Integrating Sims in High School Science Classroom - Literature Review

Literature Review

During the last few decades, science education has been highly influenced by constructivism and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning science has been widely promoted (Roscoe, 2004). This perhaps can be attributed to the trend that school curricula tend to be based on learner-centered constructivism to promote students who can function successfully in real-world contexts. As learner-centered psychological principles provide a framework for developing and incorporating the components of new designs for schooling, it has been widely acknowledged that learning is influenced by environmental factors including technology and instructional practices and is most effective within the context of real-world learning situations (American Psychological Association, 1997). The learner-centered approaches are associated with learner control characterized by learners making choices in the pacing, sequence and selection of instructional materials (Merrill, 1983; Reigeluth & Stein, 1983). Intrinsic motivation, which is proved as associated with high educational achievement and enjoyment by students, can be facilitated on tasks that are comparable to real-world situations and meet needs for choice and control (APA, 1997).

With the rapid advancement of technological innovation, efforts in integrating new instructional technologies into learner-centered teaching have been proved successful (Leider, 1999). One evidence is that computer and Internet technology continues to displace the brick-and-mortar classroom and online schooling came to be one of today’s fastest-growing education sectors, with some half-million course enrollments nationwide (Dillon, 2006). As a consequence, e-learning environments such as simulations have become a widely used science teaching tool that enable teachers and learners to explore new domains, make predictions, design experiments, and interpret results in science class (Steinberg, 2000). Following the first era (Observation Era) and the second era (Experimentation Era), science education has now entered its third era – the Era of Simulation (Blanton, 2006). From K-12 schools to higher education institutions, simulation-based instructional designs such as virtual laboratories, educational games, and cyber classrooms provide new teaching and learning experiences for educators and learners. Recently reported by the New York Times, a virtual chemistry laboratory alone has about 150,000 high school students enrolled around the nation, doing experiments that would be too costly or dangerous to do at their local school settings (Dillon, 2006).

Likewise, the Epic White Paper on simulations (Clark, 2006) articulates that while time, cost and danger would be issues that hinder the notion of learning through experience, simulations, by contrast, can help achieve that notion with quick, cheap and safe solutions. In detail, the white paper lists the advantages of simulations as following:

Simulations, although difficult to design, have some significant advantages over other methods of delivering learning. These benefits include: elimination of risk and danger, elimination of the need for costly sites and equipment, lower environmental impact, the ability to do things that are impossible in the real world, increase in learner motivation, ability to learn through repeated failure, acceleration of learning, integration of knowledge and skills, deepened learning, increased retention through reinforcement and realism, better transfer of learning to real-world, anytime, anywhere access to learning content, cheap replication and distribution, better assessment through actual performance, and better evaluation of performance. (p. 4)

Simulations can provide animated, interactive, and game-like environments in which students learn through exploration. For example, physics teachers use simulations to establish the connections between real-life phenomena and the underlying science, mapping the visual and conceptual models of expert physicists accessible to students (Perkins, Adams, Dubson, Finkelstein, Reid, Wieman, & LeMaster, 2006). Scatteia (2005) found that space-themed simulation videogames could effectively promote space because they represent reality “not only as a collection of images or text, but also as a dynamic system that can evolve and change.” Features in this genre, which is labeled with “edutainment,” include “a very high level of realism in the reproduction of a real space system” and “a steep learning curve, as a direct result from the level of realism,” contributing significantly to delivering educational scientific messages.

The advantages of simulation use in education, on the one hand, have made it a useful supplemental approach for science teachers. The virtuality of its nature, on the other hand, has aroused wide concerns over the learning authenticity when the quality of educational simulations comes under experts’ scrutiny. A recent criticism focusing on virtual laboratories, for instance, is questioning that whether the hands-on experiences can be substituted with the laboratory practice on the cyberspace (Dillon, 2006). Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff (1995) argue that software simulations are not satisfactory for achieving learning comprehension in many laboratory experiments. Others (Hamza, Alhalabi, Hsu, Larrondo-Petrie, & Marcovitz, 2002) believe that while simulations have a significant place in distance education, they can hardly replace the need for real laboratory experiences that tend to simulate and intensify all types of learning skills in students. The lack of real response of real physical elements to real inputs suggests that simulation software should be used for a limited set of experiments. In situations when real labs are not as appropriate or effective, however, simulations provide substantial assistance:

