Mastery Learning via game playing

Mastery learning offers sufficient time, attention and help from tutor or lecturer to every student. GBL without time-pressure challenges can also offer sufficient time and attention to each student, while transferring the role of helpful tutor to either a programmed virtual tutor, or a game master who knows how to facilitate game playing sessions.

Mastery learning was accused for causing Robin Hood effects, in which additional time and support were given to students who are relatively slower in knowledge and skill mastery, at the expense of quick learners' time. GBL with benchmarked standard (good enough mastery) and enhanced standard (excellent mastery) can overcome the issue of Robin Hood effects. A rubric which explicitly defines and describes both standards can be shown to all students. All of them are encouraged to achieve the enhanced standard, which would involve supporting weak learners to master specific knowledge and skills. Those who achieved the enhanced standard would be regarded as "master", a status given to people who can teach (see the origin of Master's degree).

Criticism on mastery learning and how to counter back:

Mueller (1976) asserted that mastery learning:

(a) takes much of the responsibility for learning away from students, who may end up not knowing how to learn independently; 

$$ in GBL, students have to play game or make games themselves, experience learning, construct knowledge and develop skills in the games.

(b) requires non-fixed-time instructional units or greatly liberalized time allocations; 

$$ this is actually a strength of GBL, through flexible education, learn anytime anywhere.

(c) makes faster learner "wait around" while slower learner catch up, unless the faster learners are motivated to spend their time achieving objectives beyond the pre-specified ones; 

(d) commits a major part of finite instructional resources -- corrective effort, teacher aides, peer tutoring, and alternative learning materials -- to slower students and 

(e) assumes that everything in an instructional unit must be learned equally well by almost all students, although beyond basic skills and hierarchical subjects (such as mathematics) this assumption is hard to defend (p. 467).

Gamifikasi dalam Pendidikan: Pembelajaran Berasaskan Permainan

A few days before I left for Christmas holiday, I was informed by Penerbit UPSI that my first book written in Malay language has been published--Gamifikasi dalam Pendidikan: Pembelajaran Berasaskan Permainan.

This book was written for Malay speaking teachers and trainee teachers in Nusantara, particularly those in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and Indonesia. The graphics of the book cover were taken from Fight For Future 2.0 and TRIZ Puzzle game which I published on Google Play Store. Now the book is available at Penerbit UPSI and UPSI Education Research Laboratory at 20% discount: RM38.00 RM30.40.

Forgotten notes

Minecraft offers affinity space.

There's something for everyone.

I need the culture to be there first before talking about DGBL.

Keep the game modifiable.
Get back to the sense of playing we lost a lot in the content-based learning.

Different thematic activity over the year.

Horizontal learning space.

TPACK for Game-based Learning Practice

TPACK stands for technological pedagogical content knowledge see Fig 1. It can be used to form a framework that synthesizes the scope of knowledge required by a teacher, instructor or lecturer to implement effective and efficient digital game-based learning (DGBL).

Figure 1: The generic TPACK framework

The scope of TPACK for DGBL are:

1. Content knowledge (CK) covers the knowledge of a subject matter,
the knowledge of ways and means of dealing with the subject matter, and the knowledge of the universals and abstractions in the subject matter. Table 1 shows three sub-scopes of content knowledge. Mastering the content knowledge would make a person an expert (e.g. expert in chemistry, music, geography, etc.), but having the content knowledge alone might not be sufficient to yield effective teaching and learning outcomes.

Table 1: The level of complexity and scope of content knowledge

2. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) covers the generic knowledge about how human beings teach, train and learn, i.e. theories about learning. It also covers methods of teaching and learning assessment, including:

• Three domain of learning assessment: cognitive, affective and psychomotor 
• Three methods of assessment: criterion-referenced, norm-referenced and ipsative assessment
• Assessment for learning (AFL): diagnostic assessment, formative assessment.
• Nature of assessment: assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and assessment of learning

3. Technology knowledge (TK) covers the generic knowledge of how technologies are used in education, e.g. digital and communication technology. In the contexts of schools of higher education institution, general DGBL practice requires mastery of TK. This is the most important matter in TPACK for GBL practice, in which the mastery of gaming and playing technologies is essential to make TPACK successful.

4. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is the know-how of combining generic pedagogy with contents of a specific subject matter. The quality of the combination would determine the quality of teaching and learning events, i.e. making a subject matter difficult or easy to learn. The mastery of the PCK of a subject matter would afford teachers, instructors, tutors or lecturers to identify common misconceptions and preconceptions learners held before starting a lesson. Herewith some problematic PCK in practice:

• Using mnemonics to teach creative writing in UPSR. 
• Using chalk-and-talk approach to teach beginning learners how to swim .  

5. Technological content knowledge (TCK) is the know-how of using generic educational technology to provide new ways of teaching contents of a specific subject matter. For example, using animation to teach engineering students to visualize how a physically unseen system works (see fig 2).

Figure 2: An example of good TCK in practice, i.e. using animation to help engineering students to visualize how an unseen system works.

 6. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is the know-how of combining generic educational technology with a particular pedagogy to afford new teaching and learning approaches. For example, using a blog to teach academic writing, or using a digital game to teach typing (see fig 3).

Figure 3: A typing game was used to teach how to familiarize with QWERTY keyboard

7. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is the integrated knowledge and know-how that covers all the above mentioned scopes of knowledge. Example of a mastery of TPACK is the use of Spore in teaching biological thinking among A-Level students in Essex.

Lab Usage Issues

It is really the end of the semester.
Both the Final Year Project (FYP) students and non-FYP students are working on their assignments and coursework in the only Animation Lab in UPSI. Thus conflict occurs.

How to avoid clashing the usage?

FYP students could use at night, while non-FYP students use during day time?

Also, to optimize the capacity of each and every computer in the lab, we could limit the software installed and also limit the Internet usage. Assign students to take care of the cleanliness of the lab.

Intended journey in GBL

My dream is to establish a game-based learning university. The university will allow anybody to study via games. This would require the re-definition of the term “university”, in which its new characteristics are:

•          A playground-like venue of learning for everybody;
•          A place to learn universal knowledge and skills in any subject matters (sounds like open learning now);
•          A place that offers ubiquitous learning, when learning can be accessed through various devices, anywhere and any time (like Internet now).

I want to establish a new education system and structure that is accredited and trusted by authority and the public. I have a PhD in Education and experience of designing games, courses and academic programmes. I realized I need a lot of resources to realize this dream. My idea would take around 15 years to become mature. My obstacles are:

1. I need a team of researchers and academics to support this idea
2. I need high quality learning contents in the form of games. 
3. I need an augmented reality system for education.

My goals will be met by 2020 (goal 1), 2025 (goal 2) and 2023 (goal 3). When all my goals are met, I will make people enjoy learning through game playing. 

How to choose games for GBL?

I knew a lot of teachers and lecturers have the interests to use games in teaching and learning activities. However, most of them do not have the capability to design and develop games for GBL practice. So choosing suitable off-the-shelf games seems like the only option to them. Hence the challenge: how to choose a suitable game for his or her GBL practice?

I knew there are quite a number of guidelines available to them. But before I direct them to the guidelines, herewith my suggestion:

Rule 1: Choose a FUN to play game

The game you choose MUST be fun to play. And the best way to know whether a game is fun to play or not is to ASK your students, since they are the people who will eventually be expected to engage with the game you choose. If you don't have direct access to the students (e.g. you are meeting or teaching them for the first time), you should PLAY the game yourself to determine whether the game is fun to play or not. If you think you don't have time or don't feel like playing the game, then perhaps you are not ready to practice GBL. I have seen so-called educational researchers whom refused to play games ("Nah, games are for kids" "I am a researcher, not a game player!") but dared to condemn the effectiveness of using games in educational contexts by showing results of complicated statistical analysis. Such people are doing more harm than good to the GBL and should be banned from GBL-related conferences. The fact was: the researcher just did not bother to identify a FUN to play game. 

The issue is what is a fun game? I recommend you to read Koster's (2005) A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Meanwhile, Nicole Lazarro proposed 4 keys 2 fun, which divides fun into four types: hard fun, easy fun, serious fun and people fun. You can determine what kind of fun you can gain from playing a game--as long as there is one fun factor, you may choose the game for GBL.

Figure 1: Nicole Lazarro's 4 keys 2 fun

Rule 2: Choose a game that you can easily align three key components of learning outcome. 

To make GBL practice successful, you need to align three components of intended learning outcomes to three core elements of the chosen game. 

A learning outcome should consist of: 

1. A verb that can reveal the intended, observable behaviours of the learners, i.e. when the learner performs the behaviour defined by the verb, you knew he or she has attained the learning outcome. 

2. Conditions of learning outcome attainment, i.e. specific conditions or requirements learners need to fulfill to claim that they have achieved the intended learning outcomes.

3. Degree of learning outcome attainment, i.e. specific degree, probably in measurable sense like numbers, figures, etc, that demonstrate to what extent the learning outcome was achieved. 

The chosen game should consist of the following three core elements: 

1. Game goal and / or objectives for players to pursue in the game world. The goal would be aligned to the verb that can reveal the intended, observable behaviours of the players when attaining the intended learning outcome. 

2. Game rules that all players must follow. The rules would be aligned to the conditions of learning outcome attainment. 

3. Game feedback, both immediate (e.g. instruction, warning, etc) and collective (e.g. debrief shown after game over). The feedback would be aligned to the degree of learning outcome attainment, in which learners / players would know to what extent they have achieved in the pursue of game goal. 

Rule 3: Choose a game that shares similar theme or field of learning content. 

Frankly speaking, if you have identified a game that fulfills the Rule 1 and Rule 2, you should grab it and start to do your lesson plan for GBL practice. It is rare to find a game that actually meet Rule 1, 2 and 3. Normally you have to either design and develop it all by yourself or appoint designers and developers to do it for you.

However, in case you have to luxury to get a game that shares similar theme or field of learning content, use it now!