by Andrew K. Miller | Feb 25, 2013 | Blog
This post originally appeared on the BrainPop Community, an organization that creates animated, curricular content that engages students, supports educators, and bolsters achievement. BrainPOP is also home to GameUp™, a free educational games portal for the classroom.View Original >
I love using games in the classroom, and I love supporting teachers in their implementation. As I continue this work, both in terms of advocacy and implementation, there remains a critical question that will either support games for learning, or undermine it. Is it a good game? I constantly watch the twittersphere and get emails from colleagues, game companies, and the like about “games.” Whether it’s “20 Games to Support ELL Students,” or “The 5 New Best Games for the iPad,” it can be daunting to even know where to start using games in the classroom.
I’ve got news for you. What people claim to be games, may in fact not be games at all. Or, even worse, they may bad games! Perhaps they are just digital activities or apps, and that is fine, but let’s not claim one to be a game when it is not. While there are many ways to distinguish a good game from an activity, consider these three to start:
Is it Edutainment? – Jeopardy is a prime example. Jeopardy is a fun activity, where you are almost fooled into learning because the game is fun. In general, “Edutainment” is based on this idea of “fooling,” in that we learn or must know something, but the learning isn’t really connected to a real engaging purpose. Furthermore, is recalling the answer to a question “learning?” Seems to me more like testing.
Does it have an engaging story? – A good game has a story that we immerse ourselves in. While this story might be epic like Final Fantasy, it can also be short and sweet. Within this story is an engaging character or role that we invest in as a player. We take on the role of an engineer, an adventurer, a virus, a shop owner, and many more in games. These authentic roles coupled with a purposeful story or scenario creates the engagement to play.
Is there application of knowledge? – If the game is simply asking you to recall facts and figures, they it may not be the best game. There is a time and place for this this type of learning, but good games require us to do more with the facts and skills we learn. The game helps us learn these ideas, but requires deeper thinking and learning! Just as we demand deeper thinking and learning in our curriculum and instruction at school, a good game should do the same.
by Andrew K. Miller | Feb 8, 2013 | Blog, Edutopia
This post originally appeared on Edutopia, a site created by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, dedicated to improving the K-12 learning process by using digital media to document, disseminate, and advocate for innovative, replicable strategies that prepare students. View Original >
When we talk about “games,” that term covers a huge range. From video games to board games, from Kinect to pencil-and-paper games, all of these can contribute to student learning. There are many reasons why games can and do teach, but interestingly, they actually access the multiple learning styles we already know about. This infographic can help you review the different learning styles if you need to. We can align them to games to further justify how we might use games in the classroom.
Visual Learners
This is probably the most obvious way in which games align to a learning style. Digital games leverage visuals as integral to the process. However, it’s not just about the polish and creative artwork of a game. Games use visuals to create problems that players want to solve. These visuals give clues toward the solutions. The visual learner playing Portal, for example, must use visual-spatial learning to effectively navigate the game. Players are interacting with the visuals of the game. Instead of simply showing passive visuals, games immerse the learner in a visual experience.
Kinesthetic Learners
Some games get us physically moving, either through whole bodies or “hands-on” experience. The Kinect is prime example of games that require a lot of kinesthetic experience. (I addressed this in a previous blog.) There are also some physical games that don’t require a video game system, and even these help to engage kinesthetic learners in the learning process.
Auditory Learners
Some digital games have voice-overs and audio directions, but even more old school, when we play games together, we often coach each other or give pointers. For example, when I was playing the game Pandemic with my family and friends, I was required to collaborate by talking with other players. I collaborated to learn the instructions and also to strategize with my team to win the game. Now, while this game may not be considered a serious game that teaches content, it does teach collaboration, a critical 21st century skill. In addition, digital games have sounds, music and other auditory elements that give hints and clues for players to incorporate while playing. Consider having students collaborate to learn and play other educational games, as well as analyze other auditory components of games.
Read/Write Learner
Some consider this to be a learning style as well. When students play World of Warcraft, they are constantly reading and writing: reading engaging stories of characters and quest directions; typing strategies for raids and writing background stories for characters. Most games include reading as a critical learning modality to be successful, but many games also leverage writing for communication or even answer purposes. Games can engage the read/write learner.
Now, not every game accesses all of the learning styles concurrently or evenly, but many games can access more than one. As you pick games to use in your classroom, consider your students’ abilities through learning profiles cards (such as those offered by the Schultz Center), and use the games to scaffold learning that meets the unique needs of the children you teach.
by Andrew K. Miller | Jan 28, 2013 | Blog
This post originally appeared on NSTA, a blog that supports science educators in implementing science best practices in a variety of ares. View Original >
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) call for a conceptual shift in teaching and learning. Yes, content is changing in the upcoming NGSS. In addition to traditional subject matter, science and engineering are now integrated into the standards, where students will learn about the principles of engineering and engage in the engineering design processes. In addition, many concepts are cutting across content. For example, the concept “systems and system models” is used in the exploration of nuclear energies as well as ecosystems. Also, scientific and engineering practices are aligned multiple times with the disciplinary content. The NGSS calls for a deeper understanding and application of content. The focus is on core ideas and practices of science, not just the facts associated with them.
While many teachers are already teaching for application of knowledge as well as engineering and core concepts, these key features will cause a deliberate shift in instruction requiring all teachers to reflect on their practice. Project Based Learning (PBL) is a learning model that not only aligns to these key features, but also strongly supports NGSS-based teaching and learning.
First of all, let’s clarify the difference between projects and PBL. Instead of a curricular add-on at the end, the project is the context for the learning. Students are given an authentic task and a student-friendly driving question to investigate over the course of the project. Within this project, the teacher scaffolds the learning for students and arms students with skills through traditional labs, lectures, and other instructional activities. Instead of teaching all content and skills before the project, the teacher teaches through the project, which is engaging and relevant to students. Using a “need to know” list generated by students, and revisited through the project, the teacher gives lessons and instructional activities to meet the needs of students. Students learn 21st century skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. The project has an audience outside the four walls of the classroom, and students create a variety of products for this authentic audience. These are just some of the essential elements of a PBL project.
Just as the draft NGSS calls for deeper understanding and application of knowledge, PBL demands the same. When teachers design PBL projects, they pick power standards to focus on, standards that usually take significant time to teach and focus on depth, not breadth. The NGSS are being designed to be those type of standards and thus easily used when designing a PBL project. In fact, a teacher designing a PBL project might target one of the crosscutting concepts, as that concept permeates the entire year of content. PBL calls for in-depth inquiry into the content. Students investigate a rigorous driving question, and do so by unpacking it into many subject questions. In addition, they must apply this knowledge as they construct products that answer the driving questions and complete the project. The product reflects a deep understanding of content, as students have reflected and revised throughout the learning process. It’s not just one encounter with the content per se, but multiple encounters.
As we notice the new engineering focus of NGSS, we might consider design challenges, a key component of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. However, design challenges are not necessarily PBL by default. One can take a design challenge, add some PBL essential elements to it, and make it into a PBL project. A common design challenge is to build an effective bridge, either physically with toothpicks, or digitally using a tool like SketchUp. However, there are some components that need to be added to it to make it truly a PBL project. Right now, the bridge is a great activity. In fact, it can be a great activity within the PBL to scaffold material. To make it PBL, students could make recommendations for retrofitting a local bridge and present this information to city officials and engineers. Yes, the product might be a bridge design, and yes, students may engage in a toothpick contest along the way. The difference is the work goes outside the four walls of the classroom, and actually is an authentic situation, where students are engaged in real-world work. As the design process and other components of engineering are leveraged in the NGSS, PBL projects can be designed to teach and assess these standards.
The NGSS will need to be met with pedagogical models that can leverage the required depth of understanding, and PBL can meet that challenge. PBL provides the strength of inquiry, rigor, and relevance that can capitalize on the key components of the NGSS.
by Andrew K. Miller | Jan 21, 2013 | Blog, Whole Child Blog
This post originally appeared on The Whole Child blog, an ASCD initiative to call on educators, policymakers, business leaders, families, and community members to work together on a whole child approach to education. View Original >
21st century skills are quickly becoming taught and assessed in schools across the nation. Whether through explicit instruction or models like project-based learning, educators are quickly realizing that lower level content comprehension is not enough. The Whole Child Initiative calls for tenets that rely on these skills. We create a safe environment through collaboration. Critical thinking creates rigor and challenge. Communication can create engagement with the community. 21st century skills, when paired with content can create powerful and meaningful learning. The Common Core State Standards explicitly call for these skills, so through uncovering the 3 C’s in the Common Core, we can see how educators must teach and assess them.
