Higher Education

, Volume 71, Issue 6, pp 805–818 | Cite as

Linking capabilities to functionings: adapting narrative forms from role-playing games to education

Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Possible futures for Science and Engineering Education

Abstract

This paper explores science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in the context of inequality of opportunity by examining educational systems through two lenses: curricular mode and system scale. Curricular mode classifies learning experiences as addressing knowing, acting, or being, while system scale captures how learning experiences are aggregated into credentials. The paper argues that the curricular mode of being can be better implemented and credentialed within educational institutions if students learn to develop a self-narrative through navigating a multiplicity of learning experiences. Since narrative is implicit rather than explicit in existing university structures, the paper develops a speculative model based on role-playing games that integrates narrative and allows new forms of personalized credentials. The goal of the paper is to initiate a conversation around alternative curricular structures that allow emergent self-narratives within disciplinary structures.

Keywords

Role-playing game Credentialing Curriculum structure Narrative Educational philosophy Agency 

References

  1. Ambrose, S. A., et al. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C., & McCune, V. (2013). Fostering meaning–fostering community. Higher Education, 66(2), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  4. Atman, C. J., Sheppard, S. D., Turns, J., Adams, R. S., Fleming, L. N., Stevens, R., et al. (2010). Enabling engineering student success. San Rafael, CA: The final report for the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1987). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byl, P. D. (2012). Can digital natives level-up in a Gamified curriculum? In M. Brown, M. Harnett & T. Stewart (Eds.), Future challenges, sustainable futures, proceedings ascilite (pp. 256–266). Wellington, NZ: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.Google Scholar
  10. Cover, J. G. (2010). The creation of narrative in tabletop role-playing games. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar
  11. Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Education Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fairweather, J. S. (2011). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Paper presented at the National Research Council’s Workshop Linking Evidence to Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  13. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning (literacies). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Gee, J. P. (2008). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (vol. 27, new literacies and digital epistemologies). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herman, D., et al. (2012). Narrative theory: Core concepts and critical debates. Columbus, OH: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holley, K. (2009). The challenge of an interdisciplinary curriculum—A cultural analysis of a doctoral-degree program in neuroscience. Higher Education, 58(2), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kress, G. (2008). Meaning and learning in a world of instability and multiplicity. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2010). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Liebowitz, B., et al. (2012). “It’s been a wonderful life”: Accounts of the interplay between structure and agency by ‘‘good’’ university teachers. Higher Education, 63(3), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Macfarlane, B. (2012). Macfarlane_Re-framing student academic freedom: A capability perspective. Higher Education, 63(6), 719–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martinez, R., Martin, C., Harris, S., Squire, K., Lawley, E., & Phelps, A. (2012). Just press play: Design implications for Gamifying the undergraduate experience. In C. Martin, A. Ochsner & K. Squire (Eds.), Proceedings of the Games + Learning + Society 8.0, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  25. Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Why do students choose engineering? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students’ motivational values. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McBride, D. M. (2013). The process of research in psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Mentkowski, M. (2006). Accessible and adaptable elements of Alverno student assessment-as-learning. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Muller, J. (2015). The future of knowledge and skills in science and technology higher education. Higher Education, 70(3), 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning, Kelowna, BC.Google Scholar
  30. Noam, E. (1995). Electronics and the dim future of the university. Science, 270(5234), 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities, the human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connor, K. (2014). MOOCs, institutional policy and change dynamics in higher education. Higher Education, 68(4), 623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sen, A., Muellbauer, J., & Hawthorn, G. (1987). The standard of living. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1994). Talking about leaving: Factors contributing to high attrition rates among science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors. Boulder, CO: Bureau of Sociological Research, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  38. Shaw, G. B. (1905). Man and superman a comedy and philosophy. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sheldon, L. (2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston: Course Technology PTR.Google Scholar
  40. Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stark, L. (2012). Leaving Mundania: Inside the transformative world of live action role-playing games. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ulseth, R. R., Froyd, J. E., & Litzinger, T. (2011). A new model of project based learning in engineering education. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  43. Walker, M. (2015). Imagining STEM higher education futures: Advancing human well-being. Higher Education, 70(3), 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, T. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York: Little, Brown, and Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringBucknell UniversityLewisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations