From this point of view it is obvious, that teaching and learning can not be
controlled or steered by knowledge that can be expressed in algorithms. One
consequence is, that designing an AER system is not like creating an actual game, but
to create a room where teachers and learners can play. This might be connected to the
difference between game and play that is discussed in video game studies: “Play is an
open-ended territory in which make-believe and world-building are crucial factors.
Games are confined areas that challenge the interpretation and optimizing of rules and
tactics” (Walther 2003). Games need to consider the rules of the game, while play is a
free activity, where freedom is created by open up a make-believe world. If play in this
sense actually happens can not be predicted, but we can assume that toys are more
likely to be played with than other objects (Swertz 1999).
Another point is that computer technology is neither capable of creating art nor
able to play. Thus, computer technology can never replace teachers. This leads to a
different status of AER systems. While previous concepts tried to replace teachers, we
try to create tools for teachers so they can add automatic educational reasoning to
learning environments. These tools are intended as toys, that suggest to teachers to
play with their teaching methods and the media they apply. If teachers play with
teaching methods and media and offer differences and varieties, they again open up a
playground where students can learn while playing with these teaching methods and
Media