Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Educational Gaming vs. Playful Learning

1 251 vues

Publié le

Publié dans : Formation, Technologie
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

Educational Gaming vs. Playful Learning

  1. 1. What is the optimal learning state for children? Welldesigned educational games, playful learning activities, or a combination ?
  2. 2.  Flat, text-based games like Hangman or Scrabble  Rich text-based, computer-assisted games like Carmen San Diego  Immersive, virtual environment games such as Minecraft  Physically demanding digital games like Dance Dance Revolution
  3. 3.  Sociodramatic play  Behavioral therapy play  Teacher-directed games like Bingo  Total Physical Response like Simon Says  Poorly designed commercial games like Math Blasters
  4. 4.      Promotes learner autonomy & metacognition (Van Eck, 2008) Provides intrinsic motivation (Thai et al., 2009; Van Eck) Effective learning format for literacy, socialization & healthy behaviors (Thai et al.) Teaches systems-thinking & problemsolving (Thai et al) Aids retention & increases learn time (Hung, 2006; Klassen & Willoughby, 2003)
  5. 5. Rehearsal of new events, ideas, & roles (Shute, Reiber & Van Eck, 2012)  Recall for language learning (Crookall & Oxford, 1990)  Cognitive development (Piaget, 1960)  Social, emotional, physical & intellectual development (Elkind, 2007)  Behavior therapy aids children with psychological difficulties (Kaduson & Schaefer, 2000) 
  6. 6. Good game design is similar to good learning design (Shute, Reiber & Van Eck, 2012)  Interesting  Active Learning  Goal-oriented  Anchored in instruction
  7. 7. Gagne’s Nine Events of Learning Game Design (Becker, 2008) Gain Attention Motion, scenes & sounds State the Learning Objectives Rules & documentation Stimulate Recall of Prior Learning Inherent in environmental structure or through familiarity with obstacles Present Content Presentation of game via storyline, rules & affordances Provide Guidance Storyline, profiles & help sections Elicit Performance Unable to advance unless they can demonstrate understanding Provide Feedback Speech, sound, visual or motion directives Assess Performance Progression toward the end goal of a challenge Enhance Retention Interweaving of past learning experiences with new challenges
  8. 8.  Student-created games  Instructional designer designs games  Teacher-created games  Modify commercial games Children inherently know what makes a game good!
  9. 9. PowerPoint, SMART Boards, Paper-based games, & PC games
  10. 10. Gaming Playful Learning Knowledge-pull Knowledge-push (Chatti, Jarke & Specht, 2010) Teacher-directed Student oriented Barbour, Thomas, & Rauscher (2008) found no statistical significance in their literature review comparing gaming and traditional learning.
  11. 11. Teachers may design regular (nongaming) lesson plans to engender specific learning outcomes; however, where the students actually take the lesson is another thing.
  12. 12. Sandra Rogers Innovation in Learning Center University of South Alabama sandrarogers@southalabama.edu Twitter @teacherrogers
  13. 13. Becker, K. (2008). Video game pedagogy: Good games = Good pedagogy. In C. T. Miller (Ed.), Games: Purpose and potential in education (pp 73-122). New York, NY: Springer. Bikowski, D., Gardy, J., Hanson-Smith, E., Healy, D., Kuhn, J., & Rosenberg, R. (2013, March). Gaming and language learning. [Presentation] CALL-IS Academic Session symposium at the meeting of the TESOL Convention, Dallas, TX. Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. (1990). Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of techniques. TESL Canada Journal 7(2). Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Lifelong.
  14. 14. Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Lifelong. Hung, W. (2006). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 55-77. Kaduson, H. G., & Schaefer, C. E. (Eds.). ( 2000). Short-term play therapy for children. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Klassen, K. J. & Willoughby, K. A. (2003). In-Class simulation games: Assessing student learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 1-13.
  15. 15. Reiber, L. P., Barbour, M.K, Thomas, G. B., & Rauscher, D. (2008) Learning by designing games: Homemade PowerPoint games. In C. T. Miller (Ed.), Games: Purpose and potential I n education (pp 23-40). New York, NY: Springer. Shute, V. J., Rieber, L. P., & Van Eck, R. (2012). Games…and…Learning. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 321-332). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Thai, A. M., Lowenstein, D., Ching, D., Rejeski, D. (2009). Game changer: Investing in children’s play to advance children’s learning and health. New York, NY: Sesame Workshop. Van Eck, R. (2008). COTS in the classroom: A teacher’s guide to integrating commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

×