Steven Greenstein <blue42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...Now I'm interested in looking a bit deeper. Let's assume that kids want to play games, that the motivation's already there. What kinds of games teach concepts better than traditional or even reform-based approaches? What do kids get out of playing these games that they don't get out of these other approaches? Are they better able to master the concepts, to develop the skills,...? Does the approach work better for some students than others? If so, which ones? When is it worth it to throw out today's lesson plan and play a game? How do you know their learning? Do they have to win the game? What about issues of winning and losing? Is the kid who's cramming for the trivia game only interested in winning? Is s/he likely to learn trivia by cramming? And what value is there in learning
trivia, anyway, except that it's easy to test? If your job and your students' graduation were on the line (and this is exactly the case for educators) and the high-stakes test were to occur next week, would you be confident enough to have a game day? If some students didn't pass, could you justify the game day?
1. What kinds of games? Those that are well-matched to the teaching objective. If your objective is memorization of facts, then a Trivial Pursuit sort of game would be best matched. If your objective is deeper thinking, then you would want to choose a game that requires that kind of thinking. Games in and of themselves are merely motivating. To be educational, they have to closely fit your teaching objectives.
2. What do kids get out of games vs. other approaches? This is what has been being batted around on this list. In addition to the motivation factor, here are a few others (I could go
on, but I'm just highlighting): multi-modal approaches to learning help all students and especially kinesthetic learners better learn and retain information, in most cases games allow students to practice rote skills more quickly and efficiently, games tend to use skills higher on Bloom's taxonomy--they make students think more deeply about the concepts you are teaching, etc.
3. Are they better able to master the concepts & develop the skills? I would say yes, if used appropriately. For games to truly help teach, they must be well-aligned with your goals, the students must know what those goals are, the game needs to be given enough class time to be effective, and pre- and/or post-discussion and related assignments must be a part of the process.
4. Does the approach work better for some students than others? I would say that games are beneficial for all students. For those who learn easily in traditional ways,
games provide an opportunity to apply their learning in a meaningful way. For those who don't learn easily in traditional ways (which usually include those who don't appear motivated to learn), games are often the key to their success.
5. When is it worth it to throw out today's lesson plan and play a game? Never. The game should be an integral part of today's lesson plan.
6. How do you know they're learning? In the same ways you know they're learning using other teaching methods. There's informal observation, formal testing in all its various forms, collecting evidence for portfolios, etc.
7. Do they have to win? Of course not. That would make the game more like high-stakes testing! The winner of a game is not necessarily the one who learned the most from it. For that matter, there are many good cooperative games out there in which everybody wins or everybody loses, if you're
worried about the competition aspect. I personally think the competition allows the added bonus of social skills training if you pick up on those "teachable moments."
8. Is the kid who's cramming for the trivia game actually learning, and is there value in that learning? I would say they are learning that trivia better than they would with other methods, since it is self-directed learning that they have fully invested in. And yes, there's value in learning everything. The question is, are they learning what you are trying to teach them? For example, if you try to teach the analysis of Shakespeare by playing Shakespeare Trivial Pursuit, then they might come out knowing a lot of facts, but having no analysis skills. You have not matched your game to your goals. But if you are trying to solidify basic math facts (essentially trivia), then a trivia-based game is well-matched to your objectives.
9. If
high-stakes testing was next week and your job and the students' graduation were on the line, would I feel confident enough to play a game? Absolutely, *if* it were well suited to my objectives.
10. If some students didn't pass, could you justify the game day? You bet I could...no problem! I'd be willing to bet my job that more will pass *with* the games than without them. Those students who didn't need the games will pass regardless of teaching method, so long as the teacher is competent. The games, for them, would have been enrichment--helping them to solidify and apply their learning and gain social skills. But the rest of the kids--those who wouldn't have passed using traditional teaching methods--they are the ones for whom the games are most important. If any of those kids pass on testing day, it will be because of the games, not the extra days of traditional teaching.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but you
asked a lot of very important questions, and I wanted to give them the attention they deserved. Hope this helps!
Laurie
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.