Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education (2015) 23(2), 241-267
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-based Learning Mamta Shah and Aroutis Foster Drexel University, USA
[email protected] [email protected] Research about teachers’ knowledge of game-based learning is in its infancy. Fourteen pre-service teachers completed a methods course, which prepared them in game analysis, game integration, and ecological conditions impacting game use in school contexts using the Game Network Analysis (GaNA) framework. Surveys and tests were administered in a mixed-methods study to assess participants’ acquired knowledge of GaNA. Additional data were solicited using background surveys and focus group interviews to understand participants’ thoughts about game-based learning. Data were analyzed using t-tests and thematic analysis. Participants demonstrated statistically significant gains on the constructs of GaNA. Participants also reported changed thoughts about the processes for incorporating game-based learning in K-12 classrooms. This included insights about teacher roles, game selection, and contextual factors for successful adoption of games in schools. GaNA may be beneficial for advancing the work of both teacher educators and researchers in developing and assessing novice-expert teachers’ competence in adopting game-based learning.
Introduction Game-based learning, understood as “integration of games or gaming mechanics into educational experiences” (New Media Consortium, 2014), is a promising instructional approach for advancing student learning in varied
Shah and Foster
242
academic domains (Young, et al., 2012). Research has shown that teachers can play important roles in enhancing the learning and motivational effectiveness of game-based learning for students. However, there is a need for empowering teachers with the pedagogical competence for integrating games into classrooms (Gresalfi, Barnes, & Pettyjohn, 2011). This issue is compounded further as teacher preparation in game-based learning is a developing area of research without many pedagogical frameworks available for aiding teachers in using games to teach (Franklin & Annetta, 2011; Takeuchi & Vaala, 2014). We argue that a systematic framework for developing and assessing teachers’ knowledge in game-based learning is needed. Such a framework should focus on (a) building teachers’ knowledge and skills in game analysis, (b) game integration, and (c) the ecological conditions impacting game use in school contexts, the three main factors that affect teachers’ adoption of games in the classroom. Thus, in this paper, we report on the use of the Game Network Analysis (GaNA) framework, a methodological process for aiding teachers in introducing game-based learning in classrooms. Review of Literature Teachers are known to play several pedagogical roles in game studies, including observing students’ game-play, scaffolding, serving as a consultant to students, and providing them with meta-cognitive aids. For instance, Eastwood and Sadler (2013) examined how three teachers who implemented a game-based biotechnology curriculum structured the order of game play, the nature of instructional activities, and the amount of self-directed and teacher-guided learning by considering the affordances and constraints within their individual classroom contexts. In another study, Silseth (2012) documented how teachers performed several roles including (a) being an expert guide to help students navigate the nuances of the game and make connections with the learning objectives, (b) adopting multiple pedagogical approaches (e.g. instruction, discussion, observation) to invoke student reflection and provide feedback, and (c) aiding students to understand the relevance of their knowledge beyond the course. Thus, teachers, as the primary implementers, have the potential to augment the effect of games on students’ interdisciplinary knowledge construction and motivation to learn. In addition, Eastwood and Sadler (2013) argue that helping teachers make connections between the game and other aspects of the curriculum is essential. Thus, teachers may need systematic guidance in acquiring knowl-
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
243
edge of the game in the context of its use, the skills to integrate the game in the curriculum, and the ecological support to facilitate a game-based classroom. Factors Affecting Teachers’ Adoption of Games in Schools Teachers experience multifaceted barriers when attempting to incorporate games into the classroom, which may explain the gap between teachers’ desire and practice of using games for teaching and learning. These factors broadly focus on teachers’ ability (a) to analyze the educational potentials of digital games for inclusion in the classroom, (b) to integrate video games into the existing curriculum, and (c) to account for ecological conditions impacting the use of games in school contexts. Analyzing Games Teachers need to acquire game literacy in order to teach meaningfully with games. This includes a balanced knowledge of four forms: (1) students’ everyday knowledge including their knowledge of the game, (2) knowledge about the pedagogical practices in the school, (3) content knowledge, and (4) knowledge which is specific to the game (e.g. relevant game dynamics, genre, specialized knowledge embedded in the game) (Hanghøj, 2011). Therefore, a teacher must be able to analyze a game for technology, pedagogy, and content in order to determine whether the game has content at a good enough level and supports appropriate pedagogy (Foster, 2012). However, teachers have expressed difficulties in identifying games that are relevant to their curricula (Fishman et al., 2014; Koh, Kin, Wadhwa, & Lim, 2012). Teachers’ poor understanding about games and their potential for opportunities such as role-playing, strategizing, and higher-order thinking are known to fuel reluctance among teachers to use games in their instruction (Rice, 2007). Integrating Games Knowledge of a game is important, but insufficient for incorporating games within a new or existing curriculum. Watson and colleagues (2011) have emphasized the importance for teachers to be able to identify ‘teach-
244
Shah and Foster
able moments’ during gameplay and learn strategies to connect in-game and out-of-game elements to support students’ personal engagement with the curriculum. However, teachers’ efforts at incorporating games in their curriculum have been described as insufficient (e.g. only for drill and practice) and ineffective (e.g. applying games via trial and error) (Takeuchi & Vaala, 2014; Kenny & Gunter, 2011). Ecological Conditions Impacting Game Use Teachers experience technological, organizational, and social issues in school contexts that they must navigate in order to successfully teach using digital games. High processing modern games conflict with dated computers in schools (Rice, 2007). Poor technical infrastructural issues, inadequate resources, and high game costs pose common deterrents (Koh et al., 2012). Furthermore, teachers have reported a lack of support from school administration and researchers have observed teachers not being freed from their schedule to participate in learning about implementing games (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010). Lastly, teachers’ use of games is limited by pressures of content coverage, preparing students for high-stakes testing, and classroom set up and management issues within school day schedules that are constricted for the integration of complex games (Ritzhaupt, Gunter & Jones, 2010). Scholars have argued that teacher development is a key factor in the success of using video games as learning tools (Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Koh et al., 2012). Consequently, it is important that teacher education in gamebased learning addresses the aforementioned issues experienced by teachers in order to facilitate the adoption of game-based learning in schools. Specifically, teachers’ efforts at adopting game-based learning can be sustained if teachers’ (a) knowledge of games and their pedagogical possibilities is facilitated (Koh et. al., 2012), (b) skills at using games for achieving desired learning goals are developed (Ritzhaupt et al., 2010), and (c) competence in navigating the contextual conditions impacting the use of games in schools is enhanced (Demirbilek & Tamer, 2010). Teacher Education in Game-Based Learning Teacher education in game-based learning is in its infancy particularly at the pre-service level (Franklin & Annetta, 2011). According to Hammond
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
245
and colleagues (2009), early preparation is a crucial period for teachers’ development of technological competence and skills. However, studies involving pre-service teachers have mainly focused on understanding their perceptions of games as educational tools. Findings from these studies imply that future teachers, despite positive views about games and early informal exposure, are skeptical about the use of games in their future practice (Hayes & Orhnberger, 2013). This reluctance can be attributed to limited training in (a) recognizing content and pedagogical facets of games (Can & Cagiltay, 2006), (b) facilitating the implementation of complex games (Sardone & Devlin-Scherer, 2010), and (c) creating and managing game-based learning classrooms in school contexts (Ertzberger, 2009). Few studies have concentrated on developing and assessing the knowledge of teachers in game-based learning but those few partially address the aforementioned gaps for supporting the competence of teachers in game-based learning. For instance, Kennedy-Clark and colleagues (2013) offered a two-hour workshop focusing on the integration of game-based learning into inquiry learning to 18 pre-service teachers using the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework. Results from pre-post tests indicated that participants reported positive shifts in their perceived ability to integrate ICT in a classroom using TPACK, knowledge of educational games and virtual worlds, and perceptions on the use of educational games. Similarly, in a game-based learning course offered by Sardone & Devlin-Scherer (2010), twenty-five pre-service teachers were guided in documenting the characteristics of games according to the game’s playability, feedback mechanism, appropriateness to the content area and state curriculum standards, 21st century learning skills, and motivational attributes. Researchers found that participating pre-service teachers were able to identify specific 21st century skills in certain games, relate them to their content area, and contextualize them to possible experiences for their students. While researchers have investigated the factors affecting teachers’ instructional use of games and introduced digital games as tools for teaching and learning in teacher education programs, we argue that working towards synthesizing the findings, incorporating researcher arguments, and addressing the gaps is essential to the advancement of this field, both in terms of research and practice. As is evident, teacher education in game-based learning lacks a methods-based approach, which can cultivate the skills and knowledge to facilitate teachers in incorporating game-based learning in their curriculum. The Game Network Analysis (GaNA) framework is one approach that addresses some of the gaps identified and empowers teachers in adopting game-based learning within a new or an existing curriculum by guiding
