Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds

1. Scientific Habits of Mindin Virtual Worlds Constance SteinkuehlerSean Duncan Games+Learning+Society Group University of Wisconsin–Madison Academic ADL Co-Lab

2. I study virtual worlds & learning. Ethnography Specific RQs MacArthur

3. Collaborative problem solving Digital literacy practices Scientific habits of mind Computational literacy artifacts Collaborative learning (pop cosmopolitanism)

4. Collaborative problem solving Digital literacy practices Scientific habits of mind Computational literacy artifacts Collaborative learning (pop cosmopolitanism)

5. informal scientific reasoning Kuhn (1991) “Metacognition”

6. Informal Scientific Reasoning. (why I worry)

7. 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)

8. AAAS standards for scientific habits of mind

9. in massively multiplayer online games? SteelDragon

10. Context of research

11. Why World of Warcraft?

13. plot study

14. full investigation

15. roughly 2000 posts over 85 threads RANDOM SAMPLE Confidence interval 9% PRE patch 2.0.1

16. analytic framework

17. 12 /3 + wow.content

18. scientific discursive practices

19. scientific discursive practices modelbased reasoning

20. scientific discursive practices modelbased reasoning tacitepistemology

21. 92% interrater reliability @ 4

22. uncodable6% social knowledge construction86% social banter8% Question Explanation A [Discussion] Explanation B [Discussion] is the talk productive?

23. scientific discursive practices build on others’ ideas 43%use of counterarguments 43%use of data / evidence 33%alternative explanations of data 14%references outside resources 8% of 86% SKC

24. model based reasoning

25. system based reasoning, understanding feedback model based reasoning 58% 41%

26. system based reasoning, understanding feedback model based reasoning 58% 41% 11% 5% model-based reasoning, model testing & prediction

27. system based reasoning, understanding feedback model based reasoning 58% 41% mathematical modeling, mathematical computation 11% 4% 5% 1% model-based reasoning, model testing & prediction

28. an example post

29. 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].htmIf 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.

30. 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].htmIf 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.

31. 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].htmIf 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

32. 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].htmIf 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

33. 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].htmIf 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

34. 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].htmIf 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.

35. the mathematical model

36. absolutist30% evaluative65% relativist5% tacit epistemologies 27% NOT codable

37. absolutist30% evaluative65% relativist5% tacit epistemologies Whose mom believes that … 27% NOT codable

38. absolutist30% evaluative65% relativist5% tacit epistemologies Its just opinion… 27% NOT codable

39. absolutist30% evaluative65% relativist5% tacit epistemologies I see your point here, but I wonder if.. 27% NOT codable

40. absolutist30% evaluative65% relativist5% tacit epistemologies Compare to: Kuhn (1991) 50% 15% 35% 27% NOT codable

41. …and compared to schools?

42. one in five Americans scientifically literate (Miller, 2004) Despite Why?

43. Standard inquiry activities engender epistemological beliefs contrary to science (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002)

44. thank you constances@gmail.comwww.constances.org plug