Virtual Worlds: Learning about history through Minecraft

My recent exploration of virtual worlds has helped me to really appreciate the ‘wonderful variety of ways’ they have been used for education (Bower, 2017 p. 314). Being a history teacher, I have been particularly interested in considering how virtual worlds can been used to help students learn about ancient civilisations. Bertacchini & Tavernise (2016) for example, used virtual words to increase the accessibility of archaeological and so encourage interest in cultural heritage. Similarly, Mikropoulos (2006) used virtual worlds to reconstruct of ancient architecture, fostering a sense of involvement through presence.

To explore virtual worlds more, I decided focus on Minecraft: Education, an ‘open-world game’ hosted online that ‘that promotes creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving in an immersive environment’ (https://education.minecraft.net/). Users work to ‘build’ a virtual world by creating the building block pixels and placing them one by one. The game has famously been used to recreate famous structures from popular culture and so have been curious to see how it could be used as a tool in helping students learn about structures from the ancient world.

Minecraft Education - Retrieved from https://education.minecraft.net/

To this end, I visited the website for Minecraft: Education (https://education.minecraft.net/) and selected History Blocks (Francisco Tupy) a featured, pre-prepared lesson to consider in detail. The lesson’s two objectives: building ‘an awareness of historical heritage’ and developing ‘an understanding of the aesthetic and cultural qualities of historic sites’ are achieved by students carrying out research on a UNESCO World Heritage Site and reconstructing it using Minecraft. When the reconstruction is complete, students act as ‘tour guides’ and lead a ‘class walk through’ of the completed site. A consideration of this lesson suggests significant benefits in the use of Minecraft for learning about the past but also raises important factors to address.

History Blocks - Retrieved from: https://education.minecraft.net/lessons/history-blocks/

One of the biggest benefits using Minecraft in History Blocks is perhaps its ability to facilitate the ‘doing of history (Zhang, 2019). Loewen (2018) proposes that while ‘doing history’ involves gathering information through the critical analysis and evaluation of sources, one develops a storyline and ‘marshals the information on behalf of that storyline’ while attending to contradictory information (p. 91). In History Blocks the learner gathers historical information about their site, figurative ‘building blocks’ they then ‘marshal’ in Minecraft to reconstruct the ‘storyline’ of the past in a form of a site that can be experienced in a visual, 3D manner. This ‘doing’ of history is significant. It makes the past ‘come alive’ for students (Loewen, 2018) and as Zhang (2019) found when conducting research into activities similar to History Blocks, promotes deep interest, engagement and ultimately learning. 

Big Goose Pagoda in Minecraft (right) According to Historical Drawings (left) - Retrieved from: Zhang, G. (2019). Virtual simulation for history education. 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 1646-1651).

A factor to address when using Minecraft in this context is ensuring that appropriate and adequate initial research is carried out. The alluring nature of Minecraft means that attention will be drawn to the construction phase and learners will be tempted to rush through or skip initial research. This phase is critical to provide a historical foundation and without it the potential for historical learning is compromised. The teacher has an important role to play as a research guide and facilitator.  As Craft (2016) suggests, high school students are typically not highly competent in performing research and do not readily have the means to practice. It therefore may be a good idea to focus on well-known and documented buildings ensure ease of access to material. Compiling and providing relevant information in an easy to access format along with a structured guide would further facilitate research. Producing videos with demonstration and explanation would also help reinforce research skills and supplement student efforts.

References:

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning - Integrating research and practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.

Bertacchini, F., & Tavernise, A. (2016). NetConnect virtual worlds: Results of a learning experience. In S. Gregory, M. J. W. Lee, B. Dalgarno, & B. Tynan (Eds.), Learning in virtual worlds: Research and applications (pp. 227-240). Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.

Craft, J. (2016). Rebuilding an empire with Minecraft: Bringing the classics into the digital space. Classical Journal 111(3), 347-364.

Loewen, J. W. (2013). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the tyranny of textbooks and get students excited about doing history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Mikropoulos, T. A. (2006). Presence: A unique characteristic in educational virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 10, 197-206.

Tupy, F. (n.d.). History blocks. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from https://education.minecraft.net/lessons/history-blocks/

Zhang, G. (2019). Virtual simulation for history education. 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 1646-1651).

Comparing and Contrasting Anti-Cyberbullying Resources

Figure 1 - The Lost Summer

According to Bower (2017), Cyberbullying is a concern that arises when using social networking systems for educational purposes. Consequently, pre-emptive education plays an important role in maintaining a student’s cybersafety (DeSmet et al., 2015). The Australian Government’s ‘eSafety Commissioner’ website hosts a number of resources to combat cyberbullying that are intended for use and consumption by

Figure 2 - Rewrite your Story 

children and teens in an educational context (https://www.esafety.gov.au). Two examples are the role playing video game ‘The Lost Summer’ and video series ‘Rewrite Your Story’. While both resources seek to use empathy to educate high school students about the dangers of cyberbullying and prepare them to deal with its impact in their life, they do so utilising significantly different mediums and methods.

Figure 3 - The Lost Summer, Chapter Summary

A key feature of both The Lost Summer and Rewrite Your Story is their use of empathy to teach about the issue of Cyberbullying. Bullying has been linked to a lack of empathy and studies have suggested that empathy training can be used to reduce bullying behaviours (Hicks, Le Clair & Berry, 2016).

In the educational game The Lost Summer, students are confronted with a challenges such as social media conflict and fake news, students need to use various skills in order to support other characters, progress through the game and overcome challenges. Empathy, according to the eSafety Commissioner, is an aspect of ‘Digital Intelligence’ that is a key focus of the game. Students are taught about ‘being empathetic to others and using emotional intelligence to respect opinions, embrace diversity of opinion and freedom of speech’ (eSafety Commissioner,  n.d.).  

Figure 4 - Summary of Rewrite your Story Episode: Alexia's Story

Similarly, Rewrite your Story, is a video based program that uses empathy to educate high school students about cyberbullying. The program entails students exploring real-life cyberbullying stories that provide advice on how to handle difficult situations. Students also engage in class based activities that promote empathy through self-reflection and discussion. The program is designed to provide guidance when needed so students are empowered to be ‘courageous in the face of cyberbullying’ and provide help and support to their friends (eSafety Commissioner,  n.d.)

While The Lost Summer and Rewrite your Story are similar in their focus on empathy as a vehicle for learning, they differ in the medium used to engage high school students. The Lost Summer could be considered a ‘serious game’, one that is designed ‘to be both entertaining and provide instruction, training or achieve attitude change’ (Blumberg, Almonte, Anthony, & Hashimoto, 2013). Students access the game via a computer or mobile device and play as various characters, representing young people and completing quests assigned to them. The game format is designed to provide a learning environment that enables students to rehearse real-life scenarios and challenges safely (eSafety Commissioner,  n.d.). ‘Serious games’ have been shown by studies to be ‘effective in promoting healthy lifestyles’ and have been successfully used in a range of other anti-cyberbullying interventions. (DeSmet et al., 2018).

Figure 5 - Screenshort example of The Lost Summer gameplay

Rewrite your Story differs in its use of video and self-reflection as a medium to explore the issue of cyberbullying. The program involves students watching a series of two minute video clips that presents a story of cyberbullying narrated from the point of view of the young person involved. Students then engage in an interactive online quiz that breaks down the issue presented in the video and promotes self-reflection. The choice of video as a medium is interesting, as Doane, Kelley & Pearson (2015) point out, cyberbullying prevention programs have largely relied on in‐person instruction. However videos have been used in a range of prevention programs across other fields and prevention programs that include videos have been shown to be effective in increasing empathy toward victims (Doane, Kelley & Pearson, 2015).   

Figure 6 - Extract from Rewrite your Story, Teacher Materials

In all, The Lost Summer and Rewrite your Story provide good examples of anti-cyberbullying resources that use very similar methods to help students understand the issue and yet do so through very different mediums. While promoting empathy is the common utilised by both to engage students and help them understand the personal impact of cyberbullying, the former achieves this through the use of a ‘serious’ game while the latter do so through video and self-reflection.   

References

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning - Integrating research and practice. London, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Blumberg, F. C., Almonte, D. E., Anthony, J. S., & Hashimoto, N. (2012). Serious games: What are they? What do they do? Why should we play them? The Oxford handbook of media psychology, 334-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398809.013.0019.

eSafety Commissioner (n.d) Education Resources. Retrieved October 15, 2019, From https://esafety.gov.au/education-resources

DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Cleemput, K., van Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Deboutte, G., ... de Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2018). The efficacy of the Friendly Attac serious digital game to promote prosocial bystander behavior in cyberbullying among young adolescents: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.011

Doane, A. N., Kelley, M. L., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Reducing cyberbullying: A theory of reasoned action-based video prevention program for college students. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21610.

Hicks, J. F., Le Clair, B., & Berry, S. (2016). Using solution-focused dramatic empathy training to eliminate cyber-bullying. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 11(3–4), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2016.1172533.

Exploring Design Thinking using ‘Learning Designer’

My experience of using the design tool Learning Designer (Dimakopoulos, 2019), an ‘open access authoring tool’ supporting the representation of learning activities (Zalavra & Papanikolaou, 2019) was both helpful and challenging. As Bower (2017) points out, for learning designs to be shared there must be a means by which they can be described. Learning Designer provides such a means and further to that a platform for the storage and sharing of such designs.

Fig 1 - The main interface of Learning Designer

For the purpose of exploring the functions of Learning Designer I decided to map out a lesson on managing and protecting landscapes that I recently prepared and taught to a Year 7 Geography class. This was not an uncomplicated process as the tool’s main interface (Fig 1) has several input boxes as selection possibilities that took time to become familiar with. However, I found that the strength of the interface was in the way it facilitated the sequencing of activities in my lesson. Indeed, the tool allowed for a substantial consideration of the components involved in each activity at a granular level, focusing on areas such as aims, learning outcomes, curriculum topics as well as teaching and learning activities (Laurillard, Kennedy, Charlton, Wild, & Dimakopoulos 2018). The tool also had a feature that organised the content into a linear summary of the lesson, a feature that made the design ‘lesson- ready’ and easier to share with colleagues (Fig 2).

Fig 2 - Learning Designer's Lesson Summary 

A feature I found to be of great value was the ‘analysis tool’ that provided a range of  visualisation of the design. One chart represented the proportions of the different learning types used (Fig 3) in the teaching and learning activities. As expressed by Zalavra & Papanikolaou (2019) this was extremely helpful as it allowed for the consideration my lesson from a range of perspectives such as the social and collaborative dimensions. Another chart (Fig 4) provided a representation of the amount of time spent on each activity and stimulated reflection from the point of view of student and correction where necessary.

Fig 3 - Pie -Chart showing summary of lesson features.

While providing a helpful support in structuring the teaching and learning activities for my lesson, my experience with using the tool did highlight some limitations. The lack of collaboration features for example, made it difficult for me to share the lesson design with colleagues and acquire their feedback. Also, while I have not yet taught the lesson after mapping it using Learning Designer, there are no features that allow for the enacting of the design with my students. This was noted by Karga & Satratzemi (2019) who pointed out that teachers could well be burdened with the extra effort of deploying their Learning Designs using a learning management system such as Moodle.

Fig 4 Visualisation of time spent on activites

In review, my experience with Learning Designer was more positive than challenging. The challenges were only short term issues like difficulty in learning to use the tool and frustrating peripheral limitations on collaboration and ease of deployment. The positives could well be seen in the long term with the facilitation of more considered lesson design and reflection.

References

Bower, M. (2017). Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning: Integrating Research and Practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.

Dimakopoulos, D. (2019). Learning Designer. Retrieved 23 September 2019, from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/learning-designer/index.php

Karga S., Satratzemi M., (2019). Evaluating Teachers’ Perceptions of Learning Design Recommender Systems. In: Scheffel M., Broisin J., Pammer-Schindler V., Ioannou A., Schneider J. (eds) Transforming Learning with Meaningful Technologies. EC-TEL 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11722. Springer, Cham

Laurillard, D., Kennedy, E., Charlton, P., Wild, J., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2018). Using technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1044-1058. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12697

Zalavra, E., Papanikolaou, K., (2019). Exploring the Potential of the Learning Designer as a Teacher Support Tool. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(2), pp. 107-117. DOI: 10.34190/JEL.17.2.04

The Affordances of MindMeister

In education, the term ‘affordance’ has several meanings but generally relates to the potentials of technologies (Hartson, 2003). For the sake of discussion and analysis, Bower (2017) defines an affordance as an ‘action potential’ that can determine how an object such as a technology can be used. Reflecting on the ‘action potentials’ of for example, a web-based ‘mindmap’ creation tool such as the website ‘Mindmeister’ can be a worthwhile activity. Indeed, a consideration of the site’s affordances can be of great value to an educator in understanding how to best utilise them when seeking to achieve a desired outcome (Bower 2017).   

 Figure 1: The Mind Meister Control Menu. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

When considering the affordances of Mindmeister, Bower’s (2008) conceptualisation framework will provide a solid starting point. Bower, for example refers to affordances as ‘abilities’, considering the option to read, write draw and produce video as ‘media affordances’ and the ability to resize and move content ‘spatial affordances’.  In these areas Mindmiester offers many options. Text can be entered and formatted along with audio and visual content. The user has essentially a limitless canvas on which to construct and resize their mindmap, with an option to use a pre-set template if desired. Content can be moved around with ease. Functionally, these options mean that Mindmiester would be a very useful tool for visualising large amounts of content and demonstrating links between various ideas. However, there are no options for audio-visual capture meaning that all content used must be pre-prepared. Mindmiester would not be a suitable tool for content creation.

           

 Figure 2: The Mind Meister Work Canvas and Control Menu. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

 Figure 3: The Mind Meister Template Selection Menu. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

Within his framework, Bower (2008) also categorises the degree of access, ability to record and playback content and option to interact synchronously as ‘spatial affordances’ and the ability to highlight content and indicate focus ‘emphasis affordances’. Mindmeister is arguably strong in these domains, making it perhaps an ideal tool for group collaboration and presentation in Project Based Learning. Indeed, content can be shared with multiple users who can collaborate in real time, accessing the site in any context with internet access, via a computer or mobile device using an app. A ‘history’ feature allows the user to track changes and there is a function that allows for the recording of a linear presentation that sequentially emphasises different areas of the mindmap allowing the user to give emphasis particular areas of content.

 Figure 4: The Mind Meister Presentation Toolbar. Retrieved from http://www.mindmeister.com

In the Bower’s category of ‘Navigational Affordances’ however, Mindmiester is arguably weak making it an inappropriate tool for research and gathering information. While users have some ability to search for and access images and video from the web, this function is confined with limited options. The site has no function for browsing web pages or manipulating data. Indeed Mindmeister would not be a suitable tool for research based activities including locating and gathering information.   

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis: Matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45 (1), 3 -15.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. p.65-92

Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 22 (5), 315 - 338.

Thinking Pedagogically about GoSoapBox

 The GoSoapBox logo at https://www.gosoapbox.com/

GoSoapBox (GSB) is Student Response Systems (SRS) that was launched in 2012 and has grown in popularity within and across primary, secondary and tertiary educational contexts. While SRSs traditionally take the form of a system of wireless handheld devices that allow students to answer questions in real time (Méndez-Coca & Slisko, 2013), GoSoapBox provides the same functionality in a web-based form. Its features include multiple-choice polls, open-ended discussion questions and social chat, allowing students to pose questions as well as start and engage in discussion (Carroll, Sankupellay, Rodgers, Newcomb, Cook, 2018). A particularly useful feature is a ‘barometer’ that aids the teacher in gauging the perceived level of understanding a class has in relation to content being discussed.

                                               The 'Confusion Barometer at GoSoapBox

As an SRS, GSB is grounded in the Social Constructivist pedagogical perspective that emphasises the importance of social and cultural elements in learning (Bower, 2017). According to this perspective, knowledge is constructed socially with cultural context playing a key role in its interpretation (Hung, 2001). GSB’s value is perhaps best assessed when it is considered in relation to the elements of Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory. Arguing that humans develop knowledge by observing and interacting with others, Bandura proposed that learning occurs across a series of four processes: attentional, retentional, motor production and motivational.

                                                 An 'event' menu at GoSoapBox

Attentional Processes

Bandura (1977) argued that learners are more likely to be attentive to behaviours that are desirable and that they will most likely be required to imitate. GSB provides ‘vote up’ system where preference can be given to comments that are considered the most helpful. A teacher can take advantage of this immediate feedback in a live forum to shape the nature of their content and interaction (Carroll et al, 2018). 

 Retentional Processes

Retentional processes provide opportunities for behaviour to be viewed and rehearsed before it is performed (Carroll et al, 2018). As GSB is constructed in a written form, students have the chance to review and edit their contribution before publishing it. They can also read and consider ideas shared and discussed by their peers.

Motor Processes

Motor processes relate to the decisions learners make about when and how to participate in learning activities (Carroll et al, 2018). In its favour, GSB has a feature that allows for anonymous participation. However, all comments are viewed by the entire class and are open to criticism that can be both constructive and deconstructive. Teacher moderation is required to ensure a positive learning environment is maintained.

Motivational Processes

SLT posits that learners are motivated the most to model behaviour that leads to pleasing results (Carroll et al, 2018). GSB provide students with the ability to ask questions within traditionally silent lecture style context in a safe and regulated way.  

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning: Integrating research and practice. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Carroll, J., Sankupellay, M., Rodgers, J., Newcomb, M., & Cook, R. (2018). GoSoapBox in public health tertiary education: A student response system for improving learning experiences and outcomes.  Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 58-71.

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies. Educational Media International, 38(4), 281 – 287.

Méndez-Coca, D., & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17-24. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/62733