Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 493–521 | Cite as

Adapting a Face-to-Face Role-Playing Simulation for Online Play

  • Nathan Bos
  • N. Sadat Shami
Article

Abstract

The rapid acceleration of online course offerings presents a design challenge for instructors who want to take materials developed for face-to-face settings and adapt them for asynchronous online usage. Broadcast lectures are relatively easy to transfer, but adapting content is harder when classes use small-group discussions, as in role-playing or negotiation games. To be successful, such environments should address three interrelated design challenges: (a) sustaining engagement, (b) promoting content-focused discussion, and (c) promoting reflection-on-action. This article is a case study of how one interactive role-playing game, Island Telecom, was adapted for online play. We describe eight design features, including automated player roles and a structured team decision-making process, and show how they match with design challenges. Feedback from a recent run of this game shows that, although students still prefer to play face-to-face, they now also give favorable ratings to the online version. Feedback on specific adaptations is also presented.

Key words:

Online learning online play interactive role playing e-learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved September 2004 http://www.aln.org/resources/sizing_opportunity.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  3. Bonk, C. J., Angeli, C., Malikowski, S., & Supplee, L. (2001, August). Holy COW: Scaffolding case-based “Conferencing on the Web” with preservice teachers. Education at a Distance, United States. Distance Learning Association, [for an electronic copy of the article, see http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/AUG01_Issue/article01.html].Google Scholar
  4. Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bos, N. D., Olson, J. S., Gergle, D., Olson, G. M., & Wright, Z. (2002) Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In Proceedings of CHI02. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bos, N. D., Shami, N. S., & Naab, S. (2006). A globalization simulation to teach corporate social responsibility: Design features and analysis of student reasoning. Simulation and Gaming 38, 56–72.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2001). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100. AERA Review of Research Award Winner 2001. http://canvas.ltc.vanderbilt.edu/transfer/.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, S. (1995).Google Scholar
  9. Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), 39A-41. February 11, 2000. Retrieved Online September 2004 http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i23/23a00101.htm.Google Scholar
  10. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Gottlieb, D. (1997). The Jack principles of the interactive conversation interface. Jellyvision, inc. Retrieved January 2004, http://www.jellyvision.com/ici/jp/index.php.Google Scholar
  15. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (1999). The effects of workspace awareness support on the usability of real-time distributed groupware. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, (TOCHI) 6(3), 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hollan, J., & Stornetta, S. (1992) Beyond being there. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI-92,119–126.Google Scholar
  17. Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive discussion in science: Gender equity through electronic discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. (1998) Is anybody out there?” The antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems. Google Scholar
  19. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.-W., Kieijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52/3), 47–67.Google Scholar
  20. Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4); 65–85.Google Scholar
  21. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Centner, D. (2003). Anological learning in negotiation teams: comparing cases promotes learning and transfer. Academy of Management Learning & Education 2(2), 119–127.Google Scholar
  23. Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Reiser, B., Gomez, L., Edelson, D., & Russell, L. (1997). The progress portfolio: Promoting reflective inquiry in complex investigation environments. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.) Proceedings ofCSCL ’97, the Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, [on-line]. http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/cscl/plenary.html.Google Scholar
  24. Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Parker, A. (1995). Distance education attrition. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(4), 389–406. Retrieved Online September 2004 http://dl.aace .org/9281.Google Scholar
  26. Parker, A. (1999). A study of variables that predict dropout from distance education. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2).Google Scholar
  27. Program on negotiation clearinghouse. (2004). Retrieved Online, September 2004 http://www.pon.org.Google Scholar
  28. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
  31. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986) Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32,1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, R., Vendlinki, T., Palacio-Cayetano, J., Underdahl, J., Paek, P., Sprang, M., & Simpson, E. (2001). Tracing the development, transfer, and persistence of problem solving skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. ED 454280Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Visser, L., Plomp, T., Amirault, R. J., & Kuiper, W. (2002). Motivating students at a distance: The case of an international audience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 94–121.Google Scholar
  37. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar. A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee, (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-Regulation in a Web-based course: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5–23.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, Brent G. (2004). Designing e-learning environments for flexible activity and instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52,(4), 77–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Bos
    • 1
  • N. Sadat Shami
    • 2
  1. 1.Johns Hopkins Applied Physics LaboratoryLaurel
  2. 2.Department of Information ScienceCornell UniversityNY

Personalised recommendations