skip to main content
10.1145/2818052.2869126acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

GreenDesigners: Gamified Ubiquitous Learning for Sustainable Engineering Design

Published:27 February 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This poster presents the design of our study that develops and implements a digitally augmented ubiquitous STEM learning experience called GreenDesigners. We study how this learning experience equips science learners with sustainable engineering concepts and design practices. Our paper focuses on five elements in our learning and research design that enable high school students to initiate rich interactions as they engage with a gamified-trail of augmented information layered onto the real world setting of a solar demonstration home. Our presentation will elaborate upon these elements to bring out a critical analysis of the decisions taken in the design and pilot testing process.

References

  1. Batterman, S.A., Martins, A. G., Antunes, C. H., Freire, F., and M. Gamerio de Silva. 2011. Development and application of graduate programs in energy and sustainability. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, October 2011, 198-207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Birchfield, D., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. 2009 Earth science learning in SMALLab: a design experiment for mixed reality. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 403-421.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M., (Eds.). 2009. Ubiquitous Learning. Urbana: Illinois Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Coulter, R., Klopfer, E., Perry, J. and Sheldon, J. 2012. Discovering Familiar Places: Learning through Mobile Place-Based Games. In S. Barab, K. Squire and C. Steinkuehler (Eds). Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Leading in the Digital Age. 327-354. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Dunleavy, M., and Dede, C. 2014. Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J.M. Spector et al. (eds.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 735-745. Springer: New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Hall, T., & Bannon, L. 2006. Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children's learning in museums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 22: 231-243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Hoadley, C. M. 2004. Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist. 39, 4: 203-212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Klopfer, E. and Perry, J. 2014. UbiqBio: Adoptions and Outcomes of Mobile Biology Games in the Ecology of School. Computers in Schools.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. 2015. Sociotechnical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research & Development. 63, 2: 229-255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. National Research Council (NRC) 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Board on Science Education. Washington, DC: NAP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. O'Shea, P. O., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. 2009. Lessons learned about designing augmented realities. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations. 1,1: 1-15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Salman, F. H., Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. 2014. Collective engagement in a technologically mediated science learning experience: A case study in a Botanical Garden. Proceedings of the 11th Int Conference of the Learning Sciences. 1, 378-385.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sandoval, W., & Bell, P. 2004. Design-based research methods for studying learning in context. Educational Psychologist. 39, 4: 199-201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sébastien C., Quentin B., Son Do-L, Pierre, D. 2013. Designing augmented reality for the classroom, Computers & Education, 68, 557-569, Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Means, B., Remold, J., Rienties, B., Roschelle, J., Vogt, K., Whitelock, D. & Yarnall, L. (2015). Innovating Pedagogy 2015: Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Shelton, B., Hedley, N. 2003. Exploring a cognitive basis for learning spatial relationships with augmented reality. Technology Instruction Cognition & Learning. 1, 1: 323-357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., McClain, L. R., Mohney, M. R., Choi, G. W., & Salman, F. H. 2015. Tree Investigators: Supporting families' scientific talk in an arboretum with mobile computers. International Journal of Science Education Part B. 5, 1: 44-67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CSCW '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion
    February 2016
    549 pages
    ISBN:9781450339506
    DOI:10.1145/2818052

    Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 February 2016

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • abstract

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CSCW '24

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader