Final review commentary - Mick Chesterman

This commentary addresses final review objectives and frame the thesis in a wider discussion of the relevance to communities and my career plans.

Embargo, thesis format, viva format

No embargo is requested. The thesis formal is fully in the form of a written report. My viva format preference is for oral examination face to face if possible but via video conference if not for logistical reason.

Written progress

  1. Introduction - 50% complete: A structure and key content is in place which requires updating when other chapters are more complete.
  2. Literature Review - 75% complete: A draft is in place which needs some revision currently, and then careful editing to align with other chapters.
  3. Theoretical Framework - 75% complete: A draft is in place which will need careful editing to align with other chapters.
  4. Methodology - 25% complete: A rough draft is in place.
  5. Design narrative (addressing RQ1)- 75% complete: A draft is in place which needs some revision currently, and then careful editing to align with other chapters and appendices.
  6. Findings on Game Design patterns (addressing RQ2)- 50% complete: A full draft is in place which needs significant revision and alignment with supporting data in appendices.
  7. Findings on development of participant agency in game making (addressing RQ3)- 50% complete: A draft is in place which needs significant revision.
  8. Conclusion - 25% complete: A rough draft is in place.
  9. Appendices - 50% complete: Drafts of appendices are in place at different stages of completion. Their structure and the scope of needs some careful thought and prioritisation.

Update of degree outcomes

My research questions have remained relatively stable since the last review with some alterations to align with the chapter structure of the thesis.

  1. What contradictions arose in participation in this research’s game coding processes and how were they addressed?
  2. How can game design patterns support the development of computational fluency in novices?
  3. How can learners build agency in an evolving community of game makers?

Addressing QAA doctoral degree descriptors

To accompany this commentary I will email drafts of Chapters 3 and 5.

  • the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication: I have already adapted outputs of the research for publication in an academically reviewed edited collection.
  • a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice: This will be demonstrated via the literature review and later discussion, an element of which is present in Chapter 5 submitted for review.
  • the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems: This will be demonstrated via Chapter 4 which addresses the methodology of the thesis. Elements are also present in Chapters 3 and 5 submitted for review.
  • a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry: This is present in Chapter 3 submitted for review.

Addressing other areas of progress

My supervision process over the last year has focused on the process of prioritising and clarifying the writing up of my finding in line with existing research conventions. While the use of video data allowed a broad spectrum of analysis including more personal exploration of concepts, I have retained my original focus on the social and cultural elements of the process. Once the prioritisation process was completed I was able to return to the introduction and start drafting more complete chapters from the beginning.

I would welcome an informal discussion or advice on how I leverage the completion process to advance my career aims, as part of the review process. To help frame that line of discussion I have included, within this commentary, a draft blog post for the TPEA website. This blog post aims for a concise and approachable summary of the research landscape, the needs that my thesis addresses and the relevance of my research findings within wider contexts. In response to this blog post, I have been asked to resubmit a version for the TEPA Advancing Education journal and given a suggestion to share part of my work with the HM Gov curriculum review.

Extracts of TPEA blog post published November 2024

Game making as a computing pedagogy offers an excellent opportunity to develop students’ confidence and fluency in digital skills. However, to fully harness this potential, we must further develop and share effective practices. My research with home-educating families has led to the creation of a game-making pedagogy that incorporates patterns of home behaviours alongside the design principles found in retro platform games. This approach not only aligns with the learning styles of home-educated students but also utilises the engaging elements of retro games to enhance creativity and problem-solving skills. I share these strategies in the spirit of advocating for systemic changes that ensure all students can benefit from this innovative approach.

Before attending the TEPA conference in summer 2024, I had started to doubt whether my hopes of integrating some of the findings and pedagogies into schools or other formal environments would amount to anything. This feeling, based on my experience of teacher training for computing at the secondary level, stemmed from the challenges of completing project work within the context of computing qualifications. My concerns were validated by discussions happening at TEPA, particularly during a panel that outlined the background to the last minute reconfiguration of the computing qualifications guidelines. The focus had shifted towards more abstract knowledge, rather than encouraging hands on creative digital projects.

