PBL via ARG

This is the location I will be posting articles realted to my current project PBL via ARG (problem based learning via alternative reality games).  My articles list will be updated as I become more parsimonious with the content.

ARG

Dondlinger, M. & Warren, S. (2009). Alternate reality games as simulations.

Dondlinger, M., Warren, S., & Barab, S. (2008). A muve towards pbl writing: effects of a digital learning environment  designed to improve elementary  student writing.

Warren, S. (TBA). Game learning toll.

(2007). Brave New Game World: ‘Alternative reality’ Web games are captivating digitally savvy young people. BUSINESS WEEK -NEW YORK-, (4041), 54-58.

Hoxsey, R. (2005). 59(4), 102-103. Retrieved from Art Abstracts (H.W. Wilson) database.

Goldie, L. (2008). Copycat warning over alternative reality games. New Media Age, 1-2.

Alexander, B. (2008). Games for Education: 2008. Educause Review, 43(4), 64-65.

Williams, M. (2006). Jane McGonigal, 28. Technology Review, 109(4), 50.

Kim, J., Lee, E., Thomas, T., & Dombrowski, C. (2009). Storytelling in new media: The case of alternate reality games, 2001-2009. First Monday, 14(6), 1-24.

Moseley, A., Whitton, N., Culver, J., & Piatt, K. (2009). Motivation in Alternate Reality Gaming Environments and Implications for Education. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, 279-286.

O’Donovan, A., Tsvetkova, N., Stoimenova, B., Tsvetanova, S., Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., et al. (2009). The Truth About Alternate Reality Games: Args in Educational Method, Args as Educational Method. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, 287-293.

McCall, R., & Braun, A. (2008). Experiences of evaluating presence in augmented realities. PsychNology Journal, 6(2), 157-172.

Kroeker, K. (2010). Mainstreaming Augmented Reality. Communications of the ACM, 53(7), 19-21.

Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing Scientific Argumentation Skills with a Place-Based Augmented Reality Game on Handheld Computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5-29.

Villano, M. (2008). When Worlds Collide: An Augmented Reality Check. T.H.E. Journal, 35(2), 33-34,.

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 7-22.

de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69-85.

PBL

Ulden, L. & Beaumont, C. (2006). Technology and Problem-based Learning.

Tan, O. (2008). Problem-Based Learning and Creativity. Cengage Learning Asia, Singapore. Information Science Publishing, Hershey PA.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31–38.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A.(1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist, 26 (3&4), 369-398.

Schmidt, H. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: some explanatory notes. Medical Education, 27, 422 – 432.

Maudsley, G. (2001). What issues are raised by evaluating problem-based undergraduate medical curricula? Making healthy connections across the literature. JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 7311-324.

Savin-Baden, M. (2003). Disciplinary Differences or Modes of Curriculum Practice?: Who Promised to Deliver What in Problem-based Learning?. BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION, 31338-343.

Kwan, T. (2008). Student-teachers’ evaluation on the use of different modes of problem-based learning in teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 323-343. doi:10.1080/13598660802375933.

Lieberman, D., & Linn, M. (1991). Learning to learn revisited: computers and the development of self-directed learning skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(3), 343-372. Retrieved from Internet and Personal Computing Abstracts database.

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

Belland, B. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: the impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(3), 285-309

Chung, J., & Chow, S. (2004). Promoting student learning through a student-centred problem-based learning subject curriculum. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 41(2), 157-168.

Akınoğlu, O., & Tandoğan, R. (2007). The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71-81.

Vardi, I., & Ciccarelli, M. (2008). Overcoming problems in problem-based learning: a trial of strategies in an undergraduate unit. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 45(4), 345-354.

Akçay, B. (2009). Problem-Based Learning in Science Education. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 6(1), 26-36.

Mok, N., & Lai, P. (2003). Problem Design in Problem-based Learning: Evaluating Students’ Learning and Self-directed Learning Practice. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40(3), 237.

Kumar, M., & Natarajan, U. (2007). A problem-based learning model: showcasing an educational paradigm shift. Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 89-102.

Parton, G., & Bailey, R. (2008). Problem-based learning: a critical rationalist perspective. London Review of Education, 6(3), 281-292.

HMELO-SILVER, C., DUNCAN, R., & CHINN, C. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Mai, N., & Tse-Kian, N. (2005). A multimedia-enhanced problem-based learning experience in the Malaysian classroom. Learning, Media, & Technology, 30(1), 41-53.

Barrett, T. (2010). The problem-based learning process as finding and being in flow. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 47(2), 165-174.

Wretlind, K., Rundberg, M., & Warfvinge, G. (2007). Problem Based Learning on the Net. International Journal of Learning, 13(9), 57-63.

SCHMIDT, H., LOYENS, S., VAN GOG, T., & PAAS, F. (2007). Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91-97.

Oon Seng, T. (2004). Students’ experiences in problem-based learning: three blind mice episode or educational innovation?. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 41(2), 169-184.

Hormel, L. (2009). Practicing Social Activism Through Problem-Based Learning. Humanity & Society, 33(3), 169-184.

Downing, K., Kwong, T., Chan, S., Lam, T., & Downing, W. (2009). Problem-based learning and the development of metacognition. Higher Education, 57(5), 609-621.

Arts, J., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2002). Cognitive effects of an authentic computer-supported, problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 30(6), 465-495.

Dolmans, D., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I., & van der Vleuten, C. (2005). Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39(7), 732-741.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.

SWELLER, J., KIRSCHNER, P., & CLARK, R. (2007). Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115-121.

History

HARLAND, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Problem-based Learning: linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263.

Harland, T. (1998). Moving towards problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2), 219.

Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (68), 3.

Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s So Good About Problem-Based Learning?. Cognition & Instruction, 22(1), 61-79.

Berejkovskaya, E., & Favorov, N. (2006). Potential negative consequences of education based on the principle of the zone of proximal development. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 44(6), 37-53.

Sokolova, T., Tarasova, I., & Korepanova, I. (2009). The Empirical Study of the Zone of Proximal Development: Operational, Technical and Motivational Components of the Action. (English). Cultural-Historical Psychology, (1), 28-35.

EVOKE H20 Project

This is a project I just finished.  It is a six weeks challenge (assignment) for 7th grade science students.  All TEKS that are meet are listed on the website.  This challenge was inspired by the real ARG Urgent Evoke.

This type of Reality Game is hopefully where educational technology is heading.  It is more Organic in the learning process.  When creating this project I did not look at the website and computer I already had.  I found the issue to solve and the TEKS that could be learned along the way.  Then I use technology to make it happen!

Building a Scale

So my first big light bulb moment occurred this past weekend in CECS 6510.  Dr. K has been telling us that we are learning to build a scale and then learning how to measure something with it.  Well I guess I am just really hardheaded because I just got it!

We are essentially looking for connections in our survey questions and answers that build constructs.  We are doing this by using SPSS to analysis our data.

We follow a set of processes that brings our data from random questions to a set of questions that builds a strong construct leading to our development of a scale.  This process can be long and arduous, but filled with reward.  I will now attempt to summarize the process we are using in these classes.

This process is Cybernetic in nature (meaning it never ends and is a constant loop of knowledge acquisition). Here are the Cybernetic steps I am currently working with to build my first scale:

1. Descriptive Statistics (determines if all items contain real numbers)
2. Reliability Analysis (check Cronbach’s α)
3. Factor Analysis (look for constructs)
   1. After looping 2 and 3 for a while I run with the best construct and run some other analysis.
4. ALSCAL and Hierarchical clustering (looking for more groupings or better groupings)

After repeating these steps 1,000 times I found one very strong construct with a Conrbach’s α of .92.  I turned this construct into a single domain or box  to compare with my demographic info.  This new domain is my scale. YEA!!!  I am just about to finish my second scale based off of my second construct, wish me luck . . .

Cronbach’s α = Confused ∞

Thank goodness for SPSS.  When I started CECS 6510 and CECS 6800 I was very nervous about statistics.  I mean come on, I stink at math!  When I was growing up I had dyslexia and no one knew it.  They just kept trying glasses on me and placing me in math classes that I could survive.  I missed some important steps in the learning process, but I am going to survive!

After the first 2 hours of Dr. K’s class I already understood more than I thought I would the entire time.  He did a great job of explaining in layman’s terms.

I have purchased SPSS and am playing with the data the Dr. K provided us.  So far I have remembered how to do factor analysis which is Cronbach’s α.  I am not sure of all the math involved here, but at least I can read the numbers and know that we are shooting for .8 or higher!  This however makes me crossed eyed:

Next I ran the reliability analysis, looking at the construct validity of the tool.  I still don’t understand all the math behind it, but am getting a vague idea of the analysis.  It seems that it delves into the psychological trails of the answerer.

The one I do get the math and can do is the Coens D

Well this may be true, but after working on all of this group work at a distance, I am not sure that technology makes it any better, just probable!  From technical difficulties to miss-communication distance makes synchronous actions confusion.  Distance seems to add fuzz or gray matter to the conversation requiring an almost never ending loop of miss understanding.  With out the physical presence of a person (even in video) it is hard for me to pick up on instinctual context clues.  A project that should take us about 30 minutes to make decisions and move forward requires 2-3 hours.

I welcome change and would love to find a way to fill the gap between people.  I can not wrap my brain around a way to accomplish this task? Video/audio chat does this well with only two people conversing.  Make that number 3 or more and it seems that I cannot keep up with all the conversations and thoughts.  Even if everyone is on the screen in video form, they are in their own boxes.  I think of it like trying to have a conversation in an office building with others that are in adjacent or not adjacent cubicles.  This would be confusing the natural flow of conversation would be interupted because each person could not read the conversation clues given by each member.  I am sure this feeling is what persons with social disorders feel like.  They can’t read others context clues and just say what they are thinking or feeling at any time (maybe way off)?

Found this comic funny on the surface and yet even funnier when you think about it!  Media communication is created by humans and is limited to our perspectives.  So in our quest to communicate better we have limited ourselves!  Another element that makes me laugh is the thought of if we could actually read minds, the amount of information would make us crazy!  Much like the vast amount of information of the internet being projected into our heads all at one time.  Maybe that is the problem too much info our brains cannot handle it!