nach oben

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Erschienen in:

20.11.2017

Mentoring and Argumentation in a Game-Infused Science Curriculum

verfasst von: Deena L. Gould, Priyanka Parekh

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Engaging in argumentation from evidence is challenging for most middle school students. We report the design of a media-based mentoring system to support middle school students in engaging in argumentation in the context of a game-infused science curriculum. Our design emphasizes learners apprenticing with college student mentors around the socio-scientific inquiry of a designed video game. We report the results of a mixed-methods study examining the use of this media-based mentoring system with students ages 11 through 14. We observed that the discourse of groups of students that engaged with the game-infused science curriculum while interacting with college student mentors via a social media platform demonstrated statistically significant higher ratings of cognitive, epistemic, and social aspects of argumentation than groups of students that engaged with the social media platform and game-infused science curriculum without mentors. We further explored the differences between the Discourses of the mentored and non-mentored groups. This analysis showed that students in the mentored groups were invited, guided, and socialized into roles of greater agency than students in the non-mentored groups. This increased agency might explain why mentored groups demonstrated higher levels of scientific argumentation than non-mentored groups. Based on our analyses, we argue that media-based mentoring may be designed around a video game to support middle school students in engaging in argumentation from evidence.

Vorheriger Artikel Impact of Adding Internet Technology on Student Performance and Perception of Autonomy in Fundamentals of Electronics Course

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., MacNamara, A., Koenig, A., & Wainess, R. (2012). Narrative games for learning: testing the discovery and narrative hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025595.CrossRef

Barab, S. A. (in press). An ecological model of impact innovation: building interpretive space for anticipatory action and the potential to thrive. In S. A. Barab & E. Aguilera (Eds.), The art and science of innovation for impact: An eco-centric framework for cultivating change. New York: Springer.

Barab, S.A., & Arici, A. (2014). Game-infused science curriculum: from transformational play to real-world impact. Paper presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved July 1, 2015, from the AERA online paper repository.

Barab, S. A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70–102.CrossRef

Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1–14.CrossRef

Barab, S. A., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., & Kwon, E. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20217.

Barab, S. A., Scott, S., Siyahhan, R., Goldstone, A. I., Goble, S. J., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: using videogames to support science education. Journal Science and Educational Technology, 18, 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5.CrossRef

Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10386593.CrossRef

Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286.CrossRef

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2010). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420.CrossRef

Bierema, L. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring: using computer mediated communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 211–227.CrossRef

Borg, N., O’Hara, J., Hutter, C. (2016). About Edmodo. Retrieved from https://www.edmodo.com/about

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953.CrossRef

Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.2116.CrossRef

Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944.CrossRef

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065.CrossRef

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: LEA. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.

Creswell, J.W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dawson, P. (2011). Beyond a definition: toward a framework for designing and specifying mentoring models. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.3102/013189X14528751.CrossRef

DeVries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–110.CrossRef

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRef

Eichinger, D.C., Anderson, C.W., Palincsar, A.S. & David, Y.M. (1991, April). An illustration of the roles of content knowledge, scientific argument, and social norms in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research, Chicago.

Furberg, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students meaning-making of socio-scientific issues in computer mediated settings: exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701543617.CrossRef

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Essay: what is academic language? In A. S. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners: building on students’ strengths (pp. 57–70). Arlington: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Gee, J. P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: a toolkit. New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2015). Unified discourse analysis: language, reality, virtual worlds, and video games. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. New York: Routledge.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Gould, D. (2013). Let’s talk science: Seeding argumentation about cells and growth. Science Scope, 36(9), 45–55.

Guy, T. (2002). Telementoring: shaping mentoring relationships for the 21st century. In C. A. Hansman (Ed.), Critical perspectives on mentoring: trends and issues (pp. 27–38). Washington, DC: Educational Research and Improvement.

Harris, J. (2011). Designs for curriculum-based telementoring. In D. Scigliano (Ed.), Telementoring in the K-12 classroom: online communication technologies for learning (pp. 1–14). New York: Information Science Reference.

Kern, C. L., & Crippen, K. J. (2017). The effect of scaffolding strategies for inscriptions and argumentation in a science cyberlearning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 33–43.CrossRef

Kim, I., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2007). Discourse patterns during children’s collaborative online discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 333–370.CrossRef

Konopasky, A. W., & Sheridan, K. M. (2016). Towards a diagnostic toolkit for the language of agency. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(2), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1128952.CrossRef

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Lave, J. (1997). The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J.A. Whitson (Eds.) Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological. (pp. 17 – 35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2012). Statistical concepts: a second course. New York: Routledge.

Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(9), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058866.CrossRef

Miller, H. M., & Griffith, M. (2005). E-mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 300–313). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRef

Nash, P., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Mentor modeling: the internalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning., 27, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00385.x.CrossRef

National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Committee on science learning: computer, games simulations, and education. In M. Honey & M. Hilton (Eds.), Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, cross- cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

O’Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you’ve brought them in: scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences., 10(3), 223–264.CrossRef

O’Neill, D. K. (2004). Building social capital in a knowledge-building community: telementoring as a catalyst. Interactive Learning Environments, 12(3), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820512331383419.CrossRef

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944.CrossRef

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review. 82(301), 63–70.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRef

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social contexts. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9.CrossRef

Sampson, V., & Clark, D.B. (2007). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D.B. (2008) Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472

Sampson, V., Enderle, P. J., & Walker, J. P. (2012). The development and validation of the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in the Classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: a tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives in scientific argumentation (pp. 235–264). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Sandoval, W. A. (2009). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRef

Sharples, M., Scanlon, E., Ainsworth, S., Anastopoulou, S., Collins, T., Crook, C., & O’Malley, C. (2015). Personal inquiry: orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(2), 308–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.944642.CrossRef

Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

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), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z.CrossRef

Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1), 1–12.

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online video gaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 38–52.CrossRef

Steinkuehler, C. A., & Oh, Y. (2012). Apprenticeship in massively multiplayer online games. In C. Steinkeuhler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games, learning, and society: learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 154–184). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Wendt, J. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2014). The effect of online collaboration on middle school student science misconceptions as an aspect of science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21169.CrossRef

Wenger. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as curriculum emphasis: theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 337–360). New York: Routledge.

Titel: Mentoring and Argumentation in a Game-Infused Science Curriculum
verfasst von: Deena L. Gould
Priyanka Parekh
Publikationsdatum: 20.11.2017
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Education and Technology / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1059-0145
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1839
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9717-x

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

Impact of Adding Internet Technology on Student Performance and Perception of Autonomy in Fundamentals of Electronics Course

Examining Educational Climate Change Technology: How Group Inquiry Work with Realistic Scientific Technology Alters Classroom Learning

EvoBuild: A Quickstart Toolkit for Programming Agent-Based Models of Evolutionary Processes

Integrating Various Apps on BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) into Seamless Inquiry-Based Learning to Enhance Primary Students’ Science Learning

Exploring the Use of Electroencephalography to Gather Objective Evidence of Cognitive Processing During Problem Solving

Beliefs and Attitudes about Science and Mathematics in Pre-Service Elementary Teachers, STEM, and Non-STEM Majors in Undergraduate Physics Courses

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten