Game appreciation through student designed games and game equipment

Hastie, Peter A.; André, Mauro Henrique

doi:10.1080/21594937.2012.698460

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…punishment or rewards). Student interest and engagement in this study was consistent with previous studies that used both forms of teaching approaches -NT and ICT (André, Hastie and Araújo, 2015;Hastie & André, 2012;Hastie, Casey & Tarter, 2010;André & Rubio, 2009). Nevertheless, when analysing each one of the groups separately, it is important to acknowledge that while the ICT groups had higher variations of students' engagement, the NT group did not vary greatly.…”

Section: Students' Engagementsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…This NT class was not required to do any activity outside the school. The NT teaching approach has been previously used in the literature (see Hastie andAndré, 2012, André, Hastie andAraújo, 2015). On the contrary, ICT students performed all game design activities outside of the PE classes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hastie and André (2012) reported that boys and girls show different approaches to designing the games. Boys are usually 'doers' (where they design their game by testing their theories) and girls are usually 'planners' (where they create the entire game before testing it).…”

Section: Teaching Style Preferencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units

André

Hastie

2016

European Physical Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Students' Engagementsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing teaching approaches in two student-designed games units

André

Hastie

2016

European Physical Education Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Positive social interactions, improved social skills, peer acceptance, and cooperation are potential outcomes of students' engagement of collaborative groups (Hastie, 2010). Although SDG has been known since the late 1960's (Mauldon & Redfern, 1969), only in the past few years it has been supported with research findings (André, Hastie & Araújo, 2015;André & Hastie, 2016;Butler, 2013;Casey, Hastie, & Rovegno, 2011;Hastie & André, 2012;Hastie & Casey, 2010).…”

Section: Student-designed Games: a Rising Teaching Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are multiple ways of approaching SDG teaching. The present study used Hastie and André (2012) which includes: SDG introduction, game design, playing each other's games, refinements and playbook.…”

Section: Pedagogical Approaches and Potential Behavioral Learning Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%