Repetition to Re-imagination:
How games-based learning can enhance science education for modern Primary-aged learners
Introduction
This paper discusses the current state of Science Education in Australia, and builds a case for the integration of Games-Based Learning (GBL) as a potential strategy to increase the scientific literacy of students. Research has informed us that students consider science lessons to be boring, with a content heavy, note taking focus. GBL is far from a traditional form of teaching and could bridge the gap in engagement and motivation for science education. Research has also reported that by participating in appropriate games, students will have the opportunity to engage with the following skills; creative thinking, problem solving, collaborative play, investigation and communication among others; all of which emulate the higher-order cognitive skills educators wish to see as students develop their scientific literacy and subsequently improve their chances of contributing to a modern workforce.
Science Education
The purpose of Science Education is to develop scientifically literate citizens. Scientific literacy can be broadly defined as an inquisitive and open mind-set accompanied by data collection and analysis, which can be applied to new contexts.
Science Education in Australia
Students in Australia are falling behind other nations in terms of both achievement and ranking according to a major 15 year study (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). It is suggested (Thomson et al., 2011) that a mean score of 550 is needed for students to be able to apply scientific knowledge and skills to new contexts outside the classroom, yet in 2011, Australian students in Year 4 received 516, a score which has been declining since 1995. These results indicate that primary Science Education is failing to develop the scientific literacy of students, and as such these students have only a basic understanding of how science processes, skills and knowledge relate to contexts beyond their classroom. These results have been noted by the relevant departments, and they have responded with updated curriculum requirements. The NSW Science Syllabus (Board of Studies NSW, 2012) now focusses on developing specific science and technology skills through engagement with relevant content. There has also been the introduction of research driven programs such as Primary Connections, whose sole purpose is to improve Science Education within schools. Programs such as these have a focus on student-driven inquiry learning, and encourage the development of scientific literacy within students.
Students’ and Teachers’ Attitudes towards Science Education
The aforementioned achievement declines are symptomatic of both students’ and teachers’ negative attitudes with science. In their 2001 study of approximately 500 students, Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie reported that a quarter of students completely dismissed science lessons as boring, with 27% being frustrated by the content heavy, note taking focus of science lessons. Possibly the most concerning finding was that these students could only ‘sometimes’ relate their classroom science learning to real world contexts. Highlighted within this study was the misconception that science is a pre-determined body of information, rather than a set of skills and critical thinking that are embodied within science education.
Similar to the way that students’ attitudes affect achievement in science, so to, teachers’ attitudes affect how science is taught in their classrooms. Research has suggested that teachers often do not feel that science education is worthwhile and lack confidence in their own science teaching ability (Mulholland & Wallace, 1996; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer & Staver, 1996). This lack of confidence is linked to teachers’ limited science content knowledge (Harlen, 1997), and results in less time dedicated to science teaching. Teachers on average spend between 40 and 60 minutes per week teaching science (Goodrum, Hackling & Rennie, 2001; Goodrum & Rennie, 2007), with Griffith and Scharmann (2008) reporting that 50% of the 164 elementary teachers they surveyed, reduced science teaching to accommodate increasing pressure for more literacy and numeracy teaching time. This limited science teaching and learning has been known to be teacher-centred; with worksheets, note taking, question avoidance and transmission all listed as common approaches to science teaching (Jarvis & Pell, 2005). Thankfully in recent times, we are seeing a shift in teaching pedagogy, towards a more student-centred, inquiry approach to science education.
Skills in a Modern Society
Education must update with a changing society, with continuous alterations needed to both content and teaching pedagogy (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Voogt & Pelgrun, 2005; Watson, 2001). The rapidly changing workforce due to technological advancements, leaves many jobs obsolete and educators questioning what skills students must be taught. Teachers are currently preparing students for jobs that may not even exist yet (Voogt & Pelgrum, 2005), and as such we must re-evaluate the skills students require to succeed in this ever-changing workforce. In a US study of national census data conducted over 4 decades, Levy and Murnane (2006) found that there are two occupational skills that have increased in terms of workforce percentage, and are unlikely to be replaced by advancements in technology; complex communication, and expert thinking. Complex communication and expert thinking can be closely related to scientific literacy.
Figure 1. Changes in workforce skills distribution since 1969.
Figure 1 shows how the percentage of skills within each category outlined by Levy and Murnane (2006) have changed since 1969. Aligning with the rapid advancements in technology, we can see a huge growth in percentage of higher-order cognitive skills. Higher-order cognitive skills (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2005) such as, synthesising information, evaluating the relevance and reliability of information sources, and creating meaning, are pivotal in assisting students develop their scientific literacy. These skills are beginning to be supported by curriculum and pedagogical shifts in thinking from passive learners, to having students actively engage with these higher-order skills (Breivik, 1998).
Even with the development of new curriculum documents and science-based teaching programs, the question must still be asked: What more can educators do to ensure the development of scientifically literate students? I believe that Games-Based Learning (GBL) may provide the missing link in assisting educators in the development of scientific literacy within their students, as many gaming skills/ cognitive processes within games mirror those developed through scientific literacy. GBL could also support teachers’ endeavours to bridge the gap between the classroom and students real world experiences; which is crucial in ensuring high levels of scientific literacy.
Games-Based Learning
What is GBL?
Games-Based Learning (GBL) is a term that is becoming more prominent when discussing education curriculum and student learning. Digital and video games are gaining traction with their use in educational settings due to their ability to engage and motivate learners, whilst having students engage with skills such as: creative thinking, problem solving, collaborative play, investigation and communication among others (Beavis, et al., 2014; Gee, 2005; Miller, 2012; Turkay et al., 2014). Advocates are pushing for the inclusion of GBL within classroom practice as a means to re-connect with students who have become disengaged with traditional approaches to teaching and learning (Arnab et al., 2012; Beavis et al., 2014; Van Eck, 2006). This idea is heavily supported by GBL and ICT in education researchers (Bain & Weston, 2012; Gee, 2005; Prensky, 2001; Somekh, 2004), and is perhaps the most important reason for an educational reform.
The Teacher’s Role
As with other curriculum areas, the role of the teacher is pivotal in the success and learning of students within the classroom. A potential road block for the implementation of GBL within classrooms is the lack of training available for teachers. Van Eck (2006) states that most teachers lack the necessary skills to implement GBL, select good games, or design games themselves. These trends are mirrored in other GBL research (Gee, 2005; Turkay et al., 2014), reiterating the influence that teachers have within educational contexts.
In addition to teachers’ roles within the classroom, how GBL is integrated into classroom practice is heavily influenced by the beliefs and attitudes of teachers, in particular how they feel about games. Both Beavis et al., (2014) and Arnab et al., (2012) discuss how these beliefs hinder or help the effectiveness of games within the classroom. This is supported by Webb and Cox (2004, p.235) who suggest “Teacher’s beliefs about the value of ICT for learning and the nature of successful learning environments are important in teachers’ pedagogical reasoning.” When implemented effectively, GBL can have a huge impact on the engagement and motivation of student learning. An example of a teacher successfully incorporating a ‘gamification’ approach (applying elements of game design to a classroom context) to science education can be seen in this TED talk video.
Choice and Game Design
The choice and design of curriculum planning with GBL is crucial for its success (Arnab et al., 2012; Van Eck, 2006). Current games such as Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs) and the ‘Dark Souls’ franchise employ complex communication strategies as core design features.
‘Ni No Kuni’ Gameplay Screenshot
Source: http://www.gamerguides.com/assets/media/ni-no-kuni-wrath-of-the-white-witch/walkthrough/chapter-1-entering-another-world/world-map-exploration-rolling-hills/w1600h1600/25579-10jpg-png.png
Open-world roleplaying and puzzle games such as ‘Ni No Kuni’, and ‘Zelda Ocarina of Time’, require gamers to employ problem-based, nonlinear cognitive processes that are very similar to the expert thinking practices that bear a close resemblance to the scientific literacy skills mentioned above.
‘Zelda Ocarina of Time’ Gameplay Screenshot
Source: http://www.urbangamingelite.com/content/images/series/retro-review/legend-of-zelda-oot//3ds_graphics.png
In my own gaming experience I have been able to apply these higher-order cognitive skills while gaming. In a recent game of ‘The Last of Us’ in an online multiplayer session, I was able to utilise the microphone to communicate with teammates regarding our strategy, team play and game analysis, all of which enabled us to make informed choices as to how to proceed within the game.
