Having established our professional backgrounds and connections to our project's defined problem:
In examining each potential solution, each group member will review each potential solution in terms of their own personal contextual connection to the identified problem in terms of benefits and challenges this solution will create. We would now like to propose three potential solutions to that problem:
Develop games that include surrogate competitions. For instance, each player or student owns or controls a surrogate. A surrogate is a substitute that takes place for the student. Surrogate competitions allow competition between substitutes that does not identify individual students (Chen & Chen, 2013). Surrogate competitions may make students feel that their failures are due to a lack of effort rather than a lack of ability (Chen & Chen, 2013). This may lessen students' negative feelings around competitions between classmates as their identities remain anonymous.
As a mathematics teacher, it is often very difficult to find digital games that will be useful for all students. I have some students who struggle with the concepts taught in mathematics and would prefer that their classmates remain unaware of their mathematics ability. When students in my classroom have played competitive games, some students had negative experiences as their identities are not anonymous. Chen & Chen (2013) suggest that when using games that contain surrogate competitions, players' identities are not revealed which may reduce the negative feelings that students have about competitive games.
This solution presents a potential workaround for the non-competitive students to use the surrogate and circumvent avoidance behaviors that introvert students might present. As a side benefit, the surrogate model might provide a framework potential and promote both inclusion and provide an opportunity for the Computer Science concept of paired programming (Codementor 2021). I would also like to add that in this pandemic age of education, along with the fact that I am the parent of a special needs child, I am always aware of modifications and adaptations that can be made to make my classroom more inclusive. this solution has the potential to provide a mechanism for inclusion for those students. The open-ended nature of a potential framework means this could be adaptable to multiple teachable areas as well.
Chen & Chen (2013) suggest that the method using surrogate competition can remove students from direct competition within the classroom and see that a failing result while working through a problem comes from a need to improve their own skills or knowledge level. There is still competition happening within the game, which should meet the needs of the more competitive students, and by having a degree of separation between players and their substitutes, more introverted players may wish to try competition using this method. Students may observe and compare the differences in learning progress against others, but students cannot directly identify and challenge other players.
I believe that this kind of buffer would work in the average classroom. It should be a process that allows the introverted or more non-competitive students to participate in the same learning activity as those who feel motivated by competition. However, teachers should understand the composition of their classrooms and only implement this restriction (and I use this word because to the overly competitive students in the classroom who want to size themselves up with the rest of their peers, it is a restriction) when necessary. While studies have shown that surrogate competition can help decrease the negative effects of competition, it has also been shown to decrease the positive sense of accomplishment upon the completion or "winning" a game (Chen et al., 2012), so it is important to balance the attempt at using a game to motivate those who are poor performers within an academic environment while making the game an inclusive tool for the entire classroom.
Develop personalized games that meet the needs of all students instead of using a game where all students compete against each other. We can do this by creating multiple versions of a game that has an equal amount of learning material (Hwang et al., 2012). The learning material can be presented in different ways for individual students.
As highlighted by Hwang et al.(2012) students have a better understanding of educational content if they learn through personalized educational games that meet their learning styles. These types of games would address both competitive and non-competitive students as students are motivated to learn through games that meet their learning needs (Hwang et al., 2012).
I think this would be a good solution to our problem as these games can be used over multiple curricular areas and can address many different learning styles if teachers were allotted the time to create them. I am currently teaching eight different courses and completing my Masters, and do not have the time to put the effort into developing games that meet the learning needs of all my students. Many educators have children who require extensive amounts of their time outside of the classroom as well. As a result, I do not think this is our best solution as teachers are often not given opportunities to learn how to develop these types of games or have the preparation time required to do so.
This solution meets most closely with what I am actively doing now as a Computer Science teacher. Game development is and will continue to be part of my instructional design in Computer Science education. The real question is whether it can be adapted to address our identified problem around student competitiveness levels. When I interpret this solution, I take it as a Computer Science teacher and visualize it as the students developing multiple versions of a game - but I would imagine that other teachers (in other subject areas) would interpret it as game developers are creating multiple versions of the same game to address different levels of competitiveness. My interpretation would be beneficial in my classroom as "making a game actively engages learners because they construct their own game using a software tool; it is not a passive experience. Pupils can learn autonomously using the software as a sounding board for their ideas" (Robertson & Howells. 2008. p. 562). What is lacking in this solution is that it cannot be easily generalized for different subject areas and the ability to have game developers create the different games may not be pragmatic.
While the creation of personalized games would be a unique solution that could be tailored to a variety of learning outcomes as well as learning styles, there are many restrictions to this solution. Several are detailed by Tüzün (2007) as he recounts making games for his classroom. 3 major problems were encountered:
The sheer amount of time that had to be dedicated to each game being created because appropriate software did not exist for the learning outcomes that needed to be covered. Building a unique game or learning environment for up to 30 students, many with Personalized Learning Plans and levels of ability would require staff who are dedicated to this task only.
The majority of games on the market have a setting, background, and story to some degree (the level of which is dependent on the type of game being used and the outcomes being studied while using the game). If staff are to create games that are motivating and engaging for their students, they must also create these elements, which include reasons for the game to work in both a competitive and non-competitive environment. This can lead to both greater time issues and students who are not able to make the best use out of the resource as they are questioning a poorly thrown together, flimsy attempt at a plot devoid of reason.
Students compare educational games to commercially produced products, which can lead to higher expectations and disappointment with limitations. This can lead to teachers becoming disheartened by the attempt and ultimately transitioning back to traditional learning methods.
Because of these reasons, I believe that this solution is problematic for those teachers who are already stretched thin for time. Creating games is something that can be done during periods of time when schools are not running like summer, but without knowing what individualization each student may need, this would equate to a lot of work without a well-thought-out road to completion.
Finding Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) Software that provide different modes of play while ensuring that the same opportunities for learning exist. For example, playing against the computer will allow students to access the same information as playing against another student or students within the classroom.
As a high school Math teacher, COTS games would provide me with a challenge in my classroom as it would be very hard to tie it to any curricular outcomes taught in the Mathematics program in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some very popular COTS games do not automatically offer possibilities for teaching that can be directly linked to the curriculum that I have to teach (Shultz Colby & Colby, 2008). Further, COTS do not fully address our problem as they usually contain a competition between the player and an AI/computer player which may not be enjoyable for students who prefer not to or are unable to compete. COTS games do not always provide players with different methods to learn the content in the game which does not meet the needs of our students like can be done with our proposed solution.
As stated in the article by Shultz, professional game designers work to design games that keep gamers engaged, or in a flow, which is the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter (Shultz & Colby. 2008. p. 4). These commercial games lack the personalization to address the concerns that our identified problem states. Although this idea seems engaging, it could have an opposite effect on students who feel intimidated by the competitive environment that the game sets up. I would see a benefit to using COTS as an exemplar for my Computer Science students, it also has the potential to create a false narrative that they could never achieve in their current level of Computer Science education. Like showing a potential hockey player the play of a Wayne Gretzky, it might leave them more discouraged than motivated. It speaks to our solutions need to address different students at different levels of emotional intelligence.
While I am a proponent of COTS games in the classroom and have actively written papers concerning their implementation, these games are created primarily for entertainment and a great deal of work can go into finding a connection to a specific series of curricular outcomes. These outcomes can not always be met when using different games modes. As a teacher of high school English Language Arts, games that I would use in my class are related to storytelling and character creation, elements that will have students come in contact with competition, but almost always through the narrative and AI (trying to advance the story by "beating" the computer), so no competition between classmates is utilized. There would be no reason for a player versus player environment, which may lead to decreased motivation in the competitive students while increasing the motivation of the non-competitive. If the goal is to motivate and engage both types of students, this method could not be used without extensive research and time devoted to finding the right game, which may be the wrong game next year due to a new set of students entering the learning environment.
Another issue is the sheer cost that comes from using COTS games in the classroom. In the same way that students tend to shy away from books for silent reading if the cover seems old, there are cases where the students can be turned off by the age of the game they are playing, regardless of whether an older version of the game lines up better with a class's learning outcomes (Just Botting, 2021). This leads to organizations feeling that they need to be up to date with both software and hardware in order to fully motivate and engage students.