Mindcraft, the Match Game, Jeopardy! Gamification is perhaps one of the most prevalent in emerging theories – if we can create gaming experiences or make our existing instructional practices more game-like, learners will be more engaged. They will learn more and learning outcomes will be better. Frankly, it is hard to argue with what seems like a wonderful recipe for learner success!. ‘Make it fun and engaging and they will come.’
Certainly what is well supported by research is that learners love science and STEM (Homann 2017). However, these same learners simply don’t like how science (and to a lesser extend STEM) is presented in the traditional classroom. Learners don’t want Powerpoints, smartboards, or presentations. Instead what NSTA research tells us is that they want to do the science themselves. Learners want to experience it. They want to touch it. Build it. Yes spill it. Fail and try again. Science and engineering are certainly best presented when learners experience it. One axiom we try to instill continually in our learners is “before you can do something, you’ve got to know something.” Building a telescope or a periscope when exploring light waves – or creating a new Digestive System attraction for Walt Disney world are engaging examples of the doing based on the knowing.
The unknown, the challenge, for science instruction, is can science be presented in the virtual world with the same learning impacts and outcomes. The arguments are compelling. In the virtual world, learners leave the whiteboards behind and enter the virtual world where they can use and test the latest lab equipment and techniques, and conduct science and engineering labs quickly and efficiently. The rationale is sound. By adding gaming elements, such as Minecraft, to learning experiences will immerse in science in similar ways that happen in their familiar games. Gamification emerging theory is based upon this principle – incorporate gaming elements and learners will be engaged in a productive learning experience, the learning outcomes will follow (Holman et al. 2013).
My experiences in gamification is less certain. Some activities are best performed through simulation – for example, when our learners are exploring potential and kinetic energy, we take them to a skate to illustrate the transformations between the two – at least in a Phet simulator. Phet, developed by the scientists at the University of Colorado, is a terrific way to simulate many, many types of science phenomena. But not all Phet simulations are engaging. Despite my best intentions, experimenting, and using them, some Phets simply do provide the learning outcomes I had hoped. For example, the Phet rock cycle simulation is scientifically accurate and the graphic and game elements are well designed. But the educational impact with my learners was marginal at best. Instead, enter the Starburst, rock cycle lab. Learners used the Starburst candies to simulate the rock cycle – form Sedimentary to Igenius – followed by a delicious reflection!
My learners love Kahoot! Not me. Yes my learners are engaged (wildly so). They love the competition. They love the candy rewards, but my experiences has been that the majority of learners do not retain or benefit from the Kahoot reviews. Instead, I use team Jeopardy. Learners are grouped in pairs and participate as a team. Learners are more collaborative, reflective and the learning outcomes (e.g. common assessments) have proven to be exceptional. Gamification is engaging, motivating, but not always a sound learning tool. Experimentation is perhaps the only way to test learning outcomes. However, by adding gaming elements, combined other instructional practices (e.g. personalization, mentoring, etc.), can and often will result in greater increases in learning effectiveness.
Place-Based Learning 