Week 11: Digital Games and Learning

To play on the computer, let along computer games was a treat back in my own schooling days, which wasn’t quite that long ago!

Since then, the emergence of not only including digital games into lessons, but also the process of gamification has changed the classroom. Games can offer a different kind of challenge to students that can result in innovative problem solving (Checa-Romero & Pascual Gómez, 2018). Students are able to take part in playing games and also designing games in the classroom.

[1] Using Scratch in class to create a story based game

Scratch is one example of a platform for game creation. Through its coding features, there is opportunity for students to create or play through an interactive story based game. Teachers may create a game based on a story or recount for a comprehension task.

[2] Screenshot: ‘Sortify: Nutrition’ on BrainPOP – sorting foods into food groups and being given points based on accuracy.

There are pedagogical issues that educators should consider. For instance, tt can be easy to simply use games to increase engagement or interest in a lesson, but there should be a purpose for its incorporation. Thus, when incorporating digital games into a lesson, teachers should consider Gee’s (2005) ‘Learning Principles in Good Games’. With a vast range of games available ranging from the simplest games such as ‘Sortify: Nutrition’ , or more complex like ‘Minecraft’, there are several criteria that should be considered. This includes whether students are involved in production over consumption, if the game can be customised to the many learning ability and styles of students and if there is enough challenge to result in student satisfaction when the game has been finished (Gee, 2005). This results in teachers needing to also utilise their creative autonomy to customise or tailor games or activities to their class and lesson, so that they are implemented effectivevly.

Would any digital game you personally enjoy be useful in the classroom?

-Charity

Checa-Romero, M., & Pascual Gómez, I. (2018). Minecraft and machinima in action: development of creativity in the classroom. Technology, Pedagogy And Education, 27(5), 625-637. doi: 10.1080/1475939x.2018.1537933

Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Retrieved from: http://dmlcentral.net/wp-content/uploads/files/GoodVideoGamesLearning.pdf

Week 4: Scratch

Scratch was one visual programming interface that we encountered during our tutorials.

It was almost a flashback to early high school, experimenting on Scratch but not really knowing what to do. In a way, it’s a great to finally know what Scratch is capable of in terms of computational thinking and creativity.

In class, we learnt to create a simple number guessing game – involving block coding of variables, sprite movements, ‘ifs’ and ‘whats’. For a program that appears child and student friendly, and inviting, creating the code was bewildering in the best way.

It was in these many options and choices that creativity is first found. Creativity isn’t limited to simply choosing different colours, images, sounds or ‘sprites’ in the case of Scratch. Creativity can be deeper than what is on the surface – it is also what’s inside.

Scratch allows for creativity to start with basic customisation in regards to aesthetic components like the colour of backgrounds and the images/sprites used.

This level of activity would be suitable for any age and year group, especially for those familiarising themselves with Scratch – which can be quite overwhelming, as I experienced. Having a pre-loaded code, as we did in tutorials was helpful.

1. ‘Number Guessing’ Code Base provided by our Tutor in class

When provided with a base, students are not only able to express creativity with just aesthetics, but as they gain confidence with coding, they are able to change or ‘remix’ features of coding such as adding additional sense blocks, adjusting number range (for a number guessing game), and even adding their own personality to their characters.

2. ‘Remixed’ Code Base with extra sense code blocks, and added variables to continue the game.

The ‘remix’ feature of Scratch is one of its benefits in fostering creativity. Romero, Lepage and Lille (2017) note that in their study of computational thinking and creativity, that there must be a balance between the amount of guided structure and ambiguity in programming activities, so that creativity is allowed to be expressed. Scratch enables this balance with the ability for teachers to either provide a complete base and allow for student customisation or a very basic base for students to completely re-work. This makes Scratch a tool for use from Primary School to High School as all ranges of programming skill can be accommodated for.

Encountering Scratch after first seeing it years ago in early high school made me think of its potential use back when I was in school and how teachers could have used it in classes, such as English or HSIE. It’s great to know that today’s generations would leave school with more coding knowledge than we did. More so, it’s exciting to think what kind of technology and knowledge the future generations will graduate with!

-Charity

Romero, M., Lepage, A., & Lille, B. (2017). Computational thinking development through creative programming in higher education. International Journal Of Educational Technology In Higher Education, 14(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0080-z

c

Week 3: Micro:bit

Computers have come a long way in terms of technology and in size. We think of mobile phones as their smallest forms, but how about micro:bit?

Micro:bit is a pocket sized “micro-computer” that can be programmed for a range of creations and inventions through a block coding system (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, n.d.).

In reviewing Design Based Learning, we were introduced to Micro:bit and the moisture sensing coding.

