There are several theories that can be adopted for approaches in teaching. For this essay I will focus on both Behaviourism and Constructivism to build a framework to use in the case study. The reason why I have chosen these theories is that both of these have distinctly opposing approaches, this meaning that behaviourism is a teacher-led approach (Bélanger, 2011; Greenwood, 2020) and constructivism is student-centred (Harlow S. et al. 2007).
For this project I will model the student as described in a pedagogical setting to be the player and the teacher to be the tutorial and all that it entails.
Behaviourism
The Behaviourist teaching theory uses a process that first begins with observing the behaviour of students to see if they are learning as effectively as possible and then assessesing this behaviour. Behaviour being observable and discrete actions exhibited by students. For example the scores from a test can be used to observe if the student has learned and understood the content. This assessment results in feedback for that student, identifying strengths and impressing a rewarding experience. This is done in the hope that a positive bond is formed (Bélanger, 2011, p. 18). Part of this process is Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1971), where reinforcement is applied. This reinforcement would be positive or negative (this being punishment to deter), for example in a classroom should a student answer correctly they are given praise to encourage such behaviour, if they act in an undesirable way then negative reinforcement is applied to discourage repeating it.
The structure of a behaviourist approach in a classroom is controlled and linear, it is directed by the teacher with distinct learning objectives for the students to achieve and these achievements are set against predicted set of behavioural outcomes. The content will be arranged from simple to complex (Bélanger, 2011, p. 19). As such there is an element of experimentation for the student, they would undergo a process of trial-and-error under such learning (Hean et al., 2009).
In terms of game tutorials this process may be the most useful with the following approaches:
- It encourages a rigid structure that begins with simple lessons. For a game tutorial, this would make sense as it cannot be assumed that every player possesses the same level of skill or knowledge in any given fighting game or game in general.
- Information is given in a direct manner, that is to say the teacher imparts knowledge in a controlled manner.
- The trial-and error process may be considered essential in any of the fighting game tutorials shown in the last log, these are designed in a way that players can make as many attempts at learning an attack or control.
- For the above process to work a tutorial would need to offer feedback as a way to confirm a successful attempt at an action.
- Trial-and-error can only work if there is something to experiment against, set tasks are used to demonstrate and show understanding of information in behaviourism (Greenwood, 2020). In a fighting game tutorial, this can be translated as the individual lessons on mechanics and controls.
My conclusion for behaviourism is that it would be most effective when being applied to individual lessons for mechanics, the repetitive nature of this approach is most suitable as it allows the player to make many attempts at the same lesson. All the while offering feedback to confirm successes.
However, what I observe is that this approach cannot identify the source of a learning difficulty. There is no way to measure or confirm that the player fully understands the mechanic, it can only be confirmed that they have completed that lesson.
Constructivism
This approach is student-centred. That is an approach that takes into account the student’s needs. Constructivists believe that “meaning is derived from and interpreted through individual beliefs, experiences and social contexts.”(Hannafin and Hannafin, 2009). This meaning in the classroom, new knowledge is built upon pre-existing knowledge and that new knowledge is either assimilated into their existing schema or a new schema is structured to accomodate new knowledge (Harlow et al., 2007).
Because constructivism is student-centred it is also student-led. Student inquiry is part of this process and that it is not a rigid process but needs to be flexible and accomodating (Hirtle, 1996). Because of this the learning process is more active, it cannot be teacher led as the student must make connections to prior knowledge and because of this, interpretations are subjective and may result in different learning outcomes (McLeod, 2019).
Constructivist teaching aims to provide experiences that facilitate construction of knowledge. These may be presented as reciprocal teaching where students teach each other. Another experience is Inquiry-Based learning where a student poses their own question and employs their own research and observations. The findings are then used to draw connections to previous knowledge. A different version of this is Problem-based learning where a real-world problem is given, then students must work together to form a solution.
For fighting game tutorials:
- A less rigid structure could be applied, as constructivism assumes a learners previous experience and knowledge. In tutorials, then the players prior knowledge and experience can be accounted for.
- The delivery of information is more free, while using lecture style lessons, students are also encouraged to ask questions. Methods of imparting knowledge may also involve other social elements too like presentations and group work. This can be seen as irrelelvant to an extent, however external discussions between players can help players understand and learn things about the game that may not be explicitly shown.
- A player should be able to choose what to learn. This follows from the above, instead of learning something the player may already know they could focus on a particular skill or knowledge gap concerning a mechanic or in-game skill.
- PBL and IBL can be employed to allow players to form their own solutions to in-game problems, as an example the game could present lessons or missions with a certain objective that can be completed using different skills learned from other parts of the game.
A pedagogical framework to use
What I gather from the above is that both of these approaches vary in the following areas between behaviourist and constructivist:
- Structure-The structure of the lessons can be varied. I see a Behaviourist structure as being sequential and scheduled, that is there is an order to the lessons and one must be learnt after the other. The constructivist approach, can be structured in a similar way but must take into account the learner’s previous knowledge, in effect the learner can attempt any lesson they wish.
- Delivery-The imparting of knowledge. In behaviourism the information is given in a direct format, the fighting game tutorial equivalent would be text instructions. A Constructivist approach would be allowing the player to query and answers their own questions for the game. In this case this would be a type of “free” mode where players could experiment with different mechanics in a suitable environment.
- Medium-What form does the information take. This could be shown as video, images, text or in-game demonstration.
- Methods-This area would consider how the teaching is carried out. What methods are used to teach the player the mechanics. What form does feedback take, if there is any. What incentives are employed. How does a player succeed in a lesson.
With these areas identified I will approach the case study with a comparative approach. The fighting game tutorials are from Injustice 2, Injustice 2 Legendary Edition and Mortal Kombat 11. These three tutorials captures NetheRealm’s change in approach in how the tutorial is presented and how it works. These changes were done in order to create more effective tutorials that would retain more players (Keschinger, 2020), ultimately resulting in a tutorial that had better onboarding. As such I will compare the approaches in these tutorials with the above areas, identifying which theory these tutorials tend towards.
References
- Bélanger, P., 2011. Three Main Learning Theories. Theories in Adult Learning and Education, [online] pp.17-34. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkjx77> [Accessed 7 May 2021].
- Buffalo.edu. 2021. Constructivism. [online] Available at: <http://www.buffalo.edu/ubcei/enhance/learning/constructivism.html> [Accessed 17 May 2021].
- Greenwood, B., 2020. What is Behaviourism and How to Use it in the Classroom?. [online] Blog.teamsatchel.com. Available at: <https://blog.teamsatchel.com/what-is-behaviourism-and-how-to-use-it-in-the-classroom> [Accessed 15 May 2021].
- Hannafin, M. and Hannafin, K., 2009. Cognition and Student-Centered, Web-Based Learning: Issues and Implications for Research and Theory. Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age, p.11-23. [Accessed 3 May 2021].
- Harlow S., Cummings R. & Suzanne M. Aberasturi (2007) Karl Popper and Jean Piaget: A Rationale for Constructivism, The Educational Forum, 71:1, 41-48, DOI: 10.1080/00131720608984566 [Accessed 3 May 2021].
- Hean, S., Craddock, D. and O’Halloran, C. (2009), Learning theories and interprofessional education: a user’s guide. Learning in Health and Social Care, 8: 250-262. https://doi-org.arts.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00227.x [Accessed 3 May 2021].
- Hirtle, J., 1996. Coming to Terms: Social Constructivism. The English Journal, 85(1), p.91. [Accessed 3 May 2021].
- Keschinger, B., 2020. Mastering Kombat: Designing Mortal Kombat 11’s Empowering Tutorial Mode. [online] Gdcvault.com. Available at: <https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1026766/Mastering-Kombat-Designing-Mortal-Kombat> [Accessed 17 May 2021].
- Norwich, B. and Lewis, A. (2001), Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs. British Educational Research Journal, 27: 313-329. https://doi-org.arts.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/01411920120048322 [Accessed 5 May 2021].
- Mcleod, S., 2021. Constructivism as a Theory for Teaching and Learning | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: <https://www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html> [Accessed 17 May 2021].
- Skinner, B., 1971. Operant Conditioning. In: The Encyclopedia of Education. New York: MacMillan, pp.29-33. Available at: http://butleratutb.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/55756771/Edith%20Costa%20Project%231.doc