Take a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.

ABSTRACT

A simple yet powerful design strategy for leveraging children's natural proclivity to play has been to tie educational content to the rules of a game. A common criticism of many game designs used in classroom settings however, is that they fail to meaningfully embody content. Another, more subtle problem, is that design elements such as chance and skill; competitive versus cooperative roles; and criteria for success can influence the affective dispositions for students to participate, and by extension learn. While strategies for creating and understanding games ranging from athletic activities to video games have been articulated, there continues to be a need to examine the theoretical elements of game design in order to develop a practical, coherent pedagogy of implementation and use that is applicable to games, teacher practice, and curriculum. This study is focused on examining the socio-cultural forces that motivate students to play and, potentially, learn when they participate in in- and out-of-classroom games as well as the cognition and construction of knowledge structures that take place while playing, and is intertwined with my work on designs for accountable games--playful activities that take into consideration both the learning requirements and goals of the educator and the social and developmental needs of the learner.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• 2: Brown, A. R. (1987). Bandwidths of Competence: The Role of Supportive Contexts in Learning and Development. Technical Report No. 336. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), Development & learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 173--224). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• 3: Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• 4: Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• 5: Meira, L. (1998) Making Sense of Instructional Devices: The Emergence of Transparency in Mathematical Activity, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 29, no 2, pp121--142
• 6: David R. Michael , Sandra L. Chen, Serious Games: Games That Educate, Train, and Inform, Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade, 2005
• 7: Nasir, N. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4 (2&3), 213--247.
• 8: National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
• 9: Piaget, J. (1965). The Rules of the Game of Marbles. In J. Piaget, The Moral Judgment of the Child (pp. 13--76). New York: The Free Press.
• 10: Schank, R. C. (1996). Goal-based scenarios: Case-based reasoning meets learning by doing. In D. B. Leake (Ed.), Case-Based Reasoning (pp. 295--348). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• 11: Katie Salen , Eric Zimmerman, Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals, The MIT Press, 2003
• 12: Schank, R. (1996). Goal-based scenarios: Case-based reasoning meets learning by doing. In D. Leake (Ed.), Case-Based Reasoning (pp. 295--348). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• 13: David Williamson Shaffer , James Paul Gee, How Computer Games Help Children Learn, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006
• 14: Vygotsky, L. (1933). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 3 (5), 62--76.
• 15: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University of Press.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  A. General Literature
  A.0 GENERAL

Keywords:
child centered requirements, collaborating children, design guidelines, design methods, education, games, interaction design