It is said that a day spent with purpose doing the things you love is a well-spent day. We agree because Monday 24th of January was one of those days well spent.

Monday, January 24th was a special day for all of us at Brace Up the Young. It was the day the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) proclaimed to mark the importance of education in ensuring global peace and development.

The theme for this event was “Changing Course, Transforming Education: and to commemorate this special day, in line with our objective to reach out to as many students as possible with the SDG 4 Agenda: To ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, we went on a tour.

Over 87 of our volunteers representing Lagos, Ogun, Kwara, Oyo, Kano and Imo States Nigeria, visited 45 primary and secondary schools to sensitize them on the importance of education; orienting the students on how to leverage on the power of education to achieve everything they dream about. 

Our teams of professionally trained volunteers were saddled with the responsibility to make the pupils and students know that their dreams were valid, that they could become anything they set their minds to become, and that there is no substitute for quality education.

With this special campaign, the students were also encouraged to eschew risky behaviours, such as juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, violence, HIV/AIDS and STI’S. The teachers too were not left behind. They were encouraged to give their best to their students and to be joyful to be a part of the students’ life formation.

In all the schools, both the teachers and students were excited and motivated to cultivate the habit of using ICT for educational purposes and to value quality education. Godwin Gift, a 13 years old girl in J.S.S.3 of Lagos State Model Junior College, Ojo, Lagos state who said she would love to be a Medical Doctor, was very happy with the discussions we had with them.

“Although I know about the internet as a tool to access new information, I want to learn how to use it for educational purposes”.

Godwin Gift, a 13 years old girl in J.S.S.3 of Lagos State Model Junior College, Ojo, Lagos state

She promised to learn and use technology to save more lives here in Nigeria while avoiding conflict as a nationalist. With our BTY School Tour 2022, we reached 4,629 students and 107 teachers respectively.

All these were possible because of the wonderful support we got from all those who believe in what we do. The project was supported by CWAY Food and Beverages, Lagos SDGs Youth Alliance Office and Mr Olalekan Fatodu, the Senior Special Adviser on SDGs to the Governor of Lagos state, Governor BabaJide Sanwolu, Volunteers Connect and Young Alive Network.

We are always excited about all the numerous donations (cash and kind) from friends and partners. It’s helping us make a difference and building our youth towards a better tomorrow in an emerging society like Nigeria.

You too can be a part of this movement either as a volunteer, sponsor or partner.

We will be glad to have you. Join us today.

TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE OF GAME BASED LEARNING IN TEACHING

By Obasanjo Fajemirokun and Daniel Abdul on August 5th 2022

Several factors have generally been identified as predictor of poor academic achievement. Agyeman (1993) reported that a teacher who doesn’t have both the Academic and the professional teaching qualification would undoubtedly have a negative influence on the teaching and learning of his/her subject of expertise. Apart from qualification, other teachers’ variables still exit which can either positively or negatively predict pupils’ academic achievement. However, research particularly in the Nigeria context is being silent about them.

Learning theory

The vast array of games that learners can engage with presents multiple dimensions in which games engage learners. How these games are designed, as well as how they are implemented in the classroom, can be organized as to how they relate to learning theory (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006; Kirriemuir& McFarlane, 2004):

• Behaviorism: A view of learning, which occurs through reinforcement to stimuli and response. Games designed on this learning principle generally present the player with a task or skill to be repeated until mastered or conquered, receiving rewards after attainment. Those games considered drill-and-skill edutainment often fall into this category. Since these tasks are extrinsically motivated, learning is seen as transmission Brophy, 1990). As such, the critique of this type of game is that it is considered training, rather than the acquisition of deep understanding or skill content — leaving opportunity for learning transfer unlikely.
• Cognitivism: In this learner-centered view of learning, the individual actively constructs their understanding in learning experiences. Discovery and inquiry-oriented games fall into this category, where learning and play are integrated to provide a context that allows for the active construction of knowledge. Intrinsic motivation is more often associated with these games, with problem-solving as one of the key meta-skills employed (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006).
• Constructionism: Akin to the cognitivist perspective but places emphasis on the external tools used to construct knowledge. This is most associated with the gaming and simulation platforms Logo and StarLogo.
• Social-Cultural: This perspective views learning not as the acquisition or construction of knowledge, but rather the ’tool that mediates activity’. In this way, learning is considered to be situated and therefore the activity becomes the unit of analysis (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006, p. 199). Example titles include Civilization and SimCity. The rich social context that surrounds this game-play is considered to be one of the greatest aspects to game-based learning and as a result, the game is the tool that creates a viable learning experience.

Game-Based Learning (GBL)

Game-based Learning (GBL) is defined as a type of game play which has defined learning outcomes. Generally, GBL is designed to balance subject matter with game play and the player’s ability to retain and apply the Subject matter to the real world. It is approached from various perspectives: educational method, didactic procedure, Organization of the teaching-learning activity. Educational games may allow for multiple classifications (Connolly et al., 2012), these being closely followed by the systematization of didactic games. In relation to the unprecedented progress of technology, we may draw the Distinction between traditional gbl and digital gbl (anderson et al., 2009).

Traditional GBL have developed for more than 30 years, starting with the 70s, revealing the trainers’ concern for Using them for a variety of tasks and lesson objectives: facilitating the understanding of knowledge, illustrating Concepts, building skills, retention and transfer, evaluating acquisitions but also maintaining the students strongly Involved, motivated and engaged in the task (idem).

Digital GBL are the expression of connecting the teaching process to the new learning technologies, the classic Computer and/or other related devices or possibilities (ipod, iphone, console, smart board, and platform).

A teacher is expected to be competent before teaching a particular subject. Betts, zau and rice (2003), found that when teachers have an advanced degree in their teaching subjects, it will have a positive impact on the students achievement. Thomas and raechelle (2000), suggested that several other studies in the teacher preparation research have also shown a positive connection between teachers subject majors and students achievement in mathematics. Wilson and floden (2003), found that students of mathematics teachers with mathematics education degrees demonstrate higher academic achievement in mathematics. However, they also indicated that there might be a limit at which more mathematics knowledge does not help the teacher.

Many researchers have studied the educational purpose of games. However, because of the complex nature of assessments and measuring academic achievement, there was no definitive measure against which the impact of learner achievement of outcomes could be explored. Instead, a variety of outcomes were examined in such studies. For instance, some studies reported on the extent of knowledge gained by students (chuang& chen, 2009;papastergiou, 2009), while others explored the impact of21st-century skills, such as problem solving or critical thinking (ya-ting, 2012). Academic achievement was generally referred to as an outcome, however, without detailing the specific measure, making it difficult to understand the exact impact.

Similarly, assessment methods vary widely; some studies used standardized tests to measure achievement against traditional practices, while some used tests developed for the purpose of the study.

Conceptual framework for Developing and Assessing Teachers’ Knowledge of Game-Based Learning

GAME NETWORK ANALYSIS  (GANA)

GANA is a combination of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) (Foster, 2012) model (See Figure 1) and the Inquiry-Communication-Construction-Expression (ICCE) framework (Shah & Foster, 2014). TPACK provides a lens for game selection and analysis. It helps teachers approach the game as a curriculum with constraints and affordances for technology, pedagogy, and content (Foster, 2012). PCaRD is a pedagogical model that aids teachers in the systematic incorporation of games in classrooms to achieve curricular goals and facilitate students’ engagement in academic domains (Foster & Shah, 2015). Overall, GANA empowers teachers with methods desirable for using games to facilitate student learning through the interacting constructs of

game analysis, game integration, and the conditions that impact game use in school contexts (Shah & Foster, 2014). The underlying pedagogy of GANA guides the nature of experiences teachers need to engage in, the connections that they must make, and the skills they need to hone in order to become competent in using games.

Figure 1. The Game Network Analysis Framework.

Figure 2. TPACK + PCaRD (ICCE) forms GANA , an ecological framework to aid game integration and game analysis in school contexts.

Game Analysis

Teachers need to be supported in approaching games as tools with cognitive, pedagogical, and experiential potentials that can be leveraged in partnership with teachers’ expertise. As a result, an integral process of game analysis encompasses practicing direct (e.g. playing the game, researching information about the game) and vicarious (e.g. observing another individual play the game) methods that can yield relevant knowledge about the game (Foster, 2012). Doing so generates awareness about the game in relation to technical requirements (e.g. platform for running the game, ease of installation), pedagogy in general (e.g. objective of the game, intended target group, customization options), and embedded content. Further documentation yields information about what technical physical-social infrastructure/resources will be needed to use the game.

Lastly, keeping the curricular goals in mind, teachers need to examine the nature of experiences the game is likely to engage students in, focusing on whether the game can support the kinds of experiences deemed important by a teacher (Foster, 2012; Shah & Foster, 2014).

Thus, the first hand assessment and detailed documentation aids teachers in better understanding the kind of curricular activities that will be required outside of the game to help students make connections between their play experience and the desired learning objectives, and facilitate students in articulating their newly formed knowledge (Shah & Foster, 2014). In summary, the process of game analysis assists teachers in game exploration, selection and evaluation.

Game Integration

 The objective of game integration is for teachers to leverage the identified potentials of a game and augment the impact of the game on student learning through teachers’ expert intervention. The key determinants to successful game integration are for teachers (a) to learn how to use a game as their pedagogical partner that complements and extends teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge, and (b) to use the game as an anchor for facilitating a social, affective, motivational, and cognitive learning experience for students (Foster & Shah, 2015). The process of game integration needs to be iterative. It should allow for scaffolding student experiences, informing immediate and future developments in their learning trajectory through the game. Typically, this involves immersion in game playing, engagement in curricular activities that

build on to students’ game playing experience, which includes opportunities for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression, followed by reflections and discussions to articulate the connections made between the game and learning objectives. Such a routine allows teachers and students to go past the novelty of learning with games and establish a structure to focus on the learning objectives while continuing to learn through play-based activities (Foster & Shah, 2015; Shah & Foster, 2014).

Ecological conditions impacting game use in school contexts

Although Game analysis precedes game integration as a procedure, conceptually they occur simultaneously. Teachers must think about game integration as they analyze a game. Similarly, the process of game integration deepens teachers’ game knowledge. Another layer of expertise that teachers must add in the process is to consider the context as they make decisions in relation to game analysis and integration. The purpose of being aware and skilled in working around the conditions within the learning context to the best possible extent is to ensure that organizational infrastructure, social dynamics, and established pedagogical practices allow teachers to nurture students learning through games even when unexpected changes may be experienced (Shah & Foster, 2014).

Conclusion

Game-based learning should not only be learnt by teachers but also practised in the classroom. This will increase students understanding of subject topics and improve students’ academic outcomes.  I suggest teachers must think about game integration as they analyse games for classroom use. This deepens the understanding of the teacher on the use of the game to facilitate learning in the classroom.

References

Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.

Chuang, T. Y., & Chen, W. F. (2009). Effect of computer based video games on children: An experimental study. Educational Technology and Society, 12(2), 1–10.

Coştu, S., Aydin, S., & Filiz, M. (2009). Students’ conception about browser-game-based learning in mathematics education: TTNetvitamin case. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1848-1852.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2006). Overview of research on the educational use of video games. digital kompetanse, 1(3), 184-213

Fengfeng, K. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education, 51(4), 1609–1620

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1990). Educational Psychology: A Realistic Approach. Fourth Edition. New York: Longman.

Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education, 51, 1609–1620. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2008.03.003

Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. (2012). Advancements and trends in digital game-based learning research: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E6-E10.

Kirikkaya, E. B., Iseri, S., & Vurkaya, G. (2010). A board game about space and solar system for primary school students. Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, 9(2) , 1-13.

Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. E. (2004). Literature review in games and learning. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Games_ Review.pdf

Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., Chen, Y. L., Liou, P. Y., Chang, M., Wu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (2013). Gamebased remedial instruction in mastery learning for upper-primary school students. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 271-281.

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). (2013). Teaching math to young children: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Outhwaite, L. A., Gulliford, A., & Pitchford, F. (2017). Closing the gap: Efficacy of a tablet intervention to support the development of early mathematical skills in UK primar

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers and Education, 52(1), 1-12.

Ray, K., & Smith, M. C. (2010). The kindergarten child: What teachers and administrators need to know to promote academic success in all children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 5–18.

Robertson, J., Howells, C., Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning, Computers & Education, Volume 50, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 559-578

Vos N., Van der Meijden H., Denessen E., Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use, Computers & Education 56 (2011) 127–137

Ya-Ting, C. Y. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education,59(2), 365–377.

Yien, J. M., Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2011). A game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning achievements in a nutrition course. The Turkish online journal of educational technology, 10(2), 1-10.