Category Archives: Written by: Mary Patterson

Are we playing games with education?

Written by: Mary Patterson
By Mary Patterson
At the Games+ Learning + Society 2015 conference held in Madison, Wisconsin, the question was posed, “How many of you are gamers?”  I looked around confused. I didn’t notice any rumpled, thirteen year old boys who looked like they just crawled up the basement stairs. And yet, nearly every hand but mine went up. The speaker then asked, “How many of you have a game you play on your phone when you’re bored, or waiting in line? How many of you get together with friends to play cards, or dominoes?” My hand shot up and my mind was blown – I am a gamer!
In today’s society, we often think of gaming and gamers as those so engrossed in different worlds that they often leave the real one behind. However, in the United States (U.S.), 91% of children between the age of two and seventeen play video games (NPD Group, 2011) and a nationally representative study of U.S. teenagers found that up to 99% of boys and 94% of girls play these games (Lenhart, Kahne, Middaugh, Macgill, Evans, & Vitak, 2008)

So, why do we play games? We play games because they are fun! Should school be fun?

Perhaps the right question to ask is why shouldn’t schools be fun? Advantages of game play in schools are numerous:

  • Fosters patience (turn-taking)
  • Some failure is expected
  • Higher level thinking skills such as strategy are often applied
  • Cooperation is sometimes necessary to complete the game
  • Competition pushes you to new levels
  • Enables customized learning experiences


In fact, respected researcher James Paul Gee, in his book  What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy  looks at major cognitive activities including how individuals develop a sense of identity, how we grasp meaning, how we evaluate and follow a command, pick a role model, and perceive the world. He believes the 36 principles of learning in video games are the better principles of learning upon which we need to model our schools.

Games have long had a place in classrooms. How many of you remember a game center in a corner of the room for when you completed your other school work? How many of you remember making those file-folder games to demonstrate that you learned a particular concept? Then why does there seem to be a reluctance to infuse games into today’s education?

Schools today have become a very serious endeavor with some very high stakes for both student and teacher accountability.  There’s a laser focus on teaching and testing specific standards. But to me, this is where the advances in learning analytics and technology can provide teachers with robust evidence of learning. As game developers work more with learning scientists to develop effective educational games, we can use analytics to understand our learners.

Another barrier for using serious games in education is the timetable that runs our schools. Many serious games don’t easily fit into a 45 minute time block. How can schools transform traditional bell schedules? My daughter’s high school is experimenting with a block schedule similar to colleges. Perhaps this is a step in the right direction.

Educators also state that a lack of an industry standard for a rating of educational on games makes them less likely to recommend a game for the classroom. This topic was addressed by game developers themselves at the conference. Many expressed disdain for games that are marketed as educational with no real basis for claiming that label and there were vows to make changes
During a session on “Lessons Learned from Working with Educators,” the researchers stated that educators know what they want, but don’t know how to get it and developers don’t know how to engage with teachers. They suggested that teachers need a common language around games, they need administrator support, and they need to reach students across disciplines. Related to professional development, the researchers state that teachers need to experience the games first-hand in the way they will present them to their students. They need to learn by doing and they need access to resources; not a 45 minute lesson on how to play the game.

Finally, perceptions of game play need to be addressed. The idea of games in education should not be as another “add-on,” but as a pedagogy. Many of the participants in the GLS 11 Conference spoke of the social consciousness of games and how they connect people, spaces and opportunities. The winner of the Speed Run game was a serious, historical game, Czechoslovakia 38-39: Assassination by the team at AMIS. Trailer:

How do we persuade the public that kids playing games constitutes ‘real’ learning?

I left this conference with a new perspective on gaming and education. Games in learning can be so much more than that little table in the corner of the room. The latest game-based learning research white paper from Project Tomorrow entitled, “Digital Teachers, Digital Principals: Transforming the Ways We Engage Students” takes a closer look at how to enhance teacher effectiveness in integrating technology and 21st century skills into curriculum.

project-tomorrow-10-3-14.pdf
File Size: 294 kb
File Type: pdf

Download File

Dr. Jodi Asbell-Clarke Director, EdGE at TERC summed it up well, “We’re not trying to turn your students into gamers, we’re trying to turn your gamers into students.”

Educators, how have YOU infused games in education? What’s worked, and what changes would like to see? If you could design the ideal game, what would it be?

PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS!

Personalized Learning, Learning Analytics, Teacher Dashboards, Oh my!

Written by: Mary Patterson
By Mary Patterson
Personalizing learning is not a new idea; teachers have sought to design meaningful instruction to meet individual student needs for decades.

According to Susan D. Patrick, the executive director of the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, or iNACOL, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Vienna, Va., personalized learning in today’s schools essentially amounts to the “differentiation” of lessons for students of different skill levels, or efforts to help students move at their own pace. But she adds, personalized learning must also promote “student agency”—basically, giving students more power through either digital tools or other means, accounting for how they learn best, what motivates them, and their academic goals. The most effective digital tools support that purpose, she said. “Technology can help provide students with more choices on how they’re going to learn a lesson,” Ms. Patrick said. “[It] empowers teachers in personalizing learning” and “empowers students through their own exercise of choice. (Education Week 10/20/14)

Picturehttps://goo.gl/mRbgo0

As an elementary school student in the late ‘70’s. I participated in the SRA Reading Laboratory. It was personalized and individualized. I read stories interesting to me, practiced skills, took assessments and progressed at my own pace. Did I become more aware of my learning progress? Did my teacher?

Probably, not. To me, it was just a series of tasks to be completed in the classroom. Most of the assessments were either self-graded or peer graded and self-reported to the teacher. Today, SRA Reading lab still exists, but in a digital format. Instead of turning in a paper with answers to assessments, a click on the computer records student responses and aggregates data into a teacher dashboard.

So, is it this idea of using learning analytics in a teacher dashboard that holds the most promise for the K-12 space? Perhaps. According to the 2011 Horizon report, the authors indicated that the greatest promise for learning analytics will be in differentiating instruction by helping to determine individual student needs.

PictureCandice Thille

In a recent Distinguished Lecture at the National Science Foundation, Candice Thille, the founding director of the Open Learning Initiative (OLI) at Carnegie Mellon University and at Stanford University, a senior research fellow in the Office of the Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning and an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University discussed how we make use of expertise from the learning sciences to produce high-quality learning environments and how studies of student use inform both the next iteration of the environment and the underlying learning theory .
Technology today, she asserts, affords us more than access/convenience, personalization/simulation and crowd-sourcing. The Open Learning Initiative uses student data for continuous feedback loops to students, instructors, course designers and learning science researchers. Results of a study done at Carnegie Mellon University indicate that students using the OLI Statistics course at Carnegie Mellon achieved the same or better learning outcomes as the students in the tradition course in half the time (Lovette, M., Meyer, O., & Thille, C., 2008) .
This sounds great, but how will this translate to the K-12 space? Can it? Is this an answer to personalized learning? Will K-12 teachers twenty years from now assign courses to students for enrichment or remediation? Who will build these courses? As I look at this learning environment, I am skeptical.
On the student side, the current OLI platform encourages both academic and independent learners to participate. Students are introduced to a new concept, get the chance to apply what they’ve learned, receive immediate feedback and then are able to test their understanding. The activities and self-assessments, in combination with clear learning objectives, help students become aware of their learning progress. There is no instructor and no certificate or credit.

Picture

But what are the realities in a typical K-12 classroom? How does an educator craft personalized instruction for 30 to 150+ individual students, based on the data, during a forty-five minute planning period? Research has shown that adequate training, support, and time are critical components for teachers to successfully use data as a tool to guide classroom instruction and ultimately improve student achievement (Lachat & Smith, 2005; Wayman, 2005).
For a classroom teacher, another critical factor is how useful is the dashboard tool? Does the tool track data over time? For example, the data dashboard I use at the secondary level will only track students for a semester, even if it’s a year-long course. How robust is the infrastructure to run the software and have the traffic that’s desired? What are the implications of data privacy? Can teachers access data on past student performance without compromising privacy? How accurate is the perception of the data? Are multiple forms of data analyzed or just multiple-choice assessments? Does the tool assist teachers in planning for differentiation by suggesting groupings of students by mastery? What access, if any, will students have? What practices are best to teach students how to use data to guide their learning?  If the time required to engage in data-driven instruction outweighs the instructional improvements, then teachers will resist (Wayman, 2005).
The question also remains as to who would create this adaptive, deep learning content with scaffolded instruction and feedback for the K-12 space? There are currently only twenty open courses available through the OLI platform. Building these courses is time and money intensive. The OLI is a grant-funded project in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. Partners include, the National Science Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewitt Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, the Lumina Foundation, the Walter S. Johnson Foundation and the Spencer organization. Will public education ever have the substantial funding needed to replicate this endeavor?
There is no doubt that technology is influencing how we teach and how students learn. The Open Learning Initiative has demonstrated that it works for the motivated, independent college student who wants to advance or remediate their understanding, but I’m not sure that this particular model is easily transferable to the typical, American K-12 classroom.  In a recent Washington Post article, “Blended learning: The great new thing or the great new hype?,” the author cites,” when looking for strong evidence of success around this strategy for K–12 students, very little “definitive evidence” or few significant results can be directly attributed to blended learning (Sparks 2015).” It is certain that more work in this area, as well as education policy, needs to be done.

Researcher, Rich Halverson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is one who is trying to tackle this issue. Halverson and his team are trying to identify what we mean by personalized education. His project, Personalization in Practice (PIP) documents how leaders establish the conditions in schools to personalize learning for students and teachers.

They are looking to identify the routines that shape local practices, and uncover the artifacts that educators use to reshape routines for personalizing learning.  Halverson recognizes that personalized learning is not a silver bullet strategy, instead, effective personalized learning must coordinate multiple initiatives on multiple levels of the school, as a system, to reframe the routines of teaching and learning.

I am hopeful that the results from this study will help shape personalized learning in a meaningful way.

PictureRichard Halverson

Fireside chat at Games+Learning Society GLS 2015 Conference, Madison, WI.
Picture

https://goo.gl/euxN40
Teachers, what are some challenges to personalized learning that YOU think researchers need to focus their efforts on? Let’s hear your thoughts on the topics of personalized learning, learning analytics and dashboards.

The CIRCLcenter.org can help you connect with a learning scientist researcher.

PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS

Exploring New Worlds: A Teacher Attends an Academic Conference

Teachers & Researchers, Written by: Mary Patterson
By Mary Patterson

Picture

In June, I had the privilege of attending the International Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2015 conference in Gothenburg, Sweden.

For four days, I was immersed in the latest research surrounding CSCL and surrounded by experts from 31 countries and 6 continents.

According to the preface to the proceedings, “The CSCL conference has an explicit focus on how and why computer support can enhance learning processes and outcomes. The CSCL field brings together researchers from cognitive science, educational research, psychology, computer science, artificial intelligence, information sciences, anthropology, sociology, neurosciences, and other fields to study learning in a wide variety of formal and informal contexts.”

As the sole, practicing K-12 educator of the group, it was quite interesting to be granted a look behind the curtain and hear the candid comments of researchers as they talked about educators in general.

While most researchers seemed genuinely appreciative of the teachers they collaborated with, there were a few who didn’t quite get the intricacies that teaching entails. One researcher expressed their frustration with a teacher who just didn’t see the importance of a treatment and non-treatment group. The teacher insisted that all students needed the treatment! Of course! Teachers have a duty and responsibility to provide the best education for their students. It would be extremely difficult for any teacher to see a positive effect and then deny it to other students. Perhaps the researcher could avoid this difficult situation by agreeing to flip groups at some point so that all students have an opportunity to experience the treatment. Teachers are held accountable today, more than ever, for the success of their students and researchers need to understand that.

Picture

In contrast to typical teacher conferences, where teachers attend in order gain new ideas and strategies that work in the classroom, this academic conference was an opportunity for researchers to share their success and failures, get ideas about further research and network with future collaborators. I was surprised at how easily methods and results were questioned, debated and evaluated. Researchers readily admitted when they didn’t have an answer and suggested further research questions to others. I would love to see more of this at a teacher’s conference. The international and interdisciplinary aspect of the conference also contributed to the collaborative atmosphere.  Many teacher conferences are subject and even grade-level specific. Often, there are limited funds to support teacher attendance at conferences and therefore many teachers attend only local and regional conferences. I’d love to see what new ideas would come out of an interdisciplinary education conference! It was also interesting to note that the CSCL conference touted a new, interactive format. Instead of a typical paper presentation, participants listened to a quick synopsis of a paper, then sat in small groups to have discussions with the presenters while a moderator kept time and then had the groups rotate. Teacher conferences tend to be either “sit + get” or hands-on workshops where products are created. It would be interesting to see this interactive format at a teacher conference. I think there could be potential for some very rich conversations.


