You are here:

Making Learning Fun Through a Ludic Simulation PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , The University of Texas at Austin, United States

AACE Award

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Victoria, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-03-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe a ludic simulation designed for middle school space science and examine students’ experiences with it in an attempt to explore the value of ludic simulations in education and better understand how such environments can be designed to support learning. The findings of this study provided evidence to show that sixth-graders considered fun in using the ludic simulation and highlighted several attributes that made it a fun learning experience: exploratory, interactive, immersive, playful, media-rich, roleplay, engaging narrative, and a challenging problem scenario. The results have indicated that having a playful experience is important for this age group and that a fun experience can help motivate the students to learn school subjects.

Citation

Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R. & Lee, J. (2013). Making Learning Fun Through a Ludic Simulation. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (p. 2535). Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 20, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
  2. Barab, S.A., Pettyjohn, P., Gresalfi, M., Volk, C., & Solomou, M. (2012). Game-based curriculum and transformational play: Designing to meaningfully positioning person, content, and context. Computers& Education, 58 (1), 518-533.
  3. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (1), 86–107.
  4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage Publications
  5. Clarke, J., Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., & Nelson, B. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology, 46 (3), 27–36.
  6. Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational Research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Merrill.
  7. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Bennett, S. (1971). An exploratory model of play. American Anthropologist, 73 (1), 45–58.
  8. DeNeve, K.M., & Heppner, M.J. (1997). Role play simulations: The assessment of an active learning technique and comparisons with traditional lectures. Innovative Higher Education, 21 (3), 231–246.
  9. Fuchs, M. (2012). Ludic interfaces. Driver and product of gamification. GAME. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from http://www.gamejournal.it/ludic-interfaces-driver-and-product-of-gamification/
  10. Gee, J.P. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1 (1), 20-20.
  11. Ketelhut, D.J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2007). Studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Assessment of problem solving using simulations (pp. 37–58). Mahwah,
  12. Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687694.
  13. Lepper, M.R., Iyengar, S.S., & Corpus, J.H. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184-196.
  14. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.D. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications, Inc.
  15. Lindley (2003). Game taxonomies: A high level framework for game analysis and design. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2796/game_taxonomies_a_high_level_.php
  16. Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Toprac, P. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 249–265.
  17. Liu, M., Williams, D., & Pedersen, S. (2002). Alien Rescue: A problem-based hypermedia learning environment for middle school science. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30 (3), 255–270.
  18. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin Press HC.
  19. Ortoleva, P. (2012). Homo ludicus. The ubiquity of play and its roles in present society. GAME. Retrieved from http://www.gamejournal.it/homo-ludicus-the-ubiquity-and-roles-of-play-in-present-society/
  20. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implication. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
  21. Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton& Company.
  22. 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), 43–58.
  23. Singer, D.G., Golinkoff, R.M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). Play= learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (1st ed.). Oxford University Press, USA.
  24. Squire, K. (2003). Videogames in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games& Simulation, 2 (1), 49–62.
  25. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.-2545 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.