Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching?

1 Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? July 2009 1 of 24 Becta 2009 Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? Paul PivecBecta | Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? July 2009 2 of 24 Becta 2009 About the authorPaul Pivec has over 30 years in the computing industry andeight in academia. Having completed a Masters Degree inGame- based Learning , and a Graduate Diploma in HigherEducation, Paul is now completing a PhD at Deakin University,Melbourne, Australia, investigating the academic value ofplaying computer based in Europe, he is also combining his knowledge inpedagogy with his development skills to complete his latestproject in multi-user Game-based Learning via the can be contacted at | Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? July 2009 3 of 24 Becta 2009 ContentsIntroduction setting the Level the digital native Learning practising the Achievement and Movement level Perceptions and Abilities gamer s teaching the level the credit | Game-based Learning or Game-based teaching ?

2 July 2009 4 of 24 Becta 2009 Introduction setting the sceneAs a game developer of many years, and an academic of late, I find the use of suchterms as 'Serious games ' and ' Game-based Learning ' to be overused and often inthe wrong context. These terms are often employed as a justification to introducedigital games into the classroom or to sell a product that has little entertainmentvalue. Digital games do have a place in the classroom, but as a tool to be utilisedby creative teachers and not to replace teachers as suggested by some (Bushnell,2009; Prenksy, 2004).Microsoft s Bill Gates has been credited as stating, Technology is just a tool. Interms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is themost important. This suggests that ' Game-based teaching ' using a role-play ormeta-game surrounding a game, would provide the desired Learning we are told that Strategy games such as Civilization and Great Battles of Romeprovide factual declarative knowledge to the player, but no authoritative studieshave verified the content within such games .

3 We are also told that playing 'brain-training' games can prevent Alzheimer s and increase your IQ, but there is nosubstantial proof that this is this comes under the umbrella of Game-based Learning and appears to beblindly accepted as such, but more than often it is simply clever marketing. Digitalcomputer games have now been around for over three decades and the termGame- based Learning has been attributed to the use of computer games that arethought to have educational content, but there is much debate surrounding thistheory. Having recently completed an extensive literature review on the use ofgames in the classroom for the EU- based project ' games in Schools' (Pivec andPivec, 2009), many researchers have questioned if Game-based Learning reallyworks or whether it is simply the environment in which computer games are usedto teach that imparts the knowledge. This article seeks to explore the theory ofGame- based teaching in contrast to Game-based Learning , and discusses thecontext in which computer games are used in academia.

4 Being an advocate ofusing computer games in education, I propose that the meta-game surroundingthe game is of more value than the game itself and suggest how games can beused effectively at all levels of | Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? July 2009 5 of 24 Becta 2009 Tutorial Level the digital native mythAcademics have long been promoting a change in education to includetechnology-rich programmes in the teaching curriculum (Papert, 1996; Rushkoff,1996; Smith, Curtin and Newman, 1997), but they suggest that many teachers arefeeling technically inadequate when teaching what they suggest are digitallyliterate students. These students have been called 'the computer generation' andreferred to as 'screenagers'. Many academics use the term 'Nintendo Generation'and suggest that teachers, along with parents, are dealing with a new breed oflearner. Others believe that these children look upon school as an interruption intheir computer usage time (Prensky, 2001; Squire, 2003), and that teachinginstitutions must use electronic media to re-package their course content to reachtoday s 'digitally literate' of this belief has been spawned from the notion that today s children are'digital natives', having grown up in a digital world.

5 They apparently think differentlybecause they have adapted to their digital environment (Prensky, 2001; Gee, 2003;Squire, 2003; Oblinger, 2004; Shaffer, 2006 and many others). However, many ofus that support the application of technology as a Learning tool and also Game-based Learning (GBL), refute the belief that learners are different because theyhave grown up in today s digital world. The term 'digital natives' was originallypromoted back in 2001 when referring to university graduates. Prensky stated thatthe average graduate would have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives readingbooks, but over 10,000 hours playing video games . Interestingly, these universitygraduates will now be in their early to mid 30s, and this correlates with theEntertainment Software Association figures (ESA, 2008) of 35 being the averageage of computer game players. However, it also correlates with the suggestedaverage age of teachers in England surveyed by Futurelab (2009), where 42 percent of these teachers had never played a computer publications have supported or opposed the premise of a NintendoGeneration, yet neither side offers substantial evidence for their view.

6 Salen (2008)suggested that these debates are 'overly polemic and surprisingly shallow'.However, Prensky s theories get quoted often when references are needed tosupport the introduction of a game into the classroom, even when Prensky himselfhas offered no empirical evidence. Yet, there are many other publications andresearched theories that support technology and its place in the for example the 'Hole in the Wall] project (Mitra and Rana, 2001).1 Computerswere set up across India in locations that had never seen any type of technologybefore. No training or tuition was provided, yet these children were surfing theinternet within hours, downloading movies, using drawing software, playing video 1 See http://www. | Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? July 2009 6 of 24 Becta 2009games, and even taught themselves how to cut, paste, and save their files. Theycollaborated with each other and worked in groups, they formed social groupings,and became highly motivated to continue to use this new available technology, allwithout supervision.

7 They displayed all of the attributes that Prensky, Oblinger (andothers) suggest are only present in children that they refer to as 'digital natives'.Another example is the poverty alleviation project in Peru, set up by Dr Logan Muller(Muller, 2004).2 The task of this project was to install computers in remotelocations high in the Andes to provide access to market information. Theselocations had no electricity and had never seen technology of any kind. Yet the localchildren were quick to utilise the computers and often assisted the oldergeneration in how to use them. They collaborated, preferred multimediaapplications, appeared to be goal orientated, and as with the 'Hole in the Wall'project, they displayed all the traits of children who have grown up in a digital worldand spent countless hours playing computer are today s students any different from previous generations and do they utilisetechnology in different ways than those of the teachers who are teaching them?

8 Perhaps it is the technology itself and the way it is used that simply appeals tocreative learners, and the digital native theory is simply a marketing ploy createdand disseminated without any empirical evidence to support it. 2 See | Game-based Learning or Game-based Teaching? July 2009 7 of 24 Becta 2009 Cognitive Learning practising the testIt is said that cognitive abilities such as memory retention and analytical skills areimproved by repeated playing of digital games , even to the extent of assisting withthe offset of Learning disabilities (Klingberg, Forssberg and Westerberg, 2002) anddiseases such as Alzheimer's (Korczyn, Peretz, Aharonson and Giladi, 2007).However, like the digital native debate, there are just as many academicpublications that refute these claims (Wainess, 2007), as there are to research suggesting that academic achievement can be predictedthrough the use of cognitive assessments includes the tests of working memory,pattern matching, and cognitive skills known as 'chunking'.

9 This has led to thepopularity of games and products such as the Brain Training series from Nintendoand Mind Fit programs from Cognifit. Sadly, all these games appear to do is toteach the player how to pass the cognitive test. They use methods such as thestandard digit-span test and the Stroop task, available from any first-yearpsychology textbook. Yet many institutions have introduced cognitive traininggames into their classroom in the belief that it will improve the students' cognitiveskills, at the same time motivate their students (Miller and Robertson, 2009), andsubsequently increase the academic achievement of their learners. As we know,practice makes perfect and by practising a cognitive test or any task, the participantwill always improve within the limits of their ability and achieve higher scores.'The Digit Span test is defined by Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children(Wechsler, 2003) and includes a Digit Span Forward (DSF) and Digit SpanBackward (DSB).

10 The DSF requires the participant to repeat numbers back toan examiner in the sequence that they were said. The DSB requires thenumbers repeated back in the reverse order. The DSF test is designed to testthe phonological loop capacity involving rote Learning , attention span,encoding, and auditory processing. The DSB test requires mentalmanipulation, transformation of information, and visuo-spatial Stroop Task is a psychological test of our mental (attentional) vitality andflexibility. The task takes advantage of our ability to read words more quicklyand automatically than we can name colors. If a word is printed or displayedin a color different from the color it actually names; for example, if the wordGreen is written in blue ink, we will say the word Green more readily than wecan name the color in which it is displayed, which in this case is Blue. Thecognitive mechanism involved in this task is called directed attention, and youmust manage your attention, inhibit or stop one response in order to say or dosomething else.