Even the hands on programming projects that were once part of the GCSE exam, later dropped due to concerns about plagiarism, were narrowly defined, leaving little room for creativity or the incorporation of students’ personal interests. It is now possible to sit and pass a computing GCSE without ever touching a computer. I recently spoke with one of my child’s friends, an artistic year 8 student, who said she missed the creative multimedia and game projects she had been able to do using Scratch in year 7. When I asked what she does now, she replied, “We write down definitions of routers.” This is disappointing on a personal level and also reflects a failure to prepare this student for the future.

At the TPEA conference, while it was acknowledged that good teachers do find ways to introduce creative project work, they do so in spite of, rather than because of, systemic pressures within schools such as the format of computing exams, timetabling and the resources available. Drawing on data from Kemp [-kemp_future_2024] which shows the increasing failure to attract a diverse range of students to take Computing at GCSE, there seemed to be a consensus that it is time for a stronger push to change the qualifications and the broader rhetoric around computing and IT education to bring back digital creativity. I left feeling more optimistic, as the wider application of my research requires a context that allows a project based approach. Therefore, if the situation does change, the game making pedagogy that emerged from my doctoral work will become more widely applicable.

Summarising my results

The majority of this section has been removed to fit the word count of this commentary see full blog post here. https://web.archive.org/web/20241112093419/https://tpea.ac.uk/reflections-on-the-tpea-conference-2024/

Methods: Inclusive methods to draw on home repertoires of practice and to build participant agency

The term agency here is understood within a socio-cultural framework, where it is not seen as a personal trait but as something that exists within a particular context. Building agency within this emerging community of game makers is a process involving individual learners working as part of a collective, evolving shared practices and applying collective knowledge to develop necessary tools. Due to space constraints, rather than offering a deeper analysis of these evolving processes, I will provide some practical recommendations on inclusive methods for those aiming to support agency development in a new community of game makers.

Allow learners to draw on their home interests by creating an inclusive creative environment where they are encouraged to explore their existing knowledge of game conventions and their attitudes towards video game play.

Start coding with a half-baked game [@kynigos_children_2018]: Provide learners with a partially completed game template that they can adapt, offering a shared structure that promotes peer learning. This also helps facilitators stay familiar with participants’ evolving code.

Use emerging learner requests to shape a collection of code examples: Develop a set of code snippets and supporting documentation based on familiar gameplay design patterns. Encourage learners to use this resource, allowing them to add new features based on their own choices while receiving the necessary technical support.

Allow flexible working practices and incorporate regular play-testing: Create an environment where learners can draw on existing learning relationships with family members and develop new ways of working with peers. Regular play-testing helps foster these collaborative practices.

Lastly, incorporate playful approaches to build connections with funds of knowledge linked to home play practices, as briefly explored earlier. This helps create a more inclusive and engaging learning experience.

Concluding remarks

In summary, the implications of this research highlight the potential for reframing the primary focus of teaching computing through accessible project-based approaches structured around the application of relatable design patterns. I encourage wider testing of these processes to assess the generalisability of the findings based on several motivations. Firstly, the overall approach is aligned with solid foundations for using funds of identity as an inclusive and transformational practice for young people engaging with digital technology, as explored in a special issue of Mind, Culture and Activity [@kajamaa_young_2019-3]. Secondly, the process of using games as a medium for expressing these funds of identity remains a valid approach. While research on game making may have waned in popularity, interest from young people endures. Thirdly, in light of increased concerns about risky online activity and screen time addiction, family involvement in the digital lives of young people remains an ongoing issue. Game making as a joint family activity offers an accessible and inclusive foundation for exploring further digital issues that impact home lives.

Finally, we can hope that the pendulum of digital education in the UK and beyond may swing back from the conservative stance on the power of abstract knowledge, exemplified by Michael Gove’s implementation of the computing curriculum and exam structure, towards a more applied approach [@preston_re-engineering_2013]. This shift would align with Papert’s vision of computational thinking, which is grounded in concrete, hands-on computing experiences involving projects that can motivate personal connections to the underlying content knowledge in context.