banner



Home  ›  Implement Design For A Game

Implement Design For A Game

Written By Tuesday, 23 November 2021 Add Comment Edit

Abstract

Design involves solving complex, ill-structured problems. Design tasks are consequently, appropriate contexts for children to exercise higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. Although creating engaging and authentic design contexts for young children is difficult within the confines of traditional schooling, recently, game-design has emerged as an alternative context to provide young children with opportunities to practice design and thinking skills. Despite the increasing interest from educators and researchers to use game-design as a platform to teach young students higher-order thinking skills, literature documenting design and development of such learning experiences has been scarce. This paper provides a detailed account of how a complex network of pedagogies, theories, and technologies were brought together to design and develop the Game Design and Learning (GDL) program, with the purpose of teaching students basics of computer programming, and to give them hands-on experiences in game-design, and teach them complex problem-solving skills. The GDL program can serve as an example for efforts aiming to create similar technology-rich environments.

References

  1. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1–11.

  2. Akcaoglu M. (2014) Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583-600. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9347-4.

  3. Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003.

  4. Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.853.

    Article  Google Scholar

  5. Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The impact of technology on creativity in design: an enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 180–191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00560.x.

    Article  Google Scholar

  6. Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.

    Article  Google Scholar

  7. Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2013). Towards innovation in complex problem solving research: an introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 359–363. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9299-0.

    Article  Google Scholar

  8. Fowler, A., & Cusack, B. (2011). Enhancing introductory programming with Kodu Game Lab: An exploratory study. In M. Lopez & M. Verhaart (Eds.), Proceedings from 2nd Annual Conference of Computing and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand (CITRENZ2011) (pp. 69–79). New Zealand: Christchurch.

    Google Scholar

  9. Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop. Boston, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar

  10. Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar

  11. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar

  12. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar

  13. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar

  14. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar

  15. Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Chen, N.-S. (2013). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7.

    Google Scholar

  16. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar

  17. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  18. Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar

  19. Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: a case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73(1), 26–39. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar

  20. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar

  21. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. doi:10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV.

    Article  Google Scholar

  22. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar

  23. Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(4), 429–458.

    Article  Google Scholar

  24. Li, Q. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research, 52(4), 427–443. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.524752.

    Article  Google Scholar

  25. MacLaurin, M. B. (2011). The design of Kodu: a tiny visual programming language for children on the Xbox 360. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 46(1), 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar

  26. Mayer, R. E. (1977). Thinking and problem solving: An introduction to human cognition and learning. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar

  27. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar

  28. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.

    Article  Google Scholar

  29. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

    Google Scholar

  30. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar

  31. Microsoft Kodu. (2012). Microsoft Research. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/kodu/.

  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

    Article  Google Scholar

  33. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar

  34. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (Vol. 36, pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar

  35. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.

    Google Scholar

  36. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=950596.

  37. Resnick, L. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.

    Google Scholar

  38. Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2), 385–398. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar

  39. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: when and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar

  40. Scratch. (2012). Retrieved from http://scratch.mit.edu/.

  41. Simon, H. A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding, and problem solving in design. In A. Collen & W. W. Gasparski (Eds.), Design and systems: General applications of methodology (Vol. 3)ems (Vol. 3, pp. 245–257). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar

  42. Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

    Google Scholar

  43. Stolee, K. T., & Fristoe, T. (2011). Expressing computer science concepts through Kodu Game Lab. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 99–104).

  44. Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 609–614). ACM.

  45. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2012). RoboBuilder: Video game program-to-play constructionist. In Constructionism 2012 (pp. 1–5). Athens, Greece.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, 30458, USA

    Mete Akcaoglu

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mete Akcaoglu.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akcaoglu, M. Design and Implementation of the Game-Design and Learning Program. TechTrends 60, 114–123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y

Keywords

  • Problem-solving
  • Game-design
  • Microsoft Kodu
  • Constructionism
  • Design
  • STEM

Implement Design For A Game

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y

Posted by: palazzolohowestrin.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Implement Design For A Game"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel