Based on our previous readings and class discussions, the following concepts have been associated with computational thinking: abstraction, decomposition, debugging, redundancy, data processing, modeling and simulation, and more (Wing, 2006; Weintrop et al, 2016). Wing, in her phrase-coining 2006 paper summarized computational thinking as “taking an approach to solving problems, designing systems, and understanding behavior that draws on concepts fundamental to computing.” I do not have significant experience in game design, but I play a mean game of Risk – so it was easy for me to associate the playing of a game with computational thinking concepts described previously, including: data processing, analyzing strengths and weaknesses of opponents (understanding behavior), modeling and simulation, etc.
One of the most utilized computational thinking concepts in game making seems to be debugging. While many discussed the influence game making has on improving coding abilities (Kafai & Burke, 2015, noted that “youth making games used the most variables, loops, and if-statements in their program [compared to videos and stories]”), debugging games also enhances students usage of other computational thinking tools. For instance, in order to manage how a sprite moves through a side-scrolling game (example - Super Mario Bros), a student needs to analyze the sprite’s interactions with other sprites and its environment and make adjustments where needed. In the Resnick TedTalk, debugging of a program allowed for a student to realize that he would need a to keep track of a score and, with teacher support, a variable was introduced to his game.
Unfortunately, the readings didn’t help resolve my hesitation from last week, so I ask anyone who is reading this – do you think the focus on game development in literature will take away from or potentially improve the goal of character development in our literature Scratch project?
In our "math" group, our student found himself so bogged down in trying to debug his program on the "first try" that he wasn't interested in our suggestions to follow a systematic process. I draw parallels to your question because I think the answer to your either/or question is "Yes." There is certainly potential to craft much more rich, full characters with interesting and deep personalities in the relatively easy programming environment of scratch. There is also the potential that your students will get distracted in the tangential minutia of some aspect of the code and not actually ever get around to the more enriching aspects of the Scratch project. I am guessing that at a certain point, teacher override should probably take over, but that also runs the risk of turning off the creative juices of the student. I haven't found the sweet spot, by any means, but I think that such a spot exists. I'm looking forward to seeing how everyone else addresses these problems.
ReplyDelete-FWIW, I like to think I also play a pretty mean game of Risk. :)
I agree! Now that we are in the classroom I think we will be able to get closer to that sweet spot as well!
DeleteThe Berland article makes a reference to a book by Gee entitled "What video games teach us about learning and literacy" that I may have to look into, but I believe it is more along the lines of playing video games (like World of Warcraft) instead of the development of games.
Hello Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI think that game making could offer a very interesting way for character development. I think what will make a big difference, however, is how you scaffold the activity so that character development actually occurs. For example, the game-making activity could start by describing separately on a piece of paper the characteristics of the character the student wants to include in the game, and then think of ways to translate these characteristics into game constraints. For instance, if the students decides that the character is kind, then the character's role in the game would be to
"help" rather thank "kill" people.
Hope that helps!