[Xmca-l] Re: Digital game-based learning

[Huw Lloyd]

Nice to hear back from you, Hugh.

My quick impression to your response for me is: it is necessary to have
something worth writing about to warrant the effort of writing it well.

So your second paper discusses the same content from a different
perspective, is that right?  That might be interesting to look through.

Best,
Huw




On 11 January 2016 at 16:27, Hugh O'Donnell <bluetanso@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Huw!
>
> (I like your 'Shug' reference - you are obviously aware of our Scots
> monikers)
>
> Yes, I am new to this - the article comes after long months of reducing a
> Masters Degree Dissertation...
>
> No need to tell you, that I have learnt so much about academic writing/the
> academic a community.
>
> This is the first of two papers: the other - out for review at the moment -
> looks more at the Cultural Historical Activity Theory nature of the action
> research project in light of game playing and language use.  The one I
> distributed throws up some areas of further exploration as a result of what
> was for my pupils a nice way to attempt to use narrative to acquire Science
> learning.
>
> My main theme is how to use narrative successfully to increase Science and
> Literacy attainment through digital game based collaboration.
>
> I'm also interested in the collocations of words as a way to examine social
> engagement using a digital game and writing about the simulated experience
> - is use of We/I linked to attainment success? Can specific game playing
> episodes  correlate with science content knowledge is effectively deployed?
>
> CHAT is interesting in relation to my ongoing study of game playing and
> learning. Obviously the pupils' collaborations and tool use are important
> to the systems of activity, but I want to *learn* how I can achieve better
> integration of Science and Literacy through group collaboration...
>
> If the English Teacher (me) and the Science Teacher (a-n-other) could have
> pupils write creative writing pieces that contained the necessary elements
> to satisfy both disciplines... Well, that is the Holy Grail, as they say.
>
> Thanks for getting in touch!
> H
>
> Kind Regards,
> Hugh O'Donnell
>
> http://bluetanso.WordPress.com
> Twitter: @bluetanso
> On 9 Jan 2016 20:21, "Huw Lloyd" <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Hugh (or should that be Shug?)
> >
> > You might get more responses on this list if you anticipate the kinds of
> > exchanges you are hoping for, by drawing our attention to some aspects of
> > your paper you find interesting, problematic etc.
> >
> > For instance, in reading your abstract it appears to me that you have
> > traversed an area of classroom activity that is realising a qualitative
> > gain, but in the abstract you don't mention any theoretical basis for
> > this.  For example, I would be interested in looking for a qualitative
> > difference in the nature of the engagement or orientation to activity
> (i.e.
> > the behaviour itself), which happens to be a significant interest of
> mine.
> >
> > I think you can draw us in, yes?
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > On 5 January 2016 at 07:20, Hugh O'Donnell <bluetanso@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Please allow me to direct you to a new article on game-based learning:
> > >
> > > http://press-start.gla.ac.uk/index.php/press-start/article/view/19
> > >
> > > I would appreciate any comments on this Secondary School action
> research.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Hugh O'Donnell
> > >
> > > http://bluetanso.WordPress.com
> > > Twitter: @bluetanso
> > >
> >
>