So far during the previous weeks we’ve discussed all manner of things relating to motivation in the classroom, what affects motivation, different types of motivation and agents of motivation to name a few. Let’s recap what has been said over the previous blogs.

In my first blog we discussed factors that may influence exam motivation. Weiner (1979) showed us that ability of the learner, effort during the test, preparation, test difficulty and conditions at home affect exam motivation directly. Maintaining motivation was directly correlated with all of these influences. Patrick, Anderman & Ryan (2002) showed us that social relationships constitute a significant feature of school for students. Social expectation heavily impact on the way students learn, due to social influences, peer pressure and so on. This study showed that students perform more effectively when they feel less self-conscious regardless of what subject. Concern with appearances and the status quo may lead to anxiety and avoidant strategies which negatively affect their learning.  Luckily this works both ways as studies show that this effect decreases when students work together to solve group problems. When students work on group tasks, the collective focus increases as does effective communication (Hartup, 1996; Jehn & Shah, 1997; Brown, 1990).

So from the first topic we can obviously see that motivation is fickle and influenced by social, educational, internal factors. Next I talked about different kinds of motivation, focusing mainly on intrinsic motivation.

Just to recap, intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is driven by personal interest or enjoyment from the task itself and doesn’t rely on external rewards or threats in order to encourage this behaviour. In the next blog I chose to focus on how extrinsic motivation affects intrinsic motivation for better or worse. Amabile, DeJong & Lepper (1976) found that deadlines negatively affect levels of intrinsic motivation in the same way extrinsic reward does (Deci, 1972; Lepper et al, 1973). Wilson & Lassiter (1982) highlight this by showing how extrinsic rewards can have negative impact on learning. The example they use is extrinsic punishment. The threat of punishment actually increases their desire to engage in the forbidden behaviour. So what about positive extrinsic motivation such as rewards and prizes for good work? Deci (2000) uses Self-Determination Theory to show us that when there is a lack of an extrinsic award, the learner can internalise extrinsic motivation if it corresponds with their belief and values.

High intrinsic motivation comes from the belief that the student as under their influence and some they are responsible for. The belief that you posses the ability necessary to achieve your goal is the core tenet of intrinsic motivation. This is also known as having self-efficacy belief, awareness of your ability to complete the task at hand.

Myers (2000) describes another pitfall of extrinsic motivators in education. Whilst helping a student internalise extrinsic motivation is an effective way of increasing motivation, if extrinsic reward is the only motivation available to complete a task, perhaps it’s not worth doing in the first place.

In blog 3 I expanded on how intrinsic motivation can be manipulated, again for better or worse. Lopez (1981) showed that a performance contingent bonus increase both performance and intrinsic motivation. This is because it increases self-determination and self-efficacy in the learner, as they are directly responsible for their own performance. Deci, Ryan & Koestner (1999) argue that performance-contingent rewards actually undermine free choice and control and subsequently lower intrinsic motivation and interest. The issue here is context. Contingent based rewards increase motivation in the workplace more effectively than students, but as you’d expect everyone is (irritatingly so) different and therefore has different intrinsic motivators.

Gottfried & Adele (1990) showed that intrinsic motivation was positively linked to IQ, perception of competence and inversely related to anxiety. They found that low intellectual performance may lead to cognitive discrepancies in school work which leads to frustration rather than a healthy challenge like school work aims to be. Learners in this situation are less likely to experience mastery in a subject and intrinsic motivation subsequently deceases. They go on to claim that intrinsic interest should be nurtured at pre-school age.

In my final blog I talked about arguably one the biggest influences on intrinsic motivation in education, the role of the teacher. Skinner & Belmont (1993) demonstrated that teacher involvement could be used to predict student motivation across the school year. The student-teacher relationship operates in a reciprocal manner; highly motivated children had a positive effect on teacher behaviour, simply because they felt they were doing their job properly. Conversely, disengaged students received negative teacher responses that further undermined their motivation. This study shows that student-teacher relationships are vital maintaining motivation but can also negatively affect it.

 

So to conclude all of the previous blog, intrinsic motivation is a very contextual element of learning behaviour. Extrinsic motivation such as deadlines exist for a valid reason and can often be the sole motivator used to get work done on time to an adequate standard. Extrinsic motivation should be used appropriately in way that it can hopefully be internalised and made personally important to the learner. As Myers (2000) said however, if extrinsic reward is the only reason students have to complete the work, what is the point? Whilst this statement has some truth in it, this could be particularly damaging at a young age during primary education. Fortunately children have high levels of intrinsic motivation until the age of 13 when it starts dropping (Lepper et a 1973). So the message to take home from this is if you find yourself lacking intrinsic motivation to complete a task you need to evaluate the following;

1)      How much control do you have over this task

2)      Are you solely responsible for its quality and quantity

3)      Are you working to a deadline

4)      How much feedback and support do you receive

Hopefully if your answers to this are positive ones, you’ll have plenty of ways to increase your intrinsic motivation if you don’t already have plenty of it.

Thank you for reading

 

 

References:

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environment. Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning, 85-108.

 

Willard W. Hartup. The Company They Keep: Friendships and Their Developmental Significance, Child Development , Vol. 67, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-13

 

Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775–790

 

Brown, B. B. (1990) Peer groups and peer cultures. In Feldman, S. S. And Elliot, G. R. (Eds.) At the threshold; The developing adolescent (pp.1710196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Elkind, D. (1967) Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Dev 38(4):1025–1034

 

Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation—Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on deci, koestner, and ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 677-691. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.677

Malone, T. W. & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Myers, D. (2005). Exploring psychology, Sixth edition in modules. New York: Worth Publishers.

Wilson, T. D., & Lassiter, G. D. (1982). Increasing intrinsic interest with superfluous extrinsic constraints. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(5), 811-819.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299-309.

Ryan, Richard; Edward L. Deci (2000). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions”. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25.1: 54–67.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Koestner, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.

Lopez, E. M. (1981). Increasing intrinsic motivation with performance-contingent reward. Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 59. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1290612734?accountid=14874

Wilson, T. D., & Lassiter, G. D. (1982). Increasing intrinsic interest with superfluous extrinsic constraints. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 811-819. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.811

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525-538. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.525

Advertisements

How do teachers affect intrinsic motivation?

So far during the past few weeks we’ve focused on the learner and how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation affects their attitudes towards education as a whole. This is included looking at peer relationships (Elkind, 1967) and how social etiquette could potentially hold back or aid a student’s learning. We’ve also talked about the impact of extrinsic motivators such as deadlines or tangible rewards and how they affect learning (Wilson & Lassiter, 1982). But so far we’ve neglected arguably one of the biggest influences on our education, teachers. Teachers during our formative years at primary school well up until college; teachers were the main source of education for the majority of us.  So how do teachers influence our levels of motivation when it comes to learning?

Skinner & Belmont (1993) examined 14 teachers and 144 they taught within an academic year. They measured 3 dimensions of teacher behaviour, involvement, structure, autonomy support). Their findings showed that teacher involvement (provision of support and structured learning) could predict student’s motivation across the school year. This also worked both ways in a reciprocal manner; highly motivated children had a positive effect on teacher’s behaviour. Conversely they also highlight that disengaged students received teacher responses that further undermined their motivation. Overall this shows that student-teacher relationships are pivotal in optimising motivation for students.

Connell & Wellborn (1991) show in their learning model that student engagement is optimised when the social context fulfils children’s basic psychological needs. These needs include competency, autonomy and related to other people on an interpersonal level. Using these needs as a start point, we can establish what element of teacher behaviour can foster and fulfil these needs. An important note to point out here however, over structuring over the classroom leads to a rigid, coercive class that lacks autonomy. Again, too much autonomy can lead children to feel neglected. Connell & Wellborn finish by saying these 3 dimensions are conceptually independent and it’s possible to have an effective classroom using a combination of these dimensions. A highly structured class with high autonomy or a low autonomy class that is guided.

So what conclusions can we draw from this. A quick internet search will show that schools are judged over the quality of their teaching. We ourselves are asked how we rate the teaching we’ve received during module reflections and online surveys and numerous other ways of giving feedback. Obviously teachers and lecturers play a huge role in how and what we learn. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, having an enthusiastic teacher really inspires intrinsic interest in that subject even if the learner remembers little from that lesson.

Next week I will collate all the previous blogs on motivation in the classroom to hopefully reach some startling conclusion that’s been overlooked thus far. Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

References:

Elkind, D. (1967) Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Dev 38(4):1025–1034

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571

Wilson, T. D., & Lassiter, G. D. (1982). Increasing intrinsic interest with superfluous extrinsic constraints. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(5), 811-819.

Connell, J. P.,  Wellborn, J. G.,  Gunnar, M. R., &  Sroufe, L. A.  (1991). Self processes in development: Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

How intrinsic motivation is manipulated in education

In my penultimate blog I’ll be slowly bringing together the previous topics of intrinsic motivation in the classroom and lead up to the final blog next week about actual learning initiatives we experienced during our early school years.

So this week I’ll be detailing studies and initiatives that increased intrinsic motivation in their subjects, be they students, employee or otherwise. Lopez (1981) showed that a performance contingent bonus increases both performance and intrinsic motivation because it increase the employees’ perception of personal control over their performance. A better and more applicable example of this effect was shown in Wilson & Lassiter (1982). They found that when school age children were told they could not play with an unattractive toy bike, they showed significantly more interest in this toy in subsequent play sessions. In the second half of their study, they tested undergraduates in an exam scenario where there was minimal motivation to cheat. Participants were either given a severe threat, mild or no threat to not cheat on an intelligence test. And continuing with the theme, participants that received the severe threat were significantly more likely to cheat during the intelligence test a few days later.

So where does this leave us? Gottfried & Adele (1990) in their longitudinal study showed that high intrinsic motivation was positively linked to IQ, perception of competence (metacognition) and inversely related to anxiety. Unfortunately they found that when a child has a low intellectual performance, they may find cognitive discrepancies (lack of understanding) presented in school work frustrating rather than a healthy challenge and it’s less likely they’ll experience mastery in the school environment. This, Gottfried & Adele claim would lead to lower intrinsic motivation for academic work in general. Coupling together the existing literature on motivation leaves us with the view that extrinsic motivating tools are often a necessity but should be used sparingly. The best way to increase intrinsic motivation is too nurture that interest during childhood years (Gottfried & Adele). Excessive use of extrinsic controls has a documented detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation as shown in Wilson & Lassiter. They also showed that the use of exam invigilators was actually harmful to performance scores and poor exam behaviour. This is an example of the overjustification effect, if someone tells you not to do something, you’ll really want to go ahead and do it anyway.

So please I’m not asking I’m telling you, do not leave any comments on this blog.

 

 

 

 

References:

Lopez, E. M. (1981). Increasing intrinsic motivation with performance-contingent reward. Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 59. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1290612734?accountid=14874

Wilson, T. D., & Lassiter, G. D. (1982). Increasing intrinsic interest with superfluous extrinsic constraints. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 811-819. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.5.811

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525-538. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.525

Increasing intrinsic motivation in the classroom

Last week we discussed the basics of motivation in the classroom and what factors affect the learners motivation levels, particularly social interactions with peers. This week we’re going to look more into intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to how much the learner enjoys the task itself rather than external pressures being the reason things get done. Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks & Perencevich (2004) found that intrinsically motivated students attribute the outcome of their academic favors as something under their influence and believe that they possess the skills necessary to achieve their goals, which is known as self-efficacy belief.

Wilson & Lassiter (1982)  show that whilst certain extrinsic rewards may be effective, using extrinsic constraints like the threat of punishment if the student engages in a particular behaviour only increases their desire to engage in the behaviour. They demonstrated this in their study where a child was given threats to not play with a toy, this only increased their desire to play with the toy which they weren’t interested in before the threat was issued. So what happens when there is extrinsic award for an activity? Deci (2000) said that self-determination theory shows us that when there is a lack of an extrinsic award the learner can internalise the extrinsic motivation if it corresponds with their beliefs and values.

Malone and Lepper (1987) suggest that the overall learning experience can be improved for students by making learning environments that are intrinsically rewarding. They defined several factors that increase intrinsic motivation:

– Challenge: Motivation is higher when a challenge is present as it directly relates to the learner’s self-esteem.

– Curiousity: Intrinsic motivation is higher when something about the learning environment grabs their attention and stimulates them to want to learn more.

– Control: The higher the perceived level of control over the learner has in regards to themselves as a learner and the environment determine what they pursue.

– Cooperation and Competition: Intrinsic motivation increases (like I showed last week) when people engage either in competition or a group working towards a shared goal. This is because learner’s can compare their own performance to other learner’s standards.

– Recognition: Feedback and rewarding a job well done increases internal motivation massively because it affects the learner’s self esteem and their desire to get better at the subject.

Arguable we can deduce that helping a learner internalise extrinsic motivation is an effective way of increasing their intrinsic motivation. Myers (2005) shows that pitfalls of extrinsic rewards as he points that children think if I have to bribed into completing a task, maybe it’s not worth doing in the first place.

Next week we’ll talk about initiatives that are currently being implemented in education in order to increase intrinsic motivation in children and their effectiveness.

References:

Malone, T. W. & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Myers, D. (2005). Exploring psychology, Sixth edition in modules. New York: Worth Publishers.

Wilson, T. D., & Lassiter, G. D. (1982). Increasing intrinsic interest with superfluous extrinsic constraints. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(5), 811-819.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299-309.

Ryan, Richard; Edward L. Deci (2000). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions”. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25.1: 54–67.

A blog about motivation in the classroom? I’ll read it later…

Highly self-motivated people have always annoyed me with their inexplicable ability to get work done without prodding or outside threats. So this motivated me to investigate further how motivation might influence our learning behaviours, in and outside of the classroom.

Weiner (1979) created a list of factors that may contribute to exam motivation. They included ability of the learner, effort during the test, preparation, interest in the subject, test difficulty and conditions at home. He found that motivation and particularly maintaining motivation was directly correlated with these influences. Patrick, Anderman & Ryan (2002) argue that social relationships constitute a significant feature of school for students. Social expectations, in particular possible social encounters affect the way students engage themselves in class. They propose that students perform tasks more effectively when they feel less self-conscious. Their concern with appearances may lead to social anxiety or avoidant strategies which in turn affects their enjoyment and learning. This can be seen when students work together to solve group problems. When friends work together on tasks they stay more focused and communicate more effectively more so than when non-friends work together (Hartup, 1996; Jehn & Shah, 1997). Brown (1990) shows that this is due to the emergence of cliques during adolescence, when significant importance is attributed to how one is seen by others and the associated “imaginary audience” that gives rise to greater levels of self-consciousness and concern about social image (Elkind, 1967).

Eisenberg, Pierce & Cameron (1999) in their meta-analysis on intrinsic motivation found that rewards that were associated with ill-defined or minimal performance decreased intrinsic motivation in students. Reward procedures that required high performance conveyed the personal or social importance of the task and therefore increased intrinsic motivation. Again this ties in with the aforementioned task difficulty effect seen in Weiner (1979). If the task is deemed difficult enough to deserve a reward, motivation towards achieving that goal increases in students. Next week we’ll discuss motivation in the classroom more concisely and look at how intrinsic motivation can be increased in students in all year groups.

 

 

 

References:

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environment. Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning, 85-108.

 

Willard W. Hartup. The Company They Keep: Friendships and Their Developmental Significance, Child Development , Vol. 67, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 1-13

 

Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775–790

 

Brown, B. B. (1990) Peer groups and peer cultures. In Feldman, S. S. And Elliot, G. R. (Eds.) At the threshold; The developing adolescent (pp.1710196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Elkind, D. (1967) Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Dev 38(4):1025–1034

 

Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation—Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on deci, koestner, and ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 677-691. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.677

E-Learning : Is it cost-effective and an effective teaching method?

This week I’m going to broadly discuss the cost-effectiveness of e-learning and by extension long distance learning and all the eclectic in-between methods that we use ourselves daily. Hopefully by the end we’ll have reached a conclusion about the strengths and weaknesses of e-learning enough to distract you from my poor choice of background.

First of all what do I mean by E-learning. Wentling, Waight, Gallaher, Fleur, Wang, & Kanfer (2000) define e-learning as the acquisition and use of knowledge distributed and facilitated primarily by electronic means. We should all be pretty familiar with e-learning considering our course itself requires the extensive use of various electronic widgets or none of us would have passed first year and would probably not have made it into university in the first place.

Let’s start with the positives, e-learning is obviously a much more convenient way of the learner accessing information at their own leisure (Schriver & Giles, 1999). The rise of e-learning has seen the numbers of students signing up for distance learning courses triple from 1994 to 1997, which has only increased since technology has improved (Morgan, 2000). Aside from seminar attendance, it would be perfectly possible to complete your degree via distance learning which begs the question, is e-learning better value for money than traditionally education.

To determine whether e-learning is cost effective we need to look at both effectiveness and cost-efficiency and how they affect overall financial cost. Cost-effectiveness put simply means how much output was gained from the input. Cost effectiveness refers to the quality of the output. It’s important to draw the distinction between the two as a course can be cost-effective but not cost-efficient (good for the learner, bad for the wallet)(Rumble, 1997). When shopping for e-courses, it’s important for the potential student to weigh these two points when making a decision.

Of course, e-learning isn’t without its weakness or we would have abandoned traditional learning by now (we can argue those weaknesses later). Obviously the learning at leisure is a huge thumbs up for e-learning and its convenience. Cull, Reed & Kirk (2010) show that students perform well when they can work during their own hours whether that’s early in the morning or late at night. However, speaking from personal experience also, learning from home also has the problem of motivation. How could I possibly work when I’ve got all the nice distracting things at home to amuse me? Many teachers unfortunately struggle to keep students engaged during online courses, which is characterised by a lack of motivation in disengaged students (Dennen & Bonk, 2007). Also highlighted are a few other key disadvantages, mainly the potential distractions due to the learning environment. Lack of direct feedback from teachers and in-turn no social interaction (no body language etc). And finally, procrastination (Disadvantages of Online Learning, 2013).

So to conclude, e-learning is definitely around to stay and rightly so. On days when you are unable to make it in to lectures you have the resources you need so you don’t miss out. E-learning is very convenient for the learner and easier for the teacher to create. Obviously it’s not without its drawbacks as previously mentioned, particularly procrastination. The key factors that determined how effective this style of teaching/learning were how the price (did it use pointlessly expensive tools that were rarely used like SMART boards) and most importantly were the students motivated. A good course whether it’s traditional or online based needs to be engaging. And of course we can’t not mention the greatest e-learning tool of all, the internet.

 

References:

Wentling, TL. Waight, C, Gallaher, J, La Fleur, K, Wang, C & Kafner, A. (2000). E-Learning; A Review of Literature, Knowledge and Learning Systems Group, University of Illinois; Urbana, Champaign.

 

Schriver, R., and Giles, S. (1999) ‘Real ROI Numbers’, Training and Development, August, 51-52.

 

Morgan, B. M. (2000). Is distance learning worth it? Helping to determine the costs of online courses. ED 446611

 

 

Rumble, G. (1997) The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning, London, Kogan Page.

 

Cull, S., Reed, D., &Kirk , K. (2010). Student motivation and engagement in online courses.Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/online/motivation.html

 

Dennen, V. P., & Bonk,C. J. (2007). We’ll leave the light on for you: Keeping learners motivated inonline courses

Are video games beneficial to learning

We’ve all heard that message expounded over the years that video games are turning us into violent bloodthirsty sociopaths. Most sane thinking people that have actually played a game and tend to not take newspapers that rhyme with Waily Dail to seriously will know that simply isn’t the case. I’ve never been caught attacking my neighbour with a diamond pickaxe after playing Minecraft…

Anyway… thinking back I can recall many games that taught me a great number of things, how steel is made (Rune

 

scape), improving my sense of rhythm (Patapon), making be a better musician (Final Fantasy), and resource allocation (Age of Empires). Ok maybe I’m clutching at straws with the last one.

Marc Presnkey (2003) shows that complex games (i.e non-repetitive games, unlike solitaire and mini-game based games) are very effective learning tools. A higher level of thinking and planing is needed to solve certain puzzles in video games in order to progress. Gee (2003) suggests that game designers, like teachers have a difficult education dilemma. They have to make the content long and challenging, whilst also being fun. The simple act of progressing through a game or leveling up is in itself a sense of achievement or improvement. You’d get a similar feeling when you improve at your other hobbies such as sport and music, video games are no different.

On the flip side however, Chan & Rabinowitz (2006) in their cross-sectional study of adolescents showed that just playing more one 1 hour of video games a day may exhibit more symptoms of ADHD or inattention than those that don’t. This obviously might have a negative effect on academic achievement.

In conclusion, it seems that whilst video games may be a great tool in education, it runs the risk of making traditional education boring in comparison. We have to ask ourselves at this point, maybe it’s time traditional education moved on and caught up with the times. Video games aren’t going away any time soon and the clever teacher would be wise to embrace the change soon.

 

References:

Phillip A Chan & Terry Rabinowitz (2006) cross-sectional analysis of video games and attention deficithyperactivity disorder symptoms in adolescents, Anal of General Psychiatry, Biomed Central. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-5-16

Marc Prensky (2003)

Escape from Planet Jar-Gonn Or, What Video Games Have to Teach AcademicsnAbout Teaching And Writing. On The Horizon, Vol 11, No 3.
 
James Paul Gee (2003, What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, Computers in Entertainment (CIE) – Theoretical and Practical Computer Applications in Entertainment. University of Wisconsin.