Lauren Yankiling

Rebecca Green
IST 524-30
Dr. Sarah Evanick, PhD
September 4, 2021

Case Study 1: Michael Bishop

Implementing Gaming Technologies in Traditional K-12 Contexts

Preliminary Analysis

1A. Barriers Encountered

The barriers Michael experienced when trying to convince the school district personnel to
implement the game into the middle school classes were:

1. The game took over a week to play and exceeded the time duration.
2. The pilot testing process (pre-test, post-test, interviews) required too much time.
3. Michael’s game did not align directly to objectives assessed on the standardized test, or
at least Michael did not demonstrate how his game would sufficiently help students
perform better on the standardized test.
4. Michael did not consider the diverse learners in a classroom and how teachers could
perceive this type of learning. However, the school agreed the game encouraged critical
thinking through real-life science simulations; the problem was there was no assessment
built into the game for teachers to measure and see the learning. Lastly, even though the
game was science based, fun and engaging to learners, it was not relevant to the
learning in a science classroom. “It’s possible to follow the precepts of constructivist
learning and still have less than successful instruction.” (Reiser & Dempsey, pg. 63)

1B. Considerations for K-12 Educational Game Design

When developing games for students K-12, game designers should consider the following
needs and constraints of the formal classroom:

1. All students are diverse learners. What skills (standards) does my target audience need
to develop, and which of these need the most improvement? In other words, how can my
product help bridge a known gap in the classroom?
2. Is the game beneficial to learning as it is in the classroom? How will it promote effective
learning?
 3. How does this game need to work in the context of a classroom period? What time
frame will students be given to interact with the game? (e.g., A few minutes each class
period? A couple sequential class period’s?) Will the game be assigned as homework or
completed in class? What if a student is absent?
4. Demonstrate a test-pilot to educators in different communities such as: summer camps
and homeschool markets. Also, pitching the game product to other schools and seeing
what their feedback would be for better improvement.
5. How does this game need to work in the context of a group of students? Do teachers
want students to work together (collaborate) or work individually?
6. How will the game support the teacher? (e.g., lesson plan) How will the teacher “grade”
performance in the game? (e.g., built in assessment tools)
7. How do I need to design the interface and instructions, so students of all levels can
quickly engage with the game without spending time learning how to play it?
8. What resources are needed for the game? Computers? Mobile devices? How readily
available are these tools to the students?

2. Arguments for the Potential Benefits of Educational Games

Michael could have convinced the school administrators and teachers that the science game
has a time duration, so that each student gets the advantage to test pilot it. By comparing the
science game to real-life science in a classroom, Michael suggested it would enhance test
performance. However, it would have been more convincing if he shared preliminary pilot test
data from the past couple years proving that the science game was showing positive results
among other educators and volunteers before pitching his game to the school.

His pitch focused on the potential for both learning and motivation. He claimed the game
addressed specific grade-level science concept stands and aligned with the Next Gen Science
Standards in regard to critical thinking and inquiry-based problem solving in the real world, but
the teachers and administrators need to see how this explicitly aligns with their curriculum and
assessments (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018). Michael should have visually mapped all the
applicable standards to the Rigglefish handout to show this direct alignment.

Finally, Michael verbally emphasized that students were motivated and on-task, and he cited
research on the correlation between games/tech that focused on higher-order thinking and
higher outcomes on the standardized tests. However, he did not address how these games
could be practically used in the classroom or how they could substitute for more traditional
curriculum. As a game designer, he needed to show that he “understands the position of the
practitioner” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). He should have shown how these games come with
adequate scaffolding. For example, a problem-based learning game requires teacher support
resources (e.g., lesson plans, multiple types of assessments) to help teachers effectively
facilitate a constructivist-style of learning and prove the game’s effectiveness. Likewise, the
learner needs support to help them manage the responsibility of self-directed learning and to
stay motivated (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018).
3A. Reasons Against Testing the Game in the After-school Setting

Michael holds to the idea that the game has potential to enrich student learning in middle school
science classrooms. He strongly believes students who are unmotivated in science classes will
stay on task and be enthusiastic when they play the game. The grant funding for Michael’s
project was given with the purpose of “developing an innovative model to use technology to
increase the engagement of all students in scientific inquiry in their science classes.” He wants
to reach the typical student who may lack motivation, and he’s concerned that students in
summer camps and after-school programs are outside his target audience.

