wise humanising creativityvuir.vu.edu.au › 36054 › 1 › chappel ijgbl 7(4) article 2.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
DOI: 10.4018/IJGBL.2017100103
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.
Wise Humanising Creativity:Changing How We Create in a Virtual Learning EnvironmentKerry Chappell, University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education, Exeter, United Kingdom
Chris Walsh, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Heather Wren, University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education, Exeter, United Kingdom
Karen Kenny, University of Exeter, Graduate School of Education, Exeter, United Kingdom
Alexander Schmoelz, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Elias Stouraitis, Ellinogermaniki Agogi, R&D Department, Greece
ABSTRACT
Thisarticleinterrogateshowaparticularconceptionofcreativity:‘wisehumanisingcreativity’(WHC)ismanifestwithinavirtuallearningenvironment(VLE)withchildrenandyoungpeople.ItreportsontheoutcomesofC2Learn,athree-yearEuropeanCommissionfundedprojectwhichintroducedinnovativedigitalgamingactivitiestofosterco-creativityintheVLEbetweenplayers.Theoreticallythepaperbuildsonpreviouswork,whichhasconceptualisedthepotentialforWHCwithinVLEs,aswellasothereducationalcontexts.WithinC2Learn,argumentshavebeenmadeforWHCasanantidotetooverly-marketised,competitivenotionsofcreativity,aswellasforWHCsupportingaviewofchildhoodandyouthasempowered—rather than ‘at risk’—withindigitalenvironments.Inparticular,thispaperfocusesonoutcomesoftheproject’sfinalpilotinginEngland,GreeceandAustriaacrosstheprimaryandsecondaryageranges.Thisresearchemployedabespokeco-creativityassessmentmethodologydevelopedfortheproject.InordertodocumentWHC,thismethodologyoptedtoevidencedevelopmentsinlivedexperienceviaqualitativemethodsincludingteacherandstudent interviews, fieldnotes, video capture, observation and student self-assessment tools.ThepaperarticulateshowWHCmanifests inC2Learn’suniqueVLEorC2Space,and itspotential todevelopmorenuancedunderstandingsofcreativityacrossdigitalenvironments.ItthengoesontoconsiderWHCasausefulconceptforchanginghowwecreatewithinVLEs,andtheimplicationsforeducationalfuturesdebatesandwiderunderstandingofcreativityineducationasalessmarketisedandmoreethicallydrivenconcept.
KEyWoRdS(WHC), C2Learn, Co-creativity, Digital Gaming, Gameful Design, Social Networking, Wise Humanising Creativity
INTRodUCTIoN
Inthelasttwentyyears,therehasbeenagrowingshiftinunderstandingcreativityineducation,fromanindividualisedconcept,toonewhichiscollaborativeorgroupbased,andwhichis‘everyday’initsoccurrence(Banaji,Burn&Buckingham,2010;Craft,2002;JohnSteiner,2000;Sawyer,2003).Theseshiftshaveprovidedthefoundationsfornewargumentsforcreativityasa21stcenturyabilitywhichchildren,youngpeopleandcitizensneedtothrivetogetherasaresponsetorapidchangeand
50
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
51
constantuncertainty(Chappell&CraftwithRolfe&Jobbins,2011;Craft,2011;Robinson,2015).Simultaneously,muchhasbeenwritten,especiallyintheUnitedKingdom,regardingthemultiplerhetoricsofcreativitywhichplacedifferingemphasesoncreativity’ssocial,cultural,democraticandpersonaldimensionsandtheirinfluencesoncreativityinlearningandteaching(Banaji,Burn&Buckingham,2010;Sefton-Green,Thomson,Jones&Bresler,2011).Developingwithinthisshiftingconceptuallandscapeareacollectionofideasthathaveemphasisedtheimportanceofco-creativitywithineducation,theroleofgenerativepossibilities,thequestionoftheethicalimpactofcreativity,andtherelatedpedagogicaldynamics.TheseideasareWiseHumanisingCreativity(WHC)(e.g.Chappell&Craft,withRolfe&Jobbins,2011;Chappell&Craft,2011;Chappell&Swinford,inpress;Craft2013),PossibilityThinking(PT)(e.g.Burnard,Craft&Grainger,2006;Craft2002;Craft,2014),andthe‘4Ps’ofcreativeengagement(Craft,2011).TheyspotlightandchallengethedominanceofWestern-centric,marketisedcreativity,positingamorehumanisingethicallyawarealternativewhichviewschildrenandyoungpeopleasempoweredcreativecontributorsalongsideadults.
Togetherandseparately,thesetheorieshavebeenelaboratedfromempiricalresearchinavarietyofeducationalsettings(e.g.Chappell&Jobbins,2015;Chappell,Slade,Greenwood,Black&Craft,underreview;Craft&Chappell,2014;Cremin,Burnard&Craft,2006;Cremin,Chappell&Craft,2012).Together,theyputforwardastrongtheoreticalargumentforbettergraspingthemeaningofcreativityasdistributedbetweenpeople,objectsandideas(e.g.ChappellwithCraft,Rolfe&Jobbins,2012;Craft,McConnon&Matthews,2012)andfortheneedtoengagewiththeconsequencesofcreativeactivityasethicallyladen(e.g.Chappell,2008;Craft,2013).Primarily,theseideashavebeenappliedinformaleducationwithinamultitudeofsettingsincludingwithingeneric(e.g.Craftetal.,2012),arts-based(Chappelletal.,2011)andscience-based learningcontexts(Craftetal.,2014;Cremin,Glauert,Craftetal.,2015).Mostrecently,triggeredbyCraft(2011),thiscollectionof ideashasbeenappliedwithinexplicitlydigitallydriveneducationalcontexts (Chappell,Craft&Walsh;2014;Walsh,Chappell&Craft,2017;Walsh,Craft,Chappell&Kouloris,2014;Walsh&Whitehouse,2017).Thishasbeenwiththeaimofchallengingmorecompetitively,individuallyderivedconceptionsofcreativitywithindigitallearning(e.g.Edwards-Groves,2011;Tapscott,1996;Walsh,2007)andofplacingastrongeremphasisoncollaborationandethics.
ThisconceptualentryintothedigitalarenawasmarkedbytheCreativeEmotionalReasoningComputationalToolsFosteringCo-CreativityinLearningProcesses(C2Learn)1Project(www.c2learn.eu).Thiswasathree-yearEuropeanCommissionfundedresearchinitiative,whichaimedtointroduceandpilotan innovativeVLE to fosterco-creativity in learningprocesses in formaland informaleducational settingswithseven internationalpartners.Rather than focusoncreativecompetitionand‘winning’,theC2Learncomputationaltoolsandenvironmentweredesignedtoincorporatethefundamentalelementsofco-creativitysuchasWHC,PT,the4Ps(Walshetal.,2014;Walshetal.,2017)aswellas reframing(Stenninget.al,2016)andemotive lateral thinking (Scaltsas,2016).TheseincludedtheWHCnotionthatthecomputationaltoolscoupledwithengagingexperiences,couldpotentiallyencouragestudentstogoonjourneysof‘becoming’(Chappelletal.,2012).Thesejourneysarebasedonthereciprocalrelationshipbetweentheparticipants’creativeideasandtheirdevelopingidentity.Astheyco-create,itisarguedstudentscollaborativelyandcommunallydevelopnewideasbutastheythemselvesarethesubstanceofthoseideas,theyarealsocreatingor‘becoming’themselves.Inthissense,studentsthroughco-creatingwitheachotherandVLE’sartificialintelligence(AI),aremakingandbeingmade.Thesejourneysarecharacterisedbyco-participativegenerativity(studentsplayingwithoneanother,withadultsandAI),withinsharedgroupcreativeidentities,forexamplewithinthedigitalquests,gamesandactivities.Thetoolsalsoraisedilemma-basedquestions
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
52
astotheconsequencesofplayers’digitalcreativeactions,theethicsofwhichinformthejourneysofbecoming;hencetheuseoriginallyoftheterm‘humanising’(Chappell,2006;2008).
TheC2LearnVLEwasinfluencedbyagamefullearningdesign(Walshetal.,2014)sothatthesejourneysofbecomingwere informedbyplayersexperiencing thecorePossibilityThinking(PT)activitiesof‘whatif’and‘asif’thinking(Craft,2002;Craft,Chappell&Walsh,2013).Thesebothrequiregameplayerstounderstandthesystemofthegame—orsystems-basedliteracypractices—intermsofhowthegameandgameplayerworktogetherinacyberneticrelationship,effectingvariousactions of the digital game by successfully understanding and navigating those structures thatunderlietheirparticipation(Walsh,2010).Thisnavigationwasdesignedtobeinformedbythe4Psofplayfulness,possibility,participationandpluralities(Craft,2011).
Asadesign-basedresearchinitiative,itwasvitalthattheC2Learnprojectincorporatedformativeand summative evaluative feedback embedded within piloting activities (Scaltsas, Stenning &Alexopoulos,2014).Withinabroader researchmethodologyanddesign, appliedacrossGreece,EnglandandAustria,thisaimedtoallowresearcherstoevidencewhetherWHC,PTandthe4PsweredevelopedthroughparticipationinC2learn’sVLE(seemethodologybelowandWalshetal.,2017).Thiswasachievedthroughthemainprojectresearchquestion,whichwasappliedacrossarangeofpilotcontexts:Howdoparticipantsmanifestco-creativitythroughC2Learngameplay?TheC2Learndigitaltoolsandenvironment’sgamefullearningdesignwasthereforeacomplexintegrationofcollaborativeandethicallydrivencreativitytheoryandpractice,understandingsofdigitalengagement,andformativeandsummativeevaluationprocedures(Chappelletal.,2014;Craftetal.,2013;Walshetal.,2017).
ThisarticlereportsontheoutcomesofthefinalstagesoftheformativeandsummativeevaluationandresearchpilotingoftheC2LearnenvironmentorC2Spaceandhowchildrenandyoungpeopleengagedwithitinordertomanifestco-creativity.Inordertoframetheanalysisanddiscussionoftheseoutcomesthenextthreesectionsexplaintheproject’sVLEorC2Space,thedetailoftheC2LearnconceptualframeworkwithitsrelatedliteratureandthentheC2LearnLearningDesign.
C2Learn’s VLE or C2SpaceInC2Learn’sVLEorC2Space(Figure1),studentsandteachersindividuallyandcollaborativelyexplorenewideas,faceandovercomechallenges,playgamestoassisttheminreachingtheirgoalsandconnectwithothersthroughengaginginfun,contextuallyrelevantandmeaningfulplayful‘C2Experiences’.TheC2Spaceencouragesexplorations,gamesandqueststhatprovidestudentsandteacherswithmultipleopportunitiestoputforthnewideas—meaningfultothemandtheircommunities—thatrequirethemtoimaginemorenewideasorsolveproblemsviaplayfulC2Experiences.Inthisjourney,theyareassistedbyeachotherandAIorCo-CreativityAssistants(C2Assistants)thatinteractwiththemandtheirteacherstochallengetheirestablishedthinkingpatternsandenablethemtousemechanismsofcreativethinkingandtheirimagination.
C2Learn Conceptual FrameworkC2Learn’saimistofosterco-creativitywhichisdefinedasnoveltywhichemergesthroughsharedideasandactionsandinvolvesparticipantstakingintoaccounttheimpactofthatnovelty.Withinthisframework,PT(Craft,2010),theprocessofmovingfromwhatistowhatmightbewasaguidingprincipleforC2Learnco-creativity,andwascloselyconnectedtothe4P’sofcreativeengagement(Craft,2011).Theseare
• Pluralities(opportunitiesforlearnerstoexperimentwithmultiplepluralitiesofplaces,activities,personalidentities,andpeople);
• Possibilities(opportunitiesforpossibility thinking, transitioningfromwhat is towhatmightbe,co-constructingwithothersthroughtheC2Learnexperience,designing,editing,extending,andexploringcontent);
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
53
• Participation(opportunitiesforlearnerstotakeaction,makethemselvesvisibleontheirownterms,andactasagentsofchange);and
• Playfulness(opportunitiesforuserstolearn,createandself-createasactiveandconnectedusersintheiremotionallyrich,virtualandactualplay-worlds).
Craft’stheorisingsitswithinthefluxofviewingchildrenandyoungpeople‘atrisk’asinneedofprotection(Frechette,2006),andviewingthemasempoweredandmovingbeyondadult‘control’(Newburn,1996).ApplyingPTandthe4PswithintheC2Learndesignwasaboutacknowledgingchildrenandyoungpeople’scapacityforgenerativepossibilityinVLEs,whilstensuringthattheyarenotplacedinunnecessarilyriskysituations.
FramedinthiswaybyPTandthe4Ps,Scaltsasetal.(2014),andChappell,CraftandWalsh(2014)arguedthatthiskindofco-creativitycouldbecatalysedviathetoolsandstrategiesofCreativeEmotionalReasoning(CER)contributingtogeneratingWHCbetweenC2Learnparticipants.CERdrawsoncognitivescienceresearchandreferstoaprincipled,unifyingtheoryofnon-linearthinkingtechniquesthatfosterco-creativity.Premisedonanotionofcreativityasaninterventionresultinginreframing,CER’ssetofcorecreativelearningtoolsaimedtosupportthemanifestationofWHCbyprovidingmethodsforthedisruptionofestablishedthinkingroutinesandpatterns.WHCandCERwerethereforecoupledtogethertoprovidethefivekeycategories,whichcharacterisedC2Learnco-creativity.Scaltsasetal.(2014)andChappelletal.(2014)arguedthatwhenengagedinco-creativity,C2Learnparticipantswould:
Figure 1. The C2Space
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
54
• Generate,exploreandenactnewideaswithavaluableimpactonthecommunity,discardingotherideasthatlacksuchpotential(ethicsandimpact)
• Posequestions,debatebetweennewideas,findwaystonegotiateconflictortogoinadifferentdirectiontoothersifconflictisnotresolved(dialogue)
• Takechargeofdifferentpartsof thecreativeprocess,understanding therulesof thesystemandhowdecisionshaveconsequences,makingdecisionsaroundnewideasandtakingaction(s)throughvariousscenariosand/orquests(control)
• BeimmersedintheC2Learnenvironment,andpossiblyaddictedtogameplay,exploration,questsand/ortheinteractivedramaplayedoutwithinit,aswellasinreal-worldspaces.Suchimmersionwillsometimesleadtotakingrisksandgeneratingsurprisingindividualorcollaborativeideas(engagedaction)
• Havetheirthinkingandactiondisruptedbytheenvironment’scomputationaltoolsembeddedwithinwhichareCERnon-linearthinkingtechniques.Thiswillthemmovethemawayfromestablishedroutinesandpatterns(interventionresultinginreframing)
Chappelletal.(2014)arguedthatco-creativitywouldthereforeoccurinC2Learnasanactiveprocessofchangeguidedbycompassionorthecloseandactiveawarenessoftheneedsandhopesofothers(Chappell,Craft,Rolfe&Jobbins,2012)andreferencetosharedvaluesderivedfromVLEusers’collaborativethinking,sharedaction,gameplayandsocialinteraction.Theywentontoarguethatovertime,smallincrementalpersonalchangesorjourneysofbecomingwouldresultfromtheirWHC.ThisisbecausethereisacorereciprocalrelationshipwithinWHCbetweencreativityandidentityinwhichascreatorsmake,theyarealsobeingmade.Thereisthenthepotentialforthesesmallerchangestoaccumulateincrementallytogethertofuellargerscalecommunalchange.Chappelletal.(2011)refertothisas‘quietrevolutions’whichgrowfromthebottomup,andalignpersonalwithwidervalues.WithinC2Learn,bothanalogueanddigitalactivityhasthecapacitytogeneratethesequietrevolutionsasplayerscreateindividually,collaborativelyandcommunally.TheC2Spacewasthereforecarefullydesignedtofacilitatethis;theprojectLearningDesignisdescribednext.
C2Learn’s Gameful Learning designC2Learn’sLearningDesignanditsgroundinginthedigitaldesignliteraturehasbeendetailedatlengthelsewhere(Chappelletal.,2014;Walshetal.,2014;Walshetal.,2017),butbrieflyforcontexthere,attheheartoftheC2LearnLearningDesignisthe‘playful’digitalgamingandsocialnetworkingenvironmentor“Co-creativityspace”(C2Space).Figure2showsascreenshotoftheC2Spaceinaction.
The C2Space allows students to draw on their gaming literacy to interact creatively andcollaborativelywitheachother(Apperley&Walsh,2012;Beavis,Bradford,O’Mara,andWalsh,2009).Figure2showsaC2Spacepageofferingethically-drivenquestsinthemiddlewhichwhenselected offer the choice of games to be played within the quests; 4scribes (Eladhari, Lopes &Yannakakis, 2014), Iconoscope (Liapis, Yannakakis, Alexopoulos & Lopes, 2016) and CreativeStories(Koukourikos,Karampiperis&Karkaletsis,2016)beingthe3mainC2LearngamesavailableintheC2SpaceorVLE.Designedinthisway,theC2Spaceaimstoleveragegames’deeplysatisfyingpropertiesthrough‘playfulexperiences’,orC2Experiences.Withinthese,playerscanautonomouslyandcollaboratively:explore;faceandovercomechallenges;playgamestoassisttheminreachingtheirgoals;connectwithothersbyengaginginfunandmeaningfulactivities;andevidencecompassionandsharedvaluesorputforthnewideasthatrequireotherstudentstoimaginenewideas.Thisprovidesaco-collaborativecontextforthemtoshiftfrom‘whatis’tonewpossibilitiesof‘whatmightbe’.Figure3,then,showsoneoftheC2Learngames,4Scribes,inthemiddleofplaywhereplayersareco-generatinganethicallydrivenstory.
Intheirjourney,playersareassistedbyeachotherandAIorCo-CreativityAssistantsthatinteractwiththem.OneoftheseAssistants(theMadScientist)canbeseeninthetoprightofFigure3fromthe4Scribesgame.WithintheC2Space,engaginggameaffordancesareused,includingfeedback,
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
55
Figure 3. 4Scribes game mid-game
Figure 2. C2Space in action
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
56
agency,emotion,andrelevantchallenges,overgamifiedelementssuchaspoints,levels,andrewards.Figure2,above,showsdifferentcolourediconsfortheC2Learnfeedbacksystemontheright-handside.ThesearebettersuitedforC2Learnbecausetheyhavethepotentialtoincreasestudents’intrinsicmotivation(Amabile,1998)andcapacityforactivelearninginawaywhichismoresympathetictothewidergoalofWHC(Deterding,2012,2013).ThistakesplacethroughplayfulC2Experiences,asopposedtogame-orientedstrategies.This‘gamefuldesign’stanceaddressesthewidely-theorisedcritiqueofgamificationwithingamestudieswhicharguessuchgameorientedstrategiesprovideprimarily extrinsic rewardmotivators (Nicholson,2012).The intentionof theC2LearnLearningDesign’s gameful design is to harness students’ motivation and engagement through enjoyablelearningandagoal-orientedapproachthatfostersco-creativity(incorporatingbothWHCandCER).
Classroom-basededucationalscenariosusedwithintheC2Spaceprovideaframeworkinwhichdigitalgamesareusedtohelpdeepenstudents’relationshipswithreal-lifecontextsthroughactionandplay,tofacilitateco-creativity(Dimaraki&Koulouris,2013).Thecorescenariosweredevelopedin an iterative co-designed process with teachers and in collaboration with school communities(Dimaraki,Schmoelz,Koulouris,2013).Theyareappropriateforarangeofcontextsandlearners,andaddressspecificlearningobjectives.Theyalsoprovideacontentframeworkinwhichtheinnovativetechnologiesandpracticesoftheprojectaredeployed.ExamplesofthekindsofscenariosdevelopedcanbeseeninFigure2wherethequestscontainelementsofthescenariosofferedtothestudents(CreativityFuturesintheclassroom).Duringpiloting,studentsplayedwithC2Learngamesdescribedabove.Themethodologydescribedbelowwasdesignedtodocumentthemanifestationoftheirlivedexperienceofco-creativity,includingWHC.
METHodoLoGy
ThecollaborativeC2Learnprojectaimedtorespondtothemainresearchquestion:Howdoparticipantsmanifestco-creativitythroughC2Learngameplay?ThemethodologydrewonStenningandMichell’s(1985)evaluation incognitivescienceaswellasoneducational/arts informedevaluation (Craft,Chappell&Best,2007;Chappell&Greenwood,2013).Amixedmethodsapproachtodatacollectionwasused,seekingtodocumentbothchangeandthelivedexperience(VanManen,1990)ofchildren,youngpeopleandtheirteachers’engagementintheC2Space(Walshetal.,2017).Repeatresearchvisitsgaveresearcherstheopportunitytotrackchangeovertime.
PilotingIntheSpringandSummerof2015theC2Learngames,withintheC2SpacewerepilotedinschoolsinEngland,GreeceandAustria.DetailsareshowninTable1.Inthetable,thetermprimarycoversthe10-12agerangeandthetermsecondaryisusedforthe15–19agerange,withoneEnglishandtheAustriansiteasecondaryschool,andoneEnglishsiteasettingofFurtherEducation.IntheEnglishprimary1 and2, site activitywas focusedaround the4Scribesgame,using themespromoting‘sustainability’and‘animalwelfare’todelivercreativewritingsessionswithintheEnglishcurriculum.IntheGreekprimaryactivitywasfocusedonthe4ScribesgameleveragingtheGreekhistoricalperiodundertheOttomanruleengagingstudentsinsocietalissuesatthattimeandaseriesofethicaldilemmasbasedonunprecedentedgeographicalsituations.IntheEnglishsecondary1siteactivitywasfocusedaroundthe4ScribesgameusinganethicaldilemmatakenfromtheSociologycurriculum.InEnglishsecondary2,siteactivitycentredonusingin-gamechallengesfromCreativeStoriesandExploreandExpand.IntheAustriansecondary,siteactivitycentredonpersonalandsocietalchallenges,whichwereidentifiedbythestudents.Theeducationalactivitywasfacilitatedwithmixedplayfulpedagogies(Schmoelz,2016;Schmoelz,inpress)involvinggame-basedlearning,gamificationandgame-baseddialogues.
Pilotingprimarilyusedthe4Scribesdigitalgame(Figure3),wherebyparticipantsco-createdastory,situatedwithinadesignatedscenario.Gameplaywiththeolderparticipantgroupsusedthe
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
57
CreativeStories(seeFigure4),IconoscopeandExploreandExpand(seeFigure5)applications.Wherethetableshowsuseofpaperprototypesthiswasbecauseofissueswiththetechnology’sstability,bothintermsofthesoftwareandaccesstoitviaschoolfirewalls.Progressinrectifyingtheseissuesacrossthelifeofprojectpilotingwasextremelyslow,andsothisfinalpilotphasedidnotusedigitaltoolsasadvancedasoriginallyintendedandtheplannedtimeperiodswerealsosomewhatcurtailed.
Table 1. Piloting across three countries
Location of Pilots
Ages of Participants
Number of Participants
No. of Sessions
No. of Research
visits
Tools used for pilot
App used for pilot
Teacher interview conducted
Video/audio used
for data collection
English primary 1
10 24 3 2 Paper 4scribes yes audioandvideo
English primary 2
10 16 5 2 Digital 4scribes yes video
Greek primary 10-11 24 2 2 Digitalandpaper
4scribes yes audioandvideo
English secondary 1
17-19 4&9 2 2 Paper 4scribes yes audioandvideo
English secondary 2
15-16 5 2 2 Digital Creativestoriesexploreand
expand
no audio
Austrian secondary
17-19 12 30 5 Digitalandpaper
4scribesIconoscope
creativestories
yes Audioandvideo
Figure 4. Creative Stories
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
58
ThecategoriesandcharacteristicsshowninTable2,developedfromtheconceptualframeworkdetailedabove,wereusedthroughoutthepilots,toenableresearcherstofocusonthecoregoalsoftheco-creativityframeworkforWHC.
Figure 5. Explore and Expand
Table 2. WHC Elements of Co-creativity Categorisation scheme
Category Characteristics
Attendingtotheethics and impact of ideas
1.Createsnewassociationsbetweenideas2.Activelyexplorestheconsequencesofthenewlycreatedassociationsbetweenideas3.Exhibitsawarenessofandconcern/interestfortheimpactofnewideasonthegroup’svalues4.Activelypromotestheideasthataredeemedvaluablebythegroup
Engagingindialogue 1.Engagesindebateoverideas2.Promotesdialoguewithgroup(posesquestions,respectsdifferentviewpointsand/orencouragesmembersofthegrouptovoicetheirideas3.Activelynegotiatesconflictand/orseeksalternativepath
Beingincontrol 1.Takesaleadingroleduringdifferentphasesofthecreativeprocess2.Exhibitsafirmgraspoftherulesinthesystemunderlyingthechallengesfacingthegroups3.Takesdecisionsandinvestigatesaction
Engaged action 1.Immerseshim/herselfintheexperienceofthecreativeprocess2.Facilitatesimmersionintheexperienceofthecreativeprocessfortherestofthegroup3.Willingnesstotakerisksand/orleavehis/hercomfortzone
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
59
data CollectionQualitativedatacollectionmethodsdeterminedtheextenttowhichstudents’andteachers’participationintheC2SpacehadthepotentialtofosterWHC.Clearprotocols(Scaltsasetal.,2014;Walshetal.,2017)weredevelopedbyarepresentativeteamfromthe3pilotcountriesinordertoensurethattoolswereusedasconsistentlyaspossible.ThereweresixmaintoolsforcollectingdataintheC2Learnpilots;thesearedetailedinTable3andTable4.Gameplayaudioandvideocapture(Foster,2006)allowedobservationofphysicalandlinguisticbehaviour,whilstself-assessmenttools,suchascreativitywheels(seeFigure6andFigure7intheAppendix)(drawingonEdmond,2005;Spencer,LucasandClaxton;2012);andparticipationaxes(ChappellandCraft,2011)wereusedtounderstandhowstudentsexperiencedC2Learn.Thesemethodswereaugmentedbyteacherobservations,gatheredduringinterviews(Kvale,1996),whichfollowedasemi-structuredschedule,andresearcherfieldnotes.
IntheEnglishpilotsitestheclassteacherrequesteda‘gatekeeper’role,wherebytheyselectedparticipatingchildren,identifiedtimesforplayandforresearchvisits,anddesignatedthelocationofplay.Thiscontrolprecludedthefulluseoftheprotocols.InAustriaandGreeceteachersandassistantsco-designedlearningactivitiesandthewayinwhichC2Learntoolswereimplementedinregardtolearningoutcomes.Thiscollaborationfacilitatedthefulluseofthedatacollectionprotocols,andisanapproachrecommendedwherepossibleforfuturepilotingofthiskind.
data AnalysisForthisarticle’sfindings,richinstancestakenfromtheaudioandvideowereusedtoidentifywhetherthe WHC characteristics listed in Table 2 were inherent in the digital contexts within C2Space.Analysiscommencedwithcodingtothepre-specifiedcategories,whereinstanceswereclassifiedasstrong,mediumorweak.Stronginstanceswerethentranscribed.Thisanalyticstagewasextremelythoroughwithidentificationcriteriahonedbetweenresearchersfromthethreecountries.Thisaimedforagreementonwhatvisuallydefinedarichinstanceieevidenceofthekeysub-categoriesinorderthatresearcherswerenotsimplyover-assumingthepresenceofWHCbecausetheVLEhadbeendesignedtofacilitateit.Triangulationofthestronginstanceanalysiswasconductedbyatleastonememberoftheresearchteamfromeachlocation,usingaprocessofblindanalysisfollowedbycomparison,againtowardagainstassumption.Thetriangulatedanalysisandstrongrichinstanceswerethenanalysedinconjunctionwithanalysisoftheteacherinterview,fieldnotesandself-assessmenttoolsinlightoftheresearchquestions,inordertoproducethesecondstageanalysis.Itwasimportantthatdetailedfilmanalysiswasthefirstlevelanalyticprioritywithteacherinterviewsandstudentself-reportusedforanalyticverificationratherthanleadinganalyticoutcomes.Itmustbetakenintoaccountthough,thatWHCcategoriescouldbesaidtobeapparenttoparticipantsthroughthecreativitywheelandteacherinterviewquestionstructure,aswellasthroughteachers’interestandinvolvementintheC2Learnprojectintentions.Thiswasafurtherreasonforprioritisingfilmrichinstanceanalysisoverthesedatasources.Followingthissecondstageanalysis,thedatawasthenanalysedbothgeographicallyandwithinageranges,resultinginoverallprimaryfindingsandoverallsecondaryfindings.Aswehavewrittenuptheanalysisofthefindingsbelowwehaveacknowledged,whereappropriate,howthedifferentactivitiesundertakenindifferentcountriesarelikelytohaveimpactedonthewayinwhichfindingsvary.
Quality and TrustworthinessTrustworthiness, quality, and rigour were ensured via adherence to the principles of credibility,transferability,dependabilityandconfirmability(LincolnandGuba,1985)withparticularattentionpaidtodataandcolleaguetriangulationtechniques,negativecaseanalysisandevidenceofcleardatatrailsforallcodingandcategorisation.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
60
EthicsTheassessmentmethodologywasunderpinnedbyaclearsetofethicalprinciples.EthicalprocedureswereinformedbytheguidelinesoftheBritishEducationalResearchAssociation(BERA)(2011)aswellastheDataProtectionAct(DPA)(1998)andDirective95/46/EC.Digitaldatawascollectedandstoredfollowingthisstrictethicalprotocol;Owncloudfilehostingallowedsecurestorageaccessibletoallresearchteams.
FINdINGS
Thefindingsreportedinthispaperarestructuredusingtheco-creativitycategorizationframeworkanddrawonthecross-siteanalysisrespondingtothequestion:Howdoparticipantsmanifestco-creativity
Table 3. Methods used with descriptions
Method used during research
visits
When used in research visits
How method was utilised Expected outcome of method used
VideoandAudioRecording
Duringgameplay Focusedononegroupandensuredalldialoguewasrecorded.
IdentificationofWHCcategoriesduringgameplay.
Fieldnotes Duringgameplay ResearchermadenotesofWHCcategoriesobservedduringgameplay.
IdentificationofWHCcategoriesduringgameplay.
SocraticDialogue(SD)Plenarysessionconductedbyteacher
Followinggameplay TheSDwasasemi-structureddialoguewithagroupofstudents.Theresearcherutilisedopen-endedquestioning.Studentswerealsoaskedtoidentify3importantthingsofthesession.
TheSDand3importantthingswereusedinordertogainabetterunderstandingofthestudents’reasoningprocessesandexperiencesasregardsaparticulargameplaysession.
TeacherInterview FollowinggameplayandSocraticdialogue
Theseinterviewswererecorded,andnotesweretakentosupplementtherecording.Theinterviewersusedacombinationofopenandclosedquestions.
Interviewrecordingswereusedinordertounderstandaspectsoftheteachers’pedagogyandpedagogicalstrategieswithintheC2space,aswellasinvitingtheteachers’observationsacrossthe5categoriesofWHC.Theinterviewsalsohelpedusidentifyteachers’perceptionsoftheirstudents’co-creativitythroughtheirindividual,collaborativeandcommunalinteractionswithintheC2Space.
Co-creativitywheeldrawingoncreativitywheeldesign,butusingtheC2LearnWHCcategoriestopopulatethewheels.
Followinggameplay StudentswereaskedtotickwhichWHCcategoriestheydidabit,quiteabitoralotduringgameplay.
Forself-evaluationoftheWHCcategoriesidentifiedofgameplay.
Axes FollowinggameplayandcompletionofCo-creativitywheels
Studentswereaskedtoplottheirparticipationandpossibilitiesontheaxes
Forself-evaluationofparticipationandpossibilitiesofgameplay.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
61
throughC2Learngameplay?Theanalysiswascarriedoutfortwoseparateagegroups,10–12yearolds(primaryfindings)and15–19yearolds(secondaryfindings)whicharepresentedseparatelybelow.
10 – 12 year oldsEachofthefivesub-categoriesofco-creativityisevidencedinturnforthisagegroup.Intermsoftheethicsandimpactsub-category,therewasasmallamountofdata(e.g.atleastthreerichinstancesinEnglishprimary1)acrossthethreesiteswhichsuggestedsomestudentswereexhibitingawarenessandconcernfornewideasaboutthegroup’svalues,exploringandactioningnewideasthatmakeadifference(wheeldatashowedstudentsmostlyratedthemselves‘quitealot’here)andcreatingnewassociationsbetweenideas.Insupportofthis,theEnglishprimary2teacherobserved:“theydidthinkaboutethicalissuesmorethroughthissystem”andtheGreekteachercommentedtothiseffecttoo.AlsoinGreece,withinthegeographyscenario,Sakis,astudentpointedoutthatgameplay“putsmeinthoughtprocess”and“it(gameplay)dependsonpeoples’imagination”,highlightingthatstudentswereexploringnewideas.AnEnglishprimary2studentwasalsoseensteeringtheethicaltrajectoryofthestory:“MeandMetalMarioaregoingtoshareit,we’regoingtostealitfromyou–I’mgoingtobelikeRobinHood,stealitfromthewealthygiveittothepoor”.
Across all three sites, dialogue was mostly used for debating ideas. In English primary 1,the teachernoticed that studentsweredebating theirco-constructedstory:“ithadengaged themenoughforthemtokeepgoing,discussing,andgoingoverwhatthingshadhappenedandwhattheymightchange”. InEnglishprimary1, rich instancesofdataanalysis indicated thatdialoguewasmoreevidentinthesecondpilotandwasusedforquestioningstorylineandcollaboration.Wheninterviewedtheteacherreported,“Ithinktherewasanelementof‘astorycan’tbecompetitive,’itcanbecollaborative”.Thiswasevidencedinself-assessmentdatawheremoststudentsthoughtthattheyworkedwithotherpeoplequitealot.IntheGreekPrimarySchool,theteacherconfirmedthatbythesecondpilot,dialoguewasoccurring.TherewasastrongrichinstanceinEnglishprimary2,whenJaboscussaid“I’mthewomanofwater.Wehadthisargumentlasttime.Tobe‘of’somethingmeanstobemadeofit.”Hewasposingquestions,andalsoattemptedtodrawtheresearcherintotheconversation,wideningthedialogue.
Acrossallthreesettingsanalysissuggestedthatcontrolwasevidencedthroughtakingchargeofthestory,individuallyorinteams,inordertogetthestudent’sending.InEnglishprimary1,fieldnotesindicatedthat:“Usingthesymbolthatwasinthemagicunicornhoofshebroughteveryonebacktolife”.Therewasasmallamountofdatatosuggestthatsomestudentsweremainlydecidingand
Table 4. Actual number of methods used in pilots
Location of Pilot
Research visit 1 Research visit 2 Supplementary data
Wheels Axes Socratic dialogue
Field notes
Video Teacher interview
Wheels Axes Socratic dialogue
Field notes
Video Teacher interview
Plenary notes
3 things
Englishprimary1
8 8 2 1 2 0 24 24 4 1 6 1 0 3
Englishprimary2
4 4 1 1 2 0 12 12 1 1 3 1 1 4
Englishsecondary
1
0 0 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 1 0 0
Englishsecondary
2
5 5 1 1 1 0 5 5 1 1 1 1 0 0
Greekprimary
24 24 1 1 2 1 22 22 1 1 2 1 2 0
Austriansecondary
12 12 1 2 1 0 12 12 1 3 1 1 0 0
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
62
actioningtochangethestoryperspective.Englishprimary2providedthelargestevidencecount,wherethechildrenwereenabledtobedecisive,regardlessofability,andthemethodstheyemployedseemtoevidencealevelofconfidencewhichtranscendedgameplayability.Forexample,theteachernotedthemcontrolling“continuity”and“re-engineeringtherulestomeettheirownends”.TheGreekdatashowsthissub-categoryas‘indevelopment’withtheteacherreporting,“Ithinkiftheyplayedmore,theywouldhavestartedtoseethoselinksalittlebitmoreclearly.Theirabilitytomanipulatetheeventstotheirownconclusion,Ithinkthatwouldhavegotbetterwithexperience”.Thisisanexampleofwheretheamountofactivitycarriedoutindifferentcountriesinfluencedtheanalysisoutcomewithincountriesdifferently.
Acrossallthreepilotsites,engagedactionwasmainlyevidencedviaimmersionwhereitwasobservedasstudentsbeingengagedthroughoutensuringtheirstoriesflowedfromonetoanother.TheEnglishprimary2teachernoted:“C2Learn-theyhavebeenengaged.They’vewantedtodoit”.Thiswasalsodemonstratedinarichinstanceregardingengagementleadingtosurprisingideas,whenChiChiinventedacard,sayingthatshehadforgottenheroriginalcards.Hercardwasparticularlyusefultoherinachievinghersecretending.Overallmostofthestudents,usingtheself-assessmenttoolsacrossthe3sites,ratedthemselvesonengagementandtakingrisksasquitealot.TheGreekteacher highlighted how students took risks when immersed in the VLE: “they tried to presentsomethingneweveniftherehadsomedifficulties”.Although,therewassomenegativeevidenceinthissub-category,wherestudentsacrosssitesshoweddisengagementin-betweenturns.
Regardinginterventionandre-framing,evidencesuggeststhatEnglishstudentswerecreatingconnectionsbetweenideas,developingnewperspectivesandsometimesgoingbeyondthematerialprovided;moreso inEnglishprimary2 than1.Forexample, inEnglishprimary1,Bobbysaid:“CanIsaywhothepersontalkingis?”ashewantedtochangethenarrativeperspectiveandBrianasked:“Shouldn’tTheElderWomanofWaterbeagainsttheGirlofFire?”inordertotrytochangethecollaborativestoryintoaconflictingone.InEnglishprimary2usingstimuliincreativeactivitywasevidencedwhenachildsawthecharacteronthecardinamorepersonalisedway,asthe‘windgrandma’ratherthantheoldwomanofwind’.Theauthoringoftheco-creativestoryitselfalsoappearedtostimulateimaginativethoughtprocesses.Theteacherbelievedthat“assistingwithcardsdoeshelpthemwhentheygetstuck…itstartsyourimaginationworking.”IntheGreekPrimarySchool,therewaslimitedevidenceofinterventionandreframing,buttheself-assessmenttoolsshowedthatstudentsdidbelievetheywereusingthestimulusalotorquitealottothinkinnewways.
For the10–12-year-oldsacrossall threecountries, all five sub-categorieswereevidenced,althoughtodifferentdegrees.Thissuggeststhatforthisagegroupco-creativity,andthereforeWHC,wasmanifestingduringinteractionwithinandaroundtheproject’sVLEthroughgameplay,despitetheshortenedpilotingperiodsandtechnologicalissues.Thispointisstrengthenedbythefactthatevidenceistriangulatedaboveforeachcategorynotonlyacrosscountrybutalsoacrossthevarietyofdatasources,includingstudents’self-assessment.Havingsaidthis,thereweresomesub-categorieswithinwhichGreekstudentsdidnotshowasmuchdataasEnglish,namelyinterventionandre-framing,withdialogue,andbeingincontrolincreasingacrosstimeintheGreeksite.Perhapstobeanticipated,therewaslittleevidenceofjourneysofbecomingorquietrevolutionsintheprimarydatabecauseofthecurtailedlengthofthepilotsandcontinuoustechnicalchallengesoftheC2Spaceonthetablets.Thiswillbeconsideredfurtherinthediscussionandconclusion.
15 – 19 year oldsAcrossallthreecountries’pilotseachofthefivesub-categoriesofco-creativityisevidencedforthisagegroup.
Uponanalysis,thedataevidencedthatthe15to19-year-oldswerethinkingabouttheconsequencesoftheirideasinregardstoethicsandimpact.Englishsecondary1teacher’scommentssupportedthis:“Somestudentsweregivenaloverscardandtheyweresuggestingthatperhapstherapistandthevictimendedupbecomingloversandpartners”,“Thatwasquiteachallengingidea”.InEnglish
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
63
secondary2,asmallamountofevidenceintherichaudioinstancesanalysisshowedstudentstoneddowntheirsuggestionwhichwasoriginallymockinganotherstudent.Alsointhissite’sstudentself-assessmentco-creativitywheels,thestudentsratedthemselvesasquitealotoralotforexploringnewideasandmakingapositivedifference.AustrianstudentswroteabouthowhumankindtreatstheenvironmentwhichisindicativeoftheuniqueactivitieswithinwhichtheirC2Learnexperiencetookplace,andwhichinfluencedtheirtrajectory.Itwasextremelyimportantforthemtogenerateastorylineaboutdestructionbutalsoaboutinjusticeandprejudicesagainstpeoplewhofightthesystem.Demonstratingthis,Andrewsaid:“Maybeweshouldwritethatpoliticsandhumansbecomemoreradical,excludeeveryoneandtheartistswanttodosomethingagainstit.”Theendofthestudents’storytookafirmstandagainstthewaymankindtreatstheenvironment,withonestudentsaying:“Ireallybelievethatanintenseendingcanhavemoreimpact.”
TherewassomeEnglishdataandnumerousAustrianexamplesofstudentsengagingindialogueviadebating,negotiatingconflictandposingquestions.Teacherinterviewanalysisevidencedstudentsbeingrespectfulandreflective,ratherthanopenlyconflicting:“theywererespectingeachother’sideasandopinions,theyseemedtobethinkingmore,reflectingmore”.InEnglishsecondary2,therewasevidencefromrichinstancesofdialogueinallpilotssupportedbyfieldnoteswhichstated:“…discussiontookplacebetweenafewofthestudents”and“allstudentstookpartinthediscussionofthestory”,andwhichalsorecognisedconflictor“banter”asadriver.InEnglishsecondary2self-assessmentwheels,thestudentsratedthemselvesasworkingontheirownandwithothersquitealotoralot.Austriansecondarydataexamplesalsoevidencedthisinthefollowingdiscussion:
• Andrew:“Okay.Wehavetocomeupwithanend.Maybetheforestisbeingdestroyedbyatornado.”
• Annette:“Theforestwascutdown.”• Francine:“No,that’stooapocalyptic.”• Andrew:“Yes,that’strue.”
Students debated different ideas and dialogued to consider consequences, and come to acollaborativeend,where,asFrancineput it:“The ideaswerecomingfromeveryone”.Theheadteacherconfirmedthatstudentssometimeshadstrongdebates,butalsopointedoutthattheylistenedandrespectedopinions.
Therewasasmallamountofdatatosuggestthatstudentsweretakingcontrol.Englishsecondary1showedaverysmallamountofevidence(basedaroundonefilmrichinstance)ofstudentstakingchargeofthecreativeprocess,withfieldnotesidentifyingonestudentusingcontroltoputastoptothedirectionofthestorywhereonestudentwantedtoeliminatethedilemmabykillingoffallinvolvedapartfromtheinnocentbaby.Englishsecondary2dataalsosawstudentstakingcontrolviatypingandwhosestorylinestheychosetoincludewhereoneplayertookcontroltotype,whileanotherothertookcontrolofthewordswhichwerebeingadded.However,fieldnotesalsoshowsthisstudentgivingthecontroltoothers:“Thisstudentalsostartedtoincludeothersmorebyaskingthemtocontributeindividually,thuslettinggoofthecontrolofthedirectionofthegame”.InEnglishsecondary2,ontheco-creativityself-assessmentwheels,moststudentsratedthemselvesasbeingincontrolquitealot.Austriandatashowedgirlsandboyssuccessfullyleadingatdifferenttimes.Theirheadteachernotedthat“theclassleaders,thegroupleaders…setthetone.”Andthefieldnotesbackedthisupwhere“Thereisanobviousleaderinthegroupwiththeboys.”
DatasuggestthestudentswereengagedintheVLEacrossallthreepilotsites.InEnglishsecondary1,datafromfieldnotesillustratedstudentswereengagedwithC2Learn’sgamesduringtheirturnsandshowedagoodunderstandingof the storyline.Rich film instancesalso showedonestudentsometimescomingupwithsurprisingideaswhenimmersedin thegame.In interview,a teacherconfirmedthis:“theyseemedtobethinkingmore,reflectingmoreperhaps”.ImmersioninEnglishsecondary2alsoappearedtobemaintainedthroughconflictandbanter,asevidencedinfieldnotes
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
64
wheretheywereengagedinstoryconstructionmostofthetimebutalsousedthestoryintheirbanterinbetweenturns.Englishsecondary2self-assessmentwheelsillustratedstudentsthoughttheywereengagedandtakingrisksquitealot.Austriandataalsoshowedimmersionfromanumberofsourceswhereitresultedinsurprisingideas,suchasatreebeingthenarratorofthestoryinsteadofusingahuman’sperspective.TheHeadteachercommented:“Theyengagedveryheavilyinit…theywereverymuchpartofthewholeprocessandveryinvolved.”AlthoughAustriandataalsoshowedsomeissueswithimmersion–bothstudentsnotengagingwithtabletsbecauseoftechnicalities,andnotwantingtoengageoutoftheircomfortzone,forexampleindance.ThisisanotherexamplewheretheactivityinfocusinfluencedtheAustriandata,perhapsintermsoflevelsofimmersionbecauseofthedisciplinebeingtaught.Regardingsustainedimmersion,thestudentsthemselvessaidthatbeingpartofagroupmadeiteasiertoconcentrate.However,bothteachersandresearchersreporteddifferentfindingssayingthat:“Theydistractedeachother.”
Inthethreesites,therewasasmallamountofdatathatsuggestsstudentswereusinginterventionandreframing,andwereawareofhowitfunctioned.Evidenceshowedstudentswereinterveningandreframinginordertodevelopanewperspectiveonthechallenge,whichledtothecreationofsurprisingideasthatweresometimesethicallydriven.IntheEnglishsecondaryschools,richfilminstancesshowedastudentreframingaperspectiveonrapeinasurprisingandethicallychallengingway,consideringtheconsequencesofa“rapist…return[ing]tolookafterthebaby”.Therewasaverysmallamountofre-framingevidenceinfieldnoteswhereitwasnotedstudentsreframedwordstofitinwiththeirowndirectionofthestoryandaddedtheirownwordsinunusualways.Thiswasalso reinforced in rich instanceswherea student reframed theaccumulationofhisown ideas togenerateamorecreativeentry.TheEnglishco-creativityself-assessmentwheeldatashowedmixedevidenceofreframingfromalottoalittlebit.AustriansecondarydataevidencedinterventionandreframingthroughtheSocraticDialogues.Forexample,studentsmentionedonestoryturningpointandstatedthattheendingwasthemostimportantaspect.Oneparticipantwantedthe‘wholeuniversetodecay’whilstothersthoughtthiswas“toodramatic”sayingthat:“theearthdyingdoesn’tmeanthateverythingelseisdyingaswell”.Theyallagreedonthatmomentbeingthemostcrucialpartofthestoryandwereveryreflectiveabouttheirpersonalopinions.
Aswith the10–12yearolds, for the15 -19yearolds across the three sites all five sub-categorieswereevidenced,althoughagaintodifferentdegrees.Fortheseolderstudentsco-creativity,andthereforeWHCtoo,wasmanifestingusingtheC2LearnVLEandindialogues,gameplayanddiscussionsoutsidetheVLE.Thispointisstrengthenedbecausetheevidenceistriangulatedforeachcategoryacrossthevarietyofdatasources,includingstudentself-assessment.Andevenmoresothantheprimarydata,thesecondarydatafrombothcountriesisstronglytriangulated.ThisisperhapsbecauseoftheintensityoftheAustrianpilotstructureallowingforanindepthC2Learnexperiencewhichmanifestedalltheco-creativitycategories.However,aswiththeprimarydata,overallthereisalmostnoevidenceofjourneysofbecoming,andinturnnoquietrevolutions.
dISCUSSIoN
Acrossallthreecountries,thesepilotswereundertakenusingbothpaper-basedanddigitalprototypes.Thegoalwasforallfinalphasepilotstobewhollydigitalandlonger,butasexplainedearlierthiswasnotpossible.And,yet,thecollecteddataprovidesanunderstandingofhowparticipantsmanifestco-creativityincludingfledglingWHCthroughC2Learn’s4Scribes,CreativeStories,ExploreandExpandandIconoscopegames.
Approachestounderstandinghowchildrenandyoungpeoplemanifestco-creativityinVLEsisnew.C2LearnhasproposedandnowillustratedacrossthreeEuropeancountriesthatco-creativityincluding fledglingWHCcanmanifest forchildrenandyoungpeople ina specificallydesignedVLE.Forthe10–12yearoldsacrossallthreecountries,allfiveco-creativitysub-categorieswereevidenced,withinterventionandre-framingevidencedtheleast.Thisindicatesthatfortheyounger
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
65
childrentheywereattendingtoethicsandimpact,engagingindialogue,feelingliketheywereincontrol,andengaginginaction.Ifweseereframingasastagewhichmightresultfromthesecombinedprocesses,thisperhapsexplainswhythiswasleastevidenced.Childrendidnotreachthispoint,nordidtheyachievejourneysofbecoming.The15–19yearoldsmoreconsistentlymanifestedallfivesub-categories.ThisisperhapsbecausetheyareolderandmorequicklyabletoengagewithC2Learn’scomplexities,aswellastheAustrianstudentsexperiencingaweek-longintenseproject;anexampleofdifferenttimelinesinfluencingdatamanifestationindifferentcountries.Evensotheyalsodidnotachievejourneysofbecoming.
So,althoughWHCwasnotfullyevidencedthroughto journeysofbecomingandcombinedquietrevolutions,wewouldarguethatthegamefuldesignoftheVLEdidfosterco-creativity,whichincludesthecoreelementsofWHC.OtherstudiesshowedthatspecificelementsoftheVLE,suchas4scribesenableddimensionsofco-creativity,suchasco-determinedactions(Schmoelz,inpress).Intime,withfurtherdevelopmentandtestingover longerperiods, theC2LearnVLEis thereforehighlylikelytohavethecapacitytofosterfully-developedco-creativityandWHC.ItisintendedthatthroughtheC2Space’sstructureofchallenges(e.g.4Scribes),buildingintoachievingcreativemissionswithinwiderquests,thereistheframeworktobuildindividual’sjourneysofbecomingviacollaborativeandcommunalactivitiesandachievementstodevelopVLE-basedquietrevolutions.
Thefindings then,contributenewunderstandingsofcreativitywithinVLE’s.HowcantheycontributetounderstandingWHCitself?Thisisthefirsttimetheconcepthasbeenconsideredwithindigitalenvironments,whichisparticularlyinterestingasWHCwasfirstconceptualisedinadanceeducationcontext(Chappelletal.,2011).WHCiscertainlymanifesteddifferentlyinC2Learncomparedtoartscontexts. InC2Learn theemphasisoncontrolvia forexample4-Scribes turn-takingviaasharedtablet,isstrongerthaninartscontextswhereitislessaboutcontrolandmoreaboutdistributedleadership(e.g.Chappell&Swinford,inpress).Butunderstandingthecreativepowerdynamicsisstilltheimportantcommonalitybetweenthetwocontexts–reinforcingthisasakeycomponentofWHCwhateverkindofcontextitisbeingconsideredwithin.InC2Learnthedialogueispresentbutonlypartiallyembodied,incontrasttoChappelletal.(2012)andCraft(2013)’soriginaldiscussionsofWHCwhichemphasisetheimportanceofembodimentperse.Andyetinterestinglybecauseofthemixedanalogue/digitaldesignofC2Learn,embodimenthasstillbeenapartof thedialoguesevidencedintherichinstancesabove.Theyhavenotremainedwhollyverbalordigitallywritten.ThisisperhapsanimportantnewpointbothforunderstandingcreativityinVLEs,andunderstandingwhatitmeanstonurturecreativitygroundedinthebodyinadigitalenvironment.Whatisclearisthatembodiedengagementperseispossibleinmixeddigital/analoguecreativeprocesses.Thisisanimportantlessonfortheongoingdesignofco-creativitynurturingwithandthroughco-creativeparticipationinVLEs,aswellasunderstandingthatWHC,withembodimentatitscore,neednotbelimitedtodisciplinesormodesoflearningwhicharetraditionallymorefocusedonthebody.
InC2Learn,wehavenotseenfully-developedmakingandbeingmade,viatheinteractionbetweenidentityandcreativity(Chappelletal.,2012)mostprobablybecauseoftheunavoidablyshortenedpilotperiod.However,thestrengthofevidenceforbothagegroupsdemonstratingawarenessofethicsandimpact,thinkingabouttheconsequencesoftheirdecisionsonthosearoundthemistelling.Makingandbeingmadecomesfromanembodied,oftenfeltexperienceofempathisingwithothers(Reid,1980)–empathisingtoconsiderimpactandchangecreativedecisionsaccordinglyisevidencedhere.Onthesegrounds,wewouldarguethatwithlongerinteractionwithintheC2LearnVLE,itishighlylikelythatmakingandbeingmadecouldoccur.ConsideringtheethicalityofcreativeimpactshasbeenpositedasanotherkeycomponentofWHCwhateverthecontext.Returningtoargumentsthatweshouldpushagainstmarketisednotionsofcreativitytoincorporateethicsgroundedinmakingandbeingmade(Chappell,2008,2011;Craft,2013),thesefindingsshowthatthiscouldbepossibleindigital environments.VLEsaremoreoftencharacterised incompetitiveandconsumer-driventerms.Andherewecanargue,withevidencefromthreeEuropeancountries,thatengagementin
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
66
educationalVLEscanbedrivenbyethicalcreativitywhichinturnengagespositivelywithchildrenandyoungpeople’sidentityformation.
Thereisnodoubtthatthisstudyacrossthreecountrieshasitslimitations.Thisisinpartduetothefactthatsomeofthefindingsemergefromheproject’spaper-basedprototypeswhenthedigitalgamesthemselvescouldnotbeaccessesinsomeschoolcontextsduetofactorsoutsidetheproject’scontrol.Furthermore,thenumberofstudentswhoparticipatedinthestudyusingC2Learn’sgames,acrossthethreeagespansislimited,makingitdifficulttomakesubstantialclaimsaboutthesuitabilityofactivitieswithVLEstofostertoWHC.Thatiswhywehavecalled,whathasbeenevidenceda‘fledgling’WHC.InthissenseC2Learn’sVLEorC2Spacedoesevidenceseemstobepromisingbecausethefindingsdoillustratestudentshavedevelopedmorenuancedunderstandingsofcreativitythroughparticipationwithinadigitalenvironment.Thisinturnsillustrates,thattheconceptofWHChasthepotentialtochangehowstudentscreatewithVLEs.
CoNCLUSIoN
ThisarticlehasprovideddatafrompilotstudiesinAustria,EnglandandGreece,inbothprimaryandsecondarysettingsthatinvolvestodate, thelargeststudentpopulationengagingwithaVLEenvironmentgamefullydesignedtofosterco-creativity.Despite technologicalproblems, thedatademonstrates co-creativity including fledgling WHC across all sites within varied educationalactivities,withtheindicatedpotentialthattheVLEscouldnurturejourneysofbecomingandquietrevolutionsintime.Itthereforemakesanewcontributionbothintermsofarticulatingandevidencingco-creativitywithinVLEs,andevidencingWHCinanewcontextandhoningitscoreelementswhichmanifestacrosscontexts.
Steppingbacktogainawiderviewofcreativityineducation,thesefindingsalsodemonstrateyoungpeoplecreatingtogetherinVLEsresponsiblyandcapably;anddifferentlytothatwhichwouldnormallybeanticipatedinmorecompetitivelystructuredVLEs.AsCraft(2013)argueditshouldbepossibleinternationallytodecouplecreativityfromamarketisedagendathatseesyoungpeopleasatriskandvulnerablewhendigitallyengaged.C2Spacecreatesadigitalenvironmentwhichcanbeintegratedwithanaloguepedagogywithinwhichyoungpeoplecanpotentiallymakeandco-createtheirowncollectivechangeinresponsetochallenges.ThisisCraft’s(2013)argumentinaction.OneofthemostrecentC2Learnquestsfocusesonthequestion‘Whatisthefutureofcreativityinschools?’(seeFigure2).ThepresenceofthisdemonstratesthatC2Spacemightbeusedevenmoreexplicitlytocontributetoalteringthepathofoureducationalfutures.Itmightnotonlyactasacurriculumteachingtoolfornurturingco-creativity,butmightalsohelpstudentsandteacherstoquestiontheverystructures(digitalandanalogue)withinwhichtheyareworking.AlthoughonlyinitsinfancythisapproachtoWHC-fuelledVLEsthereforehaspotentialbothasacreativeteachingandlearningtool,andasapowerfulimplementforeducationalchange.
ACKNoWLEdGMENT
TheC2LearnprojecthasbeensupportedbytheEuropeanCommissionthroughtheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7),undergrantagreementno.318480(November2012–October2015).Weareextremely grateful to colleagues across the consortium for their collaborative work on bringingC2Spaceintobeingdespitethechallengesweallfaced.WearealsogratefultothoseteachersandstudentsacrossEuropewhoworkedwithusonpilotingbothpaperanddigitalprototypes,andfor
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
67
theirvaluablefeedback.Finally,thispaperisdedicatedtoouresteemedandmuchlovedcolleague,ProfessorAnnaCraft,whoverysadlydiedduringthisproject.Whilewemissworkingwithher,wearegladtobeabletocontinueourcollaborativeworkthroughpublicationssuchasthis.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review, September/October, 76–87.PMID:10185433
Apperley, T., & Walsh, C. S. (2012). What digital games and literacy have in common: A heuristic forunderstandingpupilsgamingliteracy.Literacy,46(3),115–122.doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2012.00668.x
Banaji,S.,Burn,A.,&Buckingham,D.(2010).The rhetorics of creativity: A review of the literature(2nded.).London:ArtsCouncilEngland.
Beavis,C.,Bradford,C.,O’Mara,J.,&Walsh,C.S.(2009).Researchingliteracyinthedigitalage:Learningfromcomputergames.English in Education.43,162-175.DOI:ISSN:0425-049410.1111/j.1754-8845.2009.01035.x
Burnard,P.,Craft,A.,&Grainger,T.(2006).Documentingpossibilitythinking:Ajourneyofcollaborativeenquiry.International Journal of Early Years Education,143(3),243–262.doi:10.1080/09669760600880001
Chappell,K.(2006).Creativity within late primary age dance education: Unlocking expert specialist dance teacher’s conceptions and approaches. Ph.D. Thesis; Laban, London. Retrieved from http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?documentid=8627
Chappell,K.(2008).Towardshumanisingcreativity.UNESCO Observatory E-Journal,1(3).Retrievedfrom:http://education.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1105786/chappell.pdf
Chappell,K.(2011).Journeysofbecoming:humanisingcreativity.InK.Chappell,L.Rolfe,A.Craft,&V.Jobbins(Eds.),Close Encounters: Dance Partners for Creativity(pp.89–100).StokeonTrent:Trentham.
Chappell,K.,Craft,A.,Rolfe,L.,&Jobbins,V.(2012).Humanisingcreativity:Valuingourjourneysofbecoming.International Journal of Education & the Arts,13(8),1–35.
Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.withRolfe,L.&Jobbins,V.(2011).Notjustsurvivingbutthriving.InK.Chappell,L.Rolfe,A.Craftetal.(Eds.),CloseEncounters:DancePartnersforCreativity(pp.143-160).StokeonTrent:Trentham.
Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.(2011).Creativelearningconversations:Producinglivingdialogicspaces.Educational Research,53(3),363–385.doi:10.1080/00131881.2011.598663
Chappell,K.,Craft,A.,&Walsh,C.(2014).C2Learn Learning Design for CER: Deliverable 2.2.2.Retrievedfromhttp://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D2_2_2_Learning_Design_for_CER.pdf
Chappell,K.,&Greenwood,M.(2013).“This is You”, Evaluation of Includance: English Strand (Interreg funded).Plymouth:AttikDance.
Chappell,K.&Jobbins,V.(2015).Empoweringcreativepartnerships:expandingteachingpossibilities.InDance Education around the World: Perspectives on Dance, Young People and Change(pp.149-160).
Chappell,K.,Slade,C.,Greenwood,M.,&Craft,A.,withBlack,A.(Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication).CREAT-IT:Anewpedagogicalframeworkforpartneringtheartsandscienceinscienceeducation.Research in Science Education.
Chappell,K.,Slade,C.,&Phillips,A.(2015,July).NextChoreography:transformativepotentialforyoungpeopleininterdisciplinarychoreographicpractice.Presented at thedance and the Child international conference.
Chappell,K.,&Swinford,E.(inpress).Artfulhumanisingplay?ImprovisationinEarlyYearsdance.InV.Midgelow(Ed.),Oxford University Press Handbook of Improvisation in Dance.
Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,&Morrison,K.(2007).Research Methods in Education.London:Routledge.
Craft,A.(2002).Creativity and early years education. A lifewide foundation.London:Continuum.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
68
Craft,A.(2011).Creativity and Education Futures. Learning in a Digital Age.Stoke-on-Trent:TrenthamBooksLimited.
Craft,A.(2012).Childhoodinadigitalage:Creativechallengesforeducationalfutures.London Review of Education,10(2),173–190.doi:10.1080/14748460.2012.691282
Craft,A.(2013).Childhood,possibilitythinkingandwise,humanisingeducationalfutures.International Journal of Educational Research,61,126–134.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.005
Craft,A.(2014).PossibilityThinking:Fromwhatistowhatmightbe.InS.Robson(Ed.),Flannery Quinn, S. The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding.London:Routledge.
Craft,A.,Chappell,K.,&Best,P.(2007).AnalysisofthecreativityActionResearchAwardsTwoProgramme.Leeds:CapeUK.
Craft,A.,Chappell,K.,&Walsh,C.(2013).C2Learn Learning Design: Deliverable 2.2.2.Retrievedfromhttp://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D2_2_2_Learning_Design_for_CER.pdf
Craft, A., McConnon, L., & Matthews, A. (2012). Creativity and child- initiated play. Thinking Skills and Creativity,71,48–61.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2011.11.005
Cremin,T.,Burnard,P.,&Craft,A.(2006).Pedagogyandpossibilitythinkingintheearlyyears.Thinking Skills and Creativity,12(2),108–119.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.07.001
Cremin,T.,Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.(2013).Reciprocitybetweennarrative,questioningandimaginationintheearlyandprimaryyears:Examiningtheroleofnarrativeinpossibilitythinking.Thinking Skills and Creativity,9,126–134.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.11.003
Cremin,T.,Glauert,E.,Craft,A.,Compton,A.,&Stylianidou,F.(2015).CreativeLittleScientists:Exploringpedagogical synergiesbetween inquiry-basedandcreativeapproaches inEarlyYearsscience. International Journal of Primary,Elementary and Early Years Education,43(4),404–419.
Deterding,S.(2012).Paidia as Paideia: From Game-Based Learning to a Life Well-Played.Keynote.GLS8.0.
Deterding,S.(2013).Skill atoms as design lens for user-centred gameful design. CHI’13 EA.ACMPress.
Deterding,S.,Björk,S.,Nacke,L.E.,Dixon,D.,&Lawley,E.Designing(2013).Gamification:Creatinggamefulandplayfulexperiences.InProceedingsofCHI’13.ACMPress.
Dimaraki,E.,&Koulouris,P.(Eds.).(2013).C2Learn scenarios, use cases and user requirements: Deliverable 5.1.3. Retrieved from http://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D5.1.3_C2Learn_Scenarios_Use_Cases_User_Requirements.pdf
Dimaraki,E.,Schmoelz,A.,&Koulouris,P.(2013).ScenariosasPedagogicalDevices:DesigningActivitiesforGame-BasedLearning.InL.G.Chova,A.L.Martínez&I.C.Torres(Eds.),ICERI 2013. Conference proceedings(pp.3203-3209).Seville:IATED.
Edmond,C.(2005).The creativity wheel: assessing creative development teacher resource. Creative Partnerships.ArtsCouncil.
Edwards-Groves,C.(2012).InteractiveCreativeTechnologies:Changinglearningpracticesandpedagogiesinthewritingclassroom.Australian Journal of Language.
Eladhari,M.P.,Lopes,P.L.,&Yannakakis,G.N.(2014).Interweavingstorycoherenceandplayercreativitythroughstory-makinggames.InProceedings of theInternational Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling(pp.73-80).Springer.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12337-0_7
Foster,P.(2006).Observational Research. InR.Sapsford&V.Jupp(Eds.),Data Collection and analysis(2nded.,pp.58–93).London,England:SAGEPublicationsLtd.doi:10.4135/9781849208802.n3
Frechette,J.(2006).‘Cyber-censorshiporcyber-literacy?Envisioningcyber-learningthroughmediaeducation.InD.Buckingham&R.Willett (Eds.),Digital Generations: Children, Young People and New Media (pp.149–171).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
John-Steiner,V.(2000).Creative collaboration.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
69
Koukourikos,A.,Karampiperis,P.,&Karkaletsis,V.(2016).Creativestories:Modellingtheprincipalcomponentsofhumancreativityovertextsinastorytellinggame.Digital Culture & Education,8(2),118–135.
Kvale,S.(1996).Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.ThousandOaks,California:Sage.
Liapis,A.,Yannakakis,G.N.,Alexopoulos,C.,&Lopes,P. (2016).CanComputersFosterHumanUsers’Creativity?TheoryandPraxisofMixed-InitiativeCo-Creativity.Digital Culture & Education,8(2),136–153.
Lincoln,Y.S.,&Egon,G.G.(1985).Naturalistic Inquiry.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Newburn,T.(1996).Backtothefuture?InJ.Pilcher&S.Wagg(Eds.),Youthcrime,youthjusticeandtherediscoveryof‘authoritarianpopulism’(pp.67-76).London:FalmerPress.
Nicholson,S.(2012).AUser-CenteredTheoreticalFrameworkforMeaningfulGamification.PaperpresentedatGames+Learning+Society8.0,Madison,WI.
Redmond, C. (2005). The creativity wheel: assessing creative Development teacher resource. Creative Partnerships.ArtsCouncil.
Robinson,K.(2015).Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education.NewYork:Viking.
Sawyer,K.(2003).Group Creativity: Music, Theatre, Collaboration.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Scaltsas,T.(2016).Brainminingemotivelateralsolutions.Digital Culture & Education,8(2),106–118.
Scaltsas,StenningandAlexopoulos(2014).Creative Emotional Reasoning:Deliverable2.1.2.Retrievedfromhttp://project.c2learn.eu/sites/default/files/C2Learn_D_2_1_2_Creative_Emotional_Reasoning.pdf
Schmoelz,A.(2016).ErnsthafteSpielealsAnlassfürKo-Kreativität?InJ.Haag,J.Weißenböck,W.Gruber,&C.F.Freisleben-Teuscher(Eds.),Game Based Learning. Dialogorientierung & spielerisches Lernen analog und digital(pp.107–118).BrunnamGebirge:IKON.
Schmoelz,A.(inpress).OnCo-CreativityinPlayfulClassroomActivities.Creativity. Theories - Research – Applications,4(1).
Sefton-Green,J.,Thomson,P.,Jones,K.,&Bresler,L.(Eds.).(2011).TheRoutledgeInternationalHandbookofCreativeLearning.London:Routledge.
Spencer,E.,Lucas,B.,&Claxton,G.(2012).Progression in Creativity: developing new forms of assessment – Final Research Report.Newcastle:CreativityCultureandEducation.
Stenning,K.,&Michell,L.(1985).Learninghowtotellagoodstory:Thedevelopmentofcontentandlanguageinthetellingofonetale.Discourse Processes,8(3),261–279.doi:10.1080/01638538509544617
Stenning,K.,Schmoelz,A.,Wren,H.,Stouraitis,E.,Scaltsas,T.,Alexopoulos,C.,&Aichhorn,A.(2016).Socraticdialogueasateachingandresearchmethodforco-creativity?Digital Culture & Education,8(2),154–168.
Tapscott,D.(1996).The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Pilcher,J.,&Wagg,S.(1996).Thatcher’sChildren?Politics,ChildhoodandSocietyinthe1980sand1990s.London:Falmer.
VanManen,M.(1990).Researching Lived Experience. Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Walsh,C. (2007).Creativity as capital in the literacy classroom:youth asMultimodaldesigners.Literacy,41(2),79-85.
Walsh,C.(2010).Systems-basedliteracypractices:Digitalgamesresearch,gameplayanddesign.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy Education,33(1),24–40.
Walsh,C.,Chappell,K.,&Craft,A.(2017).Thepotentialforfosteringwisehumanisingcreativity(WHC)inadigitalgamingandsocialnetworkingenvironment.Thinking Skills and Creativity.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
70
Walsh,C.S.,Craft,A.,Chappell,C.&Koulouris,P.(2014).Gamefullearningdesigntofosterco-creativity?In.M.Baguley(Ed.),International Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE). “Speaking back through Research”,Brisbane,Australia.
ENdNoTES
1 TheC2LearnprojecthasbeensupportedbytheEuropeanCommissionthroughtheSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7),undergrantagreementno.318480(November2012–October2015).ThecontentsofthiswebsitedonotrepresenttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommissionandtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsibleforanyusewhichmaybemadeoftheinformationcontainedtherein.Responsibilityfortheinformationandviewssetoutinthiswebsiteliesentirelywiththeauthors.©C2LearnConsortium,2012-2015.
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
71
APPENdIX
Figure 6. C2Learn Creativity Wheel: Younger Students
International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
72
Figure 7. C2Learn Creativity Wheel: Older Students
Please recommend this Publication to your librarianFor a convenient easy-to-use library recommendation form, please visit:http://www.igi-global.com/IJGBL
Volume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017 • ISSN: 2155-6849 • eISSN: 2155-6857An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association
all inquiries regarding iJgbl should be directed to the attention of:Patrick Felicia, Editor-in-Chief • [email protected]
all manuscriPt submissions to iJgbl should be sent through the online submission system:http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/titlesubmission/newproject.aspx
Adaptive games design for game-based learning • Design of educational games for people with disabilities • Educational video games and learning management systems • Game design models and design patterns for game-based learning • Instructional design for game-based learning • Integration and deployment of video games in the classroom • Intelligent tutoring systems and game-based learning • Learning by designing and developing video games • Learning styles, behaviors and personalities in educational video games • Mobile development and augmented reality for game-based learning • Motivation, audio and emotions in educational video games • Role of instructors • Virtual worlds and game-based learning
Coverage and major topiCsThe topics of interest in this journal include, but are not limited to:
The mission of the International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL) is to promote knowledge pertinent to the design of Game-Based Learning environments, and to provide relevant theoretical frameworks and the latest empirical research findings in the field of Game-Based Learning. The main goals of IJGBL are to identify, explain, and improve the interaction between learning outcomes and motivation in video games, and to promote best practices for the integration of video games in instructional settings. The journal is multidisciplinary and addresses cognitive, psychological and emotional aspects of Game-Based Learning. It discusses innovative and cost-effective Game-Based Learning solutions. It also provides students, researchers, instructors, and policymakers with valuable information in Game-Based Learning, and increases their understanding of the process of designing, developing and deploying successful educational games. IJGBL also identifies future directions in this new educational medium.
mission
Ideas For specIaL Theme Issues may Be suBmITTed To The edITor(s)-In-chIeF
international Journal of game-based learning
call for articles