Measuring student perceptions: Designing an evidenced centered activity model for a serious educational game development software

International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 24-42

  Annetta, Leonard A ^a   Holmes, Shawn Y ^a   Cheng, Meng Tzu ^a,b   Folta, Elizabeth ^a,c  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b National Chang Hua University   (Taiwan)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Educational games; Game design software; Serious educational games; Students; Teachers

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY MODELS; EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES; EDUCATIONAL GAME; FURTHER DEVELOPMENT; GAME DESIGN; GAME DESIGN SOFTWARE; GAME DEVELOPMENT; MIXED METHOD; STUDENT PERCEPTIONS; TEACHERS;

DESIGN; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 79953122535     PISSN: 19423888     EISSN: 19423896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jgcms.2010070102     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Annetta, L. A. (2008). Serious Educational Games Theory into Practice, 83. [). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.].
2. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301-1 (Pubitemid 38202848)
3. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
4. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
5. Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation: Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22(9), 14-17.
6. Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58, 531-549. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9210-4
7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Bricken, M., & Byrne, C. M. (1994). Summer students in virtual reality: A pilot study on educational applications of virtual reality. In Wexelblat, A. (Ed.), Virtual Reality: Applications and explorations (pp. 199-218). Boston: Academic.
9. Constantine, L. L. (2006). Activity Modeling: Toward a pragmatic integration of activity theory with usage-centered design. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.foruse.com/articles/activitymodeling.pdf
10. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of contructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46-52.
12. Dickey, M. D. (2000). 3D virtual worlds and learning: An analysis of the impact of design affordances and limitations of Active Worlds, blaxxum interactive, and OnLive! Traveler; and a study of the implementation of Active Worlds for formal and informal education. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
13. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: MacMillan.
14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
15. Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960. doi:10.1080/001401300409143
16. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Foreman, J. (2003, July-August). Next generation: Educational technology versus the lecture. EDUCASE, 12-22. Retrieved from http://web.reed.edu/cis/tac/ meetings/Next%20Generation%20Ed%20 Tech.pdf
18. Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445. doi:10.1525/sp.1965.12.4.03a00070
19. Hodges, L. C., & Harvey, L. C. (2003). Evaluation of student learning in organic chemistry using the solo taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 785-787. doi:10.1021/ed080p785
20. Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014 (Pubitemid 39519587)
21. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environment . In Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
22. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79. doi:10.1007/BF02299477
23. Kaptelinin, V. (1996a). Activity theory: Implication for human-computer interaction. In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 103-116). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Kaptelinin, V. (1996b). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (1997). Activity theory: Basic concepts and applications. In Proceedings of CHI '97 (pp. 158-159).
26. Kriz, W. C., & Hense, J. U. (2006). Theory-oriented evaluation for the design of and research in gaming and simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 37(2), 268-283. doi:10.1177/1046878106287950 (Pubitemid 43676705)
27. Kuutti, K. (1991). The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis for CSCW research. Paper presented at the Second European Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work.
28. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research . In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Minogue, J., & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the impact of Haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1359-1378. doi:10.1080/09500690801992862
31. Mislevy, R., Almond, R., & Lukas, J. (2003). Brief intro to Evidence-Centered Design (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 632). The National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, Student Testing (CRESST).
32. Neal, L. (2003). Predictions for 2003: e-learning's leading lights look ahead. Retrieved February 22, 2004, from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub- page.cfm/article-pk=6541&page-number-nb=17title-COLUMN
33. Norman, D. (2005). Human-centered design considered harmful. Interaction, 12(4), 12-19. doi:10.1145/1070960.1070976
34. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
36. Rejeski, D. (2002). Gaming our way to a better future. Retrieved February 22, 2004, from http://www.avault. com/developer/getarticle.asp?name=drejeski1
37. Shelton, B. (2007). Designing educational games for activity-goal alignment . In Shelton, B., & Wiley, A. (Eds.), Educational design and use of computer simulation games (pp. 103-130). Sense Publishers.
38. Shelton, B. E., & Wiley, D. A. (2007). Introduction . In Shelton, B. E., & Wiley, D. A. (Eds.), Modeling and simulations for learning and instruction: The design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 1-2). The Netherlands: Sence Publishers.
39. Van Eck, R. (2007). Six ideas in search of a discipline. In Shelton, B. E., & Wiley, D. A. (Eds.), Modeling and simulations for learning and instruction: The design and use of simulation computer games in education. The Netherlands: Sence Publishers.
40. Williamson, D., Bauer, M., Steinberg, L., Mislevy, R., & Behrens, J. (2003, April). Creating a complex measurement model using evidence centered design. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association/NCME conference, Chicago.
41. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex human interactions in design-based research from a culturalhistorical activity theory (CHAT) gramework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451-484.