Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Design Challenges for Science Games

International Journal of Designs for Learning

https://doi.org/10.14434/IJDL.V11I1.24264

Abstract

The abstract nature of quantum mechanics makes it difficult to visualize. This is one of the reasons it is taught in the language of mathematics. Without an opportunity to directly observe or interact with quantum phenomena, students struggle to develop conceptual understandings of its theories and formulas. In this paper we present the process of designing a digital game that supplements introductory quantum mechanics curricula. We present our design process anchored on three key challenges: 1) drawing upon students’ past experiences and knowledge of classical mechanics while at the same time helping them break free of it to understand the unique qualities and characteristics of quantum mechanics; 2) creating an environment that is accurate in its depiction of the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics while also playful and engaging for students; and 3) developing characters that are relatable to players but also do not reinforce gender stereotypes. Our design process can ...

References (64)

  1. Adams, E., & Dormans, J. (2012). Game mechanics: advanced game design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
  2. Ananthaswamy, A. (2019) Through two doors at once: The elegant experiment that captures the enigma of our quantum reality. New York, NY: Dutton.
  3. Anupam, A., Gupta, R., Naeemi, A., JafariNaimi, N. (2018). Particle in a Box: An experiential environment for learning introductory quantum mechanics. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(1), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2017.2727442
  4. Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., De Gloria, A. (2015). Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis: Mapping learning and game mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 391-411. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12113
  5. Azam Mashhadi. (1995). Students' conceptions of quantum physics. Thinking Physics for Teaching, 313-328. Boston, MA: Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1921-8_25
  6. Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2002). Understanding probabilistic interpretations of physical systems: A prerequisite to learning quantum physics. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 210-217. http:// doi.org/10.1119/1.1447541.
  7. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational Play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525-536. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X10386593
  8. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
  9. Berryman S. (2010). Democritus. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved November 1, 2017 from http://plato.stanford. edu/archives/fall2010/entries/democritus.
  10. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.919
  11. Bohr model. (2008). The Gale Encyclopedia of Science. Retrieved November 1, 2017 from http://www.encyclopedia.com/article- 1G2-2830100341/bohr-model.html
  12. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National academy press. http://doi. org/10.17226/9853.
  13. Bruckman, A. (1999). Can educational be fun? Proceeding of the Game Developers Conference, 75-79.
  14. Butler, J. (2011). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
  15. Chiarello, F. (2015). Board games to learn complex scientific concepts and the "Photonics Games" competition. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning 2015, Academic Conferences International Limited, 774-779.
  16. Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H. Y., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D' Angelo, C. M. (2011). Exploring newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers and Education, 57(3), 2178-2195. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2011.05.007.
  17. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79-122. http://doi. org/10.3102/0034654315582065.
  18. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Macarthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661-686. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.
  19. Conway, S. (2014). Zombification?: Gamification, motivation, and the user. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 6(2), 129-141. https:// doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.6.2.129_1
  20. Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of applied educational technology, 4(1), 21-31. http://doi.org/10.1108/10748120410540463
  21. Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5
  22. Eckert, R., & Davidson, J. (1987). Math blaster plus [computer software].
  23. Torrance, CA: Davidson & Associates.
  24. Forbus, K. D. (1997). Using qualitative physics to create articulate educational software. IEEE Expert-Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 12(3), 32-41. http://doi.org/10.1109/64.590072.
  25. Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85, 33-37. http://doi.org/10.1177/1555412008317309.
  26. Goff, A. (2006). Quantum tic-tac-toe: A teaching metaphor for superposition in quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 74(11), 962-973. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2213635
  27. Griffiths, D.J. (2005). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  28. Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies,14(3), 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
  29. Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is "strong objectivity?". The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437-470. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23739232
  30. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Association of University Women. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007.
  31. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. http://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
  32. Johnston, I. D., Crawford, K., & Fletcher, P. R. (1998). Student difficulties in learning quantum mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 427-446. http://doi. org/10.1080/0950069980200404.
  33. Kinzie, M. B., & Joseph, D. R. D. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: Implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 643-663. http://doi.org/10.1007/ s11423-007-9076-z, Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., & Petridis, P. (2017). Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics: Essential features of serious games design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 972-994. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12467
  35. Lankoski, P., & Bjork, S. (2008). Character-driven game design: Characters, conflicts and gameplay. GDTW, Sixth International Conference in Game Design and Technology.
  36. Loderer, K., Pekrun, R., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Beyond cold technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis on emotions in technology- based learning environments. Learning and Instruction. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.08.002
  37. Longino, H.E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  38. Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
  39. Littleton, K., Light, P., Joiner, R., Messer, D., & Barnes, P. (1998). Gender, task scenarios and children's computer-based problem solving. Educational Psychology, 18(3), 327-340. http://doi. org/10.1080/0144341980180306.
  40. Marne, B., Wisdom, J., Huynh-Kim-Bang, B., & Labat, J.-M. (2012). The six facets of serious game design: A methodology enhanced by our design pattern library. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. D. Kloos, & D. Hernández-Leo (Eds.), 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills (Vol. 7563, pp. 208-221). https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0_17
  41. Martin, C., & Rafalow, M. (2015). Gendered barriers to participation in gaming culture. Proceedings of the Third Conference on GenderIT - GenderIT '15, 49-52. http://doi.org/10.1145/2807565.2807713.
  42. Meyers, E. M., Nathan, L. P., & Tulloch, B. (2019). Designing picturebook apps: Valuing culture & community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Communities & Technologies -Transforming Communities -C&T '19, 14-23. https://doi. org/10.1145/3328320.3328377
  43. Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J. L., & Fernández- Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2530-2540. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.012.
  44. Peng, R., Dorn, B., Naeemi, A., & JafariNaimi, N. (2014). Interactive visualizations for teaching quantum mechanics and semiconductor physics. Proceedings of Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1-4. 10.1109/FIE.2014.7044207
  45. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., MacNamara, A., Ober, T., Rose, M. C., Pawar, S., Olsen, A. (2019). Emotional design for digital games for learning: The effect of expression, color, shape, and dimensionality on the affective quality of game characters. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.01.005
  46. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. https://doi. org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  47. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21. https://doi. org/10.1145/950566.950596
  48. Ray, S. G. (2004). Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market Hingham, MA: Charles River Media.
  49. Redish, E. F. (2000). Discipline-based education and education research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00052-0
  50. Sadaghiani, H., & Bao, L. (2006). Student difficulties in understanding probability in quantum mechanics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 818(1), 61-64. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.2177023.
  51. Salen, K., Tekinbas, K. S., & Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). (2006). The game design reader: A rules of play anthology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Schrödinger equation. (1999). Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved November 1, 2017 from http://www.britannica.com/ science/Schrodinger-equation.
  52. Singh, C. (2001). Student understanding of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 69(8), 885-895. http://doi. org/10.1119/1.1365404.
  53. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54. Retrieved from http://www.understandingbydesign.net/ASCD/pdf/journals/ ed_lead/el_198912_slavin3.pdf
  54. Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 9-20. https://doi. org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.917
  55. Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism supercharged! Learning physics with digital simulation games theoretical background: Electrostatics and conceptual physics. ICLS '04: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences, 513-520. Retrieved from https:// dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149189
  56. Stack, L. (2019). Measles cases reach highest level in more than 25 years, C.D.C. says. The New York Times. Retrieved June 5, 2019 from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/health/measles-cases.html
  57. Subramaniam, B. (2014). Ghost stories for Darwin: The science of variation and the politics of diversity. Urbana, Chicago and Springfield, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  58. Summers, A., & Miller, M. K. (2014). From damsels in distress to sexy superheroes: How the portrayal of sexism in video game magazines has changed in the last twenty years. Feminist Media Studies, 14(6), 1028-1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.882371
  59. Thomson atomic model. (1999). Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Retrieved November 1, 2017 from http://www.britannica.com/ science/Thomson-atomic-model.
  60. Tople, M., Peng, R., Dorn, W., Tambawala, S., Naeemi, A., & JafariNaimi, N. (2015). A Novel interactive paradigm for teaching quantum mechanics. Proceedings of 11th Annual Games+Learning+Society Conference (GLS11), 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1109/ fie.2014.7044207
  61. Um, E. "Rachel, " Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026609
  62. Vaidyanathan, M. (2011). Electronics from the bottom up: Strategies for teaching nanoelectronics at the undergraduate level. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 77-86. http://doi.org/10.1109/ TE.2010.2043845. Van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/ gch2.201600008
  63. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 381-419. http:// doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4.
  64. Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students' misconceptions? Journal of research in science teaching, 23(7), 581-597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.3660230703