Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units 1
Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games unitsStudent-designed games have been referred to in many different ways in the literature, including games making (Almond, 1983;Cox and Ledingham, 1988), child-designed games (Rovegno and Bandhauer, 1994), games invention (Curtner-Smith, 1996), and inventing games (Butler and Hopper, 2011). Although there may be slight discriminations between each of these terms, they are all part of the same subject matter. According to Hastie (2010), a student-designed games (SDG) teaching unit could be described as the process in which students create and practice their own games, and in which the teacher as facilitator is able to guide and establish certain limits.The concept of SDG emerged in the late 1960s for the first time in the physical education (PE) literature when Mauldon and Redfern (1969) introduced the idea that children were experts in game playing and therefore, they should have more liberty to create their own games.The literature on SDG can be separated into three periods. The Characterisation period (1980s and 1990s) was represented by papers that identified potential educational outcomes and methodologies appropriate for teaching SDG. Although this should be considered an important period forComparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units 2 delimiting the understanding of SDG, none of these discussion papers presented any data that would serve to support their claims. Important educational values were considered, such as the ability to teach students to 'find out for themselves' why rules were so important in a game (Almond, 1983) and critical thinking in PE (Rovengno, Skonie, Charpenel, and Sieving, 1995). With respect to teaching methodologies, Smith (1991) The Teaching and Learning period (2010-present) focused on diversifying different teaching methodologies and students learning outcomes, thereby blending the previous periods. That is, this period was concerned with considering the efficacy of SDG in promoting different learning outcomes and considering different teaching methodologies to enhance students' experience (see Casey, Hastie and Rovegno, 2011). While introducing new methodologies, specific issues of SDG teaching were addressed. For instance, one major concern with respect to teaching SDG is ensuring that all students are involved in the creative process of game design. presented the jigsaw classroom method in which each student is responsible for designing a specific part of the game. Having the same concern, Giménez (2011) posed the concept of giving different roles to each student involved in the SDG process, similar to what is presented in the Sport Education model (Siedentop, Hastie and der Mars, 2011). Most recently, Butler (2013Butler ( , 2016 Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units 4 also presented a teaching methodology involving ten stages designed to promote the learning of democracy within game design. Butler...
