A thought just flashed through my mind, while i was reading my communication studies package. Yes regardless of the lack of cohesion and relatedness, it just flashed through my cognitive process (or lack thereof).
A great idea for a history game! CIVILISATION - SINGAPORE EDITION!!
I remember playing Civilisation , Civilisation I, and II? back in the 90s and boy was it addictive. During the course of gameplay however, as you get carried away with looking for resources and mining for supplies, you actually get snippets of technological advancements, historical moments, building the Wonders of The World to improve your score and 'status'.
Can we perhaps in the future see a Singapore edition? Although this will not be a MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Real Playing Game) Game play can consist of students controlling natives in the island of Temasek, from the early 1700s or even earlier, adapting to the various technological changes (new fishing techniques?), to the emergence of Raffles, (send a diplomat to greet Raffles? Then open the ability to harness resources?), followed by the affects of the world wars, Japanese invasion, and finally to modern times.
The game can possibly capture the attention of the students (until expansion packs can be made...) for a short period of time, but at least they subconsciously can learn the pivotal moments and historical information that encompasses Singapore's history?
The possibilities are endless. You can even have world history running concurrently, and affecting the economic situation of the game scenario, etc, and students will then understand why their empire of Singapore is collapsing... etc.
Or wait.. what about a SIM Singapore (Remember Simcity?). Where they play the role of urban planners? The possibilities are endless....
(Eugene rubs his hands in glee...) (No i'm not heavily intoxicated with caffeine...)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Future. It scares me - Eugene's Part B
It's something to look forward to , with a classroom of the future that enables students to dictate or pace their own learning - they can decide at what pace they would want to learn a certain topic, or perhaps they would be given a myriad of interesting subjects to choose from that would be pertinent to their needs and aspirations. No streaming examinations, no classifications into the normal stream, express, etc, just self-paced.
The myriad of technologies that would be available as highlighted in the video also is something to look forward to. However i have my fears. Yes we are teaching students today to be technologically savvy (if possible), and to think critically and adapt to changes (which the video terms this world is exponentially changing). Would we be able to keep up with these changes? What happens to the institution of education and schools? With self-paced learning, students might not really need to go to school anymore. They can always do their learning at home. What becomes of teachers? Will we just become facilitators? Sitting in the comforts of our home, answering and monitoring our student's progress? How will our students be able to learn EQ, relationship management, and face to face interaction and group dynamics?
Yes the virtual world now exists for us to play out what might entail in real life. This however does not replicate or replace what really happens in the real world. Yes in WOW or any other virtual game, you can make mistakes and try again. If our students make a mistake in life, for example commit a crime, or partake in pre-marital sexual relationships and get pregnant, is there a second chance?
You cannot hit the reboot button on your pc. You cannot perform a restore function. Life carries on, with the lessons learnt and baggages carried. How do we teach these skills to our children if they have no such exposure to real lessons as compared to virtual and computer game-based learning?
With technology being the forefront of our future living and work, what happens to our sense of privacy? Will we be able to switch off and go on a holiday? Or have we already been electronically enslaven? Can we live without our phones for a day? Without text messaging for a day? How will work take place. Will our newspapers become a thing of the past? I would not trade a physical newspaper for an electronic plate which acts like a virtual screen displaying the news of the day which was what the taxi driver was doing in the video which depicts a possible Singapore in 2015. (How hypocritical, we have phones now that allow us to surf the web online)
Learning will definitely be dynamic and possibly self-paced in the future. And NIE is preparing us to learn how to harness technology alongside traditional curriculum like psychology and concepts to better equip us to handle the future of education. Even though the possiblities excite me, the myriad of changes that are about to take place scares me. Life will be come more complicated, more dynamic and exponential.
Sometimes i wish life and education were simple. I guess not.
The myriad of technologies that would be available as highlighted in the video also is something to look forward to. However i have my fears. Yes we are teaching students today to be technologically savvy (if possible), and to think critically and adapt to changes (which the video terms this world is exponentially changing). Would we be able to keep up with these changes? What happens to the institution of education and schools? With self-paced learning, students might not really need to go to school anymore. They can always do their learning at home. What becomes of teachers? Will we just become facilitators? Sitting in the comforts of our home, answering and monitoring our student's progress? How will our students be able to learn EQ, relationship management, and face to face interaction and group dynamics?
Yes the virtual world now exists for us to play out what might entail in real life. This however does not replicate or replace what really happens in the real world. Yes in WOW or any other virtual game, you can make mistakes and try again. If our students make a mistake in life, for example commit a crime, or partake in pre-marital sexual relationships and get pregnant, is there a second chance?
You cannot hit the reboot button on your pc. You cannot perform a restore function. Life carries on, with the lessons learnt and baggages carried. How do we teach these skills to our children if they have no such exposure to real lessons as compared to virtual and computer game-based learning?
With technology being the forefront of our future living and work, what happens to our sense of privacy? Will we be able to switch off and go on a holiday? Or have we already been electronically enslaven? Can we live without our phones for a day? Without text messaging for a day? How will work take place. Will our newspapers become a thing of the past? I would not trade a physical newspaper for an electronic plate which acts like a virtual screen displaying the news of the day which was what the taxi driver was doing in the video which depicts a possible Singapore in 2015. (How hypocritical, we have phones now that allow us to surf the web online)
Learning will definitely be dynamic and possibly self-paced in the future. And NIE is preparing us to learn how to harness technology alongside traditional curriculum like psychology and concepts to better equip us to handle the future of education. Even though the possiblities excite me, the myriad of changes that are about to take place scares me. Life will be come more complicated, more dynamic and exponential.
Sometimes i wish life and education were simple. I guess not.
Eugene's Part A
What are Characteristics of digital natives?
1) Children raised with the computer 'think' differently from previous generation of children. They develop 'hypertext minds, leap around, and that their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential.'
So apparently linear thought processes that are part of educational systems apparently retard learning for these students whose brains have been brought up on game and web-surfing processes.
These children would be good with mind-maps, pictorial representation in their minds,responds better and faster to 'expected and unexpected stimuli'.
These children crave for interactivity. And are not to be mistaken for having short attention spans. It's simply that the old fashioned way of thinking bores them terribly. So they choose NOT to pay attention.
The cons- Students have lost the ability to reflect on their experiences. This is because they need to be interactively engaged in activities, and multi-task. Reflections require someone to pause and think through their experiences, which is what a digital native has trouble doing.
Digital Portrait----
http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-profile-justin-video
Justin is 16, and would fit the bill of a secondary 4 student in a Singaporean school. I could identify with Justin, because he has a similar background to mine in terms of early computer introduction and interaction.
My contract school also offered animation, and 3-D modelling in school. This gave an avenue for students to explore expressions through the medium of an animation program.
Most singaporean students now also have exposure to technology just like Justin. Most children have their playstations and Nintendo DS-es by the time they are in Primary school. If we could incorporate technology and educational game play into curriculum, this would be an advantage for we could be 'speaking' their language. We cannot use linear ways of teaching or front loading anymore. We have to start using interactive ways to depart knowledge and engage our digital native students. Whether this has to take place on a gaming platform, or gaming methodologies.
And yes i'm guilty of being addicted to World Of Warcraft too in my earlier years fresh out of University. Just like Justin i spent a night or two playing it without sleep.....
1) Children raised with the computer 'think' differently from previous generation of children. They develop 'hypertext minds, leap around, and that their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential.'
So apparently linear thought processes that are part of educational systems apparently retard learning for these students whose brains have been brought up on game and web-surfing processes.
These children would be good with mind-maps, pictorial representation in their minds,responds better and faster to 'expected and unexpected stimuli'.
These children crave for interactivity. And are not to be mistaken for having short attention spans. It's simply that the old fashioned way of thinking bores them terribly. So they choose NOT to pay attention.
The cons- Students have lost the ability to reflect on their experiences. This is because they need to be interactively engaged in activities, and multi-task. Reflections require someone to pause and think through their experiences, which is what a digital native has trouble doing.
