Developing Agency with Virtual Kindergarten Students via GamePlay and Design

Introduction – IMLRS Presentation

The 2022 International Media Literacy Research Symposium invited researchers and education practitioners from around the world to Wisconsin to share their work. Two of the Canadian presenters from the Association for Media Literacy focused on Media Literacy Practical Classroom Teaching Strategies (Andersen and Maliszewski, 2022). This article describes one example featured during that talk, the examination of agency in children’s board games and video games with a class of Junior and Senior Kindergarten students attending virtually for the 2021-2022 school year.

Context – Virtual Classes

The COVID-19 global pandemic led many school districts and educational institutions around the world to use online learning platforms for instructional purposes in lieu of face-to-face learning. Hannon (2021) suggests that there were a lot of online options being developed, especially with older learners in mind. The use of Zoom was commonplace, especially at the post-secondary level. Smith, Schreder, and Porter (2020) examined the attention level in doctoral students as they participated in classes via Zoom and discovered that “there are clear attentiveness gains in avoiding hybrid learning environments, keeping online segments under 30 minutes and limiting the overall duration of online classes”. Collins and Callaghan (2022) found that Zoom increased interactions between international students and their local residential counterparts in university students. Wilczewski, Gorbaniuk, Mughan, and Wilczewska (2020) conducted their research with students at a Polish university and concluded that many students found online learning comfortable and time-saving for some but undesirable for others due to the lack of in-class peer social interactions and limited time with instructors. For younger children learning online, many disadvantages emerged. In an Ontario news report, Szklarski (2021) says that delayed developmental and academic goals may be routine for younger learners. This article summarized several Canadian studies, which mentioned that “early research and anecdotal reports point to measurable learning loss, racial and socioeconomic disparities” (Szklarski 2021). Despite the challenges, different school boards in Canada offered virtual learning options in the 2021-22 school year.

Context – Curriculum

Ontario’s Kindergarten Program (2016) focuses on four strands: Belonging and Contributing, Self-Regulation and Well-Being, Literacy and Mathematics Behaviors, and Problem Solving and Innovating. “The purpose of the program is to establish a strong foundation for learning in the early years, and to do so in a safe and caring, play-based environment that prompts the physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development of all children” (8). There is only one overall expectation in the Ontario Kindergarten curriculum directly related to media – “OE12 As children progress through the Kindergarten program, they demonstrate an understanding and critical awareness of media texts” (213) and since many learning opportunities are meant to emerge from students’ lived experiences and play is a foundational part of childhood it makes sense that media texts and experiences figure prominently in learning for kindergarten-aged students. Games are an integral part of children’s play experience and games are also media texts.

Context – Algorithms, Agency and Games

The Algorithm and Digital Literacy Project (n.d.) is a project between UNESCO, the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, and Digital2030, whose goal is to “raise awareness and educate kids about the presence of algorithms and how they influence our digital experiences – in other words, get algorithm literate”. Algorithms are “step-by-step plans or instructions to perform a task or solve a problem” (n.d.) Certain games use algorithms to determine the game play, using a random number generator and/or several if-then statements to dictate the moves.

Agency, as described by Neil Andersen and Carol Arcus (2017) “is knowledge in action. In media literacy, agency is the exercising of awareness through critical thinking skills to effect change personally, locally, and/or globally”. Arcus and Andersen link algorithms and agency in their introduction because of the actions of corporations and governments using algorithms: “Governments can collect and share—without responsibility or detection—details of our online activities. Corporations can collect and sell—without remuneration or regard—details of our online activities. We, ourselves, can create and distribute powerful communications, true or false, harmless or damaging. What are the responsibilities and agencies in an environment of such surveillance and disclosure?” (2017). David Buckingham, (2017) in his article in the same issue, explains: “Agency involves factors such as individual choice, autonomy, self-determination and creativity. It implies activity, but it also implies power— the power to produce an effect, to have influence, to make a difference.” Choice, autonomy, and power are all elements of games; we play games because we have agency and to express our own agency in playful ways.

Gamification “focuses on the use of game elements and game thinking, instead of fully-fledged games, to improve the user experience and their engagement in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011 in An, 2021). Games-based learning, as quoted in Plass, Homer, and Kinzer (2015), “are a complex genre of learning environments that cannot be understood by taking only one perspective of learning”. The author of this paper prefers the use of games-based learning in education as opposed to gamification, because gamification ignores two of AML’s eight Key Concepts – that form and content are closely related in the media and that each medium has a unique aesthetic form.  “Gamification frankensteins [sic] two cultures – school culture and game culture – and respects neither of them by using elements out of the context in which they exist” (Holwerda and Maliszewski, 2015). Despite the author’s aversion to gamification, some studies have investigated the use of games in online environments. An’s study (2021) concluded that most of their subjects enjoyed the online collaboration that their gamification experience supplied. “The major factors that contributed to the positive online collaboration experience were effective teamwork, benefits of collaboration, and game elements.”

Games Possessing Agency Potential

The virtual kindergarten students involved with these game-related lessons lived in the north-east region of Toronto, Ontario, Canada,  in the former city of Scarborough. There were approximately 27 students in the class. As of February 23, 2022, there were 13 males and 14 females. Attendance varied, although most students were present for the lessons. The lessons were conducted by Diana Maliszewski, the media literacy teacher, and Jennifer Balido-Cadavez, the Early Childhood Educator. Both adults took turns leading discussions, taking anecdotal notes, and organizing the learning prompts and eventual artifacts. The students knew beforehand about the whiteboard and annotation features in Zoom. They were encouraged to interact with the materials on screen, by, for instance, drawing a line from a picture to the matching word. Occasionally, these features were deactivated by the educator as a few of the students would use them at inappropriate times (e.g. to scribble on the screen when the teacher was conducting the lesson). The educators also prepared the students for these discussions by framing past conversations in terms of “making good choices”. Students were allowed to choose what book should be read aloud during a class session. Their regular classroom teacher and ECE often allowed them to make decisions, such as which educator-led breakout room activity  they wished to participate in during the afternoon, or which friends they wanted to socialize with in a breakout room. 

The first game introduced to the students was Tic Tac Toe. Tic Tac Toe is a two-player game where individuals take turns “marking the spaces in a three-by-three grid with X or O. The player who succeeds in placing three of their marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row is the winner.” (Tic-tac-toe). The educators talked about the various choices available to a player in a tic-tac-toe game (nine options at first, reduced by one each successive turn) and the factors that would influence the placement choice (e.g. offensive – to try and make a row of three, or defensive – to prevent the opponent from completing a row of three). The students were very enthusiastic about playing tic-tac-toe with each other online.

The educators followed up this activity by introducing a similar game: Connect 4. Connect 4 is similar to tic-tac-toe, in that both use grids and involve a degree of choice for play; it involves similar thinking patterns but in a more sophisticated environment. “The players choose a color and then take turns dropping colored tokens into a seven-column, six-row vertically suspended grid. The pieces fall straight down, occupying the lowest available space within the column. The objective of the game is to be the first to form a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal line of four of one’s own tokens.” (Connect Four) This game was modeled as both an in-person activity using the physical game board created by Milton Bradley / Hasbro, and then in a web-friendly version. Guided conversations with the educators continued in terms of making decisions and choices. In playing the game, some of the students understood that the conventions mimicked those of the previous games but directionality played a greater role – reinforcing the media key concept that form and content are closely related. Some in-person kindergarten students noted the specific aesthetic form of Connect Four so closely (the red vs yellow circles, the competition, the rounds/turns) that they created a comic that used those codes as part of the comic’s narrative. The students believed that they had more choices or decisions to make because they had more spaces and options. They had to use their critical thinking skills to place their game pieces in the ideal location, so they had a chance to express their agency.

Games Lacking Agency Potential

The educators wanted to expand the students’ experiences with other games, and so they introduced them to online versions of more traditional preschool board games. Two such games were Candyland and Chutes and Ladders. The virtual classes focused on Chutes and Ladders, also known as Snakes and Ladders. Similar to tic-tac-toe and Connect Four, the game space involved a grid. However, the grid became even larger while, conversely, the movement choices became more restrictive. In the game Snakes and Ladders, a number of “ladders” and “snakes” are pictured on the board, each connecting two specific board squares. The object of the game is to navigate one’s game piece, according to die rolls, from the start (bottom square) to the finish (top square), helped by climbing ladders but hindered by falling down snakes.” (Snakes and ladders).

The students and educators played Chutes and Ladders together online and then reflected on the media experience in a shared conversation. During this talk, one of the students said, “It’s the dice that’s making all the decisions”. The students realized that other forces, what the adults would note as the algorithms programmed into the game, were responsible for the progress of the game. The students understood the key concept, that form and concept are closely related in media. The students also began to form an understanding that media construct reality. Reflection and guided discussion on media experiences helped activate these “aha” moments of critical thinking, where individuals personally comprehend these key concepts.

Agency via Game Design

The agency of production activated critical thinking. The educator team taught about games (e.g. how to play various games) and through games (e.g. ordering numbers, cause and effect). Certain games, despite needing active players to participate, had more passive results. Jennifer Balido-Cadavez suggested that the students could exercise more agency by creating their own Chutes and Ladders game boards. To facilitate this process, the educators had the students look at different Chutes and Ladders boards, via a Google search.

The Early Childhood Educator created Jamboards so that students could work on their own pages while being able to view the work of their peers. (Pseudonyms have been assigned to students’ work.)

A huge discussion emerged when the students learned that a version of the game was called Snakes and Ladders. Students wondered why game producers would use snakes instead of chutes or slides. Some theorized the snakes were scary and others said the snakes would eat the players and poop them out. We did not explore this avenue as much as we could have, which was unfortunate. This discussion topic could have led to understanding the values messages in media texts or another in-road into how media constructs reality.

A big learning curve for the students involved the number order placement. They were used to constructing numbers in a grid in the way that they would appear in a 100s chart. In a 100s chart, #1 is at the top-most left corner.

It took several whole group, direct teaching moments for some students to conceptualize that the numbers moved from left to right in the bottom row, then right to left in the row directly above, and that this pattern kept flipping row after row. This understanding of the codes and conventions of this particular board game helped some students with the creation of their own Snakes and Ladders boards, whereas others still couldn’t grasp this pattern by the end of the unit. (See Figures 2-13 for examples.)

As mentioned earlier, we were unable to pursue all of the great potential tangents and discussion topics, such as the use of snakes on the board. This could have been a wonderful opportunity to unpack the cultural history and values messages in this specific board game. “The historic version had its roots in morality lessons, on [sic] which a player’s progression up the board represented a life journey complicated by virtues (ladders) and vices (snakes).” (Snakes and ladders) This value message was clear to the adults in some of the board games we examined – images of children doing chores were linked to a ladder going upward, while pictures of children overindulging in sweets led to a slide going downward.

The students indicated that they enjoyed games that allowed them personal choice and agency more than prescribed games governed by algorithms, even if it meant that it was not luck, but skill, that would determine the end result. To facilitate that request, two more games were introduced: dominoes and “Dots and Boxes”. Dominoes has several variations in its gameplay; in the version played with the kindergarten students, “most domino games are blocking games, where the objective is to empty one’s hand while blocking the opponent’s. In the end, a score may be determined by counting the pips in the losing players’ hands” (Dominoes). Pedagogically, this was a new development for the students. Dominoes veered away from the grid game format into a play space where the game board itself is constructed by the players. Another game in which the players shape the play space has many titles, such as “Dots and Boxes”, “Dot to Dot Square Game”, “Connect the Dots”, “Game of Dots”, “Pigs in a Pen”, “Boxes” or “Dot to Dot Grid” (Twinkl). “The game starts with an empty grid of dots. Usually two players take turns adding a single horizontal or vertical line between two un-joined adjacent dots. A player who completes the fourth side of a 1×1 box earns one point and takes another turn. A point is typically recorded by placing a mark that identifies the player in the box, such as an initial. The game ends when no more lines can be placed. The winner is the player with the most points.” (Dots and Boxes)

An unexpected development occurred after the results of a task that was provided to both the in-person kindergarten students and the virtual kindergarten students. Both groups had the opportunity to play dominoes in two formats: with live players using physical dominos (modeled by the educators for the students learning from home) and using an online version of the game. After the experience, both groups of children were asked which version of the game they preferred, and why. A large majority of the in-person students said they preferred the online game, whereas a large majority of the virtual students said they preferred the in-person game.

Reflections / Considerations

The education team achieved many planned goals and could have taken the inquiry in so many more directions.

One of the planned goals that were achieved related to a critical awareness of their own agency when playing games. Several students were able to articulate the differences between luck-based games and skill-based games. They could identify when they had more or less control over the final outcome. If we were to repeat this project, we could ask students how they might design a game differently, and why. They could be permitted to go beyond the confines of existing games to invent their own.

Another goal addressed the recognition of some of the codes and conventions of certain games. Thanks to the ECE’s involvement in the media literacy lessons, she was present to observe the students using these games in other contexts. For example, the Early Childhood Educator was delighted to report that, during a separate moment while two students were being coached on their socialization skills, they took it upon themselves to draw various iterations of dominoes. This is another example of how the students’ class experience generated agency.

A different example of the students using their new-found understanding of certain games in other contexts was when the virtual kindergarten students had virtual buddy time with a class of in-person Grade 4-5 students, a few kindergarten students used the opportunity to play tic-tac-toe with their buddies. Even when an occasional teacher was covering the class (ironically, while the author of this paper was at the IMLRS conference), the ECE continued the learning related to the Chutes and Ladders boards by creating a “friendship room” where the students could see and interact with the other game boards. The students and the ECE had the chance to play on a few of the boards.

A third goal involved developing thinking strategies for playing games, which fit with the Problem Solving and Innovation strand of the Kindergarten curriculum. Most students did not randomly place their x or o in tic-tac-toe, their Connect 4 game piece, or their domino randomly; they considered what placement would help them win the game. This was more evident with the simpler skill games (tic tac toe and Connect 4) than with the more complex skill games (dominoes).

A fourth planned goal was to help the virtual kindergarten students be social online, to align with the Belonging and Contributing portion of their curriculum. As the Collins and Callaghan study suggested, Zoom could provide social interaction opportunities, but for the youngest learners, they needed guidance on how to employ their social skills using technology. Educators in virtual settings have to be creative in getting children to socialize with one another. Students used games to increase their interaction with each other.

An uncompleted goal was to help the students understand and appreciate different board game aesthetics and levels of difficulty.  We ran out of time to compare everyone’s Chutes and Ladders game boards and analyze what elements made them more or less appealing to certain players. The ECE managed to carve out time for the students to attempt to play them, which was an unexpected bonus, but, if we had more time, we would interview students after watching them play and ask them why they chose to play with certain boards and their appeal. This would have activated the third and eighth key concepts, around audience interpretation and aesthetic forms. We began to have them compare and contrast screen and other interfaces to identify pleasing or effective designs with the dominoes survey, but once again, we ran out of time to delve deeper into identifying the characteristics. We did not make connections between the various games they were learning, even though we had pedagogical reasons for introducing them in the order we did.

An unpursued goal involved examining the history of some of these games. This would have been possible in kindergarten by looking at pictures of older boards and pointing out the actions of the figures on the Chutes and Ladders boards, and amplifying its South Asian roots, which would have resonated with several of our students with that cultural background.

Another unpursued goal involved comparing the experience of learning on screen to learning in-person, another example of form and content. We would have loved to investigate how their gaming strategies, decision making skills, and interaction with the screen vs physical objects differed, but due to the young age of our students, and the fact that for some of them, the only educational experience they currently know is of learning through the computer, it would be quite difficult. There were some glimpses of these comparisons, such as the domino experience between the in-person and virtual classes, but this was beyond the scope of the educators, who were preoccupied with each student’s academic progress rather than observing general trends.

This case study demonstrates that complicated concepts such as algorithmic literacy and agency can be taught to very young students once real-world, play-based examples are provided with media literacy as the foundation.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Jennifer Balido-Cadavez, talented Early Childhood Educator, for her excellent use of technology with learners in the early years, her meticulous note-taking and reflective, cross-curricular practice. Thanks to Neil Andersen, president of the Association for Media Literacy for making connections clear, explaining algorithms in a way that makes sense, and “noticing and naming” media literacy experiences in the classroom. Thanks to Carol Arcus for “digging into the details” and providing suggestions that made this paper more cohesive. Thanks to Belinha De Abreu for organizing a fantastic media literacy conference and bridging the gap between researchers in academic and school practitioners. Finally, thanks to the students who make school an exciting, unpredictable, and rewarding place to be.

References

The Algorithm and Digital Literacy Project (n.d.) https://algorithmliteracy.org

An, Y. (2021). A Qualitative Investigation of Team-Based Gamified Learning in an Online Environment. Educational Process: International Journal, 10(4), 73+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A690567699/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=37fcd4e9

Andersen, N., Arcus, C., Ambrosh, K. and Rowe, M. (2017) From the Editors. The Journal of Media Literacy 64(1-2), 3 https://aml.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/jml-agency.pdf

Andersen, N. & Maliszewski, D. (2022). Media Literacy Practical Classroom Teaching Strategies. Presented at 4th International Media Literacy Research Symposium, June 28, 2022.

Association for Media Literacy  (n.d.). Essential frameworks. Retrieved from https://aml.ca/resources/essential-framework/

Bai, S., Hew, K. F., Gonda, D. E., Huang, B., & Liang, X. (2022). Incorporating fantasy into gamification promotes student learning and quality of online interaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), NA. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A707086027/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=436ae94c

Buckingham, David (2017) Media Theory 101: Agency. The Journal of Media Literacy  64(1-2), 12-16. https://aml.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/jml-agency.pdf

Collins, H., & Callaghan, D. (2022). What a Difference a Zoom Makes: Intercultural Interactions Between Host and International Students. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education, 14(2), 96+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A707300014/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=b073c1b7

Connect Four. (June 16, 2022). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 20, 2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four

Cummings-Clay, D., Hayes, A., & DiSanto, J. (2021). Shifting Modalities: Providing K-5 Montessori Education Online during the Pandemic. Global Education Review, 8(4), 58+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A690394417/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=cfec3bbc

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 9-15). ACM.

Dominoes. (July 17, 2022). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 20, 2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominoes

Dots and Boxes Game. Twinkl. Retrieved July 20, 2022 from https://www.twinkl.ca/resource/t2-t-16848-dots-and-bozes-game#:~:text=On%20a%20grid%20of%20dots,with%20the%20most%20squares%20won.

Dots and Boxes. (June 16, 2022). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 20, 2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_and_Boxes

Hannon, K. (2021, February 16). Remote Education Isn’t Just for Children. New York Times, B6(L). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A651900967/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=2ce992a1

Holwerda, L & Maliszewski, D. (2015). Game-Based Learning vs. Gamification: A Conversation. The Teaching Librarian, 22(2), 32-33. https://accessola.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2015-January-TingL-22-2.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). The Kindergarten Program  www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kinderprogram.html

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of Games Based Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258-283. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1090277.pdf#:~:text=De%EF%AC%81nitions%20of%20game-based%20learning%20mostly%20emphasize%20that%20it,game%2C%20but%20this%20is%20not%20always%20the%20case.

Smith, J., Schreder, K., & Porter, L. (2020). Are they paying attention, or are they shoe-shopping? Evidence from online learning. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 5(1), 200+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A641420985/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=dd457c20

Snakes and ladders. (June 30, 2022). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 20, 2022 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankes_and_ladders

Subramaniam, Sarmishta. (2021). The lost year in education. Macleans. How a year of disrupted education could impact Canadian children beyond the pandemic – Macleans.ca

Szklarski, Cassandra. (2021). Education experts warn of COVID-19 pandemic driven ‘crisis’ for students. Global TV. Education experts warn of COVID-19 pandemic driven ‘crisis’ for students | Globalnews.ca

Tic-tac-toe. (July 10, 2022). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 20, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe

Wilczewski, M., Gorbaniuk, O., Mughan, T., & Wilczewska, E. (2022). The Effects of Online Learning Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Students’ Satisfaction, Adjustment, Performance, and Loyalty. Journal of International Students, 12(3), 694+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A709498475/GIC?u=tdsb_ascd&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=67de3f16