This video.  

The gamification movement is currently something that is lighting my educational brain on fire.  I grew up playing “Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?”  probably starting around 4th grade.  “The Oregon Trail,” “Reader Rabbit,” “Jump Start Kids…” etc., I loved the games and I loved the multidimensional learning I gained from them instantly.

It was through gaming that I developed the skills to “explore” technology, to push myself to solve puzzles, and to do and try things with a “fail-forward” attitude.  Games like these helped me with history, geography, technology, reading speed, reading comprehension, memory, math, science, typing speed, and I’m sure more that I’m forgetting.

In Gabe Zichermann‘s TED talk, he states that “Where in the Word is Carmen Sandiego” was the “last substantial hit in the education/video game business.”  He continues to say that it was this game that brought parents, educators, and students all together…and that this was a fantastic game.  He then goes into details that will amaze you about gaming improving IQ and Generation G in the classroom.  He references a study conducted by Ananth Pai, which had results that were something we should really stop and think about.  I don’t want to give away too many details, but if you have a spare 15 minutes or so, I’d highly recommend watching Zichermann’s TED talk.

The first reading I chose for this week is “Developing Mobile Based Instruction” by Martin and Pastore. In this study, Martin and Pastore touch on a topic we’ve already discussed this year, the fact that mobile technologies and online access are becoming more readily available and affordable.  In this particular case study, they looked at the design and development of mobile websites and apps.

They had a group of 8 students developed a mobile app or a mobile website.  The design itself turned out to be more challenging than anticipated.  Getting a mobile app or mobile website to look and function the way that they wanted took considerable knowledge of C++, Dreamweaver, and Java.  And while it looks right on one device, that didn’t mean it would look right on another.  They didn’t go into much detail about what the actual apps or websites contained content-wise, the focus on was the design.

They concluded their study by reiterating the fact that access to technology is increasing.  Additionally, more and more businesses and schools are seeking educational and informational resources that can be delivered via mobile apps and websites.  The stress that the potential for mobile devices to aid in teaching learning is here, we just need to get better at designing and developing the content.

This is where my current dilemma lies.  I have a million ideas of gamification, especially in the English language arts classroom (think – video games to make books and literary devices come alive).  But I lack the design knowledge to make them a reality.  Well, I shouldn’t say that.  I have enough knowledge to make a really basic (read: boring), flat design.  I can make a basic website, I’m sure I could make a basic app, but I couldn’t make something like Battlefield 1.  If anyone has any ideas for where I could be going with this…feel free to steer me in a new direction!  For now, I have this wonderful idea of having my 10th-grade class for the next Unit come up with a classroom design for a game for Shakespeare’s “Othello.”  My head is spinning with new ideas.

For my second reading this week, I dove into “A Mobile Gamification learning System for Improving the Learning Motivation and Achievements” by Su and Cheng.  In their study, they looked at how mobile gamified learning systems helped motivate and improve achievement in an elementary school student’s science classroom.  Early in the reading the stated that,  “Preliminary research suggests that mobile devices can create more active learning experiences, which improve student engagement, learning and course retention (Joosten, 2010).”

In this study, a teacher that had been teaching this class for more than three years, and had three fourth grade classes with 102 students total, conducted the test.  After a lesson on insects, each of the three classes were then split into three groups.  The first used game-based mobile learning to continue learning about insects, the second used conventional mobile learning, and the third use traditional teaching.  The knowledge in each group was determined to be relatively the same before the continued education on insects began.  The study took place over six weeks, the differentiated portion over three of the six weeks.

Some of their findings surprised me!  The number one factor of success among the three groups was the initial interest, followed by gender, and then prior knowledge. Ultimately, “The learning achievement of the experimental group was higher than either of the two control groups which demonstrates that if teachers construct learning experiences, using technologies to help students solve problems and face issues that are important to them, then students will be intrinsically motivated to learn,” (16).  I was cheering at this point.  While I suspected this to be the finding…I was extremely excited to find that it was actually the case!

The information gathered from the gamified group’s post-surveys found that “[t]hese applications could make learning more enjoyable, and greatly increase learner engagement, offering students the opportunity to become more active in their learning process,” (16).  And hasn’t that been the goal all along?  To make the classroom more student-centered?  To make learners self-motivated.  To make learning fun?

While this study was done with science in a 4th-grade classroom, I think the research (and they even say this in their conclusion) points to the fact that gaming in the classroom could have very positive effects on learners in many subject areas and grade levels.

One side note, I wanted to include this since it surprised me and really made me stop and think. In their conclusions, they suggested that, “[p]arent support of gamified learning would greatly affect student learning achievement. In the other words, if parents encouraged students to adopt game-based learning, students would approach this new mode of learning more confidently,” (17).  I hadn’t thought about the parent factor but this does make a lot of sense to me.  When I was growing up, my parents had semi strick “technology” rule especially when it came to the time we spent on them.  Screentime and technology limitations might be making students think that technology is somehow a negative instead of a positive.  Getting parents on board may be a key in making educational gaming and gamification an overall success.

My final reading this week was “The Effects of Cognitive Capacity and Gaming Expertise on Attention and Comprehension,” by Lee and Heeter.  In this reading, they closely look at two studies on educational game-based learning.

Toward the beginning of this reading, I was drawn to this thought, “[m]ere exposure to educational games does not predict learning outcomes.”  These studies look closely as, “how learners’ cognitive abilities affect their learning from digital games and whether some learners are more likely to benefit or become disadvantaged from digital game-based learning,” (2).

Study 1

88 undergraduate students with slightly more men than women all in the 20’s took part in this study.  They used The ReDistricting Game to help students understand gerrymandering, with the underlying and more important message that, ” gerrymandering is a problematic practice and can undermine democracy.”

Study 1 found that the learners’ working memory (WM) had better results than the effect of having more game experience (GE).  This differed from their hypothesis, and they began to think of reasons why this might have happened.  Their first idea was that those with more game experience may have felt that the game was “too easy” and didn’t put enough thought into it, and therefore missed some of the higher level thinking.  Their second idea was that they were so focused on remembering their prior game knowledge, they simply missed the deeper meaning of the game because they were distracted.  In order to see which of the two were more likely, they conducted a second study.

Study 2

In study 2, they used the same game, with a similar test group, but skipped the easier “tutorial” like level of the game, and jumped into the more challenging one.  They looked closely at features like, how many times a participant turned in their work, how many times like clicked on the help feature, how long they read feedback before attempting again, etc. to see if those with more game experience where simply using their prior knowledge so much that they overlooked the content.  They ultimately found that, “[g]aming experts are more likely to approach the game with a sense of understanding that leads them to search for familiar information that are coherent with their schema, overlooking important new information such as the educational messages,” (10).

The main take away from their research was that, “[r]esearchers and practitioners need to not only consider the amount of working memory demand that a game imposes on the learners but also examine where learners allocate their attention and design the game to support players so that they will notice and process the underlying educational messages,” (11).  They feel that experienced gamers can do well with the more in-depth information, but only if it is presented in a way that aligns with their previous knowledge of gaming.

This really got me thinking about gamification in the classroom.  What if prior knowledge turns out to be a distractor from the content for the experienced gamer?  Would warning them of the pitfalls help, that was something this study didn’t test.  I know when I’m told to “read something closely” or “pay particular attention to…” I tend to tread more carefully.  I would consider myself a semi-experienced gamer.  If given a warning, I think that would make a big difference for me.  I play a game with my students from iCivics for my unit on the teleplay, “Twelve Angry Men.”  In this game, it’s easy to click away until you stumble upon the right answer, but I warn my students, this won’t get you the most points.  Even my lowest students performed that game well, as did my highest achievers.  It made a lasting impression on them and I all played it more than I required and asked if they could explore the rest of the website.  I was inspired to include a game in my class for another one of my grad courses last Spring, it was exciting to

I play a game with my students from iCivics for my unit on the teleplay, “Twelve Angry Men.”  In the play, the characters are all part of a jury and need to come to a unanimous decision to decided if a teenager is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. In this game, they need to decide if the defendants are guilty or innocent using the evidence provided and then convince the rest of the jury of their opinion.  It would be easy to click away until you stumble upon the right answer, but I warn my students, this won’t get you the most points for spending a short amount of time on the game, and for not interacting with all of the evidence and characters.  I think this makes a big difference because even my lowest students performed well in the game, as did my highest achievers.  It made a lasting impression on them and many played the game more times than I required and asked if they could explore the rest of the website.  I was inspired to include a game in my class for another one of my grad courses last Spring, it was exciting to see a part of my course come to life with games!

Putting it all Together

In Martin, Pastore, and Snider’s study, I realized the limitations and concerns for developing mobile apps and websites. In Su and Cheng’s study, I saw the potential for gaming to lead to engaged learners with higher comprehension, and in Lee and Heeter’s study, I saw the potential of prior knowledge of gaming and game design to lead to overconfidence (and therefore a false sense of understanding) that may lead to lower comprehension. Lee and Heeter said, “[w]e need to understand how learners approach and process information in digital games so that educators and developers can design better curriculum and game systems that support different learner needs,” (11). If you don’t already think games have a huge role to play in educations future, then I urge you to go back and watch the TED talk at the beginning of my post by Zichermann. Taking what else I read I think that is a great way to summarize where we are at with gamification. We are in a place where we need to think critically about the types and delivery of educational games so that they are meaningful, engaging, and leading to deeper levels of understanding for both experienced gamers and beginners.

Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Snider, J. (2012). Developing mobile based instruction. TechTrends, 56 (5), 46-51

Su, C.-H. and Cheng, C.-H. (2015), A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31: 268–286.

Lee, Y.-H., and Heeter, C. (2017) The effects of cognitive capacity and gaming expertise on attention and comprehension. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33: 473–485.

Zichermann, G. (2011). How games make kids smarter. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from https://www.ted.com/talks/gabe_zichermann_how_games_make_kids_smarter