Case Summary:

In this case, learners examine the tension between the goals and practices of traditional middle
schools and the implementation of educational materials grounded in a constructivist
perspective.  Michael Bishop is the director of a project to create a series of educational games
designed to engage students in scientific inquiry.  When the school district that had been pilot
testing the games withdraws for reasons unrelated to the project, Michael finds it difficult to
enroll another district, and comes to realize that, without strong district-based advocates, the
games his team is designing may never be implemented in the classes for which they were
created.  Michael must decide whether the model for his games must change to better fit the
context of the typical middle school classroom or if he needs to maintain their current design and
instead develop more convincing arguments for their use as is.

Learning Goals:
After analyzing this case, you are expected to achieve at least the following goals:
1. Describe possible barriers to the implementation of educational games in K-12 schools.
2. Describe factors associated with the learning context of schools that should be considered
in the design of educational games.
3. Provide evidence to support arguments for the use of educational games

Conversation Starters:
1. What arguments could Michael make to convince school administrators and teachers
about the potential benefits of educational games?

Like Christy mentioned, the game teaches curriculum from the Next Generation Science
Standards. To be honest, I had to go back and reread the part where it mentioned NGSS after
reading Christy’s response because Michael really did not focus on this in his pitches. The game
aligning with the curriculum used by the district is a huge positive. Michael should have
emphasized this to the stakeholders since they may not have realized this. The teachers and
administrators did not like how the game would take a week or more to complete, probably
because they felt as though it took away the time they had to teach the curriculum. With the
stakeholders knowing the game teaches the curriculum, they likely would have been more on
board. 
Another benefit of teaching through educational games is that students have opportunities to
truly apply what they are learning rather than just repeating the information on a test. Although
students still need to take the district’s test, practicing the application of Punnett squares,
breeding for genes, etc. gives students valuable practice to prepare them for the district test.

2. Why does Michael feel strongly about not putting the game in an after-school program?
What are the pros and cons of his decision?

I agree, Christy. To elaborate, Michael thinks reserving the game for an after-school program
would be a disservice to “regular” students. I do agree that if his game aligns with the Next
Generation Science Standards, the game would benefit all students, not just those who need
enrichment. Hence, putting the game in an after-school program would be a con to the “regular”
students who would miss out on the opportunity. 
 3. What characteristics of middle school learners must designers consider when planning
educational games? Provide specific examples. (i.e., learner analysis)

The majority of middle school learners would most likely show high interest in
educational games. These students appreciate alternative ways of learning because they are
accustomed to lectures, note taking, and worksheets. Many middle school students are also into
video games. An educational game like Michael’s is intrinsically motivating like Christy
mentioned; some of these students like to learn but others are motivated to feel accomplished in a
game and/or learn in a way that is appealing to them. 
Christy, your quote about millennials zoning out after ten minutes is interesting to me. Is
that quote from our class textbook? If so, our textbook is from 2016 and in that year the youngest
millennials were approximately 19 years old. I wouldn’t agree that this is true for millennials
given that they are now in their 20s and 30s, but if the quote is older, I definitely agree it applies
to middle school learners. However, I think a strategy such as an educational game is one of the
few tactics that could keep the interest of these 11- to 14-year olds for longer than ten minutes.
Of course, my opinions on middle school learners are all generalizations and may not be true for
all of these students.

Excerpts from a separate Scholarly Conversation:

With a background in education, I found it easiest to compare the models to a lesson plan as
much as possible. Specifically the systems approach model (Dick and Carey’s) most closely
resembled a lesson plan in my opinion. For those who do not have a background in education, I
believe even as graduate students we would be able to relate the model(s) to a lesson we were
following in the course. Applying any of the models to a concept that is familiar helps me to
better understand and be able to follow along with the models. Although, I do agree; you can’t
really put your finger on one model. All of the models in the text are similar yet I appreciate their
differences. For example, the systems approach model begins with identifying an instructional
goal, while the PITP model begins with designing a problem, as do the majority of the models
studied. With the classroom still in mind, I think these models are both fair approaches. If we
were to focus on a science experiment, I would say the PITP model would be the better choice.
The models are all eerily similar until you dive deeper; some models may work better than others
depending on the context in which they are being used.

Sandee, I agree that administrators are trying to move away from an instructor-centered approach
to instruction and follow a combination of instructor-centered and learner-centered approach. I
conveniently found this direct quote from Zain, Muniandy, & Hashim, 2016: “More emphasis is
on “learner-centered approach” where teachers are facilitators guiding learners in achieving the
intended learners’ learning outcomes.” Of course the learner-centered approach is already in
place in many Montessori schools and early learning centers, but public schools are starting to
adopt this approach to some extent. Looking through the instructional design models, I tried to
identify which model I thought was best suited to accommodate the learner-centered approach. I
was thinking that the Kemp, Morrison, and Ross plan seemed to allow for the most student-led
exploration with teacher facilitation. Step 2 calls for examining learner characteristics to drive
instruction; this could be an opportunity to plan for learner-centered instruction, even if the
lesson then turns back to instructor-centered for another step of the model.

Ethan, the models you discussed are explained very well and I am also familiar with both. In the
first model you explained, there are the three groups you mentioned that, in short, are often
labeled as “advanced students”, “on-target students”, and “striving students”. Like you
mentioned, the striving students typically meet in a teacher-led small group for extra support
while the advanced group of students is left to complete work independently. From my
experience, the advanced group of students oftentimes finishes the independent work quickly and
then has opportunities for more self-directed learning; this frequently looks like students having
several independent or partner activities to choose from that may or may not be related to the
learning objective of the previous assignment. Of course the option for self-directed learning
stands for all students, but it is common that only the advanced students have time for these
additional activities. This recurrent scenario brings on a few questions: Is this instructional model
appropriate in (typically) only allowing advanced students to have self-directed learning time or
should the striving and on-target students be given equally as much of this time? We know that
striving students require more teacher-led instruction to support their needs and growth, but is it
unfair to these students to not have much self-centered learning? On the contrary, should
advanced students have opportunities for teacher-led instruction so they can be challenged in
higher-level concepts? I struggle to answer these questions as I do not know if a certain
instructional model is the ‘correct’ answer.