Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units

Abstract

Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units 1 Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games unitsStudent-designed games have been referred to in many different ways in the literature, including games making (Almond, 1983;Cox and Ledingham, 1988), child-designed games (Rovegno and Bandhauer, 1994), games invention (Curtner-Smith, 1996), and inventing games (Butler and Hopper, 2011). Although there may be slight discriminations between each of these terms, they are all part of the same subject matter. According to Hastie (2010), a student-designed games (SDG) teaching unit could be described as the process in which students create and practice their own games, and in which the teacher as facilitator is able to guide and establish certain limits.The concept of SDG emerged in the late 1960s for the first time in the physical education (PE) literature when Mauldon and Redfern (1969) introduced the idea that children were experts in game playing and therefore, they should have more liberty to create their own games.The literature on SDG can be separated into three periods. The Characterisation period (1980s and 1990s) was represented by papers that identified potential educational outcomes and methodologies appropriate for teaching SDG. Although this should be considered an important period forComparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units 2 delimiting the understanding of SDG, none of these discussion papers presented any data that would serve to support their claims. Important educational values were considered, such as the ability to teach students to 'find out for themselves' why rules were so important in a game (Almond, 1983) and critical thinking in PE (Rovengno, Skonie, Charpenel, and Sieving, 1995). With respect to teaching methodologies, Smith (1991) The Teaching and Learning period (2010-present) focused on diversifying different teaching methodologies and students learning outcomes, thereby blending the previous periods. That is, this period was concerned with considering the efficacy of SDG in promoting different learning outcomes and considering different teaching methodologies to enhance students' experience (see Casey, Hastie and Rovegno, 2011). While introducing new methodologies, specific issues of SDG teaching were addressed. For instance, one major concern with respect to teaching SDG is ensuring that all students are involved in the creative process of game design. presented the jigsaw classroom method in which each student is responsible for designing a specific part of the game. Having the same concern, Giménez (2011) posed the concept of giving different roles to each student involved in the SDG process, similar to what is presented in the Sport Education model (Siedentop, Hastie and der Mars, 2011). Most recently, Butler (2013Butler ( , 2016 Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units 4 also presented a teaching methodology involving ten stages designed to promote the learning of democracy within game design. Butler...

Fifth-graders’ social interactions in a student-designed games unit

“…It can be suggested that compromising helped strengthen most groups' affiliation, resulting in absence of disengagement. These findings are consistent with previous SDG studies (André & Hastie, 2016;, where students' commitment to work together as a group helped to enhance their engagement.…”

“…Positive social interactions, improved social skills, peer acceptance, and cooperation are potential outcomes of students' engagement of collaborative groups (Hastie, 2010). Although SDG has been known since the late 1960's (Mauldon & Redfern, 1969), only in the past few years it has been supported with research findings (André, Hastie & Araújo, 2015;André & Hastie, 2016;Butler, 2013;Casey, Hastie, & Rovegno, 2011;Hastie & André, 2012;Hastie & Casey, 2010).…”

“…Observed interactions were positive, resulting in several groups combining their games. Recently, in a SDG study, André and Hastie (2016) reported that students demonstrated positive engagement during intra-group interactions, but challenges arouse during interactions with other classmates (inter-groups) during game refinement. In this study, for the most part, students seemed to enjoy playing their game and each other's game.…”

Expectations and Interests of University Students in COVID-19 Times about Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru

“…To ensure that students can be successfully educated in the SDGs requires specific curricular programming [58]. The importance of this was noted by André and Hastie [86], who reported the significant advantages of SDG programs based on technologies, as they are required to complement face-to-face learning. The observation is consistent with what was reported by Naik et al [87].…”

High School Physical Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Blended Learning One Year after the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…The PE teachers participating in this study believed that blended learning implied extra work compared to fully face-to-face instruction. Previous published hybrid PE experiences agree with this perception, as teachers reported that the use of online tools for teaching and the added online interaction with students were time-demanding and resulted in increased out-of-class workload [15,33,34]. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of students in initial training to become teachers expressed their concerns about the increased probability of suffering from teacher stress when following an online teaching methodology [35].…”