mrmathesonsphysics.wikispaces.commrmathesonsphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/summe… · web...

Lewis Matheson

PGCE PhysicsColston’s Collegiate School, Bristol

Summer Science Assignment: Teaching with Immersive Gaming (Twigging)

Part A and B

Word count Part A: 1216Word count part B: 2266

(not including appendices)

Plagiarism Declaration

I confirm that this assignment is my own work, and that the work of other persons has been fully acknowledged.

Signed: ................................................ Date: .........................

Contents

Part A

1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2

2. Literature Review ...................................................................... 2

2.1. Neuroeducation …..……………………..............................2

2.2. Gaming …………………………………………………………………..3

2.2.1. Conventional Games ……………...............…..3

2.2.2. Uncertain Reward Based Games ………….… 3

2.3. Teaching with Immersive Gaming …………………………. 5

Part B

3. Methodology for my Action Research ………………........…………… 6

4. Twigging in Action .................................................................... 6

4.1. The Monday Game ………………………………………………...6

4.1.1. Structure ……………………………………………..… 6

4.1.2. Game Play ……………………………………………... 7

4.1.3. Feedback and Observations ………………….. 8

4.2. The Wednesday Game ……………………...……………........10

4.2.1. Changes Made …………………………………….... 10

4.2.2. Reflections …….…………………………………….... 11

6. The Future Game ...................................................................... 11

7. Conclusions ............................................................................... 12

References …................................................................................. 14

Appendix A: Planning Proforma .................................................... 15

Appendix B: Presentation Slides …………………………………........…….. 16

Appendix C: The Monday Lesson …………………………………….........… 18

Appendix D: Feedback from Pupils ……………………….........…………...21

Appendix E: The Wednesday Lesson ……………………………..........….. 22

Appendix F: Possible Improvements to the Game Template.........25

Lewis Matheson 1 Summer Science Assignment

Part A

1. Introduction

This project looks at if teaching a lesson with an underlying gaming activity can build motivation and

help pupils learn. I drew on research carried out on the levels of dopamine in the brain resulting

from uncertain reward, and how heightened levels of this neurotransmitter can aid learning. I also

implemented recent findings from action research on ‘twigging’ and, for my own teaching, I looked

at areas I should refine and what pedagogical changes I would implement to make this an efficient

method of teaching with my classes.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Neuroeducation

I first became aware of neuroscience at the start of my PGCE course when I read an article in New

Scientist (Schultz, 2009, pp 8-9) that highlighted how recent research into how the brain learns could

be applied to improving classroom practice. This evidence-based practice need not be top down -

dictated by research scientists, but rather could result from teachers’ success with novel approaches.

Neuroscience aimed to dispel the pseudoscience that continues to associate itself with the widely

held ideas that teachers still hold about the brain: that we only use 10% of our brains; or that pupils

learn better if they are taught in their preferred visual, auditory or kinaesthetic style (Howard-Jones,

2010, p 23).

A recent lecture to PGCE students explained recent advances in neuroeducation. The desire to

educate teachers about how the brain learns and what they can do to facilitate this, and also to

educate researchers on what a class of thirty excited twelve year olds are capable of.


2.2. Gaming

2.2.1. Conventional Games

I started my research by looking at how games are used in the current pedagogical approach to

teaching. Research by Ellingham suggests that although [conventional] games have no advantage

over teaching facts and concepts they do strongly motivate the students who enjoy such events

(Ellingham et al, 1981, p 117). I would reason that by building motivation of the pupils this would

make the teaching more efficient since they are engaged in the lesson. During my placements I have

used games for discrete parts of my lessons – as a small activity but not the entire lesson.

Traditional thinking for planning effective educational games includes essential criteria such that a

sequence of events should produce a predictable outcome – the game is non-random which is seen

as fair (Shelton, 2007, p109-110). The notion that you fulfil certain criteria, you answer the question,

but receive no reward flies against this approach. Question correct: one mark. Question wrong: no

marks. Pupils are familiar with playing games, according to Piaget there is a codification of rules from

the age of twelve, the pupils understand the implications and consequences of not following the

rules of the game (Gillespie, 1972, p323).

There is a fine line between a revision game, a quiz, and a test. An exam is essentially a quiz that acts

as a summative assessment where a correct answer gains a point, incorrect answers gain nothing.

Why do pupils enjoy quizzes but not exams? Maybe because they are playing against their peers in

an open forum where the result is not summative but short lived and a poor result is not recorded.

2.2.2. Uncertain Reward Based Games

If there is some uncertainty in the outcome, a genuine risk of failure, then this can be used to engage

and excite an audience. If I played chess against a grandmaster or a toddler the outcome would be


assured from the start. If I played against a fellow PGCE student the outcome is uncertain and my

interest in the game would be a lot higher. Front line combat troops remain motivated when the

risks they take are great and offer uncertain reward – warfare is a game of chance where the

benefits, the excitement and comradeship, to an outsider are not understood. Something must allow

soldiers to become almost obsessed, to gamble on the uncertainty, to be able to function in this

environment.

Research into how our brains respond to an uncertain reward reveals that the level of dopamine, a

neurotransmitter, in the mid brain region is linked to the wanting of a reward. Levels of dopamine

increase until the outcome is revealed (Fiorillo et al, 2003) with the highest possible levels when the

chance of a successful outcome is 50%.

Emotional response during learning tasks has been found to increase when these tasks are integrated into a chance-based game (Howard-Jones and Demetriou 2009). Emotional response is known to support memory encoding (LaBar and Cabeza 2006), so we might also expect experiences involving less emotional response to also be less memorable. (Howard-Jones et al, 2010, Educational Research)

This research into levels of a chemical in our brain that aids learning is useful if it can be used for

education. To reveal tactics that can be employed by professionals who can then refine the

techniques for the classroom. This is the aim of neuroeducation: to link these often, currently,

separate activities.

Pupils, in schools, do not like uncertainty in their work. Peer pressure views academic failure as

something to be avoided so pupils choose tasks they think they can complete successfully, a success

rate of only 50% appears too low. But when the same work is presented as a game any potential

failure does not have the same social stigma attached, pupils will take greater risks (Howard-Jones,

2010)


There are many examples in sport, and in everyday life, when success arises from a combination of ability and chance, and well-matched competition (i.e. with around 50% likelihood of outcome, such as a football game) provides a highly engaging challenge. Children, especially boys, appear to prefer the inclusion of gaming uncertainty in learning tasks. (Howard-Jones et al, 2010, Educational Research)

2.3. Teaching with Immersive Gaming

Pupils are prepared to take risks in games, if the outcome has a 50% chance of success levels of

dopamine rise to their highest and remain raised until the answer is revealed. Pupils are in a

dopamine window where their learning is enhanced and new material is taken on board more

effectively by the brain. These principles lie behind teaching with immersive gaming, ‘TWIGing’ or

‘twigging’ for short.

By using a gambling game during a lesson the pupils remain engaged, and with many dopamine

highs the possibilities for learning to take place increase. The time spent anticipating the reward is

relatively brief so teaching and gaming must be mixed to allow learning to take place to full effect.

Twigging is not just an isolated game, but the skeleton on which to hang the meat of a lesson.

A recent action research study was carried out, led by Howard-Jones, that developed twigging in the

classroom by incorporating neuroscientific findings with teaching. An initial game with a spinning

‘wheel of fortune’ and the scores kept by handing out plastic counters. Then through three iterations

to a macro-enabled PowerPoint presentation that reduced the burden of spinning wheels and

manually recording scores. Results of pupil learning compared to conventional games or lessons

were not quantified, however the pupils did show on improvement when assessed with before and

after tests. But this may have been the result of a well structures lesson, not specifically the twigging

aspect. The practice developed to the extent that other teachers could implement it in their lessons.


Part B

3. Methodology for my Action Research

I carried out action research over a series of lessons with a year 9 lower ability class (predicted D-B at

GCSE) at a small independent school in Bristol. There were sixteen pupils of whom three were

female, which suggested that twigging should be successful with the competitive and risk taking

majority boy group. The topic being taught was on energy, including electricity generation, heat

transfer and renewable resources as part of the AQA P1a GCSE physics module that would soon be

examined with an internal exam.

My research took the form of planning a lesson centred round an immersive game with uncertain

reward outcomes. As I reflected on my practice I carried out interviews with pupils and used

observations from a fellow teacher to inform my planning of the next cycle. This cycle of planning;

acting; observing and reflecting was carried out twice. This resulted in recommendations for

incorporating twigging in future lessons and how I would develop this method of teaching for my

own practice.

4. Twigging in Action

4.1. The Monday Game

4.1.1. Structure

I used a PowerPoint template that I downloaded from NEnet at www.neuroeducational.net with

embedded macros that carried out certain functions – such as recording scores and allowing points

to be gambled with a 50% possibility of the score being doubled. This allowed the administration of

the game to be carried out on screen, using a laptop, and the live scores to remain displayed through

the lesson. Each team had two players which allowed the total number of teams playing to be kept


http://www.neuroeducational.net/

Front Back

manageable: I felt adding too many teams’ scores would considerably increase the admin time of the

game. By having the pupils in small teams this allowed them to discuss their answers, challenge each

others thinking and also foster the competitive spirit that would, I hoped, maintain motivation. The

content I used came largely from a past multiple choice exam paper. Cutting and pasting questions

and answers from a PDF into different text boxes on PowerPoint took time to complete neatly and

leaves room for improvement in the current template. As a resource that could be shared across a

department this may be worthwhile, but for a one-off lesson the time taken to prepare was

substantial.

Figure 4.1 Original design, team number (from 1-8) printed on different coloured card and laminated.

Between the gaming slides (see Appendix C) I added content slides where the topic was revisited, or

in some cases taught afresh, before a few questions on that material. For the first game I had

prepared laminated cards (Figure 4.1.) for each team to hold up, to allow me to see quickly and

clearly which team had chosen which colour. This preparation followed suggestions from Howard-

Jones et al and their recent action research project (Howard-Jones et al, 2010, submitted to

Educational Review).

4.1.2. Game Play

The pupils were briefed on the rules of the game at the start of the lesson and a practice round was

played to allow the pupils to familiarise themselves with the format. The winning team were playing

for a Mars Bar which conformed to school policy and was an incentive to play well. It became

apparent during the game that teams changed their answer at the last minute – usually when they


saw what their peers had chosen. It was rarely me or another teacher who saw any cheating going

on but it was the pupils themselves who ousted those who did not follow the rules.

Science content was covered in a fairly conventional manner; incorporating open questions,

demonstrations and pupil interactions. Questions were then asked on the material just presented.

As the lesson continued it soon dawned on the pupils that to do well they must pay attention to the

teaching slides. I would talk through the incorrect answers giving reasons why they were not correct,

reinforcing the answers not the colours, in the build up to revealing the correct answer. I aimed to

use this time of anticipation, of heightened emotion, and a possible corresponding dopamine high,

to my advantage to reinforce content that was not explicitly shown on screen: not just to talk about

if ‘red’ or ‘blue’ is correct. Pupils who had chosen the right answer had the choice to gamble. The

delay in revealing if their point has doubled really held the classes’ attention, with whoops of delight

or a collective groan dependent on the outcome.

Points for each question increased through the game, earlier questions might score 1 or 2 while later

questions, although no harder, would score 6 or 7. This allowed all teams to still be in with a chance

of winning towards the end, maintaining engagement since it was not too late for a last-minute race

to victory.

4.1.3. Feedback and Observations

Feedback was overwhelmingly positive from this first trial of the game, although this could have just

been the novelty factor of a different teacher and any sort of game. As a teacher I found I had

covered the required material, the interactive macro-enabled presentation worked well with no

faults although if I had made a mistake I would not have been able to edit points or undo my last

action. Having the scores displayed on screen was great for the pupils. It was live and allowed them

to see their ranking and what they had to do to beat their peers. Time spent in administering was


considerable, clicking the correct colour for each team and selecting the gamblers. It was easy to do

but taking thirty seconds per question did not add to the gaming excitement – it took time away

from teaching and for me as a teacher I was ‘head down’ in the computer. This could be alleviated

with an interactive whiteboard, IWB, where I could remain at the front presenting, or hosting, but

this option was not available during this project.

To evaluate the lesson I was able to question pupils immediately after the game: both self reporting

as they transcribed their feelings (Appendix D) and interviews with participants which generally yield

a high validity of results (Ellingham et al, 1981). I explained that this was a new game and

suggestions for improvements would be considered along with what they did and did not enjoy.

Their opinions were largely positive, especially about the chance to gamble which was the unique

feature of this game. A really good suggestion made was “Putting more variety in so if everyone

gambles not everyone can win.” My knowledge of macros did not extend as far as to allow these

changes to take place during my action research, but it would have been interesting to see the

effects of the chance based outcome discrete for each team, rather than all the gamblers losing or

winning at the same time. A minority of pupils appeared slightly bored towards the end, due to the

time taken to input data and the repetitive nature of questions throughout a lesson.

The questions were described as too hard, too easy and just challenging enough which may always

be the case with a class with a range of capabilities. Essentially the pupils had answered a few

questions from a multiple choice exam, but to them they had revised the content, battled their peers

and had the answers explained to them in an enjoyable manner.


4.2. The Wednesday Game

4.2.1. Changes Made

An area they all suggested could be improved was to stop any other teams cheating by copying

answers. To address this the original cards were trimmed to fit inside a cardboard sleeve (Figure 4.2)

and on a 3, 2, 1 countdown the teams would all simultaneously reveal their hidden answers. A rule

change was also announced that any team caught cheating would gain no points that round. These

were not issues with the game but rather proper control of pupil discipline and the rules stated

explicitly from the start.

Figure 4.2 Second design, card trimmed to fit in a sleeve. Sellotape tabs on top and bottom were added to aid pulling it out.

I continued with the same style of presentation: the format of science content followed by questions

from the same past paper that I felt were suitable for the level of the class (Appendix E). I also

produced a handout with graphs and a Sankey diagram required to answer a few questions, this data

was not able to be displayed in sufficient detail on the screen. Responding to previous feedback I

increased the pace, spending less time discussing easier questions and allowing pupils less time to

think about their answers. They, by now, understood the format and could consider their strategy to

boost their scores. Features on the current NEnet template, such as the round where teams pick a

lucky colour for bonus points, added to the game play but took time away from teaching. Pupils

enjoyed the gambling that arose from the science content and I would argue this is motivation


enough without questions that rely on luck alone. I also tried a few questions where one team was

picked at random. I suspected this might mean the rest of the class would switch off for a few

minutes; however, they all took a keen interest. To shouts of “It’s a fix!” when team number 2 were

chosen twice in a row, to jeers of delight when that team lost their points by gambling.

4.2.2. Reflection

Observations from a fellow teacher who observed the pupil interactions noted the indecision and

heated discussions about whether to gamble their points; pupils arguing in their team right up until

they displayed their choice to me. Reasons for gambling varied: one team who were far behind

decided to gamble every round to catch up; another team would only gamble when they saw the

current leaders gamble; others thought the outcome was dependent on the previous rounds.

Gaming strategies by the pupils had developed as this was their second game which allowed them to

think more about the science as they did not have to learn how to play the game. I could see how

with this immersive game being used regularly the uncertain reward would engage the pupils but

not take over to the extent that the aim of the game, for pupils to learn, was lost.

