Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, wikis, blogs) is at the heart of Web 2.0 - a powerful medium for people to communicate and share knowledge. For my second ELPC G1 topic, I will look at the question, how can teachers leverage off social networking?
This question follows from an article by Klopfer et al (2009) (which I also used in my first ELPC G1 topic). The article looks at games, simulations and social networking and how teachers can leverage them. (And before the grammar police start getting excited, I know leverage is not a verb but it sounds technical!)
Klopfer (2009) argues that social networking is more than just entertainment; social networking is impacting the way we think, learn and interact, and even shaping the way we think, work and live. The article is a call to arms. The article observes that there is a disconnect between the way students are taught in school and how social networking is used outside school - "It is critical that education not only seek to mitigate this disconnect in order to make these two 'worlds' more seamless, but of course also to leverage the power of these emerging technologies for instructional gain" (Klopfer et al 2009).
The article notes that collaborative learning is contained within the Social Constructivism pedagogy. Social Constructivism (this week's topic in Educational Foundations) holds "that meaningful learning occurs when people are explicitly taught how to use the psychological tools of their culture (like language, mathematics, ..) and are then given the opportunity to use these tools in authentic, real-life activities" (Snowman 2009, p340). It could be argued that social networking, despite its recent appearance, has now become one of the psychological tools of western culture, especially teenage culture. The Social Constructivist would then say that students should be using social networking in authentic activities to enhance their learning.
An example of a teacher using a social networking tool, a Ning, in a class is described in the article. The use of the Ning allowed students to continue discussion outside of the classroom, gave the teacher a way to communicate a range of information to the students, and an easier way to see other students' work.
As usual I remain cautious and a little skeptical. Just because something is good for encouraging people to communicate, and communication is important in education, doesn't mean that something should be used in education (alcohol is one such example that springs to mind on a Friday afternoon). However, the use of the Ning as described in the article does appear to offer some realistic positive outcomes that a teacher can leverage off social networking.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Graff, J. and Haas, J. (2009) The Instructional Power of Digital Games Social Networking Simulations and How Teachers Can Leverage Them. The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Snowman J. et al (2009) Psychology applied to teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
STS 1 - Module F - Teaching and Assessment
The lecture discussed two topics: teaching and assessment.
The first topic of teaching looked at the National Professional Standards for Teachers. I am amazed how regulated the teaching profession is. In an Educational Foundations lecture, Phil talked about how standards can be informative and set a benchmark, but they can also be prescriptive and limiting.
The seven standards are listed below, along with their domains:
Professional Knowledge
1. Know students and how they learn
2. Know the content and how to teach it
Professional Practice
3. Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning
4. Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments
5. Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning
Professional Engagement
6. Engage in professional learning
7. Engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community
The second topic was that of assessment. Various principles were described. It appeared to me that the challenge will be trying to remember a range of the principles, not just a few, when designing assessment tasks.
The first topic of teaching looked at the National Professional Standards for Teachers. I am amazed how regulated the teaching profession is. In an Educational Foundations lecture, Phil talked about how standards can be informative and set a benchmark, but they can also be prescriptive and limiting.
The seven standards are listed below, along with their domains:
Professional Knowledge
1. Know students and how they learn
2. Know the content and how to teach it
Professional Practice
3. Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning
4. Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments
5. Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning
Professional Engagement
6. Engage in professional learning
7. Engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community
The second topic was that of assessment. Various principles were described. It appeared to me that the challenge will be trying to remember a range of the principles, not just a few, when designing assessment tasks.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Factors that inhibit using computer games in the classroom
If computer games are such a great way to encourage learning, what is stopping them being used the classroom? This is the question addressed by Baek (2008).
The factors that hinder the use of computer games were compiled and rated using a survey. In the first session a master list of issues was developed using input from 35 teachers. The master list was then submitted as a questionnaire to 444 teachers to rate each issue of a rating of 1 (for low) to 5 (for high).
The results were grouped under six broad categories:
I don't have a statistical background, so I can't comment on the factor analysis. I found the raw ratings fairly low. For example, the top 38 issues (out of 63) scored between 3.08 and 4.15.
From the mean scores, the inflexibility in the curriculum and the fixed class schedules were two issues of most concern. In other words, how can the games help students learn curriculum content, and how can game playing be fitted into an already tight schedule of class times?
The two issues with highest mean scores were both in the inflexibility of curriculum group. The first was that teachers have difficulty finding an educational game suitable for a learning objective. The second was that it is time-consuming effort to design, locate, and devise teaching methods to enhance the student learning process utilizing a particular game. Both these issues indicate that even if teachers support game playing for learning, then there are still significant challenges to implementing game playing in the classroom. There is a need for better resources for teachers, not just a list of games, but developed modules showing how learning for a particular curriculum item can be supported by a computer game.
As an end note, it is interesting that this was a Korean study - a reminder that computer gaming is not just a Western activity.
Baek Y.K., (2008). What Hinders Teachers in Using Computer and Video Games in the Classroom? Exploring Factors Inhibiting the Uptake of Computer and Video Games. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, Volume 11, Number 6, 2008.
The factors that hinder the use of computer games were compiled and rated using a survey. In the first session a master list of issues was developed using input from 35 teachers. The master list was then submitted as a questionnaire to 444 teachers to rate each issue of a rating of 1 (for low) to 5 (for high).
The results were grouped under six broad categories:
- Inflexibility in the curriculum
- Negative effects of gaming
- Students lack of readiness
- Lack of supporting materials
- Fixed class schedules
- Limited budgets
I don't have a statistical background, so I can't comment on the factor analysis. I found the raw ratings fairly low. For example, the top 38 issues (out of 63) scored between 3.08 and 4.15.
From the mean scores, the inflexibility in the curriculum and the fixed class schedules were two issues of most concern. In other words, how can the games help students learn curriculum content, and how can game playing be fitted into an already tight schedule of class times?
The two issues with highest mean scores were both in the inflexibility of curriculum group. The first was that teachers have difficulty finding an educational game suitable for a learning objective. The second was that it is time-consuming effort to design, locate, and devise teaching methods to enhance the student learning process utilizing a particular game. Both these issues indicate that even if teachers support game playing for learning, then there are still significant challenges to implementing game playing in the classroom. There is a need for better resources for teachers, not just a list of games, but developed modules showing how learning for a particular curriculum item can be supported by a computer game.
As an end note, it is interesting that this was a Korean study - a reminder that computer gaming is not just a Western activity.
Baek Y.K., (2008). What Hinders Teachers in Using Computer and Video Games in the Classroom? Exploring Factors Inhibiting the Uptake of Computer and Video Games. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, Volume 11, Number 6, 2008.
Motivating Learning Via Computer Games
"The over-riding reason for interest in this field is that computer games seem to motivate young people in a way that formal education doesn't." (Facer 2003)
For this posting, I am looking at an article by Whitton (2007) in which she explores motivation and computer games. Whitton challenges the assumption that because players are motivated to play games, that they would be motivated to learn by playing games.
Whitton conducted an experiment to analyse a population of university-level students and their perceptions of game playing and game playing for learning. Surprisingly, the survey showed little evidence for promoting game playing because of its motivational affects.
It is interesting that 65.5% of students surveyed said games would be motivating for learning and 28% were neutral. It could be argued then, that 93.5% of students would not be put off by using games for learning. This seems to counter the author's claim that there is "little evidence for the motivational rationale" (Whitton 2007).
Whitton used third-year undergraduate and Masters-level computing students. As this group is predominantly male and young, Whitton argues that this group should be extremely "pro-gaming" and hence the 65.5% figure would be lower for other groups. As I come from a computing background, I would suggest that most computing types are often too tired from working on computers all day to be major gamers. Programming is the ultimate game - interactive, challenging, rewarding, frustrating - why bother with a simple shooting game? I think the same survey with different populations (including secondary students) would be interesting.
Whitton (2007) does make the good point "If games are experiential, active, problem-based and collaborative then they have the potential to be effective environments for learning, not specifically because they are games but because they exhibit the characteristics of constructivist learning environments."
In summary, use games for learning (if appropriate) but not simply because you hope to motivate learning by using a game.
Facer, K. (2003) Computer games and Learning. FutureLab.
Whitton, N. (2007) Motivation and computer game based learning. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007
For this posting, I am looking at an article by Whitton (2007) in which she explores motivation and computer games. Whitton challenges the assumption that because players are motivated to play games, that they would be motivated to learn by playing games.
Whitton conducted an experiment to analyse a population of university-level students and their perceptions of game playing and game playing for learning. Surprisingly, the survey showed little evidence for promoting game playing because of its motivational affects.
It is interesting that 65.5% of students surveyed said games would be motivating for learning and 28% were neutral. It could be argued then, that 93.5% of students would not be put off by using games for learning. This seems to counter the author's claim that there is "little evidence for the motivational rationale" (Whitton 2007).
Whitton used third-year undergraduate and Masters-level computing students. As this group is predominantly male and young, Whitton argues that this group should be extremely "pro-gaming" and hence the 65.5% figure would be lower for other groups. As I come from a computing background, I would suggest that most computing types are often too tired from working on computers all day to be major gamers. Programming is the ultimate game - interactive, challenging, rewarding, frustrating - why bother with a simple shooting game? I think the same survey with different populations (including secondary students) would be interesting.
Whitton (2007) does make the good point "If games are experiential, active, problem-based and collaborative then they have the potential to be effective environments for learning, not specifically because they are games but because they exhibit the characteristics of constructivist learning environments."
In summary, use games for learning (if appropriate) but not simply because you hope to motivate learning by using a game.
Facer, K. (2003) Computer games and Learning. FutureLab.
Whitton, N. (2007) Motivation and computer game based learning. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007
Computer Games and Learning
In an earlier posting, I talked about a paper by Klopfer et al (2009). Their argument for new cognitive abilities cited a paper by Facer (2003) that I'll discuss in this blog entry.
Unfortunately the paper does not directly cite research articles, but instead refers to "research in educational psychology by, amongst others, Patricia Marks Greenfield". Greenfield is currently Distinguished Professor in Developmental Psychology at UCLA and has a long and impressive academic record. Her earlier work (Greenfield 1984) would have been pioneering in looking at video and computer games; her later work ranges over all forms of video and many uses of computers but does also look at computer games specifically (for example Subrahmanyam et al (1994)). I don't have the psychology background to look at this work in detail, so will have to accept the claims by Facer.
The article by Facer (2003) is an overview article, discussing various themes. Key is that "computer games seem to motivate young people in a way that formal education doesn't" (Facer 2003). Motivation is discussed, the fact that children play computer games because they are 'fun', a concept that Facer appears to struggle with. It is noted "Historically, 'having fun' and 'learning' have been seen to be diametrically opposed" (Facer 2003). I don't find this surprising, the easiest way to turn children off any activity is to call it "educational".
Communication, problem-solving and mathematical development are listed as hidden curriculum skills that are developed by computer games. The article describes how difficult it is to include content in computer games and has the quote "a focus on curriculum learning objectives may be lost as the user becomes involved with the game" (McFarlane et al, 2002). I would paraphrase this as computer games are fun, and have lots of hidden curriculum benefits, but don't expect the learning objectives to be paid much attention once players start playing games.
The article briefly looks at gender issues. It notes that there are two key areas: games mainly have 'male' world views, and social cultures come into play when looking at games. I think that there are now many 'non-male' games available now but gaming is still seen as a male activity. This is then a social culture issue. Many women just don't get the point of games or have more than enough other activities to stimulate or keep them busy without having to play games.
Facer, K. (2003) Computer games and Learning. FutureLab.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). Mind and media: The effects of television, video games, and computers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Graff, J. and Haas, J. (2009) The Instructional Power of Digital Games Social Networking Simulations and How Teachers Can Leverage Them. The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A. and Heald, Y. (2002) Report on the Educational Use of Games: an Exploration by TEEM of the Contribution Which Games Can Make to the Educational Process, Teem: Cambridge. www.teem.org.uk.
Subrahmanyam, K. & Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 13-32.
Unfortunately the paper does not directly cite research articles, but instead refers to "research in educational psychology by, amongst others, Patricia Marks Greenfield". Greenfield is currently Distinguished Professor in Developmental Psychology at UCLA and has a long and impressive academic record. Her earlier work (Greenfield 1984) would have been pioneering in looking at video and computer games; her later work ranges over all forms of video and many uses of computers but does also look at computer games specifically (for example Subrahmanyam et al (1994)). I don't have the psychology background to look at this work in detail, so will have to accept the claims by Facer.
The article by Facer (2003) is an overview article, discussing various themes. Key is that "computer games seem to motivate young people in a way that formal education doesn't" (Facer 2003). Motivation is discussed, the fact that children play computer games because they are 'fun', a concept that Facer appears to struggle with. It is noted "Historically, 'having fun' and 'learning' have been seen to be diametrically opposed" (Facer 2003). I don't find this surprising, the easiest way to turn children off any activity is to call it "educational".
Communication, problem-solving and mathematical development are listed as hidden curriculum skills that are developed by computer games. The article describes how difficult it is to include content in computer games and has the quote "a focus on curriculum learning objectives may be lost as the user becomes involved with the game" (McFarlane et al, 2002). I would paraphrase this as computer games are fun, and have lots of hidden curriculum benefits, but don't expect the learning objectives to be paid much attention once players start playing games.
The article briefly looks at gender issues. It notes that there are two key areas: games mainly have 'male' world views, and social cultures come into play when looking at games. I think that there are now many 'non-male' games available now but gaming is still seen as a male activity. This is then a social culture issue. Many women just don't get the point of games or have more than enough other activities to stimulate or keep them busy without having to play games.
Facer, K. (2003) Computer games and Learning. FutureLab.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). Mind and media: The effects of television, video games, and computers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Graff, J. and Haas, J. (2009) The Instructional Power of Digital Games Social Networking Simulations and How Teachers Can Leverage Them. The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A. and Heald, Y. (2002) Report on the Educational Use of Games: an Exploration by TEEM of the Contribution Which Games Can Make to the Educational Process, Teem: Cambridge. www.teem.org.uk.
Subrahmanyam, K. & Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 13-32.
Monday, March 14, 2011
STS 1 - Module E National Curriculum and Skills for Learning
This week's lecture looked at two topics: the National Curriculum and skills needed for learning.
The National Curriculum is the result of a government effort to produce a national curriculum for Australia. See the web site for details.
We had discussed the curriculum for Mathematics in our tutorial and our tutor had encouraged us to download and read the maths curriculum. The curriculum covers years 7 to 10. It is well-structured but probably slower in pace than I would have expected.
The second topic of the lecture was the teaching of skills. The broad questions were "what skills do we need to teach", "how will you teach them" and "how will you sequence the learning".
Three phases of learning of skills were presented
It is important to provide tools to students so that they can reflect back on their learning of a skill, so that they can assess their level of competence and do more learning if required, and also transfer the learning of this skill to the learning of other new skills.
The National Curriculum is the result of a government effort to produce a national curriculum for Australia. See the web site for details.
We had discussed the curriculum for Mathematics in our tutorial and our tutor had encouraged us to download and read the maths curriculum. The curriculum covers years 7 to 10. It is well-structured but probably slower in pace than I would have expected.
The second topic of the lecture was the teaching of skills. The broad questions were "what skills do we need to teach", "how will you teach them" and "how will you sequence the learning".
Three phases of learning of skills were presented
- information is learned
- skill is used
- skill becomes part of normal behaviour
It is important to provide tools to students so that they can reflect back on their learning of a skill, so that they can assess their level of competence and do more learning if required, and also transfer the learning of this skill to the learning of other new skills.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
ELPC 1 - Educational Gaming 2
As a keen game player, Gee (2007) writes enthusiastically about the ability of video games to engage young people "in an activity that is hard, long, and complex".
Gee's conclusion is not that schools should play video games, instead he asks "how can we make learning in and out of school, with or without using games, more game-like ... ?" (Gee 2007).
In order to understand games, Gee lists sixteen of the learning principles that good games incorporate. Gee argues that schools need to consider these principles and apply them in the classroom.
I would suggest that many of these principles would appear to be part of mainstream school life already. For example, in principle 7, Well-Order Problems, Gee states "equal thought needs to be paid to how to order problems in a rich immersive space in a science classroom". Thousands of science teachers around the world are attempting to order problems in such a way every day, with or without the influence of video games.
Gee does highlight some principles of games that do not readily appear in the classroom. Interaction is a key feature of games but does not occur in a textbook. Video games encourage risk taking, but assessment-driven teaching does the opposite. And finally games promote performance before competence where players learn skills by doing, in contrast to the classroom approach of teaching a skill and then practising by drill.
One principle listed is that games are pleasantly frustrating. Having witnessed many tears and tantrums (including my own) sparked by frustration at video games, I think that games do not always stay as well-aligned as Gee suggests. However, something about video games draws frustrated gamers back whereas school work pushes frustrated learners away.
Gee, J. (2007) Good Video Games and Good Learning Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning and Literacy, Lang.
Gee's conclusion is not that schools should play video games, instead he asks "how can we make learning in and out of school, with or without using games, more game-like ... ?" (Gee 2007).
In order to understand games, Gee lists sixteen of the learning principles that good games incorporate. Gee argues that schools need to consider these principles and apply them in the classroom.
I would suggest that many of these principles would appear to be part of mainstream school life already. For example, in principle 7, Well-Order Problems, Gee states "equal thought needs to be paid to how to order problems in a rich immersive space in a science classroom". Thousands of science teachers around the world are attempting to order problems in such a way every day, with or without the influence of video games.
Gee does highlight some principles of games that do not readily appear in the classroom. Interaction is a key feature of games but does not occur in a textbook. Video games encourage risk taking, but assessment-driven teaching does the opposite. And finally games promote performance before competence where players learn skills by doing, in contrast to the classroom approach of teaching a skill and then practising by drill.
One principle listed is that games are pleasantly frustrating. Having witnessed many tears and tantrums (including my own) sparked by frustration at video games, I think that games do not always stay as well-aligned as Gee suggests. However, something about video games draws frustrated gamers back whereas school work pushes frustrated learners away.
Gee, J. (2007) Good Video Games and Good Learning Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning and Literacy, Lang.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)