Video Gaming for Higher Order Thinking

I plan to evaluate the potential of video games to foster engagement and improved performance on assessments (particularly of higher-order thinking skills) among secondary school students and to determine what software exists, is in development, or could be developed that would facilitate the use of gaming to that end. I plan to evaluate the potential of computer-based games to foster engagement and improved performance on assessments, particularly of higher-order thinking skills, among secondary school students and to determine what software exists, is in development, or could be developed that would facilitate the use of gaming to that end. This problem seems to lend itself to a quantitative design. Questions can be divided into quasi-experimental and non-experimental categories. I. Quasi-Experimental Questions: These questions are best answered through an experimental design, but true experimental groups cannot be easily assigned in the school setting intended for this study. A. Do students demonstrate more engagement (on-task behavior) when learning activities are game-based? (Difference Question: This is an observable behavior that can be monitored and documented during game-based and more traditional lessons.) B. Do students taught through game-based learning experiences outperform those taught through more traditional instructional methods? (Difference Question: Assessments of experimental and control groups’ performances can be compared .) II. Non-Experimental: Some of my questions could be answered by either experimental or non-experimental study. Others are best addressed through survey. A. Ex Post Facto: Past studies may help to answer these questions: 1. Do students demonstrate more engagement (on-task behavior) when learning activities are game-based? (Difference Question) 2. Do students taught through game-based learning experiences outperform those taught through more traditional instructional methods? (Difference Question) B. Survey: 1. What are students’ feelings about, perceptions of, gaming in the classroom? (Descriptive Research Question) 2. What are teachers’ feelings about, perceptions of and anticipated problems with implementing gaming in the classroom? (Descriptive Research Question) I am finding that this problem is pretty complex. In any experimental approach, there will be many variables to account for. As I conduct research, I hope to find that some of my questions are addressed adequately in the literature, so that I might narrow the focus of my study. One question that I expect might be answered almost entirely through a review of related literature and similar investigation (How would I categorize a search on Amazon, eBay, or at Best Buy? Would such investigations inform my review of related literature?) is: What software exists, is in development, or could be developed to facilitate student engagement and performance? I also need to research assessment designs that can measure higher-order thinking skills such as application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Again, I hope that I can narrow the scope of my problem through my investigation of related literature, in order to focus on a single question in the final design. I am now beginning to question whether I will be able to find any educational game software that focuses on the higher-order thinking skills that interest me. Computers are not truly thinking machines, so most computer learning software is rote focused. I hope I am not painting myself into a corner with this topic. I can envision a game that would fit this bill, but there are few that I know of, none of which fit into the "educational" genre. This begs the question, would students using entertainment game software for learning demonstrate greater motivation and performance on higher-order thinking assessments than peers taught an equivalent lesson without gaming software? Although many entertainment video games may lack intellectually challenging content, and others may contain content that is inappropriate for a school setting, there are others (For example: strategy games, construction games, simulations) that may have great merit as teaching tools. I am very interested in any insights and advice anyone may have, particularly regarding focusing my topic.

Playing to Learn

In Behaviorism in Practice , I mentioned a game called Typing of the Dead.  I love to play games, and believe we have only begun to tap their potential as learning and productivity tools.  So I have decided my research focus should be on gaming to learn. 

