You are here:

Teaching problem solving through making games: Design and implementation of an innovative and technology-rich intervention
PROCEEDINGS

, West Virginia University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

In this paper, I describe the elements of a curriculum designed to teach middle school students how to solve complex problems using digital game-design as the main activity. Based on theories of problem solving and teaching of problem solving, and harnessing the affordances of digital game-design (i.e., engagement) the created problem-solving curriculum incorporated activities that gave students hands-on experiences with both design, and problem-solving at the same time. While there are many similar efforts, what separates this initiative from the others is the careful attention placed on the curriculum, especially in creating clear links between game-design and complex problem-solving tasks.

Citation

Akcaoglu, M. (2014). Teaching problem solving through making games: Design and implementation of an innovative and technology-rich intervention. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 597-604). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference? Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1–11. Doi:10.1.1.132.4253
  2. Akcaoglu, M. (2013). Cognitive and motivational impacts of learning game design on middle schoolchildren. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
  3. Akcaoglu, M., Boyer, D.M. & Kereluik, K. (2012). Teaching problem solving through game design: Reflections on Game Design and Learning (GDL) summer camp. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology& Teacher education international conference 2012 (pp. 3-7). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved
  4. Clements, D.H., & Gullo, D.F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1983), 1051–1058.
  5. Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142.
  6. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.
  7. Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novices. In S. Fincher & M. Petre (Eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 1–16). The Netherlands, Lisse: Taylor& Francis.
  8. Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  9. Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. ITForum Paper. Retrieved from http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/maltt/cofor-1/textes/jonassen_2005_cognitive_tools.pdf Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
  10. Jonassen, D.H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  11. Jonassen, D.H., Myers, M.M., & McKillop, A.M. (1996). From constructivism to constructionism: Learning with hypermedia/multimedia rather than from it. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 93–106). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
  12. Kafai, Y.B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  13. 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.
  14. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M., & Rosenberg, J. (2013). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework for teachers and teacher educators. In R. Thyagarajan (Ed.), ICT integrated teacher education: A resource book. New Delhi, India: CEMCA.
  15. Mayer, R.E. (1977). Thinking and problem solving: An introduction to human cognition and learning. Scott, Foresman and Company.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Microsoft Citizenship Team. (2013). Young Kodu designer showcases at 2013 WhiteHouse Science Fair. Blog.technet.com. Retrieved May 04, 2013, from http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoftupblog/archive/2013/04/24/2013-white-house-science-fair.aspx
  20. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. (T. Bastiaens, J. Dron, & C. Xin, Eds.)Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  21. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
  22. Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. Technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.
  23. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S Papert& I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (Vol. 36, pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  24. Pea, R.D., & Kurland, D.M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168.
  25. Perkins, D.N. (1986). Knowledge as design. New Jersey, USA: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
  26. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.
  27. Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets : A tool for building domain-oriented dynamic, visual environments. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Colorado at Boulder.
  28. Resnick, M. (1990). MultiLogo: A study of children and concurrent programming. Interactive Learning Environments. Retrieved from http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/MultiLogo.html
  29. Richards, K., & Wu, M.L. (2011). Examining digital game-based learning through the lens of 21st century gamers. In M.J. Koehler& P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology& Teacher education international conference (pp. 45–52). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  30. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2012). RoboBuilder: Videogame program-to-play constructionist. In Constructionism 2012 (pp. 1–5). Athens, Greece.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.