Digital Portrait----
http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation-profile-justin-video
Justin is 16, and would fit the bill of a secondary 4 student in a Singaporean school. I could identify with Justin, because he has a similar background to mine in terms of early computer introduction and interaction.
My contract school also offered animation, and 3-D modelling in school. This gave an avenue for students to explore expressions through the medium of an animation program.
Most singaporean students now also have exposure to technology just like Justin. Most children have their playstations and Nintendo DS-es by the time they are in Primary school. If we could incorporate technology and educational game play into curriculum, this would be an advantage for we could be 'speaking' their language. We cannot use linear ways of teaching or front loading anymore. We have to start using interactive ways to depart knowledge and engage our digital native students. Whether this has to take place on a gaming platform, or gaming methodologies.
And yes i'm guilty of being addicted to World Of Warcraft too in my earlier years fresh out of University. Just like Justin i spent a night or two playing it without sleep.....
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Games Games Games!!!! (I know this is a bit late, apologies)
Frankly i've enjoyed every bit of the last 3 weeks, because i guess computer games have always been a pertinent part of my life since i was a wee little lad. I grew up playing Coleco - a console game made in about 1982? I was able to play games like the Dukes Of Hazard, donkey kong, to name a few. I was in Primary 2.
Upper Primary saw Nintendo come into my life, with games like Super Mario Brothers and the Legend Of Lynx partaking my leisure time. We received our first PC when i was in Primary 5. We had our first PC, running on DOS. My first computer game was Alley Cats, and Ultima, and there was no such thing as Windows. You basically had to type commands to run games like C:\alleycats\alleycat.bat. We had to learn how to edit Autoexec.bat files and config.sys files to enable your computer to boot properly.
What's my point? My point is that games and computers have always been a part of my life. And what it afforded me was that it afforded me to fail in my exploits, and to reinforce and build on my identity of who i am. I have been playing World Of Warcraft since 2005. For the last 4 years, on and off, i've been playing the role of a healer.
I've healed various dungeons, raids, and group missions. That's my character and that's what i do best. My nurturing and healing instincts of wanting to help others and keeping others alive is what fuels me to keep playing. When i die, i know all is not lost, and i can resurrect and try again. I foster relationships with real people. I confide in them. When my girlfriend of 9 years dumped me, i played WOW. My online family grieved with me and took my side. There was no facade. Everyone accepted everyone as they were. I went on msn. I grieved. Online messengers have been part of my life since 1991 when we had Teleview and chat forums. Then came ICQ. And Msn messenger.
I saw Paul Gee's learning principals embedded in what i was engaged in.
1) I take risks - "Psychosocial Moratorium" Principle. If i fail, i just say sorry and we try again.
2) Identity Principle - i reinforce my character in game play.
3) Self-knowledge principle - I learnt to adapt to the environment, what my limitations were and how much potential i had.
4) Achievement principle - the more i quested, the more gold i had, the more raids i cooperated with people in, the better chances i had in getting better loot and rare items to don myself and upgrade myself in.
And so on and so forth. I could go on and write a whole paper on this. Which i did for my final project thesis at university.
It would be most interesting if we could go beyond the 'front-loading' principle and try to embed 'game play' principles in our teaching methodologies.
Even more so if we could design games that would have content and sufficient fun and play factors embedded so that students can be engaged and subconsciously learn concepts, theories or historical facts. A new game about the History of Singapore is due for release in the near future. I wonder whether this will be sustainable? How long can students stay engaged before they lose interest and move on?
Realistically, how can a game engage students long enough for them to acquire the knowledge and content that the teacher would like to depart. For most students, at this point of time it would be a 'one-off' experience. Yes Dafur is dying. I played it once, but that's all i was going to do. Game play was too simple, and although the content was noble, i wasn't going to re-visit it during my spare time. Would others do so?
The McDonalds game was an eye-opener. Yes we were aware of the atrocities (rumors) that were swirling around the capitalistic giants, and this had enough challenge for students to want to revisit. What do they learn subconsciously? Heaps! Micro management? Economics? And real life politic-ing.
The Wii Stations were absolutely engaging. It can teach students how to play sports, which encompasses the rules and regulations, and also the surgery station was awesome. Students can be inspired to even try a career in medicine.
