Other studies

During my research, I have come across many studies both which concur with my own findings and other which in fact conflict with them. Most notably studies by Fuchs and Wossman in 2004 that apparently students who used computers with EDGs as part of their education were attaining lower grades than those who did not. The same study concluded that even the frequent use of EDG’s in the classroom made the pupils attainment levels particularly those related with numeracy sizeably lower. However the study was strongly criticised for having an "ability bias" – whereas teachers may not want their LAPs to use the computers and EDGs. The study also failed to consider how the computers and EDG’s were incorporated into the pupil’s studies.

It was very interesting to read the results of these tests and to try and investigate why these results occurred so that I could avoid the same pitfalls in my own study. Most notably I would ensure that I would not just take a large random sampling of student to enlist into the experiment, instead I would ensure that pupils of each ability level are represented and measured against each other respectively. This would be made easier as often classes are divided into groups of ability levels so as they are delivered a lesson that suits. These are aften  referred to as Higher Achieving Pupils (HAPs), Middle Achieving Pupils (MAPs) and Lower Achieving Pupils (LAPs).

Contrasting to the study by Fuchs and Wossman, I also found a study conducted by Pye and Sullivan in 2001, their results showed that not only was there a clear improvement in the pupils who used the EDG's but also a noted change in the pupils enthusiasm. This was something that my own observations corroborated as well.

Old-school and Luddism

In my placements and interviews with various education professionals it became apparent that in some cases, there was a noticable reluctance to use the EDG's as  they are intended. Many of the professionals would happily let the children use them, but not integrated as part of a structured lesson. Instead they would use the EDG's as positive reinforcement for tasks completed, often tasks completely unrelated to the content of the EDG.

This is something that I will discuss in far greater detail in the blog, how many teachers are failing to use the EDG's appropriately. In the interview I have queried with professionals about their experiences on the PGCE, the teaching degree and asked if they had been introduced to EDG's fully there and whether they had been taught how to integrate them into the curriculum and individual lesson plans. By and large the consensus was that teachers who had studied the PGCE recently have been introduced to varrious EDG's but not shown how they should be utilised. There is an improvement over time on the amount that teachers had been shopwn the EDG's but unfortunately it is nowhere near enough time to successfully studty them and realise their benefits.

Some teachers interviewed however embrace them and the results are noticeable not only wih resultant attainment levels but also with attitude and behaviour of the pupuls whilst using the EDG's.

The essay will further address how this attitude needs to change in order to fully take advantage of the EDG's potential. 

Psychology of learning

As part of my research I looked at the pschologies of how children learn, with particular regards to learnign through play. This was a well documented topic with many theorists having written books on the matter. My essay would detail these and explain how they relate to learning via EDG's. The main theorists I looked at were Howard Gardener, (2006), Jean Piaget, (1960) and Tina Bruce, (2008).

My research looked at the psychological processes for cognitive learning in the child. One of the most popular theories for learning, as described by Gardener (2006), is that children assimilate knowledge by three means; visual, auditory visual and kinaesthetic, often called VAK learning. Most taught lessons in the classroom are normally comprised of two of these at any one time, for instance a literacy lesson is spoken by the teacher while it is drawn on the whiteboard. Gardener continues to explain that the more successful lessons are taught using all three. Some theorists such as Piaget (2004) postulate that children are one of the other, an auditory learner, a visual learner or a kinaesthetic learner. Whichever is the case, perhaps one of the reasons that EDG’s are proving to be an effective teaching tools is that they work via all three. They are auditory, visual and kinaesthetic. Allowing children to not only assimilate learning in their own preferred style but also to encompassing all learning styles into one tool. This is perhaps one of the more important reasons that EDG’s are proving to be a success.

The system of learning through play is an intricate one, Bruce, (2004), explains that children learn best through play as they involve themselves deeply in their play and due to their level of immersion are hard to distract from their goal. She continues to explain that children are keen to try out their most recent learning, skills and competencies when they play. Via the play systems they revel in the knowledge and skills they have learned (p46). These theorems relate directly to learning through play via EDG’s as the processes are exactly the same. Although EDG’s present the child with a system of rules, and therefore not ‘free-form’ play, EDG’s are still a valid form of learning through play. Especially when the EDG is designed well enough so that the child does not realise that they are learning.

Experiments

During my time working at North Walsham school, I began thinking of an experiment using children to illustrate learning via digital games versus traditional didactic teaching. I asked the teachers whose class I had been working in if it would be OK to use a small group of children an hour a week to work with.

Whilst devising the experiment I contacted Jim Sturgess, Head of Kent ICT who created many of the digital games the school used. http://www.kenttrustweb.org.uk/kentict/content/games/index.htm

Alongside Sturgess, we chose a game which had a simple outcome. In order for there to be a clearer correct/incorrect measurable results, mathematics was chosen as the test subject. The game was also chosen as it has a traditional counterpart (number square). 12 pupils were chosen of different abilities, often referred to as Higher Achieving Pupils (HAPs), Middle Achieving Pupils (MAPs) and Lower Achieving Pupils (LAPs).

The game we chose was 'Giraffes and XXX' as the Year 1 children were already approaching the lesson covered by the game so that the experiment would not have any adverse effect on the flow of their studies.

Below is a screenshot of the game...

The didactically taught equivalent of the game is the traditional 'number square'...

There were some factors in the experiment that I needed to control in order to gain accurate and fair results...

* Pupils of equal ability are chosen

* The pupils are introduced to the EDG with the same system.

* The pupils all use the EDG for the same amount of time.

The experiment was a difficult process to set-up and keep on top of but the results produced were invaluable. The results were very interesting as they showed a distinct improvement in the pupils that used the EDG's as opposed to those who did not. In the essay I intend to compare these against surveys conducted by other organisations and see if I can find any conflicting or indeed corroborating surveys.

The Question

After our tutorial I began looking at the question that would best describe the subject of my essay, I also had to make the question different to the one I discussed for my previous essay as I did not want to repeat too much of the research.

This was a problem I was worried about, I had researched the topic quite thoroughly in my previous essay and I was concerned that I would be repeating the same information or researching along the same lines. I made a list of the points my previous essay covered and aimed to stay clear of those if I could, or at least to look at the area from a different angle or in greater depth.

One of the best ways that I could change the content of my research would be to alter the question. This would divert the course of my research and hopefully ensure nothing is repeated.


I narrowed my choices of essay question down to three possible choices...


1) How have digital games changed the way education is delivered in primary schools?

2) Have digital games enhanced education in the primary sector (Key Stage 1)

3) How has the role of digital games changed in the primary school sector?


Although the three questions sounded quite similar, the path they would lead me on would be quite different.  Therefore I decided that I would research more before deciding on my question. That way I would be able to see where my research would take me and structure the question to suit.

First thoughts

Whilst writing my essay for last year, I realised that there was a lot more I wanted to research and say on the subject of digital games in schools. So while I was writing my last essay, I began to put aside topics and areas that I could further research for my final year's essay. I was also lucky enough to be granted interviews with people that I had found while doing my research.

The areas I wanted to look into further were...

* Learning styles: Visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Howard Gardener (12 multiple intelligences), Tina Bruce, Piaget.

* Didactic teaching.

* BibleBytes

* David Cameron on ICT.

* James Barrett: Kent ICT – Interview

* Katie Salen: Quest 2 Learn - Interview

* http://www.marcprensky.com/

* Questionairre

* Teaching styles

More specifically I wanted to look at the psychologies of child learning and how these are effected by using digital games. I hoped to prove at least in theory that digital games had a positive impact and were a extremely beneficial teaching tool.