learning

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Does Game Based Learning Work?

-

Does Game Based Learning Work? Short answer: Yes. Blunt’s analysis of three studies draws together enough empirical data to suggest that there is a correlation between gaming and test scores.

The idea of the study was simply to discover whether COTS (commercial, off-the shelf) games facilitate improved learning in a classroom environment. The results strongly suggest that there’s benefits to combining gaming and learning. Blunt used a theoretical framework which considered multiple concepts:

  • ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction). This model identifies four areas in which learning is broken into parts. The theory is that students require motivation as well as practical examples of how a system works (which the students can use to help their understanding).
  • Good Video Game Design. Of particular importance is the computer game’s quality. The game must have rules (restrictions and generic codes), goals & objectives, be challenging and be engaging.

Blunt conducted three separate studies at a university level. All of the subjects were business related – business, economics, management. Each subject had a corresponding COTS computer game which fit the curriculum. As a study control, the subjects that were chosen had two or more class groups. One group was allowed to play computer games as a part of the curriculum, the other class (which was learning exactly the same content) didn’t have access to a computer game – ie it was a standard class. At the end of the course, students were given standardised tests.

The results were very encouraging. The classes which included computer games had a much higher average score and more “A” level results than classes without the games. Also, classes with computer games had no students fail the course, while the other classes had a number of fails. The results also considered other matrices such as gender and ethnicity. Overall, computer games seemed to have almost no discernible affect on gender or ethnicity. The only other significant factor was age. Students under 40 years of age performed significantly better with computer games. Students over 41 didn’t benefit from using computer games in class.

Blunt concludes that his results are significant, however the problem he is trying to address is the lack of empirical data which can be used to prove a causal-comparative relationship between computer games and learning.

Simulations. We have plenty of empirical studies about simulations over the last 25 years. We know simulations work. We know simulations improve performance. We know simulations improve learning. Yet, I challenge anyone to show me a literature review of empirical studies about game- based learning. There are none. We are charging head-long into game-based learning without knowing if it works or not. We need studies. – Dr J. Cannon-Bowers

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

The 10,000 hour to success – myth busted!

-

The 10,000 hour to success – myth busted!

Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” certainly hit a chord with educators and academics with his claim, based on empirical research, that 10 000 hours of study would elevate a person to virtuoso levels of skill. 

Interestingly, the study upon which his claim is based makes no such claim. 

Gladwell’s theory is too generalised to be applied to the real world and a number of good arguments have been made to refute his claims. Firstly, virtuoso level skills are dependent on the area being studied. Memorization tasks only take a few hundred hours to achieve mastery levels. And sport, which puts physical strain on the body, doesn’t allow for the level of practice that are possible in other areas (such as music).

If a person practices for 90 minutes a day, they reach the golden number of 10 000 within 20 years. However that level of practice may not be intense enough to increase skills significantly enough to be considered virtuoso. 3 hours of practice a day, attaining 10 000 hours in 10 years, is more likely to result in mastery.

Numerous other factors, such as motivation, also contribute to one’s ability to become a master of their art. Also, not everyone is suitable (physically or intellectually) for any task. My short self would never be able to become a basketball virtuoso in 10 000 hours!

However, there’s no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Gladwell’s 10 000 hours theory is really just a way to grab people’s attention. 10 000 hours sounds more precise than ‘lots and lots of practice’ … which is what Gladwell is actually saying!

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Teach Creativity, Not Memorization

-

Teach Creativity, Not Memorization

Sternberg’s analysis of the importance of creativity has become seminal reading for those interested in the implications of creativity and learning. Creativity, according to Sternberg, is under utilised and students need to ‘mobilize’ their creativity.

The main area of consideration, he states, is how university and the corporate world values creativity. The qualities of creativity which are so coveted are not taught in schools. The education system focuses on memorisation which is setting students up for failure. 

To promote creativity in the classroom, students need to be encouraged to define and redefine problems that they encounter. This includes things like projects, assignments and presentations. If students make a mistake, they can solve the problem to fix the error or start again if their approach was a mistake. This is all valuable learning for students as they strive to develop judgement. As such, it’s more important for students to learn what questions to ask, and how to ask them, rather than just learning the answers.

Additionally, another crucial element of creativity is selling one’s creative ideas. Ideas have value and students need to learn how to sell those ideas to others.

Having too much knowledge can also be a hindrance to creativity. Knowledge is beneficial but can also entrench thinking and attitudes. Considering this, the learning process can be a two way sharing opportunity. Teachers can share knowledge that students don’t have. Conversely, students have flexibility, precisely because they have less knowledge, and can use that flexibility to open avenues of creative process.

Creativity requires perseverance. Traditionally, creative thinking has encountered obstacles caused by resistance from others. Creative thinking, which lacks structure and discipline, often brings disappointment and disillusionment. There are a lot of grey areas and ambiguity. Creative though can be sporadic, non-linear and takes time to develop. Promoting creative though also means fostering self-efficacy. Steinberg suggests that creative thinking requires measured risk-taking, along with perseverance. By defying norms and producing ideas, creative thinking can result in innovation which is trend setting and respected by others. 

By helping students find something they love, or having them demonstrate their talents or ability, they’re more likely to act creatively. It doesn’t matter what their focus area is, just that they love the activity and feel a sense of importance but without a need for immediate rewards.

“Students develop creativity not when they are told to but when they are shown how.”

Investing in Creativity – R. Sternberg and T. Lubart

The paper on teaching creativity stems from earlier works by Sternberg in which he takes a more analytical and psychological approach to looking at creativity. Sternberg surmised in 1996 when he wrote the paper “Investing in Creativity” that not research had been conducted regarding creativity. It had been neglected as a research topic. Numerous contributors are cited as to why creativity was ignored; partly because of the ambiguity of what creativity actually meant and mostly because there were no rigid methods to study or measure creativity.

Creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel and appropriate. It’s a broad topic that has implications on both an individual and societal level. Individually, creativity is useful for problem solving. Societally, creativity can lead to new scientific findings, art movements, innovations and social programs. 

In the 1950s creativity research increased and a few learning institutes were founded to look specifically at creativity from a psychological perspective. Intelligence, naturally, attracts more interest and research than intelligence. However, Sternberg argues that creativity is just as important as intelligence. 

It is through creativity that we can cope with significant challenges in our environments in novel and appropriate ways. Indeed, given the rate at which the world is changing, the importance of creativity to our lives is likely to increase.

Even now there are few organisations specifically focusing on creativity. Two such journals exist: The Journal of Creative Behavior and the Creative Research Journal. The former is mostly non-empirical, with a focus on how to improve creativity rather than the study of it. The latter, which has a research focus, has been published since 1988. The conclusion here, made by Sternberg, is that creativity is not an area that readily lends itself to scientific study.

An early approach called the psychodynamic approach took the view that creativity arises from tension between conscious reality and unconscious drives. The Freudian theory was that artists used creativity as a way to express their unconscious desires.

The problem is, as noted earlier, that creativity is hard to define and observe. Methods have been tried to scale creativity and measure it in a scientific way. One such method is Guilford’s “divergent thinking” tasks called the Unusual Uses test. The test required asking participants to think of as many uses as they could for a common object. They were tested on a creative scale. 

Where tests and definitions fell short were in the disparity between “Creativity” (big c) by famous artists or eminent thinkers, compared to “creativity” (little c) on an every day level. One related research paper proposed that creativity is, essentially, ordinary cognitive processes hielding extraordinary results – – referring to studies of eminent creators and lab research.

A more social-personality approach focuses on variables such as personality, motivation and sociocultural environments as creative sources. Studies comparing creative samples in eminent “Creativity” and everyday “creativity” have yielded identification of common, relevant traits: independent judgement, self-confidence, attraction to complexity,, aesthetic orientation and risk taking. Along with Maslow’s observations about creativity, there’s definitely a link between creativity and motivation. Specifically, intrinsic motivation affects creative output. This has relevance to confluence theory – that creativity is a confluence of task motivation, domain relevant knowledge and abilities, as well as creativity-relevant skills. This forms the basis of a model for creative problem solving.

Sternberg’s own research identifies the importance of personality for creative functioning. Creativity requires a willingness to overcome obstacles, take risks, tolerate ambiguity and self-efficacy. All of which are traits mentioned earlier in the paper with relation to creative obstacles. Sternberg, too, asserts the importance of intrinsic motivation for creative work – that creative people love what they do and are less focused on rewards. Finally, he recognises the need for an environment which is supportive of creative ideas. 

In this paper Sternberg has established the importance of creativity, despite the lack of research on the topic, as well as obstacles to creative output. He considers a variety of definitions and concludes that creativity is a vaild field of study. Using confluence theories offer a methodology to study creativity which allows for experimental testing.

Sternberg is an advocate of creativity as a method of promoting learning and critical thinking. While it’s an under-developed field of research, creativity (and particularly motivation) is a desired skill in the buisness world and plays an important role in learning.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

To Save Everything, Click Here

-

To Save Everything, Click Here

Morozov’s new book warns of how too much reliance on the internet as a ‘solution’ is counter productive to what the internet was designed to achieve. 

In this interview with The Guardian, Morozov talks about the perils of technology and how it limits democracy, promotes authoritarianism and removes choice and innovation. 

What is the role of technology in our lives? Do we want it to do the thinking for us by obviating problem solving? Or are technologies there to enhance our problem solving? Morozov’s view is that there’s a very real danger that over-reliance on technology to automate thinking makes us dumb. Moreover, he questions the roles of Facebook and Google as controllers of thinking and innovation, by not scrutinising such companies closely enough. 

If Twitter, he argues, promotes people and sites which support twitter, then they’re following a business model rather than a model of net-neutrality. This is where users should be more critical of what they consume and what they believe, Morozov asserts.

Overall, Morozov pushes for more independent thought and less reliance on internet sound bites and click throughs. The internet is more about marketing, advertising and dominance.

While his concerns are valid, I disagree with his assertion that groups like TED are a failure because it’s not “deep”. While depth is (obviously) desired, there’s also a need to appeal to viewers in a consumable way. If TED talks were nuclear physics, then the audience would be limited and TED would be less successful. Instead, TED seems to me to be striving towards getting ideas out there and gaining interest. It’s a starting point for many people to begin digging further and finding the ‘depth’ that Morozov desires.

Like TOR networks, perhaps learning can be thought of in stages: entry node, middle node, exit node. TED is an entry node and, thus, it’s interesting and consumable without being too deep. Middle node learning would take place via scientific forums, wikis and academic readings (via Google Scholar). 

None the less, I’ll try and acquire a copy of Morozov’s book. It looks like a good read.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right?

-

Findings from the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right?

Note: This article links directly to a PDF file.

Becker attempts to review Cuban’s initial findings that computers are largely incompatible with classroom teaching. His data, 16 years after Cuban’s initial study, asserts that there are conditions under which the likelihood of computer usage can dramatically increase.

However, I was unable to agree with Becker’s views. He did find Cuban’s assertions to still be correct.  Becker claimed, though, that computer usage could improve. My issue with this finding that there were too many caveats required to satisfy Becker’s claims. He stated that a classroom needed at least 5 computers and all students needed an average amount of technical skill. As well, the teacher needs to be highly proficient in using constructionist teaching pedagogy. 

While this may not be too difficult to accomplish, there are too many “ifs” to be satisfied. If the computers are fully functional and all software is up-to-date. If teachers have time to write a computer based curriculum. If time within the curriculum permits computer usage (as all teachers know, computer-based tasks take longer). If the teacher is skilled in developing curriculum that can maximise learning using computers.

Once all those “ifs” can be satisfied, then perhaps computers can make a dramatic difference in classroom education. However it’s still a case of shoehorning computers into classrooms. 

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

How about flipping the school instead?

-

How about flipping the school instead?

The idea of flipping the classroom, albeit new, has become a somewhat cliched concept already. Teachers talk about how the classroom can be radically changed by using the internet to change the way we teach. I’m not deriding this methodology. In fact, I agree it has its merits – in that it illustrates education’s willingness to change. 

However the entrenched problem of the system itself still remains. Why are children sitting in a classroom, isolated from each other by computer screens? They are learning but what’s the point of traveling all the way to school to get on the internet? 

While some would say that the 1-on-1 tutoring and contact with the teacher is the key ingredient, it doesn’t really answer the question. Students can get that assistance in other ways, such as by a teacher on a webcam (perhaps using Google hangouts). The teacher could use a shared drawing space app to draw and write problems which the student could see while listening to the teacher’s explanation. The teacher could also refer the student to a different instructional video. Another approach would be to have students conference together and explain to each other. Or just use a dedicated forum to ask for help. The student, as well as learning about a math problem, could be learning online interaction skills and research skills while they find the answer to the problem.

Finally, the student could also be getting help from their *gasp* parents in finding ways to solve problems or answer questions they don’t understand.

Flipping the classroom is great … but it’s still a classroom. Technology has always been shoehorned into schools for more political benefit than educational benefit. Kids are learning more online away from classrooms (and away from formal education) than ever. Teachers should not be instructors. They should become a guide, a sounding board or even a safety net for when students need a boost.

Flip the education system. Remove the classroom from the picture and see how quickly kids adapt to an education that they control.

The rise of social learning …

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

EDUpunk

-

EDUpunk

Are you edu punk? Edupunk (2008-2011) is an approach to teaching and learning practices that result from a do it yourself (DIY) attitude. The New York Times defines it as “an approach to teaching that avoids mainstream tools like PowerPoint and Blackboard, and instead aims to bring the rebellious attitude and D.I.Y. ethos of ’70s bands like The Clash to the classroom.” Many instructional applications can be described as DIY education or Edupunk.

The term was first used on May 25, 2008 by Jim Groom in his blog, and covered less than a week later in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Stephen Downes, an online education theorist and an editor for the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, noted that “the concept of Edupunk has totally caught wind, spreading through the blogosphere like wildfire”.

Scroll to Top