Collaboration
In every grade level of the English language arts common standards, you will find the common standard that calls for “collaborative discussions.” I do mean every! This means that at each grade level, we must not only be teaching and assessing the skill of collaboration, but we must think about how it looks different from grade level to grade level. We know that group work and collaborative work can be effective, but now collaboration is more than just an instructional tool. It is a skill that needs to be taught and assessed.
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving
Roland Case has done some great work on unpacking the concept of critical thinking into quality indicators. One of these quality indicators is perseverance, being able to complete a challenge and work through the obstacles. In the mathematics common standards, there are specific mathematical practices that are mentioned. One of these is “make sense of a problem and persevere in solving them.” This is an explicit call in the Common Core to teach and assess one facet of critical thinking. In addition, as you unpack the Common Core, you will still thinking skills and related language for critical thinking. From being able to “evaluate,” “reflect” or “analyze,” the focus is on higher-order thinking skills that require that critical thinking be taught to all students and assessed.
Communication
Across each grade level in the English language arts common standards, communication—both written and oral—is evident. The Common Core calls for students to communicate effectively, and through a variety of mediums. Digital tools are mentioned, as well as oral and written skills. English teachers have always been responsible for this skill, but now all subjects are being called to teach and assess communication skills.
Unpacking the Common Core State Standards allows us to see the need to teach and assess 21st century skills to our students. When we look at the Whole Child Tenets, we can see alignment between them and 21st Century Skills. Perhaps the Common core will leverage the need to teach to the whole child.
by Andrew K. Miller | Jan 18, 2013 | Blog, Huffington Post
This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post, an internet news and commentary website. The Education section features updated on college, teachers, and education reform, where I regularly contribute. View Original >
21st century skills. Buzz word or reality? As I visit schools, I know many of them are teaching these skills. From critical thinking and problem solving, to technology literacy and collaboration, teachers are targeting these skills in the instructional process, and leveraging them in the curriculum. Many teachers are being called to teach these skills, and don’t know how to. I’ve done many workshops with teachers to arm them with these skills. However, there is one issue that seems to be a roadblock for true implementation: assessment.
I do know teachers are using rubrics and products to assess these skills. Some schools like High Tech High in San Diego have them in the grade book, but this is a rarity. This is a pocket of excellence. It shouldn’t be. When I was teaching at a project-based learning STEM school, we too wanted to teach and assess the skills of collaboration, critical thinking and communication. Now communication is naturally built into English language arts curriculum and the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts across all subjects. We had no problem assessing this, and leveraging it in the grade book. But what about a skill like collaboration? The Common Core does have a standard where students “participate in collaborative discussions,” and this is across all grade levels. However, collaboration is more than just discussions; it’s about creating together, coming to consensus and other quality indicators. Similarly with the 21st century skill of critical thinking, we can unpack our standards to find connections, but it feels like we are trying too hard. This is my struggle as an educator, and a struggle for many of the teachers I work with. We want to teach and assess 21st century skills, but we feel somewhat limited in our ability to do just that. We ran up against resistance with the district on truly assessing them in the grade book. We understood that if we truly valued 21st century skills, our assessment systems needed to model that. However, the system did not share that value the same way we did.
This is the biggest issue for teaching and assessing 21st century skills in our schools. We need our assessment systems to value them, and that means having them in the grade book. In my conversations with educators this is the biggest roadblock. For those educators that have the power to assess 21st century skills in the grade book, they create a culture where content is not king. Instead critical thinking is leveraged across the entire curriculum. Students have more buy in to collaborate, and they have quality indicators and targets to aim for in technology literacy. Through this true assessment of 21st century skills, we can re-frame what we value for our students, and really make them college and career-ready.
Recent Comments