The use of social networking tools for educational purposes faces obstacles with privacy and safety concerns. Can the use of "educational networking" sites address these concerns?
Holcomb et al (2010) studied the use of a Ning in Education SNS (Social Networking Site) for distance education courses at the University of North Carolina. The study wanted to see if the more restricted Ning would address privacy and safety concerns but retain the advantages of educational networking.
The results were positive: The Ning "provided numerous educational values and benefits for learning within a secure environment" (Holcomb et al 2010). As distance educational students, the participants were able to communicate and collaborative more easily with their peers.
The biggest problem was the time commitment required to use the Ning; "the time to keep current was a significant drawback".
I found these results to be consistent with my observations of using a Ning in PPLE. Due to the closed community, I was much more comfortable submitting work, knowing that the community was a small, trusted group. I benefited from reading other students' thoughts and also from thinking about my thoughts in order to write. However, the time taken to write and read the Ning has meant that my participation has dropped off during the semester due to other demands on my time.
As well as the Ning, the article suggests Elgg and Classroom 2.0 as other educational networking tools.
These tool appear to address the concerns about privacy and safety from the outside world. The tool do not directly address problems that could occur within the group. Moayeri (2010) states that the perceived need for teachers to police Nings used in a classroom setting was a major time burden for the teachers. Maybe education and the idea of a closed community will reduce the need for teachers to police such educational networking sites?
Holcomb L., Brady K. and Smith B. 2010 The Emergence of "Educational Networking": Can Non-commercial, Education-based Social Networking Sites Really Address the Privacy and Safety Concerns of Educators? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol 6, No. 2, June 2010, pp 475-481.
Moayeri, M. 2010. Classroom Uses of Social Network Sites: Traditional Practices or New Literacies? Digital Culture & Education, 2:1, 25-43.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Educational Foundations - Posting 2
For my second posting, I will continue to look at the scenario of Wayne who is caught between making learning interesting and relevant, and the pressure of exam preparation. Wayne also continues to struggle with two groups of students: one that is highly motivated but not engaging in deep learning, and another group that is unmotivated. I will be using learning theory and motivation to analyse the scenario.
Behaviourism (Skinner) views motivation as based on rewards and punishment. The motivated group of students see success in exams as a reward, and hence are working towards that goal. The unmotivated students do not see exam success as a reward, they also do not see exam failure as punishment, and hence they are not motivated.
If Wayne wants the motivated students to engage in deep learning, then he needs to provide rewards for doing so. Either he convinces that students that they need deep learning for exam success, or he needs other rewards to encourage deep learning. For example, having prizes for the best performance in a Science competition may encourage students to engage in the deep learning needed in such a competition. Wayne must be able to state what observable characteristics he expects from a student who has done "deep learning" and then find rewards that encourage these observable characteristics.
For the unmotivated students, Wayne must find a reward that will provide extrinsic motivation. Ideally he would be able to find both short-term and long-term rewards. For example, praise and chocolate bars would be short-term rewards but success in school leading to an apprenticeship or work goal would be a long-term reward. Long-term rewards are essential as the motivation generated by short-term rewards is often fleeting.
Social cognitive learning theory (Bandura) explains how students become self-regulated learners through the triadic reciprocal causation of personal characteristics, behaviourial patterns and the environment. Has Wayne been modelling how to be a self-regulated learner to his class?
The two groups of students may reflect the outlook of their family backgrounds. The social environment may be encouraging one set of students to succeed in exams (because that is the behaviour that is looked up to) while another set of students may have no role models for exam success. Can Wayne bring in some role models into the classroom to encourage or inspire the unmotivated students? The role model would have to be someone that the unmotivated students can relate to - bringing in a straight-A student who is succeeding in university may have the opposite effect on the unmotivated students.
Self-efficacy is the strongest influence on students developing into self-regulated learners. Have the unmotivated students lost confidence and entered a spiral of learned helplessness? Wayne may have to find ways to build the self-efficacy of the unmotivated students. One approach is finding their strengths (directly related to Wayne's subject and also other skills unrelated on the subject) and building on them. Is one of the unmotivated students a good football player? Can Wayne get the student's confidence and ability in sport and show how it can be applied in other areas? This student could then become a role model for his unmotivated peers. Another approach to building self-efficacy is to find the point where the students lost confidence and build from that knowledge base.
The number of students that are anxious and fearful about getting into University will need assistance. The emotional state of an individual has a major influence on their ability to learn. Wayne needs to help the students to focus on being positive and trying their best, which will allow them to achieve more than stressing out.
Constructivism argues that learning does not occur due to instruction from above but due to students constructing their own meaning. Constructivism would argue that the behaviourist notion of exams as rewards is precisely the reason that shallow learning is occurring. Until students are motivated by situated learning with authentic assessment, they will either not be motivated or only display shallow learning. Wayne needs to find a connection between the curriculum and his students, and then present the students with challenging material.
Cognitive constructivism (Piaget) sees the construction of meaning as an internal cognitive activity. Wayne must introduce events that cause "disequilibrium" in the learners who then must accommodate the new information.
On the other hand, social constructivism (Vygotsky) sees the construction of meaning as a product of learning via socially-driven conversations or problem-solving activities. The social constructivist approach would then ask Wayne if the unmotivated students have the language or cultural tools able to engage in problem-solving that would lead to learning. Or is Wayne not using the tools that the unmotivated group possess - for example, the unmotivated group may be using social networking, texting etc but coming to school to listen to long lectures with rote learning. Can Wayne find ways to use the tools that the students have (like social networking) to enable them to learn?
Humanist views on motivation (Maslow) consider the student welfare and well-being. Some students in class are tired and distracted. The students may be tired due to lack of sleep due to being in paid employment or out partying. Until students have their basic human needs (such as food and sleep) met, Wayne is going to struggle to engage them in learning. For these students, Wayne needs to stop concentrating on the content (as these students are not going to be learning anyway) and provide assistance so that the students are able to meet their basic human needs. Wayne may need to look at his timetable to find the periods when students are most able to focus on study and use these periods for the "hard" learning. Periods where students are often distracted or tired (Monday mornings, Friday afternoons) could then be used for activities that require less concentration and application.
I found the provocation "Should we teach students or subjects" to be especially relevant as I thought of Wayne's situation and the various learning theories. A teacher cannot just teach subject content without considering the students. The various learning theories offer many approaches to understanding how students learn. A teacher must use that knowledge to motivate and engage students while teaching subject content.
Behaviourism (Skinner) views motivation as based on rewards and punishment. The motivated group of students see success in exams as a reward, and hence are working towards that goal. The unmotivated students do not see exam success as a reward, they also do not see exam failure as punishment, and hence they are not motivated.
If Wayne wants the motivated students to engage in deep learning, then he needs to provide rewards for doing so. Either he convinces that students that they need deep learning for exam success, or he needs other rewards to encourage deep learning. For example, having prizes for the best performance in a Science competition may encourage students to engage in the deep learning needed in such a competition. Wayne must be able to state what observable characteristics he expects from a student who has done "deep learning" and then find rewards that encourage these observable characteristics.
For the unmotivated students, Wayne must find a reward that will provide extrinsic motivation. Ideally he would be able to find both short-term and long-term rewards. For example, praise and chocolate bars would be short-term rewards but success in school leading to an apprenticeship or work goal would be a long-term reward. Long-term rewards are essential as the motivation generated by short-term rewards is often fleeting.
Social cognitive learning theory (Bandura) explains how students become self-regulated learners through the triadic reciprocal causation of personal characteristics, behaviourial patterns and the environment. Has Wayne been modelling how to be a self-regulated learner to his class?
The two groups of students may reflect the outlook of their family backgrounds. The social environment may be encouraging one set of students to succeed in exams (because that is the behaviour that is looked up to) while another set of students may have no role models for exam success. Can Wayne bring in some role models into the classroom to encourage or inspire the unmotivated students? The role model would have to be someone that the unmotivated students can relate to - bringing in a straight-A student who is succeeding in university may have the opposite effect on the unmotivated students.
Self-efficacy is the strongest influence on students developing into self-regulated learners. Have the unmotivated students lost confidence and entered a spiral of learned helplessness? Wayne may have to find ways to build the self-efficacy of the unmotivated students. One approach is finding their strengths (directly related to Wayne's subject and also other skills unrelated on the subject) and building on them. Is one of the unmotivated students a good football player? Can Wayne get the student's confidence and ability in sport and show how it can be applied in other areas? This student could then become a role model for his unmotivated peers. Another approach to building self-efficacy is to find the point where the students lost confidence and build from that knowledge base.
The number of students that are anxious and fearful about getting into University will need assistance. The emotional state of an individual has a major influence on their ability to learn. Wayne needs to help the students to focus on being positive and trying their best, which will allow them to achieve more than stressing out.
Constructivism argues that learning does not occur due to instruction from above but due to students constructing their own meaning. Constructivism would argue that the behaviourist notion of exams as rewards is precisely the reason that shallow learning is occurring. Until students are motivated by situated learning with authentic assessment, they will either not be motivated or only display shallow learning. Wayne needs to find a connection between the curriculum and his students, and then present the students with challenging material.
Cognitive constructivism (Piaget) sees the construction of meaning as an internal cognitive activity. Wayne must introduce events that cause "disequilibrium" in the learners who then must accommodate the new information.
On the other hand, social constructivism (Vygotsky) sees the construction of meaning as a product of learning via socially-driven conversations or problem-solving activities. The social constructivist approach would then ask Wayne if the unmotivated students have the language or cultural tools able to engage in problem-solving that would lead to learning. Or is Wayne not using the tools that the unmotivated group possess - for example, the unmotivated group may be using social networking, texting etc but coming to school to listen to long lectures with rote learning. Can Wayne find ways to use the tools that the students have (like social networking) to enable them to learn?
Humanist views on motivation (Maslow) consider the student welfare and well-being. Some students in class are tired and distracted. The students may be tired due to lack of sleep due to being in paid employment or out partying. Until students have their basic human needs (such as food and sleep) met, Wayne is going to struggle to engage them in learning. For these students, Wayne needs to stop concentrating on the content (as these students are not going to be learning anyway) and provide assistance so that the students are able to meet their basic human needs. Wayne may need to look at his timetable to find the periods when students are most able to focus on study and use these periods for the "hard" learning. Periods where students are often distracted or tired (Monday mornings, Friday afternoons) could then be used for activities that require less concentration and application.
I found the provocation "Should we teach students or subjects" to be especially relevant as I thought of Wayne's situation and the various learning theories. A teacher cannot just teach subject content without considering the students. The various learning theories offer many approaches to understanding how students learn. A teacher must use that knowledge to motivate and engage students while teaching subject content.
Is Social Networking a New Literacy?
Social networking is a powerful tool, but are teachers using social networking to do the same old thing using new technology, or are they using social networking to create a new way of doing things? This week I am looking at an article by Moayeri (2010) that explores this question.
Moayeri describes a study of two teachers in the same school using social networking (a Ning) as a part of the classroom work. Although both teachers are "digital pioneers" (Moayeri 2010) they used the Ning in different ways.
The first teacher would post questions on the main blog page and students would be required to respond on their own page's blog. Students were required to comment on other students submissions, but had to move onto the other students' blog pages to read their work.
In contrast, the second teacher used a single discussion forum for students to discuss topic questions. All students could then easily see the whole discussion and other students' thoughts. The forum was soon also used for social announcements. As well, the Ning site used for non-textual material and for students to share work (such as videos made by students).
Moayeri classifies the first classroom as using new technology for traditional practice. The second classroom however used the new technology to create a collaborative multimodal learning environment and was therefore using a "new literacy".
The article is an honest overview and does note problems using the Ning in the classroom. Assessment was difficult, how do you grade collaborative work and how do you make the amount of effort required for Ning activities commensurate with the assessment weighting? The Ning also required more work of both the teachers and the students. And because of the use of the Ning, oral discussions in the classroom were reduced in the class - effectively reducing oral literacy for another literacy that is heavily text based.
There were some strong positives. Most students enjoyed having their work seen and being able to see other students work. Students liked the idea that they could see another student's piece of assessable work before they submitted their own. Students liked the idea of building a product - the final Ning - over a semester.
The second classroom reported that a stronger classroom community was developed by using the Ning as a social tool. The Ning helped break down barriers between student groups: across gender and across popularity. Given the importance of learning communities in developing positive learning environments (Charles 2005) this is a significant advantage.
The experiences in the article are consistent with what I have observed in the Grad Dip. The use of the blog in ELPC (for example) has really replaced a paper submission with an online submission. There are additional advantages, such as students learning how to use blogs and in course administration, but I would not call it a new literacy. In PPLE however, a Ning has been used as a discussion forum and it has been interesting to read other students' thoughts about discussion topics set by the lecturer. The lecturer has made the Ning submissions non-assessable, avoiding the assessment problems described in the article. As well, only about a 25% on the tutorial group posts on the Ning, either due to not wanting their work public or because of the time it takes to contribute. Would I consider it a new literacy? It is certainly different to writing an essay and different to an in-class discussion, but few people on the Ning have actually commented on another student's posting. We submit, the lecturer comments. Maybe it will only become a new literacy when we become brave enough to interact and work as a collaborative community?
Charles, C.M. (2005). Building classroom discipline (8th ed.). Pearson.
Moayeri, M. 2010. Classroom Uses of Social Network Sites: Traditional Practices or New Literacies? Digital Culture & Education, 2:1, 25-43.
Moayeri describes a study of two teachers in the same school using social networking (a Ning) as a part of the classroom work. Although both teachers are "digital pioneers" (Moayeri 2010) they used the Ning in different ways.
The first teacher would post questions on the main blog page and students would be required to respond on their own page's blog. Students were required to comment on other students submissions, but had to move onto the other students' blog pages to read their work.
In contrast, the second teacher used a single discussion forum for students to discuss topic questions. All students could then easily see the whole discussion and other students' thoughts. The forum was soon also used for social announcements. As well, the Ning site used for non-textual material and for students to share work (such as videos made by students).
Moayeri classifies the first classroom as using new technology for traditional practice. The second classroom however used the new technology to create a collaborative multimodal learning environment and was therefore using a "new literacy".
The article is an honest overview and does note problems using the Ning in the classroom. Assessment was difficult, how do you grade collaborative work and how do you make the amount of effort required for Ning activities commensurate with the assessment weighting? The Ning also required more work of both the teachers and the students. And because of the use of the Ning, oral discussions in the classroom were reduced in the class - effectively reducing oral literacy for another literacy that is heavily text based.
There were some strong positives. Most students enjoyed having their work seen and being able to see other students work. Students liked the idea that they could see another student's piece of assessable work before they submitted their own. Students liked the idea of building a product - the final Ning - over a semester.
The second classroom reported that a stronger classroom community was developed by using the Ning as a social tool. The Ning helped break down barriers between student groups: across gender and across popularity. Given the importance of learning communities in developing positive learning environments (Charles 2005) this is a significant advantage.
The experiences in the article are consistent with what I have observed in the Grad Dip. The use of the blog in ELPC (for example) has really replaced a paper submission with an online submission. There are additional advantages, such as students learning how to use blogs and in course administration, but I would not call it a new literacy. In PPLE however, a Ning has been used as a discussion forum and it has been interesting to read other students' thoughts about discussion topics set by the lecturer. The lecturer has made the Ning submissions non-assessable, avoiding the assessment problems described in the article. As well, only about a 25% on the tutorial group posts on the Ning, either due to not wanting their work public or because of the time it takes to contribute. Would I consider it a new literacy? It is certainly different to writing an essay and different to an in-class discussion, but few people on the Ning have actually commented on another student's posting. We submit, the lecturer comments. Maybe it will only become a new literacy when we become brave enough to interact and work as a collaborative community?
Charles, C.M. (2005). Building classroom discipline (8th ed.). Pearson.
Moayeri, M. 2010. Classroom Uses of Social Network Sites: Traditional Practices or New Literacies? Digital Culture & Education, 2:1, 25-43.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
How Can Teachers Leverage Off Social Networking?
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)