reflective, creative and computational thinking...

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Jun 03, 2018

Reflective, Creative and Computational Thinking Strategies Used When Students LearnThrough Making Games

Weitze, Charlotte Lærke

Published in:Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Game-Based Learning

Publication date:2017

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):Weitze, C. L. (2017). Reflective, Creative and Computational Thinking Strategies Used When Students LearnThrough Making Games. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Game-Based Learning (pp. 744-753). Academic Conferences and Publishing International.

http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/reflective-creative-and-computational-thinking-strategies-used-when-students-learn-through-making-games(6908b27d-fa9b-4f03-b6fb-8063b4236e60).html

EuropeanConferenceonGamesBasedLearning,ACPI.FHJOANNEUMUniversityofAppliedScience,Graz,Austria,5-6October2017(pp.744-753).

Reflective, Creative and Computational Thinking Strategies Used When Students Learn Through MakingGamesCharlotteLærkeWeitze,PhD,AssistantprofessorResearchLab:ITandLearningDesign,DepartmentofLearningandPhilosophy,AalborgUniversity,[email protected]:Sincethe1980s,scholarshavehadvisionsabouthowcomputerscanchangehowwethinkandlearnand may support more engaging learning processes. Recently many countries have extended their formalschoolsystemstoteachstudentsaboutcomputationalthinking,withtheaimtosupportchildreninmasteringdigitalmaterials,becomingdigitalproducers,andusingtechnologytodeveloptheabilitytousetheircreativityanddevelopproblem-baseddigital projects.Oneof the questions in this newarea of formal educational iswhetheracquiringcomputationalthinking(CT)skillsshouldbeagoalinitself—thatis,anewsubjectmatterinthecurriculum—orwhetherCTshouldbecomepartofcross-disciplinaryprojects inschool.Thebasis forthecurrentexperimentisalongitudinal(fouryears),design-basedresearchexperiment,whereCTwasusedasoneof the means to reach learning goals in cross-disciplinary academic subjects. In the current part of theexperiment, adult high school students (K–11) created digital learning games using the game design toolScratch. The purpose was to teach their classmates about specific learning goals in geography, chemistry,biology, and social studies within their digital learnings games while they themselves learned about thesesubjectmattersthroughthelearninggamecreationprocess.ThefindingswerethatgamedesignandCTcouldbe used as means to reach learning goals and spark reflections about cross-disciplinary academic subjectmatter and that the learning game construction process involved the students’ considerations about fourcentralareasandprocesseswithintheseareas.Also,asthestudentstransformedtheirgamesfromavisiontoaconceptandintoaconcretedigitalobject,theywerechallengedtobecomeinnovativeandcreativeandweresupportedintheirthinkingandlearningprocesses,developingknowledgeaboutproblem-basedworkandCTcompetencies.Key words: Computational Thinking, Learning Game Design, Students as Learning Game Designers,Constructionism,Scratch.1.IntroductionAmajorconcernforeducationalinstitutionsishowtodesignlearningforstudentstohelpthemdevelopskillsthatmatch21st-centuryrequirements.Thisdemandsthatweknowwhatskillsshouldbedeveloped,howweshouldteachandsupportthestudents’learningprocesses,andwhatlearningtechnologiescouldsupportthedevelopment of relevant individual and collaborative competencies. The strategy that many educationalscholars suggest is toeducate the students so that theybecomestrong inproblem-solving, critical thinking,innovation,andcreativity,sincethiswillgivethemthecompetenciestoembraceandovercometheunknownfuturechallengestheywillface.Buthowdoweteachthese21st-centuryskills?1.1ThebenefitsofactivelearningThephilosopherandeducationalreformerJohnDeweysuggestedthedevelopmentofreflectivethinkingskillsas the main goal of education. Thinking is the method of intelligent learning and is developed throughexperience:“tryingtodosomethingandhavingthethingperceptiblydosomethingtooneinreturn”(Dewey,1956).This learningbydoingapproachcorrelatesstronglywith theconstructionistpedagogicalapproach. Inconstructionism,afundamentalideaisthatthereisastrongconnectionbetweendesignandlearningandthatactivity involving making, building, or programming provides a rich context for learning and buildingknowledge (Harel & Papert, 1991; Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Piaget’s constructivism, which focuses on thestudents’ construction ofmeaning as a condition for learning, is taken further by Papert’s constructionismtheory,which emphasizes thatmeaning in particular can be constructed by the creation of artefacts, oftenwith thehelpofdifferent typesofdigitalmedia (Harel&Papert, 1991). The constructionof theseartefactsenables reflection and new ways of thinking based on the tools the students use alone as well ascollaboratively,empoweringthestudentstotakechargeoftheirowneducation(Harel&Papert,1991;Kafai&Resnick,1996).Learningandcreativedevelopmenthappenswhenthematerial“talksback”tothestudentsinunexpected ways during the development process (Schön, 1992). But what elements do the thinking andlearningprocessesrequire?

C.L.Weitze-Reflective,CreativeandComputationalThinkingStrategiesUsedWhenStudentsLearnThroughMakingGames.


2

AccordingtoJohnDewey’spragmaticworldview,thereisacloserelationbetweenthefollowingelementsinstudents’ ongoing reflective process; they 1) experience and perceive a difficulty or problem; 2) localize,analyze,anddefinetheproblem;3)usespontaneousandinnovativeideasashypothesesforsolutionstotheproblem;4) reflectandelaborate ideasandconsiderationof factsaroundtheproblem;and5)employ testsandinterventionsfollowedbyevaluationofthesuggestedideas,concepts,orsolutionstotheproblem.Ifthisleads to a satisfying result and thereby valuable new knowledge, the process ends; otherwise, the studentstarts again, armed with his or her new insight (Figure 1). These linked processes of reflection andexperimentationarecommonwaystoapproachandsolveproblemsineverydaylife(Dewey,1910,p.72).Buthowisthisturnedintoapedagogicalapproach?

Figure1:Experienceandexperimentscreatingknowledgeineverydaylife(basedonDewey,1910)

The problem-based learning (PBL) pedagogical approach is a “learner-centered approach that empowerslearnerstoconductresearch,integratetheoryandpractice,andapplyknowledgeandskillstodevelopaviablesolution to a defined problem” (Savery, 2015, p. 5). PBL is strongly inspired by the elements in Dewey’sreflectiveprocess.InPBL,thestudentsfind,orareintroducedto,ill-structured,complex(yetmeaningful),real-worldproblems.Thesecomplexproblemsoftendonothaveasinglecorrectanswer,butstudentscan learnfromdevelopingsolutionsforthem.Theproblemsaretheessentialelementsandthedrivingforceforinquiry.The studentswork in collaborativegroups to identifywhat knowledge isneeded to solve theproblem.Thisprocess helps them become self-directed and self-assessed learners and engaged problem-solverswho usecriticalthinkingandreflectiontoidentifytherootproblemandtheconditionsneededforaqualifiedsolution(Savery,2015).Theteacheractsasafacilitatoroflearningthroughthedesignoflearningactivitiesandhasamajorroleinsupportingthedevelopmentofthemetacognitivethinkingassociatedwiththeproblem-solvingprocess.1.2LearningthroughcreatinglearninggamesAfrequentlyusedPBLapproachinvolvestheuseofgamesforlearning.Thereisagrowingbodyofresearchonextending game-based learning—be it the use of simulations, virtual worlds, or games developedwith thepurposeoflearning—tothecreationofgamesforlearning(Kafai&Burke,2015),enablingthestudenttohaveamoreactiveroleasagamedesignerinsteadofalessactiveroleasagameplayer.Usingalearning-through-game-designapproachinvolvesthedevelopmentofCTskills.1.3ComputationalthinkingprocessesThe CT concept has gained attention and has been researched by an increasing number of educators andresearcherssincetheearly1980s(Grover&Pea,2013).Theconcepthasbeendefinedinvariousways(Voogtetal.,2015).JeanetteWing,forexample,definedcomputationalthinkingas”thethoughtprocessesinvolvedin formulating problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can beeffectivelycarriedoutbyaninformation-processingagent”(2011,p.1).Butit isnotanentirelynewconcept.Papert, for example, argued the need for procedural thinking (1980), and diSessa recommendedcomputational literacy (2000). These scholars had visions about changing howwe think and learn and howcomputers could support more engaging and committed learning processes. Many scholars as well aspractitionersbreakCTintosubcategories(Voogtetal.,2015;Wing,2008),andithasbeendefinedasabroadandcomprehensiveconceptinvolvingthinkingandlearningprocessesnotverydifferentfromPBLprocesses.Butithasalsobeendefinedasanarrowerconceptrelatedtoconsiderationorthinkingactsthatweneedto



3

learntobeabletoprogramcomputerstoperformprocedures.ManyofthenarrowCTdefinitionsinvolvefourcoreconcepts—decomposition,patternrecognition,abstraction,andalgorithms—aswellasevaluationofthesuccessfulnessofgoingthroughthesefourstepstosolvetheproblem(Voogtetal.,2015;Wing,2008).Theseconceptsarenatural stages for solvingacomplexproblemwith thehelpofa computerandencompass thekindofconceptualunderstandingneeded foracomputerprogrammer tocreate interactivedigitalproblem-solvingofvarioustasks.Inthisexperiment,CTisusedtoreachstudents’subject-specificlearninggoals.ButwhatkindofCTconceptualunderstanding isneededwhen theassignment is to learnaboutcurricular subjectmatterbycreatingdigitallearninggames?1.4AreaofinvestigationThis article investigates: How can students learn specific subject matter by designing and creating digitalgames?CantheacquisitionofCTskillssupportthislearningprocess?Whatlearninggamedesignprocessesdostudentsgothroughwhentheycreatedigitallearninggames?Andfinally,arethereelementsthatconnectthevariouslayersofthegamedesignprocessinameaningfulwaythatatthesametimesupportsthedevelopmentofstudents’thinkingandlearningprocesses?2.Methodologyandresearchdesign2.1Approach,datacollectionandanalysisThisinvestigationwasconductedasadesign-basedresearch(DBR)studyinwhichteachersandstudentswereimportant co-designers in the development and testing process. The study usedmixedmethods. The dataincluded fieldnotes, audio- and videotapedactions andutterances, observations from theworkshop in Fall2016, semi-structured interviews with both teachers and students, informal meetings, videos of students’gamesbeingdiscussedandplay-tested, thestudent-createddigitalgames,evaluationdocumentswrittenbystudents, and questionnaires. The analysis was performed by analyzing teachers’ and students’ actions,utterances,andthedigitalgamesandbycodingthetranscribeddatausingthequalitativeresearchsoftwareDedoose employing an informed grounded theory approach (Thornberg, 2012). The analysis used concept-drivencoding(usingconceptsfromthetheoryandpreviousempiricaldatatofindthemesinthedata)aswellas data-driven coding (reading the data and searching for new phenomena not known from previouspreconceptionsofthesubject)(Kvale&Brinkman,2009;Charmaz,2006).2.2ParticipantsandsettingTheparticipantsintheexperimentwerestudentsfromahighschoolclassatVUCStorstrøm,anadultlearningcenter in Denmark. The students participated in a full-time education program lasting two years, buildinggamessupportinglearningthecurriculum.Fiveteachersparticipatedinthegamedesignprocess.2.3WorkshopsAllthestudentsandfourteacherswerenewtogamedesign.The20studentsinthisexperimentformedfourteamsandcreated fourgames involvingvariationsover the themeclimatechange. The studentsdevelopedtheir learning-game concepts by following the instructions in an overall learning design in a three-dayworkshop.ThepedagogicalapproachwasPBL,andtheonlyknowledgethestudentshadaboutclimatechangeinadvancecamefromwatchingafilmaboutthesubject;theyhadaccesstorelevanttextsaswell.Theaimoftheoverall learningdesignwastoletthestudentsintegrateaspectsofrelevantacademicsubjectsintosmallanaloguegameconceptsthatwerethentransformedintodigitalgames.Theintentionwasforthestudentstobecomereflectiveabouttheacademicknowledge;andasaresult,theywouldbecomeacademicallyproficient.CTwasnot thegoalbutoneof themeans to reach theoverall learninggoals.Thestudentsused thedigitalgamedesigntoolScratch(Scratch,2017)tocreatetheirdigitalgames.Thepurposewasforstudentstodirecttheirownlearningpathandcreate learninggamesthatcouldbeplayedbytheirfellowstudents.Thiswouldenablethestudents tobecomethedesignersof theirown learningthroughcollaboration,andbydiscussingideas and possible solutions. The students created the learning and game designs in iterative processes.Therefore, the learninggoalsandprocesswereaddressedandquestioned inmanyways.The learninggoalswere further addressed in the collaborative peer review/playtests that each student team carried outwithotherteams.



4

3.AnalysisofthinkingandlearningprocessesincreatinglearninggamesThe following is an analysis of the thinking and thereby learning processes that took place as the studentslearnedbycreatingdigitallearninggames.Theoverallproblemorquestionforthestudentswas:Howcanwecreatealearninggameteachingaboutclimatechange?Thelearninggameconstructionprocessinvolvedthestudents’considerationsaboutthefollowingfourprocesses:1)developmentoflearninggoalsfortheirspecificgameforthecross-disciplinarysubjectmatter,2)learningdesign,3)gamedesign,and4)transformationintoadigital game. These four central processes, leading to the creation of the learning games, were deeplyconnectedandinterdependent,andthestudentsengagedthemiteratively.Byseparatingtheminthisanalysis,itispossibletoinvestigatethecharacteristicofeachknowledgeandlearningareaandprocess.3.1LearningaboutsubjectmatterandlearninggoalsTheteacherschoseclimatechangeastheoverallsubjectandhadelaboratedthelearninggoalsforthecross-disciplinarysubjectmatteraswellasmethodologicalandsocial learninggoals.Sinceclimatechangeinvolvesandinfluencessocial,geographical,chemical,andbiologicalmatters,creatingaprojectaboutclimatechangedemandedthatthestudentsdevelopedknowledgeaboutallfourinvolvedsubjectmatters.Theteachershadcrucial roles as guides and discipline experts, they supported the teams, and discussed the content/subjectmatterofthegameswiththeteams.Thestudentsstartedtheprojectbystudyingthelearninggoalsanddiscussingclimatechangeinthecontextofthe cross-disciplinary subjects. Theydiscussedwhat theyalreadyknewabout the subjectandwhere to findmoreknowledgeandbrainstormedwhateducationalcontentthenarrativeofthelearninggamecouldinvolvein ameaningful way. Two of the overall learning goals were “Analyze and discuss what effect greenhousegaseshaveontheatmosphere”and“Analyzetheglobaleffectsofthegreenhouseeffectusingaself-chosenexample.” The teachers advised the students to generate ideas based on the leaning goals and to connectthem into a narrative in a meaningful way. They suggested that the students chose an everyday learningsituationasthenarrativefortheirgameandthengraduallyconstructedmoreideasforhowtoinvolveallthelearninggoals.Thisdemandedthatthestudentsthoughtabouthowtomovebetweenthechoiceofrelevantandmeaningfulcontentandthedesignof relevant learningsituations in thegame,whichwouldenable thefuturelearner/playerofthegametoreachthegame’sintendedlearninggoals.The students had educating conversations about what to teach within the game, becoming self-directedlearners in this process, but the teachers alsohad vital roles. Twoof the teachers, for example, supervisedeach team, asking them to explain how the various learning goalsweremet in their game. If the studentsfounditdifficulttoaddressalearninggoal,theteacherspointedthemtoarelevantarticleaboutthesubjectmatter. Then the teachers discussed the learning goal with the team and co-ideated on how they couldimplementthisgoalinthegame.

Figure2:ExamplesofchoicesofferedaftereducatingepisodesintwogamesSome of the affordances learning games have, as media, are possibilities for designing interactions, givingchoicesand connections, and showing causeandeffects aswell as consequences in thegame.Theanalysissuggeststhatthisaffectedthestudents’choiceofcontentaswellasnarrativeforthegames.Severalof theteamschosetodesigngamesthatinvariouswaysletthelearner/playerchoosebetweenoptionsinthegame,similar to the cause-and-effect systems grounded in the subject matter. For example, by offering complexchoices between the cheapest product or service or the greenest solution (Figure 2)—such as when the



5

offeredsun-energysolutionthatseemedtobethemostclimate-friendlypossibilityactuallyturnedouttobetheoppositewhen taking theproductionprocess of the solar cells into account. The students had to thinkabouthowtodesignthesevarioussystemsofchoices,causalconnections,andopportunitiesforinteractions,and, according to the teachers, this led the students to develop new knowledge about the same relevantsystemswithintheirsubjectmatter.3.2LearningdesignprocessforthelearninggamesThe studentswereasked to createa game thatboth taught andevaluated the future learner/playerof thegameaboutclimatechange.ProblemidentificationforthelearningdesignphaseinvolvedquestionslikeHowcanwe create a learning designwithin a learning game? This involved understanding principles of what alearning game is and what learning processes are. The creation of a learning design traditionally involvesconsiderationsaboutwho theparticipantsare,what learningenvironment the learning takesplace in,whatthelearninggoalsare,whatcontentshouldbeintroducedforthestudentstoachievetheselearninggoals,andwhatlearningactivitiesandevaluationprocessesthestudentsshouldexperienceforthemtogothroughtheintended learning processes and reach the learning goals. From previous research, we learned that theabstract learning design elements are not obvious to high school students. Therefore, the students wereintroducedtoasimplelearninggameexampleinScratch(2017)thattaughtthestudentsaboutlearningdesignelementsinalearninggame(Weitze,2017).Thestudentscouldusethisexampleasavisionandthinkingtool,whichmadeiteasierforthemtoimaginehowtheycouldcreatetheirownlearningdesignforalearninggame.3.3Creationofcommonlearningdesign“systems”whencreatinglearninggamesAsthestudentsstartedconceptualizingtheir learninggameswithpaperandcardboard,theanalysisshowedthatthestudentsdeconstructedthelearningdesignforthegamesintothefollowinglearningdesignareas:a)learning environments, b) communities of practice, c) learning activities, and d) learning paths for theirlearninggameconcepts.Theconstructionprocesswascategorizedbythestudentsintothefourareasinthefollowingways:

a) Learning environments—situated learning experiences: When designing a learning game thestudentsneeded to thinkabouthowtocreate learningsituationswithin thegames.These learningsituations or scenes in the game could involve relevant learning elements, such as backgroundsillustratingclimatechangeor itsconsequencesorobjects, forexample,giving theplayer thechoicebetween solar panels or wind mills as energy sources in the game. These learning environmentscontributedtotheplayers’/learners’learningprocessesastheyplayedthegame.b) Communities of practice: In traditional learning situations, the learning community of practiceinvolvespeer-relationsaswellasstudent–teacherconversationsandinteractions.Thesameoccurredin the learninggames.The teams formedsmall communitiesof learningwithin thegameconcepts.Somegamesalsoinvitedtheplayer—outsidethegame—tolistenandlearn.Thein-game-charactersin these game-communities had various roles, including teacher, helper, apprentice, the good(climate)guy,and thebad (climate)guy.Thesecharactersenablededucatingconversations to takeplaceduringthegame-play.c) Learning activities: Depending on pedagogical approach (for example, instructional or sociallearning approaches), learning interactions between agents participating in a learning situationgenerallytakeplaceasinstruction,demonstration,imitation,dialogue,discussion,orco-construction.Examplesofpreviouslearningactivitiesinstudents’learninggamesincludeinvitingthelearner/playertobeanapprentice, learningbyexperience, learning fromdirect information, learning fromjust-in-timeadditionalknowledge,learningfromauthentichints,learningbyconsequence,learningthroughstealthassessment,andlearningandassessingbydoinginthegame(Weitze,2017).Oneofthemainstrategies in the design of learning activities, used in this experiment, was to create educatingdialogues between two in-game-characters or letting several game-characters first teach and theninvite the learner/player to act by choosing between various opportunities in the game (stealthassessment)andthuslearnfromtheconsequencesofthesechoices.Thatis,ifthelearner/playerhadbeenlisteningandtherebylearning,shewouldknowwhattochoose.d)Learningpaths—narrativesandinteractions:Thechallengeforthestudentswastothencombineandweave the above three learningdesign areas intomeaningful narratives in the climate change



6

learninggames.Thestudentsdidthisbycreatinglearningpaths(Figure3)—inventinganarrativewithgame-characters that took part in relevant learning activities in various procedures over time. Thisdemanded procedural thinking of the students as well as the building of hypotheses, arguments,connections,andcausalexplanationsaboutthesubjectmatterwithinandaroundthedigitallearninggames.

Figure3:Studentstoryboards:CreatinglearningpathsinthelearninggameconceptsThe analysis showed that the students learned and approached their learning goals through collaborativediscussionsandworkprocessesandreflectedontheproblemofcreatingalearningdesignwhileideatingandconstructingtheirgameconceptsiniterativeprocesses.3.4Thestudents’gamedesignreflectionsThoughthegamedesignandlearningdesignweredeeplyintertwined,thefollowingisanattempttoanalyzerelevantgamedesignelementsinthestudents’constructedlearninggames.Whensettinglearning“intoplay,”traditionalgameelementsareactionspaceandnarrative,choice,challenge,rules,feedback,andgamegoals(Weitze,2016b).Someof theseelementsweredirectlyconnected to thecommon learningdesignelementsthatthestudentsused.Turning learningdesignelements intogamedesignelementscanberegardedasthestudents’ further development of their vision for a learning game with specific learning goals into a morespecifiedandconceptualized learninggamedesign. In their creativeand innovativework, thestudentgamedesignerskeptmovingbetweentheabstractlearninggoalsandthespecificationsforaconcretelearninggamedesignaswell asbetween thewholeand thedetailsof the learninggameconcept though their continuousreflections(Löwgren&Stolterman,2007).Action space, narrative, and game goals: An example of connections between learning design and gamedesignelementswasthatthegamedesignelementactionspaceinthestudents’gamescorrespondedtothelearning environment. Also, the game design element narrative corresponded with the learning path thestudentsusedtoconnecttherelevant learninggoalsandcontent intheir learninggames.Thenarrativealsopresented the game goal by creating a story with a direction that was meaningful and connected to thelearninggoals ina relevantway.One teamexplained:“Ourclimate-polar-beargame involvesvarioussceneswith horrible pictures of what climate changes will do to the earth if we continue living like we do at themoment.Our idea is tomakeagamewhereyoucansave theplanetbypursuingvariousclimate-connectedchallengestosavetheworld,andifyoufail,theearthendsupbeingdestroyed.”Thisgameinvolvedalearningenvironment andnarrative thatwere connected to the learning goals, and the game goalwas evident: theplayer/learnerhadtosavetheworld.Choices,challenges,rules,andfeedback:Thecontent (subjectmatter)waspresentedthroughthenarrative(inmonologues and dialogues) and in the learning activities in the students’ games. The learning activitieswereformedaschoices,challenges,rules,andfeedback—opportunitiesforeducatinginteractionsinthegame.The choices in several of the teams’ learning games were created so the player/learner had to create ahypothesis about how to answer from the knowledge that was provided earlier in the game. One teamdiscussed the interactions in their game: “In our CO2 game the player, for example, is challenged on hisknowledge and has to choose between two green energy sources. He has to listen carefully to our game-characters,sinceitisnottheobviouschoiceheshouldtake.So,inthiswaytherulesofthegamearedecidedbyauthentic facts. If the player tries to save the environment, he will collect money for building a fantasticsustainablefarm,andthelevelofCO2willgodown.Wehavediscussedifweshouldcreateagame-rule,being:iftheplayergivesthewronganswersthreetimes,thenheshouldbetold:‘Youareterribletotheenvironment,



