Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
(2) Ie   K. Orr
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

(2) Ie K. Orr

894
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
894
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Karen Orr & Carol Mc Guinness ISFE-EUN Games in School Study National Coordinators Meeting, 8th of October, Paris
  • 2.
    • 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 ).
  • 3.
    • 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
  • 4.
    • 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
  • 5.  
  • 6.
    • 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
  • 7.
    • Study 1
  • 8.
    • 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.
  • 9.
    • 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)
  • 10.  
  • 11.
    • 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
  • 12.
    • Results
  • 13.
    • 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’
  • 14.
    • 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
    •  
  • 15.
    • 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’
  • 16.
    • 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
  • 17.
    • 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
  • 18.
    • 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
  • 19. 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).
  • 20.
    • 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
  • 21.
    • 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
  • 22.
    • 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).
  • 23.
    • School differences
    • Across enjoyment, involvement, and learning
    • School 1& 3 stand out:
    **[F (4, 92)=12.04, p= 0.000]. (eta squared = 0.34). ***[F(4, 90) = 8.43, p = 0.000]. (eta squared = 0.27). 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%
  • 24.
    • 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
  • 25.
    • 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
  • 26.
    • 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!
  • 27.
    • Study 2
  • 28.
    • 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)
  • 29.
    • 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).
  • 30.
    • 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
  • 31.
    • 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……
  • 32.  
  • 33.
    • Spare slides
  • 34. 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
  • 35. 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).
  • 36.
    • School differences
    • Across enjoyment, involvement, and learning.
    • School 1& 3 stand out:
    **[F (4, 92)=12.04, p= 0.000]. (eta squared = 0.34). ***[F(4, 90) = 8.43, p = 0.000]. (eta squared = 0.27). 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%