Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Teachers College Educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

patterns into games for learning spaces, and determine potential impact on promoting self-reflection in games. References Baird, J. R., Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1991). The importance of reflection in improving science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 163– 182. Berk, L. E., Mann, T. D., & Ogan, A. T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for development of selfregulation. In D. Singer, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.) Blizzard Entertainment. (1998). StarCraft: Brood War [PC game]. Irvine, CA: Activision Blizzard. Bogost, I. (2007). The rhetoric of video games. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, 117–139. Bura, S. (2008) Emotion Engineering: A Scientific Approach For Understanding Game Appeal. Gamasutra. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3738/emotion_engineering_a_scientific_.php Core Design (1998). Tomb Raider III [PC Game]. Wimbledon, London: Eidos Interactive. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2008). Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games. Morgan Kaufmann. Isbister, K. (2006). Better Game Characters by Design: A Psychological Approach. Morgan Kaufmann. Järvinen, A. (2008). Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Lim, S., & Reeves, B. (2006). Being in the Game: Effects of Avatar Choice and Point of View on Arousal Responses During Play. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. Retrieved from: http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/games&narrative.html Juul, J. (2010) A casual revolution reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lionhead Studios (2001). Black & White [PC game]. Redwood City, CA: Electronic Arts. Mezirow, J., & others. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood, 1–20. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of Guidance, Reflection, and Interactivity in an Agent-Based Multimedia Game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128. Rieber, L.R. (2005). Multimedia Learning in Games, Simulations, and Microworlds. Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games + good learning: collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. Peter Lang. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. The MIT Press. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning. Serious games: Mechanisms and effects, 295–321. Square Enix (1997). Final Fantasy VII [Playstation]. Tokyo, Japan: Sony Computer Entertainment. THQ. (2010). The Biggest Loser Challenge [Wii game]. Agoura Hills, CA: THQ Inc. Von Wright, J. (1992). Reflections on reflection. Learning and Instruction, 2(1), 59–68. Yee, N., Bailenson, J., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The proteus effect: Implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36, 285-312. 81
Cooperative Inquiry in Designing Technology in Life-Relevant Learning for Science Jason C. Yip, Tamara Lynnette Clegg, Allison J. Druin, Mona Leigh Guha, Evan Golub, Elizabeth Bonsignore, Elizabeth Foss, and Greg Walsh University of Maryland – College Park, Human-Computer Interaction Lab 2117 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing, College Park, MD 20742 Email: jasonyip@umd.edu, tclegg@umd.edu, allisond@umd.edu, mona@umd.edu, egolub@umd.edu, ebonsign@umd.edu, efoss@umd.edu, gwalsh@umd.edu Abstract: In this presentation, we offer an approach to designing supporting technologies for science learning in everyday informal contexts. We advocate for Cooperative Inquiry as a means of engaging learners in the development and design of their learning activities and supporting tools. Our participatory design approach focuses on actively engaging researchers and children in setting design goals, planning prototypes, and making decisions, ensuring the final design meets the needs of the end users. We outline the results from two case studies of design sessions with members from a design team (Kidsteam) and participants of a summer science program (Kitchen Chemistry). We present the methodological steps we adopted to co-designing early prototypes, what features learners find important in the technology for their personal interests, and what implications can be made for designing technology for everyday learning. Introduction National goals emphasize “science for all” (e.g., AAAS, 1990). However, science can often be presented as abstract facts that are disconnected from learners’ daily lives. Subsequently, studies indicate that many learners can be turned off from this form of science learning (e.g., Atwater, 1996). One approach to addressing this challenge is to help learners engage in scientific practice in the context of their own personal interests. Therefore, we aim to design learning environments called life-relevant learning (LRL). We define LRL as engaging learners in science through the pursuit of their own meaningful goals. Our LRL environment, Kitchen Chemistry (KC), is an out-of-school program where participants engage in scientific practice in the everyday context of cooking. In this LRL environment, we have found that learners engage scientifically in new ways (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) that promote their scientific identity development (e.g., Clegg, Gardner, & Kolodner, 2010) and informed decision-making practices (Yip et al., 2012). While technology can help address the challenges learners face in LRL environments, these tools also need to support science learning in the context of learners’ own personal interests. We contend that in order to design LRL technologies that promote scientifically meaningful experiences in everyday contexts, we need to capitalize on learners’ personal goals. Therefore, we advocate for Cooperative Inquiry (CI) as a means of engaging learners in the development of the supporting tools (e.g., Druin et al., 2001). CI is a participatory design approach created for designing technology for children with children. Our CI approach focuses on actively engaging researchers and children in setting design goals, planning prototypes, and making decisions to ensure the final design meets the needs of the end users. While CI provides a way for developing user-centered technology, few studies have focused on co-designing with children to develop technological tools to help make science learning more personal. For this study, we aim to better understand two questions: (1) how can technology be better designed to meet participants’ learning and practical needs in LRL experiences? and (2) how can we structure the CI process for designing technology for LRL experiences? Methods To answer these questions, we worked with two different groups of children and adults. The first group was composed of the eight children (four boys, four girls, ages 7–11) and researchers of Kidsteam, an out-of-school program at the University of Maryland’s Human-Computer Interaction Lab. Throughout the year, the team develops, evaluates, and co-designs new technologies for children. We chose the 82
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Te
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Math Strategies i
Page 5 and 6:
Harnessing the Power of Emotionally
Page 7 and 8:
Think Facts introduces four charact
Page 9 and 10:
Guidelines for an Online Networking
Page 11 and 12:
Mode S = Synchronous A=Asynchronous
Page 13 and 14:
Investigating Potential Factors to
Page 15 and 16:
Investigating the Effects of Choice
Page 17 and 18:
Videogames in Institutional Practic
Page 19 and 20:
Youth in the Digital Age: Digital M
Page 21 and 22:
Augmenting The Arrival: Students’
Page 23 and 24:
Connected to Word Problems: Improvi
Page 25 and 26:
ased approach. Future research may
Page 27 and 28:
MOOCs, Open Education, and Implicat
Page 29 and 30:
Promoting Healthy Eating Habits Thr
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 2: Monster Appetite in actio
Page 33 and 34:
This year, the first participant gr
Page 35 and 36: Figure 2: The Aesthetigraph represe
Page 37 and 38: Digital Modeling Artifacts as Geome
Page 39 and 40: Using Weblogs to Increase Language
Page 41 and 42: Total 3 Advanced Performance Level
Page 43 and 44: “Media Literacy in Action: Using
Page 45 and 46: Learning Science Systems with Graph
Page 47 and 48: Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (200
Page 49 and 50: Applying Physics to the Real World:
Page 51 and 52: Credibility of Culturally Situated
Page 53 and 54: notion that similarity with the use
Page 55 and 56: Duncan, H., Tan, J. (2012). A Visua
Page 57 and 58: Online Learning Environments in Hig
Page 59 and 60: Exploration of concepts to facilita
Page 61 and 62: Exploring the Intersection of Forma
Page 63 and 64: Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Desi
Page 65 and 66: information and the world according
Page 67 and 68: #phdchat: a community of practice o
Page 69 and 70: A Difficult Balance: Regulating Cyb
Page 71 and 72: References Bethel School District v
Page 73 and 74: that children’s photographs were
Page 75 and 76: A variety of data sources were coll
Page 77 and 78: control and mastery increased in vi
Page 79 and 80: Design of computer assisted tools f
Page 81 and 82: Figure 2: Interactive functions of
Page 83 and 84: User Experiences with Avatar Custom
Page 85: Design Patterns for Promoting Self-
Page 89 and 90: Implications Our work with CI exten
Page 91 and 92: References Allen, E., & Seaman, J.
show all

Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Teachers College Educational ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?