Learning to play games or playing games to learn? A health education case study with soweto teenagers

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 810-829

  Amory, Alan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78349290706     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.1044     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Amiel, T. & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29-40. http://ifets.info/journals/11_4/3.pdf
2. Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(1), 51-77. [verified 16 Oct 2010] http://www.fi.uu.nl/publicaties/literatuur/endnote_ecgbl_930_amory.pdf
3. Amory, A. & Seagram, R. (2003). Educational game models: Conceptualization and evaluation. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), 206-217.
4. Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J. & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: 1. Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 311-322.
5. Barab, S. A., Evans, M. A. & Baek, E. O. (2004). Activity theory as a lens for characterizing the participatory unit. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 199-214). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communication and Technology.
6. Barab, S., Schatz, S. & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11(1), 25-47.
7. Barr, P., Noble, J. & Biddle, R. (2007). Video game values: Human-computer interaction and games. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 180-195.
8. Barthelmess, P. & Anderson, K. M. (2002). A view of software development environments based on activity theory. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1), 13-37.
9. Benson, A., Lawler, C. & Whitworth, A. (2008). Rules, roles and tools: Activity theory and the comparative study of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(3), 456-467.
10. Betz, J. (1995). Computer games: Increases learning in an interactive multidisciplinary environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24, 195-205.
11. Billen, A. (1993). Could it be the end for Super Mario? The Observer, 27 June.
12. Blin, F. & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475-490.
13. Bos, A. B. H., Terlouw, C. & Pilot, A. (2007). The effect of pre-test sensitizing in a digital system on the acquisition of science concepts. In 12th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, EARLI 2007, Budapest 27 August - 2 September 2007. [viewed 30 Mar2010, verified 16 Oct 2010] http://www.utwente.nl/elan/onderzoek/publicaties/elandoc/2007/07-EARLI%202007_bos,terlouw,pilot.pdf
14. Crawford, C. (1982). The art of computer game design. [viewed 14 Oct 2005, verified 16 Oct 2010] http://directory.vancouver.wsu.edu/people/sue-peabody/art-computer-game-design
15. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
16. Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145.
17. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
18. Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.
19. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
20. Foko, T. & Amory, A. (2008). Social constructivism in games based learning in the South African context. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5757-5764). Vienna, Austria: AACE.
21. Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Gunter, G., Kenny, R. & Vick, E. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 511-537.
23. Hardman, J. (2005). Activity theory as a framework for understanding teachers' perceptions of computer usage at a primary school level in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 25(4), 258.
24. Heck, R. H. (2006). Conceptualizing and conducting meaningful research studies in education. In C. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 373-392). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
25. Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W. & Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
26. Issroff, K. & Scanlon, E. (2002). Using technology in higher education: An activity theory perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 77-83.
27. Jenlink, P. M. (2001). Activity theory and the design of educational systems: Examining the mediational importance of conversation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(4), 345-359.
28. Jonassen, D. H. & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
29. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(1), 61-79.
30. Kaptelinin, V. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4-18.
31. Ke, F. (2008a). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vols. 1-3, Vol. 1, pp. 1-32). IGI Global.
32. Ke, F. (2008b). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education, 51(4), 1609-1620.
33. Kebritchi, M. & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1729-1743.
34. Kiili, K. (2008). Teacher's role in media detective game: Communication through non-player game characters. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 5248-5255). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
35. Kim, B., Park, P. & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800-810.
36. Lana, R. E. (1969/2009). Pretest sensitization. In Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow's classic books (pp. 93-109). New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, personality, and consciousness. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
38. Lim, C. P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: A proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 411-21.
39. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Nardi, B. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and Passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 37-51.
41. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12.
42. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking Press.
43. Prensky, M. (2005). In educational games, complexity matters. Mini-games are trivial - but "complex" games are not. An important way for teachers, parents and others to look at educational computer and video games. [viewed 15 Aug 2005, verified 16 Oct 2010] http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Complexity_Matters.pdf
44. Puustinen, M., Baker, M. & Lund, K. (2006). GESTALT: a framework for redesign of educational software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 34.
45. Quinn, C. (2005). Engaging learning. Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
46. Rieber, L. (1995). A historical review of visualisation in human cognition. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 43, 45-56.
47. Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(1), 43-58.
48. Robbins, J. (2005). Contexts, collaboration, and cultural tools: A sociocultural perspective on researching children's thinking. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(2), 140-149.
49. Robertson, J. & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559-578.
50. Rollings, A. & Adams, E. (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
51. Roth, W. M. & Lee, Y. J. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
52. Scanlon, E. & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity theory and higher education: Evaluating learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 430-439.
53. Seagram, R. (2005). Use of constructivism in the development and evaluation of an educational game environment. PhD thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. http://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/handle/10413/488
54. Seagram, R. & Amory, A. (2006). An assessment of learning through the use of a constructivist learning environment. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds.), World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2006 (pp. 2165-2172). AACE.
55. Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). [verified 16 Oct 2010] http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol1_issue6/Epistemic_Games.pdf
56. Shaffer, D. W. & Clinton, K. A. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283-300. [verified 16 Oct 2010] http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ShafferClinton2007_MCA.pdf
57. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers & Education, 44, 343-355.
58. Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning for the interactive age. In K. Salem (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning (pp. 167-198). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
59. Squire, K. D., DeVane, B. & Durga, S. (2008). Designing centers of expertise for academic learning through vdeo games. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 240-251.
60. Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.
61. Stevenson, J. (2004). Developing technological knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 5-19.
62. Verenikina, I., Herrington, J., Peterson, R. & Mantei, J. (2008). The affordances and limitations of computers for play in early childhood. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 3091-3100). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
63. Vygotsky, L. (1933). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64. Waraich, A. & Brna, P. (2008). A narrative centred informant design approach for interactive learning environments. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 18(2), 181-196.