As we continue with the fourth-anniversary celebration of the publication of “Game Science in Hybrid Learning Spaces”, we will explore the first chapter, “Breaking the Barriers of Space and Time”. The discussions in this chapter become increasingly relevant in the post-COVID-19 educational landscape. This chapter explores the transformative potential of hybrid education, where learning transcends traditional boundaries of space and time, blending formal and informal contexts, and integrating digital and physical environments.
Expanding the Horizon: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning
To achieve universal, quality education, we must break free from the confines of traditional classrooms and embrace a more fluid learning landscape. This approach allows for a seamless integration of formal, informal, and social learning spaces, bringing learners closer to real-world applications of knowledge and skills. The shift from traditional classroom teaching to hands-on activities encourages educators to rethink and redesign their practices.
Over three decades ago, Wedemeyer (1981) emphasised the need for a teaching-learning system that operates “any place, any time,” challenging the space-time limitations of traditional classrooms. Despite advancements, many educators still view digital approaches as mere delivery systems for traditional pedagogy rather than tools for implementing new pedagogies (Kuriloff, 2005). For instance, flipped learning often involves merely uploading recorded lectures online, without changing the content delivery method.
To address these challenges, learning spaces must be flexible, dynamic, and responsive to the personal, social, and complex nature of learning (Chatti et al., 2010). Education is a social-reflexive process where individual transformation occurs through participation and interaction in a socio-cultural environment (Bilandzic, 2013). Effective learning blends various contexts and spaces, enhancing the learner’s experience and application of knowledge (Davies et al., 2013).
Contextualising and Situating Education: The Role of Openness
The concept of openness in education, often associated with free play and exploration, removes barriers to education and increases opportunities (Inamorato dos Santos et al., 2016a; Hug, 2017). Open education provides learners with flexibility in choosing topics, pace, place, and method, making learning accessible, abundant, and customisable for all (Muñoz et al., 2013).
Openness in education goes beyond accessing resources; it involves equipping learners with the competences to contextualise their learning (Oliver, 2015). Intentional learning, driven by purpose and goal-directed actions, is essential for ensuring meaningful engagement with learning resources (Blumschein, 2012; Hung, 2014). This approach aligns with connected learning, where social support and individual interest foster resilient, adaptive, and effective learning (Ito et al., 2013).
Hybridity in Education: Breaking Traditional Boundaries
Hybrid education transcends traditional teaching and learning boundaries, integrating different educational dimensions and modalities (Rorabough & Stommel, 2012; Dalsgaard et al., 2017). This cross-fertilisation creates new educational modes, emphasising flexibility and responsiveness to the learning process.
Education as an incremental and iterative process benefits from meaningful feedback and reflection, allowing knowledge to evolve and deepen over time (Paechter, 2004). The adaptability required in learning necessitates a hybrid approach that blends formal and informal spaces, responding to the needs of the moment (Baroutsis et al., 2017).
The connected nature of today’s society highlights the importance of socio-spatial relationships in learning. Telepresence and holographic lecturers, for instance, exemplify how technology bridges geographical gaps, enabling collaborative learning across distances (Kanninen et al., 2016; Kelion, 2018). Now, with immersive technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) becoming more mainstream and affordable, remote collaborations and playful interactions are increasingly feasible. These technologies further break the barriers of time and space in education, allowing students and educators to engage in rich, interactive learning experiences from anywhere in the world, thereby enhancing engagement and collaboration (Radianti et al., 2020).
Post-COVID-19 Adaptations in Education
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital technologies in education, highlighting the need for hybrid learning environments that combine online and offline elements. The rapid shift to online learning during the pandemic has shown that flexible and adaptive learning approaches are crucial for ensuring continuity and quality in education.
Recent studies have documented various adaptations in teaching and learning, emphasising the importance of integrating digital technologies to support hybrid learning models. These adaptations include the use of synchronous and asynchronous learning tools, digital assessments, and innovative instructional strategies. The pandemic has also underscored the need for resilient education systems that can support students and educators through crises, ensuring equitable access to learning resources.
Playfulness and Gamefulness: Facilitating Experiential Learning
This chapter introduces play and games, when applied in education foster creativity, exploration, and experiential learning. Games provide structured scenarios that promote active learning, reflection, and collaboration (Ferguson et al., 2019). The playful nature of games encourages curiosity and engagement, essential for developing agency and autonomy in learners (Dalsgaard et al., 2017).
Gameful approaches, combining play and intentional design, support learning by providing clear goals and feedback, enhancing motivation and engagement (Tondello et al., 2018). These approaches align with constructivist, behaviourist, cognitive, and humanistic learning theories, creating a holistic learning environment (Gee, 2004; Piaget, 1977; Skinner, 1990). These theories collectively enhance our understanding of how learners engage with content and develop skills through games (Smith, 1999; Wu et al., 2012). Experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) emphasises the importance of concrete experiences, reflection, and active experimentation in the learning process. The following chapters in the book explore play and gameplay further.
Recent developments in game-based learning include using virtual reality for immersive educational experiences. For example, VR projects can simulate historical events or scientific phenomena, allowing students to explore and interact with content in a way that traditional methods cannot match.
Board games and role-playing activities embrace hybridity. They continue to be valuable for developing strategic thinking and social skills, often incorporating various media and platforms for expanding access to information and game elements.
Building and creating help provide contexts to learning experiences, situating the learners into their virtually tangible imagination. Platforms such as Minecraft Education Edition let students build and explore virtual worlds, fostering creativity and collaboration. Teachers can design lessons that align with curriculum goals while keeping students engaged.
Escape rooms methodologies, for instance, open up opportunities for various media and platforms to be embedded within the narrative of the experience. Platforms like Breakout EDU offer tools and resources for educators to create their own escape room experiences tailored to their curriculum. In response to the rapid transition to teaching on Microsoft Teams during the COVID-19 pandemic, we collaborated with colleagues in co-designing escape room activities using the platform and the associated external folders (Onedrive). This is an example of configuring learning resources and spaces at the speed of need. We created how-to documents to help others during that period, which have also been adapted by an Erasmus+ Escape Racism project for addressing topics related to modern slavery.
We need to think beyond the boundary of the classrooms to provide a more hands-on and active learning experience, incorporating various means for representing the mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics of learning activities.
Pervasive Gaming: Blending Learning into Everyday Life
Pervasive games, leveraging mobile technology and augmented reality, blend digital and physical spaces, making learning pervasive and contextualised (Benford et al., 2015; Ferguson et al., 2019). Games like “Pokémon Go” and “Ingress” transform ordinary spaces into interactive learning environments, promoting physical and social activity (Paavilainen et al., 2017; Bhattacharya et al., 2019).
Pervasive learning experiences bridge spatial, temporal, and social contexts, enhancing motivation and effectiveness (Shih et al., 2011; Kapp, 2013). There are now various tools that enable educators to create location-based learning games, integrating digital content with physical environments (Stefan et al., 2018).
Conclusion: The Promise of Hybrid Education
Chapter 1 of my book sets the stage for a transformative approach to education, where learning transcends traditional boundaries. By embracing hybridity, contextualisation, and playfulness, we can create engaging, meaningful, and flexible learning experiences that prepare learners for the complexities of the modern world. As we delve deeper into these concepts, we will explore how to implement and sustain these innovative approaches, ensuring that education is truly open and accessible to all.
References
Baroutsis, A and Woods, A. (2017), Social Geography, Space, and Place in Education, Educational Theories and Philosophies, Education and Society. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.115
Benford, S., Magerkurth, C. and Ljungstrand, P. (2005). Bridging the physical and digital in pervasive gaming. Commun. ACM, 48, pp. 54-57. doi: 10.1145/1047671.1047704.
Bhattacharya, A., Windleharth, T.W., Ishii, R.A., Acevedo, I.M., Aragon, C.R., Kientz, J.A., Yip, J.C., and Lee, J.H. (2019). Group Interactions in Location-Based Gaming: A Case Study of Raiding in Pokémon GO. CHI, pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300817.
Blumschein, P. (2012) Intentional Learning. In: Seel N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA.
Chatti, M.A., Agustiawan, M.R., Jarke, M. and Specht, M. (2010). Toward a Personal Learning Environment Framework. Int. J. Virtual. Pers. Learn. Environ. 1(4), pp. 66–85.
Dalsgaard, C., Robinson, S., Nørgård, R. T. and Köppe, C. (2017), Hybridity as a Value-framework for Open Education, ECER 2017
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. and Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, pp. 80-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004.
Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., Jones, D., Jowers, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., Misiejuk, K., Ness, I. J., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Wasson, B., Weller, M. and Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hug, T. (2017). Openness in Education: Claims, Concepts, and Perspectives for Higher Education. Seminar.Net, 13(2).
Hung, W. (2014). Intrinsic and extrinsic intentional learning: The difference made by self-determination. Australian Journal of Education, 58(1), 50–58. doi: 10.1177/0004944113517832
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie Y. and Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016a). Opportunities and challenges for the future of MOOCs and open education in Europe. Wenner-Gren Internationals Series, London: Portland Press.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J. and Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub, Irvine, CA, USA. ISBN 9780988725508.
Kanninen, M., Syrjä, T. and Gorman, T. (2016). The Coriolanus online project. In Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (AcademicMindtrek ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 457-459. doi: 10.1145/2994310.2994352
Kapp, K.M, (2013). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction Fieldbook: Ideas into Practice, Pfeiffer.
Kanninen, E., Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., & Kauppi, A. (2016). New methods and spaces for hybrid learning: Challenges in higher education. Proceedings of EdMedia 2016-World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 1408-1413.
Kelion, L. (2018). Students beam into lectures via hologram. BBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46060381 [Accessed 05/07/2024]
Kuriloff, P. (2005). Breaking the Barriers of Time and Space: More Effective Teaching Using e-Pedagogy. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2 (1), Article 6.
Muñoz, J. C., Redecker, C., Vuorikari, R. and Punie, Y. (2013). Open Education 2030: planning the future of adult learning in Europe, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28 (3), pp. 171-186. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2013.871199
Oliver, M. (2015). From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices, Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), pp. 365-384. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1029940
Paavilainen, J., Korhonen, H., Alha, K., Stenros, J., Koskinen, E. and Mayra, F. (2017). The Pokémon GO experience: A location-based augmented reality mobile game goes mainstream. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp. 2493–2498.
Paechter, C. (2004). Metaphors of space in educational theory and practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 12 (3), pp. 449-464.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking Press.
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778.
Rorabaugh, P., and Stommel, J. (2012). Hybridity, pt. 3: What Does Hybrid Pedagogy Do? Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from: http://hybridpedagogy.org/hybridity-pt-3-what-does-hybrid-pedagogy-do/ [Accessed 03/07/2024]
Shih, J. L., Chu, H. C., and Hwang, G. J. (2011). An investigation of attitudes of students and teachers about participating in a context‐aware ubiquitous learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), pp. 373-394.
Skinner, B. F. (1990). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. BF Skinner Foundation.
Tondello, G. F., Wehbe, R. R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2018). The gamification user types hexad scale. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 229-243.
Wedemeyer, C. A. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflections on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Sylvester Arnab 
1 Comment