Afterwards the students felt that the game environment had offered added value by visual outlining. The design process was also more motivating this way than the traditional pencil and paper method. A new form of interaction emerged during the game, as all these players used some “visual communication”. They spent long periods of time comparing different materials. During that time they did not speak or write, but they were highly concentrated on browsing through different options for materials until they found good ones. The students found this new learning environment as a positive experience, and especially they appreciated the illustrative presentation of materials. Another advantage of the virtual environment was that it was easy to experiment with different materials and immediately see the actual results of their choices. The game featured a 3D model of the hotel rooms to illustrate the overall task. In analysing the data it turned out, however, that besides this illustration point of view, some players used the model as a chance to take a break when the cognitive load started to build up too big.
The time spent on the game varied from 30 to 50 minutes. Within all the groups playing was intensive. The players found the authentic tasks challenging. Especially students with some work experience were excited about finding similarities and differences between the real and virtual world. The players seemed to feel safe in the virtual environment, and observation notes confirmed this subjective finding. On a more general level, some of the players found that the gameplay was somehow like playing for fun. For the future learning games student wished more challenging tasks, such as determining the thickness of paints, and also the possibility to return to the tasks afterwards to make changes.
During the game, students used different methods to achieve and maintain collaboration. Scripting guided team members towards shared problem-solving. Within all the groups, the game encouraged players to various kinds of negotiation situations (especially in calculation tasks). As seen in the following excerpt players negotiated not only about the actual tasks and problem solving but also about the game functions.
Minna: everybody OK if I take this laminate?
Anna: yeah, go ahead, Minttu [a nickname]
Minna: :)
Eve: suits me, I'll take the tiles.
Henna:
Anna: jeez, what's this linoleum?????
Eve: dunno.
Anna: can I take that plastic covering?
Henna: hey come on, where on earth did you guys find that material point..!!!
Anna: well where are you now then, Henna?
Henna: this is just a mess!!
Eve: on the previous page there was some continue box, click on that
Anna: calculate that area that how many square meters there are and click the calculate button.
SCRIPTED GAME ENVIRONMENT AS AN AID IN VOCATIONAL LEARNING 7 CONCERNING SURFACE TREATMENT
NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 2005, 14th–17th SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND
Co-operation took place on an equal basis and data analysis indicated that that the game essentially guided the team members to make sure that everybody was able to go on. The players felt that peer support during the game was important and they did not want teacher’s guidance at that time. The players appreciated each otter’s presence and possibilities to ask for help. After the game the students felt that they had been able to help each other and observation notes and log data confirmed this finding. Groups solved problems in mutual understanding and conflict situations during the game were rare. There were no cognitive conflicts, but as seen in the following excerpt of interview the time used for material choices could become an issue.
”Pia: It's that,(.) may be but I wouldn't have needed (.)like more that time, so that (.)as one anyway (.)as one realised that the others are already moving on e, [Heidi: yea] [Interviewer: yes] or are already ahead, so that you got the feeling that now I, too, must (.)[2: it's not like that] keep up with like that.”
8 Discussion
This study indicated that at their best epistemic scripts have potential to make learning more efficient in virtual game environments. Different levels of the game create possibilities for motivative scripting. A major benefit of the virtual environment was the possibility to visualise the design process in a manner that would have been impossible in a traditional classroom setting. The game process also brought up a new form of interaction, as the students were able to use visual communication, as well. The findings indicated that this game environment also offered a setting for different modes of interactions and encouraged teams to collaboration. This study supports the finding that in scripting one must be aware of the risk of over-scripting (Dillenbourg, 2002). Scripts should not be made too strict, because then there would be no space for students' own constructions. In addition, there is an evident need for features that allow easing up the learner's cognitive load between tasks.
According to findings, edugames can to enrich learning and pedagogical use of technology. Designing pedagogically meaningful virtual environments for the learning of specific contents is a challenging task, which calls for close co-operation between the technical game developers and specialists with pedagogic and field-specific expertise. Such design teams can take into account the needs of learning, possibilities of technical applications, and latest research findings. Especially in vocational education where learning is based on authentic tasks, better ways to visualise such learning tasks are needed to answer the motivational challenges. Edugames have potential in this respect. Illustrative presentation of occupational situations through game-like applications seems to be one potential way to improve vocational learning and to respond to the changing needs of working life.
Acknowledgements
This paper has benefited contributions from MOSIL-group, comments of Professor Päivi Häkkinen and co-operation with Birgitta Mannila (Vocational Institute of Technology) and Lauri Koutaniemi (Korento OY).
This research is supported by the Life as Learning research programme (LEARN) of the Academy of Finland (2002-2006) and State Provincial Office of Western Finland.
References
Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., Rasku-Puttonen, H. & Eteläpelto, A. (2002). Social processes and knowledge building during small group interaction in a school science project. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 161-179.
Bannan-Ritland, B., (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, vol. 32(1), pp. 21-24
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
SCRIPTED GAME ENVIRONMENT AS AN AID IN VOCATIONAL LEARNING 8 CONCERNING SURFACE TREATMENT
NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 2005, 14th–17th SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND
Charles, M. & McAlister, M. (2004) Integrating Ideas About Invisible Playgrounds from Play Theory into Online Educational Digital Games. In Computing and Information Engineering, University of Ulster, BT52 1SA. Northern Ireland
http://www.springerlink.com/media/53F7VGQUVG7WEB6QNQ96/Contributions/Q/E/A/4/QEA4E988K00UGNY9.pdf Cohen, L. & Manion, L. 1994. Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
Costkyan, G. 2002. I have no words & I must design: toward a critical vocabulary for games, Proceedings of the computer games and digital cultures conference, Finland.
Derry, S.J. (1999). A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 197-211). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O'Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P.
Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science (pp.
189-211). Oxford: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction; What Do You Mean By “Collaborative Learning”? Teoksessa P. Dillenbourg (Toim.) Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (s. 1-19). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Dillenbourg, P. 2002. Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design.
Teoksessa P. A. Kirschner (Toim.). Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen, Open Universiteit Nederland. http://tecfa.unige.ch/perso/staf/notari/literature/dillenbourg2002_1.doc
Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992).Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces.In Turner, J. & Kraut, R. (Eds.) CSCW ΄92 - Sharing Perspectives. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto:
ACM/SIGOIS, 107-114
Dourish, P. (1999). Where the footprints lead: Tracking down other roles for social navigation. Munro, A. J., Höök, K.,
& Benyon, D (eds.) Social Navigation of Information Space (pp. 155-173). London: Springer-Verlag.
Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., Bluemink, J., & Järvelä, S. 3D-verkkopelien mahdollisuuksia yhteisöllisessä oppimisessa -sosiaalinen toimintaseikkailu yhteisöllisten taitojen kehityksen tukena (in press).
Holmes, J. Lin, X. & Brandsford, J. (2001). Collaborative lesson planning and teaching in an online 3D virtual world.
Paper presented at AERA conference Seattle.
Kiili, K. (2005) Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Education. vol. 8(1) pp.13-24.
Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). Structuring dyadic interaction through scripted cooperation.In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 179-196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E.
O’Malley (Ed.) Computer supported collaborative learning. (pp. 69-97). Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag.
Stahl, G. (2003). Meaning and interpretation in Collabration. Desing for Change in Networked Learning Environments.
In Wasson, B & Ludvigsen, S. & Ulrich, H. (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003. Kluwer Academic Publisher: Dordrecht. url:: http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry//publications/conferences/2003/cscl/cscl2003.doc Stahl, G. (2004). Concepts of Communication in CSCL. Saatavilla WWW-muodossa:
http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/cscl/papers/ch17.pdf
Weinberger, A. 2003. Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction Dissertation an der Fakultät für Psychologie und Pädagogik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Saatavilla WWW-muodossa:: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F. & Mandl, H. (2003). Collaboration scripts to facilitate knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) 2003 in Padova, Italy.
GROUP INVESTIGATION, SOCIAL SIMULATIONS, AND GAMES AS SUPPORT FOR 1 NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION
NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 2005, 14th–17th SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND