple devices and media chan-nels for gameplay (e.g., MAJESTIC).

Urban superhero game Urban superhero games are played in an urban environment and bestowsuperhero powers and abilities upon their players (e.g., GO GAME).

SuperGaming Supergaming is massively collaborative play made possible through digitalnetwork technologies. SuperGaming is massively scaled (supersizedgaming), embedded in and projected onto everyday public environments(superimposed gaming), bestows spectacular new powers and abilitiesupon its players (superhero gaming), and harnesses the play of distrib-uted individuals into a high-performance problem-solving unit(supercomputing gaming). The predecessors of supergaming are flashmobs, urban superhero gaming, flash mob supercomputing, and flashmob gaming (e.g., I LOVE BEES) (McGonigal, 2005).

Alternate reality gaming Alternative reality gaming (also known as beasting, unfiction, immersivegaming, viral marketing, or interactive fiction) is an interactive fusion ofcreative writing, puzzle-solving, and team-building, with a dose of roleplaying thrown in. It uses several forms of media in order to pass cluesto the players, who solve puzzles in order to win pieces of the storybeing played out (source: http://www.unfiction.com/history). The firstalternate reality game was THE BEAST (2001), created to promote themovie AI.



on, always running, 24 hours a day and like MMORPGs it keeps playing even when aplayer stops.

In pervasive games, the game world is the everyday world. But the social implica-tions of pervasive gaming do not end at the mere fact that the games are part and parcelof everyday life. Sotamaa (2002) suggests that pervasive games alter the social land-scape in which the player exists: just as the real environment infers meaning on thegame, the game informs the real world. “[U]sing streets as a game board not only ques-tions the definition of gaming but also brings new nuances and levels to the productionof urban space. If the mobile gaming ideal is to free players from the chains of time andplace, location-based gaming on the contrary operates through creating new meaningsto familiar locations” (Sotamaa, 2002). Creators of the GO GAME (www.thegogame.com), Ian Fraser and Finnegan Kelly, agree. The mission statement for their companyWink Back confirms, from a game-design perspective, the rationale for transformingordinary spaces into meaningful gamescapes: “By utilizing the latest in wireless tech-nology and building upon people’s intrinsic need for fun and connectivity. . . . Ourgame encourages players to realize the magic and creativity that surrounds themdaily . . . 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 thecore philosophy of pervasive games: “everyday environments can and should beplaces for group play” (p. 21). The emphasis on the everyday highlights the fact thatpervasive games are not only about future technologies but about seeing the “inex-haustible and often overlooked opportunities for play” (McGonigal, 2003, p. 21) thatsurround players. This is a key way that pervasive learning games differ from tradi-tional video games. Videogame designers construct digital microworlds for players toexplore. They build rooms in castles and terrors in dungeons. Players explore ready-made spaces. Even simulation-type games like CIVILIZATION involve the manipula-tion of set variables within the game environment. If videogame designers createmicroworlds, 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” conceptthat is fundamental to pervasive games. It is “always on” education that is available 24hours a day, 7 days a week, anywhere, at any time. Pervasive learning is a social pro-cess that connects learners to communities of devices, people, and situations so thatlearners can construct relevant and meaningful learning experiences, that they authorthemselves, in locations and at times that they find meaningful and relevant. This defi-nition points to four key elements of pervasive learning (Thomas, 2005):

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




are not “taught” by one teacher. They are educated by the community (of which they playa central part), and educate others in the community as well.

• Autonomy: Learners author learning experiences themselves and, in doing so, they takecontrol of and direct their own learning processes. They have power over their own learn-ing and have the ability to perform actions and intervene as they deem necessary. Theyare freed from power politics that see one central authority figure or authority structuredirecting the course of learning. They become comfortable with the knowledge that in theworld, questions do not necessarily have a single, correct answer, but that there are manyvariations and possibilities and learning feedback comes from a variety of sources.

• Locationality: Learning occurs in locations and at times that are meaningful and relevantfor the learner. Learning is not just for the classroom but for the world outside classroomdoors, 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 whichthey can relate. Because learners are learning concepts within their own personal envi-ronments, they can understand better the implications of what they are learning and canconstruct 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. Forinstance, pervasive learning draws on concepts of learning theories such asconstructivism and cooperative learning, pedagogical models such as Computer Sup-ported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and mobile CSCL, delivery methods such asdistributed learning and multimodal learning, as well as a myriad of others. Table 3outlines some of the aspects of these influences that are particularly relevant for perva-sive learning.4

Pervasive learning goes beyond the concept of classrooms, Web quests, e-learning,or mobile learning. Pervasive learning involves finding connections between theseexperiences and the situations, devices, and people that learners have available to themand helping learners put them together in a way that makes sense for each individuallearner. Although designers can construct infrastructures to support learning, it isanticipated that connections will be made and patterns will be found by the individuallearner.

Pervasive learning is not a form of delivered instruction; instead, it is a social pro-cess that happens at a time and place of the learners’choosing. Pervasive learning sup-ports spontaneous, unscripted learning from the environment. Pervasive learningenvironments are organic. They mutate and adapt. They become part of the fabric ofsociety. 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 pursuingtheir 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 withinPARC, led by Lucy Suchman, were observing the way people really used technology notjust 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 acomputer—such as random-access memory and number of pixels or megahertz—andmuch more about the detailed situational use of the technology. In particular, how were




computers embedded within the complex social framework of daily activity, and how didthey 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 perva-sive or ubiquitous learning experience and pervasive or ubiquitous technology. Onemisconception regarding pervasive learning might be that the sole differentiating fac-tor between a pervasive learning experience and a traditional learning experience isthat a pervasive learning experience relies on pervasive and ubiquitous technology.Technology commonly associated with pervasive and ubiquitous computing includeshandheld computers, mobile phones, smart cards, sensors, global positioning systems,


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 existingknowledge (Bruner, 1966; Piaget, 1929) to actively construct newknowledge. Constructivism emphasizes rich authentic problem-solvingenvironments that represent the complexity of the real world (Dewey,1938; Honebein, 1996; Wilson & Cole, 1991). Technology is a tool thatgives learners control and that learners use to actively manipulate infor-mation (Papert, 1980).

Cooperative learning Learners learn in groups and receive rewards based on their groups’ perfor-mance (Slavin, 1995). Cooperative environments require positive-goalinterdependence (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 itoccurs (i.e., it is situated) (Lave, 1988). Knowledge needs to be pre-sented and learned in authentic contexts. Learning requires social inter-action 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 theoryis the “zone of proximal development”: the zone between what a learnercan do independently and what potential he or she could reach with thesupport of others.

Computer-supportedcollaborative learning(also mobile-CSCL)

CSCL emphasizes social interaction. Learners work together collabor-atively to achieve a common goal. CSCL is not only about learningthrough 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 formalinstitutions. Technology, new and old, is used for mediation (Lave &Wenger, 2002; Lea & Nicoll, 2002).

Multimodal learning Learning occurs over multiple modes and meaning is communicatedthrough 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).



and so on (i.e., anything that allows a learner to access and exchange information whileon the move). However, pervasive learning does not need to be restricted to the use ofmobile, location-based, or other types of so-called ubiquitous or pervasive technolo-gies. Pervasive environments also include those “ubiquitous technologies” that haveceased 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 neithertruly pervasive nor truly ubiquitous—but instead is part of a “trend towards increas-ingly ubiquitous, connected computing devices in the environment”— pervasive envi-ronments 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, in-cluding other pervasive learning environments. An ad-hoc network is one where thekey “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 aninterchangeable “module” that can be added, removed, or altered as necessary. Perva-sive or ubiquitous technology, therefore, informs, rather than consumes, dictates, ordirects, the learning process.

In fact, the key technological requirement within a pervasive scenario is that tech-nology recedes into the background, that it is unobtrusive, inconspicuous—it does notattract attention. In some cases, this means complete invisibility, where the computingdimension is cloaked. Walker and Winters (2005) call this “non-interactive” comput-ing and in their research they explore the value provided to the learner when he or she isgiven the ability to interact with a computer merely by moving around in space. Inother situations technology will be visible, but is so common and expected that itrecedes into the background and the user takes its presence for granted (e.g., a TV orstereo). 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 butthe connections that pervasive technology helps to make happen.

It is a daunting task to think on the pervasive scale. Pervasive learning games are notisolated to a single geographic location such as a classroom; instead, they are focusedon 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 bedelivered because they are finite structures. But how can sense be made out of a net-work of connected modules that are always changing, particularly in such large-scaleenvironments? From a development and evaluative standpoint, it is important that per-vasive learning games meet the four key criteria of pervasive learning mentioned pre-viously: community, autonomy, locationality, and relationality. A pervasive learninggame should be a social process that connects learners to communities of devices, peo-ple, and situations so that learners can construct relevant and meaningful learningexperiences, that they author themselves, in locations and at times that they findmeaningful and relevant.




Challenges facing pervasive andubiquitous learning games

If something cannot be programmed into a string of numbers—it also means that ithas 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 considerationssuch as the negative implications of how users privatize their public space, and privacyand security concerns.

The challenge of connectivity

In complex computer systems gaps or seams emerge. Chalmers et al. (2005) definea seam as a “break, gap or ‘loss in translation’ in a number of tools or media designedfor 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, integratedsystem,” 6 or “seamless interaction” 7 (MacColl, Chalmers, Rogers, & Smith, 2002).However, some designers have embraced Weiser’s (1994) concept of seamful designand 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 fissuresto 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 playersmove in and out of wireless network coverage, taking advantage of the connectivitywithin a wireless ‘hotspot’ and also of the lack of connectivity outside it” (Chalmerset al., 2005, p. 1).

Social implications of pervasive learning

In addition to technological uncertainties, there are social implications that need tobe 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 ofmobile devices has raised an abundance of privacy concerns. Camera phones are aconvenient 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 schoolsin the United Kingdom have issued a complete ban on mobile phones8 because theyhave 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 mobilephones. Nor are adults immune. The Highways Agency in the United Kingdom hasbeen forced to erect giant shields around car accidents in an effort to alleviate the traf-fic jams caused by camera-happy motorists using their mobiles to take footage andthen posting it to the Internet (“Screens to Shield M-way Crashes,” 2005).




