Constructivism and Social Learning

The ideas of Piaget and Vygotsky play a key role in the decision to use a wiki-based, toolkit approach and to guide students to collaborate in teams. These ideas include constructivism, social learning, the zone of proximal development (ZPD), and scaffolding (Blake & Pope, 2008).

Piaget's theory of constructivism states that learning occurs when people actively engage with experiences and construct knowledge themselves (Piaget's Theory of Constructivism, n.d.). Students will experience constructivist learning by engaging in the game creation process rather than learning about it passively. This is done with the intention that students construct their own knowledge and experience deeper learning because of it.

Vygotsky expanded on Piaget's theory by stating that knowledge is constructed through social experiences and that social interaction is the basis for learning and development (Shabani, 2016). Vygotsky believed that less knowledgeable students are better able to learn when they interact with more knowledgeable students in the ZPD. The is because more knowledgeable students assist (scaffold) learning for less knowledgeable students so that they can perform beyond their limitations (Abtahi, Graven, & Lerman, 2017).

Vygotsky stated that higher forms of mental activity occurred during these interactions and encouraged “...a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers.” (Shayer, 2003, p.471). The video game building toolkit creates opportunities for collaborative work so that students can experience these benefits of social learning.

Constructionism

Building on the works of Piaget and Vygotsky, this toolkit also embraces Papert's theory of constructionism. Papert believed that “Knowledge is not transmitted, it is constructed” (Papert, 1988, p.13). He defines constructionism in relation to constructivism by stating that "Constructivism is the idea that knowledge is something you build in your head. Constructionism reminds us that the best way to do that is to build something tangible—something outside your head—that is also personally meaningful” (Papert, 1988, p.14).

Having students create and contribute towards something of value (a video game and wiki) allows them to engage in constructionist learning. The constructionist process also helps them engage in social learning as the game development process requires that students interact with one other and receive feedback. The intention is that students collaboratively engage in constructionist learning in order to build upon their existing knowledge. Since the toolkit will be published as a publicly accessible wiki, the general public will also have an opportunity to collaborate and contribute, which further supports constructionism.

Game Design Frameworks

The toolkit incorporate ideas from the following game design frameworks: Scalable Game Design, the Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics (MDA) framework, and Play-Centric Design. Scalable Game Design shifts the focus from learning programming to learning general design skills. This is done with the intention of encouraging broader participation in the design process (Repenning, A. & Ioannidou, A., 2008). In the context of the game building toolkit, we've attempted to provide a range of tools to support a spectrum of skills and interests.

The MDA framework focuses designers’ attention onto the mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics of a game. This is useful because it encourages designers to focus on these aspects not just from a design perspective but also a player perspective (Kim, 2015). The intention of using this framework is to ensure students consider both design and player needs at all times. A Playcentric approach to design willx put “...player experience at the heart of the design process to create deeper audience involvement, richer characters, more complex stories, and more meaningful interactions” (Fullerton, 2006, p. 38). This will further ensure students do not lose sight of player needs.

Software Development Approaches

This toolkit will embrace modern software development approaches such as Lean and Agile that are collaborative, team-based, iterative, incremental, feedback driven, flexible, and focused on delivering value, all while executing at a sustainable pace. Students can follow these approaches by using paper prototypes, storyboards, and software mock-ups when planning a project. They can then playtest and revise their project over time before committing to a final design. This iterative process allows students to rework their concepts and develop them into sophisticated final products (Fullerton, 2006, p.39).

References:

Abtahi, Y., Graven, M., & Lerman, S. (2017). Conceptualising the more knowledgeable other within a multi-directional ZPD. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(3), 275-287. 10.1007/s10649-017-9768-1

Blake, B., & Pope, T. (2008). Blake, B., & Pope, T. Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59-67.

Fullerton, T. (2006). Play-centric games education. Computer, 39(6), 36-42.

Fullerton, T. (2014). Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games. CRC press.

Kim, B. (2015). Game mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics. Library Technology Reports, 51(2), 17.

Papert, S. (1988). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. In Children in the Information Age (pp. 3-18).

Piaget's Theory of Constructivism (n.d.). Teach-nology. Retrieved from http://www.teach-nology.com/currenttrends/constructivism/piaget/

Repenning, A., & Ioannidou, A. (2008). Broadening participation through scalable game design. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 305-309). ACM.

Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of vygotsky's sociocultural approach for teachers' professional development. Cogent Education, 3(1)10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177

Shayer, M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and instruction, 13(5), 465-485.