Neuroeducation and Game-based training in teacher instruction: a top-down perspective M. Laura Angelini (marialaura.angelini@ucv.es) Neus Álvarez (mn.alvarez@ucv.es)
A qualitative analysis of the observational notes and the responses to the semi-structured interview allow examination of the potential of games in teacher training. The analysis of the responses was carried out manually by first coding the responses and classifying the data into initial categories and subcategories until saturation of the data. preliminary results that subsequently fell into three categories: Enjoyment; Selfconfidence gain and Cognitive and emotional development
Enjoyment While playing observations: all teacher trainees seemed to highly enjoyed playing the games. They found language difficulties at times as the games were played in English, they made some minor mistakes, they were corrected by others and the games procedures were followed timely in a relaxed and enthusiastic atmosphere. Enjoyable activities trigger dopamine which in turn creates a higher motivational state to accomplish the games goals (Kuszewski, 2011). The semi-structured interview to each team revealed that although some did not understand the rules of the game at first, they could integrate in the dynamic by observing other peers. All agreed about the potential of playing as they felt enthusiastic to be placed in a different scenario in each game with new rules and objectives to accomplish.
Self-confidence gain While playing observations: making mistakes was assumed as something natural by all the participants. By playing, the reward-response system in the brain is activated. No matter the difficulties, the participants keep on playing as it was the case in the present study. There were two distinct types of mistakes, one procedural, related to the rules and performance; and linguistic, related to the vehicular language (English) and communication. Both limitations did not hinder participants from playing and achieving their goals. Semi-structured interview: some manifested that the feedback from their peers helped them go on with the games. Some said they had felt successful ‘speaking their minds’ in English and that they would use the games with their secondary school students. Most said they felt satisfied with their team support and their personal performance in the team. This can be associated with endorphin release. By presenting the students with challenging games or situations, endorphin release is stimulated and students experiment a sense of achievement (McGonigal, 2011).
Cognitive and emotional development While playing observations: some games were more cognitively demanding as ‘Points of View’ game. Teacher trainees had to relate a visual metaphor with a question and a word, all taken at random. Imagination and personal experiences played their part to make sense of the game. All the teams found this game the tougher and the most insightful at the same time. They learned something from each other, a personal anecdote, an opinion, a regret, an expectation. In the other games (guessing game, a puzzle and a simulation), roles were easily observed. Without clearly specifying the roles, leading personalities, followers and more introvert participants could function well in the games dynamics.
Semi-structured interview: Most teacher trainees indicated they felt they could express their ideas in the ‘points of view game’ or ‘simulation’. Some found it hard to accomplish the games goals due to language retrains. Nevertheless, they got the team support to do the task timely. As some indicated, they managed to understand their roles and be effective in their performance. Self-regulated practice coupled with selfefficacy as teacher trainees had to develop strategies to understand, transform information and seek information from their teammates at the time they implemented actions to achieve their goals (Bandura, 1986). All the participants were grateful with their teams and some indicated the games had helped them ‘bond’ with their classmates.
Enjoyment
Self-confidence
Cognitive and emotional development
•that generates the desire to continue learning (Forés & Ligioiz, 2009) •triggers dopamine that creates a higher motivational state to accomplish the games goals (Kuszewski, 2011)
•the reward-response system in the brain is activated. Mistakes as something natural (Sanfey, 2007). •endorphin release is stimulated and a sense of achievement is experienced (McGonigal, 2011).
• close relationship between intellectual achievement and emotional well-being (Whitebread, Basilio, Kuvalja, & Verma, 2012) . •self-regulated actions and self-efficacy perceptions (Bandura, 1993; Rieber, 1996; Whitebread & Pino Pasternak, 2010; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013).
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the three categories identified in the present study. References • • • • • • •
• • •
•
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148 Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Campos, A. (2010). Neuroeducación: uniendo las neurociencias y la educación en la búsqueda del desarrollo humano. La Educación. Revista Digital, 143, 1-14. Guillén, J. C. (2015). Neuroeducación en el aula. De la teoría a la práctica. Barcelona: Create Space Howard-Jones, P. (2011). Investigación neuroeducativa: neurociencia, educación y cerebro: de los contextos a la práctica. Editorial La Muralla. Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67-72. Kinzie, M.B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 5–21. Kuszewski, A. (2011). You can increase your intelligence: 5 ways to maximize your cognitive potential. Scientific American. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. U.S.A: Penguin. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational technology research and development, 44(2), 43-58. Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science, 318(5850), 598-602.
•
• •
Whitebread, D. and Pino Pasternak, D. (2010) Metacognition, Self-Regulation and MetaKnowing. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, J. and Kleine Staarman (eds) International Handbook of Psychology in Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play. Brussels, Belgium: Toy Industries of Europe (TIE). Retrieved, 10(16), 2015. Zimmerman, B. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.