Children's Perspectives in a Game Programming Discourse
Jakob Tholander, Stockholm University, Sweden
Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 16, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC
In the Playground project we applied a constructionist learning perspective in order to build a computational learning environment in which children can design and build their own video games. We present results from a study where children were given semi-structured programming tasks designed to investigate their understanding of mechanisms in an adventure game. We analyze the two children's solutions to the given task as a matter of how they adapt their talk and actions to the different perspectives involved in the ongoing discourse. The establishment of a common perspective between child and investigator regarding each subtask proved to be central to the children's approaches and solutions. In our analysis we will show that in order to achieve the goals of learning about the mechanisms that control game behaviors, children must be able to adapt their perspective to the expectations of each subtask and to the task as a whole. We show how one child is able to see the expected perspective in each subtask, whereas this is much harder for another. The support given from the investigators were of great importance in the facilitation of these processes.
Tholander, J. (2005). Children's Perspectives in a Game Programming Discourse. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(1), 51-82. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 19, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/1617/.
© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
- Anderson, J., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
- Andersson, J.R., Reder, L.M., & Simon, H.A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18-21.
- Bruckman, A. (2000). Situated support for learning: Storm's weekend with Rachael. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 329-372.
- Caravita, S., & Halldén, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 89-111.
- Carraher, D.W., & Schliemann, A.D. (2002). The transfer dilemma. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 1-24.
- Chi, M.T., Slotta, J.D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
- Clements, D.H. (1995). Playing with computers, playing with ideas. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), 203-207.
- Clements, D.H., & Meredith, J.S. (1992). Research on Logo: Effects and efficacy. Logo Foundation. Retrieved March 4 , 2005 from http://el.media.mit.edu/ Logo-foundation /pubs /papers/ resea rch_ logo.h tm l
- Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.
- Eisenberg, M. (1997). End-user programming. In M. Helander, T.K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
- Gilmore, D.J., Pheasey, K., Underwood, J., & Underwood, G. (1995). Learning graphical programming: An evaluation of KidSim. Paper presented at the Interact'95, Lillehammer, Norway.
- Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633.
- Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti& C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press.
- Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
- Halldén, O. (1997). Conceptual change and the learning of history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(10), 201-210.
- Ivarsson, J. (2002). Tala, peka och lära matematik i datorbaserade miljöer: En kritisk analys. In R. Säljö & J. Linderoth (Eds.), Utmaningar och e-frestelser. IT och skolans lärkultur. Stockholm: Prisma.
- Kafai, Y.B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children's learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Kahn, K. (1999). Helping children learn hard things. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology (pp. 223-241). SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
- Koschmann, T. (1997). Logo-as-latin redux. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 409-415.
- Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
- Lilja, P., & Lindström, B. (2002). "Vad ska man haden till då?" Om konstruktionistisk teknologi och lärande i skolans värld. In R. Säljö & J. Linderoth (Eds.), Utmaningar och e-frestelser. It och skolans lärkulter (pp. 33-58). Stockholm: Prisma.
- Linell, P. (1998a). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contextsin dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
- Linell, P. (1998b). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voicesin professional discourse. TEXT, 18(2).
- Mauritzson, U., & Säljö, R. (2001). Adult questions and children's responses: Coordination of perspectives in studies of children's theories of other minds. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 45(3).
- McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248, 122-130.
- Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings. Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
- Palumbi, D.B. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 65-89.
- Pea, R., & Kurland, M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137-168.
- Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
- Pomeranz, A., & Fehr, B.J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sensemaking practices. In T.V. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction, 2. London: Sage.
- Rader, C., Brand, C., & Lewis, C. (1997). Degrees of comprehension: Children's understanding of a visual programming environment. Paper presented at the CHI, Atlanta.
- Repenning, A., & Perrone, C. (2001). Programming by analogous example. In H. Lieberman (Ed.), Your wish is my command. Programming by example. SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
- Resnick, M. (1990). MultiLogo: A study of children and concurrent programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(3).
- Roth, W.M. (1999). Art and artifact of children's designing: a situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129-166.
- Säljö, R., & Bergqvist, K. (1997). Seeing the light: Discourse and practice in the optics lab. In L.B. Resnick& R. Säljö & C. Pontecorvo& B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse Tools and Reasoning. Essays on Situated Cognition. Springer 'Verlag.
- Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (1990). Problem-solving, Academic performance and situated reasoning. A study of joint cognitive activity in the formal setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 245-254.
- Schoultz, J. (1998). Communication, context, and artifact. Studies of student's mastering of scientific discourses. Unpublished Licentiate, Linköping University, Linköping.
- Smith, D.C., & Cypher, A. (1999). Making programming easier for children. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology (pp. 202-221). SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
- Tholander, J., Kahn, K., & Jansson, C.-G. (2002). Real programming of an adventure game by an 8-year-old. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2002, Seattle, WA.
- Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact email@example.com.