7

andyouknownothing,’andthenitistheendoftheworld!”Thesestudentshadusedrulesthatwerebasedinfactsfromthesubjectmatter(youwillnotsurviveifyoumakeunsustainablechoices),andtheconsequenceswere inspiredbyreal-worldconsequences.Theplayer/learnerreceived feedback instantlyaboutwhetherhehadunderstoodthelearningintentions(Figure4).Allgamesusedtraditionalgamedesignelementsasawaytosetthelearningintoplay.

Figure4:ExampleoffeedbackinthegameThestudentschosetocreateinteractionsintheformofmeaningfulchoiceswithmeaningfulconsequencesintheirgames.Forexample,intheCO2gameaboutsustainablefarming,theplayerhadseveralofferstochoosebetweenvariousopportunities.Withtheinformationshehadbeengiveninadvanceinthegame,sheshouldbeabletochoosethemostsustainableenergysource.Thisgavetheplayer/learneragencytomakeherownchoiceandgaveherexperiencewiththesubjectmatterpresentedinthegame.3.5Computationalthinkinginaction—transformationintodigitallearninggamesThestudentswereinexperiencedinusingthedigitalgamedesigntool(Scratch),andsomestudentshesitatedwhen approaching the technology. Previous research showed it is important to guide the students byintroducingthemtosmalltutorialsforthetool(Weitze,2017).Thispartoftheprocessrequiredthestudentsto transform the specifications for the learning game concept into a functioning digital game. The studentsused their story boards (Figure 3) illustrating the learning environments, communities of practice, learningactivities,andlearningpathsasabasisfordiscussionsabouthowtocreatetheirdigitalgames.Inthisprocess,the students were presented with many dilemmas. Sometimes part of their concepts proved difficult, orperhapsevenimpossible,totransformintodigitalprocedures—theyhadtolearntothinkcomputationally.Theideasandsolutionsdidnotalwaysworkoutasplanned.Sometimesthiswasbecausetheaffordancesofthe game design tool were too limited, or the students did not know the tool well enough to find anappropriate solution. But sometimes the “conversations” with the game design technology (Schön, 1992)sparkedothersolutionsthatbettermetthestudents’ intentionswiththe learninggames. Intheseboundaryareas, the learning game was transformed from a vision with specific learning goals into a concept for aspecified learning game design and then the transformation into a functioning digital game—an operativeimage(Löwgren&Stolterman,2007).Theseboundaryareasoftenrepresenteddilemmasandprocesseswherea “creative leap” took place. Here the learning game designers exceeded the limits of the present, and byhandlingthesedilemmasthestudentswereforcedtolearn,beinnovative,andcreatenewconcepts.3.6Computationallearningelementsinthestudents’gamesThe analysis of the current experiment showed that the abstract learning design elements the studentsdesignedfor intheirgamestosomeextentweresignificantandcouldbedecomposedintospecificpatternsthatcouldbeperformedbyproceduresoralgorithms.This shouldofcoursebeseen in lightof the learninggamesbeingquitesimplegames,giventhatthestudentswerenovicesingamedesignandtheshortamountof time they were given to develop their games. These computational learning elements have, however,provedefficientasinspiringexamplesforstudentsintheirdigitallearninggamedesigninlaterexperiments.Thefollowingareexamplesofthecomputationallearningelementsinthestudents’games.Again,thesewereconnectedtothepreviouslymentionedabstractlearningdesignareas.Thestudentscreated:



8

Learning environment and learning objects: This demanded that the students imported backgrounds andobjectsintothedigitalgame.Communitiesofpractice:Thisdemandedthatthestudents importedorcreatedvariousrelevantcharacters,teachers,andlearnersintheirgamesaswellasshowedandhidedthesecharacters.Learningactivities:Thereweremanyexamplesofcomputationallearningelementsforlearningactivitiesandinteractions,illustratingthebenefitsofusinggamestoteachasopposedtoe.g.books.Activityexampleswere:1) Dialogues in the game, conversationswith one ormore characters: This demanded that the students

broadcastedmessagesbetweenthecharacters,enablingonecharactertoreacttowhatanothercharactersends,creatingdialogues,otheractions,andinteractionsinthisprocess.

