skip to main content
10.1145/1401843.1401857acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning metaphor through mixed-reality game design and game play

Published:09 August 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a recent program for game-based learning within a mixed-reality environment, the Situated Multimedia Arts Learning Lab [SMALLab]. In the program, our research team collaborated with a 9th grade Language Arts teacher to design and deliver a new learning game and associated curriculum. Through the process of game-design and game-play, students advance their understanding of metaphor. We outline the theoretical basis upon which design decisions were made, and describe the rationale for choosing Language Arts as the subject area for this program.

Three goals structure our research: (1) to advance students' understanding of literary devices with an emphasis on metaphor; (2) to engage otherwise under-performing students through game-based learning that is student-centered, collaborative, and based in reflective practice; and (3) to demonstrate effective game-based learning using a mixed-reality platform in a conventional classroom context. Twenty-four students attending a large suburban high school in the southwest United States participated in this learning experience once a week for seven weeks during the Fall of 2007. Our data indicates that these students attained a more globally coherent model of metaphor in the course of their participation, that they found both the game-design and the game-play process stimulating and rewarding, and that, given the necessary scaffolding, a mixed-reality learning environment can be effectively employed to teach standards-based curriculum in a conventional high school classroom.

References

  1. Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, eds. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. 2000, National Academy Press: Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, A. and A. Palinscar, Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition, in Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, L. Resnick, Editor. 1989, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ. p. 393--452.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Megowan, M. C., Framing Discourse for Optimal Learning in Science and Mathematics, in College of Education, Division of Curriculum and Instruction. 2007, Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Schon, D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. 1983, New York: Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jenkins, H., et al., Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. 2006, MacArthur Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sutton-Smith, B., The Ambiguity of Play. 1997, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fauconnier, G. and M. Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. 2002, New York, NY: Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P., What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. 2003, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Middleton, J. and Z. Toluk, First Steps in the Development of an Adaptive Theory of Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 1999. 34(2): p. 99--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Malone, T. W., What Makes Things Fun to Learn? A Study of Intrinsically Motivating Computer Games. 1980, Xerox Research Center: Palo Alto, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Adams, P., Teaching and Learning with SimCity 2000. Journal of Geography, 1998. 97(2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. Designing for motivation and usability in a museum-based multi-user virtual environment. in American Educational Research Association Conference. 2003. Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kelleher, C., Motivating Programming: Using Storytelling to Make Computer Programming Attractive to Middle School Girls, in Computer Science. 2006, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Monroy-Hernández, A. and M. Resnick, Empowering Kids to Create and Share Programmable Media. Interactions, 2008. 15(2): p. 50--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Utterback, C., Achituv, R., Text Rain. 2006, Time Warner Center: New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Birchfield, D., et al. SMALLab: a Mediated Platform for Education. in ACM SIGGRAPH. 2006. Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Anyon, J., Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. Journal of Education, 1980. 162(1): p. 67--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Arizona Department of Education, Arizona Standards-Based Teaching and Learning: Writing Standard Articulated by Grade level. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Arizona Department of Education, School Effectiveness Division: K-12 Literacy. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of English, Standards for the English Language Arts. 1996, International Reading Association: USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kress, G. and T. Van Leuwen, Multimodal Discourse: the Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. 2001, London: Arnold.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Andrzejczak, N., G. Trainin, and M. Poldberg, From Image to Text: Using Image in the Writing Process. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 2005. 6(12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G., Metaphors We Live By. 1980, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Birchfield, D., W. Savenye, and H. Thornburg. AMEEd Edulink. 2006 {cited; Available from: http://ame4.hc.asu.edu/edulink.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Blasko, D. G. and C. M. Connine, Effects of Familiarity and Aptness on Metaphor Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1993. 19: p. 295--308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Landauer, T. K., P. W. Foltz, and D. Laham, Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 1998. 25(259--284).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Learning metaphor through mixed-reality game design and game play

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      Sandbox '08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Video games
      August 2008
      183 pages
      ISBN:9781605581736
      DOI:10.1145/1401843

      Copyright © 2008 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 August 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGGRAPH '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader