Well, it has happened. As it always does when you get knee deep into the research. You find the super shiny golden article. The one that answers all of your questions and references the multitude of authors that you have been sifting through. The culmination of what you have been looking for. It is so dense that you decide to break the article up through several readings to get as much from it as you can. But, then what?
So what I thought I might do is break out the questions I had originally asked and then organize my thoughts and ideas from the articles under each question heading. And then break out my further research from there.
Question 1: Is gaming effective in education? Why or How?
This article does a great job at reviewing historical research on components of effective learning in play and how these can be viewed in gaming. Here is what we know so far:
“Educators and scientists repeatedly return to the conclusion that one advantage of educational games is that games tend to generate a much higher level of students’ positive emotional engagement, thus making the learning experience more motivating and appealing (Rieber et al., 1998), improv- ing participation and achievement (Jayakanthan, 2002). Games can motivate passive students to contribute more than they would in a traditional learning environment (Tanner & Jones, 2000). Video games motivate learning by challenging and providing curiosity, beauty, fantasy, fun, and social recognition. They reach learners who do not do well in conventional settings (Dede, 2004)” (Anetta 2008, p.233).
“In the 21st century, income and wealth will come from applying technology and new ideas to create new products and processes. Adding value to products and processes is the key to growing jobs and income in this new economic environment (Aubert & Reiffers, 2004)” (Anetta 2008, p. 231).
“Although most agree that games can be both engaging and instructive, there is little consensus regarding the essential characteristics of instructional games. Implicit in the research literature is the notion that if one pairs instructional content with certain game features, one can harness the power of games to engage users and achieve desired instructional goals” (Anetta, 2008, p.237)
Question 2: What type of designs are used?
As I read more of this article, I began to realize that perhaps this question should be reworded to what components of design are most effective or conducive to learning.
“Because of their rich storylines, video games easily lend themselves to established instructional practices such as problem-based learning” (Anetta, 2008 p. 234).
“Although massively multiplayer online (MMO) games are the most played computer games, large lecture classes lend themselves to be replaced by these worlds and delivered from a distance” (Anetta 2008, p. 237) .
“Garris et al. presented an input–process–output model of instructional games and learning that elaborates (a) the key features of games that are of interest from an instructional perspective; (b) the game cycle of user judgments, behavior, and feedback that is a hallmark of engagement in game play; and (c) the types of learning outcomes that can be achieved” (Anetta 2008, p. 237).
Question 3: Why are these used over others?
Simulations and problem-based simulations are typically found to be the most effective because they engage the learner to engage at a deeper level with the content, allowing for the building of neural connections and pathways and the clarification of misconceptions.
"Play systematically confronts the child with a learning situation that could only be located within his or her area of close development. That is, it would involve a task located slightly above the acquired skills (Vygotsky, 1967)" ((Anetta, 2008).
“Childhood is a period during which people learn to play and when they progress in mastering the structure of the surrounding world… Older children and adults will continue to use this structure to entertain themselves and to learn. This sends us back to the dual logic of play, entertainment/education from early childhood (Myers, 1999)” (Anetta 2008, p.232).
“it is critical to expose and challenge the Net Generation in environments that engage them and motivate them to explore, experiment, and construct their own knowledge” (Anetta 2008, p.229).
Question 4: Is there documentation of their success?
“Generally speaking, these educational games seem to be effective in enhancing motivation and increasing student interest in subject matter, yet the extent to which this translates into more effective learning is less clear. The lack of empirical data, due primarily to the scarcity of systematic investigations into the cognitive impact of serious games, forces us to turn to prior work investigating the impact of interactive computer simulations for hard evidence. (Anetta 2008, p. 231)
“The video games in education conversation can be couched in developmental psychology (play), learning theory (constructivist), and 21st century skills. The power of these teaching and learning tools is not readily apparent in the literature” ((Anetta, 2008 p. 233)).
Anetta (2008, p. 235) did report, however, that they were showing some success in some of the programs they were reviewing, “The idea of community of practice and social presence are at the forefront of the research being conducted. Active learning through the immersion of games is showing positive impact on the Net generation participating in the project. As opposed to passively watching videos, students are actively learning content. Further, through an integrated database, teachers are able to ascertain real-time data from student decisions in the game they created.”
“The critical piece could be the students constructing games as the teacher takes on the role of pedagogical and content expert. It is well documented that people learn best by doing (e.g., the Constructivist paradigm) so why not allow students to construct games” (Anetta 2008, p.235).
I also realized on completion of this article that I really needed to ask a 5th question. What kind of platforms or tools are most often used or easy for teachers to use to create this environment, as well as pre-defining what the environment should look like, ie should gaming be brought in as games to reach a larger unit or as the unit itself.
Anetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: why they should be used and how they are being used. Theory Into Practice,, 47, 229-249. DOI: 10.1080/00405840802153940
So what I thought I might do is break out the questions I had originally asked and then organize my thoughts and ideas from the articles under each question heading. And then break out my further research from there.
Question 1: Is gaming effective in education? Why or How?
This article does a great job at reviewing historical research on components of effective learning in play and how these can be viewed in gaming. Here is what we know so far:
· Engage players in productive play
· Immerse the player in interactive simulations
· Understand the logic behind rules
· Learn by doing, experience situations first-hand, and role-play
“Educators and scientists repeatedly return to the conclusion that one advantage of educational games is that games tend to generate a much higher level of students’ positive emotional engagement, thus making the learning experience more motivating and appealing (Rieber et al., 1998), improv- ing participation and achievement (Jayakanthan, 2002). Games can motivate passive students to contribute more than they would in a traditional learning environment (Tanner & Jones, 2000). Video games motivate learning by challenging and providing curiosity, beauty, fantasy, fun, and social recognition. They reach learners who do not do well in conventional settings (Dede, 2004)” (Anetta 2008, p.233).
“In the 21st century, income and wealth will come from applying technology and new ideas to create new products and processes. Adding value to products and processes is the key to growing jobs and income in this new economic environment (Aubert & Reiffers, 2004)” (Anetta 2008, p. 231).
“Although most agree that games can be both engaging and instructive, there is little consensus regarding the essential characteristics of instructional games. Implicit in the research literature is the notion that if one pairs instructional content with certain game features, one can harness the power of games to engage users and achieve desired instructional goals” (Anetta, 2008, p.237)
Question 2: What type of designs are used?
As I read more of this article, I began to realize that perhaps this question should be reworded to what components of design are most effective or conducive to learning.
“Because of their rich storylines, video games easily lend themselves to established instructional practices such as problem-based learning” (Anetta, 2008 p. 234).
“Although massively multiplayer online (MMO) games are the most played computer games, large lecture classes lend themselves to be replaced by these worlds and delivered from a distance” (Anetta 2008, p. 237) .
· Contextualization of the game
· Kinds of cooperative and collaborative learning activities
· Abilities to apply individualization through choosing of avatars, allowing for concepts of social presence in online environments to be built.
· Quality and nature of debriefing
· Engaging simulations provide an environment for the cycling of assimilation and accommodation, which is referred to as cognitive disequilibrium and resolution.
· Learning through story
· Design Grammars
“Garris et al. presented an input–process–output model of instructional games and learning that elaborates (a) the key features of games that are of interest from an instructional perspective; (b) the game cycle of user judgments, behavior, and feedback that is a hallmark of engagement in game play; and (c) the types of learning outcomes that can be achieved” (Anetta 2008, p. 237).
Question 3: Why are these used over others?
Simulations and problem-based simulations are typically found to be the most effective because they engage the learner to engage at a deeper level with the content, allowing for the building of neural connections and pathways and the clarification of misconceptions.
"Play systematically confronts the child with a learning situation that could only be located within his or her area of close development. That is, it would involve a task located slightly above the acquired skills (Vygotsky, 1967)" ((Anetta, 2008).
“Childhood is a period during which people learn to play and when they progress in mastering the structure of the surrounding world… Older children and adults will continue to use this structure to entertain themselves and to learn. This sends us back to the dual logic of play, entertainment/education from early childhood (Myers, 1999)” (Anetta 2008, p.232).
“it is critical to expose and challenge the Net Generation in environments that engage them and motivate them to explore, experiment, and construct their own knowledge” (Anetta 2008, p.229).
Question 4: Is there documentation of their success?
“Generally speaking, these educational games seem to be effective in enhancing motivation and increasing student interest in subject matter, yet the extent to which this translates into more effective learning is less clear. The lack of empirical data, due primarily to the scarcity of systematic investigations into the cognitive impact of serious games, forces us to turn to prior work investigating the impact of interactive computer simulations for hard evidence. (Anetta 2008, p. 231)
“The video games in education conversation can be couched in developmental psychology (play), learning theory (constructivist), and 21st century skills. The power of these teaching and learning tools is not readily apparent in the literature” ((Anetta, 2008 p. 233)).
Anetta (2008, p. 235) did report, however, that they were showing some success in some of the programs they were reviewing, “The idea of community of practice and social presence are at the forefront of the research being conducted. Active learning through the immersion of games is showing positive impact on the Net generation participating in the project. As opposed to passively watching videos, students are actively learning content. Further, through an integrated database, teachers are able to ascertain real-time data from student decisions in the game they created.”
“The critical piece could be the students constructing games as the teacher takes on the role of pedagogical and content expert. It is well documented that people learn best by doing (e.g., the Constructivist paradigm) so why not allow students to construct games” (Anetta 2008, p.235).
I also realized on completion of this article that I really needed to ask a 5th question. What kind of platforms or tools are most often used or easy for teachers to use to create this environment, as well as pre-defining what the environment should look like, ie should gaming be brought in as games to reach a larger unit or as the unit itself.
Anetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: why they should be used and how they are being used. Theory Into Practice,, 47, 229-249. DOI: 10.1080/00405840802153940
No comments:
Post a Comment