One of the most beloved members of my class is named Chancho. Chancho is a soft little monkey with floppy arms and legs, and a bright yellow beard, and rainbow-colored fur. My students- 8th grade boys!- notoriously ask if he can sit on their desk for the day, and frequently try to perch him on their shoulders. There is nothing inherently academic about Chancho. But he helps my students learn. When we’re having class discussions, Chancho gets catapulted across the room as our talking piece. Reluctant learners pick their heads and up shout at their friends to be called on next: tossing Chancho around takes a run-of-the-mill class discussion, and turns it into a game of catch. This well-worn little monkey is like a lot of games: Chancho isn’t doing the teaching, but he makes my students want to do the learning.
The last video game I played was probably Duck Hunt 1.0. The ducks looked like pixelated flying cubes. I am no gamer. But do like games! In the same way, I’ve never turned my classroom into a world-of-gaming-to-teach-literacy, but- besides tossing Chancho- my students and I do enjoy a good round of Kahoot! (Enjoy is probably too soft a word; they holler, pound desks, and jump up and down. About English.) This year I began incorporating Catlin Tucker’s Word Sneak into our vocabulary reviews- it’s low-tech, but a game nonetheless, and my kids love it. They also practice reading, speaking, and writing vocabulary words each time we play- so I love it too. Vocabulary Taboo is a favorite in my classroom as well.
Gamification vs. playing games is a lot like project-based learning vs. doing projects. I use games to enhance learning, whereas new concepts like Quest to Learn, in New York, center the learning entirely around games and game design. It looks fun, relevant, and high-interest. What’s even more promising is that game thinking proponents such as Jane McGonigal claim that games can encourage problem-solving, creativity, community, and even heroic actions. Games, in the way that I use them, are mostly good for community (on the most basic level- it makes us feel good), and reviewing basic knowledge. Gaming in the way McGonigal or Quest to Learn's principal talk about it, can tap into a much deeper level of learning, with incredible potential.
By definition, I do not- nor do I have any plans to- gamify my classroom. It has taken me five years to come to place of confidence in “projectifying” my classroom, and I’m still working on it. I see potential in gamified education, but like project-based education, I think it’s wise to consider the inherent challenges that could accompany such endeavor. Let me be clear: this is no reason to rule out game-based, or project-based, learning. It is prudent, however, to make sure that neither approach missteps around real learning that we know works. John Hattie, Michael McDowell, and Fisher & Frey all agree on the necessity of teaching surface-level knowledge, deep knowledge, and transfer-level knowledge; there are different methods that best address each level listed. If a game address all three types of understanding, as well as build problem-solving skills, collaboration, and creativity- as gamification advocates claim- then, by all means, let the game begin! Until then, Chancho and I will keep doing what we can in simple ways. I’ll do the teaching; Chancho will make my students want to do the learning.
The last video game I played was probably Duck Hunt 1.0. The ducks looked like pixelated flying cubes. I am no gamer. But do like games! In the same way, I’ve never turned my classroom into a world-of-gaming-to-teach-literacy, but- besides tossing Chancho- my students and I do enjoy a good round of Kahoot! (Enjoy is probably too soft a word; they holler, pound desks, and jump up and down. About English.) This year I began incorporating Catlin Tucker’s Word Sneak into our vocabulary reviews- it’s low-tech, but a game nonetheless, and my kids love it. They also practice reading, speaking, and writing vocabulary words each time we play- so I love it too. Vocabulary Taboo is a favorite in my classroom as well.
Gamification vs. playing games is a lot like project-based learning vs. doing projects. I use games to enhance learning, whereas new concepts like Quest to Learn, in New York, center the learning entirely around games and game design. It looks fun, relevant, and high-interest. What’s even more promising is that game thinking proponents such as Jane McGonigal claim that games can encourage problem-solving, creativity, community, and even heroic actions. Games, in the way that I use them, are mostly good for community (on the most basic level- it makes us feel good), and reviewing basic knowledge. Gaming in the way McGonigal or Quest to Learn's principal talk about it, can tap into a much deeper level of learning, with incredible potential.
By definition, I do not- nor do I have any plans to- gamify my classroom. It has taken me five years to come to place of confidence in “projectifying” my classroom, and I’m still working on it. I see potential in gamified education, but like project-based education, I think it’s wise to consider the inherent challenges that could accompany such endeavor. Let me be clear: this is no reason to rule out game-based, or project-based, learning. It is prudent, however, to make sure that neither approach missteps around real learning that we know works. John Hattie, Michael McDowell, and Fisher & Frey all agree on the necessity of teaching surface-level knowledge, deep knowledge, and transfer-level knowledge; there are different methods that best address each level listed. If a game address all three types of understanding, as well as build problem-solving skills, collaboration, and creativity- as gamification advocates claim- then, by all means, let the game begin! Until then, Chancho and I will keep doing what we can in simple ways. I’ll do the teaching; Chancho will make my students want to do the learning.