From real-world data to game world experience: Social analysis methods for developing plausible and engaging learning games

Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views - Worlds in Play

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages

  Dobson, Mike ^a   Ha, Daniel ^a   Mulligan, Desmond ^a   Ciavarro, Chad ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Activity theory; Game; HIV; Interactive narrative

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY THEORY; ANALYSIS METHOD; GAME; HEALTH CARE NETWORK; HIV; INTERACTIVE LEARNING; INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE; LEARNING GAME; REAL WORLD DATA; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS; THEORY OF LEARNING; WORLD EXPERIENCE;

ACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS; HEALTH CARE;

INTERACTIVE COMPUTER GRAPHICS;

EID: 84873391118     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Prensky, M., Digital Game-based Learning. 2001, New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Rieber, L.P., Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 1996. 44(2): p. 43-58.
3. Roberts, J., M. Arth, and R. Bush, Cames in culture. American Anthropologist, 1959. 61: p. 597-605.
4. Vygotsky, L.S., Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1978, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Engestrom, Y., New Forms of learning in co-configuration work. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 2004. 16(1-2): p. 11-21.
6. Nardi, B.A., S. Whittaker, and H. Schwarz, NetWORKers and the activity in intensional networks. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2002. 11: p. 205-242.
7. Barab, S., K. Hay, and L. Yamagata-Lynch, Constructing networks of actionrelevant episodes: An in-situ research methodology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2001. 10(1&2): p. 63-112.
8. Dobson, M., et al., Situated learning with co-operative agent simulations in team training, in Computers in Human Behavior, M. Dobson, Editor. 2001, Pergamon: Elsevier Science: Amsterdam. p. 457-573.
9. Corbin, J. and A. Strauss, Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 1990. 13(1): p. 3-21.
10. Glaser, B.G., Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2002. 1(2).
11. Engestrom, Y., Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 2001. 14(1): p. 133-157.
12. Leont'ev, A.N., Activity, consciousness, and personality. 1978, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13. Dobson, M., D. Le Blanc, and D. Burgoyne, Transforming tensions in learning technology design: Operationalizing Activity Theory. Canadian Journal of Learning Technology, 2004. 30(1): p. 21-45.
14. Engestrom, Y., A. Puonti, and L. Seppanen, Spatial and temporal expansion of objects as a challenge for reorganizing work., in Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach. 2003, M.E.Sharpe: Armonk.
15. Nonaka, I. and D. Teece, eds. Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilization. 2001, SAGE: London.
16. Engestrom, Y. and D. Middleton, Cognition and Communication at Work. 1998, Cambridge: CUP.
17. Mwanza, D., Conceptualizing work activity for CAL systems design. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2002. 18: p. 84-92.
18. Jonassen, D.H. and L. Rohrer-Murphy, Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 1999. 47(1): p. 61-79.
19. Miettinen, R. and M. Hasu, Articulating user needs in collaborative design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2002. 11: p. 129-151.
20. Barab, S., et al., Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory Astronomy course. Mind, Culture and Activity, 2002. 9(2): p. 76-107.
21. Latour, B., We have never been modern. 1993, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
22. Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba, Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23. Bal, M., Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. 1997, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
24. Ryan, M., Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence and Narrative Theory. 1991, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
25. Schank, R. and R. Abelson, Scripts, Goals, and Understanding. 1977, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Schank, R., Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. 1995: North Western University Press.
27. Schank, R., Goal-based scenarios: Case-based reasoning meets learning by doing, in Case-based reasoning, D. Leake, Editor. 1996, AAAI Press: Cambridge, Mass. p. 295-348.
28. Murrey, J., Hamlet on the Holodeck. 1998, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29. Young, M.R. Notes on the Use of Plan Structures in the Creation of Interactive Plot. in AAAI Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence. 1999.
30. Kass, A., et al., Constructing learning environments for complex social skills. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1994. 3(4): p. 387-427.
31. Burke, R. and A. Kass, Supporting Learning through Active Retrieval of Video Stories. Expert Systems with Applications, 1995. 9.
32. Cooper, L., Conversations with My Sister: An HIV/AIDS Counterstory, inSociology & Anthropology. 2004, Simon Fraser University: Vancouver.
33. Ezzy, D., Illness narratives: time, hope and HIV. Social Science & Medicine, 2000: p. 605-617.