“Pedagaming” – Co-constructing understanding across neuroscience and education about the pedagogy of learning games
Paul Howard-Jones University of Bristol
Neil Davies Dyffryn Comprehensive
Skevi Demetriou University of Bristol
Carol Jones Chepstow School
Owen Morgan Chepstow School
Philip Perkins Dyffryn Comprehensive
Carrie Sturgess Chepstow School
Abstract
Insight into the educational potential of learning games arises from recent neuroscientific research into the human reward system. Application of this understanding in the classroom requires integration of scientific understanding with educational understanding and expertise. Here, we make a preliminary report on an action research project to co-construct concepts in this area that meaningfully bridge neuroscience and education.
The science of learning games
Games are frequently identified as a means to increase interest in the classroom (Bergin, 1999), with educators being prompted to draw inspiration for new approaches from the intense engagement provided by computer gaming (e.g. Gee 2003). Studies attempting to understand how this process of engagement occurs have implicated the attraction of uncertainty (Howard-Jones and Demetriou, in press - now published on-line).
Understanding of the human reward[1]system can provide insight into the attraction of uncertainty. In neuropsychology, ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’ are considered as two dissociable components, with the wanting of a reward being coded by levels of dopamine release in mid brain areas (Berridge and Robinson, 2003).The predictability of an outcome has been shown to influence this activity. In primates, it has been shown that maximum dopamine is released when the likelihood of receiving reward for success is about half way between totally unexpected and completely predictable, i.e. 50% likely (Fiorillo, et al., 2003). Dopamine levels in this area of the human brain have been linked to our motivation to pursue a variety of pleasures, including sex, food, gambling (Elliot, et al., 2000) and computer gaming (Koepp, et al., 1988). The link between the predictability of an outcome and mid-brain dopamine activity is, therefore, helpful in explaining why humans are so attracted to games of chance (Shizgal and Arvanitogiannis, 2003). Activity in this area has been studied non-invasively in humans during gaming using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). These fMRI studies have shown that patterns of dopamine activity are predicted less by reward in ‘real’ absolute terms and seem more to do with winning the game. Activity can increase with reward size (Knutson, et al., 2001)but, rather than being proportional to monetary reward, activation peaks at the same level for the best available outcome in different games (Nieuwenhuis, et al., 2005). The complex relationship between reward and motivation is thus strongly mediated by context.
When uncertainty is encountered in the school context, our natural attraction to it appears to fall away once the task is perceived as educational. Students generally prefer low levels of academic uncertainty and choose problems well below moderate (<50%) challenge (Clifford, 1988;Harter, 1978).Interestingly, however, when the same tasks are presented as games, students will take greater risks (Clifford and Chou, 1991). This may suggest that individuals can be deterred from tackling academic tasks with higher levels of uncertainty due to the implications of failure for social status and esteem. In terms of rehearsing knowledge and understanding, it is not necessarily a bad thing to be drawn towards areas where our ability requires only perfection through further practise. However, it could be argued that this may also reduce instances when outcomes are considerably better than might be expected, avoiding the stronger motivational signals that can be generated in the human reward system by these large and positive prediction errors. Additionally, rewards that appear with certainty may provide experiences that illicit less emotional response, which may also make the learning with which they should be associated less memorable.
The above arguments provide some theoretical justification for the inclusion of a suitably integrated gaming component with a learning context, i.e. in order to enhance motivation using a source of uncertainty that is less associated with issues of social status. A series of bridging studies (Howard-Jones and Demetriou, in press - now published on-line) have shown that:
· Children (especially boys(Howard-Jones, 2010)) prefer academic tasks being presented with an element of gaming uncertainty, even though this disrupts consistency of reward (which is traditionally valued in schools (OfSTED., 2001))
· In adults (and presumably children), emotional response to learning tasks can be heightened when presented with an element of gaming uncertainty
· Children’s discourse around learning is changed by gaming elements and there is open motivational talk. Losing is constructed in a way that reflects less on the pupil and winning is celebrated as pure achievement – as is sometimes observed in sport.
Further research has shown that the modelling of the brain’s reward activity due to gaming events can be used to predict successful learning of educational material during a learning game (Howard-Jones, et al., 2009).
The relevance of neuroscientific concepts to understanding learning games suggests they may be able to contribute to a games-based pedagogy. However, the ‘translation’ of neuroscientific understanding to the classroom is fraught with dangers of unscientific interpretation and/or departure from a grounded educational understanding (Howard-Jones, 2010). Building any useful conceptual bridge that spans neuroscience and education requires communication of broader issues and concepts. In this ongoing study, co-construction of understanding has been taking place by a team possessing expertise in both areas, through a practise-based interventions and group reflection.
Method
The lead author would argue that neuroscience can only usefully contribute to educational thinking when it is integrated with insights from other perspectives on learning. Empowering learners and teachers to contribute their own experiential perspectives can provide insights involving emotional response, free-will, motivation and autonomy. Of particular relevance here, experiential evidence arising from a teacher’s ‘insider’ insights are essential in the implementation of new pedagogical ideas, and in developing the concepts they are based on. In projects involving neuroscience and education, reflection is most likely to be valuable when informed by both educational and scientific expertise, suggesting the need for group reflection and co-construction of concepts. An iterative process of development and change through reflection with others forms the basis of action research (Howard-Jones, et al., 2008;Elliott, 1991). This method of research can help capture institutionally-based change, at practitioner, department, school or school cluster levels, which often evolves alongside changes in perceptions and meaning. Action research can make a valuable contribution here. If change is the moral imperative of educational research, then the methodological arsenal of neuroeducational research may need to include transformative methods such as action research to study it. This may be a particularly important concern for those working at the interface between neuroscience and education. Concepts involving the brain have a seductive allure and education has already shown itself vulnerable to a range of neuromyth. If we want neuroscience to contribute in scientifically valid and educationally relevant ways to learning, then special attention must be given to those institutionally-based processes by which neuroscience enters the educational bloodstream.
Meaning itself, however, can be expected to change during the course of an action research intervention, along with the methods used to implement ideas, as understanding grows. Many judgements expressed in action research are often the subjective opinions of the participants, and a change in the perspectives of those producing the judgements is expected and encouraged as a valued outcome of this type of research. This often places an important limitation upon the transferability of action research since, although it may develop practice that improves outcomes in a particular context, reflective practise cannot “test” the general educational value of a pedagogical approach or idea. In this research, however, we employed some quantitative pre/post testing. This is not to suggest, however, that we followed a “design experiment” approach in the methodology. These tests can be a problematic measure of learning gains in the real-world context of the classroom. For example, comparing learning gains across lessons is difficult if different topics have been covered. However, as we shall see, they were useful in checking whether measurable learning had been achieved and, particularly when this was not the case, contributing to reflection by raising interesting questions.
The research team consisted of 5 teachers across two comprehensive schools (X,Y) in South Wales, the lead-author who has been directing research investigating the neural and cognitive processes involved with learning games, and a post-graduate research assistant. An action research spiral was followed that consisted of an initial meeting of the research team, followed by 3 cycles of research meeting, planning, intervention and group reflection. Video recording of interventions was used as a basis for subsequent discussion and group analysis. Informed consent was acquired from parents of all pupils involved with the study.
Session 1
This was a first attempt to understand the practical issues involved in developing a games-based approach to learning and teaching based on gaming uncertainty. In all sessions reported here, curriculum material was delivered via a quiz using power point. In the quiz, principles and knowledge were intermixed with multiple choice questions.
In session 1, to enhance motivation, chance-based uncertainty was introduced to mediate the receipt of rewards. A correct answer was rewarded with the option to receive a point or take a chance and either receive 0 or 2 points, based on the teacher spinning a “wheel of fortune”. To support motivation at an individual level, we wanted all pupils to be able to play simultaneously and this created some practical challenges. Students would need to have a method of signalling their answers that was not easily reversed (in order to avoid cheating when the answer was revealed) and a system of accumulating points that did not require the teacher to keep a time-consuming tally but was, again, resistant to cheating. A signalling system was devised consisting of four coloured squares (15 cm x 15 cm) hinged together with tape. Students could signal their answer by identifying the colour next to it, folding their squares so that the colour was exposed and placing the folded set of squares in a wooden stand in front of them. A counter system was devised to deliver points to winners. Those wishing to collect their point for a correct answer indicated this by raising their hand. Black counters (worth one point) were given out as quickly as possible and, on receipt of the counter, pupils removed their answer from the wooden stand. Those still revealing the correct answer were assumed to be gaming their points. The wheel was then spun and these students received 2 points (a purple counter) if it landed on a double, and no points if it landed on a zero. In addition to these “standard” rounds, there were also special events:
Bonus rounds: when points awarded simply for picking the correct colour (of four) that the wheel of fortune landed on
Golden opportunities: when 8 points (two orange counters, each worth 4) might be won by a single individual for a correct answer – and this individual would be whoever’s number came up on the wheel of fortune
Give away rounds: which were similar to golden opportunities, but required the lucky individual (chosen by the wheel) to give any winnings from the round to a friend that they must nominate before seeing the question.
Research has shown that the maximum dopamine released in the reward system is proportional to the payout available in the context (Nieuwenhuis, et al., 2005). On the other hand, constantly paying out the maximum available is likely to raise expectations and reduce its effect, since dopamine release also codes positive prediction error (i.e. “happy surprise”). One way to reduce this habituation effect is to keep increasing the maximum amount of payout available during the course of the game. For this reason, we tended to increase the points available for questions as the lesson proceeded – a common tactic on gameshows.
In the first session, in school X, a Year 7 science class (N = 25) encountered the topic of “reproduction” delivered through the learning game approach described above. It was clear that the lesson generated intense levels of engagement, particularly amongst boys, and generally there was a lot of excitement. There were some notable moments of particularly strong engagement, such as when the outcomes of quiz responses, or the wheel turning, were being awaited. However, this first session emphasised how engagement does not necessarily translate into learning. Pre-test/post-test results for the first session showed a small but statistically significant increase in knowledge about reproduction at the end, compared with the beginning, of the lesson (t =3.44, p = 0.002).
N=25 / Mean / SDPretest (out of 14) / 4.6 / 2.4
Postest(out of 14) / 5.8 / 3
Discussion and analysis of the film suggested some emergent teaching principles that might help support learning more effectively. Students naturally focus upon the gaming element, so the teacher needs to carefully structure each “turn” in the game to ensure that this also requires the learning content to be attended to.
For example:
When presenting learning content:
* reminding the students that attending to the information slides will help them win points later.
When presenting questions:
* reminding students of the principles involved, and relevant handy hints, when solving quiz questions.
When announcing correct answer:
This is a moment of tension when students’ attention is highly focused on the screen. This can be exploited by
* first explaining to students why other answers are incorrect before announcing correct one
* for incorrect answers, reminding students to remember principles for later
* It was easy to refer to answers by colour (e.g. the answer is red), but referring to all answers by their learning content/principles allows the focus to remain on the educational aims of the lesson.
It also became evident in this first session that the pedagaming approach adds to the role of the teacher, requiring them to divide their attention between game hosting and teaching. These roles are not always complimentary and their combination is likely to require some practise. Nevertheless, the intense engagement generated amongst students was encouraging.