The future of education is fun!

by Sarah Bailey

Introduction

Learning should be fun! Digital immigrants think learning can’t (or shouldn’t) be fun (Prensky, 2001, p. 3). Why shouldn’t education be fun and engaging for digital natives who have grown up with technology integrated into their social and home environments. Perhaps digital immigrants do not understand the value which technology and game based learning (GBL) hold. GBL may be the solution to re-engage digital natives with the value of education due to a boring traditional education system. There is a demand for teachers and schools to embrace new technologies to make lessons more fun (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010, p. 54). The following supports the implementation of GBL into our curriculum. This paper examines change factors related to learning, environmental factors and theories related to GBL.

Change Factors

Education and fun are not two words that most people from my era would put together. My generation grew up with film and television; the generation before mine grew up with print, film, and radio; the one before that primarily with print, as did the generation before it, and the one before that, we have been subjected to passive media (watch, read, listen) for a very long time now – it should come as no surprise that a medium as demanding of interaction as games should be met with resistance by those who have been entrained to sit quietly and pay attention (Becker, 2011, p. 24).

The idea that education should be fun is not a new concept, Malone and Lepper commented on this in 1987. Malone and Lepper (1987, p. 223) state, it seems a frequent assumption about schools that learning is boring and unpleasant drudgery. Sadly, for some students this statement is fitting today.

Learning should be fun and engaging for students. Malone and Lepper (1987, p. 249) state, intrinsically motivating learning environments (such as games) would be a way of guiding and sharpening intuitions and aesthetic sensitivity.  People may not have accepted this in 1987 but I believe most people would today.

Today’s students are different and the way they learn has changed. They are born into a world immersed in technology and technology influences the way they receive, process and apply knowledge. Prensky (2001, p. 3) explains, children raised with the computer think differently from the rest of us, they have been adjusting or programming their brains to the speed and interactivity. One of the startling contrasts educators can make today is one between the enthusiasm youth exhibit for video games and statistics that show their declining enthusiasm and motivation for school (Turkay, Hoffman, Kinzer, Chantes, & Vicari, 2014, p. 4).

Kids are certain not stupid, perhaps school is too stupid for them; too stupid, too slow, too uncolourful, too mono for a bunch of kids for whom speed, excitement, words, pictures, sound and film are parts of acquiring and passing on information (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010, p. 17). If traditional school is not engaging for digital natives then we need to incorporate technologies such as GBL.

Many of us have grown up playing games, and in primary education games have a high presence in non-formal and informal segments of our learning, unfortunately in formal education, games are often seen as an unserious activity (Pivec, 2007, p. 378). But GBL has many advantages to offer education and one is failure.

Failure is not considered positive at school. When learning a game, failure is not an issue, in fact it is expected (Ulicsak, 2010, p. 6). Failing or losing in a game is expected, you can retry levels when you fail which helps to development strategies on how to succeed. Turkay et al. (2014) explains that in traditional classroom learning, negative feedback is discouraged, but in video games losing is not losing, players are allowed to repeatedly try if they do not succeed, which is not common in classroom-based learning.

Schools have not GBL implemented due to beliefs of what education should include. Traditional distinctions between work/play and classroom/gamespace create barriers to computer games’ integration into academic settings (Shultz Colby & Colby, 2008, p. 300).

To understand why GBL should be implemented we need to look at how our environments (social, home and school) have changed and why the education system should change.

Social, home and school environments

Today’s social environment is alive with technology. Scientific research has established links between video games and complex socializing processes that, in contemporary societies, young people engage in (De Aguilera and Mendiz, 2003, p. 4). From isolated applications, throughout game arcades, PCs, and consoles, digital games found their way to become a mass media, and became part of the media culture, influencing our interactions and expectations from digital applications to ways of communicating (Pivec & Pivec, 2011, p. 2). Fully integrated into the everyday lives of millions of young people throughout the world, video games are a vital part of contemporary culture and society (De Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003, p. 1). Gee (2009) reaffirms that these social interactions take place at all levels, from people watching others play (and commenting) through multiplayer gaming and gamer gatherings to intense boards, forums, and gaming websites of all sorts.

With these developments, opinions on gaming can vary. Jennings (2014) states that there is still a very deep underlying idea that video games are naughty things that naughty boys play in their dark room on their own, and they breed anti-social behaviour. This idea seems to be out of date with current trends and statistics. People are openly playing games in public places together, a recent example is Pokémon Go. In contrast to Jennings statement Albanese (2011, p. 38) explains that games create a bond, a sense of trust with other people, and they actually help us to strengthen our real-life social relationships. Games can also be used for personal development and to improve self-esteem (Pivec, 2007, p. 390).

Home environments are surround by technology. With the appearance of the home computer (Commodore, ATARI) and the introduction of basic programming language that allowed people to write their own programs, computers and digital games were primarily the domain of geeks, boys and the male population but in 2005, Nintendo achieved unpredictable commercial success with Nintendogs, targeting girl players who subsequently accounted for over 40% of sales of the gaming device (Pivec & Pivec, 2011, p. 1). An IGEA report Digital Games 2014 concludes that 98 per cent of Australian homes with children have computer games (Jennings, 2014). With 97% of boys under the age of 18 report playing games regularly, and 94% of girls (Albanese, 2011, p. 37).

Digital games are used as family leisure activities, time to have fun together. Mothers and girls were more likely to play active technology, such as fitness and music games, and fathers and boys were more likely to play racing, sports, fighting and adventure games (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010, p. 41).

For students, the school environment is a place where there are few opportunities to use their technology skills. Contemporary students are referred to as ‘‘digital natives”, ‘‘the net generation”, ‘‘screenagers”, ‘‘millenials”, and the ‘‘gamer generation”, have never experienced a world without ICT (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert & Schellens 2009, p. 1145).

Prensky (2001, p. 1) explains that today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach and this is a result of the ubiquitous environment and sheer volume of their interaction with it, that today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. Furthermore, the form, content and method of knowledge delivery within schools is out of sync with the way that people learn elsewhere, with what they value and with what counts in the world (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010, p.17).

The beliefs held by parents influences the adoption of GBL. Parents are susceptible to negative reports without realising the benefits of GBL. De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003, p. 1) explain that when serious or harrowing incidents involving video game enthusiasts occur, public opinion leaders frequently pass judgement, depicting players and their games in a way that causes general alarm. When teachers communicate with parents about the learning outcomes of GBL, parents become convinced when they see how motivated their children are, the activities and increased engagement in their child’s learning (Groff, Howells & Cranmer, 2010, p. 79).  Fun result in motivation and digital games are what digital natives are familiar with. McFarlane, Sparrowhawk and Heald (2002, p. 19) report on a recent study with 85% of parents evaluating games with their children believed computer game contributed to learning as well as providing entertainment. Furthermore, the desire to harness the motivational power of games in order to ‘make learning fun’ and the belief that ‘learning through doing’ offers a powerful learning tool (Groff, Howell & Cranmer 2010, p. 13).

While fun and motivation are just some of the reasons teachers are looking at GBL. Teachers  identify collaboration, communication, teamwork, motivation or engagement as reasons for incorporation games into their practice, as well as curriculum specific objectives (Groff et al., 2010, p.37). But not all teachers share this opinion. De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003, p. 4) report on initiatives that have been limited by scepticism of teachers and administrator of educational institutions, who still do not acknowledge the positive potential of electronic media. Open discussions between academics, teachers and industry practitioners, focusing on games and learning, concluded that it was essential to educate teachers, giving them tools, methods and confidence to apply games in the classroom (Pivec, 2007, p. 392).

