At the beginning of this journey, I stated that I was not a gamer, and I still maintain that stance, but I have discovered I need to change that status. It is only by involving myself in the world of games that my knowledge of the genre and ability to appreciate, evaluate and eventually design games will grow. This is supported by Iacovides etal (2014, p. 621) who state “the more strongly someone identifies as a gamer, the greater their micro- and macro-involvement and the more likely they are to learn from their gaming experiences in a range of different ways”.

Educators as a point of necessity should be looking at the benefits of using gaming as part of their pedagogy, as it is a method in which to connect with ‘Millennials’ and their following generations (van Megan & Limpens, 2010, p. 274). It is also noted that games in general, not just video games can reach a wide range of learners, including those who work best visually, kinaesthetically and auditorily (Veach, 2019, p. 559). It has been my experience that young children in general will gravitate towards an electronic device, whether it be a personal computer, tablet or smart phone. I have also noticed, that even if only one child is actively playing the game others will congregate around them watching and even suggesting the next move, so that a rather unsophisticated game can be a platform for collaborative learning and a simple form of a learning community where they also communicate, network and provide peer feedback (Markey et al, 2011, p.49).

The game that I chose to create for my assessment was also intended for the students I teach. As a result of my limited gaming experience I chose a linear game. Even though linear games are not as complex as other forms of gaming, the level of the taxonomy was suitable for the level of “knowledge and comprehension” of my students (O’Brien, 2011 p.11). It should be noted that linear games present players with “clear, logical steps to perform in recalling and understanding knowledge” (O’Brien, 2011 p.11). Those characteristics are appropriate for my game and its intended audience. Making my own game has also given me a greater appreciation for the time, effort and forethought that is required, if a game is to fulfil its intended learning outcomes and endeavour to keep players immersed in game play. Creating my game has provided me a new skill, drag and drop coding, that I can share with my students.

Leading on from this point in time I have set myself goals. The first of those goals is to invest time in playing Role Playing Games better known as RPGs, but in particular to dapple in massively-multiplayer online rope-playing games, also known as MMORPGs. Choosing to participate will provide me with the opportunity to discover for myself the “variety of skills and knowledge in the course of game play” (Lee etal, 2005, p. 2040). It is my belief that only from the immersion in this type of game that I will gain the insight required to fully appreciate this type of game and how it can be beneficial in teaching and learning. Another of those goals is to further investigate “DIY Breakout EDU kits” as outlined in Veach (2019, p. 567). I believe that these types of games would benefit the older primary school children that I work with.

My venture into the world of gaming started when I decided to participate in this subject. This subject has provided a platform from which I intend to keep growing in experience, knowledge and including gaming into my teaching pedagogy.

References

Iacovides, I., McAndrew, P., Scanlon, E. & Aczel, J. (2014). The gaming involvement and informal learning framework. Simulation and Gaming, 45(4-5), 611-626. http://doi:10.1177/1046878114554191

Lee, M., Eustace, K., Fellows, G., Bytheway, A., & Irving, L. (2005). Using massively-multiplayer online role-playing games to enhance collaborative learning and teaching in Australian high school classrooms. In P. Kommers (Ed.), EDMEDIA (pp. 2039-2046). AACE.

Markey, K., Leeder, C. & St. Jean, B. (2011). Students’ behaviour playing an online information literacy game. Journal of Information Literacy, 5(2), 46-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/5.2.1637

O’Brien, D. (2011). A taxonomy of educational games. In Gaming simulations: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications. Hershey. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-195-9.ch101

van Meegen, A. & Limpens, I. (2010). How serious do we need to be? Improving information literacy skills through gaming and interactive elements. Liber Quarterly, 20(2), 270-288.

Veach, C.C. (2019). Breaking out to break through: Re-imaging first-year orientations. Reference Services Review, 47 (4), 556-569. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-06-2019-0039

Word Building with Wally the Wizard is a phonics and word building game aimed at four to six-year-old children consolidating their knowledge of alphabet letters and the sounds they make. It begins by focusing on the initial sounds of words and then moves on to onset and rime of small cvc words. As Campbell (2016, p.10) notes “phonics knowledge is one of the predictors of later reading success”, she also recommends that educators focus on rhyme as larger units of sound, to assist children’s phonological awareness. This is also recommended by Carnine et al., (2006, p.36) as blending sounds along with segmenting are “identified as most critical” of phonemic awareness skills.

