Work package 6: Integration into Educational Processes Work package leader UWS

1. Work package 6:Integration into Educational ProcessesWork package leader UWS Professor Thomas Connolly Dr. Elizabeth Boyle Dr. Thomas Hainey

2. Work package reviewTasks, task leaders, partners and person months for WP6 T6.1 User and education stakeholder requirements (Task leader: UWS, Thomas Connolly (7)) INESC-ID, Joao Pereira (7) 14 T6.2 Metrics for SG in education (Task leader: TUG, Michael Kickmeier (5)) UNI-GRAZ, Elisabeth Friedrich (7) UNIGE, Francesco Bellotti (4) 16 T6.3 Integration methodologies (Task leader: CNR-ITD, Rosa Bottino, MichelaOtt (6)) UCM, Pablo Moreno-Ger (8) UNIGE, Francesco Bellotti (1) 15 T6.4 Community of teachers and tutors (Task leader: TU DELFT, Igor Mayer (3)) UU, RemcoVeltkamp (3) 10 HWU, Theo Lim (4) Total 55

3. Work package review Duration of tasks for work-package 6 • T6.1 User and education stakeholder requirements Duration: Month1- Month5, Month13- Month18, Month25- Month30, Month37- Month42 • T6.2 Metrics for SG in education Duration: Month7 - Month12, Month19 - Month24, Month31 - Month36, Month43 - Month48 • T6.3 Integration methodologies Duration: Month13 - Month48 • T6.4 Community of teachers and tutors Duration: Month13 - Month48

4. Work package review:Aims and objectives of WP6 AIM to examine how SGs and SVWs can be integrated into formal educational systems. OBJECTIVES • Carry out a literature review of research on SGs and SVWs in education contexts. • Investigate how to best integrate different kinds of SGs and SVWs into educational processes in different stages and in different scenarios using sound pedagogical approaches. • Elicit requirements from end-users and education stakeholders. • Collect, systemize and structure experimental data in order to build a metrics for assessing and supporting the deployment of SGs and SVWs in concrete educational settings. • Elaborate specific methodologies for the non-intrusive integration of SGs and SVWs in existing educational contexts. • Gather and nurture a community of teachers and stakeholders who are interested in studying, assessing and promoting the adoption of SGs and SVWs.

5. Deliverable 6.1: Report on the integration of SGs inEducational Processes T6.1 User and education stakeholder requirements T6.2 Metrics for SG in education

6. T6.1: User and education stakeholder requirements (UWS) Objective 3: “Elicit requirements from end-users and education stakeholders”. • An empirical questionnaire study /focus groups looking at requirements, needs and expectations/attitudes, current experience of end users of and stakeholders in serious games in education (e. g. pupils, students, schools, parents, teachers, HE institutions, professors, trainers, educators).

7. T6.1: User and education stakeholder requirements: HE Students • We have run four surveys with students at HE level in UWS in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 looking at • use of games, kinds of games, learning type, learning dynamic, motives for playing entertainment games and gbl, attitudes to games, perceptions of skills acquired through games • Online survey – survey monkey • Survey has also been run with • FE students in Scotland • Secondary school pupils in Greece • HE students in OUNL • We would seek cooperation of other GALA partners in running survey • Extend to look at which games are used

8. T6.1: User and education stakeholder requirements: Primary school teachers • Pilot Survey of Teachers to gauge the current use of and attitudes to DGBL for learning at primary schools in Scotland • To identify games that are currently being used in the classroom • subjects where this approach would be most advantageous •  online survey (SurveyMonkey) distributed through email to the head teachers to primary schools across Renfrewshire (49) and Glasgow.

9. T6.1: Primary school teachers survey of current use of and attitudes to DGBL at school • Demographic information • gender, age, school name. • Information on the computer game usage for teaching • game name, age level, subject matter. • Information on game creation tool usage • tool name, expertise, evaluation of the tool. • Personal thoughts, motivations and obstacles on using DGBL including • Motivation for using DGBL • Reasons for playing games • Attitudes to computer games • Benefits of DGBL • Obstacles in using DGBL • fitting game to curriculum • limited time available • technical infrastructure of the school

10. Next steps: T6.1: Extension of surveys to other countries • Strategy for accessing participants? • Who will take part? European focus • GALA partners: UK, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Romania • Greece, Sweden, Eastern Europe • Gala partners (especially WP6 partners) would help identify stakeholders • teachers, pupils and students from primary, secondary and tertiary/higher education institutions across Europe; other stakeholders –parents, SEN children, educational psychologists; games companies • Education depts of unis? • GALA members with children • ECGBL

11. Next steps: T6.1: issues in extending analysis more widely • Survey instrument • Is online possible for pupils, students and teachers? • survey monkey • Translation? • Different educational structures and stages of education across Europe • Different curricula • Also pupils’ and students’ use of games in informal learning

12. T6.2: Metrics for SG in education Objective 1: “Carry out a literature review of research on SGs and SVWs in education contexts.” • Use UWS literature search and database • Results from TC2.8 Pedagogy literature review

13. UWS Literature Search and Database Search terms: ("computer games" OR "video games" OR "serious games" OR "simulation games" OR "games-based learning" OR "MMOG" OR "MMORPG" OR "M.U.D." OR "online games") AND (evaluation OR impacts OR outcomes OR effects OR learning OR education OR skills OR behaviour OR attitude OR engagement OR motivation OR affect)

14. Literature Search- Results • Biomed – 137 papers • Cambridge – 1,191 papers • EBSCO – 1,544 papers • Emerald – 282 papers • Eric – 2,412 papers • Infotrac – 945 papers • Ingenta – 267 papers • Science Direct – 12,998 papers • TOTAL = 19,776

15. Online Database now available

16. T6.2 Metrics for SG in education Objective 4: “Collect, systemize and structure experimental data in order to build a metrics for assessing and supporting the deployment of SGs and SVWs in concrete educational settings.” Based on T1.2 Metrics: Bloom’s taxonomy Learning outcomes: knowledge, skills: generic, subject based, soft skills, psychomotor/physiological, technological, motivational/affective Learner performance, perceptions, attitudes, preferences, motives, affect

17. Next steps: T6.3 Integration methodologies (CNR-ITD: Months 13-48) Objective 2: “Investigate how to best integrate different kinds of SGs and SVWs into educational processes in different stages and in different scenarios using sound pedagogical approaches.” Objective 5: “Elaborate specific methodologies for the non-intrusive integration of SGs and SVWs in existing educational contexts.” WP2 “will gather and study qualitative information and quantitative data on the integration of SGs in the actual learning processes, considering different typologies of games, various types of users, various types of educational targets that determine different uses, various learning situations and what is the role of the teacher/instructor when using a game.”

18. Next steps: T6.3 Integration methodologies CNR-ITD: Primary and secondary UCM- Tertiary and Informal? • Based on the results of the literature reviews from TC2.8 on pedagogy and TC2.7 on learning outcomes, carry out focused lit reviews on use of gbl at primary, secondary, tertiary levels • Selection subset of 60 TC/SIG case studies for gbl games at different levels – primary, secondary, tertiary • A survey of relevant projects and experiments carried out/ in progress within the GALA Community? • ECGBL • EU projects in the field of games and learning (in particular those financed in the 6th and 7th framework program-ICT and in other relevant EU programs such as the lifelong-learning program) will be scanned

19. Problem: GAP • Integration into education • Integration into corporate training • Integration into informal activities – integration perhaps inappropriate term, more use of games informally eg at home, gyms, health, museums, youth clubs, libraries

20. Problem: SIGS SIGS don’t seem to mirror curricular areas in primary and secondary education very well • Business and Management • Engineering and Manufacturing • Health and Fitness • Security, Safety and Crisis Management • Humanities and Heritage • Personal and Social Learning & Ethics games used in primary and secondary are largely to do with maths, science, English/language don’t fit neatly; Social games

21. Next steps: T6.4 Community of teachers and tutors (TU DELFT: Months 13-48) • Objective 6: Gather and nurture a community of teachers and stakeholders who are interested in studying, assessing and promoting the adoption of SGs and SVWs. The community will emerge to some extent from GALA members, research and development contacts, stakeholders, association, outreach advisory board

22. Links between WP6 and other work packages • Links to WP1.2: SG metrics • Links to WP2: • T2.6: Assessment; T2.7: Psychology; T2.8: Pedagogy • Take WP3 SIGS into account • Links to WP5: Education • Links to WP7: Integration into corporate training • Common tasks in different domains

23. Year 1 time line

24. 4 year time line

25. Issues • Evaluation of effectiveness of serious games in education • taxonomy and metrics • Learning outcomes • specific subject areas (SIGS) • Fun and motivations in serious games • Use of entertainment games (COTS) in education • informal/extra curricular games? e. g. use of games in museums • Are different kinds of games more suitable for different stages: nursery, primary, secondary, tertiary? • Transfer of skills from game to other learning activities • Constraints of games • Matching games with curricular learning outcomes • Games not serious • Perceptions of teachers, e. g. lack of time to introduce games in schools