Born in 1969, I witnessed the evolution of the personal computer. When I was a child, a computer was, at least in my imagination, a room full of beeping steel cabinets studded with flashing lights and slowly spinning reels of magnetic tape, tended by white coated scientists in sterile and secure government facilities as it performed mathematical calculations. I remember the introduction of TRS-80s in school, and the first home game consoles. These machines promised a new era for education, but what fascinated me at the time were the new games that allowed you to “play the TV.” I remember the appearance of Pong (computer table tennis) at the arcade and on joysticked home consoles, and the accelerating evolution from 8 bit graphics (See the circle eat the dot!) to today’s immersive “virtual reality” gaming environments. For the most part, my parents and their generation considered these games a complete waste of time, even an abuse of the powerful technology that made them possible. But others felt that computer gaming could be a valuable learning medium. When I became a teacher, one of the first things I “splurged” on with my new “adult” salary was a Playstation game console with a copy of the hit game Tomb Raider. At that time, the new 3-D environment seemed so vast and immersive that I feared I would get lost, so I fell back on my travel experience and bought a guidebook with walkthroughs for every level of the game. Reading and playing, I worked my way through the game, dedicating unconscionable hours of study and repeated effort to meet every challenge and explore every corner of that magical digital world. That year, a few days after I finished the game, I discovered that I had a student in detention for some recurring behavior problem that I cannot now recall. He was amiable enough, for a student in detention, and we ended up talking about video games. He, too, was playing Tomb Raider, but he was stuck at some puzzle about a third of the way through the game. I gave him a tip to help him get past it and, when he asked me how I had figured that out, told him I was using the game guide. We ended up establishing a contract stipulating that I would lend him my game guide if he would extinguish his undesirable behavior. He ended up doing fairly well in my literature class, and even better in the game, and he thanked me for both—especially the loan of the game guide which, he confessed, he had relied on heavily. And that made me think. These game walkthroughs, especially in those early days, were filled with fairly complex technical writing. And mine, being cheap, had little in the way of illustrations. It occurred to me that my student had demonstrated diligence, reading comprehension, and application of what he had read in completing the game. If he had applied these abilities to his studies, I thought, he could easily have earned an “A.” I wondered if it would be possible to design learning games, focused on our curricular goals, which would be as appealing and sophisticated as Tomb Raider. Unfortunately, as computer games had evolved greatly, learning games failed to compete in quality with games designed purely for entertainment. Of course, there were plenty of education games on the market, but most were poorly designed, with low production value and correspondingly low appeal. Even the best games seemed to do little to encourage the higher-order application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills that I seek to foster in my students (Paul, 1985). As a high school teacher, I wanted to see games that dealt with the literature and thinking skills that are the foci of our system’s curriculum. Over the years I have seen evidence of progress in the development of learning games. I have also seen an increase in the relevance and perceived legitimacy of computer gaming in mainstream culture and business. I am convinced that play is not only compatible with learning, but that the primary purpose of play is learning. I use games as instruction and assessment tools in my classroom and often find that students are more engaged and enthusiastic about learning experiences when they are packaged as play. Still, I find that game software specifically designed for learning is less appealing than that which is designed strictly for entertainment, and that learning games tend to focus on mechanical skills, simple calculation, and rote memorization of isolated facts. But just as television in the 1970s was only beginning to realize its potential as an instructional medium, I believe that computer gaming has yet to reveal its value as a learning resource. I hope to investigate the potential of games to facilitate active learning among secondary school students, particularly regarding these higher order thinking skills, and what software exists, is in development, or could be developed that would facilitate the use of gaming to that end. I believe that this problem is amenable to research based on the “Guiding Principles of Scientific, Evidence-Based Inquiry” proposed by McMillan & Schumacher (2008, p. 7). This issue is significant because it could inform the development and implementation of curriculum and classroom lessons. Students may be more motivated to engage in learning experiences presented as games. Research on this issue can be linked to relevant educational theories as well. Many of the effective learning games, and recreational video games, have employed behaviorist techniques, but I believe computer games have the potential to support implementation of a wide range of learning theories, including constructivism, constructionism, connectivism, and social learning theory (Beaumie, 2001; Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2001; Palmer, Peters, & Streetman, 2007; Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). This is particularly true in relation to creative and simulation games, but any game genre has the potential to create a context in which learners can construct meaning, individually or socially. A cursory review of search terms related to my topic has revealed that others have conducted research in this field, but the ever-changing nature of technology recommends ongoing study. I believe that this research problem lends itself to the systematic data collection and logical analysis that defines research. The results will be interesting to teachers looking for ways to increase student engagement and motivation, and may well offer a vision of a major aspect of the future of educational practice. References Beaumie, K. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2001). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2008). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (Laureate custom edition). Boston: Pearson. Palmer, G. Peters, R., & Streetman, R. (2001). Cooperative learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom's Taxonomy and critical thinking instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 36-40. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.