Simulations are appropriate for teaching in a controlled environment, such as teaching theoretical concepts, confronting students with their misconceptions, and teaching students with limited metacognitive skills. When the concepts accentuate theory, a well-designed simulation package will meet instructional objectives. (Hamza et al, 2002, p.188)

While Hamza et al (2002) focus on simulation-related concerns such as designers’ subjectivity on the simulation design, software error, limitation by the scope of distance learning parameters, lack of feelings of spontaneity, and absence of the excitement and interest, one very realistic limitation of simulation would be associated with the extensive cost and technological support that are critical to produce and implement simulations. There is little doubt that it is harder to produce and launch a successful instructional design with simulation technology comparing with other electronic approaches, because both the design and update of simulations are very costly and time-consuming (Silverthorne, 2002). From a cost-effectiveness point of view, however, the benefits of the use of simulation in e-learning outweigh this limitation as we compare the development cost to the resources saved, the training time reduced, the safety ensured, and the unique motivational quality in learning received (Clark, 2006).

A unique voice among the critics, Clark (2006) articulates that the biggest limitation to the wide spread of simulation use is neither technological-bound, nor cost-related, but of our limited imagination, as “the field of simulations is much wider and more diverse than many people think.” This implies that simulations should not only be designed innovatively, but also implemented creatively. Furthermore, because using computer simulations in class instruction requires a fundamentally different way than the knowledge gain with original materials, their impact would largely depend on the details of the program and the way in which it is implemented (Steinberg, 2000).

Indeed, it is the elaborate design, careful selection, and on-task delivery that really matter in terms of creating an effective learner-centered science classroom with the simulation technology. Despite of the concerns on time, cost and virtuality, the immersivity and edutainability of computer simulations will put promises in engaging students in authentic learning.

Reference

American Psychological Association's Board of Educational Affairs (1997, November). Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Redesign and Reform. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.apa.org/ed/cpse/LCPP.pdf

Blanton, P. (2006). Incorporating simulations and visualizations into physics instruction. The physics teacher, 44(3), 188-189. Retrieved on October 30, 2006, from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=46FBA98D1C2F8FCF940B

Clark, D. (2006). Simulations and e-learning. Epic whitepaper. Retrieved on November 1, 2006, from http://www.epic.co.uk/content/resources/white_papers/sims.htm

Dillon, S. (2006). No test tubes? Debate on virtual science classes. The New York Times. Retrieved on October 24, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/ education/20online.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Hamza, M. K., Alhalabi, B., Hsu, S., Larrondo-Petrie, M. M., & Marcovitz, D. M. (2002). Remote labs: The next high-tech step beyond simulation for distance education. Computers in the schools, 19 (3-4), 171-190.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Leider, S. (1999). Successfully Integrating Technology. ERIC Digest. ED422989. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-2/technology.htm

Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. Reigeluth (ed.) Instructional design theories and models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., Wieman, C., & LeMaster, R. PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The physics teacher, 44 (1), 18-23. Retrieved on November 1, 2006, from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4309993119F1F437D8BF

Reigeluth, C., & Stein, F. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roscoe, K. (2004). Lonergan's Theory of Cognition, Constructivism and Science Education. Science & Education, 13 (6), 541-551. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=3QTD7D42TUYEDGH1N9P5

Scatteria, L. (2005). Space-themed videogames: An effective way to promote space. The electronic library, 23(5), 553-566.

Silverthorne, S. (2002). Marrying distance and classroom education. Harvard Business School working knowledge (online). Retrieved on November 2, 2006, from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/3219.html

Steinberg, R. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? American Journal of Physics, 68 (S1), S37–S41. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://scitation.aip.org.proxy.bsu.edu/journals/doc/AJPIAS-ft/vol_68/iss_S1/ S37_1.html

Integrating Sims in High School Science Classroom - Lesson Plan

Strategic Plan

As science education reform efforts call for students to develop scientific processes and skills through inquiry (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996), I decided to use the process of assessment-driven design to create a three-week inquiry-based unit as a route to in-depth understanding of physics concepts. According to Glatthorn (1998), an assessment-driven unit is a unit that has been carefully planned to prepare students for and engage them in performance assessments so that they might achieve authentic learning. Authentic learning allows students to explore, discover, discuss, and meaningfully construct concepts and relationships in contexts that involve real-world problems and projects that are relevant and interesting to the learner. It implies that (1) learning should be centered round authentic tasks; (2) learning should be guided with teacher scaffolding; (3) students should be engaged in exploration and inquiry; (4) students have opportunities for social discourse; and (5) ample resources be available to students as they pursue meaningful problems (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999). Based on the above understanding, I developed a lesson plan for high school physics class by using Glatthorn’s (1998) unit planning process.

