0% found this document useful (0 votes)

133 views525 pages

Handbook of Research On Serious Games For Educational Applications-Information Science Reference (2016)

Uploaded by

Galdor Tasartir

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

133 views525 pages

Handbook of Research On Serious Games For Educational Applications-Information Science Reference (2016)

Uploaded by

Galdor Tasartir

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 525

Handbook of Research

on Serious Games for

Educational Applications

Robert Zheng
The University of Utah, USA

Michael K. Gardner
The University of Utah, USA

A volume in the Advances in Game-Based

Learning (AGBL) Book Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2017 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
CIP Data Pending
ISBN: 978-1-5225-0513-6
eISBN: 978-1-5225-0514-3

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Game-Based Learning (AGBL) (ISSN: 2327-1825;
eISSN: 2327-1833)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Game-Based
Learning (AGBL) Book Series
Robert D. Tennyson
University of Minnesota, USA

ISSN: 2327-1825
EISSN: 2327-1833

Mission
The Advances in Game-Based Learning (AGBL) Book Series aims to cover all aspects of serious
games applied to any area of education. The definition and concept of education has begun to morph
significantly in the past decades and game-based learning has become a popular way to encourage more
active learning in a creative and alternative manner for students in K-12 classrooms, higher education,
and adult education. AGBL presents titles that address many applications, theories, and principles sur-
rounding this growing area of educational theory and practice.

Coverage
• Curriculum Development Using Educational
Games
IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts
• Digital Game-Based Learning
for publication within this series. To submit a pro-
• Edutainment posal for a volume in this series, please contact our
• Electronic Educational Games Acquisition Editors at [email protected]
• Game Design and Development of Educational or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.
Games
• MMOs in Education
• Pedagogical Theory of Game-Based Learning
• Psychological Study of Students Involved in
Game-Based Learning
• Role of instructors
• Virtual worlds and Game-Based Learning

The Advances in Game-Based Learning (AGBL) Book Series (ISSN 2327-1825) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue,
Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited
to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/
book-series/advances-game-based-learning/73680. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2017 IGI Global. All
rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by
any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without
written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed
in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Titles in this Series
For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com

Handbook of Research on 3-D Virtual Environments and Hypermedia for Ubiquitous Learning
Francisco Milton Mendes Neto (Federal Rural University of the Semiarid Region, Brazil) Rafael de Souza (Federal
Rural University of the Semiarid Region, Brazil) and Alex Sandro Gomes (Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2016 • 673pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522501251) • US $235.00 (our price)

Handbook of Research on Gaming Trends in P-12 Education

Donna Russell (Walden University, USA) and James M. Laffey (University of Missouri at Columbia, USA)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2016 • 663pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466696297) • US $325.00 (our price)

Cases on the Assessment of Scenario and Game-Based Virtual Worlds in Higher Education
Shannon Kennedy-Clark (Australian Catholic University, Australia) Kristina Everett (Australian Catholic Univer-
sity, Australia) and Penny Wheeler (Australian Catholic University, Australia)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2014 • 333pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466644700) • US $205.00 (our price)

Psychology, Pedagogy, and Assessment in Serious Games

Thomas M. Connolly (University of the West of Scotland, UK) Thomas Hainey (University of the West of Scotland,
UK) Elizabeth Boyle (University of the West of Scotland, UK) Gavin Baxter (University of the West of Scotland,
UK) and Pablo Moreno-Ger (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2014 • 522pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466647732) • US $175.00 (our price)

Student Usability in Educational Software and Games Improving Experiences

Carina Gonzalez (University of La Laguna, Spain)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2013 • 439pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781466619876) • US $175.00 (our price)

Interactivity in E-Learning Case Studies and Frameworks

Haomin Wang (Dakota State University, USA)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2012 • 408pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781613504413) • US $175.00 (our price)

Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation through Educational Games Multidisciplinary
Approaches
Patrick Felicia (Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2011 • 1462pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781609604950) • US $475.00 (our price)

Simulation and Gaming for Mathematical Education Epistemology and Teaching Strategies
Angela Piu (University of L’Aquila, Italy) and Cesare Fregola (Roma Tre University, Italy)
Information Science Reference • copyright 2011 • 256pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781605669304) • US $180.00 (our price)

701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033

Order online at www.igi-global.com or call 717-533-8845 x100
To place a standing order for titles released in this series, contact: [email protected]
Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (est) or fax 24 hours a day 717-533-8661
Editorial Advisory Board
Rebecca P. Ang, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Robert Atkinson, Arizona State University, USA
Kirsten Butcher, University of Utah, USA
Anne Cook, University of Utah, USA
Hui Jin, Shanghai Normal University, China
Victor Lee, Utah State University, USA
Eric Poitra, University of Utah, USA
Peter Rich, Brigham Young University, USA
Marc Sebrechts, The Catholic University of America, USA
Anna Ursyn, Colorado State University, USA
Rick Wagner, Florida State University, USA

List of Reviewers
Mete Akcaoglu, Georgia Southern University, USA
Oliver Dreon, Millersville University, USA
Jing Feng, North Carolina State University, USA
Udita Gupta, University of Utah, USA
Antonio Gutierrez, Georgia Southern University, USA
Douglas Hacker, University of Utah, USA
Charles Hodges, Georgia Southern University, USA
Fengfeng Ke, Florida State University, USA
David Kirschner, Georgia Gwinnett College, USA
Stephen Slota, University of Connecticut, USA
Greg Szczyrbak, Millersville University, USA
Naomi Thompson, Indiana University, USA

List of Contributors

Akcaoglu, Mete / Georgia Southern University, USA........................................................................ 217

Altizer, Roger / University of Utah, USA............................................................................................ 115
Ang, Rebecca P. / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore..................................................... 168
Boon, Jillian S. T. / Institute of Mental Health, Singapore................................................................. 168
Butcher, Kirsten R. / University of Utah, USA.................................................................................. 115
Choi, HeeSun / North Carolina State University, USA......................................................................... 93
Compeau, Timothy / Brock University, Canada................................................................................ 272
DaCosta, Boaventura / Solers Research Group, USA................................................................. 320,340
Danish, Joshua / Indiana University, USA......................................................................................... 149
Dreon, Oliver / Millersville University, USA...................................................................................... 366
Feng, Jing / North Carolina State University, USA.............................................................................. 93
Fung, Daniel S. S. / Institute of Mental Health, Singapore................................................................ 168
Gardner, Michael K. / University of Utah, USA.................................................................................... 1
Ge, Xun / University of Oklahoma, USA............................................................................................. 253
Goh, Dion H. / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.......................................................... 168
Gros, Begoña / University of Barcelona, Spain.................................................................................. 402
Gutierrez, Antonio P. / Georgia Southern University, USA.............................................................. 217
Hacker, Douglas J. / University of Utah, USA..................................................................................... 19
Hämäläinen, Raija / University of Jyväskylä, Finland......................................................................... 41
Harley, Jason M. / University of Alberta, Canada............................................................................. 272
Hodges, Charles B. / Georgia Southern University, USA.................................................................. 217
Huan, Vivien S. / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore...................................................... 168
Ifenthaler, Dirk / University of Mannheim, Germany........................................................................ 253
Ke, Fengfeng / Florida State University, USA.................................................................................... 234
Kee, Kevin / University of Ottawa, Canada........................................................................................ 272
Kirschner, David / Georgia Gwinnett College, USA.......................................................................... 380
Lainema, Timo / University of Turku, Finland..................................................................................... 41
Lajoie, Susanne P. / McGill University, Canada................................................................................ 272
Lee, Jaejin / University of Seoul, South Korea................................................................................... 197
Liu, Min / The University of Texas at Austin, USA............................................................................. 197
Oksanen, Kimmo / University of Jyväskylä, Finland........................................................................... 41
Ooi, Yoon Phaik / Nanyang Technological University, Singapore..................................................... 168
Peppler, Kylie / Indiana University, USA........................................................................................... 149
Poitras, Eric G. / University of Utah, USA......................................................................................... 272
Runburg, Madlyn / Natural History Museum of Utah, USA............................................................. 115

Seok, Soonhwa / Korea University, South Korea......................................................................... 320,340

Slota, Stephen T. / University of Connecticut, USA........................................................................... 294
Sonnleitner, Philipp / University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg........................................................ 217
Strayer, David L. / University of Utah, USA.......................................................................................... 1
Szczyrbak, Greg / Millersville University, USA................................................................................. 366
Tan, Jean Lee / Ministry of Education, Singapore............................................................................. 168
Thompson, Naomi / Indiana University, USA.................................................................................... 149
Truong, Thanh N. / University of Utah, USA....................................................................................... 66
Young, Michael F. / University of Connecticut, USA......................................................................... 294
Zheng, Robert Z. / University of Utah, USA........................................................................................ 66
Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx

Acknowledgment.............................................................................................................................. xxvii

Section 1
Educational Games: Theoretical Perspectives

Chapter 1
What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games.................................... 1
Michael K. Gardner, University of Utah, USA
David L. Strayer, University of Utah, USA

Chapter 2
The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games................................................................. 19
Douglas J. Hacker, University of Utah, USA

Chapter 3
Learning from Social Collaboration: A Paradigm Shift in Evaluating Game-Based Learning............. 41
Kimmo Oksanen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Timo Lainema, University of Turku, Finland
Raija Hämäläinen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Chapter 4
A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning............................... 66
Robert Z. Zheng, University of Utah, USA
Thanh N. Truong, University of Utah, USA

Section 2
Educational Games: Cognitive and Psychological Perspectives

Chapter 5
Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills...................................................................................... 93
HeeSun Choi, North Carolina State University, USA
Jing Feng, North Carolina State University, USA

Chapter 6
Dino Lab: Designing and Developing an Educational Game for Critical Thinking............................ 115
Kirsten R. Butcher, University of Utah, USA
Madlyn Runburg, Natural History Museum of Utah, USA
Roger Altizer, University of Utah, USA

Chapter 7
Designing BioSim: Playfully Encouraging Systems Thinking in Young Children............................. 149
Naomi Thompson, Indiana University, USA
Kylie Peppler, Indiana University, USA
Joshua Danish, Indiana University, USA

Chapter 8
A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills............................................... 168
Rebecca P. Ang, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Jean Lee Tan, Ministry of Education, Singapore
Dion H. Goh, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Vivien S. Huan, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Yoon Phaik Ooi, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Jillian S. T. Boon, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore
Daniel S. S. Fung, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore

Section 3
Educational Games: Instructional Design Perspectives

Chapter 9
Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game....................... 197
Jaejin Lee, University of Seoul, South Korea
Min Liu, The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Chapter 10
Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process........................................................................ 217
Mete Akcaoglu, Georgia Southern University, USA
Antonio P. Gutierrez, Georgia Southern University, USA
Charles B. Hodges, Georgia Southern University, USA
Philipp Sonnleitner, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Chapter 11
Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions in a 3D Architecture
Game.................................................................................................................................................... 234
Fengfeng Ke, Florida State University, USA

Chapter 12
Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement in Game-Based
Learning............................................................................................................................................... 253
Xun Ge, University of Oklahoma, USA
Dirk Ifenthaler, University of Mannheim, Germany

Section 4
Educational Games: Teaching and Learning Perspectives

Chapter 13
Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings: Leveraging Technology for the Love of
History................................................................................................................................................. 272
Eric G. Poitras, University of Utah, USA
Jason M. Harley, University of Alberta, Canada
Timothy Compeau, Brock University, Canada
Kevin Kee, University of Ottawa, Canada
Susanne P. Lajoie, McGill University, Canada

Chapter 14
Stories, Games, and Learning through Play: The Affordances of Game Narrative for
Education............................................................................................................................................. 294
Stephen T. Slota, University of Connecticut, USA
Michael F. Young, University of Connecticut, USA

Chapter 15
Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1: A Quantitative
Examination of the Characteristics Describing the Casual Player....................................................... 320
Boaventura DaCosta, Solers Research Group, USA
Soonhwa Seok, Korea University, South Korea

Chapter 16
Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2: A Quantitative
Examination of the Casual Player in the Context of Age and Gender................................................. 340
Boaventura DaCosta, Solers Research Group, USA
Soonhwa Seok, Korea University, South Korea

Chapter 17
Level Up: Multiple Player Professional Development......................................................................... 366
Oliver Dreon, Millersville University, USA
Greg Szczyrbak, Millersville University, USA

Chapter 18
The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism as a Graduate Student Project............ 380
David Kirschner, Georgia Gwinnett College, USA

Chapter 19
Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games..................................................... 402
Begoña Gros, University of Barcelona, Spain

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 418

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 482

Index.................................................................................................................................................... 492
Detailed Table of Contents

Preface................................................................................................................................................... xx

Acknowledgment.............................................................................................................................. xxvii

Section 1
Educational Games: Theoretical Perspectives

Developers of educational computer games often have incomplete knowledge of the cognitive abilities of
learners, yet this knowledge can be useful in informing game design. This chapter reviews two important
cognitive abilities that underlie learning: working memory and attentional capacity/executive function.
From a description of the developmental course of each ability, we derive a set of recommendations for
game developers to follow when designing games for learners of different ages. The chapter next reviews
the psychology of transfer of training, including two major theories on the issue. The doctrine of identical
elements appears to give the better description of how transfer occurs from training environment (the
educational computer game) to target environment (real world performance of the learned skill). It is
recommended that games embody, as closely as possible, the end behavior they hope to produce, as this
will produce maximal transfer. Finally, we review some controversial research demonstrating distant
transfer in computer video gaming.

Chapter 2
The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games................................................................. 19
Douglas J. Hacker, University of Utah, USA

This chapter focuses on three recommendations from the National Research Council for conducting
research that may increase the impact of serious games on student achievement. At the core of these
recommendations is an emphasis on the role of metacognition in learning. The first recommendation
examines the player’s self-awareness as a learner and how a sense of agency can be nurtured by serious
games to promote self-regulated learning. The second examines the mediating processes within the
individual that influence learning with games. This section describes embodied cognition, which examines
the interactions among body, mind, and game environment that can lead to learning. The third examines
the problem of transfer of learning. This section offers suggestions on how transfer from gaming contexts

to academic contexts can be facilitated. The chapter concludes with an examination of whether research
in response to these recommendations can positively impact learning via the serious game.

This chapter focuses on the challenge of evaluating game-based learning. It argues that linking game-
based learning with the characteristics of a specific game or game-produced engagement is challenging.
It further proposes a framework in which the game-based learning process is approached by considering
(business) simulation games as Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments
and presents an approach on how learning can be approached and evaluated from this perspective. In
addition, it highlights how simulation game mechanics appears to be a potential way to promote learners’
socio-emotional processes and give rise to social interaction and to structure collaboration among the
learners in the game context. The proposed framework of this chapter takes into account both cognitive
and socio-emotional perspectives of learning. The results of the chapter will present a contemporary
view on the roles of sociability, collaboration and engagement in game-based learning.

Chapter 4
A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning............................... 66
Robert Z. Zheng, University of Utah, USA
Thanh N. Truong, University of Utah, USA

This chapter focuses on an important issue in SNS game-based learning, that is, learners’ knowledge
transfer in the ill-structured domain. The chapter offers a discussion of instructional strategies in SNS
game-based learning. The discussion presented here was framed around an extensive review of the literature
pertinent to the strategies and approaches in serious games. Based on the discussion a framework was
proposed for serious game design which revealed the interaction between and interrelationship among
the variables in serious game learning. A pilot study was conducted to test the partial components of the
framework. The results supported the framework showing students’ progression in knowledge transfer in
a game-based learning environment. Discussions were made regarding the implications of the framework
and its application in k-16 education and professional training.

Section 2
Educational Games: Cognitive and Psychological Perspectives

In this chapter, we explore why and how to use video games for educational purpose to enhance spatial
skills. We review the history and trends of the educational use of video games, introduce the concept
of spatial skills, and present the importance of spatial skills in STEM education. We outline existing
research on spatial training using video games, discuss the methodological issues in these research, and

summarize speculated underlying mechanisms of spatial learning. We also discuss considerations in

designing video games to maximize the training outcomes of improving spatial skills. We hope that this
chapter will not only provide a comprehensive overview of our current knowledge on the importance of
learning spatial skills and the potential of video games in facilitating the learning, but also inform about
the effective design of video games to accelerate the acquisition of spatial skills.

Dino Lab is a serious game designed to explore the potential of using games in scientific domains to
support critical thinking. Through collaborations with educators and scientists at the Natural History
Museum of Utah (NHMU), game designers and learning scientists at the University of Utah, and Title I
middle school teachers and students, the authors have developed a beta version of Dino Lab that supports
critical thinking through engagement in a simulation-based game. Dino Lab is organized around four key
game stages that incorporate high-level goals, domain-specific rule algorithms that govern legal plays
and resulting outcomes, embedded reflection questions, and built-in motivational features. Initial play
testing has shown positive results, with students highly engaged in strategic game play. Overall, results
suggest that games that support critical thinking have strong potential as student-centered, authentic
activities that facilitate domain-based engagement and strategic analysis.

In this chapter, we discuss the design decisions made when creating the game mechanics and rules for
BioSim, a pair of game-like participatory simulations centered around honeybees and army ants to help
young children (ages kindergarten through third grade) explore complex systems concepts. We outline
four important design principles that helped us align the games and simulations to the systems thinking
concepts that we wanted the students to learn: (1) Choose a specific and productive focal topic; (2) Build
on game mechanics typically found in children’s play; (3) Purposefully constrain children’s play to help
them notice certain system elements; and (4) Align guiding theories to game rules, and vice versa. We
then highlight how these guiding principles can be leveraged to allow young children to engage with
complex systems concepts in robust ways, and consider our next steps and goals for research as we
continue to iterate and build on these games.

This chapter describes a game-based approach to teaching social problem solving skills. This chapter
presents the background, literature review, development and evaluation of a social problem-solving game,
Socialdrome, for use with primary school going children in Singapore. The game sought to intentionally
teach children to identify and manage feelings, exercise self-control, solve social problems and negotiate
conflict situations. This chapter has two objectives. First, we describe the design of Socialdrome, which
is in alignment with instructional design and game design principles. In Study 1, we reported a formative
evaluation of the game. This led to further refinements of the game. Second, we presented Study 2,
an investigation of the learning outcomes and user acceptance arising from using Socialdrome. Here,
a summative evaluation of the game in a formal classroom setting was reported. We concluded with
directions for future work.

Section 3
Educational Games: Instructional Design Perspectives

Researchers are interested in exploring the use of fantasy design in educational games to promote learning.
This chapter first reviewed the literature on fantasy designs and relevant principles along with the studies
examining the use of fantasy designs to enhance learning. An experiment was then conducted, in which
two sets of fantasy designs were implemented in a serious game, to examine the effect of different types
of fantasy (portrayal fantasy vs creative fantasy designs) on learning and game engagement. The results
using multiple regressions showed that portrayal fantasy design was more effective both for enhancing
learning and engagement. Students who used portrayal fantasy models showed better improvement in their
content knowledge and scored better on game engagement. Visualization analysis showed the portrayal
fantasy group spent more time in using the tool containing all fantasy designs than the creative group.
Findings and future research directions are discussed.

Problem solving is one of the most essential skills for individuals to be successful at their daily lives
and careers. When problems become complex, solving them involves identifying relationships among a
multitude of interrelated variables, to achieve multiple different possible solutions. Teaching Complex
Problem Solving (CPS) skills in formal education contexts is challenging. In this research, we examined
if through an innovative game-design course middle school students improved in their CPS skills. Our
results showed that students showed significant improvements in their CPS skills, especially in terms of
system exploration, t(10) = 2.787, p = .019; system knowledge, t(10) = 2.437, p = .35; system application,
t(10) = 2.472, p = .033. In addition, there was a statistically significant change in students’ interest for
CPS after attending the GDL program, t(6) = 3.890, p = .008. We discuss implications regarding use of
game-design tasks as contexts to teach CPS skills in formal and informal educational contexts.

This chapter reports a design-based study that examines core game mechanics that enable an intrinsic
integration of domain-specific learning. In particular, the study aims to extract the design heuristics that
promote content engagement in the actions of architectural construction in Earthquake Rebuild, a 3D
epistemic simulation game that aims to promote active math learning for middle-school students. Data
were collected from iterative expert reviews and user-testing studies. Based on the study findings, the
chapter presents qualitative, analytic speculations on the design of the game-play mode and perspective,
the granularity level, the user input interface, and incentives for attentive content engagement that will
reinforce the learning affordance and playability of the core game gaming actions.

The focus of this chapter is on designing engaging educational games for cognitive, motivational, and
emotional benefits. The concept of engagement is defined and its relationship with motivation and cognition
are discussed. Design issues with many educational games are examined in terms of factors influencing
sustained motivation and engagement. A theoretical framework to design engaging digital games is
presented, including three dimensions of engagement (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, and emotional). Later,
the chapter considers how to harness the appealing power of engaging games for designing engaging
educational games. Various motivational features of game design and learner experiences are considered.
In conclusion, the chapter also discusses various methods to assess engagement in order to inform the
design of educational games that motivate learners.

Section 4
Educational Games: Teaching and Learning Perspectives

Cultural heritage sites and museums are faced with an important challenge – how best to balance the
needs of engaging visitors in meaningful and entertaining experiences, while at the same time exploiting
the affordances of exhibits for instructional purposes? In this chapter, we examine the use of augmented
reality in the context of informal learning environments, and how this type of technology can be used as
a means to enhance learning about history. The research case studies are reviewed in terms of the use of
historical locations, experience mechanics, narrative/plot, and role-playing (the later two representing
game-based elements) in the design guidelines of instructional activities and applications. In doing so,
we critique the theoretical, methodological, and instructional underpinnings of studies that evaluate
augmented reality applications and draw several recommendations for future research in this field.

Stories are the mechanism through which humans construct reality and make sense of the world around
them. Yet, literature on the effects of narrative in game-based and other learning environments is quite
variable, and the relevance of narrative to the learning sciences is not well-researched. Identifying precisely
how narrative intertwines with human experience of the lived-in world requires the application of a situated
cognition framework to understand user-content-context interactions as dynamic and co-determined. This
chapter uses examples drawn from a narrative-structured, game-based learning program to accomplish
that goal, discussing in-context, on-the-fly dialogic interactions between narrative “producers” and
“recipients.” While there is still much to learn, the leveraging of narrative to help recipients grapple with
complex social, cultural, and intellectual issues may be one of the most important—and overlooked—
means of inducing game-to-real world transfer.

The first of two chapters, a study is presented that quantitatively examined the adolescent and young adult
“casual” video game player. A total of 1,950 South Korean students self-reported their game play on

mobile phones by answering a 92-item questionnaire designed to capture data on technology ownership;
preference for game genre and titles; where and how often games were played; what factors influence
game selection, what game features were the most desirable, the rationale behind playing games, and
psychophysical changes experienced as a result of playing; as well as, spending habits with regard to
game purchases. The findings supported many of the claims made about the casual player, revealing, for
example, that mobile games are predominately played for short periods of time, in between activities,
and as a means to combat boredom. Adding credence to the idea that mobile game play can be viewed
as a casual activity. Results also revealed potentially positive benefits, to include improved mood and
feelings of well-being along with better mental attention and focus.

The second of two chapters, a study is presented that quantitatively examined the adolescent and young
adult casual video game player from the perspective of age and gender. A total of 1,950 South Korean
students self-reported their game play on mobile phones by answering a 92-item questionnaire designed
to capture data on technology ownership; preference for game genre and titles; where and how often
games were played; what factors influence the selection of games to play, what game features were the
most desirable, the rationale behind playing games, and psychophysical changes experienced as a result
of playing; as well as, spending habits with regard to game purchases. The findings supported many
of the age and gender suppositions made about the casual player. For example, females played mobile
games as much as males, and play time was limited to 30 minute increments almost equally among age
groups and gender. New discoveries were also found to include positive benefits stemming from mobile
games, such as improved mood and feelings of well-being along with better mental attention and focus.

Gamification is becoming increasingly popular in both K-12 and higher education settings. By infusing
game elements into learning environments, educators believe that students will be more engaged and
more motivated to learn. But what about the use of gamification to support the professional development
of educators? What impact would gamification have on the participation and motivation of professors
and faculty involved in an intensive professional development experience? This chapter describes the
creation and implementation of Level Up, a two week long professional development game involving
twenty faculty member participants. The chapter outlines the process of designing the game and the game
elements used throughout its implementation. The chapter also examines some challenges the designers
and participants experienced during the game implementation and provides several design considerations
for professional developers who wish to gamify their faculty programs.

Chapter 18
The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism as a Graduate Student Project............ 380
David Kirschner, Georgia Gwinnett College, USA

This chapter presents a case of the development, implementation, and iteration of a gamified, graduate-
student-driven, collaborative class project about community health activism. The project was founded
on three principles: (1) people define, interpret, and modify the meanings of health and wellbeing based
on past experiences and in diverse contexts; (2) both learning and iterative design are adaptations to
problems; and (3) knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Prior to the class
project, the researchers designed a web-based platform for people to publicly recognize and motivate
one another for being healthcaring, exhibiting positive attitudes and behaviors toward the health and
wellbeing of themselves and others. This chapter shows how students, researchers, and the community
refined a definition of healthcaring while trying to change people’s health attitudes and behaviors
through gamification. After contextualizing the project and discussing its foundations, the chapter offers
a discussion on its four phases and results.

Chapter 19
Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games..................................................... 402
Begoña Gros, University of Barcelona, Spain

Designing serious games is a complex process because finding the right balance between the ‘serious’
and the ‘game’ dimensions is vital, as pointed out in some meta-analyses. If educational content prevails
over the entertainment element, users’ motivation may decrease and this can have a negative impact on
the effectiveness of learning. On the other hand, if entertainment predominates over content, this can
also limit learning opportunities. Another major concern identified regarding the use of digital games
in education is the difficulty in assessing effectiveness in achieving the learning goals. This chapter
discusses and analyses different models for guiding the design cycle of serious games with the aim of
supporting not only the design process but also the implementation and assessment of serious games in
education. This contribution emphasises the importance of in-game assessment and the need for further
research on adaptive serious games.

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 418

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 482

Index.................................................................................................................................................... 492
xx

Preface

The notion of “gaming” and the effective development of games first took hold in the computer en-
tertainment industry. Indeed, today institutions such as the University of Utah and the University of
Southern California have successful graduate programs in computer game development. Not long after
the emergence of computer gaming, educators and trainers began to consider how the principles of suc-
cessful gaming could be applied to the educational arena, broadly defined. Research in serious gaming for
educational applications has focused on numerous areas: (a) gaming and cognition (Lamb, Cavagnetto,
& Akmal, 2016; Rice, 2007); (b) gaming for classroom based learning (Abdul Jabbar & Felicia, 2015;
Squire, 2003, 2008; Van Eaton, Clark, & Smith, 2015); (c) design and development of games for train-
ing (Arnab et al., 2015; Pill, 2014; Rosario & Widmever, 2009); and (d) gaming and society (Foreman,
2004). The diversity of research programs in the area of serious games for educational applications has
made it difficult for students, and even faculty, to perceive the field from a unified perspective.
In this volume we have attempted to provide a unified presentation of the field of serious gaming for
educational applications. We have divided our presentation into four section: (a) theoretical perspectives;
(b) cognitive and psychological perspectives; (c) instructional design perspectives; and (d) teaching and
learning perspectives. With regard to the theoretical perspective underlying serious games for educa-
tional applications, we present material concerning the cognitive, metacognitive, and affective factors
underlying games in educational contexts. Material is also presented concerning knowledge transfer.
Concerning cognitive and psychological aspects of gaming, we present chapters concerned with spatial
skills, critical thinking, systems thinking, and social problem solving. These chapters move beyond the
underlying theory to actual applications of serious gaming to develop cognitive processes and skills.
Instructional design for educational games is considered in chapters concerning fantasy game design,
design for complex problem solving, design to enhance intrinsic integration of domain specific knowl-
edge, and design to enhance the motivational properties of educational games. Finally, the teaching
and learning applications of games are illuminated in chapters focused on the use of augmented reality
in informal learning, the importance of narrative and stories in educational games, the characteristics
of adolescents and young adults who engage in game play on mobile devices, how educational games
can be used in professional development with educational professionals, how educational games can be
used to enhance health and well-being, and how to balance the entertainment and educational aspects
of serious games (including a typology for categorizing serious games).
The value of this volume is that synthesizes the many aspects of serious games for educational
applications, and presents a clear theoretical foundation (e.g., classifying research on serious games
according to its focus: cognitive, metacognitive, or affective). It considers serious game development
not only from a theoretical perspective, but also from the various applied perspectives necessary to cre-

Preface

ate effective educational games (cognitive goals of gaming, instructional design principles required to
implement effective games, the role of motivation in game design, and how such serious games can be
used to achieve teaching and learning goals). In addition to creating the intellectual context for serious
games used for educational applications, we have tried to make this volume broad in terms of where are
the research was done. The book presents research conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia. We
feel that this allows us to present the reader with a truly international view of the field.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS BOOK

This edited volume is marked by its unique contributions to the educational and research communities.
Firstly, it brings together multiple perspectives in educational gamification by focusing on cognitive,
metacognitive, and motivational aspects in the game-based learning. Secondly, the book is significant
both theoretically and practically. At the theoretical level, it contributes to the knowledge base by high-
lighting the theories and principles in game-based learning. At the practical level, the book offers an
array of teaching and learning strategies as well as design approaches for the design and development
of educational games. As such, the book bridges the theories with practices in educational gamification
with a focus on effective use of games in teaching and learning. Thirdly, the book reflects the collec-
tive effort of researchers from a broad range of academic institutions and research organizations – from
private to public comprehensive, and from state and national to international which makes the book ap-
peal to readers both from the United States and the international educational communities at all levels.
This volume is appropriate for use as a text in graduate and undergraduate courses in programs such
as instructional design, educational technology, communications and media, game design, teaching and
learning, educational psychology, and applied computer science. In some cases, the book could serve as
a primary text (e.g., in educational technology, multimedia learning, or seminars on educational gamifi-
cation). The text is also appropriate as an adjunct for more general courses in education, cognition, and
communications. Professionals in applied areas, such as K through 12 teachers or university instructional
designers, may find the information helpful in their professional applications. Finally, for faculty and
graduate students pursuing research in the area of educational and computer gaming, the text provides a
current sampling of research and theory in the field, and presents this information in an integrated way.
We hope you will enjoy reading this book as much as we have enjoyed making it.

ORGANIZATION OF THE THIS BOOK

The book is divided into four sections in a purpose to maximize the value for the readers as they move
from the theoretical to the practical and from a focus on cognition, metacognition, and motivation to
specific issues involving the design, teaching and learning with educational games.
Section 1 presents a theoretical perspective on educational gamification that focuses on the cogni-
tive, metacognitive, and social aspects of serious games in educational applications. Section 1 consists
of four chapters. A description of each chapter follows.
Chapter 1: In this chapter Mike Gardner and David Strayer (University of Utah, USA) provides
an overview on important cognitive abilities that underlie learning: working memory and attentional
capacity/executive function. Based on the general cognitive demands in learning, the authors made a

xxi
Preface

set of recommendations for game developers to follow when designing games for learners of different
ages. The authors further elaborated on how transfer occurs from training environment (the educational
computer game) to target environment (real world performance of the learned skill) with recommenda-
tions on optimization of transfer in game-based learning.
Chapter 2 presents the work by Douglas Hacker (University of Utah, USA) who focuses on the role
of metacognition in game-based learning. The author, drawn from his several decades of research in
metacognition, made recommendations on the design and development of educational games by taking
in perspectives the role of metacognition in learning. The first recommendation examines the player’s
self-awareness as a learner and how a sense of agency can be nurtured by serious games to promote self-
regulated learning. The second examines the mediating processes within the individual that influence
learning with games. The third examines the problem of transfer of learning. The chapter concludes
with an examination of whether research in response to these recommendations can positively impact
learning via the serious game.
In Chapter 3 Kimmo Oksanen of University of Jyväskylä, Finland; Timo Lainema of University of
Turku, Finland; and Raija Hämäläinen of University of Jyväskylä, Finland, emphasized the social aspects
in game-based learning. The authors proposed a framework in which the game-based learning process is
approached by considering (business) simulation games as Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL) environments and present an approach on how learning can be approached and evaluated from
this perspective. In addition, they highlighted how simulation game mechanics appears to be a potential
way to promote learners’ socio-emotional processes and give rise to social interaction and to structure
collaboration among the learners in the game context.
Chapter 4 focuses on an important issue in Social Networking Sites (SNS) game-based learning,
that is, learners’ knowledge transfer in the ill-structured domain. The authors (Robert Zheng and Thanh
Truong of University of Utah, USA) offer a discussion of instructional strategies in SNS game-based
learning framed around an extensive review of the literature pertinent to the strategies and approaches
in serious games. Based on the discussion a framework was proposed for serious game design which
reveals the interaction between and interrelationship among the variables in serious game learning.
Section 2 offers discussions on the cognitive and psychological perspective in educational games. The
authors examine the relationship between spatial skills and video games, the critical thinking skills in
game-based learning, and approaches to teaching social problem-solving skills with educational games.
A brief discussion of the chapters follows.
Chapter 5 explores why and how to use video games for educational purpose to enhance spatial skills.
The authors (HeeSun Choi and Jing Feng of North Carolina State University, USA) discuss considerations
in designing video games to maximize the training outcomes of improving spatial skills by outlining
existing research on spatial training using video games, highlighting the methodological issues in these
research, and summarizing speculated underlying mechanisms of spatial learning. The chapter not only
provides a comprehensive overview of learning spatial skills but also informs about the effective design
of video games to accelerate the acquisition of spatial skills.
Chapter 6 presents a case on exploring the potential of using games in scientific domains to support
critical thinking. The authors (Kirsten Butcher, Madlyn Runburg, and Roger Altizer of University of
Utah, USA) have developed a beta version of Dino Lab that supports critical thinking through engage-
ment in a simulation-based game. Dino Lab is organized around four key game stages that incorporate
high-level goals, domain-specific rule algorithms that govern legal plays and resulting outcomes with
embedded reflection questions and built-in motivational features. Initial play testing has shown positive

xxii
Preface

results, with students highly engaged in strategic game play. Overall, results suggest that games that
support critical thinking have strong potential as student-centered, authentic activities that facilitate
domain-based engagement and strategic analysis.
In Chapter 7 the authors (Naomi Thompson, Kylie Peppler, and Joshua Danish of Indiana University,
USA) discusses the design decisions made when creating the game mechanics and rules for BioSim, a pair
of game-like participatory simulations centered around honeybees and army ants to help young children
(ages kindergarten through third grade) explore complex systems concepts. The authors outlined four
important design principles that helped align the games and simulations to the systems thinking concepts
in student learning. The authors went on to highlight how these guiding principles can be leveraged to
allow young children to engage with complex systems concepts in robust ways in educational games.
In Chapter 8 Rebecca Ang (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) and her colleagues present
a game-based approach to teaching social problem solving skills. The authors introduced the learning
game called Socialdrome for use with primary school going children in Singapore. The game sought to
intentionally teach children to identify and manage feelings, exercise self-control, solve social problems
and negotiate conflict situations. The authors conducted a study on the Socialdrome and reported a
formative evaluation of the game. This was followed by a second study in which the learning outcomes
and user acceptance of the Socialdrome were reported. Some discussion about and recommendations
for future work were made.
Section 3 focuses on the instructional design perspective in educational games. The issues being cov-
ered in this section include how to design game for complex problem solving, the motivational aspects in
educational game design, and the assessment that measures learners’ engagement with educational games.
Chapter 9 presents a study by Jaejin Lee (Seoul National University, South Korea) and Min Liu (The
University of Texas at Austin, USA) on the use of fantasy design in educational games to promote learn-
ing. The authors first reviewed the literature on fantasy designs and relevant principles along with the
studies examining the use of fantasy designs to enhance learning. An experiment was then conducted,
in which two sets of fantasy designs were implemented in a serious game, to examine the effect of dif-
ferent types of fantasy (portrayal fantasy vs creative fantasy designs) on learning and game engagement.
The results using multiple regressions showed that portrayal fantasy design was more effective both
for enhancing learning and engagement. Students who used portrayal fantasy models showed better
improvement in their content knowledge and scored better on game engagement. Visualization analysis
showed the portrayal fantasy group spent more time in using the tool containing all fantasy designs than
the creative group. Findings and future research directions are discussed.
Chapter 10 explores game design as a complex problem solving process for learning. Mete Akcao-
glu and colleagues (Georgia Southern University, USA) argued that problem solving is one of the most
essential skills for individuals to be successful at their daily lives and careers. They pointed out when
problems become complex, solving them involves identifying relationships among a multitude of inter-
related variables, to achieve multiple different possible solutions. In their research, the authors examined
if through an innovative game-design course middle school students improved in their CPS skills. Their
results showed that students showed significant improvements in their CPS skills, especially in terms
of system exploration, system knowledge, and system application. In addition, there was a statistically
significant change in students’ interest for CPS after attending the GDL program. Discussions were made
pertaining to the implications of the use of game-design tasks as contexts to teach CPS skills in formal
and informal educational contexts.

xxiii
Preface

Chapter 11 presents a research on designing intrinsic integration of learning and gaming actions in
a 3D architecture game. Fengfeng Ke of Florida State University, USA conducted a design-based study
that examines core game mechanics that enable an intrinsic integration of domain-specific learning. In
particular, the study aims to extract the design heuristics that promote content engagement in the actions
of architectural construction in Earthquake Rebuild, a 3D epistemic simulation game that aims to promote
active math learning for middle-school students. Data were collected from iterative expert reviews and
user-testing studies. Based on the study findings, the chapter presents qualitative, analytic speculations
on the design of the game-play mode and perspective, the granularity level, the user input interface, and
incentives for attentive content engagement that will reinforce the learning affordance and playability
of the core game gaming actions.
Chapter 12 focuses on designing engaging educational games for cognitive, motivational, and emo-
tional benefits. The concept of engagement is defined and its relationship with motivation and cognition
are discussed. Design issues with many educational games are examined in terms of factors influenc-
ing sustained motivation and engagement. The authors (Xun Ge of University of Oklahoma, USA and
Dirk Ifenthaler of University of Mannheim, Germany) then proposed a theoretical framework to design
engaging digital games which includes three dimensions of engagement (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, and
emotional). The author went on to elaborate on how to harness the appealing power of engaging games
for designing engaging educational games. Various motivational features of game design and learner
experiences are considered.
Section 4 presents research that focus on the teaching and learning perspectives in educational gamifi-
cation. The topics covered include augmented reality for informal learning, mobile games for adolescent
and young adults, gamified system for health related professional training, and game and pedagogical
dimensions in serious games.
In Chapter 13 the authors (Eric Poitras of University of Utah, USA; Jason M. Harley of University of
Alberta, Canada; Timothy Compeau of Brock University, Canada; Kevin Kee of University of Ottawa,
Canada; and Susanne P. Lajoie of McGill University, Canada) studied how best to balance the needs
of engaging visitors in meaningful and entertaining experiences, while at the same time exploiting the
affordances of exhibits for instructional purposes. The authors examined the use of augmented real-
ity in the context of informal learning environments, and the type of technology that can be used as a
means to enhance learning. The research case studies were reviewed in terms of the design guidelines of
instructional activities and applications. Recommendations for future research in this field were made.
In Chapter 14 Stephen T. Slota and Michael F. Young of University of Connecticut, USA focused
on the effects of narrative in game-based learning environments. The authors discussed how narrative
intertwines with human experience of the lived-in world and how it requires the application of a situated
cognition framework to understand user-content-context interactions as dynamic and co-determined.
The authors explored how learners can draw from a narrative-structured, game-based learning program
to accomplish discussing in-context, on-the-fly dialogic interactions between narrative “producers” and
“recipients.” The authors point out that game-to-real world transfer may rest in the effective leveraging
of narrative to help recipients grapple with complex social, cultural, and intellectual issues.
In Chapter 15 Boaventura DaCosta (Solers Research Group, USA) and Soonhwa Seok (Korea Uni-
versity, South Korea) conducted a qualitative study exploring the factors pertinent to adolescent and
young adult mobile game play. A total of 1,950 South Korean students self-reported their game play on
mobile phones by answering a 92-item questionnaire designed to capture data on technology ownership;
preference for game genre and titles; where and how often games were played; what factors influence

xxiv
Preface

game selection, what game features were the most desirable, the rationale behind playing games, and
psychophysical changes experienced as a result of playing; as well as, spending habits with regard to
game purchases. The findings supported many of the claims made about the casual player, revealing that
mobile games are predominately played for short periods of time, in between activities, and as a means
to combat boredom. Results also revealed potentially positive benefits, to include improved mood and
feelings of well-being along with better mental attention and focus.
In Chapter 16 the authors (Boaventura DaCosta of Solers Research Group, USA and Soonhwa Seok
of Korea University, South Korea) conducted a quantitative factor analysis with the same data set. The
findings supported many of the age and gender suppositions made about the casual player. New discover-
ies were also found to include positive benefits stemming from mobile games, such as improved mood
and feelings of well-being along with better mental attention and focus.
Chapter 17 focuses on leveling up multiple player professional development. Oliver Dreon and Greg
Szczyrbak of Millersville University of Pennsylvania, USA queried the approaches to use gamification
to support the professional development of educators. They examined the impact of gamification on the
participation and motivation of professors and faculty involved in an intensive professional development
experience in a two week long professional development training. The chapter outlines the process of
designing the game and the game elements used throughout its implementation. The chapter also examines
some challenges the designers and participants experienced during the game implementation and provides
several design considerations for professional developers who wish to gamify their faculty programs.
In Chapter 18 David Kirschner of Georgia Gwinnett College, USA presents a case study on the de-
velopment of a gamified system for health activism. This chapter shows how students, researchers, and
the community refined a definition of healthcaring while trying to change people’s health attitudes and
behaviors through gamification. After contextualizing the project and discussing its foundations, the
chapter offers a discussion on its results and implications for future research.
Chapter 19 discusses and analyses different models for guiding the design cycle of serious games
with the aim of supporting not only the design process but also the implementation and assessment
of serious games in education. Begoña Gros of University of Barcelona, Spain argued that designing
serious games is a complex process because finding the right balance between the ‘serious’ and the
‘game’ dimensions is vital. The author further pointed out that if educational content prevails over the
entertainment element, users’ motivation may decrease and this can have a negative impact on the ef-
fectiveness of learning. On the other hand, if entertainment predominates over content, this can also
limit learning opportunities. The author then added, another major concern identified regarding the use
of digital games in education is the difficulty in assessing effectiveness in achieving the learning goals.
The author revolved her discussion around the above issues and presented suggestions for in-game as-
sessment and adaptive serious games.

Robert Zheng
University of Utah, USA

Michael K. Gardner
University of Utah, USA
February 15, 2016

xxv
Preface

REFERENCES

Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A
systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740–779. doi:10.3102/0034654315577210
Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. et al.
(2015). Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious game analysis. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(2), 391–411. doi:10.1111/bjet.12113
Foreman, J. (2004). Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st century. EDUCAUSE
Review, 39(5), 50–66.
Lamb, R., Cavagnetto, A., & Akmal, T. (2016). Examination of the nonlinear dynamic systems associated
with science student cognition while engaging in science information processing. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 187–205. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9593-2
Muñoz González, J. M., Rubio García, S., & Cruz Pichardo, I. M. (2015). Strategies of collaborative
work in the classroom through the design of video games. Digital Education Review, 27, 69–84.
Pill, S. (2014). Game play: What does it mean for pedagogy to think like a game developer? Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(1), 9–15. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.838119
Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 15(1), 87–100.
Rosario, R. A. M., & Widmever, G. R. (2009). An exploratory review of design principles in constructiv-
ist gaming learning environments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289–300.
Smyrnaious, Z., Moustaki, F., & Chronis, K. (2012). Students’ constructionist game modeling activities
as part of inquiry learning processes. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 10(2), 235–248.
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation,
2(1), 49–62.
Squire, K. D. (2008). Video game–based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 7–36. doi:10.1002/piq.20020
Van Eaton, G., Clark, D. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Patterns of physics reasoning in face-to-face and
online forum collaboration around a digital game. International Journal of Education in Mathematics.
Science and Technology, 3(1), 1–13.

xxvi
xxvii

Acknowledgment

This book would not have been possible if it were not for the hard work of the many individuals who
have written chapters for it. As a group, they voluntarily spent hundreds of hours putting together a series
of chapters that provide readers with an excellent overview of the theoretical and practical perspectives
of serious games in educational applications. We would like to express our deepest thanks and sincere
appreciation to all these authors for their outstanding efforts.

My appreciation also goes to our reviewers who provide insightful input and suggestions. I thank all of
our authors for their own expert assistance. We feel exceptionally fortunate to work with Janine Haughton,
Jacqueline Sternberg, and Meghan Lamb, editors at IGI Global, whose expertise and generous support
make this project a great success. We would like to thank the publishing team at IGI Global who has
demonstrated the highest level of professionalism and integrity.

And last, but not the least, we owe continual debt of gratitude to our families for their encouragement,
love and support, the warm reception they give our work, and for their allowance for our work schedules.
We could not have done it without them!

Robert Zheng
University of Utah, USA

Michael K. Gardner
University of Utah, USA

Section 1
Educational Games:
Theoretical Perspectives
1

Chapter 1
What Cognitive Psychology
Can Tell Us About Educational
Computer Games
Michael K. Gardner
University of Utah, USA

David L. Strayer
University of Utah, USA

ABSTRACT
Developers of educational computer games often have incomplete knowledge of the cognitive abilities of
learners, yet this knowledge can be useful in informing game design. This chapter reviews two important
cognitive abilities that underlie learning: working memory and attentional capacity/executive function.
From a description of the developmental course of each ability, we derive a set of recommendations for
game developers to follow when designing games for learners of different ages. The chapter next reviews
the psychology of transfer of training, including two major theories on the issue. The doctrine of identi-
cal elements appears to give the better description of how transfer occurs from training environment
(the educational computer game) to target environment (real world performance of the learned skill).
It is recommended that games embody, as closely as possible, the end behavior they hope to produce,
as this will produce maximal transfer. Finally, we review some controversial research demonstrating
distant transfer in computer video gaming.

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we consider the following questions: (1) What is an educational computer game? (2) How
can cognitive psychology inform the developers of educational computer games? and (3) What can we
expect in the way of transfer from the educational computer gaming environment to other education-
ally relevant environments? Our conclusion is that even with well developed, cognitively appropriate
educational games, designers should be careful about making claims of widespread transfer, as these
claims are rarely substantiated.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch001

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

BACKGROUND

Although educational computer games are becoming increasingly popular in the K-12 educational system
(e.g., Kebritchi, 2010; Maushak, Chen, & Hai, 2001), it can be difficult to characterize exactly what
constitutes an educational computer game. At a minimum, the content must be presented on a computer
or other sort of digital media. But beyond that, what is necessary? The philosopher Wittgenstein (1953)
asked the question “What is the definition of a game?” His conclusion was that there were no necessary
and sufficient features of a game. Rather, the members of the category “games” are bound together by the
principle of family resemblance. Some games share features with other games (e.g., solitaire and poker
both involve the use of cards), which in turn share features with other games (e.g., poker and craps both
involve gambling), and so on. The principle of family resemblance derives from the similarity between
members of human families: a child may have eyes that are similar to his father, a smile that is similar
to his mother, and ears that are similar to his uncle, but there may be no physical feature true of all of
them. Likewise, games share features with some other games, but not with all other games. There are
no necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be called a game. Therefore, the search for an
adequate definition of educational computer games will end in frustration. Instead, we must rely on our
common sense to categorize something as an educational computer game.
Although we may not be able to define educational computer games, we can say something about
their function. The purpose of educational computer games is to create learning in students: preferably
learning that is broadly applicable to many educational contexts. The computer can serve as a motivational
device (the game is engaging, thereby encouraging prolonged interaction), as a feedback mechanism (the
game tracks student knowledge, and corrects misunderstandings), and as a developer of proficient skill
(continued practice should result in fast and fluid responses, with response times governed by a power
law [Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981]). But the key to educational computer games is that they should
produce learning that extends beyond the gaming context. This is the question of transfer, and we will
return to it later in this chapter.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

The Development of Cognitive Abilities

A number of cognitive abilities are necessary for children to benefit from educational computer games.
Games that might be suitable for a 12th grader would not be suitable for a 1st grader. The abilities we will
focus on are memory and attention or executive control.

Memory

Early cognitive theories of short-term memory stressed the storage function of memory over its cogni-
tive control functions. Memory was seen as a multistage processing system (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin,
1968) that worked in a very linear fashion. Information from the environment was initially registered
in a set of sensory stores. These systems held information from the environment in a raw, unprocessed
form for very brief periods of time. There was a sensory store for each of the various senses. Information
that was attended to was transferred to a short-term store that held small quantities of information for

2

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

relatively short periods of time (but much longer than the sensory store). Information in this short-term
memory could be held for perhaps only 18 seconds before it would fade away (Brown, 1958; Peterson
& Peterson, 1959). However, information in the store could be “kept alive” by rehearsing it: repeating
it again and again. In this way, material in the short-term memory could be maintained almost indefi-
nitely. The longer material remained in the short-term store, the more likely it was to be transferred to a
long-term store. Material in the long-term store was assumed to be stored forever. If an individual was
unable to retrieve an item known to be stored in long-term memory, it was assumed to be due to a lack
of available retrieval cues (Tulving & Thomson, 1971, 1973) or to interference from other items also
stored in long-term memory (e.g., Shiffrin & Atkinson, 1969).
Short-term memory was not only limited in its duration, but was limited in the number of items it
could store. It was assumed to be able to store seven chunks of information, plus or minus two (Miller,
1956). A chunk is an organized unit of information. Thus, letters and numbers could be chunks, but
words and important dates (e.g., 1066, the date of the Battle of Hastings) could also be chunks. Obvi-
ously seven words or dates contain more than seven letters or numbers, but the internal organization of
words and dates unify them as single pieces of information. The limit on short-term memory was the
number of chunks, not simply the number letters or numbers.
While Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) model (often referred to as the “modal model”) of memory
allowed for processing operations in short term memory beyond rehearsal (e.g., transforming informa-
tion from visual to verbal codes, deciding whether two items were the same or different, and activating
retrieval strategies for long term memory), it was rehearsal that was the processing focus of their model.
The longer an item was rehearsed, the better its chances of being transferred from short term store to long-
term store. Later research by Craik and Lockhart (1972) cast doubt on this interpretation. They showed
that the depth at which information was processed was more important than the absolute amount of time
it was processed in the short-term store. Shallow processing was associated with surface features of the
information (e.g., phonetic characteristics), while deep processing was associated with the meaning of
the information (e.g., semantic characteristics). Shallow processing resulted in poor long-term memory,
while deep processing resulted in good long-term memory.
As interest increased in the information processing taking place in short term memory, a new model
emerged called “working memory” (Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974).
This model focuses almost exclusively on how information is stored for short periods of time, and on
how this information is manipulated while being held in storage. In the working memory model, there is
a central executive, and a set of information buffers that serve as slave subsystems to be manipulated by
the central executive. The model posits a phonological loop that holds sequences of acoustic or speech-
based information. Information in the phonological loop can be items that need to be remembered later,
but it can also hold “reminder” instructions on what to do next during a processing task (Baddeley,
Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001). It can also access language-based information in long-term memory. The
model similarly posits a visuo-spatial sketchpad that stores visual and spatial information and allows for
its manipulation. This store can also access information related to visual semantics stored in long-term
memory. More recently, Baddeley (2000) has argued for a third subsystem: the episodic buffer. This buf-
fer holds about four chunks of information in a multidimensional code (visual, auditory, and potentially
other types of information), and allows for connecting together information from the other buffers, as
well as linking this information with information in long-term memory and sensory information (Bad-
deley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009).

3

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

The “central executive” controls the various buffers. The central executive serves as an attentional
controller for the slave subsystems, rather than as a memory system per se (Baddeley, Eysenck, & An-
derson, 2009). Its operation is primarily automatic: existing skills are executed with little or no conscious
intervention, and conflicts are resolved by simple rules (referred to as “contention scheduling”) that give
priority to certain actions over other competing actions. However, when conflicts arise that cannot be
easily resolved, a more active form of control must be engaged. This is sometimes called the supervisory
attentional system (Norman & Shallace, 1986). The supervisory attentional system can intervene in au-
tomatic processing and bias certain “schema control units” to make them more likely to execute. In this
way, the supervisory attentional system can overcome learned tendencies to respond in certain ways in
given situations. For example, if you are driving and see a green traffic light, your tendency would be to
continue driving forward. However, if you saw an ambulance crossing the intersection with emergency
lights flashing, your supervisory attentional system would intervene to engage the stop response and
inhibit the go response.
The supervisory attentional system resides in the frontal lobes, and patients with frontal lobe damage
often cannot interrupt ongoing sequences of processing. For instance, in tasks such as the Wisconsin
Card Sorting Test (Heaton, et al., 1993) individuals are asked to categorize presented objects according
to categorization rules that are not explicitly stated, and instead must be induced. Periodically, the rules
are changed, and the individual must induce the new categorization rules. Patients with frontal lobe dam-
age typically demonstrate perseverative errors, continuing to use the old rule to categorize objects in the
face of feedback that their responses are incorrect. This is presumably due to damage to the supervisory
attentional system, which is part of the working memory central executive.
A distinction in made in the memory literature between declarative memory and procedural memory.
Declarative memory is memory for factual information; for the sort of information you can bring into
conscious awareness. This includes semantic memory and episodic memory (Tulving, 1972). Semantic
memory is overlearned memory about the world around us (e.g., what a cup is and how it is related to
a saucer, or that Mars is a planet while the sun is a star). Episodic memory is memory for personally
experienced events that have temporal information associated with them. What you had for breakfast is
an example of an episodic memory. What breakfast means would be a semantic memory. Most of what
we have been discussing so far concerns the declarative memory system.
A second kind of memory can also be defined: procedural memory. Procedural memory is the memory
we have for skills and procedures. This memory does not need to be called into conscious awareness,
and indeed to try to do so may interfere with the skill (Medeiros-Ward, Cooper, & Strayer, 2014). You
may know how to ride a bicycle or hit a golf ball. These skills are based on procedural memories. Try-
ing to think about how to hit a golf ball will likely make it more difficult to hit it effectively. Indeed,
when people try to call to mind a skill, they are usually trying to recall the declarative information (i.e.,
the rules) that led to the skill, not the skill itself. Procedural memory is fundamentally different from
declarative memory. Its developmental course and underlying neurobiology are different as well.
Procedural memory falls into the larger category of implicit memory: memory that is demonstrated by
a facilitation in performance due to exposure to previous experiences (Graf & Schacter, 1985; Schacter,
1987). This type of memory also includes priming (facilitation in the response to one stimulus due to
prior exposure to another stimulus) and classical conditioning (the transfer of a prior response [saliva-
tion to food] to a neutral stimulus [a dinner bell] through repeated pairings). While declarative memory
(sometimes called explicit memory) shows marked improvements throughout childhood and adolescence,

4

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

implicit memory shows few, if any, changes as children age. In a meta-analysis of eighteen studies of
involving implicit memory, Murphy, McKone, and Slee (2003) found significant effects for age in only
three of these studies. Likewise, Perez, Peynircioğlu, and Blaxton (1998) found no age effect on implicit
memory tasks when testing preschool, elementary school and college students.
Based on the existing knowledge of memory, there are at least four recommendations that can be
made to the developers of educational computer games. First, the developers of educational computer
games need to be sensitive to the declarative memory abilities of the age group their games are intended
for. Declarative memory increases from early childhood through adolescence, and even into adulthood.
Siegler (1998; see also Baddeley, Eysenck, & Anderson, 2009, for a discussion) describes four means
through which this improvement takes place. First, the capacity of working memory improves with age.
Gathercole Pickering, Ambridge, and Wearing (2004) have found evidence that the phonological loop,
the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and the central executive all improve from ages 4 through 15 (the age range
they studied). The speed at which an individual can identify a presented item appears to play a role as
well (Dempster, 1981). In a related vein, several researchers (Hitch, Halliday, & Littler, 1984; Hulme,
Thomson, Muir, & Lawrence, 1984; Nichoson, 1981; see also Baddeley, 1990, for a discussion of the
“word length effect”) have shown the rate at which words can be spoken is directly related to memory
span, and that this rate increases from early childhood through adulthood. This would be expected if
vocalization (either overt or covert) is necessary for rehearsal, and rehearsal is necessary to keep verbal
information active in the phonological loop. Thus, games designed for the early elementary grades
should not put too great a strain on the declarative memory system, and presentation speeds should be
slower for younger age groups.
Second, as children age, they acquire more knowledge. The greater the amount of knowledge a child
or adolescent possesses, the more connections that can be made to new information that the child or
adolescent is trying to learn. These connections can serve as retrieval cues when the information later
needs to be recalled. Game developer should not presume extended knowledge structures among young
learners.
Third, the older the child, the wider the range of memory study and retrieval strategies at their dis-
posal, and the more fluently these strategies can be employed. While a young child may rehearse a set of
items for later recall, and older child may look to see if the items can be grouped by semantic category.
Such a semantic coding strategy inevitably results in superior recall. Also, memory strategies that are
just being mastered require the child to expend considerable attentional resources just to carry out the
strategy; older children who have practiced the strategy can carry it out relatively automatically, leaving
additional attentional resources for other processes such as encoding and finding additional patterns in
the stimuli. Thus, game developers need to recognize that younger learners will have greater difficulty
handling memory retrieval strategies than will older learners.
Fourth, as children age their metamemory increases. Metamemory is the individual’s knowledge of
their own memory system and its functioning. Young children may believe that simply staring at an item
to be remembered will result in its being memorized. Older children realize that some memory strategies
are more effective for producing good memory than others. Furthermore, different situations may require
different mnemonic strategies. Finally, older children are better at assessing whether they will or will
not be able to recall various stimuli. They can then focus their study on those items they are most likely
to forget. The take away for game developers is that younger learners will have less command of what
they know and don’t know, and less knowledge of how to effectively learn the things they do not know.

5

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Attention or Executive Control

Although attention is complex, and can be conceived of as comprising several separate functions (e.g.,
alerting, orienting, and executive attention/self-regulation (Posner, Rothbart, & Rueda, 2014)), we will
focus on the executive control aspect of attention. Executive control can be considered to be the ability
to maintain task goals in the face of distraction or conflict (Engle, 2002; see also Watson, Lambert,
Miller, & Strayer, 2011).
The executive control aspect of working memory (think of the “central executive” in Baddeley’s
model) is correlated with a number of important abilities: reading comprehension, complex learning,
and reasoning (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). This executive control function can be measured through
complex span tasks such as reading span (e.g., the participant reads several sentences each followed by
an unrelated word; at the end of the task, the participant must recall the words that followed the sentences
read (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980) or operations span (e.g., the participant reads aloud and verifies a set
of operations such as 4/2 x 3 = 6 [yes or no] each of which is followed by a word; at the end of the task,
the participant must remember the words that followed the operations (Turner & Engle, 1989)). It is not
the ability to read and understand the sentences, or complete and verify the arithmetic operations, that
seems to be related to other higher order abilities; rather, it is the ability to use attention to maintain or
suppress information, and to avoid distraction, that results in the correlation with higher-order abilities.
Another critical feature of attention and executive function in working memory is the ability to
maintain information in the presence of interference (Kane & Engle, 2002). Individuals with low com-
plex working memory spans are more susceptible to various forms of long-term memory interference
than those with high complex working memory spans (Conway & Engle, 1996; Kane & Engle, 2000;
Rosen & Engle, 1997, 1998). Kane and Engle (2000) compared the performance of low-span (bottom
25%) and high span (top 25%) individuals with regard to the buildup of proactive interference. Both
groups recalled approximately 60% of memory items from the first trial. However, as memory trials
progressed, low span individuals showed greater amount of proactive interference (that is, fewer items
correctly recalled from subsequent lists) than did high span individuals. When both groups were asked to
recall items while performing a secondary task, the high span individuals decreased while the low span
individuals remained the same. Thus, high span individuals’ performance under cognitive load made
them appear like low span individuals (with or without load). It appears that high span individuals use
their additional attentional capacity to combat the effects of proactive interference (Engle, 2002). The
fact that cognitive load had no effect of low span individuals seems to indicate that these people either
do not routinely use attention to maintain information in the face of distraction, or are unable to do so
because their attention is fully utilized in performing other more basic cognitive functions.
Dempster (1993) argues that the ability to resist or suppress task-irrelevant information is essential
for intelligent behavior, and that it develops as the child ages. Several tasks demonstrate this develop-
mental trend. Chelune and Baer (1986) tested children from grades 1 through 6 on the Wisconsin Card
Sorting Task (described earlier) and found that as children aged (especially between ages 6 and 7) their
performance significantly improved. Their perseverative errors (choosing the wrong category after a rule
change) decreased, indicating an improvement in their ability to suppress a previously correct response
in the face of changing environmental feedback.
Likewise, performance on a number of measures of field dependence/independence (e.g., the Embed-
ded Figures Task and the Rod and Frame Test) improves during childhood (Dempster, 1993; Witkin,

6

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1992). This improvement appears to be the result of the child’s
increasing ability to suppress irrelevant perceptual cues in solving the various field tests.
Another example of the development of the ability to resist interference is the Stroop Color-Word
Interference Test (Stroop, 1935). In this test, the “interference” condition asks subjects to name the colors
of ink that words are written in while ignoring the words themselves. The words, however, are the names
of colors that differ from the ink color. Dempster (1993) points out that this makes the Stroop Test “an
index of the individual’s ability to focus attention on a relevant dimension (ink color) and to ignore an
irrelevant one (word meaning)” (Dempster, 1993, pp. 9-10). Comalli, Wapner, and Werner (1962) tested
individuals from 7 to 80 years of age on the Stroop Test and found that interference declined from age
7 through adulthood, indicating a developmental trend toward increased resistance to interference with
age over childhood. Interference remained constant during the adult years, but increased again among
the oldest participants (over age 65).
Divided attention tasks require individuals to split their attention between two or more concurrent
tasks (Strayer & Drews, 2007). The assumption in these paradigms is that total amount of attention
an individual possesses is limited, and that performance will suffer when multiple tasks compete for
the limited attention available, assuming that the attention necessary to perform the tasks exceed the
total capacity available (Norman & Bobrow, 1975). Task switching paradigms measure the cost of task
switching by comparing blocks of trials in which no switch is required with blocks of trials in which a
task switch is required (Kramer & Madden, 2008). The switch cost is thought to tap the effectiveness of
attentional control processes and the efficiency of maintaining the dual task goals in working memory
(Kramer & Madden, 2008; Watson, Lambert, Miller, & Stayer, 2011). Switch costs decrease through
childhood into early adulthood (Crone, Bunge, van der Molen, & Ridderinkhof, 2006), but increase again
in old age (Mayr, 2001). At least some of this effect can be explained on the basis of speed of informa-
tion processing, which decreases in old age (Salthouse, 1996).
Both Dempster (1993) and Watson, Lambert, Miller, and Stayer (2011) explain the differences in at-
tention, executive function, and resistance to interference on the basis of the development of the prefrontal
cortex, which is associated with attention and goal directed behavior. Consider Figure 1 (adapted from
Figure 16.3, Watson, Lambert, Miller, & Strayer, 2011), which shows the development of the prefrontal
cortex across the age span. The prefrontal cortex is developing throughout infancy and childhood, and
peaks in early adulthood (around age 30). Thereafter, it begins a slow decline, which becomes noticeable
in early old age (after age 65). This development coincides with task performance on the attention and
interference tasks we have discussed above. While this evidence is correlational, it leads us to believe
that attention and resistance to inference are strongly related to the performance of the prefrontal cortex.
The takeaways for developers of educational computer games are fourfold. First, in the early school
years, goals should be kept simple, and interference from previous interactions with the game should be
kept to a minimum. Second, the game should support learning by providing contextual cues that reduce
reliance on working memory and attention. Third, games aimed at older audiences (later high school
and college-aged groups) can involve multiple and/or conflicting goals, but they should be carefully
pilot tested with age appropriate audiences to insure that they do not exceed the attentional capabilities
of the typical student. Fourth, games aimed at non-traditional learners, who may be considerably older
than typical college students, may also require contextual support to reduce reliance on working memory
and attentional capabilities that may be waning in some members of this group.

7

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Figure 1. Development of the prefrontal cortex across the age span (adapted with permission from Figure
16.3, Watson, Lambert, Miller, & Strayer, 2011).

Transfer of Training

When game developers create an educational computer game, they are often quite optimistic about how
information or skills learned in the game will transfer to new situations. Often they are surprised when
transfer fails to occur. A review of the theoretical basis for transfer is instructive, because transfer to very
different contexts rarely occurs in the real world.
Two theories were proposed early in the history of educational psychology to describe how transfer
occurs. The first was termed the doctrine of formal discipline (Angell, 1908; Pillsbury, 1908; Woodrow,
1927; also see the discussion of the history of transfer in Singley & Anderson, 1989). This theory views
the mind as composed of a number of separate abilities (i.e., faculties) that are responsible for perfor-
mance. The abilities are conceived of as similar to muscles in the body: if we exercise the abilities, they
will become stronger. Then, when these same abilities are needed in the future, they will perform better
due to their strengthening through practice. The important aspect of the doctrine of formal discipline is
that the abilities are seen as broad and general. Thus, early twentieth century students were trained in
Latin and geometry, not because these areas of study were useful in their own right, but because they
were difficult, and training in them strengthened numerous mental faculties.
The second theory of transfer was the doctrine of identical elements (Thorndike, 1903; Thorndike &
Woodworth, 1901; see Taatgen, 2013, for a more sophisticated current version of the identical elements
theory). This theory predicted that learning of one mental skill will only transfer to a second mental skill
to the extent the two skills share underlying common components. To Thorndike, these components were

8

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

stimulus-response bonds; however, the same general principle could be applied to other kinds of com-
monalities such as mental procedures or cognitive schema. Which theory provides the better explanation
of transfer? The identical elements theory seems to best comport with the data (Woltz, Gardner, & Gyll,
2000). Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) found that no correlation between memory for numbers and
memory for words, despite the fact that both of these tasks required the faculty of memory. In a later
experiment, Thorndike (1922) found that changes to the surface structure of algebraic expressions gen-
erally led to a decrement in solution performance, even though both the early and later versions of the
problems required mathematics ability. It is not the case that transfer never occurs: it does. However, it
most often occurs in situations that are similar to the educational or training context (Woltz, Gardner, &
Gyll, 2000). These are exactly the situations under which underlying elements of the trained skill will be
found in the transfer task, just as Thorndike predicted. These situations are referred to as near transfer
(Salomon & Perkins, 1989). We would contrast near transfer tasks with transfer tasks that bear few if
any similarities to the original training contexts. These tasks are referred to distant transfer.
When positive transfer (an improvement in performance due to previous training) occurs, it is almost
always in the near transfer domain. When overlapping processing components exist between training and
transfer tasks, an improvement in performance can be demonstrated in complex domains such as typing
in word processors (Singley & Anderson, 1985), computer programming (McKendree & Anderson,
1987), and geometry problem solving (Lovett & Anderson, 1994). However, example of distant transfer
in the psychological literature are relatively infrequent, and often require prompting of the participant
to produce the hoped for transfer. Gick and Holyoak (1980) explored the use of analogical thinking to
produce distant transfer. Participants first read a story based on a military problem and its solution (the
story was an isomorph of Duncker’s [1945] radiation problem). Participants were then asked to solve the
original radiation problem, which has an analogous solution. Participants generated analogous solutions
to the radiation problem, but mostly when they were prompted that the previously read story might pro-
vide a “hint” about how to solve the current problem. Without the prompting to use prior training, most
participants failed to apply their previous learning to the current task. The takeaway here is that distant
transfer is relatively infrequent, and often requires environmental supports such as prompts or reminders.
Of course, there is a degenerative case of near transfer: practice over time on the same task. Here
the training situation and the transfer situation are identical. Not surprisingly, we find improvement on
a task with practice. The improvement is quite predictable: time to solve a task improves according to
a power law (Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981). This can be demonstrated in widely varying task domains
such as number reduction (an artificial task developed by Thurstone [Thurstone & Thurstone, 1941]
that involves iterative application of rules to reduce pairs of numbers to single digits; Gardner, Woltz,
& Bell [2002]; Woltz, Bell, Kyllonen, & Gardner [1996]; Woltz, Gardner, & Bell [2000]), generating
geometry-like proofs (Neves & Anderson, 1981), reading inverted text (Kolers & Perkins, 1975), and
rolling cigars (Crossman, 1959).
This leads us to a generalization that we present in Figure 2. The likelihood of positive transfer is a
function of the similarity between the trained task and the transfer task. If we wish to engage learners
with an educational computer game, we should expect their learning will be bound to the context of
training (to a large degree). So as developers of computer games, we should design our games to be as
close to the actual end performance that we seek to develop. But how do games benefit learners if they
are simply restatements of the end result we hope to train? First, they provide the learner with practice,
and practice has been shown repeatedly to result in skill development. Second, they provide feedback
to learners about their performance. Feedback is most effective when it is immediate, and educational

9

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Figure 2. Relationship of likelihood of positive transfer to degree of task similarity between training
environment and target task

games are able to provide feedback immediately by tracking learner performance and game moves.
Finally, they provide motivation to engage in the learning process. Motivation is essential in situations
where learning requires extended practice to develop a skill.
Finally, we would be remiss if we did not mention some research that has purported to demonstrate
distant transfer from experience with video games (it should be noted that these games were not specifi-
cally educational in nature). Gopher and colleagues (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994; Gopher, Weil, &
Siegel, 1989) trained Israeli Air Force cadets on a computer game (i.e., Space Fortress) that required
players to balance six game component skills, as well as vary emphasis on certain component skills, in
addition to playing the full game. A control group of cadets did not play the game or learn any of the
component skills. When the two groups were later compared in their actual flight training, the game
group outperformed the control groups on a number of measures. These differences extended to actual
training in flying fighter jets, and were most pronounced in advanced flight maneuvers. Gopher et al.
concluded was that “the emphasis-change elements promoted the development of skill components that
could be transferred and generalized to flight” (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994, p. 401). This finding is
intriguing, because it argues for broad transfer, which is extremely rare in the literature. If such transfer
does exist, it would be because of overlapping elements at the very highest levels of cognition (control
and deployment of attentional resources across competing task elements). While this is possible, it as-
sumes that a complex process such attentional deployment is functionally the same between computer
game playing and flying a jet plane, which seems a little hard to believe.

10

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Green and Bavelier (2003 , 2006; Green, Pouget, & Bavelier, 2010) have provided evidence that ex-
tended practice on action games (e.g., Medal of Honor) can result in improved visual attention in both
the visual center and periphery. Their research showed advantages for serious video gamers both with
and without a concurrent central task, ruling out a center versus periphery tradeoff in attention. Perhaps
most provocative, they found improvements in attention for non-gamers after 30 hours of video game
training. Other researchers have also found support for improvements in visual working memory (but not
complex span memory) after action video game training (Blacker, Curby, Klobusicky, & Chein, 2014).
It should be noted that many researchers have had difficulty replicating these findings, casting doubt on
distant transfer. For example, Van Ravenzwaaij, Boekel, Forstmann, Ratcliff, and Wagenmakers (2014)
found similar practice effects over testing for participants who engaged in video game training, cognitive
game training, and no video game training; so, the conclusion of enhanced processing and attention due
to video game play is equivocal. Boot, Blakely, and Simons (2011) have also cautioned against possible
methodological weaknesses in many of the studies that have reported distant transfer with video gaming.
They cite concerns such as overt recruiting of participants (creating demand characteristics), unspecified
recruiting methods, no tests of perceived similarity between testing tasks and video games, and possible
differential placebo effects. Overall, the current literature suggests caution in expecting distant transfer.
Other researchers have used video gaming in an attempt to improve cognitive decline among older
adults, with mixed results. Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer (2008) found that training older adults in a
real-time strategy video game produced improvement on tasks such as task switching, working memory,
visual short-term memory, and reasoning compared to controls. Ackerman, Kramer, and Calderwood
(2010), however, trained older adults using the Wii Big Brain Academy software, but found no signifi-
cant transfer from the computer training to measures of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Again,
distant transfer is found under some circumstances, but it seems difficult to replicate and is dependent
on particular aspect of the training and the experimental design.
At this juncture, the research does not support a change in our recommendations to developers of
educational video games. If you wish to develop a skill or impart knowledge, create a game that closely
matches the end state you wish to achieve. The closer the target task is to training, the greater the likeli-
hood of positive transfer (see Figure 2). Use the game to provide the learner with practice, feedback,
and motivation to continue the learning process.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We have presented recommendations throughout this chapter, and we will summarize them again here.
Educational game developers need to take into account the cognitive abilities of prospective learners
when designing games. Younger learners have limited working memory and attention/executive control
abilities. With regard to working memory, this requires that games developed for young learners should
include: (1) fewer items to be held in working memory; (2) more explicit connections between things
to be learned and previous knowledge (which is likely to be less extensive with younger age groups);
(3) fewer expectations of prior knowledge of memory study and retrieval strategies; and (4) less of an
expectation that the young child will have a well-developed knowledge of meta-memory (i.e., how their
memory system works and what they currently know and don’t know). The development of attention/
executive function mirrors the development and decline of the prefrontal cortex over the lifespan, with
its maximum efficiency occurring around age 30.

11

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

With regard to attention/executive function, games developed for younger learners should: (1) be kept
relatively simple, and try to avoid interference between early game experiences and later game experiences;
and (2) should scaffold learning by providing contextual cues that reduce reliance on working memory
and attention. Games developed for older, non-traditional learners should employ the same strategies
as games developed for young learners. With late high school and college-aged learners, multiple game
goals can be employed, but pilot testing with the target population is necessary to determine that the
game’s demands do not exceed the cognitive abilities of the intended learners.
The history of educational psychology leads to the conclusion that the greatest positive learning
transfer occurs in situations when the target task is identical to the training task, due to the almost com-
plete overlap of task elements (see Figure 2). Therefore, we recommend that the educational game be an
embodiment of the skill the game developer wishes to teach. The greater the difference between training
and ultimate goal, the smaller the amount of transfer that is likely to be found. Games can provide practice,
motivation, and feedback, all essential elements necessary to continue the skill development process.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

At the conclusion of the main section of this chapter, we discussed some provocative research that
purports to show distant transfer from video gaming (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994; Gopher, Weil, &
Siegel, 1989; Green and Bavelier, 2003, 2006; Green, Pouget, and Bavelier, 2010). These studies have
been controversial, but there is a commonality among them: the distant transfer appears to be the result
of training flexibility in attentional skills. Future research needs to confirm these previous findings, and,
possibly, develop a theory of how to attain training and transfer of attentional processes. If such a theory
could be developed, it might well be the “magic bullet” that educational psychologists have long sought.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Calderwood, C. (2010). Use it or lose it? Wii brain exercise practice
and reading for domain knowledge. Psychology and Aging, 25(4), 753–766. doi:10.1037/a0019277
PMID:20822257
Angell, J. R. (1908). The doctrine of formal discipline in the light of the principles of general psychol-
ogy. Educational Review, 36, 1–14.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes.
In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research
and Theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. New York: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence
from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(4), 641–657. doi:10.1037/0096-
3445.130.4.641 PMID:11757873

12

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent Advances in
Learning and Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Basak, C., Boot, W. R., Voss, M. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Can training in a real-time video game at-
tenuate cognitive decline in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 765–777. doi:10.1037/a0013494
PMID:19140648
Blacker, K. J., Curby, K. M., Klobusicky, E., & Chein, J. M. (2014). Effects of video action game training
on visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance,
40(5), 1992–2004. doi:10.1037/a0037556 PMID:25068696
Boot, W. R., Blakely, D. P., & Simons, D. J. (2011). Do action video games improve perception and
cognition? Frontiers in Science, 2, 1–6. PMID:21949513
Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. The Quarterly Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 10(1), 12–21. doi:10.1080/17470215808416249
Chelune, G. J., & Baer, R. A. (1986). Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Jour-
nal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8(3), 219–228. doi:10.1080/01688638608401314
PMID:3722348
Comalli, P. E. Jr, Wapner, S., & Werner, H. (1962). Interference effects of Stroop Color-Word test in
children, adulthood, and aging. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100(1), 47–53. doi:10.1080/00221
325.1962.10533572 PMID:13880724
Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: More
evidence for a general capacity theory. Memory (Hove, England), 4(6), 577–590. doi:10.1080/741940997
PMID:8934455
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing. A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
Crone, E. A., Bunge, S. A., van der Molen, M. W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2006). Switching between
tasks and responses: A developmental study. Developmental Science, 9(3), 278–287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2006.00490.x PMID:16669798
Crossman, R. R. F. W. (1959). A theory of the acquisition of speed-skill. Ergonomics, 2(2), 153–166.
doi:10.1080/00140135908930419
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in WM and reading. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
Dempster, F. N. (1981). Memory span: Sources of individual and developmental differences. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 89(1), 63–100. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.63
Dempster, F. N. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in a basic processing
mechanism. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnak (Eds.), Emerging Themes in Cognitive Development, Volume
I: Foundations (pp. 3-27). New York: Springer-Verlag.

13

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Dunker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 11(1), 19–23. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160
Gardner, M. K., Woltz, D. J., & Bell, B. (2002). Representation of memory for order of mental opera-
tions in cognitive tasks. The American Journal of Psychology, 115(2), 251–274. doi:10.2307/1423438
PMID:12041011
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory
from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177
PMID:14979759
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4
Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game to flight. Human
Factors, 36(3), 387–405.
Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Siegel, D. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to training
complex skills. Acta Psychologica, 71(1-3), 147–177. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(89)90007-3
Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and
amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(3), 45–53.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.3.501 PMID:3160813
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature,
423(6939), 534–537. doi:10.1038/nature01647 PMID:12774121
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006). Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial
attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(6), 1465–1478.
doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1465 PMID:17154785
Green, C. S., Pouget, A., & Bavelier, D. (2010). Improved probabilistic inference as a general learning
mechanism with action video games. Current Biology, 20(17), 1573–1579. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.07.040
PMID:20833324
Heaton, R. K. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Manual, revised and expanded. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hitch, G. J., Halliday, M. S., & Littler, J. (1984). Memory span and the speed of mental operations.
Paper presented at the joint Experimental Psychology Society/Netherlands Psychonomic Foundation
Meeting, Amsterdam.
Hulme, C., Thomson, N., Muir, C., & Lawrence, A. (1984). Speech rate and the development of short-
term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38(2), 241–253. doi:10.1016/0022-
0965(84)90124-3

14

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided at-
tention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336 PMID:10764100
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive
attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 9(4), 637–671. doi:10.3758/BF03196323 PMID:12613671
Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affects teachers’ adoption of educational computer games: A case study.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256–270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00921.x
Kolers, P. A., & Perkins, D. N. (1975). Spatial and ordinal components of form perception and literacy.
Cognitive Psychology, 7(2), 228–267. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90011-0
Kramer, A. F., & Madden, D. J. (2008). Attention. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), Handbook
of aging and cognition III (pp. 189–249). New York: Psychology Press.
Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Effects of solving related proofs on memory and transfer to
geometry problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
20(2), 366–378. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.366 PMID:8151276
Maushak, N. J., Chen, H.-H., & Lai, H.-S. (November, 2001). Utilizing edutainment to actively engage
K-12 learners and promote students’ learning: An emergent phenomenon. In Annual Proceedings of
Selected Research and Practice Papers at the National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology.
Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambi-
guity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 96–109. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.96
PMID:11302371
Medeiros-Ward, N., Cooper, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2014). Hierarchical control and driving. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. General, 143(3), 953–958. doi:10.1037/a0035097 PMID:24274320
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for
processing information. Psychological Review, 63(1), 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158 PMID:13310704
Murphy, K., McKone, E., & Slee, J. (2003). Dissociations between implicit and explicit memory in
children: The role of strategic processing and the knowledge base. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 84(2), 124–165. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00002-X PMID:12609496
Neves, D. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). Knowledge compilation: Mechanisms for the automatization
of cognitive skills. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 52–84). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J.
R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nicholson, R. (1981). The relationship between memory span and processing speed. In M. Friedman,
J. P. Das, & N. O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and Learning (pp. 179–184). New York: Plenum Press.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-1083-9_16

15

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive
Psychology, 7(1), 44–64. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3
Perez, L. A., Peynircioğlu, Z. F., & Blaxton, T. A. (1998). Developmental differences in implicit and
explicit memory performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(3), 167–185. doi:10.1006/
jecp.1998.2449 PMID:9742178
Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193–198. doi:10.1037/h0049234 PMID:14432252
Pillsbury, W. B. (1908). The effects of training on memory. Educational Review, 36, 15–27.
Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2014). Developing attention and self-regulation in
childhood. In A. C. Nobre & K. Sabine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of attention (pp. 541–569). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory in retrieval. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 126(3), 211–227. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.3.211 PMID:9281831
Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression. Journal of Memory
and Language, 39(3), 418–436. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2590
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected
phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1
Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological
Review, 103(3), 403–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.403 PMID:8759042
Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(3), 501–518. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.501
Shiffrin, R. M., & Atkinson, R. C. (1969). Storage and retrieval processes in long-term memory. Psy-
chological Review, 76(2), 179–193. doi:10.1037/h0027277
Siegler, R. S. (1998). Children’s Thinking (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The transfer of text-editing skill. International Journal of
Man-Machine Studies, 22(4), 403–423. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(85)80047-X
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007). Attention. In F. Durson, R. Nickerson, S. Dumais, S. Lewan-
dowsky, & T. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition II (pp. 29–54). West Sussex, UK: John
Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470713181.ch2
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies in interference in serial verbal recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
18(6), 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651
Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439–471.
doi:10.1037/a0033138 PMID:23750831

16

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

Thorndike, E. L. (1903). Educational psychology. New York: Lemke & Buechner. doi:10.1037/10528-000
Thorndike, E. L. (1922). The effect of changed data upon reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 5(1), 33–38. doi:10.1037/h0072415
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function
upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). Psychological Review, 8(6), 247–261. doi:10.1037/h0071363
Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization
of Memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1971). Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of associative
context. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87(1), 116–124. doi:10.1037/h0030186
Tulving, E., & Thomspon, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.
Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373. doi:10.1037/h0020071
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory
and Language, 28(2), 127–154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
Van Ravenzwaaij, D., Boekel, W., Forstmann, B. U., Ratcliff, R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Action
video games do not improve the speed of information processing in simple perceptual tasks. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. General, 143(5), 1794–1805. doi:10.1037/a0036923 PMID:24933517
Watson, J. M., Lambert, A. E., Miller, A. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2011). The magical letters P, F, Q and
sometimes U: The rise and fall of executive attention with the development of prefrontal cortex. In K.
L. Fingerman, C. A. Berg, J. Smith, & T. C. Antonuuci (Eds.), Handbook of lifespan development (pp.
407–436). New York, NY: Springer.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, G. E., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological
Differentiation. New York: John Wiley.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.
Woltz, D. J., Bell, B. G., Kyllonen, P. C., & Gardner, M. K. (1996). Memory for order of operations in
the acquisition and transfer of sequential cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learn-
ing, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2), 438–457. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.438
Woltz, D. J., Gardner, M. K., & Gyll, S. P. (2000). The role of attention processes in near transfer of cog-
nitive skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 12(3), 209–251. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(01)00038-3
Woodrow, H. (1927). The effect of the type of training upon transference. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 18(3), 159–172. doi:10.1037/h0071868

17

What Cognitive Psychology Can Tell Us About Educational Computer Games

ADDITIONAL READING

Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. New York: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 11(1), 19–23. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature,
423(6939), 534–537. doi:10.1038/nature01647 PMID:12774121
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive
attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 9(4), 637–671. doi:10.3758/BF03196323 PMID:12613671
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Watson, J. M., Lambert, A. E., Miller, A. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2011). The magical letters P, F, Q and
sometimes U: The rise and fall of executive attention with the development of prefrontal cortex. In K.
L. Fingerman, C. A. Berg, J. Smith, & T. C. Antonuuci (Eds.), Handbook of lifespan development (pp.
407–436). New York, NY: Springer.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Attention/Executive Function: The ability to maintain task goal information in mind in the face of
distraction, conflict, or competing goals.
Declarative Memory: Memory for information that can be called into consciousness. Memory for
factual information (e.g., George Washington was the first president of the United States of America).
Procedural Memory: Memory for information that cannot be called into consciousness. Memory
for skills, priming, and classical conditioning are all procedural in nature (e.g., how to ride a bicycle).
Transfer of Training: The degree to which training on one task (the training task) produces improve-
ment on a second task (the target task), which is measured after training has been completed.
Working Memory: A short-term memory system comprised of a central executive (associated
with attention) and several slave sub-systems (associated with storage of items of a particular types
such verbal-phonological, visuo-spatial, episodic). The key feature of working memory is that it deals
with both the short-term storage of information and the processing of that information within the same
cognitive system.

18
19

Chapter 2
The Role of Metacognition in
Learning via Serious Games
Douglas J. Hacker
University of Utah, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on three recommendations from the National Research Council (2011) for conduct-
ing research that may increase the impact of serious games on student achievement. At the core of these
recommendations is an emphasis on the role of metacognition in learning. The first recommendation
examines the player’s self-awareness as a learner and how a sense of agency can be nurtured by seri-
ous games to promote self-regulated learning. The second examines the mediating processes within the
individual that influence learning with games. This section describes embodied cognition, which examines
the interactions among body, mind, and game environment that can lead to learning. The third examines
the problem of transfer of learning. This section offers suggestions on how transfer from gaming contexts
to academic contexts can be facilitated. The chapter concludes with an examination of whether research
in response to these recommendations can positively impact learning via the serious game.

INTRODUCTION

The popularity of video games in the United States is indisputable. A recent report by the Entertainment
Software Association (ESA, 2015), indicated that four out of five households own a device to play video
games, 42% of Americans play video games three or more hours per week, 26% or 40.3 million gamers
are under 18 years of age, and the popularity is fairly evenly divided between females (44%) and males
(56%). In addition, there is an ever-broadening corpus of research showing that video gaming can have
strong positive effects on visual processing of spatial characteristics of information, attentional process-
ing, executive functioning, inductive reasoning, mental rotation, memory, and task motivation (Green,
2014)—all necessary characteristics for video gaming. One obvious interpretation of these findings is
that high engagement with video games enhances a person’s ability to engage in video games. But, other
than the self-perpetuating effects of video games, are there other benefits to be gained through playing
video games? In the context of the current volume, the question becomes, Do the skills and knowledge

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch002

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

gained through video games transfer to formal educational settings? The belief that the high engagement
engendered by the entertainment value of video games can act as a motivator for children to learn as
they entertain themselves has been a strong force behind the development of a genre of video games for
academic learning (Ritterfeld, Cody, & Vorderer, 2009). This new genre of video games, called serious
games or digital-learning games, attempts to “target the acquisition of knowledge as its own end and
foster habits of mind and understanding that are generally useful or useful within an academic context”
(Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen, 2009, p. 21).
Unfortunately, the use of serious games for formal educational purposes has met with mixed results
(Blumberg, Almonte, Barkhardori, & Leno, 2014; Chen & Hwang, 2014), and in many cases only limited
success has been attained with child and adolescent students (Kato, 2012). Reports from the National
Research Council (NRC; 2011), Tobias and Fletcher (2011), Young, Slota, Cutter, Jalette, Mulling, Lai,
Simeoni, Tran, and Yukhymenko (2012), and McClarty, Orr, Frey, Dolan, Vassileva, and McVay (June,
2012) have shown that the current state of research on the use of video games for formal educational
purposes is inconclusive. Although all four reports are positive about the use of serious games in the
classroom and that there are theoretical reasons to believe that serious games could be beneficial for
student learning, the reports are in agreement that there are many instances in which game design is not
based in empirical theory (van de Sande, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2015) or sound psychological principles,
that educational outcomes and entertainment value are not directly tied to one another (Ritterfeld et al.,
2009), and that research on the educational value of edutainment is greatly lacking (Ritterfeld et al.,
2009; Young et al., 2012). Young et al. (2012) concluded that “Many educationally interesting games
exist, yet evidence for their impact on student achievement is slim” (p. 80); and, Graesser, Chipman,
Leeming, & Biedenbach (2009, p. 83) agreed that “Unfortunately, at this point in the learning sciences,
very few serious games have been developed that would impress experts in education.”
What is the disconnect between learning via serious games and academic performance? People are
quite capable of gaining knowledge and problem-solving skill within a serious game and yet fail to
utilize that knowledge and skill outside of the game, or even to other games that are structurally similar
(Barnett, 2014; Lieberman, Biely, Thai, & Peinado, 2014; McClarty et al., 2012; Morris, Croker, Zim-
merman, Gill, & Romig, 2013). The disconnect could be as simple—or difficult—as a lack of transfer.
Simple in that the problem of learning from serious games could be attributable to a single process;
difficult in that the process of transfer is likely the most critical problem in education, and despite nearly
a century of research, remains a critical problem. To add to the difficulty, because transfer research has
consistently shown that the likelihood of transfer depends on the similarities between the learning context
and transfer context, transfer in gaming may be even less likely because typically the gaming context is
highly dissimilar from the classroom context (Morris et al., 2013).
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss what is seemingly an intractable problem: How can the
characteristics of durable learning that are evident in players of many popular video games, such as
high interest and motivation, critical thinking, affective engagement, social feedback, metacognitive
monitoring and control, and strategic planning, be fostered in serious games to make them valuable
instructional tools? The belief that the high engagement engendered by the entertainment value of video
games can be used to motivate academic learning needs to be substantiated. The NRC (2011) report
Learning Science through Computer Games and Simulations acknowledges that the impact of serious
games on academic learning is questionable and provides several recommendations for research that
can potentially increase that impact.

20

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

This chapter will focus on three of those recommendations, and although the three recommendations
focus on the learning of science, there is no reason to believe that they are not applicable to learning using
serious games in many content areas. At the core of these three recommendations is metacognition and
learning. Therefore, the general theme of this chapter will be on the role of metacognition in learning
via serious games. First, metacognition will be defined. Then, the first NRC (2011) recommendation
to be discussed is “Research should examine the role of metacognition and awareness of oneself as a
learner when an individual interacts with a simulation or game” (p. 122). The focus of this section is on
the player’s awareness of himself or herself as a learner and how a sense of agency can be nurtured in
the player by designing serious games to promote self-regulated learning. This is followed by “Research
should examine the mediating processes within the individual that influence science learning with
simulations and games” (p. 122). This section describes a psychology of the individual called embodied
cognition, which examines the interactions among body, mind, and game environment that can lead to
learning within the serious game and beyond the game. The last recommendation is “Future studies
should examine transfer of learning from the simulation or game learning environment to other contexts”
(p. 123). This section deals with the problem of transfer, with an emphasis on the transfer of learning
from the gaming context to the academic context. The chapter concludes with an examination of whether
research in response to these recommendations can positively impact learning via the serious game.

WHAT IS METACOGNTION?

An important starting point is to define metacognition. Metacognition is “knowledge of one’s knowledge,

processes, and cognitive and affective states; and the ability to consciously and deliberately monitor
and regulate one’s knowledge, processes, and cognitive and affective states” (Hacker, 1998, p. 3). This
definition identifies both declarative and procedural components of metacognition. Metacognitive de-
clarative knowledge consists of a person’s knowledge or beliefs about: (a) one’s cognitive and affective
states and the states of others; (b) a task, its demands, and how those demands can be met under varying
conditions; and (c) strategies for accomplishing the task and how and when to use them (Flavell, 1979).
Metacognitive procedural knowledge consists of both monitoring and control components. Meta-
cognitive monitoring refers to processes that are “directed at the acquisition of information about the
person’s thinking processes” (Kluwe, 1982, p. 212). These processes involve a person’s ability (a) to
identify the task on which one is currently working, (b) to check on current progress of that work, (c) to
evaluate that progress, and (d) to predict whether the expected outcome will be attained (Flavell, 1979).
Metacognitive control refers to processes that are “directed at the regulation of the course of one’s own
thinking” (Kluwe, 1982, p. 212). These processes involve a person’s ability (a) to allocate his or her
resources to the current task, (b) to determine and direct the steps to complete the task, (c) to set the
intensity or (d) the speed of the work task (Flavell, 1979). Both declarative and procedural components
of metacognition are necessary for students to become “self-regulatory organisms who are capable of
assessing themselves and others and directing their behavior toward specified goals” (Hacker, 1998, p.
10), that is, to become agents of their own thinking.

21

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

AWARENESS OF ONESELF AS A LEARNER

Research should examine the role of metacognition and awareness of oneself as a learner when an in-
dividual interacts with a simulation or game. Prior research on science learning suggests that making
learning goals explicit and supporting learners in metacognition—reflecting on their own learning—
enhance learning. (NRC, 2011, p. 122)

What does it mean to have an “awareness of oneself as a learner”? How does this awareness change
“when an individual interacts with a simulation or game”? Most educational researchers and practitioners
would agree that an awareness of oneself as a learner requires the basic components of metacognition
that were just described. In short, an aware learner has an understanding of a self as an embodied person
who is capable of using that body to perceive the environment in which he or she is enmeshed and of
interacting with that environment physically, cognitively, and emotionally. An aware learner not only can
comprehend the world but knows that he or she comprehends the world. The aware learner can monitor
his or her thoughts, evaluate current cognitive and affective statuses in pursuit of self-imposed goals,
and revise those goals in light of feedback from his or her interactions with the environment. The aware
learner can develop strategies and heuristics to adapt to changing situations. The aware learner can un-
derstand others and use that understanding to assist in gaining a deeper and more complete knowledge
of his or her self. All of these characteristics of self-awareness contribute to a sense of agency, that is,
people as agents of their own thinking (Hacker, Dunlosky, Graesser, 2009).
This sense of agency has been recognized as one of the most important characteristics of digital
games. Van de Sande et al. (2015) believe that executive control (i.e., verbal reasoning, problem-solving,
planning, sustaining attention, resistance to interference, using feedback, cognitive flexibility, regula-
tion of social behavior, and decision making; Chan, Shum, Toulopoulou, & Chen, 2008) “is strongly
demanded for both the monitoring of information and sustaining effective gaming behavior” (p. 433).
Fladen and Blashki (2005; cited in McClarty et al., 2012) named agency as one of three key features
of games, along with interactivity and engagement. Norman (2013) identified reflection as “perhaps
the most important of the levels of processing. Reflection is conscious, and the emotions produced at
this level are the most protracted: those that assign agency and cause… ” (p.53). McClarty et al. (2012)
identified agency and choice as “critical elements of a true gaming experience” (p. 8); moreover, Mc-
Clarty et al. stated that “The most common error in online education activities is a failure to provide the
learner with an appropriate level of agency” (p. 11).
The designers of serious games face a major dilemma: There is the need to provide a sense of agency
within a game, and yet that very agency is compromised by the need to provide players with explicit
guidance for learning. Agency is built into game designs by creating open environments that provide
learners interactivity, choice, and control, all of which promote greater motivation to engage in the game
(Nietfeld, Shores, & Hoffman, 2014; Sabourin, Shores, Mott, & Lester, 2013). But, open environments
place greater demands on the learner (van de Sande et al., 2015): Learners need to track and evaluate
their progress, identify goals and change goals in light of what has transpired in the game, maintain
interest and motivation in the face of limited success or too easily gained success, and stay cognitively
focused and affectively engaged (Sabourin et al., 2013). Ironically, to meet the demands posed by an open
environment, the learner requires greater explicitness and scaffolding of instruction, the very antithesis
of an open learning environment.

22

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

How have serious game designers navigated this irony? Unfortunately, although designers acknowl-
edge the need for open learning environments and for the agency and motivation that they engender in
the player, few games have been empirically tested for the presence of these components and for the
ways in which they are purportedly supported during game play (Sabourin et al., 2013). In addition,
although many serious game designers also acknowledge that metacognition, or executive control, is
necessary for sustained interest and motivation and affective engagement in serious games, the role of
metacognition in serious games, like the effectiveness of serious games, in general, is uncertain (Morris
et al., 2015). This area of investigation has not yet attracted a great deal of attention, and frankly, little
empirical evidence exists that can help in designing serious games that incorporate metacognition (van
de Sande et al, 2015).
To meet the demands of an open gaming environment and to take full advantage of the learning
opportunities offered by an open environment, designers need to conduct more research in these identi-
fied areas and they need to identify a theoretical foundation upon which this research can be conducted.
Although there are many theoretical directions designers could take, there is a large corpus of research
on self-regulated learning that would serve well as this foundation (e.g., Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner,
2000; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). Some researchers have incorporated self-regulated learning in
more structured learning environments (e.g., Azevedo & Witherspoon, 2009; Conati & VanLehn, 2000;
White, Frederiksen, Collins, 2009); however, the open learning environment remains mainly open for
further research.
“Self-regulated learning refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions for attaining one’s
learning goals” (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009, p. 299). The ability to self-regulate one’s learning is
vital to success in all academic endeavors (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997), and the goal of formal educa-
tion should be to equip students with the self-regulatory capabilities to educate themselves beyond the
classroom (Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman, 2008). Self-regulated learning hinges on learners’ abilities to
metacognitively monitor and control their learning and to motivate themselves to learn (Sabourin et al.,
2013; Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009), and because metacognitive monitoring and control and motiva-
tion are critical in game-based learning environments (Nietfeld et al., 2014), incorporating elements of
self-regulated learning within the open learning environment in serious games could potentially lead to
effective designs. Learners who can accurately evaluate the extent of their learning and consciously and
deliberately direct or redirect their own goals are in a better position to transfer their learning from one
context (e.g., the gaming context) to another context (e.g., the academic context) (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 2004).
Because the demands of most serious games are both cognitive and social, a good theoretical founda-
tion of self-regulated learning on which to build is the social cognitive model proposed by Zimmerman
and colleagues (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997, 2007; Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009; Zimmerman &
Risemberg, 1997). Four levels of development are included in this theory, (a) observation, (b) emula-
tion, (c) self-control, and (d) self-regulation, which are not necessarily locked in that particular order.
Although social elements permeate all four levels, the first two are primarily social in nature, and the
second two are primarily cognitive (Zimmerman, 2000).
First, the serious game environment must provide the novice player the opportunity to observe an
expert model. Observing a more capable player is critical for students (a) to acquire a basic understand-
ing of the serious game and its rules, (b) to learn firsthand the strategies that could be used and how to
use them, and (c) to understand how sustained engagement in the game is necessary to succeed, and (d)
to observe that sustained engagement in the game leads to motivation, and motivation leads to sustained

23

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

engagement. The expert model could be a teacher assisting student players, a more adept player who
is physically playing along in the game or is connected to the game in a social network, or an agent
embedded within the game. The expert model plays a delicate balance between being overly or insuf-
ficiently explicit. The model must make clear and unambiguous the knowledge, behaviors, thoughts,
beliefs, and goals necessary for the successful play of the game, and must demonstrate the benefits of
planning, monitoring, and reflection. However, the expert model cannot steal the game from the player.
Too much modeling will leave the player on the sidelines wondering why he or she should play a game
that seems to play itself. Too little modeling will leave the player frustrated, believing that the rules
and goals are too mysterious and the game is just not worth playing. Determining the optimal level of
modeling for a specific learner is a difficult task for even the best of teachers—how much more difficult
is it for a computer program?
To add to the challenges of the expert model, he, she, or it also should model for the player a level
of emotionality with the game. Successful digital games involve players in a way that leaves them be-
lieving they have something emotionally and personally at stake (Gee, 2009). Cognitive involvement
is a necessary component of a serious game that the player must maintain, but just as important is an
emotional involvement (Balcetis & Cole, 2009; Liberman et al., 2014; NRC, 2011; Ritterfeld et al., 2009;
van de Sande et al., 2015; Young, 2012). Emotionality promotes and maintains the player’s motivation.
Emotion captures attention, enhances memory, and helps to build tension and arousal to keep the player
enticed to play. And it is not just the play of the game that must be emotionally engaging. The storyline
presented in the game should be entertaining, allowing the player to identify and empathize with the
characters (Ritterfeld et al., 2009).
Emulation of the modeled thoughts and behaviors is the second level of Zimmerman’s and colleagues’
theory of self-regulation. The serious game must provide players with ample opportunities to imitate the
modeled thoughts and behaviors demonstrated by the expert model, and with repeated practice develop
closer and closer approximations of those thoughts and behaviors (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Play-
ers need to get the “feel” of the gaming environment. They need to experience the rules of the game and
the rewards or punishments that come with compliance or defiance of them. They need to try strategies
and to use them for their own personal advantage to accomplish the goals of the game (Gee, 2009). By
emulating the expert model, players begin to understand that sustained engagement in the game is neces-
sary to succeed, and that there is a circular relation between sustained engagement and motivation to play.
As players increase their emulation of the expert model and the expert model relinquishes control of
the game, players go beyond simple copying of the model. They acquire and begin to own the play of
the game and to develop a general sense of the behavioral, cognitive, physiological, and emotional com-
ponents of the game. Through their metacognitive monitoring of game play, players begin to experience
firsthand the gaps, inconsistencies, anomalies, and discrepancies in their understanding of the game, and
they begin to exert metacognitive control by revamping their strategies, changing their goals, refocusing
their attention, or increasing the intensity or speed of play. In addition, through emulation of the expert
model, players begin to discern the critical elements of the game from the non-critical elements, or as
Gee (2009) described it “they see through the ‘eye candy’ to patterns and rules (what I call effectivity-
affordance pairings) that will allow them to solve ever more challenging problems as they move through
the game’s levels” (p. 70). As will be discussed in the section on transfer, these effectivity-affordances
play a critical role in the transfer of gaming elements to contexts beyond the game.
The third level of Zimmerman’s and his colleagues’ theory of self-regulated development is self-control.
Self-control is achieved when students can demonstrate self-regulation while performing tasks that are

24

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

similar in nature to the task that was modeled. For example, a serious game could have a component that
requires players to generate a hypothesis for why some physical event occurs in the game. The expert
model would initially guide the player to develop a hypothesis, but would then take a more passive role
when the player is asked to make a hypothesis for a similar but different physical event. At this point of
self-regulation, players are beginning to acquire the desired thoughts, behaviors, and emotions of the
expert model but still have not fully internalized them (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007), and have begun
to form an internal representation of the game (Gee, 2009).
In the well-designed serious game, self-control is gradually developed as supports for the player are
gradually removed and players begin to independently engage in the game. Players receive continued
scaffolding for their actions within the game, but the scaffolding is far diminished in comparison to
earlier levels during the modeling and emulation levels. When moving from observation of an expert
model to emulation of the model, players simply assume the goals of the expert model, but when moving
to self-control, players begin to develop their own goals within the context of the gaming environment.
Another way to conceptualize this level of self-regulation is that students are now able to transfer their
knowledge acquired during modeling and emulation of the serious game to a context within the game
that is similar to but different from that modeling and emulation.
At this level of the development of self-regulation, players begin to develop a mental model of the game
that allows them to move from the concrete experiences of the serious game to more abstract notions of
the game (Gee, 2009). Moving from the concrete to the abstract helps the player in his or her transfer of
game elements within the context of the game to contexts beyond the game. This abstract modeling of
the game helps to deepen the problem solving abilities of the player (Gee, 2009), which are enhanced by
the metacognitive processing the player is encouraged to use. Using the abstract model, the player is no
longer tied to the concrete experiences of the game, but is better able to reflect on the current progress
of the game, evaluate that progress, compare what works with what does not, change or modify exist-
ing goals, develop and attempt new strategies, and begin to identify critical from non-critical elements
(Bransford et al., 2004). In reciprocal fashion, the metacognitive activities that the player is encouraged
to use contribute to the development of more complete and usable mental models of the game that, in
turn, contribute to the player’s heightened understanding of the game and use of metacognitive activities.
Finally, self-regulation is fully developed when students have fully internalized the game and have
developed a complete mental model of it that allows them to independently adapt it to contexts that
differ from the context in which it was learned (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). At this level of develop-
ment of self-regulation, players learn to initiate their own goals for the game, adjusting or modifying
them based on situational or contextual conditions. Moreover, at this higher level of self-functioning,
students can maintain their motivation by developing personal goals and develop a sense of self-efficacy
for attaining them. Players can now “psyche out” the rules of the game to accomplish goals for one’s
own personal and emotional reasons (Gee, 2009, p. 68). Players initially accept and get to know the
environment established by the game, but at this higher point of self-regulation that environment can
be changed within the constraints of the game to match the evolving goals of the player. At this level of
development, support from the expert model is removed, and players become independent, self-regulated
users of the serious game.
In sum, what does it mean to have an “awareness of oneself as a learner”? Awareness of oneself as
a learner depends on metacognition. Among other things, aware learners comprehend and know they
comprehend, monitor and evaluate their cognitive and affective statuses in pursuit of self-imposed goals
and change goals in the face of changing conditions, develop strategies and heuristics to adapt and thrive

25

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

in different environments, and use their understanding of others to gain a deeper understanding of them-
selves. These metacognitive processes are necessary for people to become self-regulated learners, that
is, learners who are able to take stock of their knowledge and skills, monitor and evaluate their online
thoughts and feelings, and control their actions necessary for attaining their learning goals. Becoming
a self-regulated learner brings about a sense of agency, that is, people as agents of their own thinking.
A sense of agency has been recognized as one of the most important characteristics of digital games,
and yet the question remains whether serious games embody this characteristic. Research is needed to
examine the development of agency in the open learning environment of a serious game, and research
is needed that examines serious games for the presence of metacognitive activities, critical components
of agency. Moreover, a strong theoretical foundation on which to build is needed to guide this research,
and theories of self-regulated learning could provide that foundation. Examining serious games through
the lens of self-regulation could potentially guide the essential research needed to improve the effective-
ness of serious games so that learners can take full advantage of the learning potentials offered by these
learning environments.

INTERACTIONS AMONG BODY, MIND, AND GAME ENVIRONMENT

Research should examine the mediating processes within the individual that influence science learning
with simulations and games. This research would aim to illuminate what happens within the individual—
both emotionally and cognitively—that leads to learning and what design features appear to activate
these responses. (NRC, 2011, p. 122)

The rise of cognitive psychology in the 1960s and 1970s provided definite advantages over the behaviorist
paradigm that had dominated psychology since the turn of the 20th century. Now there was an organism
who mediated the relation between stimulus and response. Stimulus-Response (SR) was replaced with
Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR). This addition to psychology was intended to give focus to the
person as a thinking agent capable of exerting control over the response to a given stimulus rather than
reacting to the stimulus in a mechanistic way. Many cognitive scientists, however, replaced the “empty-
headed mechanics of behaviorism with a more sophisticated machine that processes information, but
nonetheless follows a simple mechanistic model” (Hacker, Dunlosky, Graesser, 2009, p. 1). Subsequent
developments in cognitive science have attempted to go beyond a disembodied information-processing
organism that mediates SR relations to an organism that is situated in unique social, cultural, and physical
contexts, with each context exerting a unique influence on how that information is processed. Situated
cognition has done much to promote the idea that knowledge and skills are best learned in contexts that
closely resemble the contexts in which they will be used (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave
& Wenger, 1989). In other words, you cannot understand “what happens within the individual” apart
from considering the influence of the context within which the individual is learning.
More recent developments in cognitive science have attempted to go one step further. Embodied
cognition makes many of the same assumptions as situated cognition, principally that the environmental
context does exert a unique influence on learning. In addition, although there are multiple versions of
embodied cognition depending on which discipline is involved (e.g., development psychology, linguistics,
philosophy), there is at least one major commonality among them, namely, along with the environmental
context, learning must be understood by how the individual learner perceptually and physically interacts

26

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

with that environment (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1999; Wilson, 2002). The critical thrust of embodied
cognition is to explain how the body and mind interact perceptually, physiologically, and psychologically
in real time with the environment to achieve goal-directed activities (Morris et al., 2013; Wilson, 2002).
Considering the context of digital games, Gee (2008) has argued that games are “action-and goal-directed
simulations of embodied experience” (p. 254). Embodied cognition, therefore, appears to be well-suited
to explain the dynamic systems involved in game environments and to guide research that “illuminate(s)
what happens within the individual—both emotionally and cognitively—that leads to learning, and what
design features appear to activate these responses” (NRC, 2011, p. 122).
From an embodied cognition perspective, in the context of a digital game, a player learns both emo-
tionally and cognitively through dynamic interactions among the body, the mind, and the game environ-
ment (Morris et al., 2013), that is, the player’s learning is embodied in those interactions (Balcetis &
Cole, 2009). At the outset of learning a digital game, a player begins to perceive, either as a first-person
avatar or a third-person controller, the features of the game, and those features are processed in relation
to how his or her body and mind can interact with them. What does each game feature do and how is it
physically manipulated? What features are useful or seemingly useless? What features remain a mystery?
Through these initial perceptual and physical interactions, the player begins to acquire basic abilities to
engage in the game, and ideally, begins to form an emotional engagement with the game.
Emotion plays a critical role in games and has been identified as one of the six essential features of
video games (Juul, 2005). At a very basic level, melding physical reactions with emotional responses
can serve as a motivating force in a game. At a deeper level, Balcetis and Cole (2009) propose that mo-
tor movements can trigger emotional reactions, which can act as signals that shape behaviors and guide
self-regulation (Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Frijda, 2005). For example, positive affect
can signal that progress in a task is proceeding according to plan and that one should continue the task
until completion (Tice, Baumeister, Shmeuli, & Muraven, 2007). Conversely, negative affect can signal
that a person is falling short of his or her goals and needs to increase his or her self-regulatory mecha-
nisms (Balcetis & Cole, 2009).
Once basic abilities to engage in the game have developed, the groundwork for the development of
higher-order cognitive processes has been established (Thelan, 1995). These higher-order cognitive
processes are essential for the further development of game play, and for the serious game, are essential
for the transfer of learning to contexts beyond the game. Therefore, from an embodied cognition per-
spective, the design features of a well-designed gaming environment must first consider how the activi-
ties of the game encourage interactions between the player’s perceptual and physical systems and how
the dynamics of those interactions are enhanced or constrained by the game (Glenberg, 1997; Thelan,
1995). Moreover, because every player’s perceptual and physical systems differ, each player will perceive
the design features differently and interact with them differently (Varela et al., 1999). Therefore, there
must be sufficient flexibility in the game to accommodate the unique dynamics that form between the
player’s perceptual and physical systems. But for players to go beyond a superficial learning of the game
and develop a deep learning of the game, his or her perceptual and physical interactions with the game
environment must be linked with cognitive and emotional processes that promote real-time learning of
specific conceptual knowledge and skills that can be immediately applied back into the play of the game
environment so that higher-order cognitive processes can be acquired.
With the development of higher-order cognitive processes, the player begins to develop a mental
model of the game, which, as was described in the section on Awareness of Oneself as a Learner, con-
tributes to the player’s development of self-control and self-regulation. Recall that at these higher levels

27

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

of self-regulation, the mental model of the game allows the player to move from the concrete physical and
perceptual experiences of the game to a more abstract notion of the game (Gee, 2009). Using the mental
model, the player is able to engage in the game metacognitively, that is, reflect on the current progress of
the game, evaluate that progress, compare what works with what does not, ask whether the game really
works the way it appears, change or modify existing goals based on situational or contextual conditions,
develop and attempt new strategies, identify critical from non-critical elements, and maintain motivation
by developing personal goals and developing a sense of self-efficacy for attaining them (Bransford et
al., 2004; Morris et al., 2013; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). At this point of self-regulation, the game
environment can be changed—within the constraints dictated by the game—to be used by the player to
attain his or her evolving goals. At this level of development, transfer beyond the game becomes possible.
The allure of popular video games is unmistakable. Players are engaged for hours at high rates of
attention and motivation, are singularly focused on the game play, are reacting perceptually, physically,
and emotionally to the game elements in real time in a matter of seconds, are engaging high levels of
inductive reasoning, and are monitoring and controlling their play as they continually update their mental
models as to how the game needs to be played for continued success. There is more than information
processing going on here. There is more than situated contextual factors influencing their thoughts and
behaviors. This is a total mind and body experience of a virtual environment, and “what happens within
the individual—both emotionally and cognitively” is best understood by a psychology that considers
this total engagement—embodied cognition.

TEACHING FOR TRANSFER

Future studies should examine transfer of learning from the simulation or game learning environment to
other contexts. These studies should examine how transfer occurs…, the extent of transfer, and whether
including data drawn directly from the real world in simulations and games influences students’ under-
standing of science processes and/or motivates them to make real-world decisions based on evidence.
(NRC, 2011, p. 123)

Transfer, simply defined as “using existing knowledge and skills to learn, solve problems, or carry out
a new task in a new situation” (Liberman et al., 2014, p. 189), has for over a hundred years perplexed,
frustrated, and most importantly, intrigued, scientists from both behavioral and cognitive camps. Perplexed
and frustrated because even under very explicit conditions in which learning tasks and transfer tasks can
be nearly identical, many people do not perceive the relations between the tasks and fail to extend their
learning to the new task. Intrigued because many educational theoreticians and practitioners believe
that the mechanisms involved in transfer (e.g., cognitive, social, and emotional) are at the heart of all
learning and if more fully understood would be the gateway to more effective learning, more productive
classrooms, and to better educated people who are equipped to deal with the world’s burgeoning sources
of information and ever-changing complexities.
Since Thorndike and Woodworth’s (1901a, 1901b, 1901c) early work involving the notion of common
elements, to Osgood’s (1949) stimulus-response associations, to Gick and Holyoak’s (1980) analogical
reasoning, to Singley and Anderson’s (1989) production rules, the concept of transfer has been extended
and expanded. These perspectives, coupled with more recent theorizing (Butterfield & Nelson, 1989),
have provided the understanding that transfer can more readily occur when there is greater explicitness

28

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

in instruction between learning tasks and transfer tasks, when it is directly embedded within the instruc-
tional design of specific content, and when elements of metacognition are emphasized, such as engaging
learners as active agents in their own thinking and encouraging monitoring, evaluation, and control of
learning. More directly related to this chapter, the pertinent question to be asked is to what extent does
transfer occur from simulations or game learning environments to influence students’ understanding of
the real world? Based on what we presently know about serious games, the answer to this question is
that transfer to the real world is, at best, limited (e.g., Barnett, 2014; Liberman et al., 2014).
A fundamental question that must be addressed by researchers interested in studying transfer is What
transfers? For Thorndike and Woodworth (1901a, 1901b, 1901c), the answer was common elements be-
tween the learning and transfer contexts. Common elements could take on any number of characteristics,
ranging from mental and environmental objects to events (Butterfield & Nelson, 1989). For instance, a
mental strategy that is known to be useful in one context could be perceived as useful in another context,
or characteristics of an object that are perceived as useful are perceived to be equivalently useful in a
different object in a different context. For Osgood (1949), what transfers from one context to the next
was stimulus-response relations. More specifically, positive transfer occurred when stimulus-response
relations were virtually identical across varying contexts, and negative transfer occurred when stimuli
remained similar across contexts but responses differed with each new context. For Gick and Holyoak
(1980), what transfers from one context to the next were mental models that serve as analogies. When the
concepts and goals presented in a new problem are perceived as similar concepts and goals previously
encountered to solve an earlier problem, that earlier problem serves as an analogy within which the new
problem can be structured. Successful mapping of elements from the earlier problem onto elements of
the new problem leads to positive transfer. Finally, for Singley and Anderson (1989), what transfers from
one context to another were production rules as defined by Anderson’s ACT theory, in which condition-
action rules take the form of IF-THEN pairs. For example, multi-column arithmetic would take the form,
IF the goal is to add number 1 and number 2 in a column, and number 1 + number 2 = number 3; THEN
set as a goal to write number 3 in that column (Anderson, 1996). For transfer to occur, the production
rules in the learning task must be similar to the production rules in the transfer task.
With the exception of Osgood’s behaviorist’s notion of transfer, these conceptualizations of transfer
have been dominated by cognitive perspectives, which focus primarily on learning as the result of a
mind representing and manipulating internal symbolic representations. However, these conceptualiza-
tions ignore a more complex reality in which we live. As discussed earlier, in that more complex reality,
cognition is a consequence of the interactions of the body, the mind, and the environment (Balcetis &
Cole, 2009; Morris et al., 2013; Varela et al., 1999; Wilson, 2002; Wilson & Golonka. 2013). Learning
is a consequence of a person’s unique mental and physical interactions with his or her environment, and
those interactions with the environment are determined by how he or she perceives that environment in
a goal-directed activity (Varela et al., 1999; Rosch, 1999).
If an embodied cognition perspective seems plausible, then we need to think of how transfer would
fit within that perspective. What transfers in embodied cognition? An answer to this question is forth-
coming by utilizing the concept of affordance that was originally proposed by James J. Gibson nearly
40 years ago in his The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1979). An affordance is defined as
a relationship between a property of an object and a person’s capabilities to use that property to achieve
a goal-directed activity (Norman, 2013). Gibson originally conceived of affordances as independent
of a person’s ability to recognize them, that is, there may be a relationship between the property of an
object and a person’s latent capability to use that property, but a person may not perceive that relation-

29

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

ship. Nonetheless, there would still be an affordance. However, Donald Norman (2013) has restricted
the meaning of the term in the field of human-computer interaction to only those relationships that are
perceivable by a person. Norman (2013, p. 11) provides the following example to illustrate this point:

A chair affords (“is for”) support and, therefore, affords sitting. Most chairs can also be carried by a
single person (they afford lifting), but some can only be lifted by a strong person or by a team of people.
If young or relatively weak people cannot lift a chair, then for these people, the chair does not have that
affordance, it does not afford lifting.

When a person encounters a problem within a specified environment, the properties of the objects
associated with the problem are perceived to embody specific affordances, that is, the properties are per-
ceived in relation to whether ones’ mind and body can interact with them to solve the problem (Balcetis &
Cole, 2009). Can the objects be grasped? How can they be manipulated? What properties can be useful?
Which are irrelevant? Can the properties be altered? If the affordances perceived are aligned with the
person’s capabilities, the properties can then be used in his or her goal-directed thoughts and behaviors
to instantiate a solution. In some other environment, the very same affordances may be perceived to be
useless or are not within the person’s set of capabilities and some other solution path must be sought.
To illustrate, in the context of a fictitious video game dealing with the fantasy of Medieval knights,
your knightly avatar is presented with a terrible dragon that must be slain. Along with the dragon comes
a collection of objects that are perceived to carry with them affordances, but you can only choose one
to slay the dragon. Of these objects, one is a long sharp stick that you know you are capable of using
to kill the dragon (i.e., there is a relationship between a property of the stick—its sharpness—and your
capabilities to use it in a goal-directed activity—stabbing). You select the stick and immediately stab the
dragon in the heart. After the dragon is slain, a torrential rain storm follows, and your avatar needs to
keep dry or catch his or her death of cold. The same sharp stick is now perceived to have an affordance
that is applicable to the new problem—you are capable of using the stick as a pole to hold up a tarp over
one’s head. Later on in the scenario, two people need to have their height measured so that they can be
fitted with proper armor. The same sharp stick is now perceived to have an affordance that is applicable
to the new problem—you are capable of using the stick to measure the heights of the two people. Finally,
a cold night descends and your avatar needs to keep warm. The same sharp stick is now perceived to
have an affordance that is applicable to the new problem—you are capable of breaking the stick up into
smaller pieces and use them for fire wood. In each case, a specific property of the stick is identified that
can be used to solve the immediate problem, and all other properties, although perhaps still perceivable,
are suppressed because they are not germane to the immediate problem.
Each recognition of an affordance represents an example of transfer. Existing knowledge of the vari-
ous properties of the stick can be used to solve a new problem or carry out a new task in a new situation
(Liberman et al, 2014). Whether this is an example of near or far transfer depends on the individual.
Near transfer would be illustrated by individuals who see the sharp stick only as a weapon, and the extent
of their transfer would be that animals other than dragons can be stabbed with it. Far transfer would be
illustrated by other individuals who perceive the properties of the stick beyond stabbing things and rec-
ognize perhaps the length property as a means of measurement. The stick and all its properties remain the
same. What changes, or what transfers, are the relationships between the properties of the stick and the
person’s perceptions and capabilities to use those properties to achieve different goal-directed activities.

30

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

If learning is viewed as embodied, that is, learning is a consequence of a person’s unique mental
and physical interactions with his or her environment, and those mental and physical interactions with
the environment are determined by how he or she perceives that environment in a goal-directed activ-
ity (Balcetis & Cole, 2009; Morris et al., 2013; Varela et al., 1999; Wilson, 2002; Wilson & Golonka.
2013), then we see the possibilities that a player is not simply mentally playing with a video game, but
literally becomes a part of the game to solve a problem. “[I]nternalized, game-play induced cognitive
processes” become “unique interactions of each player with the affordances (i.e., invitations to action)
designed into each game” (Young, Slota, & Lai, 2012, p. 297). The player develops a personal stake
in the game in which he or she is personally and emotionally committed to winning (Gee, 2009). And,
because emotions can help guide a person’s thoughts and behavior, that emotionality becomes an im-
portant component of self-regulated learning (Baumeister et al., 2007) and the metacognitive processes
that are necessary for it to develop.
In a sense, game and player are mutually specified (Liberman et al., 2014). The designers of the game
specify objects within the game that are endowed with pre-given affordances with action potentials that,
within the constraints of the game, must be perceived and mastered by the player to win the game. How-
ever, the player, who is constrained by his or her unique perceptual, cognitive, and emotional framework,
must specify which affordances with their action potentials can be perceived within the game’s objects
and then used. With any game, to keep the player engaged and motivated to play, the game designer
must be concerned with guiding the player so that what the player specifies as affordances and action
potentials are those that are in fact specified by the game design. The serious game designer, however, not
only must share these concerns, but also must be concerned with whether the player is going beyond the
game and perceiving affordances and action potentials that transfer to the real world, that is, “to extend
what has been learned in one context to new contexts” (Bransford et al, 2004, p. 51).
An effective serious game would then first focus on scaffolding and guiding the player’s learning to
generate affordances based on the objects that are specified in the context of the game. The player must
be supported within the game, either by aids embedded within the game or by a social network of fellow
players, to generate multiple concrete affordances provided by each object within the game (Liberman
et al., 2014). These multiple opportunities to observe how different properties can be used in different
contexts (e.g., going from spear to pole to measure to fire) build up more abstract and generalized rep-
resentations of the objects. Moving from the concrete to the abstract is crucial to learning (Gee, 2009);
and the transfer literature has convincingly shown that positive transfer is helped by bringing concepts
to a higher level of abstraction (Bransford et al., 2004). Learning from serious games must be conscious,
intentional, and deliberate—all key components of metacognition: consciously searching for affordances
between object properties and one’s goal-directed activities; intentionally using the affordances to achieve
the goal; and deliberately monitoring and evaluating the output of that activity to determine whether the
goal has been achieved and whether new affordances can be generated that go beyond the game.
A simple teacup has specific concrete affordances whose action potentials entail containing tea, pos-
sessing a handle that can be grasped, being lifted, and being tipped so that the tea will spill out. Some or
all of these affordances may be used within the context of a serious game, and the more of these concrete
uses that are used will assist the player in forming an abstract representation of the teacup that is necessary
to extend his or her learning beyond the game. For example, the player may be presented with a problem
to catch a spider crawling across a table, and an upturned teacup now becomes a trap for containing it.
The player may be presented with a problem to help design an aviary, and a more abstracted notion of
containment may result in a domed building in which the birds can fly. Or, the player may be presented

31

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

with a problem to design a fusion reactor, and an even more abstracted notion of containment may result
in the design of an electromagnetic field to prevent a hot plasma mass of hydrogen from spilling forth.
Moving from the concrete to the abstract is a crucial component that if fostered in a serious game may
show promise in transferring learning from the game environment to the real world.

FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION

Do the skills and knowledge gained through video games transfer to formal educational settings? Based
on the literature reviews available, the answer to this question is “maybe.” The inconclusiveness of current
research speaks loudly that a great deal of research needs to be conducted before a wholesale adoption
of serious games is undertaken by those interested in using them as effective instructional tools. Popu-
lar video games have been shown to engender high interest and motivation, critical thinking, affective
engagement, social feedback, metacognitive monitoring and control, and strategic planning. But, the
question remains whether these characteristics of durable learning can be embedded within serious games.
To give serious games a better chance at playing a critical role in education, this chapter has focused
on three recommendations for research that were provided by the National Research Council (2011). At
the core of these three recommendations is metacognition and learning. Therefore, the general theme of
this chapter has been on the role of metacognition in learning via serious games. The first recommenda-
tion focused on the player’s awareness of himself or herself as a learner and how a sense of agency can
be nurtured in the player by designing serious games that promote self-regulated learning. The second
recommendation focused on a psychology of the individual called embodied cognition, which examines
the interactions among body, mind, and game environment. The last recommendation focused on the
problem of transfer of learning from the gaming context to the academic context.
Because the player’s awareness of himself or herself as a learner has such an essential role in learn-
ing, research needs to examine how serious games can foster a sense of agency in the player (Fladen &
Blashki, 2005; McClarty et al., 2012; Van de Sande et al., 2015). Agency is built into game designs by
creating open environments that provide learners interactivity, choice, and control, all of which promote
greater motivation to engage in the game. The dilemma to be confronted is how to provide an open envi-
ronment to players that fosters agency and yet still provides sufficient guidance for players to develop the
metacognitive skills necessary to become successful learners of the game and to transfer their learning
beyond the game. At a minimum, players need to reason, problem-solve, set and change goals, plan,
sustain attention, resist interference, use feedback, regulate game behavior, make decisions, monitor
information, and sustain effective gaming behavior. Scaffolding the acquisition of these metacognitive
skills in an open environment that encourages choice and control in the player is a difficult task that has
not yet been sufficiently pursued by researchers.
The suggestion offered in this chapter is to focus future research on self-regulated learning in the
gaming environment. Zimmerman and colleagues (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997, 2007; Zimmerman &
Moylan, 2009; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997) have provided a theory of self-regulation that consists
of observation, emulation, self-control, and self-regulation. This theory provides a strong theoretical
foundation for research of serious games and provides suggestions for design features that can guide
players through expert modeling in the use of metacognitive skills. Some research has been conducted
that incorporates self-regulated learning in more structured learning environments (e.g., Azevedo &
Witherspoon, 2009; Conati & VanLehn, 2000; White, Frederiksen, Collins, 2009), and this research

32

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

could potentially serve as a model for research of self-regulation in open learning environments. The
challenge for researchers is to design a gaming environment that is capable of assessing a player’s skills
and, based on those assessments, continually reduce the levels of guidance as the player’s skills increase.
In addition, because each player is different, this cannot be done in some rote fashion, but rather, must
be adaptive to the unique skills of each player.
Research motivated by an embodied cognition perspective starts with how a player initially perceives
the features of the game and how those features are processed in relation to his or her bodily and mental
interactions with them. These initial perceptual, physical, cognitive, and emotional interactions inform
the player how to engage in the game. From the acquisition of basic abilities, higher-order cognitive
processes develop, including metacognitive processes that are essential for the further development of
the game and for the transfer of learning to contexts that potentially go beyond the game. Wilson and
Golonka (2013) argue that a research agenda that is guided by embodied cognition will lead to a radical
shift in our conceptualization of cognitive behavior:

This shift will take cognitive science away from tweaking underlying competences and toward under-
standing how our behavior emerges from the real time interplay of task-specific resources distributed
across the brain, body, and environment, coupled together via our perceptual systems. (p.1)

Such a shift will require a shift in our methods for studying the design of serious games. Wilson and
Golonka (p. 2) provide four questions to be asked to guide a task analysis necessary to examine how
embodied cognition can explain a person’s behaviors:

1. What is the task to be solved?

2. What are the resources that the organism has access to in order to solve the task?
3. How can these resources be assembled so as to solve the task?
4. Does the organism, in fact, assemble, and use these resources?

Embodied cognition offers a way to conceptualize and investigate the dynamic systems at play within
the individual as he or she is immersed in a game environment. Better understanding of these dynamics
can only help to identify the design features that can activate these dynamics. Finally, if an embodied
cognition perspective is adopted, then thought needs to be given to how transfer would fit within that
perspective. Under the best of circumstances, transfer of learning is difficult to achieve. Even greater
difficulties are presented when considering the transfer of learning from the gaming context to the aca-
demic context. Whether such transfer is practicable still remains to be substantiated.
In this chapter, the notion of affordance was discussed as a way to conceptualize transfer. Within the
serious game, the player must be provided with multiple opportunities to generate concrete affordances
of objects and from these concrete affordances move to the generation of abstract and generalized af-
fordances that can go beyond the game. To do this, the player must be supported within the game, either
by aids embedded within the game or by a social network of fellow players to make learning conscious,
intentional, and deliberate; that is, to make learning metacognitive.
In sum, there is much territory to travel before we can arrive at a destination in which serious games
have all the allure of a popular video game and all the potential of promoting academic learning. This
does not mean that such a journey should not be undertaken. There are many researchers who have the

33

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

abilities and the interests to undertake the journey. However, it does mean that there are several hurdles
that must be jumped before arriving there. First and foremost, there is a tremendous amount of research
to be conducted. There simply has not been a sufficient amount of research conducted to determine
whether learning within the context of a video game transfers to an academic context. Second, whether
there is funding available to conduct this research is questionable. Hundreds of millions of dollars go into
the production of video games, and an entertainment hungry population is willing to pay. Hundreds of
millions of dollars are not available to go into the design of a serious game. Third, a theoretical founda-
tion needs to be established for the research of serious games. A theory of self-regulated learning has
been offered here, but whether this theory has wide appeal is unknown. Fourth, a shift from traditional
cognitive science to embodied cognition and the methodologies that it requires could offer a new per-
spective on learning from serious games. However, there are several versions of embodied cognition
depending on the researcher’s discipline, and even though embodied cognition has garnered a growing
interest among researchers, there has not been a wide acceptance of it. Fifth, embodied cognition has
placed a strong emphasis on the role that affordances can play in learning, but the notion of affordance
has been around for at least 35 years and has not been widely researched and has not gathered much
attention in the context of serious games. There is obviously much to accomplish before we can answer
whether it is possible for serious games to contribute to academic learning and hopefully to learning in
the greater world.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1996). A simple theory of complex cognition. The American Psychologist, 51(4),
355–365. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.355
Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker,
J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). New
York: Routledge.
Balcetis, E., & Cole, S. (2009). Body in mind: The role of embodied cognition in self-regulation. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 3/5(5), 759–774. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00197.x
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117–131. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Barnett, S. M. (2014). Virtual to real life—Assessing transfer of learning from video games. In F. C.
Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education. New York: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.003.0002
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior:
Feedback, anticipation, and reflections, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11(2), 167–203. doi:10.1177/1088868307301033 PMID:18453461
Blumberg, F. C., Almonte, D. E., Barkhardori, Y., & Leno, A. (2014). Academic lessons from video
game learning. In F. C. Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education (pp. 3–11).
New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.003.0001

34

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educa-
tional Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for transfer. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 5–38. doi:10.1007/BF02299054
Chan, R. C., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: Re-
view of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(2),
201–216. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010 PMID:18096360
Chen, N.-S., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Transforming the classrooms: Innovative digital game- based
learning designs and applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 125–128.
doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9332-y
Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Towards computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A compu-
tational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Educa-
tion, 11, 398–415.
Entertainment Software Association. (2015). Essential facts about the computer and video game indus-
try. Retrieved May 14, 2015 from http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-
Facts-2015.pdf
Fladen, E., & Blashki, K. (2005). Learning = playing: Interactive learning and game-based design prin-
ciples. Paper presented at the 22nd acsilite annual conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from the
acsilite Web site http://www.ascilite.org.au/ conferences/brisbane05 /blogs/proceedings/25_Fladen.pdf
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Frijda, N. H. (2005). Emotion experience. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 473–498.
doi:10.1080/02699930441000346
Gee, J. P. (2008). Video games and embodiment. Games and Culture, 3(3-4), 253–263.
doi:10.1177/1555412008317309
Gee, J. P. (2009). Deep learning properties of good digital games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vor-
derer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanics and effects (pp. 67–82). New York: Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55. PMID:10096994
Graesser, A., Chipman, P., Leeming, F., & Biedenbach, S. (2009). Deep learning and emotion in seri-
ous games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanics and effects (pp.
83–102). New York: Routledge.

35

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

Green, C. S. (2014). The perceptual and cognitive effects of action video game experience. In F. C.
Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education (pp. 29–41). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.003.0003
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). A growing sense of agency. In D. J. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 1–4). New York:
Routledge.
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kato, P. M. (2012). Evaluating efficacy and validating games for health. Games for Health Journal: Re-
search, Development, and Clinical Applications, 1(1), 74–76. doi:10.1089/g4h.2012.1017 PMID:26196436
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportuni-
ties & openness. The Education Arcade, MIT. Retrieved from http://education.mit.edu/papers/Moving-
LearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdf
Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.),
Animal mind -- human mind (pp. 201–224). New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-68469-
2_12
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lieberman, D. A., Biely, E., Thai, C. L., & Peinado, S. (2014). Transfer of learning from video game
play to the classroom. In F. C. Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education (pp.
189–203). New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.003.0013
McClarty, K. L., Orr, A., Frey, P. M., Dolan, R. P., Vassileva, V., & McVay, A. (June, 2012). A Literature
Review of Gaming in Education. Pearson. Available online at: http://formative.persaonassessments.com/
hai/Images/tmrs/Lit_Review_of_Gaming_in_ Education.pdf
Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Gill, D., & Romig, C. (2013). Gaming science: The “Gamifica-
tion of scientific thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00607 PMID:24058354
National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations (M. A.
Honey & M. L. Hilton, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy press, Board on Science Education,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffman, K. F. (2014). Self-Regulation and Gender Within a Game-Based
Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 961–973. doi:10.1037/a0037116
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). New York: Basic Books.

36

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review,
56(3), 132–143. doi:10.1037/h0057488 PMID:18139121
Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Introduction. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer
(Eds.), Serious games: Mechanics and effects (pp. 3–9). New York: Routledge.
Sabourin, J. L., Shores, L. R., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Understanding and predicting student
self-regulated learning strategies in game-based learning environments. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 23(1-4), 94–114. doi:10.1007/s40593-013-0004-6
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational
Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204_1
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading
and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/10573560600837578
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research,
and applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Thelen, E. (1995). Time-scale dynamics in the development of an embodied cognition. In R. Port & T.
van Gelder (Eds.), Mind in motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 69–100). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901a). The influence of improvement in one mental function
upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). Psychological Review, 8(3), 247–261. doi:10.1037/h0074898
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901b). The influence of improvement in one mental function
upon the efficiency of other functions. (II). The estimation of magnitudes. Psychological Review, 8(4),
384–395. doi:10.1037/h0071280
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901c). The influence of improvement in one mental function
upon the efficiency of other functions. (III). Functions involving attention, observation and discrimina-
tions. Psychological Review, 8(6), 553–564. doi:10.1037/h0071363
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmeuli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect
helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43(3), 379–384. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007
Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2011). Computer games and instruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
van de Sande, E., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). The role of executive control in young children’s
serious gaming behavior. Computers & Education, 82, 432–441. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.004
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1999). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition.
In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in education (pp.
175–205). New York: Routledge.

37

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 4, 58. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058 PMID:23408669
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.
doi:10.3758/BF03196322 PMID:12613670
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mulling, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. et al. (2012).
Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 82(1), 61–89. doi:10.3102/0034654312436980
Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., & Lai, B. (2012). Comments on “Reflections on ‘A Review of Trends in
Serious Gaming.’”. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 296–299. doi:10.3102/0034654312456606
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.
R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-37). Sand Diego, CA: Academic
Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, method-
ological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.
doi:10.3102/0002831207312909
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation in-
tersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education
(pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive per-
spective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919

ADDITIONAL READING

Adams, F. (2010). Embodied cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 619–628.
doi:10.1007/s11097-010-9175-x
Blumberg, F. C. (Ed.). (2014). Learning by playing: Video gamine in education. New York: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.001.0001
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2004). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, A. (1999). Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In W. Betchel & G. Graham (Eds.), A
companion to cognitive science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Dunlosky, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition: A textbook for cognitive, educational, life span &
applied psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier &
J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9–47). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Healy, A. F., Wohldmann, E. L., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (2005). The Procedural reinstatement principle: stud-
ies on training, retention, and transfer. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its
applications (pp. 59–71). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10895-005
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to
western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (Eds.). (1996). Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511489976
Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. New York:
Routledge.
Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(03), 417–424.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X00005756
Shapiro, L. A. (2011). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.
Thelen, E., Schoner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field
theory of infant perservative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 1–86. doi:10.1017/
S0140525X01003910 PMID:11515285
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Affordance: The relationship between the properties of an object and a person’s capabilities to use
those properties in goal-directed activities (Gibson, 1979; Norman, 2013).
Embodied Cognition: Is a psychology of the individual that advocates that along with the environ-
mental context, learning must be understood by how the individual learner perceptually and physically
interacts with that environment (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1999; Wilson, 2002). The critical thrust
of embodied cognition is to explain how the body and mind interact perceptually, physiologically, and
psychologically in real time with the environment to achieve goal-directed activities (Morris et al., 2013;
Wilson, 2002).
Transfer: Transfer is “using existing knowledge and skills to learn, solve problems, or carry out a
new task in a new situation” (Liberman et al., 2014, p. 189).

39

The Role of Metacognition in Learning via Serious Games

Self-Regulated Learning: “Self-regulated learning refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and

actions for attaining one’s learning goals” (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009, p. 299). Effective self-regulated
learning depends on the learners’ abilities to metacognitively monitor and control their learning and to
motivate themselves to learn.
Metacognition: Metacognition is “knowledge of one’s knowledge, processes, and cognitive and
affective states; and the ability to consciously and deliberately monitor and regulate one’s knowledge,
processes, and cognitive and affective states” (Hacker, 1998, p. 3).
Situated Cognition: A major thrust of situated cognition promotes the idea that knowledge and
skills are best learned in contexts that closely resemble the contexts in which they will be used (Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1989). That is, you cannot understand what happens within
the individual apart from considering the influence of the social, cultural, and physical contexts within
which the individual is learning.
Serious Game: This is a genre of video games, sometimes called digital-learning games, that attempts
to “target the acquisition of knowledge as its own end and foster habits of mind and understanding that
are generally useful or useful within an academic context” (Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen, 2009, p. 21).

40
41

Chapter 3
Learning from Social
Collaboration:
A Paradigm Shift in Evaluating
Game-Based Learning

Kimmo Oksanen
University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Timo Lainema
University of Turku, Finland

Raija Hämäläinen
University of Jyväskylä, Finland

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the challenge of evaluating game-based learning. It argues that linking game-
based learning with the characteristics of a specific game or game-produced engagement is challenging.
It further proposes a framework in which the game-based learning process is approached by considering
(business) simulation games as Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environments and
presents an approach on how learning can be approached and evaluated from this perspective. In ad-
dition, it highlights how simulation game mechanics appears to be a potential way to promote learners’
socio-emotional processes and give rise to social interaction and to structure collaboration among the
learners in the game context. The proposed framework of this chapter takes into account both cognitive
and socio-emotional perspectives of learning. The results of the chapter will present a contemporary
view on the roles of sociability, collaboration and engagement in game-based learning.

INTRODUCTION

Simulation games have been applied in business education for more than five decades (Wolfe, 1993; Faria,
Hutchinson, Wellington & Gold, 2009). The use of business games in business education is justified by
the argument that simulation games have a many advantages compared to traditional teaching methods.
For example business games have been suggested to offer experiential learning (Petranek, 1994; Gosen
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch003

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Learning from Social Collaboration

& Washbush, 2004), cross-disciplinary learning (Klabbers, 2001), problem-based learning (Maxwell,
Mergendoller & Bellisimo, 2004; Badurdeen, Marksberry, Hall & Gregory, 2010), and business process
oriented learning (Tsalgatidou, Louridas, Fesakis & Schizas, 1996; Ruohomäki, 2003; Lainema, 2004).
If business games are to offer the expected benefits, they should have considerable potential in delivering
a relevant and modern view of business organizations and their functioning to business school students.
The potential is especially relevant for tertiary education, where there is a need for higher understand-
ing of the learning topics, in the form of a multi-disciplinary view of cause-effects and dynamicity in
business organizations. This higher-level understanding is important for the future decision-makers of
organizations, who will be responsible of larger systemic entities than those found in functional and
lower-level organizational decision-making.
In simulation game research it has long been acknowledged that “a comprehensive theory about
learning and knowing through gaming and simulation is not yet available due to competing epistemolo-
gies” (Klabbers, 2003, p. 260). Furthermore, the community of gamers seems to be more interested in
the instrumentality of games (methods and techniques of game design and use; Klabbers, 2003) than
how games actually promote learning. It is only with a clear hypothesis about the process of learning
that one is able to choose an adequate research design to properly evaluate learning effectiveness and to
draw meaningful conclusions (Herz & Merz, 1998).
The above has led to a situation, in which there is no clear, un-contradictory evidence of the ben-
efits of the application of business simulation games (SGs). For example, Anderson & Lawton (2009)
summarize that the efficacy of business simulation games in achieving cognitive learning outcomes is
unclear. Gosen and Washbush (2004) have come to the same conclusion, stating that there have not been
enough high-quality studies to allow us to conclude that players learn by participating in SGs. We see
that the lack of business simulation game learning evidence comes partly from the fallacy on the nature
of learning from simulation gaming experiences, but very much also from the fact that the research-
ers have tried to link directly the game characteristics with learning. In this paper our starting point is
the belief that the core of the problem is that the nature of the learning from business games is 1) not
factual but something else by nature (i.e. procedural and conceptual); 2) unique to the learner and very
much depends on the learners’ previous knowledge, experiences and beliefs; 3) unique to the business
simulation in use. All these points make it difficult to assess the learning.
The community of researchers and their efforts in seeking the answer to game-based learning can be
described with the figure below. It has been believed that – by highly oversimplifying – it is the charac-
teristics of the game (plus the debriefing activities run after the gaming session) that affect the learning
(Figure 1). This perspective is clearly visible in various studies, and for example Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne,
Lazzara & Salas (2012) state that in the effort to understand the relationship between games and learning,
approaching the subject in a bottom-up, basic-science fashion by examining individual attribute-outcome
links will allow for a distributed scientific discovery.

Figure 1. Learning as a result of the game characteristics

42

Learning from Social Collaboration

Figure 2. Learning as a result of game-produced engagement

After more than 40 years of unfruitful and unsuccessful work trying to find an all-encompassing
framework, new passages are clearly needed in trying to study game-based learning. A recent special is-
sue in Simulation and Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research presented 10
research articles on engagement and discussed how engagement potentially leads to learning in the field
of learning games. For us this illustrates both a paradigm shift, the rise of a new generation of learning
games researchers and a welcome turbulence in the research field. The difference between the old school
and the emerging school of game research using engagement as a phenomenon explaining learning can
be illustrated by the following figure, showing the additional phase between the game characteristics
and learning from game playing (Figure 2).
Although we see this new paradigm shift as a very welcome one, there are several challenges is defin-
ing, measuring and assessing engagement. Further, by concentrating on engagement we may neglect the
social and collaborative aspects of learning, which according to modern views of learning are essential
in the learning process. We therefore approach the learning process by considering (business) simula-
tion games as computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments and present an approach
on how learning can be evaluated from this perspective. In order to make better use of learning games
a thorough understanding of the social processes taking place in the environment is required. Only by
better understanding the socio-emotional processes during a gaming process can we be better prepared
to utilize game design to support and promote learning.
Existing research supports the view that the development of learning games should take into account
both educational, task-specific aspects (knowledge construction), and social, psychological aspects (group
formation and development) in order to provide the best possible opportunities for social interaction and
productive knowledge construction to occur. On one hand, existing research further finds that the sense
of social presence and collaboration with game teammates seems to be an essential part of engaging
and pleasant game experiences. On the other hand, pleasant and engaging game experiences encourage
social interaction and collaborative knowledge construction, and through that lead to improved learning
results. This reasoning leads to the framework described later in this chapter on the origins of game-
based learning. The results of the chapter will present a contemporary view on the roles of sociability,
collaboration and engagement for game-based learning.

GAME CHARACTERISTICS AND LEARNING

The “traditional” approach to evaluating learning in educational games relies on the view that learning
is a result of specific characteristics of the game. Numerous studies have been conducted in order to
determine game characteristics influencing effectiveness of educational games (e.g. Garris, Ahlers &
Driskell 2002; Wilson, Bedwell, Lazzara, Salas, Burke, Estock, 2009). Applying elements of the game

43

Learning from Social Collaboration

to inform instruction is not a novel idea. First studies in this field were carried out almost four decades
ago, when Malone (1980) and Malone and Lepper (1987) studied motivational aspects of the games and
identified elements (fantasy, challenge, curiosity, and control) that motivate players. To go on, Bowman
(1982) proposed that motivational aspects of the games can be adapted for instruction, for example, by
providing learners with clear goals, roles, responsibilities, freedom of choice, and balancing learners’
skills with progressive challenges. Later research linking game characteristics to learning have comple-
mented this core work with additional characteristics (e.g. Gredler, 1996; Thiagarajan, 1999; Leemkuil,
de Jong & Ootes, 2000). In addition, a huge effort by various researchers have been made to identify
and understand how characteristics of the game engender learning.
A recent comprehensive study carried out by Bedwell et al. (2012) reveals the current state of art
related to game characteristics and learning. The game characteristics relevant to learning are classified
into nine categories as follows 1) action language, 2) assessment, 3) conflict/challenge, 4) control, 5)
environment, 6) game fiction, 7), human interaction, 8) immersion, and 9) rules/goals.
In the categorization mentioned above, action language refers to the communication rules of the game.
In practice this means the ways by which players can interact with the game and make their intent clear
to the system, including ways of interaction and user interfaces. Assessment refers to all feedback given
to the player during the game (such as scoring and indicators of progress) as well as debriefing after the
game. Conflict/challenge includes the presentation of problems in a game as well as the nature of these
problems. Control determines the degree of interaction and the agency the player is able to take in a
game. Environment, in turn, refers to the context of the game in which the game takes place. Game fic-
tion describes the nature of the game world and story of the game. Human interaction, obviously, refers
to the communication between the players during the game. Immersion refers to the players’ perceptual
and affective relationship with the game fiction. Finally, rules/goals determine the goal of the game,
and for example the actions that the players are able to take to reach that goal. (Bedwell et al., 2012).
In addition to the categorization of the game characteristics, Bedwell et al., (2012) reviewed and
presented a summary of the research conducted linking game attributes and learning outcomes includ-
ing cognitive (such as cognitive strategies and declarative knowledge), skill-based (such as adaptation
and psychomotor) and affective outcomes (such as internalizing values and motivation). In total this
review included 42 studies (30 of these studies were empirical). The review revealed in total 456 con-
nections between game characteristics and learning outcomes. However, only 64 of these connections
were found to be positive, whilst 390 connections were considered to be unspecified or undetermined
relationship. Further, 23 of the positive relationships were related to motivation, which can not in itself
be regarded as a learning outcome. Thus, the review showed that games have potential to support learn-
ing. This is in line with the results of a comprehensive review on the effectiveness of games for learning
by Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey & Boyle (2012). However, due to the amount of unspecified
or undetermined relationship, it is clear that game-based learning outcomes cannot be directly linked
to characteristics of the game.

ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING

According to an emerging approach within the field of serious games, game-based learning is seen as
a result of the game-produced engagement. Engagement, in turn, is based on the characteristics of the
game and the process of gaming. This view is supported by the increase of research focusing on game

44

Learning from Social Collaboration

experiences and game engagement in the field of serious games (e.g. Admiraal, Huizenga, Akkerman &
ten Dam, 2011; Whitton, 2011; Kiili & Lainema, 2008). In the field of game-based learning, engagement
is commonly used to refer to learning. For example if engagement is seen as an active and committed
participation and behavior, there is a strong connection between engagement and learning outcomes
(Parsons & Taylor, 2011). Even though engagement is without a doubt an important part of game-based
learning, this approach also includes challenges. For example, one specific challenge lies in defining
and assessing engagement, as well as connecting engagement to learning (Whitton & Moseley, 2014).
Defining engagement is difficult as it takes different meanings and nuances in different disciplines.
Combining engagement with game-based learning is specifically challenging since the meaning of
engagement in education and game design is totally different. In the context of education, engagement
often refers to the effort and time that students put into their studies and related activities (e.g. Trowler,
2010). In game design, in turn, engagement is connected to the players’ subjective experiences, such as
enjoyment, flow, immersion, and presence, during the game (Boyle, Connolly, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012).
In addition, these two viewpoints differ from each other with the motivational aspects of engagement.
Whilst motivation for education engagement may be extrinsic, in most cases entertainment game engage-
ment is typically intrinsic (Whitton & Moseley, 2014).
Whitton and Moseley (2014) propose a solution for the dilemma of defining engagement in game-
based learning. According to the proposed model, the lowest view of engagement (participation) is seen
as certain observable behaviors such as attendance. The second view of engagement includes learners
having a desire to participate in the activity, and also having a positive attitude towards it (commitment).
When the learner shows deeper psychological commitment to the cognitive activity, the motivation for
engagement turns into intrinsic and learner becomes immersed in an activity (captivation). The following
view on engagement highlights the meaning of learners’ emotional feelings for the engagement, which
may reinforce immersion to cognitive activity (passion). The fifth view of engagement takes into account
the social perspective of the activity, meaning that the learner is engaged with a group or community, and
feels like being a part of the social construct (affiliation). In the final view of engagement “instead of the
learner being seen as distinct from an activity, he or she is constructed as an integral part of that activity
through enculturation, a feeling of presence, and total immersion” (Whitton & Moseley, 2014, 443-444).
The proposed model of engagement by Whitton and Moseley is a huge step forward in understanding
game-based learning engagement. However, it does not contribute to another main challenge related to
measuring and assessing engagement. Assessing engagement is problematic since specifically a deeper
level of engagement refers to the learners’ feelings and experiences during an activity. Thus, it is difficult
to assess the learners’ engagement without interrupting engagement and commitment to the activity.
Traditionally, questionnaires have been applied to measure engagement in learning (e.g. Appleton,
Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006), games (e.g. Brockmyer, Fox, Curtiss, McBroom, Burkhart &
Pidruzny, 2009), and serious games (e.g. Fu, Su & Yu, 2009). Even though questionnaires are most often
used to measure engagement, other methods have been applied as well. These other methods include
both objective and subjective measures, such as facial expressions and body language (Hughey, 2002),
eye tracking (Jennett, Cox, Cairns, Dhoparee, Epps, Tijs & Walton, 2008), observations (Read et al.,
2002), and game metrics (Ronimus, Kujala, Tolvanen, & Lyytinen, 2014). Martey, Kenski, Folkestad
et al., (2014) used various methods simultaneously to examine multiple conceptualizations of game en-
gagement. They found out that individual game characteristics did not significantly affect engagement
measures. However, they also found out that the use of various measures simultaneously may reveal
differences among participants. These differences may be inaccessible with only one single measure.

45

Learning from Social Collaboration

The review carried out by Connolly et al. (2012) showed that game-based learning can be motivat-
ing and enjoyable for the learners. In addition, there are studies supporting the view that game-based
learning fosters engagement (e.g. Perrotta, Featherstone, Aston & Houghton, 2013). Furthermore, there
are studies, according to which positive and engaging game experiences are indicated to have a positive
effect on learning (e.g. De Grove, Van Looy & Courtois, 2010; Whitton, 2010; Kiili & Lainema, 2008).
However, as Admiraal et al. (2011) point out, engagement may affect learners game performance, but
not the learning outcomes. Thus, “a crucial distinction exists between player engagement with the game
itself and engagement with the intended learning outcomes from playing an educational game” (Whitton
& Moseley, 2014; 440). Further, it is noteworthy, that deep engagement in game-based learning is not
necessarily a positive thing, but it can lead to excessive competitiveness, and unfavorable behavior in
which the game is played more to win than to learn (Harviainen, Lainema & Saarinen, 2012).
To overcome the challenges introduced above, we will theorize with a framework which embeds the
social and collaborative aspects of gaming to learning (Figure 3). The remaining of this paper will dis-
cuss the social and collaborative aspects of learning through gaming and how it relates to engagement.

COLLABORATION AND LEARNING

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

In our approach collaborative educational games are seen as a specific type of computer-supported
collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. According to Stahl (2015) collaborative learning in tech-
nological environments (e.g. games) can offer an important component of education for the future. In
short, collaborative learning refers to learning ‘together’ in groups (Laru, Näykki, & Järvelä, 2012).
From this perspective learning is seen as a creative construction of shared knowledge through activities
with others (see, Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011). Thus, collaborative learning combines individual
and social processes in building novel understanding based on group members’ ideas and thoughts.
Therefore, in collaborative knowledge construction learners are committed to shared goals by listening
to and elaborating on the views of the others and solving problems together to reach shared goals (e.g.
Dillenbourg, 1999).

Figure 3. Learning as a result of social and collaborative activities

46

Learning from Social Collaboration

Collaborative learning is sometimes used interchangeably with cooperative learning (Zagal, Rick &
His, 2006). However, a key difference between these concepts is how the problem or task at hand is ap-
proached. In cooperative learning the task is usually divided into subtasks among participants, and each
member of the group is responsible for a portion of task (Dillenbourg, 1999). Therefore, in collaborative
learning in addition to the personal goals, group members adopt shared goals together. In practice, in
collaborative learning learners’ are joining their forces with each member’s views and resources con-
tributing to a joint work task to solve complex problems and reach shared goals (Weinberger, 2003).
The aim is that by this way, the learners are able to reach to an understanding or knowledge that none
of them could achieve alone (Stahl, 2004).
There is no collaborative learning without productive discussion and/or social interaction (Resendes,
Scardamalia, Bereiter, & Chen, 2015). However, all social interaction does not lead to learning, but the
quality of interaction matters. Previous studies have shown that, for example, giving feedback (Gielen &
De Wever, 2015), coordination of shared processes (Barron, 2000), construction of common knowledge
(Crook, 2002), or negotiation of shared meaning (Miell & Littleton, 2008) all promote the formation
of new shared knowledge. In authentic game-based learning situations, these collaborative learning
processes are typically overlapping and participants combine, for example, negotiation, collaborative
knowledge building and dialogical interaction to solve complex problems. The power of collaboration
is based on the fact that each member of the group brings her/his own resources for joint exploitation.
These resources refer, for example, to prior knowledge, information, and learning strategies and tactics
(Winne, Hadwin & Gress., 2010). For instance, one’s prior knowledge on the task, the content or the
collaboration itself can be particularly beneficial for those individuals with less knowledge. Further, the
group members may have information that is not yet anyone’s knowledge, but can be processed into such
through collaborative knowledge construction. Individuals have different ways of learning and these
differing learning strategies can complement each other in a collaborative learning situation.

Educational Games as Sociable CSCL Environments

CSCL environments are virtual environments that utilize technology to support collaborative learning.
A large part of studies in the field of CSCL have focused on asynchronous text-based virtual learning
environments and in recent years, the opportunities and potential of collaborative educational games
as CSCL environments have been recognized. Without doubt, collaborative educational games are a
powerful way of using technology to support collaborative learning. So far studies have shown that
such games can be helpful, for instance, in visualizing things which could not be demonstrated in the
classroom (Hämäläinen, 2008), in knowledge creation (Burton & Martin, 2010: Hummel, van Houcke,
Nadolski, van der Hiele, Kurvers & Löhr, 2011), in motivating and promoting teamwork (Susaeta,
Jimenez, Nussbaum, Gajardo, Andreu, & Villalta, 2010), and in improving learning motivation and
attitudes (Sung & Hwang, 2013).
CSCL environments in general have been criticized about the fact that that they do not take into ac-
count learners’ social and emotional needs, but they mainly focus on the cognitive aspect of learning
through structuring knowledge construction processes (Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems, 2003). However,
learners are not robots, but have emotional and social needs. So, to fully deploy and reveal the potential
of sociable CSCL environments, both cognitive (knowledge construction processes) and emotional
(socio-emotional processes) need to be taken into account when designing, using and evaluating these
environments (Kreijns et al., 2003).

47

Learning from Social Collaboration

For example, collaboration scripting has been shown to be effective ways to structure the learners’
knowledge construction processes in collaborative educational games (Bluemink, Hämäläinen, Man-
ninen & Järvelä, 2010; Hämäläinen & Oksanen, 2012). Collaboration scripting in a game context refers
to game design, and particularly, to defining the game tasks and mechanics, which require participation
from multiple learners, and necessitates collaborative knowledge construction.
Structuring of the knowledge construction processes, like collaboration scripting, does not neces-
sarily contribute to the development of the group as a well-performing team. This is why we highlight
the need of supporting the learners’ socio-emotional needs (Figure 4). Supporting socio-emotional
processes improves building a good basis for productive social interaction and knowledge construction.
Supporting group formation, building trust amongst members of the group and strengthening a sense of
community have been shown to be key factors for the emergence of a social interaction (e.g. Wegerif,
1998; Kreijns, Kirschner & Vermeulen, 2013), and form a sound social space, which may further con-
tribute to perceived learning (Abedin, Daneshgar & D’Ambra, 2012; Rourke, 2000). Without favorable
conditions, the learners may not share tentative ideas with other members of the group or critique each
other’s ideas. They may also interpret criticism as a personal insult rather than valuable resource for the
knowledge construction.

The Sense of Social Presence and the Sociability of the Environment

In our reasoning we have now come to the stage in which we claim that the two central concepts associ-
ated with the learners’ socio-emotional processes (Figure 5) are:

1. the sense of social presence, and

2. the sociability of the environment (Abedin et al., 2012; Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems & van Buuren,
2007).

Figure 4. Learners socio-emotional are essential for social interaction and knowledge construction

48

Learning from Social Collaboration

Figure 5. Sociability and sense of social presence

The sense of social presence refers to the learners’ feelings about “the perceived degree of illusion
that the other in the communication appears to be a real physical person in either an immediate or de-
layed communication episode” (Kreijns et al., 2007, 180). In a collaborative gaming situation, the sense
of social presence is a meaningful part of the game experience. The lack of sense of social presence has
been identified to be a major drawback in asynchronous, text-based virtual learning environments, as
they do not offer any visual or auditory cues to support the communication (Kear, 2010). In previous
studies participants’ behavior, interaction, as well as characteristics of the environment have been proved
to be associated with the sense of social presence. Making group members visible to each other, and en-
abling synchronous interaction may improve the sense of social presence (Kear, 2010; Haythornthwaite,
Kazmer, Robins & Shoemaker 2000).
Another main concept is the sociability of the game environment, which refers to the ability of a
CSCL environment to facilitate the emergence of a sound social space for social interaction, a strong
sense of togetherness, and good working relationships (Laffey, Lin & Lin, 2006; Kreijns et al., 2007).
Thus, sociability is closely connected to the sense of social presence (Kreijns et al., 2007). Further,
sociability of the environment is associated with the learners’ enjoyment, the level of participation, and
the effectiveness of the learning (e.g. Abedin et al., 2012; Muilenberg & Berge, 2005).
There are two different ways to approach sociability. It can be seen as an attribute of the socio-tech-
nological system (Kreijns et al., 2013), or as an attribute of the social system (Preece, 2000). Sociability
as an attribute of the socio-technological system is defined by tangible social affordances which refer to
the properties of the environment that act as facilitators or triggers for social interaction and collabora-
tion (Kreijns et al., 2013). In collaborative educational games, this means, for example, designing game
tasks that require social interaction and collaboration among learners. Studies in the context of massively
multiplayer online games (MMOGs) have shown that sociability can be promoted, for instance, through
player interdependencies, game spaces and interaction systems (Ducheneaut, Moore & Nickell, 2007).

49

Learning from Social Collaboration

From the latter point of view, sociability is determined through three intangible social affordances:
a community purpose, the people who participate, and policies (Preece, 2000). Thus, sociability can be
enhanced through carefully defining these factors. For example the purpose of the community and col-
laborative learning activity should be clearly stated so that group members share the same expectations
of what has to be done. In addition, social interaction and collaboration can be facilitated by setting
different roles for the participants, to create a positive interdependence among learners. The policies
in CSCL environments are largely similar with the policies in other online communities covering, for
instance, similar general rules of behavior (Kreijns et al., 2013; Preece, 2000).
Our proposed theoretical framework is based on the work by Kreijns et al. (2007; 2013), but we
have modified it to better suit to the context of game-based learning. The proposed framework is based
on the notion that successful social interaction is a cornerstone for productive collaborative knowledge
construction and learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Hiltz, 1994). From the perspective of CSCL social interac-
tion serves two central purposes. First, social interaction enables learning from and with other learners.
Second, social interaction is an essential element from the socio-emotional point of view of the learners.
In this framework the emergence of social interaction is influenced by three factors:

1. the sociability of the game environment,

2. a sense of social presence, and
3. the pedagogical techniques employed to create a collaborative learning situation.

Evaluating Collaborative Learning in Serious Games

The aim of collaborative learning is that a group of learners is able to build new collaborative knowledge
that exceeds what any individual could have achieved on their own (Stahl, 2004). Thus, construction
of shared knowledge through activities with the others (collaborative knowledge construction) is in the
core of collaborative learning. In analyzing collaborative learning, the importance of shared knowledge
construction is highlighted (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke & Van Keer, 2006). Content analysis (Berelson,
1952) has been shown to be a useful and reliable way in evaluating shared learning processes and activities
(e.g. Hämäläinen & Oksanen, 2012). Earlier content analysis has been used to sort individual messages
into categories and investigating their relationship with the learning outcomes (e.g. Howe & Tolmie,
1999). However, this approach ignores the reciprocal and situational nature of collaborative knowledge
construction (Arvaja, 2007). Hence, micro-level methods have been further developed to gain better
understand of knowledge construction processes in groups (e.g. Arvaja, 2007). This revised approach has
been proven to provide new insights into what actually happens in collaboration processes (Hämäläinen
& Oksanen, 2012). Thus, as the aim of the analysis is not only to evaluate the quality of collaboration
based on individual messages, but in addition, to reveal what goes on between the learners’ interactions
(Arvaja, 2007), both qualitative and quantitative content analysis should be utilized. Quantitative analysis
aims to reveal the nature of individual messages or utterances of the learners’, whilst qualitative analysis
clarifies how these individual messages are interconnected and form the whole collaboration situation.
In practice, the analysis of the collaborative knowledge construction processes is divided into two
levels. Our previous studies (Hämäläinen, Oksanen & Häkkinen, 2008; Hämäläinen & Oksanen, 2012)
have shown an utterance (typically one turn of speech of transcribed data) (Chi, 1997) to be a suitable
unit of analysis. At the first level of the analysis utterances are categorized into six theory-based main
categories based on the functional roles of the learners’ utterances (Vosniadou, Ioannides, Dimitrako-

50

Learning from Social Collaboration

poulou & Papademetriou, 2001). The theoretical grounding is based in Vosniadou et al.’s (2001) work on
teacher/student games. The aim of the first level analysis is to create a holistic picture of the knowledge
construction processes. Main categories to be used are: 1) providing knowledge, 2) contextual questions,
3) shared problem solving, 4) management of interaction, 5) summing-up/discovering a solution, and
6) other input.
At the second level of the analysis utterances will be further sorted into 25 subcategories within 6
main categories (Beers, Boshuizen, Kirschner & Gijselaers, 2007) according to more precise functions
of interaction. This subcategorization aims at revealing whether the learners’ knowledge construction
is built on others’ ideas and thoughts, and is not just accumulative sharing of knowledge (for detailed
description of the analysis with the empirical data see Hämäläinen & Oksanen, 2012).
Our previous studies have shown that utilizing content analysis enables the evaluation of the col-
laborative knowledge construction processes (Figure 6). However, as stated before, only through a more
thorough understanding of the socio-emotional processes during a gaming process can we be better
prepared to evaluate game designs in supporting and promoting learning.

How to Evaluate Socio-Emotional Processes?

To better understand the learners’ socio-emotional processes and the mechanisms behind them, we need
to evaluate:

• the ability of the environment to support the learners’ socio-emotional processes,

• the formation of a sound social space for collaboration, and
• the learners’ experiences related to the learning situation.

Figure 6. Successful social interaction may lead to shared knowledge construction

51

Learning from Social Collaboration

Previous studies have proven social interaction to have a positive relationship with the sociability of
the environment (Keenan & Shiri, 2009), the sense of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002; Shen, Yu
& Khalifa, 2006), and the pedagogical techniques such as pedagogical scripting and predefined roles
(Dillenbourg & Tchounikine, 2007; Fischer, Kollar, Stegmann & Wecker, 2013; Strijbos & De Laat,
2010). In addition, strong sociability of the environment has been shown to lead to deeper sense of social
presence (Kear, 2010) also in the context of serious games (Oksanen & Hämäläinen, 2013).

Game Mechanics Promoting Social Interaction and Collaboration

Through recent technological development different collaborative mechanisms have become prominent
in computer games, and consequently, interest in utilizing them to support learning has increased (Zagal
et al., 2006), also in the field of collaborative (serious) games (Zagal et al., 2006; Rocha, Mascarenhas &
Prada, 2008; El Nasr, Aghabeigi, Milam, Erfani, Lameman, Maygoli & Mah, 2010; Reichart & Bruegge,
2014; Reuter, Göbel & Steinmetz, 2014).
Rocha et al. (2008) presented a collection of cooperative game mechanics used in popular multiplayer
games, and designed a simplified cooperative, two player video game for research use. The identified
cooperative mechanics include complementarity, synergies between abilities, abilities that can only be
used with another player, shared goals, synergies between the goals, and special rules for players of the
same team. El Nasr et al. (2010) continued the work by Rocha et al. by presenting a set of additional
cooperative patterns identified in an analysis of 14 cooperative games. Presented additional patterns in-
clude, for example, interacting with the same object, shared puzzles, shared characters, vocalization, and
limited resources. They further proposed a framework to analyze the cooperative nature of games. Reuter
et al. (2014) continued the same research path and identified nine more collaborative mechanics used in
game design. The identified mechanics were classified under three categories; general, gates and support.
General mechanics (concurrency and parallelization) are higher level concepts that can be realized with
a variety of different mechanics. Gates (separation gate and gathering gate), in turn, prevent the players
to continue until a certain requirement is filled. And last, support mechanics (strengthening, resupply,
protector, savior and sacrifice) refer to the situation in which one player directly benefits from another.
The mechanics described above will without doubt generate social interaction and collaboration
among the players. However, they are not designed and analyzed from the perspective of collaborative
learning. This is a shortcoming since to support collaborative learning, integrating theoretical knowl-
edge on collaborative learning and game design is essential (Echeverría, García-Campo, Nussbaum, Gil,
Villalta, Améstica & Echeverría, 2011). Integration of these viewpoints aims at finding new ways to
take advantage of game-design elements (such as game mechanics) to structure the learners’ knowledge
construction, and to support their socio-emotional processes to improve the opportunity for productive
interaction and collaboration to emerge (Figure 7).

Elements Leading to Improved Social Interaction

Previous studies have identified elements that should be met to improve the emergence of social interac-
tion, which further enables collaborative knowledge construction to occur (Figure 8).
First, a common goal is important for learners to pursue the same objective (Dillenbourg, 1999).
This generates social interaction and collaboration among group members, which may further lead to
learning. Second, positive interdependence links group members, as an individual alone cannot achieve

52

Learning from Social Collaboration

Figure 7. Game design support socio-emotional processes

Figure 8. Game mechanics promote social interaction

a common goal and all members of the group must make the effort (Wang, 2009). Thus, this is an es-
sential element in effective collaboration (Collazos, Guerrero, Pino & Ochoa, 2003). Through coordina-
tion and communication group members are involved with each other, and manage their interdependent
activities to achieve a common goal (Nussbaum, Szewkis, Rosen, Abalos, Denardin, Caballero, Tagle &
Alcoholado, 2011). This enables reconciling their individual prior knowledge and information (Winne
et al., 2010), and at best, leads to a situation in which shared understanding and knowledge is built on
others’ ideas and thoughts (Arvaja, 2007).

53

Learning from Social Collaboration

Third, individual accountability is one of the central elements of collaborative learning. This means
that each individual has a meaningful role in collaborative situations. In an ideal situation, each member
plays a significant role and makes contribution to the group’s work instead of one member working for
all (Wang, 2009). Thus, “free riding” should be made harder (Strijbos & De Laat, 2010; Toups, Kerne
& Hamilton, 2009), and, in turn, encouraging all members to do their best should be confirmed. Fourth,
for the collaboration to be successful, group members should be aware of their peers’ current state of
mind and engage in mutual feedback that promotes decision making (Nussbaum et al., 2011). And finally,
mutual rewards generate a feeling of togetherness and winning or losing together, which encourages a
group to maximize their joint effort (Zagal et al., 2006).
Next we will present our approach on how game mechanics can be utilized to promote the emer-
gence of social interaction and collaboration (For detailed description of the mechanics and examples
of practical implementation, see Oksanen & Hämäläinen, 2014). In our approach we focus on following
subcategories of game mechanics (based on the classification by Schell (2008):

1. Game space,
2. Objects, attributes, and states,
3. Actions, and
4. Rules.

A shared synchronous space for collaboration generates spatial interdependence among the members of
the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1994), and further a shared space and/or a sharad user interface increases
the level of awareness (Nussbaum et al., 2011) as group members are able to see each other’s doings
and activities. Additionally it has been found that spatial isolation with no line of sight and no cogni-
tive distractions encourages the group members to start social interaction (Manninen & Korva, 2005).
Objects, attributes, and states are the ones that bring content to the game’s space. Objects are things
that can be seen or manipulated in the game. Attributes are categories of information related to the ob-
jects, and each attribute has a current state. Shared object with which multiple players need to interact for
successful completion promotes social interaction and emphasizes individual accountability (Nussbaum
et al., 2011). This sort of mechanic also makes “free riding” more difficult (Strijbos & De Laat, 2010;
Toups et al., 2009). Additionally, limiting information offered for the different players from attributes
and their states may promote collaboration and emphasize individual accountability, so that learners’ are
aware of each other’s state of mind (Nussbaum et al., 2011) and prior knowledge (Arvaja, 2012; Winne
et al., 2010), which form a basis for the new shared knowledge (Stahl, 2004).
Actions determine what players can do in the game. Thus, actions are closely related to the roles of
the players. The use of roles in promoting learning and instructional design is not a novel idea (Dickey,
2005). For example pre-defined roles have been found to be an effective way to structure the learners’
collaborative knowledge construction (e.g. Strijbos & De Laat, 2010). Actions related to the roles of
the learners can be designed to be complementary with each other - anyone alone cannot solve the
problem, but each member of the group plays an important role in problem solving (Wang, 2009). This
creates a positive interdependence among the learners. Complementarity within actions may also lead
to the emergence of strategic or resultant actions, which encourage group members to be aware of their
peers’ current state of mind (Schell, 2008). Additionally, actions can be combined with limited access
to information by providing someone with information that requires another player to act. Thus, learn-

54

Learning from Social Collaboration

ers have a common goal and they need to collaborate and coordinate their actions with each other for a
joint reward (Nussbaum et al., 2011), which further encourages them to do their best (Zagal et al., 2006).
Rules can be considered as the most fundamental type of mechanics. They bring the other mechanics
to life and give them meaning by, for instance, defining consequences of the players’ actions, constraints
on the actions, and the goals of the game. Rules should not guide and limit the players’ activities too
tight (Dillenbourg, 2002). Sufficiently broad rules allow the learners to select and develop their working
and problem-solving strategies through interaction and collaboration. Too strict guidelines may disturb
natural interaction and problem-solving processes and increase the cognitive load (Dillenburg, 2002).

CONCLUSION

This chapter focused on the challenging nature of factors that facilitate collaborative knowledge con-
struction in gaming. The driving force for this chapter is the fact that, despite of the huge potential of
game-based learning, the efficacy of games in achieving cognitive learning outcomes is still unclear. For
more than 40 years, researchers have been trying to find ways to explain game-based learning through
characteristics of the game. Recently, the attention has shifted from individual game characteristics
to game-produced engagement and its relation to game-based learning. Even though engagement is a
central element for learning there are challenges in defining, assessing and linking engagement with the
learning outcomes.
As a potential solution to this problem we have introduced how the social aspect of gaming plays a
central role in achieving learning through gaming, which considers games as a specific type of computer-
supported collaborative learning (CSCL). In addition, we presented an approach on how learning can be
evaluated from this point of view and how game mechanics can be utilized to give rise to social interac-
tion and to guide the learners’ collaborative activities in the game context.
To redeem the potential of collaborative game-based learning, both cognitive knowledge construction
and group development of well-performing teams needs to be taken into account. From the cognitive
knowledge construction point of view, predefined roles, collaboration scripting and real-time orchestra-
tion have been shown to be effective ways to structure collaborative processes (Hummel et al., 2011;
Bluemink et al., 2010). An environment’s ability to promote social interaction and collaboration and the
learners’ sense of social presence, in turn, are essential factors for group development (Kreijns et al.,
2013). Game mechanics appear to be a potential way to give rise to social interaction and to structure
collaboration among the learners in the game context (Oksanen, 2014). For example spatial isolation,
shared object in the game world and learners’ indirect and complementary actions can be applied to
promote social interaction and collaborative activities (Oksanen & Hämäläinen, 2014).
Besides integrating instructional design and game design perspectives with each other, it is also im-
portant to evaluate and understand the learners’ experiences and collaborative knowledge construction.
The learners’ experiences about the sociability of the game and perceived sense of social presence is
important as they have been shown to be key elements in forming a sound social space for social inter-
action and collaborative activities (Kreijns et al., 2013). As Rourke (2000) proposes, the emergency of
fruitful and productive social interaction requires a sense of community and mutual trust. Without such
conditions, the learners may not share tentative ideas with their peers or critique each other’s ideas, or
may interpret criticism as a personal insult rather than a valuable resource for knowledge construction.
Further, content analysis has been shown to be a valuable way to analyse collaborative knowledge con-

55

Learning from Social Collaboration

struction processes. Thus, by analysing the learners’ discussions during the collaborative situation, it is
possible to gain understanding about the nature of knowledge construction. For example by providing
knowledge, asking contextual questions and providing shared problem solving tasks improve the build-
ing of shared understanding and knowledge.
To conclude, the growing interest in serious and simulation games indicates that they will be increas-
ingly used in future education. However, to improve the quality, relevancy, and usability of simulation
games, a thorough understanding of the social processes taking place in the environment is required.
Only in this way can new ways of utilizing game design to support and promote collaborative learning
be found to exploit the full potential of simulation games.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

So far, learners’ knowledge construction processes in CSCL environments have been mainly analyzed
through the learners’ discussions during the problem solving. However, serious games offer new op-
portunities for making knowledge construction processes visible. This can be done by utilizing and
analyzing game log data. This sort of analysis of game log data has not been done before, and going
into this direction has clear potential in revealing new knowledge on social knowledge construction
through gaming. In addition, it is essential to pay attention to how decisions in the game guide the play-
ers’ actions in actual gameplay. To this end, there is a need to develop methods to assess the learners’
experiences in real-time. All in all, to advance in game learning research, it is necessary to implement
systematic empirical research to reveal factors which facilitates the emergence of social interaction and
collaborative activities

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work of the third author was supported by the Academy of Finland under Grant 292466 [the Mul-
tidisciplinary Research on Learning and Teaching profile of JYU].

REFERENCES

Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F., & D’Ambra, J. (2012). Do nontask interactions matter? The relationship be-
tween nontask sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning and learning outcomes. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 385–397. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01181.x
Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & ten Dam, G. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative
game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185–1194. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.013
Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments,
desires and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193–216. doi:10.1177/1046878108321624
Appleton, J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological
engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5),
427–445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

56

Learning from Social Collaboration

Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two

small groups in web-based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 2(2/3), 133–158. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9013-5
Arvaja, M. (2012). Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a philosophy
of science course. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 85–108.
doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9137-5
Badurdeen, F., Marksberry, P., Hall, A., & Gregory, B. (2010). Teaching Lean Manufacturing With
Simulations and Games: A Survey and Future Directions. Simulation & Gaming, 41(4), 465–486.
doi:10.1177/1046878109334331
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi:10.1207/
S15327809JLS1203_1
Bedwell, W., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a Taxonomy Link-
ing Game Attributes to Learning: An Empirical Study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760.
doi:10.1177/1046878112439444
Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotia-
tion of common ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 427–435. doi:10.1016/j.learnin-
struc.2007.04.002
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Bluemink, J., Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2010). Group-level analysis on multiplayer-
game collaboration: How do the individuals shape group interaction? Journal of Interactive Learning
Environments, 18(4), 365–383. doi:10.1080/10494820802602444
Bowman, R. F. (1982). A “Pac-Man” theory of motivation: Tactile implications for classroom instruc-
tion. Educational Technology, 22(9), 14–17.
Boyle, E., Connolly, T., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games:
A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 771–780. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020
Brockmyer, J., Fox, C., Curtiss, K., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K., & Pidruzny, J. (2009). The development
of the game engagement questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 624–634. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016
Burton, B., & Martin, B. (2010). Learning in 3D virtual environments: Collaboration and knowledge
spirals. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 259–273. doi:10.2190/EC.43.2.f
Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learn-
ing Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Pino, J., & Ochoa, S. (2003). Collaborative scenarios to promote posi-
tive interdependence among group members. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2806, 356–370.
doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39850-9_30

57

Learning from Social Collaboration

Connolly, T., Boyle, E., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. (2012). A systematic literature review
of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
Crook, C. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations around traditional vs. computer-based notes.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 64–76. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00212.x
De Grove, F., Van Looy, J., & Courtois, C. (2010). Towards a serious game experience model: Valida-
tion, extension and adaptation of the GEQ for use in an educational context. In L. Calvi, K. Niujten,
& H. Bouwknegt (Eds.), Playability and player experience (pp. 47–61). Breda, Netherlands: Breda
University of Applied Sciences.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze
transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video
games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2),
67–83. doi:10.1007/BF02504866
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do we mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg
(Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Heerlen: Open Uni-
versiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instruc-
tional design. In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen,
The Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.
Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x
Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R., & Nickell, E. (2007). Virtual “third places”: A case study of sociability in
maasively multiplayer games. Computer Supported Work, 16(1-2), 129–166. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-
9041-8
Echeverría, A., García-Campo, C., Nussbaum, M., Gil, F., Villalta, M., Améstica, M., & Echeverría,
S. (2011). A framework for the design and integration of collaborative classroom games. Computers &
Education, 57(1), 1127–1136. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.010
El-Nasr, M., Aghabeigi, B., Milam, D., Erfani, M., Lameman, B., Maygoli, H., & Mah, S. (2010).
Understanding and evaluating cooperative games. In Proceeding of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 253-262). New York: ACM
Faria, A. J., Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W. J., & Gold, S. (2009). Developments in Business Gaming:
A review of the Past 40 Years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 464–487. doi:10.1177/1046878108327585
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in
computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. doi:10.1080/0046
1520.2012.748005 PMID:23378679

58

Learning from Social Collaboration

Fu, F., Su, R., & Yu, S. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games.
Computers & Education, 52(1), 101–112. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.004
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a
wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education,
88, 370–386. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effective-
ness. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 270–293. doi:10.1177/1046878104263544
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulation: A technology in search of a research paradigm.
In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.
521–540). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Hämäläinen, R. (2008). Designing and evaluating collaboration in a virtual game environment for voca-
tional learning. Computers & Education, 50(1), 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.001
Hämäläinen, R., & Oksanen, K. (2012). Challenge of supporting vocational learning: Empowering
collaboration in a scripted 3D game - How does teachers’ real-time orchestration make a difference?
Computers & Education, 59(2), 281–293. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.002
Hämäläinen, R., Oksanen, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyzing collaboration in a
scripted game for vocational education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2496–2506. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.03.010
Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrat-
ing creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 169–184. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2011.08.001
Harviainen, J. T., Lainema, T., & Saarinen, E. (2012). Player-reported impediments to game-based
learning. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2). Retrieved from http://todigra.
org/index.php/todigra/article/view/14/22
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among
distant learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion, 6(1).
Herz, B., & Merz, W. (1998). Experiential learning and the effectiveness of economic simulation games.
Simulation & Gaming, 29(2), 238–250. doi:10.1177/1046878198292007
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (1999). Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported collabora-
tive learning in science. In K. Littleton (Ed.), Learning with computers: analyzing productive interaction
(pp. 24–45). New York: Routledge.

59

Learning from Social Collaboration

Hughey, L. (2002). A pilot study investigating visual methods of measuring engagement during e-learning.
Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.
Hummel, H., van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R., van der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H., & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted
collaboration in serious gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring
water management skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1029–1041. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2010.01122.x
Jennett, C., Cox, A., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and
defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
66(9), 641–661. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of coopera-
tive learning methods (pp. 51–64). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Kear, K. (2010). Social presence in online learning communities. In L. Dirkinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodg-
son, C. Jones, D McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 1-8). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University
Keenan, A., & Shiri, A. (2009). Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites. Library
Review, 58(6), 438–450. doi:10.1108/00242530910969794
Kennedy-Clark, S., & Thompson, K. (2011). What do students learn when collaboratively using a com-
puter games in the study of historical disease epidemics, and why? Games and Culture, 6(6), 513–537.
doi:10.1177/1555412011431361
Kiili, K., & Lainema, T. (2008). Foundation for measuring engagement in educational games. Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 469–488.
Klabbers, J. (2001). The Emerging Field of Simulation & Gaming: Meanings of a Retrospect. Simulation
& Gaming, 32(4), 471–480. doi:10.1177/104687810103200404
Klabbers, J. (2003). Interactive learning of what? In F. Percival, H. Godfrey, P. Laybourn, & S. Murray
(Eds.), The international simulation & gaming yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 257-266). Edinburgh, UK: Napier
University
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying pitfalls for social interaction in computer-
supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior,
19(3), 335–353. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W., & van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of
computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.004
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research
framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.750225
Laffey, J., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 163–177.

60

Learning from Social Collaboration

Lainema. (2004). Redesigning the Traditional Business Gaming Process – Aiming to Capture Business
Process Authenticity. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 35-52.
Laru, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2012). Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0
tools: A case study in the higher education context. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 29–38.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004
Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., & Ootes, S. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulation. Neth-
erlands: University of Twente. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/28235/1/review_of_educational.pdf
Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer
games. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for
learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol 3. Cognitive and
affective process and analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Manninen, T., & Korva, T. (2005). Designing puzzles for collaborative gaming experience - Case:
eScape. In S. De Castell & J. Jenson (Eds.), Selected Papers Proceedings of Digital Games Research
Association’s Second International Conference (pp. 233-247). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada:
Digital Games Research Association.
Martey, R. M., Kenski, K., Folkestad, J., Gordis, E., Feldman, L., Zhang, H., & Strzalkowski, T. et al.
(2014). Measuring game engagement: Multiple methods and construct complexity. Simulation & Gam-
ing, 45(4-5), 528–547. doi:10.1177/1046878114553575
Maxwell, N., Mergendoller, J., & Bellisimo, Y. (2004). Developing a problem-based learning simulation:
An economics unit on trade. Simulation & Gaming, 35(4), 488–498. doi:10.1177/1046878104264789
Miell, D., & Littleton, K. (2008). Musical collaboration outside school: Processes of negotiation in band
rehearsals. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.006
Muilenberg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barrier to online learning: A factor analytic study.
Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269
Nussbaum, M., Szewkis, E., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., & Alcoholado, C. et al.
(2011). Collaboration within large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 561–575. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9123-y
Oksanen, K. (2013). Subjective experience and sociability in a collaborative serious game. Simulation
& Gaming, 44(6), 767–793. doi:10.1177/1046878113513079
Oksanen, K. (2014). Serious game design: Supporting collaborative learning and investigating learners’
experiences. University of Jyväskylä. Finnish Institute for Educational Research.
Oksanen, K., & Hämäläinen, R. (2013). Perceived sociability and social presence in a collaborative seri-
ous game. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 34–50. doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2013010103
Oksanen, K., & Hämäläinen, R. (2014). Game mechanics in the design of a collaborative 3D serious
game. Simulation & Gaming, 45(2), 255–278.

61

Learning from Social Collaboration

Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Ed-
monton, Canada: University of Alberta.
Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H., & Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based learning: Latest evidence
and future directions. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Petranek, C. (1994). A Maturation in Experiential Learning: Principles of Simulation and Gaming.
Simulation & Gaming, 25(4), 513–523. doi:10.1177/1046878194254008
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York, NY: Wiley.
Reichart, B., & Bruegge, B. (2014). Social interaction patterns for learning in serious games. In
Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (pp. 1-7). ACM.
doi:10.1145/2721956.2721985
Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative
feedback and metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
10(3), 309–336. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9219-x
Reuter, C., Göbel, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2014). A Collection of Collaborative Player Interaction Patterns.
TU Darmstadt, Multimedia Communications Lab.
Rocha, J. B., Mascarenhas, S., & Prada, R. (2008). Game mechanics for cooperative games. In N.
Zagalo & R. Prada (Eds.), Actas da Conferência ZO. Digit. Games 2008 (pp. 73–80). Porto, Portugal:
Universidade do Minho.
Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). Children’s engagement during digital
game-based learning of reading: The effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Computers & Education,
71, 237–246.
Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the
16th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education.
Ruohomäki, V. (2003). Simulation Gaming for Organizational Development. Simulation & Gaming,
34(4), 531–549. doi:10.1177/1046878103258203
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.
Shen, K. N., Yu, A. Y., & Khalifa, M. (2006). Supporting social interaction in virtual communities:
Role of social presence. In Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp.
4461-4469). ALS Electronic Library.
Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In Computer-
supported collaborative learning, Vol 3. What we know about CSCL. and implementing it in higher
education (pp. 53-85). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stahl, G. (2015). A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn-
ing, 10(4), 337–344. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9222-2

62

Learning from Social Collaboration

Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collabora-
tive learning: An explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2009.08.014
Sung, H.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving stu-
dents’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63(4), 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.11.019
Susaeta, H., Jimenez, F., Nussbaum, M., Gajardo, I., Andreu, J., & Villalta, M. (2010). From MMORP to
a classroom multiplayer presential role playing game. Education Technology & Society, 13(3), 257–269.
Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Team activities for learning and performance. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps
(Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 518–544). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Toups, Z. O., Kerne, A., & Hamilton, W. (2009). Designing core mechanics and interfaces for engaging
cooperative play: Nonmimetic simulation of fire emergency response. In S. Spencer (Ed.), Proceedings
of ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games (pp. 71-78). New York, NY: ACM.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Tsalgatidou, A., Louridas, P., Fesakis, G., & Schizas, T. (1996). Multilevel Petri Nets for Model-
ing and Simulating Organizational Dynamic Behavior. Simulation & Gaming, 27(4), 484–506.
doi:10.1177/1046878196274005
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes.
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2
Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning
environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 381–419.
doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Min in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Educa-
tion, 53(4), 1138–1146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.
Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and
epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction (Dissertation). München: Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universität.
Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games. A practical guide to engaging students in higher edu-
cation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Whitton, N. (2011). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 596–609.
doi:10.1177/1046878110378587
Whitton, N., & Moseley, A. (2014). Deconstructing engagement: Rethinking involvement in learning.
Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 433–449. doi:10.1177/1046878114554755

63

Learning from Social Collaboration

Wilson, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., Salas, E., Burke, C., Estock, J., & Conkey, C. et al. (2009). Rela-
tionships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation
& Gaming, 40(2), 217–266. doi:10.1177/1046878108321866
Winne, P., Hadwin, A., & Gress, C. (2010). The learning kit project: Software tools for supporting
and researching regulation of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 787–793.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.009
Wolfe, J. (1993). A History of Business TEaching Games in English-Speaking and Post-Socialist
Countries: The Origination and Diffusion of a Management Education and Development TEchnology.
Simulation & Gaming, 24(4), 446–463. doi:10.1177/1046878193244003
Zagal, J., Rick, J., & His, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation
& Gaming, 37(1), 24–40. doi:10.1177/1046878105282279

ADDITIONAL READING

Filsecker, M., & Kerres, M. (2014). Engagement as a volitional construct: A framework for evidence-based
research on educational games. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 450–470. doi:10.1177/1046878114553569
Hämäläinen, R. (2008). Designing and investigating pedagogical script to facilitate computer-supported
collaborative learning (Doctoral dissertation). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for
Educational Research.
Hämäläinen, R. (2011). Using a game environment to foster collaborative learning. A design-based study.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 61–78. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2011.554010
Hämäläinen, R., & De Wever, B. (2013). Vocational education approach: New TEL settings - new pros-
pects for teachers’ instructional activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning, 8(3), 271–291. doi:10.1007/s11412-013-9176-1
Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrat-
ing creativity and collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 169–184. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2011.08.001
Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting social and emotional learning with games: “It’s fun and we
learn things. Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 626–644. doi:10.1177/1046878109333793
Hudson, M. (2015). Social presence in team-based digital games (Doctoral dissertation, EngD. York:
The University of York, UK
Iacovides, J., McAndrew, P., Scanlon, E., & Aczel, J. (2014). The gaming involvement and informal
learning framework. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 611–626. doi:10.1177/1046878114554191
Manninen, T. (2004). Rich interaction model for game and virtual environment design (Doctoral dis-
sertation). Oulu University Press, Oulu, Finland.
Reuter, C., Göbel, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2014). A Collection of Collaborative Player Interaction Patterns.
TU Darmstadt, Multimedia Communications Lab.

64

Learning from Social Collaboration

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Collaborative Learning: Type of group learning, in which members of the group build a new shared
knowledge on the basis of each others views and resources to achieve an understanding or knowledge
that no one alone could have achieved.
Game Design: Game design covers a wide range of activities of designing games, including story,
aesthetics, mechanics and technology. Within this chapter game design refers specifically to the design
of game mechanics, in other words, interaction design.
Game Engagement: Game engagement refers to the player’s’ commitment to the gaming activities.
Deeply engaged player is fully focused on the gaming activities and is not aware of the things taking
place around. Immersion and flow are central concepts in many studies related to the game engagement.
Knowledge Construction: Knowledge construction is a collaborative process which aims to produce
new understanding or knowledge which exceeds something that anyone alone could not achieve. It is
also essential that knowledge construction is based on each others’ ideas and thoughts.
Real-Time Orchestration: Real-time orchestration refers to the teachers’ or other instructors activi-
ties focused on structuring learners’ collaborative knowledge construction processes on the fly in timely
manner.
Sociability: Refers to the ability of the environment to promote the emergence of social interaction
and further sound social space for collaborative activities. Can be considered as an attribute of the socio-
technological system or social system.
Social Interaction: Social interaction refers to the communication among the individuals. Social
interaction can be oral or visual. Social interaction can be either asynchronous (delay between the mes-
sages) or synchronous (real-time).
Social Presence: Sense of social presence refers to one’s perceived sense of togetherness with other
persons within the collaborative situation.

65
66

Chapter 4
A Framework for Promoting
Knowledge Transfer in SNS
Game-Based Learning
Robert Z. Zheng
University of Utah, USA

Thanh N. Truong
University of Utah, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on an important issue in SNS game-based learning, that is, learners’ knowledge
transfer in the ill-structured domain. The chapter offers a discussion of instructional strategies in SNS
game-based learning. The discussion presented here was framed around an extensive review of the literature
pertinent to the strategies and approaches in serious games. Based on the discussion a framework was
proposed for serious game design which revealed the interaction between and interrelationship among
the variables in serious game learning. A pilot study was conducted to test the partial components of the
framework. The results supported the framework showing students’ progression in knowledge transfer in
a game-based learning environment. Discussions were made regarding the implications of the framework
and its application in k-16 education and professional training.

INTRODUCTION

Online learning game via Social Networking Sites (SNS) has increasingly been considered a viable plat-
form for supporting learning and scientific inquiry (Conole & Culver, 2010; Shapiro & Ossorio, 2013).
Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of SNS serious games in engaging learners in community-
based activities and developing deep level thinking and application (Gadgil, Nokes-Malch, & Chi, 2012;
Fraughton, Sansone, Butner, & Zachary, 2011, Squire, Mutlu, Ferris, Shapiro, & Montague, 2012). It
is believed that SNS-based game can increase learners’ interest, improve their conceptual understand-
ing and application, and influence their career choice in science (Jorgensen & Grushkin, 2011). While
games’ popularity in informal learning situations continues to grow, adoption in the K-12 classrooms
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch004

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

remains stagnant. One of the issues in regard to integrating games into classrooms is the prevalent skep-
ticism about “their value, use and appropriateness” (Muehrer, Jenson, Friedberg, 2012, p.783). Frank
(2012) points out that the risk associated with the use of games in training and education is that players
“game the game,” instead of focusing on their learning goals. Kenny and Gunter (2011) also noted that
most games aiming at educational settings failed to incorporate important pedagogic components and
that lacking sound instructional design principles found in most games destined for the classroom has
resulted in a player/learner base that is engaged and entertained, but does not learn the desired content.
Huang, Johnson, and Han (2013) are concerned about lacking the design principles in serious game
development. They maintain that failing to consider the design principles as well as cognitive and mo-
tivational support in games can result in serious consequences pertaining to learners’ cognitive process
and motivation in learning.
Recent efforts have been made to focus on how SNS serious games may promote learners’ knowledge
transfer in learning. These efforts include cognitive and motivational support in educational computer
games which has been proven to positively affect learning outcomes (Roscoe, Segedy, & Sulcer, 2013;
Schrader & Bastiaens, 2012). Specific approaches have been taken to integrate cognitive and motivational
elements in SNS games that range from problem-based learning to self-reflection, social networking,
and motivation (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Conole & Culver, 2010; Squire, 2008). Despite the efforts
to make the SNS game a robust tool for knowledge transfer, much remains unknown in regard to the
underlying principles and factors that affect learners’ deep learning and knowledge transfer in serious
games (Berthold, Nuckles, & Renkl, 2007; Liu, Toprac & Yuen, 2009). The goals of the current chapter
focus on (a) the factors that impact learners’ deep learning and knowledge transfer in serious games; (b)
the cognitive and affective structures that support knowledge transfer; (c) the implications of the above
structures in teaching and learning. The chapter starts with a review of the existing cognitive and affec-
tive approaches in SNS game-based learning, followed by the presentation of an augmented framework
that supports knowledge transfer in SNS game-based learning, and ends up with a preliminary study
with some promising results in terms of supporting students’ knowledge transfer. Finally, discussions
were made regarding the implications of the framework and its application in k-16 education and pro-
fessional training.

INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES IN SNS GAME-BASED LEARNING

SNS games are one of the fastest growing elements of informal, virtual learning where learners seek to
achieve their goals and objectives in some limiting context (Rice, 2007). With the increasing presence of
SNS games in education, especially in informal learning like museum visits, researchers begin focusing
on the cognitive and affective roles in SNS games to support deep learning and knowledge transfer. A
review of the existing literature reveals that approaches like problem-based learning, self-reflection, social
networking, etc. have been widely used in various situations to promote cognitive and affective learning
in SNS games, particularly in relation to knowledge transfer. The following section offers discussions
on the existing approaches and their implications in SNS based learning games.

67

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning has long been recognized in education as an effective tool to promote learners’
critical, analytical thinking and knowledge transfer (Bruner, 1961; Delisle, 1997; Gallagher, Stepien, &
Rosenthal, 1992). Echeverri and Sadler (2011) argued that the outdated modes of teaching in science,
mathematics and technology have created un-motivating learning contexts that can significantly impede
learner deep understanding. They saw problem-based learning (PBL) as an opportunity for students to
not just learn the basic principles of science but understand the relationships that govern these principles
and their applications. According to Jonassen (2000), problem solving learning is a strategy for teach-
ing in which learning activities are developed around a problem. Students are challenged to explore and
develop potential solutions or decisions about the problem. Smyrnaious, Moustaki, and Chronis (2012)
concurred that the PBL strategy, when done well, provides students with a rich context for learning,
which allows for the anchoring of new knowledge to real problems and experiences. PBL typically fea-
tures opportunities for students to work cooperatively in groups and challenges them to “learn to learn”
(Duch, Groh, & Allen, 2001). As such, it has been adopted in serious games to accommodate learners’
different learning strategies and styles, optimize their critical analyses of complex, challenging problems,
and foster their knowledge transfer in learning. The following section introduces the PBL models that
are adopted in learning pertaining to serious games.

Kiili’s PBL Model in Game Design

Kiili (2007) proposed a PBL approach in the game design to promote authenticity, collaboration and
learning by doing. Kiili defined four critical elements in problem-based games (PBG). They are forma-
tion of playing strategy, active experimentation, reflection and the state of the game world. The PBG
process starts with strategy formation in which players form an appropriate playing strategy in order
to solve problems. According to Kiili, prior knowledge plays an important role in helping players form
the playing strategy. Once the strategy is formed, the player involves in active experiment by testing
his/her strategy and possible hypotheses in the game world and observes the consequences of his/her
actions. The active experimentation phase is followed by the processing phase called reflection phase.
Reflection is a human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it and evaluate it.
Many responsive mechanism in the games such as feedback can be used to support reflective thinking
and knowledge construction by directing the player’s attention to important and relevant information for
deep processing. The reflection phase also supports personal synthesis of knowledge and validation of
hypotheses. The capacity to reflect varies between people, thus building the ability to reflect becomes
the key to determine who learns effectively from game experience. In a follow-up study testing the
components of the model, Kiili and colleagues noted that reflection was found to be the critical factor
in game-based learning. With reflection, the player decides whether he/she continues to apply the previ-
ously formed playing strategy or focus his/her attention on changed variables of the game world in order
to create new playing strategies. Their preliminary study also confirmed that authenticity, collaboration
and learning by doing have contributed to the effectiveness of games in education.

68

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Squire’s Model of Games for Discovery

Differing from Kiili, Squire (2008; Squire et al., 2012) focused on multi-generational social network
gaming environment in science discovery. Squire explained that the model is to push game-based
learning far beyond the traditional notion of students learning traditional content through a game, it is
in fact more than just “good games.” The game model is grounded in social network of game players
and scientists from different fields with varied interests and abilities. The model is characterized by an
integrated gaming platform called “third place”, which cuts across homes, schools and informal learning
institutions. By interfacing between schools, homes, and informal institutions, learners’ social lives are
transformed through participation.
Much like Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) game platform, the third place shares a common
feature with indigenous game communities, that is, an opportunity for multi-generational learning where
diversity of interests and skill levels converge to engage in problem-solving and knowledge discovery.
For example, a 15 year old player interested in stem technology can collaborate with a veteran scientist
to identify the DNA pattern from an existing database. Therefore, Squire’s model of games for discovery
and problem-solving is not designed to introduce players to new knowledge and skills that they master
through cycles of game play, rather, it is contributory in that players are recruited to contribute data
analysis to the existing data sets. Squire’s game model introduces new perspective in game-based learn-
ing. That is, using games to connect formal with informal learning as well as schools with community.
One of the characteristics of Squire’s discovery game model is the juxtaposition of multiple games
in order to interface knowledge at different levels. For example, in the CyberSTEM project which is
a multi-generational, cross-institutional science learning network, several games were used including
a puzzle game in which players reprogrammed stem cells to become tissues that heal zombie victims,
coupled with games of anatomy, ecology and microbiology that assisted the player to construct and dis-
cover new knowledge. Squire’s game model encompasses four distinct features: (1) investing in games
that are compelling to broad audiences in non-compulsory contexts, (2) designing games that are social
system rather than standalone applications, (3) integrating assessment models that include performance
assessments that address learning standards infrequently assessed in schools, and (4) investing in tools
and infrastructure for tools that support science. It should be pointed out that the assessment component
of the model differs from the traditional assessment model by including a two-tier assessment system
where the player’s work is evaluated by both traditional assessment and experts in the game community.

Constructivist Paradigm in Game Design

One of the challenges in problem-based learning is the development of a problem environment that fa-
cilitates students’ reflective thinking on performance outcome and knowledge construction (Li, Cheng,
& Liu, 2013). While problem-based learning focuses on problem solving strategies, the constructivism
emphasizes that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than ac-
quiring it. Constructivism considers knowledge to be constructed through social negotiation, personal
experiences and hypotheses of the environment. That is, learners continuously test these hypotheses
through social negotiation and interaction with personal experiences. Constructivism recognizes that
each individual brings different personal experience and interpretation to learning. They each signify
different processes in knowledge construction. Therefore the individual is not a blank state but brings

69

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

with him/her past experiences and cultural factors to a situation (Lever-Duffy, McDonald, & Mizell,
2003; Smyrnaious et al., 2012).
The constructivist approach has been adopted in the design and development of games that have
enriched the problem-solving practice by focusing on generative/constructive activities to bring together
learners’ personal experiences and culture in learning. A notable development in this direction includes
Rosario and Widmever’s (2009) principles of constructivist game design. Rosario and Widmever’s design
principles highlight the constructivist aspects in game design. A discussion of their design principles in
constructivist gaming follows.

Rosario and Widmever’s Design Principles

Rosario and Widmever’s constructivist game design consists of 12 principles that include (1) probing
principle, (2) distributed principle, (3) multiple routes principle, (4) practice principle, (5) psychosocial
moratorium, (6) regime of competence principle, (7) self-knowledge principle, (8) collective knowledge
principle, (9) engaging principle, (10) user interface ease of use principle, (11) on-demand and just-in-time
tutorial principle, and (12) achievement principle. Principles 1-4 highlights the constructivist aspects in
game-based learning. For example, the probing principle emphasizes providing learners the opportunities
in building and testing hypotheses whereas the distributed principle concerns the interactions among
learners, technology, context, objects, and tools in game-based learning. Both multiple routes principle
and practice principle involve developing multiple perspectives in order to tackle problems differently.
Principles 5-8 involve integrating social-psychological and cultural factors in game design. For example,
principles 5 and 6 advocate letting the learner to take risks in artificial environments and be pushed beyond
his/her comfort zone. Principle 7 focuses on nurturing learners’ self-awareness of themselves and their
abilities in accomplishing the tasks. Principle 8 discusses the knowledge distribution and management
in terms of collective knowledge construction. It is suggested that a repository of knowledge shared
by all should be built where players can learn from other people’s experiences. Principles 9-12 relate
to affective, user interface, on-demand support, and achievement. Principle 9 stipulates that the game
should have a compelling theme that attractive to players. The design of the games should consider the
impact of user interface on learner performance (Principle 10). Principle 11 emphasizes the importance
of on-demand and just-in-time tutorials in games. Finally, principle 12 highlights the achievement and
assessment in games. For example, it is recommended that behavioral approaches like giving award
be used to improve learner performance. Overall, Rosario and Widmever’s constructivist game design
provides a comprehensive guidance to the design and development of educational games. The twelve
design principles cover multiple aspects in game-based learning ranging from constructivist learning
to social-psychological perspective, to cultural factors, interface design, game support and assessment.
The design principles facilitate divergent thinking that leads to creative and constructivist performance
in game-based learning (Huang, Johnson, & Han, 2013).

Self-Reflection

Although educational games hold promise for learning, some researchers argue that not all students ben-
efit from the educational games (Brush & Saye, 2000; Nelson, 2007). For some, as Nelson (2007) points
out, educational games have proven no more effective than paper-based curricula. He argued that “one
factor that might be contributing to the gap between expectations and results may be a lack of suitable

70

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

computer-based guidance within the environments” (p. 84). Even within the framework of constructivist,
problem-based learning, uneven results can occur if there is a lack of guidance in learning. Brush and
Saye (2000) found that lack of such guidance in computer-based exploratory learning environments can
hinder learning due to the absence of structural support to students as they complete activities.
One of the approaches found effective in problem-based computer games is to embed a self-reflection
in the game environment. Self-reflection provides tools to support students’ hypothesis-generation and
testing processes without necessarily offering direct answers or making judgements about particular ac-
tions. Specifically, self-reflection askes students to reflect upon their own learning, describe how they
proceed and use various strategies to map out their growing understanding. Oftentimes, strategies like
self-explanation are used to support the self-reflective process. It has been found that self-reflection
has helped externalize learners’ cognitive processes in learning (Baylor, 2000; Hannafin, Hannafin,
Land, & Oliver, 1997; Jonassen, 1991). Similar to self-reflection, Stewart (2013) proposes a cognitive
scaffolding framework in educational games where the system provides prompts and hints to engage
students in reflective thinking. In Stewart’s model, the cognitive scaffolds are integrated at both students
and teachers’ levels within and outside the game environment to provide real-time feedback anywhere
anytime (also see Shute & Zapata-Rivera, 2012).
Following the research outlined above, Roscoe, Segedy and Sulcer (2013) explore the role of teach-
able agent in games to support students’ self-reflection, weighing particularly on self-regulated learning
(SRL). Research suggests that SRL directs the learner’s focus to strategy use, metacognitive skills, and
motivation (Moreno & Mayer, 2005; Nietfeld, Shores, & Hoffmann, 2014; Zimmerman, 2001). As it
was discussed earlier, constructivist, problem-based learning games are designed to be open-ended and
multidimensional. Such learning environment poses significant challenges to learners in that it requires
the learner to constantly take control of and evaluate one’s own learning and behavior. In other words,
the learner needs to self-regulate their learning by effectively employing metacognitive skills (thinking
about one’s thinking) and strategic action (planning, monitoring, and evaluating) in order to succeed in
game-based learning (Ang, Tan, Goh, Huan, Ooi, Boon, & Fung, in press). Roscoe et al. (2013) found
that cognitive and motivational support system like the teachable agent allows students to enact and re-
veal their SRL strategies via the choices they make. Their study showed that the use of SRL-supportive
tools was positively correlated with learning outcomes. This finding was further supported by Nietfeld
et al.’s (2014) research which indicates that SRL variables predict successful in-game performance even
after accounting for prior knowledge and perceived gaming skill.
In short, strategies like self-reflection, self-explanation, cognitive scaffolds, and self-regulation are
proven to be effective in problem-based learning in terms of fostering learners’ critical and analytical
thinking, deep learning and knowledge transfer in the context of serious games.

Social Networking

Cloud-based social network has significantly changed the paradigm of educational games in 21st century.
According to Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007), social networking is a social construct that describes
the interrelationship between individuals, groups, organizations, or even entire societies (e.g., social
units). As an important aspect in game-based learning, social networking has drawn attention of game
researchers and developers (Barbour & Plough, 2009; Conole & Culver, 2010). Rather than being isolated
in cubicles or locked to individual computers, social network-based games break the brick-and-mortar of
the schools and classrooms and enable learners to maintain personal and social connections with their

71

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

teachers, fellow students, and professionals in the community. Barbour and Plough (2009) pointed out
that social network games provide the out-of-class interaction that traditional games do without.
Because of the social interaction and connection with people anywhere anytime, learning games
via Social Networking Sites (SNS) have increasingly been considered a viable platform for supporting
learning and scientific inquiry (Conole & Culver, 2010; Shapiro & Ossorio, 2013). Conole and Culver
(2010) proposed a design framework for Cloudworks focusing on knowledge integration through social
sharing. Their design introduced a three-phase incremental process for cloud-based social networking.
At the initial phase of cloud social networking, elements like representation, guidance and support, and
sharing are integrated in order to tailor to different types of learners for their information processing,
fostering and sustaining ongoing dialogue around different issues, and collaging ideas for building a
critical mass of users sharing content and discussing issues. Phase two introduces a particular event
called “Cloudscape” where learners of similar interests share and discuss their ideas, and engage in
problem-based, constructivist, or inquiry-based learning. It serves as a collaborative space for deep
learning. Phase three focuses on knowledge integration by merging the different categories supported
by evaluation and synthesis tools. Similar content tagged with knowledge domain are merged which
then re-emerge as more natural tags representing higher level of domain knowledge in learning. Conole
and Culver’s approach presents a new perspective on how social network can be used to support learn-
ing with online educational games. By using social networking learners are able to develop multiple
perspectives, reflect on their learning and construct new knowledge.
An added benefit of cloud-based social networking is its collective sharing and construction of
knowledge (Sung & Hwang, 2013). It is argued that the SNS based games provide the opportunity for
the learners to engage in knowledge construction through collective cognitive processes, that is, learning
through distributed cognition (Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2002; Cagiltay, 2007; Jonassen,
2000). Due to its unique features in distributed cognition, the SNS game has been found to significantly
enhance learners’ deep understanding, foster their multiple perspectives, and improve affective aspects
in learning including attitude, motivation, and self-efficacy.
To sum, the benefits of social network in educational games have been widely recognized. Conole and
Culver’s (2010) framework delineates the relationship between social networking and deep learning in
educational games. Their framework underlines the importance of knowledge integration and construc-
tion though social networking in games. The role of social networking in games is further justified by
the theory of distributed cognition which describes the process of knowledge construction and transfer
from the perspective of collective cognitive information processing.

Motivation

Games have been largely claimed to be motivating and raise learners’ interest in learning (Nguyen, 2015;
Ting, 2010). However, learning activities in a gaming context usually engage students temporarily in
the subject. As soon as the game is over, learners’ desire for learning may cease. Given the “wax and
wane” nature of interest in educational games, Ting (2010) argued that the design of educational games
need to take into consideration the emotional, cognitive and personal aspects in learning. He proposed a
three-phase interest framework in order to sustain learners’ interest in game related learning. The three
phases include: (1) arousing emotional interest, (2) transiting from emotional interest to cognitive interest,
and (3) transiting from cognitive interest to personal interest. In the arousing emotional interest phase,
situational features play a key role. The emotional interest can be aroused by novelty and excitement.

72

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

That is, learners become initially attracted by situational features such as interface, visual stimuli, plot,
interaction, etc. in game-based learning. However, Ting pointed out that “this type of interest may decay
along the course of learning, especially when the novelty or excitement of the game does not exist as
well as more attention and cognitive resource are required for deep learning” (p. 142). Therefore, a more
sustainable learning process is needed to transit emotional interest to cognitive interest.
Differing from emotional interest which refers to the affective response evoked by situational fea-
tures, cognitive interest occurs when learners become engaged in the content which is important to the
topic under investigation (Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001). The process of transiting emotional
interest to cognitive interest is what Ting called “psychologize the subject matter in the gaming context
to orient students’ emotional interest toward the cognitive interest” (p. 143). Psychologizing the subject
matter means to develop meaning in the subject itself through its connection to cognitive interest. Simply
put, the experience needs to be developed within the range and scope of students’ life. Its origin and
significance need to be immediate and individual. Liu, Toprac, and Yuen (2009) contended that cogni-
tive interest can be best aroused through cognitively challenging tasks. They demonstrated that as the
individual mastered challenges in an activity, s/he might develop a feeling of competence, mastery, and
self-efficacy for accomplishing that activity. To support cognitive accomplishment, cognitive strategies
such self-reflection, cognitive prompts and hints, highlighting, cognitive maps, etc. must be used to bring
the meaning of the subject matter to the learner.
The third phase focuses on transitioning from cognitive interest to personal interest. It aims to internal-
ize the gaming experience so the learner becomes engaged in the subject matter even without the game.
Ting noted that it is important to have the appropriate information in the game system in order to build
up background knowledge to help develop this type of interest. Ting’s third phase in motivation transition
is supported by Liu et al.’s (2009) personalization of learning experiences. Liu et al. proposed that the
design of multimedia including games should consider the connection between the content and learners’
prior knowledge. They claimed that the proximity of the content to learners’ existing schema provides
a meaningful context for game-based learning which culminates in the new learning experiences that
require new cognitive structures or schemata to be accomplished. Such a learning environment enables
the learners to transcend beyond the game experience to become personally engaged in the subject matter.
In conclusion, motivation as an important component in game-based learning needs to be carefully
studied. It is critical to distinguish among emotional interest, cognitive interest and personal interest
in game-based learning and the transitions between the interests. Ting’s framework of three phases of
interest in motivation describes the role of each interest in game-based learning and the strategies as-
sociated with the transition between the interest stages.
As it has been demonstrated, research in SNS based games has been focused on problem-solving,
self-reflection, social-networking, and motivation in game-based learning. Despite the efforts in under-
standing the above issues, there has been generally a lack of systematic approach to examine these issues
in a connected context, that is, to understand the relationship between problem-solving, self-reflection,
social-networking, and motivation and how these factors collectively contribute to learners’ knowledge
transfer in SNS game-based learning. Researchers have pointed out that a systematic approach that puts
various cognitive and affective factors in perspective should be taken in the research of serious games
(Ahrens & Zascerinska, 2012; Arnab et al., 2012; Repenning, Webb, & Koh, 2015). Pill (2014) also notes
that the design of serious games (SG) must take a systematic approach by giving deliberate attention to
the design principles and the interaction between cognitive and affective factors. The existing practice in

73

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

serious games focuses on approaches like problem-based learning, self-reflection, motivation, separately,
failing to show the connection among them in game-based learning.

Relationship between Surface and Deep Structures in Knowledge Transfer

One of the challenges in game-based learning is how to facilitate learners’ knowledge transfer so they can
apply their knowledge to novel problem solving. There are two situations in which knowledge transfer
may occur. First, the source problem and the target problem are similar at the surface and deep structure
levels, that is, the problem types and their underlying rules are similar. Second, the source problem and
the target problem are dissimilar at the surface structure level but similar at the deep structure level.
Depending on the situation, the learner’s ability to transfer knowledge may vary due to the problem
structures. The following section offers a discussion on transfer problems in learning.

Similar Surface and Deep Structures between Source and Target Problems

In this type of knowledge transfer problem, the surface and deep structures are similar. Learners typically
learn the content in the source problem and then transfer the knowledge to the target problem. Research
suggests that when surface and deep structures are similar between the source and target problems, the
transfer of knowledge is more likely to occur (Chi & VanLehn, 2012). Figure 1 presents a situation in
which the learner first learns to solve the problem using the Pythagorean Theorem in the source problem.
Then he solves a real world problem by applying the knowledge gained from the source problem. In
this situation, the surface structure between the source and target problems are similar, that is, they both
present a similar problem structure (i.e., right triangle). The deep structure which refers to the rules or
principles beyond the problem structure is also similar since they both use the Pythagorean Theorem to

Figure 1. Source and target problems share the similar surface and deep structure

74

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

find the length of one side of the triangle. Research shows that when the surface and deep structures are
similar between the source and target problems, the transfer of knowledge is more likely to occur since
learning can be easily replicated when the problems are similar at both levels (Chi & VanLehn, 2012).

Dissimilar Surfaces with Similar Deep Structures

between Source and Target Problems

The second type of transfer problem relates to problems that are dissimilar at the surface structure level
but similar at the deep structure level. Figure 2 presents a scenario where the learner transfers knowledge
between dissimilar surface structures. In the source problem, the learner is given a two dimensional
geometry shape consisting of six separate squares. The learner learns to identify the width, length and
height of a cubic based on the six squares. He then learns how to calculate the cubic volume by apply-
ing the cubic volume formula (c3 = a x b x h). In the target problem, the learner is presented with a real
world problem in which he is going to find out the width, length and height of the hay stack and calcu-
late the volume. Since there is a significant difference in surface structures between the source problem
and the target problem (see Figure 2), the learner may experience difficulty in transferring knowledge
from the source problem to the target problem. Previous studies have shown that even after students
have succeeded in solving a source problem, they still cannot solve a target problem successfully that
is slightly different at the surface level (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Gick & Holyoak, 1980; 1983;
Reed, Dempster, & Ettinger, 1985).

Figure 2. Dissimilar surface with similar deep structure between source and target problems

75

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Facilitate Knowledge Transfer in Problems with Dissimilar Surface Structure

As it was discussed earlier, students often fail in knowledge transfer when the problems are dissimilar in
surface structures (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Chi & VanLehn, 2012; Reed, Dempster, & Ettinger,
1985; Gick & Holyoak, 1980; 1983). Chi and VanLehn (2012) point out that the failure in knowledge
transfer between dissimilar surface structures is probably due to a lack of indepth interaction in the
source problem. They suggest that the learner must have a deep interaction with the source problem
before he/she solves the target problem. In other words, the learner must “see” the deep structure the
source problem first, then he/she can solve the problem in the target problem (Chi & VanLehn, 2012).
There are several ways for learners to interact deeply with the source problem. They include: (a)
constructive/generative activities, (b) comparing/contrasting, (c) abstracting, (d) interacting with multiple
rules, and (e) schema induction. Chi (2009) conducted a study using constructive/generative approach
to foster learners’ deep thinking in order to solicit knowledge transfer. The study asked students to draw
a diagram that delineated the relationship among the concepts and principles and requested them to
self-explain a worked-out solution to identify the deep structure principles. The results showed that the
invention group developed deeper understanding that led to greater transfer than did the control group.
The second approach involves asking students to compare and contrast things that are similar in order to
develop some criteria, rules or principles for deep thinking. For example, Schwartz et al. (2012) studied
middle-school students’ deep thinking by providing them with pairs of problems that were different in
surface structures. Students were asked to compare the source and target problems in order to derive
relationship between the surface structures of the problems. The third approach is related to abstracting.
In their study on chess experts vs. novices, Chase and Simon (1973) found that experts were able to
abstract complicated interactions in chess board by chunking or combining steps into retrievable units in
their schemata whereas novices did not see these abstracts in the interactions. The fourth approach relates
to interacting with multiple rules. Siegler (1978) conducted a study by asking children to solve a scale
balance problem. The researcher observed that children who used two rules to solve the problem were
more likely to transfer than children who used one rule. The researcher concluded that exposing children
to multiple rules and letting them interact with the rules made them more advanced than children who
only interacted with one rule. The fifth approach is to activate the learner’s schema through the source
problem in order to solve the target problem. Zheng, Yang, Garcia, and McCadden (2008) examined the
visual analogy in learners’ schema activation. By inducing the learner’s schema in the source problem,
the researchers discovered a knowledge transfer between the source and target problems. They found
that the schema activated in the source problem helped the learner understand the target problem at a
deep level. Evidently, research on knowledge transfer has varied significantly. Some complement each
other, others run in different directions. The current thesis argues for a systematic approach to research
in knowledge transfer.

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE

TRANSFER IN SNS GAME-BASED LEARNING

The review on SNS game-based learning indicates that the research on SNS game-based learning is
in separate directions ranging from problem-based learning, to self-reflection, social networking and
motivation. Although there is an emphasis on knowledge transfer in the study of game-based learning,

76

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

little has been done to integrate the research of knowledge transfer in the field in terms of applying the
strategies and frameworks to the practice of SNS game-based learning. The status has hampered learners’
deep understanding and application in learning. Much of the practice that focuses on knowledge transfer
in SNS game-based learning, for example, has been at the surface structure level rather than occurring
at a deep structure level. Learning thus becomes a repetitive process by copying the steps or concepts
between the source and target problems (Bunch, 2012; Garcia Lopez, Contreras Jordan, & Penney, 2009).
The purpose of the current chapter is to examine the variables that influence SNS game-based learning
and how they interact to promote learners’ deep learning, particularly in knowledge transfer.
Problem-based learning has been widely recognized as an effective pedagogical approach to promote
students’ critical and analytical thinking in SNS game-based learning (Kiili, 2007). The existing research
reveals that problem-based learning becomes pedagogically effective when it incorporates approaches
like constructivist paradigm (Li, Cheng, & Liu, 2013; Rosario & Widmever, 2009) and discovery learning
(Squire, 2008; Squire et al., 2012). However, the outcome of problem-based learning, even though sup-
ported with constructivist and discovery learning, can become wax and wane since individual learning
may vary due to their prior knowledge, cognitive styles, etc. Thus, support at affective, cognitive and
metacognitive levels must be provided to help students engage in deep learning. The support includes
(a) self-reflection, (b) social networking, (c) motivation, and (d) structure of knowledge transfer. The
support for self-reflection, for example, guides the learners to reflect on the problem status, strategies
and actions and help them make decisions in solving the problem (Baylor, 2000; Hannafin et al., 1997;
Jonassen, 1991). Along the same line approaches like self-explanation, cognitive scaffolds, and self-
regulation have been shown to significantly improve learners’ cognitive and metacognitive learning (Ni-
etfeld et al., 2014; Roscoe et al., 2013). Social networking has changed our way of thinking, information
processing, communication, and learning. As a learning tool, especially with SNS game-based learning,
social networking has been used to facilitate a distributed cognitive learning paradigm where cognitive
information process is distributed among the learners, where ongoing dialogues around different issues
are fostered, and where different ideas are converged to form a critical mass of content shared among the
users (Conole & Culver, 2010). How to support learners’ motivation in SNS game-based learning has
been well studied. Research suggests that sustained motivation in learning should include (1) arousing
emotional interest, (2) transiting from emotional interest to cognitive interest, and (3) transiting from
cognitive interest to personal interest (Ting, 2010). Moreover, the content and learners’ prior knowledge
should also be considered in the design of SNS game-based learning in order to sustain intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (Liu et al., 2009). Finally, research in knowledge transfer provides a framework for
how to promote near and far transfer in learning. This includes (a) similar surface and deep structures
and (b) dissimilar surface structure and similar structure learning paradigm. In regard to the dissimilar
surface structure problem, researchers have proposed several approaches which include (a) constructive/
generative activities, (b) comparing/contrasting, (c) abstracting, (d) interacting with multiple rules, and
(e) schema induction (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, 2009; Schwartz et al., 2012; Siegler, 1978; Zheng et
al., 2008). Based on the studies reviewed above, a diagram that describes the relationship between the
variables and outcomes in SNS game-based learning is provided (Figure 3).
The diagram delineates three components related to SNS game-based learning: outcomes, variables
that influence SNS game-based learning, and latent variables that influence the variables. The outcomes
include three SNS game-based learning outcomes: cognitive performance, affective learning, and cogni-
tive and metacognitive strategies. The variables include problem-based learning, knowledge transfer,
social networking, self-reflection, and motivation. The latent variables include variables specific to

77

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Figure 3. Relationships between the variables and outcomes in SNS game-based learning

the variable. That is, how a particular variable, say knowledge transfer, can be influenced by its latent
variables like schema induction, constructive/generative, abstracting, etc.
The diagram provides a systematic approach to SNS game-based design by describing the relationship
among SNS game-based learning, outcomes, variables that influence SNS game-based learning, and
latent variables that delineate the causality among the variables. The framework helps the practitioners
and researchers understand what variables are and how they relate to and influence each other. A pilot
study was conducted. The pilot study tested, at a smaller scale, the relationship between the variables,
the latent variables and the outcomes.

A PILOT STUDY BASED ON PARTIAL COMPONENTS

OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

The purpose of the pilot study was to test the framework in SNS game-based learning. Instead of adopt-
ing the full framework, a simplified version of the framework was taken focusing on students’ abilities
to transfer knowledge in new situations relating to drug development. Figure 4 shows the components
tested in the SNS game-based learning.

About the Study

The pilot study focused on students’ abilities to identify a new drug chemical structure for malaria. The
game was set in a cloud-based environment where players work to find the optimal chemical structure

78

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Figure 4. Components tested in the SNS game-based learning

for the cure of the malaria disease. During the game the players logged onto a game-based learning
platform and searched for the best solution to a drug problem. Figure 5 presents a situation where ten
players competed with each other to find the solution to a drug problem. The players presented their
solutions with chemical structures. The person who found the best match to the drug structure for the
malaria cure got the highest points. The game was designed in consideration of the following components
in an ill-structured learning environment.

Figure 5. Biochemical game in finding the drug chemical structure for curing the Malaria disease

79

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Comparing/Contrasting

Players were allowed to access a super database where they search for a close-match chemical structure
in order to cure the disease. By searching the best matching structure for the drug, the players developed
critical thinking skills in terms of comparing and contrasting differences between chemical structures.
Once they identified the best solution, the players showed the solution to their peers.

Abstracting

The player had multiple opportunities to engage in abstracting by first comparing and contrasting differ-
ent chemical structures to find the commonality or distinct differences between the chemical structures.
The player then abstracted the features using inductive method to find a chemical structure for curing
the disease. Another way to facilitate players’ abstracting was by engaging them in the game and letting
them examine the chemical structures presented by other players. Through comparison and contrasting,
the player was able to abstract the solutions presented by his/her peers and arrived at a better understand-
ing of the issue under investigation.

Discovery/Constructivist Learning

The problems in the game were authentic and most of them were ill-structured where there was no single
answer to the problem. Multiple solutions were possible, however, finding the best chemical structure
for the disease could be challenging. Since the problems were ill-structured, the constructivist approach
was taken where students tackled the problems creatively and in an open-ended way.

Distributed Cognition

The game involved multiple players playing the game in a cloud-based environment. Although it was
competitive among the players, the construction of the knowledge was accomplished through distributed
cognitive process in that learners’ cognitive information processing was intertwined with other members
in the learning community. For example, one player’s new solution to or understanding of the problem
was based on how other players demonstrated their solutions. In other words, one player’s knowledge
acquisition and construction was dependent upon other members’ contributions in the game.
We hypothesized that given the multiple support in the SNS game-based learning environment (e.g.,
comparing/contrasting, abstracting, discovery/constructivist, and distributed cognition), the players
would be able to successfully transfer their knowledge during learning.

Participants and Procedures

Twenty-eight students were recruited from a bio-chemistry department in a Research I university. Two
participants were excluded from final analyses due to incomplete data. Students were given the URL of
the game site and asked to learn the content by solving an authentic, ill-structured problem related to
Malaria disease. The game had a mobile app so students could access the game anytime anywhere via
phone or other mobile devices. The study lasted about three months, during which time period students

80

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

played the game by logging onto the game site in their leisure time. The data were collected from the
server site and aggregated for final analyses.

Methods and Results

The data were extracted from a secured server. The game activities extended through a period of three
months. The game activities were segmented into ten practices to reflect students’ progression in learn-
ing. The descriptive statistical data were reported in Table 1.
The repeated measures ANOVA was performed to analyze learners’ performance over a period of
ten practices. The tests of within-subjects effects were non-significant, p > .05 (Table 2). However, the
result of between-subjects effects was significant, p < .001, partial square = .99 (Table 3).
We further plotted the ten practices by examining the means of the group and individuals. The group
plotting shows a general trend for improvement (Figure 6). As the learners engaged in SNS games, their
performance in knowledge transfer improved which indicated that the support components like compar-
ing/contrasting, abstracting, discovery/constructivist, and distributed cognition via social networking

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for ten practices in SNS game learning (N = 26)

Practices Mean Std. Deviation

Practice 1 8.13 .44
Practice 2 8.23 .59
Practice 3 8.33 .49
Practice 4 8.25 .55
Practice 5 8.24 .55
Practice 6 8.35 .44
Practice 7 8.11 .48
Practice 8 8.34 .51
Practice 9 8.45 .54
Practice 10 8.48 .54

Table 2. The tests of within-subjects effects.

Type III Partial

Mean Noncent Observed
Source Sum of Df F Sig. Eta
Square Parameter Power3
Squares Squared
practice Sphericity Assumed 3.464 9 .385 1.538 .136 .058 13.842 .718
Greenhouse-Geisser 3.464 6.047 .573 1.538 .169 .058 9.300 .584
Hynh-Feldt 3.464 8.190 .423 1.538 .144 .058 12.596 .686
Lower-bound 3.464 1.000 3.464 1.538 .226 .058 1.538 .222
Error (practice) Sphericity Assumed 56.304 225 .250
Greenhouse-Geisser 56.304 151.179 .372
Hynh-Feldt 56.304 204.753 .275
Lower-bound 56.304 25.000 2.252

81

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Table 3. Tests of between-subjects effects Measure MEASURE 1 Transformed Variable Average

Source Type III Sum Df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Noncent Observed
of Squares Eta Parameter Power3
Squared
Intercept Error 17889.163 1 178889.163 39112.412 .000 .999 39112.412 1.000
11.434 25 .457
Computed using alpha = .05

played a key role in nurturing and facilitating learners’ knowledge far transfer in an ill-structured learn-
ing environment.
The individual plotting reveals significant differences among the members of the learning community
in performance (Figure 7). It appears that individuals varied in their far knowledge transfer even though
the same support was provided in the SNS game-based learning environment.

Discussions

The results of our pilot study supported our hypothesis that multi-level support in an ill-structured learning
environment improved learners’ performance in knowledge transfer. Our results rectified the proposed
framework by identifying the key components in SNS game-based learning. As it was demonstrated,
there was a general trend toward improved performance in far knowledge transfer. Learners who received
support through problem-based learning, knowledge transfer and social networking were more likely to
perform well in SNS game-based learning. Further, knowledge transfer in ill-structured domain became
more robust when learning was problem-based oriented and supported by distributed cognition.
Of interest is the fact that when examining learners’ performance at the individual level, there were
prominent differences among the learners’ performance in knowledge transfer. One possible explanation

Figure 6. Group plotting of the means of the performance in ten practices

82

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Figure 7. Plotting of individual performance in ten practices

would be, the significant differences may be due to the partial test of the components in the framework
with a focus primarily on problem-based learning, knowledge transfer, and social networking. Integration
of other factors such as motivation, self-reflection in SNS game-based learning would improve indi-
vidual performance, particularly self-reflection and self-regulation in learning which would help develop
learners’ metacognitive skills that lead to better performance at the individual level (Hacker, in press).
The study is not without its limitations. First, the study is limited to college students which could
affect the extrapolation of the findings to a larger population. Second, the small number of participants
yielded a weak power in study which possibly accounts for the non-significance in within-subjects effects.
Third, the design of the study could be improved by adding a control group and defining a baseline for
comparison in terms of performance. Finally, clear operational definitions could be provided to quantify
factors like constructivist learning, abstracting, comparing and contrasting to help understand the factors
that affect learners’ knowledge transfer in SNS game-based learning.

83

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

FUTURE RESEARCH

The proposed framework describes the factors and their relationships in SNS game-based learning
which provides a new perspective in terms of designing and developing serious games for learning and
teaching. Future research should focus on the functional role of the factors and how they interact with
each other in SNS game-based learning. More research is needed to test the variables and their impact
on other variables within the framework. Methods like Structural Equational Modeling (SEM) may be
used to understand the relationship between variables and latent variables in learning. Future studies
should also examine the features of ill-structured learning and cognitive processes, especially variables
(both cognitive and affective) related to ill-structured problem solving.
Research in the future should focus on the role of distributed cognition by identifying the variables
that affect cognitive information processing in SNS game-based problem solving. Cognitive strategies
that would help externalize the inner processing like think-aloud should be used to unveil the underlying
relationship among the variables involved in distributed cognition in learning. Further, more research is
needed to explore the strategies in distributed cognition.
Finally, research that covers large population at all levels with diverse cultural and social-economic
background should be conducted to understand the relationship between game-based learning and soci-
etal variables in learning. Attention should be given to the role of serious games in formal and informal
learning and the relationship between the two.

CONCLUSION

The chapter focuses on an important issue in serious games, that is, learners’ knowledge transfer in ill-
structured learning in games. The review of literature reveals that problem-based learning, self-reflection,
social networking, and motivation are some of the strategies widely used to design and develop serious
games. Two levels of transfer have been identified: (1) similar surface and deep structures, and (2) dis-
similar surface structures and similar deep structures. Studies have shown transfer often fails at the second
level with dissimilar surface structures. One of the challenges in serious game design is to facilitate the
knowledge transfer with dissimilar surface structures. Although studies have shown strategies like con-
structive/generative activities, comparing/contrasting, abstracting, interacting with multiple rules, and
schema induction are useful in facilitating knowledge transfer, limited research has been conducted to
examine how these strategies interact with and complement each other to improve knowledge transfer.
The current chapter examined the factors and strategies and proposed a comprehensive framework for
serious game design by specifically identifying the outcomes, SNS game-based learning, the variables
and latent variables that influence such learning. The purpose is for the educators, instructional designers
and other training professionals to put in perspectives these factors when designing the serious games.
The chapter is significant at both theoretical and practical levels. Theoretically, the chapter calls atten-
tion to the variables that influence SNS game-based learning. The proposed framework has identified the
variables and latent variables that influence SNS game-based learning. Thus, the chapter contributes to
the field by filling the gap in research in regard to the roles and relationships of variables in SNS game-
based learning. At the practical level, the chapter identifies the variables in serious game learning and
how these variables may influence learners’ outcomes. It helps the instructional designer, professional

84

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

trainers, teachers and other practitioners to become aware of the roles of the variables when designing
and developing serious games in education.
The results of our pilot study partially validated the framework showing a trend of improvement in
knowledge transfer. It was found that the learner’s performance in knowledge transfer improved when
the game environment was supported by the strategies of problem-based learning, knowledge transfer
and social networking. Future research should be conducted to test the framework by including a more
diverse population in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity, grade level, etc. so that the findings can be
generalized beyond the scope of the present study and applied to other educational settings.

REFERENCES

Ahrens, A., & Zascerinska, J. (2012). Perspective of game theory in education for sustainable develop-
ment. Paper presented at the ATEE Spring University Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ang, R., Tan, J. L., Goh, D., Huan, V., Ooi, Y. P., Boon, J., & Fung, D. (in press). Social problem-solving
skills, game, evaluation, instructional design, game design, Socialdrome. In R. Zheng & M. Gardner
(Eds.), Serious games for educational applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
Arnab, S., Berta, R., Earp, J., de F., Popescu, M., Romero, M., Stanescu, I., & Usart, M. (2012). Framing
the adoption of serious games in formal education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 159-171.
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The use of im-
mersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social
context. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 102–141. doi:10.1080/10508400701793141
Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Social networking in cyberschooling: Helping to make online learn-
ing less isolating. TechTrends, 53(4), 56–60. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0307-5
Baylor, A. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 22(4), 373–382. doi:10.2190/1EBD-G126-TFCY-A3K6
Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2002). Toward a taxonomy
linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760.
doi:10.1177/1046878112439444
Berthold, K., Nuckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and
outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case
study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79–100. doi:10.1007/BF02319859
Bunch, J. C. (2012). The effects of a serious digital game on the animal science competency, mathemati-
cal competency, knowledge transfer ability, and motivation of secondary agricultural education students.
(Doctoral Dissertation). Oklahoma State University.

85

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Cagiltay, N. E. (2007). Teaching software engineering by means of computer-game development: Chal-

lenges and opportunities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 405–415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2007.00705.x
Calvert, S. L., & Tan, S. L. (1994). Impact of virtual reality on young adults’ physiological arousal and
aggressive thoughts: Interaction versus observation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
15(1), 125–139. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90009-4
Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitation on problem-solving transfer.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 1147–1156.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information
processing (pp. 215–281). New York, NY: Academic.
Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activi-
ties. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x PMID:25164801
Chi, M., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features.
Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.695709
Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2010). The design of cloudworks: Applying social networking practice to fos-
ter the exchange of learning and teaching ideas and designs. Computers & Education, 54(3), 679–692.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.013
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Echeverri, J. F., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Gaming as a platform for the development of innovative problem-
based learning opportunities. Science Educator, 20(1), 44–48.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital
and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
12(4), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
Frank, A. (2012). Gaming the Game: A Study of the Gamer Mode in Educational Wargaming. Simula-
tion & Gaming, 43(1), 118–132. doi:10.1177/1046878111408796
Fraughton, T. B., Sansone, C., Butner, J., & Zachary, J. (2011). Interest and performance when learn-
ing online: Providing utility value information can be important for both novice and experienced stu-
dents. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1(2), 1–15. doi:10.4018/
ijcbpl.2011040101
Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malch, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model con-
frontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.learn-
instruc.2011.06.002

86

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on
problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200. doi:10.1177/001698629203600405
Garcia Lopez, L. M., Contreras Jordan, O. R., Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2009). The role of transfer in
games teaching: Implications for the development of the sports curriculum. European Physical Educa-
tion Review, 15(1), 47–63. doi:10.1177/1356336X09105211
Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4
Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1),
1–38. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6
Hacker, D. (in press). The role of metacognition in learning via serious games. In R. Zheng & M. Gardner
(Eds.), Serious games for educational applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of con-
structivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.
doi:10.1007/BF02299733
Hansen, L., & Sanders, S. W. (2012). Active gaming: Is “virtual” reality right for your physical educa-
tion program? Journal for Physical and Sport Education, 25(6), 24–27.
Huang, W. D., Johnson, T. E., & Han, S. H. C. (2013). Impact of online instructional game features on
college students’ perceived motivational support and cognitive investment: A structural equation model-
ing study. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 58–68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.004
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. Columbus,
OH: Prentice-Hall.
Jorgensen, E. D., & Grushkin, D. (2011). Engage with, don’t fear, community lab. Nature Medicine,
17(4), 411. doi:10.1038/nm0411-411 PMID:21475225
Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors Affecting Adoption of Video Games in the Classroom. Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 259–276.
Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology,
38(3), 394–404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00704.x
Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. B., & Mizell, A. P. (2003). Teaching and learning with technology. Bos-
ton, MA: Allen & Brown.
Li, Z. Z., Cheng, Y. B., & Liu, C. C. (2013). A constructionism framework for designing game-like
learning systems: Its effects on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2),
208–224. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01305.x

87

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Liu, M., Toprac, P., & Yuen, T. (2009). What factors make multimedia learning engaging: a case study.
In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 173-192). Hershey, PA: IGI Global
Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-158-2.ch010
Magnussen, R., Hansen, S.D., & Planke, T. (2014). Games as a platform for student participation in
authentic scientific research. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(3), 259-270.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based
multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117
Muehrer, R., Jenson, J., Friedberg, J., & Husain, N. (2012). Challenges and opportunities: Using a
science-based video game in secondary school settings. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4),
783–805. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9409-z
Nelson, B. C. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-
user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97. doi:10.1007/
s10956-006-9039-x
Nguyen, T. N. (2015). Motivational effect of web-based simulation game in teaching operations manage-
ment. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 9–15. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i2.565
Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffmann, K. F. (2014). Self-regulation and gender within a game-based
learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 961–973. doi:10.1037/a0037116
Pill, S. (2014). Game play: What does it mean for pedagogy to think like a game developer? Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(1), 9–15. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.838119
Reed, S., Dempster, A., & Ettinger, M. (1985). Usefullness of analogous solutions for solving algebra
word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 106–125.
Repenning, A., Webb, D.C., & Koh, K.H. (2015). Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic
computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions
on Computing Education, 15(2), Article 11.
Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 15(1), 87–100.
Rosario, R. A. M., & Widmever, G. R. (2009). An exploratory review of design principles in constructiv-
ist gaming learning environments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289–300.
Roscoe, R. D., Segedy, J. R., Sulcer, B., Jeong, H., & Biswas, G. (2013). Shallow strategy development
in a teachable agent environment designed to support self-regulated learning. Computers & Education,
62, 286–297. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.008
Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. (2012). Learning in educational computer games for novices: The impact
of support provision types on virtual presence, cognitive load, and learning outcomes. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 206–227.
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Edu-
cational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211–224. doi:10.1023/A:1016619705184

88

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating
previously successful routines with needs for new learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204–214.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.696317
Shapiro, R. B., & Ossorio, P. N. (2013). Regulation of online social network studies. Science, 339(6116),
144–145. doi:10.1126/science.1219025 PMID:23307724
Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2012). Adaptive educational systems. In P. Durlach (Ed.), Adap-
tive technologies for training and education (pp. 7–27). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139049580.004
Siegler, R. S. (1978). The origins of scientific reasoning. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking:
What develops? (pp. 109–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smyrnaious, Z., Moustaki, F., & Chronis, K. (2012). Students’ constructionist game modeling activities
as part of inquiry learning processes. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 235-248.
Squire, K., Mutlu, B., Ferris, M., Shapiro, B., & Montague, E. (2012). DIP: BioSourcing: A crowdsourc-
ing approach to increasing public understanding in computational biosciences. Retrieved from http://
www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1227530&HistoricalAwards=false
Squire, K. D. (2008). Video game–based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 7–36. doi:10.1002/piq.20020
Stewart, P. M. (2013). Learning the rules of the game: The nature of game and classroom supports
when using a concept-integrated digital physics game in the middle school science classroom. (Ph.D.
Dissertation). Columbia University.
Sung, H. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving stu-
dents’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.11.019
Ting, Y. L. (2010). Using mainstream game to teach technology through an interest framework. Journal
of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 141–152.
Zheng, R., Yang, W., Garcia, D., & McCadden, B. P. (2008). Effects of multimedia on schema induced
analogical reasoning in science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 474–482.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00282.x
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview
and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.; pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

89

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

ADDITIONAL READING

Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. et al.
(2015). Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(2), 391–411. doi:10.1111/bjet.12113
Beavis, C., Muspratt, S., & Thompson, R. (2015). “Computer games can get your brain working”: Student
experience and perceptions of digital games in the classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1),
21–42. doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.904339
Bonanno, P., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2005). Gender differences and styles in the use of digital games.
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 13–41. doi:10.1080/0144341042000294877
Cheng, M. T., She, H. C., & Annetta, L. A. (2015). Game immersion experience: Its hierarchical structure
and impact on game-based science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 232–253.
doi:10.1111/jcal.12066
Franco-Mariscal, A. J., Oliva-Martínez, J. M., & Gil, M. L. A. (2015). Students’ perceptions about the
use of educational games as a tool for teaching the periodic table of elements at the high school level.
Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 278–285. doi:10.1021/ed4003578
Hughes, M. G., Day, E. A., Wang, X. Q., Schuelke, M. J., Arsenault, M. L., Harkrider, L. N., & Cooper,
O. D. (2013). Learner-Controlled Practice Difficulty in the Training of a Complex Task: Cognitive and
Motivational Mechanisms. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 80–98. doi:10.1037/a0029821
PMID:22925045
Jiménez, O. (2015). Leveraging the social aspect of educational games. Theory into Practice, 54(2),
101–108. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1010845
King, E. M. (2015). Designing after-school learning using the massively multiplayer online role-playing
game. Theory into Practice, 54(2), 128–135. doi:10.1080/00405841.2015.1010844
Majgaard, G. (2014). The playful and reflective game designer. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(3),
271-280.
Nguyen, T. N. (2015). Motivational effect of web-based simulation game in teaching operations manage-
ment. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 9–15. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i2.565
Pillary, H., Brownlee, J., & Wilss, L. (1999). Cognition and recreational computer games: Implications
for educational technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 203–216. doi:10.1
080/08886504.1999.10782624
Van Eaton, G., Clark, D. B., & Smith, B. E. (2015). Patterns of physics reasoning in face-to-face and
online forum collaboration around a digital game. International Journal of Education in Mathematics.
Science and Technology, 3(1), 1–13.
Zhang, M. (2015). Understanding the relationships between interest in online math games and academic
performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 254–267. doi:10.1111/jcal.12077

90

A Framework for Promoting Knowledge Transfer in SNS Game-Based Learning

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Constructivist Paradigm in Game Design: The constructivism emphasizes that learning is an

active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Constructivism con-
siders knowledge to be constructed through social negotiation, personal experiences and hypotheses
of the environment. That is, learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation and
interaction with personal experiences. Constructivism recognizes that each individual brings different
personal experience and interpretation to learning. They each signify different processes in knowledge
construction. Therefore the individual is not a blank state but brings with him/her past experiences and
cultural factors to a situation.
Problem-Based Learning: Problem-based learning has long been recognized in education as an
effective tool to promote learners’ critical, analytical thinking and knowledge transfer. It is a strategy for
teaching in which learning activities are developed around a problem. Students are challenged to explore
and develop potential solutions or decisions about the problem.
Self-Reflection: Reflection is a human activity in which people recapture their experience, think
about it and evaluate it. Self-reflection askes students to reflect upon their own learning, describe how
they proceed and use various strategies to map out their growing understanding. It has been found that
the self-reflection helps externalize learners’ cognitive processes and engage them in deep thinking.
Social Networking: Social networking refers to using cloud-based social network to facilitate learn-
ing. Social networking is a social structure that reflects the interrelationship between individuals, groups,
organizations, or even entire societies (e.g., social units). As an important aspect in game-based learning,
social networking has been integrated into learning games to maintain personal and social connections
with their people in the community.
Squire’s Model of Games for Discovery: Squire focuses on multi-generational social network gam-
ing environment in science discovery. Squire explained that the model is to push game-based learning far
beyond the traditional notion of students learning traditional content through a game, it is in fact more
than just “good games.” The game model is grounded in social network of game players and scientists
from different fields with varied interests and abilities. The model is characterized by an integrated gam-
ing platform called “third place”, which cuts across homes, schools and informal learning institutions.
By interfacing between schools, homes, and informal institutions, learners’ social lives are transformed
through participation.

91
Section 2
Educational Games:
Cognitive and Psychological Perspectives
93

Chapter 5
Using Video Games to
Improve Spatial Skills
HeeSun Choi
North Carolina State University, USA

Jing Feng
North Carolina State University, USA

ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we explore why and how to use video games for educational purpose to enhance spatial
skills. We review the history and trends of the educational use of video games, introduce the concept
of spatial skills, and present the importance of spatial skills in STEM education. We outline existing
research on spatial training using video games, discuss the methodological issues in these research, and
summarize speculated underlying mechanisms of spatial learning. We also discuss considerations in
designing video games to maximize the training outcomes of improving spatial skills. We hope that this
chapter will not only provide a comprehensive overview of our current knowledge on the importance of
learning spatial skills and the potential of video games in facilitating the learning, but also inform about
the effective design of video games to accelerate the acquisition of spatial skills.

INTRODUCTION

Spatial skills are a set of skills that allow an individual to create, maintain, and manipulate a visual ob-
ject in mind, which are distinct from verbal and reasoning abilities. Superior spatial skills have enabled
many pioneers in science and engineering to think in spatial images, including Albert Einstein with
extraordinary accomplishments in physical science, James Watson who co-discovered the structure of
DNA, and Nikola Tesla, the inventor of the basis for alternating current power systems. Spatial skills are
central to the success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Sorby,
2001; Stieff, 2011; Kozhevnikov et al., 2007; Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). For example, a chemist
often visualizes three-dimensional diagrams of chemical molecules; a mechanical engineer may design
an automobile engine containing many parts being precisely fitted in space; a radiologist reading MRI
images has to be able to recognize the anterior and posterior regions of particular brain structures; a
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch005

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

mathematician may work on solving a geometric problem. Success in any of these activities is highly
dependent on superior spatial skills. Much research evidence suggests that training spatial skills can
benefit students’ educational outcomes in the STEM disciplines (Miller & Halpern, 2013; Small &
Morton, 1983; Uttal et al., 2013a).
Video game is a popular form of media that is widely used in various learning and educational set-
tings. In this chapter, we explore the use of video games for educational purpose to enhance spatial skills.
The objectives of this chapter is 1) to introduce the concept of spatial skills and the importance of spatial
skills in STEM education, 2) to explore how video games can enhance spatial skills, and 3) to highlight
the design considerations of video games for the acquisition of spatial skills.
In the first section, we briefly introduce the history of the use of video games for educational and
cognitive training purposes. Nowadays, the value of video games is not limited to entertainment. There is
an increasing recognition of video games for their value as educational tools or a training technology in
various fields including military, educational institutions, and industry (e.g., Dodlinger & Student, 2007;
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007; Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013; Steinkuehler, Squire, & Barab, 2012). In this
section, we discuss the findings of educational and cognitive benefits from playing certain video games.
In the second section, we define spatial skills and discuss why we should take a keen interest in
spatial skills. Spatial skill is one of the essential skills for everyday task performance and it has been
suggested that spatial skills are a distinct type of cognitive function that is different from verbal func-
tion. We address how spatial skills are associated with other fundamental cognitive constructs such as
working memory. We also discuss previous literatures that found a strong link between spatial skills and
education in STEM domains. In this section, we summarize empirical evidence showing the critical role
of spatial skills in academic achievements in STEM fields, and address the importance of cultivating
spatial skills in education. We also discuss the evidence of large individual differences in spatial skills
and malleability of spatial skills.
In the third section, we present findings from existing research investigating whether and how playing
certain video games improve spatial skills. Early studies found that playing Tetris improve individuals’
performance on particular spatial tasks. Given the task involved in playing Tetris is very similar to a
typical spatial cognition task, the Mental Rotation Test, it was somewhat expected that individuals who
practiced on Tetris would improve on the spatial cognition task. More recent research expanded the
scope of video games for spatial training by looking at the effectiveness of video games that is not pri-
marily based on atypical spatial cognition task. These recent findings suggest a potentially new method
to improve spatial skills, which is by improving the fundamental cognitive abilities that support spatial
skills. In addition to presenting these findings about video games for spatial training, in this section,
we also discuss important methodological considerations in these video game training research and the
speculated mechanisms of learning.
In the last section, we propose some considerations in designing video games for education to improve
spatial skills. Although there is a fast growing body of literature on how video games may benefit spatial
skills, it is still not well understood what particular aspects of these games cultivate spatial skills. We
will review the potentially critical game characteristics, such as player’s perspective, demand on attention
and memory processes, design to improve player’s engagement, and to promote other factors such as
parental spatial language use to enhance children’s acquisition of spatial skills. Based on recent findings
of attention and working memory capabilities as fundamental building blocks of higher-order spatial
cognition, we note the importance of providing mental exercises not only in spatial cognition, but also in
attention and working memory. It is widely believed that games should be challenging and stimulating

94

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

to maximize training benefits. Meanwhile, it is also important to provide an easy entry, to improve the
initial engagement particularly for individuals with poorer spatial skills. While this idea is quite straight
forward, it is often overlooked in the design of educational games for training cognitive skills.

BACKGROUND

Video Games as a Tool for Education

Video games are more than mere entertainment sources nowadays. As video games started to strive in
1970s, there have been increasing motivations to use video games for education (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2010;
Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013; Sparrowhawk, 2002; Squire, 2003; Steinkuehler, Squire, & Barab,
2012). One of the popular pioneer games that attempted to educate players was Lemonade Stand, which
was created in 1973. This game teaches fundamental knowledge and skills about business and econom-
ics by simulating activities of running a lemonade stand business. In 1980s, many educational games
that aimed to educate particular knowledge or train certain skills were introduced and widely played.
Snooper Troops, Oregon Trail, Reader Rabbit, Math Blaster, and Odell Lake are the few examples of the
successful educational games among many. The designed learning goals of these games were diverse,
ranging from problem-solving and creativity thinking skills to reading, math, and science. For example,
Reader Rabbit was developed to teach children how to read and spell. Math Blaster required players to
practice math problems. With the successes that the early educational games achieved in the game mar-
ket, game developers and publishers continued to release many educational games in the 1990s, which
aimed to accomplish educational goals in various domains including math, physics, geology, history,
and technology. The early educational games were found to appeal to educators, students, and parents.
Since then, video games have been even more widely recognized for their value as an educational tool
and also a training technology in various domains beyond schools, including military and government,
manufactures and corporate, as well as healthcare industry (See Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2010, for a detailed
history of educational games).
In the past few decades, an extensive number of empirical studies have examined various issues in the
use of games in educational setting, such as learning theories for game-based learning, learning outcomes
from educational game playing, potential impacts of video games in cognitive abilities and skills, effec-
tiveness of educational games, and critical elements of educational game design (e.g., Amory, Naicker,
Vincent, & Adams, 1999; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Steinkuehler, Squire, & Barab, 2012). Many
early studies focused on the effectiveness of educational games in various domains where educational
games can be applied. Early literature demonstrated some promises of video games as a tool in education.
It has been found that the use of computer games, but not non-computer-based games, was superior to
conventional classroom instructions for achievement in math and physics (Randel, Morris, Wetzel, &
Whitehill, 1992). The study also found that students showed more interests in games or game-like simula-
tion activities, compared to traditional classroom learning (Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 1992).
These findings suggest that game-based learning can be beneficial to improve the learning effectiveness
and facilitate students’ motivations, but the game types may have differential impacts.
One of the earlier studies on educational benefits of video games examined the impacts of playing
video games on language and mathematical skills among children (Ball, 1978). Findings from this study
suggest that video games might be beneficial to improving reading comprehension and learning numeri-

95

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

cal concepts (Ball, 1978). In the 1980s, more computer games started receiving popularity among the
general population as personal computers became widely available. An increasing number of research
was conducted to examine the effectiveness of educational use of computer or video games during this
period. Since then, studies have examined the potential benefits of various game genres such as action,
puzzle, adventure, and strategy games in diverse educational subjects including math, science, geography,
history as well as health-related subjects (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). In addition, the influences of video
games on more fundamental skills such as deduction, hypothesis testing, abstract and conceptual think-
ing were also studied (Dodlinger & Student, 2007; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). In the recent two decades,
more efforts have been made to address serious game designs to identify characteristics and elements
of games that facilitate effectiveness (Dodlinger & Student, 2007; Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013).
Studies have suggested that certain elements such as narrative context, goals, rules, interactivity, and
motivational aspects are critical in effective educational video game design (Dodlinger & Student, 2007).

Spatial Skills and the Importance in Education

Spatial skills, also termed as spatial ability, are defined as the abilities to represent, understand, organize,
remember, and navigate the spatial relations within an object or among objects. Spatial skills are es-
sential to comprehend a specific object, to manipulate an object, or to communicate information about
an object or its relation to the environment. Spatial skills are also critical to predict paths of objects as
they move. It has been suggested that spatial skills account for a significant amount of variance in intel-
ligence and are an unique type of intellectual functioning distinguishable from verbal ability (Eysenck,
1939; Kelly, 1928; Shah & Miyake, 1996; Thurston, 1938). Spatial skills are viewed as a multi-faceted
construct that consists of various sub-skills. A number of studies have examined the factor structure of
spatial ability and several models have been proposed to describe that spatial ability consists of multiple
distinct but correlated sub-components including spatial visualization, spatial relations and orientation,
and kinesthetic imagery (Michael, Gulford, Fruchter, & Zimmerman, 1957). Spatial functioning is
measured through various spatial tests that typically assess performance of accurate mental images of
spatial relationships and changes in them. Studies have shown that a number of specialized spatial tests
were able to measure functioning of each of distinct sub-components of spatial ability (see table 4.1 in
Hegarty & Waller, 2005 for the summary of the spatial abilities factors and tests as typical markers for
distinguishable factors). Spatial skills are known to associate with other fundamental cognitive functioning.
A number of studies suggest that spatial skills are closely linked to working memory function (Hegarty
& Waller, 2005; Miyake, Friedman, Rettinger, Shah, & Hegarty, 2001; Shah & Miyake, 1996). For ex-
ample, one previous study demonstrated that the processing and storage functions of working memory
predict performance on spatial thinking tasks (Shah & Miyake, 1996). Neuroanatomical research also
suggests a link between working memory and spatial skills. A previous study examining brain regions
engaged during performance of working memory and spatial cognitive tasks found overlapping neural
networks for the two functions (LaBar, Gitelmana, Parrishb, & Mesulama, 1999).
Spatial skills are considered to be fundamental for survival as well as successful performance in ev-
eryday activities. Spatial skills are also known for its importance in education, particularly for academic
and occupational achievement in STEM fields. Studies have demonstrated that spatial skill is a key in
developing expertise in STEM disciplines and good spatial skills strongly predict achievement and at-
tainment in these fields (Uttal et al., 2013a). One longitudinal study that tracked a large number of high
school students in the United States for more than 11 years found significant influence of spatial ability

96

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

on performance in STEM activities (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). Spatial skills were found to ac-
count for achievements in advanced educational credentials and occupations in STEM fields. The study
found that the likelihood of earning an advanced degree (bachelor’s, master’s, or PhD) in STEM fields
increased as a function of one’s spatial skills. About 45% of all those holding PhDs, 30% of terminal
master’s degrees, and 25% of bachelor’s degrees in STEM disciplines were within the top 4% on tests of
spatial skills in adolescence (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). Many other studies have also shown that
spatial skills are linked to occupational success in many engineering areas such as engineering design
and mechanics (e.g., Ghiselli, 1973). Performance in medical surgery was also found to be significantly
related to spatial skills among medical doctors (Gibbons, Gudas, & Gibbons, 1983; Murdoch, Bainbridge,
Fisher, & Webster, 1994).
Among the studies examining the relation between spatial skills and performance in STEM fields,
there are a particularly large body of literature focusing on the link between spatial skills and performance
in mathematics. According to a meta-analysis of 75 studies (Friedman, 1995), the correlation between
spatial skills and mathematical performance generally ranged between .3 and .45. Spatial skills play
an important role in visually constructing and comprehending abstract representations of mathematical
problems (Hegarty & Waller, 2005). Relations between spatial skills and mathematical aptitude are in
general stronger in females than male (Friedman, 1995; Tartre, 1990). One study demonstrated that mental
rotation, which is a form of higher-order spatial cognition, was found to mediate the gender differences
in mathematical performance (Casey, Nuttal, Pezaris, & Benbow, 1995). Indeed, gender differences in
spatial skills is a significant factor that contributes to gender differences in mathematical abilities (Halp-
ern & Collaer, 2005). Although some studies suggested that other factors such as gender stereotype may
account for gender differences in spatial skills (Ortner & Sieverding, 2008), extensive empirical evidence
showed significant and robust gender difference in spatial cognition (e.g., Kimura, 1999; Terlecki &
Newcombe, 2005; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995). Given that females are typically underrepresented
in many STEM fields which require superior mathematical abilities, boosting spatial skills may be an
effective way to encourage the underrepresented population to participate in the STEM fields.
Similar to any cognitive domain, significant individual differences exist in spatial skills. Some
people are naturally better to find a way and read a map than others. Studies have examined individual
differences in both small-scale spatial skills such as mental rotation and spatial visualization, as well as
in large-scale and environmental spatial abilities such as navigation, way-finding, and environmental
searching. Studies have found that individuals’ performances in spatial tests depend on a variety of
cognitive functions including speed of processing (Mumaw, Pellegrino, Kail, & Carter, 1984), spatial
thinking and strategies (Just & Carpenter, 1985), as well as mental imagery processes (Kozhevnikov &
Kosslyn, 2000; Hegarty & Waller, 2005). Individual differences in spatial ability have also been widely
observed in larger-scale spatial performances and these large-scale spatial skills in an environment were
in general linked to performances on small-scale spatial tests (Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa,
& Lovelace, 2006; Thorndyke & Goldin, 1983).
Although natural variations in spatial skills among individuals are observed broadly in various spatial
tasks, empirical evidence suggest that spatial skills are highly malleable (Twyman, Newcombe, & Gould,
2013b). One recent meta-analysis research conducted by Uttal et al. (2013b) investigated a large set of
data from 217 training studies on spatial skills. In this study, various aspects of spatial training were
examined, including the magnitude of the training effects and how durable and transferable the training
effects were. Results suggest meaningful improvements after training and the effect size was moderate
with a mean of .47 (Uttal et al., 2013b). Among the studies included in the meta-analysis, trainings on

97

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

spatial skills were conducted by using a wide variety of programs including courses, video games, and
spatial tasks. The analyses indicated that informal or recreational training programs such as video games
might be comparable to formal training such as courses (Uttal et al., 2013b). The meta-analysis study
also examined possible moderating effects of spatial skills before training, age, and gender. Results
indicated that initial spatial skills affected the degree of the training effects; people who initially had
lower levels of spatial skills before training improved more than to those who had a higher level of spatial
skills before training (Uttal et al., 2013b). While both men and women were found to show substantial
training effects, women with a lower level of spatial ability may improve more after trainings so it might
be possible to close the gender gap with training. Furthermore, findings of the study indicated that the
changes due to spatial trainings can last for an extend period of time and that it may transfer to other
spatial tasks beyond what is trained (Uttal et al., 2013b).
Given much evidence showed the critical influences of spatial abilities on academic achievements and
occupational success, particularly in the STEM fields, training spatial ability is of great significance in
educational settings. Improving spatial skills could facilitate educational outcomes, particularly among
individuals with poorer spatial skills, and potentially encourage many more individuals to participate
in the STEM fields.

THE MAIN THRUST OF THE CHAPTER

The Effects of Video Game Playing on Spatial Skills

Playing certain types of video games has been shown to improve spatial abilities (De Lisi & Cammarano,
1996; De Lisi & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002; Greenfield, McClurg & Chaillé, 1987; Okagaki & Frensch,
1994; Subrahamnyam & Greenfield, 1994; Terlecki & Newcombe, 2005). For example, in a study by
McClurg and Chaillé (1987), elementary and middle school students played either The Factory or Stellar
7, both of which require mentally rotating objects. These students showed improved performance on a
mental rotation test after the game play, and outperformed students in a control group. Similarly, Sub-
rahmanyam and Greenfield (1994) asked elementary school students to play Marble Madness, a game
that involves guiding a marble through a three-dimensional course filled with obstacles. They found that
students improved on spatial skills after the game play, and the benefit was the greatest among students
who had the lowest spatial scores before training. Greenfield, Brannon, and Lohr (1994) examined the
effect of playing an arcade game, The Empire Strikes Back, on spatial skills of university undergraduates.
Gamers who scored higher on the game also scored higher on the spatial cognition test. Using structural
equation modeling, the researchers found a significant positive effect of long-term game experience on
spatial cognition. In addition, De Lisi and Cammarano (1996) used the game Blockout to train spatial
skills of undergraduate students. This game requires players to mentally rotate geometric figures. Both
men and women showed improved performance on a mental rotation test after playing. In another study
by De Lisi and Wolford (2002), experience with Tetris, a classic game that involves mentally maintain-
ing and manipulating objects, led to improved performance on a mental rotation test among elementary
school students. While both boys and girls who played Tetris improved significantly, as compared to the
control group, girls improved more than boys. After playing Tetris, boys no longer scored higher than
girls on spatial tests. Similar training benefits after playing Tetris were also found in a study by Sims
and Mayer (2002). These studies collectively suggest that appropriate video games hold much promise
in training spatial skills.

98

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

While it is exciting to discover that certain types of video games can effectively improve spatial skills,
it is perhaps not too surprising that playing these games, such as The Factory, Marble Madness, Blockout,
and Tetris, would benefit performance on spatial tasks. These games were chosen by the researchers be-
cause they seem to involve mentally maintaining and manipulating objects. Indeed, performance on many
games that were thought to engage spatial processing was found to be associated with players’ scores on
tests of spatial skills (De Lisi & Cammarano, 1996; Greenfield, Brannon, & Lohr, 1994). Adding to our
knowledge that practicing on a mental rotation task significantly enhances one’s performance on the task
(Heil, Rösler, Link & Bajric, 1998; Neubauer, Bergner, & Schatz, 2010; Terlecki, Newcombe, & Little,
2008), the studies discussed in the previous paragraph (e.g., De Lisi & Cammarano, 1996; McClurg &
Chaillé, 1987; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1994) showed that playing video games that involve lots
of mental rotation activities could lead to improvements on mental rotation, even if the objects being
rotated in a game may be different from those on the Mental Rotation Test.
With advances in gaming technology and a burst of the variety of popular games in the recent years,
research examining the effect of game playing on spatial skills has been expanded to those video games
that do not merely resemble a Mental Rotation Test. More research started to focus on game genres
like first-person shooter action games and racing games. In one study (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007),
researchers examined the effect of action video game experience on gender differences in spatial skills.
Differences in spatial attention were found between men and women, and between action video game
players and non-players. In the subsequent training experiment, men and women non-game players were
recruited and assigned to either the experimental group (trained by Medal of Honor, an first-person
shooter action game) or the control group (trained by Ballance, a non-action puzzle game which involves
hand-eye coordination and precise motor control) (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007). The researchers found
that experience with the first-person shooter action game largely reduced gender differences in spatial
attention and cognition that were seen before training. In contrast, minimal training effect was observed
in the control group. Findings from this study suggest that a first-person shooter action video game can
improve spatial skills of players. Improvements on spatial cognition may be a result of enhanced spatial
attentional processing that supports higher order spatial functions. In addition, gender difference ex-
ists in spatial attention, which may be a building block of spatial cognition. Both spatial attention and
spatial cognition can benefit from training (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007). This study provided strong
evidence that it is possible to eliminate gender differences in spatial attention and cognition by providing
appropriate video game training.
In a follow-up study (Spence, Yu, Feng, & Marshman, 2009), the researchers examined whether there
is a gender difference on the rate of learning on spatial skills trained by a video game. Pairs of men and
women matched on performance in spatial attention before video game training were formed. Using the
same first-person shooter action video game, Medal of Honor, learning trajectories of men and women
on spatial attention were examined. The study found that both men and women improved on spatial atten-
tion after playing a first person shooter action video game. The learning trajectory of women to acquire
spatial skills was not inferior to that of men. Similarly, Cherney (2008) investigated whether playing a 3-D
racing game or a 2-D puzzle game can improve players’ spatial cognition. Participants in the 3-D game
training group played a racing game, Antz, which involves navigation in a three dimensional environment
and keeping an object on track. In contrast, participants in the 2-D game training group played with a
puzzle game, Tetrus, which is a version of Tetris. The research found that, after a relatively brief play,
participants in both game training groups had improved scores on mental rotation tests, when compared

99

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

to the control group (no game training). Moreover, females, who were on average poorer on the mental
rotation tests before training, improved more than males, particularly after playing the 3-D racing game.
It was speculated that both the navigation task in the three-dimensional environment and the demand on
spatial attention during the racing game may have facilitated the improvement on spatial skills.
These studies (Cherney, 2008; Feng, Spence & Pratt, 2007; Spence, Yu, Feng, & Marshman, 2009)
suggest that individual differences in spatial skills can be eliminated if sufficient training is provided using
appropriate video games. In light of the findings that girls and boys do differ in their use of computers
and video games (Terlecki & Newcombe, 2005; Griffiths, 1991; Kaplan, 1983; Philips, Rolls, Rouse &
Griffiths, 1995; Taylor, Jenson, & de Castell, 2007; Wright et al., 2001), and such difference is partially
due to certain activities not being as appealing to girls than to boys (e.g., the majority of first-person
shooter action game players are male; SuperData, 2015), it is important to provide video games for train-
ing that would be appealing to girls. In addition, these recent research suggest a potentially new method
to teach spatial skills, that is by improving the fundamental cognitive abilities that support spatial skills.

Methodological Issues

In some studies, examination of the cognitive effects of video game training was conducted by comparing
cognitive performance of game players to that of non-players. Based on the group difference between
game players and non-players, the studies suggested that playing certain video games can lead to benefits
in cognitive functions (e.g., Rosser et al., 2007; Barlett, Anderson & Swing, 2009). While it is possible
that the training effects from video game playing has led to the observed group difference between game
players and non-players, the group difference may also be a result of self-selection. Individuals who have
superior cognitive abilities that support high performance on a game may be more likely to choose to
play, while individual being inferior in these required cognitive abilities are less likely to choose to play.
This quasi-experimental method using group comparison cannot rule out the possibility of self-selection
(Green & Bavelier, 2003; Spence & Feng, 2010). Therefore, while well-designed observations are very
informative, longitudinal training studies are necessary to establish causality.
In a training study, a control group is needed to contrast with the experimental group (e.g., Anguera
et al., 2013; Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007; Green & Bavelier, 2003, 2006, 2007; Spence, Yu, Feng, &
Marshman, 2009), to rule out the possibility that the improvement in performance in the experimental
group is merely due to a practice effect or regression to the mean. Differences between the experimental
group and a no-contact control group can inform about the effects from the video game experience.
Difference between the experimental group and a control group that plays a video game different from
the game played by the experimental group, can further demonstrate that the training effect in the ex-
perimental group is not due to experience with any video game in general, but is specifically due to the
particular characteristics of the video game played by the experimental group. Detailed discussions of
experimental design and statistical considerations are provided in Spence & Feng (2010) and Uttal et
al. (2013b).
To investigate the effects of video game playing on cognitive abilities, particularly on spatial skills
where robust gender differences have been found, it is important to include gender as a factor. In a recent
meta-analysis of the effects of video game experience on information processing (Powers et al., 2013),
it was found that participants’ genders influenced the effect of video game experience. When cognitive
performance were compared between game players and non-game players, in general, the difference was

100

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

greater among males than females (Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007; Quaiser-Pohl et al., 2006). As noted in
the meta-analysis (Powers et al., 2013), many video game studies did not recruit sufficient numbers of
female participants, and only a few studies has examined gender as a factor.

Mechanisms of Spatial Learning

To facilitate the development of effective training methods to improve spatial skills, research has been
conducted to examine the mechanism of expertise in and acquisition of spatial skills.
Take mental rotation for example, superior performance in mental rotation is supported by enhanced
encoding of the to-be-rotated objects (Amorim, Isableu, & Jarraya, 2006; Wright et al., 2008), faster
rotation of objects in mind (Bethell-Fox & Shepard, 1988; Kail & Park, 1992), improved memory
retrieval of the image of a rotated object (Tarr & Pinker, 1989), flexibility and adaptation to various
coordinate systems of an object (Just & Carpenter, 1985), and effective motor and rotation strategies
(Provost, Johnson, Karanyanidis, Brown, & Heathcote, 2013; ter Horst, Jongsma, Janssen, van Lier, &
Steenbergen, 2012; Tomasino & Rumiati, 2004; Wraga, Thompson, Alpert, & Kosslyn, 2003). Improving
one or more of these aspects with training can lead to enhanced performance in a mental rotation task.
Furthermore, improvement on fundamental cognitive abilities, such as attention and working memory
capabilities that support spatial cognition, can lead to enhanced spatial skills. Attention is the ability to
select important information while ignoring the unimportant ones. Working memory is the ability to
temporarily store and manipulate information in mind. Both attention and working memory depend on
limited cognitive resources, and thus both have limited capacities (i.e., a limited amount of information
can be processed by attention or working memory at any given moment). There is evidence showing
that the mental resources for attention and the resources for spatial working memory largely overlap
(Feng, Pratt & Spence, 2012). Competence in working memory, particularly spatial working memory,
is essential for superior spatial skills (Christie et al., 2013; Hyun & Luck, 2007). There has also been
speculation that improvement on spatial cognition may be a result of enhanced spatial attention (Feng,
Spence, & Pratt, 2007; Spence & Feng, 2010; Uttal et al., 2013b).
In addition to the core components for spatial training as discussed above, motivational and affective
aspects play an important role in cognitive skill acquisitions. As compared to training by repeating a
laboratory task, individuals may be more motivated to play a video game for improving spatial skills.
A greater level of motivation can increase an individual’s engagement in the learning activity (Jones,
2009), and can also lead to better learning outcomes (Liu, Bridgeman, & Adler, 2012). Video games
may also induce stronger emotional responses than in other training methods. For example, an individual
may experience anxiety when a game is difficult, frustration when there are repeated failures, and also
happiness when completing a mission after exerting efforts. Emotion can significantly impact cognitive
performance (Dweck et al., 2005; Sabourin & Lester, 2014). Being “emotional” can sometimes make us
perform more efficiently on tasks. For example, in one study (Gray et al., 2002), participants watched a
video clip from either a documentary (neutral group), a comedy (amusement group), or a horror movie
(anxiety group), and then completed a set of cognitive tasks. Compared to the neutral group, participants
in the amusement or horror groups performed better on visual or verbal tasks.

101

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Designing Video Games for Spatial Training

Not all games are created equal for cognitive benefits. For example, in Feng, Spence, & Pratt (2007),
participants’ performance on an attentional task and a spatial cognition task did not change after playing
a puzzle game involving hand-eye coordination and strategy use. In contrast, participants who played a
first-person shooter action video game improved significantly on both attention and spatial cognition.
Differences among video games and their cognitive benefits are the likely reasons for discrepancies in
findings about effects from video game playing. While many studies have identified positive impacts
from game playing on spatial skills (e.g., De Lisi & McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2002; Feng, Spence, &
Pratt, 2007; Terlecki & Newcombe, 2005), some studies did not find any effect from game playing.
For example, Ferguson and his colleagues (2013) used hierarchical multiple regression to examine the
influence from playing violent video games and other factors such as personality on three outcomes:
aggression, spatial cognition, and math achievement. It was found that experience with violent video
games did not impact spatial cognition nor any of the other outcomes. It is possible that there were a
wide variety of games reported by participants and these games’ effectiveness on training spatial skills
also greatly differ. Comparing the effective games to non-effective ones and identifying the differences
in the game design may provide some insights about what game characteristics may be critical in training
cognitive abilities including spatial skills. For example, with a comparison across action video games,
driving games, and maze / puzzle games, Spence and Feng (2010) proposed possibly important game
characteristics for effective training, including task switching, multitasking, select significant objects,
mental rotation, and navigation.
Furthermore, not all game genres are equally appealing to every individual. For example, although
many studies have shown that first-person shooter action video games can improve various aspects of
cognition (Green & Bavelier, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008; Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007; Gozli, Bavelier &
Pratt, 2014; Li et al., 2009; West et al., 2008), this particular genre of video games primarily attracts
young men (Griffiths, 1991; Kaplan, 1983; Philips, Rolls, Rouse & Griffiths, 1995; Wright et al., 2001).
Given the significant individual differences in preference of video games (Hilgard et al., 2013; Terlecki
& Newcombe, 2005), it is vital to consider alternative game contents that are appealing to the target
audience with embedded training components in a game.
Several training programs in the form of video games or game-like exercises have been developed
for the purpose of enhancing individual’s spatial skills (Cohen & Hegarty, 2014; Freina & Ott, 2014;
Verner, Leibowitz, & Gamer, 2014; Connors et al., 2014). For example, in Cohen and Hegarty (2014), the
researchers designed a training of spatial thinking using interactive animation. Undergraduate students
were asked to produce a drawing of the two-dimensional cross section of a three-dimensional virtual
object. Feedback was given by enabling students to interact with the virtual object and cut the object
along a plane. Experience with this game-like activity improved students’ performance in identifying
the cross sections of not only the virtual objects that they were training with, but also new objects. In
Freina and Ott (2014), the researchers introduced two computer games to facilitate the development of
spatial skills: understand the concepts of right and left, and perspectivetaking skills (i.e., the ability of
identifying the position and the orientation of other people in the space and understanding that their
spatial perspective can be different from our own). Similarly, Verner, Leibowitz, and Gamer (2014)
developed and implemented game-like exercises to operate a robot either in the physical environment
or in a virtual environment. The researchers evaluated the effect of the game-like exercise on mental
rotation performance. Preliminary evaluations comparing participants’ scores on mental rotation before

102

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

and after the exercise indicated a significant improvement. It is important to note that without a control
group, we should remain very cautious in interpreting the results. Further investigation is necessary with
both the experimental and control groups to ensure the validity of the findings. Activities on robotics
and computer control may hold the promise to improve spatial skills. Connors et al. (2014) reported a
study examining the effect of action video game play on navigation and spatial skills in blind adoles-
cents. The researchers developed an audio-based environment simulator (AbES) to produce video game
experience among blind adolescents. The game play involves exploring a virtual indoor environment
using auditory cues. Participants improved significantly on navigation tasks after the game experience
(Connors et al., 2014).

Game Characteristics that may Boost Spatial Skills

Certain game characteristics may play a critical role in training spatial skills. Given that spatial attention
and spatial working memory are the fundamental building blocks of higher-order spatial cognition, a
training game may consider game components to improve spatial attention and working memory. For
example, in a first-person shooter (FPS) action video game, players are required to quickly and accurately
detect, identify and localize potential threats in a highly dynamic and complex visual environment. These
demanding detection and localization tasks exercise attentional abilities to select important informa-
tion in space. In addition, multiple threats may occur close together in time but at various locations,
that require players to efficiently orient attention across the visual field. Similar attentional demands
are present in a driving game. Many tasks in a FPS game also involve storing and manipulating spatial
information in working memory. Example tasks include forming a spatial representation of the game
environment, remembering the correct order of actions to operate a tool in the game, and planning the
steps to complete a complex mission.
Practices involving aspects of spatial cognition in a game may also lead to enhancement in spatial
skills. For example, some FPS or role playing games require players to navigate in a virtual environment
(e.g., inside a complex building) to complete a set of missions at various locations. In such a navigation
task, the player’s perspective may play an important role in spatial learning. Research findings suggest
an advantage of the egocentric and first-person perspective. When we need to report the spatial location
of an object from an imagined viewpoint, it is much easier to imagine and report the spatial location in
the egocentric viewpoint (Shelton & McNamara, 1997). In a recent training study (Choi & Lane, 2013),
the researchers compared the effectiveness of two versions of the same shooter action video game: the
first-person view version and the third-person view version. The researchers found that playing the first-
person shooter action video game, but not the third-person action video game or a puzzle control game,
led to significant improvements on spatial attention among players. These findings suggest certain game
components or characteristics may be critical to improving spatial skills.

Keep Players Engaged

A major advantage of video games over other traditional training materials (e.g., paper pencil exercise)
is that video games are often more appealing and entertaining, if the challenges in video games are
properly designed. A player may choose to withdraw from a game if it is too boring or too difficult. Ac-
cording to Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow (1990), when an individual enjoys an interactive activity,
the individual loses track of time and concerns, and seek to maximize pleasure and performance in the

103

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

activity. This is the experience of flow. The relation between an individual’s ability and the challenge
presented in the activity determines the flow. If the task is too easy, the individual experience boredom;
if the task is too difficult, the individual experience anxiety. Flow is in the middle when the activity is
challenge enough but not overwhelming. The flow theory has been adopted to guide the development of
video games for improved immersive experience (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005; Cowley et al., 2008). In a
more recent study (Frankosky et al., 2015), researchers examined how spatial ability, previous video game
experience, and programming experience impact students’ game performance in the ENGAGE game,
an educational game for computer science to promote computational thinking. The researchers found
that the three factors differentially impacted game performance. In particular, spatial skills influenced
how quickly a student can complete the entry level. This finding implies the importance of adjusting the
challenges in a game according to a player’s spatial skill level to minimize potential frustration when
introducing a game for training spatial skills.

Facilitate Other Factors that can Accelerate the Acquisition of Spatial Skill

In addition to the core components that are critical for a game training spatial skills, we should also
consider other game components that may facilitate the benefit of training effects during an individual’s
acquisition of spatial skills. Parents’ use of spatial language can have significant impacts on the develop-
ment of children’s spatial skills. In a study by Pruden et al. (2011), it was found that the more spatial terms
such as “above” and “beside” parents use when conversing with their children, the better performance
the children have on tests of spatial cognition. In another study (Zosh et al, 2015), researchers found
that the electronic shape sorters, as compared to traditional shape sorters, were less able to promote
the use of spatial terms by parents. When playing with the electronic shape sorters, parents’ guidance
was more focused on how to operate the electronic toy rather than how to sort the shapes. Although
this study was not directly focused on video games or computer applications, the results are informa-
tive when considering the design of video games. A video game may be designed to promote parents’
involvement and encourage parents’ use of spatial words that can accelerate the development of spatial
skills in young children.

CONCLUSION

Spatial skills are critical not only for survival and everyday activities, but also for academic achievements,
particularly in the STEM disciplines. Although spatial skills naturally vary among individuals, there is
convincing evidence suggesting that spatial skills are highly malleable. Many studies suggest that spatial
skills can be improved by appropriate trainings. Video games can be a useful tool to train spatial skills.
In our chapter, we reviewed many cases where video games were used for educational purposes, and
evidence showing particular video games being effective in training spatial skills. Studies suggest that
video games improve players’ spatial skills by requiring players to mentally maintain and manipulate
objects, to navigate in a virtual environment, to attend to multiple objects in a cluttered visual scene,
and to store and process a large amount of information in working memory.
In our chapter, we discussed the mechanisms of acquisition of spatial skills and how we can design
effective video games for spatial training. Previous studies have suggested various aspects of fundamental
cognitive abilities such as attention and working memory may be critical for spatial skills. Furthermore,

104

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

we addressed the importance of motivation and engagement as well as other game components for effec-
tive spatial skill training. The most powerful effect of using video games for educational purposes is a
result of benefits of video games being engaging and entertaining. In order to maximize intended training
effects, video games should be able to provide immersive experience and to maintain appropriate levels
of challenge for individual players. We also discussed another important aspect of game design, which
is to encourage parents’ involvement, to further accelerate the acquisition of spatial skills in children.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Despite our growing knowledge about spatial skills and how particular video games enhance the acquisi-
tion of these skills, much remains to be explored. Future research can aim to deepen our understanding
of the mechanisms of spatial learning, and to develop the design guidelines for video games to improve
spatial skills. For example, what are the exact fundamental cognitive processes that support higher-
order spatial cognition? How do improvements on these fundamental cognitive processes benefit spatial
cognition? What are the brain mechanisms of spatial learning by playing certain video games? Using
neurocognitive methods, researchers can explore the exact cognitive process that is enhanced by game
playing (e.g., Anguera et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2012). Another question to explore in the future is whether
improvement on spatial skills by playing video games is transferable to an individual’s daily performance
and interest in STEM-related activities. How do we design video games that will enable significant
transfer effects not only to untrained cognitive functions, but also to daily performance in educational
settings? In addition, despite the proposal of potentially important game characteristics (Spence & Feng,
2010) and a few empirical studies (e.g., Anguera et al., 2013; Choi & Lane, 2013), much work remains
to be done to examine the potentially important game characteristics for cognitive training. Knowledge
on these game characteristics can effectively guide the development of video games for improving
cognitive abilities. Individual differences in the response to video game training are another important
topic to explore (e.g., Whitlock, McLaughlin & Allaire, 2012). Understanding individuals’ needs and
providing personalize training solutions may produce better training outcomes than using a uniformed
training method. Furthermore, designing game components that encourage parents’ involvement and
use of spatial languages during young children’s game playing may be beneficial for children’s effective
acquisition of spatial skills. Such game component is yet to be designed and examined. This direction
opens lots of opportunities for future exploration.

REFERENCES

Amorim, M.-A., Isableu, B., & Jarraya, M. (2006). Embodied spatial transformations: “Body analogy”
for the mental rotation of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(3), 327–347.
doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.327 PMID:16846268
Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational
tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 30(4), 311–321. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00121

105

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., Al-Hashimi, O., Faraji, F., Janowich, J., & Gazzaley, A.
et al. (2013). Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 501(5), 97–101.
doi:10.1038/nature12486 PMID:24005416
Ball, G. H. (1978). Telegames teach more than you think. Audiovisual Instruction, 24-26.
Barlett, C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Swing, E. L. (2009). Video game effects confirmed, suspected and specu-
lative: A review of the evidence. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 377–403. doi:10.1177/1046878108327539
Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and fa-
miliarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 14(1), 12–23.
doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.12
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender
differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 31(4), 697–705. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.697
Cherney, I. D. (2008). Mom, let me play more computer games: They improve my mental rotation skills.
Sex Roles, 59(11-12), 776–786. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9498-z
Choi, H., & Lane, S. (2013). Impact of spatial characteristics of video games on improvements of cogni-
tive abilities. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting.
Christie, G. J., Cook, C. M., Ward, B. J., Tata, M. S., Sutherland, J., Sutherland, R. J., & Saucier, D. M.
(2013). Mental rotation ability is correlated with spatial but not verbal working memory performance and
P300 amplitude in Males. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057390 PMID:23437381
Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using inter-
active animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 63–71. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2014.04.002
Connors, E. C., Chrastil, E. R., Sánchez, J., & Merabet, L. B. (2014). Action video game play and transfer
of navigation and spatial cognition skills in adolescents who are blind. Frontiers in Human Neurosci-
ence, 8(133), 1–8. PMID:24653690
Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in video
games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 20. doi:10.1145/1371216.1371223
Csikszebtmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. London, UK: Harper Perennial.
De Lisi, R., & Cammarano, D. M. (1996). Computer experience and gender differences in undergradu-
ate mental rotation performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(3), 351–361. doi:10.1016/0747-
5632(96)00013-1
De Lisi, R., & Wolford, J. L. (2002). Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with computer
game playing. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(3), 272–282. doi:10.1080/00221320209598683
PMID:12230149
Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied
Educational Technology, 4(1), 21–31.

106

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Dorval, M., & Pepin, M. (1986). Effect of playing a video game on a measure of spatial visualization.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62(1), 159–162. doi:10.2466/pms.1986.62.1.159 PMID:3960656
Dweck, C. S., Mangels, J. A., & Good, C. (2005). Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and
performance. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: interactive
perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 41–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third Generation Educational Use of Computer Games. Journal of Edu-
cational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263–281.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2010). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the educational potential of computer
games. Lulu.com.
Eysenk, H. J. (1939). Review of “primary mental abilities” by L. L. Thurstone. British Journal of Psy-
chology, 9, 270–275.
Feng, J., Pratt, J., & Spence, I. (2012). Attention and visuospatial working memory share the same
processing resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 103. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00103 PMID:22529826
Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in
spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 18(10), 850–854. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x
PMID:17894600
Ferguson, C. J., Garza, A., Jerabeck, J., Ramos, R., & Galindo, M. (2013). Not worth the fuss after all?
Cross-sectional and prospective data on violent video game influences on aggression, visuospatial cogni-
tion and mathematics ability in a sample of youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 109–122.
doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9803-6 PMID:22875464
Frankosky, M., Wiebe, E., Buffom, P., & Boyer, K. (2015). Spatial Ability and Other Predictors of
Gameplay Time: Understanding Barriers to Learning in Game-based Virtual Environments. In Proceed-
ings of the AERA Annual Meeting.
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2014). Discussing implementation choices for serious games supporting spatial
and orientation skills. Proceedings of ICERI2014 Conference.
Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differences. Review of Educational Re-
search, 65(1), 22–50. doi:10.3102/00346543065001022
Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 26(4),
461–477. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01150.x
Gibbons, R. D., Gudas, C., & Gibbons, S. W. (1983). A study of the relationship between flexibility of closure
and surgical skill. Journal of the American Podiatry Association, 73(1), 12–16. doi:10.7547/87507315-
73-1-12 PMID:6822715
Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective
are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x

107

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Gozli, D., Bavelier, D., & Pratt, J. (2014). The effect of action video game playing on sensorimotor learn-
ing: Evidence from a movement tracking task. Human Movement Science, 38, 152–162. doi:10.1016/j.
humov.2014.09.004 PMID:25318081
Gray, J. R., Braver, T. S., & Raichle, M. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral
prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
99(6), 4115–4120. doi:10.1073/pnas.062381899 PMID:11904454
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature,
423(6939), 534–537. doi:10.1038/nature01647 PMID:12774121
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006). Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial
attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(6), 1465–1478.
doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1465 PMID:17154785
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vi-
sion. Psychological Science, 18(1), 88–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01853.x PMID:17362383
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Exercising your brain: A review of human brain plasticity and
training-induced learning. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 692–701. doi:10.1037/a0014345 PMID:19140641
Greenfield, P., Brannon, C., & Lohr, D. (1994). Two-dimensional representation of movement through
three-dimensional space: The role of video game expertise. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 15(1), 87–103. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90007-8
Griffiths, M. D. (1991). The observational analysis of adolescent gambling in U.K. amusement arcades.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 309–320. doi:10.1002/casp.2450010406
Halpern, D. F., & Collaer, M. L. (2005). More Than Meets the Eye. In The Cambridge handbook of
visuospatial thinking. CUP.
Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities
at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intel-
ligence, 34(2), 151–176. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005
Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. A. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121–169). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610448.005
Heil, M., Rösler, F., Link, M., & Bajric, J. (1998). What is improved if a mental rotation task is repeated
– the efficiency of memory access, or the speed of a transformation routine? Psychological Research,
61(2), 99–106. doi:10.1007/s004260050016 PMID:9689906
Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Bartholow, B. D. (2013). Individual differences in motives, prefer-
ences, and pathology in video games: The gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES).
Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 608. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00608 PMID:24058355
Hyun, J. S., & Luck, S. J. (2007). Visual working memory as the substrate for mental rotation. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 154–158. doi:10.3758/BF03194043 PMID:17546746

108

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC model of academic motiva-
tion. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 272–285.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation
and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92(2), 137–172. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.92.2.137 PMID:3887449
Kail, R., & Park, Y.-S. (1992). Global developmental change in processing time. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly, 38(4), 525–541.
Kaplan, S. J. (1983). The image of amusement arcades and differences in male and female video game
playing. Journal of Popular Culture, 16(1), 93–98. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1983.1701_93.x
Kelly, T. L. (1928). Crossroads in the mind of man. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2003). Literature Review in Games and Learning. A Report for NESTA
Futurelab.
Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving.
Cognitive Science, 31(4), 549–579. doi:10.1080/15326900701399897 PMID:21635308
LaBar, K. S., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., & Mesulam, M. (1999). Neuroanatomic overlap of working
memory and spatial attention networks: A functional MRI comparison within subjects. NeuroImage,
10(6), 695–704. doi:10.1006/nimg.1999.0503 PMID:10600415
Li, R. J., Polat, U., Makous, W., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through
action video game training. Nature Neuroscience, 12(5), 549–551. doi:10.1038/nn.2296 PMID:19330003
Liu, O. L., Bridgeman, B., & Adler, R. M. (2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education.
Educational Researcher, 41(9), 352–362. doi:10.3102/0013189X12459679
McClurg, P. A., & Chaillé, C. (1987). Computer games: Environments for developing spatial cognition.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 95–111.
Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1957). The description of
spatial-visualization abilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17(2), 185–199.
doi:10.1177/001316445701700202
Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM
undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141–152. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.012
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial work-
ing memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. General, 130(4), 621–640. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621 PMID:11757872
Mumaw, R. J., Pellegrino, J. W., Kail, R. V., & Carter, P. (1984). Different slopes for different folks:
Process analysis of spatial aptitude. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 515–521. doi:10.3758/BF03198314
PMID:6521654

109

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Murdoch, J. R., Bainbridge, L. C., Fisher, S. G., & Webster, M. H. C. (1994). Can a simple test of vi-
sual motor skill predict the performance of microsurgeons? Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of
Edinburgh, 39, 150–152. PMID:7932332
Neubauer, A. C., Bergner, S., & Schatz, M. (2010). Two- vs. three-dimensional presentation of mental
rotation tasks: Sex differences and effects of training on performance and brain activation. Intelligence,
38(5), 529–539. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.06.001 PMID:20953415
Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1994). Effects of video game playing on measures of spatial perfor-
mance: Gender effects in late adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 33–58.
doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90005-1
Ortner, T. M., & Sieverding, M. (2008). Where are the gender differences? Male priming boosts spatial
skills in women. Sex Roles, 59(3-4), 274–281. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9448-9
Philips, C. A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Home video game playing in schoolchil-
dren: A study of incidence and pattern of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18(6), 687–691. doi:10.1006/
jado.1995.1049
Powers, K. L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., Palladino, M. A., & Alfieri, L. (2013). Effects of video-game
play on information processing: A meta-analytic investigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6),
1055–1079. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0418-z PMID:23519430
Provost, A., Johnson, B., Karayanidis, F., Brown, S. D., & Heathecote, A. (2013). Two routes to exper-
tise in mental rotation. Cognitive Science, 37(7), 1321–1342. doi:10.1111/cogs.12042 PMID:23676091
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the
spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14(6), 1417–1430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01088.x
PMID:22010900
Quaiser-Pohl, C., Geiser, C., & Lehmann, W. (2006). The relationship between computer-game pref-
erence, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(3), 609–619.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.015
Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games
for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.
doi:10.1177/1046878192233001
Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of
video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of Surgery, 142(2), 181–186. doi:10.1001/
archsurg.142.2.181 PMID:17309970
Sabourin, J. L., & Lester, J. C. (2014). Affect and engagement in game-based learning environments.
Affective Computing. IEEE Transactions on, 5(1), 45–56.
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and
language processing: An individual differences approach. Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1),
4–27. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.1.4 PMID:8851737

110

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 4(1), 102–106. doi:10.3758/BF03210780
Sims, V., & Mayer, E. (2002). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: The case of the video game play-
ers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 97–115. doi:10.1002/acp.759
Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic
chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13(1), 41–43.
Sorby, S. A. (2009). Education research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. Inter-
national Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 459–480. doi:10.1080/09500690802595839
Sparrowhawk, A. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. Education and Skills, 33(3), 26.
Retrieved from http://www.teem.org.uk/publications/teem_gamesined_full.pdf
Spence, I., & Feng, J. (2010). Video games and spatial cognition. Review of General Psychology, 14(2),
92–104. doi:10.1037/a0019491
Spence, I., Yu, J. J., Feng, J., & Marshman, J. (2009). Women match men when learning a spatial skill.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 1097–1103. doi:10.1037/
a0015641 PMID:19586273
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gam-
ing, 2, 49–62.
Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, learning, and society: Learning and
meaning in the digital age. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139031127
Stieff, M. (2011). When is a molecule three-dimensional? A task-specific role for imagistic reasoning
in advanced chemistry. Science Education, 95(2), 310–336. doi:10.1002/sce.20427
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and
boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 13–32. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3
SuperData. (2015). MMO Market Report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.superdataresearch.com/
market-data/mmo-market/
Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model of evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM
Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 3. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253
Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cog-
nitive Psychology, 21(2), 233–282. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90009-1 PMID:2706928
Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial skills, gender, and mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.),
Mathematics and gender (pp. 27–59). New York: Teachers College Press.
Taylor, N., Jenson, J., & de Castell, S. (2007). Gender in play: Mapping a girls’ gaming club. In Proceed-
ings of DiGRA 2007 Conference.

111

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

ter Horst, A. C., Jongsma, M. L., Janssen, L. K., van Lier, R., & Steenbergen, B. (2012). Different
mental rotation strategies reflected in the rotation related negativity. Psychophysiology, 49(4), 566–573.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01322.x PMID:22091978
Terlecki, M., & Newcombe, N. (2005). How important is the digit divide? The relation of computer
and videogame usage to gender differences in mental rotation ability? Sex Roles, 53(5-6), 433–441.
doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6765-0
Terlecki, M. S., Newcombe, N. S., & Little, M. (2008). Durable and generalized effects of spatial experi-
ence on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7),
996–1013. doi:10.1002/acp.1420
Thorndyke, P. W., & Goldin, S. E. (1983). Spatial learning and reasoning skill. In H. L. Pick & L. P.
Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 195–217). New York:
Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_9
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tomasino, B., & Rumiati, R. I. (2004). Effects of strategies on mental rotation and hemispheric
lateralization: Neuropsychological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 878–888.
doi:10.1162/089892904970753 PMID:15200714
Twyman, A. D., Newcombe, N. S., & Gould, T. J. (2013). Malleability in the development of spatial
reorientation. Developmental Psychobiology, 55(3), 243–255. doi:10.1002/dev.21017 PMID:22407824
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S.
(2013a). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin,
139(2), 352–402. doi:10.1037/a0028446 PMID:22663761
Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013b). Exploring and Enhancing Spatial Thinking:
Links to Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 22(5), 367–373. doi:10.1177/0963721413484756
Verner, I. M., Leibowitz, D., & Gamer, S. (2014). Puzzling exercises for spatial training with robot ma-
nipulators. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction,
312-313. doi:10.1145/2559636.2559792
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-
analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250–270. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.117.2.250 PMID:7724690
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty
years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 101(4), 817–835. doi:10.1037/a0016127
West, G. L., Stevens, S. A., Pun, C., & Pratt, J. (2008). Visuospatial experience modulates attentional
capture: Evidence from action video game players. Journal of Vision (Charlottesville, Va.), 8(16), 1–9.
doi:10.1167/8.16.13 PMID:19146279

112

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Whitlock, L. A., McLaughlin, A. C., & Allaire, J. C. (2012). Individual differences in response to cogni-
tive training: Using a multi-modal, attentionally demanding game-based intervention for older adults.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1091–1096. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.012
Wraga, M., Thompson, W. L., Alpert, N. M., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2003). Implicit transfer of motor strat-
egies in mental rotation. Brain and Cognition, 52(2), 135–143. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00033-2
PMID:12821095
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Vadewater, E. A., Bickham, D. S., Scantlin, R. M., & Kotler, J. A. (2001).
American children’s use of electronic media in 1997: A national survey. Applied Developmental Psy-
chology, 22(1), 31–47. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00064-2
Wright, R., Thompson, W. L., Ganis, G., Newcombe, N. S., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Training gen-
eralized spatial skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 763–771. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.4.763
PMID:18792502
Wu, S., Cheng, C. K., Feng, J., D’Angelo, L., Alain, C., & Spence, I. (2012). Playing a first-person
shooter video game induces neuroplastic change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(6), 1286–1293.
doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00192 PMID:22264193
Zosh, J. M., Verdine, B. N., Filipowicz, A., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S.
(2015). Talking shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain,
and Education, 9(3), 136–144. doi:10.1111/mbe.12082

ADDITIONAL READING

Achtman, R. L., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Video games as a tool to train visual skills. Restor-
ative Neurology and Neuroscience, 26(4-5), 435. PMID:18997318
Anderson, A. F., & Bavelier, D. (2011). Action game play as a tool to enhance perception, attention and
cognition. In S. Tobias & D. Fleycher (Eds.), Computer Games and Instruction (pp. 307–329). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age.
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., Pouget, A., & Schrater, P. (2012). Brain plasticity through the life span:
Learning to learn and action video games. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35(1), 391–416. doi:10.1146/
annurev-neuro-060909-152832 PMID:22715883
Casey, B., Erkut, S., Ceder, I., & Young, J. M. (2008). Use of a storytelling context to improve girls’
and boys’ geometry skills in kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 29–48.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.005
Dye, M. W. G., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2009). The development of attention skills in action video
game players. Neuropsychologia, 47(8-9), 1780–1789. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.002
PMID:19428410
Gagnon, D. (1985). Videogames and spatial skills: An exploratory study. Educational Communication
and Technology Journal, 33, 263–275.

113

Using Video Games to Improve Spatial Skills

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2012). Learning, attentional control, and action video games. Current
Biology, 22(6), R197–R206. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.012 PMID:22440805
Lowery, B. R., & Knirk, F. G. (1982). Micro-computer video games and spatial visualization acquisition.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11(2), 155–166. doi:10.2190/3PAN-CHJM-RT0L-W6AC
Mix, K. S., & Cheng, Y. L. (2011). The relation between space and math: Developmental and educational
implications. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 42, 197–243. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-
394388-0.00006-X PMID:22675907
Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture This: Increasing Math and Science Learning by Improving Spatial
Thinking. American Educator, 34(2), 29.
Pérez-Fabello, M. J., & Campos, A. (2007). Influence of training in artistic skills on mental imaging
capacity. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 227–232. doi:10.1080/10400410701397495
Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement.
Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166. doi:10.1037/a0019440
Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How Much Can Spatial Training Improve STEM Achievement? Educa-
tional Psychology Review, 1–9.
Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why and how. Psy-
chology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2
Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information processing skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83(2),
643–647. doi:10.2466/pms.1996.83.2.643 PMID:8902044

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Attention: The ability to select important information among the unimportant ones.
Cognitive Training: Brain training, cognitive rehabilitation.
Flow: The immersive feeling of being focused in an activity, with a high level of pleasure and ful-
fillment.
Mental Rotation: Mental imagery.
Spatial Skills: The ability to represent, understand, organize, remember, and navigate the spatial
relations within an object or among objects.
STEM Education: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education.
Working Memory: The ability to transiently store and manipulate information.

114
115

Chapter 6
Dino Lab:
Designing and Developing an
Educational Game for Critical Thinking

Kirsten R. Butcher
University of Utah, USA

Madlyn Runburg
Natural History Museum of Utah, USA

Roger Altizer
University of Utah, USA

ABSTRACT
Dino Lab is a serious game designed to explore the potential of using games in scientific domains to
support critical thinking. Through collaborations with educators and scientists at the Natural History
Museum of Utah (NHMU), game designers and learning scientists at the University of Utah, and Title I
middle school teachers and students, the authors have developed a beta version of Dino Lab that supports
critical thinking through engagement in a simulation-based game. Dino Lab is organized around four key
game stages that incorporate high-level goals, domain-specific rule algorithms that govern legal plays
and resulting outcomes, embedded reflection questions, and built-in motivational features. Initial play
testing has shown positive results, with students highly engaged in strategic game play. Overall, results
suggest that games that support critical thinking have strong potential as student-centered, authentic
activities that facilitate domain-based engagement and strategic analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Dino Lab represents a collaborative effort among educators and scientists at the Natural History Mu-
seum of Utah (NHMU), game designers from the Games and Apps Lab (GApp Lab) at the University
of Utah, a cognitive learning scientist from the University of Utah, and Title I middle school teachers
and students. Dino Lab is an educational, or serious, game that uses digital representations of actual
museum objects (i.e., dinosaur fossils) to facilitate engagement in and practice with a set of key cogni-
tive processes involved in critical thinking. This chapter describes how museum objects and paleontol-
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch006

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Dino Lab

ogy research, research on critical thinking processes, and principles of game design were synthesized
and balanced during the conceptualization, development, and refinement of Dino Lab. Using examples
from Dino Lab’s iterative development cycles, we discuss our findings about the potential boundaries
between educational and entertainment features in games for critical thinking. We also highlight key
challenges in creating educational games that target complex cognitive processes. Finally, we share a set
of principles for future development of educational games for critical thinking as informed by lessons
learned during this project.

BACKGROUND

Game Context

Dino Lab grew out of NHMU’s Advancing Critical Thinking (ACT) project, an on-going effort to iden-
tify opportunities for improving the critical thinking skills of K-12 students. Over the past two years,
NHMU’s ACT project has focused on ways in which its museum collections and research, combined
with advancements in 3D technologies and serious games, could be leveraged to support middle school
teachers and students as they work together to build the critical thinking skills needed in nearly every
area of their required curriculum. The program concept that resulted from this work is called Research
Quest. Research Quest is envisioned as a set of scientific, research-based investigations that follow a
standardized format in supporting authentic, student-centered and inquiry-based critical thinking in
multiple STEM domains.
Currently, a pilot Research Quest titled Mysteries of Cleveland Lloyd has been developed that uses
three major, inquiry-based components. These components can be implemented in quick succession or
spread out across several weeks when used in a classroom environment. The Dino Lab game is one of
the three Research Quest components. Like the other two components, Dino Lab can stand alone or be
used in conjunction with the other activities. Dino Lab is a simulation-based game that teaches students
to engage in critical thinking via evidence-based inquiry. Direct connections between Dino Lab’s fea-
tures and critical thinking skills are described in a later section of this chapter (see “Dino Lab Support
for Critical Thinking”). The purpose of the Dino Lab portion of Research Quest is to understand how,
when, and why certain physical features aid in a dinosaur’s survivability. By design, the complexity of
the Dino Lab game is represented as a rich matrix of feature combinations and survival outcomes where
the success or failure of most dinosaur “builds” can only be determined by multiple interactions among
selected features in combination. As described later in this chapter, consultation and think-alouds with
paleontologists informed the rules and interactions that determine success in Dino Lab.
In addition to Dino Lab, Research Quest: Mysteries of Cleveland Lloyd includes two additional in-
quiry activities that rely upon technology-supported access to museum objects (e.g., 3D virtual models
of scanned museum objects; in this case, dinosaur fossils) and authentic materials used by domain sci-
entists (e.g., the bone map of the quarry where the dinosaur fossils were found). First, students use 3D
models of known species to create evidence-based hypotheses about the identity of new “mystery fossils”
found in the quarry. Although the mystery fossils are unknown to students, they have been examined and
identified previously by NHMU scientists. Students work to identify the mystery fossils and compare

116

Dino Lab

their thinking to an NHMU paleontologist who models her analysis in a series of pre-recorded videos.
In the third and final activity, students use existing resources and previous findings about the dig site
(the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry) to create strong (evidence-based) hypotheses and arguments
about why so many dinosaur bones were found at that site. This type of mass bone bed is unusual and
puzzling, especially since the majority of bones at the site belonged to carnivorous dinosaurs. Scientists
do not yet agree what happened at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, but there are four leading
hypotheses. Students work to develop their own hypotheses and then compare them to the leading ideas
proposed by scientists.
Teachers may decide where they wish to implement the Dino Lab game within the Mysteries of
Cleveland Lloyd Research Quest. Dino Lab can be used as the first activity in this Research Quest. In
this case, understanding how a dinosaur’s bodily features interact to influence survival serves as foun-
dational knowledge upon which students can build during subsequent inquiry and critical thinking with
museum objects and paleontological resources during the other two activities in the Research Quest.
Dino Lab also can be used as the culminating activity in the Research Quest, giving students the chance
to use the critical thinking skills that they developed during the other two Research Quest activities to
form evidence-based hypotheses and to engage in focused testing in the Dino Lab game. In this case,
Dino Lab’s complexity and support for multiple play episodes allows students to independently and
repeatedly practice a complex, critical thinking activity where their evidence, hypotheses, and testing
can be compared to other students at multiple points in time.
It is important to note that although all three activities in the Mysteries of Cleveland Lloyd Research
Quest are designed to support critical thinking processes, the amount of data and the authenticity of
available data differs across the three activities. The non-game activities in the Research Quest provide
students with representations of real-world, authentic museum objects as their data. Thus, the data avail-
able to students during these activities are, by definition, incomplete and messy. In authentic science
practice, our evidence-based ideas and hypotheses often are limited by the quality and quantity of the
data that is available or that can be obtained within practical constraints (time, money, supplies, etc.).
In contrast, the Dino Lab game portion of the Research Quest was designed to provide critical thinking
practice in an environment where features interact in complex ways but where all evidence and data are
available for exploration, testing, and reflection. As such, Dino Lab is designed as a game that encourages
repeated exploration through multiple play episodes. There are multiple ways to “win” Dino Lab and
dinosaurs that may be optimal in one stage of play are not necessarily well-suited to other stages. Thus,
Dino Lab is, by definition, a game that seeks to provide students with practice in building and testing
models through repeated play. Playing Dino Lab multiple times allows students to seek new forms of
evidence to inform their existing ideas and theories about survivability, to reflect on outcomes when
different builds produce similar or discrepant results, and to gather as much data as needed or desired.
Dino Lab’s game features, data, and embedded support for reflection were designed to facilitate key
critical thinking processes – particularly those that were shown to occur infrequently during classroom
testing of pilot Research Quest activities. In order for Dino Lab to be successful, features that targeted
key critical thinking processes had to be incorporated into a digital environment that was both fun and
engaging for middle school students and recognized as educationally valuable by their teachers. In the
next section, we discuss how the research literature informed the critical thinking processes targeted by
Dino Lab.

117

Dino Lab

MAIN THRUST OF THE CHAPTER

Challenges in Supporting Critical Thinking Processes

What is critical thinking? Abrami et al. (2008) have asserted that critical thinking is “the ability to engage
in purposeful, self-regulatory judgement.” Niu, Behar-Horenstein, and Garvan (2013) defined critical
thinking as “intellectually engaged, skillful, and responsible thinking” that requires self-correction,
identification of assumptions, reflection, and the ability to challenge one’s own thinking. Ennis (1985)
proposed critical thinking to be “reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to
believe or do.” Halpern (1998) noted that the “term critical thinking refers to the use of those cognitive
skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome.” As one can see by the above
examples, critical thinking can be defined in multiple ways. However, existing definitions share a com-
mon focus on the depth of cognitive processing involved during problem-solving and decision-making as
well as the sufficiency of evidence used to arrive at an outcome, decision, or conclusion. Critical think-
ing occurs when individuals utilize deep thinking and meaningful strategies to arrive at well-supported
decisions or conclusions.
Critical thinking commonly is cited as a high-priority for 21st century learners (e.g., Partnership for
21st Century Skills, 2009), especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
domains. There long has been interest in defining the nature of critical thinking skills (Ennis, 1989,
1990; Kuhn, 1999; McPeck, 1990) and in training these skills in academic environments (Abrami et al.,
2008; Halpern, 1998; Keeley, Ali, & Gebing, 1998; McMillan, 1987). The adoption of recent Common
Core State Standards has renewed interest in instilling critical thinking skills in all learners (Kettler,
2014), with corresponding interest in examining when and how critical thinking can be supported in
instructional environments (Abrami et al., 2008; Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Niu et al., 2013). Available
evidence suggests that critical thinking skills do not show improvement with general education unless
specifically targeted by lessons or programs. Kettler (2014) assessed critical thinking skills among el-
ementary students, finding that fourth graders in gifted education programs outperformed fourth graders
in general education, but that differences in critical thinking skills were not associated with length of
time in a gifted education program nor with instruction in particular schools. These findings suggest
that critical thinking skills may be predicted by higher academic ability, but that even gifted education
programs may not spontaneously incorporate learning experiences that facilitate significant increases in
critical thinking skills. Accordingly, learning critical thinking skills likely requires experience in lessons
or programs designed specifically to achieve these outcomes.
There is widespread agreement that critical thinking can be difficult to measure, but analyses of
specific interventions and programs designed to improve critical thinking provide reason for optimism
(Abrami et al., 2008; Halpern, 2001; Niu et al., 2013). Positive results (Halpern, 2001) with small to
medium effect sizes generally have been found following critical thinking instruction (Abrami et al.,
2008; Niu et al., 2013). Observed effect sizes have been found to be higher in elementary and secondary
education than in undergraduate instruction (Abrami et al., 2008), although the reasons for this differ-
ence are unclear. It may be that elementary and secondary activities are more likely than undergraduate
courses to make clear and direct connections to critical thinking skills as learners engage in discipline-
specific work and practice.
Abrami et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis of critical thinking interventions found that a combination of
direct critical thinking instruction and content-based practice resulted in greater gains compared to im-

118

Dino Lab

mersion approaches that left connections to critical thinking implicit during a learning opportunity. For
example, Riesenmy, Mitchell, Hudgins, and Ebel (1991) trained elementary students to adopt four critical
thinking approaches (task definer, strategist, monitor, and challenger) as they engaged in discussion of
problem-based scenarios; trained students not only retained thinking skills at delayed posttest but scored
higher on transfer tasks compared to students who were not taught to adopt thinking roles. McCarthy-
Tucker (1998) examined the impact of teaching high school students formal logic rules, finding that
students who received direct instruction on formal logic performed better not only on a test of logical
reasoning but also on a more general test of thinking skills and ability compared to a control condition
and alternative treatment condition.
In contrast to the advantages of direct instruction identified by Abrami et al. (2008), Angeli and
Valanides (2009) found that undergraduates could learn critical thinking both by a domain-based (im-
mersion) practice approach and by a combination of domain-based practice with explicit instruction. In
a study with high school students, Marin and Halpern (2011) found that explicit instruction on critical
thinking skills improved students’ performance much more than embedded domain-based materials in
which critical thinking itself was not addressed (and left implicit). However, the need to include explicit
instruction in critical thinking within instructional experiences does not mean that critical thinking
skills must be taught in abstract ways, divorced from discipline content. Indeed, research has shown that
domain-based games, case studies, and practice are key teaching strategies for critical thinking (Staib,
2003). In a study with nursing students learning to deploy critical thinking skills during clinical practice,
high-quality simulations of clinical interactions were found to best facilitate learning and transfer of
specific critical thinking skills (Fero et al., 2010). Thus, students may need authentic, domain-specific
practice to develop robust critical thinking skills that can be applied during future opportunities.
Critical thinking includes domain-specific approaches to the ways in which ideas are formed and com-
municated. In science, students must learn the disciplinary practices that serve as grounds for arguments
and conclusions. In doing so, they come to understand the interplay between two key roles in scientific
practice: “constructor of claims” and “critiquer of claims” (Ford & Forman, 2006). Effective classroom
environments that foster productive scientific engagement have been found to encompass four core prin-
ciples relevant to critical thinking: students take on intellectual problems, students have the authority to
address such problems; students’ work is accountable to peer and disciplinary norms; and students have
access to sufficient resources (Engle & Conant, 2002). These “design principles” for effective science
classrooms were drawn from analysis of regularities occurring in the instructional implementations of
successful communities of learning (Engle & Conant, 2002). Thus, these principles form class-level
approaches to effective inquiry and scientific thinking. One can consider these principles to describe an
ideal context for inquiry in which critical thinking may occur. However, it also is important to consider
the individual cognitive processes necessary for learners to engage in science issues and practices.
Measuring meaningful cognitive processes that underlie critical thinking is an important way to
assess the impact of materials and activities intended to improve the critical thinking skills of student
learners. However, no single set of accepted cognitive processes have been identified as the foundation
for critical thinking. Some researchers have focused on critical thinking as a “disposition” in cognition,
particularly the ability to avoid predispositions that would trigger biased thinking (Heijltjes, van Gog, &
Paas, 2014). However, other researchers have examined more generalizable skills that operate in numer-
ous domains. Halpern (1998) argued that critical thinking skills can be organized into five categories
involved in generating and selecting alternatives and deciding among them: verbal reasoning, argument
analysis, hypothesis testing, likelihood and uncertainty, and decision-making/problem-solving. These

119

Dino Lab

categories are applicable to multiple domains, but are particularly relevant for science education where
students routinely must determine the degree to which data are sufficient to accept or reject hypotheses
and must communicate their arguments and reasoning to others. However, numerous cognitive processes
may be described by each of Halpern’s (1998) categories. For example, verbal reasoning could include
processes such as summarizing, inferencing, evaluating, etc. In order to identify specific processes for
analysis, it may be helpful to examine the cognitive processes that operate during domain-based learn-
ing and discourse.
Within science education, some studies have taken a broad view of scientific argumentation and
discourse in characterizing critical thinking processes within scientific domains (Herrenkohl & Marion,
1998; McNeill, 2011). McNeil (2011) focused on fifth grade students’ views of and skills in explanation,
argument, and evidence. In this study, skill in argumentation was broken down into argument structure,
accuracy, appropriateness, and sufficiency. Thus, critical thinking involved developing structured argu-
ments that could be evaluated and analyzed based upon scientific evidence. In another study of scientific
discourse among fourth graders, researchers examined three basic categories of critical thinking related
to working with hypotheses and data: predicting and theorizing, summarizing results, and relating predic-
tions, theories, and results (Herrenkohl & Marion, 1998). In this study, critical thinking relied heavily on
articulating connections between scientific ideas and the evidence formed by observed or known data.
In science, critical thinking is tied heavily to a reasoned understanding of the scientific process as a
method for making evidence-based conclusions. Research approaches to evaluating scientific argument
have used recent articulations of scientific practices as their foundation (c.f., NRC, 2000), including the
ability to form testable questions, to make predictions, to make observations, to gather and analyze avail-
able evidence, to consider alternatives, and to create evidence-based explanations (Zembal-Saul, 2009).
Although this approach undoubtedly describes the ways that scientists approach and resolve domain-based
questions, it does make it difficult to distinguish the scientific process and the cognitive processes that
may be underlying critical thinking as students work through the scientific process. At least one study of
middle schoolers’ discourse during scientific reasoning has tried a more general approach to character-
izing critical thinking during science (Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999). Hogan et al. used three major
categories to code the discourse patterns of eighth grade students who engaged in group discussion about
the nature of matter: conceptual statements, metacognitive statements, and questions-queries. Conceptual
statements included observations, ideas, conjectures, inferences, and assertions. Metacognitive state-
ments included evaluating one’s own or others’ ideas or reflecting on one’s own understanding (or lack
thereof). Questions-queries included direct requests for information as well as larger issues that could
be pondered but that did not have an immediate answer. Findings demonstrated that discourse in peer
groups was generative and exploratory, but teacher-guided discussions led to higher levels of reasoning
and higher quality explanations more quickly. Unfortunately, this work did not include an assessment
of critical thinking that would demonstrate the degree to which students’ general cognitive processing
during scientific discourse resulted in critical thinking gains.
Although the generalizability versus domain specificity of critical thinking skills has been subject to
debate (e.g., Ennis, 1989, 1990; Halpern, 1998; McPeck, 1990), critical thinking skills analyzed outside
of science domains offer the potential to identify generalizable cognitive processes involved in critical
thinking. In arts education, Luke, Stein, Foutz, and Adams (2007) developed a checklist of critical think-
ing skills in arts education; this checklist included nine critical thinking skills (seven of these skills are
shown in Table 1; Luke et al.’s checklist also included “strong evidence and weak evidence”). Critical
thinking skills in this checklist were identified through think aloud protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1980;

120

Dino Lab

Ericsson & Simon, 1993) conducted with individual students as they analyzed art, in addition to analysis
of students’ group conversations during art analysis. Interestingly, the component cognitive skills targeted
by their checklist are quite well-aligned with research on critical thinking during scientific discourse as
they included skills such as observing, interpreting, evaluating, comparing.
Although Luke et al.’s (2007) checklist originally was developed to analyze spoken art discourse, their
checklist also was used successfully by Bowen, Greene, and Kisida (2014) to analyze written analyses
of art by students (grades 3-12), with high reliability among raters (weighted Kappa = 0.84). In their
written data, students most often demonstrated observation (mean = 48.6%) and interpretation (mean
= 47.8%). Other processes of critical thinking occurred rarely during written art analysis, with flexible
thinking representing approximately two percent of student writing and the remaining processes occur-
ring less than one percent of the time.
Due to their previous use for discourse and written data, as well as their connections to past research
on critical thinking in science, seven of Luke et al.’s (2007) critical thinking codes were applied to

Table 1. Seven critical thinking (CT) skills examined in the current work and their connections to previ-
ously studied skills and concepts from the research literature on critical thinking

CT Skill Description Connections to Research Literature

Observing Naming, identifying, sense-based • Conceptual statements: Observations (Hogan et al., 1999)
descriptions • Make observations (Zembal-Saul, 2009)
• Observing (Luke et al., 2007)
Interpreting Interpreting use, case/effect, or making • Conceptual Statements: Inferences (Hogan et al., 1999)
inferences • Interpreting (Luke et al., 2007)
• Working with hypotheses and data (Herrenkohl & Marion, 1998)
Evaluating Evaluating or justifying a claim, • Argument (McNeil, 2011)
hypothesis, or idea. (Subdivided into • Create evidence-base explanations (Zembal-Saul, 2009)
evaluations with and without stated • Critiquer of claims (Ford & Forman, 2006)
evidence.) • Evaluating (Luke et al., 2011)
• Relating predictions, theories, and results (Herrenkohl & Marion, 1998)
• Student work accountable to others (Engle & Conant, 2002)
Connecting Making comparisons to materials, guides, • Associating the object/situation (Luke et al., 2007)
or information; or, making comparisons • Gather and analyze available evidence (Zembal-Saul, 2009)
or connections to known objects in the • Informational text (McNeil, 2011)
world. • Story (McNeil, 2011)
Problem Proposes a question, hypothesis, idea, or • Claim (McNeil, 2011)
Finding articulates the need for information and/ • Conceptual statements: Ideas and Assertions (Hogan et al., 1999)
or evidence. • Constructor of claims (Ford & Forman, 2006)
• Form testable questions (Zembal-Saul, 2009)
• Questions-Queries (Hogan et al., 1999)
• Predicting and theorizing (Herrenkohl & Marion, 1998)
• Problem finding (Luke et al., 2007)
• Students take on intellectual problems (Engle & Conant, 2002)
Comparing Compares multiple sources, objects, • Comparing what is similar or different (Luke et al., 2007)
or pieces of evidence. Notices patterns • Gather and analyze available evidence (Zembal-Saul, 2009)
among materials evidence. • Students have access to sufficient resources (Engle & Conant, 2002)
Flexible Remaining open to possibilities, • Consider alternatives (Zembal-Saul, 2009)
Thnking alternative explanations; incorporating • Flexible thinking (Luke et al., 2007)
the thinking of others into own thinking; • Questions-Queries (Hogan et al., 1999)
considers question from multiple
perspectives

121

Dino Lab

series of classroom transcripts collected during program evaluation data from two sixth-grade classes
working through the fossil identification and quarry analysis components of Research Quest: Mysteries
of Cleveland Lloyd. Table 1 shows the selected codes, their descriptions, and a list of prior skills and
concepts that are relevant to each code as drawn from the prior research literature on critical thinking
in science (Engle & Conant, 2002; Ford & Forman, 2006; Herrenkohl & Marion, 1998; Hogan et al.,
1999; McNeill, 2011; Zembal-Saul, 2009) and art (Luke et al., 2007).
The weak and strong evidence categories from Luke et al. initially were excluded from coding be-
cause students’ evidence-related utterances during the Research Quest occurred within the context of
evaluation. Consistent with Bowen et al.’s (2014) results, observations were the most frequent process
observed. However, unlike Bowen et al.’s results, students’ discourse during the Research Quest activities
showed frequent problem finding (articulating a question to answer or an issue to resolve), evaluation of
students’ own or others’ ideas, and connections to prior knowledge (see Figure 1).
Despite frequent utterances in which students evaluated hypotheses or claims made during discourse,
additional research showed that students often neglected to draw upon evidence in order to support their
ideas (see Figure 2), using data only about half the time when evaluating a hypothesis or idea. Thus, stu-
dents needed training in drawing and reflecting upon evidence in order to evaluate hypotheses. In addition,
students needed training and practice in making interpretations of data and in comparing known data/
outcomes during scientific discourse. The Dino Lab game was engineered to target these key, complex
processes underlying critical thinking. By targeting processes that occurred rarely during in-class criti-
cal thinking activities, the Dino Lab game is intended to train students in deploying an essential mix of
skills for critical thinking in science. Later in this chapter, we discuss how specific features of the Dino
Lab game target these theory-based processes of critical thinking (please see the section titled, “Dino
Lab Support for Critical Thinking”).

Figure 1. Percent of total utterances during the fossil identification and quarry analysis components of
the Mysteries of the Cleveland Lloyd Research Quest

122

Dino Lab

Figure 2. Percent of students’ evaluation-focused utterances that did and did not use evidence during
fossil identification and quarry analysis activities of the Research Quest

Dino Lab: A Game-Based Approach to Training Critical Thinking

Although the notion of using games as a tool for teaching is not new (e.g., Squire, 2011; Steinkuehler,
2010), Dino Lab still feels novel as there has yet to be a widely adopted game to help teach critical
thinking per se. Unlike traditional approaches to teaching critical thinking, a game-based approach to
critical thinking means that the critical thinking is an inherent part of game strategy leading to success-
ful performance rather than a particular set of thinking skills that are externally defined for the student.
Moreover, a game-based approach to critical thinking is meant to be fun and to provide immediate, vis-
ible outcomes at varied stages of play. This is in direct contrast to “games” that are more closely aligned
to instructional tasks. For example, Glassner and Schwarz (2007) noted that they taught participants to
play a “game” that consisted of identifying all the flaws in a scenario-based argument. However, this
type of game lacks a coherent narrative across “play,” does not utilize feedback loops, and does not al-
low users to develop their own goals and approaches to the situation. In the research literature on games,
individuals long have argued that inherent features of true games – including their interactive nature,
feedback loops, narrative form, and user-driven structure – support the development of critical think-
ing and complex learning (Baird & Silvern, 1990; Frasca, 2001; Gee, 2003). In his influential thesis
on video games, Frasca (2001) noted that because simulations create narrative models through a set of
underlying rules, videogames have strong potential to facilitate critical thinking and discussion about
personal and social experiences. Indeed, experimental research has found that game-based courses can
increase students’ intrinsic motivation to learn (Hess & Gunter, 2013) and that students playing serious
games in schools show high levels of motivation and engagement, regardless of their level of achieve-
ment (Bottino, Ott, Tavella, 2014).

123

Dino Lab

The belief that students’ work with interactive game elements teach critical thinking indirectly via
deconstruction and discussion of game alternatives (without specific prompting or support for such
processing) falls squarely within an “embedded” or “immersive” approach to critical thinking instruc-
tion. As noted earlier, immersive experiences have been found to be less effective for teaching critical
thinking than instructional experiences that target critical thinking through direct instruction (Abrami et
al., 2008; Heijltjes et al., 2014; Marin & Halpern, 2011) or focused prompts to encourage reflection and
metacognition (Helsdingen, van Gog, & van Merriënboer, 2011). With this in mind, Dino Lab strives
to target critical thinking not only through embedded practice during play episodes, but also through
iterative metacognitive reflection between game stages.
At its heart, Dino Lab is a game that immerses students in the realia of paleontology and rewards
them for discovering the “rules” that express what paleontologists know about how the bodily features
of animals impact their potential survival. These rules are drawn from study and analysis of the fossil
record, analysis of modern animal biology and behaviors, and study of other relevant topics such as
natural disasters, anatomy, and biology. During play, all of the data necessary to infer the “rules” are
available, but students are not told what it means or how they can generate and test hypotheses. Instead,
students are motivated to form hypotheses and test their ideas through the game context and consequences
of their actions at each stage. The narrative of the game has the player taking on the role of a scientist
who attempts to assemble fossils in a 3D simulator. Although the completeness of the skeletons and the
excellent condition of the bones is not particularly authentic to natural digs, the component fossils in
Dino Lab are based upon actual NHMU objects taken from the Cleveland Lloyd quarry and the Dino
Lab rules (governing success or failure) are drawn from expert knowledge of NHMU paleontologists.
In an effort to control costs, the majority of educational games are 2D but there is increasing recog-
nition that 3D games offer more realism and align with students’ expectations of a high quality games
(Torrente, Mera, Moreno-Ger, & Fernández-Manjón, 2009). In an effort to maximize student engage-
ment and the visual appeal of Dino Lab, the decision was made to use 3D simulation for assembling
skeletons. A 3D view during simulation is intrinsically appealing to players and also may connect to the
prior experiences of players who have seen assembled skeletons during museum trips or in mass media
(e.g., television or movies). Although 3D game approaches can be prohibitively expensive to develop
for education, contributions from faculty and students in the Entertainment Arts and Engineering Pro-
gram at the University of Utah facilitated reasonable production costs since development efforts served
as learning and research experiences for the development team. Figure 3 shows an overview of the 3D
simulation environment in stage one of Dino Lab. In the first image (Figure 3a), the player has selected
a head, torso, arms, and legs for the dinosaur but has not yet selected a tail to complete the “build.” Data
values for the overall dinosaur appear in the “Total” row of the dinosaur “stats” that appear at the bot-
tom of the screen. These stats provide general ratings for the dinosaur in seven major areas: the number
of calories that will be needed, decorative and display features, defensive features, overall strength,
overall weight, rate of digestion, and overall speed. The stats also indicate the type of diet indicated for
the particular build (carnivore vs. herbivore) and stance (bipedal vs. quadrupedal). Data values update
dynamically as features are added or changed. As seen from Figure 3a to 3b, adding the tail has changed
the overall strength and weight ratings from “medium” to “high.” Hovering the mouse over a specific
feature of the dinosaur shows the stats for that particular part compared to the overall dinosaur stats (in
Figure 3b, the mouse is placed over the dinosaur tail).

124

Dino Lab

Figure 3. An overview of the Dino Lab 3D assembly environment

The Design Box Process

Dino Lab development utilized an ideation process called “Design Box,” which draws upon iterative
rounds of ideation, design, and pitching (Altizer & Zagal, 2014). Unlike a traditional “pitch” in which
the game approach is created by the developers, presented to clients, and the outcome is either success or
failure, Design Box is a collaborative process in which multiple voices can contribute to design thinking
and iterative development of ideas. Participatory design not only incorporates notions of social justice
(involving the end user in the design of the game that they will play), it also provides rich qualitative
data with which the formal designers can work. Thus, Design Box is an ideal approach for project like
Dino Lab, where multiple stakeholders need to have a voice in the development of a game approach and
its design concept. Design Box also ensures that game approaches are based upon design-based thinking
and not “off-the-cuff” ideas from developers without input from clients. Beginning developers typically
do not intrinsically understand the importance of the client-developer relationship in pitching the idea for
a project (Schell, 2008). Design box ensures a more collaborative and iterative approach to development,
as appropriate for modern agile programming methods (Altizer & Zagal, 2014). The hallmark features
of Design Box rely upon collaborative design sessions where ideas are not filtered and multiple voices
contribute different ideas that draw and build upon each other.
The Design Box follows some of the common best practices of brainstorming (Wilson, 2006). There
are no bad ideas; all ideas are documented for further work. After an idea has been presented, Design
Box participants build upon it by using the “Yes, and…” method employed in improvisational acting.
Improvisational acting has been identified previously as a key process for facilitating teamwork and
collaborative building in creative, playful ways (Pausch & Marinelli, 2007). When an idea is put on
the board, the team agrees with it and adds more details (“Yes, and…”) until it is exhausted (no more
details can be generated) and it is time to move on to another idea. This approach requires individuals to
think creatively and more carefully about ideas that they might not find intuitively appealing, frequently
leading to new perspectives and novel approaches.
In addition to brainstorming, Design Box draws upon grounded theory, a qualitative research method
used to create rich descriptions of a phenomena or culture and to create a theory that explains these
descriptions (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, 2011). The Design Box

125

Dino Lab

draws cues from this research method by asking groups to describe themselves and others using key
words. Their answers to questions about audience (i.e., who are the stakeholders and the end users?),
technology (i.e., will it be on a computer or tablet? Will sound be available? Will it be on headphones
or speakers?), aesthetics (i.e., what should the game look like? What should the student feel when they
play this? Are there examples of what you think this should look like?), and problem statement (i.e., if
this game were to do one thing, what would it be?) are written on a board in a manner that is consistent
with qualitative coding. Rather than watching a focus group from behind glass and writing notes about
what the participants say, the focus group itself summarizes and confirms its own thoughts as part of
the Design Box process. The participants, in a sense, are helping to code the data (by documenting their
thoughts and opinions as they work). The ideas, or pitches, generated by the group are constrained by
their thoughts on audience, technology, aesthetics, and the problem statement. Pitching ideas is an act
of synthesizing the notes the team creates.
The “box” in the Design Box comes from the visual representation that is used to help participants
think about four constructs during design: Audience, Technology, Problem Statement, and Aesthetics.
Design Box participants are gathered in a single location and a box is drawn on a collaborative work-
space (e.g., a whiteboard); each of the Design Box constructs is depicted as a wall of a box. Participants
talk about all four “walls,” with the moderator writing notes outside of the box on the appropriate wall.
Figure 4 shows an example of this representation from a Design Box session for Dino Lab.
Once participants have brainstormed all their ideas related to audience, technology, problem statement,
and aesthetics (and the moderator has documented all ideas around the box), it is time to pitch ideas. At
this point in time, an additional rule comes into play: all ideas must ‘fit’ inside of the box. That is, the
pitches must make sense in light of all the notes surrounding the walls of the box. By documenting the
complex and interacting considerations that should be included in a “pitch,” the Design Box approach
encourages synthesis and focus from the beginning of game conceptualization. In the case of Dino Lab,

Figure 4. Design Box documentation from a session with middle school teachers during Dino Lab de-
velopment

126

Dino Lab

Design Box sessions held with students and teachers resulted in a series of game conceptualizations that
were refined via consultation with domain experts (paleontologists) and experts in learning (museum
educators and a cognitive learning scientist). Starting with students’ and teachers’ Design Box pitches
ensured that the game started as a fun, engaging, and appealing game for middle school students that
teachers would welcome in their classrooms. Subsequent (iterative) revisions based upon expert feedback
ensured that the game also would be accurate and effective as a tool for critical thinking.

Iterative Refinement of Dino Lab

Following Design Box sessions with students and teachers, developers engaged in in-depth consultations
with paleontologists at NHMU. Developers traveled to the museum and toured collections of museum
objects with NHMU paleontologists, who modeled their knowledge and thinking about dinosaur fossils
and explained the body mechanics of complete skeletons. These discussions focused developers on the
scope of the domain content that would be covered in the game and served as the basis for Dino Lab’s
game algorithms. Paleontologist contributions informed decisions about the number and type of game
stages that would be needed since these experts analyzed dinosaur body construction from four perspec-
tives: structural stability; diet, combat, and reproduction. Features that may provide a survival advantage
in one stage may be disadvantageous in another (e.g., large display features on a dinosaur head that are
useful to attract a mate may make it more difficult to achieve structural stability due to their weight).
Although the NHMU paleontologists were highly motivated, it sometimes was difficult for them to
imagine how their content expertise might be incorporated into game features. However, these experts
became an increasingly critical part of iterative development cycles as prototype versions were produced
and paleontologists could share a “vision” of the game and how game features could draw upon domain
knowledge and help players “think like paleontologists.”
NHMU paleontologists engaged in an initial experience with a low-fidelity, paper-prototype version
of Dino Lab; working with the paper prototype allowed them to envision the interactive environment of
the Dino Lab game and to examine their own thinking patterns and processes as they followed the flow
of play in Dino Lab. Paleontologists’ feedback and modeling served as foundation of developing Dino
Lab’s game algorithms. For example, the paleontologists might examine a skull and note that it was very
heavy, meaning that the dinosaur may have been quadrupedal or a bipedal dinosaur with a heavy tail to
help it remain upright and balanced on two legs. This led to separate algorithms for quadrupedal and
bipedal dinosaurs with regard to the head and tail weight ratios needed for structural integrity. Expert
consultation and modeling also informed the data “values” that were assigned to each component of the
dinosaur as input into the game algorithms (Figure 3b depicts data values for the selected tail and the
overall dinosaur). Once all algorithms were developed, paleontologist provided detailed, iterative review
of the “rules” that governed success and failure states in Dino Lab in order to ensure scientific accuracy.
The cognitive learning scientist was involved early and late in the design process. Initial consultations
with the learning scientist were used to identify key processes of critical thinking that could be targeted
by the game within the approaches and constraints set by the students, teachers, and paleontologists.
Since the Dino Lab game was being developed as part of the Mysteries of Cleveland Lloyd Research
Quest, data from the pilot testing of the other Research Quest activities were used to focus game de-
velopment on processes that were not spontaneously deployed during classroom sessions. Specifically,
interpretation, evidence-based evaluation, comparison, and flexible thinking (see Figure 1). In this way,

127

Dino Lab

the Dino Lab targeted specific gaps in critical thinking that were not yet being facilitated by the other
Research Quest activities.
The learning scientist explained the processes of critical thinking and focused the team on brainstorm-
ing ways that the Dino Lab features could be used to target critical thinking processes. The learning
scientist also noted that (as discussed earlier in this chapter) the research literature suggested that com-
plete immersion (play in the domain without support for reflective thinking) was not especially likely to
support effective and transferrable critical thinking outcomes. Therefore, the learning scientist and the
development team determined that the final activity of each game stage would be a series of reflective
prompts that focused students on interpretation of evidence and the generation/analysis of a hypothesis
about why their dinosaur succeeded or failed at that stage (see Figure 5). In this way, the game was de-
signed to include specific metacognitive prompts that spurred deeper thinking about evidence as related
to outcomes and students’ ideas. Game developers determined that motivation for reflection questions
should be ensured via rewards; although incorrect responses would not be punished, correct responses
would unlock additional game pieces (in this case, additional fossil options) for use in subsequent stages
of the game.
Late during beta design, the development team returned to the paleontologist, museum educators,
and the learning scientist in order to solicit feedback on the content of reflection questions for each game
stage. A series of reflection questions targeting each underlying game algorithm were written through
collaborative editing by a paleontologist, the learning scientist, and the museum educator.

Figure 5. A sample reflection question posed after a dinosaur fails stage 1 (body plan)

128

Dino Lab

Dino Lab: Key Features

Dino Lab was designed in the vein of simulation toys. Rather than controlling a character on screen, the
player interacts with the game as a scientist to design and simulate the efficacy of dinosaurs (see Fig-
ures 3a and 3b). We argue that this choice has practical and theoretical value to the player as a learner.
From a practical standpoint, there is no player character and the player interacts with the game as his/
her embodied-self. Because the embodied self is not seen as a visible player on the screen, Dino Lab
does not need to support a large number of custom avatars during play. Creating a system that is robust
enough to allow a student to create ‘themselves’ as a custom 3D avatar in a game is out of the reach of
all but the most expensive games (often noted by the classification term “AAA” to denote games with
the highest professional budgets).
Custom avatars require multiple characters with multiple assets each. For example, a basic selection
for body sizes may require three character models; when considering both males and female characters,
that number must then expand to six. Add in hairstyles, clothes, skin tone, accessories, etc., and pro-
gramming demands increase exponentially. The commercial games industry has used the cost associated
with creating additional characters as a rationale for not including gender diversity in games (Sharwood,
2014). While we acknowledge the significant challenges associated with programming costs, we argue
that there are ways to be widely inclusive other than having to create multiple characters. It is our con-
tention that creating a character and basing a story around them runs the risk of excluding students who
either cannot relate to or do not feel represented by the available characters. In order to mitigate the risk
of creating character options who do not look, sound, or feel like the player, we avoid using a player
avatar. Instead, the user plays as himself or herself in the game. That is, the user is the character. In Dino
Lab, the player is the scientist on screen, much as the player is the surgeon in the familiar family game
Operation (marketed by Hasbro®).
From a theoretical standpoint, we posit that there are learning advantages for the player being the par-
ticipant in a serious game as opposed to a controlling an external character. When controlling a character,
or even an avatar representing the player, the player may opt to play the role of the on-screen character
in a way that is divorced from his/her own ideas or thinking. That is, the player may focus on what s/he
thinks that the character would do rather than considering his/her own thinking and beliefs. Dino Lab
seeks to give the player direct experience in critical thinking via their participation in the simulation.
For an educational game in which the players’ own thinking and reflection is critical, we believe that
non-character games may offer an advantage for student learning outcomes. However, we do not yet have
direct data to support this claim and we pose this possibility as an intriguing direction for future work.

Dino Lab: Use Case

In order to understand user engagement and interactions in Dino Lab, it is helpful to consider a use case
that describes how learners might work through the beginning levels of Dino Lab. Imagine Mateo, who
has headed to the computer lab with his 6th grade class to play Dino Lab. Mateo partners with another
student, Anh, to complete Dino Lab. Together, they open the link that was provided by their teacher and
read general instructions about the Dino Lab game. They see that they are going to figure out how and
why different dinosaurs survive based on their physical features. Mateo and Ahn log into the game. They
read that they will work through four stages: body plan, diet, combat, and reproduction. They continue
on and see that their first goal is create a dinosaur that can stand up (see Figure 7). With this in mind,

129

Dino Lab

they click “Start” to begin the game. Mateo and Ahn begin building their dinosaur by selecting choosing
a category (e.g., “Head”) and dragging their selected bone into the dinosaur that they are building (see
Figure 3). Once a head is selected, the pair moves on to select arms, legs, and a tail. Ahn is particularly
concerned with making a dinosaur that looks really ferocious – she wants their dinosaur to be the scari-
est dinosaur roaming the planet! At first, Mateo thinks this is a brilliant idea and they launch into a
spirited discussion of which head is the scariest. But Mateo notices that there are values at the bottom
of the screen. He wonders aloud what they mean. Ahn grabs the mouse to hover over the stats, notic-
ing that the dinosaur changes color as she does so. Ahn and Mateo see that the colors on each dinosaur
bone correspond to the ratings in each category. They note that they have built a bipedal dinosaur, but
hovering over the weight category shows that they have a heavy head and heavy torso combined with a
lightweight tail. Ahn and Mateo discuss whether this is a problem, ultimately deciding that their dinosaur
(which they have named “Fido”) will fall over (face first) if his head is heavier than his tail. Ahn and
Mateo decide to balance the heavy head with a heavy tail, with the hopes that Fido then will be able to
balance more easily on two legs. Once they are done, they click “Test” and see that Fido breaks apart
on the screen! He wasn’t able to stand up! (Poor Fido!) Ahn and Mateo see a question pop up that asks
them why their dinosaur failed. First, it asks them about the strength of their hind limbs compared to
the body. They realize that they had failed to consider Fido’s weight in relation to the strength of Fido’s
rear legs. Ahn and Mateo select their answer, “The hind limbs were not strong enough to hold its body
weight.” The game immediately provides feedback, telling them that this was the correct answer. They

Figure 6. At the end of a Dino Lab session, the student can select one of their dinosaur builds to save
as an image. Technology is being explored to enable 3D printing at this stage

130

Dino Lab

answer two more reflection questions, getting one right. They earn a silver dinosaur for getting two of
three questions correct! They are excited about unlocking new pieces. Moving on, they see the next stage
is about diet: they need to build a dinosaur that can eat enough to survive. As they begin the stage, Ahn
and Mateo discuss how Fido might be redesigned to better survive this stage. Ahn reasons that a bigger
dinosaur will need to eat much more, so she suggests that they should decrease the size of Fido’s head
and torso. Mateo isn’t sure. He notes that a larger head will be able to take bigger bites, so he argues that
Fido needs a big head and a small torso. Ahn points out that the stats on the smaller torsos show lower
“digestion,” which might mean that Fido will digest fewer calories. As they discuss their options, they
drag in different bones and discuss changes to the stats display. Once they have a final design that they
like, they will “test” Fido’s success in the diet stage!

Emerging Narrative in Dino Lab

The fiction of Dino Lab is shared through visual themes and tasks in the game. Through its simulation
focus, Dino Lab intends that the student’s imagination will provide an emergent narrative that increases
engagement. An emergent narrative is one that is not authored by a developer who has created plot points;
instead, an emerging narrative is created and embellished by the player themselves as they make sense
of and understand a game (Louchart & Aylett, 2004). A directed opportunity for emergent narrative
comes in the form of a game with rules that can play out in different ways, depending upon the player’s
choices, actions, and motivations. For example, Monopoly (Darrow & Magie, 1934) has an emerging
narrative as players buy and trade real estate in an attempt to win the game. Nobody believes they are the
wheelbarrow or top hat while playing the game, and the player has no external cue as to their motivation

Figure 7. Introductory screen for Stage 1: Body Plan. Dino Lab provides minimal guidance to ensure
student-driven inquiry during critical thinking

131

Dino Lab

for becoming a real estate magnate. However, because the themes exist in the real world (people buy and
sell real estate), the player can play the game and create their own motivations – these can range from
wanting to beat an opposing player, to living out a fantasy they create.
Dino Lab functions in much the same way. While there is no explicit narrative, the player controls a
simulator that allows them to create original dinosaurs from fossils and test their potential for survival
in the “real” world. The game world is themed heavily in science and technology and the interface is
designed to look like a dinosaur creation lab (see Figures 3a and 3b). Although this is not a realistic
scenario in that it does not reflect authentic lab environments or activities, the Dino Lab scenario invites
self-directed motivation, imagination, and creativity. The player determines why they are playing, the
fiction of acting as a scientist in the game, and the opportunity to engage in creative exploration across
multiple, playful sessions. As discussed later, the motivation to play multiple sessions is key to facilitat-
ing critical thinking about the game stages.
A unique aspect of Dino Lab is a feature that helps the emerging narrative extend beyond the time
that Dino Lab is played onscreen. Dino Lab allows players not only to feel like they own their dinosaur
via customization, they also are allowed to take their creation outside of the game. Currently, once a
player completes the game, they see a screen showing a posed version of the dinosaur that they created
at each stage of play (see Figure 6). They are able to choose a dinosaur to save, emailing or printing
the image of their selected dinosaur. Allowing students to keep a copy of their custom creation serves
as a motivating factor for repeated play sessions and also encourages comparison of dinosaur features
across sessions of play. Saving custom dinosaurs also may encourage data documentation and analysis
outside of the game environment. That is, to fully understand the game, students should document di-
nosaur outcomes and associated data values across play episodes. By providing representations of the
custom dinosaurs that live outside the game, we hope to encourage students to come up with their own
data representations and to engage in critical thinking opportunities outside of the game itself. Because
observation and analysis of fossils inherently is a hands-on process in authentic environments, we also
are exploring technology and a pipeline that will allow us to export the 3D model of the player’s dinosaur
and create a physical 3D print of the creature.

DINO LAB SUPPORT FOR CRITICAL THINKING

In this section, we explain how the features of Dino Lab support key processes involved in students’
critical thinking. Because these key processes are common to critical thinking processes studied in mul-
tiple domains (including arts education, science education, and logic; see Table 1), we see these skills
as having high relevance and potential generalizability to critical thinking in other domains.

Problem Finding

Problem finding refers to the processes of identifying and/or articulating a hypothesis or proposing a
question to answer during a critical thinking task. During critical thinking in science, problem finding
often serves as the basis for gathering and evaluating evidence. Problem finding can organize student
thinking and discourse around general issues that need to be solved and/or possible rules/hypothesis
that must be evaluated. In Dino Lab, problem finding is supported by separating game play into four
stages that are intended to influence the perspective from which hypotheses are made and evidence is

132

Dino Lab

considered. In each stage of play, students should consider how the available features of their dinosaur
may need to change and how the strength or weaknesses of each feature depends upon the goals and
context determined by the stage of play.
The four stages of Dino Lab are key areas of study and questioning for scientists who study life forms
in all time periods (ranging from modern to ancient times). Dino Lab stages thus give students authentic
practice in analyzing features in essential areas of adaptation. Stage 1 is “Body Plan.” In this stage, the
selected dinosaur features are evaluated to determine if (in combination) they would result in a stable
body plan that is structurally sound. Stage 2 is “Diet.” In this stage, the selected dinosaur features are
evaluated to determine if (in combination) they would result in the dinosaur being able to eat and digest a
sufficient number of calories to sustain its body. Stage 3 is “Combat.” In this stage, the selected dinosaur
features are evaluated to determine if (in combination) they would result in the dinosaur being able to
defend itself against predators and (if it is a carnivore) to take down its prey during combat. Stage 4 is
“Reproduction.” In this stage, the selected dinosaur features are evaluated to determine if (in combina-
tion) they result in a dinosaur that is likely to attract a mate and/or survive long enough to reproduce.
The stages of Dino Lab serve to organize and prompt student problem finding in a flexible and varied
way across game play. Students must reconsider the data from multiple perspectives across a single game.
Supporting problem finding via stages also means that students will need to reconsider their analysis of
specific features depending upon the stage of the game, helping students recognize that the outcomes of
data evaluation are influenced by the frame of the problem being analyzed. For example, a very large
dinosaur may have trouble finding enough calories to sustain its huge body frame. Thus, size may be a
disadvantage in the diet stage. However, a very large dinosaur will have a limited number of predators
to which it is vulnerable, making it more likely that it will survive long enough to reproduce. So, size
could be an advantage in the reproduction stage of play.
As students play Dino Lab, they are prompted to attend to the nature of each stage as they enter it.
An introductory screen announces each stage before students begin its build and provides a hint to focus
students on making hypotheses and attending to data from the stage perspective (see Figure 7). During
the actual building phase, the stage appears at the top of the screen to keep students oriented to the cur-
rent stage of play (see Figure 8).

Observation and Interpretation

During each stage of play, a series of algorithms are used to determine the outcome of the student’s build
in relation to the current stage. As noted earlier, each dinosaur feature is assigned a set of values that
correspond to important considerations (weight, strength, defense, display, and calories) along with any
specialized information or value associated with a particular feature. For example, the head determines
whether the dinosaur will be an herbivore or a carnivore, so this information is included as a value in
the information available about each head that is available for the build. Similarly, the size and shape of
the arms selected determine whether the dinosaur will be bipedal or quadrupedal. Thus, this information
is displayed when arm selections are evaluated. Legs receive an additional entry for speed, tails receive
an additional value for balance, and the torso receives an additional value for digestion. Hovering over
a part in the build or in the build options (on the left side of the screen) will display the stats for that
option (see Figure 3b).
The set of values associated with a particular dinosaur feature (e.g., a tail) facilitate evaluation of the
feature at the local level. For example, when a student is ready to choose a tail, we expect that students

133

Dino Lab

Figure 8. Hovering over an overall value in the dinosaur stats provides a visual representation of how
the features play into the overall rating. Darker colors show features with higher ratings

first will examine the look of each tail. We also hope that students will consider whether the data values
(e.g., its ratings for strength, weight, and combat) for a particular tail warrant its selection. As they add
features to their build, they should observe and interpret the impact of specific features on the overall
dinosaur data.
Overall dinosaur data are meant to facilitate global evaluation, where students consider the impact
of specific features on their build and attempt to optimize their overall dinosaur’s ratings as appropriate
for the particular stage of play. Students can replace features as many times as they like and for as long
as they like until they click the “test” button for the stage. This provides many opportunities for students
to gather data by observing the changes that different features (with associated local data) make on
the overall dinosaur (and its global data). Students also can examine how each feature of the dinosaur
contributes to its overall values. When students hover their cursor over a data value at the bottom of the
screen, Dino Lab uses color coding to display a visual representation of how each feature plays into the
overall rating. As seen in Figure 8, the player is hovering over the “Strength” value in the total stats. In
the build, the head/neck, legs, and tail are dark orange – this indicates high strength. The torso is a me-
dium orange, indicating moderate strength. The arms are yellow, indicating low strength. Thus, players
can examine how overall data for their dinosaurs are broken down into component features.
After each stage of play, Dino Lab presents a series of reflection prompts to help the player evalu-
ate the rationale for the outcome of the stage (see Figure 5). Previous research has found that reflective
questions following trial practice can facilitate the transfer of critical thinking skills (Helsdingen et al.,
2011). A key assumption of post-task reflection is that there are sufficient cognitive resources to devote
to metacognitive analysis following a critical thinking trial that are not available as students work through
a specific application (Helsdingen et al., 2011). For each reflection prompt, Dino Lab presents a series
of three options that describe different potential reasons why the dinosaur may have passed or failed the

134

Dino Lab

stage; the correct option provides an accurate rationale for why the dinosaur was successful or unsuc-
cessful (e.g., the head was too heavy compared to the weight of the tail). Incorrect options are written
to reflect reasonable (but incorrect) ideas that require thoughtful analysis and critical consideration in
order to be rejected; for example, the arm weight is equal to the leg weight (for a bipedal dinosaur).
Questions are designed to be difficult in order to trigger thoughtful analysis.

Evidence-Based Evaluation

Dino Lab’s critical stages of adaptation analysis (body plan, diet, combat, and reproduction) set the stage
for students to engage in evidence-based evaluation about outcomes at each stage of play. When a student
tests the dinosaur that they have built for a stage, the dinosaur either succeeds (remains intact and spins)
or fails (breaks apart into a pile of bones). At this point, students should form an initial hypothesis about
why the dinosaur build passed or failed the stage. As noted earlier, reflection questions are presented
following each stage to facilitate explicit analysis and interpretation of the outcome. However, it is im-
portant to facilitate evidence-based evaluation by making the data values of the build available during
reflection. Without such data, student reflection would be limited to hypotheses or ideas based upon
what they could recall about the data that had been associated with features that they selected, without
the opportunity to confirm or reject their initial ideas.
In order to facilitate evidence-based evaluation of hypotheses, the Dino Lab interface is designed to
provide students with opportunities to re-examine and re-analyze data from their build(s) during reflection.
When a reflection question is being asked, the Dino Lab interface displays the global data values for the
overall dinosaur at the bottom of the page (see Figure 5). In addition, learners can re-examine the data
for each specific feature in the dinosaur build by clicking a feature at the left to see its individual values
in relation to the overall dinosaur values. For example, in order to evaluate the potential accuracy of the
response choice “It is very heavy and its legs needed to be stronger) for the current reflection prompt
(“Your dinosaur failed because ….”), the student can click “Legs” in order to examine the strength of
the legs that she selected in relation to the overall weight of her dinosaur. Making data values available
for exploration and analysis during reflection is key to supporting evidence-based evaluation of students’
hypotheses, with the hope that students will consider multiple hypotheses (consistent with answer op-
tions for each reflection prompt) and use the available data to determine the most accurate and likely
rationale for each dinosaur’s outcome.

Comparisons

Comparisons are central to critical thinking, since they serve as the foundation for forming good hypoth-
eses that can be evaluated based upon existing evidence. Dino Lab encourages comparisons via features
design to encourage multiple play episodes and within-session analysis across stages.
As noted earlier, Dino Lab’s design lends itself to multiple play episodes. Learners can only test one
dinosaur per stage but many combinations of features and many unique, never-before-seen dinosaurs
are possible at each stage. This naturally encourages repeated play to try out new ideas and to test the
limits of hypothesized rules. (E.g., can head weight be lower than tail weight or must it be balanced?)
Students also may become more successful with reflection questions as they progress in the game (and
get used to working with available data to draw evidence-based conclusions), motivating repeated play so
that new pieces are unlocked earlier in the game. Repeated play facilitates comparison across dinosaurs

135

Dino Lab

within a stage. Over time, students can form hypotheses about which feature combinations are optimal
for a stage, why these combinations are successful, and what combinations of features should result in
failure within a stage of play.
Dino Lab also facilitates comparisons within a single episode of play through its use of successive
stages. Comparison across stages is encouraged by how Dino Lab handles successful builds at each
stage. Dinosaurs that are successful at one stage remain standing and enter the next stage of play as a
full build. At this point, students may choose to test the same dinosaur in the new stage or to change the
dinosaur in some way (hopefully, attempting to optimize features for the new stage). When a build has
been successful at one stage, students naturally must engage in processes of comparison to ask whether
the existing dinosaur also will succeed in the new stage. Over time, students are expected to form hy-
potheses about the needs of each stage and how these needs change the optimal data values for different
features. Instead of available bones being “good” or “bad” for building a dinosaur, they take on a more
nuanced identity as more or less optimal depending upon the stage being played and the other features
that are selected.

Flexible Thinking

Flexible thinking refers to the need to consider multiple possibilities and to keep multiple hypotheses
active until sufficient evidence can be gathered to eliminate specific ideas. Dino Lab supports flexible
thinking via an underlying design that makes use of domain-based rules for each stage of analyzing ad-
aptations. Rules underlying Dino Lab game play are expressed as “if-then” functions that allow multiple
successful builds. For example, if it is a bipedal dinosaur, then it must have leg strength > total weight
average. However, each stage is governed by multiple such rules and the reflection prompts address
multiple rules per stage. Thus, students who (accurately) derive a single rule must recognize that there
may be multiple reasons for success or failure. From a practical perspective, generalized rules also al-
low “expansion packs” of features to increase complexity and the number of potential builds available
for analysis.
Multiple play episodes also encourage flexible thinking, as students initially may form very concrete
ideas about their builds that must be abstracted for critical thinking. For example, a number of students in
early beta testing reported trying to create a build that looked like a “dog dinosaur.” This mainly involved
creating a quadrupedal dinosaur with a large head and sharp teeth; given that this build had a very stable
stance, it always passed stage 1 (despite a relatively large head). Whereas students may initially note that
the “dog dinosaur” was good for body plan, repeated builds of other dinosaurs that also are successful
(including many forms of bipedal dinosaurs) necessitates more abstract thinking about what successful
builds have in common. As students move from concrete to abstract ideas, they must consider multiple,
high-level rules that can describe the outcomes that they have observed for specific builds. In this way,
Dino Lab not only encourages flexible thinking overall, but also facilitates thinking about individual
cases as related to generalized principles. Making connections between concrete examples and abstract
principles previously has been shown to be a key process in the development of generalized thinking
skills (Schworm & Renkl, 2007). Thus, multiple play episodes may support the development of more
generalizable skill sets.
It should be noted that additional testing is needed to determine the extent to which students are
effective in thinking across multiple play episodes in Dino Lab. It may be the case that students need
additional support or scaffolds in tracking and recording data over time, across multiple play sessions.

136

Dino Lab

Additional play testing and future research will be used to determine what, when, and how students
should be supported in thinking effectively across multiple sessions.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Dino Lab (Version 2.0) was test played with 33 middle-school students from urban schools in a large
Midwestern city. All students participated as part of voluntary after-school programs. Participants worked
with a partner at a single computer to play Dino Lab; following the play session, individual students
completed a set of open-ended and multiple-select survey questions. Play sessions were observed by a
team of designers and a museum educator.
Overall, observers noted that students were highly engaged with the game during the play sessions.
In post-play surveys, all students reported that they enjoyed creating dinosaurs and customizing their
builds. One student specifically noted their use of emerging narrative during play, writing that “I liked
that I could imagine the life of my dinosaur as I played.” Other students expressed different motivations
for play, with at least three students noting that they enjoyed the “exploding” and “dying” dinosaurs.
We consider motivation to create “failure” cases as helpful in facilitating critical thinking across play
sessions. Comparing success and failure episodes should facilitate deeper thinking about the underlying
causal conditions that result in observable outcomes.
In response to a survey question asking what they liked least about the game, 27% of the students
reported that they wanted more options to be able to create even more strange and customized animals.
We consider this positive evidence that unlocking additional bone options following correct responses to
reflection questions will serve as sufficient reward and motivation to think carefully about the questions.
In response to the same question, 30% of the students reported that the reflection questions were hard
and were the most difficult part of the game. Slightly more than 24% of students reported that they found
the game itself difficult to understand and wanted more information about the categories and the stages
of play. Although we are wary of creating a game that is too difficult for students to understand, we also
are mindful of recent research findings that confusion can be an essential element for learning (Lehman,
D’Mello, & Graesser, 2012) and that frustration is more productive than boredom during computer-
based instruction (Baker, D’Mello, Rodrigo, & Graesser, 2010). For the current stage of development,
we consider it to be productive that students self-report some confusion and difficulty with the game
but nevertheless stay highly engaged throughout play and report overall enjoyment with the system. We
also note that, as discussed below, students reported using a variety of specific strategies for play and for
answering reflection questions. If students were confused to the point of being unproductively frustrated,
we would expect many more students to report guessing and random strategies.
The simulation-based nature of the game led many students to adopt visual strategies, especially dur-
ing initial play. Students reported taking a visual strategy 26% of the time when assessing their overall
dinosaur during stage 1 (body plan); 17% of students reported trying to create a dinosaur that “looked
cool” (comments during play included, “Make it as cute as possible” or “Give it the most amazing looking
body”) and 9% of students reported trying to create a dinosaur that “looked sturdy” (comments during
play included, “I think we need a heavier body or a lighter head” or “That looks good, but it’d be hard
to balance”). Approximately 15% of students reported using the overall dinosaur stats to evaluate their
build during stage 1; observers noted that many teams did not discover these stats until later stages of
play. This is consistent with the finding that (by the end of play), 36% of students noted that the stats

137

Dino Lab

for an individual bone should influence its selection or rejection. Several students comments that they
wished they had paid attention to these stats earlier; future development will explore methods of making
the stats more visible and/or embedding (limited) game instruction in the interface.
Observers noted that students who noticed and used the stats engaged in frequent causal thinking
(e.g., “It’s really fast because we gave it the good legs;” “It weighs less, so it can move faster”). However,
observers also noted that students who used the stats bar did not initially understand the high, medium,
and low ratings; groups instead negotiated and constructed their own meanings for the categories. For
example, what does it mean to be “High” in calories? Does this mean that the dinosaur will eat many
calories or that it burns many calories? Although more information may be necessary to facilitate accurate
thinking, we consider it a positive sign that students were interpreting and analyzing the potential mean-
ing of these values as a way to set their game strategy and interpret outcomes. Indeed, 60% of students
reported re-analyzing their builds in order to try to answer the reflection questions after each stage. This
analysis was split equally between re-examining stats (30%) and engaging in overall reasoning about the
dinosaur build (30%). Only 15% of students reported using a guessing strategy on the reflection ques-
tions, indicating their potential effectiveness as a tool to support critical thinking about each stage of
play in Dino Lab. Because many students utilized a visual strategy during their build, reasoning about
their build during reflection likely requires the ability to re-examine one’s dinosaur visually. Thus, future
development will include a visual depiction of the dinosaur on the screen with reflection questions.
Interestingly, many students (35%) took an abstract strategy to shape their approach to stage 1, us-
ing dinosaur-related goals to inform their decisions and overall build. Dinosaur-related goals are those
that concern qualities or characteristics of the dinosaur but did not specifically refer to game stats.
For example, “I wanted to make a bipedal dinosaur with strong legs, small arms, and a slim neck and
head” or “We wanted a small hunter that was strong.” We do not yet have direct data about how these
dinosaur-relevant goals are analyzed with respect to the Dino Lab features and interactions; however,
we consider it a positive sign that students are developing conceptual goals that drive strategic choices
in the Dino Lab environment.
The stages of play in Dino Lab appeared to be useful in getting students to think strategically about
bone options and optimal designs. Over 60% of students noted that players should change their dino-
saurs at every stage; 45% of these students noted that different stages required different strategic design,
whereas the remaining 15% of students simply noted that it was more fun to change their dinosaurs at
each stage. Some students used the emerging narrative of their own game play to augment their ideas
about each stage. For example, one student noted that the goal of stage 1 was “to make a dinosaur that
can walk; I wanted one that could be VERY fast.” This student noted that their dinosaur from stage 1
passed because it had “more or less even weight” on top of its strong legs. Thus, Dino Lab supported
not only reasoning about the causal mechanisms of body plan but also supported creative play and the
inclusion of unique goals.

Lessons Learned

Our approach to the scope and sequence for the first half of our project accounted for the time necessary
to work with our identified, target audience – middle school teachers and their students – to further un-
derstand their needs and to play-test each iteration. We found that engaging teachers and students early
in the process led to better criteria for the development of our game. Being able to hear from students,
then teachers, then students again allowed us to see the essential overlap between fun and learning in a

138

Dino Lab

serious game. These sessions highlighted the unique concerns of each stakeholder and also identified
several interesting assumptions. Students cautioned us from making the game “too fun” or having “vio-
lence,” as they felt sure their teachers would disapprove of these features. Interestingly, teachers they
talked about how important it was that the game “look fun” to students and how “it would be cool if the
dinosaurs engaged in combat.” In the end, having both teachers and students provide early feedback not
only created better balance and direction for our design work but also created excitement from students
and teachers which served us well as we headed into beta testing of Dino Lab.
The second half of our project focused on developing an alpha version of Dino Lab. The alpha ver-
sion is an initial instantiation of the concept as an interface that facilitates walking through the game via
simulated features in a low-fidelity prototype. Low-fidelity prototypes are easy to implement methods
that provide a simulated method to design and test user interfaces. A common and useful form of a low-
fidelity prototype is a paper prototype, where designers sketch out on paper the user interface as a series
of individual screen shots and user interactions are simulated by moving from one drawn page to another
based upon user decisions (for an in depth discussion of paper prototypes, see Snyder, 2003). As noted
earlier, Dino Lab initially was tested as a paper-prototype with paleontology experts. The low-fidelity
prototype sessions with experts were critical in cementing their excitement and motivation about the
game, as well as conceptually informing our logic on the rules that would govern the game.
While we had audience needs and feedback built into our scope of work, we under-planned with
regard to scientific input. Game designers, learning researchers and NHMU educators met with NHMU
research scientists during the original visioning stages and paper-testing stages for Dino Lab. However,
significantly more time was needed than originally was planned to develop the rules and content for
stage outcomes and the embedded assessments. While frustrating, this is common issue of managing
scope in software development; ultimately, developers must embrace a certain level of uncertainty as an
essential part of complex projects (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006). Managing uncertainty and deal-
ing with changing scope is a strength of agile software development, in which teams engage in multiple
development, test, and revision cycles (Dingsøyr, Nerur, Balijepally, & Moe, 2012; Martin, 2003). Rather
than building the game from a plan, similar to building a home from an architect’s blueprint (known as
waterfall software development), agile methods are iterative: you build the game, evaluate it, and set
upon expanding it and building it again.
Although a capable team with high expertise, motivation, and competence is essential for successful
agile development (Chow & Cao, 2008), development timelines and iterations were inherently more
difficult when working with interdisciplinary teams due to logistical hurdles (e.g., scheduling difficulties
and meeting locations) and because each part of the team was learning from each other (e.g., learning
each other’s terminology, approaches, expertise). Although the interdisciplinary nature of the develop-
ment team posed challenges in terms of time, scope, and development cycles, it also was what led to the
development of a serious game with strong domain content, meaningful learning processes, and true
game-like elements. Despite the practical challenges, we argue that interdisciplinary teams are essen-
tial for serious games that are truly educational as well as truly fun. However, we recommend building
additional time and feedback cycles when using interdisciplinary teams for agile development of seri-
ous games. Looking back at our scope and sequence for the development of Dino Lab, we learned that
collaborating with domain experts needed to happen more frequently to ensure game rules and content
could be produced and vetted before the end of our project year. Additionally, more time earlier in de-
velopment should have been budgeted for participation from the learning scientist on the development of
embedded critical thinking measures. We also learned that there are limits to game elements in serious

139

Dino Lab

games. When developers added “silly” response alternatives to questions (e.g., “Dinosaurs love pie!”) – a
common tactic to enhance humor and fun in non-educational games, student test users were baffled by
the unusual items and spent significant amounts of time seriously debating the “silly” choices. Although
fun is important in educational games, students tend to become serious when they see assessment items.

Principles for Designing Critical Thinking Games

Using Dino Lab as a concrete example and test case, our development experiences lead to three proposed
principles for serious games targeted to critical thinking.

Principle 1: Create opportunities for comparison and flexible thinking through repeated play. Dino
Lab is intended to have many successful and unsuccessful paths that can be discovered via stu-
dents’ self-generated strategies of play and their resulting outcomes. From play testing, we know
that students recognize the importance of changing their dinosaur features across stages and that
students form their own understanding of stage goals through collaborative analysis. Repeated
play offers students the ability to test and analyze their ideas and understanding across multiple
sessions. However, game play must have enough unique options and must be self-directed enough
to encourage multiple sessions; simulation environments with emerging narrative (like Dino Lab)
are well-suited to facilitate repeated play and exploration.
Principle 2: Use (difficult) reflection prompts to ensure evidence-based evaluation and analysis. As
a serious game, Dino Lab seeks to engage students in multiple processes of critical thinking. As
an immersive environment, reflection questions are needed to help students focus their thinking,
engage in strategic analysis, and form specific hypotheses that can be tested during play. Serious
games should include significant and clear opportunities for engaging the learner in reflection that
is both domain-focused and rewarded via elements that are meaningful and motivational within the
game environment. In this case, correct responses to reflection questions unlock one of the most
coveted elements in the game (as confirmed by student feedback during play testing): additional
dinosaur bones for future builds. Questions must be difficult enough to spur re-analysis of data and
to encourage revised hypotheses during game play.
Principle 3: Create stages that have domain meaning and require re-evaluation of previous thinking.
Dino Lab uses key stages informed by domain experts to focus students’ reasoning and strategy
during play. In a game for critical thinking, these stages serve an essential purpose: keeping students
engaged in flexible thinking and continued analysis of data as related to changing goals. Instead
of students thinking about bones as “good” or “bad,” game stages are intended to help them think
about when, why, and how specific physical features may be beneficial or harmful to different
aspects of survival. In games for critical thinking, stages that change and/or inform the analysis of
specific data and the generation of particular hypotheses may be especially useful. Our early work
has shown that flexible thinking is a particular challenge for students (see Figure 1); stage-based
games can help students to move beyond simple evaluations to analyze complex situations and to
evaluate data from multiple perspectives.

140

Dino Lab

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Dino Lab is being used extensively in play testing and in Research Quest implementations in middle
school classrooms. Developers currently are implementing automatic collection of log data from Dino
Lab sessions to facilitate the collection of large-scale data for analysis. Large collections of log data from
play sessions in middle schools will facilitate data mining approaches to explore connections between
student actions within the game, performance on reflection questions, and thoughtful game interactions
across stages of play.
Although available evidence suggests that Dino Lab is enjoyable to students in addition to leading
them to explore and discover data through visual analysis and interpretation of statistical information,
additional research is needed to more precisely identify the impact of Dino Lab features on students’
critical thinking processes and outcomes. Think-aloud protocols (Ericsson & Simon, 1980; Ericsson
& Simon, 1993), in which students describe their thinking as they engage in a task, are a well-known
method to make internal cognitive processing observable for analysis. Our future research plans include
think-aloud sessions in a controlled (laboratory) environment in order to assess the impact of Dino Lab
play on students’ real-time critical thinking processes across stages and multiple play sessions. Post-play
assessments also are needed that measure the degree to which students are able to engage in critical
thinking in paleontology and in other domains.

CONCLUSION

Dino Lab represents an interdisciplinary approach to creating a serious game for critical thinking, using
authentic materials, domain-focused stages, reflection questions, and a simulation-based game environ-
ment. Educators and scientists at NHMU ensured scientific accuracy though targeted stages of play and
meaningful algorithms underlying game outcomes. Contributions from a learning scientist ensured that
students engaged in focused reflection at the end of each stage, using game materials and outcomes to
generate hypotheses and evaluate evidence for their ideas. Game developers from the GApp Lab ensured
that all domain content and reflective opportunities were folded into a simulation environment that was
compelling, engaging, and (most of all) fun for students. Play testing suggests that students enjoy the
game aspects of Dino Lab even as they are challenged by its questions and complexity. During short play
testing episodes, students recognized the need to evaluate dinosaur features according to game stages
and expressed the need to analyze the stats to develop future strategies. Future think alouds and play
testing will continue to inform Dino Lab development, with particular emphasis on achieving balance
between the difficulty/complexity of Dino Lab and supporting students with additional information
during play. Early play testing suggests that students may need some additional information to inform
their strategies and evidence-based evaluations. However, too much information and instruction can
undermine Dino Lab’s fundamental approach as a student-centered, inquiry-based game for critical
thinking. Accordingly, future development efforts will seek to optimize positive aspects of confusion
and frustration for learning within the game environment. To this end, Dino Lab will continue to chal-
lenge students to form their own hypotheses, to discover their own ways to track and analyze data, and
to learn from both success and failure.

141

Dino Lab

REFERENCES

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008).
Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084
Altizer, R., & Zagal, J. P. (2014, August). Designing inside the box or pitching practices in industry
and education. Paper presented at the 2014 Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA),
Snowbird, UT.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: Performance on ill-defined
issues. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 322–334. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.010
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope
of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698. doi:10.1016/j.
ijproman.2006.09.011
Baird, W. E., & Silvern, S. B. (1990). Electronic games: Children controlling the cognitive environment.
Early Child Development and Care, 61(1), 43–49. doi:10.1080/0300443900610106
Baker, R. S. J., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than
bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions
with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 68(4), 223–241. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.003
Bottino, R. M., Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2014). Serious gaming at school: Reflections on students’ per-
formance, engagement and motivation. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(1), 21–36.
doi:10.4018/IJGBL.2014010102
Bowen, D. H., Greene, J. P., & Kisida, B. (2014). Learning to think critically: A visual art experiment.
Educational Researcher, 43(1), 37–44. doi:10.3102/0013189X13512675
Chow, T., & Cao, D.-B. (2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects.
Journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 961–971. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.08.020
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develop-
ing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
London: Sage.
Darrow, C., & Magie, E. (1934). Monopoly [Board Game]. Salem, MA: Parker Brothers.
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: To-
wards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engage-
ment: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruc-
tion, 20(4), 399–483. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1

142

Dino Lab

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership,
43(2), 44. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=851813
2&site=ehost-live
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Edu-
cational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
Ennis, R. H. (1990). The Extent to Which Critical Thinking Is Subject-Specific: Further Clarification.
Educational Researcher, 19(4), 13–16. doi:10.3102/0013189X019004013
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fero, L. J., O’Donnell, J. M., Zullo, T. G., Dabbs, A. D., Kitutu, J., Samosky, J. T., & Hoffman, L. A.
(2010). Critical thinking skills in nursing students: Comparison of simulation-based performance with
metrics. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(10), 2182–2193. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05385.x
PMID:20636471
Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts.
Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32. doi:10.3102/0091732X030001001
Frasca, G. (2001). Videogames of the oppressed: Videogames as a means for critical thinking and debate.
(Master of Information Design and Technology). Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://
www.ludology.org/articles/thesis/FrascaThesisVideogames.pdf
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Gordonsville, VA:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking?
Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. The American Psycholo-
gist, 53(4), 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008
Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General
Education, 50(4), 270–286. doi:10.1353/jge.2001.0024
Heijltjes, A., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving students’ critical thinking: Empirical sup-
port for explicit instructions combined with practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 518–530.
doi:10.1002/acp.3025
Helsdingen, A., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. (2011). The effects of practice schedule and critical
thinking prompts on learning and transfer of a complex judgment task. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 103(2), 383–398. doi:10.1037/a0022370
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Marion, R. G. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student en-
gagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3

143

Dino Lab

Hess, T., & Gunter, G. (2013). Serious game-based and nongame-based online courses: Learning experi-
ences and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 372–385. doi:10.1111/bjet.12024
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reason-
ing in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. doi:10.1207/
S1532690XCI1704_2
Keeley, S. M., Ali, R., & Gebing, T. (1998). Beyond the sponge model: Encouraging students’ questioning
skills in abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 25(4), 270–274. doi:10.1080/00986289809709713
Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identi-
fied gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127–136.
doi:10.1177/0016986214522508
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016
Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Confusion and complex learning during interactions
with computer learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 184–194. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2012.01.002
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods (2nd ed.). London:
Sage.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). London:
Sage.
Louchart, S., & Aylett, R. (2004). Narrative theory and emergent interactive narrative. International
Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 14(6), 506–518. doi:10.1504/
IJCEELL.2004.006017
Luke, J. J., Stein, J., Foutz, S., & Adams, M. (2007). Research to practice: Testing a tool for assessing
critical thinking in art museum programs. Journal of Museum Education, 32(2), 123–135. doi:10.108
0/10598650.2007.11510564
Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Ex-
plicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.
tsc.2010.08.002
Martin, R. C. (2003). Agile software development, principles, patterns, and practices. New York: Pearson.
McCarthy-Tucker, T. S. N. (1998). Teaching logic to adolescents to improve thinking skills. Korean
Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 8(1), 45–66.
McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in
Higher Education, 26(1), 3–29. doi:10.1007/BF00991931
McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and
their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
48(7), 793–823. doi:10.1002/tea.20430

144

Dino Lab

McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher,
19(4), 10–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X019004010
Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence
college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 114–128.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002
NRC. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington,
DC: National Research Council: Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Na-
tional Academy Press.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions: Partnership for 21st Century
Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
Pausch, R., & Marinelli, D. (2007). Carnegie Mellon’s entertainment technology center: Combining the
left and right brain. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 50–57. doi:10.1145/1272516.1272539
Riesenmy, M. R., Mitchell, S., Hudgins, B. B., & Ebel, D. (1991). Retention and transfer of children’s
self-directed critical thinking skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(1), 14–25. doi:10.1080/
00220671.1991.10702808
Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-
explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285
Sharwood, S. (2014). Women are too expensive to draw and code -- Ubisoft. The Register. Retrieved from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/12/women_are_too_expensive_to_draw_and_code_says_ubisoft/
Snyder, C. (2003). Paper prototyping: The fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. San
Diego, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age.
(Technology, Education -- Connections. The TEC series.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Staib, S. (2003). Teaching and measuring critical thinking. The Journal of Nursing Education, 42(11),
498–508. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=5078624
41&site=ehost-live PMID:14626388
Steinkuehler, C. (2010). Video games and digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
54(1), 61–63. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.1.7
Torrente, J., Mera, P. L., Moreno-Ger, P., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Coordinating heterogeneous
game-based learning approaches in online environments. In Z. Pan, A. D. Cheok, W. Müller, & A. El
Rhalibi (Eds.), Transactions on edutainment II. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03270-7_1
Wilson, C. E. (2006). Brainstorming pitfalls and best practices. Interaction, 13(5), 50–63.
doi:10.1145/1151314.1151342
Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education,
93(4), 687–719. doi:10.1002/sce.20325

145

Dino Lab

ADDITIONAL READING

Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J., & Low, J. (2001). Peer interaction and the learn-
ing of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science, 29(1), 1–32.
doi:10.1023/A:1026471702353
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far
transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612 PMID:12081085
Butcher, K. R., & Davies, S. (2015). Inference generation during online study and multimedia learning.
In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during Reading. New York: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107279186.015
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy: A Review of Argument Interventions in
K–12 Science Contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. doi:10.3102/0034654310376953
Charsky, D. (2010). From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics.
Games and Culture, 5(2), 177–198. doi:10.1177/1555412009354727
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2),
661–686. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied
Educational Technology, 4(1), 21–31.
Gee, J. P. (2010). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia,
8, 15–23.
Ku, K. Y. L. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements using
multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 70–76. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.02.001
Magno, C. (2010). The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and
Learning, 5(2), 137–156. doi:10.1007/s11409-010-9054-4
Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffmann, K. F. (2014). Self-regulation and gender within a game-based
learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 961–973. doi:10.1037/a0037116
Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production
in informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 149–166. doi:10.1080/17439880701343337
Schenke, K., Rutherford, T., & Farkas, G. (2014). Alignment of game design features and state math-
ematics standards: Do results reflect intentions? Computers & Education, 76, 215–224. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2014.03.019
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation,
2(1), 49–62.

146

Dino Lab

Young, A. G., Alibali, M. W., & Kalish, C. W. (2012). Disagreement and causal learning: Others’
hypotheses affect children’s evaluations of evidence. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1242–1253.
doi:10.1037/a0027540 PMID:22390663

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Authentic Games: Games that are based on realia, or objects and information that exist in reality.
Authentic games focus on utilizing real-word knowledge, as opposed to fiction, as a means to achieve
engagement as well as promote the learning of the artifacts or knowledge. For example, using repre-
sentations of authentic fossils from the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry to promote critical thinking.
Comparison: A critical thinking process during which the learner makes comparisons to educational
materials/guides/information or makes comparisons and connections between the current problem and
known objects/information/situations in the world.
Connection: A critical thinking process in which students make connections to prior knowledge or
ideas about the world. This may include making analogies, bringing in additional examples, and reason-
ing based upon prior knowledge (e.g., frequency of natural disasters).
Design Box: A participatory design methodology that allows end-users, stakeholders, and developers
to collaborate on a synthesized and meaningful “pitch” for a project. Design Box is an inductive pro-
cess that asks participants to focus on constraints before pitching solutions. By unpacking the audience,
technology, aesthetics, and problem of a project, participants can brainstorm nuanced and innovative
designs ‘inside’ the box formed by the constraints.
Embodied Self (in games): When a user plays a game without an avatar or token that represents
them in the game. Players engage with the system as themselves. This differs from board or videogames
that have a virtual character or physical object that serves as the player. For example: Monopoly does not
utilize the embodied self as the player chooses a token to represent them on the game board; in virtual
blackjack games, the player plays as their embodied self to whom cards are dealt.
Emergent Narrative: A narrative that players create themselves while playing with a game or toy.
For example, when given a set of blocks a player may build a car or home and create their own story
for it. Emerging narrative in games does not follow a prescribed set of plot points; it allows players to
engage their imaginations and to tell their own stories while playing.
Evaluation: A critical thinking process in which a student evaluates the quality, sufficiency, or ac-
curacy of an idea, hypothesis, or claim. Evaluation statements may be accompanied by evidence or may
be made without supporting evidence. Evidence-based evaluations are considered a critical process for
critical thinking.
Flexible Thinking: A critical thinking process that is exhibited when the learner remains open to
multiple possibilities, ideas, or hypothesis, particularly early during a critical thinking problem when
information and evidence is being gathered. Also exhibited when learners incorporate the thinking of
others into their own during collaborative critical thinking activities.
Game Algorithm: A type of formula that represents the rules of a game. A collection of game al-
gorithms comprises a game system. The game system akin to an automated rulebook from an analog
game. A game algorithm governs a specific rule or feature of that rule set.

147

Dino Lab

Interpretation: A critical thinking process in which students interpret or infer the meaning, func-
tion, utility, or purpose of an object or observation. For example, “This pointy tooth would be used for
tearing flesh.”
Observation: A critical thinking process in which learners name or identify particular information
about an object, idea, or situation. This may include articulating sensory information (e.g., look, feel),
observing features forming an object (e.g., the features that comprise an overall object), or observing
the action of an object (e.g., this joint bends). In critical thinking, observations form critical data for
evidence-based evaluations.
Problem Finding: A critical thinking process in which the learner articulates an idea that should
be addressed, a question that needs to be answered, a hypothesis that should be analyzed, or an issues
that must be resolved.
Reflection Questions (in educational games): Questions that appear after a major stage, decision,
or action in the game and are designed to elicit thinking and analysis about the conceptual content of
the game. Usually involves analysis or inference about the underlying game algorithms, provided those
algorithms reflect conceptual relationships from the domain.

148
149

Chapter 7
Designing BioSim:
Playfully Encouraging Systems
Thinking in Young Children

Naomi Thompson
Indiana University, USA

Kylie Peppler
Indiana University, USA

Joshua Danish
Indiana University, USA

ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we discuss the design decisions made when creating the game mechanics and rules for
BioSim, a pair of game-like participatory simulations centered around honeybees and army ants to help
young children (ages kindergarten through third grade) explore complex systems concepts. We outline
four important design principles that helped us align the games and simulations to the systems thinking
concepts that we wanted the students to learn: (1) Choose a specific and productive focal topic; (2) Build
on game mechanics typically found in children’s play; (3) Purposefully constrain children’s play to help
them notice certain system elements; and (4) Align guiding theories to game rules, and vice versa. We
then highlight how these guiding principles can be leveraged to allow young children to engage with
complex systems concepts in robust ways, and consider our next steps and goals for research as we
continue to iterate and build on these games.

INTRODUCTION

Recognizing the many interrelated systems at play in the world around us is difficult. Many adults have
trouble understanding systems, such as how many different living creatures interact to survive, or how
highway traffic is produced, as decentralized and multilayered (Hmelo-Silver & Azevedo, 2006; Resnick,
1999). Systems thinking allows us to better understand how these many systems that we can see in the
world operate. However, the majority of learners do not fully understand the ubiquitous systems around
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch007

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Designing BioSim

us on a deep level. This has led to several efforts to strengthen education around systems thinking, or
systems literacy (Booth Sweeney, 2012) and make these concepts clearer at earlier ages (Assaraf & Orion,
2009; Danish, 2014). One promising approach to helping young students learn about systems concepts
is to have them engage in games which allow them to take on a new perspective within a system, and
thus help them to appreciate the system dynamics at play (Peppler, Danish, & Phelps, 2010).
In our work on the BioSim activities, we engaged in iterative design-based research (Brown, 1992)
to explore how to support these ideas through gaming. First, BeeSim (Peppler, Danish, Zaitlen, Glosson,
Jacobs, & Phelps, 2010), was created as a “game-like” participatory simulation -- an embodied experi-
ence where participants interact to form the simulation, and are supported by computational technologies
(Colella, 2000) -- for young children that provides a first-person look into the life of a honeybee and the
complexity of nectar foraging behaviors. In BeeSim, students in grades K-3 wear electronically enhanced
bee puppets to “become a honeybee” and work together to collect nectar from a field of electronic “flow-
ers.” They also communicate with one another through waggle dances, a real-life phenomenon through
which honeybees share locations of known nectar sources. BeeSim stemmed from, and is paired with
BeeSign (Danish, 2009; 2014), a computer software simulation that provides the third-person perspective
(“bird’s-eye view”) of this honeybee system. Recently, we have expanded this work by designing AntSim;
looking at complex systems through army ants gives rise to analogous systems concepts, making transfer
an interesting possibility, and both insects offer familiar and fascinating lenses into how systems work.
This chapter explores the design decisions made when creating the BioSim set of games to help
children engage with complex systems. We work to address the following questions: How do we design
games to be simultaneously educative and engaging? What tensions arise in the design process when
trying to parallel what is known about complex biological systems while essentializing them into a
simplified model of game play? We use our latest game-based iterations and refinement of BioSim as
illustrative examples of the inherent tensions in the design process of creating serious games in science.
This chapter is part of a larger NSF-funded research project that is currently in progress. Current and
future research aims to conduct full-scale interventions in early elementary classrooms to iteratively refine
both our designs and the undergirding theory guiding this work. To date, early pilot implementations
with small groups in after-school clubs have spurred crucial technology iterations, and allowed us to
fully test out the activities with our target age group. One of these implementations is described below
to help readers visualize the excitement and engagement that occurs during the curriculum.

A Scene from BeeSim

Six young children in two groups are busy, each group hidden behind large swaths of bright yellow
fabric. This fabric indicates there are two hives, and the children are pretending to be honeybees search-
ing for nectar to bring back to their hive. They need to come up with a method of communication to
share good nectar sources with their hivemates, but they cannot point or use their voices. One group is
having trouble -- they don’t know what their sign system should be. The facilitator suggests they think
about other signs and signals they’ve seen around them. Do any of them play sports? One active boy in
the group lights up. “Baseball!” His group decides they will swing an imaginary bat toward the right or
the left of the room to indicate which direction their teammates will find the desired nectar source. The
other group is attempting to emulate a real honeybee’s waggle dance. They scurry around in little figure
eights, waggling their bodies in the direction of the flower.

150

Designing BioSim

When it is time for the game to begin, they line up inside their hives, excited and fidgeting, with
larger-than-life bee puppets in their small hands. The facilitator presses a button on the computer and
says, “Go!” Lights flash on the puppets, and one child from each hive darts into the field. They quickly
survey the landscape and make a choice to explore individual flowers. One girl realizes she has found
nectar at the first flower she explored. “Yes!” she exclaims. She quickly fills up and scurries back to the
hive to share the good news. Once back inside the hive, she shuffles around in her figure eight, hoping
that her message has been conveyed as the next little bee heads out to the field.
The boy from the other hive has not had as much luck. He checks three flowers before finding one
with nectar. He does not pause to pick up any more, rather immediately running back to his hive to
swing an imaginary bat toward the right side of the room for his fellow bees. In the end, the hive with
the baseball swings collected more nectar than their waggling counterparts. “If this hive collected more
nectar than the other one, what does that mean?” The facilitator asks. “It means they’ll have more nec-
tar for winter,” answers one slightly disappointed girl from the waggling hive. Undeterred, this team is
determined to improve. With the help of an adult aid, they decide that they need to convey distance as
well as direction with their waggle dances because they wasted time checking the wrong flower in their
prior run. Borrowing from the honeybees themselves, they decide to waggle faster for a close flower,
and more slowly for flowers that are farther away.
In our initial run of BeeSim, we did not show the students the simulation screen, rather focusing on
how they interacted with the e-puppets. In the more recent pilots, however, we have two screens that
the teacher and students can interact with. First, during the actual simulation there is a simple “hive”
display, which depicts the one or two hives that are part of the game, and allows the students to see how
much nectar is present in each. This supports them in comparing the speed and success of their hives.
The second is a full replay of the prior simulation that is organized around key events (e.g., collecting
nectar or returning to the hive). Much like a video replay, this allows the students to see the simulated
bees which mirror their own actions move from the hive to a flower, collect nectar or find it missing,
and move on. We have been able to use this as a reflection prompt to ask students what led to specific
actions or outcomes, and why. For example, we noticed early on that many students who found nectar
nevertheless continued to search for new flowers, which is rather inefficient. When we were able to
replay the simulation, we could easily highlight these moments and ask the students to not only explain,
but begin to recognize the inefficiency of this.

BACKGROUND

Games and Participatory Simulations

One interesting definition of a game comes from philosopher Bernard Suits: “To play a game is to attempt
to achieve a specific state of affairs..., using only means permitted by rules..., where the rules prohibit use
of more efficient in favour of less efficient means..., and where the rules are accepted just because they
make possible such activity....” (Suits, 2005, p. 190). This emphasis on rules may unnecessarily exclude
some engaging games and activities, but for our purposes, designing games for learning involves a great
deal of thought about these rules and constraints. For us, this means that children playing our game for
learning try to reach a goal in a way that isn’t necessarily the easiest or quickest way. For example, the

151

Designing BioSim

quickest way to tell other bees/players about a nectar source might be to simply point and say “I found a
lot of nectar in that pink flower on the left.” However, using this method of communication ultimately
does not convey the work that honeybees do to collectively gather nectar. With this in mind, there are
other things we think games for learning should involve. Fun has been a controversial topic in the past,
with some opting to look at engagement alone instead. While “fun” can be difficult to measure or ob-
serve, engagement can be seen in voluntary prolonged attention and involvement. However, we do hope
our activities are fun and that children will want to play, leading to sustained engagement.
There has been much thought about why games (often video games) can be good for learning. In
his book Good Video Games and Good Learning, Gee (2010) outlines several ways video games help
players learn about the game such as just in time information, distributed knowledge, systems think-
ing, and meaning as action. He conjectures that these elements would be useful if mirrored in schools
and other learning activities. While BioSim is not a video game, we think some of those elements are
present and important for making it a good game for learning. In particular, Gee’s principles of sys-
tems thinking and meaning as action (Gee, 2010) are well aligned with the core goals of BioSim. Gee
describes how games themselves are complex systems, as they encompass sets of rules that give rise to
effects based on decisions made (Gee, 2010, p. 42). In this way, BioSim’s goals are naturally aligned to
the genre of games and seeks to help children learn about systems thinking by mirroring a biological
system inside a game system. Additionally, Gee’s notion of meaning as action claims that meanings of
words and concepts is made as we associate actions or experiences with them. In a game, the concepts
being learned become meaningful through the actions performed in the game (Gee, 2010, p. 42-43).
BioSim fits in with this idea as the rules we create prompt children to act in certain ways that make the
concepts salient and meaningful.
Additionally, BioSim is not simply a game, as its theoretical roots come from the idea of the partici-
patory simulation (Colella, 2000). In this kind of interaction, students “are” the simulation instead of
“watching” the simulation. A participatory simulation is specifically designed -- based on agent-based
modeling simulations -- to help children think about complex systems from the agent’s first-person per-
spective. In this project that brought about the term, children act out a virus epidemic and made decisions
about how to stop the virus and save each other. Students wore electronic tags that track their actions in
the system (Colella, 2000). Similar to role-playing games, participants in a participatory simulation enact
the roles of individuals in a system, enabling them to create personally meaningful understandings of
behaviors and roles in the system (Collela, Borovoy, & Resnick, 1998; Klopfer, Yoon, & Rivas, 2004).
Colella (2000) also notes that a major benefit of a participatory simulation is the emotional and affec-
tive connection that students experience as they immerse themselves within. Most prior work that uses
participatory simulations to teach about complex systems concepts has targeted older children, teens,
and adults because complex systems concepts have proven very challenging for people at any stage to
grasp. However, this previous work has not considered the alignment between participatory simulations
and play practices of young children, who already explore new topics through play-acting and games
(c.f., Danish, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978; Youngquist & Pataray-Ching, 2004). Also, several projects have
shown that young children can deeply explore a variety of ideas when interacting with technologies
that leverage physical embodiment (c.f., Levy & Mioduser, 2008; Montemayor et al., 2002; Rogers &
Muller, 2006). For our work, it was important to allow children to see the system from a third person,
or outside perspective as well. As a result, we pair the participatory simulation/game with an innovative
screen-based simulation to prompt thinking about the system across the two levels.

152

Designing BioSim

In addition to providing multiple perspectives on a system, we feel participatory simulations have

the potential to provide a game-like environment, and thus enhance students’ engagement. For example,
Anand, Meijer, Duin, Tavasszy, and Meijer (2013 take a similar perspective and label their activity a
“participatory simulation game” (p. 3). They characterize this work as combining beneficial aspects of
role-playing games and simulations by allowing participants to directly influence outcomes of simula-
tion models. The game is based on concepts of agent-based modeling (Wilensky & Reisman, 2006),
meant to help students better understand complex systems (much like BioSim). It models city logistics
involved with ordering, shipping, and receiving goods. The game can support 5 different agents; this
2013 paper focuses on students acting as a shopkeeper. They must make decisions about which goods
shipper to select, the store’s maximum stock abilities, and how and when to order the goods. For this
“proof of concept” study, players worked in teams, and the team with the most profits at the end of the
game won (Anand et al., 2013).
In contrast to our approach and work like Colella’s (2000) study, this work used a simulation run
through a computer program and did not involve wearable technology, This raises key questions about
how we define immersive and embodied experiences in participatory simulations. We believe that the
inclusion of wearable technology helps students to truly immerse themselves into the simulated envi-
ronment and engage with their peers in that environment in ways that a screen cannot support as easily.
While this work helped to elucidate features of a simulation that can support engagement, it did not yet
link these explicitly to learning gains. We hope to build on such work by making those connections more
explicit. Work on participatory simulations is growing, but more work is still needed to help identify the
features that make participatory simulations effective learning environments, something we aim to do
by exploring the value of these different perspectives (1st and 3rd) explicitly.

Utilizing Design-Based Research Methodologies

Our plan of approach for creating BioSim games fit within the Design-Based Research paradigm (The
Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). This method was useful as it allowed us to engage in iterative
design cycles and incorporate insight from others to create the most engaging and effective experience
possible. This paradigm started from the early ideas of Brown’s (1992) design experiments and Collins’
(1992) design science. Brown (1992) brought about the idea of testing out implementations in actual
classroom settings, and moving back and forth between the classroom and more experimental (labora-
tory) settings (Brown, 1992). Additionally, Collins (1992) pushed the idea of “flexible design revision”
-- changing elements of the design on the spot and often based on what seems to work and what doesn’t
-- and multiple evaluations of success or failure -- looking for engagement and learning as the imple-
mentation is in process (Collins, 1992).
Following these Design Based Research principles, we are conducting a series of iterative mini quasi-
experiments meant to help us understand whether or not the students are learning the content, and which
features of our design seem to support this learning. To do this, we have been developing conjectures
during the design process about specific features of the game we believe will lead to students deeply
exploring the content (Sandoval, 2004). We also evaluate those conjectures as part of our summative
evaluation. We have also been working with children and teachers to adapt to their needs and opinions
while building the software, physical tools, and curriculum plans.
We also use Activity Theory (Engeström, 1990; Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006) as we design BioSim.
Activity Theory is a theoretical framework, grounded in the work of Vygotsky (1978) which focuses

153

Designing BioSim

on learning happening in rich socio-cultural contexts. It helps us to focus on the intersection between
individual students’ ideas, the technology that mediates their work, and the way in which their social
interactions helps them in generating and transforming their ideas about how systems work. An advan-
tage of using activity theory as an analytical framework is that it helps us build embodied conjectures
(Sandoval, 2004) -- documented predictions of how we think each element of the system will support
learning -- in ways that explore intermediate social processes (Sandoval, 2013). Once we have these
predictions, we can work to verify them as we evaluate our design. Our goal through this process for
learning is that children will begin to gain new understanding of complex systems thinking concepts.

Systems Thinking

A system is recognized as “complex” when the relationships within it are not obvious or intuitive, and the
individual elements of the system give rise to new overall properties that are difficult to see or explain
(Hmelo-Silver & Azevedo, 2006). This is especially true in biological systems where individual organ-
isms may act in ways that seem counterintuitive when compared to the behavior of the system as a whole.
For example, individual honeybees spend a considerable amount of time “dancing” to communicate
nectar location to other bees in the hive. However, this behavior gives rise to faster and more efficient
nectar collection for the hive as a whole. This is not intuitive for young children - they tend to assume
this time spent dancing is wasteful (Danish, 2014). This surprising interaction between levels (Wilensky
& Resnick, 1999) in the system is known as emergence; we knew emergence would be an important
concept to cover in our games. Other important complex systems concepts that guided design include
feedback loops, iteration, and constraints. These concepts are relevant and salient in the honeybee and
army ant systems, and are also useful in other contexts including the circulatory system and traffic jams.
Much of the work around systems thinking education has been through biological systems; much
thought has been given to teaching biology, or life science, to young learners, as it is a topic children are
familiar with and curious about. For example, Hmelo-Silver has often studied children’s understanding of
aquatic and respiratory systems (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, Marathe, & Liu, 2007), while Wilensky has looked
into large ecologies involving wolf, sheep, and grass (e.g., Wilensky & Reisman, 2006). Although these
studies were not conducted with children in our target age range, their findings help us see the benefits
of exploring complex systems through biological systems. Wilensky and Reisman (2006) found that
simulations employing agent-based models helped students think more deeply about complex systems
and relate the agent-based occurrences to the aggregate level occurrences.
We follow this history of diving into biological systems, while adding in the element of game-like
simulation. Understanding the simultaneous differences and connections between various levels of
interaction is a crucial part of systems thinking (Jacobson & Wilensky, 2006). Games are especially
powerful because they allow children to take on new perspectives through play, supporting productive
learning (Enyedy, Danish, Delacruz, & Kumar 2012; Vygotsky, 1978). Research has shown the impor-
tance of allowing learners to switch between first-person (seeing as main actor) and third-person (seeing
all actors) perspectives of a system in helping them recognize the effects of these multiple levels (e.g.,
Wilensky & Resnick, 1999). Games can allow this switching between perspectives - both the first-person
and third-person perspectives are crucial. First-person allows students to understand constraints, while
third-person helps them see how individual actions add up to aggregate behavior. In our activities, we
create situations that intended to bring about “double-binds,” a mismatch between students’ current ways
of thinking, their needs, and the possibilities in the environment (Chaiklin, 2003; Engestrom, 1987). The

154

Designing BioSim

goal of the game is to make constraints in the honeybee system visible, creating a double-bind, then allow
children to notice solutions, such as the waggle dance. For example, throughout game play, students may
notice that it is hard to find nectar every time, as not every flower will have nectar. They may discover
their hive has not collected enough nectar to make it through spells of bad weather, and they will realize
they need a more efficient method of nectar collection. The double-bind may occur when the students
see the waggle dance as a possible solution, but may think at first it wastes time instead of saving time.
We then design the features of the game to lead them to recognize that this method of communication
is actually the most efficient method for the hive as a whole. We also developed constraints within the
game that mimic the actual constraints the insects face, so the children notice them, and recognize the
system mechanisms that overcome them.

Transfer

Aside from enhancing systems thinking abilities in the case honeybees or army ants alone, another goal
of this work is to promote transfer between these and other systems. One aspect of the system, previously
known as BeeSign, is useful in helping students see aggregate (third-person perspective) patterns of a
hive. The puppet play aspect was built in to provide a first-person perspective of nectar collection and
highlight communication inside the hive. These additional perspectives are important, particularly for
this younger age group, as we know it is necessary to learn about complex systems from several analytic
levels simultaneously to fully understand the relationship between levels (Hmelo-Silver & Azevedo,
2006). Research has shown that a first-person (agent-based) perspective can provide students with ad-
ditional resources to help them reason, and may support transfer into other domain areas (Goldstone &
Wilensky, 2008). This is why we find it crucial to help students explore honeybees and army ants from
a first-person perspective as well as a third-person perspective.We expect BioSim to increase the likeli-
hood of students learning the content, as well as being able to transfer between honeybees and army
ants, and to other outside systems. This is because it has been suggested that an agent-based perspective
where students reason about the behaviors of individual agents within the system increases the potential
of students to transfer their understanding to other systems (Goldstone & Wilensky, 2008).

MAIN

Design Principles

Across our multiple design iterations outlined in our process below, some key design principles emerged
that can help us align games with systems thinking. These included the following four principles:

1. Choose a specific and productive focal point (real-life system, similar system)
2. Build on game mechanics typically found in children’s play
3. Purposefully create rules for children’s play to help them notice certain system elements
4. Align guiding theories to your rules, and vice versa

These guiding principles helped us hone our focus on the salient parts of the system crucial to complex
systems understanding. We also envision that these principles will be useful to others wanting to take

155

Designing BioSim

up these principles for other games to promote systems thinking among learners of all ages. We outline
the utility of these principles here.

KEY DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN BIOSIM FIRST-PERSON GAMES

1. Choose a Specific and Productive Focal Point

While biological systems provide a fruitful starting point for design, it can also be challenging as we
design games based on complex systems to choose a central focal point since there are a number of
feedback loops within each of these systems as well as nested systems at play (e.g., bees collecting nectar
are simultaneously pollinating flowers). In this case, we chose to focus on nectar collection because we
felt it could be more meaningful and more easily aligned with young children’s perspectives, to help
students think about the needs of the bees and what drives their actions.
There are several reasons the phenomenon of pollination did not align well with our purposes. This
occurrence seems less intuitive for young children to understand than gathering food. For the honeybees,
while they eat and use some of the pollen they collect, the act of bringing pollen from one flower to
another is less explicitly need-driven than nectar collection, and in fact is more of a side effect of the
food collection. Additionally, for young children, the vast impact of pollination on flowers and plants is
more difficult to see directly than the need for nectar to make honey.
Nectar collection, on the other hand, worked as a focus for us due to several factors. First, many
children already know that honey comes from bees, so it can be a familiar entry point when they realize
bees use nectar to make honey. From here, the process of gathering food is something children have
learned about and can quickly come to understand. It is important to get across that this food gathering
process is affected by events like bad weather. Children’s previous experiences with bad weather can
help them appreciate how difficult it may be for a such a small insect to fly and forage in those kinds
of conditions. Nectar collection is the main purpose behind the bees’ communication and foraging, so
it is possible to explain this phenomenon either with or without reference to broader ecological factors.
Pollination, on the other hand, really requires some broader information to be correctly described and
understood. Finally, as a main goal of the project is to explore transfer of systems thinking from one
system to another, it is important that the process of nectar collection draws parallels to other animals’
food collection, such as army ants.

Leveraging Content Expertise in Real-Life Systems

With a focus children can relate to, gathering food, in mind, we worked closely with a biologist to find
interesting behaviors and constraints in the honeybee and army ant systems.

Bees as Systems
Honeybees are divided into multiple classes. The queen bee, a subject of fascination for young children,
lays eggs and surprisingly does little else. Drones, the only male bees in the hive, are useful mainly for
mating with the queen to produce new workers. The bees that go out and search for nectar are female
worker bees. These workers perform many different kinds of tasks throughout their lifespan, such as

156

Designing BioSim

feeding larvae, but for the purposes of our game, we focus on the phenomenon of forager honeybees
quickly and efficiently collecting nectar to turn into honey.
These foragers search for flowers with good sources of nectar. Once a good source is found, they will
then fly back to the hive and share the flower’s location through the waggle dance. The waggle dance
in the hive, conveying only positive information, creates a positive feedback loop, a crucial concept in
systems thinking. Other bees will go to this location, come back to the hive, and also perform the waggle
dance. If the flower is emptied or otherwise becomes undesirable, the bees will simply stop sharing
information about the particular flower and collectively switch to a new source. The forager bees are
constrained by bad weather, predators, fluctuating nectar levels, and limited distance capabilities, which
we strove to mirror in our game system.

Ants as systems.
Army ants were an interesting partner system, as they create an analogous positive feedback loop to
honeybees, although the system looks quite different from the outside. These forager ants move around
in forests and jungles looking under rocks and leaves for food, such as smaller insects or their eggs, to
bring back to the massive nest. As they move along the forest ground, they leave trails of pheromones
behind them. If an ant finds a food source that is too big to carry alone, it will follow its own trail back
to the nest to recruit help. This movement back and forth along the same path reinforces the strength of
the pheromone trail. The more these trails are reinforced, the more ants continue to follow them, creating
the positive feedback loop. Similar to honeybees, army ants do not spend time sharing negative informa-
tion. Trails that result in no food are not reinforced and simply fade away. Ants also have a remarkable
way of spreading out their search areas by relocating their nests every few weeks.
To build the game rules, we asked of these systems: What are the insects’ main needs, and why? What
issues do they face in pursuit of meeting these needs? What roles do various members of the system play?

2. Build On Game Mechanics Typically Found in Children’s Play

In addition, we wanted to build upon game mechanics that are typically part of children’s play. For ex-
ample, with bees we drew upon puppetry play and perspective taking as well as children’s games where
they explore a space (like hide-and-seek). Similarly, since army ants forage for food in dense forests and
jungles, traveling long distances under and around large obstacles, it seemed appropriate to give children
a similar constraint by asking them to crawl or crouch to move from place to place.
Young children start playing very early in their lives. Research has shown the importance of play for
children’s social, emotional, and mental development. Notably is the notion of social pretend play, or
pretending to be someone/thing else (Vygotsky, 1978). Children play house, pets, doctor, teacher - the
list goes on as long as their imaginations can reach. This kind of play helps children learn about social
roles by allowing them to emulate, then bend, societal norms (Vygotsky, 1978). This play also helps
children practice perspective taking. Our activities ask children to pretend to be a honeybee and try to
consider all the environmental challenges that honeybees must face as they attempt to collect food and
survive. Children also play with toys, dolls, and puppets, giving them names and personalities. These
characters, often animals, are anthropomorphized as children act as and through them, further practicing
perspective-taking and pretend simultaneously.

157

Designing BioSim

Additionally, typical children can often be found playing physical and active games, such as hide-
and-seek or tag. Even toddlers will run around a space, perhaps with no explicit purpose at all. Our game
capitalizes on this by spreading the play area out as far as we are able, taking up an entire classroom
when possible. Children zipping around a large space like this better emulates the honeybees’ search in
fields of flowers, makes them think about constraints such as energy depletion, and makes the game a
little more difficult. For AntSim, having the children crawl around on the ground seemed a logical ad-
dition, fitting well with the traditions of pretending and physical play.
Last, many children play video or electronic games, and thus have some understanding of symbols for
feedback about a character’s status, and may understand certain colors to convey key information. Our
system indicates energy levels of the bees and ants by changing colors and flashing; children immediately
recognize that a green energy bar means they can continue to search for nectar, and a yellow or red bar
that they are out of time. It does not take much explanation to demonstrate what these indicators mean,
and allows students to quickly respond to changes in their insects’ energy status. However, we did try to
stay away from using only the common red/yellow/green color combination in attempt to accommodate
those with varying vision in color.

3. Purposefully Create Rules for Children’s Play to

Help Them Notice Certain System Elements

Other design decisions were based on trying to constrain children’s play in productive ways to help them
understand the mechanisms of the system (Enyedy, Danish, Delacruz, & Kumar, 2012). For example,
since both insects are small, they must be economical with how long and how far they go in search of
food. However, children (especially distracted children) have a tendency to search indefinitely, causing
the game to lose momentum and the science to be difficult to understand (Peppler & Danish, 2013). To
mirror the situation of the insects, we needed ways to alert the players to their waning energy levels that
can only be restored by resting at the hive or nest. As discussed in the previous section, our bee and ant
puppets use differently colored lights to let children know when their energy levels have changed. We
may need to occasionally remind players to attend to this information -- “Uh oh, Alyssa, what color are
your eyes right now?” -- but this feature makes it possible to put useful limits on children’s movements
that direct them to think about particular elements of the system.
Similarly, children have no way of knowing which flowers in the “field” have nectar and which do
not. This means that efficient search tactics and communication about where nectar can be found is
necessary. Additionally, they must stay in the “hive” (usually large swaths of fabric draped over book-
shelves or mobile walls) while they are not searching, and thus cannot see the flowers in the field or their
hivemates’ actions. Often, especially early in the sequence of activities, a child may be seen discovering
nectar at a particular flower, but investigating a new flower immediately thereafter. As the game goes
on, we typically set up fewer flowers with nectar each round. While children might find nectar in every
other flower early on, there may only be one or two with nectar near the end. The earlier method of ran-
domly moving from flower to flower becomes less effective, and the communication element becomes
more consequential.
For BeeSim, as the children learn more about the importance of communication, we have them move
from verbal to nonverbal forms of communication. This constraint makes being precise harder but even
more important. As the class separates into two hives, children notice fairly quickly that the hive with

158

Designing BioSim

Table 1. BeeSim and AntSim Rules of Play

BeeSim AntSim
You are a forager honeybee, search for nectar You are a forager army ant, search for food to
Need to gather food
to bring back to the hive. bring back to the nest.
The flowers are scattered around the field; Piles of leaves are scattered around the area;
Search necessary to find food
some have nectar and some do not. some have food underneath, and some do not.
Bees cannot talk with words; they use a Ants cannot talk with words; they leave trails of
Communication and collaboration special dance to communicate to other bees pheromones leading to food sources for other
about nectar location. ants to follow.
You only have a certain amount of energy. To You only have a certain amount of energy. To
Energy constraints
restore low energy, rest at the hive a while. restore low energy, rest at the nest a while.

the best communication collects nectar more quickly. This realization takes several iterations of increas-
ing constraints, but brings across one of the most important systems concepts - that taking a moment to
communicate actually leads to more efficient outcomes rather than wasting time.
These are a few examples of what we chose to include in the design and the rules to push students’
thinking about the reasons and motivations behind the actions these organisms take (see Table 1).

4. Align Guiding Theories to Design, and Vice Versa

Last, it was important for us to make sure our design and guiding theories were aligned. In the Design
Based Research paradigm (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003), not only does theory inform
the design, but the design should push and advance theory. The three principles outlined above illus-
trate how we worked to align our design decisions to what we know to be true about learning systems
thinking skills.
In using real-life systems for our focus, we knew the systems thinking concepts we needed to con-
vey, and how they are best learned, and were able to build the game system around those principles.
For example, we knew feedback loops were a crucial systems thinking concept, and could be explored
through the communication patterns of honeybees collecting nectar. Additionally, we have advanced our
thinking around feedback and what kinds of questions to ask to help children engage with the concept
through several iterations of interview protocols.
Research on play helped us think about the kinds of practices children already engage and how they
are useful for learning. This helped us think about the play mechanics that would be useful in our game.
Additionally, through several iterations of the game, we enhanced our understanding about how children
play. For example, in early versions where children collected cork pieces that stood for nectar, we realized
children will “cheat” whenever possible to beat their friends at the game. We also learned it is helpful to
try and curb running, and that walking (albeit quickly) around a play space can be as robust as running.
Last, our game rules were designed to align to particular systems thinking concepts as well as various
constraints and purposes present in the lives of honeybees and army ants. The process of refining these
rules through various tech and non-tech versions helped us rethink our understanding which rules are
important to be enhanced by technology, such as energy levels getting lows are getting low, and which
can be non-tech, such as staying in the hive while waiting for other bees to search.

159

Designing BioSim

RULES OF PLAY: THE CASES OF BEESIM AND ANTSIM

As part of the iterative design process, we started with no/low-tech playtest sessions before eventually
moving to integrate the technology in the BioSim project. This allowed us to see how the game rules
worked, where technology would or would not enhance the activity, and whether or not children seemed
motivated to participate.

BeeSim

To play BeeSim, children scurry around the play space checking “flowers” for nectar. An area of the
room is blocked off to serve as the hive, such that the players cannot see the room, and must communi-
cate through the waggle dance to convey nectar location. This mirrors the real-life phenomenon wherein
bees communicate inside the hive in the dark. The children may also encounter flowers with poor or no
nectar, and they must decide what information to share, just like real honeybees. Several iterations of
BeeSim took place before the current technology was finalized. In the beginning, there was a version
where children collected pieces of cork (serving as nectar) hidden around the space (Danish, 2009). This,
however, unexpectedly led to children simply gathering all the corks they could possibly hold, ending the
game rather quickly. The cork method gave way to having children use an eyedropper as a proboscis to
collect nectar (colored water; Peppler, et al., 2010). Next, technology was introduced to further produc-
tively constrain the play to help students notice important elements of the system. Electronic feedback
was added bee puppets that were first hand-sewn with electronic-textile materials, and later fabricated
through partnerships with designers. The added technology has enhanced the game play in deep and
interesting ways, but is still second to the overall game rules. We have found that game elements such
as competition between hives and nonverbal communication are the crucial pieces that guide students
toward learning goals effectively and robustly.

AntSim

As with BeeSim, we spent a good deal of time designing good game rules before adding in the technology
aspects for AntSim. This piece of the overall BioSim puzzle has also been through two smaller itera-
tions, with a third higher-tech version in the works. The rules and action of this game are very similar to
BeeSim. Through multiple iterations of playtesting both with groups of graduate students and children
at an after-school club, our designs settled on actors taking the role of army ants. These insects follow
pheromone trails to food sources; stronger trails are further reinforced, suggesting more desirable food.
Players also must recruit help to carry food pieces, as ants are highly collaborative and work together
to bring large finds back to the nest. To simulate the pheromone trails, we gave players brightly colored
game chips (similar to those found in Bingo) to leave on the ground as they crawled around searching
for food. We also hid paper food sources under fake leaves, just as ants must look under brush for food.
A challenge was encountered here as chips on the ground can be easily moved around or prove difficult
to pick up. This reinforced that advanced technology such as indoor real-time positioning could enhance
this portion of game play in future iterations. Specifically, we aim to use position tracking so that we
can record the ant’s virtual positions, and then use that information to provide real-time feedback (e.g.,
vibrating the puppet) when the ants are on the right track or not. This technology also allows us to help
the students explore concepts such as how the trail dissipates over time.

160

Designing BioSim

POSSIBILITIES FOR TRANSFER

Here, we explore some of the similarities and differences between honeybee and army ant systems as
they pertain to possibilities for transfer between them. We see promise here as research has suggested
that a first-person (agent-based) perspective can support transfer into other domains (Goldstone &
Wilensky, 2008).

Similarities

These two systems share a good deal of similarities that we feel are promising as we design for transfer
across the games. In both honeybee and army ant systems, the workers need to search for food to sus-
tain the collective population. However, each search attempt will not always result in finding food. The
search process is dangerous and taxing, and it is also possible for a previously abundant food source to
disappear or otherwise become undesirable throughout the process. This must be learned throughout the
game as children may believe at first that, for example, they will find nectar at every flower they check.
Additionally, in both systems, feedback loops are positive. In this case, it means balancing of the
system occurs through a lack of positive information rather than sharing information to stop visiting a
particular location. For example, when army ants discover that a food source has been depleted, they
simply stop going there, and the pheromone trail fades away. They do not, as children may predict, go
back to the nest and report that the food source has been emptied. Within the positive information, the
insects must also decide what information is better, or worth sharing. There may be two flowers with
nectar, or two strong pheromone trails, and they must choose which dance to do or trail to follow. Another
choice might be whether to wait and gather information from others rather than add to the search efforts.
As we work to move children away from verbal communication throughout the game, these decisions
become more difficult, showcasing that these are not simple system.

Differences

Along with their similarities, honeybee and army ant systems have several differences that make them
interesting and useful as different games under a larger umbrella. At least to the outside observer, com-
munication appears more “on purpose” in honeybees. While we know honeybees come back to the hive
and perform the waggle dance when a good flower is found, army ants always leave pheromone trails
as they travel along the forest floor. The reinforcement of these trails by more ants going back and forth
is more of an outcome or side-effect of the ants continuing to find food.
As a result of this difference, the communication in BeeSim is entirely orchestrated and co-designed
by the children. They must come up with ways to get across the information they need to convey. In
AntSim, the technology is meant to take more of the burden of sharing information. Thus, children’s
decisions are more about what information to share, and not as much about how to share it. This also
provides new opportunities to explore other related issues such as how long the pheromone trails might
remain. If the pheromone trails never dissipated, they would soon lose their value as the entire forest
floor might be criss-crossed with old trails that lead to food sources that have long since been exploited.
Therefore, this is a productive variable for students to explore as they attempt to find a sweet spot where
the trail persists long-enough to bring more ants to the food source, and yet dissipates quickly enough
that only a few ants continue to follow the trail once it no longer leads to food.

161

Designing BioSim

Additionally, the army ant system involves a different level of cooperation. Here, individuals must
sometimes work together to physically carry a food source back to the nest. This level of physical coor-
dination does not take place with honeybees.

CONCLUSION

Through this work we realized that some constraints need to be made salient to fully bring across the
concepts we have identified as crucial, meaning there is exciting space to leverage technological af-
fordances. The game space provides interesting opportunities to make salient those constraints that
create productive double-binds. By choosing a central focal point, building on children’s common play
mechanics, and productively constraining play, we were able to build games that engage young children
with complex systems concepts in interesting ways.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Further iterations of this work are currently underway to better utilize design based research method-
ologies to evaluate the effectiveness of our activities and articulate the ways in which participatory
simulations and games help students to engage with specific complex systems concepts. To fully benefit
from these methods we will need to gather data over a longer period of time, assessing the parts of the
system that do and do not work, and adjusting with each iteration. These studies include not only multiple
choice assessment measures, but targeted interviews to explore students’ experiences and evaluate their
understanding through their own words. These studies seek to pin down the importance of combining
first- and third- person perspectives for young learners, as well as show the benefits of embodiment as
young children explore complex systems. We are currently conducting implementations in classrooms
under quasi-experimental conditions, while iterating and designing closely with the classroom teachers
as they lead the instruction efforts.
Although we have shown that previous versions of BeeSign (the third-person only component of the
game) and BeeSim (the first-person component) produce positive learning outcomes for young children
(cf. Danish, 2014; Peppler et al., 2010), we have explored the unique benefits (and challenges) using
both perspectives together with our newly enhanced technologies. Along with outlining the general ef-
ficacy of this overall game and program, data collected in classrooms over the next several months will
also help us illuminate transfer between and across BeeSim and AntSim. Down the line, we also hope to
explore other systems through similar game mechanics. For example, other BioSim games could look at
ants and bees together in an ecosystem, or perhaps branch out to other biological systems such as sheep
and wolves, or the circulatory system.
Of course, aside from these planned studies, other potential research around this area could also
prove illuminating. It might be interesting to compare this game-based method to less playful versions
of the same content. An experiment of this kind would set up two otherwise equal classroom groups,
one exploring our entire BioSim curriculum, and the other learning the same content in less playful, or
even traditional ways. We would hypothesize that children in our game-based method would outperform
children in the traditional class, but comparison could help us pinpoint more precisely where and how
the learning advantages of BioSim are located. It could also be interesting to experiment with rules of

162

Designing BioSim

play, continuing to tweak the current system, and playing with where the technology plays a role. Finally,
further work could explore BioSim in an informal space, such as a museum. The system would need
some deep redesigning to be efficacious in a museum space with high turnover and high volumes of
learners, but it might prove useful as a spark for further and deeper science learning.

REFERENCES

Anand, N., Meijer, D., van Duin, J. H. R., Tavasszy, L., & Meijer, S. (2013). Validation of an agent based
model using a participatory simulation gaming approach: the case of city logistics. Academic Press.
Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating com-
plex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. doi:10.1207/
s15327809jls0202_2
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction.
Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 1, 39–64. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840975.004
Colella, V. (2000). Participatory Simulations: Building Collaborative Understanding Through Immersive
Dynamic Modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_4
Colella, V., Borovoy, R., & Resnick, M. (1998). Participatory simulations: Using computational objects
to learn about dynamic systems. In CHI 98 Conference Summary on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 9–10). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=286503
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.
com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-77750-9_2
Danish, J. (2009). BeeSign: A design experiment to teach Kindergarten and first grade students about
honeybees from a complex systems perspective. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user
=TSMP1GEAAAAJ&citation_for_view=TSMP1GEAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC
Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the
structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–49.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (Ed.). (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Hel-
sinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an
augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
7(3), 347–378. doi:10.1007/s11412-012-9150-3

163

Designing BioSim

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and
literacy. P. Lang New York. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/books/Abstract.asp?ContentId=14621
Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting Transfer by Grounding Complex Systems Principles.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516. doi:10.1080/10508400802394898
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-
novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.
doi:10.1080/10508400701413401
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational
importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Activity theory in a nutshell. Acting with Technology: Activity
Theory and Interaction Design, 29–72.
Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Rivas, L. (2004). Comparative analysis of Palm and wearable computers for
Participatory Simulations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 347–359. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2004.00094.x
Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s
explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 18(4), 337–359. doi:10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6
Montemayor, J., Druin, A., Farber, A., Simms, S., Churaman, W., & D’Amour, A. (2002). Physical
programming: designing tools for children to create physical interactive environments. In Proceed-
ings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 299–306). ACM.
doi:10.1145/503376.503430
Peppler, K., & Danish, J. (2013). E-textiles for educators: Participatory simulations with e-puppetry. In
Textile messages: Dispatches from the world of e-textiles and education (pp. 133–141). New York, NY:
Peter Lang Publishing.
Peppler, K., Danish, J., Zatilen, B., Glosson, D., Jacobs, A., & Phelps, D. (2010). BeeSim: Leveraging
Wearable Computers in Participatory Simulations with Young Children. In Proceedings of the 9th In-
ternational Conference on Interaction Design and Children. Retrieved from http://www.kpeppler.com/
Docs/2010_Peppler_BeeSim.pdf
Resnick, M. (1999). Decentralized modeling and decentralized thinking. In Modeling and simulation in
science and mathematics education (pp. 114–137). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1414-4_5
Rogers, Y., & Muller, H. (2006). A framework for designing sensor-based interactions to promote
exploration and reflection in play. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(1), 1–14.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.05.004

164

Designing BioSim

Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational

designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3
Sandoval, W. A. (2013). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–19. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Suits, B. (2005). Construction of a definition. The Game Design Reader, 172–191.
Sweeney, L. B. (2012). Learning to Connect the Dots: Developing Children’s Systems Literacy. Solu-
tions, 5(3), 55–62.
The Design Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for
Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001005
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology
through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition
and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense
of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. doi:10.1023/A:1009421303064
Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisiting “play”: Analyzing and articulating acts of inquiry.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 171–178. doi:10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000012135.73710.0c

ADDITIONAL READING

Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth
system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. doi:10.1002/tea.20061
Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cazden, C. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal
development. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3(1), 5–8.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educa-
tional research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001009
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of
Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191. doi:10.1080/0950069980201002
Enyedy, N. (2003). Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk,
and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sci-
ences, 12(3), 361–408. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_2

165

Designing BioSim

Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learn-
ing sciences (pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex
system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7
Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts
and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49. doi:10.1002/cplx.1027
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vy-
gotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 191–206. doi:10.1080/00461520.1996.9653266
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T.
A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters
(pp. 29–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learn-
ing environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades
K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 1–22.
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0501_1
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Educa-
tion, 88(2), 263–291. doi:10.1002/sce.10113
Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
15(1), 5–9. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_3
Seeley, T. D. (1995). The wisdom of the hive: the social physiology of honey bee colonies. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Smith, J. P. III, diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist
analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. doi:10.1207/
s15327809jls0302_1

166

Designing BioSim

Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999, December). Learning through participatory simulations: Network
based design for systems learning in classrooms. Paper presented at the Computer Support for Collab-
orative Learning 1999 Conference, Palo Alto, CA. doi:10.3115/1150240.1150320

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Complex System: System made up of many interconnected elements on various levels; interactions
on lower levels give rise to events on higher levels.
Double-Bind: When students’ current modes of thinking, needs, and the possibilities in the environ-
ment are not aligned; students must think in new ways to realign these elements.
Embodiment: Physically representing actions of another actor or occurrence.
Participatory Simulation: People involved act out a simulated process rather than watching the
simulation in a computer model.
Pheromone: Secreted chemicals that are perceived by other actors as messages to act in certain ways;
army ants leave trails of these chemicals to trace travel paths.
Play: Acting in particular ways possibly aligned with rules that govern an imaginary space.
Positive Feedback Loop: Circular process where one event leads to another, eventually circling back
to the original event occurring again; may spiral out of control unless a balancing event occurs.
Waggle Dance: Scout honeybees do this to communicate location of nectar sources to other foragers.

167
168

Chapter 8
A Game-Based Approach
to Teaching Social
Problem-Solving Skills
Rebecca P. Ang Vivien S. Huan
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Jean Lee Tan Yoon Phaik Ooi

Ministry of Education, Singapore Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Dion H. Goh Jillian S. T. Boon

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Institute of Mental Health, Singapore

Daniel S. S. Fung
Institute of Mental Health, Singapore

ABSTRACT
This chapter describes a game-based approach to teaching social problem solving skills. This chapter
presents the background, literature review, development and evaluation of a social problem-solving game,
Socialdrome, for use with primary school going children in Singapore. The game sought to intentionally
teach children to identify and manage feelings, exercise self-control, solve social problems and negotiate
conflict situations. This chapter has two objectives. First, we describe the design of Socialdrome, which
is in alignment with instructional design and game design principles. In Study 1, we reported a forma-
tive evaluation of the game. This led to further refinements of the game. Second, we presented Study 2,
an investigation of the learning outcomes and user acceptance arising from using Socialdrome. Here,
a summative evaluation of the game in a formal classroom setting was reported. We concluded with
directions for future work.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch008

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

INTRODUCTION

Many researchers and practitioners have examined the role of games in education and have emphasized
that children can understand concepts and skills through the integration of games into the instruction
process (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007; Virvou, Katsionis, & Manos, 2005). Games present students with
a learner-centered model of instruction where active participation is adopted rather than mere passive
listening (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). Games are intrinsically motivating to children, and there is
evidence to show that students made significantly more learning gains by participating in a game-based
learning context compared to those in the traditional school context (Tüzün, Yilmaz-Soylu, Karakus,
Inal, & KizIlkaya, 2009).
Education encompasses more than just academic leaning. There is growing awareness among educa-
tors that social and emotional competencies play a critical role in enhancing not just academic but also
behavioral and emotional outcomes for children and adolescents. Social and emotional competencies
such as greater self and social awareness, greater problem-solving and management skills go a long way
in determining how well a child meets the demands of the classroom and how well a child regulates
his/her emotions and maintains positive relationships with others. A mastery of social problem-solving
skills enable socially competent children to skillfully coordinate the multiple processes and resources
available to them to meet social demands within a specific context, for example, home or school (Iarocci,
Yager, & Elfers, 2007). Therefore, it is not surprising that competence in a set of social problem-solving
skills is a powerful predictor of school adjustment, success in school and later success in life (Meadan
& Monda-Amaya, 2008).
Traditionally, social problem-solving skills training programs are delivered in a face-to-face manner
with children (Hennessey, 2007). With emerging technology, a game-based approach can be brought
to the learners and this can ease teachers’ task in infusing social problem-solving skills instruction into
their curriculum (Hobbs & Yan, 2008). A game-based approach has the advantage of providing children
with multiple opportunities to learn and practice social skills, to practice before testing it out in real life
settings (Parsons, Leonard & Mitchell, 2006), and to augment the efforts of the instructors, rendering
it possible to conduct the skills training with larger numbers of students in the classroom. The shift
to game-based technology certainly calls for a critical need to conduct research on game-based social
skills training for classroom integration. The pervasiveness of computer games has challenged our basic
assumptions of learning environments as games can enhance student engagement and promote a learner-
centered learning environment (Watson, Mong & Harris, 2011).
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to present the development and evaluation of a social
problem-solving game, Socialdrome. The game was developed with the aim of offering an engaging
and pedagogically sound learning environment for enhancing social problem-solving skills of primary
school-going children in Singapore. The game sought to intentionally teach children to identify and man-
age feelings, exercise self-control, solve social problems and negotiate conflict situations. This chapter
has two objectives. We first present sufficient background and literature review on this topic area which
then leads us to our first objective. Our first objective is to describe the design of Socialdrome, which is
in alignment with instructional design and game design principles. In Study 1, we report how we forma-
tively evaluated the game using a participatory evaluation methodology, gathering ideas and concepts
from the participants. This led to further refinements of the game. Our second objective for this chapter
was to present Study 2, an investigation of the learning outcomes and user acceptance arising from using
Socialdrome. Here, a summative evaluation of the game in a formal classroom setting was conducted.

169

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Skills and Social Skills Training

Children face numerous challenging social situations and it is no surprise that having appropriate social
skills to navigate social relationships are critical (Crick & Dodge, 1994). Children may struggle with
communicating their physical and emotional needs to their peers and significant adults due to their
inadequate knowledge of social rules and inability to accurately appraise social situations (Quinn, Ka-
vale, Mathur, Rutherford, & Forness, 1999). Middle childhood (between 8 to 11 years) is an important
developmental stage for children as they expand their social circle and spend an increasing amount of
time with their peers. They interact in social contexts, whether working in groups in the classrooms,
playing rule-based games in the field or participating in organized out-of-school activities (Simpkins,
Fredricks, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2006). During their middle childhood years, children are expected to
display autonomous behavior and be able to handle the increasingly complex social situations without a
high degree of structure and support from their key adult care-givers (Landry, Smith, & Swank, 2009).
Having a sophisticated repertoire of social skills and strong interpersonal problem-solving skills con-
tribute to success in the management of everyday social interactions (Spence, 2003).
Social maladjustment is a risk factor for children as it contributes to many emotional, behavioral and
psychological problems such as social phobia (Spence & Donovan, 2000), aggression (Nangle, Erdley,
Carpenter, & Newman, 2002), depression (Segrin, 2000), oppositional behavior, loneliness and social
dissatisfaction (Parker & Asher, 1987, 1993). If left untreated, they may be predictive of maladjustment
in school and poor academic performance (Jones, Sheridan, & Binns, 1993). Having adequate social
skills have been shown to be associated with positive academic outcomes as well as teacher and peer
acceptance (Lane, Menzies, Barton-Arwood, Doukas, & Munton, 2005). In a longitudinal study by
Welsh, Parke, Widaman, and O’Neil (2006), the researchers found that social and academic competence
influence each other reciprocally over time. In fact, impaired social skills seem to be precursors of
more serious problems in adolescence and adulthood such as dropping out of school, juvenile and adult
criminality, and adult psychopathology (Bongers, Koot, Van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2008; Trentacosta
& Shaw, 2012). In short, these studies suggested that there is a link between social maladjustment in
childhood and subsequent life difficulties.
Empirically-based procedures that are effective in the assessment and treatment of social skills deficits
in children have their underpinnings in operant, social learning and cognitive-behavioral theoretical ap-
proaches (Elliott & Gresham, 1993). The social information processing model has been widely used in
many intervention programs building skills in social and problem-solving (Dodge & Crick, 1990; Ladd,
1999). The social information processing model theorized that social cognitions are the mechanisms that
influence social behaviors of children and describe how children process and interpret social situations,
as well as how misunderstandings may contribute to the increased likelihood of maladaptive behavior.
The social information processing model (Crick & Dodge, 1994) outlines six steps which children use
to process social information and these steps are not strictly linear in nature and each step may influence
other steps through a series of feedback loops: (1) encode external and internal social cues, 2) interpret
and form mental representation of cues, (3) clarify goals, (4) access from memory possible responses,
(5) select the most positively evaluated response, and (6) enact the behavior.
Social skills training for children is a structured program to help them display prosocial behavior,
increase emotional awareness, establish positive relationships and reduce aggressive behavior toward

170

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

their peers (Hennessey, 2007). Such training programs have been recognized to provide benefits not
just to children identified to have behavioral and emotional problems but to all children. Therefore, such
universal school-based social skills training, which comprises practices to support desired behavior for
all students have been used in schools to establish and strengthen skills in initiating and maintaining
interpersonal relationships, and developing skills that are crucial for peer acceptance (Gresham, 1988;
Parker & Asher, 1987).
Innovation and flexibility in the instructional delivery systems have resulted in emerging technologies
in the learning context (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). The potential of technology-mediated applications
has led researchers to harness their usefulness for use in the social development of children. The use of
such techniques to impart social skills have grown more sophisticated over the last 10 to 15 years (Scat-
tone, 2007). Technology-mediated training could potentially address problems apparent in traditional
social skills instruction. It provides opportunities for children to practice particular skills in a safe and
non-threatening environment, thereby minimizing potentially threatening “real-world” consequences
should mistakes be made (Griffiths, 2002; Parsons, Leonard, & Mitchell, 2006). Fenstermacher, Olympia,
and Sheridan (2006) for example, provided empirical evidence that a non-intrusive computer-facilitated
social skills program allowed children to view interactive “real-world” video scenarios and maintained
gains in behavioral enactment of social problem-solving skills.

Game-Based Learning

Many scholars have examined the role of games in education and have shown that children can understand
concepts and skills through the integration of games into the instruction process (Egenfeldt-Nielsen,
2007; Squire, 2008; Virvou, Katsionis, & Manos, 2005). Games present students with a learner-centered
model of instruction where a “learning by doing” strategy rather than a “learning by listening” is ad-
opted (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). Therefore, designing interesting and immersive experiences
for learners through experimentation and problem-solving is critical (Squire, 2008).
There has been research evidence to show that games provide an intrinsically motivating learning
environment to engage players meaningfully in learning activities. An evaluation study using mobile game-
based learning showed that the use of principles of engagement and motivation in the game created an
immersive experience for children in the learning of concepts (Facer et al., 2004). Another study showed
that students made significantly more learning gains by participating in a game-based learning context
compared to those in the traditional school context (Tüzün et al., 2009). Yet another study documented
that the gaming approach was more effective in promoting students’ knowledge of computer memory
concepts and was more motivational than the non-gaming approach (Papastergiou, 2009).

Designing and Developing Games

Gee (2007) argued that well designed and well developed games can bring about deep and meaningful
learning. Sound pedagogical foundations and good game design principles should be used right at the
onset of the design process. The design and development of games should consider five key perspec-
tives, namely, designing from the learning theory viewpoint, designing from the instructional design
viewpoint, designing from the player interaction viewpoint, designing from the user-centered viewpoint
and designing using a participatory design approach.

171

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

The first perspective of good game design involves a knowledge and application of learning theories.
There many different approaches and theories on human learning. Two dominant paradigms have been
used in game design - behaviorism and constructivism. First generation game designs largely adopted
the behavioral approach in which participation by learners was characterized by a passive, stimulus-
response process (Semple, 2000). The term “instruction” clearly connotes a very directed and controlled
approach to teaching. The game design is influenced to a large extent by the behavioral paradigm which
assumes that the learner is passive and that learning occurs after the learner practices a skill using trial
and error until a positive response occurs (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007). The constructivist approach on
the other hand, views learning as an active process in which learners choose and transform information,
construct hypotheses and make decisions, relying on a cognitive structure to do so (Connolly & Stans-
field, 2006). Games should have attributes of constructivism and provide abundant opportunities for
exploration and discovery. In an extensive literature review on the pedagogical foundations of educational
games developed from 2000 to 2007, Kebritchi and Hirumi (2008) identified that experiential learning
is one of the commonly used instructional strategies adopted. An influential constructivist model of ex-
periential learning that is widely referred to is the Kolb’s experiential learning model whereby defined
experiential learning is a process where knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.
Well-constructed games can connect the players to the real world concrete experiences which is the heart
of the experiential learning approach (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008).
The second perspective requires designing from the instructional design viewpoint. Gunter, Kenny,
and Vick (2006) argued that if game designs are not based on well-established instructional theories, the
end result is the construction of games that can only serve to entertain but do not achieve educational
objectives. Johnson and Huang (2008) postulated that grounded systematic instructional design should
be applied when designing games so as to achieve effective design outcomes. One well used instruc-
tional design strategy is Gagné’s events of instruction (2005) which correspond to the increasing level of
complexities in game design and can be applied to evaluate the instructional validity of games (Gunter
et al., 2006). Instructional designers can apply Gagné’s principles to gameplay by designing the events
of instruction for the players to experience and acquire learning. Keller (2010) argued that instruction
cannot be effective if it is not appealing. Therefore, the four conditions of attention, relevance, confidence
and satisfaction are included in his motivational model.
The third perspective suggests that games should be developed taking into consideration player in-
teraction. Games developed should not only have educational content and value but should be fun and
have the motivational appeal to sustain player interest over time. The games designed should support
playful learning where the boundaries between play and learning become blurred, and should include
core interactive activities such as (a) exploration through interaction, (b) engagement, (c) reflection,
(d) imagination, creativity and thinking, and (e) collaboration (Price, Rogers, Scaife, Stanton, & Neale,
2003). The challenge is to design educational games to obtain the delicate balance between delightful
play and meaningful learning.
The fourth perspective is the need to take into account the user-centered viewpoint when design-
ing games. Design should be driven by knowledge of target users; there should not be a one-size-fits-
all design. In addition, traditional user-centered design has been criticized for focusing too much on
human-computer interaction (HCI) principles pertaining to adult users and neglecting issues related to
children (Shneiderman & Plaisant, 2010). To ensure that good quality games are designed to contribute
positively to children’s development, sound HCI methodologies should be dedicated to address the needs

172

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

of children. Children at different ages interact differently with technology due to their varied cognitive
and emotional developmental needs, skills and knowledge (Markopoulos & Bekker, 2003). Markopoulos
and Bekker suggested that younger children between 3- and 7-years of age do not have fully developed
reasoning skills, so the products developed for them should be based on concrete concepts. On the
other hand, they pointed out that older children between 8- and 12-years of age have started to develop
a sense of logic, reasoning and simple abstractions, and so more complex and challenging concepts can
be integrated into the products.
The fifth and final perspective of good game design involves using a participatory design approach.
An approach used by many researchers to allow the needs of the users to be central in the design of a
new technological system is participatory design. This approach advocates that the users are knowledge-
able and skillful to participate in the user-designer collaboration and that active users’ involvement is
beneficial for the creation of satisfying applications (Triantafyllakos, Palaigeorgiou, & Tsoukalas, 2010).
Children can provide useful insights (Hanna, Neapolitan, & Risden, 2004). A common mistake in de-
signing products for children is not involving the potential users for which the games are intended due
to the traditional power structure of the “all-knowing” adult and the “all-learning” child (Druin, 2002).
Participatory design approaches have been carried out with children. For example, Kids and Teacher
Integrated Evaluation (KaTIE) facilitated a child-designer-teacher conversation (Pardo, Howard, & Vetere,
2008). The child-designer dyad allowed the designer to know first-hand the children’s understanding of
the concepts and ideas conveyed in the applications. Using an informant-based design approach with
children, Brederode, Markopoulos, Gielen, Vermeeren, and Ridder (2005) were successful in mapping
the needs of the children onto the design of the game mechanics, and create a more successful augmented
reality computer game.

Evaluating Games

Games can be evaluated using formative and/or summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is usually
carried out during the design process and is typically conducted to address interface design, gameplay
and instructional issues in keeping with the objective of making improvements (Papastergiou, 2009).
Summative evaluation is a procedure performed at the end of the development phase on the finished
product and is usually associated with evaluating the impact or effect of the system (Shiratuddin &
Landoni, 2002).
Usability evaluation involving actual users are complicated and difficult to carry out but it is impor-
tant and the results are more reliable (Zerfass & Hartmann, 2005). For example, recruiting children as
evaluators may pose problems as they have shorter attention span compared to adults (Tan, Goh, Ang,
& Huan, 2011). As children have a voice that should be heard and valued, perspectives, action and at-
titudes should be gathered directly from them as proxy-reporting is not adequate (Borgers, de Leeuw, &
Hox, 2000). Usability typically addresses the game controls, screens, menus, displays and other interface
elements through which players utilize to interact with the game (Laitinen, 2008). So the game interface
should be one that is straightforward to use and easy to learn. Usability also refers to the degree of acces-
sibility to which players can learn, control and understand a game without the need to refer to a manual
(Pinelle, Wong, & Stach, 2008).

173

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Evaluating games like other entertainment technologies remains a challenge as there is a need to
acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between games and other applications (Fernandez,
2008). Games ought to be fun and enjoyable (Koeffel et al., 2010) and the focus is shifted from usability
analysis to user experience analysis (Fernandez, 2008). Gameplay is about an experience that transforms
the perceptions and attitudes of players toward the game. Previous studies on game designs have used
the concept of playability in the evaluation of game experience (Sánchez, Zea, & Gutiérrez, 2009). Some
playability heuristics include concentration, challenge, skills, control, clear goals, feedback, immersion
and social interaction, and these were drawn mainly from Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory (1991) and
the literature on user experience and usability. Another concept that links closely to user experience
is perceived playfulness. Playfulness implies a belief that interacting with a system would bring about
enjoyment or cognitive absorption (including concentration and curiosity) (Ahn, Ryu, & Han, 2007).
O’Neil, Wainess, and Baker (2005) argued that without gathering clear evidence of impact, games
could likely be dismissed as gadgets for fun without any instructional value. From an educational per-
spective, evaluation of games can be carried out by assessing the measures that examine the desired
learning outcomes, which can be regarded as indicators for the evaluation (Wilson et al., 2009). Typically
in educational settings, the ultimate goal for users of a system is to attain the specific learned knowledge,
skills and attitudes (Wilson et al., 2009). Social skills knowledge for example, is widely used in empirical
studies as it has been considered as a predictor of response among children who received social skills
training or intervention (DeRosier & Gilliom, 2007). Prior studies (e.g., Beaumont & Sofronoff, 2008)
have shown that the intervention group improved significantly in knowledge of social skills compared
to the control group. Findings in DeRosier and Gilliom’s study (2007) demonstrated that improvements
in social skills knowledge predicted improvements in outcome measures on a variety of outcomes such
as assertive problem-solving, clinical maladjustment, school maladjustment, emotional symptoms and
personal adjustment.
Though games may be appealing, the acceptance of computer games for learning cannot be assumed
and taken for granted (Bourgonjon et al., 2010). There is a need to look at factors or barriers that obstruct
the straightforward adoption of video games in schools. There is a strong relationship between behavioral
intention and actual behavior as research has shown that behavioral intention likely brings about the actual
use of a system (Lau & Woods, 2009). Understanding the determinants influencing behavioral intention
to use instructional games can guide instructional game designers to develop more entertaining games.
It should be noted that computer games are not complete solutions for the remediation of social skills
problems that arise. Though sophisticated technology such as virtual reality attempts to create a more
effective training environment to be implemented in a real world setting, limitations still exist. The in-
ability to imitate the emotional qualities in humans for example, would affect the realism of the characters
in the games (Li & Campbell, 2010). If the characters in the games are not regarded as believable or
real, the immersive experience will be negatively affected. Also, it is important to note that these games
are not meant to replace the need for a mental health professional (Goh, Ang, & Tan, 2008; Wilkinson,
Ang, & Goh, 2008). In studies on computer-aided psychotherapy that uses psycho-educational video
games to aid “traditional” face-to-face therapy, review of the data showed that these interventions would
produce better results when augmented with face-to-face contact for those with mental health issues
(Marks, Cavanagh, & Gega, 2007).

174

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

SOCIALDROME: CONCEPTUALIZATION AND DESIGN

Conceptualization and Design: Input, Learning Process, and Consequences

Socialdrome was grounded within a theoretical context. In conceptualizing and designing Socialdrome,
three aspects were considered - the input, the learning process and the consequences. At the input stage,
game attributes and user characteristics were considered. Game attributes refer to the factors in a game
that affect the learning process that instructional designers should be cognizant of: the game should be
able to captivate the learners’ interests, cater to their learning needs, build their confidence and provide
opportunities for them to conduct self-assessment of their achievement. These game attributes were
derived from Gagné’s Events of Instruction (Gagné et al., 2005) and ARCS Motivation Model (Keller,
2010) which are popular instructional design theories utilized by many instructional design practitioners
(Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004). Previous research studies (for example, Gunter, Kenny, & Vick,
2006) have found Gagné’s Events of Instruction and ARCS Model suitable for evaluating the instruc-
tional validity of the game as they are in alignment with game design principles. User characteristics on
the other hand, refer to individual differences in gender, gaming experience and gaming self-efficacy.
Research has shown for example, that males have a stronger preference toward computer games, greater
experience in gaming, are more likely to be game-players and show greater confidence than females
(Bonanno & Kommers, 2008; Gentile, 2009). Another relevant user characteristic to consider would be
gaming experience. In general, frequent players spending more time on gameplaying, have more gaming
experience and often show better game performance than individuals with less experience (Blumberg et
al., 2008). Finally, self-efficacy, a concept that emerged from Bandura’s (1977) Social Cognitive Theory,
is an individual’s perception or belief in his or her personal abilities to accomplish a task at hand. In
the context of games, a person with high gaming self-efficacy has the confidence to perform the tasks
in the gameworld easily.
The learning process stage encompasses the period when learners are actively engaged in the task.
Both Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory and social information-processing model developed
by Crick and Dodge (1994) were used to frame the learning process experienced by the learners. The
emphasis of the experiential learning theory is on the integral role that experiences play in the learning
process. This is based on a four-stage cyclical model of concrete experience, reflective observation,
abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Although the stages are described to operate
not simultaneously but sequentially, the learners may enter the cycle at any point (Kolb & Kolb, 2009).
With respect to Socialdrome, the learners begin the game with a concrete experience such as a designed
learning situation. In the second stage, the concrete experience then motivates the learners to reflect on
their experience with questions such as “What happened?”, “Am I aware of this new knowledge/skill?”
Time is taken for reflective observations about this experience. In the third stage, abstract conceptual-
ization, the learners make generalizations, glean insights, and draw conclusions, addressing questions
like: “What does this experience mean to me?” In the fourth stage, the learners apply the new ideas
they obtained through active experimentation in similar and different circumstances and develop new
perspectives in their construct of the world. We also use the social information-processing model (Crick
& Dodge, 1994) to frame the learning process. This model organizes social problem-solving to explain
children’s social adjustment into the following steps: encode external and internal social cues, interpret
and form mental representation of cues, clarify goals, access from the memory possible responses, select
the most positively evaluated response, and finally, enact the behavior. Therefore, for Socialdrome, both

175

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

theories are used in the conceptualization and design of the gameplay. In a single gameplay instance,
the learners go through several spirals of cycles (Kolb, 1984). Following a recursive spiral of experienc-
ing, reflecting, thinking and acting, the learners’ understanding and learning power is enhanced with
each completed cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). The learning of knowledge and skills is also concurrently
anchored in meaningful problem-solving situations encountered by children in their everyday social
interactions (Crick & Dodge, 1994).
Consequences are defined by the learning outcomes that are achieved and user acceptance (Bour-
gonjon et al., 2010; Fernandez, 2008; Garris et al., 2002). These consequences are also influenced by
the input. Thus the effectiveness of the game can be evaluated by investigating the consequences that
happen. The learning outcomes derived from the cyclic experiential process is social skills knowledge.
Fraser et al (2005) posited that knowledge gained in social skills will influence the way children encode
and interpret cues, attribute the cause of the social events, construct goals in a social context, and de-
velop appropriate behavioral repertoires. Therefore it is anticipated that the children after undergoing the
game-based social skills training will be able to acquire social skills knowledge. Another consequence
of gameplaying to be considered is the user acceptance, which is closely tied to factors influencing user
experiences. Clearly the success of user acceptance depends on the experience: the better the experi-
ence, the higher the acceptance of the new technology (Shin, 2009). Therefore, perceived playability or
perceived game usability will be an important aspect to evaluate. Perceived playfulness is yet another
crucial aspect and is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an interaction with a
particular system would make him or her joyful (Fang et al., 2005). It has strongly been associated with
perceived enjoyment and described as the extent to which fun can be derived from using the system (van
der Heijden, 2004). Therefore perceived enjoyment or perceived playfulness, which focuses on intrinsic
motivation, is believed to play an important role in users’ acceptance of the game (Lee & Tsai, 2010).

Overall Description of Game and Specific Game Elements

Socialdrome was designed with clearly defined learning objectives to help students develop positive
solutions in challenging social situations, and in particular anger-provoking situations. The contents of
the game were adapted from a training manual and a workbook on social problem solving skills training
written by Ang and Ooi (2003a; 2003b). The activities presented in the manual and workbook consisted
of either physical or paper-based games that range from board games to role-playing ones. These books
were well-received by schools in Singapore and the preliminary results of the evaluation of the training
program showed promising outcomes (Ooi, Ang, Fung, Wong, & Cai, 2007). Socialdrome was not a
direct translation from the manual and workbook but was designed to be a Web-based single player game
that is able to give young users an engaging experience and at the same time fulfil the goal and learning
objectives of the game. The lessons in Socialdrome sought to engage children in social activities in a
virtual social world. It was augmented with mini-games, interleaved in the gameworld, which delivered
explicit instructions on social skills. The game was designed as an adventure game so that it could offer
enjoyment and entertainment to children through exploration, puzzle-solving and accomplishment of
defined tasks. The adventure game is an interactive story about the character or protagonist whom the
player controls.
For the purposes of this research, seven modules were designed for evaluation and research. These
modules covered core competencies such as understanding of feelings, anger coping techniques and
social-cognitive skills. The contents specifically target the various cognitive-behavioral difficulties

176

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

typically manifested by children during social setbacks. The first two modules teach the identification
of feelings with a focus on those associated with anger. Modules 3 and 4 teach a range of anger-coping
techniques to manage intense emotions and difficult social situations. With respect to social-cognitive
skills, children are taught how to apply empathy skills in different situations in Module 5. In Module 6,
the children are taught social problem-solving skills to help them think in a goal-directed manner before
taking appropriate action. Module 7 rounds up the game with the integrative session, which serves as a
revision of skills learned in the previous modules (see table 1).
The entire game has a narrative which provides a context for the activities in the game and it makes
learning of concepts less abstract. Embedding narrative in a game provides meaning and importance
that increases significance, tension and motivation in playing the game (Pagulayan et al., 2003). To
make the game more relevant and meaningful to the target users, the narrative relates to life problems
typically encountered by students in school, at play or at home. Included in the game environment are
also non-player characters such as villagers, potatoes, shepherd, farmer, witches, “angry potatoes”,
“Frog Jumpy” and “a lonely bear”. Their dialogues with the protagonist contribute to building up the
storyline. They are added to the game for the element of fun and fantasy as well as to transmit important
learning points. For example, “angry potatoes” were added to the storyline to highlight that there are
others besides the players with anger issues and acquiring anger-coping strategies is essential. Music and
sound effects were also included in the storyline to create feelings of excitement and tension and thus
enhance the entertainment value of the game. A backstory was incorporated into the game to present
the background of the character, tell the target users about their character and the environment. This is
considered as important for players to achieve full concentration and immersion in the game. To illus-
trate the backstory, two pre-rendered movie cut-scenes, the introduction and concluding movies, were
shown at the start and at the end of the game-playing. This supplied information on the context of the
storyline. The game also incorporated role-playing elements. When players first log into Socialdrome,
they are allowed to role-play the protagonist by selecting a representation of the game avatars. Based on
the accounts given to the players, each boy could choose among three different male avatars with their
individual characteristics and likewise, each girl could choose among three female avatars with their
individual characteristics.
The game is divided into seven modules which are referred to as “missions”. The term “mission”
was used so that players felt that they were commissioned to undertake a special assignment or opera-
tion. Each mission corresponded to the learning material from a module. To add novelty and interest to
the experience, each mission was set in a different environment with a detailed story for the players to

Table 1. Core Competencies and Contents of the Modules

Core Competencies Module

Understanding of Emotions Module 1: Identification of Feelings
Module 2: Exploring Anger Feelings
Anger Coping Skills Module 3: Anger Coping Techniques I
Module 4: Anger Coping Techniques II
Social-Cognitive Skills Module 5: Empathy Skills
Module 6: Problem-Solving skills
Summary Module 7: Integrative Session

177

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

explore. Within each mission are quests which require players to navigate in the gameworld to accom-
plish a task, for example, to solve a mystery or retrieve an object (Gratch & Kelly, 2009). Players have
to explore their surrounding environment including the non-player characters and determine the steps
needed to progress towards completion. In each mission, there are about four to five quests for players to
navigate. Therefore, through performing various quests in the missions, players learn social skills such
as identifying feelings accurately, coping with anger, developing empathy, and problem-solving. In the
game, a mythical creature named as PetTeach is presented on the interface as the main disguise of an
online help system to provide digestible information, hints, clarifications and instructions on gameplay
(Bates, Brown, Cranton, & Lewis, 2007). Represented as a mascot, PetTeach guides the avatar as he/
she navigates along his/her way to conquer the quests. Credit points are provided in the form of “mints”
to reward and motivate players towards the achievement of learning objectives. The mints increase in
number when players execute the right actions and decrease in number when players execute the wrong
actions. The number of mints obtained together with feedback in the form of text, music and visuals, are
presented throughout the game so as to provide continuous content and performance feedback on players’
progress, actions and input. After completing the activities set out in these quests, players have to submit
the learning points acquired in the reflection journal. The journal allows players to think about the pur-
pose of the learning activities and to reflect on how to transfer the skills learned to their personal lives.

Initial Game Prototype

The initial game prototype constructed for formative evaluation comprised the introduction movie and the
first module, Mission 1 ‘Identification of Feelings’. The learning objectives were to gain self-awareness
and to identify a wide range of human emotions in themselves and others. The game started with a pre-
rendered introduction movie which is a cut-scene that narrated the backstory of the game (please see
Figure 1). The backstory profiled an angry boy and the consequences of his angry behavior. The story-
line was developed on the premise that the boy has problems with social skills and faces peer rejection
due to his aggressive behavior, and acquiring social skills can ameliorate these concerns and problems.
In the game, the players assume the role of the main character of the plot by inhabiting one of the
representations of six avatars (male or female) based on their gender and some characteristics. Some

Figure 1. Introduction movie

178

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

characteristics provided are “outgoing”, “shy” and “friendly” personality traits. The players role-play as
the protagonist with a wholesome character without behavioral problems and difficulties, and a hero out
to protect and save lives. The goal for the players is to find a way to help their best friend, Roger who has
poor social skills and suffers from peer rejection, acquire social skills. The players go on an adventure
at the Island of Cascara where they meet friends and enemies, negotiate the various obstacles and learn
lessons on social skills development. The challenge is for the players to stay on course to retrieve the
mission ingredients which are metaphorical objects such as anger meter, hearts and smiley badges, and
to find the power formula to make the magic potion at the end of all the missions. In the process, the
players have to update their reflection journals. Their reflections and the magic potion will help Roger
develop core competencies on social skills.
The sub-goal of Mission 1 is for the players to collect the Anger Meter. In the first quest, the scene
is set in a small village. The players meet a worried middle-aged lady whose children have difficulty
in expressing their feelings. The players need to help by matching feeling words with the correct faces.
In the second quest, they have to help a girl with her homework by using clues such as words, tone of
voice, body language and situation, to identify feelings expressed by people. In the third quest, the play-
ers have to group the feeling-words into two categories: pleasant feelings and unpleasant feelings. They
meet Tom who raises bears for a living. The players assist Tom to separate the bears into two groups.
These bears “carry” certain feeling words and the players are supposed to place them into the two cages,
labeled as “pleasant” and “unpleasant” (please see Figure 2). In the fourth quest, they have to share at
least one personal story that is related to their feelings to a bear, before it will pass the ingredient, the
Anger Meter, to the players. At the end of the mission, the players are to write their reflections in their
reflection journals (please see Figure 3).

Figure 2. Screenshot of Mission 1

179

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Figure 3. Reflection Journal

SOCIALDROME: FORMATIVE EVALUATION

Formative Evaluation Methodology

In Study 1, two methods, heuristic evaluation and participatory design, were adopted to assess whether
the features of the game pose playability issues to the prospective young users and to translate the par-
ticipants’ contributions into game design directions. The participants playtested and evaluated the game
based on the Pedagogical Playability (PP) Heuristics. These heuristics were synthesized from Events of
Instruction (Gagné, Wager, Golas, Keller & Russell, 2005), the four dimensions of ARCS Model (Keller,
2010) and game design principles of GameFlow Model (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005). The heuristics devel-
oped were categorized under four game attributes, ‘Captivation of Interest’, ‘Meeting Learning Needs’,
‘Building Confidence’ and ‘Self-Assessment’. It is important to note that these heuristics are different
from existing heuristics developed for commercial games, as priority was placed on instructional design
principles and the concept of playability.

Stage 1

The intended users of Socialdrome are primary school-going students of the age group from 9 to 12 years.
For this study, twelve 10-year-old children of a Singapore primary school (6 boys, 6 girls), representing
the target user group, volunteered to be participants, with parental consent. The sample size of 12 was
considered as adequate as most studies had indicated that 5 to 10 subjects should be able to detect most
of the usability problems and issues (Jacko & Sears, 2003). Based on the pretest questionnaire, the boys
played games for an average of 9.0 hours per week compared to 3.7 hours for the girls. This finding that
males spend more time playing games is consistent with other research (e.g., Bonanno & Kommers,
2005). Most of the children played games almost every day, preferring online and portable handheld
device games (e.g. Gameboy and PSP). Based on the data collected from the pretest questionnaire, in-
ference could be made that the children were adept at using computers and spent a significant amount
of time playing computer games.

180

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

In Stage 1, exploratory play-testing, the children assumed the role of users and testers (Druin, 2002).
The purpose was to provide the children with the gameplay experience, allow them to interact with
the game features and understand the learning contents within the game. Children were briefed at an
orientation session at the beginning of this study in which the goal, purpose and plan of the study were
explained. This helped the children to understand the purpose and context of the game. Children were
also given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the game environment. During the gameplay,
the 12 children had a personal computer each and interacted with the game individually. The children
accessed the game website using the Web browser, logged in with allocated usernames and passwords.
They selected their own avatar according to their gender and entered the first game module, Mission 1,
which had four quests which were described earlier. They were asked to read the instructions, interact
with the game using either the mouse or keyboard, type and submit their responses. Before completing
the game, the children were required to reflect on the skills learned and submit a reflection journal which
was built into the game. Data were collected from recording by a video camera and screen captures of
the children’s interaction with the game using the software, CamStudio.

Stage 2

Interviewing is a technique usually used in user requirements analysis phase (Moser, Fuchsberger, &
Tscheligi, 2011). However, we were concerned that the young participants might feel awkward in ver-
balizing their experiences and interacting with an unfamiliar adult. Hence, we chose the focus group
discussion approach as that was considered more appropriate for this sample group. The peer support in
a focus group setting redresses the power imbalance of the adult-child relationship present in a one-to-
one interview and facilitates a greater involvement of the children (Hennessy & Heary, 2005).
The children were divided into three groups for the focus group discussions after play-testing. In
this stage, the children assumed the role of informants (Danielsson & Wiberg, 2006; Druin, 2002). The
purpose of the session was to garner the children’s opinion on the usability and playability issues of the
prototype based on the PP Heuristics. Questions were posed by the facilitators in simple and unambigu-
ous language so that the children could understand this easily. Excellent rapport was built between the
facilitators and the children and children were willing to share their experiences freely.

Stage 3

In Stage 3, the same 12 children who participated in Stage 1 and Stage 2 now assumed the role of designers
in the participatory design workshops (Druin, 2002; Nousiainen, 2009). These workshops took place in
the school library function room. The purpose of the workshops was to build low-fidelity prototypes of
the game comprising three game modules, Mission 2, Mission 3 and Mission 4. We used storyboarding,
recommended by Truong, Hayes, and Abowd (2006) as the technique adopted for this stage. Low-tech
profiling tools used by Druin (2002) such as storyboard templates, drawing boards, paper, crayons, pencil
colors and markers were provided for the children to represent the fundamental concepts and designs.
The game is intended for both genders so the children were divided into three teams of two boys and two
girls each, to prevent potential gender bias when designing the game. It is well-documented that there
are distinct gender differences in the preference for game characteristics and concepts (Inal & Cagiltay,
2007). Ideas generated during the sessions were transferred onto paper. The 3 different teams then came
together to present their ideas and elaborate on each other’s designs. Please see Figure 4.

181

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Figure 4. Storyboard on Positive Self-Talk

Formative Evaluation Findings and Analyses

The findings and analyses were conducted based on the four game attributes of “Captivation of Inter-
est”, “Meeting Learning Needs”, “Building Confidence” and “Self-Assessment” which were built
upon Keller’s (2010) ARCS Model for Motivation and Gagné’s (2005) Events of Instruction, as well as
Sweetser and Wyeth’s (2005) GameFlow Model and Nielsen’s (1994) heuristics, that underpinned the
development of the PP heuristics.
First, on the game attribute “Captivation of Interest”, different images and sounds represent different
degrees of multimodality for the children (Patel, 2007). Problematic issues in these areas were read-
ily identified by the children during the study. Ideally it would be beneficial for designers to seek the
prospective users’ affirmation throughout the development process (Danielsson & Wiberg, 2006). This
emphasizes the well-documented importance of giving the prospective users a voice in the evaluation
process without the mediating influence of adults (Druin, 2002). The feedback elicited from the children
provided specific detailed data which led to significant changes to the design. For example, more varied
background environments for other missions, such as a meadow, tropical rainforest and dark tunnel,
were designed to increase the attention of the children. Additionally, more challenging gameplay, more
appealing sound effects and richer storylines to meet expectations of the user group were incorporated
(Tan et al., 2011).
The second attribute “Meeting of Learning Needs” informs learners of objectives and goals so that
they are able to identify the relevance of the learning materials. However during the focus group dis-
cussion, the children were not able to articulate the right learning objectives of the game. To keep the
children motivated, they should be provided with both short-term and long-term goals as they progress
along the game (Laitinen, 2008). Interweaving the learning contents and objectives seamlessly with the
entertainment elements would likely reinforce learning objectives (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2009).
On the game attribute “Building Confidence”, research suggests that as instructional support increases
the confidence level of children, the game, should provide guiding questions and feedback about the
quality of the children’s selection of responses and explorations to scaffold their cognitive load (Aulls,

182

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

2002). However the children felt that too much help was intrusive and this slowed down the gameplay
significantly. Most children did not click on the online help system, PetTeach for assistance when asked
to do so. This finding is consistent with previous research that suggested that children preferred find-
ing their own solutions when they were stuck in the gameplay (Kinzie & Joseph, 2008). However this
play strategy of trial and error may result in them missing the learning contents embedded in PetTeach.
As such, Socialdrome, should be designed in such a way that important educational content should not
be embedded in PetTeach, but in the narrative instead. The gameplay should be designed such that the
children are compelled to acquire the newly learned content before they can proceed to the next part or
a higher level of the game (Gunter et al., 2008).
On the fourth game attribute “Self-assessment”, the findings demonstrated that giving opportuni-
ties to assess the children’s achievement made them feel good about being able to judge the success
of their accomplishments (Keller, 2010). The data from the video recording and screen captures of the
children’s interaction with the game brought to light that girls paid attention to the details of the game
and explored the gameworld more meticulously. On the other hand, boys were more competitive and
were inclined to complete the game faster than the girls. The boys were observed to spend less time
writing in the reflection journal. As reflection is a contributing factor for learning, the game should
be structured such that the players have to take time to reflect on the new knowledge acquired, and the
choices and strategies made. Unless the learning tasks encourage reflection, deeper levels of learning
may not happen (Rieber & Noah, 2008).

Formative Evaluation Discussion

Data gathered from the storyboards provided insights into the children’s preferences which were helpful
in creating a game that could accommodate gender-based differences (Tan et al, 2011). It was noteworthy
that substantial gender differences existed in the preference of storylines in the games. Boys for example,
conformed to the masculine stereotype as they admitted that they liked more character action and inter-
action, placing value on games that are challenging, complex and highly competitive in nature. On the
other hand, girls reported a stronger preference for adventure and exploration games. Clearly the game
has to be designed by incorporating different types of genres so that it will appeal to both genders. This
is consistent with previous work that reported distinct differences of the two genders in gameplay styles,
genre choice, game contents and design preferences (Ibrahim, Wills, & Gilbert, 2010).
In sum, the feedback and design artifacts provided by the children were used to develop the final
game prototype for the subsequent study (Study 2) and summative evaluation. These findings indicated
that involving children in the formative evaluation is a valuable and worthwhile practice to analyze the
opportunities and challenges in engaging children as users, testers, informants and design partners.

SOCIALDROME: SUMMATIVE EVALUATION

Revisions Resulting in the Final Game Prototype

Several refinements were made following the formative evaluation conducted in Study 1 to result in
a final game prototype comprising 7 game missions. These changes included gender neutral features.
For each game mission, efforts were made to incorporate both male and female characters as well as

183

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

gender-neutral non-player characters. Various elements such as graphics, music and storyline were made
appropriate for both genders. The storyline was also strengthened and enhanced. The players were able
to take the role of the main game character based on their gender type.
The game begins with an introduction movie with improved graphics. Based on the feedback from
Study I, participants felt that they were unsure when PetTeach was giving instruction. In the revised
final prototype, PetTeach, a pet belonging to the protagonist, is now animated and appears awake when
it has instructions and advice, and appears asleep when there is no instruction. There are 7 missions that
the players have to navigate in the game. Within each mission, the players have to complete the tasks
assigned in the quests. Through the 7 missions, the players learn a variety of social skills and anger
management skills with the last mission serving as a “review” session for the children to recall the skills
that they have learned in the previous missions on anger coping techniques, social-cognitive skills and
social problem-solving skills.
The entire game is anchored on a strong theoretical foundation. Through gameplay, children engage
in a cyclical transition from concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization to
active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). The children get ‘concrete experiences’ from playing the 6 mis-
sions. As the end of each mission, they reflect on these experiences using the reflection journal. These
reflections are assimilated and lead to the formation of new abstract concepts. In the final mission, Mis-
sion 7, the children receive an opportunity to experiment actively with the concepts distilled through
problem-solving and finally find the solution to create the magic potion. The gameplay is then brought
to a close by wrapping up the story with a concluding movie when the player completes the game.

Summative Evaluation Methodology

Following the development of Socialdrome after the formative evaluation, the researchers examined
two key research questions in Study 2’s summative evaluation. First, the effectiveness of Socialdrome
in promoting social skills knowledge acquisition was investigated, and second, user acceptance among
children was investigated.
A random assignment by intact classes to group treatment was conducted because in a school setting
it was not possible to assign the individual participants to groups randomly as we needed to keep the
existing classes intact. The study took place in a government primary school which has a population
that is broadly representative of the population of Singapore children. The students came mainly from
middle to low social economic status background. The participants of the study were 10-year old students
of moderate ability. Two classes of 148 participants who were 10 years of age were randomly assigned
to the experimental group (N=72) and another two were assigned to the control group (N=76). There
were 93 boys (experimental n = 52; control n = 41) and 55 girls (experimental n = 20; control n = 35)
in the study. Parental consent was obtained for the study. Approval was also sought from the Ministry
of Education, Singapore and the School Principal to conduct the study.
The intervention took place three weeks before the end of the final term in the school year. The
study was conducted as part of the school after-examination activity during regular school hours in the
school’s computer laboratory. The study was presented as a Step-Up Social Problem-Solving Program
to the children. The children in the experimental group, consisting of two classes, participated in the
study for seven sessions each. A total of 14 sessions were completed within two consecutive weeks, thus
minimizing attrition and lapses in the study protocol (Hopkins et al., 2011). Each session took about one
and a half hours in duration. Experimental group participants accessed and played Socialdrome through

184

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

a given URL. The control group received no treatment but participated in seven sessions of contact time
to control for the effects of time and attention. These students were given assistance in academic subjects
and the contents of these lessons were not associated with the learning objectives of the game-based
social skills training.
Three instruments were developed to gather quantitative data to address the two key research questions
for the summative evaluation in Study 2: (1) Social Skills Knowledge Test, (2) Demographic Question-
naire and (3) Game Evaluation Survey (comprising perceived playability, perceived playfulness, and
behavioral intention). The Social Skills Knowledge Test comprised 15 questions in a multiple-choice
format with a single best answer and it was evaluated for content and face validity. The Demographic
Questionnaire was used to obtain children’s demographic information on gender, computer experience,
gaming experience and gaming self-efficacy for example. For the Game Evaluation Survey, three scales,
Perceived Playability Scale, Perceived Playfulness Scale and Behavioral Intention Scale were developed.
The Cronbach’s alpha estimates of the Perceived Playability Scale, the Perceived Playfulness Scale and
the Behavioral Intention Scale were .92, .88 and .84 respectively, indicating that these scales could yield
scores that were reliable, and there was sufficient evidence of internal consistency. Both the experimental
and control groups completed the Social Skills Knowledge Test and the Demographic Questionnaire
so as to provide measures for comparison. The Game Evaluation Survey tracks the perceptions of the
experimental group of their experiences with the game-based learning environment.

Summative Evaluation Findings and Analyses

The quantitative data were analyzed for any statistically significant pre-post gains in the treatment group
compared to the control group on social problem-solving skills knowledge (Tan, Goh, Ang & Huan,
2013). Results from the study demonstrated that students in the experimental group (M = 10.65, SD =
2.24) showed significant improvement of scores on social skills knowledge from Time 1 (pre-intervention)
to Time 2 (post-intervention) compared with the control group (M = 6.97, SD = 2.43) suggesting that
the gaming approach was effective in promoting students’ acquisition of social skills knowledge. There
was a statiscally significant time by group interaction effect on the test scores, F (1, 146) = 40.66).
Results show that 22% of the variance in test scores was accounted for by the interaction of Time and
Group. Additionally, perceived playability (β = .838) was a statistically significant predictor of perceived
playfulness, R2 = .70, t = 12.87, p < .001. Arguably, understanding what makes children enjoy a game
is a key issue to successful game design because if children do not enjoy the game, they will not play it
(Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005).

Summative Evaluation Discussion

Implications of this finding suggest that children are more likely to play the game if they are in a more
playful state. When children are involved in an activity for enjoyment, they are intrinsically motivated
which contributes to their sustained engagement in the activity or the desire to repeat the activity. Finally,
the findings also showed that perceived playfulness was an important determinant with direct effects that
facilitated the students’ behavioral intention to use the game. The findings underscored the fact that if the
users do not perceive playfulness in the game, they are unlikely to play it. Taken together, an important
implication from these collective findings emphasize that a game created for use in classrooms should
achieve twin goals of a technology-enhanced playful learning environment and yet be able to present

185

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

a variety of learning opportunities to the students. Serious educational game developers should design
games that affirm that both play and learning take place, bringing about the desired outcomes valued in
education (de Freitas & Oliver, 2006).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this research comprising two studies, have three applied contributions. First, the inves-
tigation of the game-based social skills training is beneficial for the targeted learner population. Social
problem-solving skills training forms a vital part of a child’s social and emotional development and
education, and game technology holds potential promise in ameliorating social skills deficits of children
in school settings. Second, evidence-based findings from this study, though preliminary, will add to the
international social skills training boy of literature. Here we contribute findings from an Asian context.
Third, the development of a prototype for game-based learning of social skills could be used by schools
as a starting point for exploration of games for social skills learning to complement traditional methods
of delivering didactic materials.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Work is currently underway for the development of a new game titled RegnaTales, which is built upon
the lessons learned from Socialdrome. The main objective of this game is to encourage the player to
learn and execute social responsibility through the creation of fun and engaging environments in pick-
ing up skills related to anger management and social communication. RegnaTales is based on a revised
training manual on social problem-solving skills training (Ooi, Ang, & Lim-Ashworth, 2015). Ooi et
al.’s (2015) manual is an updated version of the Ang and Ooi (2003b) manual used for Socialdrome.
A possible area of future work is to investigate other measures of learning effectiveness. The current
research on Socialdrome used social skills knowledge as a measure of game efficacy and did not examine
whether the participants applied this knowledge in real-life contexts. Future work on RegnaTales should
look at other measures that are able to detect whether the users actually acquire, display and transfer the
social problem-solving skills learned from the intervention to their daily lives at school and at home.
Continued research on factors concerning user acceptance and playability would be equally important.
Finally, the game should be tested with various populations of school going children - typical school
going children with little to no significant behavioral issues as well as school going children who have
been referred to clinical settings for behavioral concerns.

REFERENCES

Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2007). The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of
online retailing. Information & Management, 44(3), 263–275. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.12.008
Ang, R. P., & Ooi, Y. P. (2003a). Helping angry children and youth: Strategies that work. Activity Work-
book. Singapore: Armour Publishing.

186

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Ang, R. P., & Ooi, Y. P. (2003b). Helping angry children and youth: Strategies that work. Training
Manual. Singapore: Armour Publishing.
Aulls, M. W. (2002). The contributions of co-occurring forms of classroom discourse and academic
activities to curriculum events and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 520–538.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.520
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061
Bates, M., Brown, D., Cranton, W., & Lewis, J. (2007). Carving a new approach to learning. In D. Re-
menyi (Ed.), The European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 19-26). Reading, UK: Academic
Conference Ltd.
Beaumont, R., & Sofronoff, K. (2008). A multi-component social skills intervention for children with
Asperger Syndrome: The Junior Detective Training Program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, and Allied Disciplines, 49(7), 743–753. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01920.x PMID:18503531
Blumberg, F. C., Rosenthal, S. F., & Randall, J. D. (2008). Impasse-driven learning in the context of
video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1530–1541. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.010
Bonanno, P., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2005). Gender differences and styles in the use of digital games.
Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25(1),
13–41. doi:10.1080/0144341042000294877
Bonanno, P., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2008). Exploring the influence of gender and gaming competence
on attitudes towards using instructional games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 97–109.
Bongers, I., Koot, H., Van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. (2008). Predicting young adult social functioning
from developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviour. Psychological Medicine, 38(07), 989–1000.
doi:10.1017/S0033291707002309 PMID:18047767
Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cogni-
tive development and response quality. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75.
doi:10.1177/075910630006600106
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use
of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–1156. doi:10.1016/j.compe-
du.2009.10.022
Brederode, B., Markopoulos, P., Gielen, M., Vermeeren, A., & Ridder, H. d. (2005). pOwerball:
The design of a novel mixed-reality game for children with mixed abilities.Proceedings of the 2005
Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Boulder, Colorado. New York, NY: ACM Press.
doi:10.1145/1109540.1109545
Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instruction-
al-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.
tb00313.x

187

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Connolly, T., & Stansfield, M. (2006). Using games-based elearning technologies in overcoming dif-
ficulties in teaching information systems. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 459–476.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing
mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.115.1.74
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper
Perennial.
Danielsson, K., & Wiberg, C. (2006). Participatory design of learning media: Designing educational
computer games with and for teenagers. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(4), 275–291.
doi:10.1108/17415650680000068
de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within
the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2005.11.007
DeRosier, M., & Gilliom, M. (2007). Effectiveness of a parent training program for improving children’s
social behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(5), 660–670. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9114-1
Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in
children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 8–22. doi:10.1177/0146167290161002
Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Tech-
nology, 21(1), 1–25. doi:10.1080/01449290110108659
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third generation educational use of computer games. Journal of Educa-
tional Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 263–281.
Elliott, S. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1993). Social skills interventions for children. Behavior Modification,
17(3), 287–313. doi:10.1177/01454455930173004 PMID:8343100
Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R., & Kirk, D. (2004). Savannah: Mobile gaming and
learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 399–409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00105.x
Fang, X., Chan, S., Brzezinski, J., & Xu, S. (2005). Moderating effects of task type on wireless technol-
ogy acceptance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 123–157. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-
1222220305
Fenstermacher, K., Olympia, D., & Sheridan, S. M. (2006). Effectiveness of a computer-facilitated
interactive social skills training program for boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School
Psychology Quarterly, 21(2), 197–224. doi:10.1521/scpq.2006.21.2.197
Fernandez, A. (2008). Fun experience with digital games: A model proposition. In O. Leino, H. Wirman,
& A. Fernandez (Eds.), Extending experiences: Structure, analysis and design of computer game player
experience (pp. 181–190). Rovaniemi, Finland: Lapland University Press.

188

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Fraser, M. W., Galinsky, M. J., Smokowski, P. R., Day, S. H., Terzian, M. A., Rose, R. A., & Guo, S.
(2005). Social information-processing skills training to promote social competence and prevent aggres-
sive behavior in the third grades. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1045–1055.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1045 PMID:16392978
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instruc-
tional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (Rev. and updated ed.).
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological video-game use among youth ages 8 to 18: A national study. Psycho-
logical Science, 20(5), 594–602. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02340.x PMID:19476590
Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Tan, H. C. (2008). Strategies for designing effective psychotherapeutic gam-
ing interventions for children and adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2217–2235.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.007
Gratch, J., & Kelly, J. (2009). MMOGs: Beyond the wildest imagination. Journal of Interactive Learn-
ing Research, 20, 175–187.
Gresham, F. M. (1988). Social skills: Conceptual and applied aspects of assessment, training, and social
validation. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of behavior therapy. New
York, NY: Plenium Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0905-5_20
Griffiths, M. (2002). The educational benefits of videogames. Education for Health, 20, 47–51.
Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model
to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 56(5-6), 511–537. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2
Gunter, G., Kenny, R. F., & Vick, E. H. (2006). A case for a formal design paradigm for serious games.
The Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3, 93–105.
Hanna, L., Neapolitan, D., & Risden, K. (2004). Evaluating computer game concepts with children.Pro-
ceedings of the 2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children: Building a Community, Maryland.
New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1017833.1017840
Hennessey, B. A. (2007). Promoting social competence in school-aged children: The effects of the open
circle program. Journal of School Psychology, 45(3), 349–360. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.007
Hennessy, E., & Heary, C. (2005). Researching children’s experiences: Approaches and methods. In
S. M. Greene & D. M. Hogan (Eds.), Exploring children’s views through focus groups (pp. 236–252).
London: Sage.

189

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Hirumi, A., & Stapleton, C. (2009). Applying pedagogy during game development to enhance game-
based learning. In C. T. Miller (Ed.), Games: Purpose and potential in education (pp. 127–162). New
York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09775-6_6
Hobbs, J., & Yan, Z. (2008). Cracking the walnut: Using a computer game to impact cognition, emotion,
and behavior of highly aggressive fifth grade students. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 421–438.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.031
Hopkins, I., Gower, M., Perez, T., Smith, D., Amthor, F., Wimsatt, C., & Biasini, F. (2011). Avatar
assistant: Improving social skills in students with an ASD through a computer-based intervention.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(11), 1543–1555. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1179-z
PMID:21287255
Iarocci, G., Yager, J., & Elfers, T. (2007). What gene-environment interactions can tell us about social
competence in typical and atypical populations. Brain and Cognition, 65(1), 112–127. doi:10.1016/j.
bandc.2007.01.008 PMID:17628271
Ibrahim, R., Wills, G., & Gilbert, L. (2010). Degendering games: Towards a gender-inclusive framework
for games.Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference: Games and Entertainment Technolo-
gies part of the IADIS Multiconference on Computer Science & Information Systems (MCCSIS 2010),
Freiburg, Germany.
Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455–464. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00709.x
Jacko, J. A., & Sears, A. (2003). The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving
technologies, and emerging applications. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, T. E., & Huang, W. D. (2008). Complex skills development for today’s workforce: Using games
as a strategy for engineering model-centered learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer,
& J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction (pp. 305–325). New York,
NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4_15
Jones, R. N., Sheridan, S. M., & Binns, W. R. (1993). Schoolwide social skills training: Providing pre-
ventive services to students at-risk. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(1), 57–80. doi:10.1037/h0088832
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern Mathematics computer games on
Mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427–443. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.02.007
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS Model approach.
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3
Kinzie, M. B., & Joseph, D. R. D. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle
school children: Implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and De-
velopment, 56(5-6), 643–663. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9076-z

190

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Koeffel, C., Hochleitner, W., Leitner, J., Haller, M., Geven, A., & Tscheligi, M. (2010). Using heuristics
to evaluate the overall user experience of video games and advanced interaction games. In R. Bernhaupt
(Ed.), Evaluating user experience in games concepts and methods (pp. 233–256). London: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-963-3_13
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning.
Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. doi:10.1177/1046878108325713
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle childhood. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50(1), 333–359. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.333 PMID:10074682
Laitinen, S. (2008). Usability and playability expert evaluation. In K. Isbister & N. Schaffer (Eds.), Game
usability (pp. 91–111). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2009). New directions in evaluating social problem solving
in childhood: Early precursors and links to adolescent social competence. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 2009(123), 51–68. doi:10.1002/cd.235 PMID:19306274
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Doukas, G. L., & Munton, S. M. (2005). Designing,
implementing, and evaluating social skills interventions for elementary students: Step-by-step procedures
based on actual school-based investigations. Preventing School Failure, 49(2), 18–26. doi:10.1080/10
45988X.2005.10823217
Lau, S.-H., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Understanding learner acceptance of learning objects: The roles of
learning object characteristics and individual differences. British Journal of Educational Technology,
40(6), 1059–1075. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00893.x
Lee, M.-C., & Tsai, T.-R. (2010). What drives people to continue to play online games? An extension of
technology model and Theory of Planned Behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interac-
tion, 26(6), 601–620. doi:10.1080/10447311003781318
Li, L., & Campbell, J. (2010). Emotion modeling and interaction of NPCs in virtual simulation and
games. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9, 1–6.
Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, M. (2003). Interaction design and children. Interacting with Computers,
15(2), 141–149. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00004-3
Marks, I. M., Cavanagh, K., & Gega, L. (2007). Hands-On Help: Computer-Aided Psychotherapy. New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Meadan, H., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2008). Collaboration to promote social competence for students with
mild disabilities in the general classroom: A structure for providing social support. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 43(3), 158–167. doi:10.1177/1053451207311617
Moser, C., Fuchsberger, V., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). Using probes to create child personas for games.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology,
Lisbon, Portugal. New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2071423.2071472

191

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C., Carpenter, E. M., & Newman, J. E. (2002). Social skills training as a treatment
for aggressive children and adolescents: A developmental-clinical integration. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 7(2), 169–199. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00040-9
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods
(pp. 25–64). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nousiainen, T. (2009). Children’s involvement in the design of game-based learning environments. In
M. Kankaanranta & P. Neittaanmäki (Eds.), Design and use of serious games (pp. 49–66). New York:
Springer Science. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9496-5_4
Nworie, J., & Haughton, N. (2008). The unintended consequences of the application of technology in
teaching and learning environments. TechTrends, 52(5), 52–58. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0197-y
O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from
the computer games literature. Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474. doi:10.1080/09585170500384529
Ooi, Y. P., Ang, R. P., Fung, D., Wong, G., & Cai, Y. (2007). Effects of CBT on children with disruptive
behaviour disorders: Findings from a Singapore study. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 8, 71–81.
Ooi, Y. P., Ang, R. P., & Lim-Ashworth, N. (2015). Effective anger management for children and youth:
The manual. Singapore: World Scientific.
Pagulayan, R., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R., & Fuller, T. (2003). User-centered design in games.
In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving
technologies and emerging applications (pp. 883–905). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school Computer Science education:
Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004
Pardo, S., Howard, S., & Vetere, F. (2008). Child-centered evaluation: Broadening the child/designer
dyad. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2008, 1–9. doi:10.1155/2008/597629
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted chil-
dren at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357 PMID:3317467
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with
peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology,
29(4), 611–621. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.611
Parsons, S., Leonard, A., & Mitchell, P. (2006). Virtual environments for social skills training: Com-
ments from two adolescents with autistic spectrum disorder. Computers & Education, 47(2), 186–206.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.003
Patel, B. (2007). Designing children’s multimedia. In S. Kurniawan & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Advances in
universal web design and evaluation: Research, trends and opportunities (pp. 43–72). London: University
of Cambridge. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-096-7.ch003

192

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Pinelle, D., Wong, N., & Stach, T. (2008). Heuristic evaluation for games: usability principles for video game
design.Proceedings of the CHI 2008, Florence, Italy. New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357282
Price, S., Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Stanton, D., & Neale, H. (2003). Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms
of playful learning. Interacting with Computers, 15(2), 169–185. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00006-7
Quinn, M. M., Kavale, K. A., Mathur, S. R., Rutherford, J. R. B., & Forness, S. R. (1999). A meta-analysis
of social skill interventions for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 7(1), 54–64. doi:10.1177/106342669900700106
Rieber, L., & Noah, D. (2008). Games, simulations, and visual metaphors in education: Antagonism between
enjoyment and learning. Educational Media International, 45(2), 77–92. doi:10.1080/09523980802107096
Sánchez, J. L. G., Zea, N. P., & Gutiérrez, F. L. (2009). From usability to playability: Introduction to
player-centred video game development process. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human Centered Design (Vol.
5619, pp. 65–74). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_9
Scattone, D. (2007). Social skills interventions for children with autism. Psychology in the Schools,
44(7), 717–726. doi:10.1002/pits.20260
Segrin, C. (2000). Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(3),
379–403. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00104-4 PMID:10779900
Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational
technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46, 21–28.
Shin, D.-H. (2009). An empirical investigation of a modified technology acceptance model of IPTV.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 361–372. doi:10.1080/01449290701814232
Shiratuddin, N., & Landoni, M. (2002). Evaluation of content activities in children’s educational software.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 25(2), 175–182. doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(02)00011-3
Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-
computer interaction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Healthy mind, healthy hab-
its: The influence of activity involvement in middle childhood. In A. C. Huston & M. N. Ripke (Eds.),
Developmental contexts in middle childhood (pp. 283–302). New York: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499760.015
Spence, S. H. (2003). Social skills training with children and young people: Theory, evidence and prac-
tice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8(2), 84–96. doi:10.1111/1475-3588.00051
Spence, S. H., Donovan, C., & Brechman-Toussaint, M. (2000). The treatment of childhood social
phobia: The effectiveness of a social skills training-based, cognitive-behavioural intervention, with and
without parental involvement. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 41(6),
713–726. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00659 PMID:11039684
Squire, K. D. (2008). Video game-based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 7–36. doi:10.1002/piq.20020

193

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Com-
puters in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253
Tan, J. L., Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2011). Child-centered interaction in the design of a game
for social skills intervention. Computers in Entertainment, 9(1), 1–17. doi:10.1145/1953005.1953007
Tan, J. L., Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2013). Participatory evaluation of an educational game
for social skills acquisition. Computers & Education, 64, 70–80. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006
Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2012). Preventing Early Conduct Problems and Later Delinquency.
In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry (pp. 309–322).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2_20
Triantafyllakos, G., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2010). Fictional characters in participatory
design sessions: Introducing the “design alter egos” technique. Interacting with Computers, 22(3),
165–175. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.12.003
Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Storyboarding: An empirical determination of best
practices and effective guidelines.Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems,
University Park, PA. New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142410
Tüzün, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer
games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in Geography learning. Computers &
Education, 52(1), 68–77. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.008
van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 28, 695–704.
Virvou, M., Katsionis, G., & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education: Evaluation
of its educational effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8, 54–65.
Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of the in-class use of a video game
for teaching high school History. Computers & Education, 56(2), 466–474. doi:10.1016/j.compe-
du.2010.09.007
Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R. (2006). Linkages between children’s social and aca-
demic competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39(6), 463–482. doi:10.1016/
S0022-4405(01)00084-X
Wilkinson, N., Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2008). Online video game therapy for mental health concerns: A
review. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54(4), 370–382. doi:10.1177/0020764008091659
PMID:18720897
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., & Conkey, C. et al.
(2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2),
217–266. doi:10.1177/1046878108321866
Zerfass, A., & Hartmann, B. (2005). The usability factor: Improving the quality of e-content. In P. A.
Bruck, Z. Karssen, A. Buchholz, & A. Zerfass (Eds.), E-Content (pp. 165–182). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-26387-X_9

194

A Game-Based Approach to Teaching Social Problem-Solving Skills

ADDITIONAL READING

Boon, J. S. T., & Fung, D. S. S. (2014) Serious games and the gamification of mental health interven-
tions. In Y. Baek, R. Ko, & T. Marsh (Eds.), Trends and applications of serious gaming and social media,
gaming media and social effects (pp 89-110). Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Haineya, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2),
661–686. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
Fung, D. S. S., & Boon, J. S. T. (2014). Une psychiatrie de l’enfant sans psychiatres: un modèle utilisant
les nouvelles technologies pour de vieux problèmes. In C. Chiland & J. P. Raynaud (Eds.), Cerveau,
psyché et développement (pp. 209–230). Paris: Odile Jacob.
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. The American
Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. doi:10.1037/a0034857 PMID:24295515
Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B. B., & Holmstrom, A. (2013). Child development and genre
preference: Research for educational game design. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
16(5), 335–339. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0242 PMID:23509989
Varonis, E. M., & Varonis, M. E. (2015). Deconstructing Candy Crush: What instructional design can
learn from game design. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 32(3),
150–164. doi:10.1108/IJILT-09-2014-0019

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Formative Evaluation: Any evaluation that takes place before or during a project’s implementation
with the aim of improving the project’s design and performance. Includes monitoring of learning and
providing ongoing feedback.
Heuristic Evaluation: A method used to identify usability problems in the user interface design.
Involves evaluators examining the interface to see if it is in line with a set of heuristics, the usability
principles for that study.
Participatory Design: An approach to assessing, designing, and developing technological and orga-
nizational systems. The purpose is to encourage the active involvement of potential or current end-users
of a system in design and decision-making.
Social Problem-Solving Skills: A set of skills involving cognitive and behavioral processes in which
one works to find positive and adaptive ways to handle everyday problematic situations that could arise
in the social environment. For example, these skills include self-awareness, an understanding of emo-
tions, how to manage anger, perspective taking, empathy, prosocial behavior, and establishing positive
relationships.
Summative Evaluation: Refers to the assessment of participants where the focus is on the outcome
of a program. This typically refers to making a judgment about the efficacy of a program or course at
its conclusion.

195
Section 3
Educational Games:
Instructional Design Perspectives
197

Chapter 9
Design of Fantasy and Their
Effect on Learning and
Engagement in a Serious Game
Jaejin Lee
University of Seoul, South Korea

Min Liu
The University of Texas at Austin, USA

ABSTRACT
Researchers are interested in exploring the use of fantasy design in educational games to promote learn-
ing. This chapter first reviewed the literature on fantasy designs and relevant principles along with the
studies examining the use of fantasy designs to enhance learning. An experiment was then conducted,
in which two sets of fantasy designs were implemented in a serious game, to examine the effect of differ-
ent types of fantasy (portrayal fantasy vs creative fantasy designs) on learning and game engagement.
The results using multiple regressions showed that portrayal fantasy design was more effective both
for enhancing learning and engagement. Students who used portrayal fantasy models showed better
improvement in their content knowledge and scored better on game engagement. Visualization analysis
showed the portrayal fantasy group spent more time in using the tool containing all fantasy designs than
the creative group. Findings and future research directions are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Fantasy is defined as an environment that “evokes mental images of physical or social situations that
are not actually presented” (Malone & Lepper, 1987, p. 240). Asgari and Kaufman (2010) defined it as
“creations of the imaginative faculty and mental images which are unrealistic or improbable, and not
actually present” (p. 95). A broader definition of fantasy can be defined as “any departure from consensus
reality” (Hume, 1984, p. 21) including everything around us for cultural development and expansions of
knowledge and further. It is the byproducts of human imagination (Vygotsky, 2004).

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch009

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Research on using fantasy in educational settings suggests that fantasy can be beneficial. For example,
research showed that the utilization of fantasy promoted intellectual and emotional improvements (Cook,
2002; Richert, 2003; Richert, Shawber, Hoffman, & Taylor, 2009; Richert & Smith, 2011). Students
were more likely to be engaged in learning tasks and were better at problem solving when the tasks were
applied in a fantasy context (Cook, 2002). Research also showed the use of fantasy in educational con-
texts stimulated curiosity and imagination, and promoted creative thinking because fantasy as a medium
can create a novel condition which is inconceivable in the real life (Cook, 2002; Wilson et al., 2009).
While the previous research has mainly focused on the educational benefits of fantasy itself, there
is little discussion on the fantasy designs that are appropriate for serious games. Research has shown
that while the use of fantasy is generally beneficial for engagement and memory of visual information,
certain types of fantasy can cause a disconnect of one’s cognitive processing as one’s deep involvement
in fantasy can interrupt the relevance to a learner’s background knowledge in game playing (Aleman &
De Haan, 2004; Cook, 2002; Richert, 2003).
We are interested in examining what types of fantasy designs can contribute to learning and engage-
ment for students of 11 to 12 years old when they are interacting with a serious game. We will first review
the literature on fantasy use in education and fantasy related design strategies. We then conducted an
experiment testing different fantasy types designed according to the literature to examine the effect of
different fantasy types on learning and engagement.

BACKGROUND

Research About Effects of Fantasy on Learning and Engagement

Fantasy is defined both as a psychological construct and a creative byproduct of human imagination.
Research has been conducted to examine the benefits of fantasy for educational uses. Malone and Lep-
per (1987) discussed the important sources of intrinsic motivation such as challenge, curiosity, control,
and fantasy. They argued that incorporating these factors in a learning environment can engage students
intrinsically and promote their motivation to learn (Lepper, 1985; Malone, 1980; Malone & Lepper,
1987). Other researchers also viewed fantasy as a vital ingredient in designing an educational environment
for enhancing academic performance and motivation (Cook, 2002; Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Malone,
1980; Parker & Lepper, 1992; Richert et al., 2009; Richert & Smith, 2011; Richert, 2003; Wiest, 2001;
Wilson et al., 2009).
Parker and Lepper (1992) examined two related topics of fantasy in a LOGO environment: 1) the
impact of fantasy on student interest in learning, and 2) the effect of different kinds of fantasy in the
learning environment. Three different versions of fantasy designs (detective, pirate, space) were imple-
mented in a LOGO environment along with a no-fantasy control group. Third- and fourth- graders were
the participants of the study. The results showed all fantasy groups that were assigned three different
types of fantasy performed better than the no-fantasy group. When given a chance, the participants were
more likely to choose any of the fantasy versions rather than the no-fantasy materials. The fantasy groups
also performed significantly better in understanding general geometric concepts relevant to programming
in LOGO in the delayed post-test as well as showed greater interest in learning than no-fantasy group.
Cordova and Lepper (1996) conducted a series of experiments on the effect of fantasy in an elementary
school setting using a mathematics game. Seventy-two children were assigned to one of five conditions:

198

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

a) generic fantasy-no choice, b) generic fantasy-choice, c) personalized fantasy-no choice, d) personalized

fantasy-choice, and e) an additional no-fantasy control condition. Their results showed adding fantasy
components positively influenced motivation and math learning when compared to no-fantasy, and
personalized fantasy tended to be a better choice than generic fantasy. Wiest (2001) compared fantasy
word problems with real-world problems in mathematics in order to verify the role of fantasy in chil-
dren’s problem-solving performance and preferences. Different types of fantasies and real-world stories
were compared: low fantasy, high fantasy, children’s fantasy, and adults’ real-world. The participants
were 273 fourth and sixth graders. The finding showed while fourth-grade students performed better
when they received low fantasy designs, sixth-grade students performed better with real-world and high
fantasy problems. This inconclusive finding suggests that the effect of fantasy in serious games can
vary depending on the types of fantasy and learners’ characteristics such as their background and prior
knowledge. It also suggests more research needs to be done to investigate the designs of fantasy and the
effect of fantasy designs on learning.
A systematic review by Wilson and her colleagues (2009) found the use of fantasy components in
educational systems can facilitate the use of cognitive strategies such as facilitative learning activities,
and understanding the meanings, and judgment of ideas (Gopher, Well, & Bareket, 1994; Habgood,
Ainsworth, & Benford, 2005; McFarlane, Sparrowhawk, & Heald, 2002). Gopher, Weil, and Bareket
(1994) reported that a game including fantasy components significantly improved participants’ aircraft
maneuvering skills. Studies by others also showed games with fantasy components were beneficial in
teaching various tasks such as matching concepts, manipulating numbers, and recognizing patterns
(Thomas, Cahill, & Stantilli, 1997); and led to an increase in the usage of cognitive strategies as well as
overall performance (Bowers & Jentsch, 2001). To implement fantasy designs in a digital space requires
an understanding of principles relevant to fantasy designs.

Principles and Strategies for Fantasy Design

Vygotsky (2004) suggested two fundamental approaches to understand how people imagine: reproduc-
tion and combination. He believed that the foundational understanding about those imaginative thinking
processes is important in investigating the fundamental mechanism of the creative thinking process.
Vygotsky’s imagination theory provides a theoretical perspective for understanding fantasy designs.
Kim’s (2009) research presented a framework of fantasy principles and strategies from a more practical
perspective, which are aligned with Vygotsky (2004)’s theory of human imagination. Table 1 outlined
Kim’s design principles for fantasy related designs and their relevance to Vygotsky’s theoretical concepts.
The first category of fantasy design principles is portrayal representation of fantasy, which refers
to making fantasy descriptive and experiential. Making fantasy portrayal is to make the fantasy rea-
sonable, logical, and believable to people who come to know about fantasy through interactions with
public media. The important feature of portrayal fantasy is the similarity of a new image to preexisting
subjects. Portrayal fantasy is the representation of fictional subjects when they have components similar
in functions and concepts (Hume, 1984) so the representation decreases the perceptual gap between
the generated fantasy from the reality of source. According to definition of this category, two design
principles are described below:

1. Describe objects with accuracy and detail in shape and color (Descriptive realism): Adapting
real components in fantasy and seamless integration of the components enhance vividness and ac-

199

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

curacy of imagination. With this descriptive realism, fantasy objects, or visuals, make fake objects
or preexisting objects genuine.
2. Include manipulative or participatory components in the fantasy (Experiential realism):
Inclusion of participatory activities also creates realistic experiences in a fantastic story. Adding
activities in fantasy-based learning situations and embedding controllable functions on fantasy
characters promote a sense of fantasy in the game playing.

The second category of fantasy design principles is creative representation of fantasy. Creative fan-
tasy is an elaborated product of the existing concepts. It is made by transforming the original concept(s)
or object(s) to the extent the viewer perceives it as a new object. Compared with the previous portrayal
fantasy, the basic idea of creative fantasy is to change the original functions and characteristics of the
reality so that new creations have unique features and functions. Creative fantasy is also based on previ-
ous experiences and images from a given situation in the past just like realistic fantasy. However, these
experiences are stored in one’s knowledge base and later used for the elaborative purpose that almost
change the original meaning of the previous images. The elaboration and iterative procedures undergo
distortion and countless combinations of past images. These procedures generate creativity and inde-
pendence of fantasy, which can be seen as a creative reproduction process through human imagination
(Vygotsky, 2004). The relevant strategies are:

3. Alter the shape, color, or meaning of being (Distortion of being): Changing the original meaning
and physical properties of existing creatures generate authenticity and difference from a normal

Table 1. Categories and principles for fantasy design

Relevance to Vygotsky’s
Category Description Principle
theory
Portrayal fantasy being described Descriptive realism
Portrayal representation of fantasy like real object by adapting parts or Reproduction
mimicking experience. Experiential realism

Distortion of being
Fantasy having intentionally
changed elements by distorting Distortion of time and space
Creative representation of fantasy the original concepts. The original Adaption and transformation of
meaning of the elements is other materials
transformed.
Distortion of ordinary sense
Hidden meaning Combinative Recreation

Including new narrative and

Creating new image of fantasy own story
Combinative representation of
by combining other elements or
fantasy Coordination and relevance
hiding the original meanings
among reality and fantasy
Adding personal desire and wish
Spatialization of abstract
Envisioned representation of Visualizing abstract values and concepts
Combinative Recreation
fantasy metaphysical concepts Visualization of intangible
concepts

200

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

sense. In the visual design of fantasy objects, modification of color and shape in characters and
objects sometimes result in alterations of the role of the subjects.
4. Change the background of events in time and space (Distortion of time and space): An event
has a historical narrative, and the historical background in a certain place can be changed to create
a new image of game elements. Alteration of the background information in the design of a game’s
visuals creates a unique atmosphere promoting imaginative thinking.
5. Utilize different materials from idiosyncratic objects and transform the shape, color, and
meaning (Adaption and transformation of other materials): Transformative adaption of other
components in shape, color, and meaning helps create a new object or concept. Beyond changing
something in itself, borrowing parts from the original resources such as legend, myth, movie, and
TV adds a different mood and creative functionality in the subject.
6. Deform natural law and twist ordinary sense (Distortion of ordinary sense): In order to create
supernatural creatures, natural laws and scientific logic can be distorted. Environmental objects and
behaviors of fantasy characters can change a normal sense of the real world to enhance a sense of
creativity.

The third category is combinative representation of fantasy that intentionally hides or camouflages
the internal story of the fantasy by integrating other elements. For this design, the viewer would not be
aware of the main purpose of the embellishment directly. When elements are combined to create a new
concept, the original meaning disappears or is replaced with another. The combinative representation
includes the following four strategies:

7. Conceal the original meaning of objects or events to be used (Hidden meaning): Substituting
and concealing the original meaning are essential processes to create a new creature and story. In
order to create a supernatural event and an imaginative creature, combining other characteristics
by substituting parts, shape, and color elements may conceal and replace the original form of the
object. Sometimes, the original meaning should be hidden and a new one has to replace it by com-
bining different elements.
8. Include a new narrative and apply different stories (Inclusion of new narrative): Creating
new concepts and meanings turns a new narrative into objects. Fantasies as artifacts in games have
specific stories in each background. Text information, descriptive visual, and audio effect can be
used for the element of fantasy.
9. Coordinating detailed information and relevance among reality and fantasy (Relevance to
reality): When a main concept of a fantasy object is set, the following details need to be attuned
to the main concept. The detailed information such as historical background, organic functions,
and aesthetical decoration should be relevant to reality.
10. Apply human desire and wish to the new creature (Personal desire and wish): Unfulfilled hu-
man wishes are a motive of imaginative thinking. Human desire and wishes embedded in a fantasy
promote imagination by creating a story improbable in reality to the audiences in games.

The last category is envisioned representation of fantasy, which is the visualization of objects that
cannot be usually represented in visuals. Abstract concepts, mathematical representation using coordi-
nates, and aural expression are the examples to be visualized. This type of visualization often creates
an appealing fantasy in itself because the visualized concepts do not exist in real life. The principles of

201

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

envisioned fantasy are personification, materialization of abstraction, and visualization of space. These
techniques are now common because of new technologies such as 3D modeling tools and digital art-
works (Creighton, 2010). Even if envisioning abstract concepts is a more creative process, metaphors
and concepts in other disciplines help create new forms of fantasy. Two strategies in this category are:

11. Convert abstract concepts and values into a visually represented space (Spatialization of
abstract concept): Abstract concepts can be spatially visualized as alternative measures such as
color, coordinates on axes, or an amount of sound.
12. Visualize invisible concepts (Visualization of intangible concept): Abstract concepts can be
visualized by metaphors and utilizing controllable components of relevant concepts.

While research has shown including fantasy in education settings can have positive learning outcomes
and promote engagement, little research exists in investigating the types of fantasy designs and their ef-
fect on learning and engagement, especially for middle school students. Such research will test out the
fantasy design principles and provide insights to serious game designers who are interested in creating
applications for educational use.

DESIGN OF FANTASY EXAMPLES AND RESEARCH THEIR

EFFECTS ON LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT
Research Questions

Given the goal of this research, the following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the effect of fantasy types (portrayal design vs. creative design as shown in the 3D char-
acters of aliens) on student learning and engagement in a serious game for middle school science?
2. In what way do the fantasy types relate to students’ tool use patterns in playing the serious game?

Research Context

The research context is a serious game called Alien Rescue (AR), a 3D learning environment designed
for sixth grade space science. The goal of AR is to engage students in solving a complex problem that
requires them to use scientific inquiry tools, experimentation procedures, and knowledge of space sci-
ence in one learning space (Liu, Horton, Kang, Kimmons, & Lee, 2013; Liu, Horton, Olmanson, &
Toprac, 2011). AR is designed as a curriculum unit to be used for fifteen class sessions lasting 45-50
minutes each. It aligns with the National Science Education Standards and Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills (TEKS).
In AR, students take on the role of a young scientist whose goal is to find appropriate planets or moons
in our solar system for six endangered alien species, and engage in solving this complex problem. To
accomplish this goal, students need to use various tools provided in the environment, meeting aliens in
Alien Database to learn about their food and habitats, studying the planets in the Solar System Database
to gather information in understanding the critical elements for the aliens’ survival, and using scientific
tools (e.g. Probe Design and Probe Launch) to experiment and verify if the characteristics of the planets
are appropriate for the aliens. Students then submit solutions for the aliens’ relocation sites and provide
justifications. A summary of the tools and their descriptions is provided in Table 2.

202

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Table 2. Descriptions of Tools Provided in AR

Tool Name Tool Functions

Alien Database Presents textual descriptions and 3D visuals of the aliens’ home solar system and journey to
Earth, as well as the characteristics and needs of each species.
Solar System Database Provides information on the planets and selected moons in our solar system under consideration
as habitats. Intentionally incomplete data ensures the need to generate and test hypotheses.
Missions Database Presents information on the mission, technology and findings of historical NASA probe launches.
Concepts Database Provides interactive and highly visual supplemental instruction on selected scientific concepts
presented elsewhere in the environment.
Spectra Helps students to interpret spectral data encountered in the environment.
Periodic Table Provides an interactive periodic table of the elements for reference.
Notebook Provides a place for students to record, summarize, and organize data as they engage in solving
the central problem.
Probe Design Center Allows students to design and build probes to send to gather data on worlds in our solar system.
Probe Launch Center Allows students to review built probes and make launch decisions in consideration of their
remaining budget.
Mission Control Center Provides an interface to view data from launched probes.
Message Tool Allows students to read messages from the Aliens and from the Interstellar Relocation
Commission Director. Provides the Solution Form, which allows students to submit their habitat
relocation recommendations and rationales for review by teachers.

Fantasy Design and Examples

To accomplish the research goal of this study, the alien models in AR are redesigned based on the litera-
ture on fantasy design principles as discussed above (Kim, 2009; Vygotsky, 2004). Two sets of fantasy
characters have been created in order to examine the effect of different types of fantasy. Prior to the
creation of the 3D alien models, various visuals and designs were reviewed from fantasy art, fantasy
movie posters, traditional mask art, fantasy drawings, and visual graphics in science fiction drawings
(Barlowe & Duskis, 1996; Carroll, 2007; Dean, 1984; Gregor, 2001; Haber, 2011; Jude, 1999; Korshak,
2009; Lukacs, 2010; Robertson, 1992). The fantasy designs from these fields provided inspirations in
creating the two types of aliens used in this study.
The two types of fantasy designs were named as portrayal fantasy vs creative fantasy according to
Kim’s principles (2009) and Vygotsky’s developmental techniques of reproduction and combinative
recreation. Portrayal fantasy includes imaginative components representing familiar pre-existing artifacts
(See examples in Figure 1 –portrayal aliens). It is designed so a learner can relate the design to something
they are familiar with and something they have seen in their everyday life. Creative fantasy is a type of
design that includes imaginative components making the object different from pre-existing artifacts (See
examples in Figure 1- creative aliens). This type of design reflects a quite different image from existing
conceptions because of the continuous combination and integration of heterogeneous components from
various creatures. So it is expected learners are less familiar to this design and cannot easily relate to it.
To validate the designs of these alien characters created using the two definitions of fantasy mentioned
above, the new designs were first reviewed by two graduate students who were familiar with the AR
project and studying learning technologies. Revisions were made given their feedback on each design.

203

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Figure 1. Sample Examples of Aliens Used in the Study

A pilot study was then conducted, using semi-structured interviews, to investigate how the target
audience, sixth graders, perceived different types of aliens. A total of 31 sixth graders from four classes
(male=14 and female=17) participated in the interviews. Two classes were assigned to a group that
received a set of aliens with portrayal designs and the other two classes were assigned to a group that
received a set of aliens with creative designs. The students were asked to describe the characteristics of
the alien models. The students later were also shown the other set of aliens and were asked to describe
the characteristics of aliens and differences between the two sets of designs. This pilot study found stu-
dents’ descriptions of the two sets of alien characters were aligned with the definitions of fantasy used.
Students were able to distinguish the differences between the two types of alien designs when they were
shown. That is, this pilot study validated the designs of two sets of alien characters. These two sets of
the alien characters were then implemented in the tool called Alien Database of the AR program for this
research: portrayal models were used in one version of the program while creative models were used
for another version for the comparison purpose (see Table 2 and Figure 1).

Participants

A total of 64 sixth graders from four classes from a school in the southwest region of U.S. participated
in this research in Spring 2014. A quasi-experimental design was employed. Of the four classes, Class 1
and Class 2 were assigned to use the portrayal version of alien characters (n= 30) and Class 3 and Class

204

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Table 3. Ethnicity and Gender of Participants

Ethnicity Gender
American
Class Black/ Two or Total
Indian/
White Hispanic African More Male Female
Alaskan
American Races
Native
10 2 2 1 0 10 6 15
1
(66.7%) (13.3%) (13.3%) (6.7%) (0.00%) (62.5%) (37.5%) 100.0%
11 4 0 0 0 9 6 15
2
(73.3%) (26.7%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (60.0%) (40.0%) 100.0%
7 5 0 1 1 6 8 14
3
(50.0%) (35.7%) (0.0%) (7.1%) (7.1%) (42.9%) (57.1%) 100.0%
11 7 1 1 0 13 7 20
4
(55.0%) (35.0%) (5.0%) (5.0%) (0.0%) (65.0%) (35.0%) 100.0%
Total 39 18 3 3 1 38 27 64
(%) (60.9%) (28.1%) (4.7%) (4.7%) (1.6%) (60.9%) (41.50%) 100.0%

4 were assigned to use the creative version of alien characters (n= 34). Each class size ranged from 14
to 20. The ethnicity and gender information of the students is presented in Table 3.

Data Sources

There are four data sources: (1) Science Knowledge Test, (2) Alien Information Test, (3) Game Engage-
ment Questionnaire, and (4) Game Log Data.

Science Knowledge Test

The science knowledge test was used for measuring the acquisition of science knowledge. The test was
devised and administered by the school. It consisted of 26 items and was given before and after the stu-
dents completed the space curriculum unit. Each item scores 1 point with incorrect answers being zero
and correct answers being one for a total of 26 points. Cronbach alpha for the test was .96.

Alien Information Test

Alien information test was developed for this research and validated by two content experts who had five
or more years of teaching experience. The test consists of 18 questions, three questions per alien species.
It measures what information students have retained about six alien species and focused on the cognitive
domain of remembering and understanding in accordance to Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). It was
given after the students used AR.

Game Engagement Questionnaire

Students’ engagement during game playing was measured by the Game engagement questionnaire (GEQ)
which measures learners’ individual experience of game involvement while using the game (Brockmyer,

205

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Fox, Curtiss, McBroom, Burkhart, & Pidruzny, 2009). A modified version of GEQ with 11 items was
used to assess absorption experience, flow, presence, and immersion experience (Brockmyer et al.,
2009). Each item has three response choices (“No”, “Sort of”, “Yes”) with a score ranging from 0 to 22.
Cronbach alpha of the instrument is 0.85. It was given after the students used AR.

Game Log Data

The log data consisted of time- and date-stamped actions for each student (student ID, class ID, dura-
tion calculated by start time and end time, and tool name) in the two experimental groups. First, the log
data of all the tools provided in the game environment was analyzed and then the use of Alien Database,
which is of particular interest to this study, was examined.

Data Analysis

To answer research question one (RQ1), “What is the effect of fantasy types (portrayal design vs. cre-
ative design as shown in the 3D characters of aliens) on student learning and engagement in a serious
game for middle school science?” two multiple regressions were conducted to examine the effect of
fantasy types on science knowledge and engagement. The independent variables for both regressions
were fantasy types (which were dummy coded), alien information acquisition, and science knowledge
pretest scores. The dependent variables, respectively for each regression, were science knowledge post-
test score and game engagement.
To answer research question two (RQ2), “In what way do the fantasy types relate to students’ tool use
patterns in playing the serious game?” the log file of 64 students with 8658 lines of log was used in the
analysis, after eliminating the incomplete log data. Tableau Desktop 9 was used to explore the overall
patterns of all tool usage, and then the use of Alien Database tool was examined. The emerged patterns
were plotted with the X axis representing chronological points over the days, and Y axis representing
tool usage such as the average frequency (number of times accessed for a tool) or the average duration
(total amount of time in seconds stayed in a tool). Averaged values across the students by the grouping
variables were used.

Study Findings

The Effects of Fantasy Types on Learning and Engagement (RQ1)

The multiple regression analysis showed that the overall finding on science learning was significant: F(3,
60) = 11.13, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .33, effect size(f2) = .49. The fantasy type and science knowledge
pretest score contributed significantly to the prediction of the science knowledge posttest scores while
the amount of alien information acquired by the students did not (see Table 4). The science knowledge
pretest score is positively correlated to the science knowledge posttest score (p < .001). The analysis
showed the total mean of science knowledge pretest score was 12.16 (SD = 3.54) while the total mean
of the science knowledge posttest score was 15.91(SD = 4.23), p <. 05. That is, the students had signifi-
cantly gained more science knowledge after using AR. Specifically, the mean of the science knowledge
posttest for the portrayal group was 16.80 (SD = 3.86) and 15.12 (SD = 4.44) for the creative group,
which indicated portrayal fantasy group performed better (see Table 4).

206

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Table 4. Summary of Multiple Regressions for Science Learning and Game Engagement

Science Learning Game Engagement

Variable
B SE B β B SE B β
Fantasy type -1.90 .90 -.23* -3.56 1.32 -.33**
Alien Information -.025 .04 -.07 .004 .06 .009
Science pretest .69 .13 .58*** .39 .19 .25*
Adjusted R 2
.33 .13
F 11.13*** 4.28**
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

The multiple regression analysis on game engagement showed an overall significant finding (see
Table 4): F(3, 60) = 4.18, p < .05, adjusted R2 = .13, effect size(f2) = .15. Fantasy type and science
knowledge pretest score contributed significantly to the prediction of the game engagement score while
the amount of alien information acquired by the students did not. The mean score of game engagement
for the portrayal group was 10.10 (SD = 5.47) and the mean score for the creative group was 6.56 (SD
= 4.93). That is, the portrayal group had higher engagement scores.
MANCOVAs were also performed where the science knowledge pretest score served as a covariate to
isolate the effect of fantasy. The results indicated that fantasy type was a significant contributing factor
to science knowledge posttest (F(1, 61) = 4.10, p < .05, partial η2 = .063) and game engagement (F(1,
61) = 8.078, p < .01, partial η2 = .117).
Although the alien information acquisition was not a significant predictor for the science knowledge
posttest score and game engagement score, there was a difference in the means of alien information
acquisition between the two groups: portrayal group scored higher in acquiring alien information than
the creative group (see Table 5).

Tool Use Patterns by Fantasy Types (RQ2)

Data visualizations revealed a few main differences between the two fantasy types. Figure 2 presented
an overall tool use patterns of the amount of time and frequency by the students in both portrayal and

Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviation of Each Variable

Variables Mean SD N
Portrayal 12.10 3.87 30
Science Knowledge Pretest
Independent Creative 12.21 3.27 34
Variables Portrayal 23.19 10.66 30
Alien Information acquisition
Creative 17.55 11.29 34
Portrayal 16.80 3.86 30
Science Knowledge Posttest
Dependent Creative 15.12 4.44 34
Variables Portrayal 10.10 5.47 30
Game Engagement
Creative 6.56 4.93 34

207

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

creative groups. Both groups used the tools most frequently on day 1, suggesting they were exploring
the game and checking out the tools. The frequency of the tool use marked an increase on day 3 and
day 8 for the portrayal group whereas there was an increase on day 6 and day 9 for the creative group.
Overall, the students in the portrayal group spent more time than the creative group in using the tools
provided. While the amount of time the creative group spent using the tools peaked on the day 10 (last
day), the students in the portrayal group spent more time in using the tools on day 3, day 7, and day 10.
Of all the tools, both portrayal and creative fantasy group spent considerably more time in using Alien
Database than the other tools (see Figure 3). While the amount of time in Alien Database peaked on day
3 for the portrayal fantasy group, it peaked on days 4 and 10 for the creative fantasy group. Overall, the
portrayal group spent more time in using the Alien Database than the creative group (see Figure 4) and
its use of the tool was more gradual and spread over the entire process while the use of the tool by the
creative group was marked by two spikes: day 4 and day 10 (see Figure 4). The next tool the students
spent more time in is the Solar System Database: the creative group spent more time during the first
part of the problem-solving process while the portrayal group spent more time during the later part of
the problem-solving process. The portrayal group spent more time in using the Probe Design tool while
the creative group used the Probe Design more often.
The relationships between the duration of Alien Database use and alien information acquisition,
game engagement, and science knowledge posttest were also examined for the two fantasy types. For
the portrayal group, the results showed a statistically significant positive relationship between alien in-
formation acquisition and time spent in using Alien Database: B = 18.64, p <.001 (see Figure 5). There
was not a relationship between the science knowledge posttest and time spent in using Alien Database
or between game engagement and time spent in using Alien Database. For the creative group, there was
little relationship between time spent in using Alien Database and alien information acquisition/science

Figure 2. A Summary View of All Tools Use by Fantasy Types (lines representing frequency and areas
representing duration)

208

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Figure 3. Patterns of Individual Tool Use by Fantasy Types (lines representing frequency and areas
representing duration)

209

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Figure 4. Alien Database Use by Fantasy Types (lines representing frequency and areas representing
duration)

knowledge posttest/game engagement, though as the students spent more time in using Alien Database,
they seemed to be more engaged as compared to the portrayal group.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study investigated the effect of different types of fantasy design on learning and game engagement
in a serious game. The results showed that the sixth graders increased their science learning after using
the serious game that incorporated fantasy designs. This finding is consistent to the previous research
showing the positive outcomes of using fantasy in educational applications (Bowers & Jentsch, 2001;
Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Parker & Lepper, 1992; Thomas, Cahill, & Stantilli, 1997; Wiest, 2001;
Wilson et al., 2009).
The finding also suggested that portrayal fantasy design was more effective in helping students
improve their science knowledge and game engagement. This finding can possibly be explained by the
familiarity, relevance, and immediate recognition of game elements through the portrayal fantasy design
(Dillon, 2010; Wiest, 2001). According to Dillon (2010), game players typically have fun when their first
impression of the game is something they are familiar with. The familiarity of graphical components

210

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Figure 5. Correlation between Time Spent in Alien Database Tool and Alien Information Acquisition,
Game Engagement, and Science Knowledge Posttest

enables game players to identify the game environment immediately. In this study, portrayal fantasy
designs contain visual information of more familiar concepts and popular images to the students who
are charged to find a relocation site for the alien species. It seems the students can relate to the portrayal
aliens easier because of their familiar shapes based on their prior knowledge (Kim, 2009). The immedi-
ate identification of the design can provoke the arousal of emotions such as curiosity and willingness to
explore the gaming environment (Dillon, 2010). Personalizing one’s experience through fantasy is an
important factor in enhancing learning and motivation (Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Relevance in fantasy
designs helps this personalization (Kim, 2009).
As a comparison, the creative design is less successful. This could possibly be due to the unfamiliar-
ity of alien designs which makes it more difficult for 11 and 12 years old to associate the new visual
information with their existing knowledge and causes some cognitive disconnect in their knowledge base
(Aleman & De Haan, 2004; Johnson & Raye, 1981; Richert & Smith, 2011). The difficulty in identify-
ing the visual information may also lead to the difficulty in connecting the 3D alien visuals with textual
alien descriptions provided in the Alien Database to solve the central problem in the game. The creative
fantasy designs, containing excessive visual information as the creative objects were made of countless
combinations of different concepts, may require more cognitive processing in understanding the unusual
shapes, and therefore, may be a source of cognitive load.
The results of the amount of time spent in tool use, specifically Alien Database, confirmed the above
finding in showing more time spent in tool use contributed to the increase in learning as measured by

211

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

the science knowledge and game engagement. The portrayal fantasy group spent more time than the
creative group in using all of tools provided and it also spent more time in using Alien Database which
contains all fantasy designs under investigation. The tools provided in the game are intended to serve as
scaffolds to support students’ problem solving (Liu et al., 2013). The multiple regression and visualiza-
tion analyses confirmed a relationship between tool use and learning for the portrayal design group. As
the portrayal fantasy group spent more time in Alien Database, it acquired more alien information. The
creative group, on the other hand, spent less time in using the tools. The amount time spent in Alien
Database did not significantly correlate with the alien information acquisition or science knowledge,
except for a slight increase of game engagement as shown in Figure 5. Its use of Alien Database revealed
two spikes during mid- and end- of the game play, suggesting less purposeful use of the tools to assist
its problem-solving (Liu et al, 2013).

CONCLUSION

This study examined the effect of two types of fantasy design in a serious game environment. The find-
ings showed that portrayal fantasy design was more effective for promoting learning and game engage-
ment for this group of middle school students. Specifically, the students who received portrayal fantasy
models showed higher science knowledge and scored better on game engagement. Data visualization
also revealed the students who received portrayal fantasy spent more time in using all tools provided
and specifically Alien Database which contains all the fantasy designs in the game, than the students
in the creative group.
By creating and testing the fantasy designs in a serious game, this research has extended previous
research examining the effect of fantasy in the traditional teaching environments (Cook, 2002; Cordova
& Lepper, 1996; Richert & Smith, 2011). However, this study is limited in that it situated the investi-
gation to a specific environment and a specific age group. The sample consisted of intact classes as it
was not realistic to assign students randomly in the actual learning setting and the primary data sources
were quantitative in nature. To further the research on this topic, a number of future research directions
are outlined below.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This research focused on the use of 3D fantasy based models to investigate the effect of fantasy design
in a serious game for middle school science. Since fantasy design principles are applicable to various
contexts and different age groups, more research is needed to examine and implement different designs
on different topics and in multiple disciplines. This study offers a small-scale empirical investigation on
fantasy designs. More studies with larger samples are needed so as to compare and contrast the research
findings for content learning and engagement. Research is also needed to further examine the differences
between portrayal fantasy and creative fantasy designs, especially investigating how certain types of fan-
tasy can mediate personal characteristics or classroom dynamics to achieve positive learning outcomes.
In addition to quantitative data sources, qualitative data such as interviews can be used to probe deeper
on learners’ process of imagination and perception. Fantasy is an interpretational process of imagina-
tive creations and mental images, which are unrealistic. More qualitative investigation might illuminate

212

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

how students interact with the fantasy in a gaming environment and how those interactions affect future
game play. Personal gaming experience through fantasy is closely related to gender, child developmental
stages, and cultural background (Asgari & Kaufman, 2010; Merckelbach, Horselenberg, & Muris, 2001).
The relationships between the use of fantasy and those relevant variables should be investigated further
in regards to personal gaming experience on specific types of fantasy. This investigation has explored
data visualization techniques using frequency and duration of the tool use. Future research can expand
to explore and discover interactions between students and the gaming environment. In short, we are just
at the beginning stage of this research. Much more research is needed.

REFERENCES

Aleman, A., & De Haan, E. H. F. (2004). Fantasy proneness, mental imagery and reality monitoring.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1747–1754. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.011
Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2010). Does fantasy enhance learning in digital games? In D. Kaufman &
L. Sauve (Eds.), Educational gameplay and simulation environments: Case studies and lessons learned
(pp. 84–95). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-731-2.ch005
Barlowe, W. D., & Duskis, N. (1996). Barlowe’s guide to fastasy. New York: HarperPrism.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York:
David McKay Company.
Bowers, C. A., & Jentsch, F. (2001). Use of commercial, off-the-shelf, simulations for team research.
Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, 1, 293–317.
Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009).
The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-
playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 624–634. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016
Carroll, M. (2007). Space art: How to draw and paint planets, moons, and landscapes of alien worlds.
New York: Watson-Guptill Publications.
Cook, L. M. (2002). What happened to the daydream Believer? A Study of imagination and problem-
solving. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial
effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4),
715–730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715
Creighton, R. H. (2010). Unity 3D Game Development by Example Beginner’s Guide. Packt Publishing.
Dean, M. (1984). The complete guide to fantasy art techniques. Arco Pub.
Dillon, R. (2010). On the way to fun: An emotion based approach to successful game design. Natick,
MA: AK Peters. doi:10.1201/b10930

213

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Gopher, D., Well, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to hlight.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 36(3), 387–405.
doi:10.1177/001872089403600301
Gregor, J. (2001). Masks of the world with 255 photographs. Mineola, NY: Dovr Publications.
Haber, K. (2011). Masters of science fiction and fantasy art. Rockport Publishers.
Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital
games. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 483–498. doi:10.1177/1046878105282276
Hume, K. (1984). Fantasy and mimesis: responses to reality in Western literature. New York, NY: Methuen.
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67–85.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67
Jude, D. (1999). Fantasy arts masters. New York, NY: Watson-Guptill Publications.
Kim, I. (2009). A study on the factors and the principles of the fantasy in the educational context. (Un-
published doctoral dissertation). Seoul National University.
Korshak, S. D. (2009). Frank R. Paul: Father of science fiction art. Castle Books.
Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. The American
Psychologist, 40(1), 1–18. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.1.1
Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R., & Lee, J. (2013). Using a Ludic Simulation to Make Learn-
ing of Middle School Space Science Fun. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated
Simulations, 5(1), 66–86. doi:10.4018/jgcms.2013010105
Lukacs, C. (2010). Fantasy genesis: A creativity game for fantasy artists. IMPACT Books.
Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A Study of intrinsically motivating computer
games. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for
learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and af-
fective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. TEEM
(Teachers evaluating educational multimedia), Cambridge.
Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ):
A brief self-report measure of fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 987–995.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00201-4
Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children’s learning and moti-
vation: Making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625–633.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.625 PMID:1583588
Richert, R. A. (2003). Solving analogies in a fantastical context: Preschoolers’ ability to transfer solu-
tions from fantasy to reality. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia.

214

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Richert, R. A., Shawber, A. B., Hoffman, R. E., & Taylor, M. (2009). Learning from fantasy and real
characters in preschool and kindergarten. Journal of Cognition and Development, 10(1-2), 41–66.
doi:10.1080/15248370902966594
Richert, R. A., & Smith, E. I. (2011). Preschoolers’ Quarantining of Fantasy Stories. Child Development,
82(4), 1106–1119. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01603.x PMID:21679170
Robertson, B. (1992). Techniques of fantasy art. London: Macdonald and Co (Publishers) Ltd.
Thomas, R., Cahill, J., & Santilli, L. (1997). Using an interactive computer game to increase skill and
self-efficacy regarding safer sex negotiation: Field test results. Health Education & Behavior, 24(1),
71–86. doi:10.1177/109019819702400108 PMID:9112099
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European
Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
Wiest, L. R. (2001). The role of fantasy contexts in word problems. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 13(2), 74–90. doi:10.1007/BF03217100
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., & Conkey, C. et al.
(2009). Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2),
217–266. doi:10.1177/1046878108321866

ADDITIONAL READING

Aleman, A., Bocker, K. B., & De Haan, E. H. F. (1999). Disposition towards hallucination and subjec-
tiveversus objective vividness of imagery in normal subjects. Personality and Individual Differences,
27(4), 707–714. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00270-0
Dickey, M. D. (2015). Aesthetics and Design for Game-based Learning. New York: Routledge.
Echeverria, A., Barrios, E., Nussbaum, M., Amestica, M., & Leclerc, S. (2012). The atomic intrinsic
integration approach: A structured methodology for the design of games for the conceptual understanding
of physics. Computers & Education, 59(2), 806–816. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.025
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
Gunter, G. A., Kenny, R. F., & Vick, E. H. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RE-
TAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. ETR&D-Educational
Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 511–537. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2
Kaufman, D., & Sauvé, L. (2010). Educational Gameplay and Simulation Environments: Case Studies
and Lessons Learned (pp. 1–528). Hershey, PA: IGI Global; doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-731-2
Kim, J. T., & Lee, W.-H. (2015). Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL). Multimedia
Tools and Applications, 74(19), 8483–8493. doi:10.1007/s11042-013-1612-8

215

Design of Fantasy and Their Effect on Learning and Engagement in a Serious Game

Liu, M., Horton, L., Lee, J., Kang, J., Rosenblum, J., O’Hair, M., & Lu, C. W. (2014). Creating a Mul-
timedia Enhanced Problem-Based Learning Environment for Middle School Science: Voices from the
Developers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(1). Available at; doi:10.7771/1541-
5015.1422
Liu, M., Rosenblum, J., Horton, L., & Kang, J. (2014). Designing Science Learning with Game-Based
Approaches. Computers in the Schools, 31(1/2), 84–102. doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.879776
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend Play: Longitudinal Prediction of Cre-
ativity and Affect in Fantasy in Children. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 129–139. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1202_5

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Creative Fantasy: Creative fantasy is a type of fantasy that includes imaginative components mak-
ing the object different from pre-existing artifacts through continuous changing or combining existing
objects to constitute the parts or concepts of those fantasies.
Data Visualization: Data visualization is a technique of graphical data representation that makes
sense of human behaviors or activity patterns in diverse contexts. In serious games and educational
games, data visualization research often focuses on the learning activities: learner’s tool use patterns
and spatial exploration in a 3D space.
Fantasy Type: Fantasy type denotes a category of fantasy including portrayal, creative, combina-
tive, and is an envisioned representation of fantasy (Kim, 2009). In this study, only two types of fantasy,
portrayal and creative fantasy, were used.
Fantasy: Fantasy is defined as an environment that “evokes mental images of physical or social
situations that are not actually presented” (Malone & Lepper, 1987, p. 240).
Game Engagement: Game engagement is a term used to describe the experience of individual who
is fully involved in a mental procedure or physical activity such as video game playing.
Portrayal Fantasy: Portrayal fantasy is a type of fantasy including imaginative components repre-
senting familiar preexisting artifacts based on the transformation of shape or color within the possible
variations that a target audience is used to.
Reproductive and Combinative Representation of Fantasy: The two types of representation of
fantasy refer to a developmental method of fantasy. In developing fantasy, fantasy artists first develop
a masterpiece by taking essential characteristics in existing concepts and artifacts. This developmental
process is reproductive. Later, the masterpiece is modified by countless combinations of other concepts.
This process includes blending and combination of multiple concepts, which infuses creativity in human
imagination.

216
217

Chapter 10
Game Design as a Complex
Problem Solving Process
Mete Akcaoglu Charles B. Hodges
Georgia Southern University, USA Georgia Southern University, USA

Antonio P. Gutierrez Philipp Sonnleitner

Georgia Southern University, USA University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg

ABSTRACT
Problem solving is one of the most essential skills for individuals to be successful at their daily lives
and careers. When problems become complex, solving them involves identifying relationships among a
multitude of interrelated variables, to achieve multiple different possible solutions. Teaching Complex
Problem Solving (CPS) skills in formal education contexts is challenging. In this research, we examined
if through an innovative game-design course middle school students improved in their CPS skills. Our
results showed that students showed significant improvements in their CPS skills, especially in terms of
system exploration, t(10) = 2.787, p = .019; system knowledge, t(10) = 2.437, p = .35; system applica-
tion, t(10) = 2.472, p = .033. In addition, there was a statistically significant change in students’ interest
for CPS after attending the GDL program, t(6) = 3.890, p = .008. We discuss implications regarding
use of game-design tasks as contexts to teach CPS skills in formal and informal educational contexts.

INTRODUCTION

Problem solving is an important part of human life (Van Merriënboer, 2013). The increasing complexity
of problems our society is facing makes it essential for the new generation of learners to grow up pos-
sessing abilities to solve complex and dynamic problems (Sonnleitner, Brunner, Keller, & Martin, 2014;
Sonnleitner, Keller, Martin, & Brunner, 2013; Wirth & Klieme, 2003). Therefore, curricula supporting
the development of such skills are critical (Greiff, et al., 2014; Sonnleitner et al., 2014).
Complex problems, similar to ill-structured problems, can be defined as situations that involve or-
chestrating a number of interrelated and dynamically varying operations (Funke, 2010). Complex prob-
lems are opaque (i.e., the relationship among the variables cannot be seen) and polytelic (i.e., a number
different targets are possible). Complex problem solving (CPS) is considered as a valid and reliable
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch010

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

representation of higher-order thinking skills, including problem solving and intelligence (Sonnleitner
et al., 2013; Sternberg, 1982).
Teaching problem solving is an important goal for education (Van Merriënboer, 2013), but integrat-
ing complex problem solving into current formal education curricula is not an easy endeavor. Mostly,
the issue stems from the fact that schooling tends to focus on well-defined problems, symbolic thinking
over direct engagement with objects, and general skills and knowledge, instead of the situation-specific
competencies needed in real-life contexts (Resnick, 1987). In addition, time to teach these skills during
regular school hours is a hardship reported by most teachers (Tabary, 2015).
Given the importance of learning problem solving skills and the lack of emphasis in formal educa-
tion, it is important that children get opportunities to engage in problem solving in other contexts. One
promising arena for such skill development has been after-school clubs where children design and create
digital artifacts (e.g., Harel, 1991; Kafai, Peppler, & Chapman, 2009; Resnick & Rusk, 1996). These
after-school opportunities are casual and stress-free, getting learners to engage in creative problem solv-
ing and active knowledge construction in ways that appeal to young learners’ interests (Resnick & Rusk,
1996). Following the theory and practice from early clubhouse work and recent work with game-design
and problem solving (e.g., Akcaoglu, 2014), in this study, our purpose was to investigate the cognitive
(i.e., complex problem solving) and motivational outcomes (i.e., interest, value, and self-efficacy) from
an after-school game-design course: Game-Design and Learning program.

BACKGROUND

Complex Problem Solving

In any given domain, solving a problem can be seen as the process of successfully overcoming barriers
to reach certain goals (Reed, 2013). Problems, however, strongly vary concerning the characteristics of
these barriers and goals, and hence, their complexity. Beginning in the late 70s, research increasingly
focused on computer-simulated, real-world problems (e.g. governing a city, managing a small factory),
that were characterized as complex (Funke & Frensch, 2007). To solve these kinds of problems, the
problem solver has to (a) achieve several, partly contradicting goals, by (b) efficiently interacting with
a large number of variables that are (c) connected through (d) an unapparent net of relations, and (e)
that are dynamically changing over time. Current research on complex problems still focuses on these
core characteristics but stresses their domain-general aspect by using smaller scenarios that draw less on
content knowledge (Funke, 2010, Greiff, Wüstenberg, & Funke, 2012; Sonnleitner et al. 2012).
Evidently, dealing with such complex scenarios requires a broad set of skills and abilities. It has been
shown that reasoning plays a central part in complex problem solving, but that there are additional, spe-
cific problem solving skills at work (Sonnleitner, et al., 2013). First, the problem solver has to develop
an appropriate strategy to find out about the underlying connections between the variables involved.
Typically, the most efficient exploration strategy involves a systematic and sequential manipulation of
single variables. Only if all other variables are held constant, change in the scenario can unequivocally
be traced back to the manipulated variable. This procedure equates to unconfounded experiments and is
usually called Control of Variables Strategy (CVS; Chen & Klahr, 1999). Second, the created informa-
tion of these experiments has to be translated into knowledge about the problem. Only if the problem
solver was successful in building a mental representation or model of the problem, effective strategies

218

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

can be deduced in order to achieve the target state of the problem. This final step, however, demands
the anticipation of future developments within the scenario and a flexible attitude that allows reacting to
(unforeseen) developments that were not covered by the previously built mental model of the problem.
These three processes, (the use of an adequate exploration strategy, the creation of an appropriate mental
model and the successful application of the acquired knowledge), were found to be highly related but
still distinct from each other, even beyond their strong dependence on reasoning ability (Sonnleitner, et
al., 2013).
Based on a growing awareness concerning the acceleration and intricacy of today’s society and its
problems, research on complex problem solving has attracted fresh attention. Especially within the field of
education, big efforts are taken to evaluate students’ complex problem solving skills, which were defined
as one of the central 21st century skills (Greiff et al., 2014; OECD, 2014; Sonnleitner, et al. in press).
Recently, the benefit of using complex problem solving scenarios to evaluate students’ cognitive
potential has been shown by Sonnleitner and colleagues (2014). For example, they discovered that im-
migrant students, who are usually found to be outperformed by their native peers in nearly all subjects
and domains, actually applied a more efficient exploration strategy than their fellow classmates. This
not only points to possibly higher motivation of such students when confronted with novel problems in
which they are not used to failing, but also to the potential plasticity of complex problem solving, since
immigrant students are necessarily more trained to deal with novel and unexpected situations (Martin
et al., 2012).
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research on training complex problem solving skills. An impres-
sive study by Kretzschmar (2011), however, showed that using an intense training with several complex
problem solving situations leads to a more efficient exploration strategy in other simulations. Together
with the findings of Sonnleitner et al., 2014 and Martin et al, 2012, this supports the claim concerning
the general trainability of complex problem solving skills, especially the exploration skills. Crucially
though, the advantage in problem exploration did not transfer to a higher skill in achieving the target
values, neither in Kretzschmar’s study, nor in Sonnleitner et al. (2014), pointing to the high importance
of further research on this topic.

Teaching Problem Solving

Various instructional methods have been identified as effective ways of teaching problem solving (Mayer &
Wittrock, 1996, 2006). Among these methods, teaching basic skills, teaching for understanding, teaching
by analogy, and teaching thinking skills directly are the most notable. In teaching basic skills, the goal of
instruction is to teach low-level cognitive skills essential to solving specific problems so that during the
problem solving process, there is more cognitive capacity available to tackle complex tasks (Mayer &
Wittrock, 2006). For example, through drill and practice, students can practice decoding of words (i.e.,
low-level skill), which eventually helps students to be successful in reading fluency and comprehen-
sion (i.e., high-level skill). In teaching for understanding, the instructional goal is to get learners to see
connections between the newly learned skills and novel situations they will encounter. For example, to
increase reading comprehension, learners can be asked to create relationships between the stories they
are reading and their own experiences through verbal or imaginal methods (Linden & Wittrock, 1981).
Teaching by analogy refers to the instructional method of teaching problem solving whereby learners
are taught to solve new problems by using their knowledge and skills from similar previous problems.
In analogies, the problem situations differ in terms of surface features (e.g., context, characters, objects),

219

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

but have similar underlying structural features (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). In teaching by analogy, it
is essential that a person learns the base structure and can apply it to similar target cases. It should be
noted, however, that it often is difficult for problem solvers to see underlying similarities between two
problems when they differ in surface structures (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1983). Finally, teaching thinking
skills directly refers to teaching skills necessary to solve problems overtly and directly to learners. In
these cases, thinking skills specifically refer to “behaviors and thoughts that the problem solver engages
in during problem solving that are intended to influence the problem solver’s representation of a prob-
lem and the planning and monitoring of problem-solving solutions” (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996, p. 57).
Researchers (e.g., Quilici & Mayer, 2001) have shown that teaching domain-specific skills directly to
learners helps improve their problem solving outcomes.
In addition, educational psychologists also have been interested in seeking the possibility of learning
problem solving skills through learning other subject matter. For example, in the 19th century educators
believed that disciplined thinking from learning Latin would help people also during problem solving
(i.e., transfer). Recently, computer programming has been treated as the “new Latin,” believed to lead
students into being better thinkers and problem solvers (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996). Although early reports
of research on the outcomes of learning computer programming is mixed, recent work that contextualized
programming into meaningful design and problem-solving tasks has indicated that through carefully
constructed instructional interventions students do show improvements in their problem solving skills
(Akcaoglu, 2014; Akcaoglu & Koehler, 2014). For example, Hwang, Hung, and Chen (2013) found that
students who attended a game design course improved in perceptions of learning and problem-solving
skills. In a recent study, Akcaoglu and Koehler (2014) found that students who attended a game-design
course outperformed their peers in three specific problem-solving domains (system analysis and design,
decision-making, and troubleshooting).

Game Design as a Problem Solving Process

Design is one of the most complex problem types that many professionals in various fields face every
day (Jonassen, 2011). The complexity of design problems stem from the fact that the number of possible
“optimal” solutions is usually unknown and numerous at the onset of the design process. Learning to
solve problems, including design problems, is most effective when it was done through practicing the
skills on contextualized similar cases (Jonassen, 2011).
As a design task, game-design has received attention from researchers and educators as an instruc-
tional method of teaching complex thinking skills (Akcaoglu & Koehler, 2014; National Research
Council, 2011) for several reasons. Among others, engagement (Gee, 2003), practicing ill-structured
problem-solving skills (Ke, 2014), being able to create and work with external (visual) representations of
otherwise abstract ideas (Baytak & Land, 2010; National Research Council, 2011) and the opportunity
to engage in computer programming (Denner et al., 2012, National Research Council, 2011) stand out
to be important reasons for engaging in game-design.
As a complex problem, game design bears similarities to the CPS process. Rule identification is sup-
ported by the inherent processes of troubleshooting. Students need to take informed steps (e.g., change
only one variable before testing) while troubleshooting their games. Rule knowledge is supported through
causal diagrams (i.e., flowcharts) students need to create during the planning stage of their games. Flow-
charts of the games serve as theoretical models, helping students to depict the relations among a multitude
of variables (and their strength). Finally, rule application is achieved through the actual game-design

220

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

process whereby the students make predictions about their games (i.e., forecast based on the flowchart
and system knowledge) and execute their plans to reach the predefined goals.

Motivational Outcomes from Learning Game Design

Motivation can be defined as a theoretical construct to explain the initiation, direction, intensity, persis-
tence and quality of behavior (Brophy, 2010; Maehr & Meyer, 1997). It is believed that a person’s choice,
persistence and performance in a given activity is affected by certain motivational constructs (Wigfield
& Eccles, 2000, 2004). Motivational gains from instructional interventions are, therefore, an important
goal for educators (Brophy, 2010), maybe as important as teaching cognitive skills. For example, ac-
cording to results of recent research, when students’ interest and value perceptions for a subject increase,
it leads to increased competency perceptions and eventually success in academic domains (Hulleman,
Godes, Hendricks, & Harackiewicz, 2010). It also is believed that value perceptions are good predictors
of future success and engagement in school (Hulleman et al., 2010).
One theory of motivation that is a strong predictor of students‟ future preferences and success in a
given domain is expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, 2004; Wigfield, 1994). According to
expectancy-value theory, students‟ self-efficacies and value perceptions of school subjects are important
predictors for their success in these subjects in the future (Wigfield & Eccles, 2004). Expectancies and
values directly influence choice, performances, and persistence on a given task (Brophy, 2010; Wigfield
et al., 2008; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).
Two important components of the expectancy-value theory, as the name suggest, are self-efficacy
perceptions, and value attributions. Self-efficacy can be defined as “judgments of how well one can
execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). Some
researchers believe that self-efficacy alone can predict the amount of effort people will put forth and if
people will persist in the face of difficulties at a given task (Bandura, 1982; Pajares, 1996). The value
aspect of motivation explains how much worth people see in a given task (Brophy, 2010). Despite having
been understudied (Brophy, 1999, 2008), according to Brophy (2010) and expectancy-value theorists,
value is equally important in predicting effort.
Values in expectancy-value theory are more situation-specific, and according to Wigfield and Eccles
(2000) task value encompasses four different value types: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility
value and cost. Although researchers have studied them together and separately in different contexts,
perceived utility value, or the extent that a task is seen as relevant to one’s life or other tasks, has been
seen as an important factor impacting future performance and interest in school subjects (Hulleman &
Harackiewicz, 2009). Recent research has shown that increased utility value predicts increases in interest
and performance, especially for students with low self-efficacy or performance (Hulleman et al., 2010;
Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2009).
Interest can be defined as “a psychological state that, in later phases of development, is also a pre-
disposition to reengage content that applies to in-school and out-of-school learning and to young and
old alike” (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 111). Researchers have found that interest influences the amount
of attention people pay to tasks, people’s goals, and levels of learning. Traditionally, interest has been
categorized into two types, depending on persistence. Personal interest refers to a person’s relatively
enduring “predisposition to reengage particular content over time as well as to the immediate psychologi-
cal state when this predisposition has been activated” (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 113). This is the type
of interest students bring with them to school and is relatively harder to change. Situational interest, on

221

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

the other hand, “is triggered in the moment by environmental stimuli, which may or may not last over
time” (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 113).
Through designing games, the purpose of this study is to cultivate student interest in domains that
may inherently lack trigger quality of computers or game design tasks. In other words, we aim to un-
derstand if game design can trigger students’ interest in other domains such as problem solving that are
embedded in these processes. It is, therefore, of significance to understand specific impacts of learning
game design on students’ self-efficacy, interests, and value perceptions in problem solving. It is the
collective wisdom that children enjoy working with computers (Lepper, 1985), or designing games or
animations with new generation software (Utting, Maloney, & Resnick, 2010). It can be argued that some
of this enjoyment is merely due to exposure to computers, because working with computers can spark
temporary interest (“catch”) for school subjects and motivate students (Mitchell, 1993). Although we
know of the catch features of computers and game design tasks, we do not know if the interest “caught”
with computers, design or programming tasks is maintained (“held”) and actually changed into deeper
interest and involvement in pursuing important thinking-skills, such as problem solving.

The Present Study

The Game Design and Learning (GDL) program has been used as an effective method to improve middle
school students’ problem-solving skills (Akcaoglu, 2014; Akcaoglu & Koehler, 2014). Since its incep-
tion, the GDL program has engaged middle school students in the process of game-design in a variety
of in-school, after-school, and summer camp settings. The goal of the initiative is to leverage students’
interests in designing games to foster their problem solving and critical reasoning skills.
Although the GDL program was used with success in teaching of specific problem solving skills (i.e.,
system analysis and design, decision-making, and troubleshooting), its effectiveness in teaching complex
problem solving skills has not been tested. Moreover, to date, there are not any reported instructional
methods to teach complex problem solving. The purpose of this pilot study was, therefore, to determine
the possibility of using game design as training for CPS. More specifically, first, we aimed to understand
if, as a design task, an after school game-design course, can serve as a context to teach students complex
problem solving skills. More specifically, our research question was:

• Do students attending an after school game-design course improve in their complex problem solv-
ing skills?

In addition to the cognitive gains, we also aimed to understand if learning game-design would “trig-
ger” or support interest in other domains (i.e., problem-solving) that originally may not be as appealing
to students. Therefore, our second research question was:

• Do students attending an after school game-design course improve in their self-efficacy, interest,
and value of complex problem solving?

222

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

METHODS

Participants and Context

The present study took place at Bee Middle School (pseudonym), a public school located in a coastal city
in the southeastern United States. Bee Middle School (BMS) enrolls approximately 700 students in grades
6, 7, and 8. BMS is a specialty school in the district and focuses on Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM). Students throughout the district must apply to attend BMS. Admission is
determined by lottery from the pool of applicants who are eligible based primarily on criteria such as
grade point average and prior year state achievement test scores.
Initially, 17 students elected to participate in the project, which was offered after school, once a week
for seven weeks. Attendance during the project varied, due to its after-school and voluntary nature. Eleven
students completed the pre- and post- assessments for complex problem solving, eight of whom also
completed all the pre- and post- survey questions. Students with missing data were removed from further
analyses. Table 1 displays descriptive information regarding the students who completed the project.

Intervention: Game Design and Learning After-school Course

The after-school format of the GDL program was developed as a series of 2-hour sessions to be offered
seven times during the semester for a total of 14 hours (Table 2). The goals of the GDL program were
to: (a) teach students how to create digital games; (b) help students learn basics of programming; (c)
get students experience being producers of digital media rather than consumers; and (d) teach students
complex problem-solving skills by using game-design as the context for CPS.

Table 1. Participant demographics for pre- and post-test

Time n Age Grade

Pre male = 14 11.6 6th = 14
female = 3 7th = 3
Post male = 9 11.8 6th = 9
female = 2 7th = 2

Table 2. GDL Activities

Session Activity Goal

1 Apple Hunter Game design (+ pretesting)
2 PacMan Game design
3 Kodu Adventure Game design
4 Sim School Problem solving
5 Predator Prey Problem solving
6 Create own game Free design
7 Create own game Free design (+ posttesting)

223

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

During the first three sessions, the goal was to get students to learn the basics of game design and
computer programming, as well as the game-design software used (Microsoft Kodu). During these pure
game-design activities, students created games (simple to more complex), and these sessions were guided
by the first author, who had been teaching similar courses for the last five years. During the first week,
following pretesting, students created a simple game called “Apple Hunter” where the goal is to create
a character in a world who must find and eat five apples, which is followed by the design and creation
of their own version of the classic game PacMan, a more complex game. Finally, during the third week,
the students worked on an adventure game with a backstory, where the goal was to complete some tasks,
earn some money, buy a hovercraft to save a fish was stuck on land (within 100 seconds). Following the
“game-design” courses, during the second half of the GDL the students engaged in “problem solving”
activities. During the problem solving activities, the learners were first given a problem to solve. This
process was supported by visuals (e.g., a graphic showing the relationship between the variables in the
problem). As the final step, the learners were asked to recreate this problem within the game-design
software. For example, during the fifth session the learners first mapped the relationship among different
species in a predator-prey scenario. They were then asked to create a similar context in Kodu. Following
the problem solving activities, the last two sessions of GDL were devoted to getting students to create a
game that they designed by themselves. Having learned the basics of game-design (software), program-
ming, and worked through scenarios connecting game-design with complex problem solving tasks, the
learners engaged in a bottom-up design process. During this process, the students had a chance to practice
what they had learned in new contexts in which they were motivated to persevere.
The GDL curriculum incorporated well-known instructional methods for solving problems, as teaching
problem-solving was one of the main goals. Earlier research (i.e., Touretzky et al., 2013) also was consulted
for the design and creation of the instructional activities and the structure of the curriculum. Interested
readers can find more detail as to the design and implementation of GDL elsewhere (Akcaoglu, 2016).

Instruments

Complex Problem Solving

CPS was measured using a computer-based microworld, called Genetics Lab (GL). As an open-source, valid
(i.e., face-validity), and psychometrically sound measure of CPS, GL is among the first technology-based
microworlds geared toward young learners (see http://www.assessment.lu/GeneticsLab and Sonnleitner et
al., 2012). The GL is considered to be a valid measure of CPS that provides reliable scores for the three
CPS facets: rule identification (RI), rule knowledge (RK), and rule application (Sonnleitner et al., 2012;
Sonnleitner et al., 2013). Rule identification refers to the students’ ability to explore a given system by
taking informative steps (e.g., controlling for one variable at a time) rather than non-informative ones
(e.g., manipulating multiple variables at a time). Rule knowledge refers to the students’ ability to extract
the causal relationship between different variables in terms of their direction and strength. The final step,
rule application, involves students applying the knowledge gained during the first two steps to achieve a
defined target. The GL includes 12 scenarios where students, first, work to understand the relationship
between the genes of hypothetical creatures and their features; and then, based on the knowledge they
gathered about them, they work to manipulate the genes of the creatures to reach different target features.
The test is completed in 50 minutes. Each student’s performance in the three CPS facets is saved into a

224

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

log file on their computer. In previous work, all facets of CPS had high internal consistency: Cronbach’s
alpha ranged from .79 for RA to .90 for RK and .91 for RI (Sonnleitner et al., 2013).

Motivation Scales

The survey was implemented using an online survey tool (Qualtrics). Participants responded to each ques-
tion by moving a slider that allowed for the selection of any value between 0 and 100. As implemented,
0 indicated full disagreement with a statement and 100 indicated a full agreement.
The self-efficacy scale used in this study consisted of 7-items adapted from the 8-item independence
and persistence subscale of Ramalingam and Wiendenbeck’s (1998) computer programming self-efficacy
scale and an additional item. Ramalingam and Wiendenbeck’s scale was worded in the context of a pro-
gramming project. The items were revised for the context of the present study, complex problem solving
(e.g., “I could solve a complex problem if I had a lot of time to solve it.”). Two items were omitted from
Ramalingam and Wiendenbeck’s scale. An item referencing a “language reference manual” (p. 370)
was omitted because it did not apply to our project, as no language reference manual was provided. The
second item omitted used terminology (e.g. “debug”) that was not introduced to the participants until
the project was well into implementation. An item was added to the scale regarding the use of rules
(“I could find rules underlying a complex and difficult problem and use them to solve it.”). Reliability
coefficients of the self-efficacy items in the pre- and post- surveys were high, pre: a = .97, post: a = .92.
Utility value of problem-solving (“I think complex problem solving is useful for me to know”) was
measured by a 7-item scale. The items were adapted from Hulleman et al. (2010). The reliability of this
scale was acceptable (Time 1, α=.98; Time 2, α=.69).
Participants’ situational interest in problem-solving (e.g., “I think solving complex problems is very
interesting.”) was measured by a 7-item scale. The items were adapted from an early research by Hulle-
man et al. (2010). The reliability of this scale was high (Time 1, α=.87; Time 2, α=.91).

Procedures

The game-design course was offered for 7 weeks as a weekly 2-hour after-school course. During the
first session, students completed the pre-assessments (motivation survey and GL). During the rest of
the sessions (including the rest of the first and the last sessions), topics related to game-design, as well
as problem-solving was introduced to the students. During the final session, students completed the
post-assessments (motivation survey and GL). Attendance at the courses was completely voluntary, and
therefore, some students missed a number of sessions after the first session.

RESULTS

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to understand if there were changes in students’ complex problem
solving skills (Table 3). The results indicated that there was a statistically significant change in the three
facets of CPS from pretest to posttest: system exploration, t(10) = 2.787, p = .019; system knowledge,
t(10) = 2.437, p = .35; system application, t(10) = 2.472, p = .033. The effect sizes for the changes were
also sizeable: system exploration, Cohen’s d = .73; system knowledge, d = .84; system application, d
= .75. As shown in Table 3, the results indicated that performance in all three CPS facets significantly

225

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for complex problem solving

Pre Post
M SD M SD
System Exploration 25.71 18.19 39.91 21.07
System Knowledge 64.25 19.21 75.89 22.28
System Application 51.15 18.91 65.90 23.50

improved. More specifically, students showed a more efficient strategy, higher ability to gather knowl-
edge, and apply it accordingly.
In order to analyze the changes in students’ self-efficacy, interest, and value of CPS, paired-samples
t-tests were conducted on the three constructs. Self-efficacy scale scores for the participants who com-
pleted the project (n = 8) increased from pre- (M=570.71, SD=194) to post- (M=615.14, SD=77.36)
measures. The change, however, was not statistically significant, t(7) = 1.203, p =.268. The effect size
for this change was modest, Cohen’s d = .33. Similarly, although there was an increase in students’ value
of complex problem solving (pre: M=72.41, SD=29.80; post: M= 76.75, SD=14.86), the change was
not statistically significant, t(7) = .502, p =.631. The effect size for the difference was small, d = .18.
A final paired-samples t-test was conducted for interest. The results indicated that there was a statisti-
cally significant change (pre: M=56.85, SD=15.61; post: M= 75.69, SD=22.61) in students’ interest
for complex problem solving after attending the GDL program, t(6) = 3.890, p = .008. The effect size
for this change was large, d = 1.44.

DISCUSSION

Despite the exploratory nature of our work, the results showed that through the GDL program students
showed improvements in all three facets of CPS. The results also indicated that through their experience
in the GDL program, students developed an interest for CPS. The shift in their value and self-efficacy of
CPS also was in the positive direction. Based on these preliminary results, it can be argued that game-
design could serve as a method of teaching CPS, as well as an environment that help learners develop
an interest for problem-solving.
The results of the current study also support earlier findings where researchers observed game-design
to be an effective method of teaching problem-solving skills (e.g., Akcaoglu, 2014; Akcaoglu & Koehler,
2014). In the present study, we provide an initial support for a possible connection between design and
CPS tasks. As a complex problem, we believe the game design process can provide practice in CPS.
Moreover, our results indicate a possible connection between learning game-design at the GDL courses
and development of a deeper interest for problem solving. As pointed by early work by Mitchell (1993),
and Hidi and Renninger (1986) interest for tasks can be triggered and continued by certain conditions.
Based on our results, it can be argued that GDL courses served as a triggering condition for problem-
solving tasks. We suspect this could be due to students’ active involvement in the problem-solving process
while designing their games. As argued by Mitchell (1993): “the more students perceive themselves as
active learners rather than as passive absorbers of knowledge, the more a classroom environment will
persist as a [mathematics] interest holder” (p. 434). Similarly, in our case, during the game design process

226

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

students were actively solving problems as they emerged, and this may have led our learners to be more
interested in problem solving activities.
In terms of gains in students’ complex problem solving skills, we can argue that the game design
process was a good context for rule identification and knowledge, because during game design learn-
ers often found themselves creating “patterns” of behavior in their games for the enemies and in-game
elements. For example, while creating the game Pac-Man enemies needed a pattern of behavior where
they idly roam the maze when they did not see the player character, and they started to chase it once they
can have a visual without any obstacles blocking their view. The creation of two possibly conflicting
behaviors for one character requires identifying and understanding rules. What is more, once identified
and learned, the learners utilized such patterns in later games during GDL. This application of rules
in later and more complex games was an effective method for rule application, where a rule that was
identified before was applied in a new context.
In addition, we should also note that the flowcharts that the students created to visually describe their
game progression could also serve as external representations helping them treat and solve games as
complex problem solving cases. We, thus, believe GDL courses are (and similar efforts) are engaging
and effective instructional environments for teaching complex problem solving skills. As described in
Van Merriënboer’s (1997; Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013) four-component instructional design
model (4C/ID-model) “environments for teaching real-life problem-solving skills can always be described
as being built from four components: (1) learning tasks, (2) procedural information, (3) supportive in-
formation, and (4) part-task practice” (Van Merriënboer, 2013, p. 157). Similarly, as described above,
during GDL courses, the learning tasks gave students a chance to gather and understand procedural and
supportive information regarding game-design and problem solving, which was practiced through more
cases usually self-created problem solving situations (e.g., a student wanting add more enemies with
different behaviors in their games).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Some limitations regarding the study and its findings should also be noted. First, the biggest limitation
of this study was the sample size. It should be noted, however, that in such applied and voluntary settings
it is difficult to get bigger samples. In addition, as indicated before, the students in this study came from
a special STEM school, with emphasis on hands-on STEM activities. This also influenced our student
pool as the school only allowed students with high GPAs and test scores. Therefore, one should be cau-
tious while making generalizations from the findings, as it is hard to isolate GDL as the main source for
the improvement in students’ CPS skills. On a positive note, it can argued that even students who were
already highly trained in scientific and methodological thinking (at least more than comparable peers
in other schools) and highly motivated, we found a training effect, which gives us hope that the training
can be more impactful in other settings. Finally, the researchers could not track the attendance records,
and thus students’ attendance varied, which again, makes it difficult to attribute the gains solely to the
GDL program. That being said, however, students’ overall interest in the course and their increased
interest toward problem solving gives us hope that design tasks introduced during GDL served as good
opportunities for the students to practice and learn CPS skills.
In future studies that incorporate experimental designs and have more participants the outcomes from
GDL can be identified in better precision. Given the computer-based nature of GL, rich data collected in

227

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

the logs can also be analyzed to understand the nature and directions of CPS gains. Similarly, qualitative
work can shed light on how learning during the game-design process supports skill development in CPS.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Teaching of problem solving skills, especially for complex and ill-structured problems, is an important
goal for educators. This goal is, however, hard to achieve in formal schooling contexts. The results of
the present research, in combination with earlier work (e.g., Akcaoglu, 2014), presents game-design as a
potential instructional context for teaching problem-solving skills. Our work is especially of importance
given the scarcity of literature on CPS training.
Effective methods of teaching problem solving allow learners to gradually but steadily gain knowledge
and skills (Van Merriënboer, 2013). It also is especially important that learners find support during the
initial steps of the problem-solving process. We believe, based on these premises, the structure of the GDL
program allowed learners to get more competent in complex problem solving. In addition, the process
of game-design helps learners connect abstract concepts and variables underlying complex problems
during the creation of the games (Liu, Cheng, & Huang, 2011). Given the scarcity of the instructional
methods for teaching complex problem solving skills, and the natural appeal of the game-design tasks
for young students, GDL courses can be considered as models for future training efforts.

REFERENCES

Akcaoglu, M. (2014). Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning
summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583–600. doi:10.1007/
s11423-014-9347-4
Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning
(GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003
Akcaoglu, M. (2016). Design and implementation of the Game-Design and Learning program. Tech-
Trends, 60(2), 114–123. doi is 10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y..
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37(2),
122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Pro-
cedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246.
Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All Other Things Being Equal: Acquisition and Transfer of the Control of
Variables Strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081 PMID:10546337
Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be
used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.
Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2),
133–142. PMID:22131129

228

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

Funke, J., & Frensch, P. A. (2007). Complex problem solving: The European perspective. In D. Jonas-
sen (Ed.), Learning to solve complex scientific problems (pp. 25–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology,
15, 1–38.
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R.
(2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research
Review, 13, 74–83.
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Funke, J. (2012). Dynamic Problem Solving: A New Assessment Perspec-
tive. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(3), 189–213. doi:10.1177/0146621612439620
Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing math-
ematics in a computer-rich school. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 41(2), 111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and
performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895.
doi:10.1037/a0019506
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school sci-
ence classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067 PMID:19965759
Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Chen, N.-S. (2013). Improving learning achievements, motivations and
problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational
Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer.
Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and
creativity in youth communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer
games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education,
73(1), 26–39. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010
Kretzschmar, A. (2011). Training und Transfer des komplexen Probnlemlösens [Training and transfer of
complex problem solving]. (Unpublished master thesis). University of Magdeburg, Germany.
Lepper, M. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. The American Psy-
chologist, 40(1), 1–18. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.1.1
Linden, M., & Wittrock, M. C. (1981). Teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of
generative learning. Reading Quarterly, 17(1), 44–57. doi:10.2307/747248

229

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of compu-
tational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907–1918. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve
been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371–409.
doi:10.1023/A:1024750807365
Martin, A. J., Liem, G. A. D., Mok, M. M. C., & Xu, J. (2012). Problem solving and immigrant student
mathematics and science achievement: Multination findings from the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA). Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1054–1073. doi:10.1037/a0029152
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathemat-
ics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424
National Research Council. (2011). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a
workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
OECD. (2014). Pisa 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems
(Vol. 5). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
543–578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543
Pea, R. D., Tinker, R., Linn, M., Means, B., Bransford, J., Roschelle, J., & Songer, N. et al. (1999). To-
ward a learning technologies knowledge network. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(2), 19–38. doi:10.1007/BF02299463
Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between
statistics word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 325–342. doi:10.1002/acp.796
Ramalingam, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1998). Development and validation of scores on a computer program-
ming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 19(4), 367.
Reed, S. K. (2013). Problem solving. In S. Chipman (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Resnick, L. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher,
16(9), 13–20.
Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (1996). The Computer Clubhouse: Preparing for life in a digital world. IBM
Systems Journal, 35(3-4), 431–439.

230

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Greiff, S., Funke, J., Keller, U., & Martin, R. et al.. (2012). The Genetics
Lab: Acceptance and psychometric characteristics of a computer-based microworld assessing complex
problem solving. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54(1), 54–72.
Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Keller, U., & Martin, R. (2014). Differential relations between facets of
complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. Journal of Educational Psychology,
106(3), 681–695. doi:10.1037/a0035506
Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Students’ complex problem-solving abilities:
Their structure and relations to reasoning ability and educational success. Intelligence, 41(5), 289–305.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.002
Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., Latour, T., & Brunner, M. (in press). Assessing complex problem
solving in the classroom: Meeting challenges and opportunities. In B. Csapó & J. Funke (Eds.), The
nature of problem solving. Paris, France: OECD.
Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Reasoning, problem solving, and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook
of human intelligence (pp. 225–351). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tabary, Z. (2015, April 20). The skills agenda: Preparing students for the future. The Economist. Re-
trieved from http://www.economistinsights.com/
Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013). Accelerating K-12 computational
thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium
on Computer science education (pp. 609-614). ACM. doi:10.1145/2445196.2445374
Utting, I. A. N., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch – A Discussion. ACM
Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–11. doi:10.1145/1868358.1868364
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers & Educa-
tion, 64, 153–160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd rev. ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective.
Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78. doi:10.1007/BF02209024
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 PMID:10620382
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In D. M.
McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 165–198). Information Age Publishing.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Development of achievement motiva-
tion. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp.
406–434). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

231

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

Wirth, J., & Klieme, E. (2003). Computer-based Assessment of Problem Solving Competence. Assess-
ment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 329–345. doi:10.1080/0969594032000148172

ADDITIONAL READING

Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism : What’s the difference? Future
of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1.1.132.425
Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The Process of Solving Complex Problems. Journal of Prob-
lem Solving, 4(1), 19–41. doi:10.7771/1932-6246.1118
Fischer, A., Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Fleischer, J., Buchwald, F., & Funke, J. (2015). Assessing ana-
lytic and interactive aspects of problem solving competency. Learning and Individual Differences, 39,
172–179. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.008
Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2),
133–142. doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0 PMID:19902283
Greiff, S., Fischer, A., Wüstenberg, S., Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2013). A multitrait-
multimethod study of assessment instruments for Complex Problem Solving. Intelligence, 41(5), 579–596.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.012
Greiff, S., Stadler, M., Sonnleitner, P., Wolff, C., & Martin, R. (2015). Sometimes less is more. Com-
paring the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence, 50, 100–113. doi:10.1016/j.
intell.2015.02.007
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Avvisati, F. (2015). Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into
students’ minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Computers
& Education, 91, 92–105. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.018
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Holt, D. V., Goldhammer, F., & Funke, J. (2013). Computer-based assess-
ment of Complex Problem Solving: Concept, implementation, and application. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 61(3), 407–421. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9301-x
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Greiff, S., Funke, J., Keller, U., Martin, R., & Latour, T. et al. (2012). The
Genetics Lab. Acceptance and psychometric characteristics of a computer-based microworld to assess
Complex Problem Solving. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 54, 54–72.
Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Keller, U., Hazotte, C., Mayer, H., Latour, T., & Martin, R. (2012). The Ge-
netics Lab_Theoretical background & psychometric evaluation. Luxembourg: University of Luxembourg.
Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Keller, U., & Martin, R. (2014). Differential relations between facets of
complex problem solving and students’ immigration background. Journal of Educational Psychology,
106(3), 681–695. doi:10.1037/a0035506

232

Game Design as a Complex Problem Solving Process

Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Students’ Complex Problem-Solving Abili-
ties: Their Structure and Relations to Reasoning Ability and Educational Success. Intelligence, 41(5),
289–305. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.002
Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., Latour, T., & Brunner, M. (in press). Assessing Complex Problem
Solving in the Classroom: Meeting Challenges and Opportunities. In B., Csapó & J., Funke (Eds.), The
Nature of Problem Solving. Paris, France: OECD.
Wright, G., Rich, P., & Lee, R. (2013). The Influence of Teaching Programming on Learning Math-
ematics. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 4612-4615). Chesapeake, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Complex Problem Solving: Complex problems can be defined as situations that involve orchestrat-
ing a number of interrelated and dynamically varying operations (Funke, 2010).
Interest: Interest can be defined as “a psychological state that, in later phases of development, is also
a predisposition to reengage content that applies to in-school and out-of-school learning and to young
and old alike” (Hidi & Renninger, 2006, p. 111).
Opaque: Refers to the invisible nature of the relationships among variables in complex problems.
Polytelic: Refers to the possibility of a number different targets in a problem.
Utility Value: Perceived utility value refers to the extent that a task is seen as relevant to one’s life
or other tasks.

233
234

Chapter 11
Designing Intrinsic Integration
of Learning and Gaming Actions
in a 3D Architecture Game
Fengfeng Ke
Florida State University, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter reports a design-based study that examines core game mechanics that enable an intrinsic
integration of domain-specific learning. In particular, the study aims to extract the design heuristics that
promote content engagement in the actions of architectural construction in Earthquake Rebuild, a 3D
epistemic simulation game that aims to promote active math learning for middle-school students. Data
were collected from iterative expert reviews and user-testing studies. Based on the study findings, the
chapter presents qualitative, analytic speculations on the design of the game-play mode and perspective,
the granularity level, the user input interface, and incentives for attentive content engagement that will
reinforce the learning affordance and playability of the core game gaming actions.

INTRODUCTION

A common motivation for using a creative and playful learning environment, such as digital game-based
learning, is to provide an engaging and contextualized setting for active and experiential learning –
learning that usually focuses on the processes of problem solving, inquiry, and critical thinking (Garris,
Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Gee, 2009; Kiili, 2007). Yet the design mechanism on how to integrate and
map content engagement and domain-specific thinking into gameplay to create meaningful game-based
learning is still ambiguous, in spite of the plethora of research on digital game-based learning.
The construct of gameplay contains two layers: the “ludus” or game mechanics layer that involves
rules and actions, and the narrative layer that comprises the setting, plot, and/or characters (Ang, 2006;
Frasca, 1999). Although research is still inconclusive as to whether game design is more the design of
experience (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) or a narrative architecture (Jenkins, 2002), not all games tell a
story. The narrative layer is not a defining feature for the games of which the narrative representation is

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch011

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

simplistic and even tokenized. Hence in the literature, the discussion of endogenous or intrinsic fantasy
for learning-play integration in games – one in which there is an integral and continuing relationship
between game fantasy and the content to be learned – emphasizes an intrinsic integration of content
learning in game mechanics beyond the background game world/narrative (e.g., Habgood & Ainsworth,
2011; Kafai, 1995; Ke, 2008; Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen, 2009; Plass et al., 2012; Malone & Lepper,
1987; Squire, 2003). Particularly, it is argued that the extent to which content engagement is intrinsic to
the core gaming actions will influence the game’s learning effectiveness (Richards, Stebbins, & Moel-
lering, 2013). Nevertheless, empirical and theoretical research describing and specifying the design
of the intrinsic integration between learning and is still limited and sporadic (Habgood, Ainsworth, &
Benford, 2005; Habgood & Ainsworth, 2011).
This chapter reports a design-based study that examines how domain-specific thinking can be in-
trinsically integrated into gameplay to foster content learning while sustaining the game’s playability. In
particular, the study examined the design of math integration in the actions of architectural construction in
Earthquake Rebuild, a 3D architecture game that aims to promote active math learning for middle-school
students. Data were collected from iterative expert review and user-testing studies. Based on the study
findings, the chapter presents qualitative, analytic speculations (Firestone, 1993) on how the design of
the play mode, the granularity level, the player perspective, and the player-input interface relates to the
learning affordance and playability of the core game mechanic (i.e. gaming action).

BACKGROUND

Game-Based Learning

Games in general can be defined as organized play that is structured by a set of rules and an obstacle-
tackling goal (Klopfer et al., 2009; Schell, 2014; Suits, 1978). For the past two decades, a variety of
digital games have been designed and examined for learning purposes (e.g., Barab et al., 2009; Clark,
Tanner-smith, Killingsworth, & Bellamy, 2014; Cooper, 2014; Dede, 2005; Klopfer, Osterweil, & Salen,
2009; Shute, Ventura, & Kim, 2013; Andersen et al., 2011; Squire, 2003). A game may act as the micro-
world for the epistemic practice of skills (Shaffer, 2006), provide multimodal representation of conceptual
knowledge (Habgood & Ainsworth, 2011), simulate a complex system to facilitate scientific discovery
learning (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005; Cooper, 2014), or support the constructive,
learning by design method (Ke, 2014). Game-based learning hence includes acquisition of novel under-
standing and skills (Sedig, 2008) and application (i.e., retention and transfer) of the previously-learned
knowledge (Clark et al., 2011).
A recent meta-analysis on the effectiveness of digital games for learning indicated that games,
compared with non-game instruction conditions, have a moderate to strong effect on cognitive learning
outcomes (Clark et al., 2014). Importantly, prior research found a significant moderating effect of game
design features on the affordances of games for learning (Clark et al., 2011, 2014; Hays, 2005; Ke, 2008;
Ota & DuPaul, 2002; Vogel, et al. 2006; Young et al., 2012).
Among game design features, game mechanic is a core and defining facet. The game mechanic can
be understood as “a compound activity composed of a suite of actions” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p.
316). The essential activity that players repeatedly perform and directly apply to achieve the end-game
state is usually described as a core mechanic (Sicart, 2008). According to Järvinen (2008) and Sicart

235

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

(2008), game mechanic, as an activity structure, is guided and confined by rules that are established to
determine the conduct and standard for both play behaviors and the winning/losing state. The design of
the core game mechanics (i.e., rule-based actions) lead to the creation of player strategies and means
with which the player interacts with game elements towards the attainment of a goal (Järvinen, 2008).
Thus, designing game mechanics (i.e., gaming actions) should be considered as the critical primer for
the design of content/learning engagement in gameplay.

Design Approaches of Game-Based Learning

Content embedded in games encompasses explicit knowledge delivered via background or presentation
content objects (e.g., a glossary book, a help manual, or a graph), feedback (e.g., from an interactive
agent or a static, cut screen), and tacit information embedded in game puzzles or quests. Correspond-
ingly, there are three salient design approaches of game-based learning in the literature – representation,
simulation, and contextualization.
The approach of game-based conceptual or data representation focuses on designing game objects
as the metaphorical representation of focus concepts and making object interactions embody active
content processing and application. Such a design approach was frequently endorsed by math or sci-
ence games (e.g., Plass et al., 2012; Pareto et al., 2012; Cooper, 2014). For example, in the math puzzle
games “Refraction” and “Save Patch” created by the Center of Game Science at University of Washing-
ton (Anderson et al., 2011; O’Neil et al., 2014), the concepts of a unit fraction and its relation with the
whole number were represented as separate coils to be added to energize a whole trampoline, or a laser
beam to be split into fraction pieces.
Another major approach for game-based learning is to simulate the targeted scientific problem and
system. Scholars typically hypothesized gaming as an iterative cycle of problem solving or discovery
learning – comprising hypothesis development, probe or hypothesis manipulation, output interpretation,
hypothesis modification or generalization, and re-probe (e.g., Aldrich, 2009; Garris et al., 2002; Gee,
2003). Hence game-based learning was often designed as a simulation-based inquiry coupled with a
reward mechanism and a plot-driven goal. For example, Cooper (2014) designed “Foldit” – an online
scientific discovery game – by converting molecular simulations of proteins to 3D jigsaw puzzles and
scoring the puzzle-solving performance via public ranking.
Frequently, an adventured-themed mission and immersive storylines are employed in game-based
learning to create a fantasy and relevant context for players’ interaction with the content objects and the
problem-solving task (Barab et al., 2009; Leemkuil & de Jong, 2012; Koenig, 2008). It is believed that
contextualization can create a meaningful and engaging context for content knowledge activation and
acquisition. Yet in certain educational games, the game mission (e.g., “race driving”) did not have a
semantic, intrinsic connection with the learning action (e.g., “answering knowledge questions on nutri-
tion and food correctly to move the car forward”). Thus the association between content and the game’s
fantasy context becomes extrinsic – any content topics can be inserted into the same context without
changing the play experience.

Math Learning through Architectural Practice in Epistemic Simulation Game

Designing an epistemic simulation game to represent and simulate mathematical knowledge and practice
in the context of architecture is an example that reflects the aforementioned perspectives on the nature

236

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

and approaches of game-based learning. Adopting the perspective of realistic mathematics (Freudenthal,
1991), a speculation is that solving architectural design problems in real-life situations will act as both
the source and the application of math understanding. Based on the works on learning through design
and learning through practicing as a professional (Lave, 1998; Kafai, 1995; Kolodner et al., 2003; Shaf-
fer, 2009), interacting with architectural objects and the construction task should involve students in
an active and experiential learning and develop more positive dispositions toward the subject of math.
Via a critical analysis of the major theories and approaches to math instruction and learning, Baroody
(2003) suggested that educators should adopt an ‘investigative’ approach to foster the development of
the intertwined, multi-stranded mathematical proficiency. A potential embodiment of the investigative
approach is epistemic simulation games that let players learn to do and value content through a work
perspective (Shaffer, 2005). With simulated visualization, authentic problem solving, and instant feed-
back, epistemic simulation games can afford a realistic framework for experimentation and situated
understanding, hence will act as rich primers for active learning.

METHODS

Adopting the design-based research approach (Hoadley, 2004; Sandoval & Bell, 2004), this exploratory
study examined the design of core game mechanics that enable an intrinsic integration of domain-
specific learning. Specifically, the study aims to extract the design heuristics related to gaming actions
that promote content engagement, by addressing the following question: What are the emerging design
features of the gaming action that are found to necessitate math thinking and knowledge application?

Earthquake Rebuild Game

The overall gameplay goal of Earthquake Rebuild (E-Rebuild) is to plan, design, and rebuild an
earthquake-damaged space to fulfill diverse design parameters and needs. The intermediate game goal
involves completing each level of the design quest to gain new tools, construction materials, and credits
(e.g., game scores in terms of the architectural design efficiency, structurally soundness, and complexity
in structures, which comprise an overall credit that enables a player to perform subsequent game quest
levels). A learner in E-Rebuild performs three types of architectural construction actions: design-based
building, space assignment, and material trading. The game was developed using Unity 3D.
To enable an epistemic practice of math in the architectural construction task, we have designed and
selected core gaming actions that are aligned with and require the performance of multi-stranded math
learning actions. Table 1 summarizes the designed association between the learning- and play-actions
in E-Rebuild.

Data Collection and Analysis

Twenty six middle-school students and a group of expert gamers (including six graduate students with
more than 5 years’ 3D gaming experiences) were recruited to review and test play iteratively-refined
prototypes of the architectural construction actions over one year. Qualitative data were collected via
observation, the screen/video recordings of gaming actions/reactions, interview and think aloud during
game play, and game logs.

237

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

Table 1. Learning and game mechanics/actions integration

Learning Actions Game Mechanics/Actions

Identification and representation (e.g., of prisms, ratio/proportional Collection and selection (of construction items)
reasoning) Site survey and planning
Measurement and calculation (e.g., of distance, perimeter, and Core construction actions
area) • Trading and management (of the resources, costs, and needs)
Problem solving: • Design-based building – Item maneuvering, customization,
• Analyze and composition
• Create • Refining construction products (Meeting constraints of time,
• Evaluate and reflect material, and residential need)

Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted with the observation, interview, and think-aloud notes
to extract salient themes on players’ common and varied experiences and perceptions when interacting
with different game prototypes. The recorded game-play actions and reactions were coded systematically
to pinpoint both commonly observed and unique player actions, with critical properties (e.g., cognitive
or affective involvement, and learning relevance), within and across varied design prototypes. We then
classified them into categorical themes that signify the presence and nature of play-action-based math
learning. These themes were corroborated by the performance data extracted from the game log files. A
qualitative comparative analysis of the data across participant cases, then focused on extracting common
and salient themes on the association between the play-action design features and game-based learning
involvement. These themes, or contextually-defined design propositions or ‘analytic generalizations’
(Schwandt, 2007; Sandoval & Bell, 2004) on the learning-related play-action features, along with the
conditions of design changes were described in the following section.

DESIGN-BASED FINDINGS

Four salient themes highlighting the nature of learning-related play actions have emerged from the user-
testing data. These themes corresponds with salient gaming-action design features that mediate players’
task performance and perception to influence game-based math thinking and knowledge application.
These four themes related to the design propositions for learning-constructive gaming actions are: (a)
the integration and alternation of adventure and construction play modes and bicentric perspectives, (b)
a balanced granularity level of the simulated construction action, (c) an intermediary user-input interface
for core actions, and (d) instant reinforcements for attentive, action-based content engagement.

Integration and Alternation of First-person Adventure

and Third-person Construction

In E-Rebuild, we have experimented with two game play modes – first-person adventure mode (Figure
1) and third-person construction mode (Figure 2) – for the core gaming actions. The player can shift
between the two modes in the game. The design hypothesis, based on prior research on exocentric and
egocentric frames of reference (Dede, 2009), is that the integration of two gaming action modes will
support both immersion and symbolic insight development. Specifically, it is speculated that first-person,
egocentric view (from within the 3D object and game world) will present embodied experiential learning,

238

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

promote sense of immersion and personal relevance, and hence enhance task engagement. The third-
person, exocentric view (of the 3D object and game world from distance) will facilitate the generation
of an overarching comprehension and representation of the phenomenon and hence the development
of more abstract, symbolic insights. The study data supports the design speculation on the benefits of
the bicentric gaming mode in engaging diverse players (e.g., explorers versus builders) and promoting
math-related game play.
It was found that middle-school users were engaged in the game-world exploration and material col-
lection and trading in the adventure mode. Almost all middle-school participants managed to identify
and collect the targeted construction items representing varied geometrical prisms. Participants’ affec-
tive involvement of the adventure-themed game play was commonly observed in the video recordings.
They giggled, navigated around the virtual world with emotional utterances on item or area discoveries,
and actively shared their discoveries with each other. The embodied experience of one’s architectural-
task performance via the first-person adventure mode also appeared to inspire a player’s persistence in
continual task-engagement and facilitated math-related reflective thinking. When participants initially

Figure 1. First-person adventure mode

Figure 2. Third-person construction mode

239

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

experienced the earthquake and observed how their construction products got shaken and collapsed, they
expressed amusement (e.g., laughing), surprise (e.g., “Ugh!”), or curiosity (e.g., “I wondered why”).
They were generally persistent, demonstrated more planned game play behaviors during the next attempt
(e.g., ““Don’t go into water, or you will get stuck!”), and had more math-related think-aloud verbaliza-
tions (e.g., “Is this the right angle?”). First-person interaction with game characters was also designed to
motivate math-related game play. For instance, we created a warehouse with a non-player characters – a
sneaky salesman – for the trading action. If the player miscalculated the material cost and overpaid, the
salesman would grin evilly, via both facial and sound expressions. The expert review and user testing
results suggested that the dynamic, iconized reaction of this salesman prompted and motivated players
to engage in more careful numerical calculation when performing the trading action.
In the construction mode, players performed the core design-based building actions, including mea-
suring the construction site, cutting/scaling an item to a desirable size, and moving/stacking construction
items to create a structure. We found that middle-school participants without any 3D gaming experience,
in comparison with others, were in need of significantly more time and practice in controlling the in-game
camera (e.g., pan, tilt, rotate, zoom-in and -out) to inspect the x, y, and z positions and properties of a
construction object. They had obviously more difficulty in moving, rotating, and stacking 3D construc-
tion objects. Some participants, girls in particular, reported that they “felt lost” in mapping a site or an
object from the first-person adventure mode to the third-person construction mode. The aforementioned
findings suggested that the bicentric building action required the performance of spatial reasoning skills
(e.g., spatial representation & mental rotation) and would involve middle-school users in practicing
spatial processing and reasoning – a critical math thinking component.
Multiple expert reviewers commented that the third-person construction mode better assisted the prob-
lem representation, by facilitating the interpretation and integration of key parameters in a math-related
architecture task. Specifically, expert users reported that the third-person construction mode enabled
the player to take a top-down perspective in inspecting and measuring the construction site in relation
to the given design specification. It helped a player to identify and gather “spatial cues” situated in the
virtual world and related to the design-based math problem solving (e.g., resources available, resources
being used on the construction site, construction progress, and additional costs). Users reported that the
360-degree, “flying” view (simulating the fly-around perspective in a virtual reality) in the construc-
tion mode, in comparison with the elevation view in the adventure mode (Figures 3, 4), provided more
autonomy in the actions of 3D object maneuvering and stacking, thus managing to generate more on-
task-time on the math-specific gaming actions. Participants got to focus on construction-based math
problem solving rather than the mechanical procedure of 3D object operation.

Balanced Granularity Levels of the Building Action

The building action in a 3D game world can vary in terms of the granularity level for the basic unit of
building items. A coarse-grained building action will involve fewer and larger building components (e.g.,
a prefabricated container) in comparison with a fine-grained building action (e.g., using bricks, like in
the game of Minecraft). Based on the literature on the effects of fidelity in simulation-based learning
(Cant & Cooper, 2010), the higher level of details (i.e., granularity) of a gaming action will enhance the
fidelity and hence the process of authentic learning. Yet our study data indicated that coarse and fine-
grained building actions had both advantages and disadvantages in facilitating content-related cognitive
engagement.

240

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

Figure 3. Elevation view in the adventure mode

Figure 4. Flying view in the construction mode

In the game episodes where building components were fewer and larger, participants’ game play
behaviors comprised not only building actions (e.g., rotating, moving, and stacking a few shipping
containers together to make a row house) but also math-related site measuring, construction planning
(e.g., conceptual interpretation of residential needs and numerical calculation of costs), and resource
management and assignment (e.g., assigning minimum livable space to residents in varied types of fam-
ily structures). It can be interpreted that participants had more chance to engage with math processing
embedded by those construction actions. In comparison, the game-play video recordings showed that
with a fine-grained, brick-based building action, middle-school users with less 3D gaming experience
tended to spend a lot more time maneuvering building items than planning, inspecting, and refining the
construction product to solve the math-related design problem. These participants intermittently expressed
frustration (e.g., “Ah…I am done”). They reported that the rigid and frustrating part of game-play was
the basic action of rotating and assembling fine-grained building units.

241

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

On the other hand, a brick-by-brick building action (Figure 5) appeared to reinforce personal relevance
and autonomy, and may have necessitated accurate and complicated mathematical thinking. Surprisingly,
the majority of participants in the interview reported that they preferred the brick-based building action.
Some commented that it reminded them of the favored commercial game of Minecraft. Others expressed
the desire of using bricks to build the furniture or other constructional components. For example, mul-
tiple participants tried to dissemble a shipping container into separate metal boards, and use them to
assemble a fence or a door. These design actions reflect a creative, part-to-whole construction strategy
that was facilitated by fine-grained building units. In addition, a higher level of details in the building
action was associated with more frequent observations of math calculation in game play. Specifically,
trial and error was still a prevailing play strategy adopted by participants in coarse building actions.
Yet in the fine-grained building action, trial-and-error attempts were mixed with calculated planning
because estimating the number of bricks needed to construct an architectural structure was apparently
more challenging that estimating the number of containers needed.

Intermediary Interface for User Input

Although an intuitive interface was speculated as a design precept for human-computer interaction, the
study findings suggested that designing an intermediary interface for user input of the construction
actions helped to necessitate and scaffold the content engagement during game-play. An intermediary
yet non-interruptive user input (e.g., feeding numerical values of the material cost and the x-y-z scaling
factor, Figure 6), in comparison with a fully intuitive user input (e.g., selecting the scale tool, then click-
ing on a constructional item to scale it up or down), was associated with more portrayals of math-related
calculation than wild guessing attempted by the participants during game play.
As observed, effortful cognitive engagement during game play was not a natural occurrence for
middle-school participants. Their portrayal of well-calculated prediction occurred merely when the
user input required the precision, and when the user-interaction interface reduced the chance of game-
cheating behaviors (e.g., mindless trial-and-error by randomly clicking on a choice). For example, the

Figure 5. Brick-by-brick building action

242

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

Figure 6. Trading interface and the scaling tool for the building action

player had to enter the specific amount of a constructional item and calculate its cost based on the unit
price, amount, discount deal, and/or tax of the item when using the trading tool. An in-accurate offer
was not accepted. With the scaling and cutting tools, the player had to select the x, y, z, or all axes and
then entered an exact value to customize the target item precisely in term of its width, height, thickness,
or three dimensions. The actions of successfully scaling and cutting a constructional item enclosed a
realization of math comprehension of the x, y, z property of a 3D object, a pre-measurement of the ob-
ject in three dimensions, and a specified outcome prediction. The game-play recordings showed that the
majority of middle-school participants were involved in multiple trials and even asked for math-specific
instructional help to master those intermediary input interfaces. We were originally concerned that the
text-entry requirement might negatively influence players’ engagement. Surprisingly, most participants
learned to use those tools successfully and none complained about the precision required. Some partici-
pants actually engaged in iteratively playing with the cutting and scaling tools and enjoyed in predicting
the customized shape of a 3D object with each value entry. They laughed at an unexpected customiza-
tion product while being persistent in refining values to pursue the targeted item transformation. Their
think-aloud protocol and game-play conversations contained evidence of the related math conceptual
comprehension (e.g., the ratio scale and xyz axes system).

Instant Reinforcements for Attentive Content Engagement

The analysis of the game-play recordings and think-aloud notes indicated that E-Rebuild user-testing
participants were involved in the mix of two gaming processes: content-related play – gaming behaviors
and strategies that reflect the comprehension and practice of math knowledge and skills, and content-
generic – random trial-and-error and content-irrelevant play strategies. Although we had purposefully
mapped the targeted math learning actions into the core gaming actions in E-Rebuild to make mathemati-
cal thinking as a requisite of the gameplay, we found that middle-school participants still lack proactivity
and attentiveness in action-based content engagement.
For example, in the following family-assignment game task (Figure 7), participants were requested to
assigning families into a limited number of shipping containers, with the ratio of an adult’s living-space
need to a child’s need being x to y. To assign or remove a specific type of family to the structure, the

243

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

player would click the ‘+’ or ‘-’ sign beside that family. The game-play recordings showed that more than
half of middle-school participants did not fully process the ratio statement enclosed in the task descrip-
tion or calculate on the problem. Some of them employed a content-generic play strategy by assigning
the smallest families first and then proceeding to the bigger ones. These participants then realized they
ran out of containers for hosting all families. They then started to assign one smallest family along with
a second-smallest family, still could not solve the problem, and hence proceeded to exploring next com-
bination set (e.g., combining the biggest family with the smallest one). Such a gaming strategy indicated
certain level of critical thinking and a basic numerical understanding, but did not integrate the targeted
mathematical thinking (e.g., interpretation of ratio, calculation of the unit living-space for each type of
family, analytical thinking in family assignment in relation to the area of a container).
To encourage purposeful and reflective content processing and application, we added two types of
instant visual feedback in an attempt to reinforce mindful calculation for the family-assigning action: (1)
a naturalistic, visual feedback – putting the assigned families into the container and making the container
physically crowded to indicate the limit of living space; and (2) an artificial text feedback – displaying a
red alert message at the bottom of the dialogue screen at each improper assigning movement. The refined
design prototype appeared to improve the portrayals of math calculation attempts and the task perfor-
mance. Yet content-generic game-play was still observed intermittently. As suggested by expert gamer
users, we then employed a 10% happiness-credit-deduction penalty at each improper family-assigning
act and displayed a red alert on each failed trial. Once the happiness-credit was lower than a threshold,
the game system would determine that the player failed the game level. The game-replay recordings
indicated that participants’ gaming behaviors were associated with around 20% more math calculation
attempts given the refined gaming rule.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The design-based exploratory study on a 3D architecture game has presented four salient design facets
of the core game mechanics through which a construction-themed epistemic game will motivate and

Figure 7. Family assignment task

244

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

enhance active and domain-specific learning. These four design facets support and extend prior research
on immersive learning, fidelity in educational simulations, and human-computer interaction.
The finding on the benefit of a bicentric action mode supports the previous study account that
embodiment in a 3D digital space will enhance one’s sense of immersion in the simulated authentic
task performance, and the alternation from egocentric frame of reference to exocentric one will assist
a comprehensive problem and conceptual representation (Dede, 2009; De Freitas, Rebolledo‐Mendez,
Liarokapis, Magoulas, & Poulovassilis, 2010). It also confirms the previous argument that game-based
contextualization and positionality helps to build pertinence and hence promote task or learning engage-
ment (Barab et al, 2009, 2010; Leemkuil & de Jong, 2012; Koenig, 2008).
The mixed finding on the effects of fine granularity in game actions has not been reported by the
literature on game-based learning. Yet it is consistent with a perspective in simulation-based learning
that over-sufficient fidelity in a simulated phenomenon or task may create too much peripheral distrac-
tion and negatively influence the learning of core parameters (Bradley, 2006). The finding suggested
the critical role of designing and determining an appropriate granularity level in an epistemic simulation
game for learning.
The literature on human-computer interaction and game-based learning generally argues for intu-
itiveness in the game control (Ke & Abras, 2013). This study found that apart from being intuitive, an
intermediary interface for the user input helps to create a gaming action that necessitates content-related
cognitive engagement. This finding is consistent with a previous study that examined and supported
the usage of intermediary visual presentation as the scaffold for conceptual application in a geometry
game (Sedig, 2008).
Reward and instant feedback are commonly considered as two foundational components of game-
based learning (Garris et al., 2002; Kiili, 2007). Yet the previous discussion on the design of game
reward and feedback has typically focused on how game rewards or feedback will enhance game task
engagement, without describing whether the engagement reflects active content engagement. The study
findings should provide empirical understandings on the design of incentives that specifically reward
content-related gaming actions.

Game-Based Learning Proactivity

A common speculation on learning engagement during game play is that game players need to learn to
win or achieve the game goal, and even players not willing to learn may do so indirectly or incidentally
(Ebner & Holzinger, 2007). Yet, such a speculation may not hold true as this study indicated. Learning-
game players can demonstrate different motives and goal orientations toward game play and may adopt
superficial strategies to avoid deep engagement with the subject matter integrated within gaming actions.
Consequently, we need to design gaming actions that not only legitimize (permit) but also necessitate
content engagement, via a careful design and experiment with alternative gaming action modes and
perspectives, the granularity level, the user input interface, and incentives that purposefully scaffold
content-relevant gaming actions while penalizing content-generic play.

Incorporation between Action and Thinking

Although stealth learning was claimed as a unique feature of game-based learning (MacCallum-Stewart,
2011; Prensky, 2005), creating a fully improvisational, subconscious learning experience is difficult

245

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

since acquiring and applying knowledge usually involves conscious reflection for content-related insight
development (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 2013). The tacit use of knowledge, as another part of stealth learn-
ing, requires a high degree of automaticity in knowledge recall from players and usually does not apply
in the case of game-based learners. In other words, game-based learning relies on the incorporation of
purposeful, content-relevant thinking into the action execution. This study suggested that middle-school
students’ performance of gaming actions lack mindfulness, content-relevant planning and reflection.
Game-action-based learning cognition is not a natural occurrence, and players may not be or want to be
a critical and reflective thinker. Thus, the intrinsic design of learning-play integration in the core gaming
action will not guarantee the development of knowledge. Instead, additional scaffolds for action-based,
meta-reflective learning should be designed via other components of the game system, such as the task
selection/sequencing, the narrative and game world design, and an in-game learner support mechanism.

FUTURE RESEARCH

This exploratory study is descriptive in nature, and hence the findings should be considered as con-
textualized, analytic generalizations that will be interpreted and transferred with the contextual factors
considered. The study is part of an ongoing, longitudinal research project. The current design-based
findings will be further investigated with new samples of middle-school learners in varied gaming con-
texts. Future research on learning-play integration in a game-based learning platform can concentrate
on the following aspects:

• A design-based or an experimental investigation on the alternative game-play perspectives and

modes on the development of qualitative and quantitative understandings of the target knowledge.
• An experimental investigation on the potential differential effect of a coarse-grained gaming ac-
tion versus a fine-grained gaming action on the math word problem solving performance, with the
problem’s complexity level considered.
• A design-based or an experimental investigation on how the intermediary interface of user input
can scaffold action-based meta-reflection and hence formal insight development.
• A design-based investigation on a conceptual framework for designing a system of in-game incen-
tives that reinforce content-related game-play.
• A design-based, mixed-method study on the design of in-game scaffolds for critical and reflective
thinking that will enhance action-based content engagement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, Award Number #1318784

246

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

REFERENCES

Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds: Strategies for online
instruction (Vol. 23). John Wiley & Sons.
Andersen, E., Liu, Y. E., Snider, R., Szeto, R., & Popović, Z. (2011, May). Placing a value on aesthetics
in online casual games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 1275-1278). ACM. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979131
Ang, C. S. (2006). Rules, gameplay, and narratives in video games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3), 306–325.
doi:10.1177/1046878105285604
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest At-
lantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–108.
Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009).
Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 305–320. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5
Baroody, A. J. (2003). Expertise and flexibility: The integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge.
In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing
adaptive expertise (pp. 1–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bradley, P. (2006). The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Medi-
cal Education, 40(3), 254–262. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02394.x PMID:16483328
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cant, R. P., & Cooper, S. J. (2010). Simulation‐based learning in nurse education: Systematic review.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(1), 3–15. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05240.x PMID:20423432
Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2014). Digital Games, Design and Learning: A Sys-
tematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Executive Summary). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H. Y., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2011).
Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning
and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57(3),
2178–2195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.007
Cooper, S. (2014). A framework for scientific discovery through video games. Morgan & Claypool
Publishers. doi:10.1145/2625848

247

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

De Freitas, S., Rebolledo‐Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learn-
ing as immersive experiences: Using the four‐dimensional framework for designing and evaluating
immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1),
69–85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69.
doi:10.1126/science.1167311 PMID:19119219
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning
in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.026
Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative re-
search. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16–23. doi:10.3102/0013189X022004016
Frasca, G. (1999). Ludology meets narratology: similitude and differences between (video) games and
narrative. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia,
(8), 15-23.
Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the
value of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.
doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029
Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital
games. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 483–498. doi:10.1177/1046878105282276
Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Retrieved,
May 10, 2006, from http://adlcommunity.net/file.php/23/GrooveFiles/Instr_Game_Review_Tr_2005.pdf
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist,
39(4), 203–212. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_2
Järvinen, A. (2008). Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design.
Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2002). Game design as narrative architecture. In P. Harrington & N. Frup-Waldrop (Eds.),
First Person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

248

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive,
metacognitive, and affective evaluation and interpretation. Educational Technology Research and De-
velopment, 56(5-6), 539–556. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5
Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer
games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education,
73, 26–39. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010
Ke, F., & Abras, T. (2013). Games for engaged learning of middle school children with special learning
needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 225–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01326.x
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and
Higher Education, 8(1), 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001
Kilpatrick, J., Swafood, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportuni-
ties, & openness. Boston, MA: The Education Arcade.
Koenig, A. D. (2008). Exploring effective educational video game design: The interplay between nar-
rative and game-schema construction. Dissertation Abstracts International. A, The Humanities and
Social Sciences.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan,
M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom:
Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Lave, J. (1998). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leemkuil, H., & de Jong, T. (2012). Adaptive advice in learning with a computer-based knowledge
management simulation game. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 653–665.
doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0141
MacCallum-Stewart, E. (2011). Stealth learning in online games. Digital Games and Learning (pp.
107–128). New York: Continuum.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for
learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3(1987), 223-253.
National Research Council. (2011). Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations.
Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, Margaret A. Honey
and Margaret L. Hilton, Eds. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K., Kerr, D., Vendlinski, T. P., Buschang, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Adding
self-explanation prompts to an educational computer game. Computers in Human Behavior, 3023–3028.

249

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

Ota, K. R., & DuPaul, G. J. (2002). Task engagement and mathematics performance in children with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of supplemental computer instruction. School Psychol-
ogy Quarterly, 17(3), 242–257. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.3.242.20881
Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable-agent-based game
affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 723–751. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Hayward, E. O., Frye, J., Huang, T. T., Biles, M., & Perlin, K. et al. (2012).
The effect of learning mechanics design on learning outcomes in a computer-based geometry game.
In E-Learning and Games for Training, Education, Health and Sports (pp. 65–71). Berlin: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33466-5_7
Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. Handbook of Computer
Game Studies, 18, 97-122.
Richards, J., Stebbins, L., & Moellering, K. (2013). Games for a digital age: K-12 market map and
investment analysis. Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, New York, NY.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press.
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context:
Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
Schell, J. (2014). The art of game design: A book of lenses. CRC Press.
Sedig, K. (2008). From play to thoughtful learning: A design strategy to engage children with math-
ematical representations. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 65–101.
Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved April 2008 from http://www.innova-
teonline.info/pdf/vol1_issue6/Epistemic_Games.pdf
Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., & Mislevy, R. et al. (2009).
Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal
of Learning and Media, 1(2), 33–53. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0013
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Assessment and Learning of Qualitative Physics in
Newton’s Playground. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 423–430. doi:10.1080/00220671
.2013.832970
Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2), 1–14.
Squire, K. D. (2003). Gameplay in context: Learning through participation in communities of civilization
III players. (Unpublished PhD thesis). Instructional Systems Technology Department, Indiana University.
Suits, B. H. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto: University of Tronto Press.
Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer
gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 34(3), 229–243. doi:10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM

250

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

Wouters, P., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support
in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60(1), 412–425. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.018
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. et al. (2012).
Our princess is in another castle a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 82(1), 61–89. doi:10.3102/0034654312436980

ADDITIONAL READING

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2015). Digital games, design, and learning:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, doi: 0034654315582065.
Dickey, M. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online
role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 55(3), 253–273. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9004-7
Ke, F. (in press). Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: A systematic review.
Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9418-1
Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (in press). Game-based learning engagement: A theory- and data-driven ex-
ploration. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.12314
Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives--the development of an augmented reality
platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2),
203–228. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6
Li, Z. Z., Cheng, Y. B., & Liu, C. C. (2013). A constructionism framework for designing game‐like
learning systems: Its effect on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2),
208–224. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01305.x
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 453–465. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00232.x
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-deter-
mination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cogni-
tive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2),
648–658. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.011

251

Designing Intrinsic Integration of Learning and Gaming Actions

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Bicentric Gaming Mode: A mode that enables both exocentric and egocentric frames of reference
when interacting with game objects.
Content-Generic Play: Content-irrelevant play strategies.
Content-Related Play: Gaming behaviors and strategies that reflect the comprehension and practice
of the targeted content knowledge and skills.
Granularity Level of Gaming Action: Level of details and/or fidelity in a simulated gaming action.
Intermediary Interface: An interface that requires active user input and the necessitated performance
of content-related thinking.

252
253

Chapter 12
Designing Engaging
Educational Games and
Assessing Engagement in
Game-Based Learning
Xun Ge
University of Oklahoma, USA

Dirk Ifenthaler
University of Mannheim, Germany

ABSTRACT
The focus of this chapter is on designing engaging educational games for cognitive, motivational, and
emotional benefits. The concept of engagement is defined and its relationship with motivation and
cognition are discussed. Design issues with many educational games are examined in terms of factors
influencing sustained motivation and engagement. A theoretical framework to design engaging digital
games is presented, including three dimensions of engagement (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, and emotional).
Later, the chapter considers how to harness the appealing power of engaging games for designing en-
gaging educational games. Various motivational features of game design and learner experiences are
considered. In conclusion, the chapter also discusses various methods to assess engagement in order to
inform the design of educational games that motivate learners.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades game-based learning has grown increasingly into a popular instructional ap-
proach due to its power to motivate and engage students in complex learning, such as problem solving,
decision making, and metacognitive thinking (Kim, Park, & Baek, 2009). There has been a lot of effort
to design and develop educational digital games or to use existing commercial entertaining games to
create a game-based learning environment (Susi, Johanesson, & Backlund, 2007). Despite some ongo-
ing debates over positive or negative impact of digital games, there is sufficient empirical evidence
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch012

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

to support the benefits of digital games (including video and computer games) for learners in several
aspects, such as cognitive aspect (Amory et al., 1999; Eseryel, Ge, Ifenthaler, & Law, 2011; Navarrete,
2013; Shaffer, 2006), motivational aspect (Navarrete, 2013; Johnson, 2010), emotional aspect (Virvou,
Katsionis, & Manos, 2005), and social aspect (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). Researchers studying
the impact of games, including the impact of massive multiple player online games (MMOG), have
observed that if designed well, games could afford rich opportunities for, communication, collabora-
tion, fantasy engagement, problem solving, hypothesis generation, identity development, and reflective
thinking (Barab, Ingram-Goble, & Warren, 2008; Squire, 2008). Games also help to understand complex
systems, create expressions with digital tools, and enhance social interactions (Oksanen & Hämäläinen,
2014; Squire, 2008).
Why are digital games becoming one of the popular instructional tools? The answer is simple: Games
are fun and engaging. Since games have such capability and power to motivate and benefit leaners’ cog-
nitive thinking, educational researchers have attempted to capture the fun, challenges and engagement
of game playing experience and apply it to support learning and instruction (e.g., Amory et al., 1999).
However, evidence shows that not all games are interesting or motivating, especially when it comes to
educational games, which do not necessarily engage students or sustain their engagement over a period
of time (Eseryel, Ifenthaler, & Ge, 2011). Educational games are also categorized as “serious games”,
which are defined as electronic/computer-access games that are not designed primarily for commercial
or entertainment purposes but rather for training users on a specific skill set for educational or training
purpose (Annetta, 2010; Djaouti, Alvarez and Jessel, 2011; Michael & Chen, 2006; Susi, Johanesson, &
Backlund, 2007). This type of games merges a non-entertaining purpose with a game structure (Djaouti,
Alvarez, & Jessel, 2011).
Yet, there are concerns about educational games. Some researchers noticed that as soon as educational
components are embedded in a game, the fun is taken out (Bruckman, 1999). To express their frustrations,
some use the metaphor “chocolate-covered broccoli” to describe educational games (Granic, Lobel, &
Engels, 2014). This metaphor speaks of some truth about the current state of educational games. In a
recent study, Eseryel et al. (2014) found that students’ interest and engagement dropped after their ini-
tial excitement in playing a Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG). The decrease of motivation
was partly because students had expected that the educational MMOG they were going to play would
be like a typical commercial MMOG; but they found out later that it was not quite the same. This dis-
crepancy might have attributed to the decrease of students’ motivation. Instead of finding themselves
solving problems in a complex system, students were given tasks which were didactic and discrete in
order to be aligned with the standards. Although there were some other reasons leading to the decrease
of the students’ motivation, the game design issue alone drove the authors to explore the motivation
features associated with the digital game design. We hope that educational games could engage learners
in meaningful problem solving tasks and complex learning experience to foster their 21st century skills.
The goal of this chapter is to provide a conceptual and design framework for designing educational
digital games, based on a critical review of literature on several bodies of literature, including human
learning and motivation theories, game design principles, and assessment in game-based learning. We
first provide a review of human learning and motivation theories. Then we use the theoretical framework
of motivation and engagement to analyze game features associated with motivation. This framework is
intended to help us understand why some games are perceived as engaging while others are not. Different
dimensions of engagement (behavioral, cognitive, and emotional) are examined to help us understand
learners’ motivation and frame the design model for engaging games. Later, we focus on designing

254

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

features and principles for effective and engaging games to support students’ sustained motivation and
complex learning through game playing by either interacting with the games or with other team members.
In the end, the chapter addresses assessment issues including methods to gauge students’ engagement
and motivation, as well as measuring and evaluating their learning process and outcomes.
This chapter is concerned with any digital games, including MMOGs. Most of the game-related
literature defines a digital game as one played in an electronic device and by one or multiple players
who are required to follow rules in order to achieve predefined goals (Djaouti, Alvarez, & Jessel, 2011).
The process of game playing is goal-driven, interactive, and responsive with feedback. In the context
of education, playing an educational game is supposed to lead to successful learning outcomes, such as
decision-making and problem-solving (Kim, Park, & Baek, 2009). Barab, Ingram-Goble, and Warren
(2008) defines a digital game as constituting four features: system, rules, artificial conflicts, and quan-
tifiable outcomes, which we believe well sums up the main features of a dynamic, interactive game. We
will revisit and discuss these features and definitions later in the chapter.

ENGAGEMENT AND MOTIVATION LITERATURE

Three Dimensions of Engagement

Engagement is a generic term commonly and frequently used to refer to motivation, particularly the
degree of attention, interest, curiosity, motivation and passion students demonstrate. It also shows ef-
fort and time invested by a game player or a learner, as well as persistence and resilience towards their
goals (Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Engagement generally leads to learning progress
and positive academic achievements (Fredicks et al., 2004). Fredricks et al. (2004) identified a mul-
tidimensional model of engagement, including behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and
cognitive engagement. The identification of different dimensions of engagement enables researchers to
examine learners’ motivation and engagement more closely. It provides a tool to assess engagement,
a framework for designing game-based learning environments, and pedagogy to motivate learners for
academic achievement. Although some other researchers intend to contextualize the concept of engage-
ment in digital game research (e.g., Bouvier, Lavoué, & Sehaba, 2014) by referring to it as involving
attention, immersion, involvement, presence, and flow, we believe that the three-dimension engagement
framework is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace these engagement behaviors. Hence, in this chapter
we use this theoretical framework to discuss the design, as well as the assessment of educational games.
The first dimension to address is behavioral engagement, which is something we can observe to in-
fer students’ persistence, effort, attention, participation, and involvement (Bouvier, Lavoué, & Sehaba,
2014; Gobert, Baker, & Wixon, 2015). In our previous study (Eseryel et al, 2014), students’ behaviors
provided us with information about their participation, interest, motivation, persistence, and engagement
in MMOG, which helped us to measure their behavioral engagement. Bouvier, Lavoué and Sehaba’s
(2014) engagement elements of attention and involvement are included in this dimension.
The second engagement dimension is emotional engagement, which can range from interest to bore-
dom, from happiness to anxiety, and other ranges of affective states (Gobert, Baker, & Wixon, 2015).
Emotional engagement can be provoked by immersion, which is an intense experience of sensory im-
mersion, challenge-based immersion, or imaginative immersion (Bouvier, Lavoué, & Sehaba, 2014).
Emotional engagement also involves the sense of belongings and values and related to Ryan & Deci’s

255

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

(2000) construct of learners’ relatedness in the self-determination theory. Often one major reason that
people play games is because their peers play and they want to have a sense of social belonging and
connectedness through game playing.
The third dimension -- cognitive engagement is described as being willing to engage in effortful tasks
with purposiveness and strategy use, make cognitive investment in learning, and engage in metacognition
and self-regulated learning (Gobert, Baker, & Wixon, 2015; Sinatra, Heddy, & Lobardi, 2015). In this
dimension, game designers should consider various strategies to engage learners (Barab, Ingram-Goble,
& Warren, 2008), and at the same time embed cognitive and metacognitive strategies to scaffold learners
as they deal with challenging tasks (Ge, Law, & Huang, 2012). Some scholars (Barab, Ingram-Goble,
& Warren, 2009; Squire & Barab, 2004; Shaffer, 2006) argue that game playing should lead to identity
development and meaningful residue, such as enhancing learners’ critical thinking, problem solving,
and metacognitive abilities. To this end, games should be intentionally designed to support cognitive
engagement, which of course is demonstrated through their behavioral engagement. Unlike behavioral
engagement, cognitive engagement cannot be observed or measured directly, but it can still be operated and
assessed through various assessment approaches, as we discuss in the assessment section of this chapter.

Motivational Theories

While the engagement literature offers us a framework for designing and assessing students’ engagement,
some other motivation theories, such as Malone’s intrinsic motivation theory, Ryan and Deci’s (2000a)
self-determination theory, and expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), supplement the
engagement framework by providing us with insight on how interesting games engage students on the
three dimensions. The primary reason people play games is because they are intrinsically motivated (e.g.,
Rowe et al., 2011) and because playing games can be interesting, stimulating, challenging, and gratifying.
For decades researchers have been focused on intrinsic motivation as opposed to extrinsic motiva-
tion. Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than
for some separable consequences, such as extrinsic rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Malone (1981) pre-
sented a theoretical framework specifically discussing the role of intrinsic motivation in the context of
designing computer games for instruction. He argued that intrinsic motivation involved three important
attributes: challenge, fantasy, and curiosity. Challenge is made up of a series of goals generated by the
games, which keeps game players engaged and motivated to achieve those goals. The constant feedback
on players’ progress is another factor that keeps game players engaged as they challenge themselves
to complete the tasks. The nature and complexity of activities may also make learners feel challenged
and engaged due to uncertain outcomes, different difficulty levels, hidden information or randomness.
However, the difficulty level of the challenge must be within the player’s zone of proximal development
to make the game players feel competent.
Furthermore, Malone (1981) identified fantasy as another motivating aspect of the environment.
Fantasy could be imaginary fantasy (e.g., Disneyland) or realistic fantasy (e.g., Oregon Trails), in which
players travel back in time. The fantasy as found in the typical example of Disneyland is an intrinsically
motivating environment that generates its appeals. Therefore, integrating fantasies into digital games will
intrinsically motivate and engage learners and satisfy their emotional needs while gaining knowledge
at the same time.
According to Malone (1981), one of the important intrinsic motivational aspects is curiosity, which
is the degree of the ability of a game environment that can continue to arouse a game player’s curiosity.

256

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Literature indicates that novelty, complexity, surprisingness, and incongruity are some of the aspects that
can stimulate learners’ curiosity (Alessi & Trollip, 2000; Malone, 1981). Curiosity can be aroused when
learners believe their knowledge structures are incomplete, inconsistent, or unparsimonious. Malone’s
(1981) motivation theory also recognizes the role of choices in game design as an additional motivational
component. As we try to relate the engagement framework (Fredicks et al., 2004) to Malone’s intrinsic
motivation theory, it is obvious that challenge and curiosity are helpful to satisfy cognitive engage-
ment, which in turn would result in behavioral engagement while fantasy would fulfill the requirement
of emotional engagement. The game literature also indicates that playing for challenges, experiencing
creativity, experimenting with different identities, and stimulating curiosity, and exploring and discovery
are some of the factors that drive learners to play games (Olson, 2010).
Ryan and Deci (2000b) proposed the self-determination theory, which is framed in terms of social
and environmental factors that facilitate intrinsic motivation. The self-determination theory examined
motivation from a different lens, that is, how human satisfaction is satisfied by meeting three basic
needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Competence means one’s ability to do a job properly.
The need for competence is the need for success in performing a job properly. The second need is relat-
edness, that is, sense of belonging and connectedness with others, such as friends, which is an important
factor for internalization and is likely to be supported when there are ambient supports for feelings of
relatedness. Olson (2010) found from the literature review that children play games in order to hang out
with friends, making friends, and opportunities for leadership or for teaching others. The third need is
autonomy, that is, the feeling of having control of various situations in one’s life and have the choices
to make informed decisions. According to Csikszentmihalyi (1990) when learners reach the flow state,
which is characterized by intense concentration and excitement, students experience a sense of control
and intrinsic interest. These three needs are the key factors in sustaining one’s motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000a). Ryan and Deci (2000a) indicated that satisfaction of these needs fosters internalized forms of
motivation, which leads to higher quality engagement and learning.
Motivation and engagement are directly influenced by the integration of various motivational factors,
including autonomy, competence, relatedness, and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). These motivational
factors influence students’ regulation effort and reflection on their understanding of the problem and the
quality of solutions (Pintrich, 2000), as well as their investment of time and effort. Since competence
is an essential human drive, the immediate implication for the game design is to arrange activities that
have proper levels of challenges (Malone, 1981) and sufficient scaffolds to help learners succeed while
at the same time keep them motivated to work towards next goals. To foster competence, a game can
be designed intentionally not only to be cognitively engaging and challenging, but also to scaffold them
to succeed in order to promote their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). As the self-determination theory
suggests, the need for competence is also related to the need for relatedness. It means that learners’
success in game playing also affects their perception of how they are viewed by their peers, those who
they are related to. The need for relatedness may also influence learners’ emotional engagement and
their cognitive engagement. This would in turn affect their behavioral engagement obviously. The need
for autonomy implies providing choices and control to game players, which has implications for game
design. For example, when designing game scenarios, it is important to provide scenarios with sufficient
complexity to allow different solution paths and different levels of challenges; it is also important to
design the game where game players are allowed not only to accept the goals, but also to adapt the goals
and eventually transform the goals (Gee, 2003).

257

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

FEATURES OF ENGAGING GAMES

The motivation theories discussed above help us to understand what factors motivate people to play
games, but we also need to understand what kind of game features engage people to play games or in
what kind of game-based environments people feel motivated or excited so that we can generate a model
for designing engaging educational games.
There is a wealth of literature discussing typical features of games or game playing experience, which
are well supported by motivation theories. For instance, Alessi and Trollip (2000) identified some essen-
tial features of educational games, which include goals, rules, challenges, fantasy, and curiosity. Annetta
(2010) reviewed the game design research from some 12 years of developing and testing educational
games and borrowed from research on commercial video games to inform serious game research. She
generalized six features that are engaging to game players, which include identity, immersion, interactivity,
increasing complexity, informed teaching, and instructional. These features are aligned with Gee’s (2003)
game design principles, which are discussed in the next section. The incorporation of these features can
enhance learners’ engagement in behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions.
In the meantime, game players’ experience and perceptions about engagement can also offer us ad-
ditional information about what game features are perceived as really engaging. Olson (2010) conducted
a survey on middle school students of 12-14 years old and asked them why they played games, and their
responses included features such as fun, excitement, reducing boredom, challenge of figuring out prob-
lems, and competition to win. Similarly, Sherry, Lucas, Greenberg, and Lachlan (2006) also conducted
a similar study among secondary school students. These participants listed the reasons that included the
challenge of beating the game, competition against friends and others, fantasy of doing something one
cannot do in real life, diversion from problems, excitement/arousal, and a way of interacting socially.
Navarrete (2013) conducted a case study and interviewed students of at Grade 6, 7, and 8 with different
levels of games. Findings suggest that students enjoyed the learning approach as satisfying and engag-
ing, yet technologically challenging. From these examples, it is obvious how game playing can engage
students emotionally and cognitively.
Recently, the authors followed a friend’s discussion with his circle of gaming friends in social media
about the features of engaging games, and the main themes of the gamers’ perceptions and experiences
are summarized in Table 1, which are consistent with literature cited above. These experiences include:
fascinating storylines; conceptual play spaces (Barab, Ingram-Goble, & Warren, 2009) unique and
thrilling experiences; challenges with more controls and less constraints; uncertainty/unexpectedness of
scenarios; fantasy tactics; relatedness and emotional association; connections and friendships; immedi-
ate positive feedback; intrinsic incentives; making decisions/choices. These players’ immersed gaming
experience and perceptions about engaging games are well supported by the motivation theories and
can be categorized into behavioral engagement (e.g. Conceptual play spaces – “This game has pulled me
in with such force that I actually enjoy going back to replay the game.”), emotional engagement (e.g.,
Emotional associations – “This game engaged me because I found myself caring about each individual’s
story. It was less about the adventure and more about having it with them.”), and cognitive engagement
(e.g., Immediate positive feedback – “The opportunities to improve after a failure calls you back, the
game give immediate positive feedback, and it does not stop unless you want to stop challenging yourself.
X is a perfect example of an engaging game.”) (see Table 1). Table 1 also illustrates different dimensions
of engagement the game players experience fall into. Their experience and perceptions provide us with
specific examples about engaging games and deepen our understanding about what features engage or

258

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

disengage players. These features are recommended for educational games in learning contexts as well.
We can learn from these experiences and use them to inform our design of engaging educational games.

DESIGNING ENGAGING EDUCATIONAL GAMES

O’Neil and Perez (2008) point out that educational games have obvious potential for learning and instruc-
tion; however, it is as easy to design “good” engaging educational games due to the need to align learning

Table 1. Features of engaging games perceived and experienced by game players, with the support of
motivational theories.

Features of Players’ experience /Perceptions Engagement Motivational Theory

Engaging Games Dimension Support
Fascinating storylines In the end, it comes down to stories. The story has to drive you • Emotional engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
to want to play and not to stop. • Behavioral engagement theory (fantasy and curiosity)

Conceptual play This game has pulled me in with such force that I actually • Emotional engagement • Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory
spaces enjoy going back to replay the game. • Behavioral engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
theory (challenge)

Uniqueness and • X game was unique, thrilling, and suspenseful and kept you • Emotional engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
thrilling experiences at the edge of the seat until the end. I have found myself to • Behavioral engagement theory (fantasy and curiosity)
replay this game over and over because of the uniqueness of it. • Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory
• The ideas in X game were amazing but in the end humans
will become animals.

Immediate positive The opportunities to improve after a failure calls you back, the • Cognitive engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
feedback game give immediate positive feedback, and it does not stop • Behavioral engagement theory (challenge)
unless you want to stop challenging yourself. X is a perfect • Self-determination theory
example of an engaging game. (competence)

Challenges with more (In talking about non-engaging games) Cognitive engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
controls and less • Invisible barriers limit the so called “open” world, and it theory (challenge)
constraints just isn’t challenging. • Self-determination theory
• There isn’t really much challenge or difficulty other than (autonomy)
the island games in X, but the game doesn’t rush you with any
single task, even the music is relaxing.

Uncertainty / (In speaking of a game that is not engaging) Cognitive engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
unexpectedness Some big twist that isn’t a twist because anyone who has theory (curiosity)
played the game before knows what it will happen. A different • Self-determination theory
story doesn’t make a new game. (competence)

Relatedness, • The story itself, … is captivating. Combined that with …the Emotional engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
connections, and emotion was there. theory (fantasy)
emotional associations • As the game progresses, you see John develop these • Self-determination theory
connections and friendship. (relatedness)
• This game engaged me because I found myself caring about
each individual’s story. It was less about the adventure and
more about having it with them.

Incentives Incentives is another way to keep players engaged…the Behavioral engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
incentive to keep on doing this to get new gear (or some other theory (challenge)
items you desire to get) is why I don’t mind doing it. • Self-determination theory
(relatedness)

Choices, controls, and • I instantly fell in love with this game being able to move my Cognitive engagement • Malone’s intrinsic motivation
decision making characters around on a grid… theory (curiosity)
• X is engaging because the depth of the game is such that you • Self-determination theory
can design your own adventure. X is the opposite because the (autonomy)
controls are bad.
• X is engaging because of the amount of depth involved in not
just hunting the monsters but micromanaging your resources
as well.

Note: In order not to promote one game against another, we do not specify particular games these players mentioned.

259

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

objectives. Besides, a comprehensive model for game developers on how to design engaging games that
facilitate learning is scant, even though there are some principles for designing games (e.g., Gee, 2003).
Hence, for designing meaningful and effective educational games, it is inevitable to acknowledge the
complexities of learning, instruction, and assessment as well as their interdependencies. Furthermore, the
design of engaging games draws from several literature sources as guidance: motivation literature (see
above), engagement literature (e.g., Fredricks, Bloomenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Gobert, Baker, & Wixon,
2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006; Sinatra, Heddy, & Lobardi, 2015), and
game instructional design literature (e.g., Alessi & Trollip, 2000; Gee, 2003). Based on a critical analysis
and synthesis of literature and supported by game research described above, as well as some first-hand
data (e.g., Table 1), we present the ABC game design model.
The ABC-model of game design (Ifenthaler, in press) integrates affective (A), behavioral (B), and
cognitive (C) components for designing educational games (see Figure 1), corresponding to emotional
engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement respectively. The affective (A) design
components refer to emotional engagement dimension of game design. Accordingly, educational games
require design features which facilitate satisfaction, relatedness, choice, and curiosity. For example,
investigation and exploration are (A) design components towards positive affect. Other (A) design
components include novelty or fantasy. In contrast, confusion and disappoint could also function as (A)
design components, causing negative affect. However, the implementation of negative affect is critical
as it could easily create frustration which would result in abandoning a game (Ifenthaler, 2015a). The
behavioral (B) design components are related to behavioral engagement. It refers to required actions
implemented in the game design. For example, specific skills which could be developed over time while
playing a game (from easy to hard) and more importantly, the time required for reaching a specific goal
(short vs. long term goals). The (B) design component requires real-time feedback during game-play in
order to keep the learner engaged, i.e., the (B) component supports the (A) component and vice-a-versa.
The (C) design components refer to declarative, procedural, strategic, and metacognitive knowledge
required for playing the game. For example, prior knowledge of the player is considered as an important
(C) design component. If games are too easy or too hard with regard to cognitive requirements, it will
influence the implemented affective (A) and behavioral (B) components of the game.
Most of the game design literature focus on the (A) components because if learners are emotionally
engaged and intrinsically motivated, they will be behaviorally and cognitively engaged. Along the line
of relatedness, Gee (2003) argued that information provided to game players should be meaningful and
applicable to solving real-world problems. From the situated perspective, Barab (2008) and Squire and
Barab (2004) emphasized identity development by immersing students in the conceptual play spaces,
which refer to both disciplinary content and practices, as well as an appreciation for those situations
in which students’ understandings and practices have value (Barab, Ingram-Goble, & Warren, 2009).
Squire and Barab (2004) conducted a case study on Civilization III to explore students’ engagement in
game-based environment. They found that engagement was grounded in a complex process of resistance
Learning occurred through recursive cycles of failure and revising strategies, which led to frustration,
engagement and learning. Students developed familiarity with game concepts and deeper understand-
ings of relationships among history, geography, economics, and politics through playing Civilization
III, a historical simulation game. In this example, learners’ engagement is driven by a need for identity
development and self-fulfillment, which have much deeper social and cultural meanings. A game envi-
ronment provides such complex systems and conceptual play spaces. This is when storylines (framing
narratives) develop and learners play simulated roles to solve problems. In addition to the storylines,

260

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Figure 1. The ABC-model of game design (Ifenthaler, in press)

the player’s identity is represented through a unique character called an avatar in many digital games. In
this example, the (A) design components are taken into consideration while considering the (C) design
components, that is incorporating the subject content into the storylines.
In terms of the (B) design components, Gee (2003; 2007; 2008) argue that good video games are
the ones that can be learned and learned well; and additionally good games are the ones players play
long and hard by a great many people, such as System Shock 2 and Rise of Nations. It implies that game
players are engaged in behavioral dimension, which in a way can serve as an indicator of individuals’
emotional or cognitive engagement. To gain players’ emotional engagement, Gee (2003) pointed out that
good games should provide autonomy and control and helping people with goal setting, and moreover
they should operate at the outer and growing edge of a player’s competence, remaining challenging but
doable. Apparently, the (B) design components are related to the (A) and the (C) components. Accord-
ing to Annetta (2010), by immersing players in the game environment and intrinsically motivate players
to succeed in the challenges of the game’s goal, the player may enter a state of flow, which will enable
players to play long and hard.
Regarding the (C) design components, scaffolding must be provided to help game players become
competent while being cautious about not being over supportive (Gee, 2003; 2007; 2008). Too much
support might lead to students’ loss of interest and curiosity, which may affect students emotional en-
gagement. Gee (2003; 2007; 2008) proposed providing just-in-time help on demand, which should be
aligned with learners’ goals and within the player’s actual context. In addition, immediate and meaning-
ful feedback should be provided (Annetta, 2010; Gee, 2003).

261

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

ASSESSMENT OF ENGAGEMENT IN PLAYING EDUCATIONAL GAMES

Assessment is the systematic and theory-based collection, review, and use of educational information
with the aim of justifying, controlling, and optimizing learning processes and outcomes. In the learning
sciences, the assessment of the learning-dependent progression and the detailed investigation of why
and how change takes place are of particular interest (Ifenthaler, 2008; Ifenthaler & Seel, 2005).
The implementation of assessment into games adds an important but very time-consuming step to the
educational game design process (Chin, Dukes, & Gamson, 2009). Ifenthaler, Eseryel, and Ge (2012)
distinguish three types of game-based assessment: 1. Game scoring, 2. external assessment, and 3. em-
bedded assessment. Game scoring stems from traditional game design and focuses on targets achieved
or obstacles overcome as well as time needed for reaching specific goals within a game (Chung & Baker,
2003; Reese & Tabachnick, 2010). External assessment is realized outside of the game environment
using traditional assessment approaches such as interviews, essays, knowledge maps, causal diagrams,
or multiple-choice questions (Ifenthaler, 2009; O’Neil, Chuang, & Chung, 2003; Shrader & McCreery,
2008; Spector, Dennen, & Koszalka, 2006). A more effective form of assessment is the embedded or
internal game-based assessment. Embedded assessment does not interrupt the game-play and is imple-
mented in situ, i.e., in action of the game-play (Loh, Sheng, Ifenthaler, 2015). Hence, in situ assessment
focuses on the learning-dependent progression and learning outcomes while playing a game. This opens
up manifold opportunities in order to optimize learning processes and learning outcomes including
personalized and adaptive feedback and scaffolds towards the intended learning outcomes of the game.
Only recently, serious games analytics has been introduced which focuses on improving game-play
and game design as well as optimizing learning processes and outcomes (El-Nasr, Drachen, & Canossa,
2013; Loh et al., 2015). Serious games analytics converts learner-generated information into actionable
insights for real-time processing. Metrics for serious games analytics are similar to those of learning
analytics including the learners’ individual characteristics (e.g., socio-demographic information, interests,
prior knowledge, skills, and competencies) and learner generated game data (e.g., time spent, obstacles
managed, goals or tasks completed, navigation patterns, social interaction, etc.) (Berland, Baker, &
Bilkstein, 2014; Gibson & de Freitas, 2015; Ifenthaler, 2015b; Loh et al., 2015).
The application of serious games analytics opens up opportunities for the assessment of engagement
within game-based learning environments. The availability of real-time information about the learners’
actions and behaviors stemming from key decision points or game specific events provide insights into
the extent of the learners’ engagement during game-play. The analysis of single action or behavior and
the investigation of more complex series of actions and behaviors can elicit patterns of engagement, and
therefore provide key insights into learning processes.
Designing game-based assessments requires a sequence of steps before implementation (see Figure 2).
The definition of learning outcomes or intended competencies of the game-based learning environment
need to be clearly described and operationalized towards measureable constructs. Further, the story line
of the game and the intended learning path need to be linked to the intended learning outcomes. From
a technical point of view, mechanisms for implementing the game-based assessment need to be devel-
oped. In other words, the game-based assessment designer needs to define how the constructs can be
measured during game-play. In situ game-based assessment further requires the development of serious
games analytics components. For example, algorithms need to be developed which enable a real-time
calculation of assessment results and further processing during game-play. Additionally, the continuous
game-play requires real-time feedback based on the assessment results back to the game-based learning

262

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Figure 2. Game-based assessment design

environment. This may include different branches of the story line (e.g., different story line for correct
vs. incorrect assessment results; highly engaged vs. less engaged learner). All game-based assessment
results are required to be available after game-play for de-briefing sessions, summary of the demon-
strated competencies during game-play, or for further analysis and processing by teachers, designers,
or researchers.
Gibson and Clark-Midura (2015) also highlight design considerations for game-based assessments.
Recording the time during game-play and linking specific events with timestamps are an easy but effective
way to keep track of actions and learning processes. The duration of actions (i.e., start, duration, end) adds
another important feature to time measures. The assessment log should include elaborated data analysis
and visualization features, such as symbolic regression analysis, rule discovery with machine learning,
network analysis, and natural language processing (Gibson & Clark-Midura, 2015; Ifenthaler, 2014).
To sum up, the design of assessments in educational games is multi-facetted. Future game designs
shall include game analytics features which enable real-time feedback to the player and provide addi-
tional insights for future game design. However, game analytics shall focus not only on the progress the
player is making while playing the game. Moreover, game analytics needs to address the components
of the ABC-Model and provide real-time responses to the game’s story line including learner support,
difficulty level, and alternative pathways.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

There has been a lot of existing literature addressing features of good, successful, or engaging games,
with reference to commercial and entertainment games. In addition, there is also a rich body of litera-
ture discussing principles for designing engaging games. On the other hand, there has also been a lot of
discussion or criticisms about the frustration of educational games as non-engaging games. However,
using the theoretical lens of cognition and motivation to examine game features and design has been
scant. We need to understand why some features such as fantasy, challenges, and curiosity matter for

263

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

motivation and engagement. Therefore, this chapter offers theoretical rationales and explanations to the
question why those commonly recognized features need to be integrated in the game design.
Moreover, the game players’ experience and perceptions about what defines engaging games provided
further support for the existing game design principles, although these principles may sometimes be in
conflict with some of the existing cognitive theories for multimedia learning (e.g., cognitive load theory,
Paas & van Merriënboer, 1993; Sweller, 1994) and instructional design principles. In other words, in a
game-base learning environment we probably should not worry about cognitive load as much as about if
a game is exciting, entertaining, challenging and engaging, or if the game would keep learners continue to
play a game and play it hard and long. Engaging games often have high levels of cognitive load, but they
may also make long-term impact on students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills, as Jonassen
(2009) would argue. The primary importance about developing an exciting and thrilling storyline with
sophisticated level of complexity and challenges should outweigh the concerns of trying to cover all the
defined learning objectives in an educational game. Alternatively, game designers and developers should
try to aim at weaving learning objectives into a storyline. Often an educational game is trying to cover the
learning objectives as outlined in the curriculum while it overlooks the fundamental principles of game
design. This chapter is an attempt for educational game designers and developers to move away from
the objective-oriented design (that is, focusing on covering learning objectives) and focus on designing
in situ to provide students an enjoyable, engaging, and beneficial learning experience.
This chapter offers a conceptual framework for designing engaging educational games in three di-
mensions: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional. It not only provides theoretical guidance for designing
engaging educational games, but also identifies multiple dimensions for assessing students’ engagement.
The chapter offers specific assessment methods to help us measure students’ engagement and learning
outcomes, which would serve as useful feedback to inform game design to make it more motivating
and engaging. For future research, we need to implement and test the proposed design framework by
conducting empirical studies. Specifically, we propose to investigate the impact of different variables of
engaging features, including how and to what extent the manipulation of those variables or features would
change students’ game playing experience. Such research would help us to prioritize the areas to focus
on the game design. Further, we also need to investigate the interactions among the three dimensions
of engagement; for instance, if engagement in one dimension affects learners’ engagement in another
dimension; and if behavioral engagement indicates cognitive or emotional engagement, or vice versa.

REFERENCES

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2000). Interactive multimedia: Tools for learning and instruction. New
York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational
tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 30(4), 311–321. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00121
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of
General Psychology, 14(2), 105–112. doi:10.1037/a0018985

264

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy; Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,
84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061
Barab, S., Ingram-Goble, A., & Warren, S. (2009). Conceptual play spaces. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Hand-
book of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp. 989–1009). New York, NY: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch057
Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Bilkstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics:
Applications to constructionist research. Technology. Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2), 205–220.
doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7
Bouvier, P., Lavoué, E., & Sehaba, K. (2014). Defining engagement and characterizing engaged-behaviors
in digital gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 491–507. doi:10.1177/1046878114553571
Bruckman, A. (1999). Can educational be fun? Paper presented at the Game Developer’s Conference,
San Jose, CA. Retrieved October 10, 2015 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Amy.Bruckman/papers/
conference/bruckman-gdc99.pdf
Chin, J., Dukes, R., & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in simulation and gaming: A review of the last
40 years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 553–568. doi:10.1177/1046878109332955
Chung, G. K. W. K., & Baker, E. L. (2003). An exploratory study to examine the feasibility of measur-
ing problem-solving processes using a click-through interface. Journal of Technology, Learning and
Assessment, 2(2), Retrieved October 10, 2015 from http://www.jtla.org
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, NY: Harper
and Row.
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., & Jessel, J. (2011). Classifying serious games: The G/P/S model. In P. Felicia
(Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Mul-
tidisciplinary approaches (Vol. 2, pp. 118–136). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-
495-0.ch006
El-Nasr, M. S., Drachen, A., & Canossa, A. (Eds.). (2013). Game analytics: Maximizing the value of
player data. London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4769-5
Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2011). Alternative assessment strategies for complex problem
solving in game-based learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler, J. M. Spector, Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. G.
Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital
age (pp. 159-178). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7612-3_11
Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelation-
ships between motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Journal
of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 42–53.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

265

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Ge, X., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2012). Diagnosis, supporting, and fading: A scaffolding design frame-
work for adaptive e-learning systems. In H. Wang (Ed.), Interactivity in e-learning: Case studies and
frameworks (pp. 116–162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-441-3.ch006
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Pal-
grave/Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and
literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Good videogames, the human mind, and good learning. In T. Willoughby & E. Wood
(Eds.), Children’s learning in a digital world (pp. 40–63). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gibson, D. C., & de Freitas, S. (2015). Exploratory analysis in learning analytics. Technology, Knowledge
and Learning, 1–15. doi:10.1007/s10758-015-9249-5
Gobert, J. D., Baker, R. S., & Wixon, M. B. (2015). Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within
online science microworlds. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 43–57. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.999919
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. The American Psy-
chologist, 69(1), 66–78. doi:10.1037/a0034857 PMID:24295515
Ifenthaler, D. (2008). Practical solutions for the diagnosis of progressing mental models. In D. Ifenthaler,
P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays
in honor of Norbert M. Seel (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4_3
Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Using a causal model for the design and development of a simulation game for
teacher education. Technology, Instruction. Cognition and Learning, 6(3), 193–212.
Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 651–665. doi:10.1037/a0035505
Ifenthaler, D. (2015a). Effects of experimentally induced emotions on model-based reasoning. Learning
and Individual Differences, 43, 191–198. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.09.003
Ifenthaler, D. (2015b). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational
technology (Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ifenthaler, D. (in press). The ABC-model of game-design. Technology. Knowledge and Learning.
Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment in game-based learning. In D. Ifenthaler, D.
Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspec-
tives (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4_1
Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of
mental models. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 317.
Johnson, W. L. (2010). Serious use of a serious game for language learning. International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20, 175–195. doi:10.3233/JAI-2010-0006

266

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.),
Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies
in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800–810. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.004
Loh, C. S., Sheng, Y., & Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Serious games analytics: Theoretical framework. In C.
S. Loh, Y. Sheng, & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Serious games analytics. methodologies for performance
measurement, assessment, and improvement (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-05834-4_1
Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4),
333–369. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Boston, MA:
Thomson Course Technology.
Navarrete, C. C. (2013). Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case Study. Com-
puters & Education, 69, 320–331. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.025
O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S.-H., & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the computer-based assessment of
collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 361–373.
doi:10.1080/0969594032000148190
O’Neil, H. F., & Perez, R. S. (2008). Computer games and team and individual learning. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Oksanen, K., & Hämäläinen, R. (2014). Game mechanics in the design of a collaborative 3d serious
game. Simulation & Gaming, 45(2), 255–278. doi:10.1177/1046878114530799
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development.
Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 180–187. doi:10.1037/a0018984
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An
approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.
doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
Reese, D. D., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2010). The moment of learning: Quantitative analysis of exemplar
gameplay supports CyGaMEs approach to embedded assessment. Paper presented at the Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
Ryan, R., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-deter-
mination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motiva-
tion, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.68 PMID:11392867

267

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new direc-
tions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 PMID:10620381
Schrader, P. G., & McCreery, M. (2008). The acquisition of skill and expertise in massively multiplayer
online games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 557–574. doi:10.1007/
s11423-007-9055-4
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9780230601994
Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as
predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing computer games: Mo-
tives, responses, and consequences (pp. 248–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student
engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
Spector, J. M., Dennen, V. P., & Koszalka, T. A. (2006). Causal maps, mental models and assessing
acquisition of expertise. Technology, Instruction. Cognition and Learning, 3(2), 167–183.
Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning
world history through computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512). Santa Monica, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Squire, K. D. (2008). Video games and education: Designing learning systems for an interactive age.
Educational Technology, 48(2), 17–26.
Susi, T., Johanesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games - An overview (Technical Report).
Skövde, Sweden: University of Skövde.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and
Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case
for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213–243. doi:10.3102/00346543065003213
Virvou, M., Katsionis, G., & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education: Evaluation
of its educational effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 54–65.

ADDITIONAL READING

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2),
661–686. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

268

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2013). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. In M. J.
Bishop & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th
ed., pp. 723–734). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achieve-
ment task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 215–225.
doi:10.1177/0146167295213003
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 53(1), 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 PMID:11752481
Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth,
games, and learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (Eds.). (2006). Games and simulations in online learning: Re-
search and development frameworks. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the
value of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.
doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029
Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A person-centered
approach to motivation and achievement in middle school. Motivation and Emotion, 34(4), 371–383.
doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9181-x
Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-
based education. Aptitude. Learning and Instruction, 3, 255–286.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment, 50(3), 43–59. doi:10.1007/BF02505024
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., Sugiura, A., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Matsumoto, K.
(2015). How self-determined choice facilitates performance: A key role of the ventromedial prefrontal
cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 25(5), 1241–1251. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht317 PMID:24297329
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. Handbook of computer
game studies, 18, 97-122.
Prensky, M. (2011). Comments on research comparing games to other instructional methods. In S. Tobias
& J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 251–278). Information Age Publishing.
Rambusch, J., & Susi, T. (2013). The challenge of managing affordances in computer game play. Hu-
man IT, 9(3), 83–109.

269

Designing Engaging Educational Games and Assessing Engagement

Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic
games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learn-
ing, and Assessment, 8(4), 4–47.
Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher,
35(8), 19–29. doi:10.3102/0013189X035008019
Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: a critical ap-
proach. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Steinkuehler, C., & Squire, K. (2014). Videogames and learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Hand-
book of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 377–394). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781139519526.023
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design
model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 PMID:10620382
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment:
The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal,
29(3), 663–676. doi:10.3102/00028312029003663

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Behavioral Engagement: Behavioral engagement is something we can observe to infer students’

persistence, effort, attention, participation, and involvement.
Cognitive Engagement: Cognitive engagement refers to engaging in effortful tasks with purpo-
siveness and strategy use, making cognitive investment in learning, and engaging in metacognition and
self-regulated learning.
Educational Games: Educational games are those intentionally designed for the purpose of educa-
tion, or those entertainment games that have incidental or educational values. Educational games are
designed to help people understand concepts, learn domain knowledge, and develop problem solving
skills as they play games.
Emotional Engagement: Emotional engagement involves interest, boredom, happiness, anxiety,
and other affective states, any of which factors could affect learners’ involvement with learning or their
sustained effort in playing games, such as in the context of playing a game. Emotional engagement also
involves the sense of belonging and values.
Engagement: Engagement refers to the degree of attention, interest, curiosity, motivation and pas-
sion students show, as well as the effort and time they invest and the persistence and resilience they
demonstrate towards their goals.
Serious Games: Serious games are defined as not having entertainment, enjoyment or fun as their
primary purpose.

270
Section 4
Educational Games:
Teaching and Learning Perspectives
272

Chapter 13
Augmented Reality in
Informal Learning Settings:
Leveraging Technology for
the Love of History

Eric G. Poitras Timothy Compeau

University of Utah, USA Brock University, Canada

Jason M. Harley Kevin Kee

University of Alberta, Canada University of Ottawa, Canada

Susanne P. Lajoie
McGill University, Canada

ABSTRACT
Cultural heritage sites and museums are faced with an important challenge – how best to balance the
needs of engaging visitors in meaningful and entertaining experiences, while at the same time exploiting
the affordances of exhibits for instructional purposes. In this chapter, we examine the use of augmented
reality in the context of informal learning environments, and how this type of technology can be used as
a means to enhance learning about history. The research case studies are reviewed in terms of the use of
historical locations, experience mechanics, narrative/plot, and role-playing (the later two representing
game-based elements) in the design guidelines of instructional activities and applications (Dunleavy &
Dede, 2014). In doing so, we critique the theoretical, methodological, and instructional underpinnings
of studies that evaluate augmented reality applications and draw several recommendations for future
research in this field.

INTRODUCTION

Augmented Reality (AR) provides a user with additional digital information, often by superimposing
images, texts, and/or sounds over a display of a real environment through a portable or head-mounted
device. This type of immersive technology is commonly distinguished from virtual reality, where a user
is immersed in an artificial, virtual environment, and from telepresence (e.g., videoconference software

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch013

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

or devices) that enables a user to feel as if they were present in a real environment (Azuma, 1997; Azuma,
Baillot, Behringer, Feiner, Julier, MacIntyre, 2001; Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi, and Kishino, 1994).
Klopfer (2008) further characterizes AR in terms of the amount of digital media that is provided to the
learner, ranging from light AR where information is provided primarily through the real world setting, to
heavier AR where most of the informative is conveyed through a digital medium. AR technologies can
also be differentiated in terms of sensors and devices. AR software applications utilize different types
of sensors to capture either locations or objects in the real world. Location-aware or place-based AR
utilizes a global positioning system or indoor positioning system to track the learners as they physically
move throughout the real world location, in contrast to context-sensitive AR where 2D or 3D objects
are recognized by the application. The essential characteristics of AR include (1) the blending of real
and virtual media; (2) interactivity with the environment through location and orientation (e.g., GPS)
or image sensors (e.g., 2-dimensional QR codes, 3-dimensional objects); and (3) a representation of the
actual environment in order to superimpose digital information. The composition of the real environ-
ment with digital content is a means to augment the user experience in relation to specific locations or
artifacts featured in the environment. In augmenting an aspect of the environment, the user is provided
with informative and engaging content, such as a display of range distance when playing golf, markers
to the nearest location for restaurants, or groups of star constellations in the night sky.
How are museums and cultural heritage sites implementing AR into their exhibits? In 2013, Tallon
conducted a survey to explore the use of mobile devices by 551 professionals working in museums and
related sectors across the US, Canada, the UK, and 26 other countries. The results show that 43% of
respondents reported that their cultural institution currently offered a mobile experience to visitors, and
that 23% planned to do so in the next twelve months. However, AR applications were reported as being
less prevalent in cultural institutions in comparison to audio tours or interactive experiences that are
associated with social media. The reasons for its limited use likely vary, including but not limited to in-
adequate financial resources and specialized technical expertise, lack of awareness of AR, and resistance
to change. In any case, the primary implication of this finding is a need to establish and disseminate best
practices in designing and developing AR learning experiences. This requires evidence of the instruc-
tional benefits and return on investments in terms of user satisfaction and enjoyment in comparison to
alternative methods that are traditionally used in informal learning environments.
Of particular relevance to addressing this issue are the recent efforts of researchers to explore the
educational benefits of gamifying instruction and its implications for designing AR to learn and teach
about history (Kee, 2014). Museums and developers at large are faced with an important challenge: how
best to balance the needs of engaging visitors in meaningful and entertaining experiences, while at the
same time exploiting the affordances of exhibits for instructional purposes (Bressler, 2013). The use of
AR is perhaps most promising in its ability to bring the past back to life by augmenting such exhibits with
virtual graphics, animations, and video, while game-based AR applications leverage learner reactions,
feelings, and identities as a means to further enhance instruction. Although there is substantial debate
as to the definition of gamification, we rely on the conventional definition of the term as referring to
the use of game elements in augmented reality applications and guided walking tours to enhance user
experience and engagement (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Domínguez, Saenz-de-Navarrete,
De-Marcos, Fernández-Sanz, Pagés, Martínez-Herráiz, 2013). Game-based learning approaches are
differentiated from traditional methods of instruction not only in terms of how designers conceive of
the design of an application, but also how learners experience the subject matter and interact with the
learning environment (Shaffer, Halverson, Squire, Gee, 2005).

273

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

In this chapter, we review several cases of AR, some of which have been gamified, for teaching history
in informal learning contexts. We claim that further progress in establishing best practices and design
principles requires empirical research into learning and engagement that is grounded in educational
theory as well as valid and reliable measurement. The recommendations derived from our selective review
stand to inform research practices in moving beyond usability testing, the most prevalent paradigm in
evaluating design guidelines of AR applications. To highlight the complex interplay of latent constructs
that underlies learning and engagement, we briefly outline theoretical constructs underlying the three-
phase model of cognitive and metacognitive activities in historical inquiry (Poitras & Lajoie, 2013).
This model provides a domain-specific account of the cognitive, metacognitive, and affective constructs
that mediate how learners regulate their own learning while investigating the past. In accordance with
this framework, we discriminate between design guidelines of several AR applications in terms of their
affordances and impact on specific constructs posited in the model. We then turn our attention to issues
and challenges in the measurement of learning and engagement with AR applications in the context of
informal learning environments in order to derive recommendations for future research.

BACKGROUND

Theoretical Foundation for Learning in History

The affordances of AR are described within the perspective of the model of cognitive and metacogni-
tive activities in historical inquiry (CMHI; Poitras & Lajoie, 2013). The model synthesizes theoretical
constructs from both theories of self-regulated learning (SRL; Winne, 2001, 2005; Winne & Hadwin,
1998, 2008, 2010) and historical reasoning (Carretero, López-Manjón, & Jacott, 1997; Nokes, Dole,
& Hacker, 2007; van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008) to further characterize how learners set goals, monitor
their own progress, and use disciplinary strategies in order to investigate the past and answer historical
questions. Recent research has shown that learners often have difficulties engaging in self-regulatory
processes while learning about complex historical topics (Greene, Bolick, & Robertson, 2011; Poitras,
Lajoie, & Hong, 2012). In order to support learners, technology can be used as a means to facilitate self-
regulated learning by identifying the precursors to learning gains in the context of hypermedia-based
learning environments (Greene, Bolick, Jackson, Caprino, Oswald, & McVea, 2015) and intelligent
tutoring systems (Poitras & Lajoie, 2014). The cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and motivational
constructs that characterize effective learning can be detected, modeled, and fostered within these learn-
ing environments through the revision of their design guidelines. However, the use of AR as a means to
support self-regulated learning in the domain of history has yet to be investigated (Azevedo & Aleven,
2013). We thus limit our review to a subset of strategic processes outlined in the CMHI model of SRL,
including asking questions as well as sourcing, corroborating, and contextualizing evidence, which are
of particular relevance to learning with the benefit of AR applications.

Asking Appropriate Questions

The starting point of an inquiry or investigation into an aspect of history is a question. Questions can be
categorized in terms of whether their purpose is to describe and compare topics or to engage in causal
and evaluative forms of reasoning (Van Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008). An AR learning experience, such

274

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

as the Queenston 1812 tour (Kee, 2011), may prompt learners to explain a historical event such as the
bombing of the monument to British Major General Sir Isaac Brock by asking either: “What caused the
bombing of the monument to Sir Isaac Brock in 1840?” (i.e., causal question) or “what was the most
important cause of the bombing of the monument to Sir Isaac Brock in 1840?” (i.e., evaluative question).
This subtle change in wording stands to prompt learners to weigh alternative explanations as opposed
to formulating only a single claim that is the most probable explanation. A comparative question may
guide a learner to compare and contrast multiple accounts of the same event in order to accurately re-
construct the circumstances, such as in the Reliving the Revolution tour (Schrier, 2005), where learners
find an answer to “Who fired the first shot in the Battle of Lexington?” This form of reasoning is quite
similar to answering a descriptive historical question, such as in the MTL Urban Museum tour (Harley,
Poitras, Jarrell, Duffy, & Lajoie, 2016), where learners are prompted to describe “any changes in the
Roddick Gates from the past to the present day”. However, the later example typically requires learners
to coordinate different sources of information in their efforts to formulate an answer.
The type of question mediates the reasoning processes that underlies the outcome of an investigation,
but much less is known with regards to the antecedents to constructing good questions and their effects.
Research has shown that learners with greater interest in a topic and prior knowledge about the subject
matter are more likely to ask questions while reading historical documents (Logtenberg, van Boxtel,
& van Hout-wolters, 2011). However, the amount of questions asked are not necessarily conducive to
more sophisticated forms of reasoning, as causal questions, for example, lead to less historical thinking
than evaluative questions (see van Drie, van Boxtel, van der Linden, 2006). This begs the questions:
what are the relative benefits of posing as opposed to formulating one’s own question for learning? And
what are the conditions in which it is most beneficial to co-construct questions that drive an inquiry into
a meaningful aspect of history? Since historical questions may vary in their focus and specificity, it is
also necessary to examine the sequence in which they are constructed during learning as more experi-
enced learners tend to rely on them to further refine their own inquiries when unfamiliar with an event
(Leinhardt & Young, 1996; Wineburg, 1998).

Sourcing

In formulating answers to questions regarding an event, the source of information is an important aspect
to consider in gaining a better understanding of the event and make sense of the document. Sourcing,
including evaluating the credibility of the source of information, is often the initial strategy used prior
to reading a document, but is rarely used in novices in the domain of history (Wineburg, 1991). The
study of history requires the ability to locate discrepancies, question sources, and infer the underlying
motives of witnesses to events, which is typically missing from conventional textbooks on the subject.
Students show a tendency to rate the trustworthiness of a textbook, for instance, as being a credible
source of information, as opposed to historians who give more evidentiary value to primary sources
(Rouet, Marron, Perfetti, & Favart, 1998). Students typically report that history textbooks include more
factual statements, as opposed to secondary sources that are influenced by the authors’ opinions (Harris,
Halvorsen, & Aponte-Martinez, 2015). First-hand accounts, also referred to as primary sources, contain
subtle indicators of these biases, in statements that reflect judgments, emphasis, or uncertainty, and are
in some occasions searched for explicitly by historians. These indicators may refer to the authors’ mo-
tivation and level of participation in an event, or characteristics of the document itself, such as its date

275

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

and manner of creation and whether it coincides with the occurrence of the event or affords accurate
reporting of the event.
In order to support students in evaluating the credibility of sources, AR applications rely on interactive
elements in the user interface to allow users to rate the trustworthiness of sources of information. For
instance, the Queenston 1812 application allows learners to indicate discrepancies between two sources
of evidence in order to discredit its authenticity. The learner selects the differences between both docu-
ments, which are highlighted by the application. On the basis of the feedback provided, the learners are
able to deduce that the evidence provided in favor of a potential explanation for the occurrence of the
event under investigation is not credible, and that the learner should consider an alternate cause. AR
applications may also provide a wealth of documents written from different perspectives of the same
event, allowing learners to reason about the document themselves and how accounts may be influenced
by the authors’ values and feelings, such as the anti-Dow Chemical Company protests investigated dur-
ing the Dow Day tour (Squire, Jan, Mathews, Wagler, Martin, Devane, & Holden, 2007). Similarly, in
Tecumseh Lies Here, players had to track down specific signs in a re-enactor camp that would trigger
audio recordings of differing perspectives on the Battle of the Thames as they recreated the events. This
same approach was elaborated further through the use of a group debate activity, where learners would
defend their own explanation for the onset of the Battle of Lexington by weighing the different accounts
provided by fictional characters in the context of Reliving the Revolution.

Corroboration

In corroborating sources of information, learners are actively engaged in comparing and contrasting
information obtained from different source documents. Learners may determine whether these source
documents are in agreement with respect to the depiction of an event, or may identify differences in
these accounts. It is also noteworthy to recognize whether certain documents missed a crucial piece
of information, and when accounts are the sole documented source of evidence in support of a claim.
Historians coordinate information across different sources in order to establish the different perspectives
provided from the viewpoints of specific authors as a means to gain a better understanding of an event
(Wineburg, 1991). Novice learners seldom engage in this type of strategy, showing instead a tendency to
ignore discrepancies in order to learn information that is commonly encountered across multiple docu-
ments (Perfetti, Britt, Routet, Georgi, & Mason, 1994; Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996).
The nature of the source of information is critical in understanding the event as it enables learners to
differentiate amongst the different accounts, and determine how each of them contributes to interpreting
the event as a whole (Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999; Rouet, 2006). However, learners often judge the
trustworthiness of sources primarily on the basis of its type instead of using well established criteria to
evaluate its content and date of production (Bråten, Strømsø, & Salmerón, 2011; Rouet, Britt, Mason,
Perfetti, 1996). The tendency to simplify the interpretive process is what more experienced learners will
actively avoid by being aware of their own lack of knowledge about the subject matter and realizing
the need to carefully make claims by constantly restating information obtained from many documents
(Wineburg, 1998).
Research has shown that exposing learners to conflicting accounts may change their view of history
as an interpretive process that requires careful consideration of more than a single viewpoint (Hynd,
Holschuh, & Hubbard, 2004). In a similar manner, AR applications allow learners to experience alterna-

276

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

tive accounts of a single event through the use of fictional dialogue or in integrating the tour experience
with in-depth study of source documents, as used in the Tecumseh Lies Here game. It is particularly
interesting to study first-hand accounts provided by members of a community, which is a feature of
the design of the German Traces NYC tour, where the Geostoryteller web portal allows contributors to
upload multimedia narratives pertaining to the history of a particular site (Cocciolo & Rabina, 2011).
In this case, learners may be exposed to varying viewpoints that differ in the level of details provided
in the narrative, offering interesting opportunities for corroborating multiple sources of information.
The design of AR experiences that foster corroboration remains a challenge due to the small screens of
these devices.

Contextualization

Learners contextualize information by elaborating further on the details surrounding the event under
examination or the circumstances where the source of information itself was created by the author. As
an example, the relevant contextual information may include but is not limited to an increased awareness
of the time or location of an event, the cultural setting, and biographic information of historical actors.
Historians reconstruct past events by analyzing and interpreting primary evidence and placing that evi-
dence into a narrative. An understanding of the cultural context in which the documents or artifacts was
created is essential, and historians are also alert for biased, misleading, and contradictory information
in their sources (Voss & Wiley, 2006).
The average visitor to a museum or historic site is not always conscious of how history is fashioned
from these fragments and the debates they create among historians, and most students do not encounter
these ideas until post-secondary education (van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008; Van Sledright, 2008; Wineburg,
1991). The elaborative efforts made by historians in contextualizing documents is particularly evident
when lacking prior knowledge with respect to the topic under examination, which requires the ability to
build that understanding from the available set of documents (Wineburg, 1998). In these circumstances,
historians coordinate information across the documents in order to establish the details of the narrative,
including the physical location of events and historical figures that were present as well as the sequence
and time frame in which these events occurred. Since the authors of documents may write in order to
convince others of their own viewpoints, historians are careful in noting values inherent to the time and
people and attempt to disambiguate the meaning of words used in an account. This process is often char-
acterized by attempts to resolve confusions that arise during reading, leading to a sequence of questions
and efforts to find answers (see Leinhard & Young, 1996).
AR applications offer important opportunities for helping learners to think like historians. In guided
walking tours across university campuses such as the MTL Urban Museum and Discover the U, learners
have the benefit of multimedia content that is situated in the actual historical location, enabling them to
compare and contrast changes in the artifacts, physical surroundings, and the daily lives of people from
different generations. The pictorial sources are further complemented with relevant information provided
through text captions and audio narrations. Although this medium provides a rich representation of the
past, it remains an open question as to the extent that these elaborative processes are tied to authentic
inquiries into historical questions. In the case of the Acropolis Museum, the AR experience is designed
to augment exhibits in the real environment, where multimedia content is overlaid with specific objects
with the addition of interactive narratives used to guide the visit (Keil et al., 2013). The personalization

277

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

of these narratives to visitors with different interests and backgrounds holds important potential to further
support elaborative processes that are inherent to contextualizing the past.

Instructional Design of Augmented Reality

We synthesize the design guidelines of several cases where AR is used as a means to learn about his-
tory. In accordance with the characteristics of AR learning experiences outlined by Dunleavy & Dede
(2014), we analyze each case in terms of the following elements: (1) the choice of location and navi-
gation system, (2) narrative or plot (3) role-playing scenario, and (4) the experience mechanics of the
application. Table 1 provides an overview of the elements that characterize AR learning experiences.
This framework was chosen for its suitability in characterizing game-based elements, narrative and nar-
rative/fictionalized roles in particular, which may be implemented throughout the course of learning.
Alternatively, Dunleavy (2014) differentiates AR learning experiences in terms of instructional decisions
that aim to (1) challenge learners and problematize the subject matter, (2) gamify instruction through
the use of stories and fantasy, and (3) promote curiosity about past events. These elements have been
shown to increase learner engagement, enabling collaboration and authentic problem-solving activities
that leverage the real environment, including museum exhibits, architecture, and so on (Dunleavy, Dede,
& Mitchell, 2009; Klopfer & Squire, 2008; Squire & Jan, 2007; Squire, 2010). The scope of our review
is by no means exhaustive, and is limited to smartphones and wearable devices. To learn more about
the use of personal digital assistant devices and augmented reality in the domain of history education,
we recommend a review of the literature conducted by Dunleavy and Dede (2014).

Location

The design of AR learning experiences can be distinguished as place-independent or –dependent, de-

pending on the degree to which the guided walking tours leverage the historical or physical aspects of
locations featured in the environment (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014). The use of AR has unique affordances
for enabling learners to manipulate and observe the environment while delivering multimedia content. In
these cases, the content is tied to a particular context since the AR experience is heavily situated in the
real environment and depends on overlaying digital information with real-world objects. As an example,
the Acropolis Museum features over 4,000 architectural and sculptural remains from the 7th century to
the Persian Wars. Visitors may experience a diversity of artifacts in the context of the Archaic Gallery,
a large open space where objects are exhibited. Navigation across the exhibits is supported through
the use of photographs and a narrator that prompts visitors to find certain objects. The visit unfolds in
a non-linear manner given that visitors are allowed to make choices as to the course of the narration
and their visit. In contrast, the Cité de l’Espace includes only 4 key locations that are visited in a linear
fashion. Beginning at the entrance hall, learners visit a large model of the solar system, a full-size model
of a European Space Agency launcher, a Soyuz capsule, as well as a replica of the Mir space station.
In a similar manner, navigation is supported through annotated photographs, given that the exhibits are
situated both indoors and outdoors.
An alternate approach to navigation that is often used in AR learning experiences consists of utilizing
the global positioning system (i.e., GPS) sensor of the device in order to situate learners in real-world
locations. The Discover the U tour relies on the GPS sensor of mobile and wearable devices in order to
update learners’ location on a map depicting the University of Utah campus. Multimedia content associ-

278

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Table 1. AR Learning Experiences in the Domain of History

Name Location Narrative Roles Experience Technology Description

Mechanics
Dow Day University of Immerse learners Take the role of a Smartphone, GPS, iTour App and Users experience the 1967
(Squire, 2010) Wisconsin into the conflict journalist and write virtual interviews, ARIS online anti-Dow chemical protests
campus and protests a newspaper article read primary authoring tool as a journalist on the
surrounding the and select two documents, view University of Wisconsin at
anti-Dow protestas photographs that video clips, Madison campus (Design
if it unfolds in will run in the story photographs Team: UW-M)
real-time

Tecumseh Lies Classroom and Reconstruct the Users play the Mobile smart Layar Augmented Users explore the
Here (Timothy scavenger hunt events surrounding role of historians phone, camera Reality Creator controversy surrounding
& MacDougall, using encrypted the death and by reconstructing overlay of digital and App the death and remains of
2014) signs that mark remains of the events from information and the Shawnee war-chief
locations of Shawnee war-chief scattered and scanning engine Tecumseh (Design Team:
interest Tecumseh conflicting primary to reveal hidden Robert MacDougall,
evidence information, Western University)
links, and audio-
visual content
to complement
classroom lesson
plans and promote
collaboration

Campus Six historically- Hunt for a ghost Users are ghost Mobile smart fAR-Play’s Users explore the
Mysteries rich buildings from the 1918- hunters. phone, GPS, Layar Enhanced university campus
(Rockwell et located on the 1919 Edmonton website, Augmented architecture, people, and
al., 2013) University of influenza camera overlay, Reality Browser events by chasing the
Alberta campus pandemic across collaborative Quick Response ghost of a man who died
the University of scenario (QR) code tool of the Spanish Influenza
Alberta campus, BeeTagg pandemic during the
collecting clues first World War (Design
to discover its Team: Geoffrey Rockwell,
historical identity University of Alberta)

Queenston Five sites Identify the Users play the Mobile iTour Mobile Users investigate potential
1812: The surrounding bomber of role of detectives smartphone, GPS, App suspects for bombing the
Bomber’s Plot the Isaac Brock the original investigating camera overlay monument to Sir Isaac
(Kee, 2011) Monument in monument to Sir different suspects with scanning Brock in 1840, a hero in
the historic Isaac Brock in in the bombing of a engine the War of 1812 (Design
village of 1841 national monument Team: Kevin Kee, Brock
Queenston University)

MTL Urban 154 historical None None Audio and text of iTour Mobile Users explore the history
Museum locations in the historical sites, App and architecture of
(Harley et al., city of Montreal camera overlay downtown Montreal
2016) option, GPS-driven (Design Team: McCord
tour Museum)

Discover the U Four sites None Students adopt the Images, text izi.Travel and Users explore the
surrounding the roles of investigative transcripts, GuidiGO App university campus
Milton Bennion journalists audio media for for Mobile and architecture, people, and
Hall location at reporting on the smartphones, Glass Devices; events (Design Team:
the University of lives of historical tablets, and Google jQuery Mobile Eric Poitras, University
Utah campus figures and their Glass, note-taking and Google Maps of Utah)
contributions to the tool and digital API for Mobile
campus tour guide (limited Devices
to the jQuery app)

German Traces Over 48 None None Images, text GeoStories’ Users explore the lives of
NYC (Cocciolo narratives tied transcripts, Layar Enhanced people and historic sites
& Rabina, to different and video for Augmented in relation to the German
2013) locations in the smartphones, GPS- Reality Browser immigration in New
Manhattan area driven tour, camera York City (Design Team:
overlay option Goethe-Institut New York
& Pratt Institute School of
Information and Library
Science)

continued on following page

279

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Table 1. Continued
Name Location Narrative Roles Experience Technology Description
Mechanics
Cité de Cité de l’Espace Choice of (a) Take photographs 3D models, videos, CHESS Users learn about space
l’Espace science centre fictionalized that are compiled images, audio Authoring Tool exploration and technology
(Rennick- in Toulouse diary written as a pre-written media for tablets (CAT) at a science center in
Egglestone et (Entrance by an astronaut newspaper article and smartphones Toulouse, France (Design
al., 2013) hall, Parterre and his trip to with interactive Team: CHESS)
des Planètes, the International features
Arianne Space Station and
launcher, Soyuz (b) reporter from
capsule, Mir the future who is
space station) writing on past
technologies for
space travel

Acropolis Acropolis Horse narrates the Choice of (a) 3D models, videos, CHESS Users learn about
Museum (Keil Museum (4,000 significance of helping a horse images, audio Authoring Tool archaeological findings of
et al., 2013) architectural horses in ancient get his friends media for tablets (CAT) the Acropolis of Athens,
remains from Greece, spanning back to the past and smartphones from the Greek Bronze
the Roman and from daily or (b) learn about with interactive Age to Roman times
early Byzantine activities to Greek Athenian society features (Design Team: CHESS)
Athens) mythology and architectural
designs

ated to each location can be viewed by learners, including architectural and portrait photographs as well
as audio-narration and excerpts of source documents. This approach is particularly useful for large areas
in outdoor settings, such as in the MTL Urban Museum, which was developed by the McCord Museum
and draws on the Notman Photographic Archives to provide historic images of over 154 landmark sites
in Montreal. The majority of photographs depict landmarks from the outside, but photographs of the
interior of buildings are also available in certain locations. Geolocation is enabled through the use of pins
on the map that identify relevant locations. Learners select these pins to view photographs or are allowed
to superimpose the photographs and text on the devices’ real-time camera display of the actual location.
Finally, AR applications may rely on a combination of approaches to locate learners in the learning
environment. Campus Mysteries was developed at the University of Alberta in a partnership between
faculty and students in computing science, humanities computing, and education (Rockwell et al., 2013).
It is a scavenger hunt that was designed using the fAr-Play AR serious game platform and run using a
smartphone that used either (1) GPS in combination with the smartphone camera and screen display or
(2) the Quick Response (QR) code tool BeeTagg (depending on experimental condition). In a similar
manner, the Tecumseh Lies Here tour relies on encrypted signs that can be scanned by learners in order
to view digital content. Much of the learning experience took place in the classroom using the Layar
AR print application, but in order to complete the lessons students needed to complete a scavenger hunt
built around a series of encrypted signs that students could decipher using a combination of AR and
replica eighteenth century cipher wheels. The scavenger hunt is not geo-located, so it can be set up in
playgrounds, gymnasiums, or anywhere there is a stable wireless connection.

Narrative

The choice of narrative or storytelling provides a structure for the AR experience, allowing learners to
view, collect, and summarize pieces of the narrative that are embedded at specific points throughout the

280

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

tour, including photographs, videos, interviews, and so on (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014). Narrative-based
or story-based learning combines the unfolding plot of a story with instructional content as a means to
promote learning and engagement (see McGuiggan, Rowe, Lee, & Lester, 2008). First, the degree of
realism in the narrative, as opposed to the fictional aspects, can also be manipulated in order to gamify the
learning experience. Campus Mysteries uses the narrative of a ghost hunt to stimulate learners’ interest
in a campus tour; locating buildings of historical importance and exploring them to find the answers to
questions that unlock the identify of a ghost from the 1918-1919 Edmonton influenza pandemic; a blend
of historical and speculative fiction narrative elements. Likewise, Queenston 1812 also uses the mystery
of a symbolic bombing and the hunt for suspects in order to engage learners in the inquiry process.
Second, the benefit of narration is that the plot of the story affords references to the exhibits in a
cohesive experience as opposed to a disconnected series of descriptions. In the Acropolis Museum tour,
the archaeological objects are organized in accordance with the themes of the tour and the chronological
sequence of sites visited by the learner, which is indicated through labels and panels. One of the stories
depicted by the AR application refers to a horse as the narrator of the guided walking tour. The topic
of the story consists of the significance of horses in ancient Greeks, spanning from daily life activities
to mythology. The plot develops over time, relying on reference points within the exhibit to determine
its progress. The use of plots also serve to complement existing curricular content, as in the case of the
Tecumseh Lies Here game, where learners independently explores a secret subplot that ends with the
classroom putting a British general on trial for his conduct during the War of 1812, which did not feature
as part of the initial class discussion about this topic.
Thirdly, Vayanou and her colleagues (2012) further distinguish between narratives where storytelling
is personalized or adapted to the specific needs and preferences of different visitors. Personalized story-
telling can be thought of as broader modifications to storytelling on the basis of the detection of visitor
characteristics, namely their age, language, past knowledge, in order to prescribe the most relevant or
appropriate content. In contrast, adaptive storytelling refers to fine tuning the narrative during the actual
visit on the basis of user interactions detected with the application. For instance, in the Cité de l’Espace
tour, visitors (children and their families) can select amongst two stories based on their own personal
interests. The first story is called The Secret Diary of Philippe Perrin, which focuses on a fictionalized
diary written by an astronaut, and his trip to the International Space Station. The second story, Support
a Reporter from the Year 5000 AD, refers to a reporter from the future who intends to write on past
technologies for space travel. Both stories revolve around the same five locations and support is provided
in the context of the tour.

Roles

In accordance with the use of narratives, the fictionalized roles assigned to learners that are tied to the
plot promote a sense of responsibility and identity in the inquiry process, which may also facilitate
collaborative efforts to solve problems (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014). Roles may vary substantially in the
degree to which learners are involved in performing tasks and participating in the story as the plot un-
folds. In the Cité de l’Espace tour, Philippe Perrin describes the different stages of his trip into space.
At the end of the narrative, the diary entries illustrate scenes from the daily life of astronauts living at
the Mir space station. On the other hand, the reporter from the future discusses the characteristics of the
technology displayed at each exhibit. Visitors are asked to take photographs, which are integrated into
a pre-written newspaper article, acting as a souvenir (Roussou, Katifori, Pujol, Vayanou, & Rennick-

281

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Egglestone, 2013). In the Acropolis Museum tour, children are assigned the goal of helping the horse
to get his friends back to the past. In the case of adults, the role-playing scenario enables the visitor to
learn about Athenian society and view digital reconstructions of objects as they were situated in their
past architectural setting (Keil et al., 2013).
The roles assigned to learners not only vary in their degree of involvement, but also in terms of the
sense of immediacy. In the case of the Dow Day tour, the learners take the role of journalists investigat-
ing the conflict surrounding the anti-Dow protests as it unfolds in real-time. The unfolding events that
characterized this moment in history are delivered to the learner as a narrative where the sequence is
dependent on their progress throughout the tour. Learners are tasked to write a journal article about the
protest and select two photographs that will be published in the journal. In doing so, learners conduct
interviews with virtual characters and search for primary sources such as photographs, videos, docu-
ments, and so on.

