An Open-ended, Emergent Approach for Studying Serious Games

  • Matthew J. Sharritt

Abstract

In a recent survey of over 319,223 students, 25,544 teachers, 19,726 parents and 3,263 school leaders in the United States, Project Tomorrow (2008) reports that more than half of students in grades 3 through 12 believe games would help them learn, and average 8–10 hours per week playing games. Only 3% of elementary school students say they do not play games of any kind. While only 11% of teachers reported that they already were using video games in class, many teachers feel that games could increase student engagement, address different learning styles, and teach critical thinking skills. Over half of the teachers surveyed were interested in learning more about integrating gaming technologies, with only 6% of teachers saying that they saw no value in exploring games within education (Project Tomorrow, 2008, p. 4). These figured indicate a huge potential for Serious Games in educational contexts.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Clayman, S., & Maynard, D. (1995). Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In P. ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 1-30). Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  3. Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., & Moore, R. J. (2006). “Alone together?”: Exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 407-416). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duranti, A. (2006). Transcripts, like shadows on a wall. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 301-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Retrieved from http://fas.org/gamesummit/Google Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Heritage, J. (1987). Ethnomethodology. In A. Giddens & J. Turner (Eds.), Social theory today (pp. 224-272). Cambridge, UK: Tolety, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcript notation. In J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), pp. 39-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning. FutureLab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/download/pdfs/research/lit_reviews/Games_Review1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. Koschmann, T., Stahl, G., & Zemel, A. (2005). The video analyst’s manifesto (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice within design-based research. In S. Derry & R. Pea (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000 (pp. 179-186). Retrieved from http://www.graphicsinterface.org/proceedings/ 2000/177/Google Scholar
  16. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Pierce, C. S. (1903). Abduction and induction. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Pierce (pp. 150-156). New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. Saint Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  19. Project Tomorrow. (2008). Speak up 2007 for students, teachers, parents & school leaders: Selected national findings. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/speakup_reports.html Sharritt, M. J. (2008). Forms of learning in collaborative game play. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(2), 97-138.Google Scholar
  20. Sharritt, M. J., & Suthers, D. D. (2009). Video game representations as cues for collaboration and learning. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1(3), 28-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate, 1(6).Google Scholar
  22. Stokes, B. (2005). Video games have changed: Time to consider ‘Serious Games’. Developmental Education Journal. Retrieved from http://www.netaid.org/documents/DEJ_article-Games_and_Development_Education-June05.pdfGoogle Scholar
  23. Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Transana. (2008). Jefferson transcript notation. Retrieved from http://www.transana.org/support/OnlineHelp/Team1/transcriptnotation1.htmlGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthew J. Sharritt President, Situated Research, LLCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew J. Sharritt
    • 1
  1. 1.Situated Research, LLCNapervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations