“To make this subject fun, I will
use a game,” is a natural thought that passes through many an educator’s mind
at one point or another. It is not, in itself, wrong. However, there are concerns
that one needs to be aware of before following this train of thought. Among
them are implying that even the teacher does not consider the subject fun,
balancing the fun with learning, and ensuring that the game has been assessed
for its purpose and not simply its fun.
Every content has its drier
moments. Quite often these tedious elements are focused around memorization,
which is an act no-one seems to enjoy, but everyone seems to value the results
of it. Teachers should find ways to make this process easier and more
palatable. Many tricks are used, such as putting the required datum into song
form, but turning a memorization drill into a game is a typical strategy that can
usually make the experience more fun for everyone. Many online flash-based
games are essentially of this type, flashcards with fun graphics or competitive
scoring to sugar coat the memorization process. Framed within a clearly established value of
the content on its own, even without the cool visual or the winning, and
followed through with reinforcement of the usefulness of the learned facts,
these games can be very supportive of the student’s learning process without
any concern that the teacher might be seeking sugar for a bitter pill.
In trying to balance the fun of a
game with its usefulness for learning there are two things to focus on. The
first is on the game and analyzing whether or not it is a worthwhile tool for
learning. In assessing the value of a lesson’s element, such as a game, a
rubric can help with the analytic process. However the orderly geometric patterning of
rubrics can seduce the mind into seeking balance. In group D’s project, we
selected 5 categories to measure the fun and 5 categories to measure the
educational value. The number 5 was chosen for its special numerical power: 5 categories
x 2 x 10pts each = 100 points, a convenient number for generating percentiles. We
had a lively debate on the virtue and need of many categories, which we
eventually whittled down to the 5 the group found the most essential. Here we
could have quite easily generated 4 different rubrics, with a significant amount
of overlap admittedly. Were those 5 fun and 5 educational categories we ended
up with the most essential? Probably they were not. In fact, as educators, we
probably should have resisted the instinct for a balanced 5 vs. 5, and instead
weighed the rubric heavier towards the educational value. However, it is
unlikely that there are 10 objectively essential categories. It is important
with rubrics to remember that, while they seek objectivity, they are
fundamentally still bound to some subjective choices. So, one should not be
afraid of the debate, nor of insisting on the greater value of something over
another, and adjusting the rubric accordingly, even if it breaks the ordered
balance that the structure tries to establish.
The second thing that should be
focused on is whether or not a particular game, recognized to be fun,
memorable, and highly educational, should be granted some of the all too
precious time that a teacher has with his or her students. “I loved that game,
it helped spark my interest in geometry” is a rousing endorsement, but is not
enough to justify its inclusion in a grade level that does not have curriculum
standards for the element of geometry the game uses. In preparing its
presentation, group D spent a considerable percentage of our face to face time
considering how any game we might present on would actually be used in a real
classroom. This meant that we needed to identify the content standards the game
covered. We did this by researching the GDOE Curriculum Documents to find
specific standards at the same grade level for each content we envisioned the
for the lesson. We found a common grade level (8th) and thematic compatibility
in the following standards: GDOE Science 8.4.9 and GDOE CCSS MATH 8.EE.3 and
8.EE.4. (GDOE Curriculum Documents (n.d.)) By finding these standards we could
assess the alignment of our game to what should be occurring in the classroom.
As a team, our individual tasks
could be performed separately, especially with Google drive and basic exchange
of links either in a Google document or via email. So, we found it valuable to
spend the larger part of our face to face time considering and at times
debating these three qualitative concerns about our chosen game, Pod Launcher
(Science Monster by Cool Math (n.d.)), and a few other candidate games. By
establishing our qualitative values for learning the content, categories within
our rubric, and degree to which we wanted alignment with the content standards,
we found it quite possible to relax in regards to the choices teammates made independently
working on their given tasks.
GDOE Curriculum Documents - Curriculum and Instruction.
(n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2015, from
https://sites.google.com/a/gdoe.net/curriculum-and-instruction/gdoe-curriculum-documents
Science Monster by Cool math .com - Games - Pod Launcher.
(n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2015, from
http://www.sciencemonster.com/games-app/pod-launcher/index.html
Hi:
ReplyDeleteYour essay was very nicely written.
-j-