I can't wait to see the day computer games take the leap into the classroom. I wonder if i can even start a CCA - Computer game play , or a WOW club, fully funded by the school, with the premise that it would help students learn to be motivated, intellectually challenged, and also learn how to EQ with one another?
I know one school has successfully won that battle. I wonder what it would take for us to win this one and change old conventional teaching stereotypes?
Upper Primary saw Nintendo come into my life, with games like Super Mario Brothers and the Legend Of Lynx partaking my leisure time. We received our first PC when i was in Primary 5. We had our first PC, running on DOS. My first computer game was Alley Cats, and Ultima, and there was no such thing as Windows. You basically had to type commands to run games like C:\alleycats\alleycat.bat. We had to learn how to edit Autoexec.bat files and config.sys files to enable your computer to boot properly.
What's my point? My point is that games and computers have always been a part of my life. And what it afforded me was that it afforded me to fail in my exploits, and to reinforce and build on my identity of who i am. I have been playing World Of Warcraft since 2005. For the last 4 years, on and off, i've been playing the role of a healer.
I've healed various dungeons, raids, and group missions. That's my character and that's what i do best. My nurturing and healing instincts of wanting to help others and keeping others alive is what fuels me to keep playing. When i die, i know all is not lost, and i can resurrect and try again. I foster relationships with real people. I confide in them. When my girlfriend of 9 years dumped me, i played WOW. My online family grieved with me and took my side. There was no facade. Everyone accepted everyone as they were. I went on msn. I grieved. Online messengers have been part of my life since 1991 when we had Teleview and chat forums. Then came ICQ. And Msn messenger.
I saw Paul Gee's learning principals embedded in what i was engaged in.
1) I take risks - "Psychosocial Moratorium" Principle. If i fail, i just say sorry and we try again.
2) Identity Principle - i reinforce my character in game play.
3) Self-knowledge principle - I learnt to adapt to the environment, what my limitations were and how much potential i had.
4) Achievement principle - the more i quested, the more gold i had, the more raids i cooperated with people in, the better chances i had in getting better loot and rare items to don myself and upgrade myself in.
And so on and so forth. I could go on and write a whole paper on this. Which i did for my final project thesis at university.
It would be most interesting if we could go beyond the 'front-loading' principle and try to embed 'game play' principles in our teaching methodologies.
Even more so if we could design games that would have content and sufficient fun and play factors embedded so that students can be engaged and subconsciously learn concepts, theories or historical facts. A new game about the History of Singapore is due for release in the near future. I wonder whether this will be sustainable? How long can students stay engaged before they lose interest and move on?
Realistically, how can a game engage students long enough for them to acquire the knowledge and content that the teacher would like to depart. For most students, at this point of time it would be a 'one-off' experience. Yes Dafur is dying. I played it once, but that's all i was going to do. Game play was too simple, and although the content was noble, i wasn't going to re-visit it during my spare time. Would others do so?
The McDonalds game was an eye-opener. Yes we were aware of the atrocities (rumors) that were swirling around the capitalistic giants, and this had enough challenge for students to want to revisit. What do they learn subconsciously? Heaps! Micro management? Economics? And real life politic-ing.
The Wii Stations were absolutely engaging. It can teach students how to play sports, which encompasses the rules and regulations, and also the surgery station was awesome. Students can be inspired to even try a career in medicine.
I can't wait to see the day computer games take the leap into the classroom. I wonder if i can even start a CCA - Computer game play , or a WOW club, fully funded by the school, with the premise that it would help students learn to be motivated, intellectually challenged, and also learn how to EQ with one another?
I know one school has successfully won that battle. I wonder what it would take for us to win this one and change old conventional teaching stereotypes?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Elearning2_PartB
The future? This reminds me of art works we used to draw in primary school. 'Imagine you are in year 2000.' or 2010. And often enough we'd see pictures of people travelling (flying more specifically) in UFO-like vehicles. now we are in 2009, and we are still stuck in jams on the roads.