Before diving into the depths of coding though, we were brought back to the ‘basics’ of creativity – the more hands on approach of physically building and designing a way for the micro:bit and its sensor to trigger the flow of water to a hypothetical plant.

Through several considerations of how to build a small cup water tank and how to connect this to the switch on the micro:bit, our group came up with a cup tank connected via a straw to the plant and an offset switch that would turn the angled pipe downwards and let the water flow to the plant.

There was much trial and error as there is with design based learning and this is where creativity comes in. After all, to design is to create (Schon, 1987).

Video 1: Micro:bit Trial. The water pipe is angled the wrong way!

Creativity was fostered in this activity through supply limited resources for the problem at hand. Few popsicle sticks, rubbers bands, straws, cups and (very little) sticky tape left us with our own imagination. Rubber bands took place of the tape for re-enforcements, straws became pipes and popsicle sticks were now feet.

Without scissors, the screw from the box holding the micro:bit even became a drill to form a hole to fit the straw pipe.

Creativity was fostered and almost forced – in a good way!

The question of whether technology hinders or enhances creativity is always debated. Technology has certainly “modified the creative potential” of those who engage with its many forms (Bonnardel & Zenasni, 2010, p. 180). But can providing all these options and resources that technology provides, limit creativity? Does having limited resources force ‘better’ creativity?

In the end, our group was able to successfully create a functioning water system.

Video 2: Micro:bit Success. We have water!

I believe what this activity has showed is that in both plentiful and little resources, creativity can be fostered. Whether students are able to access all the new technologies like robotics and 3D printing directly in their classrooms, or whether they are needing to share one iPad per table of students, there is an opportunity for creativity. I think this is encouraging for teachers.

What are your thoughts?

Charity

References

Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The Impact of Technology on Creativity in Design: An Enhancement?. Creativity And Innovation Management, 19(2), 180-191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00560.x

Micro:bit Educational Foundation. Meet micro:bit. Retrieved from https://microbit.org/guide/

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco: Josey Bass

Task 1: Emerging Technology Critique

Augmented reality (AR) is described by Azuma (1997) as the combination of the real and virtual world. This technology has since become available for use in the classroom. Students are able to use mobile and tablet devices to bring 3D items to life through their screen and place them in their reality. An example of this technology is ‘Quiver’.

‘Quiver‘ allows for ‘traditional’ creativity to meet contemporary and future creativity that is based in technology. Quiver “brings to life” templates which are then coloured in by students (Quivervision, 2016). Through AR, chosen colours and text become 3D and life like through the camera pointed at the 2D sheet. Traditional creativity, such as hands-on methods like colouring with pencils are the first step before the contemporary technology of AR picks up the image and gives the creation life.

Figure 1. Quiver Flag Template. March 5 2019

Figure 2. The virtual flag in reality! March 5 2019

Fostering Creativity

Creativity is fostered in AR activities with templates that are paired with related topics in the classroom. For example, in Quiver, the Flag Design and Map may be used in an H.S.I.E or geography lesson. Open ended templates such as the Flag Design and even the Volcano encourage older age students to quite literally think outside of the borders. Students are influenced to create and design to according to their own accord. AR can be motivating in the creative process, particularly in design tasks like the Flag Design (Hernandez & Duque, 2018).

Figure 3. The AR Volcano. March 5 2019

Pedagogical Issues

McCormack and d’Inverno (2012) raise the question of whether contemporary technologies limit or defer creativity and this question can be applied to AR. Despite opportunities for students to exercise creativity in applications like Quiver, there are still limitations. McCormack and d’Inverno (2012) echo this sentiment as they find technology making “creative decisions” for users. Similarly in other augmented reality applications such as ‘Shapes 3D’, the AR items have already been provided by the developers, leaving students with limited creative autonomy. To use AR like these in the classroom would be a complimentary activity in an environment where student engagement would be the priority, as opposed to student creativity.

AR has evolved since Azuma’s (1997) time and it is likely that it will continue to improve in its use in the classroom in encouraging creativity. Perhaps the technology that allows full autonomy in creating augmented items has not yet been made available in the educational sector. Hopefully one day students will be able to create without literal borders.

Azuma, R. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators And Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385. doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355

Hernández, C., & Duque, E. (2018). Creative Workshop Based on Augmented Reality for the Strengthening of Creativity through the Learning of the Design Thinking Methodology. Proceedings, 2(21), 1359. doi: 10.3390/proceedings2211359

McCormack, J., & d’Inverno, M. (2012). Computers and Creativity: The Road Ahead. In J. McCormack & M. d’Inverno, Computers and Creativity. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

QuiverVision. (2016). Home – Quiver 3D Augmented Reality coloring apps. Retrieved from http://www.quivervision.com/