Collaborative Strategic Board Games as a Site for Distributed Computational Thinking

ABStrAct This paper examines the idea that contemporary strategic board games represent an informal, interactional context in which complex computational thinking takes place. When games are collaborative – that is, a game requires that players work in joint pursuit of a shared goal – the computational thinking is easily observed as distributed across several participants. This raises the possibility that a focus on such board games are profitable for those who wish to understand computational thinking and learning in situ. This paper intro-duces a coding scheme, applies it to the recorded discourse of three groups of game players, and provides qualitative examples of computational thinking that are observed and documented in Pandemic. The primary contributions of this work are the description of and evidence that complex computational thinking can develop spontaneously during board game play. Steinkuehler, 2006). Often, these benefits are associated with video games and other highly interactive computational media. It is largely thought that the ability to foster a sense of im-mersion is a genuine strength of video games that distinguishes them from many other learning contexts (Shelton & Wiley, 2007).Still, there are reasons to suspect that some of the generative potential of games is not re-stricted to those that take place on a computer platform. At their most base level, games are systems of rules in which players operate on representations. In a computer game, those rules are generally executed and strictly enforced by

[1]  G. Fine Shared Fantasy: Role-Playing Games as Social Worlds , 1983 .

[2]  R. Glaser Advances in Instructional Psychology , 1978 .

[3]  N. Nasir Individual Cognitive Structuring and the Sociocultural Context: Strategy Shifts in the Game of Dominoes , 2005 .

[4]  Constance Steinkuehler,et al.  Why Game (Culture) Studies Now? , 2006, Games Cult..

[5]  J. Greeno THE SITUATIVITY OF KNOWING, LEARNING, AND RESEARCH , 1998 .

[6]  Gerald J. Sussman,et al.  Structure and interpretation of computer programs , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[7]  Mark Honigsbaum,et al.  Pandemic , 2009, The Lancet.

[8]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy , 2000 .

[9]  Alan Wood,et al.  Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, 2nd Ed by Abelson and Sussman, with Sussman, MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0-262-51087-1, 657pp. , 2001, Journal of Functional Programming.

[10]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[11]  John R. Anderson The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[12]  Jochen Rick,et al.  Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games , 2006 .

[13]  James Paul Gee,et al.  What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy , 2007, CIE.

[14]  Jeannette M. Wing An introduction to computer science for non-majors using principles of computation , 2007, SIGCSE.

[15]  Erkki Sutinen,et al.  Learning Computer Science over the Web: The ViSCoS Odessey , 2007 .

[16]  Brett E. Shelton,et al.  The Design and Use of Simulation Computer Games in Education , 2007 .

[17]  Diana G. Oblinger,et al.  Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge. A 21st Century Agenda for the National Science Foundation , 2008 .

[18]  Bruria Haberman,et al.  A Computer Science Educational Program for Establishing an Entry Point into the Computing Community of Practice , 2008, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[19]  U. Wilensky,et al.  Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories—An Embodied Modeling Approach , 2006 .

[20]  Andy Austin,et al.  Chapter 2: Getting Started With Drupal , 2008 .

[21]  Wilfried Sieg,et al.  The AProS Project: Strategic Thinking & Computational Logic , 2007, Log. J. IGPL.