One area of the conference that I think could use the expertise of an educator is the Poster Session. Seriously! If any of my students put that much stuff on a poster that couldn’t be read from more than a foot away, we’d be having a serious discussion about design elements and graphic displays. While the posters were informative, I personally think that researchers could adopt the practice of, “Less is more!”   Poster sessions at a teacher’s conference are usually on actual poster-boards, (not glossy, foam-core mounted displays) and there’s usually a take-away for the teacher; a bookmark or a handout that gives the teacher information they can use later.

Academic conferences are a great way to give people a quick look at what is hot in the field. Current research poses additional questions and this leads to new collaborations and discussions. Teacher conferences are a great way for teachers to share what works in their classrooms. Teachers leave a conference with new strategies and ideas that they can easily implement immediately.  I would personally love to see more researchers attend a teacher’s conference and pitch their latest research proposal to teachers, shark tank style, in order to get valuable feedback about how best to implement their plan. Let’s work together to find the best solutions to our education challenges and questions.

PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS

Teachers, what do YOU need from technology?

Classroom Technology, Constructivism, Teachers & Researchers, Written by: Mary Patterson
By Mary Patterson
Technology is changing the way we teach and the way students learn.

When I started teaching in 1983, I had an Apple IIe and I used it to record grades, and for games like, Oregon Trail, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? and Math Blaster to stimulate curiosity and practice rote facts in a more engaging way. Thirty-two years later, I have a learning management system to track individual student progress and predict future success. We create graphs from spreadsheets, use interactive modeling or simulations, and connect with others around the world through skype, email and social media.

So, what’s next?

If we consider the constructionist and constructivist pedagogical ideas of Seymour Papert and Jean Piaget, how is all this technology helping students construct meaning? And more importantly, how can technology help us do it better?

Learning scientists are partnering with technology experts and teachers to answer these questions. Current trends in Cyberlearning include research on games and virtual worlds, data visualization tools, collaborative learning environments, intelligent tutors, augmented reality and immersive environments, embodied multimodal learning, learning analytics,
adaptive learning and more.

For instance, PIs: Karl Ola Ahlqvist, Andrew Heckler, Rajiv Ramnath of Ohio State University are exploring the idea of using online map games to generate critical thinking and impact learning about a far-away place in a tool they call, GeoGames.

The Center for Innovative Research in Cyberlearning provides a peek into the future with projects highlighted on their page http://circlcenter.org/projects/

What are YOU curious about? What learning questions do YOU need answered that would give you better insight into how students learn?  What technology do you WISH existed right now? 
Imagine turning your classroom into a planetary system or a town above an aquifer. Researchers, Thomas Moher, Tanya Berger-Wolf, Leilah Lyons, Joel Brown, Brian Reiser, from the University of Illinois at Chicago in a project titled,” Using Technologies to Engage Learners in the Scientific Practices of Investigating Rich Behavioral and Ecological Questions,”  use dynamic phenomena that are imagined to be “embedded” in the physical space of the classroom, made accessible through stationary or mobile “portals” (tablet and laptop computers, large displays, etc.) and provide continuous location-specific visualization of the phenomenon. Students collectively observe, manipulate, and chronicle the embedded phenomenon, and construct models to reflect their understandings.

In Massachusetts and Virginia, researchers, Charles Xie of the Concord Consortium and Jennifer Chiu from the University of Virginia are helping  students see science concepts in action in the real world, by developing mixed-reality technologies that augment hands-on laboratory activities with sensor-driven computer simulations in a project called, Mixed Reality Labs: Integrating Sensors and Simulations to Improve Learning.

As teachers, we are often the receivers of technology systems and learning theories.  Wouldn’t it be great to have a hand in the design of these things based on what we experience each day? Let’s start this conversation! 

Teachers, what do YOU need from technology and learning sciences?

PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS!

Enter the SHARK Tank…if you dare…

Cyberlearning, Teachers & Researchers, Written by: Mary Patterson
By Mary Patterson
In an effort to continue the researcher- teacher collaboration discussion, Principle Investigators (PIs) got to pitch their research idea to a team of educators at the Cyberlearning 2015 Conference.  The educators asked the researchers questions about time constraints, classroom management issues, student privacy concerns, and more. Finally, after much deliberation over the merits of each proposal, the educators chose their favorite proposal for imaginary funding.

So what was learned from this experience?

Researchers had the opportunity to hear how their idea was received and interpreted by the educators and this pointed a few researchers down the iteration path. Others learned how constraints in the classroom, such as how many outlets are available to charge devices, or the varying reading levels found in a classroom, can sometimes be a barrier to a successful Cyberlearning project.

