contributed by Rob Steller
Commitment is not an activated and deactivated switch. There is Student engagement levels And if a mind is not engaged, it is almost impossible to learn.
In a way, education is already implemented as a game. Students earn points (notes), gain levels (notes) and, in a way, have rankings. There are class Promadictorians and students are essentially classified according to their notes when the colleges decide who accept. Currently, the typical classification system in schools has students who start with an average of 100, which slowly (or quickly, depending on the student’s performance) becomes lower as the student receives less than 100 on all missions, tests, etc.
See also 12 smart ideas to note the tests faster
This system is subtractive, that is to say that a student gets something less than perfect, they are punished with a decrease in the score. A subtractive classification system punishes students for taking risks and stifling creativity. Students tend to learn a specific way to perform a task, and if students try to solve problems in another way and fail (which is part of the learning process), they are punished with a lower note. Consequently, students are less likely to try to go off the beaten track.
Although there are many Alternative to notes of lettersThe additive classification is different from a decreasing point system-which itself is the opposite of the one that most games use (that is to say an “ascending” punctual system). In this additive system, players start at 0 points / experience points / levels / etc. And are rewarded with income points for each successful action. Players are encouraged to solve problems in different ways to understand how to increase their score by the largest as possible.
This creates an atmosphere where failure is correct, and players can try a task several times until they are satisfied with the number of points won.
Increase in students’ engagement by classifying behind
For the most part, the games do not allow the player to switch to the following goal until he masters the previous task. Skills are built over time, such as learning more complex movements to overcome more difficult bosses. This system allows players to go at their own pace. A well -designed game will constantly challenge players on the verge of their abilities, giving them challenges that are not too easy that a player is bored, but not too hard that a player believes that the goal is completely impossible.
This also increases the player’s feeling of success when he performs each task. Large games will catch the players and increase their skills by repeating this process and continuously giving them the impression of being able to conquer everything that is launched. The way education can learn most of games is to borrow these control systems based on mastery and additive points gains.
Each student learns different concepts at different speeds and, ideally, students should be able to learn at their own pace. In many classrooms today, due to standardized tests and other external pressures, teachers only attributed themselves to pass on each subject. Some students can master a new concept after a few attempts, while others may need more time. Students who excel on subjects and quickly master these concepts are forced to repeat the tasks they already understand until the rest of the class catches up.
Meanwhile, students who continue to fight with certain concepts are often forced to switch to the next one once the teacher is short of time. Without learning basic skills, these students are delayed when the next concept is taught. This system hurts all students.
In his book, “The Multimpyer Classroom”, Lee Sheldon, game designer and teacher, explains how he begins each semester using the quote for the opening of this blog post. He informs his students that they all start with 0 point, but can earn the points necessary to reach an A by finishing each mission. The key here is the word “win”. Instead of having to protect their note by 100% and losing points at each assignment like most traditional classrooms, his students must work hard to win each point to reach a higher note. If the students fail, that is to say that they do not obtain as many points on a mission as they hoped, they are encouraged to subject to subject the mission or to do additional work until they reach the desired note.
Imagine a classroom where the students operated in an additive system of points gain rather than in a subtractive system of points loss. Students would learn basic skills, then be encouraged to find their own ways to solve problems. Students worked at their own pace and only progressed when they master each objective.
We can dream, right?
What is additive ranking? Increase in students’ engagement by classifying behind
(Tagstotranslate) Assessment resources for teachers
