Scholarly Critique #5 "Gaming the Classroom Viewing Learning Through the Lens Self Determinatio
In this article, the authors attempted to determine if creating a new type of learning (algebra taught with a gameful, game-based instruction) would enhance student learning in key mathematics areas. The study attempted to find if game-based could bridge the distance between low-achievement in mathematics under the Self-Determination Theory. This theory identifies three psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) that are crucial for developing intrinsic motivation. The students in this study were classified as having low motivation in their algebra class, the teacher noting that some students were so unmotivated as to be completely unaware as to which chapter in the book they needed to be studying for the test.
The researchers implemented a game-based system for algebra in which each student designed an avatar and went on “quests” (printing off related pages, watching instructional videos, completing in-book work) to earn points. The main motivating factor for the students was that the highest scorer would not have to complete the chapter test. The authors also looked into the constructivist theory, that is, the experiential learning model, as a means for the students to interact with each other. This was later found to be a limitation, as the goals set in-class focused only on individual achievement, and not collective ones.
Perhaps the most important factor the researchers found was that students indicated (on an exit survey) that they most appreciated the autonomy the course learning style afforded. This is indicative as video gaming as a “choice” activity, and one that can be completed at ones own pace. This was also seen as a means towards building motivation in the self-determination theory, as autonomy (at least as related to choice) was researched at some level.
However, as the study continued, researchers found (through discussions with the students) that the students missed face-to-face interactions with their instructors. The students could ask for help during game-play, but they indicated that “learning on their own” was difficult. Though some students indicated this was challenging in a good way (those that could show competence) for those that struggled, the researchers implemented a group-work session during each class in which students could seek face-to-face interaction with their teachers. Other indicators in the study found that students would begin work right away, as opposed to the struggle it was to get them to work before, and that students in mixed-ability classes had final scores of around 79%, and the lower learners, at the end of this course, showed scores of around 73%. This indicates that some learning most certainty took place, but limitations existed.
Limitations of this study include how students rated themselves, and a sense of “relatedness” in their work. As students rated themselves at the end of the course, it is likely that each student interpreted their skills differently. It would have perhaps have been better to map their previous and current learning scores to determine scores, while leaving attitudes to the exit surveys. The study also admits its failure in relating coursework to the actual game, as there were not enough connections to make the gameplay and gameful learning as seamless as it should be. This continues to be the case in many game-based learning platforms, and this is most certainly indication that further study is needed, and game-based software has a long way to go.