Applying new technology in a learning environment takes time, teachers learning new digital tool takes time and integrating GBL into curriculum takes time. McFarlane et al. (2002, p. 11) explains that games are time consuming to get to know and teachers must spend time discovering information about the games structure and content through play. Ulicsak and Williamson (2010, p. 38) suggest that teachers did not use games because of difficulty integrating with curriculum, negative attitude to games, lack of time, lack of information and support, lack of resources, technical problems and cost. The main expense is hardware and schools are thinking carefully about which platforms and how they will be used (Groff et al., 2010, p. 33).

Digital games need to be appropriate to support learning. Teachers need to be provided with up to date information on the potential of games in the classroom and many commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games are inappropriate for classroom environments, just as there are many films and book that are not appropriate (Becker, 2007, p. 481). Implementing games should start with a suitable pedagogical approach, which is critical for determining the nature of the learning environment and guiding the overall design and sequencing of critical learning interactions and game play, by basing the early entertainment on pedagogy, any subsequent artistic choices will enhance the achievement of the learning objectives (Arnab, Berta, Earp, de Freitas, Popescu, Romero, Stanescu & Usart, 2012, p. 159).

While there are many barriers to implementing technology into the classroom, it is necessary to develop students’ skills so they may succeed in the future. Games have been shown to teach intellectual skills and improve physical skills but they are effective because learning takes place within a meaningful context, thus the learning is not only relevant but applied and practiced within that context (Van Eck, 2006, p.4). Games have been predominately used for training in the military and health sectors. For the military, they provide safe cost effective mechanism for training tasks to be performed in hazardous conditions and games are becoming more common for medical practitioners as realistic role-play is time and labour intensive (Ulicsak, 2010, p. 5). Conner-Zachocki, Husbye and Gee (2015, p. 83) stress the integration of digital media in the classroom is not a matter of increased potential and student opportunity, but, rather, it is a responsibility because, we prepare students for futures not yet imagined.

Theories

When we play games, we are having fun. Play is a primary socialisation and learning mechanism common to all human cultures and games make use of the principle of play as an instructional strategy (Van Eck, 2006, p.5). From a teachers’ perspective, we choose to use games for learning to reach a new generation of learners with a medium they have interacted with from their childhood, to introduce a new learning topic thus raising the learners’ interest for the topic, to create a complex learning opportunity, to increase motivation, interaction and communication to establish dialogue and break social and cultural boundaries (Pivec, 2007, p. 389). Games appear to have high intrinsic motivational, this has been the basis for game-related research for some time (Turkay et al., 2014, p.4).

Ang, Avni and Zaphiris (2008, p. 10) lists learning theories for computer games as behaviourism, cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. The theory of behaviourism concentrates on the study of overt behaviour that can be observed and measured and a major focus is conditioning learning by associating stimuli and responses (Ang et al., 2008, p. 537). Games designed on this learning principle present the player with a task or skill to be repeated until mastered or conquered, receiving rewards after attainment, tasks are extrinsically motivated and learning is seen as transmission rather than construction (Groff et al., p. 13).

Cognitive constructivism, as derived from the work of Piaget defines learning as a process of accommodation, assimilation, and equilibration, and based on the premise that we all construct our own perspective of the world, through individual experiences (Ang et al, 2008, p. 538). Discovery and inquiry-oriented games fall into this category, where learning and play are integrated to provide a context that allows for the active construction of knowledge, intrinsic motivation is associated with these games and problem-solving is one of the key meta-skills employed (Groff et al., 2010, p. 13).

Social constructivism theory by Vygotsky, proposes personal factors and social factors will interact to influence learning process, specifically, when learners have positive personal learning achievement and appreciate more about the social learning process (Liu, Yang & Chan, 2013, p. 10). This perspective views learning not as the acquisition or construction of knowledge, but rather the tool that mediates activity and learning is considered to be situated (Groff et al., 2010, p. 13).

From these other theories and frameworks have developed, such as situated cognition (Turkay et al., 2014.), social learning theory (De Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003), game literacy theory (Tikka et al., 2009), activity theory (Becker, 2010) and flow theory (St-Pierre, 2011).