Shah and Foster
246
them systematically in the process of game selection and game integration in school contexts (Foster et al., In Press.). Game Network Analysis (GaNA) GaNA is a combination of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) (Foster, 2012) model (See Figure 1) and the Inquiry-Communication-Construction-Expression (ICCE) framework (Shah & Foster, 2014). TPACK provides a lens for game selection and analysis. It helps teachers approach the game as a curriculum with constraints and affordances for technology, pedagogy, and content (Foster, 2012). PCaRD is a pedagogical model that aids teachers in the systematic incorporation of games in classrooms to achieve curricular goals and facilitate students’ engagement in academic domains (Foster & Shah, 2015). PCaRD includes the Inquiry-Communication-Construction-Expression (ICCE) framework to facilitate teacher-designed opportunities for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression experiences to foster transformative learning anchored in the game (Foster & Shah, 2015). GaNA was conceptualized to provide a methodological frame teachers need within their ecological context to focus on the pedagogy and content of games as well as the process to use and apply games in classrooms (See Figure 2). Underlying Pedagogy of GaNA Overall, GaNA empowers teachers with methods desirable for using games to facilitate student learning through the interacting constructs of game analysis, game integration, and the conditions that impact game use in school contexts (Shah & Foster, 2014). The underlying pedagogy of GaNA guides the nature of experiences teachers need to engage in, the connections that they must make, and the skills they need to hone in order to become competent in using games.
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
247
Figure 1. The Game Network Analysis Framework.
Figure 2. TPACK + PCaRD (ICCE) forms GaNA, an ecological framework to aid game integration and game analysis in school contexts.
248
Shah and Foster
Game analysis. Teachers need to be supported in approaching games as tools with cognitive, pedagogical, and experiential potentials that can be leveraged in partnership with teachers’ expertise. As a result, an integral process of game analysis encompasses practicing direct (e.g. playing the game, researching information about the game) and vicarious (e.g. observing another individual play the game) methods that can yield relevant knowledge about the game (Foster, 2012). Doing so generates awareness about the game in relation to technical requirements (e.g. platform for running the game, ease of installation), pedagogy in general (e.g. objective of the game, intended target group, customization options), and embedded content. Further documentation yields information about what technicalphysical-social infrastructure/resources will be needed to use the game. Lastly, keeping the curricular goals in mind, teachers need to examine the nature of experiences the game is likely to engage students in, focusing on whether the game can support the kinds of experiences deemed important by a teacher (Foster, 2012; Shah & Foster, 2014). Thus, the first hand assessment and detailed documentation aids teachers in better understanding the kind of curricular activities that will be required outside of the game to help students make connections between their play experience and the desired learning objectives, and facilitate students in articulating their newly formed knowledge (Shah & Foster, 2014). In summary, the process of game analysis assists teachers in game exploration, selection and evaluation. Game integration. The objective of game integration is for teachers to leverage the identified potentials of a game and augment the impact of the game on student learning through teachers’ expert intervention. The key determinants to successful game integration are for teachers (a) to learn how to use a game as their pedagogical partner that complements and extends teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge, and (b) to use the game as an anchor for facilitating a social, affective, motivational, and cognitive learning experience for students (Foster & Shah, 2015). The process of game integration needs to be iterative. It should allow for scaffolding student experiences, informing immediate and future developments in their learning trajectory through the game. Typically, this involves immersion in game playing, engagement in curricular activities that build on to students’ game playing experience, which includes opportunities for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression, followed by reflections and discussions to articulate the connections made between the game and learning objectives. Such a routine allows teachers and students to go past the novelty of learning with games and establish a structure to focus
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
249
on the learning objectives while continuing to learn through play-based activities (Foster & Shah, 2015; Shah & Foster, 2014). Ecological conditions impacting game use in school contexts. Although game analysis precedes game integration as a procedure, conceptually they occur simultaneously. Teachers must think about game integration as they analyze a game. Similarly, the process of game integration deepens teachers’ game knowledge. Another layer of expertise that teachers must add in the process is to consider the context as they make decisions in relation to game analysis and integration. The purpose of being aware and skilled in working around the conditions within the learning context to the best possible extent is to ensure that organizational infrastructure, social dynamics, and established pedagogical practices allow teachers to nurture students learning through games even when unexpected changes may be experienced (Shah & Foster, 2014). Studies on the Effectiveness of GaNA GaNA has been successfully used to support in-service teachers in urban and suburban schools in introducing game-based learning to middle and high school students (Shah & Foster, 2014; Foster & Shah, 2015). Researchers found significant knowledge gain and student interest as they worked with teachers to teach a yearlong elective game-based learning course in mathematics, physics, and microeconomics to incoming 9th graders at a public high school using educational and commercial games (Foster & Shah, 2015). In another six-month study, researchers (Shah & Foster, 2014) coached a science and technology teacher in implementing GaNA using RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 in a systems thinking course offered to 21 grade five and six students. In both studies, GaNA aided course design, implementation, and assessment of student learning. Specifically, teachers employed GaNA to analyze the games for determining the technological characteristics, pedagogical affordances, and the content that was embedded in them respective to the course objectives. Teachers used their game knowledge to develop assessments and curricular activities based on school district standards for the content area and learning opportunities afforded in the games that supported those standards. Whereas GaNA has been used successfully to support in-service teachers’ use of game-based learning in classrooms, the framework has not been applied to develop and assess pre-service teacher knowledge in game-based
Shah and Foster
250
learning. Thus, this study investigated the following research question, “To what extent does a methods course designed with GaNA impact pre-service teachers’ knowledge of game-based learning?” Methods This study is part of a larger concurrent mixed-methods doctoral research project undertaken with the objective of cultivating pre-service teachers’ knowledge and skills for integrating digital games in K-12 classrooms. This paper focuses on the effect of a methods course on future teachers’ knowledge of the core constructs of GaNA; that is, game analysis, game integration and ecological conditions impacting technology integration in education. Participants and settings A special topics elective course was created and offered for 11 weeks for developing and assessing pre-service teachers’ competence in the methods of adopting game-based learning through GaNA at a private university in a city in the mid-Atlantic area of USA in Spring 2013 (April-June). Participants were selected using convenience sampling (those who registered) from a pool of approximately 200 undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers. Only those teacher candidates who were interested in the gamebased learning elective course were registered for it. Five undergraduate and nine graduate students completed the course. The average age of the participants was 24 years, ranging from ages 18 to 45 with four males and ten females. Participants were not regular game players. The majority of them reported playing casual mobile games (e.g. Angry Birds) for less than an hour a week in order to pass time when bored. None of the participants had received prior training in game-based learning. Only four participants had completed a school practicum experience as part of their teacher education program at the time of the study. A doctoral candidate in learning technologies designed and taught the three-credits course titled ‘Integration of Digital Games in K-12 Classrooms’. The class met on-campus for a 3-hour class each week. A Blackboard Learn® course shell was also used by the participants to access course resources and submit assignments for grading. Participants also used Blackboard Learn® to perform classroom (e.g. document findings from
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
251
game analysis, reflection in PCaRD) and weekly (e.g. discussion on readings) activities. Measurement The research question was answered using qualitative and quantitative data sources such as (a) a background survey and a post-focus group interview that broadly aimed to elicit participants’ emergent thoughts about game-based learning, (b) a GaNA Knowledge survey, which assessed change in participants’ self-reported knowledge of key constructs of GaNA before and after the intervention, and (b) a Game Integration Scenario test in which participants synthesized and applied their knowledge of GaNA before, during (middle of term), and after the intervention. Background Survey. The background survey comprised 21 multiplechoice and open-ended items for obtaining information about participants’ game playing experiences and practices through items such as ‘How many hours do you play games each week?’ and ‘What kinds of game-related practices do you engage in? ’ (item taken from a survey created by Hayes and Ohrnberger (2013)). Furthermore, participants’ thoughts about the use of games in schools were recorded through the survey. Examples of items included, ‘What are your thoughts about using games in schools?’ and ‘What do teachers need to know in order implement game-based learning in classrooms and why?’ Lastly, the background survey queried participants about their expectations from the game-based learning course. Focus Group Interview. The focus group interview was created using four open-ended questions. The facilitator, an expert in qualitative research and learning technologies, asked the participants to reflect on what they learnt from the course. In addition, the focus group interview gathered data about the association students made about the potential of digital games in K-12 education and their future practice. Responses from the interview were intended to provide insight into the success of the course in educating them in the methods of using games, whether participants internalized GaNA as a part of their future goals as a teacher; and whether GaNA provided an all encompassing method for educating teachers to use games. Knowledge Surveys. The pre-post GaNA Knowledge Survey was developed to assess participants’ knowledge about the core constructs of GaNA through a 5-point Likert scaled survey form (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). It consisted of subscales for TPACK, PCaRD, and Conditions for Integrating Technology (CITE). Together, they assessed par-
Shah and Foster
252
ticipants’ knowledge of game analysis, game integration, and ecological conditions that affect the use of technology in education. The TPACK subscale titled ‘Survey of Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of Game Analysis’ (52-items) collected data about participants’ knowledge of selecting games for teaching and supporting student learning. It was created by modifying the ‘Survey of Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of Teaching and Technology’ developed by Schmidt and colleagues (2009) (46-items). The survey comprised of seven constructs for measuring TPACK (TK, CK, PK, TPK, TCK, PCK, TPCK). The PCaRD subscale, titled ‘Survey of Pre-service Teachers’ Knowledge of Game Integration’ (35-items) was created to assess participants’ knowledge of employing games for teaching and supporting student learning. The survey included items for ten constructs that comprised a unified understanding of game integration (P, Ca, R, D, PCa, CaR, RD, PCaR, CaRD, PCaRD). The acronyms for the constructs measured in the sub-scales are expanded in the appendix. The CITE survey (6-items) was created to assess participants’ awareness and skills needed to address the ecological conditions surrounding technology integration in schools. For each construct participants’ responses were averaged. For example, the questions under TK (Technology Knowledge) were averaged to produce one TK (Technology Knowledge) score. Table 1 includes examples of questions from the three subscales. Table 1 Examples of items on the GaNA Knowledge Survey Subscales/ Construct
Item
TPACK/ TK
I have the technical skills I need to use games
CK
I have sufficient knowledge about mathematics.
PK
I can adapt my teaching style to different learners in a game-based learning classroom.
PCK
I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in literacy.
TCK
I can determine the disciplinary content embedded in a game/ what content is being taught
TPK
I can use strategies that combine content, games and teaching approaches
TPCK
I can repurpose an existing game for educational use
PCaRD/P
I can use my knowledge of a game to ascertain what students are learning during play in a game-based classroom
Ca
I can develop curricular activities to support students in inquiring into concepts related to the learning objectives of a game-based classroom.
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
253
Table 1 continued Subscales/ Construct
Item
R
I can distinguish student experiences in a game-based classroom and use this knowledge to support student reflection.
D
I can use my knowledge of a game and facilitate a discussion among students related to the learning objectives of a game-based learning classroom.
PCa
I can design curricular activities that support students in transferring their experiences from play.
CaR
I can create reflection prompts that support students to examine the concepts learnt during curricular activities.
RD
I know about approaches to facilitate student discussions that support students in sharing relevant insights from their reflection
PCaR
I can support students in articulating the connections they make with play and the concepts learnt during the curricular activities
CaRD
I can support students in discussing the connections they make with the curricular and reflection activities.
PCaRD
I can lead a game-based classroom to support students in achieving specific learning objectives
CITE/ Awareness
I am aware of the possible technological conditions that influence the implementation of a game-based lesson
Skills
I have the skills to address possible organizational/structural conditions that influence the implementation of a game-based lesson
Knowledge Test. The pre-mid-post Game Integration Scenario, a 10item test, was used to collect data on participants’ emerging proficiency in using digital games, with a focus on game analysis, game integration, and consideration for ecological conditions that impact technology integration in education. The test was developed with support of an in-service technology teacher with experience in game-based learning and through consultation with a game-based learning researcher and a teacher education expert. The test anchored participants’ emerging proficiency in the core concepts of GaNA within a hypothetical, but realistic, situation (i.e., creating a gamebased lesson plan) that teachers are likely to encounter while incorporating game-based learning in their instruction. Examples of test questions included ‘Why did you select this game?’ (Game analysis), ‘How will the game be implemented?’ (Game integration), and ‘What information and resources will you need from the school to implement the game in your lesson?’ (Ecological conditions). The final question on the test pertained to all the three constructs of GaNA, ‘what, if any, opportunities and challenges do you anticipate in facilitating the game-based learning lesson?’ Questions 4-10 on
254
Shah and Foster
the test were scored using a 6-point (1-6) grading rubric. Lower scores indicated a superficial application of the construct and higher scores indicated a deeper application of the construct. For instance, the expected response for ‘Why did you select this game?’ was required to indicate that a game was selected due to its satisfactory alignment to the lesson topic/subject, learning objectives, and grade level proposed in the test. Additionally, the rationale for game selection demonstrated awareness of the affordances and constraints of the game in terms of TPACK characteristics-ICCE opportunities, developmental appropriateness, and contextual factors (e.g. cost, dependence on additional technology). Thus, the minimum possible score on the game integration scenario test was 7 and maximum was 42. The Game Integration Scenario test was developed to examine whether and how participants’ knowledge about GaNA changed over the duration of the study. However, this paper reports only on the former. Data Analysis A matched-pairs t-test was used to assess the change in participants’ self-reported knowledge on the GaNA Knowledge Survey and on the Game Integration Scenario Test. The significance level for all tests was set at p < .05. Cronbach’s alpha obtained from a split-half reliability analysis indicated that the GaNA Knowledge survey, which included the three subscales of game analysis (TPACK), game integration (PCaRD), and ecological conditions (CITE), had good to excellent reliability (See Table 2). Responses obtained from background survey and focus group interview were analyzed using thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2012) to identify shifts and insights in participants’ thoughts about (a) the use of digital games in K-12 education, (b) their expectations from the course and what they learnt from the course, (c) the knowledge and skills teachers need to implement game-based learning in schools, and (d) the use of game-based learning in their future practice.
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
255
Table 2 Reliability Co-efficient for the GaNA Knowledge Survey GaNA Knowledge Survey Subscales
Cronbach’s Alpha for Part 1 (r)
Cronbach’s Alpha for Part 2 (r)
Pre-Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Game Analysis (TPACK)
.845
.905
Post-Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Game Analysis (TPACK)
.922
.945
Pre-Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Game Integration (PCaRD)
.821
.907
Post-Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Game Integration (PCaRD)
.935
.933
Pre-Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Conditions for Integrating Technology in Education (CITE)
.750
.731
Post-Survey of Teachers’ Knowledge of Conditions for Integrating Technology in Education (CITE)
.841
.855
Procedure Measurement Procedure. In week 1, prior to the commencement of the intervention, participants were asked to complete the background survey, the Game Integration Scenario pre-test, and the GaNA Knowledge Survey. During the intervention period, in week 6, participants completed the Game Integration Scenario mid-test. In week 11, participants took the Game Integration Scenario post-test and GaNA Knowledge Survey. In the same week, eight participants voluntarily participated in a 30-minute post-focus group interview. Instructional Procedure. Typically for each week, the class commenced with a 15-20 minutes discussion of the assigned readings which focused on themes like (a) games as an educational technology, (b) using the TPACK framework for repurposing games, (c) integrating games into the curriculum through the PCaRD model and other game-based learning pedagogical ideas, and (d) issues affecting game integration in classrooms. This was followed by an individual or group game analysis activity for 40 minutes. During this activity, the participants played and analyzed a variety of games (e.g. Citizen Science, Hot Shot for Business) as a technology, focusing on disciplinary knowledge (content) and game genre as a form of
Shah and Foster
256
a pedagogical approach. Participants determined what could be learnt from specific games and documented their findings in a GaNA guide that was provided to them. Thereafter, for 15-20 minutes, participants discussed their findings from the game analysis activity using reciprocal teaching techniques. Next, the participants experienced the PCaRD model for 50-55 minutes, first as a student and then as a future teacher. This was followed by a 25-30 minute discussion that was aimed at unpacking PCaRD and issues faced by teachers in game integration. Furthermore, participants (a) using Skype, interacted with an in-service teacher who had successfully implemented PCaRD at the elementary and middle school level, and (b) were provided with exemplary cases of in-service teachers presented in empirical studies to understand the nature and relevance of teacher intervention in game-based classrooms (Eastwood & Sadler, 2013). An opportunity to interact with an expert teacher and analyzing cases provided vicarious experiences for the prospective teachers about using PCaRD, other pedagogical approaches, and the contextual factors affecting teachers in using games. Throughout the course, participants used the GaNA Guide, a template created for facilitating the completion of course assignments and in-class activities pertaining to game analysis and integration. Being the course instructor enabled the primary researcher to model, coach, and support the future teachers in developing knowledge of GaNA. The eleven weeks of the study provided the researcher with an entire academic term to scaffold and evaluate the growth of students’ knowledge in GaNA. Results Findings for the research question, “To what extent does a methods course designed with GaNA impact pre-service teachers’ knowledge of game-based learning?”, are reported below. We begin by reporting what participants expected to learn from the course. Next, the quantitative findings on the knowledge gains made by the participants in the domains of game analysis, game integration, and ecological conditions are presented. Thereafter, the interpretive findings that illustrate the evolution of participants’ thoughts regarding the use of games for learning and the adoption of gamebased learning in K-12 education are reported. Lastly, the results section is concluded by reporting what participants believed they learned from the course along with their motivations to adopt game-based learning in their future practice.
Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning
257
Expectations from the course Twelve participants were keen to learn about the capabilities of different games to support student learning and pedagogical approaches to incorporate games for enhancing the curriculum. Participants wanted to develop competence in stimulating the interest of students growing up in a technologically rich society and employing games through methods that shunned the stigma, “games are just for fun.” They wanted to feel comfortable in adapting games for educational use and introducing them in classrooms. Three participants also conveyed very specific expectations from the course. For instance, one participant who was skeptical about the utility of game-based learning over other pedagogical approaches took this course as a challenge to change her opinion. She responded, “I would like to learn how games can actually be useful in the classroom. I am taking many courses where I already know/agree with the methods taught. I would like to learn about something I do not have knowledge in and am hoping this class will change my mind about bringing games into the classroom.” Quantitative Findings Tables 3 and 4 summarize the descriptive statistics for participants’ knowledge of GaNA on the GaNA Knowledge Survey and the Game Integration Scenario Test respectively. Results from t-tests with the GaNA Knowledge Survey indicated that participants had statistically significant knowledge gains for the key constructs of Game Network Analysis including game analysis (TPACK), game integration (PCaRD), and ecological conditions impacting technology integration (CITE) (See Table 5). There was a significant difference in pre-service teachers’ knowledge of game analysis from pretest (M=20.73, SD=3.24) to posttest (M=27.9, SD=3.50). Similarly, a significant difference in pre-service teachers’ knowledge of game integration from pretest (M=31.55, SD=4.91) to posttest (M=42.31, SD=3.96) was found. Lastly, there was a significant difference in pre-service teachers’ knowledge of conditions impacting technology integration in education from pretest (M=5.59, SD=1.13) to posttest (M=8.51, SD=1.17). The effect sizes indicated that the course had a large effect on participants’ knowledge of the key constructs of GaNA (See Table 5).
Shah and Foster
258
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for GaNA Knowledge Survey and Game Integration Scenario Test Measurement
PreMean
PostMean
PreS.D.
PostS.D.
PreStd. Err
PostStd. Err
N
TPACK
20.73
27.9
3.24
3.50
.86
.93
14
PCaRD
31.55
42.31
4.91
3.96
1.31
1.06
14
CITE
5.59
8.51
1.13
1.17
.30
.31
14
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for Game Integration Scenario Test Groups
Means
S.D.
Std. Err
N
Pre-Game Integration Scenario Test
13.07
2.63
.70
14
Mid-Game Integration Scenario Test
18.85
3.63
.97
14
Post-Game Integration Scenario Test
32.46
7.70
2.05
14
Table 5 Paired t-Tests Analysis of The Knowledge Surveys for Game Network Analysis Source
df
t
p
d
Pre-Post Game Analysis Knowledge (TPACK)
13
-9.78
0.001
2.12*
Pre-Post Game Integration Knowledge (PCaRD)
13
-8.74
0.000
2.41**
Pre-Post Ecological Conditions Awareness and Skills (CITE)
13
-9.42
0.000
2.53***
Note: P
