数字游戏和美国国家研究委员会的科学能力目标

IF 4.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Science Education Pub Date : 2013-09-01 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2013.839372
Mario Martinez-Garza, Douglas B. Clark, Brian C. Nelson
{"title":"数字游戏和美国国家研究委员会的科学能力目标","authors":"Mario Martinez-Garza, Douglas B. Clark, Brian C. Nelson","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2013.839372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review synthesises research on digital games and science learning as it supports the goals for science proficiency outlined in the report by the US National Research Council on science education reform. The review is organised in terms of these research-based goals for science proficiency in light of their alignment with current science education standards and reform documents worldwide. Overall, the review suggests that digital games can support science learning across the four strands but also suggests that there are few strong quantitative studies examining some of the strands. Much of the research conducted to date has centred primarily on the potential of games to scaffold conceptual knowledge, engagement and participation. Less research has focused on epistemological understanding and science process skills. While much debate has asked whether digital games are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for learning, the research across the strands highlights that the design of digital games, rather than their medium, ultimately determines their efficacy for learning.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":"49 1","pages":"170 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2013.839372","citationCount":"46","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital games and the US National Research Council’s science proficiency goals\",\"authors\":\"Mario Martinez-Garza, Douglas B. Clark, Brian C. Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03057267.2013.839372\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This review synthesises research on digital games and science learning as it supports the goals for science proficiency outlined in the report by the US National Research Council on science education reform. The review is organised in terms of these research-based goals for science proficiency in light of their alignment with current science education standards and reform documents worldwide. Overall, the review suggests that digital games can support science learning across the four strands but also suggests that there are few strong quantitative studies examining some of the strands. Much of the research conducted to date has centred primarily on the potential of games to scaffold conceptual knowledge, engagement and participation. Less research has focused on epistemological understanding and science process skills. While much debate has asked whether digital games are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for learning, the research across the strands highlights that the design of digital games, rather than their medium, ultimately determines their efficacy for learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Science Education\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"170 - 208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2013.839372\",\"citationCount\":\"46\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.839372\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.839372","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

摘要

这篇综述综合了关于数字游戏和科学学习的研究,因为它支持美国国家研究委员会关于科学教育改革的报告中概述的科学能力目标。这次评估是根据这些基于研究的科学能力目标组织的,考虑到它们与当前世界范围内的科学教育标准和改革文件的一致性。总的来说,这篇综述表明,数字游戏可以支持这四个方面的科学学习,但也表明,对其中一些方面的定量研究很少。迄今为止进行的许多研究主要集中在游戏支撑概念知识、粘性和参与性的潜力上。很少有研究关注认识论理解和科学过程技能。尽管关于数字游戏对学习是“好”还是“坏”的争论很多,但这些研究都强调了数字游戏的设计,而不是它们的媒介,最终决定了它们对学习的效果。
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
Digital games and the US National Research Council’s science proficiency goals
This review synthesises research on digital games and science learning as it supports the goals for science proficiency outlined in the report by the US National Research Council on science education reform. The review is organised in terms of these research-based goals for science proficiency in light of their alignment with current science education standards and reform documents worldwide. Overall, the review suggests that digital games can support science learning across the four strands but also suggests that there are few strong quantitative studies examining some of the strands. Much of the research conducted to date has centred primarily on the potential of games to scaffold conceptual knowledge, engagement and participation. Less research has focused on epistemological understanding and science process skills. While much debate has asked whether digital games are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for learning, the research across the strands highlights that the design of digital games, rather than their medium, ultimately determines their efficacy for learning.
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
Studies in Science Education
Studies in Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
15.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to: maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal; publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin; publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity. Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers. Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.
期刊最新文献
Students’ ideas about the scientific underpinnings of climate change: a systematic review of the literature Queer individuals’ experiences in STEM learning and working environments Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review Metacognitively ALERT in science: literature synthesis of a hierarchical framework for metacognition and preliminary evidence of its viability Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: a systematic review
×
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