Topological, semiotic and rhetorical scapes: a framework for analysing mobile learning games
•
2 gostaram•472 visualizações
This document proposes a framework for analyzing mobile learning games using three dimensions: topological scape, semiotic scape, and rhetorical scape. The topological scape focuses on the material locations without a perceiving subject. The semiotic scape imbues locations with meaning through human perception and activity. The rhetorical scape recontextualizes the user through new goals, purposes, and identities. The framework is illustrated by analyzing two examples - a game set in the Singapore Zoo and one set in an African savannah. The zoo example tightly couples the topological and semiotic scapes while the savannah privileges the rhetorical scape by replacing rather than augmenting the semiotic scape. The framework distinguishes between design and implementation and
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Destaque
Destaque (16)
Semelhante a Topological, semiotic and rhetorical scapes: a framework for analysing mobile learning games
Semelhante a Topological, semiotic and rhetorical scapes: a framework for analysing mobile learning games (20)
Mais de Richard Sandford
Último
Último (20)
Topological, semiotic and rhetorical scapes: a framework for analysing mobile learning games
- 1. Topological, semiotic & rhetorical scapes A framework for analysing mobile learning games Richard Sandford 14.04.02011
- 2. Authoring location-based experiences ¡ Mediascapes ¡ Other similar tools × Calvium – http://calvium.com/ × 7scenes – http://7scenes.com/ × Layar – http://layar.com/
- 3. Location-based experiences ¡ Digital overlay corresponding to physical location × Bound more or less tightly depending on application ¡ Audiovisual material associated with user’s location × Sounds and images in particular regions (“hotspots”) ¡ Subject key – personal experience necessarily central ¡ User context must be considered when developing content
- 4. Context in mobile learning ¡ Not only physical surroundings ¡ Intellectual environment × Conceptual apparatus, habits of mind etc. ¡ History & expectations of learners ¡ Relationships with others ¡ Fluid, reciprocal, continuously reproduced ¡ Familiar from broader sociocultural perspectives × (e.g. Dourish, 2004; Cole, 1996)
- 5. Common features of existing accounts ¡ Focus on conversational elements of mobile learning × (e.g. Sharples & Vavoula, 2007; Laurillard, 2007; ) ¡ Physical location of learner less visible in theories derived from activity theory × (e.g. Winters, 2007; Taylor et al., 2006) ¡ Binary distinction often made between “real” and “virtual” × (e.g. Klopfer & Squire, 2008; Roschelle & Pea, 2002)
- 6. Talking about mediascapes ¡ Existing accounts don’t reflect qualities of mediascapes × Need to move away from “real/virtual” distinction × Need to be able to recognise essentially spatial nature of mediascapes × Need to remain consistent with established sociocultural notions of “context” ¡ Room for a different approach
- 7. Social production of space ¡ “Spatial turn” in social sciences (Thrift, 2006) × Critical, post-structuralist approaches employed by geographers × Concern with territory & materiality within social science ¡ Space produced, performed, constructed through cultural practice ¡ Drawing on (in particular) Lefebvre’s (1996) account
- 8. Formants of social space ¡ Semiotic analysis ¡ Phenomenological analysis × Spatial practice × Perceived space × Representations of space × Conceived space × Spaces of representation × Lived space ¡ Derived from system of language × Syntactic – formal, structured ways of connecting parts × Paradigmatic – substituting terms (metaphor) × Symbolic – connotation, ambiguity, images in meaning
- 9. Three dimensions ¡ Topological scape ¡ Semiotic scape ¡ Rhetorical scape ¡ All three operate simultaneously when experiencing a mediascape × Interrelated & fluid ¡ Three ways of understanding the same space × Not exclusive
- 10. Topological scape ¡ Extended world, considered without a perceiving subject ¡ Concerned with materiality of location ¡ Physical qualities & constraints × Where can be accessed? × Where cannot?
- 11. Semiotic scape ¡ Same place with meaning & denotation ¡ Human agents: consciousness and perception ¡ Activity shaped by purpose ¡ Purpose shaped by cultural understandings & expectations
- 13. Rhetorical scape ¡ Recontextualising the user through mscape intervention × New goals & purposes × New reason to be in the same place ¡ Chance to behave “as if” ¡ No binary distinction between “real” or “virtual” identities × Character as character, user as character, user reflecting on role × Children’s play & pretence
- 14. Analysing scapes ¡ For each scape: × How are locations represented? × What identities are available to participants? × What goals are offered? × Where? × Who? × Why?
- 15. Singapore Zoo “You were caught by some poachers and had just made an escape. You are heading home to the zoo now but at the same time facing dangers of meeting your predators. Hence, you must avoid certain animals and their enclosures according to your diet. To avoid being preyed on, you need to use your survival tool, the PDA, to strategise your safe return. The team which completes the most tasks and has avoided the most pitfalls wins the game”
- 16. Singapore Zoo ¡ Mediascape created by teachers to support Singapore primary school biology lessons ¡ Set in Singapore Zoo ¡ Students take on role of animals returning to their homes × Herbivores, carnivores or ominvores × Avoid being “eaten” (being in the wrong place) × Tasks to complete in hotspots
- 21. Singapore Zoo Topological Semiotic Rhetorical Locations Habitats Habitats Habitats (where) (‘theirs’) (‘ours’) Identity [bodies] Students Animals (who) Goals – Complete Avoid predators and (why) assignment return home
- 22. Zoo analysis ¡ Topological & semiotic scapes tightly coupled × use dictates physical shape ¡ Identities change in rhetorical scape ¡ But logic of the zoo inescapable × continuity in location across scapes: hotspots match habitats ¡ Not using mediascape technology to full extent × Could be replicated with worksheets × Little opportunity for a new set of social practices to emerge
- 23. Savannah ¡ Students take on role of lions in a virtual savannah mapped onto playing field × Sustain themselves, respond appropriately to threats ¡ Understand challenges of different terrain & capabilities of their lion pride ¡ Facer et al. (2004) “Savannah: mobile gaming and learning?”: JCAL 20:6 pp. 399 – 409
- 26. Savannah Topological Semiotic Rhetorical Locations Open space Playing field Savannah (different (where) terrains) Identity [bodies] Students Lions (who) Goals – Test game (among Survive (claim new (why) other general territory, find food and student goals) water)
- 27. Savannah analysis ¡ No continuity between semiotic & rhetorical scapes ¡ Replacing rather than augmenting × Rich, systemic rhetorical scape: empty, simple semiotic scape ¡ Complex goals demand agency exercised to greater degree × Reinforcing narrative identity ¡ Acting as “learners” in semiotic & rhetorical scapes × Sole continuity across scapes
- 28. Comparison Singapore Zoo Savannah Scape privileged Semiotic Rhetorical Degree of continuity between scapes wrt: Location High Low Identity Low Low Goals Low Low
- 29. What does the framework give us? ¡ Distinguish between design & implementation × Assess what contributed to any positive outcomes ¡ Articulate the relationship between space and narrative × Help designers reflect on influence of pre-existing conceptions ¡ Permission to recognise more complex identities × Not simply “real” or “virtual”