The other day, when I was talking to one of my educator friends, I voiced something to the effect of, “If I were still in the classroom, I’d find a way to fit Pokémon Go into my teaching!” In my opinion, this app is the perfect example of when it’s appropriate to begin planning instruction with the technology in mind and not what we want students to understand or be able to do (because the app is so cool, we just have to use it).
Nonetheless, when utilizing the app (or any other technology), we should probably rethink our actions if in no way, shape, or form are we then able to connect/integrate the technology with what students are supposed to learn…or, if technology use results in the same understandings being reached, but in a much less efficient or more roundabout way. In other words, we shouldn’t try to cram a square peg into a round hole.
Now, let’s take a closer look at why (or, why not) Pokémon Go has a place in our classrooms.
Engagement?
Yes! Pokémon Go will definitely engage our students, but so will any other fancy, new technology. While technology has its place, we first and foremost want to make sure we’re prioritizing effective pedagogy and not simply masking bad practice with a dog and pony show. Also, when talking about student engagement as a result of technology, it can be compared to one of the main reasons why punishment should not be used as a classroom management tool. In both of these instances, the intended effects will eventually wear off once the students grow accustomed to what is going on around them (Vargas, 2009).
Any educator can put Pokémon Go in front of students, make a half-hearted attempt at a curricular connection, and cry “Engagement!” Meanwhile, great educators will be able to leverage the app to promote a deeper understanding of content, which most likely could not have been possible had the app not been brought into the equation.
Relevance?
Merriam-Webster defines relevant as “having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand.” In school terms, this definition could read, “instruction has a significant and demonstrable bearing on students and their interests and needs.” With these definitions in mind, why wouldn’t we want our instruction to be relevant? Would it make sense to completely ignore the Pokémon craze and say, “Fill out this worksheet!” to our students? Also, according to Bill Daggett, “Relevance makes rigor possible,” as students are more likely to comprehend sophisticated concepts when they can make personal connections to them.
A few years ago I was teaching fourth grade when Minecraft was all the buzz (and it still is). Although, I didn’t completely “get it,” I spent almost an entire math class having my students teach me the game while discussing how we could possibly integrate it into our work. The end result was this project right here…I would go as far to say, we owe it to our students to bring their personal interests into the classroom.
In the End
Pokémon Go is a relevant tool that can help us to meet the needs of our students by infusing curriculum with pop culture to create what can be called pop curriculum, which can be defined as:
Modern and relevant curriculum that is always evolving to meet the needs and interests of our students
In a way, pop curriculum isn’t much different from what exists in most districts and schools, other than the fact that teachers twist and turn what and how they teach with empathy for the students in mind (think, design thinking).
So, yes, go out of your way to make Pokémon Go work with your students, but (1) don’t prioritize technology over pedagogy (square peg, round hole), (2) be cognizant of the fact that engagement has a shelf life, and (3) don’t stop there…Always be looking to empower your students by making sure your instruction is relevant to them (not you).
What are your thoughts on using Pokémon Go with students?
Connect with Ross on Twitter.
- Project Based Learning: 3 Types of Direct Instruction #RealPBL - April 17, 2022
- Getting Started with Project Based Learning #RealPBL - April 11, 2022
- How Do I Lead Project Based Learning? – Evaluate Professional Learning #RealPBL (part 4 of 4) - April 3, 2022
One thought…We say things like “pedagogy before technology”, but I think it is too much of a blanket statement. Sometimes the technology drives the pedagogy.
Some questions to think about with Pokemon Go…What makes it appealing to so many? What are some things that I would like to create that have been inspired by this product? Is this something that is going to be a fad, or the next evolution.
When I google the definition of “pedagogy”, here is what I get:
“the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept.”
Is there a problem with this since “learning” is nowhere in the definition? Do we start with what we think is important (or is deemed important by others), or with the learning?
Another quick thought…Is your blog focused on “curriculum” or “learning”? I would say the latter, but the title might suggest something different 🙂
Thoughts?
Technology driving pedagogy…Yes, this is what I’m getting at in the introduction. Prior to learning experiences, desired understandings should be determined. Whether or not this determination takes place before the teacher decides on what technology to use (if at all) is inconsequential.
Your questions about Pokémon Go…These are questions I would hand over to students, possibly as part of a project-based learning experience.
Pedagogy/Curriculum vs. Learning…It’s always about the learning. Your blog and book don’t feature “learning” anywhere in their titles, but isn’t that the common thread that ties everything together?…Plus “Cooper on Learning” doesn’t sound too good.
“While technology has its place, we first and foremost want to make sure we’re prioritizing effective pedagogy and not simply masking bad practice with a dog and pony show.”
What a brilliant statement! You put into words what I’ve been struggling with in my district. If we don’t have the right foundation, slapping “technology fixes” isn’t going to be a magical cure. I have often found that adding technology to bad lessons makes the bad stuff happen faster.
So many things go into “a good curriculum,” but it can’t just be a set of standards. It has to involve learning, active engagement, the important content, and then technology.
Some teachers cling to an old PowerPoint like they clung to a textbook or packet of worksheets. Teachers either see the technology lightbulb go off, or they just feel the heat. We need to remember to prepare our students for THEIR future, not OUR past.
Thanks, Amy. Here is one more quote, from Doug Reeves…
“When the software licenses expire, the three-ring binders are lost, and the training is long forgotten, teachers will continue to have students walk into the classroom. Administrators will continue to work with teachers who need support and encouragement.”
An enjoyable post and comments! I have a point of view I would like to share…
Student engagement is complex. It or something like it appears in various contexts, and as a result the term has come to be applied by all varieties of stakeholders in casual, imprecise ways.
But we may safely say that engagement is usually active, always dynamic, and just about anyone can walk into a classroom and recognize it. When most or all students in a class are engaged, teachers sense a tide of helpful momentum, feel sure they are doing something right, and perhaps even feel confident that a residue will be enjoyed the next day. Seeing engagement through your class can give rise to hope for a period of continued progress, and on your professional terms. It evokes a strong feeling of satisfaction, almost an addictive feeling, I can say, and many teachers apply much effort — and even well-intended gimmicks — in their efforts to reproduce it.
Wouldn’t Pokemon Go be such a gimmick? It would indeed offer some borrowed value in having students attend and participate. But like other such gimmicks, it would struggle to genuinely rouse a student’s prior learning and have it quietly scream, “This classroom activity fits where I am in my learning… I anticipate relevant progress. Count me in!”
Could Pokemon Go offer something in some classrooms? Absolutely. But offer meaningful personal engagement with curriculum? Unless your learning goal somehow relates to advancing technologies, I would suggest no.
I think our profession needs to build a stronger shared understanding about what engagement is and isn’t as it relates to student achievement.
Thanks, Dylan…I do think engagement is valuable, and technologies such as Pokémon Go have a place in our classrooms. However, I believe the problem is when we dangle “cool tools” in front of students instead of putting in the hard work to build capacity, which ultimately can lead to sustainable, systemic change.