How can Game Based Learning re-engage students with high behavioural issues in the primary English classroom?

From the beginning of classroom education, there has always been students, who struggled to learn in these strict, teaching controlled environments. These students have difficultly learning for many reasons and are considered at-risk of reaching their learning potential (Yong & Ping, 2008, p. 521). Students who are at-risk disengage from their learning environment and manifest behavioural issues as a result of their inability to understand what they are learning (Vizard, 2009, p. 1). In primary school English classrooms, more and more students are becoming disengaged with the methods and styles of teaching (Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes, & Vicari, 2015, p. 187). Research has been continually evolving on how we can best help these at-risk students re-engage inside the classroom, with varied results (Yong & Ping, 2008, p. 522). This chapter will identify reasons that these students have become disengaged and how game based learning can allow these students to feel motivated and in control of their learning. It will also look at specific examples of game based learning such a multi-player games, multi-level games, Quest Atlantis and digital board games and how they can be included in the primary English classroom to re-engage at risk students.

Traditionally, English subjects were taught to students in classrooms with boards, chalk and a teacher driven curriculum. Students sat in their desks and followed the directions of the teacher with few questions. Unknowingly, this style of teaching was very restrictive on students who struggled to learn without interaction and questioning. Recently, technology was introduced and students began to engage with computers for typing. However, this did not help students who had difficulty learning using the traditional style of teaching. To help re-engage students, interactive whiteboards were introduced to increase student interaction in the classroom through movement and collaboration (Slay, Siebörger & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008, p. 1322). This type of technology did work in engaging some students but again they became accustomed to it and disengagement increased ((Slay, Siebörger & Hodgkinson-Williams, 2008, p. 1339). With the increase in student interest with technology and gaming, these ideas are now being considered a viable option in 21st century classrooms to again increase motivation and engagement of these at risk-students (Hutchings Mangion, 2017, Module 4.3).

From previous research, it has been identified that most students with behavioural issues are acting out to move the focus away from the fact they are unable to complete the given work (Vizard, 2009, p. 1). Behavioural issues can include refusing to complete work, anger, asking multiple questions about other topics or students becoming the class clown to get out of work. This disengagement usually occurs when students do not understand what they are learning or how to complete the task on their own(Yong & Ping, 2008, p. 521). Disengagement can also occur when students are bored with what and how they are learning, as traditional methods do not match how these digital natives want to receive and develop information (Prensky, 2006, as cited in Becker, 2011, p. 88). In the English classroom, not completing activities means students fall behind in their letter and word recognition, phonological awareness and grammar and punctuation skills (MacArthur, Ferretti, Okola & Cavalier, 2001, p.274).

As these at-risk students are 21^st century learners the incorporation of technology will be highly motivating and enjoyable for students (Turkay & Adinolfs, 2010, p.11) For students struggling with the traditional English classroom, game based learning can provide learning experiences that students can’t learn from books (Jennings, 2014, para. 27). Beavis supports the incorporation of game based learning as they can be highly motivating and lead to deeper understanding (Jennings, 2014, para 6).

Students that take longer to understand new topics in English, would benefit from types of game based learning, such as multi-player games. These games take a social constructivism approach, having a narrative base and allowing players to check their understanding through interactions (Hutchings Mangion, 2017, Module 3.3). Many students have played these games in the form of Call of Duty or League of Legend in their personal time. These games allow students to use interactivity and team work to improve their English communication skills (Hutchings Mangion, 2017, Module 3.5) and improve cooperation (Turkay et al, 2015, p.5). Donahoo (2013), supports the use of multi-player games, and suggests games such as World of Warcraft to help build relationships (para. 6). They also allow students to opportunity to customise characters, which is important to student autonomy (Wood, Griffiths, Chappell & Davies, 2004, p. 3).

Multi-player games benefit at-risk students because they allow for collaborative teams (Gee, 2005, p. 87). Gee (2005), goes on to explain that in these teams, each student has different strengths and these strengths can be used by all team members to achieve learning outcomes (p.87). Through the research of Wood, Griffiths, Chappell and Davies (2004), it was found that 56% of students considered building alliances and communication between team members essential features of game-play (p. 3). Ideas such as cross functional teams are based on Lev Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development and its benefits using peer collaboration (Vygotsky, 1987). In the English classroom at risk students could work together to solve problems through games such as World of Warcraft, Minecraft or The Sims, as they require students to communicate and understand each other to pass the missions or tasks. Instead of at risk students losing confidence over failed understanding, they are able to access multiple students’ knowledge to help them (Anderson, 2012, April 24).

Multi-level games require students to learn and test certain information and skills before being allowed to move onto the next stage (Anderson, 2012, April 24). As students move through the levels the information gets more involved and they are required to demonstrate what they have learnt in more challenging ways (Adam, 2009, p. 677). These games allow students to learn and acquire additional information at their own pace, gradually increasing their skills, as well as their confidence in the subject (Adam, 2009, p. 677). It also gives students the chance to get things wrong without it negatively affecting their learning and self-esteem (Anderson, 2012, April 24). Students who show behavioural issues because they are confused would benefit from this style of game as they are only given information they need to pass to the next level (Gee, 2005, p. 35). This idea is like one of Gee’s principles ‘just in time’, where students only receive the information they need at that stage of learning, making learning more manageable for at risk students (p. 35). This style is supported by Anderson (2012, April 24), who believes that students should be allowed to master levels at their own pace to become more confident as their knowledge increases. Salen (2013, July 30) suggests that the curriculum that supports this style of game be mission and quest based, increasing in difficulty as students gain and assimilate more knowledge. She also states that a major motivational factor is the ability to see how much they have learned and how much they to go, which students can clearly see in these types of games (Salen, 2013, July 30).

Quest Atlantis was created by Indiana University and allows students to complete educational tasks in a 3D multi-user environments.  (Tay & Lim, 2009, p. 21). In this virtual world students can move around freely and complete quests based on educational goals. Students can also chat and collaborate with other students about work and tasks (Tay & Lim, 2009, p. 21). The most beneficial part of Quest Atlantis is its inclusion of curriculum appropriate tasks that students are required to complete. This makes it a highly viable option as one of the most difficult parts of including GBL is linking it to appropriate curriculum and learning goals (Turkay et al, 2015, p. 3). In the classroom, teachers can cater these learning activities (quests) to suit the topics, knowledge and levels students need. As this tool has a chat option, if students get stuck they can ask peers for help, building their communication and using their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1987). Like levelling games, Quest Atlantis encourages students to take risks and use their failures as exploration of topics (Gee, 2005, p. 35).

A study was completed by the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) using Quest Atlantis to see how students engaged with game based learning (DEECD, 2011, p. 3). Most teachers took part to find new detailed ways to teach and engage their struggling or at risk students (p. 13). At the end of the trial, teachers found that students developed better motivation, confidence, knowledge and understanding, creative thinking and negotiating skills, all important to developing at risk students’ English skills (DEECD, 2011, p. 14). Other key learning outcomes included enhanced motivation, confidence, reading and comprehension skills (DEECD, 2011, p. 21- 27). Students had also begun to develop their creative writing skills, by creating their own characters and quests for other students to complete (DEECD, 2011, p. 14). It was also found that Quest Atlantis allowed students to develop or extend knowledge at their own rate without feeling overwhelmed (DEECD, 2011, p. 18). One last benefit was the inbuild assessments provided by Quest Atlantis, allowing students to show their learning without the constraints of a teacher directed assessment (DEECD, 2011, p. 19). This would be extremely beneficial for at risk students struggling in English as they feel they have more freedom and agency to complete the tasks (Yong & Ping, 2008, p. 534).

One common negative found throughout the study was the speed, as the tool would sometimes freeze and was slow to load (DEECD, 2011, p. 31). This creates problems with time management for teachers, even more so if schools have slow internet. Issues also occurred with the time allowed for students to use the technology, as they were only given one hour a week, most students felt this was not enough time (DEECD, 2011, p. 31). Finally, some students struggled with the game as there was reading required, potentially causing issues with at risk students already struggling with confidence (DEECD, 2011, p. 31).

While there are many positives to incorporating student played games into the classroom, these are not engaging to certain students (Contradi, 2015, p. 56). Allowing students to create their own games based on the English curriculum could be more engaging to students than playing a game (Van Eck, 2006, p.20). This idea is also supported by Dena (2008), who agrees that storytelling with peers is an integral part of the gaming experience, allowing students to building relationships around play (in Mäyrä, Holopainen, Jakobsson, & Montola, 2012, p. 311) In the English classroom, these games could be based on storytelling and narrativization, such as books students are reading and studying in class (Szafron, 2005, para 38).

A recent study by Tikka, Kankaanranta, Nousianinen & Hankala (2009), used the computer based literacy tool, Talarius, to create digital board games based on a novel, students were reading in class. In this study students had previous read the book and were asked to create a digital board game based on the storyline of the book, where the outline and rules. During the study students Tikka et al, (2009), also discovered that students could not only develop their basic literacy skills such as storytelling and basic communication, but also their game literacy (p. 176). This is valuable for students, as they gain media literacy allowing them the better critique and create different types of media (Tikka et al, 2009, p. 176).

Negatively, Telarius is more appropriate for older students as they already need to have textual and game literacy. In primary school, only older students in year 5 and 6 would be able to effectively use the tool. If teachers wished to use this tool in the younger years, at risk students could work as a group with the teacher. The teacher would take students collaboration and ideas and help them to create the digital board game. Doing this could also cause issues for time management as younger students will need more time to create and teachers will require extra time to create the game (de Freitas & Maharg, 2011, p. 76).

Overall, at risk students need a modern style of learning to re-engage, motivate and build their confidence. They need a learning environment that allows them to work through information at their own pace, where their failures can be used as learning tools, instead of deficits (Gee, 2005, p. 35). Multi-player games offer students the chance to work with other students to create collaborative learning environments. Positively, students can use each other’s knowledge to achieve new learning goals and help each other through the zone of proximal development.

Levelling games allow students to work through information at their own pace, which is important for overwhelmed, at risk students in English classrooms. Quest Atlantis, has recent research in Australia that demonstrates how effective it could be for at risk students. Using this tool, students could improve their English skills, as well as build their confidence and motivation. Quest Atlantis has the advantages of both multi-player and levelling games. It allows teachers to input learning experiences (quests), catering to various levels and learning needs. Quest Atlantis also lets students communicate with each other to collaborate, solve problems and discuss important topics.

Talarius lends itself to English education as teachers can assimilate any story students are reading in class. It offers a chance for students to creatively share the knowledge of the book through board game design and rules. However, it is more difficult and time consuming to implement into early primary classroom.

While all of these styles of games based learning offer positives and negatives, the most specifically effective based on research would be Quest Atlantis. Because it lets teachers cater to specific at risk students and allows communication and agency of learning.

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

Andersen, P. [TEDx Talks]. (2012, April 24). Classroom Game Design: Paul Andersen at TEDxBozeman [Youtube]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qlYGX0H6Ec

Becker, K. (2011). Distinctions between games and learning: A review of current literature on games in education. In Gaming and Simulations: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 75-107). Hershey, PA: doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-195-9.ch105

Conradi, K. (2015). Tapping technology’s potential to motivate readers: technology isn’t inherently motivational to students, but teachers can employ a variety of strategies that can harness technology to promote student engagement. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(3), 54.

de Freitas, S., & Maharg, P. (2011). Constructions of games, teachers and young people in formal learning, Chapter 8 in S. Freitas & P. Maharg, Digital games and learning (pp, 176-199) http://CSUAU.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=655488

Donahoo, D. (2013, October 22). Curating the Way We Teach with Games [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://redarchive.nmc.org/news/curating-way-we-teach-games

Department of Education and Early Childhood development. (2011). 2011 Innovating with Technology: Game-based Learning Research Trials: Findings to inform school practice. Retrieved from www.education.vic.gov.au/researchinnovation/

Gee, J. (2005). Why Video Games Are Good For Your Soul: Pleasure and Learning. Melbourne: Common Ground.

Hutchings Mangion, K. (2017). INF541, Module 3.3, Characteristics of games for educational purposes [Online Learning Modules]. Retrieved from Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, LMS website:         http://www.csu.edu.au/

Hutchings Mangion, K. (2017). INF541, Module 3.5, Game Infrastructure [Online Learning Modules]. Retrieved from Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, LMS website: http://www.csu.edu.au/

Hutchings Mangion, K. (2017). INF541, Module 4.3, Constructing Knowledge [Online Learning Modules]. Retrieved from Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, LMS website: http://www.csu.edu.au/

Jennings, J. (2014, November 30). Teachers re-evaluate value of video games. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/teachers-reevaluate-value-of-video-games-20141110-11jw0i

MacArthur, C.A., Ferretti, R.P., Okolo, C.M. & Cavalier, A.R. (2001). Technology Applications for Students with Literacy Problems: A Critical Review. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.

Mäyrä, F., Holopainen, J., Jakobsson, M., & Montola, M. (2012). Social constructionism and ludology. Simulation & Gaming, 43(3), 300–320.

Salen, K. [Edutopia]. (2013, July 30). Katie Salen on the Powr of Game-Based Learning (Big Thinkers Series) [Youtube]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk_OfUHpCbM

Slay, H., Siebörger, I. & Hodgkinson-Williams C. (2008). Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”?, Computers & Education, Volume 5(3), 1322- 1341.

Szafron, D., Carbonaro, M., Cutumisu, M., Gillis, S., McNaughton, M., Onuczko, C., et al. (2005). Writing interactive stories in the classroom. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.imej.wfu.edu/articles/2005/1/02/index.asp

Tikka, S., Kankaanranta, M., Nousiainen, T., & Hankala, M. (2009). Telling stories with digital board games: Narrative game worlds in literacies learning. In T. Connolly, M. Stansfield, & L. Boyle (Eds.) Games-based learning advancements for multi-sensory human computer interfaces: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 174-190). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-360-9.ch011 http://www.igi-global.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/gateway/chapter/full-text-html/18795

Turkay, S., & Adinolf, S. (2010). Free to be me: A survey study on customization with World of Warcraft and City of Heroes/Villains players. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1840–1845.

Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C. K., Chantes, P., & Vicari, C. (2015). Toward understanding the potential of games for learning: Learning theory, game design characteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(1-2), 2–22.  doi:10.1080/07380569.2015.890879V

Van Eck, Richard. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16-18. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Van_Eck/publication/242513283_Digital_Game_Based_LEARNING_It’s_Not_Just_the_Digital_Natives_Who_Are_Restless/links/0a85e53cd61cf43e29000000.pdf

Vizard, D (2009), Meeting the needs of disaffected students: Engaging students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, London: Bloomsbury Publishing

Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, 5291, 157.

Yong, T.L., & Ping, L.C., (2008). Engaging academically at risk primary school students in an ICT mediated after school program. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,        24(5), 521-539.

Wood, R., Griffiths, M., Chappell, D.& Davies, M. (2004). The Structural Characteristics of Video Games: A Psycho-Structural Analysis. Cyberpsychology & behaviour, 7(1), 1-11.