Stage 2. Digital Games and Critical Thinking
Thank you for your input!
Please, see below the collated data and explore more about critical thinking and digital games as seen by experts in edu and game fields.
Stage 2. Digital Games and Critical Thinking
Thank you for your input! Please, see below the collated data and explore more about critical thinking and digital games as seen by experts in edu and game fields.
The Delphi Study
This website presents the results of a Delphi study. The current Delphi research is Kantian – “contributory” in its nature (Mitroff & Turoff, 2002, p. 27). It means that participating experts are building a bigger picture of what is known about digital games for the sake of critical thinking.
The whole study consists of 3 iterative stages. Each stage produces a report for you to reflect on – agree, disagree, or offer an alternative. Starting from Stage 2 your remarks are presented in the “Comments” section of the webpage.
This Delphi study counts each idea, and I made every effort to represent the spectrum of your knowledge. While creating each webpage (report), I assigned codes and grouped them into categories (see “Grouped data” block). The text you see below is a condensed essence of your ideas. First, I’m presenting categories and codes with the highest frequency count. This way you may find what the majority of you agreed upon. Also, take your time to explore the ideas mentioned less frequently.
22 experts participated in Stage 2 of this study.
How to proceed?
It is a Delphi study, which means that you are welcome to express your position about the information provided by you or your colleagues.
You may disagree, agree or propose anything else related to what you see on this webpage.
To do so, please, highlight a block of text you are referring to and press CTRL+ENTER to leave your comment.
You may leave as many comments as you wish.
How to proceed?
It is a Delphi study, which means that you are welcome to express your position about the information provided by you or your colleagues.
You may disagree, agree or propose anything else related to what you see on this webpage.
To do so, please, highlight a block of text you are referring to and press CTRL+ENTER to leave your comment.
You may leave as many comments as you wish.
Digital Technologies and
Critical Thinking
Digital Technologies and Critical Thinking
Grouped Data
In many sections to follow you will see a number in brackets after a word or expression, e.g. “analyze (9)“. The number stands for the number of experts who mentioned this idea or concept – just hover over it to see the data provided by experts.
You may see a number with the prefix “x”, e.g. “in-game ‘messy problems’ with no fixed answer” (x1). It means that this is the idea of an expert; it is the closest paraphrase or quotation of the original message.
When phrases of several experts are exact (repeated word-for-word) or essentially mean the same, they receive the prefix “(x2)”. This means “analysis of a problem” (x2) is represented twice within the concept of “analyze(9)”.
What features/elements of digital technologies can promote/teach critical thinking?
*Note: the names of categories below are created to provide you a general outlook of features and elements. Please, look inside to learn more!
The majority of relating to critical thinking were such game elements as:
- making decisions based on several choices (2) or sources (x1), solving problems in multiplayer games taking into account different perspectives (x1);
- feedback (2) and resource management (2);
- collaboration (2);
- in-game “messy problems” with no fixed answer (x1);
- experiential knowledge through game mechanics, exploration, riddles (x1);
- create moments of productive struggle (i.e.: defeating a Boss on a video game) (x1);
- looking for a logical outcome, to “stop and think” (1);
- the connection of learning through the game with the real world, getting acquainted with modern tools, linking them with playing activities (x1);
- the intention behind the design choices of the game. The underlying story and premise of the game (x1). Gameplay (x1).
The capacity of digital technologies for collaboration(6) and cooperation(x1) between learners or with a teacher(2) can promote/teach critical thinking. Collaboration elements give opportunities “to build a collective body of knowledge”(2), “allow for more discussion/narrative based learning”(x1), and “collaborative inquiry”(x1). In this regard, SMEs report on the use of collaboration boards (x1), Nearpod (x1), wiki pages (x1), and documents (x1).
At Stage 3 an SME added that the most common gaming collaboration methods should be emphasized: Twitch or Twitter play, Discord, and in-game collaboration (shown in Minecraft, Roblox and the likes commonly found in MMORPGs).
One of the most valued elements was a design feature(6) of digital technologies. While “technology itself is inert”(3), there should be a design that uses appropriate educational theories and relevant learning objectives(x1), provides students with “the tasks that reflect their current level of critical thinking skills”(x1). The role of an educator is central as one should be able to adapt and use technologies for the benefit of students’ critical thinking(2). One example of a design that builds on students’ critical thinking level is “Arguendo learning engine”(x1).
Another contributing element recognized is DTs’ ability to give immediate feedback(3) to player’s actions. Critical thinking can be promoted with “elements that create moments of productive struggle that provides immediate feedback with attempts to redo”(x1).
DTs’ features that give space for discussion(2) and narrative-/storytelling based learning(3) were also labeled as important to CT. There was an opinion that collaboration and “AI can allow for more discussion/narrative-based learning”(x1).
CT can be taught/promoted if technology allows for autonomous inquiry(x1). DTs “bring in some agency on the part of the learner”(x1) and might “force students to turn to their own objective evaluation”(x1).
Simultaneous use of different DTs’ forms “make[s] it possible for students to look at things from different perspectives”(x1). In conjunction with non-linear interaction features(x1), these elements promote critical thinking. Another position is that “technology often leads to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ instead of embracing gray areas and ambiguity”, hence there should be elements that allow for multiple solutions(2), students should be shown that there are no easy answers(x1).
“Digital technologies can provide an opportunity for students to do systems thinking”(x1) and “display systemic consequences in an efficient manner”(x1). As well as engagement(2).
Other elements emphasized were project-based learning(x1), competition(x1), scaffolding(x1), evidence-based information(x1), usability(1), and “anything that involves, and/or requires, the person to “stop and think” even for a while”(x1).
Grouped Data
In many sections to follow you will see a number in brackets after a word or expression, e.g. “analyze (9)“. The number stands for the number of experts who mentioned this idea or concept – just hover over it to see the data provided by experts.
You may see a number with the prefix “x”, e.g. “in-game ‘messy problems’ with no fixed answer” (x1). It means that this is the idea of an expert; it is the closest paraphrase or quotation of the original message.
When phrases of several experts are exact (repeated word-for-word) or essentially mean the same, they receive the prefix “(x2)”. This means “analysis of a problem” (x2) is represented twice within the concept of “analyze(9)”.
Digital Games and
Critical Thinking
Digital Games and Critical Thinking
What are the features/elements of digital games that may support the development of critical thinking?
Elements of games contributing to CT were in-game feedback(9) and result-seeing(x1). Progressive struggle (x1) and “opportunities to repeat a task for better results”(2) were also contributing to CT.
One of the most cited features relating to critical thinking and digital games was their problem-solving component(7). “To resolve game “puzzles”, students have to use logical and objective analysis”(x1). In this regard, digital games also feature decision-making(x1). Games offer ‘messy problems’ with no fixed ‘right’ answer, which is an ideal environment for developing critical thinking(x1).
Collaborative features of games were believed to support the development of critical thinking (6). Among them were communication (x2), creation of something in common (x1), sociability (x1), responsibility for each other (x1), survival/success of an individual affecting the overall health of the community (x1), and perspective-taking through collaboration (x1).
The range of choices in games promotes perspective-taking(4) which also adds to CT. “Modern games promote perspective-taking capabilities as narrative-based games encourage decision making in tough and complex situations” (x1).
Understanding of game mechanics contributes to CT (x1); “game mechanics, exploration, riddles allow for experiential knowledge” (x1).
“Underlying design [allows] players to take their time (more complex puzzles) or push[es] for intuitive decision making that tests the current ability to put in-game knowledge to practice” (x1).
Supporting the development of critical thinking in games is resource management(2) – such as health, money, etc.. Examples of games with this element were Roblox, Minecraft, and Clash of Clans;
It was also reported that digital games are good for the acquisition of math skills(2).
For the benefit of CT, games connect with real-world problems and allow players to conduct safe experiments(x1). They accommodate “experiential knowledge through game mechanics, exploration, riddles”(x1).
Supporting the development of critical thinking in games are:
- engagement(x1),
- genre(x1), and, in particular, narrative-based games(x1) were of CT value.
- the ease of use and intuitiveness(1);
- project-based learning (x1);
- “Digital games allow students to take an active role in their learning” (x1);
- learning of 21st century skills (e.g., with the use of Minecraft Education Edition) (x1);
- “sensory stimulation that promotes insight through mindfulness (see Sliwinski et al.)”(x1);
- “short-term vs long-term goals”(x1);
- “Digital games that don’t give the student all the answers, but give them all the tools needed to get to the answers … ” (x1);
- Deep thinking (x1);
- “Leaderboard/high score board” (for public show of competency or rank);
- The “save and load” (continue anytime) element.
One expert believed that games “… are still relatively new for such tasks [developing CT]. Thus this ‘newness’ [novelty] factor is a key element for a bit longer”(x1). The expert continued: “[games] are not yet at a point where they can replicate the kind of ‘open-ended games’ that reproduce the kind of complex adaptive systems known as complex/wicked environments”(x1).
Underlying philosophy/theory which makes digital games suitable for teaching/promotion of critical thinking
- Learner-centered theories (x1), including constructionism (x1) and constructivism (3);
- Game-based learning (x2);
- The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model (x1);
- “Heutagogical learning principles [and] almost anything underlying adult education practices” (x1);
- Flow Theory by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (x1) (the concept of “flow”);
- Technology acceptance model (x1);
- Creative and Playful Learning (x1) (see the link to learn more );
- Bernard De Koven’s works (x1);
- Game theory (x1);
- Competency-based learning (x1);
- Survival (x1).
As well as:
- “Benson’s theory (2011) of language learning that happens outside the classroom might be adapted in connected to critical thinking skills” (x1) (see Benson’s book);
- Attention capturing ability (x1);
- “The list [of theoreticians] … should NOT include some of the biggest proponents of this area, such as Prensky, whose work in almost purely non-scientific conjecture.” (x1);
- “The voluntary attempt to overcome an unnecessary obstacle” – definition of a game from Bernard Suits” (x1);
- Imagination, connection with the real world, engagement. Games feature serious elements. Playing games is to be open to learning new things (1).
Is there an underlying philosophy or theory which makes digital games suitable for teaching or promotion of critical thinking?
Yes
I do not know
No
Genre(-s)/type(-s) of digital games and particular game(-s) that are the most suited for teaching/promotion of critical thinking
• Multiplayer games (collaborative games) (5);
• Role-playing games (RPGs) (5);
• Minecraft: Education Edition (3);
• Adventure games (3) including choose-your-own-adventure(2). Games’ examples: Gone Home, What Remains of Edith Finch;
• Narrative/story games (3);
• Strategy games (3);
• There’s no specific type of game (3);
• Educational games (2), such as Arguendo platform;
• Puzzle-style games (2), e.g., Portal 2. “[Games that promote] experiential knowledge through game mechanics, exploration, riddles” (x1);
• Simulations (2), e.g., Civilisation, the Sims, Cities Skylines, Football Manager. “Simulations based on difficult life choices” (x1);
• Games that engage both thinking and feeling (2);
• Escape rooms (x1), Euro-board games (x1), resource management games (x1), “competition-based games, interactivity games and discovery games” (x1), survival games (x1), fighting games (x1), first-person shooters (x1).
What mode(-s) may be the most effective for teaching/promotion of critical thinking through digital games?
- should correspond to learning goals and objectives (5). For instance, chosen modes should be aligned with the purposes of learning, as it is easier to evaluate the impact of predesigned learning activities in formal and non-formal environments. In-depth interviews might help in the understanding of CT in informal learning in games (x1).
- driven by the design of the game (3);
- corresponds to the context of the problem being learned (2);
- meets the needs of the user and educator (x1);
- meets special learning needs (1);
- meets the level of development of the [learning] program (x1) or learner’s age, skills, strengths (x1);
- determined by classroom setting (x1);
- determined by the aspect of critical thinking to be taught, g. multiplayer for relationship-related or social CT, and guided playing for domain-specific problem-solving CT (x1);
- determined by the resources of the educational institution (x1);
- “All of them [modes were given as example] might be useful if structured and designed well” (x1).
- Cooperative mode (2), in particular, co-operative games with teacher’s guidance (x1);
- Team/group work where a teacher takes different roles(2): an active participant (x1), observes and controls stepping back from the activity (x1), one who is responsible for debriefing/reflection (x1)
- Multiplayer modes where a teacher acts as facilitator (2);
- Collaborative mode with children playing on different consoles under the teacher’s supervision and assessment of players’ contribution (x1).
Note: In collaborative mode, there is an expectation of other players to be effective. It might be interesting to observe communication when playing collaboratively in the same room or different rooms (x1).
It is also important to ensure that there is a learning scaffolding in place – briefing/action/debriefing sequence, and reflection (5). There might be different reasons to do so, as to “avoid faulty stealth learning” (x1), “ensure optimal learning” (x1), or “cement in the actions and reactions that the student encountered or performed in the game” (x1). This reflective debriefing may be achieved by posing questions, leading discussion and making students reflect on how they exercised critical thinking after they have played (x1).
Games can also be played in a single-player mode (3) with a teacher facilitating conversation, and where students can compare work (x1). Another option is single-player games played without guidance (x1). Depending on the level of development of the [learning] program, at some lessons, the teacher is a key element and the child works independently, repeating after the teacher (x1).
- A teacher should not be in the “game area”, rather monitor learning on the side (x1);
- All these modes [mentioned as an example] seem to be possible (x1);
- “Modes can be very different as in the public domain any actions, and limited [Depending on the level of development of the program]” (x1).
Settings that may be the most effective for the promotion of critical thinking through digital games
• Formal learning settings (use of games as a part of formal learning curriculum at schools, colleges, universities or workplace training);
• Informal learning settings (e.g., casual playing – just for fun; learning is not intentional from the learner’s standpoint);
• Non-formal learning settings (use of games in professional development courses, workshops, seminars or other non-formal learning settings. These courses do not constitute a formal learning program).
Formal, informal, and non-formal
Informal and non-formal
Formal
Formal and informal
Other position
Your Comments
Your Comments
See the comments of participating experts below:
When looking at Critical Thinking with an objective lens of being an abstract skill, we sometimes lose context that defines how it is learned. The how [probably “what” instead] is just as important as the how and it is inalienably connected. So, the question then becomes not so much how do we teach CT through Digital Games (or other means), but more how to we cultivate it? For example, chickens can be taught to analyze and select the correct answer to a problem using technology. In reality, it is learning a pattern and not the practical application associated with the CT of problem solving. Teaching CT is like growing a plant. If the plant isn’t growing well, I adjust the environment (soil, planter, etc.) or the location (sun, proximity to other factors). If as a teacher I have adequately adjusted everything to nurture the growth of that plant, it could be said that I properly grew it. Or, to switch back to the non-metaphor, I cultivated the instruction involving SEL (Social-Emotional Learning) factors towards a student so that they adequately learned the CT skill.
Use games in your training constantly, it takes more time to prepare, but your lesson at times becomes more interesting and productive.
Overall, I have not found anything I strongly disagree with, or have the need to comment on. I am most curious to see this study progress forward, and will continue to take part.
The answers from Stage 1 are an eye opener. I see many agreement with what I suggested.
My position is simple. In our country, there is no clearly expressed work of a teacher on the critical thinking of children. There are few such people. It’s time to completely change the entire education system, and as a child, we played different games on the street until a certain age, until about 12, and completely build all the training in a game format. And when the child develops and understands and learns a lot, he will do other things with pleasure.
I think that Fortnite, and other first player videogames have a bad rap in schools, yet I think it would be lovely to bring aspects of first player games more into education. The idea of shooting other players would not be good, yet if players were shooting targets I think that would be fine. Also the recent dance parties in Fortnite are amazing. With the pandemic not allowing concerts, perhaps we need to look at models of teaching like the recent Major Laser or Mashmellow’s concerts in Fortnite as an effective use to bring people together to connect and celebrate music and culture. Something to think about in this extraordinary time.
I don’t think there is a definitive answer to a lot of these questions. Games can be good in classrooms, and they certainly can promote critical thinking, it’s not the case that a specific game in a specific class will definitely do this. So much of the effectiveness of games are in how they are used, who is using them, and the pedagogical scaffolding that has gone into the lesson.
- When looking at Critical Thinking with an objective lens of being an abstract skill, we sometimes lose context that defines how it is learned. The how is just as important as the how [probably “what” instead] and it is inalienably connected. So, the question then becomes not so much how do we teach CT through Digital Games (or other means), but more how to we cultivate it? For example, chickens can be taught to analyze and select the correct answer to a problem using technology. In reality, it is learning a pattern and not the practical application associated with the CT of problem solving. Teaching CT is like growing a plant. If the plant isn’t growing well, I adjust the environment (soil, planter, etc.) or the location (sun, proximity to other factors). If as a teacher I have adequately adjusted everything to nurture the growth of that plant, it could be said that I properly grew it. Or, to switch back to the non-metaphor, I cultivated the instruction involving SEL (Social-Emotional Learning) factors towards a student so that they adequately learned the CT skill.
- Use games in your training constantly, it takes more time to prepare, but your lesson at times becomes more interesting and productive.
- Overall, I have not found anything I strongly disagree with, or have the need to comment on. I am most curious to see this study progress forward, and will continue to take part.
- The answers from Stage 1 are an eye opener. I see many agreement with what I suggested.
- My position is simple. In our country, there is no clearly expressed work of a teacher on the critical thinking of children. There are few such people. It’s time to completely change the entire education system, and as a child, we played different games on the street until a certain age, until about 12, and completely build all the training in a game format. And when the child develops and understands and learns a lot, he will do other things with pleasure.
- I think that Fortnite, and other first player videogames have a bad rap in schools, yet I think it would be lovely to bring aspects of first player games more into education. The idea of shooting other players would not be good, yet if players were shooting targets I think that would be fine. Also the recent dance parties in Fortnite are amazing. With the pandemic not allowing concerts, perhaps we need to look at models of teaching like the recent Major Laser or Mashmellow’s concerts in Fortnite as an effective use to bring people together to connect and celebrate music and culture. Something to think about in this extraordinary time.
- I don’t think there is a definitive answer to a lot of these questions. Games can be good in classrooms, and they certainly can promote critical thinking, it’s not the case that a specific game in a specific class will definitely do this. So much of the effectiveness of games are in how they are used, who is using them, and the pedagogical scaffolding that has gone into the lesson.