Barriers to Implementation
This page is a sub-section of the Games in Education series; to visit the main page, please click here. All referenced games are listed in the Games Archive.
As with any change in education, there are multiple barriers to implementation. This section covers several of them within the school, within the industry, and within our culture.
Barriers Within The School
1. Schools are wary to purchase material that is not relevant to standardized tests and not in line with curriculum requirements.
2. Teachers are wary about mandated change and technology. Not only do they have a requirement to help students pass the state test, but they must cover all the curriculum content on time.
3. Teachers may not have the professional development needed to incorporate games into their lesson plans, and they might find it difficult to implement a game in a 50 minute period.
4. Students also come with different games and technology proficiency. While some may play games consistently, some may feel uncomfortable with the technology. A discomfort with technology may backfire on any potential learning (Sandford et al. 2006).
5. Games can also be expensive to maintain or purchase. However, many have found a way to get around this cost, such as pairing students to one computer (Squire 2011), using free browser games (Mitgutsch and Alvarado 2012), or creating applications for the smartphones that many students already own (Klopfer and Yoon 2005, Squire 2011).
2. Teachers are wary about mandated change and technology. Not only do they have a requirement to help students pass the state test, but they must cover all the curriculum content on time.
3. Teachers may not have the professional development needed to incorporate games into their lesson plans, and they might find it difficult to implement a game in a 50 minute period.
4. Students also come with different games and technology proficiency. While some may play games consistently, some may feel uncomfortable with the technology. A discomfort with technology may backfire on any potential learning (Sandford et al. 2006).
5. Games can also be expensive to maintain or purchase. However, many have found a way to get around this cost, such as pairing students to one computer (Squire 2011), using free browser games (Mitgutsch and Alvarado 2012), or creating applications for the smartphones that many students already own (Klopfer and Yoon 2005, Squire 2011).
Within the Industry
1. Many gaming companies do not see value or profit in educational games, meaning the development is left largely to independent designers and research organizations.
2. It is very difficult for organizations to test their products as there are many barriers to conducting a pilot study in a school (Squire 2011).
3. Even when granted access, researchers may be confronted with strict acceptable-use policies that prevent them from accessing the internet (Evans).
4. Technology is constantly evolving. If a game has a long production time, it may be outdated when it is finally completed.
2. It is very difficult for organizations to test their products as there are many barriers to conducting a pilot study in a school (Squire 2011).
3. Even when granted access, researchers may be confronted with strict acceptable-use policies that prevent them from accessing the internet (Evans).
4. Technology is constantly evolving. If a game has a long production time, it may be outdated when it is finally completed.
Within Our Culture
1. Many parents, teachers, and administrators may view games as a waste of time, violent or addicting. However, when this perception is overturned, parents and teachers can become invaluable facilitators. MIT, for example, implemented a handheld scientific investigative game called Mad City Mystery, in which both teachers and parents participated with students. The success for this game largely revolved around the facilitation these adults provided (Squire 2011).
2. Even if one sees the potential of game-based learning, they may not see the classroom as an ideal location for gameplay. For example, one may claim school is for learning, not engagement. They fear the constant growth of entertainment and believe it could be detrimental to a student’s self-motivation and work ethic, claiming that school should not be in charge of entertaining children. However, it is exactly this label of “entertainment” that serious games (games that have a purpose other than entertainment, such as education or training) are trying to discard. Games for the classroom are not provided as a source of entertainment, though they may be engaging and compelling, but as learning tools that improve traditional education and produce 21st century skills. Bringing games to the classroom also brings the possibility of teaching children to respect digital media, practice internet safety and establish gameplay boundaries.
3. Some argue that the virtual world is just that—virtual. They are concerned that the skills and concepts learned do not apply to the real world like they do in the game. Indeed, “if a learner never realizes how this virtual experience relates to real-life experiences, then the game playing will have been engaging but not productive” (Barab 2009). This is a healthy skepticism, and it must be firmly stated that game-based learning rarely occurs without an engaged teacher that can encourage discussion. Students need to reflect on what they have learned and discuss it to facilitate collaboration and communication skills. In that regard, games are meant to fit into the teacher’s lesson plan and not the other way around.
2. Even if one sees the potential of game-based learning, they may not see the classroom as an ideal location for gameplay. For example, one may claim school is for learning, not engagement. They fear the constant growth of entertainment and believe it could be detrimental to a student’s self-motivation and work ethic, claiming that school should not be in charge of entertaining children. However, it is exactly this label of “entertainment” that serious games (games that have a purpose other than entertainment, such as education or training) are trying to discard. Games for the classroom are not provided as a source of entertainment, though they may be engaging and compelling, but as learning tools that improve traditional education and produce 21st century skills. Bringing games to the classroom also brings the possibility of teaching children to respect digital media, practice internet safety and establish gameplay boundaries.
3. Some argue that the virtual world is just that—virtual. They are concerned that the skills and concepts learned do not apply to the real world like they do in the game. Indeed, “if a learner never realizes how this virtual experience relates to real-life experiences, then the game playing will have been engaging but not productive” (Barab 2009). This is a healthy skepticism, and it must be firmly stated that game-based learning rarely occurs without an engaged teacher that can encourage discussion. Students need to reflect on what they have learned and discuss it to facilitate collaboration and communication skills. In that regard, games are meant to fit into the teacher’s lesson plan and not the other way around.