The future can indeed bring many new possibilities, most of which I will attempt to embrace. I saw the concept of smarthomes in a module during my undergraduate years and I admit that I would love to have that in my future home (though it will probably burn a hole in my pocket). It can be really convenient if you have the lights switched on when you enter, music choosen according to my mood, and have items automatically added to my shopping list.
But the pervasive reach of technology can be disconcerting. While getting an sms notification that a shop is selling my shampoo at a discounted rate (yes that can be possible in the future) can be a boon, where do we draw the line between being informed, and bombarded unnecessary information. Online shopping for example can suggest items based on our initial selections. Yes, that gorgeous dress (which we do not need) may not have been found since it was the 199th item on the list. But since it conveniently appeared under 'you might like this too' and you add it to your shopping cart and have yet another item in your already overflowing wardrobe.
This module has been useful in preparing us to prepare our students for the possible future. The indiv assignment being a case in point. One way to prepare for the future and its many possibilities is to know how to use them effectively. Users need to be aware of the benefits of technology as well as its possible detriments.
Overall, I will honestly admit that I do not feel adequately prepared for what teaching will bring. I think we have not been exposed to schools and students enough and are merely absorbing theories without seeing its applicability in actual lessons. But I do believe that we will learn more on the job (:
To prepare myself, I shall attempt to play more games during the holidays. I am tempted to buy myself a wii set :D I admit it will take time before I will be convinced that games can deliver proper lessons, but I do hope that that day will eventually come.
I liked the design and layout of the COTF. Having the space segmented will definitely aid the learning of a mixed ability class. As Kapp shared, having a large space allows students to work on different tasks at the same time and in the same place. Technology can indeed help teachers cater to the varied needs of their students.
The future can indeed bring many new possibilities, most of which I will attempt to embrace. I saw the concept of smarthomes in a module during my undergraduate years and I admit that I would love to have that in my future home (though it will probably burn a hole in my pocket). It can be really convenient if you have the lights switched on when you enter, music choosen according to my mood, and have items automatically added to my shopping list.
But the pervasive reach of technology can be disconcerting. While getting an sms notification that a shop is selling my shampoo at a discounted rate (yes that can be possible in the future) can be a boon, where do we draw the line between being informed, and bombarded unnecessary information. Online shopping for example can suggest items based on our initial selections. Yes, that gorgeous dress (which we do not need) may not have been found since it was the 199th item on the list. But since it conveniently appeared under 'you might like this too' and you add it to your shopping cart and have yet another item in your already overflowing wardrobe.
This module has been useful in preparing us to prepare our students for the possible future. The indiv assignment being a case in point. One way to prepare for the future and its many possibilities is to know how to use them effectively. Users need to be aware of the benefits of technology as well as its possible detriments.
Overall, I will honestly admit that I do not feel adequately prepared for what teaching will bring. I think we have not been exposed to schools and students enough and are merely absorbing theories without seeing its applicability in actual lessons. But I do believe that we will learn more on the job (:
To prepare myself, I shall attempt to play more games during the holidays. I am tempted to buy myself a wii set :D I admit it will take time before I will be convinced that games can deliver proper lessons, but I do hope that that day will eventually come.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Elearning2_PartA
Thoughts on Prensky's article:
'Digital natives' have hypertext minds; it is not linear or sequential. For example when you are reading a text, you may wander off to certain issues along the way, and then (hopefully) return to your initial text/task.
Attention spans are apparently short but definitely not for games, or anything that interests them. Well, not different from so-called non-digital natives. If I am disinterested I tend to switch off. Regardless of whether or not I am considered to be a digital native or a digital immigrant, I believe this trait is applicable to everyone. I would consider it human nature to not pay attention when the subject/issue is not appealing.
The research for Sesame Street came up with an interesting observation: children as young as 5 can apparently strategically distribute their attention between toys and television. This suggests that even with 'distractions' they can learn as much.
I hate to be skeptical, but indeed I am. It would be of course be wonderful to have students smsing/reading a book and whatever else during lessons, yet able to absorb all the critical content/skills. But does this happen?
Come to think of it, the experiment can be seen as a similar situation in classrooms. A lesson without 'distractions' and another where students are allowed to use their mobile phones, use the internet etc. while a class is ongoing. Will they absorb the same amount of content and skills?
