Individual Intellectual Production #1

Marlis Enders
ETEC 565D
Jan 15, 2020

For this activity, we were to choose three chapters from the book Serious Play: Literacy, learning and digital games
by Catherine Beavis et al. The chapters that I have chosen for this IP are chapter 2 from Theme 1, chapter 6 from
theme 3, and chapter 11 from theme 5.
Chapter Two is entitled ‘A Game isn’t a Game Without Interaction’, and the authors discussed their findings
with respect to student attitudes and thoughts about the use of digital games in an educational context. The
authors heard from a wide range of students in mainstream schools with varied experience using digital
technologies. Student answers were grouped into four sections according to their expectations, preferences,
possible problems, and recommendations for optimal classroom use. Responses varied widely, but trends did
emerge.
Most students enjoyed the opportunity to use games to enhance their learning, found them entertaining
and fun, but they also recognized the importance that the games be relevant, age-appropriate, and respectful of
their abilities – not too difficult to frustrate them, but also difficult enough to provide a challenge for them to solve.
“…(students) were astute critics when it came to what games could and could not achieve.” (Beavis et al (2017).
Students valued the games most when they ‘made things interesting’, involved ‘solving problems’, and ‘using your
imagination’. There was very high importance placed on the ability of the game to make things fun and more
enjoyable. If the game was too ‘academic’, or not interactive enough, it was perceived as boring and not as
effective. This fits in with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development quite nicely which states that optimal learning
occurs when the material provides enough of a challenge that the student requires a small amount of assistance to
complete it. Social interaction opportunities, communication, cooperative learning and creativity were viewed as
valuable for a large number of the students. Students also recognized the value of balance between digital and
traditional learning opportunities, and the importance that the digital games balanced learning serious concepts
with ‘having fun’.
Chapter six, entitled ‘The Non-Gamer Teacher, The Quiz and Pop Teacher, and the Kinect Teacher’ explored
how teacher attitudes toward digital games were connected to their pedagogical beliefs and practices. The main
point of this chapter was that teachers will incorporate technology and gaming in ways that align with their own
pedagogical beliefs and attitudes, and when they feel comfortable coming out of their comfort zone, they will
expand their practices and understanding of digital games.
Lucy, the ‘non-gamer’ teacher, was reluctant to start using games in her class, and when she did, it was for
the sole purpose of developing skills in order to supplement the curriculum. Her teaching at first was mainly
teacher-centered, described as ‘I do, we do, you do’, however, her attitude and approach changed when she saw
that several students were becoming bored and allowed them to start at the top level. As a result, they became
more engaged as self-directed learners. She was concerned with meeting curriculum requirements but balancing
that with the interests and needs of the students. The following year, she incorporated the game Minecraft even
though she didn’t know much about it and needed students to assist each other. She gave her students the outlet
for creativity and open-ended learning identified as desirable in chapter two. This was a significant transition to a
more student-driven approach which ‘positioned student interest and learning at the forefront’. Her pedagogical
ideology was transformed as a result.
The ‘Quiz and Pop’ teacher Malcolm was very focussed with ‘drill and practice’ games as a way to develop
specific skills that would improve exam outcomes. His intention was to ultimately learn more about using gaming
in more diverse ways, and identified ‘Angry Birds’ as an example of a way to enhance learning about angles.
Despite the potential benefits, Malcolm was constrained by a ‘cost-benefit’ question, as to whether the time and
effort invested in doing the gaming activity was worth the returns. Malcolm was looking for a ‘good game’ which
would provide the desired effects in the most efficient way possible, but the concept of a ‘good game’ is fluid, and
the potential of a game is dependent upon the context in which it’s used. He was looking for a game that would
align with his pedagogical beliefs that worked with the curriculum and provided a measurable outcome, and not
finding such a game limited his scope of game incorporation to Skill and Drill’
Janet, coming from a ‘constructivist orientation’ didn’t have a lot of experience with digital games, but she
was adamant that the activity be student centered and engaging in order to be effective. Using X-box Kinect,
instead of finding games to fit her curriculum, she looked at the game with a more holistic approach, looking at
other literacies such as the teamwork, communication, risk-taking, and thinking skills that were being practiced.
She wasn’t concerned with strict curricular correlation, but rather she used the game as a ‘gateway’ to draw
students to expand their learning in other areas related to the curriculum.
Chapter eleven, Serious Outcomes from Serious Play discusses assessment of games-based learning,
teacher expectations of outcomes, and how those outcomes are to be assessed in relation to curriculum. The
ultimate purpose of incorporating games into a classroom is to improve student performance and achievement,
however assessing and quantifying the effectiveness of digital games can be challenging particularly when
measured only against curricular achievement standards. Non-academic benefits such as motivation and
engagement are more difficult to gauge and this chapter discusses how the measures of the effectiveness of digital
games need to be broadened, focussing on ‘multiple outcomes’ rather than just academic. Teachers in this study
did reinforce the theme that games worked to engage and motivate students and had benefits to a wide range of
learners (differentiated instruction) as well as helping to develop generic skills useful in other aspects of life.
There is the concern, however about time constraints and the necessity to justify the game to parents and
administrators. If it’s just for fun, then there is no point in using it, which is a sentiment echoed by the students.
Using digital games in the classroom allows for a more holistic approach to teaching, but there needs to be
a balance between the element of fun and the serious learning that needs to happen. Teachers who give students
more freedom allow for more engagement If the activity is self-directed rather than a prescribed, drill-type of
game, but not all learning is measurable by curricular standards, and results are not always seen immediately. If
student interest in a subject is peaked, and if the student is motivated to further explore a topic, then a lifelong
learner is produced, and that is the ultimate goal of any teacher. Whether digital games help to achieve this
depends on the manner in which they are incorporated.
References:
Beavis, Catherine, Dezuanni, Michael, & O’Mara, Joanne (2017). Serious play: Literacy, learning and digital games.
New York: Routledge