Scholarly Critique 4: Games or Learning: Virtual World Classrooms
By Leonard A. Annetta, Marshall R. Murray, Shelby Gull Laird, Stephanie C. Bohr, and John C. Park
Why were you interested in this article or study? In other words, why did you select this reading as a reflection of your own interest-driven learning?
After reading an article I found on Twitter about the use of Virtual Reality Labs and the concept of immersive learning in classrooms, I was interested in learning more. While researching the work of Mr. Duraiswai, a computer-science professor and co-founder of the start-up company VisiSonics, the company that spearheaded the project, I cam across on article titled Serious Gaming.
I was particularly interested in reading this article because it started with a discussion of “Generation N” or today’s children, who are now defined by “N” standing for Net Generation or networked generation. The author begins by explaining that today’s youth are so use to technology and its applications that concept and possibilities are no longer novel. As such, the author explains, schools and classrooms are seemingly outdated in their ability to engage students.
The article discuss several features of how game design was used to teach K-12 graduate student teachers while learning in their own virtual world. The virtual world they used was Activeworlds ™ to create a virtual campus in a 3-D format.
What are the social dimensions of game play, and how do social relations contribute to either individual or collective learning?
The social dimensions of game play were briefly discussed in this article. The authors discuss that in their pilot class they had students create avatars, visual representations of themselves. They also mention how the lectures were provided in a synchronous format, and that while students had the option to speak directly to the professor using VoIP, most chose to use the text chat box. The authors stated in this 3-D world they provided not only a classroom space for the lectures, but also a lounge area for students to “hang out” and a tutor room. I think the authors did a great job explain how they wished to target “social recognition” as an objective of the project, however they failed to really acknowledge how social dimensions were utilized in this type of project. I would have liked to know more about what students did in these virtual worlds to engage with other students, was the collaboration or social dimension real or contrived (i.e. forced by the teacher), and what aspects of social dimension did the teachers (i.e. students) learn as they went through this course.
What tools - whether digital, material, or conceptual - contribute to game play, and how do tools contribute to either individual or collective learning?
The project covered the digital tools that were used in the creation of the course such as ActiveWorlds, the MEGA software used, the need for high speed Internet, and VoIP. However, the authors failed to address several key features would have been important when considering whether to use a virtual world for immersive learning. According to Bavelier et al (2012), I learned that 3-D environments provide more stimulating learning environments than 2-D environments. As such, it would make sense why this pilot program chose to use a 3-D game design for the classroom. Secondly, the entire article fails to address the concept of “immersive learning”. This term is important when considering the implications of 3-D virtual worlds and why they help students to learn. By failing to address these points, I don’t believe the authors properly explained how learning occurred, and if learning increased as a result of this type of learning environment versus a traditional learning environment.
How might you redesign an aspect of this game (or game-like experience) to foster different learning experiences?
The author posits that in order for schools to keep up they need to incorporate an aspect of game design in their classroom. This concept is different from other scholars that insist we need to use “game theory” as a way to reach students. Game theory, then, implies that by incorporating elements of games, like rewards and challenges, this will be enough to essentially engage students. However, game design implies that an actual game needs to be developed and created in order to truly engage a student’s immersive learning.
From this article I learned that when possible try to incorporate an actual game when teaching dynamic concepts, like science.