3B. Pros and Cons of Michael’s Decision

Pros: Michael sought other ideas to pitch his educational game by receiving feedback from the
school. He will be able to report better data to his funders if he can pilot his game with the
grant’s target audience. Lastly, he will be able to more quickly determine if his games meet the
goal.

Cons: The game may not be suitable for all learners, considering each individual has their own
levels of learning. Michael is missing an opportunity to gather usability data by piloting it with a
broader audience that includes summer camps and after-school programs. By pilot testing with
these readily-available groups, he can see which aspects of the game resonate with the player
by keeping them motivated as well as how long players take to complete the game. There is
depth to the game, but it may unfortunately exceed the time available in the classroom. By
testing with outside groups, he can collect data points that will help him refine his game for the
traditional classroom, making it more supportive and appealing to future pilot groups. Finally, he
can analyze the success rate of the game by gathering data on how many students pass (win),
how many give up, and how sophisticated their approach/solution is and so on.

Implications for ID Practice

1. Characteristics of Middle School Learners in the Context of Planning Educational

Games

When designing a game to be used in an educational setting, whether a formal classroom or an

informal after-school program or camp, the designer must understand the target audience.
Middle school learners are at a dynamic stage of human development and span a wide range
on the maturity spectrum, and not all are ready to work independently, self-direct their own
learning, or support the needs of their teammates (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018). They also have
varied exposure to technology and differing levels of pre-knowledge based on their
socioeconomic status and family background or culture. The designer should aim to meet the
learner where they are by building hard and soft scaffolding into the game. For example,
1. Incorporate beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels to accommodate slow and fast
learners.
2. Design the game with appropriate fonts, colors, shapes, and sounds to support learners
with disabilities.
3. Use simple language that supports English language learners.
4. Develop a user-friendly interface and build in a tutorial or help system to provide instant
user support for learners who are less familiar with technology and/or gaming.
5. Select a theme or topic that is considered engaging, fun, and relevant from the
perspective of a learner aged 11-14; Consider providing more than one theme/topic to
choose from.
6. Provide adequate foundational information to get the learner off to a good start so they
achieve some easy wins to keep them motivated early on.
7. Provide clear, step-by-step instructions to help the learner work independently; keep the
tasks small and manageable and provide regular feedback.

2. Different Contexts for Educational Games and How They Affect Design Decisions

Educational games can be implemented in a variety of learning environments, such as the

traditional formal classroom, a semi-formal after-school enrichment program, or the informal
summer camp. Curriculum, student-teacher ratios, time frames, resources, role of assessment,
and student demographics can vary widely across these environments.

For traditional formal classrooms, curriculum is likely fixed with very specific learning objectives
that are measured by standardized tests. Formal classroom teachers may also have a higher
student-teacher ratio and limited flexibility within their curriculum schedule. For these
environments, games need to be designed into manageable chunks that can fit into small blocks
of time. Games must also clearly map to the curriculum standards and include multiple tools for
teachers to formally assess learning (e.g., built-in quizzes, a series of milestone tasks to
accomplish, or supplemental teacher guide with recommended assessment strategies). The
designer must also consider the depth at which a concept needs to be addressed. Finally, the
game needs to extend beyond the cool factor and not be “less relevant than the mundane text-
based page or article” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018).

For after-school programs, student demographics can vary. Some students may enroll because
they need extra support (e.g., tutoring programs); some may enroll for academic enrichment
(e.g., speciality clubs); and others may enroll due to parent schedules (e.g., after-school care).
The level of preparedness and learner independence will vary among these groups, so the
game designer needs to build in motivational features that encourage the learner to go deeper
and make connections to the subject matter. The game also needs to provide appropriate hard
scaffolding to accommodate less independent learners who require more structure (Resier &
Dempsey, 2018). Attendance requirements may be less strict in the after-school setting, too, so
game designers need to consider the ability of the learner to intermittently interact with the
game. For example, can the learner set the game aside and resume play a week later? Can the
learner complete the game in a single session? If team based, can the game accommodate
changeover among players?

For summer camps, the designer should consider the length of the camp (e.g., three days, five
days, or two weeks). Summer camps may allow large blocks of time to dedicate to game play,
but the total length of the camp is finite. The game designer needs to ensure the game can be
completed within a reasonable time. Also, camps may have limited resources (e.g., absence of
a computer lab), so the game designer needs to consider the media through which the game
will be played.

3. Assessing Student Learning Through Educational Games

In the context of problem-based learning (PBL), educational games need a range of

assessment strategies to accommodate teacher needs. If played in a team setting, the teacher
needs to be able to assess group collaboration as well as individual learning. Since PBL aims to
promote deep understanding of subject matter content and develop higher-order thinking skills
(Reiser & Dempsey, 2018), then the game needs to provide the teacher with tools to assess
these goals. According to Reiser and Dempsey, there are three broad categories that guide
assessment strategies: enroute tasks, culminating activities, and individual assessment (2018).

Enroute tasks should be built into the game itself. This could be in the form of levels that need to
be achieved or in tokens/badges that need to be earned. Each level or badge/token can
represent a key concept or learning objective.

For the culminating activity, this could be built into the game as the end-goal. For example, the
student masters the final level of the game or meets the goal of the game by determining the
correct answer or developing a solution based on the game criteria. Alternatively, the
culminating activity could be outlined for the teacher in a supplemental teacher guide as a
summative group assessment. For example, if working in a team, the students could report what
they learned through a group presentation or by answering a series of reflective questions.

Finally, the game should provide the teacher a means of assessing individual student learning.
If the game allows for individual player accounts, then the teacher can have each student show
that they personally achieved select milestones, completed specific activities, or passed mini-
quizzes within the game. If the game is more focused on team role-play, then a supplemental
test or series of reflective questions should be developed as a post-game assessment at the
individual level.

4. Common Factors Affecting the Adoption of Innovations in Schools

Introducing new innovations into the learning environment comes with a series of common
challenges. Typically, there is an initial and instinctual resistance to change. Whether it is a new
teaching strategy (e.g., problem-based learning, flipped learning, online learning) or a new
instructional tool (e.g., game, smartboard, mobile device), the new idea’s success relies on the
comfort level and readiness of the user. Teachers and students alike must be willing and able to
easily engage with the innovation without encountering too much of a learning curve.

If the innovation involves new technology, then there are several organizational issues that need
to be addressed regarding the new tech. For example:
1. Is there adequate initial funding for the resource?
2. What is the long-term cost of maintaining the resource over time?
3. Will the resource need to be shared across departments?
4. If resources are shared, then will each department have ample time and the flexibility to
use the resources as needed?
5. What are the technical specifications of the resource?
6. Will there be compatibility issues across other technical devices?
7. What is the longevity of the resource, and is it worth the investment?

Finally, the new innovation needs to provide authentic learning and align to educational
standards. In other words, it needs to show that it has purpose and value. Reiser & Dempsey
distinguish between formal PBL that comprises “ a distinctive, well documented instructional
approach” versus informal pbl that may be based on a range of educational approaches that
simply use problems as a basis for learning (2018). Likewise, a new game or tool may be
classified as educational yet may not meet the instructional rigor expected of the classroom. If
the game or tool relates too loosely to curriculum standards, then it will lack relevance to the
classroom.

References:

Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical
Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly Vol. 6,
No. 4, pp. 50-72.

Ertmer, P.A, Quinn, J.A., & Glazewski, K.D. (2019). The ID Casebook: Case Studies in
Instructional Design (5th ed.). Case Study 1: Michael Bishop. New York: Routledge. pp. 11-19

Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2018). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
Technology (4th ed.). Chapters 7 & 34. New York: Pearson.