GBL and learner-centred learning

Apart from the definition used in this research, there are many other definitions, which were adopted or adapted by academics who also shared similar interests and passion for GBL studies. This section shows how the definition of GBL used in this thesis took form while explaining its relationship with learner-centred learning. When this research tilted its focus on GBL rather than game-based e-learning, in mid-2008, JISC (2007, p. 1) adopted an official definition, in which GBL referred to

‗different kinds of software applications that use games for learning or educational purposes.‘ Despite intending ‗to inform readers about GBL and to assist those

interested in finding out more about the area,‘ this definition would confuse rather than clarify what GBL is to readers, as the description included many other non- game learning media or learning technology:

‗Also termed ‗serious games‘, these games applications can include fully immersive environments (or ‗metaverses‘), such as Second Life, where 3D graphics capabilities are providing opportunities for learners to take on virtual presence in virtual worlds. Equally, simpler games such as quiz games akin to e-assessment tools as embedded in higher and further education (HE and FE) VLEs are being used, and web-based or Flash animations are gaining popularity with tutors and learners, particularly for improving English and Maths or language learning skills. The use of leisure games in learning is also notable and games such as Brain Trainer promote a blurring between formal and informal learning, which may have benefits for supporting learning in HE and FE contexts.‘

JISC (2007, p. 1)

To avoid inheriting the limitations set in this definition, other literature was referred to, specifically Digital Game-based Learning written by Prensky (2001, 2007). Prensky (2007) condemned the ‗tell-test‘ and content-based learning in traditional learning, and claimed that digital GBL is the solution for solving various learning, and motivation in learning, problems. Although this writing was not grounded on academic research and was targeted specifically to readers who work in business and corporate training contexts, some of the GBL ideologies of Prensky (2007) could be

38 transferred to GBL in formal educational contexts. Prensky (2007) argued that defining learning is a difficult task because once a particular analytical definition is chosen, certain learning forms or types might be filtered out by the definition. In this sense, when a game has been designed and developed based on a specific learning theory, certain learning forms or types that embrace other learning theories might be rejected in the GBL practice that involved the game. As a pragmatic perspective to handle this mutual exclusion problem, Prensky (2007) suggested that the focus of GBL should be on how do learners learn what instead of how do learners learn. In this sense, any definitions, theories, styles or forms that relate to learning can be linked to GBL to suit the requirements of what is to be learned. Prensky (2007, p. 80) further explained:

‗There is a variety of materials or content to be learned by students…all of which are best learned differently…the first cut is not by type of learner, but by type of material to be learned. Learning style, or type of learner, can still be, and should be, a second cut.‘

According to this perspective, different types of content to be learned require different skills, learning tools, and methods. Within any of these ways of learning there is considerable room for style, age, gender, and other individual variations. This would allow teachers to concentrate on the learners and provides tremendous opportunities to innovate new pedagogic and learning methods, hence creative teaching (Prensky 2007). Such a form of GBL practice was seen as learner-centred learning, which Prensky (2007) contrasted it with tell-test or teacher-centred learning.

Mason and Rennie (2006, p. 110) also compared the differences between teacher- centred learning and learner-centred learning. The comparison was made after generalising the following ten similar concepts:

- learner-centred learning or student-centred learning,

- self-directed learning,

39 - autonomous learning, - independent learning, - collaborative learning, - experiential learning, - authentic learning,

- problem-based learning, and

- constructivist learning.

In the eyes of Mason and Rennie (2006, p. 110), all these concepts share a similar theme: an approach to teaching in which the experience of the learner is central. The role of teaching was retained in the theme, thus teachers‘ presence in learner-centred learning is still essential, where the teachers should focus on ‗how the learners are

learning, what they experience and how they engage in the learning process.‘ The learners are given ‗greater autonomy and control over choice of subject matter,

learning methods or pace of study.‘ (Mason & Rennie 2006, p. 110) In turn, the learners need to ‗assume a high level of responsibility in the learning situation and

be actively choosing their goals and managing their learning.‘ Yilmaz (2008) echoed a similar need, as learners are urged to ‗actively construct meaning and

understanding during every phase of the learning processes.‘ In the contexts of GBL practices, such need is central.