Analyze the Performance Task

The first step was to analyze the performance task. The National Science Education Standards provide assessment standards (NRC, 1996, pp. 173-181) consistent with the goals of this simulation-based learning unit. The following inquiry and physical science content standards are the focus of the alignment process:
Science as inquiry.

Content Standard A 9-12:
As a result of activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop

• Abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry
• Understandings about scientific inquiry

“For students to develop the abilities that characterize science as inquiry, they must actively participate in scientific investigations, and they must actually use the cognitive and manipulative skills associated with the formulation of scientific explanations” (p. 173).

Physical science.

Content Standard B 9-12:
As a result of activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of

• Motions and forces

“By this age, the concept of force is better understood, but static forces in equilibrium and students’ intuitive ideas about forces on projectiles and satellites still resist change through instruction for a large percentage of the students” (p. 178).

From the above standards, we develop the following performance task: Using the simulation program Rocket Modeler II, design a rocket and successfully launch it.

A knowledge and skills analysis (Glatthorn, 1998) was adopted to analyze the performance task. What knowledge the students need to accomplish the task and what skills they need to master were determined as following:

Knowledge:
1. Law of Motion
2. Basics of forces
3. Gravitation

Skills:
1. Using computer simulations as science inquiry tools
2. Calculating external forces and velocity
3. Interpreting data and reporting results from experiments

Block-in the Unit

By reviewing the results of the analysis and reflecting about our students, we established the general parameters for this unit:
Title of the unit: Launch Your Rocket
Goal of the unit: The students will acquire basic knowledge about the basics of forces through their application in rocket design.
Length of the unit: 3 weeks.
Review the Unit Scenario

In order to test the feasibility and likely effectiveness of the performance task and the instruction required, I reflected on the results of the analysis, the students, the standards, the performance task, the nature of authentic learning and teaching, and the resources available.

Here is the scenario I went through:

Allow time for students to form small groups (no more than 3 people per group). The teacher will assign a different task to each group (i.e., launch the rocket under different wind, weight, and/or gravity conditions). The three members can be assigned roles such as Captain, Chief Engineer, and Commander. Students will learn the four forces on the rocket, basic rocket motion, the payload system, flight equations and the use of the equation calculator through the online tutorials on the NASA website. Groups will report their progress to the teacher on a weekly basis and get feedback from the teacher. Finally, groups will be expected to present their final work to the class by demonstrating how they design and launch the rocket and what the three things they learn from this project are. Following up in a class discussion, students will discuss their feelings about NASA scientists’ responsibility and the application of physical science in the real world.

This scenario provided a picture of how the unit begins, unfolds, and ends. Through a peer review, my colleagues agreed that it represented authentic learning and reflected the result of the analysis previously stated.

Sketch-in the Lessons

In order to make sure that the unit can be effectively presented in the time available, we made an outline of the lesson:

Week1: Formation of groups, choice of project assignment, planning, and studying with the online tutorials.
Week2: Designing and launching the rockets with the teacher’s guidance
Week3: Presentation of project and class discussion.

Prepare the Unit for Evaluation

To get everything ready for evaluation, I put together the usual components of this unit such as identifying information, unit title, school subject and grade level for intended use, suggested number of lessons, curriculum standards and benchmarks, performance task with criteria and rubrics, lesson sketches, resources required, suggestions for enrichment and remediation, and forms for evaluating the unit.

Required resources.

• Computer with Internet access (preferably high speed)
• E-mail and/or instant messaging account
• Java applications for Rocket Modeler II simulation program

Criteria and rubrics for student.

Table 1. Criteria and rubrics


Suggestions for enrichment and remediation.

Provide students with several resourceful links such as the NASA website, Wikipedia, and other related physical science websites. The teacher can also create a Webquest for students’ further research study.

Implement the Assessment-Based Unit

I believe the most important criterion for evaluating this unit is the unit’s effectiveness in preparing students to master the performance task. Therefore, Glatthorn’s (1998) criteria for evaluating units (see Figure 1) will be applied to assess the unit.
________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. Criteria for Evaluating Units
________________________________________________________________

Does the unit
1. Prepare the students to achieve mastery of the performance task?
2. Embody the elements of authentic learning?
3. Use a realistic time frame?
4. In format, organization, and content facilitate teacher use?
5. Include all the components specified by the district curriculum office?
6. Use language effectively and correctly?
_________________________________________________________________

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1998). Performance assessment and standards-based curricula: The achievement cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Integrating Sims in High School Science Classroom - Rationale

Rationale

For the past two decades, educational technologists have been arguing that real-world simulations would have a great impact on education (Thomas & Hooper, 1991; Dede, 1992; Hardin & Ziebarth, 2000). However, integrating simulations into modern classrooms is no easy task as technology integration in education stands at the intersection between educational change and technological development. In order to use simulations effectively, teachers not only have to learn the technology, but must also change the way they teach. Like science experiments and many other computer-mediated learning activities, simulations work best when students are functioning in hands-on and problem-based inquiry mode, interacting with the simulation and peers. In this way, technologies are used as knowledge construction tools that students learn with (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998).

Although a large number of studies indicate that learner-centered activities are the most effective approach to authentic learning, currently few teachers are conducting their classrooms in a student-centered manner, and in addition, a low percentage of teachers even feel comfortable managing a student-centered classroom activity (Kain, 2003; King, 2003). However, with the call to “put the children and their learning needs within the center of every educational program and resource decision” (ASCD, 2007), it is essential for teachers to change their way of teaching in line with the educational change and technological development.

In this context, I plan to develop a lesson plan that integrates educational computer simulation modules in a high school science classroom. The goal of this project is to help high school science teachers shift to a more inquiry-based teaching style by providing them with learning tools that support a more student-centered approach. In addition, I hope to help students develop a greater understanding of, and interest in content areas such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics through educational simulations. This project will employ educational simulation modules based on inquiry-based constructivist pedagogy, such as a collaborative, problem-based, and learner-directed of instruction (Koschmann, 2001) – it is my belief that students learn more when they are involved in inquiry based learning activities and when they gather, analyze and interpret data, providing them an opportunity to draw conclusions and report their findings. The lesson plan will be aligned with the Indiana science standards and to the National Science Education Standards (NSES), as well as the textbook used in high school science classrooms.

The learning goals of the lesson plan is to assist students:

• Develop deeper and more personal ways of thinking about science.
• Engage in interactive, inquiry-based methods of learning about science.
• Obtain a greater understanding of science content.
• Address misconceptions they may have regarding science.

One of the inspiring educational websites that have contributed to this project is the official site of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Education Division. As clearly stated on the site, the NASA is dedicated to engaging students, educators and families in NASA-related activities at the elementary and secondary education levels thus to inspire and motivate the students to pursue higher levels of study in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (NASA, 2007). The site includes wonderful technology-based educational resources such as computer simulations, games, videos, and many other multimedia instructional materials that can be used for K-12 science classrooms. Among those affluent resources, I decided to use a simulation program named Rocket Modeler II because it is an excellent tool for students to learn the basics of forces and the response of an object to external forces, and understand physics concepts such as velocity, ballistic flight, and Galileo’s principle (NASA, 2007). Players will need to design a rocket properly to ensure its successful launch. Through learning by design and problem solving, students will be expected to build higher order skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in the fields of STEM. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) will be connected to the integration of this simulation module in high school science classroom.

References

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2007). The whole child. A report by ASCD Commission on the Whole Child.

Dede, C. (1992). The future of multimedia: Bridging to virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 32 (5), 54-60.

Hardin, J., & Ziebarth, J. (2000). Digital technology and its impact on education. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures /hardin.html

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.

Kain, D. (2003). Teacher centered versus student centered: balancing constraint and theory in the composition Classroom. Pedagogy, 3 (1), 104-108.

Koschmann, T. (2001, March). Dewey’s contribution to a standard of problem-based learning practice. Paper presented at First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative (EuroCSCL), Maastricht, Netherlands.

King, I. C. (2003). Examining middle school inclusion classrooms through the lens of learner-centered principles. Theory into Practice, 42 (2), 151-158.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2007). A message from the Director of Elementary & Secondary Education. Retrieved on November 18, 2007 from http://education.nasa.gov/divisions/eleandsec/overview/index.html

Thomas, R., & Hooper, E. (1991). Simulations: An opportunity we are missing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (4).

Augmented Reality (AR) Game: Tech Review #4

According to wikipedia, AR is a field of computer research which deals with the combination of real world and computer generated data. At present, most AR research is concerned with the use of live video imagery which is digitally processed and "augmented" by the addition of computer generated graphics. Advanced research includes the use of motion tracking data, fiducial marker recognition using machine vision, and the construction of controlled environments containing any number of sensors and actuators.

Ronald Azuma's definition of AR is one of the more focused descriptions. It covers a subset of AR's original goal, but it has come to be understood as representing the whole domain of AR: Augmented reality is an environment that includes both virtual reality and real-world elements. For instance, an AR user might wear translucent goggles; through these, he could see the real world, as well as computer-generated images projected on top of that world. Azuma defines an augmented reality system as one that

• combines real and virtual
• is interactive in real time
• is registered in 3D

The following site includes eight different types of augmented reality (AR) games. Some of these games were discussed in Chapter 11 in detail, some were just mentioned.

http://lgl.gameslearningsociety.org/games.php

1. AR games provide learners with immersive learning environments as AR technology adds graphics, sounds, haptics, and even smell to the natural world as it exists. My favorite one among the eight games listed on the site above is Hip Hop Tycoon, which involve students in meaningful, problem-solving tasks related to reading and math. I really liked the way it embed effective reading and math strategies in activities aligned to the state standards. The unit plan is very well-organized and the deliverables package is thoughtfully prepared.

2. The AR technology is really changing the way we view the world, using sense enhancements over real-world environment in real-time. Although AR systems employ some of the same hardware technologies used in virtual-reality research, but there's a crucial difference: whereas virtual reality basically aims to replace the real world, AR supplementsit. Therefore, I think AR games would engage student in more immersive learning. However, challenges to integrate those games into curriculum would be the cost, time, and teachers' ability to deploy the technology that support the AR environments and sense enhancements.

3. I like Amy's idea of integrating Hip Hop Tycoon into her entrepreneurship class. It's a very thoughtful plan she presented in terms of how to help students build on their previous experiences and develop more defined roles related to the real world occupations using the problem-based activities in the game. I also agree with her that the availability of the hand-held devices might be the major detriment to the integration of the game.

Area Adventure (SLP): Tech Review 2

http://jjones.iweb.bsu.edu/
http://www.bsu.edu/slp

Area Adventure is a web-based game that helps high school students practice the calculation of perimeter and area. The player is asked to complete a journey around the world, following a route from New York City, Paris, Hong Kong, Cairo, Taipei, to London. When in one city, he or she will have to select the flashing geometric shapes that appear on the landscape and solve the provided math problem by clicking on the correct answers. Such efforts will bring them to the next city until they complete the journey.

The Challenge of the game is based on a clear goal of traveling around the world through recall of math concept and formulas and calculation of perimeter and area of various geometric shapes. The Proclivity can be found in player's motif of successfully advancing to the next destination through his or her effort. The Uncertainty of the game is not obvious, basically because the repetition of similar calculation steps and the easy access to the formulas. However, the game's presentation of spectacular landscapes around the world and the player's curiosity of knowing the next destination help keep the player to continue the journey. In addition, there is little social interaction required in this game.

The following is a further analysis of Area Adventure using the 10-point essential criteria from Shelton:

1. Learning Issue (complex; intentional). Area Adventure features more like a directed instruction aimed at identified problems than a complex game.

2. Learning objectives and goals (explicit or implicit). The learning objectives of this game are explicit - to master the concept and calulation of perimeter and area of geometric shapes.

3. Constraints (interaction, rules). The game includes an environment with constraints (rules) and follow a certain pattern: Travel to a city - Find Shapes - Solve Problems (with help of the notes and grid tool) - Move to the next city.

4. The game kind of mimic real-world process: While traveling along a certain route around the world calculating perimeter and area of the world-famous achitecture, the player becomes a traveler, mathmatician, and architect.

5. This game is a web-based application that requires computer hardware and software. It also askes the player to prepare paper and pencil for calculation. (it might be helpful if it could embed a calculator and scratch sheet in its interface. Just a thought.)

6. Activity (Interactive; Autonomous). Area Adventure is an autonomous game with embedded information.

7. Non-Random (outcomes tied to learning goals, even with some random qualities). The outcomes are based on the player's attempts, not on performance because it still allows you to move on even you give wrong answers. I'd like to suggest the game designer to incorporate some punishment/improvement into the calculation steps.

8. The activity of the game is not repeatable because the process is somewhat linear and the outcome is not associated with the performance, which likely compromises its original learning goals.

9. Scalable (Internal; External). Area Adventure is not internally scalable. However, it has the potential to be developed to include multiple scenarios based on similar instructional objectives.

10. The game contains representations (traveling around the world) not quite affordable in real-world.

11. Cost effective. This is a free web-based game that can be integrated into high school geometry class.

Dr. Stuve Feedback:

Area adventures sure is a pretty game. It is a very positive experience, aestheically. I'm wondering if it's a bit too contrived. It is quite drill and practice, which is good for practice and mastery of discrete concepts, like area and perimeter. But, do you think kids will bore easily calculating the use of shapes on buildings? I don't know, but I was hoping for more challenging problems. Since the shapes are projected on the objects, even when they were actually caused by perspective, I felt a bit cheated. Might the contrived nature of the game negatively effect kids motivation, or it is just me? I would want to do simple practice calculations in a more simpler form of engagement. But, I would want to see kids reactions first.

But, even a simple tasks can be helpful and lead to better, more confident proplem solving later. If the slick imagery of Area Adventures motivates them to practice, as opposed to just giving then I'm all for it.

What are your thoughts on the contrived nature of Area Adventure?

Wei's response:

I agree Area Adventure is very much of a highly contrived design, with its drill-and-practice nature under the camouflage of "traveling around the world." I admit that initially I was it was attracted by its pretty graphic design and the appealing theme of world journey. However, as I kept moving on in the game I started to feel bored by its repeatedly used drills without any real challenge. Everything followes the same pattern. The sequences produce a predictale outcome. The only interactive activity (if it counts) is the feedback (correct/incorrect) to your multiple choice answer. The player is not allowed to choose his/her own route or learning skill level. In general, no "real" real-world problem-solving senario is introduced in the game. And the kids' motivation will likely get affected in a negative way.

Based on what I observed from playing the game, I would suggest the designers of this game increase the interactivity/interaction (more feedbacks, customizing choices) and raise the challenge/complexity level. In addition, a brief introduction to each landscape and a 3-D 360 degree view of it might be helpful to eliminate the view error caused by perspective.

Overall I would like to rate this game a 3 out of 5.

MUDs: Tech Review 3

As early gaming environments, MUDs have been studied by media researchers and social psychologists since the 1980s. However, as the dungeons and forests of the MUDs were translated from words into 3-D images, such text-based fantasy games were rarely mentioned with their value in education.

The following is my review of this game using three criteria: Teacher Preparation, Class Size, Learner Engagement, and Infrastructure.

1. Teacher Preparation: MUDs were originally designed as a kind of "adult narrative pleasure that involves the sustained collaborative writing of stories that are mixtures of the narrated and the dramatized and that are not meant to be watched or listened to but shared by the players as an alternate reality they all live in together." It's not hard for teachers themselves to get used to such games. However, they may need to figure out how to convert this "adult narrative pleasure" into "kids' narrative pleasure." MUDs used to be considered as intensely "evocative" environments for fantasy play that allow people to create and sustain elaborate fictional personas over long periods of time. But does this remain the same as of today? If not, how can teachers be prepared to engage their students in such "old" environments?

2. Class Size: There should be no class size limits since MUDs support multi-user domains. The only possible constraint might be students' access to computers with Internet connection.

3. Learner Engagement: As text-based fantasy games, playing MUDs requires a comparatively high level of reading and writing skills. So this game genre would be more suitable for high school English class.

4. Infrastructure: MUDs are highly expandable.

Education in Second Life - Mini Tech Review 1

Second Life has recently become one of the cutting-edge virtual classrooms for higher education. It fosters a welcoming atmosphere for administrators to host lectures and projects online, selling more than 100 islands for educational purposes. Students can be engaged in social learning activities and find it enjoyable to interact with other avatars while learning in this space. Among the more active educators in Second Life are librarians. There are numerous libraries within what is referred to as the Info Islands. A virtual reference desk in SL is staffed by real life volunteer librarians for many hours every week. They also teach workshops there to help librarians and educators learn more about Second Life.

Late in 2006, a trend emerged whereby large consortia purchased several islands comprising an archipelago of education-focused land. The land is then subdivided into smaller parcels and rented to colleges, universities, and educational projects. Typically, land is rented for as little as $200 per year and comes with permission to use some common space for larger events. The consortial model has allowed for many more institutions to offer participation to students and faculty within a learning-centered environment. There are now many universities, colleges, schools and other educational institutions researching the use of Second Life as an environment for teaching and learning which offers a community of practice and situated constructivist learning.

