Abstract
A student-designed games (SDG) teaching unit could be described as the process in which students create, organise, practice and refine their own games within certain limits established by the teacher. This study compared how two different teaching approaches had an impact on students and their teacher. The researcher taught two SDG units to junior high school students. The information and communication technology (ICT) teaching approach provided students with the opportunity to design their games online beyond class time. The non-technological (NT) teaching approach provided a more traditional approach, having students designing their games with face-to-face interactions. Using a case study methodology, four different data collection methods were used: field note observations, Edmodo posts, interviews, and lesson plans. Both teaching approaches presented positive and challenging outcomes, with key differences being found. For teachers, these were: (i) introducing students to new culture; (ii) providing resources to support game design; (iii) teacher direction of student work; and (iv) the degree of linearity in students’ work. For students, the main differences were: (i) students’ overall engagement; (ii) intra-group and inter-group interactions; and (iii) the quality of playbooks. The ICT teaching approach was considered a more difficult teaching methodology that required more experience with SDG, constructivism, and ICT. Nevertheless, the ICT teaching approach also provided more equity among students as they were given more opportunity to share their ideas in online discussions. Future research may consider a hybrid model that focuses on the major benefits that can be derived from each teaching approach.
Keywords
Introduction
Student-designed games (SDG) have been referred to in many different ways in the literature, including games making (Almond, 1983; Cox and Ledingham, 1988), child-designed games (Rovegno and Bandhauer, 1994), games invention (Curtner-Smith, 1996), and inventing games (Butler and Hopper, 2011). Although there may be slight discriminations between each of these terms, they are all part of the same subject matter. According to Hastie (2010), SDG teaching unit could be described as the process in which students create and practise their own games, and in which the teacher as facilitator is able to guide and establish certain limits.
The concept of SDG emerged in the late 1960s for the first time in the physical education (PE) literature when Mauldon and Redfern (1969) introduced the idea that children were experts in game playing, and therefore they should have more liberty to create their own games.
The literature on SDG can be separated into three periods. The
The
The
Another topic put forward during this period revolved around providing sufficient time for the creative process of game design without diminishing the appreciated designated time to play of PE classes. This issue was addressed when Hastie et al. (2010) had students using wikis as the recording and communication tool to create their games outside of school. In that study, the students, their PE teacher, the school’s librarian and SDG expert (an external researcher) became interconnected beyond school hours as the students designed their games and reported its steps through the wiki. This was the first time in which information and communication technology (ICT) was used to teach SDG. Casey et al. (2015) also successfully used a wiki for SDG unit with previously disengaged students in PE.
In summary, the literature on SDG has now reached a level of maturity where it is possible to delimitate what SDG actually is (characterisation), to understand the potential uses of SDG (diversification), and to appreciate how SDG can enhance students’ game-related learning experiences (teaching and learning).
Seeking for a deeper understanding of what could be a better fit to all parties involved in the teaching and learning process of a SDG unit, the purpose of the present study was to compare how two different teaching approaches had an impact on students and their teacher. The first approach involved using ICT tools during game design in order to allow student involvement beyond class time, while the second (and more traditional approach) saw students designing games with face-to-face interactions during their regularly scheduled PE lessons. For the teacher, issues of planning and instructional support were examined, while for students, issues of overall engagement as well as the ability to work together as a group were the key topics of study.
Methods
Study design
The present study was conducted using a case study design. According to Stake (2005), a case study is a system that may be able to identify the diverse elements that compose its organisation, explaining how each component interferes with one another and what can be learned from this relationship. In the present study, there were three elements that needed to be considered, these being the teacher, the students, and the different forms of interactions promoted by each of the two teaching approaches.
It is important to acknowledge that the researcher (lead author) taught both SDG teaching units. Having an ongoing interaction with students and blending the activities of teaching and data collection allowed the researcher to provide a practical point of view as he dealt with the same challenges as other teachers. Hence, the study design was able to provide a contextualised description of the environment. Moreover, having control of both teaching units also guaranteed that both groups of students were receiving the same quality of instruction, thereby increasing the internal validity of the study.
