Scientific Habits of Mindin Virtual Worlds

Constance SteinkuehlerSean Duncan

Games+Learning+Society GroupUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison

Academic ADL Co-Lab

I study virtual worlds & learning.

EthnographySpecific RQsMacArthur

Collaborative problem solving

Digital literacy practices

Scientific habits of mind

Computational literacy artifacts

Collaborative learning

(pop cosmopolitanism)

Collaborative problem solving

Digital literacy practices

Scientific habits of mind

Computational literacy artifacts

Collaborative learning

(pop cosmopolitanism)

informal scientific reasoning

Kuhn (1991)“Metacognition”

Informal Scientific Reasoning.(why I worry)

Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts

is no more science than a heap of stones is a house. (Poincaré

1905)

AAAS standards for scientific habits of mind

in massively multiplayer online games?

SteelDragon

Context of research

Why World of Warcraft?

plot study

full investigation

roughly 2000 posts over 85 threads

RANDOM SAMPLEConfidence interval 9%

PRE patch 2.0.1

analytic framework

12 /3 + wow.content

scientific

discursive

practices

scientific

discursive

practices

modelbased

reasoning

scientific

discursive

practices

modelbased

reasoning

tacitepistemolo

gy

92% interrater reliability @ 4

is the talk productive?

social banter8%

uncodable6%

social knowledge construction

86%

QuestionExplanation A

[Discussion]Explanation B

[Discussion]

scientific discursive practicesbuild on others’ ideas43%use of counterarguments43%use of data / evidence33%alternative explanations of data

14%references outside resources 8% of 86% SKC

model based reasoning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

system based reasoning, understanding feedback

58%

41%

model based reasoning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

system based reasoning, understanding feedback

model-based reasoning, model testing & prediction

58%

41%

11% 5%

model based reasoning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

system based reasoning, understanding feedback

model-based reasoning, model testing & prediction

mathematical modeling,

mathematical computation

58%

41%

11% 5% 4%

1%

model based reasoning

an example post

The unforunate fact is that there is no shadow nuke... and no shadow nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time. All other casters (including holy priests) have a nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time: bane, improved fireball, improved frostbolt, divine fury, improved wrath. I have put together my own spreadsheet which goes into more detail and takes into account exactly what happens to spells with regard to talents and gives a column at the end expressing each spell's total scaling with respect to +dmg applied per second (i.e. how much your gear actually improves your dps): http://geocities.com/[omitted].htm

If I got anything wrong feel free to email me at [omitted]@gmail.com but if you read up at wowwiki.com and check out the coefficients used in the theorycraft mod you'll find that I'm consistent with respect to them.

You see there at the end - if you add flay and swp together you see that shadow is at 31%, where fire mages are around 48%. I have done some preliminary numbers for the expansion and shadow only improves to 35% as fire mages jump way up to 60%. If flay were empowered to the point that it recieved 65% of +dmg then shadow would be up around 45% dps scaling. That would be quite respectible considering that a shadow priest can swp/flay for nearly 2 minutes without interruption where other classes would peter out in a minute or less except for their mana recovery abilities. Without empowered scaling shadow priests will languish at under 50% of the endgame dps of mages and warlocks.

The unforunate fact is that there is no shadow nuke... and no shadow nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time. All other casters (including holy priests) have a nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time: bane, improved fireball, improved frostbolt, divine fury, improved wrath. I have put together my own spreadsheet which goes into more detail and takes into account exactly what happens to spells with regard to talents and gives a column at the end expressing each spell's total scaling with respect to +dmg applied per second (i.e. how much your gear actually improves your dps): http://geocities.com/[omitted].htm

If I got anything wrong feel free to email me at [omitted]@gmail.com but if you read up at wowwiki.com and check out the coefficients used in the theorycraft mod you'll find that I'm consistent with respect to them.

You see there at the end - if you add flay and swp together you see that shadow is at 31%, where fire mages are around 48%. I have done some preliminary numbers for the expansion and shadow only improves to 35% as fire mages jump way up to 60%. If flay were empowered to the point that it recieved 65% of +dmg then shadow would be up around 45% dps scaling. That would be quite respectible considering that a shadow priest can swp/flay for nearly 2 minutes without interruption where other classes would peter out in a minute or less except for their mana recovery abilities. Without empowered scaling shadow priests will languish at under 50% of the endgame dps of mages and warlocks.

social knowledge construction

The unforunate fact is that there is no shadow nuke... and no shadow nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time. All other casters (including holy priests) have a nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time: bane, improved fireball, improved frostbolt, divine fury, improved wrath. I have put together my own spreadsheet which goes into more detail and takes into account exactly what happens to spells with regard to talents and gives a column at the end expressing each spell's total scaling with respect to +dmg applied per second (i.e. how much your gear actually improves your dps): http://geocities.com/[omitted].htm

If I got anything wrong feel free to email me at [omitted]@gmail.com but if you read up at wowwiki.com and check out the coefficients used in the theorycraft mod you'll find that I'm consistent with respect to them.

You see there at the end - if you add flay and swp together you see that shadow is at 31%, where fire mages are around 48%. I have done some preliminary numbers for the expansion and shadow only improves to 35% as fire mages jump way up to 60%. If flay were empowered to the point that it recieved 65% of +dmg then shadow would be up around 45% dps scaling. That would be quite respectible considering that a shadow priest can swp/flay for nearly 2 minutes without interruption where other classes would peter out in a minute or less except for their mana recovery abilities. Without empowered scaling shadow priests will languish at under 50% of the endgame dps of mages and warlocks.

model based reasoning

The unforunate fact is that there is no shadow nuke... and no shadow nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time. All other casters (including holy priests) have a nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time: bane, improved fireball, improved frostbolt, divine fury, improved wrath. I have put together my own spreadsheet which goes into more detail and takes into account exactly what happens to spells with regard to talents and gives a column at the end expressing each spell's total scaling with respect to +dmg applied per second (i.e. how much your gear actually improves your dps): http://geocities.com/[omitted].htm

If I got anything wrong feel free to email me at [omitted]@gmail.com but if you read up at wowwiki.com and check out the coefficients used in the theorycraft mod you'll find that I'm consistent with respect to them.

You see there at the end - if you add flay and swp together you see that shadow is at 31%, where fire mages are around 48%. I have done some preliminary numbers for the expansion and shadow only improves to 35% as fire mages jump way up to 60%. If flay were empowered to the point that it recieved 65% of +dmg then shadow would be up around 45% dps scaling. That would be quite respectible considering that a shadow priest can swp/flay for nearly 2 minutes without interruption where other classes would peter out in a minute or less except for their mana recovery abilities. Without empowered scaling shadow priests will languish at under 50% of the endgame dps of mages and warlocks.

references outside resources

The unforunate fact is that there is no shadow nuke... and no shadow nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time. All other casters (including holy priests) have a nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time: bane, improved fireball, improved frostbolt, divine fury, improved wrath. I have put together my own spreadsheet which goes into more detail and takes into account exactly what happens to spells with regard to talents and gives a column at the end expressing each spell's total scaling with respect to +dmg applied per second (i.e. how much your gear actually improves your dps): http://geocities.com/[omitted].htm

If I got anything wrong feel free to email me at [omitted]@gmail.com but if you read up at wowwiki.com and check out the coefficients used in the theorycraft mod you'll find that I'm consistent with respect to them.

You see there at the end - if you add flay and swp together you see that shadow is at 31%, where fire mages are around 48%. I have done some preliminary numbers for the expansion and shadow only improves to 35% as fire mages jump way up to 60%. If flay were empowered to the point that it recieved 65% of +dmg then shadow would be up around 45% dps scaling. That would be quite respectible considering that a shadow priest can swp/flay for nearly 2 minutes without interruption where other classes would peter out in a minute or less except for their mana recovery abilities. Without empowered scaling shadow priests will languish at under 50% of the endgame dps of mages and warlocks.

model testing/prediction

The unforunate fact is that there is no shadow nuke... and no shadow nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time. All other casters (including holy priests) have a nuke which bennefits from reduced casting time: bane, improved fireball, improved frostbolt, divine fury, improved wrath. I have put together my own spreadsheet which goes into more detail and takes into account exactly what happens to spells with regard to talents and gives a column at the end expressing each spell's total scaling with respect to +dmg applied per second (i.e. how much your gear actually improves your dps): http://geocities.com/[omitted].htm

If I got anything wrong feel free to email me at [omitted]@gmail.com but if you read up at wowwiki.com and check out the coefficients used in the theorycraft mod you'll find that I'm consistent with respect to them.

You see there at the end - if you add flay and swp together you see that shadow is at 31%, where fire mages are around 48%. I have done some preliminary numbers for the expansion and shadow only improves to 35% as fire mages jump way up to 60%. If flay were empowered to the point that it recieved 65% of +dmg then shadow would be up around 45% dps scaling. That would be quite respectible considering that a shadow priest can swp/flay for nearly 2 minutes without interruption where other classes would peter out in a minute or less except for their mana recovery abilities. Without empowered scaling shadow priests will languish at under 50% of the endgame dps of mages and warlocks.

the mathematical model

tacit epistemologies

27% NOT codable

evaluative65%

absolutist30%

relativist5%

tacit epistemologies

27% NOT codable

evaluative65%

absolutist30%

relativist5%

Whose mom believes that …

tacit epistemologies

27% NOT codable

evaluative65%

absolutist30%

relativist5%

Its just opinion…

tacit epistemologies

27% NOT codable

evaluative65%

absolutist30%

relativist5%

I see your point here, but I wonder if..

tacit epistemologies

27% NOT codable

evaluative65%

absolutist30%

relativist5%

50%

35%

15%

Compare to: Kuhn (1991)

…and compared to schools?

one in five Americans scientifically literate (Miller, 2004)

DespiteWhy?

Standard inquiry activities engender epistemological beliefs contrary to

science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002)

thank you

constances@gmail.comwww.constances.org

plug