Playing Games in Teacher Education:
How do preservice teachers respond to game-based learning.
Denise Lindstrom is a professor of education at West Virginia University. In this blog post, she describes her implementation of the practice space Committee of N, a practice space designed at MIT’s Teaching Systems Lab.
Committee of N was interesting to me because it gave me hope that someone is out there thinking of ways to make school a better experience for children. (Preservice teacher Fall 2017)
Smartphones, laptops, tablets, and wearable technologies allow us to be continually immersed in an information-rich world. Each new connection to information brings new opportunities to learn. Our children learn science from YouTube, share stories with SnapChat, and play Fortnite with people from around the world. These experiences are generative, interactive, and engaging, mirroring the dynamics of play, games, and imagination (Ito, 2010. Thomas & Brown, 2011). Although the modes for learning have dramatically changed, pedagogical practices in school remain focused on traditional linear, passive, and static such as textbooks and videos. This inertia is not surprising, as teachers tend to teach the way they were taught. What would it take to mobilize the learning properties of these online spaces to make the learning in school become more interest driven, inquiry-based, and reliant on peer-to-peer learning?
One way to breathe innovation into classrooms is to model alternative modes of learning in teacher education courses through game-based learning. Well designed games share many of the attributes of innovative learning environments. Games are generative in that they can unfold in many different ways. They also provide an interactive context for players to explore their beliefs and confront misconception as players work to meet the objective of the game (Gee, 2004). With this in mind, I decided to experiment with game-based learning in my own teacher education courses. Approaching this from a research perspective, I had two main research questions:
- How do preservice teachers respond to a game based learning approach? Specifically, how do they respond to learning from game play?
- How effective is an educational game in helping students learn?
I found out about a game that has been developed at the MIT Teaching Systems Lab called Committee of N. Committee of N was designed as a way for education students to learn about education theories, the history of American schooling and instructional approaches. Here are the four domains covered by the game.
- Theories of Intelligence (i.e., Theory of Multiple Intelligences)
- Purposes of Schooling (i.e.,Elite College Prep, Student Achievement)
- Theories of Learning (i.e., Behaviorism, Constructionism)
- Instructional Approaches (i.e.Flipped Classroom, Design-Based Learning)
Normally students learn about these topics by reading about them. In Committee of N, preservice teachers learn about these topics as they work in teams to design a school using randomly chosen cards from categories that represent a different aspect of schooling. Each card has quotes that represents the concept, and it is up to the teams to research and learn about the ideas in order to design their school.
In planning for the course, I was concerned that the pre-service teachers in my introductory education course would feel uncomfortable if I only gave them the cards and the instruction to “find out more about these ideas and design a school”. I wondered how much knowledge of educational theories, history of American schooling and instructional approaches pre-service teachers needed prior to playing the game. Should I assign readings or let them find answers to their questions on their own as they played the game? Essentially, should pre-service teachers learn these ideas THROUGH playing the game instead of FOR the game.
My primary motivation for using Committee of N was to help preservice teachers to develop an appreciation for game-based learning and experience the positive effects of playfulness while learning, I wanted to avoid assigning typical tasks associated with traditional learning like lengthy reading and lectures. On the other hand, I worried that not arming preservice teachers with a basic understanding of educational theories and instructional strategies prior to playing they might become overly frustrated, undermining the motivating potential of game. Additionally, I worried that incomplete knowledge of educational theories prior to playing might reinforce misconceptions.
Despite my concerns, I decide to experiment with learning THROUGH the game. For the first round of the game I put students into pairs, provided a brief explanation of the game and told them to use the internet to clarify terminology and develop an understanding of educational theories and purposes of schooling presented on the cards.
Initially, I was pleased with the levels of engagement I observed during game play. Teacher candidates were engaged in intense discussions throughout the class session. These conversations primarily revolved around their own schooling experiences and personal theories about how people learn best. I also circled the room providing reassurance when they were on the right track, redirecting and providing additional resources to students developing what I preservatives to be a misconception. As I circled the room, I noticed that the game was helping pre-service teachers to make connections between educational theories and their own schooling experiences. I was thrilled. As I teacher educator I often modeled collaborative learning experiences in my teacher education, but this level of engagement during committee was higher and more student driven.
At the end of the class session I had each pair share their favorite design solution with the class and then reflect what they learned during game play using the following prompt
Name your favorite Theory of Intelligence, Purpose of Schooling, Theory of Learning and Instructional Approach. Explain your choices.
Did you get cards that seemed to mesh well together? Explain.
Did you get a set of cards that seemed too contradictory to design a school with? Explain.
Overall, student reflections demonstrated these preservice teachers were developing a working knowledge of educational theories and while there was evidence of misconceptions and incomplete understandings, it was clear the game had captured their interest and seemed that I had achieved my primary goal for playing the game; developing a interest to learn more about educational theories and instructional approaches. An example student reflection is included at the end of this blog post.
For homework I asked my preservice teachers to choose their favorite value from each of the categories and bring a design solution based on those choices to the next class session. During the next class meeting, I put preservice teachers into groups of four to shared their designed solutions and work together to design a school. Again, I was impressed with the levels of engagement as students argued for particular approaches and comprised until agreement was reached on a single design solution. Each group created a promotional video for their school design solution and presented them to the class. Example Promotional Video: Thomas Edison School of Thought
My observations and interactions with student during game-play indicated that Committee of N helped to achieve my goal of providing preservice teachers with a playful learning experience to cultivate their interest to learn more about educational theories and instructional approaches. However, to determine the success of my implementation of Committee of N and I needed to investigate the experience from the perspective of preservice teachers. So I asked them to respond to the following prompt:
If I were to use Committee of N again for an learning segment designed to introduce and develop preservice teachers understanding of educational theories and instructional approaches, what should I do differently? Specifically, at what point do you think it would be best to Play Committee of N? Why?
