Category: Assignment 1 – Blog Posts

My Experience with Games in the Classroom

This weeks topic went over how using games in the classroom can be beneficial to the learning outcomes for students. I find that from personal experience to be true, from playing games of Kahoot, Jeopardy, Bingo, or Drawing I was able to better understand the topic as well as make the learning more enjoyable. From these experiences I can firmly say that gamifying learning material is something that should be incorporated in the classroom to a certain degree.

While I do think that gamifying learning materials are beneficial to a students learning, if its done incorrectly or is to frequently done the learning is instead harmed. I feel that there needs to be a balance between letting students interact with the gamified learning material and how often its used. This is because without balance, what was once an experience different from normal becomes common where the same skills are being used over and over. This can also lead to there being a deficit in new skills being learned as to much time is dedicated to letting students interact with the gamified material.

Differences between SAMR and SECTIONS models

The main differences between the two models SAMR and Sections is that, SAMR focuses on categorizing and evaluating four different levels of technology integration in the classroom. Whereas, SECTIONS revolves around determining the appropriateness of technology in the teaching capacity. Another big difference is how much is covered by each model. I feel that while both models are strong in what they do, that the SECTIONS model is better for its intended purpose as it has a lot more steps involved to properly evaluate technologies appropriateness for the teaching capacity. For example SAMR has four degrees of evaluation: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition which is further split into Enhancement and Transformation. Which I feel could be broken up into more terms to further specify each point. But as it is now it seems to be more umbrella terms which leave room for error and confusion. I feel that the SECTIONS model is stronger for what its purpose is because its divided into 8 parts which are each individually evaluated which can better prove its integrity for how it grades the appropriateness of tech in the teaching capacity.

List some possibilities you see for digital story telling or screencasting in education

I believe that the potential for digital storytelling and screencasting is directly related to the progression of technology, where its adoption and use increases at the same rate that technology improves. 

In terms of possibilities for how digital storytelling can be incorporated into education, I can see digital storytelling being used as a tool to help provide students with a visual and audible representation for the material they are learning. The use of digital storytelling in this manner would help to adhere to the dual coding theory and improve the amount of information that is retained. An example of this is an infographic designed to incorporate the key points of a topic handed out before an accompanying video which dives into further detail is played would help to solidify the main concepts.

As for possibilities for how screencasting can be used in education is through providing students with a quick reference for how to go about completing or beginning certain class activities. Another possibility is providing a platform for online students to be able to complete presentations where they can not only show what they have completed but also incorporate their own voice in their presentation. 

How the use of augmented reality tools and “play” can positively influence engagement and learning

Augmented reality has only recently been incorporated in education though its been around since the early 1990s. This is because educators have found that AR tools help to improve student engagement and learning outcomes (Scarlett, 2019). AR tools provide students with the opportunity to experience “Real-life” environments. Here they are encouraged to play leading to greater student interaction and engagement (Scarlett, 2019). The increased engagement has been found to positively influence students skills regarding numeracy, reading and content creation (Scarlett, 2019).

A great example of an AR tool that vastly improved engagement by promoting “play” was the introduction of Pokémon Go back in 2016. Pokémon Go unintentionally became the one of the largest tools for increasing physical activity in the world and has reached tens of millions of people worldwide ignoring the barriers of gender, age or weight that many of the other physical activity tools struggled with (Althoff, White, Horvitz, 2016.). It was found that Pokémon Go was able to inadvertently influence physical activity in a way that other health promotion tools couldn’t because it incorporated “play” to be part of its main functionality (Althoff, White, Horvitz, 2016.). This involved requiring users to move around in order to achieve goals and replenish their items which would help to advance them in game. Looking at Pokémon Go as an example, “play” should be incorporated into any AR education tool to help increase engagement and interaction with students’ overall learning.

References:
Scarlett. (2019, December 18). 6 Benefits and 5 Examples of Augmented Reality in Education. ViewSonic Library. https://www.viewsonic.com/library/education/6-benefits-and-5-examples-of-augmented-reality-in-education/.

Althoff, T., White, R. W., & Horvitz, E. (2016). Influence of Pokémon Go on Physical Activity: Study and Implications. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(12). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6759

Neuromyths that surprised me and my experiences with them

The Neuromyth that was surprising to learn was a misconception was the concept of left and right brained thinking. This thinking states that an individual is born with either a dominant left or right brain hemisphere and guides how a person interprets information and lives their lives (OECD, n.d.). The category of left brain thinking traditionally has been defined as the detail oriented area of the brain that is analytical and is able to logically understand information that is presented to it (OECD, n.d.). Whereas, the right hemisphere views information holistically and has a more emotional and imaginative approach to how the information is interpreted (OECD, n.d.).

This Neuromyth has been around for a long time and has been represented and taught through all manners of communication to all ages. From my experience, this concept was first introduced to me in Elementary school where the class was divided between left/right brained students based on how we answered the questions we were given. At the time, this information was interesting to learn because I answered as a left brain thinker and it made sense to me why I struggled in art classes but did well in math, while a friend who identified as right brained was the opposite. I only realized later that this concept was flawed and not necessarily the best thing to teach to younger demographics because it acted as an excuse that could stifle the potential that a child has (Briggs, 2016). An example of this is that a child who has a strong love for the arts may be found to be left brained and may lose confidence in what they love because they believe they are not fit to pursue it since their brain is not wired to think that way. But, since this Neuromyth has been found to be false, I believe that it benefits the learning of all ages and no longer discourages or limits potential.

References:

OECD. (n.d.). Neuromyth 6. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/neuromyth6.htm.

Briggs, S. (2016, November 10). How the right brain/left brain paradigm may harm early learning. Saga Briggs – ABC Education – http://education.abc.net.au/newsandarticles/blog/-/b/2424976/how-the-right-brainleft-brain-paradigm-may-harm-early-learning?null. https://education.abc.net.au/newsandarticles/blog/-/b/2424976/how-the-right-brainleft-brain-paradigm-may-harm-early-learning.