{"id":6168,"date":"2016-05-02T16:36:16","date_gmt":"2016-05-02T16:36:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2016-05-13T13:26:03","modified_gmt":"2016-05-13T13:26:03","slug":"teaching-to-teach-with-game-design-game-design-and-learning-workshops-for-preservice-teachers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-16\/issue-1-16\/general\/teaching-to-teach-with-game-design-game-design-and-learning-workshops-for-preservice-teachers","title":{"rendered":"Teaching to Teach (With) Game Design: Game Design and Learning Workshops for Preservice Teachers"},"content":{"rendered":"
Digital game design (referred to simply as \u201cgame design\u201d throughout this article) has been commended as an authentic and meaningful method of teaching students thinking skills (Akcaoglu, 2014; Anderson & Barnett, 2011; Li, 2012). Learning game design has also been linked with important learning goals, such as improvements in science knowledge (Hwang, Hung, & Chen, 2013), math concepts (Ke, 2014), and motivation to learn (Vos, van der Meijden, & Denessen, 2011).<\/p>\n
For young students, game design tasks have been found to be good contexts conducive to practicing and developing complex problem-solving skills, which are difficult to situate in K-12 learning environments (Akcaoglu, 2014; Akcaoglu & Koehler, 2014). Despite the scarcity of research and training opportunities, game design tasks can also help preservice teachers both to engage in critical thinking and problem-solving skills and to learn an effective pedagogical approach for teaching these skills (Li, Lemieux, Vandermeiden, & Nathoo, 2013).<\/p>\n
Integrating games or game design activities into regular classroom contexts is a challenging task and does not always lead to success due, in part, to the existing culture and perceptions surrounding games (Kenny & McDaniel, 2011). While students extensively engage in game-related activities outside of school, teachers tend to see games as noneducational rewards (Becker, 2007; Li et al., 2013). In addition, most teachers do not know the pedagogical potential and benefits of using games in education (Li et al., 2013).<\/p>\n
Similar to in-service teachers, preservice teachers fall behind in terms of their knowledge of games and game design. According to Kenny and McDaniel (2011), preservice teachers often feel negative about games. For instance, 75% of the preservice teachers in their study indicated that they would rather do other things than play games, and 60% did not see how games could be used in classrooms. As such, it would be unreasonable to expect preservice teachers to consider game design as a viable instructional method, especially if they lacked positive attitudes toward games and the awareness of their educational potential.<\/p>\n
Perceived value of instructional technologies determines teachers\u2019 decisions to use them (Kenny & McDaniel, 2011). Initiatives in teacher education programs to use games and game design in classroom are, therefore, an important step to support the preservice teachers\u2019 development in attitudes, pedagogical knowledge, and technical skills (Li et al., 2013). Considering that (a) preservice teachers are not very familiar with games and their potential in classrooms and (b) preservice years significantly impact future teachers\u2019 teaching practices (Anderson & Barnett, 2011), future teachers should have opportunities to see how games and game design can be used to create effective instructional activities (Kenny & McDaniel, 2011).<\/p>\n
Earlier research indicated that game design courses may help preservice teachers develop more positive attitudes toward facing challenges, problem-solving, and design process (Li et al., 2013). However, how their experiences with learning game design may differ and how they might develop instructional strategies using game design are yet to be examined.<\/p>\n
In this study, a workshop to teach basics of game design and ways to integrate game design into various school content was offered to a group of preservice teachers as a means to familiarize them with both the process of designing games and the pedagogical affordances of game design tasks. The focus of this study was twofold: (a) examine preservice teachers\u2019 experiences during a game design workshop and (b) evaluate the lesson plans they created to understand how effectively they were able to integrate game design into their courses. Given the limited research and educational programs preparing future teachers to teach (with) game design, our primary purpose was to provide insight into the implementation of the game design and learning workshop.<\/p>\n
Review of Literature<\/p>\n
Learning Outcomes From Designing Games<\/p>\n
Design tasks make good contexts for complex problem-solving (Bonnardel & Zenasni, 2010; Goel & Pirolli, 1992). Solving complex design problems requires the problem solver to bring together a number of interrelated variables to produce artifacts (Simon, 1995). During this process, problem-solving, problem-finding, and inquiry skills are practiced (Kafai, Franke, Ching, & Shih, 1998; Smith & Boling, 2009). As engaging contexts to give students opportunities to practice design and problem-solving skills, game design activities have been increasingly used by researchers and educators as contexts to teach important thinking skills (e.g., Akcaoglu, 2014; Baytak & Land, 2010, 2011; Denner, Werner, & Ortiz, 2012; Hwang et al., 2013; Kafai et al., 1998; Li et al., 2013).<\/p>\n
Akcaoglu and Koehler (2014), for instance, conducted a quasi-experimental study in which a group of middle-school students participated in an afterschool game design course focused on designing games and solving complex design problems. Compared to a control group, the students who attended the workshops showed significant increases in their system analysis and design, troubleshooting, and decision-making skills.<\/p>\n
In another study, Denner et al. (2012) analyzed the games created by middle-school students and observed that game design activities helped students who had no programming backgrounds to acquire basic programming concepts. In a recent study, Ke (2014) found that through game design activities, middle-school students developed more positive attitudes toward learning mathematics. Further, the study by Vos et al. (2011) showed that students who actively worked on designing their own games had higher levels of intrinsic motivation and deep strategy use than did their peers who only played games developed by others.<\/p>\n
Despite the increasing attention from both researchers and educators to use game design to teach important thinking skills, research on how preservice and in-service teachers learn to use game design in their own teaching contexts is scarce. Research is especially limited regarding understanding and analyzing teachers\u2019 experiences during their game design and learning process.<\/p>\n
Game Design by Preservice Teachers<\/p>\n
Although using game design has potentials and benefits in teaching, preparing preservice teachers to employ it in their future practices can be challenging. Even though preservice teachers could be considered enthusiastic users of new technologies (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008; Dutt-Doner, Allen, & Corcoran, 2005), they rarely see how to incorporate them effectively in their future practices (Albion, 2008; Kumar & Vigil, 2011). Successful technology integration goes beyond technology knowledge but necessitates \u201ca nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between technology, content, and pedagogy\u201d (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).<\/p>\n
Effective technology integration requires an understanding of the affordances of technology and pedagogical strategies in relation to maximizing student learning. Expert teachers with such a developed understanding can often repurpose the use of technology to support their teaching approaches as a means to further their students\u2019 learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2009, p.16). Novice teachers, on the other hand, are not likely to execute such effective teaching decisions due to their limited teaching experiences (Le Maistre & Par\u00e9, 2010).<\/p>\n
Using game design in lessons may even be a more challenging technology integration practice for future teachers for several reasons. First, only a few teacher education programs and limited resources are guiding future teachers\u2019 game design activities (at least, that was the case when last documented by Becker, 2007), and gaming devices are among the least frequently used technologies by preservice teachers (Hur, Wang, Kale, & Cullen, 2014).<\/p>\n
Second, incorporating game design into educational contexts requires a complex technology-integration process (Akcaoglu, in press). As an innovation, game design is more than a technology but a learner-centered pedagogy that promotes design and problem-solving skills through the creation and representation of artifacts, rules, relations, and ideas in the form of a game (Kafai et al., 1998; Simon, 1995; Smith & Boling, 2009).<\/p>\n
These complexities likely add to the requirements of teaching with game design and call for further preparation of preservice teachers. For example, planning and conceptualizing games, knowing and teaching how to use software to program games, connecting the game design principles with content, and still promoting relevant design and problem-solving skills can be challenging tasks for novice teachers. Thus, preservice teachers need help in becoming familiar with the game design process, understanding the complexities inherent in design and problem-solving, and finding meaningful ways to use game design in their teaching.<\/p>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/p>\n
Constructionism<\/p>\n
Game design and learning workshops are grounded in constructionism. Constructionism as a theory refers to learning, where learners create socially meaningful artifacts (Ackerman, 2001). Constructionism highlights the importance of learning to learn and to making things. Learning is necessarily situated and pragmatic. In other words, the situated nature of constructionism lets \u201cindividuals develop their own ways of thinking in given situations and nonetheless remain excellent at what they do (Papert & Harel, 1991). In all cases, situated approaches to learning revalue the concrete, the local, and the personal!\u201d (Ackerman, 2001, p. 7).<\/p>\n
Similarly, during our game design courses in the current study, learning was designed to be situated and contextualized, whereby the learners worked to create their own understanding of game design through making games, and this process may unfold differently for different individuals.<\/p>\n
Game Design as Problem Solving<\/p>\n
Problem-solving is a cognitive process whereby individuals try to achieve a goal and no solutions are apparent (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). To solve problems successfully, one must first understand a problem, create a mental or physical representation of the problem, plan a solution path, and execute the effective solution (Mayer & Wittrock, 2006). Problem-solving, therefore, requires skill, metaskill, and will (Mayer, 1998), where skill refers to cognitive skills, metaskill refers to metacognitive skills that help individuals plan and monitor the use of skills, and will refers to an individual\u2019s interest in solving the problem.<\/p>\n
