Life is but a game

The Microsoft E2 education exchange is upon us and I have been following from afar on twitter. The keynote on the first day involved a discussion on how do we instil students with the courage to fail and then learn from failure.

This led to me be involved in the discussion of the use of such language as a failure when teaching students. One particular contributor to this discussion was Garret. Z of PBJ games and we both came to the conclusion that digital games could be an approach to develop the skill of setbacks as just a short-term hurdle to learning and a way to reduce risk averse behaviour to learning. This is in part because game-based learning could be a way to revolutionise learning through technology, something that I have explored in detail in the New Zealand context.

Along with the United States, online assessment is fast becoming part of the New Zealand educational landscape (Baugh, 2011). Additionally, the use of digital technologies by learners in New Zealand is increasing (Vanderschantz et al, 2014). Moreover, authentic assessment tasks are increasing in importance as education becomes less classroom focussed and moves towards ”real world” learning (Schrum et al, 2015). This will force a change in how learners are assessed, from paper-based essays to more authentic approaches in assessment. As Bolstad et al (2012) states in developing future orientated learning in New Zealand:

“People do not learn well as spectators— having pre-packaged knowledge delivered to them—they need to be actively engaged in the “whole game”. The more people learn, the more they are able to learn” (p. 12).

 

One potential approach to developing authentic assessment could be the incorporation of gamification. So being a science teacher could gamification have a role in developing authentic virtual simulations within the New Zealand science education framework? Because this question relates to the New Zealand education system, the concepts of Kaupapa Māori (Hutchings et al, 2012) and Te Noho Kotahitanga (Ministry of Education, 2001) should be considered. 

Discussions about gamification do not generally focus on education. However, gamification could present an opportunity to develop new approaches to learner assessment allowing for a more effective illustration of ability and skill. Kapp et al (2012) define gamification within the context of learning as an educational approach to motivate students to learn by using game design and game elements within a learning environment. This can include points, levels/stages, badges, leaderboards, prizes, progress bars focused more on competition models (Nah et al, 2014). This approach has continued to grow in popularity with increases student engagement in the classroom as the primary driver. 

There is ongoing debate as to whether learning outcomes are enhanced by using gamification strategies. Separate studies suggest a positive relationship, whereas meta-analyses show neither a positive or negative relationship (Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2012). The incorporation of gamification needs a cautious design for implementing successfully (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). In terms of intrinsic motivation, gamification has proved effective (Hamari, 2014) nevertheless, the researchers conclude that"

"The review indicates that gamification provides positive effects, however, the effects are greatly dependent on the context in which the gamification is being implemented, as well as on the users using it” (p. 3029)

The products of gamification are presently used as the benchmark for assessment (O’Donovan, 2012). However in the classroom, Rouse (2013) has used gamification to support assessment actively (e.g., varying the context depending on the learner). Events can also be set in motion by task completion (e.g., the teacher can select objectives e.g. topics in the unit on microbiology which are more and more challenging). This may be where the power of this technique can be manifested.

Another possible approach is the implementation of game-based learning. The definition of game-based learning is simply learning through games. So what’s the difference? Gamification is about encouraging students, while game-based learning is about the game and linking outcomes to learning objectives.

Game based learning could provide an opportunity for authentic learning and assessment. There are many definitions of authentic learning. Lombardi (2007) defines authentic learning as learning that takes place outside the classroom; e.g., work placements. However, the opportunity for this in schools is limited, as learning outside the classroom can be expensive and requires arranging with third parties (Wood et al, 2013). It has also been posited that learning can be authentic without the need for a real environment. Herrington et al. (2010) suggest that for learning to be authentic, the location of the learning is not critical, but that the task reproduces how the learning will be applied in a real world context. The researchers suggest that learners are engaged in comparable cognitive processes as they would in a real-life scenario. They came to the conclusion that authentic tasks and authentic assessment are vital if authentic learning is to be effective.

Herrington et al. (2010, pp. 46-48) define a number of qualities for an authentic task. Authentic tasks must be relevant to real world. Authentic tasks are ill-defined, demanding learners to define the tasks needed to finish the activity. Authentic tasks comprise difficult tasks to be explored by learners over a long time. Authentic tasks provide the chance for learners to look at the task from different approaches, using a range of resources. Authentic tasks allow the learners to work together. Authentic tasks allow self-reflection. Authentic tasks can incorporate a range of different subjects. Authentic tasks are integrated with the assessment. Authentic tasks make products valuable in their own right. Finally, authentic tasks allow no one right answer. 