After reading and rereading student responses to the prompt several themes emerged.
Theme 1: Student enjoyed playing Committee of N (13/19).
- I liked being able to work with a partner and create something,
- It was motivating to research/discover the philosophies and terms for ourselves.
- I liked playing Committee of N first and then moving to teaching philosophies.
Theme 2: Committee of N helped them learn about educational theories and instructional approaches (11/19)
- I felt it provided a lot of helpful information and a greater understanding of all the processes involved in teaching and designing a classroom setting. Doing the research on my own did help me to understand the material a bit better.
- The exploring aspect of Committee of N was a good way to introduce the theoretical side of learning and how theories are incorporated into designing schools (I hadn’t really given that topic much thought before). The game helped me get a foundation for writing my teaching philosophy.Active researching and learning what the different theories and terms meant.Connecting the ideas to form coherent principles regarding the particulars of school operation.
- I think that overall Committee of N was good for starting the discussion about educational philosophy and teaching models, as well as how they can be applied in a school and how they can work together.
Theme 3: Most students felt they needed more information about educational theories and instructional models PRIOR to playing the game (16/19).
More specifically, some students stated they felt lost or confused:
“I did not have much prior knowledge about these topics, so I felt slightly lost but I feel having a little more background, or at least some resources given to understand the material, would have been helpful.”
“It was confusing to play the game without knowing anything about it, but we figured it out fairly quickly. It’s ok to play it first, We were all very confused and had no idea what we were doing!”
“Also, I think it was confusing to use the word “game.” I didn’t fully know we were playing the game when it started because I was expecting an interactive game with peers in the class.”
“A couple of the times, I felt like we were just kind of making up what we thought the definition meant instead of actually knowing what the concept was.”
“It took me a while, however, to realize this was the purpose of the game, and maybe this was your intention.”
Others indicated that it was too hard or time consuming to look up information on their own or make connections between concepts:
“I think the game would have been easier for me to play and understand if I was taught what the theories/philosophies mean before playing the game.”
“I felt like we spent too much time looking those up while playing the game and then looking them up again when we made mistakes when using them the first time around.”
“I just wish I would have had a little bit more specific background information.I think it would have been easier to jump in and see connections between the different aspects of the game.”
“Our team spent most of our time researching what the terms meant, and not constructing our school designs. If there were articles to read or brief summaries of the terms that we could have accessed before playing the game, I think that would have made the game more enjoyable and more productive in the learning process.”
“I had a hard time with the game because I did not have prior knowledge of many of the theories and concepts. I had to constantly look up definitions, and that took away from actually playing the game.”
“….trying to teach ourselves some of the trickier concepts by googling didn’t always go so well.”
“I felt like a lot of our time as a group was spent researching the topics themselves instead of considering how they fit with the other concepts, which was probably where the designers wanted more of the focus to be. Even providing a generic glossary with a bit of background would have been helpful to reference so that someone who picked up the game for the first time would have this to refer to.”
One complained that the game did not help them “memorize” information:
“Going further, I still feel like I need more experience with the theories and models. I still have to look up the definitions and read examples.”
One student response implied that having to look up information on one’s own was an indication of disorganization on the part of the instructor:
“I think it would have been a little more organized if we would have had more information before we started playing the game.”
I was surprised to learn students experienced these kinds of frustrations during game play. But I am intrigued by the contradiction in students perceptions that learning THROUGH the game was effective and an aversion to the time consuming and sometimes frustrating process that often accompanies self-directed learning.
According to Gee (2004) good games for learning are characterized by providing players with a pleasantly frustrating experience. If preservice teachers are going to adopt game-based learning in their future teaching practice it is essential that preservice teachers develop positive attitudes about game-based learning. The driving question for my next implementation of Committee of N is:
How can I scaffold student knowledge about educational theories and instructional approaches to provide a better balance between teacher guidance and self-directed learning in my next implementation of Committee of N?
TO BE CONTINUED…..
~~~~~~~~~~~~Example of a student reflection~~~~~~~~~
My favorite theories that we worked with were: Social Constructivist: because I liked thinking of the students as connecting with others both in their classrooms and communities. I liked considering how much more you can learn through interactions with other people than you can on your own.
Tabula Rasa: I think that it is extremely important to consider when thinking about creating a school. If knowledge comes from experience, then the students will learn whatever you expose them to. Thinking about their education as a blank slate really resonated with me.
Project Based Learning: kind of goes along with social constructivist. I think that the best way to learn is to complete hands on activities and to actually apply the concepts that have been learned. Learning through doing is a lot more fun and interactive than just reading and writing.
Life Adjustment and Purpose: it’s important to remember that not all students come to school with prior basic knowledge, and many do not have the motivations that bring them success. I think it’s extremely important to remember that factors such as these should not be taken for granted. I think it’s super important to instill a sense of purpose into our students.
I think that we got cards that seemed to kind of build off of each other. When we were designing our different ideas, we started with the main concept and just added on ideas to create something bigger. For example, since we needed an extracurricular activity that was centered on vocational education.
I think that we got cards that seemed to kind of build off of each other. When we were designing our different ideas, we started with the main concept and just added on ideas to create something bigger. For example, since we needed an extracurricular activity that was centered on vocational education, we simply created a club that would explore various vocations and careers that incorporated the other two elements.
I don’t think that any of our cards produced contradictory ideas. The only questionable one was creating a building design that had a “Bulwark of Democracy,” which we interpreted quite literally by building a fence or wall around or school to promote safety and justice. Our other elements were geared towards communication and social connections, so it was a little difficult to find a way to incorporate a “defensive wall” that still incorporated openness.
