Learning by playing : video games in the classroom

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html?_r=2

http://q2l.org/

The New York Times article about Quest to Learn provided some insight into this revolutionary school in New York City. The school is the brainchild of Katie Salen, a game developer who believes that video games offer a way to make learning more relevant to students and more connected to the real world.

The students are required to either make their own video games to demonstrate key skills and knowledge or use video games that had been designed specifically for them. The games require a range of interdisciplinary skills; maths, writing, art, computer programming, deductive reasoning and critical thinking. I agree with Salen that the standard school curriculum which isolates disciplines from each other is ‘weird’ and does not reflect real life, and therefore the idea of having interdisplinary projects or games is more reflective of life outside school.

While the principle of learning at Quest to Learn is based on the well recognised problem-based learning pedagogy they have tapped into student’s interests, playing video games. Research shows that today’s youth are playing video games at the expense of school work and that the drop out rate of 30% is because they find school boring (Salen, 2010). Quest to Learn is obviously hoping that the use of video games will change these statistics.

While I am an advocate of pedagogy which engages students there needs to be evidence that they are ‘learning’. Results from Quest to Learn students who sat federally mandated tests showed they did no better or worse than other sixth graders. However are the results of these tests evidence that these students are not learning or that the testing instrument is not reflective of the learning at this school?

 

Quest to Learn is a showcase of how video games can be used in schools but this model is unlikely to be workable in larger number of schools due to the costs involved. The school receives additional funding through several private corporations (Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation & MacArthur Foundation) which allow them to employ additional technical staff.

I would certainly agree that as teachers we need to engage the students if we want to increase educational performance and video games appear to engage students. It will be interesting to see the long term outcomes from Quest to Learn. If Quest to Learn is able to demonstrate that their students have improved outcomes and they have higher retention rates then educational authorities will need to consider how this model can be adopted more widely.

Teresa

Crossing borders, blurring boundaries and taking action

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 21^st century bedrooms and 20^th century classrooms”. The majority of classrooms are stuck in the 20^th 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 21^st Century.

Teresa

Royle, K. (2009). Crossing borders, blurring boundaries and taking action, Retrieved 21^st September, 2010 from http://www.gamebasedlearning.org.uk/content/view/67. 

James Gees Answers Questions on Games and Learning

A recent post on the Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning blog was this article from the New York Times.  I thought it well worthy of inclusion in our humble blog, and I am certain others will find the question and answer sessions with guru James Gee thought provoking indeed.

The video below, also from NYT, is also worth a look...



Enjoy, Karen.

Computer games can teach schools some lessons

ScienceDaily (2010-03-02) -- If schools adopted some of the strategies that video games use, they could educate children more effectively, according to experts. ... > read full article

Response to news article, by Karen

Arizona State University Professor James Gee is an advocate for the educational potential of video games, and his recent work has focused on the learning principles inherent in video games and how these learning principles can be applied to the classroom, opening doors for new possibilities in teaching and learning.

Traditionally in many classrooms, curriculum content is delivered at the beginning of a unit of work, and Gee argues that one way video games optimise learning, is by providing information when it is needed rather than all at once.  I would certainly agree that receiving information "on demand" can reduce that overwhelming feeling of metaphorically "drowning" in a sea of information.  Furthermore, Gee describes the motivational state created by video games as a "pleasantly frustrating" environment; one that is challenging but ultimately doable.  If students are engaged and motivated in this active and participatory medium, is it fair to assume learning is happening?

Gee identifies yet another strategy employed by many game designers, known as "Modding".  Construction of new knowledge results from players creating new levels or scenarios in a game, thus encouraging higher order thinking, and leading to deep understanding.  Perhaps Confucius had video games in mind when he said "I hear, I know.  I see, I remember.  I do, I understand."

Gee articulates the controversy surrounding assessment in education, and explains how video games marry learning and assessment by providing continual feedback to the player and the collection of information about players' performances.  Assessment is about gathering information about a student's performance and using this information to ensure they continue to achieve by moving forward in their learning.  According to Elliot Masie, editor of Learning TRENDS, games allow learners to "fail to success", providing a safe environment for situated learning to occur.