I suppose it brings us back to the point above - if the television (and lessons) are interesting and engaging, audience will give their full attention, even with distractions abound. How many of us refuse to pick up the phone/reply an sms during soccer? Certainly myself. Turn away from the screen and you may miss a spectacular goal (of course there are replays but the excitement comes from seeing it 'live').
So what does this mean? If students are distracted and choose to sneak an sms during our lessons or prefer to watch cars go by outside, we ought to reflect on our lessons and try to make it more engaging. It's not them. It's us.
Badly designed games?
We need real games with real content. But what content? To teach students values? E.g. they should not give up. Or content as required in the syllabus? I do think games can teach analytical skills which is useful for any subject. But delivering content/information via games for subjects like history can be difficult.
Digital Youths
Finding out about Olivia set me thinking about a few things.
I make the assumption that students without computer and internet access would find it a chore if they are to get assignments that requires them to get access. Olivia however seems to relish such activities and even uses technology for her own leisure (and I have to say going to stores to use computer and internet on the sly is indeed VERY street smart.). How many of our students are like her? Well I have no idea.
Singstat reveals that as of 2005 74% of Singaporean hh have computer access, and 66% have internet access. So in a class of 40, about a quarter will not have computer access, and a bit more will not have internet access.
How many of these students will be motivated enough to head to the school library to do their work and pick up new skills? Being my skeptical self, I'd say 50-50. In addition, they may not have the motivation but do not have the time. After all, those without computer and/or internet are likely to be from families of low SES. These students may be working part-time after school hours to earn extra incoem for themselves or their family.
I find it surprising that Olivia can personalize MySpace page because I know a lot of my peers who have computer and internet access at home do not how a hoot about CSS and HTML. It has always been my assumption that those without access would have less knowledge and skill, but she has proven me wrong. I wonder how many Olivias there are out there though. Hmmm
Application to our teaching?
To engage our digital natives, it becomes imperative that our lessons are not too structured or linear. Allow students to explore the concepts and issues in any manner they are comfortable with. Provide students with the end goal/skill which they have to acquire.
Using game techniques in lessons can also attract and appeal our students.
'Digital natives' have hypertext minds; it is not linear or sequential. For example when you are reading a text, you may wander off to certain issues along the way, and then (hopefully) return to your initial text/task.
Attention spans are apparently short but definitely not for games, or anything that interests them. Well, not different from so-called non-digital natives. If I am disinterested I tend to switch off. Regardless of whether or not I am considered to be a digital native or a digital immigrant, I believe this trait is applicable to everyone. I would consider it human nature to not pay attention when the subject/issue is not appealing.
The research for Sesame Street came up with an interesting observation: children as young as 5 can apparently strategically distribute their attention between toys and television. This suggests that even with 'distractions' they can learn as much.
I hate to be skeptical, but indeed I am. It would be of course be wonderful to have students smsing/reading a book and whatever else during lessons, yet able to absorb all the critical content/skills. But does this happen?
Come to think of it, the experiment can be seen as a similar situation in classrooms. A lesson without 'distractions' and another where students are allowed to use their mobile phones, use the internet etc. while a class is ongoing. Will they absorb the same amount of content and skills?
I suppose it brings us back to the point above - if the television (and lessons) are interesting and engaging, audience will give their full attention, even with distractions abound. How many of us refuse to pick up the phone/reply an sms during soccer? Certainly myself. Turn away from the screen and you may miss a spectacular goal (of course there are replays but the excitement comes from seeing it 'live').
So what does this mean? If students are distracted and choose to sneak an sms during our lessons or prefer to watch cars go by outside, we ought to reflect on our lessons and try to make it more engaging. It's not them. It's us.
Badly designed games?
We need real games with real content. But what content? To teach students values? E.g. they should not give up. Or content as required in the syllabus? I do think games can teach analytical skills which is useful for any subject. But delivering content/information via games for subjects like history can be difficult.
Digital Youths
Finding out about Olivia set me thinking about a few things.
