No abstract

A growing body of research suggests that computer games can help players learn to integrate knowledge and skills with values in complex domains of real-world problem solving (P. C. Adams, 1998; Barab et al., 2001; Gee, 2003; Shaffer et al., 2005; Starr, 1994). In particular, research suggests that epistemic games—games where players think and act like real world professionals—can link knowledge, skills, and values into professional ways of thinking (Shaffer, 2006). Here, we look at how a ten hour version of the epistemic game Urban Science developed civic thinking in young people as they learned about urban ecology by role-playing as urban planners redesigning a city. Specifically, we ask whether and how overcoming authentic obstacles from the profession of urban planning in the virtual world of a role playing game can link civic values with the knowledge and skills young people need to solve complex social and ecological problems. Our results from coded pre- and post-interviews show that players learned to think of cities as complex systems, learned about skills that planners use to enact change in these systems, and perhaps most important, learned the value of serving the public in that process. Two aspects of the game, tool-as-obstacle and stakeholders-as-obstacle, contributed to the development of players’ civic thinking. Thus, our results suggest that games like Urban Science may help young people—and thus help all of us—identify and address the many civic, economic, and environmental challenges in an increasingly complex, and increasingly urban, world.

Expertise in the broader impacts of scientific research is an increasingly important aspect of professional development, particularly because federal grant proposals are commonly reviewed using both the Intellectual Merit and the Broader Impacts Criteria. Unfortunately, training in broader impacts, such as science communication and outreach, is not typically part of undergraduate or graduate curricula. We initiated one of the first graduate-level biology courses on broader impacts, focusing on giving graduate students firsthand, authentic experiences with grant writing, science communication, and educational outreach. Students in this interdisciplinary course learned from experts, wrote for a broad audience about their own research, and proposed and implemented outreach in collaboration with local organizations. We outline our approach, discuss outcomes from each activity, assess our impact, and finally consider how future programs might expand on this model.

Research has shown that computer games and other virtual environments can support significant learning gains because they allow young people to explore complex concepts in simulated form. However, in complex problem-solving domains, complex thinking is learned not only by taking action, but also with the aid of mentors who provide guidance in the form of questions, instructions, advice, feedback and encouragement. In this study, we examine one context of such mentoring to understand the impact of replacing face-to-face interactions between mentors and students with virtual, chat-based interactions. We use pre-and postmeasures of learning and a post-measure of engagement, as well as epistemic network analysis (ENA), a novel quantitative method, to examine student and mentor discourse. Our results suggest that mentoring via online chat can be as effective as mentoring face-to-face in appropriately structured contexts more generally -and that ENA may be a useful tool for assessing student and mentor discourse in the context of learning interactions.

This article explores the processes of writing in science and in particular the 'complex performance' of writing a scientific argument. The article explores in general terms the nature of scientific argumentation in which the author-scientist makes claims, provides evidence to support these claims, and develops chains of scientific reasoning to coordinate claims and evidence. The article then describes a case in which two classes of Grade 8 students in a New York City school wrote scientific arguments in a web-writing and peer review environment that provides each writer with 'as-you-go' formative assessment on the constitutive elements of their arguments.