Work package 6:Integration into Educational Processes

Work package leader UWS

Professor Thomas ConnollyDr. Elizabeth BoyleDr. Thomas Hainey

Work package reviewTasks, task leaders, partners and person months for WP6

T6.1 User and education stakeholder requirements

(Task leader: UWS, Thomas Connolly (7))

INESC-ID, Joao Pereira (7) 14

T6.2 Metrics for SG in education

(Task leader: TUG, Michael Kickmeier (5))

UNI-GRAZ, Elisabeth Friedrich (7)

UNIGE, Francesco Bellotti (4) 16

T6.3 Integration methodologies

(Task leader: CNR-ITD, Rosa Bottino, Michela Ott (6))

UCM, Pablo Moreno-Ger (8)

UNIGE, Francesco Bellotti (1) 15

T6.4 Community of teachers and tutors

(Task leader: TU DELFT, Igor Mayer (3))

UU, Remco Veltkamp (3) 10

HWU, Theo Lim (4)

Total 55

Work package review Duration of tasks

for work-package 6

• T6.1 User and education stakeholder requirements Duration: Month1- Month5, Month13- Month18, Month25-

Month30, Month37- Month42• T6.2 Metrics for SG in education

Duration: Month7 - Month12, Month19 - Month24, Month31 - Month36, Month43 - Month48

• T6.3 Integration methodologies Duration: Month13 - Month48

• T6.4 Community of teachers and tutors Duration: Month13 - Month48

Work package review:Aims and objectives of WP6

AIMto examine how SGs and SVWs can be integrated into formal educational systems.

OBJECTIVES1. Carry out a literature review of research on SGs and SVWs in education contexts.2. Investigate how to best integrate different kinds of SGs and SVWs into educational

processes in different stages and in different scenarios using sound pedagogical approaches.

3. Elicit requirements from end-users and education stakeholders.4. Collect, systemize and structure experimental data in order to build a metrics for

assessing and supporting the deployment of SGs and SVWs in concrete educational settings.

5. Elaborate specific methodologies for the non-intrusive integration of SGs and SVWs in existing educational contexts.

6. Gather and nurture a community of teachers and stakeholders who are interested in studying, assessing and promoting the adoption of SGs and SVWs.

Deliverable 6.1: Report on the integration of SGs in

Educational Processes

T6.1 User and education stakeholder requirements

T6.2 Metrics for SG in education

T6.1: User and education stakeholder requirements (UWS)

Objective 3: “Elicit requirements from end-users and education stakeholders”.

• An empirical questionnaire study /focus groups looking at requirements, needs and expectations/attitudes, current experience of end users of and stakeholders in serious games in education (e. g. pupils, students, schools, parents, teachers, HE institutions, professors, trainers, educators).

T6.1: User and education stakeholder requirements: HE Students

• We have run four surveys with students at HE level in UWS in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 looking at – use of games, kinds of games, learning type, learning dynamic,

motives for playing entertainment games and gbl, attitudes to games, perceptions of skills acquired through games

• Online survey – survey monkey• Survey has also been run with

– FE students in Scotland – Secondary school pupils in Greece – HE students in OUNL

• We would seek cooperation of other GALA partners in running survey• Extend to look at which games are used

T6.1: User and education stakeholder requirements: Primary school teachers

• Pilot Survey of Teachers to gauge the current use of and attitudes to DGBL for learning at primary schools in Scotland

• To identify games that are currently being used in the classroom– subjects where this approach would be most advantageous

• online survey (SurveyMonkey) distributed through email to the head teachers to primary schools across Renfrewshire (49) and Glasgow.

T6.1: Primary school teachers survey of current use of and attitudes to DGBL at school

• Demographic information– gender, age, school name.

• Information on the computer game usage for teaching– game name, age level, subject matter.

• Information on game creation tool usage– tool name, expertise, evaluation of the tool.

• Personal thoughts, motivations and obstacles on using DGBL including– Motivation for using DGBL– Reasons for playing games– Attitudes to computer games

• Benefits of DGBL• Obstacles in using DGBL

– fitting game to curriculum– limited time available– technical infrastructure of the school

Next steps: T6.1: Extension of surveys to other countries

• Strategy for accessing participants?• Who will take part? European focus

– GALA partners: UK, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Romania

– Greece, Sweden, Eastern Europe• Gala partners (especially WP6 partners) would help identify

stakeholders• teachers, pupils and students from primary, secondary and tertiary/higher

education institutions across Europe; other stakeholders –parents, SEN children, educational psychologists; games companies

• Education depts of unis?• GALA members with children• ECGBL

Next steps: T6.1: issues in extending analysis more widely

• Survey instrument– Is online possible for pupils, students and teachers?– survey monkey

• Translation?• Different educational structures and stages of

education across Europe• Different curricula• Also pupils’ and students’ use of games in

informal learning

T6.2: Metrics for SG in education

Objective 1: “Carry out a literature review of research on SGs and SVWs in education contexts.”

• Use UWS literature search and database • Results from TC2.8 Pedagogy literature

review

UWS Literature Search and Database

Search terms: ("computer games" OR "video games" OR

"serious games" OR "simulation games" OR "games-based learning" OR "MMOG" OR "MMORPG" OR "M.U.D." OR "online games")

AND (evaluation OR impacts OR outcomes OR effects OR learning OR education OR skills OR behaviour OR attitude OR engagement OR motivation OR affect)

Literature Search- Results

• Biomed – 137 papers• Cambridge – 1,191 papers• EBSCO – 1,544 papers• Emerald – 282 papers• Eric – 2,412 papers• Infotrac – 945 papers • Ingenta – 267 papers• Science Direct – 12,998 papers• TOTAL = 19,776

Online Database now available

T6.2 Metrics for SG in education

Objective 4: “Collect, systemize and structure experimental data in order to build a metrics for assessing and supporting the deployment of SGs and SVWs in concrete educational settings.”

Based on T1.2 Metrics: Bloom’s taxonomyLearning outcomes: knowledge, skills: generic, subject

based, soft skills, psychomotor/physiological, technological, motivational/affective

Learner performance, perceptions, attitudes, preferences, motives, affect

Next steps: T6.3 Integration methodologies (CNR-ITD: Months 13-48)

Objective 2: “Investigate how to best integrate different kinds of SGs and SVWs into educational processes in different stages and in different scenarios using sound pedagogical approaches.”

Objective 5: “Elaborate specific methodologies for the non-intrusive integration of SGs and SVWs in existing educational contexts.”

WP2 “will gather and study qualitative information and quantitative data on the integration of SGs in the actual learning processes, considering different typologies of games, various types of users, various types of educational targets that determine different uses, various learning situations and what is the role of the teacher/instructor when using a game.”

Next steps: T6.3 Integration methodologies

CNR-ITD: Primary and secondaryUCM- Tertiary and Informal?

• Based on the results of the literature reviews from TC2.8 on pedagogy and TC2.7 on learning outcomes, carry out focused lit reviews on use of gbl at primary, secondary, tertiary levels

• Selection subset of 60 TC/SIG case studies for gbl games at different levels – primary, secondary, tertiary

• A survey of relevant projects and experiments carried out/ in progress within the GALA Community?

• ECGBL • EU projects in the field of games and learning (in particular those

financed in the 6th and 7th framework program-ICT and in other relevant EU programs such as the lifelong-learning program) will be scanned

Problem: GAP

• Integration into education• Integration into corporate training • Integration into informal activities –

integration perhaps inappropriate term, more use of games informally eg at home, gyms, health, museums, youth clubs, libraries

Problem: SIGS

SIGS don’t seem to mirror curricular areas in primary and secondary education very well

• Business and Management• Engineering and Manufacturing• Health and Fitness• Security, Safety and Crisis Management• Humanities and Heritage• Personal and Social Learning & Ethicsgames used in primary and secondary are largely

to do with maths, science, English/language don’t fit neatly; Social games

Next steps: T6.4 Community of teachers and tutors (TU DELFT: Months 13-48)

• Objective 6: Gather and nurture a community of teachers and stakeholders who are interested in studying, assessing and promoting the adoption of SGs and SVWs.

The community will emerge to some extent from GALA members, research and development contacts, stakeholders, association, outreach advisory board

Links between WP6 and other work packages

• Links to WP1.2: SG metrics• Links to WP2:

– T2.6: Assessment; T2.7: Psychology; T2.8: Pedagogy • Take WP3 SIGS into account • Links to WP5: Education• Links to WP7: Integration into corporate

training– Common tasks in different domains

Year 1 time line

1-3 months 4-6 months 7-9 months 10-12 monthsTask1: stakeholder needs

Identify stakeholders

Identify respondents; design questionnaire

Task 2:search and metrics

link to T1.2 & T7.2; agree search terms and scope of search;

carry out search; agree metrics

Categorise games according to agreed metrics

Task 3: integration of games into education

Use 6.1 and 6.2 to identify studies

Task 4: community

Use WP6.1 to identify key stakeholders

Deliverables Interim activity report

Report 1: integration of SGs in educational processes

4 year time line

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Task1stakeholder needs

Design survey of user and stakeholder needs; Identify stakeholders and respondents

Identify participants; administer, analyse and publish survey

Focus group study of user and stakeholder needs

Review Survey

Task 2search and metrics

Search and database; link with WP T1.2; T7.2 - metrics

make links with WP2.6; 2.7; 2.8; 2.10

Update search and analysis

Update search and analysis

Task 3integration of games into education

Use 6.1 and 6.2 to identify games; Examine lit and EU projects

Identify best practices and examples – case studies

Draft overview Develop guidelines; evaluation

Task 4community

Use WP6.1 & 6.2 to identify interested parties

Develop links with communities

Specific SG initiatives & activities within the community

Evaluate initiatives

Deliverables Report 1 Report 2 Report 3 Report 4

Issues• Evaluation of effectiveness of serious games in education

– taxonomy and metrics– Learning outcomes – specific subject areas (SIGS)– Fun and motivations in serious games– Use of entertainment games (COTS) in education – informal/extra curricular games? e. g. use of games in museums

• Are different kinds of games more suitable for different stages: nursery, primary, secondary, tertiary?

• Transfer of skills from game to other learning activities • Constraints of games

– Matching games with curricular learning outcomes– Games not serious– Perceptions of teachers, e. g. lack of time to introduce games in schools