Scholarly Critique #3: "Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and le
In the article “Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program”, the authors attempt to gain empirical research support through engaging with young coders in a Game Design and Learning (GDL) program to determine if creating and designing games has an impact on these students in the areas of System Analysis, Decision Making, and Troubleshooting. The authors argue that these three learning areas were chosen among others because these areas are very common problems found in coding in general, as well as in “real-life” scenarios. For example, System Analysis is an important concept in game design (and in play), and System Analysis can be found in the real-world scenario of learning a new transportation system in a strange country.
The researches engaged with 21 mixed male and female students that came from a private school in a middle and upper middle class background. These students were self-selected to attend the GDL program, and none had previous coding experience in the Microsft Kodu platform, chosen for its simplified coding language and 3D mapping technology. The students spent 10 days (around 5 hours each day) learning about coding in Microsoft Kodu, first in Game-Design, then Problem-Solving, then Troubleshooting, then finally a session spent in Free Design. This allowed the students to learn the basics of coding from instructors (guided learning) as the research indicated that guided learning led to more solid understanding of the concepts being presented than that of free-learning, or allowing the students to learn themselves, without any guidance. The researches used a pre-test to determine what each student knew in the learning areas being studied (System Analysis, Decision Making, and Troubleshooting) and the same test (post-test) was given to the students upon exiting the program. I will discuss the limitations of this method a little later.
The results of the study indicated that students who participated in the summer GDL program did show improvement in all areas indicated (system analysis, decision making, troubleshooting), though differing in each. The area of system analysis and design, as well as in decision-making, showed significantly large growth. In the case of system analysis and design, students were 50% more likely to answer the questions correctly in the post-test. The area of troubleshooting, upon review, did not show significant growth. The authors argue that game design and learning show that students who engage in these types of learning activities (game design, coding, etc.) do show growth in content areas when guided by an instructor. Furthermore, the authors’ research indicated that students who were given the opportunity to design a math game and then share it with younger students showed an increase in their positive attitude towards math. The study here indicates that there is a connection between game-design and student achievement in certain learning areas, though more research is certainly needed.
The limitations of this study show an interesting insight into what I myself have given some thought to during the semester so far. The students in this study (also recognized by the authors) come from more sociopriveleged backgrounds. Not only does this suggest they have more access to technology, but also access to teachers who can more specifically cater to their needs, as these students all came from a private school. Furthermore, and also recognized by the authors, the same size of these students is very particular, and not measured with a control. Because these students self-selected to be in the program, their interest in coding is without question. Without a control of otherwise “normal” students, it is difficult to see whether learning area growth would have been the same, or less.
As an educator who works with a majority of students in lower socioeconomic backgrounds, this study interests me for its findings, but also its implications. It was proven that the students in this study improved in their three learning areas (system analysis, decision making, troubleshooting) and it makes me wonder if allowing game-design access to all students would not help improve their behavior and engagement in the classroom. Because technology is now so engrained in our (and our students’) culture, I hope that gainful learning progress can be made by making design and coding more accessible to more students. Further research can be conducted when this is the case!