Case study: Using Minecraft as a tool for communicating STEM subjects

About this case study.

My interest in the use of Minecraft as a tool for communicating STEM subjects has originated from the work done at CEH highlighted earlier in this case study. Although the “CEHCraft” offers a specific approach to using Minecraft as the project links to research being undertaken at the science research centre, through National Capability Project ASSIST (2018), this innovative use of one of the world's most popular digital platforms is an interesting way to engage children (and “big kids” alike) in STEM topics. So, I want to explore why this popular computer game has been, and continues to be, adopted as a communication tool?

In this case study I aim to explore the use of Minecraft in communicating STEM concepts, with particular focus on the use of teaching in schools. This is something that particularly intrigues me as I work with many enthused academics across CEH who see benefit (and enjoy) working with school groups to help inspire. Many of the academics comment on how it reminds them why they wanted to do science in the first place. As my role as a science communicator I want to understand the most effective ways academics can communicate their research through the platform, and how I can facilitate them in doing this. However, it is important to notice that the most effective way for each academic and individual piece of research will be different.

To put my interest further into perspective, rather than just my own personal experience with the game from “CEHCraft”, Minecraft is of interest as it is currently one of the biggest digital gaming platforms across the world with a reported 91 million monthly users. (Game Industry. Biz 2018) And is one of the biggest games “of all time”, coming only second to Tetris. (Forbes, 2016).

Background.

The use of Minecraft in communicating STEM is by no means a new concept, which is proven with the official Minecraft Education Edition being launched in November 2016 (Mojang 2016). However its exact origins in relation to STEM communication could be argued, and could even date back to Minecrafts launch back in 2009. (Techradar, 2018).

Since it’s somewhat humble beginnings; the development of the game, audience adoption and technology improvements, Minecraft has developed from being computer based to being available cross platform availability including Apple Devices (Mac, Iphone, Ipad), Xbox and other Microsoft Products, just to name a few. To highlight its popularity and growth, and put into perspective the interest in this simple gaming platform, Microsoft purchased Mojang, the Swedish firm behind the creation of Minecraft, for $2.5bn back in 2014 (BBC, 2014). This clearly shows the prospects of the video game to gain the interest in a large international technology company, however, this financial move is not the main success marker in relation to Minecraft, but is important to not be overlooked.

But back to the point; why use Minecraft, and why has it become so popular? Chapman and Rich (2018) have looked into the benefits to education of using a gamification model. Their research concluded that the use of gamification led to the following outcomes:

• Increased perceived motivation of students taking part, especially when they could track their progress.

• Benefits of gamification were not limited to participants with specific demographic characteristics. Students varying in age and gender benefitted from gamification approach.

These could be applicable to the reasons why Minecraft has been so popular; with it motivating students who benefitted from this style of learning. This clearly shows there is a distinct rationale for why Minecraft may be used, but it also highlights the removal of barriers to education. This can be seen as particularly important as many sectors of STEM aim to encourage more women and ethnic minorities into the sector. This is something which specifically can be achieved through the use of gamification as MacLean (2017) discusses;

“Females especially dislike the lecture format, yearning instead for practical applications of concepts and technology discussed, engagement in class discussions, and collaborative rather than competitive classroom environments.”

In relation to the use of Minecraft and STEM, this clearly supports the gamification uptake approach from an educational perspective, as it allows students to engage in ways which more “traditional” teaching methods may not. This could arguably be one of the reasons why Minecraft, as a teaching tool, is being widely adopted and classed as a success.

However, this led me to wonder about some personal feedback on why people enjoy playing Minecraft, to enable me to get a better understanding (as any communication professional in 2018) I took to social media and asked on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit pages to gain some feedback (Appendices 1). From this, it seems that the freedom to be creative, which isn’t always available in other games or in structured education and communication, is a huge part of the draw and appeal of Minecraft, but also the idea of virtual co-creation spaces and communities.

As a science communication professional the comments made by Chapman and Rich (2018) and MacLean (2017), confirm my thoughts of the benefits of using Minecraft and and shows the importance of such a platform as it breaks down barriers to STEM, especially for female students. For me, this solidifies the cause for using Minecraft as an STEM educational tool, especially when trying to encourage inclusion within the sector. Going forward as a science communicator (and as a woman working within the STEM sector) I believe that I have a role to reduce the barriers, applicable to my reach, and to help facilitate STEM sectors to become more inclusive, and armed with this knowledge, I can more confidently think of using Minecraft and gamification techniques to do so.

