- How and when do college students achieve formal operational thought?
- How does spatial reasoning or ability develop in college students?
- What research is there to support the use of games and video games in developing problem solving and higher order thinking skills, especially with respect to science?
- What are the benefits and challenges of teaching thinking to college students?
- How is science reasoning assessed?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
New Set of Questions to Guide Literature Review
Research Questions
Research Questions
1. Does playing problem-solving video games emphasizing problem-solving assist in moving college students to a higher level of reasoning, such as moving a student from concrete reasoning to formal reasoning?
2. Does playing problem-solving video games help students increase spatial ability?
2. Does playing problem-solving video games help students increase spatial ability?
3. In what ways do problem-solving video games affect students’ reasoning and problem solving?
4. a. What cognitive processes do students of different levels of reasoning use when playing problem-solving video games?
b. What are the differences and similarities between expert game players and novice game players in terms of cognitive processes?
b. What are the differences and similarities between expert game players and novice game players in terms of cognitive processes?
5. What are the differences in game play based on type of reasoner and level of experience?
6. a. What game elements affect students’ science reasoning?.
What students’ game behaviors affect their science reasoning?
What students’ game behaviors affect their science reasoning?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Questions to Guide Literature Review
To help with my literature review, someone (YAY!) suggested that I formulate questions to guide my research, as I'm totally stuck. Here's my questions:
- How is reasoning developed?
- At what level of reasoning are college students?
- What is the role of reasoning in science?
- How are games used in education?
- What makes a good game for education?
- What support is there for games in education, specifically in science?
- What are the benefits and challenges of teaching thinking?
- Are there any programs that teach thinking to college students?
Learning to Play in Digital Games
Pelletier, C. and Oliver, M. (2006). Learning to play in digital games. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(4), 329-342. DOI: 10.1080/17439880601021942
Pelletier and Oliver (2006) conducted a brief set of three case studies examining learning while playing digital games. The theoretical framework for the study and analysis is grounded in Activity Theory, which emerged from the work of Vygotsky (Pelletier and Oliver, 2006).
Pelletier & Oliver (2006) have developed a method for studying the learning occurring while playing digital games. The method involves recording the player's actions and then analyzing those actions for evidence of learning (Pelletier & Oliver, 2006). Particular attention is payed to how contradictions are resolved and how strategies are ultimately developed, learned and then transferred (Pelletier & Oliver, 2006).
What is interesting about this method is that it enables researchers to compare different types of games when examining the kinds of strategies games help players learn (Pelletier & Oliver, 2006).
Pelletier and Oliver (2006) conducted a brief set of three case studies examining learning while playing digital games. The theoretical framework for the study and analysis is grounded in Activity Theory, which emerged from the work of Vygotsky (Pelletier and Oliver, 2006).
Pelletier & Oliver (2006) have developed a method for studying the learning occurring while playing digital games. The method involves recording the player's actions and then analyzing those actions for evidence of learning (Pelletier & Oliver, 2006). Particular attention is payed to how contradictions are resolved and how strategies are ultimately developed, learned and then transferred (Pelletier & Oliver, 2006).
What is interesting about this method is that it enables researchers to compare different types of games when examining the kinds of strategies games help players learn (Pelletier & Oliver, 2006).
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Piagetian Cognitive Development and Achievement in Science
Sayre, S., and Ball, D. W. (1975). Piagetian cognitive development and achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(2), 165-174.
Using five Piagetian tasks, Sayre and Ball (1975) investigated the relationship between Piagetian cognitive developmental level and achievement in science. To measure Piagetian cognitive developmental level, Sayre & Ball (1975) individually administered five formal operational tasks to 214 junior high science students and 205 senior high school students. The five tasks focused on proportional or propositional thought, combinatorial logic and hypothetical-deductive reasoning (Sayre & Ball, 1975).
Their results indicated that both junior and senior high students who were at the formal operational level received significantly higher science grades then junior and senior high students at the concrete operational level (Sayre & Ball, 1975).
This implies that teachers really need to consider the cognitive developmental level of their students when developing curriculum (Sayre & Ball, 1975).
My biggest problem is how they define achievement in science as grades. A better measure might be a standardized science test of some kind. Additionally, they did not verify if the all of the seventh graders were at concrete operational level. I find it highly suspicious that 81% of the 12th grade students were at the formal operational level, given that other research indicates that most people do not reach formal operational thought, especially in science. I would wager that the only way this is possible is for the students to self select, in other words, the concrete operational students are not enrolling in physics for the most part.
Using five Piagetian tasks, Sayre and Ball (1975) investigated the relationship between Piagetian cognitive developmental level and achievement in science. To measure Piagetian cognitive developmental level, Sayre & Ball (1975) individually administered five formal operational tasks to 214 junior high science students and 205 senior high school students. The five tasks focused on proportional or propositional thought, combinatorial logic and hypothetical-deductive reasoning (Sayre & Ball, 1975).
Their results indicated that both junior and senior high students who were at the formal operational level received significantly higher science grades then junior and senior high students at the concrete operational level (Sayre & Ball, 1975).
This implies that teachers really need to consider the cognitive developmental level of their students when developing curriculum (Sayre & Ball, 1975).
My biggest problem is how they define achievement in science as grades. A better measure might be a standardized science test of some kind. Additionally, they did not verify if the all of the seventh graders were at concrete operational level. I find it highly suspicious that 81% of the 12th grade students were at the formal operational level, given that other research indicates that most people do not reach formal operational thought, especially in science. I would wager that the only way this is possible is for the students to self select, in other words, the concrete operational students are not enrolling in physics for the most part.
A Measure of Scientific Reasoning: The Springs Task
Linn, M. C., and Rice, M. (1979). A measure of scientific reasoning: The springs task. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16(1), 55-58.
One of the problems with testing students for formal operational thought is that a standardized way of testing students has yet to be developed. Researchers usually start with the interview tasks used by Inhelder and Piaget (1958) and adapt them in some way (Linn and Rice, 1979). However, researchers do not all choose the same tasks or adapt them in the same way (Linn & Rice, 1979). Linn and Rice (1979) also point out that there is no standard, widely accepted definition of what formal thought even is.
Linn and Rice (1979) developed a procedure to individually administer one Piagetian task to subjects. They constructed an apparatus based on the springs task to measure control of variables (Linn & Rice, 1979). From their research, they conclude that the springs task taps into abilities similar to the abilities needed for the bending rods task used by Inhelder and Piaget, but that more study is needed to determine the exact nature of the relationship (Linn & Rice, 1979).
It is impractical to individually test large numbers of students for formal operational thought. It would take forever and would take more resources than typically available to most researchers.
One of the problems with testing students for formal operational thought is that a standardized way of testing students has yet to be developed. Researchers usually start with the interview tasks used by Inhelder and Piaget (1958) and adapt them in some way (Linn and Rice, 1979). However, researchers do not all choose the same tasks or adapt them in the same way (Linn & Rice, 1979). Linn and Rice (1979) also point out that there is no standard, widely accepted definition of what formal thought even is.
Linn and Rice (1979) developed a procedure to individually administer one Piagetian task to subjects. They constructed an apparatus based on the springs task to measure control of variables (Linn & Rice, 1979). From their research, they conclude that the springs task taps into abilities similar to the abilities needed for the bending rods task used by Inhelder and Piaget, but that more study is needed to determine the exact nature of the relationship (Linn & Rice, 1979).
It is impractical to individually test large numbers of students for formal operational thought. It would take forever and would take more resources than typically available to most researchers.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Use of a Game to Instruct on Logical Reasoning
Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G., & Wheeler, M. M. (1983). Use of a game to instruct on logical reasoning. School Science and Mathematics, 83(5), 396-404.
Bright, Harvey and Wheeler (1983) conducted a 12 week pre-post test experimental study with seven sixth grade classes and eight eight grade classes, with two classes from each grade level serving as a control group. During the study, students in the experimental classes played Mastermind two days a week for 20 minutes a day, for eight weeks (Bright, Harvey and Wheeler, 1983). Four out of the 12 weeks were spent testing and learning how to play the game (Bright, et al., 1983). The authors used the Logical Reasoning Test and the Wason-Glazer Four Card Task as tests of formal operational thought and logical reasoning (Bright, et al., 1983). The results of the study showed no change in formal operational thought or logical reasoning (Bright, et al., 1983). The authors speculate that explicitly teaching deductive reasoning skills and using Mastermind to practice may improve the results (Bright, et al., 1983).
I had two problems with this study. First, previous research has suggested that students in sixth grade may not have the capacity for formal thought yet and in the best case scenario, may just be beginning to develop formal operational thought. Previous research also suggests that eighth graders may not have begun to develop formal operational thought. The lack of results may be caused by the lack of cognitive development. Had the authors measured change in cognitive development, there may have been a result. Secondly, the students only played the game for 8 weeks for 40 minutes a week, a total of 320 minutes or less than 5.5 hours. This may not have been a long enough intervention time. Additionally, research conducted since this study was published suggests that a key factor in using games for improving cognitive skills is having the students reflect and discuss the game play and how it relates to other things.
Bright, Harvey and Wheeler (1983) conducted a 12 week pre-post test experimental study with seven sixth grade classes and eight eight grade classes, with two classes from each grade level serving as a control group. During the study, students in the experimental classes played Mastermind two days a week for 20 minutes a day, for eight weeks (Bright, Harvey and Wheeler, 1983). Four out of the 12 weeks were spent testing and learning how to play the game (Bright, et al., 1983). The authors used the Logical Reasoning Test and the Wason-Glazer Four Card Task as tests of formal operational thought and logical reasoning (Bright, et al., 1983). The results of the study showed no change in formal operational thought or logical reasoning (Bright, et al., 1983). The authors speculate that explicitly teaching deductive reasoning skills and using Mastermind to practice may improve the results (Bright, et al., 1983).
I had two problems with this study. First, previous research has suggested that students in sixth grade may not have the capacity for formal thought yet and in the best case scenario, may just be beginning to develop formal operational thought. Previous research also suggests that eighth graders may not have begun to develop formal operational thought. The lack of results may be caused by the lack of cognitive development. Had the authors measured change in cognitive development, there may have been a result. Secondly, the students only played the game for 8 weeks for 40 minutes a week, a total of 320 minutes or less than 5.5 hours. This may not have been a long enough intervention time. Additionally, research conducted since this study was published suggests that a key factor in using games for improving cognitive skills is having the students reflect and discuss the game play and how it relates to other things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
