De Castell and Jenson (2003) define serious play as an intersection between engagement and purpose, whereby the experience of the activity is viewed by the participant as “rewarding in and of itself” (p. 662). The participant therefore must be willing and invested in the activity with a goal-oriented outcome. Only when these circumstances are met, the authors argue, will significant learning take place[1].

Reflecting back on my own experiences as a young student in the elementary sector, I am reminded of the game Math Circus. I am able to make the distinction now – almost two decades later – that I was engaging in serious play and I conclude this for the following reasons:

1. The outcomes of the game were clearly defined to me (and I was reminded of this in the title of the game): to practice and develop my mathematical competencies.

2. I was fully engaged and immersed in the activity. I have positive recollections of my experiences with this game, despite my adverse perception towards math as a subject

3. Possibly the most telling reason of all: I was excited when it was an indoor recess, as this usually meant that I could play this game in the computer lab.

Significantly, Math Circus is the only example of digital-game based learning that I can recall from my past. My teacher’s perception of the game was that it should be treated as a ‘reward’, meaning that students were not allowed to play this game freely, only after we accomplished something (for example, finishing our assigned classwork early). This perception of Math Circus being a ‘reward’ implies that it is not significant enough to be woven into the curriculum and into every day lessons. Authors Nolan and McBride (2014) argue that “many parents and practitioners alike still regard digital games to be less developmentally, socially, and culturally beneficial to children than outdoor play”. What this very example of my childhood indicates is that digital educational games (like Math Circus) could only be consumed when outdoor play was no longer an option.

However, much has changed since the 90’s – especially in regards to the access that schools now have to more technological forms such as Chromebooks and iPads. As such, schools are able to invest more time into digital game-based learning more than ever before. Despite this, I argue, this remains in the hands of the educator: teachers will be more hesitant to implement these games in the classroom if they, themselves, are unfamiliar and lack the motivation to do so (Nolan & McBride, 2014). While the Ministry of Education advocates for 21st century competencies (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016), K-12 curriculum documents do not reference specific expectations to implement nor assess this. As a result, I find myself mirroring Jenson (2017) in her claim that changes to the curriculum itself needs to occur.  

References:

De Castell, S. & Jenson, J. (2003). Serious play. J. Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649-665.

Jenson, J. & Droumeva, M. (2017). Revisiting the media generation: Youth media use and computational literacy instruction. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(4), 212-225.

Nolan, J. & McBride, M. (2014). Beyond gamification: Reconceptualizing game-based learning in early childhood environments. Information, Communication & Society, 17(5), 594-608.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). Towards defining 21st century competencies for Ontario: 21st century competencies. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.edugains.ca/resources21CL/About21stCentury/21CL_21stCenturyCompetencies.pdf

[1] Connection to other course work: in my second language instruction classes, we discuss the factor of Motivation to be significant for learner outcomes. One way to increase learner motivation is by immersing students in “fun” activities and games.