Playing Games in the Classroom – the Role of Simulations and Game Play in K12

I have long been a proponent of the use of video-games in education. As a mother of students with learning challenges, I was often surprised at the intensity my sons applied to their video-game pursuits; failing and retrying a multitude of times without hint of frustration. This same intensity was absent from their school applications. My sons frequently failed to apply themselves to a school based assignment out of fear of failure no more threatening than that which they faced undauntingly during gaming. Seeing this contradictory behavior made me realize that something about the virtual environment of their games engaged them more deeply in the process while disengaging them from the stigma associated with failure. They approached the game with a determination to conquer it. I am convinced that this engagement and determination is what is missing from traditional educational approaches. If we can find a way to simulate that through educational use of game play in the classroom, I believe we can revolutionize education.

Few studies have been conducted on the effective use of video-based game play in the classroom. Part of the reason for this is the negative attitude toward game play by educators in general. “Many school leaders and teachers react negatively to video games and gaming culture, bashing video games as diversionary threats to the integrity of schooling or as destructive activities that corrupt moral capacity and create a sedentary, motivation-destroying lifestyle” (Halverson, 2005). Halverson goes on to say that the problem is exacerbated by the standards-driven environment we have embraced in the light of No Child Left Behind and other such legislation. “Standards specify what to teach; school leaders and teachers construct efficient pedagogies and learning environments to teach it.”

An and Bonk (2009) discuss the components necessary for developing educational games that will engage student in learning. They are proponents of a context-based rather than content-based approach. By this the authors mean that learning needs to be authentic and meaningful, surrounding a realistic situation or problem, rather than disconnected facts to be committed to rote memory. “Context is more important than content since learning is a process of ‘developing abilities to see, think, do and be in the world,’ rather than accumulating discrete facts (Squire, 2005b, p. 19).” This seems to be in direct opposition to the standards-based curriculum of the classroom, which demands a content-first approach. However, if approached correctly, I believe video-games and simulations can be used to teach directly to standards and can improve student retention and learning.

Steen (2008) cites research that demonstrates that learning increases proportionately with our interaction with the material. According to his example, a teacher utilizing visuals with lecture and textbook reading assignments might expect students to retain 50% of the materials being taught. This teacher can dramatically increase student retention to 70% by incorporating a class or small group discussion. Learning increases to 80% if students are allowed to experience the material. This is the realm of the video-game.

Part of the resistance to video-game use in the classroom is that there is not an efficient way to assess or measure learning, and in fact, students might learn at different rates or fail to apply what they have learned to school-related concepts. Halverson (2005) states that video games “provide inefficient and unpredictable environments for learning school-based material and have learning outcomes that are difficult to map onto curriculum standards. Learning in endogenous video games can be a protracted and indirect affair with a steep learning curve when compared with standard curriculum units on mathematical fractions, Egyptian history, or European expansion.”

Halverson (2005) goes on to explain that the cure for this lies in the way teachers facilitate the lesson. He feels that teachers can extract valuable lesson plans from existing commercial video games through several steps. His first suggestion involves mapping the learning potentials of commercial games to existing standards-based content. “Commercial endogenous games require an integrated lesson design that incorporates the depth of gaming insights into standards-based school environments.”

The second step outlined is to change the structure of the traditional classroom to allow for facilitation of learning from the game to derive the desired content. “The role of the learning environment in a traditional school setting is to provide a context to make structured content accessible to students; the role of the learning environment in an endogenous game-based setting is to scaffold prompts for helping students construct legitimate analogies between what can be learned in the game and what schools need to teach” (Halverson, 2005).

Next, Halverson (2005) suggests using the built-in risk-taking and controlled failure of the games as an authentic measurement for assessment of learning. “Designing environments to integrate games into schooling can thus draw on the assessment devices already built into games. The technology of multi-player gaming, for example, generates tangible records of prior game moves in the form of discussion threads that can be used to spark reflection on the assumptions behind earlier game moves (see, for example, the Rise of Nations Universe site). Learning environment designers can use these public representations of game-based information to discuss school-based learning outcomes. The arguments players develop online to defend in-game moves open valuable windows into the players' thinking processes. The outcomes of game-play also provide authentic artifacts of student learning that can be used as summative evaluations of learning.”

Halverson’s (2005) final suggestion may seem a bit over the top, but it makes sense if educators are to attend to the other suggestions. He proposes that in order to best learn how to use commercial games in education, educators need to play them. “…nowhere is the current generational gap in technology greater than in game literacy, and while asking school leaders and teachers to play commercial video games may be a stretch, integrating game-based learning experiences in their professional development may help them see the merits of gaming from the inside.”

I am convinced that educators need to devote some time to research the potential for use of commercially available video-games for education, and instructional designers need to become aware of the need for authentic game-based learning experiences and build games designed to meet standards-based instructional needs which are engaging for students to play.

References

An, Yun-Jo and Bonk, Curtis J. (2009). Finding that SPECIAL PLACE: Designing Digital Game-Based Learning Environments. TechTrends, Vol. 53, No. 3.

Halverson, Richard (2005). What Can K-12 School Leaders Learn from Video Games and Gaming? Innovate. Retrieved April 22, 2012 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=81.

Steen, Henry L. (2008). Effective eLearning Design. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 4, No. 4.

Examples of Technology as a Scaffolding Tool for K12 Educators

Scaffolding is defined as “tutoring or other assistance provided in a learning setting to assist students with attaining levels of understanding impossible for them to achieve without assistance” Brush and Saye (2002). Scaffolds in a classroom setting can be provided in a variety of ways, from manipulatives to handouts to teacher interventions such as questioning techniques.

Brush and Saye (2002) determined there are two types of scaffolding, hard and soft. They define hard scaffolding as those techniques which are static and can be anticipated and produced in advance of learning, such as handouts and manipulatives. Soft scaffolding is dynamic in nature. The teacher uses these techniques to support student learning on the spot based on the needs of the individual student. Questioning techniques would be an example of this type of scaffolding. Technology has some powerful implications as a potential tool to assist teachers in providing scaffolding for learners, particularly in the area of hard scaffolds.

Sharma and Hannafin (2007) discuss the use of technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs) to support learner needs. “Two important affordances of computer systems are the ability to constrain user actions through predefined rules and the ability to store large amounts of data. By directing attention on important task features, software scaffolding may prevent learners from engaging in unnecessary, misleading, or unproductive tactics.” They go on to describe practical ways to use technology to focus on the areas students are likely to misunderstand and to provide access to a variety of problem solving strategies so students can attempt to solve problems using different approaches.

I have seen technology used in this fashion. For example, Pearson’s SuccessMaker software uses a variety of approaches in assisting students learning mathematics. Students are introduced to math word problems through written text and speech. Important numbers are highlighted to draw students’ attention, and students are asked to fill in numbers and symbols in an equation to be solved. If students request help or answer the problem incorrectly, the program offers additional scaffolding by first filling in the equation for students to solve. If this scaffold is insufficient to allow for student success, further scaffolding is provided in the form of pictures or other concrete examples representing the problem. For example, if the problem involved determining how many birds were left on a fence after some flew away, the software might display an animation of the original birds sitting on a fence and the suggested number flying away, allowing students to visualize the concept of subtraction in a concrete way. This is an example of hard scaffolding, as the program can only provide those examples pre-programmed by the instructor, but it is more dynamic than some uses of technology for scaffolding in that the amount of scaffolding provided varies based on the needs of the individual student, and the scaffolding is designed to fade over time as student proficiency increases.

GE and Land (2004) suggest that technology can be used to scaffold problem-solving processes by providing an opportunity for reflection and metacognition. One such use of technology is found in blogging. “A blog can become much more than an online diary and has countless instructional applications” (Kajder & Bull, 2003). In addition to offering an opportunity for students to reflect or participate in in-depth discussions among themselves, Kajder goes on to state that blogging is powerful because it provides students with an authentic writing platform with a real audience, immediate visibility, the opportunity to receive feedback, a chance to review how their writing has developed over time, and the ability to experiment with multiple forms of communication such as multimedia.

Ragan (nd) describes requiring a timely response to learning from students as one of ten “best practices” for online instructors. Classroom instructors can use blogging as a method of requiring a timely response from students. An expansion on the idea of a written journal, students can post reflections to their learning, questions they still have about what was learned, important vocabulary, examples, and more on their blog pages. They can connect what they have learned to new ideas online through the use of hyperlinking. But perhaps the most powerful use of this technology is the ability for students to interact with each other’s posts, commenting and expanding on the ideas of their peers. By requiring a regular blog entry to be kept, instructors can see areas where students have faulty understanding or need additional supports, and peer interaction provides a built-in scaffold system. Thus this tool provides both hard and soft scaffolds for students.

Technology promises to provide additional opportunities to support student learning as teachers become familiar with new applications and expanded technology capabilities. Computers are becoming more complex and “smarter”, increasingly more responsive to the needs of the user. As new applications become available, scaffolding will more truly mimic the support of an expert teacher, providing a greater range of soft scaffolds. This will increasingly free the time of the teacher to facilitate additional student needs and fill in learning gaps. While technology will never replace the need for human interaction, the amount and complexity of scaffolding tasks that technology is able to provide can only increase based on current innovations. 

References

Brush, Thomas A. and Saye, John W. (2002). A Summary of Research Exploring Hard and Soft Scaffolding for Teachers and Students Using a Multimedia Supported Learning Environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Vol. 1, No. 2. Retrieved April 15, 2012 from http://ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/1.2.3.pdf. 

GE, Xun and Land, Susan M. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Scaffolding Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Processes Using Question Prompts and Peer Interactions.

Kajder, Sara and Bull, Glen (2003). Scaffolding for Struggling Students: Reading and Writing with Blogs. Learning & Leading with Technology, Vol. 31 No. 2. Retrieved April 15, 2012 from http://heartlandaeatoc.pbworks.com/f/Scaffolding+for+Struggling+Students+Using+Blogs+and+Wikis.pdf.

Sharma, Priya and Hannafin, Michael (2007). Scaffolding in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 27-46.

Ragan, Lawrence (nd). 10 Principles of Effective Online Teaching: Best Practices in Distance Education. Distance Education Report.