Ball State-related Second Life resources links:

CMD in Second Life

Going Virtual: Libraries in Second Life

Building bridges between serious game design and instructional design

Kirley, J., Kirkley, S., & Heneghan, J. (2007). Building bridges between serious game design and instructional design: A blueprint for now and the future. In B. E. Shelton & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 61-83). Sense Publishers.

This article discusses how to balance fun and engagement with learning, how to build effective design teams that use each other’s strength, how to create common models and processes, and how to develop innovate games that will revolutionize learning, not only the outcomes but how we define and understand it. In fact, one of the strengths of technology is that it keeps us from getting too comfortable in our seats. As new technologies emerge, so do new forms of communicating, collaborating, and creating. This calls for constantly rethinking our approach to design and development, especially as we are challenged to deal with new design concepts and capabilities (e.g. what can your game engine do), different types of designs (e.g., how will your learner experience and process virtual environment), and how game design and instructional design can come together to create learning environments that are increasingly authentic, engaging, and that help people to see the world from a different perspective. Its implication for educators would be how to use simulations to produce positive impact on the students in terms of teaching and inspiring them in meaningful ways.

In praise of epistemology

Shafer, D. (2007). In praise of epistemology. In B. E. Shelton & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 7-27). Sense Publishers.

(excerpts from class discussion)

Shafer asserts that thinking about simulation games from the perspective of their epistemologies opens up a new and important way of thinking about education itself. To prepare for life in a world of global competition that values innovation rather than standardization, young people need to think like innovators. The highlight of this article is how Shaffer extracted games from the computer context and place them into a pedagogical framework as an epsitemology. This is a profoundly deep (i.e. cognitively and socially) treatment of the potential of games in education. Epistemic games: games that recreate the process of how people in the real world learn to think like creative professionals (p. 24). Students can make higher level thinking decisions and content connections to real life professions/situations rather than just remember facts to answer specific response questions on a standardized test. Using inquiry and simulations can help children to play out the logical sequence of steps needed to complete a task while risking nothing and perhaps even mapping out different scenarios – all of which leads to enhanced problem solving skills. This might be the center idea for my project.

Remote labs: The next high-tech step beyond simulation for distance education

Hamza, M. K., Alhalabi, B., Hsu, S., Larrondo-Petrie, M. M., & Marcovitz, D. M. (2002). Remote labs: The next high-tech step beyond simulation for distance education. Computers in the schools, 19 (3-4), 171-190.

The authors believe that while simulations have a significant place in distance education, they can hardly replace the need for real laboratory experiences, which tend to simulate and intensify all types of learning skills in students. The lack of real response of real physical elements to real inputs suggests that simulation software should be used for a limited set of experiments. In situations when real labs are not as appropriate or effective, however, simulations provide substantial assistance. Simulations are appropriate for teaching in a controlled environment, such as teaching theoretical concepts, confronting students with their misconceptions, and teaching students with limited metacognitive skills. When the concepts accentuate theory, a well-designed simulation package will meet instructional objectives. However, educators need to be aware of the following drawbacks when implementing simulations in classrooms: the design of a simulation depends largely on the student’s perception as anticipated by the designer; simulation software at its best might only produce an approximation that can yield erroneous results; the results of experiments conducted through simulation software must be programmed for use within the scope of distance learning parameters; the thrill of spontaneity from autonomous experimentation vanishes; and the excitement and interest that accompany remote lab experimentation may be absent. I should take into account those factors during the project design.

Simulations and e-learning: An Epic whitepaper

Clark, D. (2006). Simulations and e-learning: An Epic whitepaper. Retrieved on October 1, 2007, from http://www.epic.co.uk/content/resources/white_papers/sims.htm

This Epic white paper articulates that although simulations provide experiential learning that is quick, cheap and safe, they are still all rare in e-learning. This is not only due to the limitations of the current web-based technology, but most importantly, our limited expectations and imagination. The paper details the seven key types of simulation, explores the design implications of producing simulations and gives metrics for their evaluation - also detailing numerous case studies. The author argues that if e-learning is to mature and motivate, it must embrace simulations as a potent and flexible tool for experiential learning. I agree with the author that the chief limitation to more widespread use of simulations is not technological, or cost-related, but a limitation of imagination because “the field of e-learning simulations is much wider and more diverse than many people think.”