5. The Future Game

I would use an immersive gambling game again in my teaching. The current format, with the

template from NEnet, is an excellent basis on which twigging can be used. I found past multiple

choice exams were a ready source of well structured and relevant gaming questions that could be

carefully selected to illustrate the topic.

If an IWB was available this would allow the inputting of team’s answers and other game admin to

be carried out while maintaining teacher-pupil interactions. The next step, and one that would allow

more time for learning, would be for each team to have a wireless keypad. This would eliminate any

possibility of copying other teams and could significantly increase the pace of the game. These are


commercially available (for example from Turning Point) and will interface with IWB software,

although their use is still not widespread and initial cost is high. This concurs with recommendations

from Howard-Jones who suggested that:

It would reduce the time for responses to be collected and liberate the teacher from almost all the remaining administrative tasks that twigging involves, allowing him/her to focus their attention entirely on the teaching.

(Howard-Jones et al, 2010, p12, Educational Research)

Some feedback suggested that the game could have appeared more professional. Taking inspiration

from TV game shows, such as Who Wants to be a Millionaire, I developed the template (Appendix F).

It must be stressed however that I tested the beta version from NEnet, not a final commercial

product, so it would be unfair to judge the game on superficial looks alone. I improved the slide

design, but as a teacher the most useful change I made was so I could enter all the text, the question

and answers, in a formatted table which allowed the time spent making each slide to be reduced. In

planning a twigging lesson this would significantly reduce the preparation time.

6. Conclusion

Games played in science lessons do motivate students which in turn allows them to learn as their

attention is focussed on the subject. When the reward is uncertain, where the pupil has the choice

to gamble their points to compete against their peers, this adds to the pupil engagement. A high

score is not assured for the cleverest pupil which allows a more even competition because the lucky

pupil may win and coming last is just unlucky - not stigmatised as being ‘thick’.

The current gaming template from NEnet is easy to use to prepare lessons and is a simple way to

introduce twigging to pupils who quickly understood the rules. Improvements in classroom

hardware, such as an IWB or ultimately individual keypads, would significantly improve the lesson by

allowing an increased pace and more time teaching. In my study I looked at the pedagogical


approach of implementing the game. Quantifying the learning was not possible in this study, neither

was looking at dopamine levels to see if it was this factor that improved learning. Assessment of a

game was phrased by Ellingham as ‘Will it work for me, with my students, to achieve the educational

aims?’ (Ellingham et al, 1981). From my research the game format worked, the pupils enjoyed it and

they learnt something: so I would use it again as a science teacher.


References

Ellingham. H. I., Addinall, E. and Percival, F. (eds) (1981) Games and Simulations in Science Education. Kogan Page: London.

Fiorillo, C. D., Tobler, P. N., and Schultz, W. (2003) “Discrete Coding of Reward Probability andUncertainty by Dopamine Neurons” in Science 21 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5614, pp. 1898 - 1902

Gillespie, P. (1972) “A model for the design of academic games” in Shears, C. M. (ed). Games in Education and Development. CC Thomas: Illinois.

Howard-Jones, P. (2010) Introducing Neuroeducational Research. Routledge: London

Howard-Jones, P. (2009) Neuroscience, learning and technology (14-19) Becta available at http://research.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/partners/14-

19_deep_learning_neuroscience.pdf

Howard-Jones, P. et al, (2010) Learning to “twig” – Co-constructing pedagogical concepts across neuroscience and education for teaching with immersive gaming. Research paper submitted to Educational Research, available at: http://www.neuroeducational.net/ [accessed 10 May 2010]

NEnet, available at www.neuroeducational.net [last accessed 16 June 2010]

Schultz, N. (2009) “Primed to have learning in mind”, New Scientist, 19 September 2009, pp 8-9.

Shelton, B. (2007) “Designing for activity-goal alignment” in Shelton, B., and Wiley, D. (eds) TheDesign and Use of Simulation Computer Games in Education. Sense Publications: Rotterdam.

