skip to main content
10.1145/3311890.3311925acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesflConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

How Science Fiction Worldbuilding Supports Students' Scientific Explanation

Published: 09 March 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Creating science fiction can engage both imagination and scientific reasoning. We offer examples of middle school students building science fiction explanations to justify their decisions during a week-long role-playing game (RPG) design workshop. Findings show how worldbuilding---that is, defining the game's setting, history, and characters---supported students in formulating relevant science questions, integrating various science ideas into complex mechanistic explanations, and articulating and critiquing ideas. They also show the challenges students faced in balancing fiction and science to create credible game worlds; and how differences in participation affected collaborators' ultimate abilities to explain. We conclude that RPG design has many affordances as a science learning environment, but also particular caveats for formal educators to bear in mind.

References

[1]
A.C. Clarke. 1962, rev. 1973. Hazards of prophecy: The failure of imagination, In Profiles of the future: An enquiry into the limits of the possible. pp. 14, 21, 36.
[2]
J. Bruner. 2004. Life as narrative. Social research: An international quarterly, 71, 3, 691--710.
[3]
M. Braaten and M. Windschitl. 2011. Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95, 4, 639--669.
[4]
K. Squire & S. Barab. 2004, June. Replaying history: Engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505--512). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
[5]
R. Razzouk & V. 2012. What is design thinking and why is it important?. Review of Educational Research, 82, 3, 330--348.
[6]
S.P. Norris, S.M. Guilbert, M.L. Smith, S. Hakimelahi & L.M. Phillips. 2005. A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 4, 535--563.
[7]
M. Powell, P. Angeletti and A. Angeletti. 2011. The Phantom Planet. Lincoln, NB: The University o f Nebraska Press.
[8]
B.E. Smith and J. Shen. 2017. Scaffolding digital literacies for disciplinary learning: Adolescents collaboratively composing multimodal science fictions. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61, 1, 85--90.
[9]
J.M. Corbin and A. Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. Kluwer Academic Publishers-Human Sciences Press, 13, 3--21.
[10]
B.G. Glaser. 1965. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl. {Oxford University Press, Society for the Study of Social Problems}, 12, 436--445.
[11]
C.V. Schwarz, B.J. Reiser, E.A. Davis, L. Kenyon, A. Achér, D. Fortus, ... & J. Krajcik. 2009. Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46. 6, 632--654.
[12]
D.G. Jansson and S.M. Smith. 1991. Design fixation. Design Studies, 12, 1, 3--11.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
FL2019: Proceedings of FabLearn 2019
March 2019
206 pages
ISBN:9781450362443
DOI:10.1145/3311890
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 March 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Collaboration
  2. Game Design
  3. Professional Development

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

FL2019
FL2019: FabLearn 2019
March 9 - 10, 2019
NY, New York, USA

Acceptance Rates

FL2019 Paper Acceptance Rate 36 of 73 submissions, 49%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 36 of 73 submissions, 49%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media