Digital and Information Literacy in Higher Education through Game-based learning

by Andrew Press

Digital and Information Literacy in Higher Education through Game-based learning

In an increasingly online world our society is becoming more and more reliant on information to operate. We live in an ‘information society’ where a lot of our wealth, employment and socio-cultural activities are driven by information (Bawden & Robinson, 2012, p.231). With so much information currently available and more being produced at an ever increasing rate, it is difficult to navigate and be productive members of that digital information society. To bridge the ever widening ‘digital divide’ (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2010, p.893), skills and knowledge on how to find, filter and use information are essential; this is where information literacy is needed. This chapter will define Information literacy and explore some of the research that has been performed on the topic of games, serious games and game-based learning; review some of the negative impacts and expand on the benefits of games when used in teaching and learning information literacy in the increasingly digital world in which we live, work and play.

Information literacy in a digital world

Traditional Information literacy started with the instruction on how to navigate and use written text; how to use libraries to find books and other printed information sources (Spiranec & Zorica, 2009, p.141). However with the introduction of the internet and the explosion of online information sources that are now available to us via digital means, the definition of information literacy needs to evolve and change in line with our society. The Council of Australian University librarians (CAUL) and the Australian and New Zealand Institute for information Literacy have done this through their definition of Information literacy (2004); they define information literacy as being more than just the use of information and information communications technology (ICT) (2004, p. 4) and that it incorporates all multi-media types and methods of access. It is for this reason that Bent & Stubbings (2011) define information Literacy as “an umbrella term which encompasses concepts such as digital, visual, and media literacies, academic literacy, information handling, information skills, data curation and data management” (p. 3).

Using this definition we can see that information literacy is an essential 21^st century skill (Trilling & Fadel, 2009); it has been highlighted as a key trend in higher education (Adams Becker et al., 2017, p. 7) and is essential to academic achievement (Loertscher & Woolls, 2002) however the assumption is that the current generation of ‘digital natives’, due to their immersion and exposure to the digital world since birth, have an inbuilt knowledge of information literacy (Prenksy, 2001). This may be the case for some students but research shows that this is not universally true (Sharkey & O’Conner, 2013, p. 37). Many students have a good understanding of some technologies such as social media and Google search however many do not have an understanding of how technologies are used in education (Ng, 2012, p. 1077), specifically in an information literacy context. It is for this reason that teaching information literacy to students is a high priority (Adams Becker et al. 2017, p. 7); not only for future work prospects but to enable them to become lifelong learners, adapting to all future changes in information communication technologies.

In the higher education environment the library is usually responsible for providing Information literacy however this is usually restricted by short timeframes, the voluntary nature of the sessions, disinterested/unmotivated students and Librarians who lack learning and teaching skills (Johnston & Webber, 2003, p. 342). Traditional education methods rely heavily on ‘sage on the stage’ type of knowledge transfer. The teacher stands up the front and talks to the students, expecting them to absorb this information. However, similar to information literacy paradigms of old, New technologies and methods are required by today’s students to move beyond simple information transfer and into a more active constructivist learning environment (van Meegen & Limpens, 2010, p. 284).

How can games help?

Games have become a major part of modern day society; the gaming industry in Australia alone generated $2.958 Billion in revenue in 2016 (Walker, 2017) while retail sales only saw a $1.065 Billion revenue. When we look at households, 98% of homes with children have video games (Brand & Todhunter, 2015, p. 5). With games being so popular and something that the current ‘net’ generation are familiar with, how can we harness this interest and bring it into an educational environment to help with Information Literacy?

Games themselves are a new form of multimedia; games include a combination of visual, audio, text, interaction and usually contain narrative elements. In order to play any specific game, the player must first learn how to play; what buttons to press, identify goals and develop basic strategies on how to succeed (Brown & Kasper, 2013, p. 772). Many players will also research alternative strategies for success developed by others, researching online, reading wikis, watching videos and reading blogs associated with the specific game (Adams, 2009, p. 689). These are all behaviours and skills taught through information literacy.

While games as a media intrinsically demonstrate information literacies, they can also be used in teaching and learning. There is a number of examples where games have been successfully used to teach specific knowledge and/or skills such as computer studies (Papastergiou, 2009) or science (Miller, Cheng, Wang, Beier & Klisch, 2011) but there are also examples of games developed specifically for information literacy. One example is ‘Bibliobouts’ specifically created to teach information literacy in higher education (Markey, Leeder, & Taylor, 2012). From these successful implementations we can see that games provide a wide and dynamic variety of options depending on the nature of the topic being taught. There are different genres, mechanics, themes and contexts which can allow for different learning environments as required by the educator. Some of these options include Active worlds where avatars are used within custom 3D learning environments such as Second Life, games modelled on physics simulations such as Angry birds, World of Goo and Geoworld or games aimed at teaching history such as Civilization, Oregon Trail and Assassins Creed (Young et al. 2012, p. 61).

The wide variety of games available demonstrate the different ways in which games can be used in an educational capacity – use of commercial off the shelf games, developing a custom game built for a specific context or alternatively have the students go through the process of game design and build their own. This has the added benefit of students not just learning the content through games but learning how to build games themselves which pushes the learning into the highest cognitive and knowledge dimension of Bloom’s revised taxonomy of educational outcomes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

Games also provide a highly engaging environment for students to play, test and construct knowledge in groups or alone as required (Oblinger, 2004, p. 7). Through the use of intrinsic motivation, the motivation for a person to play a game with no external rewards, games engage students through challenges, the ability to control certain features, fantasy environments and natural curiosity (Habgood & Ainsworth, 2011, p. 171). This inbuilt motivation to engage with a game helps to develop a deeper understanding of the subject material and ultimately greater learning outcomes.

Games allow students to learn through constructivist pedagogy; with continuous trial and error, students can develop their own understanding by testing suppositions, gaining experience through practice and being constantly challenged and provided with instant feedback throughout the game (Oblinger, 2004, p. 6). Additional elements such as competition, collaboration (such as team or multiplayer events) and reflection provide students with a social element; this drives communication and facilitates a shared understanding of the games themes and content.

Games also allow students to learn at their own pace; games often allow players to save their progress but more than this, games allow students to set the challenge level and the intensity of the learning environment. Games provide an automated method of adjusting challenges based on the student’s abilities; this promotes a sense of agency in the student, improving motivation due to their control over their learning progress but this also invokes a state of flow (Csíkszentmihályi, 1992). The state of flow is when the brain is being challenged at the same speed as which new skills are being learned, this has been found to exponentially improve learning outcomes as well as engage pleasure responses, in essence, to produce a sense of satisfaction in the brain (Chen, 2007, p. 31).

This dynamic nature of games, the ability to customise and control also means that games can cater to a diverse cohort of students, allowing for a wide range of skills and prior knowledge (Martin & Ewing, 2008, p. 223). This is especially effective for students in higher education where no two people will have a common understanding, knowledge or skill level of information literacy.

What are some of the negative impacts?

There are many benefits to using games to support information literacy in higher education however there are also a number of issues surrounding the use of games in an educational context.

There are many people who have preconceived negative attitudes on the use of games as a teaching and learning medium. Whether it is the assumption that the fun of a game will distract from the learning outcomes (Whitton, 2011b, p. 353), whether the game is addictive to the point of the student developing behavioural issues similar to that of problem gambling (King, Delfabbro & Griffiths, 2010, p. 91) or in the case where the game involves virtual violence – whether this will increase the likelihood of players becoming more aggressive in real life (Wallenius & Punamäki, 2008, p. 292). These are risks that the educator will need to understand and know how to intervene as required.

This highlights the additional knowledge and skills that educators require when planning to use games and game-based learning in an educational context. Games are not a blunt tool or a silver bullet to engage and motivate all students; games require careful planning, support and a large amount of flexibility in order to be successful in achieving learning outcomes (Guo & Goh, 2016, p. 351). Games cannot be used in isolation; they require the educator to guide the players through the learning objectives, to relate the play to the learning context, and games need to be used in conjunction with other activities in order to be effective. The educator needs to bring the player out of the game, reflect on the game activities and be able to relate them to other areas; expand the context to real life situations in order for learning to occur (Beavis et al., 2014, p. 577). The educator themselves need to be enthusiastic for the use of games, this has a huge impact on the efficacy of game-based learning and this additional level of commitment and professional development may not be feasible depending on the institution and situation.

Similar to an individual’s taste in music, students will also have a preference for game genres. While many games will fall across genres, if a game is chosen to facilitate learning but is not of interest to a student, the game may have the opposite effect; the student quickly losing their motivation and effectively disengage from the learning content (Whitton, 2011a, p. 80). A similar result will also happen in the case the challenges are too hard or too easy compared to the student’s abilities. If a game is too hard or not challenging enough the student will quickly lose interest and have detrimental effects (Chen, 2007, p. 32). This also applies to the level of control the student has on the game. If the student has too much control, for example in an open world with no rules, it would be hard to determine the learning goals and the player would effectively become lost. Alternatively if the student does not have enough control, the game would become more like a movie, negating the motivational aspect of agency, no longer interactive and engaging but a disappointment; failing in its expectations of fun.

Another drawback to using game-based learning is they can be support heavy (van Eck, 2006, p. 28); while the educator requires professional development into the pedagogy behind the use of games, they will also need to know how to play the game themselves, but more than this there are a number of other support structures that will need to be in place. Games require a platform to be played on; whether this is a specific console such as a Playstation, Xbox, Wii or a PC, there will Information Technology requirements that will need to be fulfilled by specialist personnel. Games will need to be installed, in the case of PC’s, memory and drivers will need to be reviewed and network configuration may need to be reviewed if internet access is required this is often the case for games with social aspects. The overall number of computers/consoles may not be adequate to allow all students to participate at the same time. Alternatively in an online or blended learning environment where students may be playing on their personal devices, the student will need to be made aware of the minimum specifications for playing the game or alternatives provided and I.T. personnel may also be required to solve any access issues related to online students.

The final point is something that has been discussed previously; the range of games can be a benefit as there are so many which could support the learning goals however this huge range can also be hard to navigate and ultimately decide upon. Choosing which game would be appropriate, effective and be flexible enough to cater for student preferences can be very difficult. Another restriction is that due to the wide range of games available, the research on any specific game is usually limited to a small sample (if any research is available at all), and may not be transferable to your own context (Connolly et al., 2012, p.672). If no existing COTS game can fulfil the requirements, purpose built games can be costly and there is still no guarantee that it will achieve the learning goals and be fun.

Conclusion

Game based learning provide many benefits; they are flexible and effective tools for engaging and motivating students to learn however games require an educator with a good knowledge of when and how to use them as well as a lot of time, money and support to implement them.

In the higher education environment, information and digital literacy are essential 21^st century skills not only for academic achievement but for lifelong learning however instruction is often limited and voluntary. Games and games-based learning can help us teach and learn the skills and knowledge to adapt and thrive in an increasingly digital, information based world.

References:

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Adams, S. S. (2009). What games have to offer: Information behaviour and meaning-making in virtual play spaces. Library Trends, 57(4), 676-693.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing ; a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational outcomes. New York, NY. : Longman.

Bawden, D, & Robinson, L. (2012). Information society. In Introduction to information science (pp. 231-249). London : Facet.

Bent, M. & Stubbings, R. (2011). The SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information Literacy: Core Model. Retrieved from: http://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf

Beavis, C., Rowan, L., Dezuanni, M., McGillivray, C., O’Mara, J., Prestridge, S., … Zagami, J. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about the possibilities and limitations of digital games in classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(6), 569–581. doi:10.2304/elea.2014.11.6.569

Brand, J. E. & Todhunter, S. (2015). Digital Australia 2016. Eveleigh, NSW: IGEA. Retrieved from: http://www.igea.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Digital-Australia-2016-DA16-Final.pdf

Brown, R. T., & Kasper, T. (2013). The fusion of literacy and games: A case study in assessing the goals of a library video game program. Library Trends, 61(4), 755-778. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1443260853?accountid=10344

Bundy, A. (Ed.). (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework. Principles, standards and practice. Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1992). Flow: The psychology of happiness. London: Random House

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661-686. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

DeMeester, A., (2015, Feb 28) Information literacy in the digital age. [Video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/559wIQMJAtQ

Extra Credits, (2014, May 14), Education: 21^st Century Skills – How games prepare you for life – Extra Credits. [Video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/0hoeAmqwvyY

Guo, Y. R., & Goh, D. H. L. (2016). Library Escape: User-Centered Design of an Information Literacy Game. The Library Quarterly, 86(3), 330-355. doi:

Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169-206. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.508029

Hargittai, E. (2010), Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the “Net Generation”*. Sociological Inquiry, 80: 92–113.  doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x

Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: a review and case study. Studies in higher education, 28(3), 335-352.  doi: 10.1080/03075070309295

King, D., Delfabbro, P., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90-106. doi: 10.1007/s11469-009-9206-4

Loertscher, D. V., & Woolls, B. (2002). Information literacy. A Review of the Research. Castle Rock CO, USA: Hi Willow Research and Publishing.

Markey, K., Leeder, C., & Taylor, C. L. (2012). Playing games to improve the quality of the sources students cite in their papers. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 52(2), 123-135.

Martin, J., & Ewing, R. (2008). Power up! Using digital gaming techniques to enhance library instruction. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(2-3), 209-225.
doi: 10.1080/10875300802103874

Miller, L. M., Chang, C. I., Wang, S., Beier, M. E., & Klisch, Y. (2011). Learning and motivational impacts of a multimedia science game. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1425-1433.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.016

Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.016

Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of interactive media in education, 2004(1). doi: 10.5334/2004-8-oblinger

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Sharkey, J., & O’Connor, L. (2013). Establishing Twenty-First-Century Information Fluency. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 53(1), 33-39. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/refuseserq.53.1.33

Špiranec, S., & Banek Zorica, M. (2010). Information Literacy 2.0: hype or discourse refinement?. Journal of documentation, 66(1), 140-153.
doi: 10.1108/00220411011016407

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New media & society, 13(6), 893-911. doi: 10.1177/1461444810386774

van Eck, R., (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, (20), 16-18. Retrieved from  http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/digital-game-based-learning-its-not-just-digital-natives-who-are-restless

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. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7993

Walker, A., (2017, Feb 28). Australia’s gaming industry generated almost $3 Billion in revenue last year. Kotaku. Retrieved from https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/02/australias-gaming-industry-generated-almost-3-billion-in-revenue-last-year

Wallenius, M., & Punamäki, R. L. (2008). Digital game violence and direct aggression in adolescence: A longitudinal study of the roles of sex, age, and parent–child communication. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 286-294. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.04.010

Whitton, N. (2011a). Encouraging Engagement in Game-Based Learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 1(1), 75-84. doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2011010106

Whitton, N. (2011b). Theories of motivation for adults learning with games. Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches, 1, 352-369. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch017

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., … & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of educational research, 82(1), 61-89. doi: 10.3102/0034654312436980