I took some time to speak to Dr Amanda Ford, Games Lecturer, from West College Scotland (Appendix 2). Dr Ford has been using Minecraft as an inclusion and education tool. After seeing her impressive work Twitter, I asked her about the ways in which she uses Minecraft. One of her comments that stood out to me was her thoughts that:

“there has to be purpose [w]hen using MC for teaching and not just using it for the sake of using a popular tool.” (Appendix 2)

For me as a science communicator, hearing this from a fellow STEM communicator, and woman in the industry, this is a piece of advice which I think is invaluable for all science communication, not just Minecraft; there has to be reasoning behind its usage. This is something that as a practitioner I need to think about with all my communications; why? Why this platform? Why this audience? Why this message?

For me it is also important to look into the effectiveness of this kind of approach (assuming its the right one and has the right reasonings behind it). Research carried out regarding this has been conducted by Pusey & Pusey (2015) who concluded;

“activities that required students to use higher-order thinking skills, such as building models within the game, were the most successful and engaging lessons. [...] Activities that required the students to apply their knowledge with clear objectives in a creative environment resulted in the highest level of application”

Minecraft is described as “Gameplay [that] involves players interacting with the game world by placing and breaking various types of blocks in a three-dimensional environment. In this environment, players can build creative structures, creations, and artwork on multiplayer servers and singleplayer worlds across multiple game modes.” (Gamepedia, 2018)

As the concept of Minecraft is a foraging and building game (as well as destroying, or avoiding being destroyed by the creepers[2]), Pusey & Pusey (2015) succinctly conclude the benefits of such a game when used to build items to complete tasks. When looking at this as a teaching tool this clearly aligns with teaching aims to encourage students to develop their thinking skills.

As a science communicator, again this confirms my initial thoughts about Minecraft as a teaching tool, the concept of the game allows creativity but in an almost “landscaped way” in that work needs to be done to turn certain blocks into tools, to then allow the player to develop these into higher game player creations such as carts, tracks, boats to name a few, with many Minecrafters creating whole cities and worlds within the platform. Even Dr August and Dr Powney from CEH have developed such impressive creations within “CEHCraft”. As a science communicator it interests me how, even when done at scale, these tools can be engaging, interactive and interesting. Although this does bring into question the technical capabilities that users of this need to be able to access the creations.[3]

Whilst attending the Engage Conference, which focuses on best practice for PER, I was fortunate enough to meet Dr Tom Flint, lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University. We discussed the difficulties of engaging children in STEM and how Minecraft can be a valuable tool. Dr Flint pointed me towards his research of using Minecraft.

Dr Flint’s work that focuses on co-creation with children in schools, and one comment particularly stuck out to me;

“It is difficult in studies of this type to fully gauge whether the children are particularly enjoying the virtual world or whether the enjoyment is simply the novelty of having Minecraft in school.” (Flint, 2018)

This is something which, as a science communicator also troubles me; is the reaction simply because of the novelty and not doing ‘actual’ work, or because Minecraft is truly the best method. On the other hand this shows evidence of Minecraft working well in schools, and this is an achievement which must not be overlooked.

Key principles.

As mentioned earlier in this case study the vast user base of Minecraft, and the way in which audience members engage with the game offers an arguably unique opportunity for STEM communicators to utilise a clearly popular, and a well established platform. The viability of Minecraft as an appropriate communication tool which has been clearly identified with the advancement of its Education Edition (Microsoft, 2018) and in reaction has been adopted by many communicators, educators and national curriculum including in Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland Curriculum, 2018).

Teachers who have adopted this in Northern Ireland have highlighted the following in relation to using Minecraft in lessons:

“When they enjoy what they do, they learn”

“It’s what they use outside of the school, they are actually teaching us as teachers, so we’ve got that partnership with each other” (Northern Ireland Curriculum, 2018)

So why does this work so well? In one viewpoint ID Tech writer “Aurora” pinpoints it succinctly that the game works well because of the following reasons;

1. Minecraft enhances life skills

2. Minecraft complements school skills

3. Minecraft delivers work skills (ID Tech, 2016)

As a science communicator, apart from being ‘fun’ and something that children enjoy, the added skills that Aurora picks up on are important factors to consider, not just with Minecraft but any engaged STEM communication. As a science communicator, and facilitator, I think that these embedded skills are vital, and are naturally apart of STEM communication. However, going forward, this will lead me to actively think of how to widen the communication and activities to more than just the STEM communication.

Deconstruction of “CEHCraft”

To further understand the success of the use of Minecraft I will deconstruct what makes “CEHCraft” successful. As highlighted earlier in the ‘about the author’ section of this case study, the game was successful in engaging multiple different audiences at large scale public events. From my own knowledge and experience I have summarised the aspects that make “CEHCraft” work:

1. The whole experience is based on the popular Minecraft platform. Many other platforms or formats would work to discuss land use changes or what the land cover is like (the data sets that go into “CEHCraft”) and arguably other methods would lead to a more accurate, and less augmented visualisation. However, as discussed in this case study the many benefits of using Minecraft as a platform can be applied to this particular STEM communication.

Whilst at the event many of those who got involved admittedly commented that the Minecraft (brand recognition) drew them in to the activity. Therefore using something that has a strong reputation and appeal is a fantastic way to draw audiences in.

2. The use of VR adds an exciting element to the experience, rather than just game play on a screen.

Another way that audiences are increasingly becoming engaged or enticed into engagement is through the use of VR headsets and augmented reality. Although this case study has not focused on this element, this use of emerging technology such as this is a great way to engage those using an interactive method.

Rather than just appearing on a screen, “CEHCraft” allows the user to step into the Minecraft world, and become integrated. This is done in such a way that the audience member is embedded into the land cover changes, rather than just seeing it on a screen. From an impact perspective, it could be argued that seeing it in a first person perspective, rather than third person may be more impactful.

3. Engagement and entertainment is at the heart of the experience. The science communication comes on top of this.

The way that “CEHCraft” is designed carefully balances the science communication and entertainment elements. When the audience first enters the experience they’re on a rollercoaster in the Minecraft world and are able to experience the landscape around them. After a few moments, Dr August or Dr Powney would then discuss the science behind what the audience member was seeing. They would alter the language and level of detail to match the audience members age and assumed knowledge / ability in grasping science concepts.

The “CEHCraft” Minecraft element was designed in such a way that this could be enjoyed and watched without a science communication barrier (in this aspect I mean where people may be put off by the fact it’s science and wish not to take part). This more relaxed approach seemed to prove popular, with feedback being that people enjoyed the experience but they didn’t feel they were actually learning.

4. The experience is structured through the use of a rollercoaster, which in turn structures the communication.

Contrary to the success and appeal of the original Minecraft platform, “CEHCraft” does not allow players ‘free range’ over their experience. The game is set up so the player is set (almost trapped) on a rollercoaster going around the worlds. Those taking part in the virtual world however, do get to choose where they look in the experience, thanks to the use of the VR headset. The game has been designed that so throughout there is always something to be seen, and gain understanding from. Although this ‘traps’ the viewer into seeing a set viewpoint, this rollercoaster format takes the audience member on a journey through the land use changes. This is an effective way to control the communication without audiences feeling coerced into learning about science.

5. To facilitate the creativeness from children, computers with the same Minecraft server set up are located next to the VR experience to allow direct interaction, set alongside with tasks.

To combat the lack of control that the audience has using the VR headset version of “CEHCraft”, two computers with the “CEHCraft” world servers were set up next to the main VR station. This allowed those who played full creativity and free range within the world and encouraged them to explore and create in their timed allowance on the game.

This aspect to the game approach encourages a level of inclusion. ‘CEHCraft” VR aspect is only accessible to those aged 13 or older due to VR headset health and safety requirements, so therefore having the computer versions allowed those under the ages of 13 to be involved. This was also accessible for those who did not want to wear the VR headset, this approach means that all audiences were able to access the communication.

One ideology that I came across during this research, which I feel is important to highlight in this case study, is about the realism of “the real world” that is shown in Minecraft. Dr Tom Flint’s concept is something which I think all science communication professionals should think about when communicating their STEM topics;

“Minecraft spaces, it is critical to adopt what we have termed Minecraft Expressionism, an approach that allows one to celebrate and incorporate the opportunities and affordances inherent within both the technology that is being used as a medium for representation and the environment being represented.” (Flint 2018)

As with any communication tool their are pros, cons, limitations and unique opportunities to utilise, and I agree with Dr Flint, that as long as these are recognised in an appropriate manner this should lead to the successful uptake of not only Minecraft but any platform that could be used for teaching and / or communication. This is especially something to consider in the gamification aspect of communication. Games encompass creatively and do not always follow the norms or rules of real life (for example in Minecraft players can fly, but in the real world humans don’t have this ability.

Zhamanov and Sakhiyeva (2015) simply outline the components needed to implement gamification into 5 simple steps:

1. Understanding the target audience and the context.

2. Defining learning objectives.

3. Structuring the experience.

4. Identifying resources.

5. Applying Gamification elements.

This backs up concepts that have already been discussed in this case study, that Minecraft and games can be seen as an excellent starting point in the development and suitability of using Minecraft as a STEM communication tool but is highly dependent on your message for communication will depend if the use of Minecraft is the correct answer. It’s clear from this how some educators and communicators have successfully used this platform as a tool. Dr Amanda Ford (2018) also backs up these points but summaries the top three steps as; planning, purpose and time.

Dichev and Dicheva (2017) highlight the difficulty in developing gamification for education;

“However, the process of integrating game design principles within varying educational experiences appears challenging and there are currently no practical guidelines for how to do so in a coherent and efficient Manner.”

However, it must be taken into consideration Dichev and Dicheva were evaluating the available resources pre 2018, and therefore the uptake of Minecraft within education, and gamification in general has increased with more lesson plans, research papers and published works discussing the platform being widely available, however, their stance about the difficulty of this not to be undermined.

As a science communicator and / or facilitator its grealy important for me to take into consideration these lessons learned and key concepts. It’s highlighted that there is difficulty in applying “good” gamification techniques; I argue that if you have the right messaging, concept, tools, communicators and rationale behind it all this is something which you can achieve, but as for the ‘best practice’ element, this is something which does need personal development and journey.

Outcomes and lessons learned from this case study.

Throughout this case study I’ve been fortunate enough to think about different aspects that are important for the use of Minecraft as a STEM communication tool. Therefore here I will summarise:

● the main pros and cons of using Minecraft

● What good Minecraft communication should look like

Some of what I will conclude here has already been discussed by Karsenti, Bugmann and Gros who have formulated a 16 point recommendation list on how to embed the use of Minecraft into education, some of them including;

“The use of levels and tasks should scaffold the learning of specific skills and the development of key competencies.

Students should be allowed to develop independent solutions to problems they encounter in Minecraft.

Collaboration and teamwork in gameplay should be encouraged.

Proper oral communication between students during gameplay should be expected.

Students should be required to explain their learning, so that they become aware of their progress.” (Karsenti, Bugmann and Gros, 2017)

I feel that many of the viewpoints that I have found in my research have been positive to the use of Minecraft and gamification and highlight some of the challenges or points for consideration. I do recognise at this point that there will be opposing views to using this, however, this isn’t a common viewpoint that I’ve come across. I do understand that there are pros and cons, and maybe why my resource sources have all had a positive viewpoint is that this community who use Minecraft are more for positive celebration and lessons learned than focusing on the negative aspects.

Professional goals.

As someone who is just starting out in their science communication / facilitation career I am still getting to grips with what I stand for, what I want to communicate and all the lessons in between on how to achieve this. Throughout this case study I have commented on certain aspects that I think are important for me to consider going forward.

From this case study, and experience in “CEHCraft” I do not have the skills (or patience) to myself create these Minecraft worlds, however, I do have the skills to facilitate others to do so, and help develop the concepts behind them, how they fit into lesson plans or communication plans and the evaluation side. Going forward with Minecraft, this will be my approach.

From this I can summarise 7 points on how this case study research, and the use of Minecraft and “CEHCraft” has helped develop me personally as a science communicator and / or facilitator;

1. Good science communication breaks down barriers in STEM, especially for women, and as a woman in STEM I have a duty to work towards this and inspire other women.

2. Help break down barriers to STEM communication through inclusion, or if i’m unable to do this myself, I can facilitate others to focus on inclusion. This can include removing cost barriers, home / work / school life barriers and learning style barriers.

3. Always be able to justify the who, what, where, when, why and how of the science communication and / or facilitation. The method that is being taken must always be rationalised and the right choices for the right reasons.

4. Encourage creativity; may this be through the method of communication, the activity taking place or the approach to problem solving; creating an environment where people can be creative.

5. To consider the ability to conduct engagement at scale, and especially with focus on gamification techniques how this can still remain engaging and interesting without being lost as you try to communicate to the masses.

6. With science communication try to embed not only science learning but life skills, school skills and work skills. This is an easy but excellent way to give science communication and engagement undertaken greater impact and usability; allow those taking part to understand how STEM works in their everyday lives.

7. Never be afraid to learn from others. Technology is always evolving, including Minecraft, as I am young in my career it’s important that I draw upon down the knowledge, skills and lessons learnt by others, this is the best way for me to be able to develop my science communicator and / or facilitator role.

You can read the full case study, including references here.

Copyright images including cover image: Tom August, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, NERC.