Scholarly Critique 5--"Game-Based Learning" by Pho & Dincorse (2015)
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?
I was interested in reading this article because I was interested in the concept of “game-based learning”. After doing a Google scholar search I came across several articles related to this topic, but I wanted to choose one that was current, at least in the last year, because of how fast technology, applications, and theory have intersected. That’s when I came across “Game-Based Learning” by Pho & Dincorse (2015). This article seems to be written as a brief on the concept, instead of a theoretical paper, but I liked this article because it was written in a way to be very applicable, even for an instructional designer.
How does the author (or authors) conceptualize learning, and what evidence is provided to substantiate the relationship between games and learning?
The authors conceptualize learning, in the context of game-based learning, as “referring to the borrowing of certain gaming principles and applying them to real-life settings to engage users (Pho & Dinscore 2015). While the authors seem to be directing the article to higher education librarians I think their definition of how to use game-based learning was particularly relevant for an instructional designer, they explain that “it is designing learning activities that can incrementally introduce concepts, and guide users towards an end goal (Pho & Dinscore, 2015).” This means that when designing a game or thinking about using games, you should first base it on “learning activities” or essentially learning objectives, and as they mentioned another key element is it should be “incremental”. This means the game shouldn’t be based on a final outcome, but on the process, and its through process not the outcome that real learning can occur.
Alternatively, what evidence is missing that fails to address the relationship between games and learning?
The authors only minimally address the relationship between games and learning. They only mention that through games “motivation, engagement, and socialization” will occur or be increased. I think this relationship between games and learning tends to be rather obscured in most articles on this concept. Many can cite the observational benefits of game-based learning, or even the positive feedback, but rarely is hard data actually cited that shows that learning increased unequivocally because games or game-based learning was used versus not.
What tools - whether digital, material, or conceptual - contribute to game play, and how do tools contribute to either individual or collective learning?
Since this article was written from a practical or applicable perspective, then the authors cite several tools that were used by others that used game play. In their “Current Applications” section, the authors cite that librarians used digital badges, scavenger hunts, and even traditional board/card games to apply game-based learning. Not only does the article cite the projects used by various organizations, they even offer tools that can be used if a organization does not have in-house programmers, such as apps like: Scarify or Social Scavenger or Credly.
How does game play span multiple settings, and why does this matter?
This article really demonstrates how game play can span multiple settings by focusing on higher education institutions or libraries. The article shows that organizations that may not see a readily need or application for game-play can challenge themselves to include game-based learning, especially if it means increasing socialization and engagement.
