Differentiation is a buzz word in the modern education world. It comes in the context of student centered instructional strategies. In the world of teaching, that means thinking about what students will do and what the teacher does to facilitate this process. Outcomes and objectives are formed in this same way: Students will be able to (SWBAT) … with the objective finished by a descriptive verb that in the best instances describes also the process(es) by which the students will demonstrate the desired outcome. With the advent of differentiated student centered instruction, there are often a list of several processes by which students will demonstrate the desired verb/outcome. I am admittedly, citing from my own experience, Teach for America's extensive curriculums, and probably a large library of teaching books that I have read in the past for years that have become a part of my “educator mindset.”
The point I am making is that differentiation is no new concept. However, how to apply to digital learning games is a relatively new challenge. Serious Games are at a young stage of development, and it is likely impossible to create a different game for every learner at this stage. Therefore, we must work as researchers and designers to, in the words of Teach for America, “have the most significant impact with the smallest amount of effort.” This is not about being lazy. This is about being strategic. There are a great many problems in education today. Tackling them, even in digital games, requires this mindset.
In the end, what it goes back to is user-centered design—or in this case, student-centered design. We must target the appropriate students and tailor the instructional design and game design to allow the best learning experiences. In the best instances, games will be adaptable to some degree, enabling the game to positively effect the highest number of learners possible within the context of a single game. This is the goal. So how do we get there?
First, you must target the students you want the greatest learning to occur. This may be urban bilingual high school students in Chicago, young children of recent refugees in Lansing, or at-risk rural Ohio 4th graders in the Appalachian region of the state. Each of these groups will have different needs, different intelligences, different learning styles, and different personalities (Felicia et al, 2008). Within these groups, the range of these features will also be different from school to school, classroom to classroom. What Felicia et al proposes is to do what good teachers have been doing every year on the first day of class. Get to know your students! As a game designer for an educational game, your players (and they are your players) are your students. You cannot teach them, motivate them, or design for them if you do not know them.
What do you ask? You ask questions about playing styles, personality, intelligences, and interests (Felicia et al, 2008). There are many inventories out there for this exact purpose, designed for classrooms that could also be used in formative research for game design. I've taken, for example, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I am an introvert, intuition, feeling, perceiving personality type (though I am on the border of judgment), which is called INFP. A game or game task designed for me is going to be very different from someone who is extrovert, sensing, thinking, judgment (ESTP). Same if you use the 5 factor. I have a high level of openness and conscientiousness. A game that appeals to this creativity and self-directedness in me, will be to open ended for someone on the opposite end of the personality spectrum. This is important to take into consideration! Also, what player styles are there? My second year in the classroom, one of my eighth grade classes was divided on gender lines: boys were achievers/killers and the girls were socializers. To create the ideal learning experience for all of my students (as these styles also align with learning), I had to offer choices, not just one lesson. Consider the average for your subgroup, but be aware that sometimes the average is not enough. Who else can you create tasks for that will be motivated by games? Felicia et al attemtps to walk you through this process. However, I got the impression there is still much work to be done to perfect differentiated games.
As for motivation, once you've got a target audience, motivation is key. Games provide motivational opportunities for many kinds of players. Asgari et al, breaks motivation down into Game Features that one should take into account, along with their players, when designing games. These are Learning Features, Structural Features, Technical Features, Individual Features (true tailoring), Social Features, and Emotional Features. These all influence motivation in learning and playing games. If you address your players learning through these features, you create more opportunities for motivation. (Asgari et al, 2008). However, remember again one size does not fit all. Though games, for example, can have social features and many students find this motivating, designing an MMO experience for introverts is not likely going to be as appealing as a single player experience for this personality type.
On other words, remember that games are for players. Learning games are for learners as players. To do the best work, get to know for whom you are creating the learning experience. I say this from experience: the days where my lessons blew up in my face the most, were the days I managed to create a lesson that was designed more for how I learned than how my students learned. Being an introverted teacher with a very extroverted class, it was challenge to design compelling learning experiences. It must be done with care and constant reflection on the students.
Works Cited
Asgari, M, & Kaufman, D. (2008) Motivation, learning, and game design. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp 1166-1182)/ Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Felicia, F., & Pitt, I. (2008). Harnessing the emotional potential of video games. Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp 893-910) Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
No comments:
Post a Comment