Instructions for play: Games based learning in the Primary classroom
Introduction
Digital Games Based Learning is a 21st Century approach to education. The 21st Century will change the way that people utilise technology. Educators will need to adapt pedagogy to ensure that 21st century students are learning 21st century skills Saavedra, & Opfer (2012), Robinson (2010). Surely then this adaptation must include the use of 21st century ideas and technologies including Digital Games Based Learning (DGBL).
Saavedra & Opfer (2012) identify higher order thinking and collaboration as skills that will be essential to 21st century learners, suggesting that educators must give context to learning and ensure students can transfer knowledge into the real world. Robinson (2010) identifies collaboration as an essential skill along with divergent thinking, which he equates to thinking laterally, and as being a critical component of creativity.
Many Academics have explored how digital games and the gaming culture can address these 21st century skills. Gee (2015), one of the major supporters of learning through games, describes how effective video games ask students to engage in problem-solving, thinking laterally and collaboration. Navarrete (2013) suggests that game design can engage students in critical thinking and the creative process while giving them the opportunity to construct their knowledge about a topic and engage in deep level thinking.
How then do educators introduce DGBL into the classroom in a significant and meaningful way? Like any other pedagogy, it is dependent on the Teacher to implement learning activities that follow best practice.
When it comes to digital games based learning best practice is achieved when Teachers know their students, know the curriculum and the best resources that address learning goals, and learning is integrated to maximise student engagement.
Know your students
Every student comes to school with their unique knowledge and understanding about the world. They each have unique interests, identities, and learning styles. Some students will have a propensity for gaining knowledge through reading while others are capable learners when moving or using concrete materials.
In the primary classroom educators often spend time getting to know their students. They draw information from students through conversations and ‘getting to know you’ activities such as all about me posters and essays. Powell & Kusuma-Powell (2011) support the idea that Educators need to deepen their understanding of students, suggesting that furthering knowledge about students allows for multiple access points to the curriculum.
A part of student identity will inevitably include a digital Identity and a set of related skills and attitudes to technology and gaming. A recent study by Bond University showed that 90% of primary aged students engage with video games, Brand & Toadhunter (2016). The types of games students play at home and the attitudes and skills they develop through play will affect how they interact with games in the classroom.
The study also reveals that 10% of students do not engage with video games outside of the classroom. Students who are non-gamers or who have little interest in gaming may struggle to engage with games based learning. Becker (2011) reminds us that Gaming is like any other pedagogy and quotes Mann (2001);
“Instructional technology only works for some kids, with some topics, and under some conditions—but that is true of all pedagogy. There is nothing that works for every purpose, for every learner, and all the time.” (Mann, 2001, p. 241)
Even if all students in your class are gamers, the quote from Mann (2001) applies as the gaming culture includes different identities with which students engage or identify. Every student will have a unique attitude to gaming and reasons why they play video games.
When first thinking about including games in the classroom it is important to have an understanding of different gaming styles and how these associated identities may influence students learning and engagement in DGBL.
Westwood (2010) provides a taxonomy of a range of gamer identities. These identities include the Solo Gamers, Social Gamers, and Hardcore Online Gamers. Each identity will have a different variety of skills and reasons for gaming. The Solo Gamers usually play for fun and to engage in a story. Social Gamers enjoy collaborating on projects. Whereas the Hardcore Online Gamers tend to play a wide variety of games and are looking to earn trophies and experience points.
Mena (2012) explores the idea of identity further incorporating reasons for play with player identity to develop an extended entertainment grid that outlines the style of play and what the player enjoys in the game and how this compares to player types. Mena (2012) outlines eight primary identities; Networker, Friend, Politician, Griefer, Scientist, Hacker, Planner, and Opportunist.
Each identity enjoys a different aspect of gaming, for example, the Griefer is a killer who enjoys chaotic competition and will often bend or break game rules to win. Conversely, a Hacker enjoys a freeform explorative style play and creating their rules and worlds.
