BUILDING A NEW WORLD IN EDUCATION

BUILDING A NEW

WORLD IN EDUCATION

Exploring Minecraft for Learning,

Teaching and Assessment

BUILDING A NEW

WORLD IN EDUCATION

Exploring Minecraft for Learning,

Teaching and Assessment

November 2021

Paula Lehane, Deirdre Butler and Kevin Marshall

Please cite as: Lehane, P., Butler, D., & Marshall, K. (2021).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning,

Teaching and Assessment [White paper]. Dublin City University.

ISBN: 978-1-911669-30-2

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5683037

Creative Commons Licence: CC – BY – NC

You are free to share and/or adapt this material in any medium or format, but you must

give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor

endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

CONTENTS

Foreword .............................................................................2

1.0 Executive Summary

.............................................................4

2.0 Introduction

.....................................................................6

3.0 ‘Serious’ Games and Game-Based Learning (GBL)

...........................10

3.1 Understanding Digital Games ....................................................13

3.2 Games for Learning – Constructionism and Sandbox Games ......................... 15

4.0 Minecraft ........................................................................18

4.1 M:EE to Support Teaching ...................................................... 21

4.1.1 Curricular Curation ....................................................... 21

4.1.2 Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs .......................... 23

4.1.3 Challenges in using M:EE to Support Teaching ................................ 25

4.2 M:EE to Support Learning ...................................................... 26

4.2.1 Project-Based Learning ................................................... 26

4.2.2 Collaboration Skills ....................................................... 29

4.2.3 Challenges in using M:EE to Support Learning ................................ 32

4.3 M:EE to Support Assessment .................................................... 34

4.3.1 Classroom Assessment Practices with Digital Games .......................... 34

4.3.2 ‘Hard to Assess’ Skills ..................................................... 36

4.3.3 Challenges in using M:EE to Support Assessment ............................. 36

5.0 Research Agenda and Future Considerations ............................... 38

5.1 Design Considerations for Future Research Studies Involving M:EE ................... 40

5.2 Understanding the Potential Value of M:EE in Irish Classrooms ...................... 43

5.3 Supporting Teachers’ use of GBL ................................................ 44

6.0 Conclusion .....................................................................52

Reference List

......................................................................54

Appendix 1 – Search Strategy

......................................................66

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

FOREWORD

Computer games have changed how we

learn. The truth is that computer games are

fullling genuine human needs in a way that

the current real world is unable. This was the

case before the pandemic and it has been

accelerated by the pandemic. Computer

games have change how we come together,

how we interact, how we learn and how we

are inspired. This is an uncomfortable fact for

many, who can either embrace it and shape

learning through games or ignore it and suffer

the consequences of the opportunity lost.

For some this will all sound hard to believe,

even over dramatic. But we are a society

where an increasing part of our time is

devoted to playing games. 69% of all heads

of households play computer games. 97% of

young people play computer games. At least

1 in 4 computer gamers is over the age of

fty. The average computer game players are

thirty-ve years old and have been playing

for at least twelve years. Over 60% of CEOs

say they take daily game breaks at work. Yet

this is a hidden culture, as these statistics

do not represent how we talk about gaming

or play. We often view computer gaming as

entertainment, rather than learning. Fun, rather

than work. Why should this be the case?

Imagine a world where work was fun and

deep learning was best achieved through play.

Imagine a world where students could not

wait to engage in learning and became deeply

engrossed in the content they were learning.

Imagine if this learning appealed to students of

all ability ranges, of all background and made

accessibility for those with disabilities easier.

As this report demonstrates, computer games

are changing this vision of learning into reality.

Game based learning is quantiably more

immersive, learners spend more time involved

in serious content, they retain more knowledge

about a subject afterwards, it is increasing

participation from under-represented groups

including those with disabilities, and it is

enjoyable. The single biggest issue we face

is how best to deploy such learning into

schools and overcoming this is the last hurdle

we face to bring benet to all students.

Justin Edwards,

Director, Minecraft:

Education Edition

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Attention on digital game-based learning

(GBL) has been heightened in recent times

as it became an opportune way to support

distance education and remote learning

during the COVID-19 pandemic. To assist

educators in their efforts to ensure continuity

of learning using digital games, Microsoft

released the ‘Minecraft Education Collection’ in

March 2020, resulting in more than 63 million

downloads within six months

. Following

a general overview of the eld of GBL (see

Sections 2 and 3), this report (as summarised

in Figure 1) synthesises and critically reviews

the current literature on GBL and, more

specically, Minecraft: Education Edition (M:EE)

in primary and post-primary settings.

While the theory underlying the use of sand-box

type games like M:EE in classrooms is promising

(see Section 3), robust empirical evidence

pertaining to their effectiveness in addressing

learning outcomes is still rather scarce.

1 https://news.xbox.com/en-us/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/Minecraft-Franchise-Fact-Sheet_April-2021.pdf

2 https://www.rte.ie/learn/2021/0915/1246913-irelands-future-is-mine-register-here

However, some evidence in relation to their

value for teaching, learning and assessment

activities has been noted (see Section 4):

• M:EE can enable more accessible learning

experiences for diverse groups of learners

e.g. second language learners, learners

with special educational needs.

• M:EE can support project-based learning

and the development of key competences

such as problem-solving and collaboration.

• M:EE and other digital games can support

formal and informal classroom assessment

practices. As technology progresses, they

may also be a way for teachers to measure

‘hard-to-assess skills’ like problem-solving.

One clear message from the literature is the

need to investigate what game characteristics

and contextual elements can inuence

learning using sound research methodology

(see Section 5). One way to support such

research may be contained within the Irish

context. In November 2021, on foot of a series

of TV programmes featuring M:EE, the Irish

national broadcaster (RTÉ) and Microsoft Ireland

launched a competition challenging primary

school students and their teachers to imagine

and represent Ireland’s future using M:EE

. This

competition may offer a unique platform to

‘mine’ a more comprehensive understanding

of how M:EE can support learners.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Game-Based Learning (GBL) refers to the use of games for some

educational purpose. What is the potential role and value of Minecraft:

Education Edition (M:EE) in supporting GBL in Irish schools?

Game-Based Learning (GBL)

Recent meta-analyses have

indicated that GBL can address

learning outcomes if serious

games’ are chosen. This

requires digital games that are

interactive, based on a set

of agreed rules, and provide

feedback to users as they move

towards their goal. The most

recent generation of these

games align with the learning

principles of constructionism.

Constructionism

Constructionism asserts that

learning occurs through

the making of an artefact.

Sandbox-type games like

M:EE align closely with this

learning theory. M:EE involves

open-ended worlds through

which there is no one single,

correct pathway to completion.

Users create their own artefact

in the form of their gaming

environment. This becomes their

‘object-to-think-with which

can be shared with others.

M:EE & Learning

M:EE can help develop

21st century skills like

collaboration through project

based learning. Digital games

like M:EE support learners’

perspective-taking skills, a

key element of collaboration

Project-based learning can be

a way for learners to synthesis

and apply their knowledge

to recreate historical events

(e.g. 1916 Rising) or create

appropriate habitats.

M:EE & Assessment

M:EE can support teachers’

formative and summative

assessment practices. Oral or

written feedback on learners’

work can be provided using

Non-Player Characters (NPCs)

or boards. Learners can chart

their progress with pictures

(self-assessment) M:EE also

has the potential to measure

‘hard-to-assess’ skills. The

data recorded in M:EE could

provide important insights

on learners’ problem-solving

strategies but more research

is needed to realise this.

M:EE & Teaching

Teachers can use M:EE to

promote the development of

knowledge or skills by designing

innovative and complex activities

that promote curricular based

gameplay, exploration or

learning representation.

M:EE may also support the

development of social ski ls

with groups of neurodiverse

learners as it adopts a multi-

modal approach to social

interaction and communication.

Future Directions

Future research using M:EE

should address the current

shortcomings in the eld in

terms of research design

and focus in order to better

understand how M:EE can be

most effectively deployed in

Irish primary and post-primary

classrooms. Professional

learning programmes

for teachers should also

be considered to ensure

that they feel condent in

engaging with M:EE for GBL.

Figure 1: Executive Summary Graphic

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

2.0

INTRODUCTION

2.0

INTRODUCTION

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

0707

2.0

INTRODUCTION

When it was released in 2015, the Rethinking

Education (United Nations Education, Scientic

and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO]; 2015)

publication strongly advocated that education

systems worldwide emphasise the teaching

of ‘21st century skills’. To address these

‘transversal’ skills and core competences

(Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and

Development [OECD], 2019), primary and post-

primary educators are now being encouraged

to engage in ‘new types’ of teaching;

specically, those involving technology-based

approaches (Redecker, 2017). In line with

this global movement, the Digital Strategy

for Schools (Department of Education and

Skills [DES], 2015) provided a rationale and

plan for the embedding of digital technology

into the teaching, learning and assessment

practices of all teachers in Irish schools from

2015 onwards. The aim of this policy was to

ensure that ‘Ireland’s young people become

engaged thinkers, active learners, knowledge

constructors and global citizens’ (DES, 2015,

p. 5) through the use of suitable digital tools

and technology-based methodologies.

While this move towards the use of digital

technology to support teaching and learning

in schools in line with government policy had

been gaining traction (e.g. Scully et al., 2021), it

became the only option for the Irish education

system in March 2020 as schools began to

close as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ireland, like many other countries, faced an

‘unanticipated and accelerated move’ (Starkey

et al., 2021, p. 1) to online learning. Digital

tools and technology-based methodologies

became a necessity overnight. While this rapid

transition to remote teaching and learning

revealed and amplied the ‘fault lines’ in

most education systems (Squire, 2021), it also

demonstrated the willingness of teachers

and students to engage with innovative

technologies and pedagogies. Game Based

Learning (GBL) was particularly attractive to

educators as this approach capitalised on

the resources available to students at home

during remote learning (Squire, 2021). Research

indicates that the majority of children and

teenagers living in Europe (Europe’s Videos

Games Industry/European Games Developer

Federation, 2021), Australia (Brand et al., 2017),

the United States (Internet Matters, 2019)

and the United Kingdom (Association for UK

Interactive Entertainment, 2018) play some

form of digital game on a daily basis. A recent

Growing Up in Ireland (2021; n=8032) report

revealed that 81% of Irish nine-year olds in 2018

played some form of a computer game in an

average week, with 50% reporting that these

games were played with others. While rates of

play can vary according to geography, gender

and age group, the ndings of these studies

show that digital games are a fundamental

part of young people’s online worlds.

Approximately 81%

of Irish nine-year-olds

play computer games

every week.

Growing up in Ireland (2021)

16% of Irish primary

school children said

Minecraft was their

favourite application.

Everri & Park (2018)

For many students, these digital games

became part of their schooling lives as a result

of remote teaching during the COVID-19

pandemic. With over 176 million copies sold

(Microsoft, 2019), Minecraft is one of the most

popular digital games ever among children and

teenagers, with 16% of Irish primary school

children naming Minecraft as their favourite

application (Everri & Park, 2018). During the

COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Minecraft:

Education Edition, (M:EE; a version of the game

optimised for classroom use), was extended to

all educators and learners with a valid Oce

365 Educational account (M:EE Blog, 2020a).

This allowed educators to explore how M:EE

could support learning. For example, students

in Wales explored architecture through

research-informed Minecraft projects and a

rural school in Malaysia used the game to

keep students connected to each other using

‘Monthly Build Challenges’ (M:EE Blog, 2020b).

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the

prospective value of Game-Based Learning

(GBL) in education. The purpose of this report is

to provide an overview of the current literature

available on GBL in order to better understand

its potential impact for Irish learners and to

identify what actions are necessary in order

to further progress this eld of research.

To achieve this, the theoretical foundations

underlying GBL will rst be interrogated

(Section 3). How M:EE is situated within such

literature will also be highlighted and examples

of how this particular game can support

teaching, learning and assessment practices will

also be provided (Section 4). The current report

will conclude with a clear research agenda

that aims to advance the eld of GBL within

Ireland, Europe and the wider world using

M:EE as the primary research tool (Section 5).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

3.0

‘SERIOUS’ GAMES

AND GAME-BASED

LEARNING (GBL)

3.0

‘SERIOUS’ GAMES

AND GAME-BASED

LEARNING (GBL)

3.0

‘SERIOUS’ GAMES AND

GAME-BASED LEARNING (GBL)

This section will address

the following questions:

• What is Game-Based Learning (GBL)?

• What is a ‘serious’ game?

• What is the value of GBL and

serious games for learning?

• What is a digital game and

how can they be classied?

• What learning theories underlie GBL?

A comprehensive search strategy was deployed

to understand GBL (see Appendix 1). Schrier’s

(2018, p. 3) denition of GBL was one of the

most straightforward available with the author

stating that GBL involves the use of ‘games for

some educational purpose’. Although games

have always been connected to learning, the

role of digital games in education has seen

signicant growth over the past 20 years. For

example, a study in the United States found

that up to 90% of primary-school aged children

play some form of digital game on a daily

basis (Internet Matters, 2019). This trend is

replicated amongst children and teenagers in

other English-speaking countries, including

Ireland (Growing Up in Ireland, 2016; 2021).

The near ubiquitous presence of digital games

in the lives of young learners has triggered

interest among educators about the possible

use of digital games as a medium for learning

(Takeuchi & Vaala, 2014). In fact, Clark et

al. (2018) acknowledged that while the use

of digital games for learning was once a

3 The word ‘digital’ is occasionally dropped from references to digital GBL and digital games. Where this occurs,

it can be assumed that the authors are referring to digital games and digital GBL unless otherwise stated.

‘niche’ area, it is now currently a major focus

of research and an increasingly important

facet of the educational technology industry.

This is now likely amplied as a result of the

COVID-19 pandemic. While digital games

were once stigmatised as ‘edutainment’ and

considered to hold no real value beyond

being used as a motivational tool for learners

(as outlined by Charsky, 2010), recent meta-

analyses in the eld have demonstrated that

GBL

can successfully support learning if

appropriately ‘serious games’ are chosen.

The concept of ‘serious games’ was rst

put forward by Abt (1987, p. 9), who argued

that serious games ‘have an explicit and

carefully thought-out educational purpose

and are not intended to be played primarily

for amusement’. A meta-analysis by

Wouters et al. (2013), involving 39 studies

conducted between 1990 and 2012, certainly

provided support for the assertion that

serious digital games can support learning

in schools and occupational settings.

SERIOUS GAMES

have an educational

purpose and are not

just for amusement.

Abt (1970)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Wouters et al.’ s (2013) meta-analysis

aggregated the ndings of 39 studies

involving pretest–post-test and post-test-

only comparisons of learning outcomes,

learner retention, and motivation.

These studies, involving a wide range of

age groups, compared the effect of serious

games and conventional teaching methods

(e.g. lectures, reading text-books, knowledge

drills) on these variables. In this meta-analysis,

the stated learning outcomes in the included

studies were classied in terms of ‘knowledge’

or ‘cognitive skills’

. Of the 39 studies used in

the meta-analysis, 77 pairwise comparisons

on learning outcomes were available for

examination. Wouters et al. (2013) noted

that GBL in classrooms and occupational

settings was indeed more effective in terms

of learning (d=0.29, p<.01) when compared

with conventional teaching methods. The

effect sizes of learning outcomes in relation

to ‘knowledge’ and ‘cognitive skills’ also

showed that serious games were superior to

conventional instructional methods (knowledge

[25 comparisons]: d=0.27, z=2.00, p< .05;

cognitive skills [52 comparisons]: d=0.29,

z=4.12, p<.001). Similarly, the use of serious

games and GBL in classroom and occupational

settings was considered more effective in

terms of learner retention

(16 comparisons;

d=0.36, z=2.41, p<.05) but not for learner

motivation (31 comparisons; z=1.77, p<0.5).

4 ‘Knowledge’ was used when the identied study used a test or measure involving ‘the knowledge

of concepts, principles, denitions, symbols or facts’ (Wouters et al., 2013, p. 4). The second type of

learning outcome explored was ‘cognitive skills’, which included studies in which learners had to

‘solve problems, make decisions, or apply rules to a situation’ (Wouters et al., 2013, p. 4).

5 Studies that compared the use of serious games and conventional instruction using delayed measures for

learning (e.g. when data from the test or measure involved was collected 1-5 weeks after the intervention)

were included in pairwise comparisons for the ‘learner retention’ variable (16 pairwise comparisons).

6 Clark et al. (2016) dened student outcomes in accordance with the denitions outlined in an American report by

the National Research Council entitled ‘Education for Life and Work’ (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). Cognitive outcomes

included cognitive processes and strategies (reasoning, problem-solving, memory), knowledge, and creativity.

7 The intra-personal domain for student outcomes, as used by Clark et al. (2016), includes intellectual

openness, work ethic and conscientiousness, and positive core self-evaluation.

8 The interpersonal domain included teamwork, collaboration, and leadership.

A more purposeful meta-analysis by Clark et al.

(2016) systematically reviewed research on the

value of digital games for primary and post-

primary learners only. The authors recorded

an adjusted mean post-test effect size of .33 in

favour of the use of digital games to enhance

learner outcomes (cognitive

, intrapersonal

and interpersonal

dimensions) relative to

non-game approaches. While Clark et al.

(2016, p. 115) highlighted concerns regarding

the potential validity of interpretations

associated with aggregated studies like those

where ‘variations exist across contexts [and]

interventions…’, they still claimed that sucient

evidence in favour of a positive impact of GBL

on learning was observed. Acquah and Katz

(2020) made a similar claim in their systematic

review investigating the relationship between

digital GBL and second language learning

outcomes for primary and post-primary

students. Their review of 26 studies found that

digital games appeared to support players’

language acquisition, affective/psychological

state, contemporary competences, and

participatory behaviour. However, digital games

and GBL cannot automatically enhance learning.

Instead, digital games should be ‘used because

they are the most appropriate design solution

and contribute to the best experience for

specic educational needs’ and learning overall

(Schrier, 2018, p.5). Understanding how digital

games can do this requires an examination

of the theoretical foundations of the same.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

3.1 Understanding Digital Games

TAXONOMY OF GAME GENRES

(Squire, 2008)

Targeted Linear Sandbox Virtual World

Features Targets one skill

of a domain.

Involves a storyline

and/or puzzles

Uses tools/context

to construct items

Engages user in

problems/quests

Purpose Test specic skills

or knowledge

Support learning of

concepts/skills

Skill development

eg. planning

Skill development

eg. collaboration

Completion Levels Machinema Solution Paths Modding*

Commercial

Game

Angry Birds Ninja Garden SimCity World of Warcraft

Educational

Game

Supercharged! DragonBox MinecraftEDU Quest Atlantis

*There is no ‘game completion’ within this genre of gameplay.

Players complete their activities by ‘modding’ (modifying) the game to suit their needs

Figure 2: Taxonomy of Game Genres (based on Squire, 2008; Groff, 2018)

Dening digital games can be dicult given

their diversity. In an attempt to address this,

Wouters et al. (2013) crafted a denition

of digital games that focuses solely on the

essential characteristics of games. They

dened digital games as those that are:

i Interactive,

ii Based on an agreed set of

rules and constraint,

iii Directed by the game or the player

towards a clear goal or challenge and

iv Provide feedback in the form of a score

or changes to the game world.

Features like competition, plot and

entertainment are not a pre-requisite for

serious games. They are an ‘added value’ and

not a core characteristic (Wouters et al., 2013,

p. 2). Digital games that meet such criteria

come in a wide range of styles, formats and

topics. Squire’s (2008) taxonomy of game types

(Figure 2) distils such games into four genres.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

As suggested by Figure 2, each game type

is distinguished by certain features and

characteristics that teachers can use to design

certain learning activities. Traditionally,

targeted and linear games were more popular

amongst educators because they are quickly

completed by students and align easily with

curricular or lesson objectives (Groff, 2018).

However, virtual world and open-ended

sandbox games are becoming more popular

as they potentially offer some of the richest

learning environments, as demonstrated by

McCall’s (2011) use of Civilization V in post-

primary schools in the United States. Civilization

V is a commercial sandbox game that leads

players through the growth of a civilisation

and empire. McCall’s (2011) work identied

how teachers used this game to target

numerous learning goals including knowledge

of historical trade routes and ethical thinking.

This increasing interest in the use of sandbox

and/or virtual games in classrooms has likely

emerged because these genres of games have

a clear relationship with relevant learning

theories. Rather than classifying games by

genres, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2007) has identied

different ‘generations’ of games based on their

connection with learning theory (Figure 3).

THE THREE GAME GENERATIONS

Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2007) has identied three different ‘generations’ of

digital games that reect the historical prominence in learning theories

alongside the progression of video game development.

1st GENERATION

‘Edutainment’

1980s

2nd GENERATION

‘Educational Games’

1990s/2002s

3rd GENERATION

‘Games for Learning’

1990s/2000s

• Associated with the

Behaviourist approach

to learning.

• Games designed around the

idea that skill and knowledge

acquisition occurs through

practice, reinforcement

and conditioning.

• Designed in line with

the cognitive approach

of Constructivism

• Accepts that people have

underlying schemas that

represent current knowledge.

• Provides a range of scaffolds

and supports in the form

of multimedia stimuli.

• Based on the theory of

Constructionism.

• Learners make meaningful

artefacts in the digital

environment that provide

a platform for learning.

• The learning process is often

mediated in a social context.

Figure 3: Evolution of Games and Learning Theory (based on Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

The rst generation of digital games originated

in the 1980s. These were designed based on the

behaviourist idea of ‘edutainment’, whereby

it was assumed that learning would occur

through repetitive and relatively simplistic

behaviours (e.g. The Oregon Trail

; Groff,

2018). Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2007, p. 274) then

noticed a shift in digital games at the turn

of the century, whereby the learner became

the ‘centre of attention’ and the cognitive

structures underlying their responses (schema)

were taken into consideration. Games in this

generation are characterised by a clear focus on

applying the constructivist approach to learning

as demonstrated in their use of scaffolding

techniques and interest in more complex

skills like problem-solving (e.g. BGuilE

Presently, more and more games are providing

a particular social context or virtual world that

requires learners to ‘employ academic content

knowledge skills such as computer science,

mathematics, or arts to create viable games that

are intended rst and foremost for their peers

rather than their teachers’ (Kafai & Burke, 2015).

This third generation of games (e.g. Minecraft,

Minecraft: Education Edition) are based on the

ideals of constructionism and are most closely

associated with the Sandbox type video games

contained within Squire’s (2008) taxonomy.

9 The Oregon Trail was designed to teach school children about the realities of 19th Century pioneer life in North America.

The game was released in the 1970s and became popular in most US elementary schools in the 1980s (Groff, 2018).

10 BGuILE (Biology Guided Inquiry Learning Environment) allows students to construct, evaluate, iteratively

rene, and then communicate explanations for a range of scientic processes and natural phenomena.

Students are supported in their work by a range of analytical tools and inquiry prompts.

11 Although it can be erroneously described as a teaching pedagogy, constructivism is a learning theory which asserts

that learning is a process where learners are active constructors of their own knowledge which is contextually bound

and based on individual experiences (Bada, 2015). Originally conceptualised by Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1958),

constructivism asserts that when learners encounter something new or something that challenges their previous

understanding of a topic, the learner’s mental framework or ‘schema’ on that topic will then be updated.

3.2 Games for Learning

– Constructionism and

Sandbox Games

Papert’s (1991) expansion of Piaget’s (Piaget

& Indehelder, 1956) cognitive theory of

constructivism

resulted in the principles

of constructionism. While constructivism

asserts that learning involves the ‘building

of knowledge structures irrespective of the

circumstances of learning’ (Papert, 1991,

p. 11), constructionism is a more situated

approach to learning, involving the personal,

social and cultural dimensions of an individual

as they engage in making an ‘object-to-think

with’ (Papert, 1980). Within constructionism,

learners ‘make knowledge their own and

begin to personally identify with it’ (Kafai &

Burke, 2015, p. 315). However, this does not

occur in a vacuum. Social interactions and

norms help the learners’ ‘appropriation’ of the

targeted knowledge. Cultural contexts also help

learners decide what ‘way of knowing is valued

over others’ (Kafai & Burke, 2015, p. 316).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

CONSTRUCTIONISM asserts that learning occurs

through the making of an

ARTEFACT which is anything

another will

SEE or USE.

Given its emphasis on ‘learning through

making rather than overall cognitive potentials’

(Ackermann, 2001, p. 4), constructionism asserts

that learning occurs ‘most felicitously’ through

the learner’s construction of a particular

artefact. This can be ‘a sandcastle on the beach

or a theory of the universe’ or even their own

game or gaming environment (Papert, 1991, p.

1). Constructionism argues that learners will be

more deeply involved in their learning if they

are constructing something that others will

see, critique or use. Through the construction

of this meaningful artefact, learners will

subsequently become ‘active builders of their

own knowledge’ (Butler, 2007, p. 63) and

enjoy an enhanced learning experience.

12 Wing (2010, p. 1) dened computational thinking as ‘the thought processes involved in

formulating problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form

that can be effectively carried out by an information-processing agent’.

13 Under the personal dimension, Kafai and Burke (2015) noted that the key benets of GBL included

its ability to help students learn content, learn about learning and learn coding. Under the social

dimension, the main learning benets related to its ability to allow students to learn to work

collaboratively with peers and to learn how to become part of an online community.

Kafai and Burke (2015) acknowledged that

there was some evidence to support this

viewpoint in their qualitative review of 55

studies that explored the issue of children’s

learning while making their own digital games

or gaming environments. The majority of these

studies focused on teaching computational

thinking

. Kafai and Burke (2015) noted

that the benets of ‘constructionist gaming’

could be classied into personal and social

dimensions

. The authors also claimed that

‘making games proved to be a compelling

context for learning computational concepts

and practices and broadening participants’

perspectives’ (Kafai & Burke, 2015, p. 325).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

As highlighted by Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2007),

sandbox-type games align closely with the

principles of constructionism. Sandbox type

digital games like Minecraft and Minecraft:

Education Edition are open-ended worlds,

through which there is no one single, correct

pathway to completion. These sandbox games

enable increased creative expression by

allowing players freedom to move within the

game to design and build their own gaming

environment e.g. homes, communities,

settlements, landscapes. As they require

learners to create their own ‘objects to think

with’ (Papert, 1980, p. 12), these games are

an ideal tool for teachers to design learning

experiences that align with constructionist

principles. Furthermore, modern sandbox

games offer teachers and learners the exibility

to design tasks and learning activities that allow

learners to create artefacts independently or

collaboratively. Therefore, sandbox games can

allow others (e.g. peers, teachers) to become

involved in a learner’s thinking process through

their discussion or use of the artefact. In this

way, ‘the learner’s thinking benets from

multiple views and discussions’ (Butler, 2007,

p. 63), an important facet of constructionism

according to Papert (1980). While sandbox

games allow learners to create artefacts in a

way that is consistent with the key tenets of

constructionism, they also support effective

teaching, learning and assessment practices.

This assertion is best explored by analysing

research related to one of the most popular

sandbox games of all time – Minecraft.

Summary

• Game-Based Learning (GBL)

involves the use of games for

an educational purpose.

• ‘Serious’ games are not played for

amusement – they have a clear

educational purpose that can support

learning if properly deployed.

• Digital games are interactive, have

clear rules, are directed towards a

particular challenge or goal, and

provide feedback to the player.

• Games can be classied by

genre (targeted, linear, sandbox,

virtual world) or generation

(1st, 2nd or 3rd generation)

• Sandbox-type digital games

generally align with a

constructionist view of learning.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

4.0

MINECRAFT

4.0

MINECRAFT

4.0

MINECRAFT

This section will address

the following questions:

• What is Minecraft?

• How can Minecraft support teaching?

• How can Minecraft support learning?

• How can Minecraft support

assessment practices?

• What are the inherent

challenges of each?

14 Available to view at http://www.zachtronics.com/inniminer

In 2009, Zachary Barth created the game

Inniminer whereby users who entered this

randomly generated gameworld, ‘mine’ and

place blocks to construct whatever structures

they wish

. Inspired by the game’s simplicity,

Markus ‘Notch’ Persson created his own

java-based version, which was eventually

called Minecraft. Persson’s company Mojang

released this game to the public in 2009 and,

by 2015, more than 19 million copies had

been sold, placing the game on the all-time

best-seller’s list (Mojang, 2015). Microsoft

acquired the Swedish-based Mojang in 2014

for over $2.5 billion and the game is now

available on a variety of platforms with a

range of editions and versions including the

Minecraft: Education Edition (M:EE) which is

specically designed for classroom use.

Figure 4: M:EE (Microsoft, 2019)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

In M:EE, players control a virtual avatar (‘Steve’;

Figure 4, overleaf) who is able to move freely

around the virtual world of Minecraft. This

avatar is customisable (using ‘skins’). Unlike

many other commercially available games,

the graphics in Minecraft are purposefully

simplistic (8-bit graphics), making the world

appear as if it is made up of Lego™-like blocks

(where colours and patterns represent different

materials like wood, dirt, stone etc.,). These

blocks can be manipulated to create innite

items and structures e.g. houses, airplanes,

cities etc. The game can be played online,

oine or within a local network. Players, if

they choose, can communicate in real time

or leave messages using asynchronous

communication methods. Each player has their

own avatar in M:EE. However, there are also

other game entities within this environment

that can interact with the players called ‘mobs’

(Minecraft Wiki, 2021). These ‘mobs’ are living

creatures that move around the game like

animals or zombies. Depending on what mode

the game is in (e.g. ‘Creative’ or ‘Survival’),

these mobs may or may not attack a player’s

avatar. These different ‘game modes’ can

place or remove restrictions on resources and/

or player activities (Minecraft Wiki, 2021).

The open-ended nature of M:EE and the

different game modes available allow educators

the exibility to modify the game to suit their

own particular needs and objectives. M:EE

has been marketed as ‘a versatile platform

that educators can use across subjects to

encourage 21st century skills’ (Microsoft, 2016).

Research conducted in Canada involving 118

Canadian elementary school students (aged

9-12) aimed to explore this claim and identify

the main advantages associated with the

use of M:EE in schools (Karsenti & Bugmann,

2018). Using a range of data collection

tools (e.g. research surveys, weekly diaries,

observation and gameplay analysis), the study

observed a number of educational benets

including the development of collaboration

skills and increased digital literacy skills (e.g.

computational logic, information search).

This exploratory work by Karsenti and

Bugmann (2018) indicates that M:EE could

indeed assist and enhance the teaching,

learning and assessment practices in many

primary and post-primary classrooms across

a range of subjects. Other research also offers

tentative support for this assertion. This will

now be discussed under the core classroom

practices of teaching (Section 4.1), learning

(Section 4.2) and assessment (Section 4.3).

Teachers should use strategies that are

RICH, IMAGINATIVE, INNOVATIVE

Irish Primary School Curriculum (DES, 1999, p. 14)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

4.1 M:EE to Support Teaching

Teaching involves the careful selection of

content, the appropriate design of activities

that maximise learning and the subsequent

facilitation of inclusive lessons (Kyriacou,

2007; Westwood, 2011). This requires a

‘rich, imaginative and innovative range of

strategies’ (DES, 1999, p. 21). According to

international (e.g. Redecker, 2017) and national

policies (e.g. DES, 2015), these strategies

should involve technology when appropriate.

Ensuring that children have ‘opportunities

to use modern technology to enhance their

learning in all subjects’ has been enshrined

within the Irish Primary School Curriculum

(DES, 1999, p. 29) since its inception. Research

has also demonstrated several ways in

which M:EE can promote and enable a wide

range of practices and activities that can

support teaching. This is evidenced by the

role of M:EE in studies of curricular curation

and its use by teachers to support children

with Special Educational Needs (SEN).

4.1.1 Curricular Curation

Dezuanni and Zagami (2017, p. 68) note that

the term ‘curatorship’ is a useful way to

conceptualise teachers’ ‘expert co-ordination

of various classroom resources to provide

curriculum-aligned learning experiences’.

In modern classrooms, the teacher designs

learning experiences based on a cohesive

dialogue between the available resources (e.g.

curricular content, classroom, time, digital tools)

and the learner’s needs. When the teacher

is a ‘curator’ looking for resources that align

with planned learning experiences, M:EE can

be a valuable repository. Teachers can have

quick access to digital resources on a range

of curricular topics such as spatial geometry

(Förster, 2017), biology, physics, chemistry

(Short, 2012) and literacy (Marcon, 2013). Bar-

El and Ringland (2020) examined 627 online

lesson plans devised for M:EE and found that

teachers used M:EE for a range of subjects with

Technology, Art & Design, Math & Economics and

Science being the most common subject tags.

Figure 5 illustrates how M:EE can be used to

make and present interactive biological models.

These worlds allow teachers to immerse their

students in the desired content and provide

an opportunity to make abstract concepts or

complex worlds more relevant and accessible.

Figure 5: Three-dimensional model of the human eye. Includes labels

for key parts of the eye (Minecraft: Education Edition, 2019).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Bar-El and Ringland’s (2020) analysis of the

corpus of online M:EE lesson plans revealed that

there are three main ‘proles’ or descriptions

of how teachers create learning activities

using these resources from M:EE. Teachers

can use M:EE as a way to get their students

to play ‘A Game within a Game’. Here the

teachers create ‘complex worlds with multiple

NPCs, with either textual information, or large

structures representing natural phenomena or

cities’ (Bar-El & Ringland, 2020, p. 2). Students

must participate in a game or complete a

quest. The Ngā Motu world requires students

to explore a traditional pā (settlement) and

ride waka hourua (boats) in their efforts to

learn more about the indigenous culture of

the Māori people of New Zealand (M:EE Blog,

2021). Another way for teachers to use M:EE

involves the ‘Game as a Lab or Expedition’.

Students must perform tasks within the M:EE

world and take notes in an accompanying

worksheet e.g. exploring M:EE biomes and

then using a Venn diagram to compare and

contrast geography, wildlife and vegetation.

For example, Jensen and Hanhøj (2020) used

the co-ordinate system embedded in M:EE as

a means to explore mathematical problems

and to develop students’ understanding of

co-ordinate geometry. This way of using M:EE

allowed students to make strong connections

as to how mathematical knowledge can

be relevant in multiple domains. The nal

prole calls for M:EE to be used as a ‘Game

for Student Representations’. Here, the

teacher uses M:EE as an environment where

students can represent their learning e.g.

constructing ancient landmarks, using boards

and non-player characters to communicate

their learning. Andrade et al.’s (2020) work

in using M:EE to engage older and younger

children in urban planning is one example

of this approach. This taxonomy of teachers’

learning designs with sandbox games aligns

well with the anecdotal descriptions of the

ways in which teachers used M:EE during the

COVID-19 pandemic to engage their students

in remote learning (e.g. M:EE Blog, 2020b).

A multiple site case study by Pusey and Pusey

(2015) in Australia, involving science classes

from an all-girls school (n=47 participants) and

a co-educational public school (n=29), illustrates

the value of such digital resources and

engaging with M:EE in the three ways outlined

by Bar-El and Ringland (2020). In this study, M:EE

was used in conjunction with ‘oine’ teaching

methods (worksheets, teacher presentations,

videos and practical experiments) to teach

a 6-week Earth Science programme (Pusey

& Pusey, 2015). The researchers curated a

learning experience that allowed the students

to experience curricular content in three ways –

through traditional ‘book knowledge’, through

physical interaction (practical experiments)

and through interaction with digital materials

(M:EE). Research has shown that repeating

and revisiting key topics and concepts across

multiple sessions using different techniques

can aid long-term memory and recall (Dunlosky

et al., 2013). Therefore, the inclusion of M:EE

in the design and ‘curation’ of their students’

learning experiences ensured that the teachers

were providing multiple modes for ‘meaning

making’. This strategy is recommended widely

by teaching practitioners (e.g. Kryiacou, 2007;

Westwood, 2011) and is also advocated in the

Irish primary school curriculum (DES, 1999,

p. 15), where teachers are encouraged to

have learning experiences that ‘take place

on a number of planes simultaneously …

and return to them at regular intervals’.

While positive feedback from students (using

surveys) was recorded, other measures,

like test scores, were not used in Pusey and

Pusey’s (2015) exploratory study to determine

the impact of M:EE on learning. However, it is

important to note that the teachers in Pusey

and Pusey’s (2015) study deployed M:EE in a

highly structured manner, complementing

online activities with worksheets and other off-

line tasks. Wouters et al.’s (2016) meta-analysis

indicated that digital games are more effective

in enhancing learner knowledge and skills when

they are supplemented with other instructional

methods (e.g. lectures, readings, activities etc.,)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

than when they are used as the sole instruction

method (d=.41). As the learning experiences

well with Wouters et al.’s (2016) ndings, it is

possible that M:EE did have a positive impact

on learner’s knowledge and skill acquisition.

Further research that directly addresses this

research area needs to be conducted. This

research is needed to determine if, when and

how exactly M:EE should be used in classrooms

to facilitate effective learning experiences that

have a positive impact on student learning

outcomes (See Section 5 for more details).

4.1.2 Supporting Children with

Special Educational Needs (SEN)

According to the Irish primary school curriculum

(DES, 1999), all children have the right to a

high quality education, appropriate to their

needs, in an inclusive setting alongside their

peers. Ensuring that educational provision is

exible enough for individual children at various

stages of their development in a mainstream

setting can be dicult for teachers to achieve.

For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual (5th Education; DSM-V) asserts that

autistic learners

often have diculties with

social communication and social interactions

(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013).

However, despite public misconceptions, autistic

learners do indeed have a desire to forge social

connections and relationships with others

(Ochs & Solomon, 2010). Therefore, specic

supports for social interactions can sometimes

be needed in schools to support an ‘increased

generalisation of necessary social interaction

skills and positive social play with peers’

(Stone et al., 2018, p. 209). Other research has

shown that playing video games like M:EE may

help with this as it seems to be particularly

well-suited to supporting the development of

social and educational skills in other groups

of neurodiverse learners such as those with

dyslexia and Attention Decit Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD; Granic et al., 2014).

15 In line with recommendations from autism advocacy groups, identity rst language will be used (e.g. AsIAm, 2019).

Minecraft can help

learners develop

SOCIAL LINKS

AND FRIENDS

Research recommends ‘multi-modal’

ways of providing neurodiverse learners

with opportunities to engage in social

interaction and communication (Stone et

al., 2018; Westwood, 2011). M:EE facilitates

this. For example, within M:EE players can

communicate with each other by sending

texts or by talking directly using external

programmes or applications. M:EE also

links in with a range of other social media

platforms like YouTube or Wiki software. As

a result, learners do not need to confront

every aspect of face-to-face communication

(e.g. eye contact, facial expressions,

gestures) when attempting to develop

social links and friendships with their peers.

Stimulation in the form of feedback, reward

and consequences can be achieved through

game play which is often highly benecial for

neurodiverse children (Granic et al., 2014).

In their exploratory study on the topic involving

a very small sample of three autistic learners,

Stone et al. (2018) found that M:EE was able to

support social interactions for autistic learners

in ways that face-to-face contexts could not

provide. They argued that M:EE allowed learners

to ‘engage in reciprocal conversations, to

share information, to make requests… send

messages, communicate rules and maintain

engagements with others’ (Stone et al., 2018,

p. 209). Work by Wen-wen and Kuen-fueng

(2018) in Hong Kong involving 15 autistic

learners playing M:EE also noted similarly

positive results in relation to students’ social

skills. Using a qualitative approach, Hobbs et

al. (2020) evaluated outcomes from a science-

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

themed M:EE Club for children with SEN over a

four-year period. Particular focus was placed on

the benets of playing a shared-interest game

in a social and educational context. The children

and guardians involved highlighted a number

of benets to their long-term involvement in the

club including ‘making friends, tting in, and

feeling valued without judgement regardless

of completing tasks or conforming to expected

social behaviours…improved condence

and well-being’ (Hobbs et al., 2020, p. 91).

O’Sullivan et al. (2017) investigated the use

of M:EE for the design of inclusive learning

experiences for twice exceptional learners in

Ireland. Twice exceptional (2e) learners ‘are

intellectually or creatively gifted’ in areas like

maths, science or the performing arts but ‘also

experience one or more learning diculties’

including specic learning disabilities, speech

and language differences (O’Sullivan et al.,

2017, p. 2). As discussed by Reis et al. (2014,

p. 222) ‘their gifts may mask their disabilities

and their disabilities may mask their gifts’. To

help 2e learners manage the unique challenges

they face in classrooms, O’Sullivan et al. (2017,

p. 41), on the basis of work by Nielson (2002),

recommended a number of strategies to assist

in the design of appropriate and inclusive

learning experiences such as providing freedom

and variety, using simulated and real-world

problems and using adaptable environment/

tools that are sensitive to any specic learning

needs. M:EE can help educators successfully

implement these strategies. The sandbox

nature of M:EE facilitates the freedom and

open-endedness that 2e students require

in their education. While this means that

students can create and discover projects

that interest them, O’Sullivan et al. (2017)

also acknowledged that teachers can also

create simulations of real-world problems and

artefacts that learners can engage with in a

way that can be adapted to their particular

needs. O’Sullivan et al.’s (2017) exploratory

study demonstrates the range of ways that

M:EE can be used to help 2e students explore

topics related to literature (e.g. Charlotte’s Web,

Fantastic Mr. Fox; Figure 6), history (Norman

Castles) and geography (stratigraphy). These

learning experiences take place in an inclusive

learning environment that can support

effective teaching for 2e students as outlined

by Nielson (2002) and O’Sullivan et al. (2017).

Again, much of the work relating to this aspect

of teachers’ use of M:EE is small scale and

exploratory in nature. Future research needs

to address such shortcomings (see Section 5).

Figure 6: A scene from Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr. Fox recreated in Minecraft (Minecraft Education Edition, 2019)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

4.1.3 Challenges in using M:EE

to Support Teaching

M:EE has signicant potential to support the

work of teachers in designing learning activities

that can maximise students’ success and

achievement. However, incorporating M:EE

into classrooms still requires some specialist

technical and pedagogical skills that may not

be addressed in initial or continuing teacher

education (Nebel et al., 2016). In their survey of

694 elementary teachers in the United States,

Takeuchi and Vaala (2014) noted that teachers

usually learn to teach with digital games using

informal means (e.g. colleagues, self-teaching).

This means that teachers may not be ‘getting

exposure to the broader range of pedagogical

strategies, resources, and types of games

that can enhance and facilitate digital game

integration’ (Takeuchi & Vaala, 2014, p. 5). To

ensure that the potential of M:EE as a learning

tool is fullled in Ireland, teachers will need

specic guidance on how to design effective

learning experiences using M:EE or other

sandbox-like games and how these games

align with relevant learning theories. Hanghøj

and Hautopp (2016) note that teachers need

this to inform their “game literacy”. Without

this literacy, teachers will be unable to ‘select

relevant curricular aims and assignments

that relate meaningfully to particular game

goals, game practices and assessment criteria’

(Hanghøj & Hautopp, 2016, p. 266). ‘Game

literacy’ will need to be addressed in Irish pre-

and in-service teacher programmes in a manner

that is informed by best practice research. The

recommended structure for such programmes

is outlined in Section 5 of this report.

Summary

• M:EE can allow educators to create

resources across multiple subject

areas that can provide curriculum-

aligned learning experiences.

• At present, there are three main

proles of how teachers can use

M:EE with their learners: as a (1)

‘game within a game’, (2) ‘game

as a lab/expedition’ and (3) ‘game

for student representation’.

• M:EE can support learners with a

wide range of strengths and needs

due to its multi-modal approach to

social interaction and communication

and its use of feedback.

• Teachers’ effective use of

M:EE and other digital games

is highly dependent on their

own ‘game literacy’.

CENTURY

SKILLS:

Creativity, Metacognition,

Responsibility,

Communication,

ICT Literacy, Critical

Thinking, Problem Solving

and Collaboration.

(Binkley et al., 2012)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

4.2 M:EE to Support Learning

The Irish primary school curriculum (DES, 1999,

p. 14) denes learning as ‘an experience that

contributes to the child’s development’. With

this in mind, a number of principles guiding

the design of learning experiences exist

within the Irish primary school curriculum.

These include the child as an active agent, the

reinforcement of higher order thinking and

problem solving, the value of technology, and

the importance of collaboration (DES, 1999).

While the Irish primary school curriculum is

more than two decades in existence, many

of the principles and values underpinning it

align well with recent changes in international

educational policy, where the teaching of

‘21st Century Skills’ are now prioritised. The

phrase ‘21st Century Skills’ is commonly used

in education to refer to the recent shift in

curricula towards a ‘rigorous skill-based

instruction [approach], often embracing new

technologies and modes of communication’

(Bellanca, 2017, p. 793). While countries and

districts can vary in their conceptualisation of

these skills (e.g. Partnership for 21st Century

Learning [P21], 2019; Assessment and Teaching

of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S), Binkley et al.,

2012; Ananiadou & Claro, 2009), some common

elements emerge. These include, among

others, critical thinking, collaborative problem

solving, communication and digital literacy.

These skills are now being targeted in national

curricula worldwide, including Ireland (DES,

2015, see page 66; DES, 2016). Preliminary

research indicates that M:EE can offer an ideal

environment for students to develop key 21st

century skills by facilitating high-quality, project-

based learning experiences that supports the

learning principles of Irish curricula, such as

the use of collaborative learning techniques.

4.2.1 Project-Based Learning

A project can be dened as ‘an act of creation

over time’ (Lenz, Wells, & Kingston, 2015,

p. 67) and within the context of a primary

or post-primary classroom may include

posters, dioramas, musical compositions

etc. Project-based activities are consistent

with the learning principles outlined in Irish

curricula as they support an integrated,

thematic approach to learning (DES, 1999).

Closely aligned with constructionism

(Papert, 1981), learning experiences that

are centred around the use of projects

are considered an ‘active, student-centred

form of instruction which is characterised

by students’ autonomy, constructive

investigations, goal-setting, collaboration,

communication and reection within real-

world practices’ (Kokotsaki et al., 2016, p.

268). According to Blumenfeld et al. (1991),

there are two essential elements to projects:

i A question, problem or task that organises

and drives the learning activity and

ii The presentation of a nal artefact that

represents students’ new understandings,

knowledge, skills and attitudes.

It is important to recognise that the use

of projects in classrooms have historically

encountered resistance and criticism by those

who incorrectly conate it with ‘discovery

learning’ – where students uncover key

principles or information on their own

(Kirschner et al., 2006). However, project based

activities can have signicant educational value

when designed properly and facilitated by

teachers who are aware of the key principles

underlying them (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007;

see Condliffe et al. (2016) for a summary of

the design principles necessary for project-

based learning). In their research on project-

based learning, Han et al. (2014) discovered

that low-performing high-school students

(n=505) participating in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-

based learning activities had signicantly

higher growth rates on math scores over a

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

three-year period and a reduced achievement

gap overall. Project-based learning can also

be a useful way for students to synthesise

and apply their newfound content-based

knowledge and skills (Hmelo-Silver et al.,

2007) while simultaneously developing other

skills like collaboration, time management

and critical thinking (Kokotsaki et al., 2016).

M:EE provides an ideal environment for project-

based learning activities. Callaghan’s (2016)

work investigated the use of M:EE with 168

Australian students in Years 7-10 (aged 12-

16) using a collective case study approach

involving qualitative data. One group of Year

7 students were enrolled in a Technology and

Applied Studies module which involved the

use of projects to learn the principles of house

design using a range of appropriate software

(e-Folio, Google Sketch-Up etc.,). The students

were then required to turn their designs into

an architectural structure in M:EE. Their M:EE

house became, as Papert (1980; 1991) would

say, their ‘object to think with’. This allowed

the students to determine if their structure was

feasible, realistic and designed in accordance

with previously learned design principles. In

analysing teacher observations and student

feedback sheets, Callaghan (2016, p. 253)

acknowledged that ‘once students began

building their ideal home in M:EE, they were

able to quickly visually identify any aws in their

design and make necessary modications’.

This demonstrates the power of project work

using M:EE. It allowed students to create an

artefact that demonstrated their learning

but also provided them, and their teacher,

an opportunity to identify any errors or

misconceptions and then enact the necessary

modications. The use of M:EE in this study

encouraged the students to think more deeply

about the concepts being taught in their Year 7

Design class. M:EE can therefore be a powerful

tool in facilitating project-based learning if the

game-play encourages students to engage with

key curricular concepts and skills as identied

by their teachers. This is further demonstrated

by the Irish MindRising initiative (see Figure 7

and Figure 8). MindRising was a competition

launched in 2016 to support the 100-year

commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising –

the armed rebellion against British rule that

took place in April 1916 (beginning on Easter

Sunday) which eventually led to the foundation

of the Irish Republic. According to Butler et al.

(2016, p. 287), MindRising ‘was about telling

digital stories… reecting on the events of

1916 and reimagining what the next 100 years

could bring for Ireland’ using M:EE as their

storytelling medium. The submitted projects

(available online at: http://www.mindrising.ie/)

showcase the value of using M:EE to support

project-based learning in non-science subjects.

Figure 7: Scenes from a submitted MindRising

Project entitled ‘The Burning of Cork City – 1920’

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

The MindRising Games initiative was launched

in February 2016 as a competition for young

people aged 6 to 14 years. The initiative

was used to involve school children in the

State’s 100-year anniversary celebrations

of the Easter Rising, a key event in the

foundation of the Irish republic.

The MindRising Games project involved an

exploration of the past, present and possible

future of the island of Ireland using Minecraft.

Children were encouraged to develop their

own virtual worlds in Minecraft to remember

the past 100 years and reimagine what the

next 100 years could bring to Ireland. Sample

lesson plans were developed to support

teachers along with sample Minecraft worlds.

To create these virtual worlds in Minecraft, the

children rst had to research different aspects

of Irish history and Geography. For example,

some projects required students to have a deep

knowledge of the key events in 1916 to map

the movement of troops, design buildings etc.,

to ensure that their Minecraft world mirrored

historical fact. Some of the projects were based

in the children’s own locality (e.g. ‘The Burning

of Cork’), allowing the projects to take on a

more personal and authentic dimension.

All participants were invited to a one-day

MindRising Games celebration in May 2016 to

share their worlds and learn from each other.

In creating their Minecraft worlds, the children

involved in MindRising were able to create a

meaningful artefact, as advocated by Papert

(1991), that was informed by their own

research. This research was recorded in a

digital portfolio. The children worked with

their peers in creating the Minecraft worlds.

This ‘act of creation over time’ (Lenz et al.,

2016, p. 67), helped the children to develop

important 21st Century Skills like collaboration,

communication and digital literacy skills (DES,

2015; 2016). The children were also required

to create short videos explaining their worlds.

When narrating these videos, the children

had to employ a clear structure in their oral

reports and recall relevant historical facts. As a

result, it can be argued that ‘playing’ Minecraft

helped the children involved in this initiative

to engage with and build their understanding

of key curricular content and skills from the

History and English curriculum for primary

and post-primary schools (DES, 1999).

To view sample projects, visit

www.mindrising.ie

Minecraft rendering of the General Post

Oce 1916 and a Minecraft rendering of

Pádraig Pearse reading the Proclamation

of Independence in 1916.

Figure 8: MindRising Summary

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

The 2016 MindRising initiative involving the use

of M:EE for project work was, in many ways,

ahead of its time. When schools around the

world began to close in March 2020 due to

COVID-19, the physical classroom became a

virtual one (Scully et al., 2021). Educators’ use

of M:EE during this period increased (Squire,

2021) and consequently, there is now a wealth

of anecdotal evidence available to demonstrate

how M:EE can support project-based learning

(M:EE Blog, 2020b). For example, one teacher

from Canada used M:EE to teach biodiversity.

While working from their devices at home,

Grade 6 students had to design an ethical zoo in

M:EE that took into consideration the habitats,

needs and living conditions of the animals

under discussion. Students took responsibility

for one animal’s habitat and students were able

to visit each other’s habitats as the zoo was

hosted on a shared server. This project also

spawned a number of other projects, including

the design of relevant and appropriate YouTube

ads for the M:EE zoo. The project encouraged

students to develop research skills and maintain

relationships with their peers, despite being

physically separated from each other. While this

anecdotal evidence is valuable, a more rigorous

approach to research the value of M:EE related

projects is necessary to determine its true value.

4.2.2 Collaboration Skills

As society has recognised the necessity of

people thinking and working together to

solve critical global issues in the 21st century,

education systems have begun a shift in

emphasis from individual efforts to group

work (Binkley et al., 2012). To maximise

the success of current and future group

activities, schools are now trying to develop

the collaboration skills of their learners using

collaborative learning activities (e.g. DES,

1999; 2015; 2016). Collaborative learning

involves ‘groups of learners working together

to solve a problem, complete a task, or

create a product’ (Laal & Laal, 2012). Digital

games, and in particular multi-player online

games, are an ideal context for facilitating

and studying collaboration as they provide an

environment that encourages social interaction

in the pursuit of a shared goal (Squire, 2008).

The value of using collaborative learning

approaches in primary and post-primary

classrooms has been consistently stated in

literature and is foundational within the Irish

curriculum (DES, 1999). Within the context of

digital settings, this value appears amplied.

Dave et al. (2018, p. 58) note that players

in digital games must ‘…negotiate conict,

explain and persuade, and coordinate ideas

with other players...’ to achieve a particular

goal. In this way, digital games can allow

learners to acquire relational and interpersonal

skills, some of which may be transferable

beyond the immediate gaming environment.

As a sandbox-type, multi-player game with a

range of communication functions, M:EE can

support collaborative learning practices among

students. Within M:EE, communication can

occur using synchronous (direct messaging)

or asynchronous (leaving messages on

boards etc.,) methods. Other user-generated

content also exists to support and extend

game-play e.g. discussion boards (Minecraft

Wiki, 2021). Unfortunately, having multiple

modes of communication does not guarantee

collaborative learning or the development of

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

improved collaboration skills as demonstrated

by Davis et al.’s (2018) exploratory study which

focused on the collaborative practices of three

groups (4 participants per group) of middle-

school children. The authors asserted that in

digital environments, the task or ‘stimulus’

for collaboration has to be planned and

structured within the group; interaction does

not just happen naturally. Perhaps this is why

more advanced collaborative practices were

only observed under very specic conditions

in Callaghan’s (2016) work. As mentioned

previously, Callaghan (2016) observed the

practices of students in a Year 7 technology

and design class. Similar aged players in a

voluntary, after-school M:EE club were also

observed. Those in the M:EE club were ‘more

likely to inform one another of their specic

skills and not actually assist their peers in

developing those particular skills’ (Callaghan,

2016, p. 252). In contrast, students in the Year

7 were more generous in sharing expertise

and more likely to listen to and learn from

others in order to ensure that their building

met the stated assessment criteria. This echoes

the work of Karsenti and Bugmann (2018, p.

210) who asserted that M:EE can only support

collaboration and learning if it is used in an

‘intentional, planned and supported’ manner.

In their experiment with 164 sixth-grade

students in South Korea, Baek and Touti (2020)

very effectively illustrated how the design

of collaborative and cooperative gameplay

can support or hinder academic and gaming

achievements in M:EE pending a range of

factors (e.g. gender). It is clear that further

work is required to understand how teachers

can design activities and experiences which

can maximise the positive outcomes associated

with collaborative learning (see Section 5).

16 Collaboration in learning is broadly dened as ‘a process that involves sharing knowledge, ideas, and

feelings with group members’ (Baek & Touti, 2020, p. 2111). In contrast, cooperative learning is ‘a process

that leads to an assembled product by splitting the workload’ (Baek & Touti, 2020, p. 2111).

17 Scratch is a free programming language and online community where you can create

your own interactive stories, games, and animations (MIT, 2021).

Dishon and Kafai’s (2020) work offers some

guidance on how effective learning experiences

for the development of collaboration skills can

be designed using M:EE. Perspective-taking –

the consideration of others’ mental states and

subjective experiences – is a key component

of collaboration and an essential aspect of all

interpersonal interactions (Hesse et al., 2015).

Dishon and Kafai (2020) argue that video games

can effectively support students’ development

of perspective taking. Playing games allows

students to occupy another’s world and ‘walk

a mile in another’s shoes’ (Gehlbah et al.,

2015). Creating games however, encourages

a more in-depth development of perspective

taking skills as building games is ‘intrinsically

other-oriented – created with the intent of

being used by others’ (Dishon & Kafai, 2020).

Making games involves analysing one’s work

from the perspective of future players and

then ‘translating abstract insights… to concrete

design decisions’ (Dishon & Kafai, 2020).

The game is, in line with the constructionist

principles outline in Section 3, ‘an object to

think with’. To better explore how GBL can

support this aspect of collaboration, Dishon

and Kafai (2020) designed and conducted a

collaborative game design workshop with high

school students (16 participants; 10 boys, 6

girls, ages 14–15). Although the participants

involved in this study were asked to design

oine games or games with Scratch

, the

insights from the study could easily be applied

to other online settings and games like

M:EE. The authors offer guidelines on how

to design and support perspective taking

with game design (e.g. ‘productive framing

of failure’) that should inform the design of

collaborative learning experiences with M:EE.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

4.2.3 Challenges in using M:EE

to Support Learning

According to recent marketing literature,

game sales in 2020 and 2021 are up ‘35%

over a year prior’ (Squire, 2021). This is hardly

surprising given that games allowed people

to ‘go’ somewhere else to socialise and

have new experiences while still staying safe

during the COVID-19 pandemic. M:EE gave

students an opportunity to maintain or develop

relationships with each other and celebrate

important milestones. For example, a virtual

UC Berkeley campus was created by Berkeley

students in Minecraft (called ‘Blockeley’). This

was used to hold ocial graduation ceremonies

that featured the Chancellor (Kell, 2020). The

M:EE Blog, (2021; 2020b) managed by Mohan,

has several examples of how educators

used M:EE to support remote learning and

teaching in the K-12 age group. However,

Squire (2021) anecdotally noted that a co-

ordinated effort at the institutional level to

adopt technologies like M:EE did not appear

to occur ‘en masse’ during the pandemic. Its

use as a learning tool was down to the work

of individual educators in K-12 or by groups

of students in third level institutions. While it

is dicult to support or deny Squire’s (2021)

assertions, it is likely that the use of M:EE for

learning during the pandemic was hampered

by a lack of appropriate infrastructure and

educator condence and competence in

using M:EE for education purposes.

Indeed, one of the greatest challenges that

restricts the use of M:EE in Irish classrooms

relates to infrastructure. Lack of adequate

access to technology, be it in terms of hardware

or internet connectivity, has been a major and

consistent barrier in many Irish schools towards

the use of online tools like M:EE (e.g. Coyne et

al., 2016). In her report outlining trends in

18 PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) assesses the reading achievement of fourth-class

students. First conducted in 2001, PIRLS takes place every ve years. The study collects detailed information

about curriculum and curriculum implementation, instructional practices, and school resources.

19 TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) assesses the maths and science achievement

of students in Fourth and Eighth grades (equivalent to Fourth Class and Second Year in Ireland).

technology usage in primary schools, Eivers

(2019) indicated that between 2010 and 2017,

there was no signicant funding for technology

resources available to schools. As indicated by

surveys conducted by PIRLS

2016 and TIMMS

2015, this resulted in schools with inadequate or

obsolete equipment at a time when signicant

efforts were being made to incorporate more

technology into everyday classroom life (e.g.

administration of large scale tests using

computers). However, the infrastructure grant

sanctioned by the 2015 Digital Strategy (DES,

2015) which allocated a total of €210m to Irish

primary and post-primary schools over a ve-

year period (2016-2021) should help to address

some of these concerns. Yet, Eivers (2019, p.

12) does note that ‘the costs and diculties

associated with managing and maintaining ICT

resources in a school has been largely ignored’

under this funding. Follow-up research (as

outlined in Section 5) is required to conrm if

Irish schools’ access to basic equipment (e.g.

computers, tablets) has increased and if this

increase in devices and resources in classrooms

is being managed and maintained in a way that

supports teaching and learning using tools like

M:EE. Inequities regarding the socio-technical

infrastructure of students at home would also

need addressing if tools like M:EE are to be used

at home for schooling purposes (Squire, 2021).

Furthermore, while poor infrastructure can

restrict the range of digitally-based learning

experiences available to students, other

unintended consequences also occur. A small-

scale study by the Educational Research Centre

(ERC) found that schools ‘are investing [in]

infrastructure and maintenance (hardware,

technical support) to a much greater extent

than [in] software and professional learning

for teachers’ (Cosgrove, et al., 2018, p. 10).

If government funding is only being used

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

to address infrastructural issues in Irish

schools, the professional learning experiences

necessary to progress the condence and

competence of teachers in using digital tools

to support learning outcomes may not be

available. Coyne et al. (2016) acknowledge that

insucient professional learning opportunities

and experiences result in practicing

teachers being less likely to use digital tools

when designing learning experiences for

their students. Therefore, easy-to-access

professional learning opportunities need to

be available for in-service teachers. While the

Professional Development Service for Teachers

– Technology in Education (PDST-TiE) does

provide high-quality professional learning

experiences to assist schools in embedding

digital technologies into learning and teaching,

other learning experiences and opportunities

should also be available to teachers.

Recommendations on the content and structure

of such professional learning experiences

are outlined in Section 5 of this report.

Summary

• M:EE provides an ideal environment

for project-based learning activities

as it allows students to create digital

artefacts that apply and demonstrate

their knowledge, skills and abilities.

• M:EE is a multi-player game with

a range of synchronous and

asynchronous communication

functions that can support

collaboration.

• Digital games like M:EE can

support perspective-taking – a key

component of collaboration and

all interpersonal interactions.

• The use of M:EE to support learning

can be hampered by infrastructure and

educator condence and competence.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

HOW CAN SERIOUS GAMES

SUPPORT ASSESSMENT?

without ‘domesticating games to the demands

of schools and losing, in the process, the very

features of gaming that can offer so much’?

Rowan & Beavis (2017, p. 173)

4.3 M:EE to Support Assessment

In the last number of years, the interest and

efforts in using serious games as assessment

tools in occupational settings (e.g. the US

military etc.,) has increased signicantly (Groff,

2018). This is hardly surprising as well designed

games are often considered the next generation

of assessments (de Klerk & Kato, 2017). This is

because digital games can ‘engage students in

a seamless learning experience, assessing their

learning… while (sic) providing critical feedback’

and information about their knowledge, skills

and abilities (Groff, 2018, p. 194). Unfortunately,

it can be dicult for teachers to use serious

games as assessment tools in educational

settings without ‘domesticating games to

the demands of schooling and losing, in the

process, the very features of games that appear

to offer so much’ (Rowan & Beavis, 2017, p.

173). Ensuring that teachers have sucient

agency to utilise digital games for classroom-

based assessment practices could overcome

the concerns of Rowan and Beavis (2017). This

would also allow teachers an opportunity to

collect data on their students’ competencies in

relation to those ‘hard to assess’ 21st century

skills like creativity and problem-solving.

4.3.1 Classroom Assessment

Practices with Digital Games

Assessment is often ‘categorised’ as ‘formative’

or ‘summative’ in nature (Lysaght, et al.,

2019). Formative assessment refers to any

activity that collects information about

students to inform future learning experiences

and summative assessment is the use of

information to determine what learning has

occurred (Lysaght et al., 2019). However,

Lysaght et al. (2019, p. 3) assert that ‘rather

than immediately framing assessment through

formative vs. summative lenses’, it is more

appropriate in modern education systems

to conceptualise it ‘as a central element of

effective teaching’. In this way, teachers can

view assessment as a natural part of what

happens in the classroom and that their use

of any assessment information occurs on a

continuum depending on their own professional

judgement. Therefore, any information

related to a student’s learning can be used for

formative or summative purposes, or, under

this new conceptualisation, a combination of

both. This assessment information can manifest

itself in various forms or types that can also

be arranged on a continuum. Assessment

information can arise from ‘organic’ types

of assessment that emerge when ‘a set

of habits’ is adopted (e.g. using success

criteria to support self-assessment practices)

or can come from more ‘planned’ (e.g.

conferencing, rubrics) or ‘visible’ (e.g. teacher

TYPE

Organic Planned Visible

PURPOSE

Formative

Summative

Figure 9: Types and purposes of assessment (adapted from Lysaght et al., 2019, p. 5)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

designed tests, standardised assessments)

types. This ‘dual-continuum’ approach

towards the gathering and use of assessment

information is summarised in Figure 9.

Lysaght et al.’s (2019) conceptualisation of

the assessment process aligns well with the

assessment practices that teachers in the

Serious Play

project engaged in (Beavis et al.,

2017). The Serious Play project aimed to explore

the possibilities and challenges of teaching and

learning with digital games in primary and post-

primary schools (N=10 schools). M:EE was one of

the main digital games used to investigate the

project’s research aims. When asked to discuss

their approach to assessing student work in

digital games, all of the teachers involved

emphasised a ‘exible’ approach where a

range of assessment types were used for both

formative and summative purposes (Rowan &

Beavis, 2017, p. 183). The teachers in this study

used their own professional judgement about

what type of assessment was most appropriate

at different times for their particular cohort of

students in their chosen digital game. Teacher

observations as an assessment tool were

common as this did not interrupt the process

of teaching and learning. This organic type of

assessment informed teachers’ future units

of work in literacy in line with a formative

approach to assessment. Some teachers also

used these observations to make judgements

20 Serious Play was a longitudinal, three-year research project involving collaboration between three Australian

universities and teachers in ten schools across two Australian states. Six primary and four secondary schools

participated in the project and represented a range of geographic and socio-economic contexts. Up to 400 students

per year were involved in the project, with a ‘core group’ of 22 teachers working in the project schools.

about their students’ skill development (e.g.

collaboration skills). In this instance, an

organic type of assessment occupied both a

summative and formative role for teachers.

Other types of assessments were also used to

inform summative and formative assessment

practices. For example, artefacts that the

students produced naturally in the process of

playing their games to meet lesson objectives

were used for summative purposes (e.g.

persuasive texts or oral descriptions produced

within the game). These also helped to plan

future units of work (formative assessment).

GBL requires assessment practices that allow

teachers to function as informed professionals

who make judgements appropriate to their

own classroom context about how and when to

engage in assessment and what the information

arising from such assessments can be used

for. Tools embedded into the M:EE can provide

teachers with the freedom and exibility

necessary for such an approach to assessment.

Teachers can then use this information for

both formative or summative purposes. For

example, M:EE can often be about creating a

product, as was the case in Callaghan’s (2016)

work where learners had to design a house.

This artefact can be used by the teacher to

assign a summative grade, in line with the use

of ‘visible assessments’ as discussed by Lysaght

et al. (2019). In progressing towards this visible

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

assessment activity, students could also use

the camera and portfolio tools to provide

written and oral reections on their progress

towards any shared learning outcomes or

success criteria. This form of self-assessment

becomes an organic part of the learning

process and can help teachers structure future

learning experiences to address any issues

that the students self-identied. Teachers

can also use the same content to provide

continual feedback to students within the

M:EE environment using the range of chat and

communication features available in M:EE.

These planned interactions that are easily

realised in digital games like M:EE, along with

other more ‘organic’ and ‘visible’ assessments,

can support a multi-faceted approach to

assessment, such as that recommended by

Lysaght et al. (2019). Therefore, assessment is

possible in digital games. Further consideration

is needed to determine how such classroom

assessments relate to or support success in

external assessments (e.g. state exams).

4.3.2 ‘Hard to Assess’ Skills

Groff (2018) claimed that digital games have

the potential to assess a range of 21st century

skills. For example, collaboration skills are

more readily assessed in online environments.

This was clearly demonstrated by the 2015

Programme for International Student

Assessments (PISA; 2017) which included a

computer-based assessment of collaborative

problem-solving skills using virtual computer

agents and interactive simulations involving

online chat interfaces. Digital games can offer

an ideal context to assess the collaboration

skills of students. As noted by Voorhis and Paris

(2019, p. 40), ‘a game can require cooperation,

communication, and coordination of actions

by multiple people’. Successful collaborators

can be rewarded in games (e.g. ‘levelling

up’, accessing new resources or gaming

environments etc.) in ways that are not possible

in traditional assessments. Furthermore,

Voorhis and Paris (2019) specically highlight

the potential of M:EE to assess students’

creativity. Sandbox games like M:EE, allow

players the opportunity to experiment and

create in an open and unrestricted world. Here,

learners can design their own challenges and

‘use their analytical skills to test and create’

(Voorhis & Paris, p. 40). Work by Conforth and

Adan (2015) explored how data collected from

students playing M:EE can be used to provide

insights into students’ skills and problem-

solving strategies across a range of areas. In

digital environments, huge amounts of process

data about how different skills, like creativity

and collaboration, are generated (e.g. who

initiated different tasks, how many times

someone made a contribution). However, the

presentation and visualisation of this data

to teachers, as well as teachers’ abilities to

understand what the data is telling them, is a

major challenge in the use of serious games for

‘serious assessment’ in educational contexts.

4.3.3 Challenges in using M:EE to

Support Assessment Practices

Groff (2018) notes that digital games can

provide a ‘digital ocean’ of learning data. In an

attempt to make sense of this data, learning

analytics is becoming more and more important

to the eld of GBL. Learning analytics relates

to the use of ‘data, analysis and predictive

modelling to improve teaching and learning’

(Groff, 2018, p. 194). Models and algorithms

are used to process the huge amount of

data obtained from GBL environments

to provide more accurate descriptions of

students’ strengths and needs. It is hoped that

learning analytics will help teachers to better

understand student progress and ability in

developing ‘hard to assess’ skills (e.g. OCED,

2016). Unfortunately, this eld is still in its

infancy which means that teachers are still

not able to avail of the rich data that could be

‘mined’ from GBL environments. Furthermore,

Mislevy (Educational Testing Service [ETS],

2016) notes that applying learning analytics

to data collected in GBL environments can

be problematic as student performance in

a digital game may be inuenced by ‘other

things that shouldn’t play a big role for the

results, like their familiarity with the game

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

setting, the language and the representations

that are used, and the familiarity with the

cultural aspects’. This may call into question the

appropriateness of the inferences being made

by such algorithms. Extensive research needs

to be conducted in this eld before teachers

can avail of learning analytics to support their

assessment practices when using digital games.

The work of teachers in the Serious Play project

(Beavis et al., 2017) indicates that there is

still signicant value in using GBL to support,

enhance and diversify teachers’ assessment

practices (Beavis et al., 2017; Voorhis & Paris,

2019). Unfortunately, as with many educational

advancements involving technology, lack of

sucient professional learning opportunities

and support is a major barrier that limits the

use of digital games like M:EE in supporting

teachers’ assessment practices. Takeuchi and

Vaala’s (2014) survey of American primary

teachers found that while 74% of them used

digital games to structure learning activities,

only 12% stated that they used children’s game

play as a source of assessment information.

This indicates that understanding the capacity

of GBL environments to support assessment

practices requires considerable support.

These supports should address the needs of

both pre- and in-service teachers and would

likely required sustained investment.

74%

Approximately 74%

of teachers in the US

used children’s game

play as a source of

assessment information.

Takeuchi & Vaala (2014)

Summary

• Any information gathered in M:EE

can be used for formative or

summative assessment purposes

– or some combination of both.

• Tools like portfolios that are embedded

within M:EE can support a exible

approach to classroom assessment.

• Digital games provide an ideal

context to observe ‘hard-to-

measure’ skills like collaboration.

• The ability to use data from games

to support assessment practices is

challenging as the eld of learning

analytics is still in its infancy in

relation to game-based assessment.

5.0

RESEARCH AGENDA

AND FUTURE

CONSIDERATIONS

5.0

RESEARCH AGENDA

AND FUTURE

CONSIDERATIONS

5.0

RESEARCH AGENDA AND

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

This section will address

the following questions:

• What gaps in the eld of GBL should

future research try to address?

• How should future research in

the eld of GBL be designed?

• How can we support educators’

efforts in designing effective GBL

experiences for their learners?

It is hardly surprising that there is a growing

interest in the use of GBL in schools given the

immense popularity of recreational gaming

among children and young people. The

COVID-19 pandemic has also encouraged

educators to reassess the role and use of

digital technology in education (Squire, 2021).

Unfortunately, very few empirical studies

describing how digital games can be used in

relation to specic curricular aims and what

they can contribute to effective teaching,

learning and assessment practices actually

exist. Therefore, more research is needed to

justify and guide the use of GBL in primary

and post-primary classrooms. Given the ease

with which M:EE can be accessed by teachers

and learners (i.e. a device and M:EE license), its

familiarity amongst young people and the large

range of educational resources available, M:EE

is an ideal tool to investigate GBL approaches

in Irish education. Future research using M:EE

should address the current shortcomings in

the eld of GBL in terms of research design

(Section 5.1) and help to advance educators’

understanding of the value of M:EE in designing

appropriate teaching and learning experiences

(Section 5.2). If any GBL approaches are to be

implemented in Irish primary and post-primary

schools, teachers will need to be engaged in

specic professional learning programmes.

Such programmes would be subject to a

number of considerations (Section 5.3).

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

5.1 Design Considerations

for Future Research

Studies Involving M:EE

While preliminary evidence from literature

reviews and small-scale studies supports the

potential effectiveness of learning through

digital games, there is a lack of empirical

evidence outlining the learning outcomes,

if any, associated with using them to teach

specic knowledge or skills. The conditions

under which these possible benets arise is

also unclear. As noted by Davis et al. (2018, p.

57), ‘efforts to incorporate M:EE … into teaching

and learning will be based on hunches and

best guesses instead of empirically supported

best practices’ until more evidence has been

collected. Based on the current review of the

literature, four key recommendations have

been formulated to ensure that high-quality

research is conducted using M:EE as a tool to

explore the ecacy of GBL in classrooms.

1. Use More Diverse Research Methods

to Examine the Value of M:EE in Irish

Classrooms

Many of the research studies reviewed for

this report were not particularly diverse

in terms of methodological approaches.

Case studies (e.g. Callaghan, 2016; Pusey &

Pusey, 2015; Beavis et al., 2017) exploring

the use of M:EE in classrooms were the most

common research design used. These case

studies tended to use self-report methods

to describe the experiences and opinions

of students and teachers using M:EE (e.g.

Pusey & Pusey, 2015). While case studies

can provide valuable information on a topic

and can effectively highlight the interplay

between ‘classroom culture, context plus

the software’ in GBL experiences (Klopfer

& Squire, 2008, p. 224), there is a clear need

to diversify the type of research available

on GBL. High quality experimental or quasi-

experimental research that aims to explore

the value of M:EE in Irish classrooms in terms

of learner outcomes (and not just their

experiences) across a range of skills (e.g.

collaboration, problem-solving etc.,) using

a variety of measures (e.g. achievement of

curricular aims) is required. This will help

to better explain some of the ndings of

widely cited meta-analyses in the eld (e.g.

Clark et al., 2016; Wouters et al., 2013).

2. Investigate a Broad Range

of Research Questions

Mayer (2011) has divided GBL

research into three categories:

i Value-Added Research aims to identify

the game features that foster learning.

ii Cognitive Consequences Research

investigates what people learn

from playing games.

iii Media Comparison Research explores

the idea of whether people learn

better from games or other media.

While Wouters et al. (2013) addressed the

nal category in their meta-analysis (see

Section 3.0), less value-added and cognitive

consequences based research has been

conducted (So & Seo, 2018). Research

questions arising from each of these three

categories should be investigated using M:EE.

In particular, high-quality research studies

that explore what specic M:EE features

support learning and what knowledge,

skills or abilities are best learned through

the medium of M:EE should be prioritised.

