#constance steinkuehler

[playistic]

Women claim their place in the game industry

Leaders of the game industry talk about the impact that the past year of Internet hatred -- and emotional support -- has had on them. http://goo.gl/GUztFS #Playistic

[joachimvlieghe]

Summary

“Scientific habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds” - Steinkuehler & Duncan

“We need to think deeply about what people are doing with the technologies that are becoming so ubiquitous and engaging.” (CS&SD, p.542)

Presumption: Videogames as a viable alternative to textbooks and science labs.[1] (CS&SD, p.531)     > “Previous ethnography of such online worlds demonstrates their function as naturally occurring learning environments (Steinkuehler, 2004, 2005)(…)” (Ibid.)                 > offering educational experiences about the inquiry process. (Ibid.)                                 > “As simulations, games allow ‘just plain folk’ (Lave, 1988) to build situated understandings of important phenomena (…) that are instantiated in those worlds amid a culture of intellectual practice that render those phenomena culturally meaningful (Steinkuehler, 2006).” (Ibid.)

Central issue: Examining forms of scientific reasoning that emerge in informal online discussions related to Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) gameplay. (CS&SD, p.532)    > Unanswered Q: “What specific content areas of the game elicit these forms of informal science literacy practice?” (CS&SD, p.539)

“This collaborative construction of knowledge, parallel to what takes place in the scientific community[2], is not aimless contentious discussion (…), but rather part and parcel of the collective intelligence [3] (Levy, 1999) amassed through patterned participatory consumption (Jenkins, 1992), which is a hallmark of interactive ‘entertainment’ media such as games.” (CS&SD, p.531)    > “In the context of game related forums, informal social dialogues are indeed ‘genuine, open debate of complex, unanswered questions’ and therefore may very well lead participants toward a more reflective stance toward knowledge ultimately. Such a hypothesis is certainly worth future consideration in studies that follow.” (CS&SD, p.541)

   > Collaborative construction (CS&SD, p.535):                 - build on ideas of others                                 > elaboration                                 > disagreement                                                 > challenge                                                 > alternative interpretation/explanation (CS&SD, p.538)                 - supported by data/evidence                                 > direct observation (CS&SD, p.538)                                                 + computation                                 > external resources                                                 > beyond current discussion (but inside the forum)                                                 > beyond the forum    > Discussion pattern (CS&SD, p.535-536):                 - Q/problem                                 > game mechanics                                 > game-play strategy                     + (often) theory proposal                 - initial response (support by data)                 - swarm of secondary responses                                 > construction alternative hypotheses                                                 >> repeat (return to the beginning of the cycle)

>>> No segregation                 > “In fact, we found no relationship between a given poster’s character level (which represents their experience with the game) and the quality or quantity of the attributes for which we coded (…).” (CS&SD, p.535)

Data-collection included demographic data of contributors. (CS&SD, p.533)    - level/race/class/guild stat.    - player-vs-player ranks    - posts per individual

“(…) [our] findings are useful in that they enable us to more accurately characterize virtual worlds as learning contexts that stretch across both intra-game and extra-game spaces. As our study shows, forms of inquiry within play contexts such as these are authentic although synthetic (…).” (CS&SD, p.541)    >>> “Overwhelmingly, game related forums (…) are rich sites for social knowledge construction.” (CS&SD, p.540-541)                 > “(…) they were designed such that particular user-controlled configurations (…) [have] powerful and important implications for the success of one’s game play. In fact, in these synthetic worlds designers can manipulate these dynamics so that they are most likely to breed rich conversations as users struggle with the most appropriate configurations.” (CS&SD, p.542)

[1] Based on the idea that the ‘social environment of peers’ has positive impact on learning (cf. Zone of Proximal Development):                 “(…) does school experience in fact offer the opportunity for the kinds of exchanges of ideas and argumentative discourse that would enhance development of argumentative thinking?                 (…) In the informal social interaction that is a major part of school experience, ideas are tested and inevitably challenged; thus social experience serves as the natural challenge to individual thought.                 (…) Even in the best schools, what may appear to be genuine group debates about an issue are usually heavily controlled by the teacher (…) [who] already possesses the understanding of an issue that he or she wishes students to attain… (Kuhn, 1992, pp.175-176)” (CS&SD, p.541)

[2] Scientific discursive practices (CS&SD, p.534):                 - Social knowledge construction                 - Build on others’ ideas                 - Use of counter-arguments                 - Use of data/evidence                 - Alternative explanations of data                 - References to outside resources.

[3] Swarm of thinkers: “(…) the relationship between length of discussion thread and number of players contributing to it [is] strongly linear.” (CS&SD, p.541)                 > i.e “(…) solutions developed by one person are referenced, debated, and built upon by masses of other participants, not merely a handful of designated experts.” (Ibid.)

[joachimvlieghe]

Constance Steinkuehler on games, interests, learning and literacy levels.

"So we have this massive disparity: why suddenly are they reading - if you let them choose the text - why are they reading at this incredibly, of much higher level of comprehension performance. What it came down to was something called self-correction rates. When the choose the texts, when they care about it, they actually fix their own comprehension problems more than two times as often as when they don't care about the text. It's kind of stating the obvious, but we forget it schools all the time: that if you care about understanding the topic, you will sit and work through, you will persist in the face of challenge in a way that you won't do if you don't care about the topic."

"What I'm trying to say is: rather than treating kids interests as a means towards your educational goals, try to treat your educational materials as a means towards their goals. So the model of pedagogy behind it is really radical: it is to say teaching would look a lot more like community organizing, where the first question is 'what do you, as a community, want to accomplish?' And then your job is to figure out how do I marshal resources to accomplish that. And along the way, to tool you up with practices, knowledge, dispositions that you keep for a lifetime."

[sarahlibrarina]

My lovely daughter, a preschooler, gets hold of her Dad's iPhone on Saturday and Sunday mornings in bed with us while her Dad and I slowly wake up. She's playing some great games. I'm astounded at her agility and ability to connect so easily with this interface. Angry Birds and Cut the Rope are two games she's quite proficient with.