Data from practitioners’ semi-structured interviews
Third grade Classes School Burlando.
Please share two aspects of the experience / lesson sequence that you are most pleased with.
Resp 1Stimulus for the kids and, for me, working with people from outside the school. Usually experts deal with theory and leave the practical classroom work to us. In this case we shared the experience, we had your practical support, and this was something new.
Resp 2The group work because even some pairs that didn’t want to work together collaborated well on the task. And also the way kids reflected about their final goal. It’s not about just pushing a button and hey presto
Resp 3 Kids’ high motivation and engagement. Kids’ capacity to manage game making with minimal support. Even less capable kids (with SEN support) engaged and worked well. The introductory lesson went very well. The kids all followed the task explanation attentively.
In your view, did the pupils benefit from the games based focus of the experience / lesson sequence?
Resp 1Yes, because it was play but also a game making experience, an experience in problem solving.
Resp 2At another school I took part in a road safety project that involved computer and traditional games. The kids made a game in that case too. Games work but timetabling limits their use. I’d used games before: for English, for language skills, syllable games. Games stimulate kids to produce.
Resp 3Yes. Before the game making, we worked on identifying words (for the Missions) and this helped their learning. They agreed to each tackle different topics and this was useful for logic because they thought carefully about point scores.
In your view did the pupils work collaboratively? (Why not?)
Resp 1Some managed better than others. I noticed that some pairs managed, even if I didn’t expect them to. Some of them may have needed more time.
Resp 2I’d done group work before, but doing it like that - at the computer – works even better. In class the groups are bigger. This way everyone worked well, everyone got involved.
Resp 3They all collaborated well, including the ones with SEN support. I often do group work so they’re used to working together. I tried to form pairs with mixed ability levels but I didn’t force anyone to stay together if they didn’t want to.
What did the pupils gain from engaging with this learning environment? (prompt if needed – e.g. developing transferable skills?)
Resp 1Planning, working out a logical progression. I see links with maths (….?) It’s interdisciplinary, (involving) the capacity to analyse situations
Resp 2Collaborating. Making something for a purpose, setting themselves a goal to reach. The learning content they covered. The capacity to link things. The rapid feedback.
Resp 3More than anything it helped their self-confidence. I noticed kids who normally have problems working well, confidently, even in a subject like English where they struggle. I think being at the computer helped with this; it’s something they’re used to and feel comfortable with.
If you had the opportunity to repeat this experience / lesson sequence what would you do differently?
Resp 1Maybe there were too few class sessions. I’d make it more focused, based on making games on areas of interest to me. I liked the evaluation of each others’ games that they had to do, that way they realised that revision was needed. It was useful for them to compare and discuss things instead of just producing their own game. They understood the point of it. The other thing is timing: I’d run the experience at the beginning of the school year instead of at the end, when things are hectic.
Resp 2It worked well, I wouldn’t change anything. Perhaps add one or two more class sessions
Resp 3Maybe time was a bit short. There wasn’t enough time in the third session. Maybe a fourth could be added, or do the (monitoring??) at home. There’s nothing you can do about it when kids are absent.