So, which theory should be applied when implementing GBL into the classroom? St-Pierre (2011, p.78) explains that people learn in many ways and in many different situations. Learners assimilate and retain material and knowledge better when several teaching strategies, models or situations are used. Therefore, it is important that teacher always reflect on what teaching strategies and learning activities were successful or require adjustment within their teaching programs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, contemporary gaming provides digital natives with a medium in which they design, create and construct digital literacies to communicate and socialise. GBL is a platform that digital natives are familiar with and it encompasses the idea of learning through play, fun, challenges and collaboration. Research has validated GBL’s potential to re-connect the value of school education with today’s students allowing teachers to make education fun and enjoyable.

The challenge for teachers is to become literate in this technological era to enable valuable teaching and learning to occur, and this can only happen with support from parents, school executives and government. Considerations such as theories, parental consultation, student needs, available technologies, cost of new technologies, games which are appropriate for school, teacher training, time for implementation and time for reflection on the success of the activity will assist in the implementation of GBL. While it does require work, the implementation of GBL is a necessary step which is beneficial for digital natives and our future.

References:

Albanese, A. (2011). Game changer: A talk with Jane McGonigal. Publishers Weekly, p. 37-  38. Retrieved from www.publishersweekly.com

Ang, C., Avni, E., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Linking Pedagogical theory of computer games to their usability. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 533-558.

Arnab, S., Berta, R., Earp, de Freitas, S., Popescu, M., Romero, M., Stanescu, I., & Usart, M.  (2012). Framing the adoption of serous games in formal education. Electronic Journal      of E-Learning, 10(2), 159-171.

Becker, K. (2007). Digital game based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38(3), 478-488. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2007.00711.x

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 http://www.igi-global.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/gateway/chapter/full-text-%09html/41466#going-digital

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2009). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54, 1145–1156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022

Conner-Zachocki, J., Husbye, N., & Gee, J. (2015). This Issue. Theory into Practice, 54(2), p.83-85. DOI:10.1080/00405841.2015.1010831

De Aguilera, M. & Mendiz, A. (2003). Video games and education: Education in the face of a parallel school. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1-14.

Gee, J. P. (2009). Games, learning and 21^st century survival skills. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1), 1-9.

Groff, J., Howells, C., & Cranmer, S. (2010). The impact of console games in the classroom: Evidence from schools in Scotland. Futurelab. Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk

Jennings, J. (2015). Teachers re-evaluate value of video games. Sydney: Sydney Morning Herald.

Liu, N., Yang, X., & Chan, H. (2013). Exploring the antecedents to learning continuance virtual worlds: A balanced thinking-feeling and social-constructivism perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 21(2), 1-22.

Malone, T., & Lepper, M. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. In Aptitude, Learning and Instruction: Volume 3, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New Jersey: London.

McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of   games: An exploration by TEEM of the contribution which games can make to the educational process. Retrieved from    http://questgarden.com/84/74/3/091102061307/files/teem_gamesined_full.pdf

Pivec, M. (2007). Editorial: Play and learn: potentials of game-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 387-393.

Pivec, P., & Pivec, M. (2011). Digital games: Changing education, one raid at a time. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.4018/ijgbl.2011010101

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

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9.

Shultz Colby, R., & Colby, R. (2008). Pedagogy of play: Integrating computer games into the writing classroom. Computers and Composition 25, 300–312.

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. Hershey: PA. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch004

Turkay, S., Hoffman, D., Kinzer, C., Chantes, P., & Vicari, C. (2014). Towards understanding the potential of games for learning: Learning theory, game design  characteristics, and situating video games in classrooms. Computers in the schools, 31, 2-22. DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2014.890879

Ulicsak, M. (2010). Games in Education: Serious Games. Futurelab: UK.   Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/resources

Ulicsak, M., & Williamson, B. (2010). Computer games and learning. Futurelab: UK.  Retrieved from www.futurelab.org.uk/resources

Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause Review, 41(2), 1-16.