3. Conduct Longitudinal Studies

This recommendation is heavily inuenced

by So and Seo (2018) who, in their review

of GBL in Asian countries, highlighted

that most research studies prior to 2017

examined the effects of games during a

short intervention period, ranging from two

days to two weeks. While there are some

notable exceptions to this (e.g. Serious Play

project; Beavis et al., 2017), the majority of

research in this eld relates to short-term,

small-scale interventions. More long-term

research studies are needed to understand

how students and teachers ‘accept, utilize,

or misuse games’ like M:EE (So & Seo, 2018,

p. 408). While longitudinal studies may

be expensive and dicult to co-ordinate

and fund, the value of this research for

the eld nationally and internationally

would be particularly signicant.

4. Establish a Theoretical Framework

As argued by Rooney (2012, p. 41), the

importance of underpinning games ‘with

a sound theoretical framework which

integrates and balances theories from two

elds of practice: pedagogy and game

design’ cannot be underestimated. The

application of digital games in classrooms

needs to be informed by reputable

instructional approaches and pedagogical

theories but also by well-informed game

design strategies associated with the

theories of engagement, motivation,

ow and immersion (Rooney, 2012).

Unfortunately, it has been dicult to balance

the key aims of pedagogy and play in

designing such a framework, which Rooney

(2012) highlights in their analysis of key

works in the eld. Despite these diculties,

any efforts to establish and research a

theoretical framework for GBL would be a

major contribution to the eld and would

likely help design more robust and replicable

research studies. The lack of a theoretical

framework for GBL may partially explain

why current research exploring the value of

M:EE tends to describe what happened rather

than explain why something happened.

Therefore, future research in the eld of

GBL should aim to establish a theoretical

framework that will assist in determining the

value of GBL and M:EE for certain types of

students or for different subjects; issues that

have been previously addressed without any

real level of satisfaction or generalisability

(Mavoa et al., 2018; Schrier. 2018). This

research could then help educators better

understand how to structure M:EE based

learning activities in order to maximise

learning opportunities. Nadolny et al. (2020)

have recently proposed two frameworks of

design characteristics for GBL that make a

greater effort to operationalise digital games

than the previously described frameworks

e.g. Squire (2008). They associated four

primary ‘categories’ of games (leveled

games, problem solving games, open-world

multi-player games, and immersive multi-

player games) with secondary characteristics

(paired positive and negative game mechanics,

immediate feedback with technology, reward

mechanisms that track progress, supportive

multi-sensory learning, team structures, and

teams with personalization) that should lead

to specic cognitive outcomes (e.g. classify,

execute as per Anderson & Krathwohl’s,

2001 taxonomy). While more time and

research is needed to determine if this

theoretical framework is appropriate,

it provides a much needed starting

point that could standardise research

on GBL so that a better understanding

of its value can be ascertained.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Future Research Studies Investigating Minecraft & GBL

Diverse Research Methods

Researchers need to explore diverse research methods in order to

better understand the impact of games (like Minecraft) on learners.

Both qualitative and quantitative research needs to be conducted

investigating the impact of GBL on learner outcomes and experiences.

Broad Range of Research Questions

Research should aim to answer the following questions:

1 What game features can support learning?

2 What do people learn when playing digital games?

3 Do people learn better from games or other teaching

approaches? Are there certain moderating or

mediating factors that need to be considered?

Conduct Longitudinal Studies

Research exploring GBL needs to better understand how

learners and teachers ‘accept, utilise or misuse games’ like

Minecraft (So & Seo, 2018, p. 408). Long-term, large-scale

research studies are needed to answer this question.

Establish a Theoretical Framework

Theoretically driven research could help identify the value of Minecraft

and GBL for certain types of students or for different subiects and/or

skills. This research could then help educators better understand how

to structure GBL activities in order to maximise learning opportunities.

Figure 10: Recommendations for future research studies.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

5.2 Understanding the Potential

Value of M:EE in Classrooms

Work that will inform and support teachers’

design of GBL experiences should also be

conducted to better understand the potential

value of M:EE in classrooms. A large scale study

conducted by SRI International (2010) assessing

21st century skills acquisition in four different

countries found that over 90% of the variances

in student work scores was due to differences in

the classroom learning activities that students

completed. Therefore, the quality of learning

experiences that a teacher designs strongly

predicts the quality of the work that a learner

completes. Most of the literature consulted for

this review indicates that M:EE can be utilised

to help design curricular based activities in a

number of areas like science, maths, literacy,

history, geography etc. However, to ensure the

quality of these learning experiences, more

rigorous research is needed to gain a more

informed understanding of what content and

skills M:EE is especially suited for, if any, and

why. Pre-service teachers in Gabriel et al.’s

(2019) work also disclosed reservations on

which age group this approach should be used

with. For example, building scale models of

buildings like the Egyptian pyramids or the Taj

Mahel in India is a common activity in M:EE with

those over the age of 10 years (Tromba, 2013).

When building these models in M:EE, students

need to use a range of mathematical skills (e.g.

division, calculating surface area and volume)

to ensure that their digital model is to scale. It

is possible that playing M:EE can help students

become more procient at this particular

aspect of the mathematics curriculum. This

assumption should be explored using high-

quality research studies that also examine

other factors that may mediate or moderate the

ecacy of M:EE such as student demographics

(e.g. age, gender, SEN), teacher demographics

(e.g. years’ experience) and school context.

Future research exploring the value of M:EE in

primary and post-primary schools (particularly

in relation to the teaching and learning of 21st

century skills) should be conducted across all

subjects (literacy, history etc.,) and involve a

range of topics. This will help guarantee the

design of effective learning experiences and

activities for their students in the ‘intentional,

planned and supported manner’ advocated

by Karsenti and Bugmann (2018, p. 210).

M:EE can also offer educational researchers

a context to explore other ‘big’ questions in

education. For example, the value of project-

based learning in classrooms is still under

discussion in research literature (e.g. Kirschner

et al., 2006; Hmelo et al., 2007), but it is often

used and recommended when deploying

M:EE in science or history classrooms (e.g.

Callaghan, 2016; Butler et al., 2016). In their

review of research examining the relationship

between project-based learning and student

achievement, Condliffe et al. (2017) outlined the

common methodological weaknesses of this

research eld. These included, but were not

limited to, a scarcity of experimental studies,

implementation inconsistencies, and a lack of

validity and reliability of measures. Until more

rigorous research is conducted, the effects

of project-based learning are ‘promising, but

not proven’ (Condliffe et al., 2017, p. iii). Given

the range of resources and features that can

support the design and implementation of

project-based learning in M:EE, this could

be a way to facilitate some much needed

research on this particular pedagogy.

In relation to the topic of assessment, M:EE

can also provide educational researchers

an opportunity to develop new assessment

frameworks that are appropriate for online

contexts. Jenson et al. (2016, p. 36) assert

that traditional, text-dominated assessment

frameworks can often struggle to capture

‘the forms of learning transpiring in multi-

modal and ludic contexts and sites’. This is

because they fail to take into consideration

the implications of learning content or skills in

a ‘dynamic, game-based, socially-networked

learning environment’ (Jenson et al., 2016,

p. 21). There is a need for new assessment

frameworks that teachers can use to record

‘non-traditional’ forms of student learning

arising from GBL. These ‘non-traditional’

forms of student learning include many of

the 21st century skills identied by the P21

(2019) consortium and Binkley et al. (2012).

21 The National Assessments are periodic evaluations of the English reading and mathematics skills of Irish primary

students. In 2014, over 8,000 2nd and 6th class students took part, as did their teachers and parents.

M:EE is an ideal context for educational

researchers to observe such skills in action to

then inform the development of frameworks

that guide the assessment of 21st century skills.

For example, Sun et al. (2020) used student

interactions in a M:EE themed coding activity

to validate their generalised competency

model for collaborative problem solving.

5.3 Supporting Teachers’

use of GBL

The demand for ‘digitally competent teachers’

has become more and more prevalent in

recent times, coinciding with an increased

demand for a ‘new’ kind of teaching that

exploits technology to develop critical thinking,

problem solving and communication skills

in learners (Intsefjord & Munthe, 2017). The

COVID-19 pandemic has also illustrated the

necessity for teachers to have competence

in digital pedagogies (Scully et al., 2021).

However, many in-service and pre-service

teachers feel that they do not have the ‘digital

competence’ or condence needed to use

technology effectively in their teaching and

are thus reluctant to integrate technology-

based approaches into their classrooms

(Gabriel et al., 2019; Murthy et al., 2015). This

is particularly relevant in the Irish context.

The 2014 National Assessments

asked Irish

teachers about their condence in using ICT

(Information-Communication Technology) for

English (2nd Class Teachers) and Mathematics

(6th Class Teachers). In a secondary analysis of

these questionnaire responses, Eivers (2019)

noted that approximately 27% of students in

2nd Class were taught by a teacher who was

‘very condent’ using ICT to teach English and

42% of students in 6th Class were taught by a

teacher who was ‘very condent’ using ICTs to

teach mathematics. While this did represent

a modest increase in teacher condence from

2009, Eivers (2019, p. 28) highlighted that the

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

use of ICT (i.e. digital technology) ‘remained

the teaching strategy… in which teachers

expressed the least condence’. This seems to

have had an impact on how digital technology

was used in the classroom. In the 2014 National

Assessments, teachers were asked to indicate

how often they used computers in their lessons.

They were asked to distinguish between use by

the teacher and use by the student. A majority

of students were taught by a teacher who used

computers in lessons at least weekly but, most

interestingly, student use of computers was far

less common. Eivers (2019) highlighted that only

24% of 2nd class students and 29% of 6th class

students used computers themselves in English

and mathematics lessons on a weekly basis and

at least 40% rarely or never did so (Table 1).

Use by Subject/Class At least once

a week

Once or twice

a month

Rarely

or never

Teacher

English (2nd Class)

77.2 13.5 9.3

Maths (6th Class)

69.9 17.9 12.2

Pupil

English (2nd Class)

24.2 35.8 40.0

Maths (6th Class)

29.2 28.6 42.2

Table 1: Percentages of computer use in lessons by teacher and by student

(based on National Assessments 2014, as reported by Eivers, 2019, p. 23)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

According to literature, if in-service teachers are

to use technology-based teaching approaches

in their classrooms, like GBL, a two-pronged

approach is required. As teachers’ positive

beliefs and intentions towards technology are

a major predictor of technology integration

in the classroom (e.g. Ertmer, 1999), teachers

should be given an opportunity to rst ‘see’

the potential value of M:EE and GBL for their

students. Suggested strategies for overcoming

these barriers include ‘modelling of good

practice, reection and collaboration between

colleagues’ (Ertmer, 1999, p. 54). In particular,

Galvin (2015) suggests that teachers need to

witness the use of digital technologies in the

realities of a working classroom in order to

believe that such integrated use is possible in

their own context. Such a nding is of note as it

indicates that the increased availability of digital

technologies in a school may lead to a gradual

change in teacher beliefs over time. Given the

large investment in technology infrastructure

undertaken as a result of the Digital Strategy

for Schools (DES, 2015), it is possible that this

will also occur in Irish schools. Other resources

that may help teachers understand the possible

value of M:EE could include the ‘Case Study’

videos available from Microsoft. These videos

explain how teachers in New Zealand, the US

etc., use M:EE to support the design of learning

experiences that enhance learning outcomes.

Positive teacher dispositions towards

technology-based approaches and tools like

GBL and M:EE will not automatically result in

teachers embedding their use into classroom

practice. Teachers may be aware of the

educational potential of digital technologies

but require continued guidance and support

to increase their digital competence so as

to realise this potential in their classrooms

(Redecker, 2017). If GBL is to become

more common in classrooms, a systematic

programme involving high-quality professional

learning experiences supporting the digital

competence and condence of teachers is

required. The digital competence of teachers

refers to their ability to integrate and use

technology for educational purposes (Redecker,

2017). Redecker (2017, p. 15) argued that, in

addition to the general digital competences for

life and work, teachers ‘need educator-specic

digital competences to be able to effectively use

digital technologies for teaching’. Redecker’s

(2017, p. 16) framework (Figure 11) outlines the

digital competencies teachers need to foster

‘ecient, inclusive and innovative teaching and

learning strategies’ using digital tools like M:EE.

EDUCATORS’

Professional Competences

LEARNERS’

Competences

EDUCATORS’

Pedagogic Competences

Self-regulated

Learning

Digital

Resources

Selecting

Creating & Modifying

Managing,

Protecting, Sharing

Assessment

Strategies

Analysing

Evidence

Feedback

& Planning

Teaching

and Learning

Teaching

Guidance

Collaborative

Learning

Empowering

Learners

Accessibility

& Inclusion

Differentation

& Personalisation

Actively Engaging

Learners

Professional

Engagement

Organisational

Communication

Professional

Collaboration

Reflective Practice

Digital CPD

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Responsible use

Problem Solving

Facilitating

Learners’ Digital

Competence

Information &

Media Literacy

Communication

Content Creation

2.1

2.3

3.3

3.2

6.1

6.4

6.5

6.2

4.1

4.3

4.2

5.1

5.3

6.3

2.2

3.1

3.4

5.2

Figure 11: European Framework

for the Digital Competence of

Educators (Redecker, 2017, p. 16)

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

For example, Area 2 (Digital Resources)

describes how competent teachers can select,

create and adapt digital resources to suit the

needs of their students in accordance with the

content they are teaching. A teacher procient

in Area 5 (Empowering Learners) will design

digital learning experiences that are accessible

to all learners. Redecker’s (2017) work provides

a framework that can be used to structure

professional learning opportunities for teachers

that will develop their professional digital

competence. Such learning programmes that

target teachers’ digital competence could have

a major impact on teacher practice. Educational

leaders (Principals, ICT Co-Ordinators; n=392)

involved in Blau and Shamir-Inbal’s (2017)

work reported that as the competence level

of class teachers increased, teachers were

observed progressing from the consumption

of pre-made digital resources, to the creation

of digital content specically designed to

enhance the collaborative practices and

higher-order thinking skills of their students.

The provision of high-quality, professional

learning programmes in supporting the digital

competence and condence of teachers

should be prioritised if GBL is to be used in

classrooms. Redecker’s (2017) work could

provide a structural framework for such

professional learning opportunities. These

could be provided by external agencies (e.g.

the Professional Development Service for

Teachers (PDST) or in collaboration with other

teachers in geographically ‘clustered’ schools).

22 For example, GBL is now a key component of the Digital Learning

modules of the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) programme at the

Institute of Education in Dublin City University.

While certain teacher characteristics can predict

GBL use in classrooms (e.g. age, teachers who

play digital games for their own pleasure,

professional learning opportunities etc.), the

best way to ensure the embedding of GBL into

classrooms is to provide universal learning

opportunities for pre-service teachers (Takeuchi

& Vaala, 2014). This will ensure that they have

the basic ‘game literacy’ needed to use GBL in

classrooms (Hanghøj & Hautopp, 2016) as well

as the condence in using such a methodology.

Kay (2006) argues that Initial Teacher Education

(ITE) is the natural place to begin the process

of supporting teachers with the integration of

technology in education. As a result, ITE should

provide opportunities for pre-service teachers

to learn about and engage with GBL if it is to be

used successfully in future classrooms. This has

already begun in many programmes of ITE

Work by Butler et al. (2020) involving 344 Irish

preservice teachers identied what should be

considered when designing programmes to

develop preservice teachers’ condence and

competences in relation to GBL. The authors

recommended that these programmes should

last for at least one semester and should involve

frequent gameplay across two different genres

of games. Figure 12 offers a summary of the

outlined research agenda in relation to M:EE

and GBL along with some key issues that need

to be considered for future classroom use.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

GAME-BASED LEARNING, MINECRAFT

AND IRISH CLASSROOMS

Where do we go from here?

Conduct More Rigorous Research

Diverse Research Methods

Use a range research designs (e.g. case

studies, quasi-experimental studies).

Broad Research Questions

1. What game features foster learning?

2. What do people learn from playing games?

3. Do people learn better from games?

Longitudinal Studies

Long-term research studies are needed

to better understand how teachers and

learners use or misuse) games.

Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is needed to explain

why certain things do or do not occur in

relation to learning in gaming environments.

Explore the Design of Learning Activities for the Classroom

What should be

taught with GBL?

There needs to be an effort to identify the

content and skills that can be learned using

GBL approaches.

How should content be taught

and assessed in digital games?

Teachers and researchers need to establish

basic guidelines to ensure the design of high-

quality GBL experiences. Procedures also need

to be in place to assess what learning occurred

in the game.

Support Teachers

See Potential Value of GBL

Teachers need to witness the potential

value of GBL for their own students and

professional practice (e.g. sample lessons,

collaboration with colleagues).

Develop Competence

and Condence

Pre and in-service teachers need to engage in

high quality professional learning experiences

informed by appropriate research (e.g.

Redecker, 2017) that will help them to develop

the digital competence and condence they

require to use GBL in their own classrooms.

Support Networks

Teachers’ use of GBL should be supported

by colleagues within and outside their

school (e.g. PDST, ‘cluster teachers’).

Figure 12: Summary of recommended research agenda and future considerations

in relation on the use of M:EE and GBL in Irish classrooms.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Summary

• More diverse research methods (e.g.

quasi-experimental, experimental,

longitudinal studies) should be used

to investigate the potential value

of M:EE and GBL in classrooms.

• Research on M:EE should encompass

value-added research (identifying

WHICH game features encourage

learning), cognitive consequences

research (identifying WHAT can

be learned by playing games)

and media comparison research

(identifying HOW GBL compares to

other approaches or strategies).

• A theoretical framework on GBL

needs to be established to support

any research in the eld.

• If digital games are to be used in

Irish classrooms, technological

infrastructure needs to be

addressed as a matter of priority

as does the development of

teachers’ digital literacy skills.

6.0

CONCLUSION

6.0

CONCLUSION

6.0

CONCLUSION

Considerable interest surrounding the

possibilities of digital games and GBL as

vehicles for learning in primary and post-

primary classrooms is now evident in

educational discourse (e.g. Groff, 2018)

and has since been accelerated as a result

of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite some

preliminary evidence indicating the potential

of digital games for learning (e.g. Wouters

et al., 2013), it is still unclear how games

can be best deployed in schools to enhance

learning and what this ‘new’ way of learning

may even look like (Beavis, 2017). Research

involving M:EE, the best-selling digital game

of all time (Costa, 2019), could address such

questions around GBL. As outlined in this

report, the open-ended nature of M:EE allows

teachers to design classroom experiences

that align with appropriate educational theory

and recommended teaching, learning and

assessment practices. While M:EE may be

the tool to determine the ecacy of GBL in

classrooms, it should only be used to conduct

high-quality, rigorously designed research

studies. These studies should occur in

classrooms and will thus require the support

of teachers. Such support will only emerge if

teachers are given the professional learning

opportunities they need to develop their

own competence in the use of technology-

based teaching approaches like GBL. Until all

this occurs, the true potential value of GBL

in Irish classrooms will remain unknown.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

REFERENCES

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Abt, C.C. (1987).

Serious games. University Press of America.

Ackermann, E. (2001).

Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s

constructionism: What’s the difference?

Future of Learning Group Publication,

5(3), 438–448.

Acquah, E.O. & Katz, H. (2020).

Digital game-based L2 learning outcomes

for primary through high-school students:

A systematic literature review.

Computers & Education, 143(103667).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103667

Aldrich, C. (2005).

Learning by doing: A comprehensive

guide to simulations, computer games,

and pedagogy in e-learning and other

educational experiences. Pfeiffer.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013).

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders: DSM-5. American

Psychiatric Association

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009).

21st Century skills and competences for

new millennium learners in OECD countries:

Working paper no. 41. Organisation for

Economic Co-Operation and Development

(OECD).

https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001).

A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching

and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:

Complete Edition. Longman.

Andrande, B., Poplin, A., &

Sousa de Sena, Í. (2020).

M:EE as a tool for engaging children in urban

planning: A case study in Tirol town, Brazil.

International Journal of Geo-Information,

9(170), 1-19. DOI: 10.3390/ijgi9030170

AsIAm. (2019).

Autism and Language – What’s

the best word? AsIAm.

https://asiam.ie/wp-content/

uploads/2019/04/Autism-Language.pdf

Association for UK Interactive

Entertainment (UKIE). (2018).

UK videogames fact sheet. UKIE.

https://ukie.org.uk/sites/default/les/

UK%20Games%20Industry%20Fact%20

Sheet%20October%202018.pdf

Baek, Y. & Touati, A. (2020).

Comparing collaborative and cooperative

game play for academic and gaming

achievements. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 57(8), 2110-2140.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0735633118825385

Bada, S. (2015).

Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm

for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal

of Research and Method in Education, 5(6),

66-70. DOI: 10.9790/7388-05616670

Bar-El D. & Ringland, K. (2020).

Crafting Game-Based Learning: An Analysis

of Lessons for M:EE Education Edition.

Proceedings of the FDG ‘20: International

Conference on the Foundations of Digital

Games (Article 90, pp. 1-4).

https://doi.org/10.1145/3402942.3409788

Beavis, C., Dezuanni, M., & O’Mara, J. (2017).

Serious play: Literacy, Learning and

Digital Games. Routledge.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Beavis, C. (2017).

Serious play: Literacy, Learning and Digital

Games. In C. Beavis, Dezuanni, M. & O’Mara,

J. (Eds.), Serious play: Literacy, Learning

and Digital Games (pp. 1-19). Routledge.

Bebbington, S. & Vellino, A. (2015).

Can playing M:EE improve teenagers’

information literacy? Journal of

Information Literacy, 9(2), 6-26.

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/9.2.2029

Bellanca, J. & Brandt, R. (2010).

21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students

Learn (1st Edition). Solution Tree Press.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman,

J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-

Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012).

Dening twenty-rst century skills. In

P. Grin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),

Assessment and teaching of 21st century

skills (pp. 17–66). Springer International.

Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2017).

Digital competences and long-term ICT

integration in school culture: The perspective

of elementary school leaders. Education and

Information Technologies, 22(3), 769–787.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9456-7

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik,

J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).

Motivating project-based learning:

Sustaining the doing, supporting the

learning. Educational Psychologist,

26(3-4), 369-398.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Brand, J.E., Todhunter, S., & Jervis, J. (2017).

Digital Australia Report 2018.

Interactive Games and Entertainment

Association (IGEA).

Butler, D. (2007).

A constructionist view of what it means

to be digitally literate. Nordic Journal

of Digital Literacy, 2(2), 61–77.

Butler, D., Brown, M., & Mac Críosta, G. (2016).

Telling the story of MindRising: M:EE,

mindfulness and meaningful learning.

In proceedings of the 2016

International Conference on Educational

Technologies (ICEdTech16) (pp. 287-291)

Melbourne, Australia.

https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571584.pdf

Butler, D., Leahy, M., Hsu, H-P,

& Moynihan, D. (2020).

Impact of pre-service teachers’ gaming

behaviours on their condence and

competence in applying game-based

learning approaches: Implications for

teacher educators. Society for Information

Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference (pp. 1664-

1671). Association for the Advancement

of Computing in Education (AACE).

Callaghan, N. (2016).

Investigating the role of M:EE in educational

learning environments. Educational

Media International, 53(4), 244–260.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2016.1254877

Charsky, D. (2010).

From edutainment to serious games: A

change in the use of game characteristics.

Games and Culture, 5(2), 177–198.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412009354727

Clark, D.B., Tanner-Smith, E., &

Killingsworth, S. (2016).

Digital games, design, and learning: A

systematic review and meta-analysis.

Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E., Hostetler,

A., Fradkin, A., & Polikov, V. (2018).

Substantial integration of typical educational

games into extended curricula.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(2), 265–318.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1333431

Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S.,

& Major, L. E. (2014).

What makes great teaching? Review of the

underpinning research. Centre for Evaluation

and Monitoring and the Sutton Trust.

http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-

content/uploads/2014/10/What-

Makes-GreatTeaching-REPORT.pdf

Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M.G.,

Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S.

Saco, L., & Nelson, E. (2017).

Project Based Learning: A Literature Review. MDRC.

Cornforth, D.J. & Adam, M.T.B. (2015).

Cluster Evaluation, Description, and

Evaluation for Serious Games. In C.S.

Loh, Y. Sheng & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.)

Serious games analytics: Methodologies for

performance measurement, assessment,

and improvement (pp. 135-158).

Springer International Publishing.

Cosgrove, J., Ní Chobhthaigh, N.,

Shiel, G., & Leahy, M. (2018).

Digital learning framework trial evaluation:

Baseline report. Dublin: Educational

Research Centre. Retrieved 18th

September, 2019 from http://www.erc.

ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/DLF-Trial-

Evaluation-Interim-Report-May-2018.pdf

Costa, R. (17 May, 2019).

M:EE may now be the most sold game

in the world. Retrieved from

https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/M:EE-

may-now-be-most-sold-game-in-world.

Coyne, B., Devitt, N., Lyons,

S., & McCoy, S. (2016).

Perceived benets and barriers to the

use of high-speed broadband in Ireland’s

second-level schools. Irish Educational

Studies, 34(4), 355-378. https://doi.org

/10.1080/03323315.2015.1128348

Davis, K., Boss, J.A., & Meas, P. (2018).

Playing in the virtual sandbox: Students’

collaborative practices in M:EE. International

Journal of Game-Based Learning, 8(3) 56-76.

https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2018070104

de Klerk, S. & Kato, P.M. (2017).

The future value of serious games for

assessment: Where do we go now? Journal

of Applied Testing Technology, 18(1), 32–37.

http://www.jattjournal.com/index.php/

atp/article/view/118674/81855

Department of Education and

Skills (DES). (1999).

1999 Primary school curriculum

– An introduction. Stationary Oce.

Department of Education and

Skills (DES). (2015).

Digital Strategy for Schools 2015-

2020: Enhancing teaching, learning

and assessment. Stationary Oce.

Department of Education and

Skills (DES). (2016).

Ireland’s National Skills Strategy 2025.

Stationary Oce.

Dezuanni, M., & Zagami, J. (2017).

Curating the curriculum with digital games.

In C. Beavis, M. Dezuanni, & J. O’Mara

(Eds.), Serious Play: Literacy, Learning and

Digital Games (pp. 67-82). Routledge.

Dishon, G. & Kafai, Y. (2020).

Making more of games: Cultivating

perspective-taking through game design.

Computers and Education, 148(103810).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103810

Dublin City University.

(DCU; March 28th, 2019).

Assessment of Transversal Skills for

STEM Project Kicks Off in DCU.

https://www.dcu.ie/stem_education_

innovation_global_studies/news/2019/Mar/

Assessment-of-Transversal-Skills-for-STEM

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J.,

Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2015).

Improving students’ learning with effective

learning techniques: Promising directions

from cognitive and educational psychology.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest,

14(1), 4–58.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007).

Third generation educational use of

computer games. Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hyper-media, 16(3), 263-281.

Eivers, E. (2019).

Left to their own devices: Trends in ICT

at primary school level. Irish Primary

Principals Network (IPPN).

https://issuu.com/ippn/docs/

left_to_their_own_devices_nal

Ertmer, P. A. (1999).

Addressing rst- and second-order barriers

to change: Strategies for technology

integration. Educational Technology,

Research and Development, 47(4), 47.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597

Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-

Leftwich, A.T. (2010).

Teacher technology change: how

knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect.

Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.or

g/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551

Europe’s Videos Games Industry/European

Games Developer Federation. (2021).

Key facts 2020: The Year We Played Together.

ISFE/EGDF. https://www.isfe.eu/wp-content/

uploads/2021/10/2021-ISFE-EGDF-Key-Facts-

European-video-games-sector-FINAL.pdf

EuroStat. (2017).

Being Young in Europe Today. Publications

Oce of the European Union.

Everri, M. & Park, K. (2018).

Children’s online behaviours in Irish primary

and secondary schools: Research report.

Zeeko/University College Dublin.

https://zeeko.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/

ZEEKO-TREND-REPORT-.pdf.

Foerster, K.T. (April, 2017).

Teaching spatial geometry in a virtual

world: Using M:EE in Mathematics in

grade 5/6. Paper presented at the 8th

IEEE Global Engineering Education

Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece.

https://ktfoerster.github.io/

paper/2017-foerster-M:EE.pdf

Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M.,

& Lawson, M. A. (2016).

Student engagement, context, and

adjustment: Addressing denitional,

measurement and methodological issues.

Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

learninstruc.2016.02.002

Gabriel, S., Hütthaler, M., & Nader, M. (2019).

M:EE for teaching craft, design and

technology in primary school. Proceedings

of the European Conference on Games-

Based Learning, 2019 (pp. 253–260).

https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.19.026

Galvin, C. (2015).

Policy and policy-making for education

ICT in Ireland: Some reections on thirty

years of promise, failure and lack of

vision. In Butler, D., Marshall, K., & Leahy,

M.M. (Eds.). (2015). Shaping the future:

how technology can lead to educational

transformation (pp. 235-256). Liffey Press.

Gehlbach, H., Marietta, G., King, A., Karutz,

C., Bailenson, J. N., & Dede, C. (2015).

Many ways to walk a mile in another’s

moccasins: Type of social perspective taking

and its effect on negotiation outcomes.

Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 523–532.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.035

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Granic, I, Lobel, A, & Engels, R. (2014).

The benets of playing video games.

American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. http://

dx.doi.org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/a0034857

Groff, J. (2018).

The potentials of game-based environments

for integrated, immersive learning data.

European Journal of Education, 53(2), 188–201.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12270

Gros, B. (2007).

Digital games in education: The design of

games-based learning environments. Journal

of Research in Technology in Education, 40(1),

23-38. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2007.10782494

Growing up in Ireland. (2016).

Key Findings: Child cohort at 17/18 years;

Health, weight, physical activity and diet.

Economic and Social Research Institute

9ESRI), Trinity College Dublin and

Department of Children and Youth Affairs.

Retrieved from

www.growingup.ie/pubs/SUSTAT57.pdf

Growing up in Ireland. (2021).

The lives of 9-year-olds of cohort ’08.

Dublin: Economic and Social Research

Institute (ESRI), Trinity College Dublin

and Department of Children and

Youth Affairs. Retrieved from

https://www.esri.ie/system/les/

publications/BKMNEXT415.pdf

Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M.,

and Capraro, R. (2015).

In-service teachers’ implementation and

understanding of STEM project based

learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,

Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 63-

76.

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1306a

Hanghøj, T. & Hautopp, H. (October, 2016).

Teachers’ pedagogical approaches to

teaching with M:EE. In Proceedings of the

10th European Conference on Game Based

Learning, Paisley, Scotland, UK, (pp. 265–272).

http://toc.proceedings.com/31939webtoc.pdf

Harteveld, C. (2011).

Triadic Game Design. Springer.

doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-157-8

Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J.,

Sassenberg, K., & Grin, P. (2015).

A framework for teachable collaborative

problem solving skills. In H. Friedrich,

C. Esther, B. Jeurgen, S. Kai, & G. Patrick

(Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st

Century Skills (pp. 37–56). Springer.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R.

G., and Chinn, C. A. (2007).

Scaffolding and achievement in problem-

based and inquiry learning: A response to

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).

Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Hobbs, L., Hartley, C., Bentley, S., Bibby, J.,

Bowden, L, Hartley, J., & Stevens, C. (2020)

Shared special interest play in a specic

extra-curricular group setting: A M:EE

Club for children with special educational

needs Educational and Child Psychology,

37(4), 81-95. https://uwe-repository.

worktribe.com/output/6771312

Instefjord, E.J. & Munthe, E. (2017).

Educating digitally competent teachers: A

study of integration of professional digital

competence in teacher education.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37-45.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016

Internet Matters. (2019).

Parenting generation game: Summary of Findings.

http://pwxp5srs168nsac2n3fnjyaa-wpengine.

netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/

Internet_Matters_GamingStatsInfographic.pdf

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Jenson, J., de Castell, S., Thumlert,

K. & Muehrer, R. (2016).

Deep assessment: an exploratory study of

game-based, multimodal learning in Epidemic.

Digital Culture & Education, 8(1), 20-40.

https://static1.squarespace.com/

static/5cf15af7a259990001706378/t/5cf4

5bf5ebbb540001edaa9c/1559518200846/

jenson+%28March+2016%29.pdf

Jensen, E. & Hanhøj, T. (2020).

What’s the math in M:EE? A design-based

study of students’ perspectives and

mathematical experiences across game

and school domains. Electronic Journal of

E-Learning, 18(3), 261-274.

https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.3.005

Kafai, Y.B., & Burke, Q. (2015).

Constructionist gaming: understanding

the benets of making games for

learning. Educational Psychologist,

50(4), 313-334. https://doi.org/10.1

080/00461520.2015.1124022

Karsenti, T. & Bugmann, J. (2018).

The educational impacts of M:EE on

elementary school students. In A. Jimoyiannis

(Ed.), Research on e-Learning and ICT in

Education (pp. 197–212).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95059-4_12

Kay, R. H. (2006).

Evaluating strategies used to incorporate

technology into preservice education:

A review of the literature. Journal of

Research on Technology in Education,

38(4), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1

080/15391523.2006.10782466

Kenny, F., & McDaniel, R. (2011).

The role teachers’ expectations and

value assessments of video games play

in their adopting and integrating them

into their classrooms. British Journal

of Educational Technology, 42, 197-213.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01007.x

Kirriemuir, J. & McFarlane, A. (2004).

Literature review in games and learning.

Retrieved July 31, 2019, from https://telearn.

archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190453/document

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J.,

and Clark, R. E. (2006).

Why minimal guidance during instruction

does not work: An analysis of the failure of

constructivist, discovery, problem-based,

experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.

Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (2008).

Environmental Detectives: The

development of an augmented reality

platform for environmental simulations.

Educational Technology Research and

Development, 56(2), 203-228.

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/67666/

Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008).

The importance of information technology

attitudes and competencies in primary

and secondary education. In J. Voogt, &

K. Gerald (Eds.), International Handbook

of Information Technology in Primary and

Secondary Education (pp. 321-331). Springer.

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V.,

& Wiggins, A. (2016).

Project-based learning: A review of the

literature Dening characteristics of

project-based learning.

Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733

Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012).

Collaborative learning: What is it? Procedia

- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491–495.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092

Lenz, B., Wells, J., & Kingston, S. (2015).

Transforming schools using project-based

learning, performance assessment, and

common core standards. San Jossey-Bass.

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Lysaght, Z., Scully, D., Murchan,

D., O’Leary, & Shiel, G. (2019).

Aligning assessment, learning and

teaching in curricular reform and

implementation. National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment.

Marcon, N. (2015).

Exploring M:EE as a pedagogical tool

to motivate and enhance girls’ literacy

practices in the secondary English classroom

[Unpublished Masters dissertation].

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Mavoa, J., Carter, M., Gibbs, M.,

& Mcdonell, D. (2018).

Children and M:EE: A survey of

children’s digital play. New Media and

Society, 20(9), 3283-3303.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817745320

Mayer, R. E. (2011).

Multimedia learning and games. In S. Tobias

& J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and

instruction (pp. 281–305). Information Age.

McCall, J. (2011).

Gaming the Past: Using video games to

teach secondary history. Routledge.

Microsoft. (2019).

Celebrating 10 years of M:EE. Retrieved

July 31, 2019 https://news.xbox.com/

en-us/2019/05/17/M:EE-ten-years/

M:EE Wiki. (October, 2021).

Gameplay. Retrieved August 23, 2019

https://M:EE.gamepedia.com/Gameplay

M:EE Blog. (October, 2021).

Homepage. https://education.M:EE.net/

M:EE Blog (2021).

Ngā Motu: New Zealand students learn

Māori with M:EE. https://education.M:EE.

net/en-us/resources/learn-maori

M:EE Blog (2020a, March 22).

Microsoft extends access to M:EE: Education

Edition and resources to support remote

learning. https://education.M:EE.net/

en-us/blog/microsoft-extends-access-to-

M:EE-education-edition-and-resources-

to-support-remote-learning

M:EE Blog (2020b, June 18).

Educators across the globe are using M:EE:

Education Edition for remote learning.

https://education.M:EE.net/en-us/blog/

educators-across-the-globe-are-using-M:EE-

education-edition-for-remote-learning

Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015).

ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional

development program on effective

integration of educational technology.

Journal of Educational Technology

& Society, 18(3), 16-28.

www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.3.16

Nadolny, L., Valai, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N.,

Elrick, D., Lovett, A., & Nowatzke, M. (2020).

Examining the characteristics of game-

based learning: A content analysis

and design framework. Computers and

Education, 156(103936). https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103936

Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Rey, G. (2016).

Mining learning and crafting scientic

experiments: A literature review

on the use of M:EE in education

and research. Journal of Educational

Technology & Society, 19(2), 355–366.

https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.19.2.355

Nielsen, M. E. (2002).

Gifted students with learning disabilities:

Recommendations for identication and

programming. Exceptionality, 10(2), 93-111.

doi: 10.1207/S15327035EX1002_4

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

O’Sullivan, M., Robb, N., Howell, S.,

Marshall, K., & Goodman, L. (2017).

Designing Inclusive Learning for

Twice Exceptional Students in M:EE.

International Journal of E-Learning

and Distance Education, 32(2), 1-25.

https://les.eric.ed.gov/

fulltext/EJ1164431.pdf

Ochs, E. & Solomon, O. (2010).

Autistic sociability. Journal of the Society for

Psychological Anthropology, 38(1), 69-92.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01082.x

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation

and Development. (OECD). (2018).

PISA 2015: Results in Focus. OECD.

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-

2015-results-in-focus.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation

and Development. (OECD). (2019).

OECD. Learning Compass 2030. OECD.

https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-

project/teaching-and-learning/learning/

learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_

Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf

Papert, S. (1980).

Mindstorms: Children, Computers,

and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1991).

Situating constructionism. In I. Harel

& S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism

(pp. 1–11). New Jersey: Ablex.

Partnership for 21st Century

Leaning (P21). (2019).

Framework for 21st Century

Learning: Denitions.

http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/

p21/P21_Framework_DenitionsBFK.pdf

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956).

The child’s conception of space.

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pusey, M., & Pusey, G. (2015).

Using M:EE in the science classroom.

International Journal of Innovation in Science

and Mathematics Education, 23(3), 22–34.

Redecker, C. (2017).

European Framework for the Digital

Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu.

Punie, Y. (Ed). Publications Oce

of the European Union.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

repository/bitstream/JRC107466/

pdf_digcomedu_a4_nal.pdf

Reis, S. M., Baum, S. M., & Burke, E. (2014).

An operational denition of twice-

exceptional learners: Implications and

applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3),

217-230. doi: 10.1177/0016986214534976

Rooney, P. (2012).

A theoretical framework for serious

game design: Exploring pedagogy, play

and delity and their implications for

the design process. International Journal

of Game Based Learning, 2(4), 41-60.

https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.

cgi?article=1027&context=ltcart

Rowan, L. & Beavis, C. (2017).

Serious outcomes from serious play:

Teachers’ beliefs about assessment of

game-based learning in schools. In C.

Beavis, Dezuanni, M. & O’Mara, J. (Eds.),

Serious Play: Literacy Learning and Digital

Games (pp. 169-186). Routeledge.

Sadaf, A. & Johnson, B.L. (2017).

Teachers’ beliefs about integrating

digital literacy into classroom practice:

an investigation based on the theory

of planned behaviour. Journal of Digital

Learning in Teacher Education, 33(4), 1-9.

DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2017.1347534

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

Salen, K., Torres, R., Wolozin, L., Rufo-

Tepper, R., & Shapiro, A. (2011).

Quest to Learn: Developing the

School for Digital Kids. MIT Press.

Scully, D., Lehane, P. & Scully, C. (2021).

‘It is no longer scary’: Digital learning before

and during the Covid-19 pandemic in Irish

secondary schools. Technology, Pedagogy and

Education. 10.1080/1475939X.2020.1854844

Salisbury, F. & Karasmanis, S. (2011).

Are they ready? Exploring student

information literacy skills in the

transition from secondary to tertiary

education. Australian Academic and

Research Libraries, 42(1), 43-58.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00

048623.2011.10722203.

Sandberg, H. (2016, April 2016).

The good and bad of game-based

assessment. Educational Testing Service

Policy & Research Report, 1.

https://www.ets.org/research/policy_

research_reports/focus_on_rd/issue1

Schrier, K. (2018).

Guiding questions for game-based learning.

In J. Voogt et al. (Eds.), Second Handbook

of Information Technology in Primary and

Secondary Education (pp. 1-20). Springer

International Handbook of Education

Short, D. (2012).

Teaching scientic concepts using a virtual

world – M:EE. Teaching Science, 58(3), 55-58.

So, H-J & Seo, M. (2018).

A systematic literature review of game-based

learning and gamication research in Asia. In

K.J Kennedy & J. Chi-Kin Lee (Eds.), Routledge

International Handbook of Schools and

Schooling in Asia (pp. 396 – 412). Routledge.

Squire, K. (2021).

From virtual to participatory learning with

technology during COVID-19. E-Learning

and Digital Media, June 2021.

https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022926

Squire, K. (2008).

Open-Ended video games: A model for

developing learning for the interactive

age. In K. Salen, (Ed.), The Ecology of

Games: Connecting youth, games and

learning (pp. 167–198). The MIT Press.

Starkey, L., Shonfeld, M., Prestridge,

S., & Gisbert Cervera, M. (2021).

Special issue: Covid-19 and the role of

technology and pedagogy on school

education during a pandemic Technology,

Pedagogy and Education, 30(1), 1-5.

10.1080/1475939X.2021.1866838

Stone, B., Mills, K., & Saggers, B. (2019).

Online multiplayer games for the social

interactions of children with autism

spectrum disorder: A resource for inclusive

education. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 23(2), 209–228. https://doi.or

g/10.1080/13603116.2018.1426051

Sun, C., Shute, V. J., Stewart, A., Yonehiro,

J., Duran, N., & D’Mello, S. (2020).

Towards a generalized competency model

of collaborative problem solving. Computers

& Education, 143, 1036-1072. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103672

Takeuchi, L. M., & Vaala, S. (2014).

Level up learning: A national survey on

teaching with digital games. New York:

The Joan Ganz Cooney Center.

https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.

org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/

jgcc_leveluplearning_nal.pdf

Tromba, P. (June/July, 2013).

One block at a time with M:EE.

Learning and Leading with Technology.

https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015174.pdf

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

United Nation Education, Scientic and

Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2015).

Rethinking education: Towards a

global common good? UNESCO

Vogel, J., Vogel, D., Cannon-Bowers, J.,

Bowers, C., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006).

Computer gaming and interactive

simulations for learning: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 34, 229–243. https://doi.

org/10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM

Voorhis, V., & Paris, B. (2019).

Simulations and serious games: Higher

order thinking skills assessment. Journal of

Applied Testing Technology, 20(1), 35-42.

Wang, M. T., & Fredricks, J. A. (2014).

The reciprocal links between school

engagement and youth problem behavior

during adolescence. Child Development, 85,

722-737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12138

Wen-wen, M.U. & Kuen-fueng, S. (2018).

The application of M:EE un education for

children with autism in special schools. In

Proceedings of International Conference

on Computational Thinking Education.

https://www.eduhk.hk/cte2018/doc/

CTE2018%20Proceeding_Full_20180604.pdf

Westwood, P. (2011).

Commonsense methods for children

with special educational needs

(6th Edition). Routeledge.

Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van

Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek (2013).

A meta-analysis of the cognitive and

motivational effects of serious games.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2),

249-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B.,

Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni,

Z., Tran, M. & Yukhymenko, M. (2012).

Our princess is in another castle: A review

of trends in serious gaming for education.

Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312436980

Zyda, M. (2005).

From visual simulation to virtual

reality to games. Computer, 38(9),

25–32. doi:10.1109/MC.2005.297

Building a New World in Education: Exploring Minecraft for Learning, Teaching and Assessment

APPENDIX 1

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was used to

obtain studies relevant to this topic in October

2019. This was reviewed again in August

2021. Initial scoping searches included the

exploration of a range of electronic indexed

databases, including PsychlNFO, PubMed,

ERIC, EBSCO, Social Sciences Citation Index

and Web of Science. Databases outside the

discipline of education (e.g. Association of

Computing Machinery [ACM]) were also

explored given the relevance of the topic to

other contexts and settings (e.g. game design,

computing). Non-indexed databases including

Dissertation Abstracts, Digital Dissertations

and ScienceDirect were also used along with

the electronic search engine Google Scholar.

Key terms, and their synonyms, employed

in the searches included ‘Minecraft’, ‘Game-

Based Learning’, ‘digital games’, ‘benets’,

‘limitations’, and ‘value’. The Boolean concepts

of ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ with the terms ‘school-

based/ classroom’ ‘ecacy’, ‘value’, ‘learning

outcomes’, ‘teacher/ student experiences’,

‘teaching’, ‘learning’, and ‘assessment’

identied research that explored the relative

value of Minecraft, Minecraft Education Edition

and GBL as an approach in classrooms settings.

No deliberate time frame was applied to the

studies returned from this search. However,

contemporary research that was written after

the year 2009 was given priority, as were

studies involving school-aged children or their

teachers. A citation search of the reference

lists of selected studies were also screened for

other potentially relevant papers. Finally, the

grey literature of unpublished manuscripts

and other relevant outputs from Minecraft

users (e.g. recordings of game play, blog

posts) were consulted on an intermittent

basis to develop a broader understanding of

the topic as well as current and future trends

within the eld. A number of social media

channels were also monitored for relevant

conference abstracts and pre-prints.