“Pedagaming” – Co-constructing understanding across neuroscience and
education about the pedagogy of learning games
Paul Howard-Jones
Neil Davies
Skevi Demetriou
Carol Jones
Owen Morgan
Philip Perkins
Carrie Sturgess
University of Bristol
Dyffryn Comprehensive
University of Bristol
Chepstow School
Chepstow School
Dyffryn Comprehensive
Chepstow School
Abstract
Insight into the educational potential of learning games arises from recent
neuroscientific research into the human reward system. Application of this
understanding in the classroom requires integration of scientific understanding with
educational understanding and expertise. Here, we make a preliminary report on an
action research project to co-construct concepts in this area that meaningfully bridge
neuroscience and education.
The science of learning games
Games are frequently identified as a means to increase interest in the classroom
(Bergin, 1999), with educators being prompted to draw inspiration for new
approaches from the intense engagement provided by computer gaming (e.g. Gee
2003). Studies attempting to understand how this process of engagement occurs have
implicated the attraction of uncertainty (Howard-Jones and Demetriou, in press - now
published on-line).
Understanding of the human reward1system can provide insight into the attraction of
uncertainty. In neuropsychology, ‘wanting’ and ‘liking’ are considered as two
dissociable components, with the wanting of a reward being coded by levels of
dopamine release in mid brain areas (Berridge and Robinson, 2003).The predictability
of an outcome has been shown to influence this activity. In primates, it has been
shown that maximum dopamine is released when the likelihood of receiving reward
for success is about half way between totally unexpected and completely predictable,
i.e. 50% likely (Fiorillo, et al., 2003). Dopamine levels in this area of the human brain
have been linked to our motivation to pursue a variety of pleasures, including sex,
food, gambling (Elliot, et al., 2000) and computer gaming (Koepp, et al., 1988). The
link between the predictability of an outcome and mid-brain dopamine activity is,
therefore, helpful in explaining why humans are so attracted to games of chance
(Shizgal and Arvanitogiannis, 2003). Activity in this area has been studied noninvasively in humans during gaming using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI). These fMRI studies have shown that patterns of dopamine activity are
predicted less by reward in ‘real’ absolute terms and seem more to do with winning
the game. Activity can increase with reward size (Knutson, et al., 2001)but, rather
than being proportional to monetary reward, activation peaks at the same level for the
1
Note that reward is being used here in the psychological sense, i.e. as a process, or set of processes,
by which behaviour is reinforced.
best available outcome in different games (Nieuwenhuis, et al., 2005). The complex
relationship between reward and motivation is thus strongly mediated by context.
When uncertainty is encountered in the school context, our natural attraction to it
appears to fall away once the task is perceived as educational. Students generally
prefer low levels of academic uncertainty and choose problems well below moderate
(<50%) challenge (Clifford, 1988;Harter, 1978).Interestingly, however, when the
same tasks are presented as games, students will take greater risks (Clifford and Chou,
1991). This may suggest that individuals can be deterred from tackling academic tasks
with higher levels of uncertainty due to the implications of failure for social status and
esteem. In terms of rehearsing knowledge and understanding, it is not necessarily a
bad thing to be drawn towards areas where our ability requires only perfection
through further practise. However, it could be argued that this may also reduce
instances when outcomes are considerably better than might be expected, avoiding the
stronger motivational signals that can be generated in the human reward system by
these large and positive prediction errors. Additionally, rewards that appear with
certainty may provide experiences that illicit less emotional response, which may also
make the learning with which they should be associated less memorable.
The above arguments provide some theoretical justification for the inclusion of a
suitably integrated gaming component with a learning context, i.e. in order to enhance
motivation using a source of uncertainty that is less associated with issues of social
status. A series of bridging studies (Howard-Jones and Demetriou, in press - now
published on-line) have shown that:



Children (especially boys(Howard-Jones, 2010)) prefer academic tasks being
presented with an element of gaming uncertainty, even though this disrupts
consistency of reward (which is traditionally valued in schools (OfSTED.,
2001))
In adults (and presumably children), emotional response to learning tasks can
be heightened when presented with an element of gaming uncertainty
Children’s discourse around learning is changed by gaming elements and there
is open motivational talk. Losing is constructed in a way that reflects less on
the pupil and winning is celebrated as pure achievement – as is sometimes
observed in sport.
Further research has shown that the modelling of the brain’s reward activity due to
gaming events can be used to predict successful learning of educational material
during a learning game (Howard-Jones, et al., 2009).
The relevance of neuroscientific concepts to understanding learning games suggests
they may be able to contribute to a games-based pedagogy. However, the ‘translation’
of neuroscientific understanding to the classroom is fraught with dangers of
unscientific interpretation and/or departure from a grounded educational
understanding (Howard-Jones, 2010). Building any useful conceptual bridge that
spans neuroscience and education requires communication of broader issues and
concepts. In this ongoing study, co-construction of understanding has been taking
place by a team possessing expertise in both areas, through a practise-based
interventions and group reflection.
Method
The lead author would argue that neuroscience can only usefully contribute to
educational thinking when it is integrated with insights from other perspectives on
learning. Empowering learners and teachers to contribute their own experiential
perspectives can provide insights involving emotional response, free-will, motivation
and autonomy. Of particular relevance here, experiential evidence arising from a
teacher’s ‘insider’ insights are essential in the implementation of new pedagogical
ideas, and in developing the concepts they are based on. In projects involving
neuroscience and education, reflection is most likely to be valuable when informed by
both educational and scientific expertise, suggesting the need for group reflection and
co-construction of concepts. An iterative process of development and change through
reflection with others forms the basis of action research (Howard-Jones, et al.,
2008;Elliott, 1991). This method of research can help capture institutionally-based
change, at practitioner, department, school or school cluster levels, which often
evolves alongside changes in perceptions and meaning. Action research can make a
valuable contribution here. If change is the moral imperative of educational research,
then the methodological arsenal of neuroeducational research may need to include
transformative methods such as action research to study it. This may be a particularly
important concern for those working at the interface between neuroscience and
education. Concepts involving the brain have a seductive allure and education has
already shown itself vulnerable to a range of neuromyth. If we want neuroscience to
contribute in scientifically valid and educationally relevant ways to learning, then
special attention must be given to those institutionally-based processes by which
neuroscience enters the educational bloodstream.
Meaning itself, however, can be expected to change during the course of an action
research intervention, along with the methods used to implement ideas, as
understanding grows. Many judgements expressed in action research are often the
subjective opinions of the participants, and a change in the perspectives of those
producing the judgements is expected and encouraged as a valued outcome of this
type of research. This often places an important limitation upon the transferability of
action research since, although it may develop practice that improves outcomes in a
particular context, reflective practise cannot “test” the general educational value of a
pedagogical approach or idea. In this research, however, we employed some
quantitative pre/post testing. This is not to suggest, however, that we followed a
“design experiment” approach in the methodology. These tests can be a problematic
measure of learning gains in the real-world context of the classroom. For example,
comparing learning gains across lessons is difficult if different topics have been
covered. However, as we shall see, they were useful in checking whether measurable
learning had been achieved and, particularly when this was not the case, contributing
to reflection by raising interesting questions.
The research team consisted of 5 teachers across two comprehensive schools (X,Y) in
South Wales, the lead-author who has been directing research investigating the neural
and cognitive processes involved with learning games, and a post-graduate research
assistant. An action research spiral was followed that consisted of an initial meeting of
the research team, followed by 3 cycles of research meeting, planning, intervention
and group reflection. Video recording of interventions was used as a basis for
subsequent discussion and group analysis. Informed consent was acquired from
parents of all pupils involved with the study.
Session 1
This was a first attempt to understand the practical issues involved in developing a
games-based approach to learning and teaching based on gaming uncertainty. In all
sessions reported here, curriculum material was delivered via a quiz using power
point. In the quiz, principles and knowledge were intermixed with multiple choice
questions.
In session 1, to enhance motivation, chance-based uncertainty was introduced to
mediate the receipt of rewards. A correct answer was rewarded with the option to
receive a point or take a chance and either receive 0 or 2 points, based on the teacher
spinning a “wheel of fortune”. To support motivation at an individual level, we
wanted all pupils to be able to play simultaneously and this created some practical
challenges. Students would need to have a method of signalling their answers that was
not easily reversed (in order to avoid cheating when the answer was revealed) and a
system of accumulating points that did not require the teacher to keep a timeconsuming tally but was, again, resistant to cheating. A signalling system was devised
consisting of four coloured squares (15 cm x 15 cm) hinged together with tape.
Students could signal their answer by identifying the colour next to it, folding their
squares so that the colour was exposed and placing the folded set of squares in a
wooden stand in front of them. A counter system was devised to deliver points to
winners. Those wishing to collect their point for a correct answer indicated this by
raising their hand. Black counters (worth one point) were given out as quickly as
possible and, on receipt of the counter, pupils removed their answer from the wooden
stand. Those still revealing the correct answer were assumed to be gaming their
points. The wheel was then spun and these students received 2 points (a purple
counter) if it landed on a double, and no points if it landed on a zero. In addition to
these “standard” rounds, there were also special events:
Bonus rounds: when points awarded simply for picking the correct colour (of four)
that the wheel of fortune landed on
Golden opportunities: when 8 points (two orange counters, each worth 4) might be
won by a single individual for a correct answer – and this individual would be
whoever’s number came up on the wheel of fortune
Give away rounds: which were similar to golden opportunities, but required the lucky
individual (chosen by the wheel) to give any winnings from the round to a friend that
they must nominate before seeing the question.
Research has shown that the maximum dopamine released in the reward system is
proportional to the payout available in the context (Nieuwenhuis, et al., 2005). On the
other hand, constantly paying out the maximum available is likely to raise
expectations and reduce its effect, since dopamine release also codes positive
prediction error (i.e. “happy surprise”). One way to reduce this habituation effect is to
keep increasing the maximum amount of payout available during the course of the
game. For this reason, we tended to increase the points available for questions as the
lesson proceeded – a common tactic on gameshows.
In the first session, in school X, a Year 7 science class (N = 25) encountered the topic
of “reproduction” delivered through the learning game approach described above. It
was clear that the lesson generated intense levels of engagement, particularly amongst
boys, and generally there was a lot of excitement. There were some notable moments
of particularly strong engagement, such as when the outcomes of quiz responses, or
the wheel turning, were being awaited. However, this first session emphasised how
engagement does not necessarily translate into learning. Pre-test/post-test results for
the first session showed a small but statistically significant increase in knowledge
about reproduction at the end, compared with the beginning, of the lesson (t =3.44, p
= 0.002).
N=25
Pretest (out of 14)
Postest(out of 14)
Mean
4.6
5.8
SD
2.4
3
Discussion and analysis of the film suggested some emergent teaching principles that
might help support learning more effectively. Students naturally focus upon the
gaming element, so the teacher needs to carefully structure each “turn” in the game to
ensure that this also requires the learning content to be attended to.
For example:
When presenting learning content:
* reminding the students that attending to the information slides will help
them win points later.
When presenting questions:
* reminding students of the principles involved, and relevant handy hints,
when solving quiz questions.
When announcing correct answer:
This is a moment of tension when students’ attention is highly focused on the
screen. This can be exploited by
* first explaining to students why other answers are incorrect before
announcing correct one
* for incorrect answers, reminding students to remember principles for
later
* It was easy to refer to answers by colour (e.g. the answer is red), but
referring to all answers by their learning content/principles allows the focus to
remain on the educational aims of the lesson.
It also became evident in this first session that the pedagaming approach adds to the
role of the teacher, requiring them to divide their attention between game hosting and
teaching. These roles are not always complimentary and their combination is likely to
require some practise. Nevertheless, the intense engagement generated amongst
students was encouraging.
One outcome of this session was observing the intense emotions involved with the
competitiveness of this approach although, as observed elsewhere, this seems less
associated with academic ability and produced the type of discourse observed in sport.
However, it also raised questions about how we learn from others in competitive
situations. At the moment, little is known about the neuropsychological processes
involved. The present study highlighted the importance of understanding competitive
learning in the pedagaming approach, and it has prompted an ongoing attempt to
identify the relevant neural correlates and develop a theoretical model that can be
educationally informative. The processes by which we learn from our own errors are
likely to be quite different from those involved with learning from our competitors.
For example, preliminary (as yet unpublished) results from our recent brain imaging
study suggest the possible involvement of the mirror neuron system.
Session 2
Session 1 (in school Y) had delivered factual knowledge content rather than
understanding, and several issues had arisen about how to develop an effective
teaching approach using games. Therefore, session 2 attempted to deliver both factual
knowledge and conceptual understanding to a smaller group of students that would
allow greater focus on teacher-pupil interaction. In this session, a Year 9 lower
literacy set (N=6) were taught about nouns (pronouns, proper nouns, pronouns), verbs
and tenses. Emphasis was on applying principles. For each topic (e.g. proper nouns),
principles (e.g. use of capital letter) were first explained and then illustrated by
examples. This was followed by multiple choice questions requiring the correct or
incorrect application of the principle to be identified. This time, careful attention was
given to the pedagogic issues identified above.
Observation of the focus of children’s attention, their discussion amongst themselves
and with the teacher, and their responses to questions suggested good levels of verbal
learning. However, written pre-test/post-tests did not reveal significant increases in
understanding. There were several possible reasons for this. There was, of course, a
very small sample size so statistical significance should not have been expected.
However, the written test outcome also did not confirm many examples of students’
learning, even where these had been indicated by verbal responses during the lesson.
This suggests that the written nature of the assessment may have been a problem for
this group, who had notably poor literacy skills. Perhaps more of an issue, the posttest was carried out after the end of the game and after the bell had gone for the end of
the lesson. At this point, although they had clearly enjoyed the game, the students
wanted to leave for break and may not have been as motivated as for the pre-test.
Session 3
It was decided that the next session should involve a slightly larger group, in order to
investigate whether the pedagogic principles emerging could produce demonstrably
effective learning in terms of statistically significant pre/post results. One problem
with using pedagaming with large groups, however, is the mass distribution of
counters. To address this, a power-point version of the wheel of the fortune, together
with a more automated scoring system was developed using Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) (See Appendix). The folding-card signalling system was still
necessary, but the teacher no longer needs to distribute counters or spin a physical
wheel.
The sample on this occasion (N=9) was a Year 10 Design and Technology group (in
school Y) and the chosen topic was plastic product evaluation. In order to ensure
learning was conceptual as well as factual, the lesson focused on acquiring and
applying knowledge of the properties of plastics when choosing an appropriate
material for manufacturing a range of different products. Due to the prototype nature
of the software (which had a few idiosyncrasies/bugs), the lead-author taught this
lesson.
Once again, observed engagement with the lesson, including its learning content, was
high. Written pre/post-tests, carried out within the time frame of the lesson,
confirmed statistically significant and, in the opinion of the team and the classteacher, good levels of learning for this challenging area (t = 4.3, p<0.001).
N=9
Pretest (out of 9)
Postest(out of 9)
Mean
1.3
5.2
SD
0.9
2.5
It is probably worth noting that, since session 3, we have carried out another session
with a small, low-attainment group with special needs with successful results. This
involved the same teacher and similar learning content as session 2, but used the
technology-based gaming approach which, apart from liberating the teacher from
distributing counters and spinning a physical wheel, encourages students to focus
attention more on the white-board (i.e. slides) and, therefore, the learning content.
Language and meaning
As well as helping to develop pedagogy involving learning games, this study has been
helping to develop the language and resources by which to communicate them.
Significant differences have become evident in the use by educators and
neuroscientists of terms such as ‘motivation’ and ‘reward’. These differences have to
be carefully examined as the work proceeds, and they support the need for these types
of project in order to carefully develop the language with which to communicate
praxis.
Neuropsychological use of the term “motivation” is usually in regard to low-level
(automatic) approach motivation for stimuli such as food, sex and novelty. It can also
appropriately used when explaining some more complex behaviours such as playing
games. However, it may be less relevant in understanding higher level types of
motivation such as the desire to pass exams, pay off a mortgage or serve society. The
processes involved with these types of motivation are certainly less well studied by
neuroscience, and we do have a clear understanding of how, or whether, approach
motivation as currently understood by neuroscience is involved.
Similarly, the term reward is used by most psychologists and neuroscientists to
describe whatever reinforces behaviour. In educational terms, a reward is provided by
the teacher or school in recognition of a students’ achievement. The educational
concept of reward consistency, as we discussed above, appears at odds with the
increased neuropsychological attraction of reward when it becomes uncertain.
However, some part of this apparent contradiction may derive from semantics, and
this is worthy of further discussion and study.
Ethics
During the project, there arose the ethical issue of whether introducing gaming
uncertainty into the classroom might encourage gambling pathology or computer
game addiction in later life. On the surface, learning games appear fun, but immersing
children in a gaming environment may not be educationally valuable if there are
dangers attached to gaming, such as those expressed recently by Greenfield (Wintour,
2009).
However, at present, there is no evidence to suggest such effects. Some association
has been reported between problematic playing of non-monetary computer games and
problematic gambling, although this is not necessarily causal (Johansson and
Gotestam 2004; Griffiths 2005a). In general, computer games have not been linked to
the development of pathologies or serious health risks (Griffiths 2005b). Given that
the incidence of computer game addiction is itself very low (Griffiths and Davies
2005), it seems unlikely that even excessive use of learning games in schools could
lead to problematic gambling behaviour in later life. It could also be argued that the
current approach to reward in schools is a poor representation of the uncertainties we
face in the “real world”, where adults face challenges that often require both skill and
some degree of luck in order to succeed. We are beginning to understand how we
have become adapted to seek out such challenges. In this sense, the increased use of
learning games in schools may help redress the balance and help provide a more
natural, enjoyable and motivating reward environment. Nevertheless, future research
studies, if they involve the long term exposure to learning games, might include the
monitoring of any adverse effects on children’s behaviour including, since the
approach generates such excitement amongst students, their behaviour in subsequent
lessons.
Preliminary findings
Motivation will always be of great interest in education, where the under-achievement
and disengagement of boys with their academic pursuits is currently of great concern.
At the same time, the intense engagement provided by computer gaming demonstrates
how, in one type of environment at least, all children are capable of intense levels of
engagement. In this preliminary report, we have highlighted emerging evidence that
the same levels of engagement are possible in the classroom. More importantly, the
reflective and careful development of innovative pedagogy that combines learning
and gaming can produce not just highly attentive pupils but also demonstrable
learning achievement.
These are very early days for “pedagaming” and although our first classroom studies
are promising there is much more to be learnt in terms of both educational and
scientific understanding. The NeuroEducational research NEwork (NEnet) is involved
with both areas of study and we look forward to reporting on these efforts in the near
future.
Helpful web sites:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edpahj
http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/research/networks/nenet
References
Berridge, K.C., and Robinson, T.E. (2003) Parsing Reward, Trends in Neurosciences,
26.9, 507-13.
Clifford, M. M. . (1988) Failure Tolerance and Academic Risk-Taking in Ten- to
Twelve-Year-Old Students., British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58,
15-27.
Clifford, M. M., and Chou, F. C. (1991) Effects of Payoff and Task Context on
Academic Risk Taking, Journal of Educational Psychology, 83.4, 499-507.
Elliot, R, Friston, K.J, and D., Raymond J. (2000) Dissociable Neural Responses in
Human Reward Systems. , Journal of Neuroscience, 20.16, 6159-65.
Elliott, J. . (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
Fiorillo, C.D., Tobler, P. N., and Schultz, W. (2003) Discrete Coding of Reward
Probability and Uncertainty by Dopamine Neurons, Science, 299, 1898-902.
Harter, S. (1978) Pleasure Derived from Cognitive Challenge and Mastery. , Child
Development, 45, 661-69.
Howard-Jones, P. (2010) Introducing Neuroeducational Research. (Routledge).
Howard-Jones, P.A., Bogacz, R., Demetriou, S., Leonards, U., and Yoo, J. (2009)
"From Gaming to Learning: A Reward-Based Model of Decision-Making
Predicts Declarative Memory Performance in a Learning Game." British
Psychological Society Annual Conference (Brighton).
Howard-Jones, P.A., and Demetriou, S. (in press - now published on-line) Uncertainty
and Engagement with Learning Games, Instructional Science.
Howard-Jones, P.A., Winfield, M., and Crimmins, G. (2008) Co-Constructing an
Understanding of Creativity in the Fostering of Drama Education That Draws
on Neuropsychological Concepts, Educational Research, 50.2, 187-201.
Knutson, B., Adams, C.M., Fong, G.W., and Hommer, D. (2001) Anticipation of
Monetary Reward Selectively Recruits Nucleus Accumbens, Journal of
Neuroscience, 21.RC159, 1-5.
Koepp, M.J., Gunn, R.N., Lawrence, A.D., Cunningham, V.J., Dagher, A., Jones, T.,
Brooks, D.J., Bench, C.J., and Grasby, P.M. (1988) Evidence for Striatal
Dopamine Release During a Video Game. , Nature, 393, 266-68.
Nieuwenhuis, S., Heslenfeld, D.J., von Geusau, N.J.A., Mars, R.B., Holroyd, C.B.,
and Yeung, N. (2005) Activity in Human Reward-Sensitive Brain Areas Is
Strongly Context Dependent., Neuroimage, 25.4, 1302-09.
OfSTED. (2001) "Improving Attendance and Behaviour in Secondary Schools."
(London, OfSTED).
Shizgal, P., and Arvanitogiannis, A. (2003) Gambling on Dopamine., Science, 299,
1856-58.
Wintour, P. (2009) "Facebook and Bebo Risk "Infantilising" The Human Mind."
Guardian (London).