The educators became better informed about some of the trends in Cyberlearning and some of the constraints of researchers such as getting IRB approval, gaining access to schools, and the time it takes to develop a concept, product for testing.

What to do, what to do?

In an article by M. Suzanne Donovan [1] , she states, “To effectively address problems in education, research must be shaped around a problem of practice. Reorienting research and development in this way must overcome three obstacles. First, the incentive system for university researchers must be changed to reward research on problems of practice. Second, the contexts must be created that will allow the complexity of problems of practice to be understood and addressed by interdisciplinary teams of researchers, practitioners, and education designers. And third, meaningful experimentation must become acceptable in school systems in order to develop a better understanding of how to effectively stimulate and support the desired change.”

1 Donovan, M. (2013). Generating Improvement Through Research and Development in Education Systems. Science, 340, 317-317. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from www.sciencemag.org

Teachers and researchers looking to establish partnerships can contact CIRCL at www.circlcenter.org
What do YOU think?   
Please send in your comments.

Teacher-Researcher Collaborations

Teachers & Researchers, Written by: Mary Patterson
by Mary Patterson

What’s in it for me? 
What does it take to make a collaboration work successfully? 

Teachers often engage in collaborative research in order to deepen and reflect on their own practice and effectiveness in the classroom. Some may be early career teachers looking to further develop their teaching repertoire of skills and some may be mid-career or later teachers who seek motivation and stimulation of intellectual curiosity.

New technologies are helping us understand more about what learning looks like, and as teachers in today’s changing world, we need the work of researchers in order to reach all students.

Research collaborations may take different forms. Some may be as simple as completing researcher surveys, interviews or allowing a researcher access to observe a class. Other collaborations may be researcher or teacher driven partnerships.

At the Cyberlearning 2015: Connect, Collaborate, and Create the Future meeting held in Arlington, VA, teachers and researchers met to exchange ideas about successful collaborations. Researchers expressed that challenges they face include finding teachers willing to partner with them, gaining access to classrooms, and privacy issues with student data. 


Teachers shared the following tips with the researchers:

  • Plan ahead, plan early.  Begin seeking district permissions and teacher support March through May. Expect to meet with teachers in the summer to plan your collaboration.

  •  Be flexible. Teacher schedules are often packed with both academic and administrative tasks.  All it takes is one unexpected fire drill to throw a monkey wrench into the day’s plans.

  • Clearly explain your rationale for research to the teachers and have actionable research questions.

  • Set up mutually-agreed upon weekly or bi-weekly meetings. Some teachers may be willing to stay late, come in early or meet on weekends. Many teachers reported that meeting during the school day (during their planning time) creates stress and is the least favorable option.

  • Explicitly state the roles and responsibilities for all parties at the outset, while keeping in mind that shifts might occur during the duration of the project.

  • Talk with the collaborating teacher in advance about age-appropriate ways to engage with students.

Quote from teacher-collaborator, Beth Sanzenbacher

Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School
“Working with Tom and his group at UIC has not only impacted how my students learn but has changed the way I teach. Collaborating with his team on their work has given me fresh insights in how I can approach other units and disciplines. What I find invaluable is the time we spend discussing larger pedagogical questions. In the day-to-day realities of teaching having time to truly think about the why’s of your work is a luxury.  The different perspectives that Tom and his team bring has made me a more reflective practitioner.”

Benefits of the Co-Design Process
As defined by Penuel et al. (2007) benefits of the Co-Design process include:

  • ·Increased ownership and agency by teachers

           Teachers became advocates and spokespeople for the innovation with in the district.

  • Teacher professional development

          Teachers had a chance to develop and refine their own ideas about teaching and learning.

Nesbitt & Thomas (1998) argue for a paradigm shift that seeks collaboration on common ground, negotiated by all practitioners:

A Point to Ponder:

“Authentic collaboration can occur only when the mutual respect and trust—between those from the dominant paradigm and those who have had to work from the margins—is sufficient to produce interaction that is naturally egalitarian, rather than mediated by vigilant awareness of status difference. (p. 32)”

Teachers and researchers looking to establish partnerships
can contact CIRCL at: www.circlcenter.org

Tell us your Stories!

Are you a teacher who’s collaborated with a researcher?  What tips would you add?
Please send in your comments.