2.      “The game-design process enabled contextualized learning that was considered meaningful and useful through effortful and meta-cognitively guided processes. “ (Li, 2012, P. 789) I feel strongly connected to these remarks as I have been having my students created their own games with the Kit-collab function of GimKit. The students gain a sense of ownership as they create questions and contribute to the game to be played later but the whole class. This sense of ownership makes the whole activity meaningful to them. This in return encourage them to put in more effort into the game creation process, using the target language in our case. 1.      And last week as I was asking for my students’ input on the board game design we did in the IP adoption assignment, the students got very excited about applying the commercial off-the-shelf game Among Us into our language learning. Multiple students volunteered to learn how to embed our target language content into the game setup/design. Some other students offered to take up the avatar design and creation role. The students will be learning and improving in multiple disciplines other than foreign language if be proceeded with this activity.

Another quote that I could relate to was on page 789 “Games can enhance learning by increasing students’ interest in subject matter and by meeting students’ needs in a more effective way” (Killi 2007; Prensky 2001). This is a major element of my lessons for my students. I must create lessons that are engaging for my students. Games have really helped my students grasp different content. The games give a different way for my students to stay engaged. Games have helped my students with their IEP goals as well. If they think they are just playing a game, it is more likely for them to complete the lesson. 

The other biggest “lightbulb” moment I had from reading this article, was the importance of teacher and learner co-design (Li, 2012, p. 802). Based on the study, Li found that students were much more engaged when they were involved in the design of these educational games. Also, teachers were more engaged as well! They were more motivated and helped implement ways to meet the diverse needs of their students. It made me think of the number of times I have designed a classroom game or activity, and if I had incorporated my students into the creation of the game, they might have been more invested and I would have learned something about what they are interested in and how they want to learn!

The paper also mentioned that “children enjoyed making games and learning programming skills through designing interesting game worlds and characters” (Li, 2012, p. 789). I know that my students love playing games, but I am also aware that some of them are designers and creators. For example, one of my students shared this (https://studio.code.org/c/1192474483) earlier in the school year. I like to include games in my teaching, but I think having students learn to build their own and/or code would be a fun, yet challenging learning experience. I think that trying Hour of Code or Scratch would motivate students and help to improve math skills.    

Another major topic that stuck out in the text related the creativity of game design. As gamers proceed, the curricular content is not readily apparent and gamers are more focused on completing a task instead of learning a new topic. The tools that gamers use to complete accomplish their goal can later be transferred into the classroom. Due to the high level of engagement of the game, students are more likely to recall the knowledge they learn in the game. 

I have spent the past several months considering my own beliefs about teaching and learning as I begin to refine my dissertation topic. The most common epistemologies discussed amongst my peers are constructivism and socio-constructivism, both of which situate the learner in context of their environment creating a dualism between the environment and the learner (Schuh & Barab, 2007). What I find intriguing in this study is the removal of this dualism. The learners (teachers) are not just situated with their learning environment, but agents and part of this environment (Li, 2012).  The environment does not just provide context for the learning to occur, but also shapes the environment as the learning occurs.

References

Schuh, K.L., & Barab, S. (2007). 7 Philosophical perspectives.In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., Van Merrienboer, J., and Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. (3rd ed., pp. 67-82). Routledge. 

Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: a study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research and Development. 60(5), 785-806. Springer. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9255-4

The first is related to the idea of affordance.  It was explained that affordance is rooted in “the connection between characteristics of the environment and an agent’s capacity, hence directly linking action and perception, mind and body” (Li, 2012, p. 788).  The article further explained that affordances enable understanding of one’s   perception of a specific environment and factors influencing their ability to learn through interaction with the environment.  This idea stood out to me because it reminded me of a theory in occupational therapy that considers the relationship between the person and their environment as transactive and views the individual’s context, whether it be physical, social, cultural, or environmental,  as a key factor that influences that which they are able to do, or their performance capacity.  It was explained that evaluation of affordances must also include investigation of constraints.  Similarly, occupational therapy not only includes examination of things that support an individual’s engagement and participation, but also factors that act as barriers or hindrances to their opportunities.  In both enactivism and occupational therapy, understanding of these factors in critical to an understanding of functionality.  

Another key takeaway is the benefit of game-based learning.  Li explains, “Games can enhance learning by increasing students’ interest in the subject matter and by meeting students’ needs in a more effective way” (Li, 2012, p. 789).  This stood out to me because I have recognized this to be true not only in practice, but also in personal experience.  Adding a competitive or even just a fun element to learning a topic not only increases engagement and participation, but it also results in lasting understanding of concepts.  Whenever I find that I am having difficulty remembering or understanding something, I seek out related games online, or create one of my own and find that in doing so, I am able to cut down on my study time because I am retaining more information more quickly.  

 Another takeaway for me was about collaborative, interprofessional work to address limitations in technical (or other!) skills. I think there is a lot of value in education when a teacher approaches teaching as a collaborative, interactive experience. However there must be a distinction between learning together and a teacher being unprepared. Although the constraints on prep time for teachers is an essential limit to respect, I think the culture of the environment would be enhanced when teachers use their own peers as co-creators. A school-wide culture of enactivism would likely enhance the strength of this approach across classrooms and facilitate a rich learning environment beyond individual class lessons. 

I was surprised that Li explained “research on practicing teachers’ experience as digital game designers is virtually non-existent” (Li 2012) because I took this class/major with an interest in creating educational games. I already have a love for creating math and reading educational games and saw there is a need for science games. I am surprised other teachers aren’t trying to design digital games for students. I would think teachers would be the most likely to create educational games because they are the people with the educator background and see what students need. 

My second takeaway was how we can use gameplay can improve students’ social presence in the classroom and with their peers. “Games allow high levels of positive emotional engagement and, therefore, can improve participation and achievement” (Jayakanthan 2002). As teachers, we can all agree that some students are shy and do not interact much with their peers. Gameplay gives all students the opportunity to explore, play, and learn together in a risk-free setting. Since most students are playing games in their free time anyway, we are meeting their needs and interests. This creates an environment where students are comfortable and relate to the lesson. When students are comfortable expressing themselves and sharing ideas and strategies they begin to know while doing. 

Students reaction and participation in the game creation really demonstrated how important gaming is going to be moving forward. Developing games with their classes, the teachers in the paper really saw how “the experience inevitably transformed classroom teaching from passive content consumption to active knowledge generation” (797) which allowed the students to “take ownership of learning through game development, the teachers noted that students’ learning of curriculum content had never been as motivating and honoring” (797). My favorite and most resonating reflection from a teacher was the following “Students became really engaged and proud as many told their parents, ‘‘This is the work we are doing to help Mr. Sam with his UNIVERSITY HOMEWORK!’’ (797). This is EXACTLY how my own kids feel as they have helped me through this course. They are so excited when I had questions about Minecraft when developing the lesson plans and as Deb and I develop our game, they love providing feedback and adding to the creativity. Although young, they are already engaged thought just talking about video games, not even playing them, and game based learning really needs to be seen as high engagement tool teachers should utilize in the 21^st century. 

 

Mt second top takeaway is the learning-by-game design viewpoint that was developed by Papert and discussed in this paper (Li, 2012). In my opinion, there are many teachers who could understand how gameplay can be beneficial to education. However, their view may be limited to only educational games. By allowing teachers to learn about the game design process and study COTS games, they are learning how even traditionally considered “non-educational games” can have educational value. This knowledge can translate to students as well. Once teachers realize the value of learning-by-game design, they can allow their students to explore the world of game design and use it to further their learning of the content in the classroom. 

 

Reference:

Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research & Development. 60(5), 785-806. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-012-9255-4

 

Another takeaway was the fact that the study focused on there not being only one answer. Frequently, I tell my students that there is more than one way to find an answer in order to encourage them to use different strategies. It helps promote the idea that students can learn from each other as they engage in learning about different topics. I think the concept of enactivism could promote this continual change to help evolve learning in the classroom.  

Reference

Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints 

of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research & Development. 60(5), 785-806. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-012-9255-4

Another takeaway is that “creativity emerged as another significant theme” from the conclusive data. Li further adds that game design and related experiences essentially forced teachers to “exercise creative thinking and innovative design” (Li, 2012, p. 799). Sometimes, we get so bogged down with the scope and sequences, the units, the day-to-day tasks we have, that we often have limited time to dedicate to exploring and implementing creativity. Game design offers a wealth of opportunities to think creatively, work collaboratively, and implement quickly.

All in all, the class and article have me rethinking and essentially “unlearning” what I thought I knew about gaming and realize how limited my scope of understanding was.

“While designing and building their educational games, several teachers integrated their students’ learning of curriculum and skills for the twenty-first century into the process. Engaging students in the sometimes ill-structured situations inherent in game design, the teachers observed how such authentic, real life problems inspired their students to apply newly gained knowledge. Watching their students take ownership of learning through game development, the teachers noted that students’ learning of curriculum content had never been as motivating and honoring.”

Based on this and other examples in the article, co-authoring video games is a highly engaging endeavor for students worth pursuing in the classroom. Personally, I’ve heard from parents and teachers about elementary aged students who code simple scripts on their own time that reveal understandings about content learned in the classroom.

                In this age of standardized testing, educators are concerned that students’ creativity is being thwarted because too much time is being devoted solely to content outlined in standards and to test preparation. Game design can merge creativity and content as teachers contemplate game style, storyline, characters, and game rules (Li, 2012). Involving students in the process exercises their creativity and expands the possibilities for creating a game that is fun and motivating for the intended player audience.

 

Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: a study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 785-806.

My second takeaway was how incorporating game-based learning into the curriculum, almost instantly increased student engagement and excited.  Tim, the junior high ESL teacher highlighted, described how adapting the Dungeons and Dragons board game into a digital format was so successful and increased student participation and engagement, especially in the boys.  While the curriculum my county uses is pretty rigid and scripted, incorporating game-based learning into summative assessments would be a creative and innovative way to engage all students.  I am envisioning students making a board game or digital game based on the novel they just read.  Another idea could be for students to create a math game teaching their classmates about a particular concept, rather than completing a traditional paper and pencil test at the end of a unit.  

Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research & Development. 60(5), 785-806. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-012-9255-4

            When looking at teacher creativity it stated, “When analyzing the data, creativity emerged as another significant theme. The game design and building experiences afforded opportunities for teachers, sometimes even forced them, to exercise creative thinking and innovative design.” (p. 799)  As I reflected on my own personal experiences as a teacher I found that there were many times where I chose not to utilize my creativity when creating certain lessons.  My reasons for this ranged from not having enough time to create something extensive, to the lack of available resources to use within the lesson.  However, the interesting thing about game based learning is that it allows more flexibility in creativity to close the gaps in things like available resources, but it also forces teachers to not have the option to avoid creativity in their lessons.  There are many times where we can become complacent in the content that we create and in many cases never reflect and revise.  Not to be seen negatively, but the fact that games based learning can in some ways force teachers to do the necessary revision they need to do to their lessons every year could be a helpful tool.

            The second point that resonated with me a lot was how utilizing students in game creation can increase learning outcomes.  It states, “When teachers enacted to what one might not consider the most obvious affordance of the experience, connecting to their instructional practice, the learning was at its height.  Working with students to co-design further motivated teachers to create and refine their games.” (p.802)  As I have worked with many different teachers with varying professional opinions on classroom autonomy I have noticed that there is a clear division between teachers who accept student input and those who don’t.  I am a teacher who values my students input.  It is important to note that this does not mean that every comment must be taken into consideration.  Kids will be kids and try to manipulate things at times.  However, as professionals, we are mostly able to detect the things that are genuine and those that are not.  Students are our most valuable asset in the classroom because they are the ones going through it at that moment.  Times change and so do our students style of learning.  The way I learned is going to be very different for future generations.  Additionally, our students are more in tune with the most up to date technology and can help us in this way.  Students want to do things that they enjoy in school, and our goal should be to make their learning as enjoyable as possible.  Their input can be a valuable tool in achieving this goal.