Sanctuary: Asymmetric Interfaces for Game-Based Tablet Learning by
Download 392.31 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- REFERENCES
- SOFTWARE
- BOARD GAMES
REFLECTIONS & PROJECTIONSSanctuary has been a complicated project to imagine and execute. During its development, I have strengthened my resolve to serve schools while being let down by them. I have been inspired by non-traditional digital gaming platforms, the long history of human beings playing together, inventing and remaking their rules, and a complex argument against les grands hommes and the science envy that has caused so much harm in the social sciences for decades. I have also been deeply inspired by young talent, dedicated teachers, and young people striving to make sense of the world. A cynic may say that they do so from a golden perch, but that doesn’t diminish their efforts in my eyes. I have also been inspired by numerous ideas that are not Sanctuary, and have had to sit on my hands while finishing this work. If Sanctuary were to have the future that my research wants for it, to remain the tinkering prototype for a new(-ish) type of intervention, what might that look like? A final destination would be some sort of unit replacement in a local school, attempting to work with high quality educators to make a difference in a community that needs it, wants it, and wants to work on it with me. That is a tremendous amount of human capital to move, but given the complex works subsumed into its core, Sanctuary seems to demand this kind of commitment. Of course, when I talk about Sanctuary in this way, I’m talking about much more than a single piece of software, or a mode of interaction with a type of hardware. The technology at the core of Sanctuary will come and go, and the things that get swapped in will likely create even more opportunities. Along the way though, there will be many important design challenges to conquer. Even as the intervention is the outcome in an important sense, it must be adaptable to communities or it isn’t an outcome at all. As mentioned at the end of Explorations, co-design appears to me to be one of the most appealing outcomes of this process. The time needed to develop the basic infrastructure of Sanctuary created too many barriers to a truly iterative design process. These students were the first people outside the development process to be welcomed into the process, and their contributions were immediate and brilliant. Moreover, they established a new center of gravity for the project that could make the intervention into the project they need it to be. I believe that with any intervention, the more people that are invited in, the stronger it can be. How might more voices enter the discussion? One extreme answer might be to open up the hood and allow people to create both the tools and simulations they want to study. The creation of a platform for such complexity might extend existing projects like ToolBlocks, or might be built from the ground up. Given the my experiences with Pair 1 though, I must admit that some of the cultural stigma against digital gaming, particularly by young women, makes even a gaming device with extremely gender equitable distribution a potentially uncomfortable option. The animating idea behind Sanctuary was to use the power of fast computing to develop board game style interventions for learning about complexity. One possibility for opening up a platform like Sanctuary might be to move even further away from the screens. There are some really wonderful ideas at work at les éditions volumiques, for instance (http://volumique.com/v2/). Moving away from tablets entirely to an even more subtle use of technology is also an appealing option to consider. The attention to gender and power that this project came to late in its development has become an important animating idea to the spirit of Sanctuary. In some ways, history seems like one long negotiation of power, and it is important to not let the design of our interventions shut out or even mildly reduce the interest of half of the population. Along the lines of adding voices, I also believe that adding players is an important part of expanding the scope and effectiveness of these structured activities. While pairing was an important aspect of the first version of this intervention, and a decision made with care, I believe there is a head to head aspect, even in collaborative play, that makes for uncomfortable moments when a given player doesn’t necessarily feel like perfect exertion. The decisions above, of course, may lead to an even greater bottleneck than before. More subtle uses of technology may come to involve less democratic technologies. These counterbalancing factors must be considered. In some ways, the jigsaw model that is essential to Sanctuary could be a real boon in mitigating this problem. For instance, imagine some sort of large-scale project that involves the development of modules. The development of a work force could do worse than the creation of expert groups and jigsaw groups and the careful integration of the two. Whatever form Sanctuary takes next, it will be crucial to take the steps begun here as a beginning, not a final form. REFERENCESWORKS CITEDAarsetch, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Abt, C. (1970). Serious games. New York: Viking Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method. London: Pinter & Martin. Avedon, E.M. & Sutton-Smith, B. (1971). The study of games. New York: John Wiley. Ball, D.L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal 93:373-397. Barab, S. & Squire, K. (eds) (2004). Design-based research: Clarifying the terms [Special Issue]. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1). Barab, S., Dodge, T., Thomas, M.K., Jackson, C. & H. Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the social agendas they carry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16 (2): 263 - 305 Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R. M . (1980). Problem-based learning. New York: Springer. Barrows, H.S., & Kelson, A. (1993). Problem-based learning in secondary education and the Problem-based Learning Institute (Monograph). Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: The Guilford Press. Bedford High School. (2012). Bedford high school college profile. Retrieved from http://www.bedford.k12.ma.us/images/stories/pdfs/bhs/counsel/college_profile.pdf Berland, M., & Lee, V. L. (2010). Collaborative strategic boardgames as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning. Berland, M. (2011). Understanding strategic boardgames as computational-thinking training machines. In G. Costikyan & D. Davidson (Eds.), Tabletop: Analog game design. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Bransford, J.D.& Stein, B.S. (1993). The IDEAL Problem Solver (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 24(1), 61. Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bogost, I. (2006). Unit operations: An approach to videogame criticism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: the expressive power of videogames. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Bogost, I. (2011). How to do things with video games. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Boston Magazine. (2012). Boston’s best schools 2012: Top 50 ranking of high schools in boston and boston suburbs. Boston Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.bostonmagazine.com/best-schools-boston-2012-top-50/ Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brown, A.L. (1975). The development of memory: Knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowing how to know. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 10), H.W. Reese, ed. New York: Academic Press. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. Caillois, R. (2003). Man, play, and games. Univ of Illinois Pr. Chu, S., Yip, J., Haas, J., & Roman, C. (2013, June).Qualitative methods for studying learning through gameplay in museums and science centers. Poster delivered at 2013 games, learning, and society conference, Madison, WI. City Data. (2013). Bedford, massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Bedford-Massachusetts.html Clark, D., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., and D’Angelo, C.(2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. Paper presented at The National Research Council Workshop on Gaming and Simulations. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Gaming_Sims_Commissioned_Papers.html Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., Killingsworh, S., Bellamy, S. (2013). Digital games for learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park, CA:SRI International. Cobb, P. (1994). Theories of Mathematical Learning and Constructivism: A Personal View. Paper presented at the Symposium on Trends and Perspectives in Mathematics Education, Institute for Mathematics, University of Klagenfurt, Austria. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T.O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp.15-22). New York:Springer-Verlag. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology, the digital revolution and schooling in america. Teachers College Pr. Consalvo, M. (2005). Cheating can be good for you: educational games and multiple play styles., On the Horizon, 13 (2): 95 - 100 Consalvo, M. (2009). There is no magic circle. Games and Culture, 4(4): 408-417 Copier, M. (2005, June). In Suzanne de Castell (Chair).Connecting worlds. fantasy role-playing games, ritual acts and the magic circle. Presentation delivered at Digra 2005: changing views – worlds in play. Costikyan, G. (1994). I have no words and i must design. Retrieved from http://www.costik.com/nowords.html Crawford, C. (1984). The art of computer game design. Mcgraw-Hill Osborne Media. Cuban, L. (2005). Oversold and underused, computers in the classroom. Harvard Univ Pr. De Koven, B. (2013). The well-played game: A player's philosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8, 35-37. Elias, G. S., Garfield, R., & Gutschera, K. R. (2012).Characteristics of games. Cambridge: MIT Press. Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical play: Radical game design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Flavell, J.H. (1973). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In The Nature of Intelligence, L.B. Resnick, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. Gallison & D. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: boundaries, contexts, and power (writing science) Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Garfunkel, S., & Mumford, D. (2011, 08 24). How to fix our math education. New york times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/how-to-fix-our-math-education.html Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematicsLondon: Routledge. Guzdial, M. (2013, August 01). Lausd has a $543m shortfall, but is spending $500m on ipads?. Retrieved from http://computinged.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/lausd-has-a-543m-shortfall-but-is-spending-500m-on-ipads/ Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203-212. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review. 16(3): 235-266. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens, a study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press. Illich , I. (1970). Deschooling society. London: Marion Boyars Publishers. It's About Time Interactive. (2012). How the imp® curriculum is different. Retrieved from http://mathimp.org/general_info/iis/section2_1.html Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction. Joplin, L. (1981). On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 4(1), 17-20. Kafai, Y. B., Quintero, M., and Feldon, D., (2010). Investigating the ''why'' in whypox : Casual and systematic explorations of a virtual epidemic. Games and Culture, 5(1), 116-135. Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Klopfer, E. & Perry, J. (in press). UbiqBio: Adoptions and outcomes of mobile biology games in the ecology of school. Computers in School. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards, the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, a\'s, praise, and other bribes. Mariner Books. Kohn, A. (2011). Feel bad education, contrarian essays on children and schooling. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kramer, S. (2003). The joint impact of block scheduling and a standards-based curriculum on high school algebra achievement and mathematics course taking. University of Maryland. LaBaree, D. F. (2010). Someone has to fail: The zero-sum game of public schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction 3:305-342. Lowell, B. L., & Salzman, H. (2007). Into the eye of the storm: Assessing the evidence on science and engineering education, quality, and workforce demand. The Urban Institute. October 2007. Available at http://www.urban.org/publications/411562.html. Accessed 15 November 2010. Malaby, T. (2007). Beyond play: A new approach to games. Games and Culture. 2(2): 95-113. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, (2013). Bedford high school. Retrieved from website: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=00230505&orgtypecode=6 Mateas, M. (2008). Procedural literacy: educating the new media prac- titioner. In Beyond Fun (pp. 67–83). McDonald, J.P., and P. Naso (1986). Teacher as learner: The impact of technology. Educational Technology Center, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University. Middleton, J. A., Gorard, S., Taylor, C., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2008). The compleat design experiment: From soup to nuts. In E. Kelly, & R. Lesh (Eds.) Design research: Investigating and assessing complex systems in mathematics, science and technology education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998). Nuffield Seminars: Unpublished Interim Report. Miller, J.D., R. Pardo, & F. Niwa. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the european union, the united states, japan, and canada. Madrid: BBV Foundation Press. Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203-223. Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. Pp. 129-149 in Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research, L.B. Resnick and L.E. Klopfer, eds. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: Free Press.. Nagel, D. (2013, July 25). Budgets, infrastructure holding back greater mobile adoption in schools THE Journal, Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/07/25/budgets-infrastructure-holding-back-greater-mobile-adoption-in-schools.aspx. Next Generation Science Standards. (2013, May 17). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/ Norman, D. A. (2003). The design of everyday things. New Your, NY: Basic Books. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), Retrieved from http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Parlett, D. (1999). Oxford history of board games. New York: Oxford University Press. Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. M. Cook, trans. New York: Inter- national Universities Press. Piaget, J. (1973a). The Child and Reality: Problems of Genetic Psychology. New York: Grossman. Piaget, J. (1973b). The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1977). The Grasp of Consciousness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1978). Success and Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pulsipher, L. (2011). The three player problem. In G. Costikyan & D. Davidson (Eds.), Tabletop: Analog game design. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Rabinow, P. (2003). Anthropos today: Reflections on modern equipment. Princeton University Press. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from the technology perspective. In J. V. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 86-109). London: Routledge. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Socially responsible educational technology research. Educational Technology, 40(6), 19-28. Resnick, M. (1991). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge: MIT Press. Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, D.L., & Bransford , J.D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction 16(4):475-522. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state, how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale Univ Pr. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003 Shaffer, D. W. (2012). Models of Situated Action: Computer Games and the Problem of Transfer Education Researcher. In C. Steinkuehler, K. Squire, S. Barab (Eds.), Games Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age, (pp. 403-433). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shapiro, R. B., Squire, K., and the Educational Research Integration Area (2011). Games for participatory science. Educational Technology Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Edu cational Review 57:1-22. Simon, H.A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. Small, M. (2009). How many cases do I need? On Science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1) pp. 5-38. Squire K.D. & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5-29. Squire, K. & Patterson, N. (2009). Learning context: gaming, simulations, and science learning in informal environments. Presented at the National Research Council Division of Behavior and Social Sciences and Education Center for Education Workshop Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Squire_Gaming_CommissionedPaper.pdf. Retrieved 15 November 2010. Steinkuehler, C. (2006). The mangle of play. Games and Culture, 1(3), 199. Stevens, R., Satwicz, T., & McCarthy, L. (2008). In-game, in room, in-world: Reconnecting video game play to the rest of kids' lives. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Suits, B., & Hurka, T. (2005). The grasshopper, games, life and utopia. (1 ed.). Broadview Press. Taylor, T.L. (2007). “Pushing the borders: player participation and game culture” in J. Karaganis (ed.), Network_Netplay: Structures of participation in digital culture, New York: Social Science Research Council, pp. 112-130. Taylor, T.L. (2009). “The assemblage of play,” Games and Culture, 4 (4): 331-339. Trost, J. (1986). Statistically nonrepresentative stratified sampling. Qualitative Sociology, 9(1), pp.54-57. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. Retrieved from http://papert.org/articles/EpistemologicalPluralism.html Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen, identity in the age of the internet. Simon and Schuster. Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia, a century of public school reform. Harvard Univ Pr. Visible Thinking. (2008). Visible thinking in action. Retrieved from http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking_html_files/01_VisibleThinkingInAction/01a_VTInAction.html Vygotsky, L.S. (1962).Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of the Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press. (Originally published 1930, New York: Oxford University Press.) Webb, N., & Dowling, M. (1997). Comparison of imp students with students enrolled in traditional courses on probability, statistics, problem solving, and reasoning. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. White, B.Y., and J.R. Fredrickson (1997). The ThinkerTools Inquiry Project: Making Scientific Inquiry Accessible to Students. Princeton, New Jersey: Center for Performance Assessment, Educational Testing Service. White, B.Y., and J.R. Fredrickson (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Science 16:90-91. Zagal, J. P., Rick, J., & Hsi, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from boardgames. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 24 - 40. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design, implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc. Zimmerman, E., & Salen, K. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. London: MIT Press. Zimmerman, E. (2012, February 07). Jerked around by the magic circle - clearing the air ten years later.Gamasutra, Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6696/jerked_around_by_the_magic_circle_.php SOFTWAREAtari, Inc. (1979). Asteroids. [computer software]. Sunnyvale, CA. Barab, C. et al. (2003). Quest Atlantis [computer software]. Bloomington, IN. Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of warcraft [computer software]. Irvine, CA. Cyan (1993). Myst [computer software]. Mead, WA. Dede, C. et al. (2004). River City. [computer software]. Cambridge, MA. Die Gut Fabrik (2011). Johan Sebastian Joust [computer software]. New York, NY. ERIA Interactive. (2011). Citizen science [computer software]. Madison, WI. Available from http://www.eriainteractive.com/project_CitizenScience_WebPlayer.php ERIA Interactive. (in development). Trails forward [computer software]. Madison, WI. Filament Games. (2008). Resilient planet [computer software]. Madison, WI. Infocom (1980) Zork. [computer software]. Cambridge, MA Liang, L., Lin, Y., Shan, Y., Dewhurst, S., Chang, E., & Xiao, M. (2010). Fusion [computer software]. Pittsburgh, PA. Mojang (2009). Minecraft. [computer software]. Stockholm, Sweden. NCSoft (1998). Lineage. [computer software]. Seoul, Korea Nimblebit (2011). Tiny Tower [computer software]. Poway, CA. Nintendo Corporation, Ltd. (1981). Donkey Kong [computer software]. Redmond, WA. Nintendo Corporation, Ltd. (1992). Mario Kart. [computer software]. Redmond, WA. Nintendo Corporation, Ltd. (2001). Pikmin [computer software]. Redmond, WA. Numedon, Inc. (1999). Whyville, [computer software]. Pasadena, CA. Pajitnov, A. & Gerasimov, V. (1984). Tetris [computer software]. (Moscow, USSR). Popcap Games (2001). Bejeweled. [computer software]. Seattle, WA. Robertson, T. (2012) Artemis bridge simulator [computer software]. The Internet. Available from http://www.artemis.eochu.com/?page_id=35 SimBio (2008). EcoBeaker [computer software]. Cambridge, MA. Unity Technologies. (2005). Unity game engine [computer software]. Worldwide. Available from http://unity3d.com/unity/ University of Colorado at Boulder. (2011). PhET [computer software]. Boulder, CO. Available from http://phet.colorado.edu Valve Software. (2007). Team fortress 2 [computer software]. Kirkland, WA. BOARD GAMESTeuber, K. (1995). Settlers of Catan. Germany. TSR/Wizards of the Coast. (1974). Dungeons & Dragons. Lake Geneva, WI. Z-Man Games (2008). Pandemic. Mahopac, NY. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 392.31 Kb. Share with your friends:
|