2) Methodsforadvancinginthegameandreceivingfeedbackonwhethertheleaners/playerchoiceswerecorrect:Thisdemandedthatthestudentscreatedvarious levelsandscenes inthegame.Thiswasdonee.g.bybroadcastingmessagestochangebackgroundsandobjects.

3) Awaytoexploretheenvironment:Thiswase.g.donebyprogramingthearrowkeys.4) Evaluationinthegame:Thiscouldbeprogrammedinvariousways.Forexample,byusingtheCTconcept,

eventsdescribingonethingcauseanotherthingtohappen(Brennan&Resnick,2012)—e.g., lettingtwochoicesleadtodifferentconsequences,givingdifferentfeedbackdependingonwhatthecorrectanswerwas.

Creatinglearningpathsinthegame:Thistookplacewhenthestudentsmentallydecomposedallthevariousactivitiesintosmallentitiesandthenturnedthemintoproceduresinthegame—forexample,bycombininganinformativedialoguewithapossibilitytoexplorethelearningenvironmentfollowedbyanopportunitytobeevaluatedinthegame.Thestudentslookedforpatternswhentheyrepeatedvariousidenticalproceduresoralgorithms in the game, altering the dialogues or background when they wanted to create serial learningsituations.That studentswere sometimes frustrated if they did not have time to finish their digital gamesproved theimportance of teachers continuously conducting meta-conversations with the students discussing andconfirminghowandwhattheylearnedwhilecreatingtheirgames.Thatsaid,wesawproudstudentsshowingtheirgamestofellowstudentsatthefinalexhibition.4.DiscussionandconclusionThis article investigated how students could learn specific subject matter by designing and creating digitalgames and whether the acquisition of CT skills could support this learning process. It also explored whatlearninggamedesignprocessesstudentscarriedoutwhencreatingdigitallearninggamesandwhatelementswere found to connect the various layers of the game design process in ameaningfulway, supporting thedevelopmentofstudents’thinkingandlearningprocesses.Theanalysis found that the learninggameconstructionprocess involved the students’ considerationsaboutfourcentralareasandprocesseswithintheseareasthatweredeeplyconnectedandinterdependent:1)game-specific learning goals for cross-disciplinary subject matter, 2) learning design, 3) game design, and 4)transformationintoadigitalgame(Figure5).As the students started conceptualizing their learning games in analogue materials, they typicallydeconstructed the learning design for the games into the following learning design areas: learningenvironments, communities of practice, learning content, learning activities, and learning paths for theirlearninggameconcepts.Whentheymovedontosetthe learningdesign“intoplay,”theappliedgamedesignelement inmanywayscorresponded with the learning design elements. For example, the game design element narrativecorrespondedwiththelearningdesignelement learningpaththatwasusedtoconnecttherelevantlearninggoals,content,learningactivitiesandevaluationprocessesintheirlearninggames.Finally,whenthestudentstransformedtheabstractlearningdesignelementsintoadigitalgame,theyneededCTskills.CTwasusedtodecomposethetasks,simplifytheprocessbylookingforsimilarpatterns,andcreatealgorithmicproceduresperformed in thegamedesign tool. In thispartof theprocess the students createdlearning paths in the computational systems, which allowed the learner/player to experience in-gameconversationsandexplore,getfeedback,andbeevaluatedinthegames.



9

Theanalysissuggeststhattheuseoflearninggamedesignasalearningapproach—withpossibilitiestodesigninteractions,choices,connections,consequences,andcauseandeffects inthegame—affectedthestudents’choiceofcontentaswellasnarrativeforthegamesandtherebywhatandhowtheylearned.

Figure5:Centralconceptualareasandelementsthestudentsreflectedonandcreatedinthelearninggameconstructionprocess

Thematerialsinthisexperimentwereusedas“discussionpartners”bythestudents.Theylearnedbythinking,doing,thinkinganddoingagain,workingthroughthevariouslayersofprocessesinaniterativeprocess(Figure6). As the students designed narratives, built hypotheses, created arguments and choices with differentconsequences,anddemonstratedconnectionsandcausalexplanationsaboutthesubjectmatterinthegame,deepthoughtprocessesweredemandedofthestudents.Accordingtotheanalysisoftheinterviewswiththeteachers and observations from the experiment, this appeared to give the students opportunities to learnabout 1) the cross-disciplinary subject matter, 2) learning to learn, and 3) CT. According to the teachers,workingwithdesigninglearninggamesledthestudentstodevelopnewknowledgeaboutrelevantrulesandcause-and-effectsystemswithintheirrespectivesubjectmatterareas.

Figure6:ThecreativeprocessesintheboundaryareasbetweenvisionandconceptandconcreteobjectTosummarize,thestudentsexperiencedhowtoworkfromaPBLapproachastheystartedtocreateideasandvisionsforthespecificsubjectmattertheywantedtoteachfortheirfutureplayerstoreachspecificlearninggoals.Theythenturnedthesevisionsintolearninggameconceptsinvolvinglearningdesignandgamedesignelements. Finally, they then transformed the learning game concept into a functioning digital game—aconcrete digital object. Despite being areas of dilemma, frustration, and hard work, the boundary areas



10

betweenvision, concept, and concreteobject sparked the students’ creativity and innovative solutions, andthestudents’thinkingandlearningprocessesthatweredemandedempoweredthemtocreateideasandsolveproblemswhenlearningthroughthedesignofdigitallearninggames.5.ReferencesBrennan,K.&Resnick,M.(2012)“Newframeworksforstudyingandassessingthedevelopmentof

computationalthinking”,Proceedingsofthe2012annualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Vancouver,Canada.

Charmaz,K.(2006)Constructinggroundedtheory:Apracticalguidethroughqualitativeresearch.SagePublicationsLtd.,London.

Dewey,J.(1956)“Thinkingineducation.Chapter12”inDemocracyandeducation:Anintroductiontothephilosophyofeducation.FreePress,NewYork

Dewey,J.(1910).Howwethink.D.C.Heath&Co.Publishers,Boston.diSessa,A.A.(2000)Changingminds:Computers,learning,andliteracy.MITPress,Cambridge.Grover,S.,&Pea,R.(2013)“ComputationalThinking”inK–12AReviewoftheStateoftheField.Educational

Researcher,42(1),pp38-43.Harel,I.E.,&Papert,S.E.(1991)Constructionism.AblexPublishing,NewYork.Kafai,Y.B.,&Resnick,M.(1996)Constructionisminpractice:Designing,thinking,andlearninginadigital

world.Routledge,NewYork,NY.Kafai,Y.B.,&Burke,Q.(2015)“Constructionistgaming:Understandingthebenefitsofmakinggamesfor

learning.”EducationalPsychologist,50(4),pp313-334.Kvale,S.&Brinkmann,S.(2009)Interview,Introduktiontilethåndværk.HansReitzelsForlag,Copenhagen.Löwgren,J.andStolterman,E.(2007)ThoughtfulInteractionDesign:ADesignPerspectiveonInformation

Technology,TheMITPress,Cambridge.Papert,S.(1980)Mindstorms:Children,computers,andpowerfulideas.BasicBooks,NewYork.Savery,J.R.(2015)“Overviewofproblem-basedlearning:Definitionsanddistinctions”.InWalker,A.,Leary,H.,

Hmelo-Silver,C.E.,&Ertmer,P.(Eds.).EssentialReadingsinProblem-BasedLearning:ExploringandExtendingtheLegacyofHowardS.Barrows.(pp5-15).PurdueUniversityPress,Lafayette.

Scratch[Computersoftware](2017)Retrievedfromhttps://scratch.mit.eduSchön,D.A.(1992)“DesigningasReflectiveConversationwiththeMaterialsofaDesignSituation”,Knowledge-

BasedSystems,Vol.5,No.1,pp3–14.Thornberg,R.(2012)“Informedgroundedtheory”.ScandinavianJournalofEducationalResearch,56(3),pp

243–259.Voogt,J.,Fisser,P.,Good,J.,Mishra,P.,&Yadav,A.(2015)“Computationalthinkingincompulsoryeducation:

Towardsanagendaforresearchandpractice.”EducationandInformationTechnologies,20(4),715-728.Weitze,C.L.(2016/7)“HowStudentGameDesignersDesignLearningintoGames.”InGLS12conference

proceedingsCarnegieMellonUniversityPress.Weitze,C.L.(2016a)“StudentLearning-GameDesigns:EmergingLearningTrajectories.”Connolly,T.&BoyleL.

(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe10thEuropeanConferenceonGamesBasedLearning:ECGBL2016(1ed.,Vol.1,pp756-764).TheUniversityoftheWestofScotlandPaisleyScotland:ACPI.

Weitze,C.L.(2016b)“DesigningforLearningandPlay-TheSmileyModelasFramework.”InteractionDesignandArchitecture(s),(29),pp52-75.

Wing,J.M.(2008)“Computationalthinkingandthinkingaboutcomputing.”PhilosophicaltransactionsoftheroyalsocietyofLondonA:mathematical,physicalandengineeringsciences,366(1881),pp3717-3725.

Wing,J.(2011)“Researchnotebook:Computationalthinking—Whatandwhy?”TheLinkMagazine,Spring.CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh.Retrievedfromhttps://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf

reflective, creative and computational thinking...

Documents