PLAYFUL LEARNING
The results of InnoPlay will provide valuable information on teaching, playing and learning processes to be applied to PLEs in school contexts. The project will produce a shared, conceptual language that contributes to the understanding of teaching and learning processes in playful learning environments in international context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A Mixed Method Investigation into Student Satisfaction with Playful Learning Environments
by Marjaana Kangas, Justus Randolph, Heli Ruokamo - Centre for Media Pedagogy, University of Lapland, 05/2008
Background and purpose:
Playful Learning environments (PLEs) refer to learning environments where physicality, creativity, and knowledge cocreation are emphasized. One example of a PLE is the SmartUs playground — a technology enriched playground in which students can play and learn in innovative and versatile ways. The potentials of PLEs are numerous: from increasing physical activity to fostering sufficient creativity to fuel the engine of innovation. To help PLEs realize their full potential, we believe it is critical to evaluate them not just in terms of their effects on learning, but on other important outcomes, like student satisfaction, as well. We conducted a mixedmethods investigation to determine what factors influence students’ satisfaction with playful learning environments (PLEs).
Intervention:
A group of 331 students in 15 classrooms in Finland and the Netherlands participated in a fiveweek teaching experiment. During the time, students created and played curriculum related games using SmartUs playground via playful learning processes.
Results:
Students, overall, were very satisfied with the PLE (Figure 1). The best predictors of satisfaction with PLEs were age, satisfaction with schooling, and satisfaction with the teacher. There were large differences in satisfaction between particular classrooms. A follow-up qualitative investigation into the reasons for the differences in PLE satisfaction between classrooms showed that the following factors are significant at classroom level: 1) the teacher’s pedagogical confidence with the method, 2) the scope of the topic, 3) challenges with technology, and 4) other factors.
2. Playful Learning and Academic Achievement: Can Playful Learning Environments Foster Learning?
by Justus Randolph, Marjaana Kangas, Heli Ruokamo - Centre for Media Pedagogy, University of Lapland, 05/08
Background and purpose:
Playful learning environments - environments that blur the line between play, learning, and physicality - are known to be wellliked by students and teachers. But what is still unknown is whether playful learning can also foster student learning.
Results:
Preliminary results show that over fiveweeks, scores on 62 teachermade subject tests increased from 43% on the pretests to 68% on the posttests — a statistically significant increase. Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate the difference in pretest and posttest distributions. Even from preliminary results, it is clear that playful learning environments can foster learning.
3. Novel avenues for learning: Children's experiences of cocreation and a Playful Learning Environment
by Marjaana Kangas - Centre for Media Pedagogy, University of Lapland, 05/08
Introduction and purpose:
What kinds of learning environments are appropriate for fostering creativity in schools and what types of learning activities should the learning environment support? Pedagogical discussion and research increasingly emphasize that children’s narrative thinking, imagination, and creativity should be promoted in education. The objective of this study was to combine these attributes and to offer children an opportunity a) to view factuallybased learning contents from a fictive perspective, and b) to study in an informal setting that intertwines curriculum based learning with play and digital games. This occurred on an innovative playground, the Playful Learning Environment (PLE), which is enriched by technological tools. From these angles, this study deals with challenges posed on the learning environment and focuses on children’s experiences of learning processes involving fictional game worlds.
Purpose:
1) to carry out a pilot study of PLEs as part of the formal learning environment and curriculumbased learning
2) to examine how children experience the learning, especially the cocreation processes for the PLE game worlds
3) to develop a pedagogical model for creative and playful learning (CPL) in the PLE context.
Results:
The results of the study show that the children regarded cocreation and turning fact into fiction as fascinating ways to learn new things, to practice group work, and to use one’s imagination in the school setting. Working in groups was considered an intriguing experience, especially when there was a substantial flow of ideas. The children felt that it was inspiring to refine ideas together and to elaborate on the world “upside down”. However, group work was not always regarded as a fluent and easy experience; the necessity to use one’s imagination was sometimes considered somewhat strenuous and even stressful. Yet, the results indicate that the learning processes produced many positive emotions. Designing the game world was mostly regarded as an enjoyable, fun, exiting, and “cool” experience. During their cocreative learning processes the children encountered five categories of challenges: physical, intellectual, social, collaborative, and emotional. In addition, the pedagogical model of creative and playful learning (CPL) was created.
Creative and Playful Learning (CPL) underlying principles:
- Supporting children’s flexible thinking
- Working on stories based on fact and fiction
- Looking for opposites
- Making connections and seeing relationships
- Envisaging what might be (cf. thought experiments)
- Exploring ideas and keeping options open
- Reflecting critically on ideas, actions and outcomes
- Using mental imagery and possible thinking during the learning processes
4. Teachers’ Expectations of Playful Learning Environments (PLEs)
by Pirkko Hyvönen - Centre for Media Pedagogy, University of Lapland, 05/08
Background:
Teachers are in a key position in developing the potential for learning and in adapting innovations to school practices and their views should be recorded. This article reports the outcomes of a study focusing on teachers’ views and expectations of Playful Learning Environments (PLEs). Although playful environments, mobile outdoor games, and learning through play in ICT based environments have been studied recently, the research has not focused on settings, users, and goals similar to those that apply in the case of PLEs. Settings refer to outdoor learning environments where learning and growing take place using the whole body rather than at a desk. The primary users in the case of PLEs are children and teachers in formal, curriculum based education, but use in informal learning is also possible. The goals associated with PLEs are multifaceted, with learning and growing in play and games being uppermost them.
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to ascertain what expectations teachers have of outdoor learning environments, its technological possibilities and its use in the school context. The objective was to understand the contextual requirements for innovation from the educator’s perspective.
Results and conclusion:
The teachers expect implementation to result in an additional learning environment that affords activities for various purposes and durations. With play they refer to imaginary contexts that facilitate and inspire playing at school. They relate learning to the emotional, social, and cognitive benefits that activities in the PLE can provide. Technological tools are expected to make learning more playful, visible and efficient. The teachers expect the PLE to adapt more flexibly to the curriculum. There are also concerns regarding the PLE. Some doubt whether the PLE is necessary and worth further investment. The concerns are seen either as obstacles that hinder the PLE or as problems that must be overcome. On the whole, the teachers’ expectations support a learning environment that can provide teachability, playability, and learnability.
The following conclusions can be out forward where teachability is concerned:
1) Teachability refers to learning to use the PLE, to implementing teaching, playing and learning in curriculum based education, and to providing learning and growing for children.
2) Most teachers are willing to design and use the PLE for play and learning. Once a week would be reasonable.
3) Teachers expect to get examples of playful learning processes as well as an efficient demonstration of the use of the PLE.
4) Children are trusted as PLE users, and are expected to augment teachability.
5) The PLE provides alternative learning environments for carrying out teaching.
