Playing Jeopardy in the Classroom: An Empirical Study.
2013; Volume: 24; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2186-3679
Autores Tópico(s)Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Resumo1. INTRODUCTION With learning, students shed their role as observers in the classroom and actively participate in such educational tasks as group discussions or team projects. One application of active learning in business education is the use of game show simulations such as Who Wants to be a (Millionaire), Wheel of Fortune, (Wheel of Fortune) or (Jeopardy) as part of classroom teaching venues (Boctor, 2013; Alfari, et al., 2012; Siko, et al., 2011; Azriel et al., 2005; McDonald and Hannafin, 2003; Holbrook, 1998). Other examples using familiar parlor games include Bingo (Peterson, 2007; Salies, 2002), Scrabble (Strong, 2007; Dabell, 2006), Monopoly (Pilon, 2006; Jessup, 2001), Trivial Pursuit (Abramson, et. al, 2009; Strupp, 1999), Survivor (Grady, et al., 2013), Guitar Hero (Hoffmann, 2009), and crossword puzzles (Lin and Dunphy, 2013; Lipscomb, 2010; Whisenand and Dunphy, 2010). Many of these games are available for use in traditional classroom settings (Revere, 2004), but (with modification) can also be employed in online classes (Buiu, 2009; Moreno-Ger, et al., 2009, Hoffman, 2009). Some authors claim that playing educational games in the classroom is a superior method of delivering educational content to classroom learners--a belief generally supported by research on the subject (Boctor, 2013; Hromek and Roffey, 2009; Smith, 2004; Wilson, et al., 2009; Cavanaugh, 2008). Revere (2004), for example, suggests that playing Jeopardy in class improves student understanding and therefore course satisfaction, while Rotter (2004) suggests that such activities can benefit all students. Finally, both Tetteh (2009) and Murphy (2005) note that students become more engaged and therefore learn more when playing instructional games. 2. ACTIVE LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Proponents of active learning provide a number of favorable arguments for it. In team assignments, for example, students learn to interact professionally with others, develop effective communication skills, and become familiar with the practical issues and problems of teamwork and (possibly) collaborative software (Page & Donelan, 2003; Hillburn & Humphrey, 2002; Kern, 2002). Proponents of active learning also suggest that such activities can improve a student's learning experience in general, inject familiar, pop cultural activities into the classroom, change student attitudes about a subject or about their fellow teammates, invigorate student interest in the content of dull-but-required classes, overcome student apathy, make learning more memorable, compensate for differences in age, race, ethnicity, or gender, and convert passive listeners into learners (Azriel, 2005; Von Wangenheim & Shull, 2009; Hannan, 2009; Shanahan, et al., 2006; Harrington & Schibik, 2004; Hoyt, 2003). In-class game simulations such as Millionaire or Jeopardy appear to promise several benefits beyond those cited for active learning. Perhaps the most consistently-reported one is the high level of student engagement in these activities (Grady, et al., 2013; Revere, 2004; Swan and Simpson, 2003). Grady, et al., (2013) believe that such games can also be effective for introducing students to new subjects or for challenging students to remember material from prerequisite classes. Revere (2004) also notes that such games provide students with immediate feedback, thereby allowing private assessments of their understanding of course concepts. This assessment seems to occur in both an absolute sense (i.e., compared to course learning objectives) and in a relative sense (i.e., compared to the knowledge levels of peers). Finally, suggesting that game questions may reappear on student examinations can increase student preparedness for examinations and relieve tension during tests (Revere, 2004) Sarason & Banbury (2004) argue that using such games as Millionaire or Jeopardy in the classroom is one of the few instances in the modern college classroom experience in which students are immediately penalized for wrong answers, forcing them to think before haphazardly throwing out an answer. …
Referência(s)