Design tasks are ill-structured problems (Bonnardel & Zenasni, 2010; Jonassen, 2011). While providing various learning experiences for each individual, the nature of designing games and playing games reflects a problem-solving process, which involves identifying problems and generating, justifying, and evaluating solutions. Game designers start the design process by determining the goal of the game, which entails developing the problem that players would need to work on. In other words, they reverse-engineer complex problems.<\/p>\n
The problem can be well defined and lead to one solution or ill defined, requiring the completion of more complex tasks for multiple solutions. The designers, accordingly, set the rules and provide opportunities for players to engage in various activities toward accomplishing a goal (i.e., solving the problem).<\/p>\n
The players also go through a problem-solving process by generating and trying solutions to accomplish the goal. During this process, the players evaluate their solutions at hand and choose others based on the outcomes of their actions. These outcomes are developed by the designers, who plan what the players encounter next based on their tried solutions.<\/p>\n
Pedagogical Elements for Teaching With Game Design<\/p>\n
Due to the inherent connection between problem solving and game design, designing games for teaching purposes requires not only the knowledge about games and game design as a technology but understanding the pedagogical elements to support students\u2019 problem-solving skills. Research studies on preservice teachers\u2019 game design experiences (i.e., Li et al., 2013) and studies on preservice teachers\u2019 technology-enhanced lesson plans (i.e., Kale, Wu, & Convey, 2013; Ozogul, Olina, & Sullivan, 2008) provide a useful guide to identifying such elements.<\/p>\n
Li et al. (2013) developed a pedagogical rubric to examine the educational aspects of games designed by preservice teachers. While the focus of the rubric was to evaluate the characteristics of educational games created by teachers, various categories in the rubric highlight thinking, exploration, inquiry, active learning, reasoning, and strategy skills also inherent in the problem-solving processes. Additionally, collaboration and motivation, among the categories of the rubric, likely influence students\u2019 engagement with the learning process as they solve problems. As such, they should also be taken into account when teaching with game design.<\/p>\n
By using Mishra and Koehler\u2019s (2006) technological pedagogical content knowledge framework (later referred to as technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, or TPACK), Kale et al. (2013) and Ozogul et al. (2008) developed rubrics to examine preservice teachers\u2019 technology-enhanced learning activities. These rubrics did not specifically address game design as a technology, but the categories emphasized the importance of student content learning. While problem-solving skills can be promoted through game design, the subject matter to be learned or taught is still important (Mishra & Koehler, 2009). As such, the understanding of how to contribute to students\u2019 content knowledge should also be part of the pedagogical approach behind teaching with game design.<\/p>\n
Purpose<\/p>\n
Given the limited research on preservice teachers\u2019 experiences in game design (Li, 2012; Li et al., 2013), in this research we attempted to provide a detailed account of both the design and implementation and the outcomes from our Game Design and Learning workshop for future teachers. Specifically, we sought to evaluate the participants\u2019 ability to integrate game design in their lesson plans and examine their experiences over time during the workshops. The research questions guiding this study were as follows:<\/p>\n
\n
To what extent were the pedagogical elements supporting student problem-solving present in preservice teachers\u2019 lesson plans?<\/li>\n
What were preservice teachers\u2019 experiences with learning game design over time during the workshop?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Methods<\/p>\n
An exploratory case study (Yin, 2003) guided the research design. We collected data in the form of postworkshop reflections and lesson plans. We grouped and reported our findings around cases for each research question.<\/p>\n
Game Design and Learning Workshops<\/p>\n
As a first step in exploring and developing methods to support preservice teachers\u2019 efforts to teach with game design, this study focused on implementation of a game design workshop, called Game Design and Learning (GDL). Particularly, we offered six game design sessions, each of which was 3 hours long. Based on early research on designing game design curricula (Akcaoglu, in press), the first three sessions focused on teaching participants the basics of game design and programming (Table 1).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Table 1<\/strong> \nGDL Program Session Progression<\/p>\n
\n\n
\n
\n
Session(s)<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Objectives<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
1-3<\/td>\n
Practice basics of: \n1. game design \n2. programming \n3. game design software (Microsoft Kodu)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
4<\/td>\n
Practice: Game design integration into lesson: using game design to teach problem-solving<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
5<\/td>\n
Explore: Sample lesson plan integrating game design, student brainstorming<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
6<\/td>\n
Create and Share: Participant lesson plans<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n