The order of the introduction of each letter is considered and aligns with the synthetic phonics program ‘Jolly Phonics’. The first group of letters (s, a, t, p, i, n) to be introduced are specifically chosen as when combined, make more simple three-letter words than any other six letters (“Jolly Phonics and Grammar,” n.d., p. 3).

The objective of Word Building with Wally the Wizard is to get Wally home to his castle. In order to complete this mission, players move through levels where they are asked to identify the initial sounds of words and then work on rhyming words, consolidating their knowledge of onset and rime. This is the quest and having the narrative of a quest is a general characteristic of game play (St-Pierre, 2011, p.77).

The game starts with a verbal command, necessary for beginning readers, that invites players to enter Wally’s world. The player is then given another verbal command that tells them to click on an object for instruction. There is also text that provides the same information. Gee (2007, pp. 37-38) refers to this as “just in time” or “on demand” information. He notes that humans are not adept at receiving a lot of verbal information at one time, and that it should only be given when required. It should be noted that a written set of instructions in the form a manual is not appropriate for the age group for whom the game is designed.

The players move through six levels, where they practise their ability to identify initial sounds. Players are presented with multiple choice answers that encourages them to be risk takers, knowing that one of the four choices is correct, and therefore giving them a feeling of security. It allows the players to use a “trial and error principle” (van Meegen & Limpens, 2010, p. 274). The goal is clear, choose the correct letter, and feedback is given immediately when the players is either congratulated on their correct choice, or asked to choose again. The use of multiple choice means that players do not have to use a “constructed response” (Beserra et al, 2017, p. 719 ) which takes more time and could consequently disrupt the flow of the game. Flow in the process of playing a game is positive for the player and aids in remembering the objective of the game when positive reinforcement given to correct answers. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, p. 34)

The points system is also designed in a way where the player feels success. If a player makes three incorrect choices and the correct on the fourth, they are still awarded points for that level. The points are displayed on the lower left of the screen and the player is able to watch their score growing higher with each level.

After the first six levels practising the initial sounds the prototype moves to the onset and rime component. The first four onset and rime levels rely on only the initial sound, but are focusing on words with the same rime. In the full version of the game there would be many more levels of different onset and rime before moving to the next six letters as outlined in the ‘Jolly Phonics’ program. The prototype has moved onto the next set of letters after only one experience of blending rhyming cvc words.

After the player has completed ten levels the game switches to a screen where Wally is moving through the forest, how far Wally moves depends on how many points the player has accumulated during the previous ten levels. The player is also given a verbal affirmation encouraging them to continue in their quest. The player then returns to the either an initial sound level or onset and rime level, depending on their progress.

Word Building with Wally the Wizard is a ‘drill and practice’ game often given the label of ‘edutainment’, but as Markey et al (2011, p.48) state “when carefully implemented and grounded in learning principles, games still hold the potential of creating new educational environments.” Games motivate learners, just by being games as they encourage players with a mix of appropriate challenge, if chosen carefully, fantasy of different characters and worlds, and curiosity to find out what the game has install for the player in the next level. (Ivacovides et al, 2014, p.613)

References

Beserra, V., Nussbaum, M. & Grass, A. (2017). Using a fine-grained multiple-choice response format in educational drill-and-practice video games. Interactive learning environments, 25(6), 717-732. https://doi-org.exproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1080/10494820.2016.1172244

Campbell, S. (2016). Playing with phonics. Every Child, 22(4), 10-11.

Carnine, D., Silber, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Tarver, S. G. & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at-risk readers: a direct instruction approach. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Csikszentmihalyi. I. S. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal experiences: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games + good learning: collected essays on video games, learning and literacy. Peter Lang.

Jolly and Phonics and Grammar: Parent/Teacher Guide. (n.d.) https://jolly2.s3.amazonaws.com/Catalogues%20and%20Guide/Parent%20Teacher%20Guide.pdf

Iacovides, I., McAndrew, P., Scanlon, E. & Aczel, J. (2014). The gaming involvement and informal learning framework. Simulation and Gaming, 45(4-5), 611-626. http://doi:10.1177/1046878114554191

Markey, K., Leeder, C. & St. Jean, B. (2011). Students’ behaviour playing an online information literacy game. Journal of Information Literacy, 5(2), 46-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/5.2.1637

St-Pierre, R. (2011). Learning with video games. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 74-96). Hersey. https://doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch004

van Meegen, A. & Limpens, I. (2010). How serious do we need to be? Improving information literacy skills through gaming and interactive elements. Liber Quarterly, 20(2), 270-288.

An alternative link to Welcome to Word Building with Wally the Wizard! https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/386713333

https://pixabay.com/photos/game-the-strategy-computer-289470/

My use of computer technology in teaching has been to use it as a creative tool. Students in my classes are taught to publish documents, produce interactive PowerPoint presentations, make movies, manage spreadsheets, using technology as a tool to showcase their final assessment. My use of game-based learning to date has had a very narrow range, even though I was fully cognisant of a broader definition. I had used games that focussed primarily on drill and practice, “edutainment games that can be characterised as low-budget, student centric, skill-based games exhibiting simple gameplay, somewhat dated graphics, and simplistic underlying learning theories” (Egenfeldt- Nielsen, 2011).

My first movement into a wider exploration of game-based learning using the platform of ‘Minecraft’ I feel fell well short of my expectations. I felt that my lack of knowledge in game play and the actual mechanics of the game adversely affected the outcome for both myself and my students. I had been of the assumption that my students being ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2005, p. 29) would be able to use the game intuitively and that I would learn from them. This was not the case.

I do not see myself as a ‘gamer’. I wouldn’t even know how to turn the ‘X-Box’ on, but on deeper reflection I found that using my mobile phone to play ‘simulation games’, (Spacey, 2019, para. 9) identifies me as a gamer that uses skills such as “strategic thinking” and “planning” (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004. p. 4).

Evidence indicates that “games appear to have high intrinsic motivational value” (Turkay et al., 2014, p. 3) and that children learn from a game experience that is at their level, what Darvasi names as the “Goldilocks sweet spot between to hard and too easy” (2020, para. 26), therefore it is a personal aim to become more familiar with the aspects that make a good game so that I can include appropriate gaming in my pedagogy. As Turkay  et al., (2014, p.8) state “An educator well versed in the relationship between video games and different aspects of learning theory will be better equipped to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of a given game for a specific audience in a particular context.”

To go beyond that I challenge myself to create appropriate games for my students. To accomplish this I will need to incorporate what Edurevolution (2014) says is essential to game-based learning “points, badges and leader boards”, but to also use Kapp’s wider definition and to think that “”Gamification” is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems” (2012, p. 59). I will also need to embrace Gee’s 13 Principles of Game Based Learning under the structure of the three categories of “Empowered Learners”, “Problem-based Learning” and “How to create deep understanding” (Thorn, 2013).

References

Davarsi, P. (2020). Five best practices teacher can learn from Dungeon Masters. KQED. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/53553/five-best-practices-teachers-can-learn-from-dungeon-masters

Edurevolution. (2014, March). Gamed based learning vs gamification [Video)]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElcjSMHGP9Q&feature=youtu.be

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2011). What makes a good learning game? Going beyond edutainment. E-Learn, 2011(2). https://doi.org/10.1145/1943208.1943210

Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning. NESTA Futurelab, 2004 (Report No.8). Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal00190453/document

Kapp, K. M. (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education and training. John Wiley & Sons

Prensky, M. (2005). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Gifted, 135, 29-31

Spacey, J. (2019). 38 Types of games. Simplicable. https://simplicable.com/new/games

Thorn, C. (2013, November). Jim Gee principles on gaming [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQAgAjTozk

Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer. C. K., Chantes, P. & Vicari, C. (2014). Towards understand the potential of games for learning: learning theory, game design characteristics, and situation video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31, 1-2, 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.890879

Welcome to your brand new blog at CSU Thinkspace .

For Guides to getting started check out:

• Setting up your first blog / site
• Getting Started Guides
• Customizing Your Site Resources

For support visit: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/support/.