TurningPoint Accessories, available at: http://www.turningtechnologies.co.uk/ [accessed 25 May2010]


http://www.turningtechnologies.co.uk/



http://research.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/partners/14-19_deep_learning_neuroscience.pdf

http://research.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/partners/14-19_deep_learning_neuroscience.pdf

Appendix A – Planning Proforma

Proforma for planning section A of the Curriculum Practice assignment

Name: Lewis Matheson

Title of Section A Curriculum Practice Assignment: Teaching with Immersive Gaming (TWIGing)

Research question/s: Do pupils engage with learning games that have an element of chance?

Methodology of the action research: An interactive game is used as a teaching tool. Building on previous action research carried out by Professor Howard-Jones et al I will use a template provided at NeuroEducational.net as a format for immersing gaming into the teaching of a lesson. I will introduce the game over a series of lessons so the pupils understand the rules and have the ability to improve their strategy at gaining the most points. By allowing the pupils to become familiar with the game, and by reflecting on how I use the game alongside introducing new material, I will practice how to incorporate it into my teaching. The aim is not to use it just for presenting questions but for building the pupils motivation to learning new material.

Underlying theory behind the research: Neuroscience and educational best practice are slowly coming together in the area of neuroeducation. This aims to dispel some of the neuromyths: such as pupils are either left-brained or right brained; and that teaching in a visual, audio or kinaesthetic manor suits particular learning preferences. By providing a reason why certain strategies work, and suggesting new strategies that could be used in the class room based on research into the working of the brain, the aim is to provide better teaching strategies that aid pupil learning. Recent research suggests that when levels of dopamine are high pupils are more receptive to learning new information. This can be achieved by rewarding pupils; however levels of this neurotransmitter are higher when the reward is uncertain. Even if a pupil answers a question correctly their points are not guaranteed. By incorporating a chance based questioning game through a learning sequence I aim to see how this can be effectively managed in a class to aid the pupils learning.


Appendix B - Presentation Slides

Presentation given to PGCE students and tutors at the University of Bristol, June 2010.


Appendix C – The Monday Lesson


Appendix D - Feedback from Pupils

After the Monday lesson the pupils wrote about how they felt the game went, what they liked and what could be improved.

“Fun and better than most things you would do in a science game.”

”The best thing was when you had the choice to gamble or not.”

“....but when you put them [the cards] up in the air people would just copy you and put up the same colour.”

“It brought a sense of competitiveness to it which made people want to answer questions which is a hard thing to do in science”

“I think it could have been played quicker.”

“I enjoyed it because I learnt and had fun at the same time.”

“The game was easy to understand.”

“I didn’t like that the points were too low sometimes.”

“It all came down to the final question so it was getting really tense.”

“The game could look a bit better as the set out wasn’t very good.”

“It was really cool because we had coloured cards with our team number on.”

“We still had to use our brains to determine the answer to the question.”

“... was good to begin with but then became a bit boring... got a bit over repetitive.”

“Putting more variety in so if everyone gambles not everyone can win.”


Appendix E – The Wednesday Lesson


I produced an accompanying sheet due to the data required to answer a few questions. This could not be displayed on the board along with the question so it was handed out at the start of the lesson for the pupils to refer to when necessary.


Appendix F – Possible Improvements to the Game Template

Following feedback from pupils about the appearance of the gaming template I produced the following which users felt gave the game a more professional appearance.

As a teacher slides could also be produced more easily as all the text for questions and answers is entered in a Table rather than separate Text Boxes.

12

3

4

56

78

1 Score for current question, up to 9 points.2 Gambling button, with a 50% chance of either doubling or zeroing points for that round.3 Team number and whether they have decided to gamble or not.4 Colour relating to each answer.5 Chooses a colour at random.6 Chooses one team only to answer a bonus question.7 Adds scores to their cumulative total.8 Forward button to move onto next slide.


mrmathesonsphysics.wikispaces.commrmathesonsphysics.wikispaces.com/file/view/summe… · web...

Documents