Therefore, the traditional summative assessment approach is neither effective nor appropriate for evaluating authentic learning especially the game based learning not only provides improved engagement (Cronk et al, 2012) but may also provide for an innovative and novel assessment of authentic learning. The latter approach moves away from the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ teaching model to one of constructivist learning (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). In order to be effective, Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) suggest that the tasks and setting must be authentic, separate and distinct. Using only an authentic setting may give no advantage even when only authentic activities are evaluated (Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Martens, 2005).

In the New Zealand context, game-based learning in consultation with whanau could be of benefit to improving Māori educational success. At present Māori achievement is below that of non-Māori (Bishop et al, 2009). Game based learning allows Māori-led and whānau-informed authentic online learning while also focusing on a variety of whānau educational priorities across kaupapa Māori and Pākehā educational environments consistent with Tikanga (Hutchings, 2012). This approach enables more Te Reo Māori and Tikanga Māori in the classroom. A recognition of Māori world-views could be incorporated into online scenarios to provide high- quality data in order to make informed choices about Māori learners as illustrated by the work of Casey et al (2014) in improving learning outcomes in Te Reo. By developing in co-operation with schools the assessment, Māori student “success” in authentic virtual scenarios encompassing academic, cultural and general life skills can be incorporated and encompass Te Ao Māori.

While digital equipment has been extensively incorporated into education, invariably, the technology adopted encourages very specious ways of delivering learning (Margaryan, 2011). Digital technology is often used for teacher dissemination of knowledge and basic, computer assisted assessment tending to focus on the lowest levels of understanding (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).

With this in mind, some research conjectures that increasing digital technology usage decreases learning (Brabazon, 2007). Whereas, authentic learning takes place when digital technology is used as a tool rather the medium (Herrington et al., 2010). Typical digital learning tasks and assessments do not a match with this last point.

Herrington & Herrington (2006) recommend that authentic learning involves activities which are seamlessly linked with an assessment. They also suggest that this is usually ignored, which diminishes the impact of the task. The researchers conclude that authentic tasks will not be effective when followed by traditional assessment methods.

Angelo & Cross (1993) suggest that in order to improve learning, the assessment is critical in developing learning strategies. Historically, schools do not use authentic assessment widely (Herrington & Herrington, 2006). Considering this, the integration of authentic learning and assessment with game-based learning has the potential to improve assessment.

Assessment is a cornerstone for improving learning outcomes (Ricketts & Wilks, 2002). Evaluation of learners can either occur in class through learner self-reflection from active learning (Wood & Reefke, 2010), or the more widely used approach of providing verbal or written feedback after going through the learner’s efforts. How the assessment is implemented could alter depending on the learner (Reiners & Wood, 2013) with the outcome of the task being linked to different levels of understanding of the concept being taught (Krathwohl, 2002).

Assessment can come in two forms within the classroom. Formative assessment provides on- going evaluation (Perera-Diltz, 2009) of learning. A formative assessment could occur with repeated use of the same assessment task or with the use of multiple forms of assessment. Summative assessment is a measure of a final product (Perera-Diltz, 2009), and represents an indication of whether specified learning outcomes were achieved. In New Zealand, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) external examinations is an example of a summative assessment tool. However, there are times that formative assessment could serve summative purposes (Gikandi, Morrow, & Davis, 2011). Similarly, summative assessment can serve in a formative role when results are used for learning in subsequent units (Gikandi et al., 2011). Finally, formative assessment involves frequent and succinct feedback which has been observed to increase engagement and enhanced by game based learning (Wood & Reiners, 2012).

Online simulations allow learners to go through everyday scenarios but also allow unexpected scenarios to be incorporated (Chodos, Stroulia, & King, 2011). However, effective virtual assessment has remained difficult as authentic learning environments have required new teaching methodologies (Stepien & Gallagher 1993). Assessing learners observationally engaged in virtual authentic learning activities has started to address this issue (Gregory et al., 2011). However, without an understanding of what a curriculum based on game-based learning looks like in terms of application and why engagement increases this research cannot yet be seen as effective.

Online game based scenarios allow a teacher to adjust the environment and context to support the assessment of learner (Gregory et al., 2011). While a challenge to develop, carefully planned tasks reduce the amount of effort required by the teacher once implemented (Wood & Reiners, 2013). These online activities can be adjusted to increase engagement in learners as a series of learning tasks (Reiners & Wood, 2013; Gregory et al., 2011).

The research of Reiners and Wood (2013) of virtual scenarios comprising the game elements of playback, image overlay, multiple attempts, save points and manipulating the parameters of space and time could unlock exciting new opportunities to science teachers in New Zealand. Tasker and Dalton (2006) have created virtual computer animations of molecular interactions illustrating a series of events whose mechanisms and connections are too quick, tiny, or too far away in reality. Once scenarios have been developed, teachers could create a series of save points and include both multiple attempts and playback allowing learning from failure, developing resilience, and allowing learners to experiment with new scenarios through applying concepts in authentic settings. Finally, overlaid images could be incorporated by teachers within the simulation to support self-assessment, teacher instruction, and peer assessment.

The adjustment of time and/or space allows abstract scientific concepts to become observable e.g. the chemical reactions of a fuel cell (Boerger & Tietgens, 2013) where events at the molecular level occur instantaneously. Learners may obtain a new understanding of the reactions, which could allow them to make connections between ‘cause and effect’ and improve cognition. The slow motion could be employed to understand some physical phenomena e.g., the speeds of chemical reactions that are too fast to be observed in reality. A series of sequential events are slowed down into a single succinct event. The capacity to take any chemical reaction and reduce the speed during a virtual simulation allows for greater comprehension of how the chemical reaction occurs (Gilbert et al, 2007).

The slow motion could allow learners to investigate specific points in a sequence of events in detail and may be beneficial in combination with playbacks and save points in facilitating investigation of thought-provoking contexts and environments to improve understanding of difficult scientific concepts. It could be incorporated into simulations to allow awareness of small changes lost in real time. Assessments involving altering time and space could involve following and analysing a chain of related and similar processes (e.g., between several organic chemical reactions, just changing one variable). Observation of the chain of events being outlined in the scenario could allow learners time to reflect. Changing of these parameters may allow for the development of solutions to problems that are observed.

In relation to assessment, there are other potential benefits. The success of different solutions can be evaluated and re-attempted. The saving and repeating of attempts presents the opportunity for a self, peer and teacher-based assessment with a range of information able to be collected and developed (Wilson et al, 2012). As an example, a learner could attempt a chemical reaction and make an erroneous assumption about the temperature required for the reaction. The ability to playback allows the learner to re-attempt the scenario again. This allows the learner to determine which temperature is more effective for a successful reaction to occur.

Similarly, the use of image overlay allows for a range of different and unique assessment activities. Wood and Reiners (2013) used a variety of overlaid images that could be placed over a repeated simulation to allow for reflective learning. The found that this gave the learner an opportunity for self-reflection on the reasoning behind changing their approach to the task. The researchers incorporated the overlaid images of other learners, allowing the learner to be motivated by competing with other learners and/or allow assessment of peers abilities and outcomes. In combination, save points and multiple attempts allow learners to move through a series of tasks with increasing difficulty, this allows an assessment to be carried out more than once through self-reflection and peer assessment (Wilson et al, 2013). This overcomes the necessity for a final high-pressure assessment, producing an assessment based on increasing complexity, allowing for several efforts and hopefully improving learning. An online scenario-based approach facilitates the use of several attempts by learners that can be recorded and assessed with respect to the overlaid attempts.

As an alternative, using save points and multiple attempts in online simulations enables learning and assessment that can happen anytime and anywhere, this will cater for the learner, creating a flexible and learner focused assessment which is consistent with recent New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) discussions around assessment (NZQA, 2015). These approaches reduce the constraints on assessment, at present schools require either internal or external summative examinations to occur at a set time and location which may disadvantage learners who struggle under the pressure associated with this.

Also, given the emphasis in National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) on ‘higher level’ excellence assessments, game-based online simulations may be suitable to assist in assessing excellence. The careful selection and design of virtual simulations can enhance ‘relational’ and ‘extended abstract’ assessment tasks (Vallance & Martin, 2012).

Morris et al (2013) have reviewed research involving potential problems in about using gamification in developing virtual scenarios. Habgood and Ainsworth (2011) state that a large number of virtual scenarios in education incentivise the learning of content, leading to extrinsic motivation. They argue for intrinsic integration, wherein the learning activities are integrated with the scenario and happen when the learner is most engaged. Furthermore, the researchers state that the simulation should be used as a context in which to illustrate the ideas to be learned.

Another possible problem is the transferral of learning from the online context to a ‘real life’ context. Learners often show understanding within the context in which it was learned, yet fail to apply this understanding to similar contexts (Klahr and Chen, 2011). The researchers further state that virtual contexts may be less likely to encourage scientific skill transfer because they often differ from the classroom context (e.g., scientific practicums).

An encouraging example of a scientific virtual simulation that illustrates many of the ideas argued in this paper is Operation ARA (Butler et al., 2011). The key concept of identifying unsound scientific enquiry is inserted in the scenario and made engaging by positioning the scenario in a context of an alien conspiracy. Operation ARA is constructed on the pedagogy of adaptive learning and integrates interactivity, feedback, and incentives for motivation. The research indicates that learners who played Operation ARA established more of an understanding of the methods of scientific research than those of the control group. Initially, the assimilation of the game elements involving aliens appears not to be consistent with the idea of authentic learning. Nonetheless, the scenarios, the online context, and the assessment tasks could be developed to be incorporate authentic contexts for the learner while the game elements can add to engagement and ability to progress through their learning.

This blog post attempted to answer whether gamification has a role in developing authentic virtual simulations within the New Zealand science education framework. The post has discussed the design of online environments to assist in developing authentic learning experiences within science teaching in the New Zealand context, with assessment weaved within the scenarios, supported by game based learning. At present, the ideas have not been fully investigated and data is incomplete, especially in relation to the New Zealand education system and the proposals are not yet supported by empirical evidence and are rather based on anecdotal evidence and past experience. The use of game-based learning in education defines an extension to the current understanding of this approach; i.e., in the setting of virtual online scenarios where gamification is represented by gaining badges by completing set tasks fails to illustrate the possibilities that a game based learning approach in the classroom could afford. A number of suggestions have been provided outlining the potential benefits of this approach. This will hopefully allow for the identification of how game-based learning is able to play a role in developing assessment in authentic learning and thereby provide new possibilities for New Zealand teachers to improve learner outcomes in science.

References:

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques.

Authority, N. Z. Q. (2011). The Future of Secondary School Examinations: The Use of Technology in the New Zealand Context and Learner Outcomes, 41.

Authority, N. Z. Q. (May 2015). What is digital assessment transformation? Retrieved 17 August 2015, from What is digital assessment transformation?

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 734-742.

Boerger, F., & Tietgens, H. (2013). TÜV NORD in 3D: Avatars at work: From Second Life to the Web 3D. In A. Hebbel-Segger, T. Reiners, & D. Schäfer (Eds.), Alternate Realities: Emerging Technologies in Education and Economics. Springer-Verlag.

Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012).Supporting future-oriented learning & teaching: A New Zealand perspective. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Brabazon, T. (2007). The University of Google: Education in the Post-Information Age. Hampshire: Ashgate.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Butler H. A., Forsyth C., Halpern D. F., Graesser A. C., Millis K. (2011). Secret agents, alien spies, and a quest to save the world: operation ARIES! Engages students in scientific reasoning and critical thinking, in Promoting Student Engagement, Vol. 1, eds Miller R. L., Amsel E., Kowalewski B. M., Beins B. C., Keith K. D., Peden B. F., editors. 286–291 Available online at:teachpsych.org/ebooks/pse2011/index.php

Chodos, D., Stroulia, E., & King, S. (2011). Developing a virtual world simulation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Software Engineering in Health Care (pp. 71–78). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

Cronk, Marguerite. "Using gamification to increase student engagement and participation in class discussion." World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications. Vol. 2012. No. 1. 2012.

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.

Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. B. (Eds.). (2007). Visualisation: Theory and Practice in Science Education: Theory and Practice in Science Education (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

Gregory, S., Dalgarno, B., Campbell, M., Reiners, T., Knox, V., & Masters, M. (2011). Changing directions through VirtualPREX: Engaging pre-service teachers in virtual professional experience. In G. Williams, N. Brown, B. Pittard, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings facility (pp. 491–501). Hobart: University of Tasmania.

Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Martens, R. L. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 509–521.

Habgood M. P. J., Ainsworth S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. J. Learn. Sci. 20, 169–206.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. . (2014). Does Gamification Work? - A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher education. Hershey, PA: IGI

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge.

Hutchings, J., Barnes, A., Taupo, K., Bright, N., Pihama, L., Lee, J. (2012). Kia Puāwaitia Ngā Tūmanako: Critical Issues for Whānau in Māori Education. Wellington: Te Wāhanga, NZCER.

Hutchings, J., Barnes, A., Bright, N., Taupo, K., & Rautaki-Background, N. H. T. Reflexivity in Kaupapa Māori Research:“He Ua Kōwhai”. 

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.

Klahr D., Chen Z. (2011). Finding one's place in transfer space. Child Dev. Pers. 5, 196–202

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41, 212.

Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview. (D. G. Oblinger, Ed.) Educause Learning Initiative, 1–12.

Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440.

Ministry of Education (2001), “Hei Tautoko I Nga Wawata Maori, Etahi tauira na nga kura Wananga. Supporting Maori Achievement: A Collection of Tertiary Provider Initiatives

Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Gill, D., & Romig, C. (2013). Gaming science: the “Gamification” of scientific thinking. Frontiers in psychology, 4.

Nah, F. F. H., Zeng, Q., Telaprolu, V. R., Ayyappa, A. P., & Eschenbrenner, B. (2014, June). Gamification of education: a review of literature. In International Conference on HCI in Business (pp. 401-409). Springer International Publishing.

Nand, K., Baghaei, N., & Casey, J. (2014). Designing Engaging Educational Tools for Improving Children's Learning.

O’Donovan, S. (2012). Gamification of the course of the game. Acesso em, 17, 1-8.

Perera-Diltz, D. M. (2009). Assessment purposes. In E. Bradford (Ed.), ACA encyclopaedia of counselling (pp.38–39). Alexandria, VA: American Counselling Association.

Quellmalz, Edys S., et al. "21st-century dynamic assessment." Technology-based assessments for 21st-century skills: Theoretical and practical implications of modern research (2012): 55-90.

Reiners, T., & Wood, L. C. (2013). Immersive virtual environments to facilitate authentic education in Logistics and supply chain management. In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management systems and instructional design: Metrics, standards, and applications (pp. 323–343). Hershey, PA: IGI.

Reiners, T., Wood, L. C., Chang, V., Guetl, C., Herrington, J., Gregory, S., & Teräs, H. (2012). Operationalising gamification in an educational authentic environment. In P. Kommers, T. Issa, & P. Isaías (Eds.), IADIS International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society 2012 (pp. 93–100). Perth, Australia: IADIS

Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. J. (2002). Improving student performance through computer-based assessment: Insights from recent research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 475–479.

Rouse, K. E. (2013). Gamification in science education: The relationship of educational games to motivation and achievement.

Schrum, Lynne, et al. "A Global Perspective: Current Trends and Issues in ICT for 21st Century Education." Paper presented at American Education Research Association Annual Meeting. 2015.

Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational leadership, 50, 25-25.

Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 141-159.

Vallance, M., & Martin, S. M. (2012). Assessment and learning in the virtual world: Tasks, taxonomies and teaching for real. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5(2).

Vanderschantz, Nicholas, Annika Hinze, and Sally Jo Cunningham. "Current educational technology use for digital information acquisition by young New Zealand children." Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Australasian Computer Science Conference- Volume 147. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2014.

Wood, L. C., Teräs, H., & Reiners, T. (2013). The role of gamification and game-based learning in authentic assessment within virtual environments.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win: How game thinking can revolutionise your business. Wharton Digital.

Wood, L. C., & Reefke, H. (2010). Working with a diverse class: Reflections on the role of team teaching, teaching tools and technological support. In H. Huai, P. Kommers, & P. Isaías (Eds.), IADIS International Conference on International Higher Education (IHE 2010) (pp. 72– 79). Perth, Australia: IADIS.