近端过程和问题解决:玩家vs.学生

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SIMULATION & GAMING Pub Date : 2022-04-24 DOI:10.1177/10468781221096870
Lorraine A. Jacques
{"title":"近端过程和问题解决:玩家vs.学生","authors":"Lorraine A. Jacques","doi":"10.1177/10468781221096870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Problem-solving and collaboration occur frequently in serious games. They are also considered necessary skills for students to learn, so many engineering and computer science programs design assignments with them in mind. Understanding the similarities and differences between each scenario would strengthen problem-solving interventions aimed at students. Aim This qualitative study examined how engineering and computer science undergraduates (students) and players of Magic: The Gathering (gamers) identified a problem as being complex, used the inquiry cycle for problem-solving, and engaged in proximal processes. Method Undergraduates in engineering or computer science and players of Magic: The Gathering’s Elder Dragon Highlander format completed an online questionnaire where they described how they solved a complex problem and how they engaged with others (or why they chose not to engage with others) during each part of the process. Responses were grouped by role (gamer or student) and by gender then coded to identify where each was alike and where they differed. Results Gamers and students engaged in the problem-solving process differently, with gamers using more of the inquiry cycle than students did. Proximal processes, however, were used differently based on both group and gender, with female gamers engaging in them most often and female engineers least often.","PeriodicalId":47521,"journal":{"name":"SIMULATION & GAMING","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proximal Processes and Problem Solving: Gamers vs. Students\",\"authors\":\"Lorraine A. Jacques\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10468781221096870\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Problem-solving and collaboration occur frequently in serious games. They are also considered necessary skills for students to learn, so many engineering and computer science programs design assignments with them in mind. Understanding the similarities and differences between each scenario would strengthen problem-solving interventions aimed at students. Aim This qualitative study examined how engineering and computer science undergraduates (students) and players of Magic: The Gathering (gamers) identified a problem as being complex, used the inquiry cycle for problem-solving, and engaged in proximal processes. Method Undergraduates in engineering or computer science and players of Magic: The Gathering’s Elder Dragon Highlander format completed an online questionnaire where they described how they solved a complex problem and how they engaged with others (or why they chose not to engage with others) during each part of the process. Responses were grouped by role (gamer or student) and by gender then coded to identify where each was alike and where they differed. Results Gamers and students engaged in the problem-solving process differently, with gamers using more of the inquiry cycle than students did. Proximal processes, however, were used differently based on both group and gender, with female gamers engaging in them most often and female engineers least often.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SIMULATION & GAMING\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SIMULATION & GAMING\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781221096870\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIMULATION & GAMING","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781221096870","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

解决问题和协作在严肃游戏中经常出现。它们也被认为是学生学习的必要技能,因此许多工程和计算机科学课程在设计作业时都考虑到了它们。了解每个情景之间的异同将加强针对学生的问题解决干预。这项定性研究考察了工程和计算机科学专业的本科生(学生)和《万智牌》的玩家(玩家)如何识别复杂的问题,如何使用探究周期来解决问题,以及如何参与近端过程。方法:工程或计算机科学专业的本科生和《万智牌:老龙高地》的玩家完成一份在线调查问卷,描述他们如何解决一个复杂的问题,以及他们如何在过程的每个部分与他人互动(或者为什么他们选择不与他人互动)。回答按角色(游戏玩家或学生)和性别分组,然后进行编码,以确定每个人的相似之处和不同之处。游戏玩家和学生参与解决问题过程的方式不同,游戏玩家比学生使用更多的探究周期。然而,基于群体和性别,近端过程的使用是不同的,女性玩家最常参与其中,而女性工程师最少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Proximal Processes and Problem Solving: Gamers vs. Students
Background Problem-solving and collaboration occur frequently in serious games. They are also considered necessary skills for students to learn, so many engineering and computer science programs design assignments with them in mind. Understanding the similarities and differences between each scenario would strengthen problem-solving interventions aimed at students. Aim This qualitative study examined how engineering and computer science undergraduates (students) and players of Magic: The Gathering (gamers) identified a problem as being complex, used the inquiry cycle for problem-solving, and engaged in proximal processes. Method Undergraduates in engineering or computer science and players of Magic: The Gathering’s Elder Dragon Highlander format completed an online questionnaire where they described how they solved a complex problem and how they engaged with others (or why they chose not to engage with others) during each part of the process. Responses were grouped by role (gamer or student) and by gender then coded to identify where each was alike and where they differed. Results Gamers and students engaged in the problem-solving process differently, with gamers using more of the inquiry cycle than students did. Proximal processes, however, were used differently based on both group and gender, with female gamers engaging in them most often and female engineers least often.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
SIMULATION & GAMING
SIMULATION & GAMING EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research contains articles examining academic and applied issues in the expanding fields of simulation, computerized simulation, gaming, modeling, play, role-play, debriefing, game design, experiential learning, and related methodologies. The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of Simulation & Gaming are demonstrated by the wide variety of interests and disciplines of its readers, contributors, and editorial board members. Areas include: sociology, decision making, psychology, language training, cognition, learning theory, management, educational technologies, negotiation, peace and conflict studies, economics, international studies, research methodology.
期刊最新文献
Toxicity or Prosociality?: Civic Value and Gaming Citizenship in Competitive Video Game Communities The Importance of Relaxation and Vacation for Healthcare Workers: Playtime! On the Pre-Perception of Gamification and Game-Based Learning in Higher Education Students: A Systematic Mapping Study Change the Rules! Using Social Media Data to Understand Citizen Perceptions of Urban Planning in a City Simulation Game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1