I have two screencasts. The first one is an activity for structures that my ten year old daughter and I built together and the second one is of me reviewing "Number Sentence Challenge" which I found on Minecraftedu World Library. Minecraft World Library, retrieved from: http://services.minecraftedu.com/worlds/
0 Comments
Assignment Four – Introduction and Overall Understanding of the Principles of Learning in Relation to Games
Jane Christensen Part 1 The regular education system and videogames differ in how they are designed around learning in many ways. The principles I will be touching on about these differences are: Identity, Pleasantly frustrating, Information: just in time and on demand, Sandboxes, and Meaning is action/ situated meaning/ meaning as action The first principle I have chosen is, “Identity”. I know that in my classroom, I want to empower my students more. Finding ways to do this effectively is difficult. I allow my students choices with how they wish to show their learning, but that is not giving them empowerment with the content. Schools do not, as a rule, empower students to “buy into” why we are making them do certain skills/activities. Often teachers, myself included, have said, “Because you will need it when you are big.” I have never really thought about it until viewing James Gee's video about the Principles on Gaming. I had some uh no moments while viewing the video. Videogames have clearly defined goals and students know exactly what they need to do to accomplish a goal. The education system does not always allow for clear goals that are meaningful for students. Yes, we need learning outcomes, but I feel that we are looking at the goals or outcomes as separate entities instead of looking at the outcomes as a tool for deeper learning. For example, “structures” used to be one of the learning outcomes at the grade three level. I know that many teachers had students build newspaper bridges to see which one was the most stable. Great idea, but I am not sure where the connection to the real world comes in to this. My younger daughter is really into Minecraft. She has built more structures, mined for minerals, spawned creatures, and many other things. She has learned more about structures playing Minecraft than what she did in grade three when she built her bridge. She has learned about the different woods, blocks, how to place blocks, whether she wants one type of block over another because of the durability of it, and many other things associated with structures. Will she take what she has learned in Minecraft and transfer it to the real world? I think she will more likely transfer what she is learning on Minecraft than the lame structure activity she did in grade three. Now, if her grade three teacher had used Minecraft as a tool, along with building things in the classroom, then the experience may have been more relevant to life. Why stop at just building a bridge? Why can’t students build other structures out of different materials? Part of the reason this isn’t happening is cost and supervision. It is difficult to buy or ask parents to buy different materials for students to build things and who will supervise the children while using tools to build the structures? Using games such as Minecraft enable students the feeling of identity in that they not only have control over what they are doing in the game, but they know what they have to work with, how to get it, and what to do with it. Unlike trying to teach eight year olds how to safely use hammers and saws. The “Pleasantly Frustrating” principle reminds me of the YouTube video about “Flow” that Mihaly Csikiszentmihalyi presented. I can see how videogames fit right into the Flow chart where people need to have arousal and control before they can reach true “Flow”. If there is too much anxiety and worry, and too little control, or too relaxed or bored then reaching Flow is unlikely. I have watched some of my students play videogames during their centre time and they are so absorbed that nothing can tear them away, however, these same students complain about the noise in the classroom, when there is barely any, as the reason they can not do their work. I will be honest and say that I have rarely had my students reach Flow. All students learn differently, and thus finding activities that will fully engage all students in a traditional classroom is very difficult. I can see that if there is a particular concept you want students to “get”, there needs to be activities where students can reach their own “Flow”. Using videogames in the classroom with choices of which videogames they wish to use is a great way to achieve flow. However, finding the videogames that will augment the concepts being taught can be time consuming. Having said that, I find it interesting that one of the sites some of my students like is Funbrain where there are a lot of game based activities for them to do. There are math games, reading activities, and many more activities. The bottom line is that when students are engaged in something that has arousal and they have control, they will have engagement and flow. Most activities in a regular classroom situation do not allow students to have a lot of control. They may have arousal, but without some control there will unlikely be full engagement. Videogames can supply both arousal and control, thus enabling full engagement. The next principle I have chosen is the “Information: Just in Time, On Demand”. This principle hits home with me, as it is very difficult in the classroom, unless there is ready access to online tools, to get the information students need when they need it. Let’s face it, we are not the all-knowing beings that we think we are. Before I had online access in my classroom, I would lose students when they needed to know something and I didn’t have the answer. I could see the interest fading the longer it took me to try to find the information or resources they needed. Just in time and on demand does not have to be word-based; it can be videos, pictures, doing. So often we revert to reading about something instead of doing it or watching it. I think that just in time and on demand information is better accessed through images and doing, and much of what students are doing, hopefully, is in small bits at first (Just in Time) and then delving further into items of interest (On Demand) as James Gee (2013) suggests. Games are designed to facilitate this, whereas, the traditional classroom is not. The traditional classroom will often break information down into small part; however, it doesn’t always encourage the “On Demand” information in allowing students to go with their interests. Games are designed to allow for smaller steps, or levels, and for finding on demand information where students may be at a particular level and they need more information to go further. A case in point is with Minecraft, I have watched my daughter go from the very basic levels in Minecraft to very sophisticated levels. She didn’t just know how, she needed to find out how. When she wanted to know how to do something, she found out, either by trial and error or searching the net and watching videos to show her how. We don’t do this in the regular classroom setting as much as we should. Another principle I have chosen is the “Sandbox” principle. I think the main difference between the traditional school setting and the online game-based setting is that students are not “seen” by others while playing a game, whereas they are “seen” by all the other students when doing an activity in the classroom. There are more chances for students to withdraw from an activity in the classroom if they not confident about what they are doing or need more time to practice the skill. When students are engaged in a game, they are the only ones who see their mistakes. It is less stressful when they are the only ones to experience the mistakes they make. Also, when students are playing a game, they can take the time to master a level. They may only take a small amount of time to master one level, but need more time to master another level. The time to complete the game levels would probably even out over all. In the classroom, however, we don’t give all students enough time to master something. We go by where the average student is at that moment. There is no room for flexibility, as with game-based activities. No wonder we are losing more than half of our students. The final principle I have chosen is Meaning is action/ situated meaning/ meaning as action. I think that the main difference between the traditional classroom and game based learning is that we don’t allow for a lot of “action” in the classroom. Unfortunately, it is still very much here is your assignment, go and do it. Game-based learning is all about doing. Students have to actually do something to gain a level or levels or participate in actions, as with SIMs, to accomplish a task. One example of this principle is that my students like the TuxTyping program. What is interesting, but should not be a surprise, is that they can’t wait to finish the lessons so they can play the games. The games help them practice keyboarding as well. It would be interesting to see if I had half the class only do the games and the other half do the lessons and the games, if one group learned how to type faster. Hmmm, food for thought. Also, my students have been asking to see more YouTube videos on subjects that interest them. I can see now how what James Gee says about information being processed better if it is “seen” through pictures or actions. This is where I can see that children playing video games can learn better through seeing and doing. Isn’t it funny that I have always said that to learn something well, there needs to be visual, tactile, and auditory experiences with the content. Wow, and yet I have been so narrow-minded in thinking that this only applied to something like studying for spelling and to certain activities. Well, there is still hope yet for this old dog to learn new tricks. With videogames students are engaged in all three of the senses, thus incurring deeper learning. In conclusion, I thought I had a good grasp of what interactive activities looked like in my classroom. I see now that I am failing. There are so many opportunities for us to allow for deeper learning through allowing students to connect to why they are doing what they are doing, generating “Flow”, making sure activities are in small bits and that students are able to further their understanding on demand, time to play and explore at their level, and to achieve meaning through action. Resources: James Paul Gee Video: Jim Gee Principles on Gaming. (2013)Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQAgAjTozk Flow picture (psychology) retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) Funbrain: retrieved from: www.funbrain.com Minecraft: retrieved from: www.minecraft.net Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi : Flow, (2010) Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjliwSJGDiU TuxTyping: retrieved from: http://tux4kids.alioth.debian.org/tuxtype/ Part II I feel that video games have a lot to offer in education and should be used to augment learning. Some reasons for this are that students have a safe place to take risks and learn at their own pace, they may be able to achieve flow better by using games than with traditional techniques, each student’s possibility space is unique to them, and affinity spaces enable socialization and belonging. Videogames offer a place where students can make mistakes and it is not broadcast to the rest of the class. Many times students will shut down if they feel they have the wrong answer or if they don’t think their skills in a particular area are very strong. Videogames are a wonderful way for students to feel that they can take risks where they might not otherwise do so. Much like James Gee (2013) suggests when he talks about the “Sandbox” where students can feel safe and explore without having to worry about making mistakes. They can’t learn if they are unwilling or unable to do something they feel is risky for them. Videogames provide a safe place for students to become more proficient in skills and/or knowledge thus empowering them to hopefully become more confident. Students can work through levels at their own pace. They may spend different amounts of time at the different levels than other students, but that is ok, because they are not feeling the pressure to “get it done” at the same pace as another student, thus reducing the pressure and possibly the reluctance to do the task. Jessica Trybus states, that when students make mistakes in a risk free environment and by experimenting, they actively practice and learn the right way to do something. It keeps learners highly engaged which leads to more transference to the “real world”. Students who achieve “Flow” are more engaged and have a deeper connection with what they are doing. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (2010) mentions that people only achieve flow when they have arousal and control. Videogames lend themselves very well to this in that children can achieve arousal when they achieve a level or are driven to achieve the next level and they have more control over the paths they may take in achieving the goal or level. James Gee (2013) states that when people feel challenged they have a feeling of accomplishment, however, it cannot be too hard that they feel they cannot do it. It is a balance of feeling “pleasantly frustrating” (Gee, 2013). There is not a lot of choice in the mainstream classroom for students to have a sense of arousal in achieving/pursuing the next level in a concept nor have control over the amount of time taken to achieve a goal/level. The possibility space that videogames provide, as Wright, (2006) suggests that “(g)ames cultivate – exploit-possibility space better than any other medium.” The choices that can be made to choose different paths in videogames are much like chess. Many different paths can be taken, given the choices that each player makes. The result may be the same, winning, however, how the result is achieve each time can be totally different. Gee (2013) also refers to manipulation, such as in possibility spaces in videogames, that “offers tools to truly engage your body and mind in learning in deep way”. Videogames are a wonderful example of how there can be many different paths in the things we learn and the choices we make can change the path. This rarely happens in the regular classroom. We want children to be able to make choices, to problem solve, and to be creative thinkers. What better way than to allow them to learn through the possibility space of a videogame. They have to make choices, problem solve, and be creative. Infinity spaces in videogames are beneficial because they bring together people with like interests. Often, as James Gee (2012) states in his keynote address, people with like interests, playing the same videogames with others will often take their SIMs activities to the outside world. They will extend their game playing to their daily lives. Kurt Squire (2013) refers to worlds as become something to explore through social participation. How important is this when we want to teach our children to take their learning beyond the classroom. We can’t always cater to all children’s interests in a traditional classroom. We can, however, better cater to each child’s interests if we allow for infinity spaces, where children can participate in games where there are other children of like interests. They will be more likely to take what they have been participating in in the videogame and extend that motivation to their own lives. In summary, I think that Jessica Tybus’ (2014) chart sums it up nicely. She shows the effectiveness of the three educational approaches, (traditional education, hands-on, and Game-based learning) and their effectiveness in a variety of areas. I found it interesting how Game-based learning ticked all the boxes in all areas of cost-effectiveness, low physical risk, assessment, highly engaging, individualized learning, immediate feedback, transfer of learning to real-world, and active engagement. Traditional education was effective in only the cost-effective, low physical risk, and assessment. Hands-on learning was effective in being highly engaging, individualized learning, immediate feedback, transfer of learning to real world, and active engagement. We can accomplish so much more by incorporating game-based learning in education. Resources: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi : Flow, (2010) Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjliwSJGDiU Gee, J. (Performer). (2012, July 1). Games For Change Keynote Speech on Affinity Spaces [Web Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwQgAkHC7NE Gee, J. (Performer). (2013, November 13). Jim Gee principles on gaming. [Web Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQAgAjTozk Squire, K. (Performer). (2013, Oct. 27). Game design for learning. Part II [Web Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yri5m2jBcg Trybus, J. (2014). Game-based learning: What it is, why it works, and where it’s going (white paper). Retrieved from: . http://www.newmedia.org/game-based-learning--what-it-is-why-it-works-and-where-its-going.html Wright, W. (2006, April). Dream machines. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/wright.html Part III I feel that serious games are fun, but are more geared toward learning specific educational goals and can be quite content specific, whereas, COTS games are more geared toward entertainment (Ulicsak & Wright, 2010). Having said that, I think that COTS games can be more versatile and abundant than serious games. Serious games on the other hand can be easier to assess than COTS games. The challenge in using COTS games in the classroom is finding out how and what COTS games will enhance learning and how to assess the learning that takes place when using COTS games. An example of the differences between serious games and COTS games is between the serious game, Wolfquest and the COTS game Zoo Tycoon. Both games are structured around looking after animals, and both are immersive simulations games. The differences occur with cost, platforms, and multi tasks and quests. Wolfquest is free and can be downloaded on both PC and iOS. Zoo Tycoon costs about $42 for Xbox and the free download can only be downloaded on PCs. Wolfquest simulates being a wolf and all that entails, everything from survival to raising pups. It does allow for utilizing an online community where there are others with whom to discuss the game and even talk to biologists. Wolfquest, however, is, in my opinion, a one or two shot deal as far as exploring and changing scenarios. Once children have gone through the simulation a few times, there is nothing more to discover whereas with Zoo Tycoon children run the zoo. They can build and upgrade the zoo by buying animals. They can create appropriate living environments for the animals. They gain revenue by providing food and drink stands, bathrooms, and providing a pleasing environment for visitors. There are three modes, a challenging mode, a scenario mode, and a freestyle mode. There are challenges children must do to in order to help in building their zoo. If I were to pick between the two games for educational purposes, I think I would lean more toward Zoo Tycoon, as there seems to be a little more diversity and player control. I think in this case you can easily assess the learning that takes place in Zoo Tycoon. You can view students’ zoos and you can ask questions that encourage students to explain about their zoos. This is a little off topic, but I felt it is worth mentioning as it is something that could be the remedy for trying to find COTS games that fit learning outcomes, or work best with content. As I was looking for games to compare, I came across the 3D Hive site that promises teachers easy build virtual worlds for education. I am wondering if this avenue would be the best of both worlds as 3D Hive enables teachers to focus on the content and theme of the games without having to know how to program. There is also an integrated classroom management portion to it. 3D Hive works on Windows, MAC, iOS, and Android. Some of the features are a dialog engine for setting up dialog interactions for non-player characters, use of branching so students can make choices as to their path, use the built in trading system for using digital economy, you can have a marketplace for buying and selling items, ability to make mini-games within the game in order to test knowledge. There are various scenarios to choose from, such as forests, deserts, fantasy and contemporary urban landscapes. In conclusion, it is clear to me that when students have control of what they are doing, and have the ability to create, there is more engagement. As Kurt Squire (2013) suggests, children learn by being something. References: Squire, K. (Performer). (2013, Oct. 27). Game design for learning. Part I [Web Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzfY1N4FxsQ Ulicsak, M., & Wright, M. (2010). Education: Serious games. FutureLab: Innovations in Education, Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review1788 3DHive – retrieved from: http://3dhive.net Wolfquest – retrieved from: http://www.wolfquest.org Xbox – retrieved from: www.xbox.com Zoo Tycoon – retrieved from: http://www.download366.com/zoo-tycoon?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=366_Search_CA-Juegos&utm_term=download%20zoo%20tycoon&utm_content=Zoo%20Tycoon_366_JaviGoogle_CA_K=download%20zoo%20tycoon_CP=366_Search_CA-Juegos&placement=&target=&adposition=1t1&gclid=CIeAn-Car70CFQqCfgodqmkAZg |