(2) ie k. orr
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Karen Orr & Carol Mc Guinness
ISFE-EUN Games in School StudyNational Coordinators Meeting, 8th of October, Paris
Potential to encourage motivation and engagement (e.g., Tuzun, 2007; Virvou et al., 2005;
Stoney & Oliver, 1999) Possible educational benefits, such as their
potential to encourage thinking skills, e.g., problem solving (Whitebread, 1997), sequencing, reasoning (McFarlane et al., 2002), classification and inference skills (Henderson
et al., 2000).
Teachers Fear of redundancy Futurelab (2005) – 1/3 of teachers surveyed
had used commercial games for teaching- ½ would consider doing so- Practical barriers – access to equipment, time restrictions, relevance, etc.
Pupils Futurelab (2006) – 62% surveyed would like to
use games in lessons Interesting lessons/ learn in a better way
CCEA (Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment)– ‘Optimising the use of technology’
No specific mention of educational gaming in the NI curriculum
Gaming can address other needs that must be met, e.g. explore and interact with a digital device or environment
Potential to scaffold pupil progress in the Thinking Skills and Personal Capabilities Framework within the NI Curriculum
CCEA has pursued opportunities to incorporate games within NI Curriculum
CCEA partnered with Caspian Learning and QUB to develop example games, tailored to aspects of the NI Curriculum (Science, Modern Languages, and Citizenship)
Games should be available to all schools within NI from April 2009
Study 1
The purpose of this exploratory study was: To establish the views of teachers and
pupils after they have gained some experience using 3D games-based learning environments;
To observe how small groups of pupils interact while using the technology, exploring both their level of collaboration and their dialogue.
Games Caspian Learning’s Thinking Worlds Educationally relevant and specific to
Northern Ireland curriculum- Citizenship - Modern Languages – German
Thinking behaviours, e.g., Gather, label, classify, replace, comprehend (Bloom’s Taxonomy)
5 post-primary schools from across Northern Ireland – Year 8,9, and 10 classes (12-14 year olds)
98 pupil questionnaires collected: M- 23, F-75 (Cronbach alpha – 0.89)
25 pupils participated in video recorded observations
4 teachers interviewed 12 teachers participated in focus group
discussions
Results
Gaming experience Most teachers had limited experience with GBL
How the games were & should be used Variation in use It was agreed that the games are best used as a
reinforcement/ consolidation/ revision/ assessment tool
Supplemented by written tasks -Game domination! Teachers agreed that the games were an appropriate
educational tool ‘It is a brilliant educational tool’
Learning outcomes Collaborative learning Real life/ authentic learning Improved concentration levels Greater retention of information German –vocabulary & grammatical forms, etc. Citizenship –terminology and appreciating other
people’s views
3/ 4 teachers (interviewed) felt that their lower band pupils benefitted the most
Thinking skills Independent thinking/ less reliance on teacher Pair work – debates ‘Comparing, contrasting, asking and retrieving
information, bouncing ideas of each other’
‘ there is no real comparison between how these skills may be developed in the traditional
classroom and how they could be developed through these 3D thinking environments … the
potential is just enormous’
Motivation All teachers recognised the motivational appeal No clock watching, class flew by More enthusiasm in the classroom Repeating tasks to improve scores - ‘Street cred’! One size does NOT fit all
Teaching style More facilitator type role Asking different (more open) questions Allowing the pupils to think for themselves more
Perceived barriers Technical issues Time limitations Technology phobias/Pupil = expert Computer/ facility availability ‘Computer fatigue’ Shift in notions of learning Despite this the potential of GBL was
recognised – teachers remained positive about using GBL again
GBL – a new experience
Games-based learning – a novel experience
84% - never used such games before in class
Yet 69% play games once/ few times a week outside of school
Significant difference in responses for males (M= 3.64, SD=0.79) and females [M=2.93, SD=1.22; t (54) = 3.2, P= 0.002](eta squared = 0.097).
GBL – Fun experience Positive responses across:
- Enjoyment (79% - 80% girls vs 72% boys)- Use again (81% - 80% girls vs 82% boys)- Involvement (88% - 89% girls vs 81% boys)
But boys self-reported enjoyment increased from 72% to 86% when they directly compared the games to ‘other’ classroom activities
Learning and thinking gains Overall, rated lower than enjoyment levels.
◦ 68% reported that the games had helped their learning positively
◦ 47% thought the games made them ‘think harder’ than they would in other classroom activities
Gender differences
Significant difference in responses for males (M= 2.41, SD=1.44) and females [M=3.28, SD= 1.26; t(94)= -2.78, p= 0.007] (eta squared = 0.076).
School differences Across enjoyment, involvement, and learning School 1& 3 stand out:
School 1 % School 3 %
+ ‘Enjoy’** 100% 54%
+ ‘Help learn’ 90% 15%
+ ‘Easy to use’ 91% 38%
+ ‘Held interest’***
100% 50%
School 1 yes School 3 yes
‘Think harder’ 75% 36%
**[F (4, 92)=12.04, p= 0.000]. (eta squared = 0.34).***[F(4, 90) = 8.43, p = 0.000].(eta squared = 0.27).
Motivation and engagement Very little off-task dialogue Competition, enthusiasm, and exploration Frustration, boredom/disinterest and confusion
Collaboration Physically - shared control of mouse and
keyboard Verbally – offering direction, joint decision
making Group collaboration
Quality of thinking Software inexperience - “what’s this for…?”,
“how do I…?”
Productive, on-task discussion evident - instances of disagreement & attention to instructions
Some examples of engagement with the cognitive demands of the scenario in the game, e.g., discussing their understanding of the issues presented in the game, attempting interpretation
Disconnection between young people’s preferred activities and those encountered in school – opportunity!
Thinking/learning benefits rated lower than enjoyment – are they motivated to learn???
Gender differences School differences – importance of planning
and integration! Teachers’ expected barriers – points to the
readiness of schools to embrace the technology – but some worries!
Study 2
Participants - 90 school pupils (39 males and 49 females)- Experienced sample (n=50, 20 male & 30 female)- Novice sample (n=40, 20 male and 20 female)
Instrument - ‘Pupils’ Attitudes towards 3D games-based learning environments’ - ‘My feelings when playing games’ (Bonanno & Kommers, 2008)- Affective component- Perceived usefulness component- Perceived control- Behavioural component
(Cronbach alpha - 0.817)
Positive total attitude: Mean– 3.7 (from 5) No gender or user differences Statistically significant difference between the
three spare time gaming experience groups
[F (2, 70) =10.8, p=.00) Eta squared – 0.24).
Attitudes towards GBL are similar across gender or specific usage of educational games in the study
Attitudes towards GBL are different amongst different levels of usage of games in pupils’ spare time
- Those that play games more than 8 hours per week in their spare time have a more positive attitude towards GBL
Have the games lived up to their promise? Despite technical problems, pupil motivation was witnessed in
observations and it was recognised by the teachers Teachers appreciated several educational benefits and
learning outcomes Plus, there was some evidence of rich dialogue among the
pupils recorded in the observations Attitudes to GBL in classrooms highly associated with gaming
experience outside the classrooms
Overall, the potential that games-based learning holds was acknowledged by both teachers and pupils!
Any questions……
Spare slides
Question Male mean score
Female mean score
How much did you enjoy using the game?
3.3 3.3
Compared to other classroom activities how much did you enjoy using the game?
3.8 3.4
How much would you like to use the games again?
3.9 3.6
To what extent do you think the games helped you learn?
2.4 3.3
How involved were you while using the game?
3.6 3.9
Significant difference in responses for males (M= 2.41, SD=1.44) and females[M=3.28, SD= 1.26; t(94)= -2.78, p= 0.007] (eta squared = 0.076).
School differences Across enjoyment, involvement, and learning. School 1& 3 stand out:
School 1 %
School 1 mean
School 3 %
School 3 mean
+ ‘Enjoy’** 100% 4.3 54% 2.6
+ ‘Help learn’
90% 3.7 15% 1.8
+ ‘Easy to use’
91% 3.8 38% 2.0
+ ‘Held interest’***
100% 4.2 50% 2.3
School 1 yes
School 3 yes
‘Think harder’
75% 36%
**[F (4, 92)=12.04, p= 0.000]. (eta squared = 0.34).***[F(4, 90) = 8.43, p = 0.000].(eta squared = 0.27).