‘The Last of Us’ Multiplayer Screenshot
Source: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/82RuLhOh1uc/maxresdefault.jpg
While ‘The Last of Us’ is not an appropriate example for classroom use, the skills employed in such a game would greatly assist in the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills and scientific literacy processes. Teachers must be equipped with the necessary skills to analyse and critique games and the skills they can teach if GBL is to be successful within the classroom.
The ‘Technology’ in Science and Technology – Anecdotes from a Classroom Teacher
The NSW Science Syllabus states that “The study of Technology involves solving real problems and creating ideas and solutions in response to needs and opportunities in a range of technological contexts” and “When applying the processes of Working Technologically, students actively engage with real world situations and use technology skills, knowledge and understanding to create solutions for themselves and others” (Board of Studies, NSW, 2012, p.14). There appears some disparity between what the syllabus is calling for and what is occurring in classrooms.
Research suggests that there are often misconceptions when it comes to integrating technology into the curriculum. Teachers often assume that by using technology within their classroom, students are ‘working technologically’ (Conole & Dyke, 2004; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). This is a misconception that I shared until completing a one-day course through the Primary Connections Science program. I experienced a shift in thinking away from the ‘using technology is working technologically’ attitude to ‘working technologically is a set of skills and processes that can be learnt with the help of technology’. After attending this professional development I returned to school and conducted an Action Research project with the intention of finding out our staff attitudes towards technology. Questions within the teacher survey were written with Leander’s (2009) Four Common Stances of the relationship between ‘new’ and ‘old’ literacies in mind.
Source: https://showtheworldyourtechnogroove.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/new-school-vs-old-school.jpg
Leander (2009) believes that as teachers we have opinions regarding the use of and place technology has within our classrooms and has classified these opinions into four stances; resistance, replacement, return and remediation. ‘Resistance’ teachers are reluctant to engage with the use of ‘new’ literacies and technologies, and believe they interfere with the implementation of print literacy practices (Leander, 2009). ‘Replacement’ teachers completely replace old practices entirely with modern and technologically savvy ways of comparing, interpreting and analysing literacies, completely avoiding any print media (Leander, 2009). ‘Return’ teaching practices value ‘new’ literacies, but still use them to promote traditional, text based literacy practices (Leander, 2009). A ‘remediation’ stance is where “no single means of media (print, visuals or other) assumes a central position in this stance” (Leander, 2009, p. 148). This ‘remediation’ stance should be our ultimate goal when integrating ‘new’ literacies and technologies within our classrooms.
Figure 2. Results from the Action Research Survey.
The results from this research project yielded some interesting findings. Figure 2 depicts the mean scores of teachers using Leander’s (2009) Four Common Stances. In short, teachers have both the confidence and many of the technological skills necessary to implement ICT, but they do not have a clear understanding of how ICT can be richly incorporated into the curriculum.
Teachers using technology for old teaching practices (e.g., the use of a smartboard as a projector/screen and whiteboard) is not a new finding, but one supported by the research of Conole and Dyke (2004) and Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010, p. 257), who discuss the importance of helping “teachers to understand how to use technology to facilitate meaningful learning”. Thus, the teaching staff may be receptive to appropriate professional development opportunities that focus on ways to incorporate ICT into the curriculum, potentially through GBL rather than developing isolated technology skills.
Discussion and Concluding Remarks
We have all the pieces of the puzzle; the syllabus, teacher and student attitudes, poor science achievement, lack of scientific literacy, research-driven programs, emerging technologies, gaps in teacher training, and a proven approach to higher-order skill development. It is time to connect the pieces to create a possible pedagogical approach to assist in the improvement of Australian Science student results.
What We Know
The purpose of Science Education is to develop scientifically literate citizens, yet students in Australia are falling behind in terms of both Science achievement and ranking. Their results indicate a basic understanding of how science processes, skills and knowledge relate to contexts beyond their classroom. Students’ and teachers’ negative attitudes towards science, directly correlate with poor achievement and teaching in this area. Education must update with a changing society, drawing teaching foci away from a specific set of skills to more fluid and flexible higher-order thinking. Future jobs will require higher levels of two skills; complex communication and expert thinking which can be closely related to scientific literacy. Digital and video games are increasing in popularity in educational settings due to their ability to engage and motivate learners, whilst having students engage with higher-order skills. Research suggests that there are often misconceptions amongst teachers with regard to integrating technology into the curriculum.
Making Connections
GBL mediums and gamification can be used to assist students to apply learnt skills and knowledge, through the application of problem solving and creative thinking in real world contexts. We can re-connect disengaged students who are tired of note-taking and transmissive approaches to science education, by encouraging them to interact with highly motivating and engaging GBL tasks. An example of an effective use of a GBL task could be to utilise a game such as Minecraft to allow students to explore themes within the Built Environments Science strand. Norwegian schools have been utilising Minecraft within their classrooms quite successfully (http://blog.safe.com/2015/07/norway-minecraft-project-paves-way-open-data-cloud/). Teachers must prepare students for future jobs by encouraging the development of higher-order thinking skills through the interaction with team, strategy-based games, or utilising similar skills through a gamification approach to teaching and learning.
‘Minecraft’ Gameplay Screenshot
Source: https://media.mojang.com/a0bb2f27395b82ab6e532aba34c4069ef28f254e/Minecraft_Win10_Beta_-10.png
If teachers lack the confidence to integrate meaningful technology tasks within their classrooms, they must be provided with the opportunity to engage in quality professional development that will not only develop their knowledge and understanding of GBL and ICT integration, but also provide evidence of successful GBL programs to inspire and motivate teachers to make the attitudinal shift in science and technology pedagogical thinking. Herein lies the gap in current research, with teachers being hesitant to make the shift to GBL because of lack of hard classroom evidence regarding its implementation.
If we can achieve these changes, I believe we will not only see changes in our approach to Science Education, but in student and teacher attitudes towards science content and skill application, as well as increased results with students’ scientific literacy.
References:
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2005). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Longman.
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.
Bain, A., & Weston, M. E. (2012). The Learning Edge. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Beavis, C., Rowan, L., Dezuanni, M., McGillivray, C., O’Mara, J., Prestridge, S., Stieler-Hunt, C., Thompson, R., & Zagami, J. (2014). Teacher’s beliefs about the possibilities and limitations of digital games in classrooms. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(6), 569-581.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), pp. 775-786.
Board of Studies NSW. (2012). Science K-10 Syllabus – Volume 1: Science and Technology K-6. Sydney: Board of Studies NSW.
Breivik, P. S. (1998). Student Learning in the Information Age. American Council on Education Series on Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), pp. 113-123.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), pp. 255-284.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37.
Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian School Science Education – National Action Plan 2008-2012 – Volume 1. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian Schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Griffith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35-48.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27, 232-337.
Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes toward science before, during, and after a visit to the UK National Space Centre. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 52-83.
Leander, K. (2009). Composing with old and new media: Toward a parallel pedagogy. In V. Carrington, & M. Robinson (Eds), Digital Literacies: Social Learning and Classroom Practices (pp. 147-162). London: SAGE Publications.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls for twenty-first century learning: Answers to educators’ questions. New Directions for Youth Development, 2006 (110), 53-62.
Miller, A. (2012). Game-based learning to teach and assess 21st century skills. Edutopia. Retrieved from, http://www.edutopia.org/blog/game-learning-21st-century-skills-andrew-miller
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17-38.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 1-6.
Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80, 283-315.
Somekh, B. (2004). Taking the sociological imagination to school: An analysis of the (lack of) impact of information and communication technologies on education systems.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(2), pp. 163-179.
Thomson, S., Hillman, K., Wernet, N., Schmid, M., Buckley, S., & Munene, A. (2011). Monitoring Australian Year 4 student achievement internationally: TIMMS and PIRLS 2011. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C. K., Chantes, P., & Vicari, C. (2014). Toward understanding the potential of games for learning: Learning theory, game design characteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 31(2), 2-22.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause Review, (20), 16-30.
Voogt, J., & Pelgrun, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology, 1(2), 157-175.
Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), pp. 251-266.
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), pp. 235-286.
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.
