Teague's Tech Treks - 10 Rep Learning

Learning Technology & Tech Observations by Dr. Helen Teague

By

The PMI and P*N*I (Adapted) Peer Review Schema

For generations, the academic community has relied on peer review as a way of enhancing the knowledge base and encouraging serious scholarship. Peer review can offer many of the same benefit to students… [and] computers [can] mediate the interaction among peers (Gehringer, 2000).

  • Peer Review reflects constructive guidance at its collaborative best.
  • As an application to the classroom, Peer Review helps students and the teacher.
  • Anonymous Peer Review provides a framework for students to learn balanced reasoning at a time when modern discourse often descends into shouting and insults

Peer Reviews are most effective when combined with an evaluative schema such as the P*M*I thinking strategy, created by French physician, psychologist, philosopher, author, inventor Edward deBono. In the P*M*I strategy: 

P=Pluses 

M=Minuses

I= Interesting Points

When using a thinking schema such as P*M*I, in an anonymous Peer Review, students learn how to offer points of help, practice proofreading, and strengthen other communication skills.

Ten years’ ago, I created the P*N*I peer review schema as an adaptation of Dr. DeBono’s original thinking strategy. In the P*N*I Peer Review strategy:

P=Pluses (something you find that is a “Plus”

N=Needs A Look (something you find that “Needs Another Look” for possible correction)

I=  (something you find that is interesting and/or thought-provoking)

Among the benefits of both the original P*M*I and P*N*I formats are the following:

  • Peer Review introduces and encourages diversity of opinion
  • Peer Review models the importance of checking work before it is turned in. When the audience is the teacher alone, sadly, many students are apathetic. But when the audience is the students’ fellow classmates, an extra attention to detail emerges.
  • Peer Review offers students a practical application in this real-world review.

Peer Review provides a review committee for the teacher who often has, to butcher Robert Frost, “miles to grade before she sleeps.”

 

Gehringer, E.F., (2000). Strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review. In 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No. 00CH37135) (Vol. 1, pp. F1B-2). IEEE. Retrieved from Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Peer

By

Peer Review Implementation

Thoughts on Peer Review for my PBS Learners (and you too!)

As you proceed to Peer Review each other’s work, consider using the P*M*I strategy from Edward deBono:

P=Pluses (something you find that is a “Plus”)

M=Minuses (errors)

I= Interesting (something you find that is interesting)

 

For generations, the academic community has relied on peer review as a way of enhancing the knowledge base and encouraging serious scholarship. Peer review can offer many of the same benefit to students… [and] computers [can] mediate the interaction among peers. Gehringer (2000)

  • Peer Review reflects constructive guidance at its collaborative best.
  • As an application to the classroom, Peer Review helps students and the teacher.
  • Anonymous Peer Review provides a framework for students to learn balanced reasoning at a time when modern discourse often descends into shouting and insults
  • Anonymous Peer Review teaches students how to offer points of help, practice proofreading, and strengthen other communication skills.
  • Peer Review introduces and encourages diversity of opinion
  • Peer Review models the importance of checking work before it is turned in. When the audience is the teacher alone, sadly, many students are apathetic. But when the audience is the students’ fellow classmates, an extra attention to detail emerges.
  • Peer Review offers students a practical application in this real-world review.

I adapted the P*M*I schema to reflect new acronyms. The adapted acronym is a new thinking schema called P*N*I and you can use this schema in your reviews:

      P=Pluses (something you find that is a “Plus”)

      N=Needs A Look (something you find that “Needs Another Look” for possible
correction)

      I= Interesting (something you find that is interesting)


Here is a sample Peer Review

Dear ________
Your commitment to this project and for special needs students really shines in this project. Pluses: 1.) You’re very thorough and thoughtful in your project and I did not see any typos or grammar errors. 2.) You’ve worked to make your project inclusive for all students. 3.) You did a great job of integrating technology such as Promethean Boards, e-books, Audiobooks, etc.  4.)  Your project is positive and empowers students!
Needs Another Look: 1.) One of the ways to make your project stronger would be to check your APA citations with the guidelines on the Purdue website. 2.) Please check your Title Page to conform to APA guidelines
Interesting Points: 1.) It is interesting that you intend to build Learning Centers. 2.) Do you have budget money for hardware like earbuds, earphones, players? Are there state or county resources that may be utilized to help with this?
This concludes my review… thank you! 


 

Peer Review provides a fair perspective approach for students and a review committee for the teacher who often has, to butcher Robert Frost, “miles to grade before she sleeps.”

See what you can do to implement Peer Reviews in your classes!
Dr. Teague*  

 

 

 

References:

Previous Teague post: From this blog post: http://4oops.edublogs.org/2009/07/06/peer-review/

If you would like more information on methods for Student Use, please refer to this link:
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/peerreview/studentintro.html

For forms to use with students, see this link: http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/peerreview/forms.html and http://www.scribd.com/doc/2205303/English-122-paper-one-peer-review

Quote Source: Gehringer, E.F., 2000. Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Peer

* (title updated 4-2017)

By

Final Academic Game Review – An Opportunity for Exploratory Play

Academic Game Review: Nanocrafter

An Opportunity for Exploratory Play

Helen Teague

EDLT 728: Game, Simulations, and Virtual Worlds for Learning

Dr. Mark Chen

Summer 2014

Abstract

Research verifies the important role of exploratory play in the development of cognitive ability, creativity, and concept management (O’Rourke, et al). Nanocrafter offered in Beta, is the newest game designed experience to leverage exploratory play from the Center for Game Science at the University of Washington (CGS). Announced at the Games for Change conference in April, 2014, Nanocrafter offers progressing levels of skill-building for solo or team players as they visualize and build nanoscale representations of synthetic protein bonds. Synthetic protein bonds do not exist naturally and must be combined by scientists through synthetic biology. Synthetic biology and DNA protein bonds can be the medical solution to real-world challenges, such as disease treatment and debilitating medical conditions. Nanocrafter leverages the cognitive precepts of Fullerton’s Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, Lave and Wenger’s situated learning, and socio-affective attributes such as peer-review and collaborative grouping. It also offers an engaging way to encourage high-school students to strengthen STEM core competencies. Nanocrafter makes learning fun.

Keywords: games, simulations, protein bonds, synthetic biology


Review

Powered by emaze
Figure 1: Introduction to Nanocrafter
Presentation will play automatically. Mouse over the bottom of the window to control transition time.

Science is an inquiry-based subject requiring deductive and inductive reasoning, process thinking, and patience with trial and error. (Exploration-Driven Online Science Education). Nanocrafter is a scientific discovery game about synthetic biology. Use pieces of DNA to build everything from computer circuits to nanoscale machines, and help advance scientific research with your inventions! Here is the portal page from Nanocrafter.org

nanocrafter portal page

Figure 2: Main Nanocrafter Portal Page

          Nanocrafter follows the distribution of the game Foldit from The Center for Game Design.  Foldit was originally created to facilitate innovative brainstorming among the scientific community (Chen, et al.). It’s application for classroom instruction soon became evident.

          Nanocrafter  promotes situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) through trial-and-error testing in a virtual lab. Nanocrafter lets students experience the vocational life of a synthetic biologist.  Synthetic biology is “the application of engineering principles to the fundamental components of biology” (Synthetic Biology.org). Synthetic bonds do not exist naturally. They must be combined in a lab by scientists through the process of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology and DNA hold promise as solutions for medical treatment for diseases and better food production, among other problems (Minoff, 2014).

“Synthetic biology is a) the design and construction of new biological parts, devices and systems and b) the re-design of existing natural biological systems for useful purposes.” Source: Synthetic Biology.org

Figure 3-Video: Dan Rather Reports Synthetic Biology

Nanocrafter addresses Fullerton’s Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games (2008) because players must master challenges in four separate game worlds, game play promotes imaginative thinking in synthetic biology as players must navigate the challenge of life as a synthetic biologist, and players can connect with online peers via moderated chat forum and new challenges. Within Fullerton’s game matrix, game play requires skill and mental calculation, but not chance or physical dexterity beyond use of a mouse.

           Nanocrafter educational game play consists of a single player or teams. Instructional game play can include the teacher projecting one of the Nanocrafter worlds from one computer connected to an LCD screen for whole class lessons, thereby utilizing limited computer resources common in many classroom. Technical specifications for Nanocrafter include Windows or Apple platforms, Firefox, Safari, Chrome browser. Players must create a free account. Features of play include continuous chat, leaderboards, and play centered in four online “worlds” labeled Matching, Strand Displacement, Concentrations, and Toeholds & Logic.

nanocrafterworlds

Figure 4: Nanocrafter Worlds

In game play, students use pieces of DNA to build computer circuits and nanoscale machines. Squire discusses concerns of researchers that the important curricular aspects will be too obscure in game play. With Nanocrafter, play commences after a short tutorial explaining various functions of DNA and the medical and scientific need for understanding synthetic bonding and protein bonds. Students learn important ideas and concepts related to genetics (e.g., DNA structure, transcription, translation, protein synthesis, mechanisms associated with heredity, and inheritance). They employ various scientific practices, such as research design, data analysis, and formulating scientific arguments using evidence as they participate in a DNA project. Curricular aspects of science are intertwined within play and meets Gee’s (2006) attributes of game-based literacy because game play includes multimodal representations and specific semiotics such as toeholds, DNA strands, covalent bonds,

           Nanocrafter meets several of the National Research Council’s 2009 Strands (p. 43). Specifically, students will:
→ Generate, understand, remember and use concept, explanations, arguments, models, and facts related to science. (Strand 2)
→ Manipulate, test, explore, predict, question, observe, and make sense of the scientific language and tools. (Strand 3)
→ Think about themselves as science learners and develop an identity as someone who knows about, uses, and sometimes contributes to science. (Strand 6)

          Nanocrafter also addresses Next Generation Science Standards for High School Biology:
→How can sequences of DNA help us understand problems related to species identification and public health?

Nanocrafter addresses the National Research Council’s (2012) science & engineering practices in Dimension 1 of their framework for science classrooms (p. 42):
→ Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering)
→ Developing and using models
→ Planning and carrying out investigations
→ Analyzing and interpreting data
→ Using mathematics and computational thinking
→ Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering)
→ Engaging in argument from evidence
→ Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information

This review is the result of several episodes of game play from April – July, 2014. In this reviewer opinion, Nanocrafter communicates uses a playful, gameful conversational style devoid of gender bias or overly technical language. The infrastructure is robust and timely with continuous updates posted and and updates announced on the game board and via email update. Cartoon gimicks are limited, instructional tutorials are concise and devoid of jargon. Semiotic vocabulary is explained and then applied to module-based game play. Nanocrafter’s affordances for solo or team play offer many options for teachers: inclusion into a one-computer classroom, computer-on-wheels (COW) utilization, computer lab experience, or home-play. High-school students can begin play at school and continue at home in a variation of a flipped classroom. Nanocrafter can also anchor a high-school learning center allowing students to rotate to the website and retrieve their account credentials, points, and forum chats. Digital video resources would enhance the learning potential of Nanocrafter. Among the best and most easily included into existing curriculum are those found at the Synthetic Bonding website. Of special benefit is theLatest Inventions” section where challenge winners’ work is displayed.

Nancocrafter Latest Inventions

Figure 5 Nanocrafter Latest Invention Board

Nanocrafter is an example of game-based learning rather than gamification. One of my cadre-mates, Sandra said “it is only through direct experience with different varieties of games that you can begin to understand the potential impact of a gaming system on educational environments.” Nanocrafter is a different kind of game, one that applies new knowledge of synthetic biology concepts. Nanocrafter is not a multi-player game or a game of chance or luck. It is not a drill-and-practice game or a gamified quiz. It does not apply game theory to a non-recreational environment. Nanocrafter leverages the interactivity of social media components such as a leaderboard, chat, and challenges with prizes to enhance the embedded academics of synthetic biology. Nanocrafter successfully integrates scientific principles and encourages students toward concept mastery and for real-world problems using game-ful components.

 

 

References

Chen, M., Kolko, B.E., Cuddihy, E., & Medina, E. (2011). Modeling but NOT Measuring Engagement in Computer Games. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Games + Learning + Society (p. 55-63).

Chen, Mark, Horstman, Theresa, and Bell, Philip. (In review). Playing science with Foldit.

Dan Rather Reports, Synthetic Biology (February, 2013). Retrieved from YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpDB_45sHr8

Exploration-Driven Online Science Education. JoAnn Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability. Retrieved from http://sustainability.asu.edu/research/project/?id=714

Finnish Innovation Fund (2014). Helsinki Design Lab. Retrieved from: www.helsinkidesignlab.org.

Fullerton, T. (2008). Chapter 9: Playtesting. Game design workshop: A playcentric approach (pp. 248-276).

Gee, J.P. (2006). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Game Design Reader. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.

Minoff, A. (2014). Can we game our way to better health? Science Friday podcast, April 24, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/25/2014/can-we-game-our-way-to-better-health.html

O’Rourke, R., Butler, E., Liu, Y., Ballweber, C. and Popovic Z. (2013). The Effects of Age on Player Behavior in Educational Games. Foundations of Digital Games. Center for Game Science Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~eorourke/papers/age_behavior_fdg.pdf.

Science Standards Retrieved from: http://static.educurious.org/docs/EducuriousBIOUnitSumGenetics.pdf

Squire, Kurt D. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational
Researcher, 35(8), 19-29.

Synthetic Biology Project website, Synthetic Biology.org

The Center for Game Science at the University of Washington. Retrieved from http://centerforgamescience.org/.

 

~~~

Previous versions of this game review:
Goggle Doc
Mural.ly
Interim Post

By

Nanocrafter Game Review An Opportunity for Exploratory Play

Academic Game Review: Nanocrafter

An Opportunity for Exploratory Play

Helen Teague

EDLT 728: Game, Simulations, and Virtual Worlds for Learning

Dr. Mark Chen

Summer 2014

Abstract Research verifies the important role of exploratory play in the development of cognitive ability, creativity, and concept management (O’Rourke, et al). Nanocrafter is the newest game to leverage exploratory play, offered in Beta from the Center for Game Science at the University of Washington (CGS). Announced at the Games for Change conference in April, 2014, Nanocrafter offers progressing levels of skill building for solo or team player as they visualize and build nanoscale representations of synthetic protein bonds. Synthetic protein bonds do not exist naturally and must be combined by scientists through synthetic biology. Synthetic biology and DNA protein bonds can be the medical solution to real-world challenges, such as disease treatment and debilitating medical conditions. Nanocrafter leverages the cognitive precepts of Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design (UbD), Strategic Design, and socio-affective attributes such as peer-review and collaborative groups. It also offers an engaging way to encourage high-school students to strengthen STEM core competencies. Keywords: games, simulations, protein bonds, synthetic biology

Powered by emaze Science is an inquiry-based subject requiring deductive and inductive reasoning, process thinking, and patience with trial and error. (Exploration-Driven Online Science Education). Nanocrafter follows The Center for Game Design’s distribution of Foldit. Following the success of Foldit which was originally created to facilitate innovative brainstorming among the scientific community (Chen, et al._____), Nanocrafter promotes situated learning through trial and error and the multiple iterations required for theory testing to prompt thinking in synthetic bonding.

 

References

Chen, M., Kolko, B.E., Cuddihy, E., & Medina, E. (2011). Modeling but NOT Measuring Engagement in Computer Games. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Games + Learning + Society (p. 55-63).

Chen, Mark, Horstman, Theresa, and Bell, Philip. (In review). Playing science with Foldit.

Finnish Innovation Fund (2014). Helsinki Design Lab. Retrieved from: www.helsinkidesignlab.org.

Fullerton, T. (2008). Chapter 9: Playtesting. Game design workshop: A playcentric approach (pp. 248-276).

Minoff, A. (2014). Can we game our way to better health? Science Friday podcast, April 24, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/25/2014/can-we-game-our-way-to-better-health.html

O’Rourke, R., Butler, E., Liu, Y., Ballweber, C. and Popovic Z. (2013). The Effects of Age on Player Behavior in Educational Games. Foundations of Digital Games. Center for Game Science Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington. Retrieved from http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~eorourke/papers/age_behavior_fdg.pdf.

Science Standards Retrieved from: http://static.educurious.org/docs/EducuriousBIOUnitSumGenetics.pdf

Suri, J. F., & IDEO (Firm). (2005). Thoughtless acts?: Observations on intuitive design. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

The Center for Game Science at the University of Washington. Retrieved from http://centerforgamescience.org/.

Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Pearson.

By

Peer Review

 

 For generations, the academic community has relied on peer review as a way of enhancing the knowledge base and encouraging serious scholarship. Peer review can offer many of the same benefit to students… [and] computers [can] mediate the interaction among peers. Gehringer (2000)

 

·        Peer Review reflects constructive guidance at its collaborative best.

 

·        As an application to the classroom, Peer Review helps students and the teacher.

 

·        Anonymous Peer Review provides a framework for students to learn balanced reasoning at a time when modern discourse often descends into shouting and insults (and that is just on CNN and MSNBC!)

 

·        When using a thinking schema such as P*M*I, anonymous Peer Review teaches students how to offer points of help, practice proofreading, and strengthen other communication skills.

 

·        Peer Review introduces and encourages diversity of opinion

 

·        Peer Review models the importance of checking work before it is turned in. When the audience is the teacher alone, sadly, many students are apathetic. But when the audience is the students’ fellow classmates, an extra attention to detail emerges.

 

·        Peer Review offers students a practical application in this real-world review.

 

Peer Review provides a review committee for the teacher who often has, to butcher Robert Frost, “miles to grade before she sleeps.”

 

 

If you would like more information on methods for Student Use, please refer to this link:

http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/peerreview/studentintro.html

For forms to use with students, see this link: http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/peerreview/forms.html  and http://www.scribd.com/doc/2205303/English-122-paper-one-peer-review

 

Quote Source: Gehringer, E.F., 2000. Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Peer Review

Skip to toolbar