(2) Ie K. Orr

Karen Orr & Carol Mc Guinness ISFE-EUN Games in School Study National 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:
**[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%

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:
**[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%

http://www.thinkingworlds.com	56
http://www.slideshare.net	1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	1

(2) Ie K. Orr

by European Schoolnet on Oct 13, 2008

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 58

Statistics

(2) Ie K. Orr — Presentation Transcript