Month: February 2017 (Page 1 of 2)

I went into the content this week under the impression that I would be a bit behind the curve on serious games. While I’ve frequently used games for review, playing World History Jeopardy with students before an exam, and have helped many of the faculty I support employ Kahoot in their classes, I hesitated to think my experience went much beyond that. I’m not really interested in Pokemon Go. Minecraft, while cool, always seemed like waste of time in my content area (in the ways I’ve seen it used anyhow). So, it’s no wonder I thought I was behind the curve. Turns out, however, I was wrong.

As I dug into and began to assimilate more of the readings, I realized that I have more experience with (differentiation in and) gamification than I realized. As I mentioned in my blog, I’ve researched the benefits of virtual reality worlds in nursing education, assisted in the development of an extensive badging program, and taught educators how to use augmented reality in History Pin. I’ve also, as a side note, been trained in the use of Google Cardboard and love sharing it with others. What I find most interesting about this is the phenomenon to which it speaks. I think, when it comes to technological adoptions, we often feel like we are far less prepared than we are. Particularly if we aren’t adopting the best or most popular examples of the technology (my lack of interest in Pokemon Go and Minecraft, as an example).

Further, I think exposure to technology is a good thing, even if we choose to not adopt it for classroom use. Knowing and understanding the affordances of a technology allows us to innovate in ways that were not intended or imagined but work. As part of my Masters Capstone, a colleague and I repurposed Glifos, a technology used to enrich college lectures and make them accessible, as an environment to create interactive archival modules. When we presented our Capstone, the CEO of the company happened to be present and he was surprised, to say the least, at how his technology had been repurposed to create an environment he had not anticipated for a use he never considered.

Beyond my personal reflections, I discussed with Jule my hesitancy over using Minecraft given the state standards I was required to meet and the incredible amount of time development of projects can take. For me, the bottom line in games is that I need to see and demonstrate precisely how they align to my learning objectives; and if I am taking the time to do them, I want to see them align to several learning objectives without any of them feeling like a stretch. Mariah’s post encouraged me to think about my experiences in programming; I shared a story from when I was a kid about how my Dad tricked my sister and I into programming in Basic and compared that to her commentary on Swift Playgrounds. Although I’ve not been able to see Gerald’s comment on my blog (not sure why), I did reply to his reflection, encouraging him to consider creating the games he would so like to see in his classroom. I shared a similar personal experience and the way it changed my career trajectory to provide a concrete example of why I think he would be great at game development.

Finally, Kendra and I were able to have an in-depth conversation around her intended use of badging in the classroom. I asked her three questions relating to FERPA and student privacy, building buy-in for the project, and asking her to consider how the badges will stand as meaningful artifacts of learning. She engaged with all of my questions and provided both solid responses where she had them and asked clarifying questions where she was still developing her process. As an instructional designer, I was actually able to share a few strategies that we use to make badging more meaningful and I’m looking forward both to hearing her thoughts on the strategies and how her implementation of badging goes!

For the purposes of my differentiated unit, I am looking at revamping one of my two-week course modules, either “Module 5: Assessment” or “Module 6: Instructional Materials, Learning Activities, and Course Tools.”  At this point, I’m not entirely sure which one I prefer to use, although I’m leaning towards Module 5.  Regardless of the one I choose, I plan to differentiate by offering student selection in material and perhaps an exploratory activity where they can follow their own interests. Assessments will take the form of a pre-learning self-assessment activity, a discussion board post, and peer interaction around the content.

Serious games are defined as games that both entertain and educate, with learning as the primary intent (Bellotti, Kapralos, Lee, Moreno-Ger, Berta, 2013). As described by Lorenzo (2016), serious games “feature evidence-centered design, whereby data is collected, analyzed, and adapted to the knowledge level of the player.” Students who engage in game-based learning environments experience the positive emotional effects of interacting with games, including “creativity, contentment, awe and wonder, excitement, curiosity, pride, surprise, love, relief, and joy” (Buck, 2013). Research has also shown powerful effects on “motivation, emotion, memory, and performance” when educators employ game-based learning in the classroom (Gibson, 2013). Further, the use of gamification, or the creation of a game-like environment, in the classroom or workplace can result in decreased stress and build better foundations for effective, collaborative communities (Oprescu, Jones, Katsikitis, 2014). That said, for serious games and the principles of gamification to be effective and meaningful beyond the game experience, they must align to learning outcomes (Lorenzo, 2016).

The use of “games” in the classroom runs the gamut of user experience, ranging from serious games (Second Life), to gamification of learning environments (badging), to the use of Augmented Reality apps and systems (Aurasma and History Pin), and each of these methodologies offer inherently unique opportunities and challenges when it comes to differentiating for learners.

Serious Games

As an Instructional Designer in a nursing school, I have looked into the use of Second Life to build medical simulations. The ability to use Second Life to create and engage students in a game which simulates their professional and experiential environment is a relatively new concept. Instructors creating the simulations include requirements to wash hands, view charts, interact with and treat patients, and complete charting/reporting exercises. The technological concept shows potential for differentiating for learners as students who need more time and practice with aspects of the nursing process would have the opportunity, just as those who are comfortable may advance to new scenarios. The virtual simulation also offers a layer of protection as students obtain practice treating patients in a world were no consequences exist. Failures, should they happen, do not have dire ramifications and represent valuable learning experiences. There is, however, one major challenge to implementing simulation in Second Life – time. Simulations that align with learning objectives and represent an accurate nursing environment take time to build; time that, for faculty, is often allocated to clinicals, course instruction and preparation, and grading. For some, a skills-based element also exists; for those who are not comfortable using basic technologies on a regular basis, Second Life may seem daunting.

As a history teacher, the games on iCivics represent some of my favorite serious games. The video below tells you more about them.

Gamification of Learning

As a former Museum Educator, I worked with the City of Dallas and Big Thought as a community partner on the City of Learning program. Based on the Chicago City of Learning initiative, students interested in furthering their education during the summer may do so by collecting badges for completed learning experiences. Students collect and use the badges to demonstrate paths of learning or targeted experiences in their fields of interest and their (Credly) badge “backpacks” allow them to supplement their school transcripts on college applications. Although not in the formal classroom, these programs enabled both Dallas and Chicago to turn their cities into summer classrooms. Best of all, differentiation was inherent to the programs. Students selected activities from a variety of learning tracks (history, science, art, etc.), chose individual experiences pertinent to their interest or need, and selected the level of their engagement, earning badges for visits, workshops, or summer internships/projects. As part of the program, all badges were required to be tied to a meaningful artifact of learning to ensure the badges carried weight and moved beyond standing as simply an earned sticker. Applied to the classroom, it is easy to see how badging, and gamification of learning, allows students to self-select learning paths that relate to both their interests and individual learning needs.

Augmented Reality

Augmented reality, although a relatively new technology, also gives educators the ability to enhance learning environments for their students. Apps such as Aurasma and History Pin allow educators to create experiential learning for their students through the “interaction of superimposed graphics, audio and other sense enhancements over a real-world environment that’s displayed in real-time” (Cassella, 2009). In discussing Aurasma, Hollowell (2015) states that Auras can “bring lessons to life and make them more engaging,” hyperlinks can be used to “add layers of information” to course content in Auras, and Auras can be used to reach students “where they are.” History Pin, an app created to superimpose archival images over modern Google Maps, allows students to experience the juxtaposition of history to the modern world. Students who visit Washington, D.C., can take advantage of History Pin’s Civil Rights tour as they walk to key locations around the city and see images of the past superimposed over the world they are facing. Although a new technology which can be time consuming to work with, augmented reality allows educators to differentiate for students by allowing “students to work at their own pace and reveal information when they are ready” (Hollowell, 2015).

Games in Higher Education

While most discussions around serious games and gamification in the last ten years began at the K-12 level, higher education institutions are beginning to examine their adoption into course curricula (Derryberry, 2012). As noted by Derryberry (2012), there are currently “pockets of innovation” in higher education but few “examples of systemic institutional adoption.” Given that many decisions in higher education are based on research, this “slow to adapt” mentality may be due, in part, to the lack of research that exists around the effectiveness of serious games in meeting learning goals and metrics. As stated by Bellotti, et al. (2013), there is a real “need to explore how to evaluate the learning outcomes to identify which serious games are most suited for a given goal or domain, and how to design more effective serious games.” Although research needs to be done regarding the effectiveness of meeting learning outcomes, games have the potential to create “theory-driven authentic practice in a highly engaging, self-motivating, safe, scalable, learning environment with automated data collection and analyses” (Gibson, 2013). Moving forward, as more institutions begin to adopt the practices of gamification and further research is completed, universities should remember that successful adoption requires a “solid understanding of the game-based learning ecosystem; deep knowledge of game-based learning on both a micro- and macro-level; and a detailed framework for adoption addressing market realities, institutional requirements, partner identification, technology integration, and organizational readiness” (Derryberry, 2012).

References

Belllotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P., & Berta, R. (2013). Assessment in and of serious games: An overview. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/136864

Buck, T. (2013, October 18). The awesome power of gaming in higher education. EdTech. Retrieved from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2013/10/awesome-power-gaming-higher-education

Cassella, D. (2009). What is augmented reality (AR): Augmented reality defined, iPhone augmented reality apps and games and more. Digital Trends. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/what-is-augmented-reality-iphone-apps-games-flash-yelp-android-ar-software-and-more/

Derryberry, A. (2012). A scan of game-based learning in U.S. higher education. [PowerPoint Presentation]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/a_derryberry/gamebased-learning-in-higher-education-2012

Gibson, D. (2013, January 17). The potential of games and simulations in higher education. Next Gen Learning Blog. Retrieved from http://nextgenlearning.org/blog/potential-games-and-simulations-higher-education

Hollowell, M. (17 December 2015). Aurasma for the classroom. [Prezi presentation]. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/wd4iz9dhiuak/aurasma-for-the-classroom/

Lorenzo, G. (2016, August 4). Digital game-based learning in higher ed moves beyond the hype. EdSurge News. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-08-04-digital-game-based-learning-in-higher-ed-moves-beyond-the-hype

Oprescu, F., Jones, C., & Katsikitis, M. (2014). I PLAY AT WORK –- ten principles for transforming work processes through gamification. Front Psychology, 5(14). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3906598/

As we opted to complete a Prezi last week, my group (Gerald, Cherie, Chelsea, and me) decided to take advantage of the affordances of the shared technology of Google Drive and create the EDET 637 Assistive Technology Google Slides presentation. As before, we sent a few emails back and forth about the topic on Monday before class and decided to meet in Twitter using the #techassign hashtag to discuss the project. Although some of group members already had a solid idea of the technology they wanted to discuss, I was still not 100% sure what I wanted to review at that point.

As an Instructional Designer and adjunct faculty member, I spend the majority of my time supporting faculty who create classroom experiences. While I’m fairly well-trained in creating accessible materials for classes, I often get more questions about the technologies we can use for our students that do not incur substantial costs. As such, I initially decided to review the accessibility features of my iMac and the Google Chrome Browser. I discussed this with my group when we met on Wednesday in Google Hangouts (which, by the way, worked much better this time!). As a group, we decided to use Slides over Prezi and I created the initial document and ensured all group members had access to edit. I then published the document to the web so we would all have access to the link when we were ready to post our reflections.

As a group, we decided on a template for the slides and a design theme that worked for all of us. We agreed to publish our content by Saturday evening and our reflections on Sunday. As before, we all offered support via email and text messages to any group members who struggled with the technology. The early publish of the link ensured we did not need to meet again and were able to share the project at any time (not waiting until it was finished), which was good as I was a bit late on my content (finishing Sunday evening instead).

For my portion of the project, I began by searching the accessibility features offered by Apple and Google. I was able to narrow my search very quickly to the features provided by Chrome. Apple’s data was also quite easy to locate, however, in searching the features of the iMac (and the cost), I realized I wanted to look at an iPad instead. I made this decision for several reasons:

1. The iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch all share remarkably similar accessibility features; many of our students are able to access these devices.
2. My institution has iPads that students can check out (and I own one on which I could test).

Once I began testing the accessibility features of each, I realized that I quite like what the iPad has to offer. Although I mention this in the presentation slides, I’m particularly fond of the fact that the iPad can be used for all students in the classroom, whether they need accommodations or not, to target their learning experience. While I wasn’t able to test all of the features (for instance the compatibility with iPhone hearing aids or Braille keyboards), it was quite easy to determine where I would go to connect these. I never realized how many features are offered in the Settings > General > Accessibility menu.

I had a bit less luck with Google Chrome which, I feel like I should say now, really isn’t my favorite browser anyway (bias admitted). While the TalkBack feature is pretty neat as an alternative to a screen reader, I was frustrated by the need to download extensions to get some of the more advanced features they discussed. The keyboard shortcuts and zoom feature also seemed, after checking out the abilities of the iPad, pretty simplistic. Is Chrome usable to assist all students in interacting with the Internet on an equal playing field? Yes, absolutely; however, it requires a bit more setup for some of the more advanced features than you would be able to do without advanced planning.

Rather than completing a wiki, my group, Gerald, Cherie, Chelsea, and me, opted to present our information in a Prezi, “Differentiating with Assistive Technology.” Although we began casual discussions via email, we met after class on Monday using the Twitter hashtag #techassign to divide the project. We opted to each review the process of differentiating using assistive technology within one of the four elements of classroom instruction: content (me), process (Chelsea), product (Gerald), and environment (Cherie). We agreed to publish our content in Prezi, working on our individual sections throughout the week, and follow-up with each other on Thursday evening. I located a Prezi template that supported four concepts and shared it with members of the group; I also set up the Google Hangout for us to meet.

On Thursday, we met in Google Hangouts to review how Prezi was working, do any necessary troubleshooting, and discuss any issues we were having with the project. Although we initially had issues with my microphone working, we switched to the chat feature and were able to work that way. I also tried to get the Uber app to work so we could use phones, but Google was having none of it that night. While chat isn’t the most ideal way to have a conversation, we were able to work through how we wanted to use the Prezi, changes we wanted to consider, and how to list our references. It was easy to become lost in the chat and, since I had suggested the technology, I tried to answer group member questions as they came up.

Although there was discussion of including them as a separate bubble on the Prezi, we voted to use a tiny URL to link to a publically viewable Google Document. Since I use these regularly for work, I set it up and added the link on the second to last Prezi slide. We also agreed to reach out to each other for assistance, if needed, and complete our individual portions by Saturday night when I would make the link public.

For my section of the project, I began with Tomlinson’s definition of content as an element of differentiated instruction. I then began to look for assistive technologies that could be used in content delivery. I’m not sure about my group members, but I struggled a bit with how to address the use of assistive technologies in differentiation without discussing the assistive technologies themselves. I settled on discussing how differentiation should occur for students in visual, textual, and auditory situations and then briefly mentioned examples of the assistive technologies. I also decided to highlight information about all content needing to meet the same accessibility and curriculum standards, regardless of student ability. As an instructional designer, I spend a lot of time working with content accessibility, which is part of why I decided to include it in my presentation. That said, I have worked with very few students with disabilities related to classroom content instruction, so beyond what I used as a Museum Educator, assistive technology is fairly new to me.

As far as my role in the project, I tend to be a bit Type A and I work in faculty support, so it’s really easy for me to slip into the “I’m happy to set everything up” role, which I am. Plus, I set up meetings in Hangouts and build collaborative presentations regularly, so it just seems like a bit more of what I do daily. Knowing this, though, I tried to regularly check in with the group to make sure I wasn’t stepping on anyone’s toes and that no one else wanted to take on this role.