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).