Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding Content and Context: A Revision of Gregory Bateson’s Learning Theory Through a Micro-level Analysis of How Learning Takes Place in the Computer Game StarCraft 2

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this article is to revise and expand Gregory Bateson’s theory of learning to demonstrate how scaffolding content and context takes place in computer games. The presented revision rest on a micro-level analysis of how learning takes place in the computer game StarCraft 2 a successful triple A (mid-sized to major publisher with high development budgets) computer game. The revision of Gregory Bateson’s learning theory will draw on the following concepts: difference, identity, (self)referentiality, and expansion. The result from the analysis will demonstrate how scaffolding content and incremental construction of contexts works in and outside the realm of computer games.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., & Kwon, E. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education,91(5), 750–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronsen Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games—The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgun, K. (2013). Game design theory—A new philosophy for understanding games. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgun, K. (2015). Clockwork game design. Waltham, MA: Focal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Campaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, S. (2010). “It is in the game” and above the game. An analysis of the users of sports videogames. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies,16(3), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856510367560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costikyan, G. (2002). I have no words & I must design: Toward a critical vocabulary for games. In Proceedings of computer games and digital cultures conference, Tampere University Press. http://www.costik.com/nowords2002.pdf. Retrieved 20 November 2017.

  • Costikyan, G. (2013). Uncertainty in games. Playful thinking series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. (1984). The art of computer game design. http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/~stewart/cs583/ACGD_ArtComputerGameDesign_ChrisCrawford_1982.pdf. Retrieved 28 September 2017.

  • Davidson, D. (Ed.). (2008). Beyond fun—Serious games and media. Pittsburgh: ETC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Freitas, S., & Maharg, P. (Eds.). (2011). Digital games and learning. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1999). A thousand plateaus—Capitalism & schizophrenia. London: The Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, K. (2011). Mathematics education for a new era—Video games as a medium for learning. Natick, MA: A.K. Peters, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S. (2015). Mechanics and metagame. Exploring binary expertise in league of legends. Journal of Games and Culture,12(5), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015590063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world. A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time, division 1. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, G. S., Garfield, R., & Gutschera, K. R. (2012). Characteristics of games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1986). The zone of proximal development as the basic category of educational psychology. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition,8(1), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work,14(1), 133–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop—A playcentric approach to creating innovative games. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum,85(2), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, T. (2011). Harnessing the power of feedback loops. Wired. http://www.wired.com/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/all/. Retrieved 16 March 2018.

  • Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1988). The basic problems of phenomenology. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

  • Huizinga, J. (2014). Homo ludens—A study of the play-element in culture. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Idhe, D. (2010). Heidegger’s technologies—Postphenomenological perspectives. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul, J. (2003). The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. In Marinka Copier and Joost Raessens (Eds.), Level up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 30–45). Utrecht: Utrecht University. http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/. Retrieved 10 April 2018.

  • Juul, J. (2013). The art of failure—An essay on the pain of playing video games. Playful thinking series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, R. (2004). Theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale, US: Paraglyph Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, J. L. (2012). Objects of desire: A reading of the reward system in world of Warcraft. Eludamos Journal of Computer Game Culture,6(1), 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated learning—Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mäyrä, F. (2008). An introduction to game studies—Games in culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montola, M. (2008). The invisible rules of role-playing. The social framework of role-playing process. International Journal of Role Playing Issue,1, 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijmann, J. W. (2013). The art of the screen-shake. Dutch Game Garden. Indigo Classes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJdEqssNZ-U. Retrieved 28 September 2017.

  • Paul, C. A. (2011). Optimizing play: How theorycraft changes gameplay and design. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 11(2). http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/paul. Retrieved 31 July 2018.

  • Perry, L. (2013). The single most useful advice I can give for making any game better… feedback. Gamasutra http://gamasutra.com/blogs/LeePerry/20130506/191739/The_single_most_useful_advice_I_can_give_for_making_any_game_better_feedback.php. Retrieved 9 March 2018.

  • Polanyi, M. (1983). The Tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA.

  • Polanyi, M. (1992). Personal knowledge—Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1968). Communication—The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K. (Ed.). (2008). The ecology of games—Connecting youth, games, and learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management,5(2), 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design—A book of lenses. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrier, K. (Ed.). (2014). Learning, education and games. Volume one: Curricular and design considerations. Pittsburgh: ETC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrier, K. (Ed.). (2016). Learning, education and games. Volume two: Bringing games into educational contexts. Pittsburgh: ETC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (2000). The reflective practitioner—How professionals think in action. Farnham: Ashgate Arena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serres, M. (2009). The troubadour of Knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2). http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart. Retrieved 10 April 2018.

  • Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Video games as designed experience. Educational Researcher,35(8), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenros, J. (2017). The game definition game: A review. Games and Culture,12(6), 499–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suits, B. (2005). The Grasshopper—Games, life and utopia. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society—The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yee, N. (2014). The proteus paradox: How online games and virtual worlds change us—and how they don’t. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Ludography

  • PopCap Games (2009) Plants vs. Zombies [Mobile game]. Seattle, Washington, USA.

  • Blizzard Entertainment (2010) StarCraft 2 [PC game]. Irvine, California, USA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern Denmark, Department for the Study of Culture, Odense, Denmark

    Lasse Juel Larsen

Authors
  1. Lasse Juel Larsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lasse Juel Larsen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Larsen, L.J. Scaffolding Content and Context: A Revision of Gregory Bateson’s Learning Theory Through a Micro-level Analysis of How Learning Takes Place in the Computer Game StarCraft 2. Tech Know Learn 25, 279–295 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09400-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09400-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation