IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022 - 66

Commentary
Reflections and discussion
The findings from our field study highlight several
points that speak to how PGBL and the automation
that underpins them are often discussed in the context
of education.
First, alongside other AI-enabled learning technologies,
PGBL has been proposed to save time for
the teacher and contribute to more effective teaching/learning
[6]. In contrast to this perspective, we
found that the use of this technology created new
mundane tasks in the classroom that needed to be
taken care for. In the case of Navigo, teachers needed
to manage young children's lack of experience with
the logging in or had to devise new ways to care for
Navigo's tablet before the game could be even used.
Thus, as opposed to contributing to more effective
teaching interventions, our findings highlighted that
Navigo's automation played a " functional " role, freeing
up teacher time to attend to these new tasks.
We argue that for aspirations of PGBL to transpire,
schools and their teaching staff must first identify
and plan effective ways to overcome some of the
mundane tasks and related workload introduced
when bringing technologies into the primary school
classroom.
Second, automation highlighted a problematic
tension between playing independently and
learning independently. This was expressed in the
Harwell vignette where Navigo was used to keep a
small group of children occupied, while the rest of
the class was supported by the teacher to engage
in " analog " learning activities. The automation
embedded in games, and Navigo's game design,
allowed children to continue playing through the
digital game activities without disruption. This provided
teachers with reassurance that children were
learning independently. However, challenging this
approach, past research has shown that the teacher's
external supportive role alongside PGBL predicts
primary school children's learning [10]. Our findings
reemphasize ongoing calls to develop new pedagogical
approaches for supporting children when using
PGBL and also highlight the equally important need
to mitigate the perception that PGBL engenders
independent learning.
finally, in our field study, teachers restricted the
time they spent with Navigo in their literacy classroom,
with this shaping how Navigo's automation
" worked " and in turn how the benefits of Navigo
66
were perceived. All participating teachers acknowledged
their students' motivation and the value of
Navigo's content. However, as the Manor vignette
illustrates, attributing " effectiveness " to Navigo was
also raised as a challenge by the teachers since the
game was one of several literacy activities in which
children engaged. This led some teachers to limit
children's game play to once a week, ensuring children
were immersed in " tried-and-tested " methods,
alongside more experimental literacy opportunities
such as Navigo. Navigo was also afforded less time
due to the additional requirements introduced by
the game and its tablet (see vignettes 1 and 2), for
example, contributing to groups of children playing
Navigo on a rota once a week. To progress in
the game, master reading features and unlock new
ones, the game required children's constant engagement
over time. Although Navigo's content was initially
synchronized with the class curriculum, over
time children's classroom literacy learning moved
faster than the game content they encountered.
Thus, the inadequate time afforded to the game
limited the operation of automation and the game's
ability to support personalized learning. Teachers
in turn began to perceive Navigo as a catch up/
consolidating of past learning, even though the
game incorporated a much wider breadth of content
their students had not yet encountered. PGBL,
and other AI-enabled learning technologies, are
often discussed as paradigm changers that will support
children's learning through their personalized
approach. We find that a range of factors-such as
teachers' accountabilities toward children's learning,
or tablet resource management concerns-can
introduce time constraints that impact upon how
automation works and consequently redress how
PGBL is perceived in the classroom. Taking a situated,
socio-material lens can highlight how PGBL is
used in everyday schooling, provide a critical perspective
on the hypes concerning this technology,
and expose the diverse factors that mediate how
this technology is appropriated suggesting a range
of nuanced mitigations.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by iRead, H2020 Innovation
Action EU Project, under Project 731724. The
ideas emerged through discussions with colleagues
at UCL, particularly M. Mavrikis, S. Ibrahim, and L.
Benton.
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2022