I make the assumption that students without computer and internet access would find it a chore if they are to get assignments that requires them to get access. Olivia however seems to relish such activities and even uses technology for her own leisure (and I have to say going to stores to use computer and internet on the sly is indeed VERY street smart.). How many of our students are like her? Well I have no idea.
Singstat reveals that as of 2005 74% of Singaporean hh have computer access, and 66% have internet access. So in a class of 40, about a quarter will not have computer access, and a bit more will not have internet access.
How many of these students will be motivated enough to head to the school library to do their work and pick up new skills? Being my skeptical self, I'd say 50-50. In addition, they may not have the motivation but do not have the time. After all, those without computer and/or internet are likely to be from families of low SES. These students may be working part-time after school hours to earn extra incoem for themselves or their family.
I find it surprising that Olivia can personalize MySpace page because I know a lot of my peers who have computer and internet access at home do not how a hoot about CSS and HTML. It has always been my assumption that those without access would have less knowledge and skill, but she has proven me wrong. I wonder how many Olivias there are out there though. Hmmm
Application to our teaching?
To engage our digital natives, it becomes imperative that our lessons are not too structured or linear. Allow students to explore the concepts and issues in any manner they are comfortable with. Provide students with the end goal/skill which they have to acquire.
Using game techniques in lessons can also attract and appeal our students.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Some thoughts on Game Based Learning
My group had tried all the stations except the Wii Sports station. The station which left the most impression was the Wii Trauma Centre. It requires two players to operate on a patient who was attacked by a bear and in the next stage, a patient with stomach tumor. For this game, the more you play the better you will get the hang of it. This game is also collaborative in nature in which two players collaborate to perform the operation. It tests the coordination and the chemistry of the team and I think that it would make a good team bonding game. Overall, the "gaming" experience was fun and I had a totally new perspective on gaming. Gaming when utilised in a proper way can bring about more meaningful and experiential learning to the students.
I do agree with Dr Tan that most of the time, the games played would not be linked directly to the contents taught in the curriculum. It would be difficult to find a game that fits totally with the contents of the syllabus unless it is specially created for content related purposes (e.g. The World of Temasek which explores early Singapore history developed by Magma Studios). So, how can we utilise game based learning when it is not directly link to the content in the curriculum?
In this aspect, I agree with Fatma that game based learning can be used to teach students values. I think that game based learning can also be utilised to teach skills. For example, the Macdonald game which we played can be used to teach and inculcate economic and financial literacy. By playing the game, students would better appreciate the concepts of running an enterprise, bankruptcy, profit as they experience it themselves by playing the game. This is better than just giving them a lecture and handouts on what is brankruptcy, what is profit making and how to run a business. This traditional approach may bored them and they would not absorb a lot.
At the end of the day, we should not adopt game based learning for the sake of fun and entertainment in the classroom. It is also important to mitigate the negative aspect of gaming when used for education. More importantly, there should be some key take aways and these games should be beneficial to student learning. A sharing session with the students at the end of the lessons could help reinforce the key take aways.
I do agree with Dr Tan that most of the time, the games played would not be linked directly to the contents taught in the curriculum. It would be difficult to find a game that fits totally with the contents of the syllabus unless it is specially created for content related purposes (e.g. The World of Temasek which explores early Singapore history developed by Magma Studios). So, how can we utilise game based learning when it is not directly link to the content in the curriculum?
In this aspect, I agree with Fatma that game based learning can be used to teach students values. I think that game based learning can also be utilised to teach skills. For example, the Macdonald game which we played can be used to teach and inculcate economic and financial literacy. By playing the game, students would better appreciate the concepts of running an enterprise, bankruptcy, profit as they experience it themselves by playing the game. This is better than just giving them a lecture and handouts on what is brankruptcy, what is profit making and how to run a business. This traditional approach may bored them and they would not absorb a lot.
At the end of the day, we should not adopt game based learning for the sake of fun and entertainment in the classroom. It is also important to mitigate the negative aspect of gaming when used for education. More importantly, there should be some key take aways and these games should be beneficial to student learning. A sharing session with the students at the end of the lessons could help reinforce the key take aways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)