The following is a reflection on week 2 reading in ED 256: Tech and Education class, for which this blog was made, on gamification in education
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion is based on the following reading:
N. Neulight,
et al. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 2007 ( 2006)
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-9029-z
K.D. Squire and M. Jan.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 2007 ( 2007)
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z
S. Barab and C. Dede.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 2007 ( 2007)
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-007-9043-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamification is the idea of using games in an education-context as a new framework for engaged learning. (It is worth noting there is debate on the exact semantics of gamification, but the core idea remains the same.) Several efforts have been made to advance this empathy-based form of education, in which the participant is immersed in a role and guided through inquiry-driven learning.
Barab and Dede provide an overview of gamification in education. Games are particularly well-suited to constructionist-based learning being "narratively driven, experientially immersive, and multi-media rich." Additionally, games provide the opportunity to take on alternate identities that may allow the participant to start anew. Finally, the potential to interact socially and engage in socio-scientific inquiry in gaming could help students achieve a "rich perceptual, conceptual, and ethical understanding of science." This final point is worth noting. Although science aims to provide an unbiased, balanced, and extensive interpretation of physical phenomena, it would be naive to deny its inherent human-element. At the end of the day, science is done by people and technology impacts everyone's everyday life. Science is inextricably linked to society, environment, economy, and policy. All too often I hear people in my field use science as an excuse to avoid interacting with people. Perhaps gaming can re-energize the human element in science education.
Neulight,
et al. report one example of gaming-based learning on the multi-user virtual environment. In this study, sixth-grade students engaged in a game called Whyville to promote understanding of health-related issues, such as food contamination, illness, infectious disease, and genetics. What was interesting was the evaluation of the students' ability to attribute the cause of disease. Students were able to incorporate major terms (e.g., contagious, epidemiologists, quarantining) into their conversations and to attribute biological causal explanations based in reality, despite Whyville being a virtual environment. I think one of the challenges in immersing one in a new field is acclimating oneself to the jargon. Jargon is cumbersome but necessary; in any field of study, the terminology is chosen to encase a concept and it is chosen to be exact. That Whyville was able to achieve integration of technical terms into casual conversation is a great testament to game-based learning.
Example interface of Whyville with Whypox [Neulight, et al., 2007]
Squire and Jan report a second example with
Mad City Mystery, a game that centers on the death of Ivan Illyich. Students engages in different roles (e.g., doctor, government official, scientist) to facilitate collaboration and interacted with various in-game characters to gather and evaluate evidence. During the study, students continually modified their existing theories for what caused the death of Ivan Illyich. Several aspects of how this study was implemented are worth mentioning. One is the emphasis of location-based gaming, in this case Lake Mendota, which was chosen for its "cultural and emotional significance, as well as its potential for supporting scientific understandings." This indeed had positively impacted the emotional and future interest of the participants to, for instance, pick up a book on TCE he would have before not. Secondly, the game was structured to foster inquiry-driven development and evaluation of multiple hypotheses with no determined "right" answer. I find this aspect especially true as a graduate student. What we learn in textbooks is often presented in chunks and as if it magically fell into someone's lap. In reality, the process of science is extremely non-linear, with many dynamic hypotheses. And this is not unique to science, as students see, but a process common to many professions, such as criminal investigation. Thirdly, Squire and Jan found that elementary students "more readily developed and abandoned hypotheses based on new forms of evidence, showing a preference towards simple causal models" whereas high school students "entertained fewer hypotheses, holding to their hypotheses until contrary evidence as found." I am uncertain whether to think this progression of thinking across the age groups is good or not. While we are able to form more complex hypotheses as we are older, that we restrict ourselves to a few may limit our ability to actually solve a problem. Yet at the same time, it is probably not fruitful to entertain too many theories, as it divides our attention. Nevertheless, this (rather thorough) study gives valuable insight into how gamification may impact learning.
Gameboard screenshot of Mad City Mystery with roles and possible interactions [Squire & Jan 2007]
In all, I think these reflection on some studies on gamification highlight a key insight. That education must be a means to an end, not an end in itself. This is what gaming achieves- it builds a world and an identity that the player becomes emotionally invested in. Gaming provides a natural environment for collaboration and contextualized learning.