Both SDG teaching units were conducted concomitantly. While both classes followed Hastie’s (2010) five-stage game design (introduction, game design, peer evaluation/playing games, game refinement, and writing a playbook), the most significant differences between the teaching approaches were evident in stage two (game design). That is, the students from the non-technology (NT) group performed all game design activities within their scheduled PE class time, and were not required to do any classwork outside the school. In contrast, the ICT students performed all game design activities outside of the PE classes, with their scheduled class times being directed towards game play. In these lessons, the focus was placed on giving the students time to explore and experiment with their games.
The virtual hub known as Edmodo was used as the platform through which the students from the ICT group were able to communicate with group members, peers from other groups, and the teacher at any point of the day. In essence, Edmodo could be described as the ‘educational Facebook’. It has a similar design to Facebook, making its navigation intuitive and user friendly. The students from the ICT class used Edmodo to design their own games, post their rules, upload diagrams, and engage in discussions that could be open to every student in class, or restricted to group members. The decision to use Edmodo and other supporting ICT tools (e.g. Microsoft PowerPoint and web-based tools) was based on the first author’s positive experience teaching with these tools as well as students’ familiarity with the conventions of Facebook (of which over 95% of students had an account).
Participants and setting
The participants in this study were 82 eighth and ninth-grade students (34 male, 48 female) varying from 13 to 15 years of age from a junior high school located in the southern region of the United States. The school enrolled 1100 students, with 25% receiving free or reduced-cost school meals, and where 87% had English as their first language. The students became members of 17 construction teams that remained together for the duration of the project. The NT group consisted of 31 students divided into seven groups, while the ICT group had 51 students in 10 groups. The school selected for this study provided a laptop for each student and therefore all students were eligible to participate in either intervention.
The school offered PE classes every other day. As a consequence, students participated in two classes during one week, and then in three classes in the following week. As a result, the intervention was designed in a way that the researcher would teach one class each day, alternating the ICT and NT groups. Although there was no allocated time to complete the project, the SDG intervention ultimately consisted of ten 75-minute lessons for the ICT group and eleven 75-minute lessons for the NT group spanning five weeks. Parents or legal guardians of each student signed the informed consent letter to allow their child to participate in the study. The students also provided assent. The study protocol was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board for human subjects.
Data collection
Four methods of data collection were used in this study. For both groups, these included field note observations, interviews, and lesson plans, while data were also collected from the entries from each of the 10 Edmodo pages (one for each group of game design) of the ICT group.
Field note observations
The researcher used a portable digital voice recorder to make personal observations about students’ actions during all lessons. These observations included descriptions of notable events, preliminary analysis of findings, students’ quotes, and informal interviews with students during lessons.
Interviews
At the end of the intervention, all students participated in group interviews which had two goals. First, they were used to double check what was reported in other methods, and second, they served to provide further explanations on those features of the units that enhanced or diminished the students’ experience. Table 1 provides the guiding questions that were used in these interviews, which lasted on average 30 minutes.
Interview schedule.
Lesson plans
The lesson plans of the teacher-as-researcher were used to analyse the strategies, content and evaluations included in each lesson.
Edmodo
The researcher had access to all students’ posts.
Data analysis
The data from the four sources were subjected to a systematic process of inductive analysis and comparison, following the protocols proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). First, the field note observations and Edmodo posts recorded were examined to establish the first interpretations of how students and teacher reacted to each of the teaching methodologies. Second, these interpretations were compared with the interview transcripts and lesson plans in order to confirm or contradict the preliminary interpretations. When accumulative data confirmed the same concept, themes were generated. Throughout this process, the researcher was also careful to look for deviant or negative cases, that is, events or comments that ran counter to the emerging propositions or hypotheses.
Trustworthiness
The present research used two methods to ensure trustworthiness: triangulation and ethnographer observer. Triangulation was the process in which the data collected with one method were either re-evaluated with data collected from another method (in order to guarantee research rigour) or where further explanation was drawn as each method provided complementary information regarding the subject matter that was being analysed.
The role of the ethnographic observer was to ensure that the proposed theoretical framework was being delivered appropriately. In the role of this ethnographic observer, the second author attended many lessons of both groups (NT and ICT) and had several meetings with the lead author to discuss the intervention pedagogy in order to validate: (1) that SDG was indeed being taught; (2) that the ICT group and the NT group were both receiving quality SDG lessons; and (3) making his own observations (in class) regarding each research question in order to work as a member check when the researcher was drawing analysis of students’ actions.
Results
The results of this study are presented in accordance with the four research questions, and they are presented under the headings of: (a) teacher’s planning; (b) teacher’s demands for supporting students; (c) students’ overall engagement; and (d) students’ ability to work together.
Teacher’s planning
There were two main topics that affected the teacher’s planning. These have been given the labels of introducing students to new culture(s) and providing resources to support game design.
Introducing students to new culture(s)
Given that only three out of the 82 students (from both classes) reported having some previous experience in designing their own activities in PE, SDG presented a new scenario for most of the participants in this study. Most students seemed to enjoy this freedom of choice. The following quote from one interview is representative of the opinion of many students: ‘You don’t get to do what you like to do in PE a lot of times, like a lot of games in PE are kind of stupid, but when you make your own game, you actually get to do what you like to do’.
Unlike most PE classes, the students were also empowered to make decisions about who they would work with and who they would play with. Even more significant, they were also able to make decisions about lesson content. Moreover, the students had to think about how games might fit their needs and interests rather than playing familiar games with established rules. Although these were elements that were welcomed by most students, many of them did not seem to fully appreciate such empowerment, particularly as they were being held accountable to deliver certain assignments in order to have a PE class. Despite the high degree of novelty, the teacher had little difficulty in establishing this new culture with the NT group (field notes). Many students stated their preference for SDG while referring to content that they would enjoy and the opportunity to enhance their participation in class. An example of this idea is illustrated in the following interview statement: ‘You could create a game that was designed for everyone and each person could have equal chance’.
Nonetheless, the responsibility for creating a new game outside of school time (ICT group only) also meant that the students encountered another new culture, that being the idea of ‘PE homework’. The teacher found this to be a much more challenging culture to institute. As one student noted in the interview, ‘I’d rather do the work in class because if everything [game design] is at home I think I forget about it or I procrastinated and would not do it.’ Although establishing the idea of PE homework was a challenge that had to be overcome, it also served to increase student responsibility (field notes).
Providing resources to support game design
The teacher found it was particularly important to provide resources to the ICT group. As an example, a section on how to login was included during a class at the beginning of the unit (lesson plan). Nevertheless, the greatest challenge was getting students used to logging in to Edmodo outside of school.
Three strategies seemed effective in this case. These included: (1) making Edmodo look ‘fresh’ by introducing new content every day; (2) making the interface user friendly by including instructional videos; and (3) including entertaining content such as videos of different games that are less common in American culture (lesson plans).
Despite having many new duties with respect to teaching students with ICT, by the end of the SDG teaching unit, the ICT lessons required less planning as most students were able to take responsibility for their assignments. It is also important to acknowledge that setting up these resources was particularly time consuming because of the novelty of the approach. It could be reasonably expected that future units would be much more streamlined, as most of these tasks would already be in place (lesson plan reflection).
Teacher’s demands for supporting students
There were two main topics that affected the teacher’s demands for supporting students. These were: (1) teacher direction of student work; and (2) the degree of linearity in students’ work.
Teacher direction of student work
When comparing the two teaching approaches, the teacher’s direction of student progress was almost polar opposites across the two formats. That is, during the game design stage (stage 2) the teacher had significant input into students’ work in the NT group, while having much less during the refinements of the game (stage 4). This scenario was reversed with the ICT group. In this case, the teacher had little involvement during the game design phase, but significantly more during the refinements of the game (field notes and lesson plans).
The ways in which these units were designed by the teacher played an important role in this regulation of the students’ work. In the NT group, the teacher had all students working on the same activities at the same time. As a result, the teacher was able to visit each group while they were discussing their ideas (stage 2) and talk to them about how their game design was developing.
With the ICT group, there were significant variations in how much support/feedback the teacher was able to deliver for each group (Edmodo). As previously mentioned, despite the strategies put in place to encourage students to adopt Edmodo, there were some groups that did not use this platform. As a result, the teacher was not able to give much feedback to these students during their design process (field notes and Edmodo). However, it is important to acknowledge that this finding was more related to students’ behaviour (lack of use of the chosen platform – Edmodo) than the ability to follow students’ work through the online platform.
In summary, when considering the beginning stages of game design, the NT group was taught using a ‘fill in the blanks’ approach where the students completed the tasks as they were given. On the other hand, the ICT group was taught with an ‘open-ended’ approach. That is, the teacher posted questions and tried to instigate their creativity, seeking to provoke their critical thinking, but was unable to assess this process most of the time.
The teacher also experienced different scenarios during those times where the students were refining their games (stage 4). In the NT group, after playing the games, several groups would engage in discussions at the same time, hence, the teacher would struggle to follow all conversations, that is, the teacher was unable to moderate all students’ work (field notes and lesson plans). At times, this was considered problematic as students’ discussions would often lose track and start focusing on who won/lost the game (field notes).
On the other hand, the teacher had more input into the discussions and work of the ICT group. For example, he posed specific questions in Edmodo to lead the discussions in a way that students were able to identify the major positive and negative elements of the played game. Sample discussion questions included: ‘Did you like the game? Why or why not? What rule would you change?’ Although not all students participated in the discussions, a greater number of students engaged online in this stage of the game creation compared with the number of students engaged in stage 2 (Edmodo and lesson plans).
It is important to consider that when comparing the two groups of students, the outcomes reported in this study are a result of the interaction between the teaching approach (ICT or NT) and the students’ behaviour. In other words, the teaching approach may provide the possibility of more or less support to students’ work, but students’ accountability would also be crucial to determine if other environments would provide similar or different findings.
Degree of linearity of students’ work
The different teaching approaches affected the ways in which students worked and, as a consequence, the demands for supporting that work also varied. Although the five stages of game design were introduced in the ICT group, different groups were working on different stages at the same time. That is, while there were students who had already presented and played their game and therefore were starting stage four, other groups were still working on stage two. In contrast, in the NT classes, given that all activities were developed in class, the teacher could determine when one stage was completed and when new challenges had to be provided to students (lesson plans).
As a result of these differences, the teacher’s workload varied. In the ICT group, the lack of linearity among different groups meant a greater workload, as different students were dealing with different issues during the same period of time (lesson plans). On the other hand, in the NT group, the teacher was able to address many issues that were common to many groups while addressing the entire class (lesson plans).
Students’ overall engagement
It is important to acknowledge that students’ overall engagement was perceived as very high in both groups, as all teams were able to fulfil all their game design tasks and they all showed an interest in the process of game design. While few students were ever off-task (field notes), there were significant differences across groups. While it is not being claimed that the students from the ICT group were more engaged than their NT peers, it is important to note that this teaching approach did have the potential for greater engagement due to extended times when students could engage in group work. Nonetheless, the ICT students needed to learn to: (a) work by themselves; (b) determine when they would work; and (c) determine how much time and effort they would contribute during this process. These requirements carried two interrelated outcomes: students were able to work at their own pace; and students had greater opportunities to contribute according to their interests (field notes).
As a result, students’ engagement varied greatly. For instance, when asked how one of the groups worked outside the school, one student responded: ‘Well, I got in Edmodo every day because I got the App and then towards the PowerPoint part [playbook] I saw that “Paul” (pseudonym) was not posting so I posted on Edmodo reminding everyone’ (interview). Despite this increase in autonomy and opportunity to participate, a number of ICT students considered this to be a more excessive amount of work than would be expected for a normal PE class. This was particularly the case in the weeks where there were three lessons scheduled.
As mentioned previously, the NT group progressed through the five game development stages in a linear fashion. As a result, NT students had the same amount of time to work through each stage. Of the seven design groups, only one had difficulty in keeping the same pace as the other six groups during game design (field notes). It is suggested that this was due to the NT students having a better understanding of what they had to do in each given stage, together with the higher level of direct support from the teacher during class (field notes).
Students’ ability to work together
There were two main topics related to students’ ability to work together. These related to: (1) intra/inter-group communication; and (2) the quality of playbooks.
Intra/inter-group communication
When considering group members’ interactions while designing their game (stage 2), the ICT students reported difficulties in designing their game outside of class. Indeed, many groups chose not to use Edmodo while designing their game. Moreover, although Edmodo is designed for students to place comments in different time periods, none of the groups approached game design in this way. As a result, many students chose to communicate in more direct ways such as talking to each other between classes and/or talking on the phone (Edmodo). Two interview comments help to illustrate this logic: ‘You would call somebody and say: “Get on Edmodo”, but by that time, you already called so what was the point?’ and ‘To me, it was just better to say some ideas [to my group] in person, I would just rather explain it, than type it. In Edmodo, you would never know who would be in and when.’
The NT students reported positive relationships and productivity in intra-group interactions while designing their game in class. While NT students did not report any issues of miscommunication while designing their games, it is important to acknowledge that the groups used different approaches to game design. Out of the seven groups, three groups designed their game in a very active manner. That is, they did not sit down for long and talk about their game plans. Rather, they discussed one or two ideas and started testing them within a few minutes of being given the assignment. The remaining four groups discussed their ideas for a longer period, doodled court diagrams and even talked about a few specific situations before trying their game (field notes).
While the NT students reported positive relationships and productivity when designing their games during class time, the opposite outcome was found when considering the inter-group interactions when it came to discussing game refinements (stage 4). The ICT students seemed committed to discussing game refinements online in a positive way. Further, the ICT students discussed the game after class while logging on to Edmodo. The teacher supported these interactions by writing posts asking for students’ opinions of the game that they played in class and each student had to reply with their opinion about the game and explaining their reasons. For example: (Teacher) If you are receiving this post please comment on the corresponding game that you played last PE class presented by the ‘Bear’ and ‘Tigers’ (pseudonyms) groups. 1) Did you like the game? Explain why or why not? 2) What rule would you change? 3) Was the game challenging? (Student response) We played the ‘Tigers’ game. It was fun, but I think that the idea of passing the ball to another person is bad. The game ends too quickly. It would be better to have 2 dodgeballs on each team and the first group that gets all the 4 balls wins. Other than that, love it ⌣
In the NT group there was more disharmony during discussions of game refinements. While some groups were very critical of other groups’ games, game developers also became particularly defensive and unwilling to listen to suggestions. The following interview extract suggests that many NT students struggled to separate the competitive nature of game play, and the cooperative element of game refinement: There would be groups that would want to mould the game to make it easier for them to play…saying like ‘make the goal bigger’. In fact, the goal was already big, it’s them that can’t score.
Quality of playbooks
The quality of playbooks is reported not as an element that affected students’ ability to work together, but rather as an outcome of their group work. The ICT students had the opportunity to start designing their game in the early stages of the unit, as they had access to a PowerPoint presentation posted in Edmodo that listed key game design questions. This early start gave the students more opportunity to make changes to their playbooks as they made changes to their games. The playbooks presented by the ICT students followed all the leading questions with significant detail, and they showed a greater concern for presenting all rules with the advantage of presenting visual aids that enhanced the overall understanding. This group also included clear diagrams (while using PowerPoint’s drawing features) as well as extra features that went beyond the initial requirements, such as the inclusion of illustrations that showed the equipment used in the game.
The NT students’ playbooks were not as sophisticated compared with those in the ICT class. First, the process of writing the playbooks in the NT group began only at the very end of the unit. Second, the NT group playbooks provided less information about their games. The most common issues found with the NT playbooks were: (a) unclear diagrams; and (b) rules were simplified (most playbooks missed important rules). It can be concluded that not having the tools that the ICT group had in the Microsoft PowerPoint, the NT students were unable to present clear diagrams due to a lack of drawing skills (field notes).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to reflect upon the different teaching approaches available to deliver SDG. Considering the four research questions, the discussion section presents further deliberation on four topics (1) teacher experience; (2) teaching style preference; (3) students’ engagement; and (4) students’ relationships with peers.
Teacher experience: Planning and supporting students
SDG is proposed as a student-centred approach to PE. However, the ICT teaching approach provided students with even more freedom of choice and therefore could be considered as more student-centred. It is important, however, to acknowledge that the ICT tools alone could not be considered as a reason for making this claim. The ICT approach included the process of designing the game as a take-home activity, and this chosen pathway led to a number of consequences that required the teacher to integrate different sources of knowledge. At this time, we would call attention to the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) theoretical framework presented by Schmidt et al. (2009). According to Schmidt, in order to deliver a teaching approach which includes technology integration, one must be able to link all three forms of knowledge (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge). In the present study, the teacher sought to link all three forms of knowledge: Edmodo and supporting software (technological), constructivism (pedagogical), and SDG (content). Considering that implementing each source of knowledge alone can be challenging, the teacher in this study felt particularly stressed during many ICT lessons. In the NT approach, the teacher was able to perceive students’ difficulties as they were designing the game while interacting with students face-to-face. In the ICT condition, the teacher would interact with students online and would often be unaware of all issues that students had encountered during the game design process.
The ICT condition also required the teacher to have experience with multiple ICT tools and their associated pedagogies. The teacher noticed that he needed other technological experiences beyond the use of the Edmodo interface (e.g. screen recording as instructional videos). Inan and Lowther (2010) have shown that the most significant variable in determining teachers’ use of ICT tools is their feeling of readiness (capabilities and skills needed to integrate technology in instruction).
It is important to acknowledge that the introduction to SDG alone may be considered a ‘culture shock’ for many students. However, given that the researcher was not a permanent teacher within the setting, he also needed to navigate the school (and student) culture, which in itself presented students with another series of ‘culture(s) shocks’. Given that all students had laptops for all other classes, the teacher believed a priori it would be easier to use technology integration in this school. Nonetheless, the biggest change for students in the ICT approach was the introduction of homework assignments, which was considered problematic by many.
Finally, the ICT teaching condition also produced a greater workload as the teacher had to deal with assignments beyond lesson plan preparation and teaching classes. This was consistent with the findings reported by Hastie et al. (2010) when teaching SDG with wikis (ICT tool) with a similar teaching methodology.
Teaching style preference
The way in which the teaching approach was designed also affected the teaching style. When students were given a take-home assignment to be completed as a group, they had to deal with several decisions involving group interactions (cooperation, leadership, listening skills, work division), as well as the amount of time and effort given to complete each task. Hence, students in the ICT teaching approach were required to be much more autonomous given that the teacher did not have control of any of these elements. As a consequence, the SDG with the ICT teaching approach required the teacher to have less awareness of students’ work and a reduced capacity to hold them accountable. At times, this was challenging, particularly when students were responsible for presenting their game in the upcoming class, but where the teacher could not see any evidence on Edmodo of them being ready.
As described in previous research, the present study also showed that students approached game design in many different ways. Hastie and André (2012) reported that different students tend to show different approaches to designing the games. Some could be described as ‘doers’ (where they design their game by testing their theories) while others are ‘planners’ (where they create the entire game before testing it). This is another indication that it is important to provide different game design options to optimise student productivity, particularly as the online platform format tends to favour the ‘planner’ profile.
Students’ engagement
Students’ overall engagement was high in both teaching approaches. As previously mentioned, all design groups completed all their game design tasks without the need for any form of extrinsic motivation. Student interest and engagement in this study was consistent with previous studies that used both forms of teaching approaches. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that the ICT groups had greater variations in students’ engagement, while most NT students spent the same amount of time and effort completing any given task.
The key factor producing this variance in engagement was not the use (or lack of use) of ICT tools in itself, but the teaching approach that involved take-home assignments to be done in group work. While most ICT students reported some angst in having homework assignments, ICT students reported a greater dedication to the design process than any of the NT students.
Another element that needs further deliberation is the learning environment promoted during the game design process. The major issue with Edmodo was related to the fact that students did not choose to use Edmodo as it was presented to them. It was suggested to students that they post comments at their leisure, which would facilitate ongoing discussion and eventually the creation of a game. Students that did use Edmodo scheduled a time to meet their group members online, and students that did not use Edmodo claimed that it was hard to schedule a time that would accommodate everyone’s agenda. Hasler-Waters and Napier (2002) identify five elements to create online teams that are able to complete their tasks successfully: getting support from the facilitator, getting acquainted with group members, establishing the form of communication, trust among teammates, and getting organised (determining each members’ roles and their objectives with specific due dates). On the one hand, given that all students in the ICT group were able to pick their group members, it can be stated that knowing their group members and trusting them should not be considered major issues. On the other hand, the other three elements may explain why students had so many issues in designing their games online. First, the instructor had difficulty in supporting all groups. Second, although most students wanted to meet online all at once, some students would place comments and wait for answers, showing that they chose different forms of communication. Third, the instructor failed to inform students about their planning options. That is, he did not spend time with teams discussing whether they were to do all the work as a group, or whether each student would have a designated role. As a result, in order to expect better online engagement, it is necessary to teach students how to collaborate online.
It is clear then that further study is needed concerning the learning environment during the game design process in an ICT teaching approach. Of interest, however, is that recent studies have also shown this to be a concern with the NT approach. Butler (2013, 2016), for example, has emphasised the need to create an environment that leads to positive collaboration while creating games. Butler calls attention to the creation of rules for consensus building, group decision-making processes, majority rules voting, and inclusion.
Students’ relationships with peers
Students from both teaching approaches dealt with two kinds of relationships during their SDG units: intra-group (game design group members) and inter-group (students from different groups). In both teaching approaches, students were able to have positive interactions with their group members. However, the effectiveness of their communication varied according to the teaching approach. The majority of the students from both groups stated how they wanted to work together when designing their games. Considering that Edmodo did not promote this directive (live) form of interaction, the ICT students struggled with this aspect of game design, as the NT students could either sit and discuss the entire game before they would test it, or test their game before it was fully developed. In the ICT group, ‘planners’ were certainly privileged, as these students were still able to discuss each rule one by one before trying their ideas.
When considering the interactions of students from different groups (inter-group), it was noted earlier that the ICT group exhibited more positive and productive interactions during inter-group discussions. This seems to be consistent with the literature that reports a positive interaction among students when collaborating online (Yücel and Usluel, 2016) and when feeling valued in an online interface (Kuo and Belland, 2016). Although this literature relates to online higher education, the key points reported in these studies seem to be consistent with those that led to the positive interactions among the pupils in this study. Students who are constantly overlooked in PE, such as girls and lower-skill students (similar to the minority students reported by Kuo and Belland, 2016), were the most active in Edmodo. This form of discussion was also considered more appropriate as the teacher was able to initiate all groups’ discussions by placing the focus of attention on the games, and not on individuals. Moreover, students were able to express themselves without being restrained by others. Holland and Muilenburg (2011) reported similar findings showing that Edmodo was able to promote discussions with big groups of students. The authors also recognised that students needed guidance to discuss the desired subject matter, otherwise students would discuss personal matters.
Conclusions and future research
The outcomes of this study had numerous implications for the teacher and his students. First, the teacher felt that he dealt with more challenges while conducting the ICT teaching approach. In particular, he had to anticipate some of the issues that students would encounter in their games, while at the same time promoting questions in an online interface. The technological challenges were also greater than what was initially anticipated, and reinforced the importance of having technological knowledge beyond the interface that was being used (in this case Edmodo). Indeed, this knowledge was crucial in resolving some of the issues that arose. In addition, while the ICT approach gave students more freedom as they designed their game with less directive supervision, it was accompanied by a different form of work supervision. This led the teacher to question ‘how much freedom should I be giving to my students?’
For students, there were benefits and limitations inherent in both teaching approaches. In the ICT approach, students felt restrained in designing their games, but had more productive interactions among classmates. In the NT teaching approach, students had better interactions with their group members, but many challenges arose when interacting with other classmates about game refinements. While different student populations and schools may lead to different outcomes from the ones reported in this study, being able to identify the learning environment and its many variables would appear to be critical when deciding upon the teaching approach to be followed.
There are many forms of teaching SDG, and further research is needed to understand what can enhance or hinder teachers’ practice and students’ experience in each given condition. The present study is able to provide contextualised descriptions that may enhance our understanding; however, some of these findings may be further explored with quantitative methodologies, while seeking further generalisations. Moreover, in future research, a hybrid teaching approach may be considered in order to include the key features of each teaching condition. In this hybrid, in-class face-to-face interaction (NT), which seems critical during game design, would be accompanied by online discussions about game modification once games have been played (ICT). In this way, features of both conditions that seemed the most positive in this study could help contribute to maximising the games-making experience of all students, and ensuring opportunities for all students to participate in the process.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.