Show Them Why You Should Play (by BurnbabyBern)

In 2009, in Taiwan, Hong et al. released a paper entitled Assessing the Educational Values of Digital Games.  In contrast to most other studies the Hong et al. research did not attempt to assess the value of digital games in education but started from a given assumption that digital games would continue to be an increasing presence in the curriculum.  They justified this assumption with an extensive literature review, citing sources such as Green & Bavelier (2003), Klabbers (2003), de Freitas (2005), and de Freitas & Oliver (2006) to verify the pedagogical value of digital games as part of classroom practice (Hong et al., 2009, pp.423-425).  Given this acceptance of the value of games as part of the curriculum, Hong et al. (2009, p.423) identified a need for the games being used in classrooms to undergo some sort of assessment process to justify their inclusion.  The ultimate aim of their project was to develop an assessment instrument for teachers and parents to use when assessing the educational value of games. 

In addition to the extensive citing of literature and research studies to justify their standpoint (that the use of video games can reap educational benefits) Hong et al. went as far back as the work of Piaget to demonstrate a positive correlation between game playing and learning.  Piaget asserted that playing games familiarised children with the environment in which they live and allowed them to explore and learn in safety (Woolfolk, 2005, p.53).  Standards for the 21^st Century Learner modernised this thinking by expanding it to acknowledge the learning that takes place through shared problem solving and peer interaction, both face-to-face and via technology (American Association of School Librarians, 2007, p.3).  Also acknowledged by Hong et al. are the high levels of online and digital games usage by the ‘Google Generation’ which demands the inclusion of digital games into curriculum if we are to meet children ‘where they live’, thereby engaging and motivating students (Corkhill, 2005, p. 34; Nagel, 2006, p. 15; Thai et al., 2009, p.6; Williamson, 2009, pp.8-39).  Teachers commonly include board games etc. in their repertoire already: the extension to digital games would seem a logical next step.

Hong et al. put together a panel of experts to create their digital games evaluation instrument.  The process included extensive predevelopment discussions to determine a uniform approach, followed by playing games and rating them using the draft instrument.  The panel then reconvened and finetuned their assessment instrument.  The process was extensive with 125 games used in the testing process.  As a result of the discussion and testing process the final assessment instrument contains a total of 74 indices, within seven main categories, the developers consider essential to high quality effective educational games design.  These categories are:

• ·       Mentality change
• ·       Emotional fulfilment
• ·       Knowledge enhancement
• ·       Thinking skill development
• ·       Interpersonal skill development
• ·       Spatial ability development
• ·       Bodily coordination

The report published by Hong et al. (2009) included a case study of one of the games (pp. 428-430).  This is a particularly valuable section of the report as it shows how to actually apply the assessment instrument to a game.  Of particular use is a graphic which summarises the outcomes of the use of the assessment instrument (see figure 1 below).  This graphic is easy to understand and the information is readily available.  I believe this could be valuable to teachers wanting to include digital games in their curriculum as it provides an evidence based justification for decisions.  Evidence based practice is an ever increasing reality of teaching today and if digital games are to be included as part of classroom pedagogy then an instrument such as this is going to be of vital importance to address some of the barriers to inclusion that currently exist in the education community (Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen, 2009, pp.18-19). [The full list of Klopfer et al.’s Barriers to Inclusion is worth reading and considering] 

Figure 1

 

Problems

The final assessment instrument developed by the Hong et al. panel is very valuable, but flawed.  The full instrument is included (Appendix A) or can be accessed via the Hong et al. report.  For ease of use the assessment instrument would require some adaptations, including modifying some of the language syntax and semantics to reflect our language norms.  The following indices reflect an approach that would be unfamiliar to most Australian teachers:

This game will be able to.......

• ·       Put all spirit and body together
• ·       Inspire one’s respect for ... the society (Hong et al., 2009, pp434-434).

Another weakness with the assessment instrument, in its present form, is that it was developed by games experts and scholars and in parts there is assumed knowledge that classroom teachers may not possess.  For example at the start of the form you are asked to identify the game mode from the following choices:

• ·       Drill & Practice
• ·       Single Combat
• ·       Stable Contest
• ·       Evolutionary contest Scenario

In the report Hong et al. explain the features of each of these game modes but an explanation of this item is not included within the assessment instrument itself.  Personally, I would not know how to complete this item and I know of many other teachers who also would be unable to complete it.  Additionally, the fact that there are seventy four indices in total would make this a time consuming instrument to use, even though not all indices are relevant to all games.

With regard to the report itself I question the methodology used to generate the composition of the panel of experts.  The panel consisted of five games scholars and five games designers (Hong et al., p.427).  This panel was highly skilled and would appear to have been appropriate for the development phase.  However, when it came to the testing phase, the study would have gained additional credibility had some system of feedback from students been included.  The students would not have needed to use the rating instrument developed but could have completed surveys to provide feedback on which skills and personal attributes they felt were required for the games.  This feedback could have been compared and contrasted with the expert opinions to ensure validity and reliability of the assessments garnered (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p.233).

However, in spite of these shortcomings, some minor adaptations and exclusions would make the Hong et al. assessment instrument a valuable resource to use as a master plan for developing a similar item for use in individual schools.  It is readily adaptable to both the Australian context in general and to particular localised contexts, thereby providing clearly understood justification evidence for decisions of games inclusion.  From a teaching perspective it is worth keeping in mind the warnings of the Global Kids, Good Play Project, that even if you break down all resistance and incorporate games and modern technologies into the classroom all the potential for social dysfunction, bullying and unethical behaviour that exists in the school community still exists in digital game play.  Digital game time is not a stress free time out for teachers but a curriculum tool that requires careful planning and monitoring (Global Kids, 2009, p.7).


Appendix A

References

American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2007). Standards for the 21st Century Learner. Retrieved March 12, 2010 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_Learning_Standards_2007.pdf

Corkhill, P. (2005). Framework for effective learning: a middle years initiative to improve student learning. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 5(1), 33-37. Retrieved March 21, 2010 from the Informit Database.

Global Kids, CommonSense Media, & the GoodPlay Project. (2009). Meeting of Minds: cross-generational dialogue on the ethics of digital life. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www.globalkids.org/meetingofminds.pdf

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Judging the Quality of Fourth Generation Evaluation. [Electronic format] In Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y (Ed.), Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage. Retrieved August 24, 2010 from Queensland University of Technology Course Materials Database.

Hong, J., Cheng, C., Hwang, M., Lee, C., & Chang, H. (2009). Assessing the Educational Value of Digital Games. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (5), 423-437. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00319.x/abstract;jsessionid=182E79E79086FBD204D652B4084020CB.d03t02

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving Learning Games Forward [Electronic format] The Education Arcade: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved September 25, 2010 from http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdf

Nagel, M. (2006). Distinction or Extinction: stepping towards a middle years model for survival. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 6(1), 11-17. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from Informit Database.

Thai, A., Lowenstein, D., Ching, D., & Rejeski, D. (2009). Game Changer: Investing in Digital Play to Advance Children’s Learning and Health, New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved September 24 from http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/upload_kits/game_changer_final_1_.pdf

Williamson, B. (2009). Computer Games, schools, and Young People: a report for educators on using games in learning. [Electronic format] Retrieved September 1, 2010 from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/project_reports/becta/Games_and_Learning_educators_report.pdf

Woolfolk, A. (2005). Educational psychology (9^th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.