Problematic, too, are the technologies—from portable game consoles to iPods—used to privatize public spaces. For instance, iPods have been accused of fuellingsocial “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 itbanned its pupils from listening to their iPods (Orlowski, 2005). Sng (2005) points outthat 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 theiPod let users personalize their environments and cater entertainment to their environ-ment or mood much more successfully. Personal technologies allow users to carve outa 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, thedark side of mass consumerism cannot go unnoticed. The criminal element has riddenon 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 thefirst 3 months of 2005 but, if iPod thefts were taken out of the equation, crime actuallydropped 3% (MacMillan, 2005).

Privacy and security

In addition to the social implications that need to be considered when introducingtechnological components into learning situations, there are also privacy and securityconcerns that need to be acknowledged. Being able to provide a user with valuablecontext-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 per-vasive and ubiquitous computing alone; instead, privacy and security are challengesfaced by any field or industry that deals in the digital domain (e.g., online banking, airtraffic control, or national security). Gupta et al. (2005) note that as an increasing num-ber of simpler, more constrained devices such as home appliances, personal medicaldevices, or factory monitoring equipment are connected to the Internet, the applica-tions associated with their use will have security requirements:

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

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




addition, users need to be made more aware of the privacy and security implications ofpervasive and ubiquitous technologies.

Some designers are tackling these issues head on and are illustrating the value ofallowing the user to see directly the social implications of the technologies they areusing. The whole point of Chang’s and Goodman’s (2004) game FIASCO was to pro-mote new uses for public spaces: “We designed FIASCO to encourage ‘ordinary’NewYorkers to imagine and publicly perform responses to an increasingly commercializedand 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, wealso encourage players to question their own relationship to ‘turf’, and to move beyondhabitual 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 perva-sive and ubiquitous computing and to illustrate some of the value that pervasive gameshave for learning. I realize, though, that I have presented an abstracted overview ofpervasive learning games. To ground such a discussion requires examples. However,examples are far and few between. In 2001, intrigued by the idea of marrying learningwith 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 gam-ing had been applied to education. Groundbreaking projects such as HUNTING OFTHE SNARK (2001), demonstrated the power and potential of incorporating perva-sive technologies into gameplay. However, although these projects were innovative,they did not meet the four key criteria (autonomy, relationality, locationality, and com-munity) of pervasive learning. Often they were restricted to particular technologicallyenabled environments, which meant that they were not available anytime or anywherethe 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 learnwhile playing them, I needed to develop a pervasive learning game. Over 9 months Ideveloped PROJECTY, an intricate immersive mixed-media “who dunnit,” intendedto 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 areavailable at www.pervasivelearning.org.

In 2005, there is considerably more interest in pervasive, ubiquitous, and ambientlearning. The InteractLab (Sussex University), The Knowledge Lab (Birkbeck Col-lege and the Institute of Education), and the Educational Technology Research andAdvanced Interaction groups (The University of Birmingham) are UK centers of inno-vation. 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 interac-tion designers such as Erez Kikin-Gil are developing pervasive games to teach con-cepts such as systems learning,14 there is an acute shortage of pervasive learninggames. In essence, then, this article is a call to action, an argument for the merits of




exploring hybrid educational gamescapes, of embarking on research and developmentprojects 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 in2003, the last and, for now, final installment.

3. Majestic went offline in 2001 when Electronic Arts, Majestic’s publisher opted to suspend onlinesubscriptions 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. Theimplications 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 by2007 (Wireless World Forum, 2005).

9. UK children’s charity, NCH, interviewed 770 children and found that 14% had been threatened orharassed by text and 1 in 10 had been victims of camera-phone bullying. For more information on digital bul-lying 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 mediahype (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 StandardsWatch.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. EducationalResearcher, 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 inter-face. Paper presented at Pervasive 2004 Workshop on Gaming Applications in Pervasive ComputingEnvironments, Vienna.




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 role-

playing 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: Astandards-based end-to-end security architecture for the embedded Internet. Paper presented at ThirdInternational 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., & Van Leeuwen , 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: RoutledgeFalmer.

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 PaperUbicomp 2002, Göteborg, Sweden.

MacMillan, R. (2005). Somebody out there wants your iPod. Washington Post. Retrieved 11 June 2005 fromhttp://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 pre-sented at Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference, Utretcht, The Netherlands.

McGonigal, J. (2005, June). SuperGaming! Distributed design for massively collaborative play, or, why Ilove 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 11June 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 InformationTechnology. 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.




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 think-

ing. 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 atUbicomp 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.comZurita, 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.




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

ADDRESS: ST: Yammy Ltd., Flat One, 7 Ovington Square, London, SW3 1LH, UK; telephone: +44207 584 5010 (h); fax: +44 (0) 207 581 4312; e-mail: [email protected].




pervasive learning games: explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes

Documents