Researchers involved in Serious play: Literacy, learning and digital games, over the course of 3 years, canvased a total of more than 600 students. Participants spanned a variety of subject areas, grade levels, and types of programs. Beavis et al. 2017 framed the search for student perspective in games-based learning with the following questions:  “What had their experience been? In what contexts had they used games at school? What did they think games were good at teaching them, and what not? What made them work? What made them fun? How did they think games fitted in with their other activities in school?” (‘A GAME ISN’T A GAME WITHOUT INTERACTION’ 2017)

 

Beavis et al. 2017 found that students expect games in the classroom could help them learn, however, they had to be fun, enjoyable, interactive, challenging ( “ strategic, fast-paced, hard to win, competitive, made you think a lot, were ‘knowledge demanding’ and involved problem-solving.”), have the ability to freely explore,  and be intelligently designed with good graphics (‘A GAME ISN’T A GAME WITHOUT INTERACTION’ 2017).  Students identified a host of possible problems ranging from not finishing the game by the end of class to games not being appropriate for school. Conclusions drawn were: students’ expectations and preferences for games were influenced by their attitude toward academic work aligning their game preferences with their in-class learning preferences.  

 

Not unlike students, teachers initially chose digital games that aligned with their pedagogical preferences for instruction in the classroom; however, ‘triggers’ within the use of digital games could cause a shift in thinking about pedagogy and practice for educators (‘A GAME ISN’T A GAME WITHOUT INTERACTION’ 2017). Beavis et al (2017),  used Donnelly et al. (2011)’s categorization of teachers to describe the types of teachers using digital games: “1. the ‘Contented Traditionalist’ – who teaches towards curriculum and

assessment requirements and adopts technologies using traditional practices

to adhere to the prevailing school culture; 2. the ‘Selective Adopter’ – who selects technologies for competency of specific curriculum content and can vary pedagogical practices to ensure better assessment outcomes; 3. the ‘Creative Adapter’ – who has a strong focus on student-centred approaches that facilitate meaningful learning; 4. the ‘Inadvertent User’ – who is more oriented to using technologies if it is perceived as a school requirement, rather than to seek out their use (THE NON-GAMER TEACHER, THE QUIZ AND POP TEACHER AND THE KINECT TEACHER 2017).  

 

Teacher stories within 3 types of digital game adopters were given as a case study; Lucy: the non-gamer teacher; Malcolm: the quiz pop teacher; Janet: the Kinect teacher.

 

According to Beavis et al.2017, Lucy had a large transformation in pedagogy. She transitioned from the ‘Contented Traditionalist’ to the ‘Creative Adapter’. Lucy initially chose a word game that was based on her pedagogy wherein the game ‘fits’ the curriculum she used in class. She discovered through the experience that students grew with the freedom to choose their entry point into the game. The transition for Lucy came the following year when she chose to use Minecraft (Mojang 2011) with a new class. She shifted from choosing games that ‘fit” the curriculum to choosing based on student interest and learning a more constructivist approach. 

 

Malcolm illustrated ‘Selective Adoption’ remaining stagnant in his views believing time invested in preparation should have a visible outcome. Janet a teacher-librarian, had strong constructivist pedagogical choices in her teaching, opting for games and activities that promoted movement.  She chose the Xbox Kinect as a means to bring digital games into the library. First, she was skeptical of how it was functioning to meet curriculum but then changed her view after viewing the National Geographic Kinect game as a non-fiction text with chapters etc.. She noticed that students were engaging with the content collaboratively. Janet was categorized as the Creative Adapter  (THE NON-GAMER TEACHER, THE QUIZ AND POP TEACHER AND THE KINECT TEACHER 2017).

 

Much research has been done to investigate if game-based learning promotes academic achievement. Beavis et al. 2017 quote (Young et al. 2012; Young, Slota and Lai

2012) in their investigation of 39 separate studies exploring the academic merits of videogames, concluding ‘there is limited evidence to suggest how educational games can be used to

solve the problems inherent in the structure of traditional K–12 schooling and

academia’ (Young et al. 2012, p. 62). Beavis et al. 2017 state previous bodies of research are hemmed by the definition of game-based practices to those ‘serious or educational’ games narrowing the scope of possible outcomes.  The Serious Play project offered a longitudinal look at a more broad application of game-based practices observing the incongruous experience of teachers in the study with the traditional needs of assessment practices. Beavis et al. 2017 endeavoured to explore how teachers within the project viewed the incongruities. They asked two key questions “1. How did teachers describe the relationship between games-based learning and school-based assessment?

2. What are the implications of these teachers’ beliefs for future research in this

Field?” (SERIOUS OUTCOMES FROM SERIOUS PLAY 2017)

 

Teachers concluded that new frameworks to assess game-based learning were not necessary to demonstrate the link between games-based learning and curriculum. Links to the curriculum were easy to make. Teachers were only concerned about justifying the use of game-based learning activities (SERIOUS OUTCOMES FROM SERIOUS PLAY 2017).

 

Beavis et al. 2017 thoroughly explore the expectations of the broader term game-based learning from the perspective of students and teachers. Understanding what makes a classroom game experience worthwhile from the students’ perspective, while exploring the types of games and implementation strategies of teachers based on pre-existing pedagogical crutches. They explore the pressures of curriculum and assessment with the development of 21-century learning skills for teachers.  Assessment of such activities is found to align with the curriculum and not require new frameworks for implementation. The large spectrum of comfort and transformation of mindset and facilitation of game-based learning in the teachers and students is explored over a long period of time allowing for transformations to appear.