best practice

In parallel to the phenomenal rise of the digital game development industry through time, the acceptance of games in other sectors has also been changing. Computer game skills have been increasingly applied in almost all areas of human activity within modern societies. Digital games have now been embraced by the academic research community as a research topic, as well as discovered by the education sector as a highly interactive media that can support and foster learning. As a popular and powerful media, computer games are being considered for use in various education and training settings to motivate learners, to focus their attention, and to help them to construct meaningful and permanent records of their learning.

Games have high presence in informal segments of learning – but in formal education, games are still often seen as an unserious activity and the potentials of games for learning remain undiscovered. However, when evaluating games with their children, 85% of parents believed that computer games contributed to learning as well as providing entertainment.

Beside fantasy and fun elements, games have potential to foster players’ ability to communicate and interact with others during gameplay. Computer games can help players to think critically when they are required to construct connections between virtual and real life. Game-like learning environments can provide motivating interdisciplinary learning settings, creating opportunities that could improve student collaboration skills as well as help them learn new concepts and synthesize new information. Games have also been praised for the potential they offer in learning business leadership and other skills by practicing in a safe environment.

The potential of Game Based Learning (GBL) is still underestimated. It can play a major role in renewing learning as it is perceived by learners in all levels of education and training systems. eLearning Papers seeks contributions about mixed realities, virtual worlds and gaming in both sections: In-Depth and From the Field.

We specifically invite contributions which address one or several of the following issues:

• Innovative game based learning technologies, applications, tools and environments
• 3D virtual worlds supporting learning, e.g. in language learning or leadership training
• Use of mobile games and location-based technology for learning
• Innovative applications of mixed realities for learning
• Use of simulations in education, corporate training and military
• Technology for massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs) for learning
• Interactivity design in game based learning applications
• Player immersion and learning
• Case studies and best practices in GBL
• Social and collaborative aspects of GBL
• Implementation issues associated with GBL
• Learning design, good gameplay and instructional theory for GBL
• Use of role plays for learning and training
• Assessment and evaluation in GBL
• Gender, age, cultural and ethical issues in GBL
• Rating of games for learning
• Accessibility of games for learning

The article submission has been extended to June 3, 2011 The provisional date of publishing is 14 July 2011. For further information and to submit your article, please contact:

Guest editor:

Professor DI Dr. Maja Pivec, University of Applied Sciences FH JOANNEUM in Graz, Austria

The submissions need to comply with the following guidelines:

• Submission language: English
• Title: must effectively and creatively communicate the content of the article and may include a subtitle.
• Executive summary for In-depth section should not exceed 200 words.
• Executive summary for From the field section should not exceed 50 words.
• Keywords: up to five relevant keywords need to be included.
• In-depth full texts: articles should range from 4,000 to 6,000 words.
• From the field texts: texts should not exceed 1,200 words.
• Conclusions: special importance is given to the representation of the conclusions, which should be clearly stated both in the summary and at the end of the article.
• References: All the references must be adequately cited and listed.
• Author profile: author name, institution, position and e-mail address must accompany each submission.
• Images: Please send high resolution JPEG files

See the complete guidelines at: Instructions for writers

Many open universities and distance education institutions have shifted from a predominantly print-based mode of delivery to an online mode characterised by the use of virtual learning environments and various web technologies. This paper describes the impact of the shift to open and distance e-learning (ODeL), as this trend might be called, on the course design practices of faculty members at a small single-mode distance education university in the Philippines. Specifically, the paper presents and analyses the faculty’s perspectives on how their course design practices have changed and issues and challenges arising from these changes.

The findings suggest that faculty training programs in ODeL should aim to develop a comprehensive range of ODeL competencies in a systematic and coherent way. Based on the findings, as well as research on practitioner development in teaching effectively with technology, a framework for developing ODeL competencies among faculty is proposed. Aside from covering the four areas of change in course design practice identified in the study, the framework also specifies levels of expertise (basic, intermediate, and advanced), indicating degrees of complexity of the knowledge and skills required for each area at each level. All of the competencies listed for all four areas at the basic level comprise the minimum competencies for teaching an online distance education course.

What does a Creative Classroom look like?

Stefania: By 'creative' we refer to new practices. These can include collaboration, peer to peer collaboration, connection with the outside world, use of open education resources, and more.

As far as ‘classroom’, in this case we refer to all learning environments, both formal and informal, which take advantage of optimal use of ICT. The way we see it, however, is that the innovation of practices is at the core of everything.

How does your approach differ?

Stefania: We’ve come up with a multi-dimensional framework, one that addresses key dimensions such as curriculum and content, assessment, learning, teaching, and organizational practices, leadership and values, connectedness, and infrastructures. The idea is to depict a systemic approach, which is what is needed to undertake and sustain ICT innovation.

When you say ‘systemic’, what exactly do you mean? How does a multi-dimensional approach fit the reality of practitioners on the field?

Stefania:  The truth is, there is no single measure that fits all. But what we’ve found is that the cases that have successfully survived the initial pilot phase are those in which all these dimensions are present at a very local level, from the bottom up.

Panagiotis: It’s common for schools to focus on just one or two aspects, but this doesn’t translate into sustainability, so they often have to change their approach after the initial phase of implementation.

What's the status of Creative Classrooms in Europe?

Panagiotis: There are actually a lot of initiatives, but they’re currently fragmented, kind of like islands of innovation. The missing element is learning from each other, finding ways to sustain them, and making them mainstream.

To what extent has ICT changed things? Are creativity and innovation necessarily at odds with traditional teaching methods?

Panagiotis: Well, we have to understand that ICT is not an end in itself, but a means to innovative pedagogy. It’s not an imperative, but technology can help us do new things in a better way. Essentially, we’re at a point in time in which we have to rethink what, how, why, with who, and when we learn.

Stefania: From what we’ve seen, the common thread of successful Creative Classrooms is placing the learner and the learning process at the center of everything, and that sometimes means blending ICT-enabled learning practices with traditional methods.

Technology is constantly and rapidly evolving—in this context, have you encountered sustainable models of innovative teaching?

Panagiotis: Again, it’s not a matter of technology, but how you use what’s available to you. For instance, if you have an interactive whiteboard, but you use it in a traditional sense—the teacher lecturing, the students sitting in rows, listening—you’ve got a scenario in which you have the best technology, but you’re using it in a way that isn’t innovative at all. It’s just not as effective.

 Stefania: When innovative pedagogical practices lie at the center of your philosophy, this means that the entire practice—teaching, learning, organization—is more open to experimentation and flexibility. That’s when you can put technology at your service, to reach your ultimate objectives, even when technology changes.

What needs to happen in order for more Creative Classrooms to be implemented?

Stefania: The next step is to combine the existing bottom-up approach with top-down support. The European Commission has already made a move in this direction, by specifically targeting Creative Classrooms as part of its LLLP project. Generally speaking, we envision an experimentation process that will involve actors at all different levels and across different countries, so as to learn from each other at a local and national level.

Panagiotis: We’ve developed this conceptualization not only based on desk research, but on an ongoing consultation process with specialists and teachers with real classroom experience. We’ve had very positive feedback, and we’ve found that stakeholders on all different levels agree we need to act, and change the way we teach the next generation.