EDR: Seriously Considering Design in Educational Games

Gaydos, M. (2015). Seriously Considering Design in Educational Games. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 478–483. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15621307

Abstract: Research suggests that well-designed games can be good for learning under the right conditions. How such games are designed remains poorly understood, as studies have focused more on whether games can produce learning than on how such games work or how they can be reliably developed. That is, though the design of a game is considered essential to its effectiveness, educational games lack a theory-informed definition and have predominantly shared design in terms of "principles" or "heuristics." The aim of this paper is to discuss how we define and share educational game design and why design is important for improving educational game research and development.

I liked this quote:

"They argue that investigations into whether games can be effective should give way to investigations into how or under what conditions they are effective (D. B. Clark, Tanner-Smith, & Killingsworth, 2015; Tobias & Fletcher, 2011). While game-based learning has shown potential, what is needed are ways to reliably convert that potential into action." [p.478]

Original Definition of Scaffolding

Original Definition of Scaffolding
The metaphor of scaffolding was first applied to educational contexts when Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) wanted to explain how adults help infants learn to solve problems. They found that adults did not simply tell the infants how to solve the problem or just demonstrate how to do it. Rather, the adults used six strategies—“recruitment, reduction in degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, marking critical features, frustration control, and demonstration”—to temporarily support children’s efforts until they gain sufficient skill (Wood et al., 1976, p. 98). Of note, three of the six original scaffolding strategies are motivational (recruitment, direction maintenance, and frustration control) and the other three are cognitive (reduction in degrees of freedom, marking critical features, and demonstration). Thus, scaffolding in its original sense was equal parts motivational and cognitive support.

Source: A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition by Brian R. Belland , ChanMin Kim & Michael J. Hannafin

Brian R. Belland , ChanMin Kim & Michael J. Hannafin (2013) A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition, Educational Psychologist, 48:4, 243-270, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.838920

Comparing Socio-Cognitive, Sociocultural and Situative Perspectives - Schoor et al. 2015

"Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts" by Cornelia Schoor, Susanne Narciss & Hermann Körndle

Excerpt:

The Socio-Cognitive Approach

From a (socio-) cognitive perspective, the role of the social in self-regulated learning is to influence individual regulation. The situation and context—including the social context—can influence self-regulation of learning (cf. Nolen & Ward, 2008). This approach focuses on the individual, which is the unit of analysis (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; Nolen & Ward, 2008; Volet, Vauras, et al., 2009). However, the social context provides support for the development of self-regulation (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman,1997). Relevant mechanisms for this support are modeling of self-regulation and feedback (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997), which traces back to Bandura (1986). The sociocognitive approach grounds some research on social modes of regulation; for example, Rogat and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2011) placed their work in the context of sociocognitive approaches but also drew on “research examining social regulation of group learning” (p. 376). Järvelä and Hadwin's (2013) analysis of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation is also based on the sociocognitive model of self-regulated learning by Winne and Hadwin (1998).

The Sociocultural Approach

Based on Vygotsky, the sociocultural approach focuses not on individual cognition and motivation (as is the sociocognitive approach) but on socially mediated cognition and motivation at the individual level (Nolen & Ward, 2008). The role of the social is that of a mediator of cognition. The social mediation takes place by externalization and internalization (McCaslin & Hickey, 2001; Nolen & Ward, 2008). The level of analysis is the interaction of the individual with the culture. Although social mediation and cultural influences are relevant mechanisms in all kinds of relationships, social modes of regulation within this approach usually refer to an asymmetric relationship where one person externalizes her skill to make it accessible for the other person who, during their learning process, internalizes that skill (cf. Hadwin, Wozney, & Pontin, 2005). In a broader sense, the culture or social environment as a whole supports the individual's internalization (Volet, Vauras, et al., 2009) or the person's development (McCaslin, 2009; McCaslin & Burross, 2011). Internalization is often seen as a transition from other-regulation to self-regulation (Wertsch & Bivens, 1992), or the appropriation of self-regulation. Other-regulation, in this context, refers to the notion that a more capable person undertakes regulatory tasks for someone else as long as she or he is not able to self-regulate. This transitional period from other- to self-regulation is often called coregulation (Hadwin & Oshige, 2011; McCaslin & Hickey, 2001) although the term coregulation is also used to express that not only the individual but also social sources influence a person's development (McCaslin, 2009; McCaslin & Burross, 2011).

The Situative Approach

An approach that emphasizes the system in which activity occurs is the situative perspective (e.g., Greeno, 2006). Research on socially shared regulation emerged from within this perspective. Here, the main claim is that all cognition occurs as activity within a system. Whereas the sociocultural approach retains an interest in the individual whose processes are shaped by the social environment through internalization, the situative approach views processes from the systemic point of view. The focus is on the individual within a system rather than on the individual. The role of the social is that of a system with which the individual is interwoven. The system might be a learning group, but also a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), or a whole society. The system encompasses not only people but also material, such as the instruments of a cockpit, as in the studies of distributed cognition (e.g., Hutchins, 1995). The material can serve as external representations of knowledge of the system. In communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), a group's (community's) knowledge is preserved in form of practices (cf. Greeno,2006). It is often claimed that, therefore, the unit of analysis must be the system itself, such as a group (Nolen & Ward, 2008). In slight contrast to this claim, Greeno (2006) stressed that analyses at multiple levels, including analysis at the individual level, is possible within the situative perspective. Regulation of group learning, in this perspective, is necessarily studied not only at the individual level but also at the group level.

