As someone passionate about education research and a current substitute teacher, I found “Our Princess is in Another Castle: A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming for Education” particularly resonant.
I personally love games as an educational tool and supplement (especially for language and history), but they need to be used appropriately. For math, they are great for practicing basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts. Generally, they work well for self-motivated learners who already have some interest and fluency in the field. From my observations, I’m concerned about the extent to which students played these educational games and the degree to which they were expected to teach new concepts. I’m a lifelong hater of Chromebooks in elementary classrooms because these kids do not need any more screen time than they already have. As stated in the article, “educational gaming in mathematics is not as simple as putting a student in front of a computer and expecting substantial achievement or motivational results” (68). Unfortunately, this is exactly what I’ve observed.
From my experience as a substitute teacher in Chicago Public Schools, students weren’t learning much from the online math games. They had already figured out how to bypass the actual math and focus on the game parts, often clicking around until something entertaining happened. Half the time, they weren’t even on the assigned site. I think some people expect these websites to replace instruction, but that is just not possible at a young age. Chromebooks cannot be expected to be babysitters.
Instead of more screen time, I think young students need tactile instruction to build a concrete understanding of fundamental math concepts. This is especially necessary when teaching operations like division. It reinforces their understanding much better (and is certainly more enjoyable for me) than drawing 60 circles on a whiteboard.
Given how rapidly educational technology has expanded since 2012, I am curious how more recent research on game-based learning either supports or challenges the concerns raised in the article. This 2019 meta-analysis found a “small but marginally significant overall effect” of game-based learning on math achievement and a positive relationship between year of publication and effect size. I’m curious to see future studies that examine specific math game websites and the time students spend on them, compared to traditional instructional methods.
I definitely agree with the idea that kids often will take advantage of online learning to avoid learning. I remember video games being helpful to teach me mental math and typing since it really is all about drilling, but when teachers would have us play videogames or interactive digital learning tools to learn more difficult concepts, a lot of people would speedrun them with the promise of free time, or not do them at all. It’s often very unrewarding for the kids that do the actual work if teachers don’t actively reward kids who do try and penalize those who don’t.
I find myself really agreeing with this point. Not even just with math games specifically, but as I was going through elementary school there was an increasing amount of reliance on technology to take the place of actual learning in classrooms, especially with certain math games, but also in classes relying on video instruction through media. I think educational games have their place as an extra tool for students who are truly motivated to use to get better, but the idea of these games being truly instructional doesn’t really sit right with me.
I agree with your point. Students bypassing the learning to access the “fun” parts of the game is a real problem of educational technology. Not just elementary kids, in high school, I found myself tempted to speed through the important educational part to play the games when I’m on Blooket. Games can support learning, but they definitely can’t replace teaching.