Groom & O’Connell (2016) contribute to the idea of player identity by discussing heuristics; that is the problem-solving skills students develop through gameplay. Just as different digital identities generate different styles of play, each will produce a unique set of skills that support their gameplay and interaction with and within games. These skills or lack of competence will affect how engaging certain games will be to students and their success with learning goals.
If the purpose of the DGBL exercise is to increase creativity, a student who regularly engages with sandbox games will have a clear edge over students who are accustomed to more structured linear story games. In this situation, the first student may thrive and demonstrate the learning outcomes quickly while the second student may disengage as this type of game is too challenging for their play style.
Groom & O’Connell (2016), Westwood (2010) and Mena (2012) all show the variety of digital identities with which students can identify. Each of these identities will impact on how the students engage with games within the classroom. It is, therefore, crucial to the success of any DGBL that educators know the different games available and how these games will engage students with different playing styles and digital identities as well as addressing curriculum outcomes and learning objectives.
Know your games
There are an increasingly large number of games available for educators to utilise. Games span, and at times cross, a wide variety of genres and platforms. When choosing the right game for use in the classroom Becker (2011) cites Winn & Heeter (2007) who suggest that games should engage both genders, accommodate a range of playing styles and provide support for leaners with limited experience.
There is a range of terms used when classifying games, in some cases these are interchangeable. Most educators will be familiar with educational games or ‘Edutainment’ software. These are usually games specifically designed to reinforce content and have students practice skills; they are sometimes called ‘Drill and Skill’ games. While these games can serve a function in the classroom, they rarely engage students in higher order thinking or problem-solving.
Beavis et al. (2014) discusses Serious Games and describes them as games that are designed specifically for learning. These games move away from testing skills or knowledge and towards exploring content through gameplay. Arnab et al. (2012) suggest that serious games and DGBL can focus on learning through the process of gaming rather than the game content itself. Serious Games may not have an immediate link to the curriculum but will teach 21-century skills needed to engage with the content such as thinking laterally and problem-solving.
Another type of game utilised in the classroom is commercial off the shelf (COTS) games. These include popular game titles and games that are not developed specifically for education. COTS games may not have a direct educational or the content may be inaccurate for example the Civilization series would be suitable for older primary students to engage in learning about the different ages in history, though it does not keep accurately depict timing in different eras nor fully explore the richness of history in these times. It could simply be used as an access point for the curriculum.
Arnab et al.(2012) suggest that COTS games are still a quality resource as long as the teacher implements them in a way that connects meaningfully with content. Therefore, it is important before choosing a game to use in the classroom that teachers have a profound understanding of the curriculum to be taught, and the skills or knowledge that they intend students to explore using DGBL.
When choosing if a game is appropriate for your Primary School classroom you will need to consider game ratings, the attitudes and culture of the school but most of all, use your understanding of students to gauge whether they will be able to successfully engage with the game. Miller (2014) states;
“To truly understand if the game will work with your curriculum or your intended goals for learning, you need to sit down and actually play the game… As you play, you can experience what students will experience and learn how to support them when they play.” (Miller, 2014)
Playing the game will increase your understanding and ability to support students, but it will also engage students. De Freitas & Maharg (2011) explored teachers perceptions of games and found that a positive perception of video games will support student engagement.
Gee (2005) explores different attributes of games that support good learning and describes sixteen features which can be useful to look for when choosing a game for the classroom. Gee (2005) explores how good games encourage 21st century skills such as collaboration through distributed knowledge and cross-functional teams. As well as how games encourage lateral and system thinking by connecting events and looking at the big picture. Gee(2005) also suggests good games must give students a sense of identity and provide useful feedback.
When implementing DGBL, it is important to consider the resources available to the school and which platform is best supported by current resources. Games may be available on consoles (Xbox1, Playstaion4), PC Games (desktops and Laptops), or as Applications (iPhones, iPads, Android phones). Some games are available across multiple platforms and in each case will require different equipment and skills to play. PC games usually rely on keyboard and mouse to interface with the game, while consoles each have their own controllers and Auxilliary devices, and applications rely on touch and movement.
Don’t stop at devices
When beginning DGBL in the classroom, it is important to remember that it does not have to entail solely playing games. Gamification is the process of bringing elements from games into the classroom. Salen (2013) suggests educators can reshape activities as ‘Quests’ or ‘Missions’ for which they earn points. Anderson (2012) undertakes a similar approach and utilises game features like leaderboards and avatars to engage students in learning.
As mentioned earlier one of the features of a good game is that of Identity and Agency, Gee (2005). Gamification can allow for students to maintain their game identity in the classroom allowing for a bridging of game experience and classwork, aiding in the preservation of ‘flow’. Beavis et al. (2014) supports the view that flow from gaming should be maintained within the classroom and describes flow as engagement in an activity at a level of immersion where we lose track of the outside world.
When thinking of maintaining flow using DGBL and Gamification, consideration must be given to the level and depth of implementation. Puentedura (2015) explores the SAMR Model, which outlines four ways in which technology, in this case, games, are implemented in the classroom.
The first level is Substitution, where the game is simply replacing an activity. The next level is Augmentation; the game provides more features or greater accessibility than another activity. Then after this comes Modification where the game will be an integral part of gaining and analysing knowledge. Last is Redefinition, where the game allows for a task that would otherwise be impossible.
DGBL can also include students practising and evaluating a game design. Tikka, Kankaanranta, Nousiainen & Hankala, (2009). Demonstrated those students engaging in game design needed to utilise critical literacy skills. Salen (2013) supports the idea of game design as a tool for improving collaboration and problem solving.
Game design and evaluation can be used for students to deepen their understanding of the curriculum. In the example used earlier, the game Civilisation may not accurately portray events in history. Through an evaluation of the game and its omissions students can develop their knowledge of the subject. They may then be tasked with designing a game that addresses the omissions.
Successful DGBL requires a shift in pedagogy. Teachers need to move from a teacher centred approach and open the classroom up to student-lead investigation. Donahoo (2013) suggests that teachers need to take on the role of facilitators. This view is supported by Robinson (2010) who suggests educators need to move away from the current teacher-centric pedagogical approaches.
Conclusion:
Teaching 21-century skills to students require a shift in pedagogy. Every new advancement forces educators to re-evaluate their practice. Becker (2011) cites Vygotsky;
“The invention of new methods that are adequate to the new ways in which problems are posed requires far more than a simple modification of previously accepted methods.” (Vygotsky & Cole, 1977, p. 58)
DGBL, when implemented correctely, is more than a simple modification of pedagogy. When undertaking DGBL in the classroom teachers will need to shift their pedagogy to a more student-focused practice. Students will collaborate to construct their knowledge and transfer this into real world situation.
The first step in the successful implementation of DGBL is ensuring educators know their students. This will include their interests and likes as well as their digital identity. This identity will inevitably provide insight into students gaming practice and gaming style as well as any associated skills and game preferences that students may have. It is important to consider this information before choosing a game to use in the classroom.
Once the teacher has established an understanding of their students, they will need to Identify which learning outcomes they would like to address through DGBL. The choice of a game will be influenced by the curriculum being taught, the attitudes and culture of the school community, and the resources that the school has available. Once these issues have been addressed, the teacher must consider how they will implement DGBL with regards to the SAMR Model. Will the game be used as a simple substitution or will there be a redefinition of learning?
Finally, when implementing DGBL, it is important to maximise student engagement. Gamification and the extension of game practices into the classroom will help support students maintaining a sense of flow. Gamification and the examining od different features of games will also allow students to think critically about the games they engage in and what skills they are learning within games.
It is important that educators prepare students for the 21st century workforce. Engaging in DGBL provides students with the chance to think critically, engage in higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and collaborating with others. DGBL is not the ultimate solution; rather it is a teaching approach like any other. Its success relies on how it is implemented as part of a balanced and engaging curriculum.
References:
Arnab, S., Berta, R., Earp, J., De Freitas, S., Popescu, M., Romero, M., Stanescu, I., & Usart, M. (2012). Framing the adoption of serious games in formal education.Electronic Journal of
e-Learning, 10(2), 159-171. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ985419.pdf
Beavis, C., Rowan, L., Dezuanni, M., McGillivray, C., O’Mara, J., Prestridge, S., Stieler-hunt, C., Thompson, R., & 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 retrieved fromhttp://www.wwwords.co.uk.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/pdf/validate.asp?j=elea&vol=11&issue=6&year=2014&article
Becker, K. (2011). Distinctions between games and learning: A review of current literature on games in education. InGaming and Simulations: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 75-107). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-195-9.ch105 http://www.igi-global.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/gateway/chapter/full-text-html/41466#going-digital
Brand, J. E., & Todhunter, S. (2016). DA16: Digital Australia report. Retrieved fromhttp://www.igea.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Digital-Australia-2016-DA16-Final.pdf
De Freitas, S., & Maharg, P. (2011). Constructions of games, teachers and young people in formal learning, in S. Freitas & P. Maharg, Digital games and learning (pp, 176-199 )
http://CSUAU.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=655488
Donahoo, D. (2013). Curating the Way We Teach with Games. NMC Red Archive.Retrieved from http://redarchive.nmc.org/news/curating-way-we-teach-games
Edutopia. ( 2013, July 30th). Katie Salen on the Power of Game-Based Learning. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk_OfUHpCbM
Gee, J.P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum,85(2), 33-37. Retrieved from http://dmlcentral.net/sites/dmlcentral/files/resource_files/GoodVideoGamesLearning.pdf
Groom, D. & O’connell, J. (2016) Games Based Learning [INF541 Subject outline]. Retrieved from http://interact.csu.edu.au/sakai-msi-tool/content/bbv.html?subjectView=true&siteId=INF541_201630_W_D
Mena, R. J. R. (2012). Player types, play styles, and play complexity: Updating the entertainment grid. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 2(2), 75–89.
Miller, A. (2014) Small, safe steps for introducing games to the classroom.Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/small-safe-steps-introducing-games-andrew-miller
Navarrete, C. C. (2013). Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case study. Computers & Education, 69, 320–331. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.025
Puentedura, R. R (2015) The SAMR Model and Digital Learning. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SAMRModelAndDigitalLearning.pdf
Powell, W., & Kusuma-Powell, O. (2011). Knowing our students as learners. How to teach now: five keys to personalized Learning in the global classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/111011/chapters/Knowing-Our-Students-as-Learners.aspx?crlt.pid=camp.TdKlkiv6p5Fb
Robinson, K. The RSA. (2010, Oct 14th). RSA ANIMATE: Changing Education Paradigms. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
Saavedra, A. R. & Opfer, V.D. (2012). Learning 21st-Century Skills Requires 21st-Century Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 94(2), 8-13. doi: 10.1177/003172171209400203
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
Vygotsky & Cole (1977) Cited in Becker, K. (2011). Distinctions between games and learning: A review of current literature on games in education. InGaming and Simulations: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 75-107). Hershey, PA: . doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-195-9.ch105 http://www.igi-global.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/gateway/chapter/full-text-html/41466#going-digital
Westwood, D. (2010). The role of structural characteristics in video-game play motivation: A Q-methodology study.Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, (5), 581.
Winn, B., & Heeter, C. (2007). Resolving conflicts in educational game design through playtesting. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(2). Retrieved fromhttp://gel.msu.edu/carrie/publications/innovate_playtesting_2007.pdf
Part 1: Motivation
Emerging readings, research, environments & change factors that require or validate a move into game-based learning.
Master of Education (Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation) developed by the
School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University, 2016.
