Skip to main content

Teachers Need To Level Up Too



When considering a digital game based learning curriculum, there are potentially many barriers. Curriculum requirements, game content, accessibility, and community support to name a few. But what about the teachers themselves? What kinds of teachers are using games in their classroom? Could the teachers be a barrier to the digital game based learning (DGBL) curriculum? An article I read last week from edutopia.org called “Strategies to Level Up Learning” by Matthew Farber briefly addressed some of these questions while examining a 2014 report titled “Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games.” The article really piqued my interest because I am very interested in how adults are navigating DGBL as learners and also in teaching scenarios. The teachers who use DGBL in the classroom are referred to as GUTS or NUTS game-using teachers or non-game using teachers. I find it interesting how the teachers were classified and defined in a way that may affect DGBL. It’s easy to think of DGBL for elementary school in so many ways about children, but it also appears to be of utmost importance to include adults and teachers in order to understand a more complete picture of DGBL for K-8.

Source:Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games

How teachers are characterized

The instructors surveyed were categorically profiled and defined as “Dabblers, Players, Barrier Busters, and Naturals.” The article did not go into great detail about these profiles, but it did mention the disparity between teachers that play games and use games to teach in the classroom 78%, versus non-game using teachers only 55% use games in the classroom. A simple solution, as Matthew seems to suggest, is to lower the barriers for non-game using teachers. Such as the use of trustworthy platforms for educational games. Or to provide a “common discourse” about games for non-game using teachers so teachers can simply become educated about how and why games can be used in the classroom. These are definitely ways we can move forward with DGBL for non-game using teachers, but there are still concerns with teachers ability to know enough about the games without actually playing them. Is it still too much to ask teachers to “playtest” games before implementing them into the classroom? I would ask the same question about textbooks. Would we expect a teacher to implement a text without reading it first?


Ways for teachers to “level up”

Perhaps we can assume non-game playing teachers, through “common discourse,” could be assimilated into digital game culture, making them more likely to appreciate and play games. Matthew does bring attention to this briefly by mentioning gamesandlearning.org. However, this site could be so much more if it had forums and other ways to connect socially. The site appears to only be a service to provide information and news. Wouldn’t these teachers like to connect and talk about games? This question brought me back to the original report. I wanted to learn more about these “Dabblers, Players, Barrier Busters, and Naturals. After scanning the information provided about these profiles, I found the “Barrier Busters” most interesting in regards to “common discourse.” These teachers face the highest number of barriers to DGBL curriculum than any other profile, but somehow they overcome this. How and why? The study offers several hypotheses to explain this, further research would be required to reach any conclusion. However, I found “professional development,” as the “Barrier Busters” frequently cited as engaging with (more than any other profile) may be a good place to start. Assuming professional development helps one become a member of a community of practice, or affinity space, this could create opportunities to network and build confidence in implementing DGBL curriculum.

References:
Matthew Farber February 5, 2015 Strategies to Level Up Learning

Takeuchi, L. M., & Vaala, S. (2014). Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

VR ‘Redefining’ How We Design

SAMR: REDEFINITION. Image courtesy of Christina Moore 2017. In recent years virtual reality (VR) technologies have gained popularity for enhancement of a myriad of industries and experiences. It’s hard to dispute VR has the potential to transform. It’s exciting to consider exploring these technologies for the purpose of education, but before putting VR into practice in the classroom, it’s important to apply the study of theory to VR potential. The SAMR model (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition) is a great way to apply rather basic theory to VR tech. Although it’s possible VR practitioners and learners can traverse SAMR, based on how VR is used, “redefinition” may be the most impactful way to demonstrate use of these technologies for learning. Redefinition, in regards to SAMR, refers to the ability for technology to “create tasks and ways of learning that were previously inconceivable.” (Technology Is Learning 2014) From the perspective of a CAD and Int
Post a Comment
Read more

How Discourse and Creativity Express Meaning

Moving from literacy and ‘new literacies’ to D iscourse. In chapter one of New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning Ed by Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel . I learned about literacy as a historical concept and a social practice. I also learned about new literacies as ‘paradigmatic’ and ‘ontological’ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 27). In chapter two I began to learn more about literacy as a social practice through Discourses and encoded texts. “Hence, literacies are ‘socially recognized ways in which people generate, communicate, and negotiate meanings, as members of Discourses, through the medium of encoded texts.”  (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 50). As a social practice one can think of literacy as observable ‘things’ humans do with their bodies and minds to create meaning. Lankshear and Knobel cite the work of Scribner and Cole to describe these practices as “consisting of three components: technology, knowledge, and skills. (ibid,: 236)”
Post a Comment
Read more

The Everyday Remix Practices of Teachers: A Critique of Christopher Emdin: Hip-Hop and the Remix of Science Education

Christopher Emdin: Hip-Hop and the Remix of Science Education UC Denver digital storytelling students wishing to comment on this critique:   Although I would love it if everyone had the time to watch the full youtube video, you can get ‘the just’ of this remix practice within 5-10 minutes of watching if you would like to participate in comments. Please don’t shy away because of the length of the video. Critique Format As part of the continued practice in digital storytelling, in INTE 5340 MA ILT at CU Denver, I will consume digital stories and offer critiques. Until now the course has focused on Jason Ohler’s assessment traits as criterions to assess stories. For the remainder of the critiques in the course, I will focus on “everyday remix practices” as described in the Lankshear and Knobel text New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning Third Ed by Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel , on pages 127-140. Introduction In efforts to transition and answer so
Post a Comment
Read more