Teacher’s perceptions of the usefulness of board games in elementary school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Playing games at school can have a positive impact, particularly regarding student's motivation and learning efficiency.Various types of games are employed by teachers, including board games.Board games are defined as games with limited playing time, simple themes, and rules.They require a physical medium (e.g., a board, cards, dice), and are played by two or more players.While the educational value of games is widely recognized in the literature, few studies have delved into elementary school teachers' perceptions regarding playing board games at school, even though they are the ones encouraged to use them.The aim of this study is to address the following research questions: According to elementary school teachers, what's the interest of board games in the school context?Why elementary school teachers use (or don't use) board games in their class?In order to better understand teachers' perceived usefulness of board games in the school context, we conducted 3 focus groups (with three to five participants per group, 13 participants in all) with elementary school teachers teaching from first grade to fifth grade.The results of the thematic analysis conducted on Nvivo highlighted three relevant themes regarding our research questions: (1) Board games for academic learning, (2) Board games for emotions, social life, and coexistence and (3) Teachers' motivation, roles and rights.Indeed, teachers believe that the use of board games, as suggested by scientific literature, can benefit student learning (e.g., language, mathematics, geography...) but teachers believe that board games can also be an interesting tool from a social and emotional perspective, both for students and teachers.While studies on games in school often focus on children, this research provides insight into teachers' perspections on board games in elementary school.Exploring teachers' perceptions of board games may help us better understand why board games are or are not used in the school context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".