What are the barriers ahead of our teaching innovations?
Rice, J. W. (2007). New media resistance: Barriers to implementation of computer video games in the classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 249-261.
(This article can be located in UF online library)
Ben has introduced John Rice’s blogsite about video games. I read a few articles about gaming by Rice before. One of his articles, “Assessing higher order thinking in video games”(Rice, 2007) is very impressive, especially there is a well-designed rubric we can use in evaluating video games. What I read this week is Rice’s another article, which I have put in my folder but never had a chance to read before.
At the very beginning, Rice (2007) clarifies the term he uses in this article is “computer video game,” which extends Gredler’s (1996) definition of “games to computing environments” (p.250). Actually, the term “computer video game” also appears in the abstract of his higher order thinking article and he does not explain the term there. Due to the overlapping between video games and computer games, most researchers use these the two terms interchangeably. The term Rice uses is more inclusive.
This article presents a qualitative review of several papers on implementing computer video games in the classrooms. The focus of the article is to identify “elements and/or characteristics of educational video games that hindered their usefulness or otherwise dissuaded stakeholders in adopting the video game elements for classroom implementation” (Rice, 2007, p.251). Based on the literature, Rice finds six barriers:
1)Negative perceptions among educators: This is about the “legitimacy” of video games. Negative perceptions towards video games hamper accepting games in the classroom. Rice (2007) mentions two kinds of negative reactions to video games. First, many educators who lack exposure to modern virtual interactive environments (VIEs) may take games as mere lower cognitive arcade-style games. Second, people may associate games with “violence foster”.
2)Unsophisticated graphics: Compared with commercial games, educational games’ graphics need to be improved. Otherwise, students’ enthusiasms will fade soon.
3)Inadequate computing hardware: Advanced video games require newer hardware, which usually poses challenges to schools.
4)Time constraints of class periods: Short class periods in school hinder effective implementation of video games in class.
5)Lack of affordances: Lack of affordances in the video game environment impedes player’s engagement and diminishes opportunities for interactions between players and gaming environments.
6)Lack of alignment to standards: The teacher who adopts the game in the classroom must “be able to adapt it to his or her specific state and local standards rather than seeking to adapt the standards to the product” (Rice, 2007, p.257).
Except the barrier of affordances, all the other barriers are easy to understand. I have come across the notion of “affordance” before when I read something about multimedia and multimodal reading. In this article, Rice (2007) states that affordance theory proposed by Gibson (1977) is to describe “the relationship between an entity and its environment” (Rice, 2007, p.256). Wikipedia defines an affordance as “a quality an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action.” When it comes to video games, I think affordances mean the quality of games that stimulates players’ actions. Rice (2007) asserts that “the current level of software sophistication is insufficient for highly advanced affordances” (p.256). This implies a problem in game design. If more real life affordances are created in games, “opportunities for simulated experience” (Rice, 2007, p.256) will be maximized.
On the basis of barrier analysis, Rice (2007) states some implications and poses questions for further research. While exploring the potential of video game implementation in teaching and learning, we definitely need to examine the barriers ahead of us on the way for innovative teaching. Rice (2007) suggests informal learning environments such as after school and summer programs provide “better times for engaging in rich cognitive VIEs” (p.255). Indeed, I believe the current stage of research on gaming should consider informal learning environments, which may help to open access to later research in formal learning sites.
References
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. In D. Johnassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 521-540). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 87-100.
(This article can be located in UF online library)
Ben has introduced John Rice’s blogsite about video games. I read a few articles about gaming by Rice before. One of his articles, “Assessing higher order thinking in video games”(Rice, 2007) is very impressive, especially there is a well-designed rubric we can use in evaluating video games. What I read this week is Rice’s another article, which I have put in my folder but never had a chance to read before.
At the very beginning, Rice (2007) clarifies the term he uses in this article is “computer video game,” which extends Gredler’s (1996) definition of “games to computing environments” (p.250). Actually, the term “computer video game” also appears in the abstract of his higher order thinking article and he does not explain the term there. Due to the overlapping between video games and computer games, most researchers use these the two terms interchangeably. The term Rice uses is more inclusive.
This article presents a qualitative review of several papers on implementing computer video games in the classrooms. The focus of the article is to identify “elements and/or characteristics of educational video games that hindered their usefulness or otherwise dissuaded stakeholders in adopting the video game elements for classroom implementation” (Rice, 2007, p.251). Based on the literature, Rice finds six barriers:
1)Negative perceptions among educators: This is about the “legitimacy” of video games. Negative perceptions towards video games hamper accepting games in the classroom. Rice (2007) mentions two kinds of negative reactions to video games. First, many educators who lack exposure to modern virtual interactive environments (VIEs) may take games as mere lower cognitive arcade-style games. Second, people may associate games with “violence foster”.
2)Unsophisticated graphics: Compared with commercial games, educational games’ graphics need to be improved. Otherwise, students’ enthusiasms will fade soon.
3)Inadequate computing hardware: Advanced video games require newer hardware, which usually poses challenges to schools.
4)Time constraints of class periods: Short class periods in school hinder effective implementation of video games in class.
5)Lack of affordances: Lack of affordances in the video game environment impedes player’s engagement and diminishes opportunities for interactions between players and gaming environments.
6)Lack of alignment to standards: The teacher who adopts the game in the classroom must “be able to adapt it to his or her specific state and local standards rather than seeking to adapt the standards to the product” (Rice, 2007, p.257).
Except the barrier of affordances, all the other barriers are easy to understand. I have come across the notion of “affordance” before when I read something about multimedia and multimodal reading. In this article, Rice (2007) states that affordance theory proposed by Gibson (1977) is to describe “the relationship between an entity and its environment” (Rice, 2007, p.256). Wikipedia defines an affordance as “a quality an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action.” When it comes to video games, I think affordances mean the quality of games that stimulates players’ actions. Rice (2007) asserts that “the current level of software sophistication is insufficient for highly advanced affordances” (p.256). This implies a problem in game design. If more real life affordances are created in games, “opportunities for simulated experience” (Rice, 2007, p.256) will be maximized.
On the basis of barrier analysis, Rice (2007) states some implications and poses questions for further research. While exploring the potential of video game implementation in teaching and learning, we definitely need to examine the barriers ahead of us on the way for innovative teaching. Rice (2007) suggests informal learning environments such as after school and summer programs provide “better times for engaging in rich cognitive VIEs” (p.255). Indeed, I believe the current stage of research on gaming should consider informal learning environments, which may help to open access to later research in formal learning sites.
References
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a (research) paradigm. In D. Johnassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 521-540). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 87-100.
posted by Zhuo(Joel) Li at
8:39 PM
2 Comments:
Hi Zhuo,
I believe the barriers for implementation of videos may well extend to simulations. A rubric to evaluate games for use in the classroom is a wonderful tool with perhaps the power to convince teachers that games can be instructional time well spent.
I was surprised by some of the barriers but others are common (time). This is great information for one who is on a crusade for instructional gaming.
Great info!
:) Garnette
By
Garnette Knapp, at 11:00 PM
Hi Zhuo,
I also found some articles that reported gender is another barrier.
Joe Meenaghan, president of the Game Institute, said "The majority of gamers are now males so if vendors want to use these applications in classrooms, they need to develop more games that appeal to females".
Good innovations always have numerous roadblocks ahead. HAHA.
Jiao
By
Jiao Li, at 3:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home