My Final Thoughts and
Personal Recommendations
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.
Many of the proponents of game-based learning urge school officials and teaching communities to adapt games to their lesson plans. While there is research supporting their opinion, there are many problems with the current research. This section discusses the holes in research and offers some suggestions to fill them.
Many of the proponents of game-based learning urge school officials and teaching communities to adapt games to their lesson plans. While there is research supporting their opinion, there are many problems with the current research. This section discusses the holes in research and offers some suggestions to fill them.
Room for Improvement
1. There is a lack of cohesion in game-based learning research. While some central figures like James Paul Gee, Eric Klopfer, Henry Jenkins, David Shaffer, and Kurt Squire work closely together in different university programs, the majority of the movement is focused in individual research projects with little open source. Numerous terms with similar meanings make research confusing, and the vast genres and uses of games has led to fragmented research that does not build on itself (de Freitas 2006). The games that are created for research are also rarely distributed or made public.
2. There is a lack of strong empirical evidence. Current studies have very small sample sizes and many do not use accurate control groups (Young et al. 2012). For example, how does a game compare to the lecture of a very engaging teacher? Few studies control for a student’s background in technology, which might affect a student’s outcome. Since it is difficult to perform research in schools, many of the research studies have strong selection bias as students must volunteer to participate and selection of schools is limited (Squire 2011). One literature review found that only 39 articles met their criteria for credibility out of 363 articles (Young et al. 2012).
3. There are no best practices for implementing game-based learning. While there have been many instances of games facilitating higher orders of learning, best practices for replicating that success are not established.
My Suggestions
1. Continuing grants from the National Science Foundation, who has been a fundamental patron for game-based learning, and encouraging bipartisan nonprofit initiatives like Digital Promise will help facilitate game-based research. While some may look to the large gaming companies for participation, it is important to remember that “the high cost of game development and uncertain markets for educational innovations make investments too risky for both the video game and educational materials industries” (Federation of American Scientists 2005).
2. Game companies can contribute by providing modification tools in their games that allow educators to shape games to fit their lesson plans. For example, Minecraft developers partnered with a team of educators to create MinecraftEdu, a Minecraft modification that gives teachers more features and tools to use the game in the classroom at a discounted price. Valve, the developers of the popular commercial puzzle game Portal, has also teamed up with educators. Not only are teachers and game developers working together to create lesson plans for Portal, but Valve also provides Portal 2 and the puzzle maker to educators for free.
3. Open source is key. We have so many different terms for the same concept it is extremely confusing to understand, especially for non-gamers. Universities can really facilitate a national movement by allowing the games they create to be open to the public. The University of Virginia has also been excellent about this with their game UVa Bay. They are currently working on creating a generalized template so the game can be developed for any watershed and be open source to other universities. ARIS an open source platform for developing mobile learning games, also takes this to heart in their development. ARIS allows educators to build their own mobile games and tailor them to their curriculum requirements and class structure.
4. For those interested in implementing pilot programs, professional development for teachers is imperative. Research has repeatedly shown that game-based learning works best with a teacher acting as a facilitator for reflection, discussion, and critical thinking (Klopfer and Yoon 2005, Sandford et al. 2006, Squire 2011, Steinkuehler et al. 2012). However, teachers need to be shown how the game can work for them, rather than forcing them to work with the game. Squire’s team quickly realized a rigid game-based lesson plan did not work; teachers use games in different ways to suit their teaching style and the needs of their students (Squire 2011).
Many teachers have perfected their craft with decades of experience, and “attacking educators’ current practices combined with the lack of acknowledgment of current best practices only hinders the growth of the education sector” (Klopfer and Yoon 2005). Offering professional development ensures that the teachers are comfortable with the technology to use it in the most effective manner. As Squire clearly puts it, “We may not know how any one teacher should do his or her job, but we can provide that teacher with the resources to transform individual teaching practices as he or she sees fit” (Squire 2011).
2. Game companies can contribute by providing modification tools in their games that allow educators to shape games to fit their lesson plans. For example, Minecraft developers partnered with a team of educators to create MinecraftEdu, a Minecraft modification that gives teachers more features and tools to use the game in the classroom at a discounted price. Valve, the developers of the popular commercial puzzle game Portal, has also teamed up with educators. Not only are teachers and game developers working together to create lesson plans for Portal, but Valve also provides Portal 2 and the puzzle maker to educators for free.
3. Open source is key. We have so many different terms for the same concept it is extremely confusing to understand, especially for non-gamers. Universities can really facilitate a national movement by allowing the games they create to be open to the public. The University of Virginia has also been excellent about this with their game UVa Bay. They are currently working on creating a generalized template so the game can be developed for any watershed and be open source to other universities. ARIS an open source platform for developing mobile learning games, also takes this to heart in their development. ARIS allows educators to build their own mobile games and tailor them to their curriculum requirements and class structure.
4. For those interested in implementing pilot programs, professional development for teachers is imperative. Research has repeatedly shown that game-based learning works best with a teacher acting as a facilitator for reflection, discussion, and critical thinking (Klopfer and Yoon 2005, Sandford et al. 2006, Squire 2011, Steinkuehler et al. 2012). However, teachers need to be shown how the game can work for them, rather than forcing them to work with the game. Squire’s team quickly realized a rigid game-based lesson plan did not work; teachers use games in different ways to suit their teaching style and the needs of their students (Squire 2011).
Many teachers have perfected their craft with decades of experience, and “attacking educators’ current practices combined with the lack of acknowledgment of current best practices only hinders the growth of the education sector” (Klopfer and Yoon 2005). Offering professional development ensures that the teachers are comfortable with the technology to use it in the most effective manner. As Squire clearly puts it, “We may not know how any one teacher should do his or her job, but we can provide that teacher with the resources to transform individual teaching practices as he or she sees fit” (Squire 2011).