Davis Rayner
LT8000
8 Dec. 2019
Game On! Integrating Typical Game-Based Learning into the Curriculum
Although game-based learning existed by the Middle Ages, “when chess was used to teach war strategy” (Van Eck, Shute, & Reiber, 2017, p. 277), the advent of the digital age has presented new opportunities for K-12 students to learn in a different way within the classroom. According to Andrew Perrin of Pew Research Center (2018), 90% of teenagers ages 13 to 17 already “play video games on a computer, game console or cellphone.” With so many adolescents preferring gaming as a leisure activity, extending the technology to educational use seems a natural progression. Indeed, Metaari, a market research firm, recently predicted a five-year growth in the game-based learning market of 33.2%; revenues are expected to “quadruple to reach well over $24 billion by 2024” (Adkins, 2019). While Van Eck et al. (2017) believe “the true power of games may lie in their ability to promote higher-order intellectual skills like problem solving” (p. 278), they also argue the existence of “critical gaps in our understanding of games and learning, including what kinds of problem solving are supported by what kinds of games, the role of player experience in making meaning, and validated models for integrating commercial games into the classroom” (p. 277). Applying key implications and theories of game-based learning to a 2018 study, Substantial Integration of Typical Educational Games into Extended Curricula, will elucidate the challenges of incorporating this popular platform into instruction.
Literature Review
As Bjorner and Hansen (2010) explain, “[Game-based learning] is not just having pupils play a computer game; it is about taking advantage of the medium as a learning tool, by letting the pupil investigate and form hypotheses while experiencing a new unknown world” (p. 280). When based on instructional design principles and processes and aligned “with instructional outcomes and strategies within the constraints of the medium, a given environment, and a set of learners” (Van Eck, Shute, & Rieber, 2017, p. 278), games can effectively promote deeper levels of higher-order learning, especially of complex skills and of challenges requiring cognitive strategies, synthesis, or evaluation (p. 280). Eservel, Law, Ifenthaler, and Miller (2014) concur, writing “Digital game-based learning […] has been touted for its potential to promote […] complex problem-solving competency development” (p. 42) These researchers find that too much focus is placed cognitive structures: successful game-based learning is equally dependent on “motivational aspects of cognition” (p. 43). Motivation determines effort and persistence, thus sustaining engagement. Engaging, learner-centered games allow the user entry to a conceptual cognitive space, a state of being “at-play.”
Foundational theories for educational game play design include Piaget’s concepts of assimilation and accommodation; Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory (optimizing challenge through activities with clear goals and feedback, thereby encouraging attention); and Sutton-Smith’s rhetorics of play (supporting cognitive and social growth through play). Kiili, de Freitas, Arnab. And Lainema (2012) pay especial attention to Csikszentmihalyi, noting that the “subjective experiences of players as they play games are at the heart of explanations of engagement in games. One foundation to design engagement is flow theory” (p. 79). Designing immersive games requires a framework based on situated learning (a “powerful pedagogy” that “our current educational system is failing to provide” (Eservel et al., 2014, p. 42); authentic environments and tasks; and prior research, and should incorporate other learning theories, such as constructivism for meaning-making and sociocultural learning theory to situate knowledge. Bjorner and Hansen (2010) note, “[These] relate to the world in which the game is going to be used. This involves integration of thinking, feelings, perceiving, behaving, culture and context from game designers, teachers and pupils” (p. 279).
Per Van Eck et al. (2017), fundamental truths for designing educational games are that learning should be goal-oriented; active and interactive; and include contextualized, authentic feedback (p. 281). Bjorner and Hansen (2010) add that goals must fulfill curriculum standards, emphasizing the importance of collaboration with teachers (p. 286). Eserval et al. (2014) believe that “the longer players are engaged with the game the more their representations of the complex problem scenario of the game resemble to the expert problem representation underlying the game narrative; thereby improving their complex problem-solving performance” (p. 44). Designing game-based learning environments “to scaffold students’ motivation and engagement” is, therefore, crucial (p. 51). Bjorner and Hansen (2010) argue that games with “short play duration, various levels, and content that is in agreement with the pupil’s skills” is more important (p. 286). Miller and Kocurek (2017) agree, applying empirical findings in child development to educational games to develop five principles of game design: developmentally appropriate content; integration of theoretical frameworks from learning sciences; embedded learning in socially rich contexts; diverse content; and a balance of play and real-world learning opportunities (p. 315).
A key challenge for designers is embedded assessment, beginning with designing for valid inferences about the learner at different times and levels, without disrupting game flow (i.e. stealth), to provide evidence of overall learning. Another challenge is differentiated instruction. As Van Eck et al. (2017) write, “It follows that if we must teach (and if learners must bring specific prerequisite knowledge to) each problem in a specific manner in face to-face instruction, then we must also […] do so for the problems we hope to embed in games designed to promote specific problem-solving skills” (p. 280). Kiili et al. (2012) conclude: “Learning-games have to be designed properly to incorporate engagement that integrates with educational effectiveness; the challenge is to find a balance between game-play and learning objectives” (p. 79).
Case Overview
The study Substantial Integration of Typical Educational Games into Extended Curricula was selected because of its relevance to the topic, its focus “on what is currently probable and typical” (Clark, Tanner-Smith, Hostetler, Fradkin, & Polikov, 2018, p. 266) in terms of available games for classroom learning, its broad sample scope, and its implications for effective learning. The researchers’ objective was to support the generalizability of game-based learning outcomes against comparisons to traditional classroom instructional practices. They decided on Jacksonian democracy, a Common Core standard for grade eight, as of 2017, as the curricula focus. Before implementation with their sample, the researchers recruited 16 design studios to create games on five subject subtopics for the project. Employing the different studios ensured diverse representation beyond a single game or viewpoint, similar to that of the current market. 55 digital games were completed and deemed ready for use over a four-month period. Using a quasi-experimental design, the study produced both qualitative and quantitative data on a large and diverse sample: 848 social studies students in 10 different public, charter, and private schools across the eastern United States, from Alabama to the District of Columbia, as well as five more states, under the guidance of 13 teachers. The schools were located in urban and rural settings to also promote better generalizability of results.
Because “extended interaction with digital games for learning is central to their efficacy” (p. 266), teachers were instructed to implement curricula on, for three weeks. “Each teacher taught at least one classroom that did not use the games and at least one classroom that did use the games” (p. 270). In classes where the games were incorporated into the curricula, they were played for at least 50% of class time. The teachers were given a copy of the unit test, as well as all Common Core materials developers used to create the games, to plan lessons as they wished. Unit posttests consisted of multiple-choice and short essay questions. These were randomly graded by social studies teachers not involved in the study. The researchers then used a matching technique to establish baseline equivalences between the intervention and comparison student groups based on factors of previous grades and of whether the students were English language learners or had an IEP (for special education services). Additional data was collected by survey.
Case Analysis
Because 55 games were devised in this study, Clark et al. were able to offer a great deal of variety in terms of both covered content and learning objectives. Although the researchers did not collaborate with teachers to determine content, they used Common Core curriculum standards; i.e. appropriate content for a given grade, if not necessarily the student in that grade. Because the focus was on typical games, such as those already commercially available, the design focus was on “including a sample of games homogenous enough to arguably represent something more specific than the omnibus term digital game” (p. 266). While the literature review emphasized the importance of using learning theories to guide design, the developers made no mention of using any whatsoever, nor did they note any regarding play. In fact, only one theory, that of self-determination theory as it relates to student agency and motivation, was mentioned, and only as a reflective aside (p. 302). The framework was based on delivering information that happened to include playing games. These games were categorized as basic ungated; gated progress; deeper content; interactive stories; and intrinsic design (p. 280). In basic ungated games, which emphasized “memory, jigsaw, difference detection, and slice mechanics” (p. 311), “mastery [of content] was not integrated into mechanics or progression” (p. 281). Gated progress games involved quiz show-type games and a role-playing game: “the context of the game had nothing to do with Andrew Jackson, but the player needed to answer multiple-choice questions about Jacksonian content in order to effectively attack opponents in battles” (p. 284). Deeper content games “generally involved greater contextualization and/or interpretation and connection in an interesting or immersive contextualized manner” (pp. 284-285), such as collecting clues and then using them to create an extend Jacksonian-related narrative, essentially an elaborate fill-in-the-blank exercise. Interactive stories, running at about five minutes each to complete, “were arguably not games in the sense of having a win state, [but instead] provided opportunities for the players to explore contexts appropriate to the Jacksonian era and hear different perspectives” (p. 287), followed by multiple choice questions [assessment, although, by no means, stealth]. Lastly, intrinsic design games, which were also, far and away, the longest at an average play time of 19.2 minutes, were the only ones truly utilizing problem-solving, critical thinking, synthesis, and evaluation. One “involved simple simulations in which farmers needed to buy and manage land and supplies within the context of shifting political and economic factors of the era” (p. 287). Another was similar to the classic game Oregon Trail, but focused on The Trail of Tears.
All the games had short play durations, had a goal (if only to complete the game), had varying levels of activity, if not authentic, and interactivity, and gave feedback based on correct or incorrect answers. If anything, excepting the last category of intrinsic design games, the games were a means to an end (successfully passing a class posttest) instead of being an end of themselves. Each student played the same game as a peer with different prior knowledge or ability; there was differentiation only in the sense that a student went to a higher level once a previous one was completed. Furthermore, data on engagement was collected, after the fact of playing, through student and teacher observation survey ratings. While the games did not promote collaboration within student groups, “some teachers noticed differences in discussion and the nature of cooperation in the classroom” (p. 301) through observation of discussions on concepts and ideas the students had encountered with the games. For one teacher, “scaffolding student learning by setting a clear learning goal, being able to answer a particular question, supported enthusiastic collaboration among students” (p. 301), but that occurred outside of the games. Motivation was a consideration only in the sense that students were motivated to play, and motivation during play was noted in the sense that “competition [to reach a higher level than a peer] served as motivation for student engagement with the games.
Summary
Van Eck et al. (2017) note that “much research [on game-based learning] focused on the medium itself rather than the instructional theory that accounted for the potential for learning through games (p. 277). This case study only extends that canon. Clark et al. (2018) reported that, although students in the experimental group “had higher levels of factual knowledge on both the multiple-choice (d = 0.05, b = 0.05, 95% confidence interval) and open-response (d = 0.08, b = 0.12, 95% CI) questions relative to students in the non-game condition, these differences were not statistically significant” (p. 291). However, the students did show greater levels of evidentiary depth in their short essay answers (d = 0.13, b = 0.12, 95% CI) (p. 291) on the posttest and “significantly greater interest in this historical unit in the class compared to students in the non-game condition (d = 0.28, b = 0.52, 95% CI)” (p. 291), per a student survey. In other words, a great deal of time, effort, and money was spent instructing students in a different way for similar outcomes, but the students enjoyed their lessons more. Although only a few games of this study took advantage of the medium in terms of what gaming can do, such as addressing traditionally difficult “higher levels of learning” (Van Eck et al., 2017, p. 280) through problem-solving, for instance, any positive outcomes reflect Sutton-Smith’s theory that “play state may at least be evidence that the person is in a good state for subsequently experiencing cognitive and social growth, and this alone may be good enough reason to make play a goal for any learning environment” (p. 279). While the authors opine that the “findings of the current study should not be taken as an upper limit of what might be possible” (Clark et al., 2018, p. 310), they also note that they had no ambitious learning goals to begin with (p. 312), acknowledging that “design plays a far greater role in efficacy and outcomes than does the broad category of the medium” (p. 310), which was their focus.
Davis Rayner_IDT 4 with APA formatting
References
Adkins, S. (2019, July 19). Revenues for global game-based learning will surge to over $24 billion by 2024. Retrieved from https://www.prweb.com/releases/revenues_for_global_game_based_learning_will_surge_to_over_24_billion_by_2024/prweb16424728.htm
Bjørner, T., & Hansen, C. B. S. (2010). Designing an educational game: Design principles from a holistic perspective. International Journal of Learning, 17(10), 279-290. Retrieved from https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/71492034/Designing_an_Educational_Game_ Int._J._of_Learning_17_10_2010..pdf
Clark D. B., Tanner-Smith E., Hostetler A., Fradkin A., & Polikov V. (2017). Substantial integration of typical educational games into extended curricula. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 27(2), 265-318. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1333431
Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 42–53. Retrieved from https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/26368/242049_242049.pdf
Kiili, K., de Freitas, S., Arnab, S., & Lainema, T. (2012). The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science, (15), 78-91. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.060
Miller, J. L., & Kocurek, C. A. (2017) Principles for educational game development for young children. Journal of Children and Media, (11)3, 314-329. doi:10.1080/17482798.2017.1308398
Perrin, A. (2018). 5 facts about Americans and video games. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/17/5-facts-about-americans-and-video-games/
Van Eck, R., Shute, V. J., & Rieber, L. (2017). Leveling up: Game design research and practice for instructional designers. In Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (4th ed.) (277-285). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.