It is exciting to read emerging views concerning gaming and education, and James Gee hits the nail squarely on the head in this article when he suggests educators adopt some of the learning strategies evident in video games.  Gee implies that if we replicate the "situated learning" environment that is inherent in good video games, students can become immersed in a problem-solving space whether they are playing a game or not.

Let Them Have Fun – you never know they might even learn to dance! by BurnBabyBern

In January this year Jeffrey Young published an article, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, about a study by Assistant Professor Steinkuehler into the use of games such as World of Warcraft as part of the curriculum.  Steinkuehler maintains that her studies indicate that even games with no apparent educational value result in students who “spend hours on difficult tasks, and actually learn quite a bit in the process.” http://chronicle.com/article/5-Lessons-Professors-Can-Learn/63708/

Clearly if the goal is to cover specified curriculum content then the games used must be able to deliver that content.  However, Steinkuehler’s work indicates that if the aim is to develop skills such as problem solving, collaborative learning and concentration then it is possible to be more liberal in choosing games.  She cites instances of students, playing World of Warcraft, communicating in chat rooms and using complex maths to generate a plan of attack to defeat the beasts.  Even at primary level the use of games requiring high levels of problem solving opens up opportunities to use blogs and wikis to communicate and collaborate.  It does, however, put an onus on educators to teach students about the risks and responsibilities of social networking (Adams, 2007, p.33). 

Steinkuehler urges instructors to remember that games succeed because they are fun.  She advocates instructors playing the games and doing lesson planning to identify likely outcomes, areas suited to solo or collaborative work, scaffolding requirements and above all that the game is engaging and fun. 

As a frequent user of digital games in my own classroom I concur with Steinkuehler’s findings.  Using such games as I Spy and Rush Hour Online I have seen high levels of engagement, cooperative problem solving and mathematical brainstorming, even from children who don’t collaborate well and who consider themselves poor at maths and/or literacy.  I have, however, had to justify my games and therefore still find myself attracted to the idea of an evidentiary instrument such as the one developed by Hong et al., even though Steinkuehler does not consider such formality necessary (Hong et al., 2009, pp431-435) . 

References

Adams, H. (2007). Social Networking and Privacy: A Law Enforcement Perspective. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 23(10), 33. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals.

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

Young, J. (2010, January 24). 5 Teaching Tips for Professors – from Video Games. [Electronic format]. In The Chronicle of Higher Education (technology), (n.p.). Retrieved September 9, 2010 from http://chronicle.com/article/5-Lessons-Professors-Can-Learn/63708/

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.

Quest2Learn’s Katie Salen talks with fellow game designer Nichole Pinkard, founder of the Chicago-based afterschool program Digital Youth Network about the philosophy behind Quest2Learn and how game design can be applied to learning in the classroom.

Response to Video, by Karen.

Game designer, animator, and Executive Director of Institute of Play and Quest2Learn, Katie Salen believes a game designer and a good teacher both aspire to create an effective learning environment. Manhattan public school, Quest2Learn uses digital media and game design as the primary means for accomplishing educational goals, with video games and other technologies at the centre of all classes and learning experiences.

Salen states that a game has a very particular goal that is set, and progress towards that goal is scaffolded and ordered in such a way that the player is given a challenge that is just out of reach, but is also given the tools to reach that challenge.  She posits that a good teacher ultimately does the same thing.  A game designer is constantly thinking "what does the player need to know right now?" and "what variety of experiences that I can give my player, based on their learning style?"  Again, this is exactly what a good teacher should be doing.

With compelling evidence that gaming is a significant and pervasive youth activity, we should be embracing the potential "good" that video games can bring to our classrooms.  De-contextualised learning leads to boredom and disengagement, whereas games can provide extreme self-motivation and enhanced productivity.  A good game is just at the outer edge of the player's competence, creating a challenge that is ultimately achievable, but one that requires higher order thinking and problem-solving.  Another positive aspect of games is that they encourage the development of cooperation and trust, and enhance social relationships through collaboration and team work.   

A learning environment that affords students opportunities to create and construct knowledge through integration of technology, combined with a pedagogy that promotes contextual problem solving and critical thinking provides me with much food for thought, and a desire to pursue and embrace the concept of video games as an acceptable and credible medium for learning in schools.