Source: Cornelia Schoor, Susanne Narciss & Hermann Körndle (2015) Regulation During Cooperative and Collaborative Learning: A Theory-Based Review of Terms and Concepts, Educational Psychologist, 50:2, 97-119, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1038540

Korthagen 2011 Making teacher education relevant for practice

The gap between theory and practice in teacher education has led to much criticism regarding the effectiveness of teacher education. In this article, the causes of this gap are discussed and related to a framework for teacher behaviour and teacher learning. Using this framework, the so-called "realistic approach" to teacher education has been developed, which marks a new direction in the pedagogy of teacher education. This approach, developed at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, is described in this article, and its basic principles are discussed. Several evaluative studies into the realistic approach show its positive outcomes. Important conclusions are presented for (1) programme design, based on (2) a view of the intended process of student teacher learning, (3) the pedagogical interventions and arrangements used, and (4) the professional development of teacher educators.

Korthagen, F. (2011). Making teacher education relevant for practice. ORBIS Scholae, 5(3), 31–50. Retrieved from http://www.orbisscholae.cz/archiv/2011/2011_2_02.pdf

See also:
Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking Theory and Practice: Changing the Pedagogy of Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028004004

Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can Teacher Education Make a Difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001153

Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher Learning in a Context of Educational Change: Informal Learning Versus Systematically Supported Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 76–92. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110382917

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling. Caring about school and feeling cared about.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: US-Mexican Press Youth and the Politics of Caring. New York: SUNY.

p21:
How teachers and students are oriented to each other is central to Noddings's (1984) framework on caring. In her view, the caring teacher's role is to initiate relation, with engrossment in the student's welfare following from this search for connection. Noddings uses the concept of emotional displacement to communicate the notion that one is seized by the other with energy flowing toward his or her project and needs. A teacher's attitudinal predisposition is essential to caring, for it overtly conveys acceptance and confirmation to the cared-for student. When the cared-for individual responds by demonstrating a willingness to reveal her/his essential self, the reciprocal relation is complete. At a school like Seguin, building this kind of a relationship is extremely difficult-for both parties. Even well-intentioned students and teachers frequently find themselves in conflict.


p. 24
Thus, an obvious limit to caring exists when teachers ask all students to care about school while many students ask to be cared for before they care about.

Stiggins - Assessment Matrix of Targets and Methods

Stiggins, R.J. (2005). Student-Involved Assessment for Learning, 4th ed. (p. 65). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Resources:

AEA 267

PBS Teacher Line - Stiggins Chapter

Stiggins articles: Students view

Bena's version

Stoddart (2010) - learning and doing science - a sociocultural view

Stoddart and colleagues (2010) take the position that “learning and doing science is not just a process of acquiring a set of facts, principles, and procedures; it also involves using the language of science in ways of talking and representing the natural world through discourse, interaction and collaboration. Science is a discourse about the natural world.” (p. 164).

"In addition to being a discipline, science activities are achieved through a social process where the language used for competent participation requires specialized ways of talking, writing, and thinking about the world in scientific ways (Cervetti et al., 2007). Learning and doing science is not just a process of acquiring a set of facts, principles, and procedures; it also involves using the language of science in ways of talking and representing the natural world through discourse, interaction, and collaboration. Science is a discourse about the natural world: “Biology is not plants and animals. It is language about plants and animals . . . . Astronomy is not planets and stars. It is a way of talking about planets and stars” (Postman, 1979, p. 165). Learning science and talking about science are, therefore, interrelated. The discourse of science has its own vocabulary and organization that are embodied in the ways scientists think and communicate about their work. Language mediates and structures the ways in which scientists think about and investigate problems. These processes include formulating hypotheses, proposing alternative solutions, describing, classifying, using time and spatial relations, inferring, interpreting data, predicting, generalizing, and communicating findings (Chamot & O’Malley, 1986; National Science Teachers Association, 1991). The use of these language functions is fundamental to the process of inquiry science (NRC, 1996). By engaging in scientific discourse, students learn how to think about science, how to “do” science, and, consequently, develop their own scientific understanding."

Stoddart, T., Solís, J.L., Tolbert, S. & Bravo, M. (2010). A framework for the effective science teaching of English language learners in elementary schools. In D. Sunal, C. Sunal & E. Wright (Eds.), Teaching Science with Hispanic ELLs in K-16 Classrooms (Research in Science Education Series), 151-181. Albany, NY: Information Age Publishing