Reconceptualizing games for integrating computational thinking and science as practice: collaborative agent-based disciplinarily-integrated games

References

• Ambitious Science Teaching [AST]. (2015). Discourse primer. Retrieved from http://ambitiousscienceteaching.org/
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. (2010). Games and the development of students’ civic engagement and ecological stewardship. In Design and implication of educational games: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 189–205). New York: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Barron, B. (2000). Achieving Coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 403–436. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385–395. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660240409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1201–1212. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., & Martinez-Garza, M. (2012). Prediction and explanation as design mechanics in conceptually-integrated digital games to help players articulate the tacit understandings they build through gameplay. In C. Steinkuhler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games, learning, And Society: Learning and meaning In The digital Age (pp. 279–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Medlock-Walton, P., Boquín, R., & Klopfer, K. (2018). Multiplayer disciplinarily-integrated agent-based games: SURGE Gameblox. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), Simulations and Gaming (pp. 89–107). Rijeka: InTECH Open. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/multiplayer-disciplinarily-integrated-agent-based-games-surge-gameblox
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Medlock-Walton, P., Brady, C., Sengupta, P., Klopfer, E., Duncan, F., … Virk, S. (2017). Multi-player disciplinarily integrated games as C-THINKING. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Nelson, B., Chang, H., D’Angelo, C. M., Slack, K., & Martinez-Garza, M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers and Education, 57(3), 2178–2195. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., & Killingsworth, S. (2015). Disciplinary integration in digital games for science learning. International STEM Education Journal, 2(2), 1–21. doi:10.1186/s40594-014-0014-4.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Sengupta, P. & Virk, S. S. (2016). Disciplinarily-integrated games: Generalizing across domains and model types. In D. Russell and J. Laffey (Eds.) Handbook of research on Gaming Trends in P-12 education (pp. 178–194). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9629-7
   Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., Virk, S. S., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., Krinks, K., Killingsworth, S., Kinnebrew, J., Biswas, G., Barnes, J., Minstrell, J., Nelson, B., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2016). SURGE’s evolution deeper into formal representations: The siren’s call of popular gameplay mechanics. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1), 107–146. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/19359 doi: 10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19359
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A. (2011). A study of expert theory formation: The role of model types and domain frameworks. In M. S. Khine, & I. Saleh (Eds.), Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific Enquiry (pp. 23–40). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A. (2017). What's worth teaching? Rethinking curriculum in the Age of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25–42. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2801_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100–148. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.856793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickes, A.C., Farris, A.V., & Sengupta, P. (2016). Integrating agent-based programming with elementary science: The role of socio-mathematical norms. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Computers in Education (ICCE 2016) (pp. 128–138).
   Google Scholar
• Dickes, A. C., Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Basu, S. (2016). Development of mechanistic reasoning and multilevel explanations of ecology in third grade using agent-based models. Science Education, 100(4), 734–776. doi: 10.1002/sce.21217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105–225. doi: 10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Metarepresentational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
   Google Scholar
• Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. National Research Council Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dykstra, Jr. D. I., & Sweet, D. R. (2009). Conceptual development about motion and force in elementary and middle school students. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), 468–476. doi: 10.1119/1.3090824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echeverrîa, A., Améstica, M., Gil, F., Nussbaum, M., Barrios, E., & Leclerc, S. (2012). Exploring different technological platforms for supporting co-located collaborative games in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1170–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2304_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farris, A. V., Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2016). Development of disciplined interpretation using computational modeling in the elementary science classroom. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2016) (pp. 282–289). Singapore: Singapore National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed, pp. 225–273). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. Revised and Updated Edition.
   Google Scholar
• Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 225–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445–472. doi: 10.17763/haer.65.3.r16146n25h4mh384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halhoun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concept about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1056–1065. doi: 10.1119/1.14031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In S. L. Star (Ed.), The cultures of computing (pp. 118–145). London: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32. doi: 10.1080/1049482900010102
   Google Scholar
• Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbert, N., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Designing educational video games to be objects-to-think-with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28, 32–72. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2018.1487302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jan, M., San, C. Y., & Tan, E. M. (2011). Reconceptualizing science classroom discourse towards doing science through a game-based learning program. US-China Education Review B, 6, 786–796.
   Google Scholar
• Kafai, Y. B., Burke, Q., & Resnick, M. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes to old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Krinks, K., Johnson, H., & Clark, D. B. (2018). Digital games in the science classroom: Leveraging internal and external scaffolds during game play. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), Simulations and gaming (pp. 41–60). Rijeka: InTECH Open. Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/simulation-and-gaming/digital-games-in-the-science-classroom-leveraging-internal-and-external-scaffolds-during-game-play
   Google Scholar
• Krinks, K., Sengupta, P., & Clark, D. B. (2019). Benchmark lessons, modeling, and programming: Integrating games with modeling in the curriculum. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 11(1), 39–50. doi:10.4018/IJGCMS.2019010103
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. American Psychologist, 64(8), 759–771. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.759
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), The development of symbolic communication (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner, K.A. Renninger, & I.E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed, pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2010). What kind of explanation is a model? In M. K. Stein (Ed.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 9–22). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lesh, R. A., & Doer, H. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In H. Doer & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (1990). The Externalized Retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 153–186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369–383. doi:10.1002/tea.3660240408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, D., & Collins, A. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 39–45.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NRC. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of practice: Time, Agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ploetzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 103–121). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rochelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–279. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0203_1
   Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future (pp. 233–262). Boston, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0403_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., Brown, B., Rushton, K., & Shanahan, M. C. (2018). Reframing coding as “mathematization” in the K12 classroom: Views from teacher professional learning. Alberta Science Education Journal, 45(2), 28–36.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., & Clark, D. B. (2016). Playing modeling games in the science classroom: The case for disciplinary integration. Educational Technology, 56(3), 16–22.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Karan, A., Martin, D., & Wright, M. (2015). Programming in K-12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 58(11), 33–35. doi: 10.1145/2822517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., & Farris, A. V. (2012). Learning kinematics in elementary grades using agent-based computational modeling: A visual programming based approach. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design & Children (pp. 78–87). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., Killingsworth, S., Krinks, K., Brady, C., & Clark, D. B. (2014). Integrating modeling with games for learning Newtonian mechanics. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 meeting. Boulder, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. doi: 10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., Krinks, K., & Clark, D. B. (2015). Learning to deflect: Conceptual change in physics during digital game play. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(4), 638–674. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2015.1082912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118. doi: 10.1080/1049482930030201
   Google Scholar
• Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 25–49.
   Google Scholar
• Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online video gaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 38–52. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca1301_4
   Google Scholar
• Steinkuehler, D., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 530–543. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9120-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuzun, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & Kizilkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education, 52, 68–77. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Eaton, G., Clark, D. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Patterns of physics reasoning in face-to-face and online forum collaboration around a digital game. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(1), 1–13. Retrieved from http://ijemst.com/issues/3.1.1.Van_Eaton_Clark_Smith.pdf doi: 10.18404/ijemst.10740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language ( Revised and expanded edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. doi: 10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo.
   Google Scholar
• Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 24–28. doi: 10.1145/2633031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1023/A:1009421303064
   Google Scholar
• Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265. doi: 10.1037/a0031311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar