Karl Royle in his blog, “Crossing borders, blurring boundaries and taking action” provides information about, the benefits of computer games in education, the obstacles that exist and concludes that that the real issue is curriculum and teaching methodology. He states that games should be a necessity and commonplace in formal learning. To achieve this there needs to be better communication between the education and gaming communities, which can be achieved through the use of boundary objects and boundary brokers.
The boundary objects would enable communication between the two communities with boundary brokers members of more than one community able to bring the practices of one into the experience of the other. Currently there are very few teachers who are gamers and therefore they are not bringing the gaming experience into the classroom.
Royle proposes a boundary object that would involve both gamers and teachers rating games for learning, thinking skills development, literacy and problem solving. This matrix would be online and allow teachers and parents to see the value of various games.
This online matrix is a great idea providing information to relevant parties and would be a good step towards encouraging teachers to see games as an effective learning tool.
While I agree with Royle’s conclusion I am uncomfortable with his comment about computer games becoming “a necessity and commonplace” in formal learning. There no doubt that computer games have a place in a teacher’s toolkit, however teachers need to use the most appropriate learning tool for their situation, which may or may not be a computer game.
Royle is correct when he says that we need adjust our pedagogy and look to make better use of ubiquitous technologies and “break the boundaries between 21st century bedrooms and 20th century classrooms”. The majority of classrooms are stuck in the 20th Century and that is causing a lack of engagement by our students. As teachers we need to be aware of the learning culture of our students and ensure that our learners are engaged so that they are able to learn the skills they need for the 21st Century.
Teresa
Royle, K. (2009). Crossing borders, blurring boundaries and taking action, Retrieved 21st September, 2010 from http://www.gamebasedlearning.org.uk/content/view/67.
I like the fact that Royle includes gamers and teachers in the games assessment process, which addresses some of the shortcomings of the Hong et al. study, which did not include classroom teachers or students in the design process. I also really like the idea of having the assessment matrix online for other teachers and parents to access. This would reduce teacher workload and hopefully allay some of the potential issues that parents may have about children playing video games at school.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need to make sure that we are not just ‘jumping on the video games bandwagon’ and the decision to include a game is not only based on an assessment matrix. Serious questions, such as, “Is this the very best way to achieve the desired outcome?” should be asked and answered before games are included in the curriculum. There seems to be an assumption that digital games will be motivating for all students, however, if you consider the work of Howard Gardner into the many different ways of learning this is unlikely to be the case.
Like you, I agree with Royle that we need embrace the ubiquitous nature of technology in the 21st century, however, I also agree with your point that gaming is only one of many potential ways we can look to engage and motivate the ‘Google Generation’. We need to make sure we are not overlooking other more effective and/or economical ways to achieve our educational goals before we go down the digital games path.
(by BurnBabyBern)