Two grade 5 classes (11–12-year-olds) were introduced through an inquiry-based pedagogy to scientific ideas and concepts within a 3D game-like multi-user virtual environment (MUVE). This article explores how a particular set of strategies and conditions might encourage and sustain the use of the MUVE, Quest Atlantis (QA), as a problem-based learning environment. This set of strategies and conditions includes the commitment of the teachers and their support through professional development, ongoing technical assistance, and students' orientation and scaffolding. Ensuring the appropriateness of the technology access and structure of the curriculum required time-table planning. These factors predict the likely survival of an education innovation in the school and the possibility of scaled up for more widely-used pedagogical practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bangert-DrownsR. L., & PykeC. (2001). A taxonomy of student engagement with education software: An exploration of literate thinking with electronic text. Journal of Educational computing research, 24(3), 213–234.
2.
BarabS. A.ThomasM.DodgeT.CarteauxR., & TuzunH. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 86–107.
BernsteinB. (1990). Class, codes and control (Vol. 4): The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.
5.
BielaczycK. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-supported learning communities. In DillenbourgP.EurelingsA., & HakkarainenK. (Eds.), European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning. The proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 106–114). University of Maastricht.
6.
BowmanR. F. (1982). A “Pac-Man” theory of motivation: Tactile implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22(9), 14–17
7.
ColeM. (1995). Socio-cultural-historical psychology: Some general remarks and a proposal for a new kind of cultural-genetic methodology. In WertschJ. V.RioP. D., & AlvarezA. (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 187–214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ColeM., & EngeströmY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CubanL. (2005). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can't be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CubanS., & CubanL. (2007). Partners in literacy: Schools and libraries building communities through technology. New York: Teachers' College Press.
11.
DickeyM. D. (2006). Game design narrative for learning: Appropriating adventure game design narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 245–263.
12.
EngeströmY. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence (Research Bulletin No. 83). Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University, Dept. of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED349 956)
13.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR., & PunamäkiR.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: First Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
GeeJ. P. (2009). Learning and games. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1, 21–40.
16.
HasuM., & EngeströmR. (1999). Measurement in action: An activity-theoretical perspective on producer-user interaction. Working Paper of University of Helsinki. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
17.
HirstE., & VadeboncoeurJ. A. (2006). Patrolling the borders of otherness: Dis/placed identity positions for teachers and students in schooled spaces. Mind, Culture & Activity, 13(3), 205–227.
18.
HunterB. (2001). Against the odds: Professional development and innovation under less-than-ideal conditions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 473–496.
19.
KrajcikJ.BlumenfeldP. C.MarxR. W.BassK. M.FredricksF., & SolowayE. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 313–350.
20.
KuhnD.BlackJ.KeselmanA., & KaplanD. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.
21.
LimC. P. (2008). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools?British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996–1003.
22.
LimC. P.NonisD., & HedbergJ. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE): Engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231.
23.
MercerN. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
24.
PapertS. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
25.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
26.
RyanM.-L. (2001). Narrative as virtual reality: Immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
SchrumL. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Education Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 83–90.
28.
SmardonR. (2004). Streetwise science: Toward a theory of the code of the classroom. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11(3), 201–223.
29.
SteinkuehlerC. (2006). Massively multiplayer online video gaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 38–52.
30.
StetsenkoA. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 70–88.
31.
VeermansM.LallimoJ., & HakkarainenK. (2005). Patterns of guidance in inquiry learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16 (2), 179–194.
32.
WallaceR.KuppermanJ.KrajcikJ., & SolowayE. (2000). Science on the Web: Students online in a sixth-grade classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 75–104.
33.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. New York: Simon and Schuster.
34.
WongP. (2000). Managing IT classrooms. In WillamsM. D. (Ed.), Integrating technology into teaching and learning: Concept and applications—An Asia-Pacific perspective (pp. 121–139). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
35.
WoodD. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo?Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699–739.
36.
ZhaoY., & FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.
37.
ZimmermanE., & SalenK. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
