1. Thinking about the brain and technology
2. Games and the brain
3. Technology, neuroscience and learning games
Dr Paul Howard-Jones
NeuroEducational Research Network ( NE net)
Graduate School of Education
University of Bristol www.neuroeducational.net

Ne
N euro E ducational Research network
•NeuroEducational Research:
•Basic neuroscience
•Bridging studies
•Developing classroom practice
•Public communication
•Consultation with teachers

‘Technology could be turning into a 21st-century addiction’
Roberts, D. in The Telegraph (2010).
Facebook is “infantilizing” our brains
Wintour, P. in Guardian (London, 2009).
Google is “degrading our intelligence”
Carr, N. in The Atlantic (2008).

Activity for internet searching, relative to reading: a) Naive users b) Experienced users
Small, et al. (2009)

Learning involves changes in
* neural connectivity
* shifts in regional activity
Activity after adults practise difficult multiplication: automaticity
Working memory bottleneck a) Decreases b) Increases
Delazer et al. (2003)

Activity for internet searching, relative to reading: a) Naive users b) Experienced users
• Experienced users using more search strategies
• Additional activity: decisions making, reasoning

90’s :
* internet use -> reduced socialconnectedness, poorer well-being
NOW:
* 49% of UK children 8-17 profile on social network sites (SNS) (OfCom, 2008)
* SNS’s -> stimulate teenage social connectedness and psychosocial well-being
But it is about how the technology is used: Benefits if supporting existing friendships

Gove (UK Education Minister, 2011): When children need to solve equations in order to get more ammo to shoot the aliens, it is amazing how quickly they can learn.
Mary Matthews(Blitz Games Studios, 2011): "Great ….but… exploration, experimentation, team building, problem-solving and independent, personalised, differentiated experiences…?”
Zimmerman & Fortugno (game designers, 2005): ‘‘only consensus in this whirlwind of activity seems to be that educational games are something of a failure’’

1.5% to 8.2% of general population have problematic internet use – what are they doing?
• Adults: pornography, illicit relationships
• Young people: gaming
.....video games are very engaging:
When players viewing images from internet games, similar neural activities as when addicts of drugs or gambling view images of cues (Han et al.,2011)
If you apply DSM addiction criteria, 1 in 5 teens addicted to gaming in ’98 (Griffiths et al., 1998)

This type of “wanting” is immediate & visceral (e.g. S,D, R & R)
“Educational motivation” can include other types.

Important because:
Dopamine helps orientate our attention and enhances synaptoplasticity - learning

Rewards do not predict learning
The brain’s response to reward does
Nucleus accumbens
(NAcc)
Processes linking reward and declarative memory formation are still subject of research, but may involve:
* direct influence on the hippocampus via dopamine
NAcc activation during encoding => likelihood of recall

Rapid scheduling of uncertain rewards may explain 2 facts:
1. high midbrain dopamine release in games
- comparable to psychostimulant drugs (Weinstein, 2010)
2. Video games are powerful teachers
In a few hours, video games can
- enhance transferable visuomotor skills, sight
- improve some professional performance
(lapyroscopic surgery, fighter piloting)
- teach aggressive/prosocial affective response
(see Nominet report, RSA lecture)

• We do most enjoy 50:50 chances in games but not in school, where one study has shown children prefer risks of ~87% (Clifford et al., ‘88)
• Academic failure has more serious implications for esteem
• The predictability of academic comfort zones (87% certainty) may reduce reward response
This suggests:
• a “learning games approach” to teaching, with chance increasing uncertainty while protecting esteem

e.g. How does the brain respond to a competitor?
“Reward learning” theory => mirror their rewards as our own
Our results show we mirror a competitor’s actions as our own
but our reward system responds positively to their failure:
Reward response appears linked to learning inhibition not action

Do children prefer chance-based uncertainty in learning?
Task: Ask your maths question from
* Mr Certain (Correct -> 1 point)
* Mr Uncertain (Correct -> coin toss, 2 or 0 pts
As the session progressed, Mr
Uncertain was increasingly more popular than Mr
Certain – especially amongst boys
80
70
60
50
40
30
1 6 11 16 21
Question number
26

What happens to the learning discourse?
Issues of fairness?
Chance-based uncertainty encourages motivational “sport-talk” around learning, i.e. failure is bad luck, success is pure achievement. Chance not seen as unfair.
Is it just a superficial “sugar-coating”?
No - Chance-based uncertainty enhances the emotional response to learning
How strong is this theory?
Estimation of brain’s reward response (not the stakes) predicts learning during a learning game
Not recalled Recalled

What is good practice in teaching with immersive gaming (twigging)?

Prototype software was developed with the help of
Dyffryn School (Newport):
Chepstow School

8
9
6
7
10
3
4
1
2
5
P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
~ Question
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4

Prestatyn High School, Penmorfa Primary School

• Close intermingling of learning and gaming (effects of dopamine are brief)
• Use uncertain reward to generate dopamine ramps
• Rising stakes through the game (effects of dopamine are context specific, influenced by expectations)
• Reward response when observing competitors is driven by their losses – ensure high risk and high stakes when individual teams selected for special challenges

• Close intermingling of learning and gaming
• Design of questions - test all learning levels
• When presenting the questions, support and scaffold students (e.g. remind of principles involved, q and a)
• When revealing the correct answer, explain why other answer options are incorrect before (usually) explaining the correct one
• referring to options by content not colour
• Be ready  for your teacher persona to transform...

Example of final interventions:
• Year 8 (28 students)
• Heat Energy Transfer – 3 lessons:
Conduction
Convection
Radiation

• Students learn
• All consider these lessons are more fun than normal lessons
• most would prefer always to learn in this way

Although small samples prevent statistical gender analysis, mean learning scores consistently favoured boys………….why?
Young adults playing computer games (Hoeft et al., 2008):
B: Regions of activity, males
> females
C: Regions of functional connectivity with warm colours for males > females

G2A project conclusions
(small pilot, primitive software)
* Aided by the neuroscience, entire topics can be successfully delivered through a whole-class teaching approach based on gaming
* Likely to prove very popular with children

Transdisciplinary (Neuroeducational) research has helped generate:
* messages “inoculated” against misinterpretation
* handbook
* Powerpoint-based software
* exemplar teaching materials
* videos of good practice

Promethean are now funding
ImagineEducation to develop a professional system that can be used with their wireless audience response system.
This will remove residual burden of game administration, allowing the teacher to focus entirely on the gaming pedagogy.

1. Games are a special influence on the brain
2. Neuroscience can help us understand and exploit this influence in the classroom.
3. Teaching through gaming requires technology, but it also requires new understanding and new pedagogy

Thanks for listening! 
Introducing Neuroeducational Research (2010)
Paul Howard-Jones Routledge
Digital Technology and the Brain (2012)
Paul Howard-Jones and Kate Fenton www.lulu.com