Experience Mechanics

The choice of design guidelines for AR applications can mediate how learners experience the guided
walking tour in these informal learning environments. The choice of guidelines aim to (1) balance both
collaborative and competitive behaviors throughout the inquiry process, (2) foster interaction with the
environment, and (3) allow for authentic argumentation and problem-solving (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014).
For instance, learners may be allowed to choose their own path during the guided walking tour to reduce
the competitive desire to finish ahead of other learners. The MTL Urban Museum application fosters
historical exploration in the city of Montreal, allowing learners to visit sites on their own accord. The
German Traces NYC tour relies on a similar approach; however, the GeoStoryteller Platform allows
learners to actively participate in the creation of rich multimedia content as well as share answers to
questions through social media. In Campus Mysteries, the smartphone camera and screen display an
augmented reality ghost that gradually appears, thereby providing a visualization of the learners’ prog-
ress throughout the tour. Learners collaborate in teams to locate buildings and clues in order to answer
questions, and the fully revealed ghost serves as a reward for their efforts.
The ability to interact with artifacts and exhibits is also essential to help counteract many users’
tendency to mindlessly fixate on digital content while completing a guided walking tour and ignoring
relevant artifacts in the real-world. In the Acropolis Museum tour, exhibits are digitally reconstructed and
situated within their original location (e.g., Medusa statue placed on the apex of the pediment of a temple
as opposed to the exhibition floor). For children, the narrator warns the visitor that Medusa is standing
behind them, and they are instructed to use the device to protect themselves from her glare. Since her
gaze was thought to turn mortals into stone, the screen of the device virtually cracks to illustrate this
mythological notion. In the Kore (maiden) statue, when the visitor raises the device, they can view an
exhibit in its original bright colors, combined with audio narrations and annotations that appear on the
basis of the visitor movements (Keil et al., 2013). In the tour of the Cité de l’Espace, visitors may scan
QR codes to view videos that describe daily life on the space station. Audio narration allows visitors to
experience the fictional diary accounts, while visitors may take photographs depicting their experience
and the exhibits (Rennick-Egglestone et al., 2013).
Finally, the AR learning experience may not necessarily provide a definite answer to a problem, in-
stead it aims to support learners in building arguments in favor of a given position. The Discover the U
tour supports learners in adopting the role of journalists and tracing the development and building of the

282

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

campus through the contributions and lives of historical figures. The AR application provides learners
with a note-taking device and enables them to build arguments pertaining to the origins of architectural
changes on campus. The Queenston 1812 application relies on the design of its interface to engage
learners in arguing about different suspects to the bombing of a national monument. At each location,
learners are provided with conflicting evidence, some of which is intentionally forged, prompting learn-
ers to identify discrepancies across source documents. At the end of the tour, learners are prompted to
choose the most likely suspect of the bombing, and receive corrective feedback.

THEORETICAL, METHODOLOGICAL, AND INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES

IN RESEARCH ON LOCATION-BASED AUGMENTED REALITY

Despite the fact that the use of mobile applications has become widespread, the rapidly growing market
of educational applications remains largely untested and unregulated (Hirsh-Pasek, Zosh, Golinkoff,
Gray, Robb, & Kaufman, 2015). In the case of AR, the primary focus of research in this area has been
limited to the usability and feasibility of learning experiences and design choices. Researchers have relied
on user needs interviews, rapid prototyping, and design-based research methods to iteratively improve
the design of AR interfaces on the basis of findings obtained from field tests and pilot studies (Klopfer
& Squire, 2008). Although these methods are excellent for implementing a well-functioning prototype
and allow for theory-driven design practices, the paucity of controlled experiments with which to inform
and guide the design of these systems hinders efforts to establish best practices in AR design. We argue
that there is a need to address the challenges that are inherent in shifting the focus of research from
technological development concerns and user satisfaction, to begin investigating fundamental questions
pertaining to learning and engagement, including the relevant impact towards affect and cognition (Harley
et al., 2016). The AR applications reviewed in this chapter raise several theoretical, methodological, and
instructional questions regarding the affordances of AR toward history education.
First and foremost, researchers investigating learning and engagement in the context of guided walking
tours augmented through mobile and wearable devices should clearly state the framework of historical
thinking and/or engagement being used to evaluate the design guidelines of their system. As an example,
we briefly reviewed several constructs taken from the CMHI model of SRL (Poitras & Lajoie, 2013)
in order to characterize how learners perform inquiries into historical events, while other frameworks
capture a broad range of historical thinking practices that are tied to disciplinary-based methods or in-
structional practices (Peck & Seixas, 2008; Perfetti, Rouet, & Britt, 1999; van Drie & van Boxtel, 2008;
Wineburg, 1994). The use of such frameworks is the first step in mapping the design guidelines of AR
applications and their affordances in fostering specific historical thinking skills. For instance, what are
the advantages of situating instructional materials in authentic environments in order to contextualize the
past as opposed to doing so in a standard classroom setting? What design guidelines enable learners to
corroborate and evaluate the credibility of sources of information? How does AR promote interest and
motivation, thereby influencing the various historical thinking skills used to make inquiries about the past?
This is particularly significant in studying mediating factors that impact the benefits of AR towards
learning and engagement. For instance, the CMHI model of SRL assumes that task conditions and cog-
nitive resources mediate learners’ strategic processing, including the amount of prior knowledge that
learners possess about the domain, the availability of source documents, and sufficient motivation and
interest towards the topic. In accordance with the role of learner motivation and interest, learners may

283

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

experience emotions related to the tour activity, ranging from positive ones (i.e., enjoyment) to more
negative reactions (i.e., anger, frustration, boredom; Pekrun, 2006, 2011; Pekrun, Frenzel, Goetz, & Perry,
2007; Pekrun & Stephens, 2010). The appraisal of ongoing achievement activities, and their outcomes,
is critical in determining learners’ experience of emotions. Relevant appraisals include those related
to the extent that learners may feel in control (or not) in terms of being able to manage to achieve their
desired learning-related outcomes, and that the activity itself may be more or less subjectively important
(Pekrun, 2006, 2011). It logically follows that a better understanding of these mediating mechanisms
stands to have direct implications for designing AR applications that enhance learner engagement.
The issue of how to define theoretical constructs also requires researchers to consider the types of
methodological approaches used to capture learning and engagement in guided walking tours augmented
through mobile and wearable devices. For instance, the evidentiary basis for the usability and feasibil-
ity of AR technology relies heavily on self-report measures of satisfaction and preference (Cocciolo &
Rabina, 2013; Pujol et al., 2013), qualitative field observations (Pujol et al., 2013; Rennick-Egglestone
et al., 2013), post-tour interviews (Cocciolo & Rabina, 2013; Pujol et al., 2013), and system generated
log-file data (Vayanou et al., 2012) obtained from small convenience samples of visitors to an exhibit or
site. Furthermore, there have been considerable efforts made by researchers in the learning sciences to
precisely define the characteristics of historical thinking skills used by historians through the development
of coding schemes (Baron, 2012; Ercikan & Seixas, 2015; Nokes, Dole, & Hacker, 2007; VanSledright,
2013; Wineburg, 1991). The use of theoretically-based coding schemes to analyze historical thinking
skills allows researchers to establish the reliability of observations conducted in the field and precisely
define constructs according to hierarchies (i.e., categories and sub-categories) and properties (i.e., whether
a skill is used appropriately or not) as well as establish inclusion/exclusion criteria. If the purpose of
research is to capture learning and engagement in guided walking tours, then what methods are most
reliable and valid? When should data be collected throughout the tour, and how often should this occur?
The choice of field testing itself can be brought to question as the guided walking tour experience may
be simulated in the laboratory for the purposes of conducting experiments in controlled settings (Harley
et al., 2016). Given these considerations, are the findings obtained through alternative approaches to the
traditional field-testing approach generalizable to the real environment?
Another issue pertains to the instructional activities that are conducted in guided walking tours, and
the need to better understand the role of such experiences given the choice of design guidelines for AR
applications. The contextual factors that are inherent to guided walking tours complicate the analysis
of the differential impacts of AR applications design towards learning and engagement. There is a need
to clearly state whether the purpose of the research is to examine the impacts of different locations,
narrative, and roles, and how this influences learning and engagement independently from the choice
of interface features and experience mechanics. In describing and manipulating specific aspects of AR
design guidelines, this minimizes the potential for confounding effects in attributing the benefits of AR
towards historical thinking. For instance, how does an AR application foster contextualization while
allowing the learner to choose their own locations to visit, as opposed to guiding them through a pre-
defined sequence of sites? What are the potential benefits of adding fictional roles to an inquiry-based
activity augmented with digital content towards learner motivation and interest? With respect to the
design of AR applications for contextualizing the past, is it preferable for learners to study and listen to
digital content as opposed to actively interacting with the content in order to receive feedback? These
questions are best answered through controlled experimentation where a specific choice of design guide-
line is compared to a control condition.

284

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

CONCLUSION

The memorization of facts, dates, and figures is often believed to be synonymous to instructional prac-
tices in the humanities and the source of student worries while preparing for examinations, but the past
decades have been marked by significant changes in how we conceptualize the teaching of history. One
important factor that has driven these changes is the rapid technological changes that have marked modern
society, and increasingly available mediums to access, store, and share digital information. This change
marks a shift in the types of skills that are valued and expected of productive members of a modern
society, lessening the need for reciting facts and increasing the value of analytical and problem-solving
skills (Collins & Halverson, 2009). For instance, the widespread availability of instructional resources
on the web, such as those provided by the Stanford History Education Group and The History Education
Network, now enable instructors and learners to analyze primary sources and build their own interpreta-
tions of historical events. The increased availability of rare resources made possible through the web
contributes to this growing change in how history is taught in the classroom.
The use of AR in mobile and wearable devices is widely believed to be a key emerging form of
instructional technology (Bacca, Baldiris, Fabregat, Graf, & Kinshuk, 2014; Dunleavy & Dede, 2014;
Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Haywood, 2010; Johnson, Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2014; Martin, Diaz,
Sancristobal, Gil, Castro, & Peire, 2011; Saidin, Halim, Yahaya, 2015; Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013).
In a review of the educational applications of AR, Wu and colleagues (2013) outlined several critical
affordances of AR for the improvement of instructional practices, including (1) the representation of
3-dimensional virtual objects that learners can manipulate to observe and model physical phenomena,
(2) an explicit depiction of otherwise invisible concepts and events, (3) the implementation of collabora-
tive instructional scenarios that are situated in real-life problems and applications, (4) the creation of a
community of learners that participate in comprehensive and realistic experiences, and (5) a direct con-
nection between learning in formal and informal settings. As such, AR learning experiences challenge
learners by enabling them to solve problems, thereby fostering a sense of curiosity as new information
is discovered and engagement through the use of narrative and role-playing scenarios (Dunleavy, 2014).
The rapid development of AR promises to change the ways learners experience and interact with
digital content, making the past more tangible and engaging. Given the educational implications of this
technology for history, there is a need for rigorous investigation of its impact towards historical thinking
and establishing best practices in implementing them into the curriculum. The societal and educational
value of museums and cultural heritage sites is a powerful economic development tool, and these institu-
tions are faced with the challenge of engaging visitors in meaningful and entertaining experiences. The
availability of AR applications and development tools serves as a useful medium to deliver interactive
multimedia content to learners in these informal learning settings, and this chapter serves as a call for
increased research into best practices in designing instructional activities that are augmented through
mobile and wearable devices.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

On the basis of our review of AR learning experiences in the domain of history, we draw three broad
implications for advancing research. The first is to apply theoretical frameworks of historical thinking in
order to characterize the skills that are hypothetically fostered through AR applications, and explain the

285

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

mediating processes (e.g., affective, instructional, contextual, and so on) that influence and contribute
to the deployment of these skills. A detailed account of these theoretical constructs is necessary for the
field to establish the generalizability of findings and move forward in building an evidentiary base for
best practices in AR design. The choice of framework is mostly dependent on the particular affordances
of the AR application, as different models vary in their scope and specificity. It is also desirable for re-
searchers to establish common obstacles that are encountered in using AR as a means to foster learning
and engagement in order for the academic community to collaborate in resolving these issues.
Another implication is to investigate the relative benefits of multiple methods in converging data in
relation to learning and engagement in guided walking tours. A detailed coding scheme of historical
thinking enhances the specificity of claims made in relation historical thinking, but the understanding of
how these skills are deployed throughout the course of learning is dependent on the nature of the mea-
sures used to collect data. In converging multiple sources of data, it is possible to corroborate findings
in support of an effect. For example, the use of learning outcome assessments may complement findings
obtained from the examination of discourse processes that occurred between a tour guide and visitor.
Furthermore, the costs and benefits of investigating learning and engagement in the field as opposed
to simulating the experience in a laboratory setting is still a matter of considerable debate (Harley et
al., 2016). The concerns over the authenticity of the learning experience should be considered carefully
against the potential benefits of utilizing a broad range of measurement approaches that would otherwise
be unfeasible in the actual field setting.
Finally, researchers need to carefully disambiguate the impacts of interface choices and instructional
activities while establishing best practices in AR design. There is a need for increased research that relies
on control groups where a critical aspect of the AR experience is manipulated while controlling for other
relevant factors. A noteworthy example from the emotional design literature pertaining to multimedia
learning theory, where the design guidelines of applications are manipulated in order to induce positive
emotions, thereby leading to the improvement of learning outcomes (Heidig, Müller, & Reichelt, 2015;
Um, Plass, Hayward, & Homer, 2012). This type of experimental design is scalable to the field setting,
allowing researchers to manipulate and study the relative effects of AR design choices with the aim of
establishing best design practices. In addressing these theoretical, methodological, and instructional
challenges, our assumption is that the current research paradigm will generate new discoveries that are
aligned with contemporary models of learning and engagement that capture disciplinary-based practices
in history.

REFERENCES

Azevedo, R., & Aleven, V. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook of metacognition and learning tech-
nologies. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 6(4), 355–385.
doi:10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in
augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. doi:10.1109/38.963459

286

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in educa-
tion: A systematic review of research and applications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
17(4), 133–149.
Baron, C. (2012). Understanding historical thinking at historic sites. Journal of Educational Psychology,
104(3), 833–847. doi:10.1037/a0027476
Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple
information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180–192. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2010.02.002
Bressler, D. M. (2013). Gateways to mobile learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook
of mobile learning (pp. 224–234). New York, NY: Routledge.
Carretero, M., López-Manjón, A., & Jacott, L. (1997). Explaining historical events. International Journal
of Educational Research, 27(3), 245–253. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(97)89732-7
Cocciolo, A., & Rabina, D. (2013). Does place affect user engagement and understanding? Mo-
bile learner perceptions on the streets of New York. The Journal of Documentation, 69(1), 98–120.
doi:10.1108/00220411311295342
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolu-
tion and the schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness:
Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envi-
sioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). ACM. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-
Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers
& Education, 63, 380–392. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Dunleavy, M. (2014). Design principles for augmented reality learning. TechTrends, 58(1), 28–34.
doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0717-2
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_59
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory
augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
18(1), 7–22. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
Ercikan, K., & Seixas, P. C. (Eds.). (2015). New directions in assessing historical thinking. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., Jackson, W. P., Caprino, A. M., Oswald, C., & McVea, M. (2015). Domain-
specificity of self-regulated learning processing in science and history.[Online First]. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 42, 111–128. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.001

287

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., & Robertson, J. (2010). Fostering historical knowledge and thinking skills
using hypermedia learning environments: The role of self-regulated learning. Computers & Education,
54(1), 230–243. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.006
Harley, J. M., Poitras, E. G., Jarrell, A., Duffy, M. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Comparing virtual and
location-based augmented reality mobile learning: Emotions and learning outcomes. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 64(3), 359-388.
Harris, L. M., Halvorsen, A.-L., & Aponte-Martinez, G. J. (in press). “[My] family has gone through
that”: How high school students determine the trustworthiness of historical documents.[Online First].
Journal of Social Studies Research.
Heidig, S., Müller, J., & Reichelt, M. (2015). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Differentiation
on relevant design features and their effects on emotions and learning. Computers in Human Behavior,
44, 81–95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.009
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting
education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. doi:10.1177/1529100615569721 PMID:25985468
Hynd, C., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students’ read-
ing of multiple historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141–176. doi:10.1207/
s15548430jlr3602_2
Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon report 2014 – Higher education
edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L. F., Levine, A., Smith, R. S., & Haywood, K. (2010). Key emerging technologies for post-
secondary education. Education Digest, 76(2), 34–38.
Kee, K. (2011). Queenston 1812: The Bomber’s Plot (6843212 Canada Inc.). Retrieved from www.
ihistorytours.com
Kee, K. (Ed.). (2014). Pastplay: Teaching and learning history with technology. Ann Arbor, MI: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/dh.12544152.0001.001
Keil, J., Pujol, L., Roussou, M., Engelke, T., Schmitt, M., Bockholt, U., & Eleftheratou, S. (2013). A
digital look at physical museum exhibits: Designing personalized stories with handheld Augmented
Reality in museums. In Digital heritage international congress (DigitalHeritage), 2013 (Vol. 2, pp.
685–688). Marseille, France: IEEE; doi:10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6744836
Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambrigde,
MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113151.001.0001
Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental Detectives - the development of an augmented reality
platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2),
203–228. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6
Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading his-
tory. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4), 441–486. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1404_2

288

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Logtenberg, A., van Boxtel, C., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Stimulating situational interest and stu-
dent questioning through three types of historical introductory texts. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 26(2), 179–198. doi:10.1007/s10212-010-0041-6
Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends
in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893–1906.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003
McQuiggan, S., Rowe, J., Lee, S., & Lester, J. (2008). Story-based learning: the impact of narrative on
learning experiences and outcomes. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Intelligent
Tutoring Systems (pp. 530-539). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_56
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented reality: A class of displays on
the reality-virtuality continuum. SPIE (Vol. 2351). Telemanipulator and Telepresence.
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while read-
ing historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492
Peck, C., & Seixas, P. (2008). Benchmarks of historical thinking: First steps. Canadian Journal of
Education, 31(4), 1015–1038.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control–value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and
implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.
doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo & S.
D’Mello (Eds.), New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (pp. 23–39). New York: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control–value theory of achievement emo-
tions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion
in education (pp. 13–36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4
Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2010). Achievement emotions. A control-value approach. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 238–255. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00259.x
Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Georgi, M. C., & Mason, R. A. (1994). How students use texts
to learn and reason about historical uncertainty. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and in-
structional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 257–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H.
van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp.
99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Poitras, E., & Lajoie, S. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: The cognitive and
metacognitive activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning,
8(3), 213–234. doi:10.1007/s11409-013-9104-9

289

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Poitras, E., & Lajoie, S. (2014). Developing an agent-based adaptive system for scaffolding self-regu-
lated inquiry learning in history education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3),
335–366. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9338-5
Poitras, E., Lajoie, S., & Hong, Y.-J. (2012). The design of technology-rich learning environments as
metacognitive tools in history education. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1033–1061. doi:10.1007/s11251-
011-9194-1
Pujol, L., Katifori, A., Vayanou, M., Roussou, M., Karvounis, M., Kyriakidi, M., . . . Ioannidis, Y. (2013).
From personalization to adaptivity. Creating immersive visits through interactive digital storytelling
at the Acropolis Museum. In J. A. Botía & D. Charitos (Eds.), Museums as intelligent environments
workshop (MasIE),Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (pp.
541-554). Athens, Greece: IOS Press.
Rennick-Egglestone, S. J., Roussou, M., Brundell, P., Chaffardon, C., Kourtis, V., Koleva, B., & Benford,
S. (2013). Indoors and outdoors: designing mobile experiences for Cité de l’Espace. InNODEM (Net-
work of Design and Digital Heritage) 2013 Conference: Beyond Control – The Collaborative Museum
and its Challenges (pp. 89–97).
Rockwell, G., Henry, C., deJong, E., Lucky, S., Illovan, M., Gutierrez, L., & Stroulia, E. et al. (2013).
Campus Mysteries: Serious walking around. Loading…. The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies
Association, 7(12), 1–18.
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to
reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478
Rouet, J.-F., Marron, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Favart, M. (1998). Understanding historical controversies:
Students evaluation and use of documentary evidence. In J. Voss & M. Carretero (Eds.) International
Review of History Education: Volume 2, Learning and Reasoning in History. London: Woburn Press.
Roussou, M., Katifori, A., Pujol, L., Vayanou, M., & Rennick-Egglestone, S. (2013). A life of their own:
Museum visitor personas penetrating the design lifecycle of a mobile experience. In CHI ’13 Extended
Abstracts:ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (pp. 547–52).
New York, NY: ACM.
Saidin, N. F., Halim, N. D. A., & Yahaya, N. (2015). A review of research on augmented reality in educa-
tion: Advantages and applications. International Education Studies, 8(13), 1–8. doi:10.5539/ies.v8n13p1
Schrier, K. (2008). Reliving history with Reliving the Revolution: Using augmented reality games to
teach. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey,
PA: IGI. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6.ch085
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning.
Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111. doi:10.1177/003172170508700205

290

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Squire, K. (2010). From information to experience: Place-based augmented reality games as a model for
learning in a globally networked society. Teachers College Record, 112(10), 2565–2602.
Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-
based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
16(1), 5–29. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z
Squire, K. D., Jan, M., Mathews, J., Wagler, M., Martin, J., Devane, B., & Holden, C. (2007). Wherever
you go, there you are: The design of local games for learning. In B. Sheldon & D. Wiley (Eds.), The
design and use of simulation computer games in education (pp. 265–296). Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Sense Publishing.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when
students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5
Tallon, L. (2013). Mobile strategy in 2013: An analysis of the annual museums & mobile survey. Re-
trieved from http://www.museums-mobile.org/survey
Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498. doi:10.1037/a0026609
van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2004). Historical reasoning: A comparison of how experts and novices
contextualise historical sources. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching, and Research,
4(2), 84–91.
van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’
reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1
van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & van der Linden, J. L. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported
collaborative learning environment. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collabora-
tive learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 265–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanSledright, B. A. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, and school history educa-
tion. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 109–146. doi:10.3102/0091732X07311065
VanSledright, B. A. (2013). Assessing Historical Thinking & Understanding: Innovative Design for New
Standards. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vayanou, M., Karvounis, M., Kyriakidi, M., Katifori, A., Manola, N., Roussou, M., & Ioannidis, Y. (2012).
Towards Personalized Storytelling for Museum Visits. In 6th International Workshop on Personalized
Access, Profile Management, and Context Awareness in Databases (PersDB 2012).
Voss, J. F., & Wiley, J. (2006). Expertise in history. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R.
R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 1746–24240).
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816796.033
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the
evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73

291

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In G. Leinhardt, I. L. Beck, &
C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of his-
torical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives (2nd ed.; pp. 153–189). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional
Science, 33(5-6), 559–565. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1280-9
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky,
& A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H.
Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and ap-
plications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated learning and sociocognitive theory. In P. Peterson,
E. Baker, & B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 5, pp. 503–508). Amster-
dam: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00470-X
Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges
of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

ADDITIONAL READING

Billinghurst, M., & Dünser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. IEEE Computer Society,
45(7), 56–63. doi:10.1109/MC.2012.111
Chang, Y.-L., Hou, H.-T., Pan, C.-Y., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2015). Apply an augmented reality
in a mobile guidance to increase sense of place for heritage places. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 18(2), 166–178.
Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lehn, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the
classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557–569. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.015
Huang, T.-C., Shu, Y., Yeh, T.-C., & Zeng, P.-Y. (2016). Get lost in the library? An innovative applica-
tion of augmented reality and indoor positioning technologies.[Online First]. The Electronic Library,
34(1), 99–115. doi:10.1108/EL-08-2014-0148

292

Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Settings

Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D. M., Shane, T., & Dede, C. (2013).
EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips.
Computers & Education, 68, 545–556. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.018
Ke, F., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2015). Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component of mobile
computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2015.04.003
Kim, J. H., Chan, T., & Wei, D. (2015). The learning effect of augmented reality training in a computer-
based simulation environment. In Panayiotis Zaphiris & Andri Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration
Technologies: Second International Conference, LCT 2015. Los Angeles, CA: Springer International
Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20609-7_38
Lee, K. (2012). Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends, 56(2), 13–21. doi:10.1007/
s11528-012-0559-3
O’Shea, P., & Elliott, J. (2015). Augmented reality in education: An exploration and analysis of peda-
gogical design in mobile augmented reality applications. In D. Slykhuis & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceed-
ings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015 (pp.
3525-3532). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Olsson, T., Kärkkäinen, T., Lagerstam, E., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2012). User evaluation of mobile
augmented reality scenarios. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 4, 29–47.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Augmented Reality: A type of instructional technology that enables the user to view digital content
overlaid to a representation of the real-world environment.
Contextualization: The learners’ efforts to elaborate and situate themselves in the circumstances
that characterized the occurrence of an historical event.
Corroboration: The learners’ efforts to coordinate different sources of information in support of a
claim.
Gamification: An approach to the design of instructional technology that aims to engage learners
in playful instructional tasks and promote positive emotions.
Sourcing: The ability of a learner to judge the trustworthiness of a source of evidence.

293
294

Chapter 14
Stories, Games, and
Learning through Play:
The Affordances of Game
Narrative for Education

Stephen T. Slota
University of Connecticut, USA

Michael F. Young
University of Connecticut, USA

ABSTRACT
Stories are the mechanism through which humans construct reality and make sense of the world around
them. Yet, literature on the effects of narrative in game-based and other learning environments is quite
variable, and the relevance of narrative to the learning sciences is not well-researched. Identifying
precisely how narrative intertwines with human experience of the lived-in world requires the applica-
tion of a situated cognition framework to understand user-content-context interactions as dynamic and
co-determined. This chapter uses examples drawn from a narrative-structured, game-based learning
program to accomplish that goal, discussing in-context, on-the-fly dialogic interactions between nar-
rative “producers” and “recipients.” While there is still much to learn, the leveraging of narrative to
help recipients grapple with complex social, cultural, and intellectual issues may be one of the most
important—and overlooked—means of inducing game-to-real world transfer.

INTRODUCTION

Stories may well be the primary mechanism through which humans construct reality and make sense
of the world (Bruner, 2004). Yet, research aimed at reviewing and analyzing the influence of narrative
in formal and informal learning environments is quite variable, and despite thousands of years of oral
storytelling tradition across many world cultures, the relevance of narrative to theories of learning is not
well understood or researched. Taking into account Clark, Tanner-Smith, and Killingsworth’s (2015)

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch014

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

meta-analytical findings of the value-added aspects of games for learning, the issue appears to be just
as prevalent in computer and game literature as other multimedia sub-categories, if not more so.
Consequently, this chapter is aimed at reconciling what is assumed with what is known about the
psychological underpinning of narrative, both in general and in game environments, specifically. Through
the use of examples drawn from our particular narrative-structured, game-based instructional program,
Project TECHNOLOGIA, we address three major questions regarding narrative as part of teaching and
learning:

1. How can narrative be optimally characterized with regard to impact on learning?

2. What are the specific affordances of storytelling and narrative structure for supporting classroom
learning?
3. What is the relationship between narrative, co-authorship, and learning?

We know that humans disseminate knowledge, encourage investigation, and promote creative acts
through the stories they share, so isolating and defining the connection between story producers (i.e.,
those who create narratives in games and other media) and recipients (i.e., those who read, analyze,
and discuss narratives in games and other media) should help us improve game and instructional design
writ large. To that end, we present a situated view to further our narrative framework and describe the
potential of narrative application for shaping understanding, goal adoption, and transfer from game and
gamified classroom environments to applied, real world settings.

BACKGROUND

For decades, cognitive scientists have suggested that thinking and learning are representational, symbol-
driven processes attributed to an internal mind and recorded by synaptic neurochemical brain exchanges
(e.g., Miller, 2003; Vera and Simon, 1993). However, given the extent to which experience with the
lived-in world affects goal adoption and behavior, the leap from a biologically and chemically-driven
explanation of thought (e.g., Skinnerian behaviorism) to the deeply philosophical concept of a mind
(e.g., Descartes) is quite broad. To compare the brain to computer hardware (e.g., making use of internal
symbols and representations via schematic cataloging) set in a disembodied, intangible mind dilutes the
granular, individualized interactions of particular people within particular contexts acting on particular
life experiences (Dreyfus, 1992; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). As a result, we suggest that it would
be beneficial to conduct future learning science research with an eye toward the influence of individual
life-worlds on perception and action (i.e., situated cognition; see Barab & Roth, 2006; Young, 2004).
Storytelling and gaming are two areas where adopting this kind of ecological perspective might
be especially helpful for delineating how and why learning occurs in particular formal and informal
educational contexts. Much of the extant literature concerning stories and games is rooted in informa-
tion processing and schema theory, and while this has been helpful for the purposes of deconstructing
relationships between varying narrative elements (e.g., Burke’s [1945] pentad of story elements and
Bruner’s [1991] 10 defining characteristics of narrative), it has also been limited in addressing the com-
plex dynamics of author-reader-environment interaction. Schank (1977; 1989; 1991; 1995; 2006), for
instance, argued that people create and use cognitive “scripts” to anticipate events and recall them based
on story frameworks, planning actions around scenarios they prospectively play out in anticipation of

295

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

them happening in the future. However, if these stories are not grounded in the ontological descent of
constraints of the natural universe (i.e., perception and action in the lived-in world), they are inherently
dissociated from reality: an internal, non-measurable mind versus the actual, measurable world. Schank’s
description does not account for the intersection of intentionality, context, and individual action (i.e.,
skills and abilities used to affect the world) that governs how and why particular stories, sequences of
events, and contexts make sense. Altogether, this limits potentially valuable insights into why individuals
think, set goals, and act in the ways they do.
Likewise, stories, games, and other forms of narrative are rendered insignificant if the audience (i.e.,
one or more recipients of the given narrative) lacks the experience of the lived-in world to understand
their underlying meaning in-context—for instance, when a young child attempts to read and interpret
Tolkien’s (1977)The Silmarillion or play and comprehend Irrational Games’ (2007)BioShock. Narrative
and environmental circumstance are connected by the relationships formed not just between the narrative’s
producer and end user but also the producer’s life-world, the end user’s life-world, and the environment or
medium in which the narrative is embedded. Even if the producer has created something with a specific
instructional goal in mind, as with Modern Dream’s (2013)The Typing of the Dead: Overkill, the end
user’s prior experiences fundamentally inform—or confound—the author’s intended interpretation. For
example, a student playing The Typing of the Dead: Overkill might wish to see how quickly they can be
eaten by enemy zombies, thwarting the designer’s goal to enhance keyboard typing speed. A particular
reader with particular life experiences might similarly interpret Hemingway’s (1952)The Old Man and
the Sea as an irony or comedy rather than a personal statement about Hemingway’s philosophy of reli-
gion, life, identity, and death. This suggests that taking an alternative, ecological approach to studying
stories and games could prove useful in defining whether and to what extent narrative holds value in
education—a means of more firmly establishing how writer, reader, and context meet to organize the
phenomenon known as “telling” (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998).

The Case for a Situated Framework for Understanding Narrative

Humans exist with particular long-term intentions that govern and fulfill particular biological functions
(e.g., survival, reproduction) across the space-time of their lives (Barab & Roth, 2006; Young, 2004).
The dynamic emergence of new goals establishes a goal space within which producers (e.g., designers)
and recipients (e.g., players) can act toward achievement of those objectives. Additionally, goal spaces
control producer and recipient behaviors as those individuals perceive and act—in the case of a game
designer, producing a roleplaying experience, mobile app, or tutorial on a moment-to-moment basis, and
in the case of a player, encountering a puzzle, considering available resources/information, and acting on
their understanding on a moment-to-moment basis. The establishment of a goal space sets the boundary
constraints on possible creative actions that producers and recipients can take. There is an ontological
descent of possibilities ranging from: 1) logically possible actions, to 2) physically possible actions,
to 3) the constraints of the natural world, to 4) constraints of the world as it exists that day, and finally
to 5) constraints of the current context as it exists at the moment. Within this ontological descent, the
boundaries of a particular producer or recipient’s thinking and behavior is set, establishing a situated
framework for their interaction with a particular narrative.
In the early 1990s, the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1990; 1993; 1994)
capitalized on this situated framework through a research program called The Adventures of Jasper
Woodbury. Jasper used narrative in the form of a 17-minute video to create a context for middle school

296

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

mathematics, strategically crafting stories from everyday life such that middle schoolers could provide
various solutions to the kinds of problems that arise when grocery shopping, traveling, school fundraising,
and scheduling the day. CTGV concluded that adding narrative structure (e.g., beginning-middle-ending
story grammar) to mathematics problems could enable students to utilize their everyday knowledge in the
context of the middle school math curriculum, including distance-rate-time problems, area and volume
computation, compound decimals (e.g., strange combinations of decimals and fractions in a gas station
sign showing the price as $3.98 9/10), and methods for wisely retrieving information external resources
(e.g., using the timeline of the story to access a video database).
These “anchored instruction” stories enabled non-traditional students to contribute to mathematical
discussions by using their everyday knowledge and aid in a collaborative problem-solving process. They
described the value of narrative as engaging students’ everyday cognition and tapping into fundamental
ways through which humans detect and recall information in meaningful ways. However, this use of
stories in the classroom was also viewed as non-traditional teaching that required risk-taking, problem
solving, and creativity on the part of participating teachers. Teachers who were accustomed to direct
instruction—that is, telling students what they need to know before they are challenged with complex
problems at the end of a unit—were instead forced to take an opposite approach: immersing students in
an ill-defined problem to be experienced as initially intractable without full understanding of the math-
ematics involved, and then using the problem as a “time for telling” about numbers, ratios, and rates.
This helped form a shared experience among students that warranted learning more about the math or
science content identified in the school curriculum. It also required teachers to creatively respond to
multiple groups simultaneously working on the anchor problem in multiple ways, drawing from the raw
materials of student work rather than from a prepared script. In the end, CTGV’s research demonstrated
that it was possible to make 17-step math problems transferable from the classroom to the real world
by wrapping them in narrative that drew upon everyday knowledge, nurtured creative thinking, and
encouraged risk-taking.
Importantly, though, no single narrative could provide an ideal context for all learners, and CTGV
again drew from contemporary learning theory to develop a strategic approach—a “generator set”—that
established pairs of stories designed to highlight the invariance of mathematical concepts across varying
scenarios. Early iterations failed when built around the assumption that students could simply analyze
and compute in their heads to understand the content (e.g., cognitive analysis, representations, mental
computation). Instead, the developers needed to recognize the importance of direct student experiences
within and external to the classroom, including the ways in which students are driven by larger goals and
moment-to-moment intentions. Jasper’s success ultimately hinged on age-appropriate humor, character
development, surprise, and other techniques of gifted writers applied in conjunction with a thorough
understanding of mathematical content and a sense of how work in classrooms unfolds. In short, CTGV
needed to recognize that the world was not in the students’ heads; their heads were in the world of the
classroom and the world of the video narrative (Kirshner & Whitson, 1997).

THE MAIN THRUST OF THE CHAPTER

Narrative is traditionally organized around properties thought to be unique within specific categories—
these might include genre (e.g., horror, comedy, tragedy), tone (e.g., melancholy, hopeful), message
(e.g., morals, lessons), or presentation type (e.g., book, stage production, film, video game). How-

297

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

ever, this categorization generally ignores the situated and personal nature of producer-narrative and
recipient-narrative interactions, assuming that a single narrative can only be characterized through the
producer’s original life-world lens. Even if the producer has a particular goal or set of goals in mind as
they construct a story, it would be impossible to account for every experience and perspective a recipi-
ent might bring to their interpretation of that story. FromSoftware’s Dark Souls, for example, could take
on an entirely different meaning to a recipient who has no understanding of or appreciation for fantasy
tropes, no desire to piece the narrative together from scattered information, or has not played the game’s
predecessor, Demon’s Souls. They might instead interpret Dark Souls’ story as overly complicated and
bland, extremely deep and rewarding, or nothing in particular.
This typifies our primary concern with how narrative is treated in the cognitive science literature,
especially in the realm of game-based learning circa 2015. More often than not, games utilized for the
purposes of research projects are special implementations that are never made available for future explo-
ration and lack in-depth descriptions of mechanics, objective alignment, and the development process
(Young et al., 2012). Those that have had their narratives targeted as independent variables have yielded
limited statistical impact on achievement, engagement, and other discrete variables (Clark, Tanner-
Smith, & Killingsworth, 2015). To the extent cataloguing is incorporated into publications, the lack of
consistent definitions for terms like “gamification,” “simulation,” and “educational game” has made it
extraordinarily difficult to determine exactly what role a particular game can effectively serve in any
one classroom or the individuals within it (Slota & Young, 2014). As a result, much of the information
about game narrative and functionality has been omitted, and the primary phenomenon (i.e., the impact
of narrative on individuals’ learning) is lost.
To counteract this problem, it might be prudent to refine and standardize narrative cataloguing across
all media research. Yet, knowing that the organization process as currently utilized is ineffective, gen-
eralization based on perceived “unique” narrative properties would be unduly limiting given a situated
cognition analysis. It would benefit the research community to focus instead on the nature of narrative
interactions—that is, how and why narrative is perceived and acted upon by individuals—rather than
emphasizing superficial differences between individual stories, genres, or story structures.
The following section describes one way this can be accomplished by dividing narrative into three
distinct levels of analysis that are fundamentally consistent across all genres, formats, and more.

Level 1: Narrative-as-Designed

As a producer constructs a narrative, they are guided by their intentions and experiences as part of the
lived-in world. Their life-world informs a particular design goal and guides the conveyance of a particular
message, theme, or idea by way of tools like dialogue structure and artistic style. For instance, a game
designer might tell the story of a plumber’s quest to rescue his betrothed from a dragon to encourage
the reader to share a message of love and heroism—something we refer to as Narrative: Level 1, the
narrative-as-designed. This can be accomplished directly, as with contemporary social media games
and apps that ask story recipients if they would like to share their progress or discuss story content via
social media websites (e.g., Candy Crush Saga, FarmVille), or indirectly, as with stories built to unfold
as part of the recipient’s interactive experience (e.g., Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Ef-
fect, and Telltale Games’ The Walking Dead). These two approaches define the primary purpose of the
narrative-as-designed: to convey the producer’s intentions to a particular audience and encourage receipt
of an intended message.

298

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Level 2: Narrative-as-Perceived

Even if the narrative-as-designed is well-written, Narrative: Level 1 holds little or no weight if members
of the receiving audience re-shape the story based on their own situated goals and experiences, including
unintentional misinterpretation, willful misdirection when describing the story to others, or modifying
the story in subsequent editions or cross-media (e.g., book-to-film, game-to-book adaptations). Return-
ing to the “plumber and dragon” example above, a misanthropic teen might pick up the author’s work
and read it under the assumption that the narrative-as-designed is a commentary on the triteness and
unrealism of fairy tales. Perhaps this teen has recently suffered through a relationship break-up and be-
lieves that idealistic views of heroism and romance are overrated. Being inseparable from their reading
of the story, the teen’s life-world will inevitably shape the lens through which the producer’s design is
interpreted and influence the way any underlying moral or thematic value is described. This defines
Narrative: Level 2, the narrative-as-perceived.
Given the frequency with which narrative has been used for educational purposes—from Plato to
Shakespeare and classrooms to contemporary news media—it is surprising that existing cognitive sci-
ence literature rarely address the divide between the producer’s narrative-as-designed in the context
of the writer and recipient’s narrative-as-perceived contemporarily with reading. In order for desired
instruction to occur, for instance, a producer would need the audience to understand and interpret the
narrative-as-designed as planned. Otherwise, recipients may transfer the narrative-as-perceived in such
a way that they misconstrue the producer’s meaning, or worse, perpetuate misapplication among others.
Both Burke (1945) and Bruner (1991) framed the structure of such a producer-recipient relationship, but
neither analysis captured the situated nature of recipient insight. Instead, they emphasized the structural
organization techniques employed by producers as though the producer-recipient relationship was entirely
unidirectional (i.e., writer-to-reader; Narrative: Level 1). Understanding this relationship as bidirectional
may help future producers develop an optimal generator set for conveying particular underlying mor-
als, values, and ideas, something that could dramatically shape the development of narrative learning
experiences for education.

Level 3: Narrative-as-Social Organizer

Narrative-as-perceived (i.e., Narrative: Level 2) has the potential to reinforce or mutate a producer’s
desired message. Both outcomes can be intensified as a function of social amplification—that is, the
sheer volume of recipients who interact with and around a given narrative, the greater the distortion (e.g.,
crowd sourcing, playing “telephone”). Importantly, though, the social organization that occurs in and
around stories can foster the creation of entirely new, co-constructed narratives that exist exclusive of the
original body of content. This can be referred to as Narrative: Level 3, or narrative-as-social organizer.
Even the most mundane stories have the potential to spawn peripheral social groups with shared
goals and intentions. For example, a game designer could produce a single-screen game featuring an
incomplete yellow circle that “eats” white dots while being chased by four colorful blobs. The game, as
designed, could be presented by the producer to a group of recipients for further consideration. Emergent
questions could drive discussion about the story being told: “Why does the yellow circle eat the white
dots?” “Why does it eat so many white dots?” “Why are the colorful blobs chasing the yellow circle?”
“Is the designer riffing on Cicero’s prose, arguing ‘Thou shouldst eat to live, not live to eat’?” This puts
recipients in the position to write and share analyses of the producer’s design, build on the story (e.g.,

299

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

fan fiction), and create clubs, online communities, and other organizations where they can chat, debate,
and evaluate one another’s contributions to the circle-dot-blob narrative. Additional, tangential narratives
can emerge from community discussion and seed new stories that are wholly unrelated to the original.
Perhaps two “Circle-Dot-Blob Story Club” members get into an argument over dinner, and the ensuing
drama serves as a source of intrigue for other club members to share amongst themselves or outside of
the group. Though the circle-dot-blob narrative might seem pointless or unimpressive to some observers,
it still holds the potential to ground much more impressive, co-constructed, external narratives.

Narrative Co-Construction

The example described above raises an important point about the nature of co-constructed storytelling.
Prior research has approached narrative production and storytelling as a unidirectional event born from
an individual producer. But narratives are seldom, if ever, under the control of one person. Even private
journals are the end result of social collaboration over time: other individuals taught the writer how to
write, helped shape his life-world, and demonstrated the affordances of journaling. The same writer,
returning to his work days, months, or years later, brings new understanding to what was originally
written and socially co-constructs the journal narrative as a recipient and co-producer. This implies that
a single narrative, even if written in would-be social isolation, is actually a social, collaborative, non-
replicable, and situated experience. The level of complexity simply grows as more individuals join to
sequentially and iteratively produce a given work, whether that work is text-based or something entirely
different (e.g., GoogleDocs; web forums; tabletop/analog games; film/stage production; digital games
like Minecraft, Terraria, and Super Mario Maker).
When producers and recipients co-produce particular narratives, outcomes may be unpredictable
but support creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving in ways not typically seen (individually or
collaboratively) in traditional instruction using fixed media like books. This is not to say that traditional
instruction is unilaterally organized as producer-to-recipient, but explicit co-construction can provide a
richer experience than an individual producer utilizing direct instruction. What remains to be understood
psychologically and abstracted for principled instructional and game design are the specific affordances
that optimally connect interactive storytelling with precise delivery mechanisms and coverage of given
content. It already seems clear that a trend toward collaborative writing has the potential to enrich 21st
century skill development for the betterment of higher education, businesses, and broader culture. To
further that goal, we must identify specific affordances of social narrative production and better describe
the interactions between producer, recipient, and context in order to move practical application forward.

Understanding Narrative Affordances for Learning

Travis (2010) suggested that storytelling, games, books, stage shows, and other media should be viewed
as sub-sets of a broader type of narrative. This classification, practomime (Travis, 2010), does not distin-
guish between individuals participating in a group presentation, acting in a musical, or playing a video
game. Instead, any agent-environment interaction that results in a particular behavioral demonstration
is taken as comparable to all other agent-environment interactions resulting in particular behavioral
demonstrations. In other words, all performances driven by recipient-narrative-context interaction are
equal under a broader umbrella (i.e., practomime).

300

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Travis’ perspective has especially substantial implications for the ways in which games can be ap-
plied for instructional purposes. If, for instance, a teacher were to pair game and learning objectives
at a 1:1 ratio—that is, every in-game objective is identical to a particular learning objective counter-
part—the game’s narrative could serve as the primary vehicle for content delivery just like a classroom.
Here, Narrative: Level 1 (e.g., the “story” of the Battle of Bunker Hill) and Narrative: Level 2 (e.g.,
the player’s takeaway from the particular gaming experience) are compatible by design and capable of
meaningfully shaping social collaboration in Narrative: Level 3 (e.g., affinity groups that deconstruct,
evaluate, and critique gameplay). This can further afford the arrangement of richly authentic contexts
fit for deconstruction, helping learners visualize how their developing skills can be applied both in and
outside of the classroom (i.e., transfer).
By offering the flexibility to customize pedagogy and mechanics without being caught up in unhelp-
ful conversations about individual genres, tools, or games, practomime exemplifies how narrative can
be used to develop, support, and explore critical thinking and problem solving. It enables educators to
construct narrative-centric learning environments that serve as co-constructed sandboxes-on-rails (i.e.,
settings through which students engage in open inquiry but are continually guided back to the govern-
ing learning objective by a more knowledgeable other). Perhaps even more valuably, it is not burdened
by traditional assumptions about classroom rules and parameters that emphasize the producer’s (i.e.,
instructor’s) role over and above that of the recipient (i.e., students). Rather, it organizes a “time for
telling” (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998) by grounding student-student and student-instructor dialogue in
a narrative anchor that bridges the gap between academic and real world activities (e.g., test-taking and
task performance, respectively). In theory, this means optimizing narrative for use in K-12 and higher
education is not be as ambiguous as educational history would imply—it is instead an empirical question
of how and to what extent practomime can be applied in the classroom.

Investigating Narrative Affordances for Learning

To catalog previously undefined narrative affordances for education, we turn to a 24-week long, role-
playing game (RPG) titled Project TECHNOLOGIA. The game’s plot centers on the evolving culture
of a fictional space vessel, the Remmlar Array, headed by lead administrator Duncan Matthau and his
assistants, Rheegan Hamilton and Biff Wallace. Over the course of six episodes (i.e., content units) play-
ers are tasked with envisioning, designing, and stabilizing a new educational system through the wise
integration of learning technologies (as defined by the International Society for Technology in Educa-
tion [ISTE] 2014 standards; see ISTE, 2014). This makes the target objective—based on balancing the
needs and desires of a K-12 school district—the same from both narrative and academic perspectives.
While gameplay involves mastery of multiple, familiar mechanics (e.g., roleplaying, interaction with
non-player characters), the central story is used to guide players toward target learning objectives and
help them describe their learning as it unfolds. This was designed to take advantage of narrative af-
fordances in two distinct ways: first, players perform as “operatives” on a mission to save the world by
fulfilling program-level learning objectives (e.g., visioning and implementing district-wide technology
initiatives), and second, they perform as characters (e.g., school district technology coordinators) on
a mission to save the game world, also by fulfilling program-level learning objectives (see also Slota,
Ballestrini, and Pearsall, 2013). Additionally, they are encouraged to step out of the game to “tell” about
their performances in the form of self-evaluation and group discussion—an intersection of Narrative:
Levels 1, 2, and 3. Such multi-performance tiering attempts to capture the potential benefits of narrative

301

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

by encouraging meta-game activities like the discussion of game mechanics and successful strategies for
dealing with particular problems (i.e., Narrative: Level 3), ideally feeding back into reflection behaviors,
academic achievement, and transfer.
At the game’s outset, players are assigned into teams, and all teams are guided by an instructional
leader whose responsibilities include posting new episodes based on a pre-established schedule, re-
sponding with non-player character actions and dialogue as needed, and maintaining a focus on the
ISTE standards. Each Project TECHNOLOGIA player is assigned a particular avatar/character that can
speak, “think” (i.e., give third-person descriptions of avatar thoughts), and act within the story space
(i.e., Blackboard™ discussion forums). Additionally, players are given login credentials for individual
GoogleDoc-based Operative Thought Journals that can be used as repositories for personal perceptions
and feelings about the game, outside influences on participation, and in- or out-of-game goals.
During implementation, the instructional leaders use in-game player activities to guide story progres-
sion (e.g., non-player character dialogue, activities). The Operative Thought Journals, by contrast, are
withheld from the instructional leaders to prevent player opinions from unduly influencing the story’s
structure and/or content before it is experienced in its entirety. Though the in-game learning objectives
are identical across player groups, plot details (e.g., non-player character comments, behaviors) can vary
slightly based on the decisions made by each team (e.g., attacking a non-player character vs. assisting
a non-player character) and/or the instructional leader’s discretion (i.e., instructional approach, posting
frequency). This is controlled through the use of pre-written “minus,” “neutral,” and “plus” versions of
each in-game prompt, designed to anticipate particular types of player activity (e.g., helping vs. hurting a
non-player character). Differences between the “minus,” “neutral,” and “plus” variants are mostly super-
ficial (e.g., characters responding with different facial features, slightly different phrasing of ideas) and
used to scaffold the participants closer to the ISTE standards. “Minus” variants are posted in response
to anything the instructional leader considers a negative behavior, distraction, or clear lapse in activity;
“neutral” variants are posted in response to adequate group progress toward the current learning objec-
tive; and “plus” variants are posted in response to exceptional progress toward both the current learning
objective and overarching mission (i.e., Project TECHNOLOGIA as a whole). This formative, embed-
ded feedback system demonstrates to players how their actions (or lack thereof) have consequences as
a function of storytelling but avoid distracting from the game’s chief purpose.

Categorizing Narrative Affordances for Learning

Like CTGV’s The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury, our game’s implementation has repeatedly demon-
strated that no individual narrative will have universal appeal or invoke the same reaction among different
recipients (see CTGV, 1990; 1993; 1994). After all, there is no general experience set that an audience
inherently brings to a given narrative—a particular story read at a particular time by a particular person
in a particular environment will be perceived and utilized across the space-time of that reader’s particular
life-world (e.g., Young, Slota, Travis, and Choi, 2014). However, the nature of thinking and learning
(as governed by physiology, neurobiology, and genetics) predisposes humans to perceive a broad set of
affordances grounded in narrative, and some of those affordances become more obvious depending on
how the producer has tailored it to fit the recipient and context, together.
Below, we explore the narrative affordances emergent from Project TECHNOLOGIA gameplay that
we believe are present and consistent across most—if not all—anchored, problem-based, and game-based
environments as well. While this may not be a wholly comprehensive list, it outlines how the particular

302

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

affordances drawn from player thoughts and actions throughout one game’s implementation can guide
future investigation into the creation of a “time for telling” for promoting goal adoption, positive achieve-
ment outcomes, and transfer among students.

1. Conveying Context, Chronology, and Content

The story grammar inherent in narrative (i.e., beginning-middle-end structuring) allows story recipients
to make inferences about context (e.g., cause-effect), chronology (e.g., before vs. after), and content
(e.g., plot) even if they cannot perceive abstract meaning (e.g., theme, tone, morals). As noted by Young,
Slota, Travis, and Choi (2014):

On its surface, the phrase [“The old man fell and broke his hip”] asserts that two individual events
have occurred. However, many readers, drawing from their own experiences, assume a specific time
sequence and causality, and conclude the fall broke the old man’s hip. In contrast—for an elderly man
with osteoporosis—the hip fracture could have preceded and caused the fall. If we alter the statement
to say, “He broke his hip and fell,” we recognize the occurrence of the same two events, but the word
choice in the telling of this story may indicate to some readers an opposite time sequence and causal-
ity. This suggests that the interaction between the writer and reader includes non-explicit rules through
which narrative structure serves as the keystone to understanding (pp. 3).

As long as the recipient is capable of understanding the producer’s vocabulary, grammatical orga-
nization within the given narrative is able to organize thinking and understanding without an explicit
delineation of context, chronology, and content. Even the most simplistic narrative (e.g., “The old man
fell and broke his hip”) affords the communication of “unspoken” elements, thereby transmitting infor-
mation that could be critical for survival (e.g., warnings, food sources, mating calls). This is perhaps the
single most important reason for narrative to have persisted across human evolution and natural selection.
Participant interactions throughout Project TECHNOLOGIA suggest that instructional utilization of
the Context, Chronology, & Content affordance of narrative might be especially valuable for establish-
ing perceptible cross-context invariance that can facilitate transfer. In the case of instantiating a new
school district technology initiative, event sequencing and interaction—including visioning, explaining
technology goals to others, determining which tools optimally fulfill the original vision, and dealing
with issues associated with rollout—is critical to success (Slota, Young, & Travis, 2013). However,
several learners entered the program with overly simplistic views on the relationship between visioning,
tool selection, and communication among peers. Becky, Winnie, and Mandy, for example, began their
participation already having specific technologies and other preconceived notions of what should happen
in mind. This led them to somewhat naively work backward to identify philosophical foundations that
would retroactively support their tool choices and/or rush to action without offering an underpinning
philosophy whatsoever:

Becky (Thought Journal [TJ], Episode Number [1.2]): The point for me is the device is just a device.
When I text someone, I am using the phone to talk to a human. So any philosophy can happen with
the use of the computer.
Winnie (TJ 1.2): I think it is interesting how much of these missions, or maybe just the beginning of
the experience, is taken up by explaining our stance. It is funny though, because SOOOO much of

303

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

education is talking about what could happen, and there is often a lack of action…Less talking,
more testing out and taking action!
Mandy (TJ 1.2): As of now, I don’t see this story going in any direction. Perhaps that where a problem
arises. Lots of talk….little action.

Others, like Gretchen and Nadine, openly acknowledged their misunderstandings and confusion with
how technology coordinators form and execute district initiatives:

Gretchen (TJ 1.2): I have chosen a stance on the ultimate goal of the educational system (success in
life via choice of careers) but I’m not sure that I have a clear stance of how to go about it.
Nadine (TJ 1.2): There are a lot of conflicting views on how education should be re-established.
Nadine (TJ 1.3): At times, the other operatives bring the discussion in so many different directions its
hard to follow.

Given that all participants were in-service educators who had experienced at least a small amount of
ineffectual initiative enactment in their own districts, these statements would normally worry a program
administrator. Yet, as the game progressed, interactions within the narrative environment provoked the
identification of overlap between the game and their real world experiences. Many times, this came in
the form of guidance from non-player character actions or statements:

Rheegan, irritated with the slow-going process, rolls her eyes and mutters loudly to herself:

You people... A perfect opportunity to tell-off Duncan, but instead we’re wasting our time fiddling with
this junk and talking about individual skills. Ugh, what a waste.

Biff stifles a laugh and walks away to make a call on his communicator. Duncan gives Will and Adan a
warm smile before turning to Rheegan.

Look, Rheegan, we knew from the get-go that this wasn’t going to be a quick n’ easy transition, so I
can’t help but wonder why you’re huffing and puffing about the input these folks are offering. Frankly,
I’m happy they’ve circled back to the situated cognition thing Diego mentioned earlier--focusing on
what people actually do and how we help them work toward those skills... sort of like Biff’s philosophy
of education. Even you have to admit that they make a good point, the whole one-size-fits-all approach
not being the be-all end-all of education.

In response, Nadine first wrote:

Nadine (TJ 2.1): … we’re finally getting to the “rebuilding phase” of the educational system…All
avatars can identify their part in the process by relating it to their theory. It’s a good link between
putting theory into practice.

And later:

304

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Nadine (TJ 2.3): The crowd is getting very animated about changing the educational system. This is
probably an accurate animation of how real people would act if there were BIG changes to the
education field.

Winnie similarly expressed a change in attitude, attending to the potential problems associated with
moving ahead if she and her peers failed to consider possible negative consequences:

Winnie (TJ 2.1): This week’s prompt is all about a call to action. It seems like they are all eager to get
going but Lienne took this opportunity to make sure everyone remembers that you cannot rush the
choice of technology.

The game’s story organization and context clues seem to have provided at least some of the informa-
tion needed for learners to identify how and to what extent their particular attitudes, approaches, and
behaviors would result in particular outcomes. The evolution of responses, too, highlights how partici-
pant thinking may have become better-rounded as a result of exposure to multiple non-player character
perspectives (e.g., economic equalization, democratization, social competency). This is best captured
in Winnie’s response during Week 15:

Winnie (TJ 3.3): This week Biff asked the team to come up with the technology plan, but only offered
really an outline for the mission. It is important for the team, in developing a proper technology
plan to have a MUCH clearer understanding of the resources available, the cost and funding
available as well. I set up the template for the team, and invited them all to join in and fill out our
overall plan based off of the information provided. I also reached out to Biff and team welcom-
ing them to share even more information. This can not be just a one sided planning, we all need
to work together… Biff and team need to have a firm hand in this planning as well as the leaders
(administrators) of this community.

It seems reasonable to infer that the individuals who were most deeply engaged with the Project
TECHNOLOGIA narrative developed insights that they did not appear to have at the start of their journey.
Altogether, it lends credence to the notion that narrative has the potential to provide important informa-
tion about Context, Chronology, & Content that puts key concepts (i.e., program learning objectives) at
the forefront of student thinking and discourse.

2. Engaging and Motivating

Producers often make specific linguistic and other design choices that they anticipate will resonate with
as much of their target audience as possible. Whether or not those choices are well-planned might be how
the audience distinguishes “bad” or “mediocre” production from “great” production within a specific
genre, media format, or field. This can be broadly referred to as narrative relatability, or the level at
which a particular recipient will detect invariance between the given narrative and their experiences with
the lived-in world. The effect is commonly observable in situations where the recipient demonstrates
parasocial interaction with a particular character (i.e., social surrogacy) but that character is unexpectedly
and dramatically changed or killed as part of the plot—for example, Ned Stark’s execution in Martin’s

305

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

(1996)A Game of Thrones or the death of Professor Dumbledore in Rowling’s (2005)Harry Potter and
the Half-Blood Prince (see Cohen, 2004; Derrick, Gabriel, and Hugenberg, 2009).
Throughout Project TECHNOLOGIA, several participants commented on how non-player character
dialogue shaped their on-going perceptions of right, wrong, and indifference within the game’s context,
engagement with the story, and motivations for action. This included placation for the sake of avoiding
conflict:

Tonya (TJ 2.1): I am just trying to make “Duncan” or “Rheegan” happy at this point with any sugges-
tion that I feel would work regardless of what a Behaviorist would say.

Frustration:

Becky (TJ 1.1): Already the other characters are getting on Diego’s nerves. “I won’t work with a gun
pointed at me?” “What’s with the gun?” Stuttering? Really?

Testing boundaries:

Shawna (TJ 1.2): I have to say, while I am approaching the character much as I myself would speak
(acting was never my thing) - I was sorely tempted to punch Bif in the face, just to see what would
happen…

Considering future action (e.g., planning, provocation):

Becky (TJ 1.1): I decided to go with Duncan as my Ally, but with situated cognition Biff could be a good
ally as well. As long as Diego clings to make it meaningful, full of experience...he should be fine.
Shawna (TJ 1.1): When the “administrators” get huffy, if you will, it’s easier to see where to go with
my posting.
Becky (TJ 1.2): Rheeghen needs some calming down. I’m going to have to work with her. I once read a
book (well skimmed it), called Even Mystics have Bills to Pay, I’ll work that in somehow.

Amusement and/or intrigue:

Dani (TJ 1.1): I bet this is fun for [our instructors]:) It seems like this could take lots of twists and turns.
Shawna (TJ 3.1): I feel like Rheegan is [our instructor] and [our instructor] is Rheegan. She is very
fiesty and has started to curse, which is hilarious.

And changes to personal philosophy and/or outlook:

Winnie (TJ 1.1): I think my character is becoming enthralled with Biff’s vision for this world… I made
it so that Lienne creates an Ally with this visionary character.
Becky (TJ 4.1): My eight year old says that “Griefers” are meant to be blocked. I am taking the “I am
being challenged to do better” with this.

306

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Though none of the characters in Project TECHNOLOGIA’s story experience the surprising or
emotionally taxing outcomes of Harry Potter’s Dumbledore or A Game of Thrones’ Ned Stark, these
narrative-specific responses suggest that even relatively minor story elements are capable of triggering
emotional connections between text and reader (e.g., characters, settings). This, in turn, can encourage
reader investment and receptiveness to particular thoughts, messages, or ideas (e.g., Winnie and Biff,
Becky and “griefers”). Instructors who use narrative in this way may be able to capitalize on emotional
investment for the purpose of heightening engagement and inducing motivation to interact with particu-
lar ideas or themes embedded within the narrative—in the case of practomime, the course or program
learning objectives.

3. Educating Intention and Attention

Whatever the benefits of engagement and motivation with stories, emotional attachment alone is not
enough to induce transfer from the moment of reading to a later moment in time in which what was
read might prove of value for action. However, if applied toward tuning perception, it may be possible to
shape intention and attention such that recipients will be able to recognize invariance between contexts,
adopt new goals, and take action to achieve them (i.e., an intentional spring; see Shaw, Kadar, Sim, and
Repperger, 1992). For instance, should a recipient form a parasocial relationship with a congenial and
attractive, well-spoken and kind-hearted character, that recipient will be more likely to attend to situa-
tions where the character perceives and acts in particular ways within the narrative context. This effect
may be amplified via narrative formats that provide insight into how or why the character has adopted
particular goals, attended to particular environmental elements, and made particular choices (i.e., first-
person perspective). If an emotional bond is laid as a foundation for “telling,” a more knowledgeable
other (e.g., classroom teacher, game designer, writer) could discuss the nature of the beloved character’s
thoughts, opinions, and actions such that the recipient will be more likely to perceive similar opportuni-
ties for action across contexts.
This occurred at various points throughout Project TECHNOLOGIA, with some goal adoption events
unfolding within the context of the story and others within the real world. Interestingly, both within- and
outside-narrative intentions emerged in response to particular non-player character statements or actions,
often to counteract what a non-player character was attempting to do. Players would occasionally assert
majority agreement to convince others to adopt similar intentions, though many goals emerged with a
highly self-oriented rationale. Midway through implementation, Kelly noted that:

Kelly (TJ 2.2): we seem to each be spouting our own agendas, but now it is time to begin conversing
and coming to a consensus.

Peer nudging in that direction prompted players like Winnie and Bella to develop new intentions built
around personal responsibility and clarity:

Winnie (TJ 3.1): This week I tried to outline a step-by-step plan for that the team. Not contributing last
week, I felt the need to pull my weight and also provide a vision.
Bella (TJ 2.1): Still not comfortable with how I am going to incorporate my worldview into this prompt.
Will work on a response in the coming days.

307

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Other interactions between players and non-player characters prompted reflection that led to new
goals external to the game environment altogether:

Dani (TJ 1.1): This seems like it would be awesome to do with my 5th graders in Social Studies around the
American Revolution. They could take on roles such as the King of England, Patriots, Loyalists, tax
collectors, British citizens, etc. I may try this in the Spring with my class. I think they would love it.
Becky (TJ 2.2): I have decided that with one class I am going to give them an assignment a day that in
some way involves their cell phones.

If, as suggested here, the narrative can help learners perceive invariance between in-game and external
experiences, it may be possible to seed up-to-date technological, pedagogical, and theoretical information
into live classrooms by way of story-driven games—something viewed as quite difficult within profes-
sional development and pre-service teacher education circles (e.g., Bobrowsky, Marx, and Fishman, 2001;
Lawless and Pellegrino, 2007; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, and Gallagher, 2007; Slota, Young, Choi,
and Lai, 2014). This will require more extensive empirical study but has promise for being an alternative
approach to more traditional direct instruction-driven workshops and coursework (Fishman, et al., 2003).

4. Creating Opportunities for Co-Action

Because narrative is the result of producer-recipient interaction, it affords an ever-present opportunity

for writers and readers, designers and players to co-act. Among contexts like books and games, stories
never exist solely in one individual’s mind—they are driven by multiple people with varying experi-
ences, perceptions, and intentions (Young, Slota, Travis, & Choi, 2014; see Narrative Co-Construction).
The production of any given narrative represents the merger of the producer’s life-world with his or her
perceptions of external environmental forces, and the reception of any given narrative represents the
merger of the recipient’s life-world with the producer’s story.
Participants in Project TECHNOLOGIA frequently commented that emergent opportunities for
narrative co-action were crucial to participation, growth, and success throughout the program. Mandy
regularly referenced collaborative problem solving in her thought journal entries:

Mandy (TJ 1.1): “I find that I’m referring to the other agents to help me formulate my thoughts.”
Mandy (TJ 3.1): “OK, a plan has been put forth and some actual progress can be made, but much will
be left to Mission Control by way of data that can be provided to advance the story.”
Mandy (TJ 3.2): “We need to bring a united front, but I will have to see if anyone else participates
before passing final words to the crowd.”
Mandy (TJ 3.3): “I began the presentation of a plan, and hope that my set up can encourage the rest
of the group to chime in.”

This attitude was largely reflected in the way she responded to non-player characters and her peers
throughout the narrative. For example:

Mandy (Project TECHNOLOGIA [PT] Episode Number [3.3]): With all that has transpired he can’t
quite understand how individual agendas keep creeping back into the forefront of what should be a
collaborative effort. “Diego, I applaud your ablity to bring us all back to a point of conversation.

308

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

If we keep going at each other in this regard, nothing will be accomplished. You’ve outlined some
great starting points. One key aspect we also need to consider is - how as a new community will
we work to develop an education system that reflects our new goals and manner of living.” With
that last note, Will is willing to step up and begin to outline the new social order of this world. He
asks for a volunteer with some politcal and unbiased connections to help him. As he’s new to the
Remmlar Array he will need help navigating the waters of this quite different society.

Perhaps recommendations can be drawn with this new knowledge from everyone. We must learn from
history that personal agendas must be put aside in order to come to a consensus. We must be willing to
sit and listen and learn from one another. Perhaps when no one is happy, when we all have pieces that
can come together will we see the beginnings of a new educational system that works. We mustn’t be
so quick to toe off, but rather to sit back and listen and maybe think and reflect on how we can marry
all our ideas.

Other participants, including Greg, Gretchen, and Winnie, highlighted specific co-active observations
and/or behaviors as valuable to their respective gaming experiences:

Greg (TJ 0.0): working and talking with the other avatars as a group help me understand not only the
story but the way of game play, and of course provide me with the high level of fidelity that I’m
really existing in that world and working with them.
Gretchen (TJ 1.1): I haven’t decided the best course of action yet, so I’m going to see how another
team member responds first.
Gretchen (TJ 3.1): I think that I will continue to engage others, rather than just posting what I think or
agreeing/disagreeing with the other posts.
Winnie (TJ 3.2): Gretchen did a great job stepping in and initially organizing the chaos in a way that
I envision her controlling her elementary classroom (sometimes you need to really treat adults
like kids).

These statements emphasize the perceived importance of collaborative action within the narrative
for reflection, memorability, and the creation of a “time for telling.” They also serve as a foundation for
facilitating reflection on how and why particular actions unfolded in response to story elements as well
as which technology coordinator actions are most closely associated with success and failure in authen-
tic K-12 environments. While the producers (i.e., instructional leaders) may have posted a particular
prompt with a specific goal in mind, the recipients (i.e., players) clearly co-acted to attribute meaning,
define emergent properties of the story, and interpret how to act on those properties given varying
understandings about foundational narrative elements (e.g., characters, plot, theme, tone). Producer-
driven storytelling is one way to encourage abstract critical thinking (i.e., Narrative: Level 1), but, as
demonstrated in Project TECHNOLOGIA, it can also manifest as alternative visioning (e.g., providing
new insights into the original narrative) or the presentation of alternative points of view among players
(i.e., Narrative: Levels 2 and 3).
It is worth noting that peer-to-peer modeling likely fits under the same umbrella as co-action. While
non-player characters seldom had an obvious impact on Project TECHNOLOGIA participants—save
for a few outbursts of frustration over stubbornness—responses by some players appear to have affected

309

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

the way in which others understood, interpreted, and interacted with the narrative. Those with minimal
in-game participation were still capable of reading what others were doing (i.e., lurking) and provided
an authentic audience outside of each team’s instructional leader. Additionally, the most active students
could highlight their thought processes knowing that others might identify and adopt similar attitudes
along the way (see Preece, Nonnecke, and Andrews, 2004; Yeow, Johnson, and Faraj, 2006). Given that
roleplaying can convey information about what may or may not happen as a result of particular actions
in particular contexts (e.g., parables, fables) (see Amorim, 2003), lurking could provide even non-active
learners with information about the narrative environment or real world that they could not or chose not
to experience first-hand. Though this relies on a number of factors, including recipient attention, abil-
ity to reproduce the behavior, and motivation, the interaction between narrative, context, and recipient
could have fostered vicarious reinforcement and the development of a legitimate peripheral learning
environment (e.g., Lave and Wenger, 1991).

5. Nurturing Creativity

Creativity literature frequently describes two major components of creativity: novelty and task appro-
priateness (Guilford, 1950; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). The Four-C Model, in particular, explains
how and why these components intersect to produce what are commonly considered “creative acts” (see
Beghetto and Kaufman, 2007; Kaufman, Kaufman, and Plucker, 2009; Kaufman and Beghetto, 2013).
Narrative producers engaged in the creative process (e.g., writers, game designers) rely on novelty and
task appropriateness while generating stories intended to reach particular audiences. Though the vast
majority of productions never approach Pro-C or Big-C creativity (i.e., professional and internationally
validated creation, respectively), the intersection of novelty and task appropriateness represents the
utilization of narrative for the purpose of demonstrating a particular idea or set of ideas. Put another
way, their creative acts are the result of individual producers detecting invariants that were present for
others to see but, on this occasion, were viewed through the lens of particular goals and experiences
that resulted in unique action.
Narrative production organizes thinking and behavior for—at the very least—mini-c and little-c cre-
ative acts and is one of the primary reasons narrative has persisted so long across evolutionary history.
It has enabled humans to elaborate on particular thoughts and ideas such that others can understand
complex and abstract concepts (i.e., teaching). In Project TECHNOLOGIA, mini-c and little-c creative
acts regularly emerged as part of the co-active writing process. This included the introduction of novel,
external goals as well as references to external, trans-media narratives:

Becky (TJ 1.1): Rheegan (Exorcist) equal playing field- opportunity for everyone; Biff (really? Back to
the Future)-critical thinking, Quality of life, big picture, where are we going; Duncan (MacBeth)-
functional democracy, debate, collaborate, work together for greater good not just your own per-
sonal interests but what works for everyone.
Becky (TJ 2.1): not for nothing did Diego watch all the new Episodes of Battlestar Galactica, although
he much preferred Caprica. In the 70s, he actually watched the original show.
Becky (TJ 2.2): This is like the movie contact. I asked to see all the cool different people and aliens, and
I’m on a beach with my dad. Instead of being on the beach I’m in a computer lab looking at iPads.
Walter (TJ 1.1): Project Technologia has some analogies to ‘The Matrix” (movie). I love the Matrix!

310

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Furthermore, some participants actively sought opportunities to discuss the realities of encouraging
change in a deeply resistant educational system:

Becky (TJ 2.3): I’m having a very hard time with Rheegan’s hostility. I know that my district is very
technology oriented and they are encouraging the BYOD and wifi policy.
Winnie (TJ 3.1): I do think though that these episodes make sense but in the world of hypothetical, it is
hard to REALLY suggest things in the way you would as a true ed tech specialist in todays world.
Nadine (TJ 3.2): The crowd is getting very animated about changing the educational system. This is
probably an accurate animation of how real people would act if there were BIG changes to the
education field.

Imaginative, cross-context thinking could play a major role in limiting the perpetuation of test-oriented
traditional direct instruction and lecture (e.g., Fleer and Peers, 2012). As highlighted above, Project
TECHNOLOGIA players have demonstrated content mastery by identifying and associating orthogonal
concepts (e.g., film, personal stories) with what they experienced in-game. Utilized in conjunction with
well-devised instructional guidance, this could lead to whole-group analysis of discrete social and cultural
barriers associated with the planning of new educational technology initiatives. Direct instruction from
a skilled teacher educator or administrator could theoretically draw attention to the same basic concepts,
but co-action surrounding a shared, co-developed narrative appears to lay a fertile grounding for student
exploration, debate, and creativity over and above content—an extension of improved student agency
and ownership over their learning. This is a very different framework from the “gamification” approach
of adding simple, game-based behavioral reinforcers (e.g., points, scores, stars) to classroom content.
As a result, it seems feasible that the development of better and more effective stories may significantly
move learning scientists toward a deeper understanding of how particular types of narratives interact
with particular students and instructional settings to yield optimal learning outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Narrative is experienced in games and elsewhere as the result of interactions among producers (e.g.,
writers, game designers), recipients (e.g., readers, players), and the situations in which receiving (e.g.,
reading, watching, playing) takes place. It is our fondest hope that cognitive scientists can begin unpack-
ing the rich dynamics of these interactions to reveal the potential of narrative for enhancing how people
learn online and in classrooms, alone and in groups.
However, current research about the instructional value of narrative is quite limited. As with any
study of human thinking and behavior, our research on games is very likely subject to bias in individual
participant and investigator intentions, preconceptions, and interpretations. Our (2013) review of why
novel approaches to technology implementation fail affirmed that education research is often plagued
with “situations where participating educators “do it for the researcher(s)” or for the status of being
part of the research team, or the resources involved in a grant project” (pp. 42). Given the nature of the
program from which our game’s players have been drawn, it is possible that some could have misrep-
resented their own judgments, ideas, or comments believing that they would help or earn favor with
the investigator or program administrators. Likewise, if a particular participant or group of participants

311

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

had some intention to willfully misinform the designers or otherwise hurt the project, they could have
entirely misstated their thoughts within the Operative Thought Journals.
Our analysis may also have missed some of the rich interactions that unfolded as players played
the game and instructors co-authored the narrative. Our situated cognition perspective tells us that it is
equally plausible that many of the concepts, feelings, and thoughts associated with play are simply too
complicated to be accurately captured using existing technologies. While Norris (1997) argued this does
not inherently invalidate research of the type cited in this chapter, it does pose an on-going problem for
learning scientists seeking to equate ethnographies, grounded theory studies, or other qualitative work
with more traditional quantitative approaches. At issue is the fact that humans are multifaceted, pos-
sessing attitudes and behaviors that change moment-to-moment as a function of environmental context,
prior experience, and emerging goals. Ideally, triangulation with participants, peer review, and repeat
study can minimize bias, but until statistical models and algorithms offer greater specificity than the
standard normal curve, granular assessment of player thoughts and actions will be limited to qualitative
investigation at the individual level.
In the case of Project TECHNOLOGIA, we have refrained from teaching or grading players during
the game’s implementation (i.e., the period through which the game/program primarily took place),
and players were never required to contribute to the game as part of any course or plan of study. They
received a face-to-face debriefing session as part of their final week of the program, and at that point,
we listened and responded to questions, concerns, and feedback that could inform the analytical process.
Additionally, we conducted member checking (e.g., sharing findings, asking for participant feedback)
to ensure that the analysis accurately reflected their individual intentions, goals, and understandings of
what was written and transpired within each team. The open and axial coding process was conducted
under the advisement of a second researcher and verified through a combination of re-coding and peer
debriefing once the initial nodes were deconstructed for the purposes of cataloguing thematic outcomes
across the data (Spillet, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; 1998; Suter, 2012).
We believe that our situated analysis of narrative as a game mechanic is a start. We likewise believe
what we have presented will provide a valuable foundation for future research into narrative affordances
for education, the organization of narrative across content areas, and the details of game-player-context
interaction. As the field of game-based research expands, it will be crucial to expand the definitions
for each of the affordances described above and determine how individual differences between players
might affect design, data collection, and analysis.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Bruner (2004) reasoned that humans evolved to understand their lives in terms of narrative structure,
suggesting that “...a life as led is inseparable from a life as told—or more bluntly a life is not ‘how it
was’ but how it was interpreted and reinterpreted, told and retold” (pp. 708). Indeed, stories are the
preservation and expression of humanity, a mirror through which individuals gaze upon their histories
and generate personal truth. However, identifying precisely how narrative intertwines with the lived-in
world requires the application of a situated cognition framework to understand recipient-content-context
interactions as dynamic and co-determined.
In this chapter, we sought to unpack the relationship between narrative, games, and situated cognition,
emphasizing in-context, on-the-fly dialogic interactions between producers and recipients. We believe

312

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

there is value in pursuing a narrative approach to complex social, cultural, and intellectual issues, and the
five emergent affordances of narrative we have described should be considered critical in future narrative
and game development (i.e., Conveying Context, Chronology, and Content; Engaging and Motivating;
Educating Intention and Attention; Creating Opportunities for Co-Action; Nurturing Creativity). Each
affordance intersects with the others to heighten learner perception, goal adoption, and transfer, and
together they serve as a cornerstone for constructing optimal generator sets that can help us advance
pedagogy, improve professional training tools, and expand our understanding of game-based instruction.
Let us work together to continue exploring the questions posed at the start of this chapter (i.e., “How
can narrative be optimally characterized within the field of educational psychology?;” “What are the
specific affordances of storytelling and narrative structure for learning?;” “What is the relationship
between narrative, co-authorship, and learning?”) as well as our (2012) goal of identifying how and
why particular players interact with particular games in particular ways under particular conditions. We
hope that future investigations will target the ways in which varied narrative formats (e.g., script, novel,
game) influence motivation and achievement in addition to how particular storytelling mechanics (e.g.,
tone, character development) individually and collectively convey content, improve engagement, and
promote goal adoption. Like any capable protagonist, we must act promptly but with enough caution
to ensure we do not dismiss the castle of our betrothed in favor of another that merely plays host to a
hostile dragon. That is the only path to conquering the field of game-based learning and, of course, liv-
ing happily ever after.

REFERENCES

Amorim, M. (2003). “What is my avatar seeing?”: The coordination of “out-of-body” and “embodied”
perspectives for scene recognition across views. Visual Cognition, 10(2), 157–199. doi:10.1080/713756678
Barab, S. A., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an eco-
logical perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X035005003
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c”
creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73
BioWare. (2003). Star wars: Knights of the old republic. San Francisco, CA: LucasArts. Retrieved from:
http://www.lucasarts.com/games/platform.html
BioWare. (2008). Mass effect. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Studios. Retrieved from: http://masseffect.
bioware.com/
Bobrowsky, W., Marx, R., & Fishman, B. (2001, March). The empirical base for professional develop-
ment in science education: Moving beyond volunteers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association of Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21. doi:10.1086/448619
Bruner, J. (2004). Life as narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691–710.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

313

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (In Press). Digital games, design, and learn-
ing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Press.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to
situated cognition. Educational Research, 19(6), 2–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X019006002
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993, March). Anchored instruction and situated cogni-
tion revisited. Educational Technology, 52–70.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). From visual word problems to learning commu-
nities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating
Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite television characters: The role of attachment
styles and relationship intensity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 187–202.
doi:10.1177/0265407504041374
Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs
provide the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 352–362.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.003
Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to im-
prove professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.
doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3
Fleer, M., & Peers, C. (2012). Beyond cognitivisation: Creating collectively constructed imaginary situ-
ations for supporting learning and development. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 413–430.
doi:10.1007/s13384-012-0073-9
FromSoftware. (2011). Dark souls. Tokyo, Japan: FromSoftware, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.
darksoulsii.com/us/
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487
PMID:14771441
Hemingway, E. (1952). The old man and the sea. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Irrational Games. (2007). BioShock. Boston, MA: 2K Games. Retrieved from: http://www.2kgames.
com/bioshock/
International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). ISTE Standards. Retrieved June 27, 2014
from www.iste.org/standards
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C model of creativity. Review
of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0013688

314

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2013). Do people recognize the four C’s? Examining layperson’s
conceptions of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 229–236. doi:10.1037/
a0033295
Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2009). Contemporary theories of intelligence. In D.
Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 811–822). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
King. (2012). Candy Crush Saga. Dublin, Ireland: King Digital Entertainment. Retrieved from: http://
candycrushsaga.com/
Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding cognition as situated. Educational
Researcher, 27(8), 22–28. doi:10.3102/0013189X027008022
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into
teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of
Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921
Martin, G. R. R. (1996). A game of thrones. New York, NY: Bantam Spectra.
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
7(3), 141–145. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9 PMID:12639696
Modern Dream. (2013). The Typing of the Dead: Overkill. Modern Dream. Retrieved from: http://thebut-
tonexperiment.com/ModernDream/games.htm
Mojang. (2009). Minecraft. Stockholm, Sweden: Mojang. Retrieved from https://minecraft.net/
Norris, N. (1997). Error, bias and validity in qualitative research. Educational Action Research, 5(1),
172–176. doi:10.1080/09650799700200020
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional devel-
opment effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research
Journal, 44(4), 921–958. doi:10.3102/0002831207308221
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community
experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015
Riesbeck, C. K., & Schank, R. C. (1989). Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Rowling, J. K. (2005). Harry potter and the half-blood prince. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Schank, R. C. (1991). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Northwestern University Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Schank, R. C., & Berman, T. (2006). Living stories: Designing story-based educational experiences.
Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 220–228. doi:10.1075/ni.16.1.27sch

315

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.
doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
Shaw, R. E., Kadar, E., Sim, M., & Repperger, D. W. (1992). The intentional spring: A strategy for
modeling systems that learn to perform intentional acts. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(1), 3–28. doi:1
0.1080/00222895.1992.9941598 PMID:14766495
Slota, S. T., Ballestrini, K., & Pearsall, M. (2013). Learning through Operation LAPIS: A game-based
approach to the Latin classroom. The Language Educator. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages. Retrieved from: http://www.practomime.com/pdf/tle_art.pdf
Slota, S. T., & Young, M. F. (2014). Think games on the fly, not gamify: Issues in game-based learning
research. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. Retrieved from: http://www.jgme.org/doi/pdf/10.4300/
JGME-D-14-00483.1
Slota, S. T., Young, M. F., & Travis, R. (2013). The inevitability of epic fail: An investigation of implemen-
tation problems associated with technology-rich research innovations. GLS 9.0 Conference Proceedings.
Spinks, A. (2011). Terraria. Re-Logic Games. Retrieved from http://www.terraria.org/
Spillet, M. A. (2003). Peer debriefing: Who, what, when, why, how. Academic Exchange Quarterly,
7(3), 2529–2532.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suter, W. N. (2012). Qualitative data, analysis, and design. Introduction to educational research: A
critical thinking approach (2nd ed., pp. 342–386). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1977). The silmarillion. Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
Travis, R. (2010). A note on the word “practomime”. Living Epic. Accessed April 22, 2014: http://
livingepic.blogspot.com/2010/01/note-on-word-practomime.html
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human ex-
perience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1),
7–48. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1701_2
Yeow, A., Johnson, S., & Faraj, S. (2006). Lurking: Legitimate or illegitimate peripheral
participation?International Conference on Information Systems Conference Proceedings, (pp. 967-982).
Young, M. F. (2004). An ecological psychology of instructional design: Learning and thinking by
perceiving-acting systems. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communi-
cations and Technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

316

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Young, M., Slota, S. T., Cutter, A., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. et al. (2012). Our
princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational
Research, 82(1), 61–89. doi:10.3102/0034654312436980
Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., Travis, R. & Choi, B. (In Press). Game narrative, interactive fiction, and
storytelling: Creating a “time for telling” in the classroom. Academic Press.
Zynga. (2009). Farmville. San Francisco, CA: Zynga. Retrieved from: https://company.zynga.com/
games/farmville

ADDITIONAL READING

Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London, UK: Penguin.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(Jan-Feb), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues
in learning and instructional design. ETR&D, 40(1), 65–80. doi:10.1007/BF02296707
Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading,
writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor
of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia,
8, 15–23.
Gee, J. P. (2010). A situated-sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. Baker (Ed.), The
New Literacies: Multiple Perspectives on Research and Practice, 165-193. New York: Guilford Press.
Greeno, J. G. (1989). A perspective on thinking. The American Psychologist, 44(2), 134–141.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.134
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Research, 26(1), 5–17.
doi:10.3102/0013189X026001005
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. The American Psychologist,
53(1), 5–26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
Greeno, J. G., & van de Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual
growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23. doi:10.1080/00461520709336915

317

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and time. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, M. (1927). The basic problem of phenomenology. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contempo-
rary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible. Review of Tyack and Cuban (1995). Accessed May
31, 2013 from http://www.papert.org/articles/school_reform.html
Rennie, D. L. (2007). Methodical hermeneutics and humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psycholo-
gist, 35(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/08873260709336693
Sartre, J.-P. (1938). La nausée. Paris, France: Éditions Gallimard.
Slota, S. T. (2014). Better learning through play: A brief look at game-based education research. Foot-
note1. Retrieved from: http://footnote1.com/education-through-play-how-games-can-help-children-learn/
Slota, S. T. (2014). Project TECHNOLOGIA: A game-based approach to understanding situated in-
tentionality (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/638/
Thompson, J. B. (1988). Mass communication and modern culture: Contribution to a critical theory of
ideology. Sociology, 22(3), 359–383. doi:10.1177/0038038588022003003
Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (Eds.). (2011). Computer games and instruction. Charlotte, NC: Informa-
tion Age.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A metaanalysis of
the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2),
249–265. doi:10.1037/a0031311
Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 41(1), 43–58. doi:10.1007/BF02297091
Young, M. F., & McNeese, M. (1993). A situated cognition approach to problem solving with implica-
tions for computer-based learning and assessment. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (Eds.), Advances in
Human Factors/Ergonomics, 19B. Human-Computer Interaction: Software and Hardware Interfaces.
New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., & Lai, B. (2012). Comments on “reflections on ‘a review of trends in serious
gaming’”. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 296–299. doi:10.3102/0034654312456606

318

Stories, Games, and Learning through Play

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Affordances: The possibilities for action in the environment as co-defined by an organism’s percep-
tual detection systems (e.g., sight, smell, taste, hearing, proprioception) and mediated by the organism’s
existing and emerging goals.
Fun: An emotional response that is orthogonal to play. Work tasks can be experienced as fun, and
play can be experienced as un-fun (e.g., losing, playing a game for professional gain or high stakes
competition).
Game Ecosystem: Games researchers must consider all interactions that emerge from gameplay,
not simply those that occur within the boundary constraints of the game as conceived by the game’s
designers. These include “meta-game” interactions (e.g., cheat, hint, player community forums) where
games are discussed and strategies/play are analyzed outside the game. Peripheral contexts may hold
equal or more value than games themselves as they draw on player reflection, analysis, and collaboration.
Game: A tool with design goals (e.g., boss fights, winning) that requires interaction with an environ-
ment—virtual or real—and can include simulated elements of reality (e.g., gravity, momentum) but is not
limited by parameters of the real world. Games are governed by rulesets (both designed and emergent),
take full advantage of imagination and creativity, often include scoring criteria and/or measurable win/
loss outcomes (e.g., competitive among multiple players, collaborative with all players working to beat the
game, an individual competing against the game or herself), and are explicitly directed toward playfulness.
Play: A behavior that is not always fun but involves thinking (i.e., cognition), strategy, rules, and
often imagination and creativity in the context of a game setting and mechanics (e.g., scores, timed
responses, competition).
Player-Game Interaction: The experience of gameplay that leads to student learning outcomes
(SLOs) is co-determined by the player’s goals and intentions for play, and the affordances of a game
serve as parameters for engagement as established by the game designers. Gameplay experiences are not
always the experiences intended by the designers or those using the game instructionally since players
can use game elements in unexpected and/or unintended ways (e.g., modding, hacking, trolling), some
of which may have instructional value.
Simulation: A goal-driven tool that requires interaction with an environment—virtual or real—and
often shares some mechanics with games (e.g., points, missions, timers) but is explicitly designed to
veridically emulate some real-world interaction, process, situation, or phenomenon (e.g., flight simula-
tor, medical simulator). While simulations are also governed by designed and emergent rulesets, play is
attenuated in order to represent the target interaction, process, situation, or phenomenon as accurately
as possible. Naturally, the “real world” aspects of simulations add much to their educational affordances,
but they are explicitly avoided in this chapter as a means of distinguishing them from games.
Situated Cognition: An approach to knowing and learning that draws from a variety of academic
disciplines and whose shared approach describes knowing and learning as an inherently social interaction
with the world including other people. It has roots in the epistemology of rationalism and models from
the hard sciences that help to explain the cognitive science of thinking and learning rather than expand-
ing on abstract models borrowed from information processing theory and traditional computer science.

319
320

Chapter 15
Factors That Explain
Adolescent and Young Adult
Mobile Game Play, Part 1:
A Quantitative Examination of
the Characteristics Describing
the Casual Player

Boaventura DaCosta
Solers Research Group, USA

Soonhwa Seok
Korea University, South Korea

ABSTRACT
The first of two chapters, a study is presented that quantitatively examined the adolescent and young adult
“casual” video game player. A total of 1,950 South Korean students self-reported their game play on
mobile phones by answering a 92-item questionnaire designed to capture data on technology ownership;
preference for game genre and titles; where and how often games were played; what factors influence
game selection, what game features were the most desirable, the rationale behind playing games, and
psychophysical changes experienced as a result of playing; as well as, spending habits with regard to
game purchases. The findings supported many of the claims made about the casual player, revealing, for
example, that mobile games are predominately played for short periods of time, in between activities,
and as a means to combat boredom. Adding credence to the idea that mobile game play can be viewed
as a casual activity. Results also revealed potentially positive benefits, to include improved mood and
feelings of well-being along with better mental attention and focus.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch015

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

INTRODUCTION

Despite what has been a worldwide recession, the sales of video games have been, well, staggering. If
truth be told, these games could be easily viewed as one of the fastest growing forms of entertainment
(Chatfield, 2010) to rival that of even the movie industry. There have been many reasons cited for this
unparalleled growth, to include the blurring between player and game controller with the entrance of
motion control technology (e.g., Kinect®, Move®, Wii®), as well as the continued success of massively
multiplayer online games (MMOGs), which can comprise worlds inhabited by millions of players (Seok
& DaCosta, 2014). A common theme found among many of the reasons named has been technological
innovation, as advancements in the game industry have played a significant role in the rising popularity
of these games (Information Solutions Group, 2011). Among these, are the ground-breaking improve-
ments seen in mobile computing. Titles such as Temple Run®, Plants vs. Zombies®, and Cut the Rope®
have witnessed overwhelming success, resulting in cross-platform releases. In some instances, games
played on mobile devices (e.g., phones, tablets), hereafter “mobile games”, have become a pop-culture
phenomenon (e.g., Angry Birds®). This unequaled growth has opened new opportunities for research,
to include the role mobile games may play in learning (Rogers & Price, 2006).
Mobile games are of particular interest because they are often portrayed as different from video games
played on traditional gaming platforms (e.g., dedicated game console, handheld game device, personal
computer [PC]). While exceptions exist, games played on mobile devices are typically viewed as falling
into the genre of problem-solving or puzzle, ranging from tile-matching (e.g., Bejeweled®, Candy Crush
Saga®) to physics-based (e.g., The Incredible Machine®, World of Goo®) game mechanics. This is a
departure from what have been traditional (and popular) game titles and genres known for their MMOG
(e.g., Lord of the Rings Online®, Star Wars: The Old Republic®) characteristics and mature content (e.g.,
Assassin’s Creed: Unity®, The Last of Us®).
It has been proposed that the reasons why people play mobile games are also different from those of
traditional video games. While the rationale for playing these games has been well debated, and factors
such as challenge, flow, and immersion have been widely investigated (e.g., Nacke & Lindley, 2010),
mobile game play is generally viewed as an unplanned activity. That is, unlike their traditional game
player counterparts who are often portrayed as “hardcore” gamers, mobile game players are commonly
depicted as “casual” participants, playing games in order to kill brief periods of time (Bouça, 2012;
Kallio, Mäyrä, & Kaipainen, 2011; Moore & Rutter, 2004); to fill time while waiting (Information Solu-
tions Group, 2013; Kallio, Mäyrä, & Kaipainen, 2011); as a way to relax (Kallio, Mäyrä, & Kaipainen,
2011); or simply as a result of boredom (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004; Moore & Rutter, 2004). Juul
(2010) does a good job of summarizing the sentiments contrasting these attitudes toward video game play
by defining the stereotypical casual player as having “a preference for positive and pleasant fictions,”
playing “few video games,” showing a willingness to commit to “small amounts of time and resources
toward playing video games,” as well as disliking “difficult games” (p. 29). This is in comparison to the
stereotypically hardcore player, which he defines as preferring “emotionally negative fictions,” playing
“a large number of video games,” investing “large amounts of time and resources toward playing video
games,” and enjoying “difficult games” (p. 29).
Mobile game play is also portrayed as being the predominant pastime of young people, who already
use mobile devices (Paavilainen, 2003), or what could be described as young players among those most

321

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

likely to be smartphone owners (Information Solutions Group, 2011). It has been suggested, for instance,
that individuals who rely heavily on their mobile phones are more likely to play these types of games
than those who depend on landlines (Rainie & Keeter, 2006, as cited in Katz & Krzys Acord, 2008).
However, there is also research to suggest that these games appeal to a much broader audience and,
therefore, are played by people of all ages (Grimes, Kantroo, & Grinter, 2010). For that reason, techno-
logical advancements in mobile devices have also been proposed to be one of the drivers responsible for
the increasing popularity of mobile games (see DaCosta, Seok, & Kinsell, 2015 for an in-depth review
of the use of the location-aware properties of mobile phones and their significance in the exploration of
mobile games in educational contexts; Information Solutions Group, 2011).
Females are also thought to play mobile games as much as males (Information Solutions Group,
2011, 2013; McAteer, 2005). This trend may be a result of the increasing popularity in social networking
(Information Solutions Group, 2011) or social games (e.g., Draw Something®, FarmVille 2®; Information
Solutions Group, 2011; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004), in that those who play mobile games are also
believed to use their devices to frequent social media websites (e.g., Facebook®, Google+®; Information
Solutions Group, 2011). Another explanation may lie in game genre, in that females are said to prefer card,
puzzle, and arcade games (McAteer, 2005), which can include problem-solving or puzzle components.
Finally, there is research to suggest that the increasing popularity of tablets is a major contributor to the
steady growth in mobile game play among females (Information Solutions Group, 2013).
Findings such as these are no doubt important in shaping our understanding of the mobile game player.
As Juul (2010) points out, however, differentiating between the casual and hardcore video game player is
difficult. While casual players are commonly cited in the context of mobile games, this is not necessarily
always the case. Although it could be argued that this rationale has stemmed from the problem-solving
or puzzle genre lending nicely to the mobile gaming platform (i.e., these genres can be implemented
with simple game mechanics), these genres are in no way exclusive, with cross-platform releases easily
found (e.g., Angry Birds® is available on a number of mobile operating systems, to include Android®,
iOS®, Windows Phone®; dedicated game consoles, such as PlayStation®, Wii®, and Xbox®; the PC; and
streaming players, for instance, Roku®). Consequently, Juul’s (2010) casual player definition could be
viewed as,platform independent, describing characteristics of gamers with preferences for one or more
gaming platforms not necessarily mobile.
Furthermore, as game developers innovate, and mobile computing continues to advance, the mobile
gaming landscape will continue to significantly transform. For example, in addition to research suggest-
ing that the increasing popularity of tablets is a major factor in mobile game interest among females, it
has also been proposed that this popularity is a major contributor to a pattern whereby mobile game play
is moving to these devices (Information Solutions Group, 2013). This seems plausible, given the better
processing and graphic capabilities of tablets over smartphones. This could also be argued as one of the
factors contributing to the availability of (new as well as existing) game titles that not long ago could
only be played on a game console or PC (e.g., Grand Theft Auto: Vice City®, Asphalt 8: Airborne®), or
stereotypically speaking, titles that could be viewed as of primary interest to the hardcore player because
of their genre or content (e.g., Call of Duty: Heroes®, Dungeon Hunter 4®).
For these reasons, the notion of the casual player is constantly changing, with the casual and hardcore
delineation blurring. Consequently, research into the characteristics of mobile game play must, therefore,
be ongoing, with findings updated and published regularly.

322

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Purpose of the Chapter

Toward this goal, we present the findings of a study that quantitatively examined characteristics of the
casual player. We offer empirically-based data focused on technology ownership; preference for game
genre and titles; where and how often casual games are played; what factors influence the selection of
games to play, what game features are the most desirable, the rationale behind playing casual games,
and psychophysical changes experienced as a result of playing; and finally, spending habits with regard
to game purchases. Though casual play should be viewed independent of gaming platform, the findings
are described in the context of video games played exclusively on mobile phones. These devices were
specifically chosen because games played on phones are believed to be the most popular among casual
players.
The first of two chapters, this work is not intended to debate the use of video games in educational
contexts, but instead, offer empirically supported and pragmatic data to researchers, educators, and
practitioners interested in bettering their understanding of mobile game play and the casual player. Even
so, advancements in mobile computing have created opportunities for research in educational contexts
(Rogers & Price, 2006). Thus, before delving into the study, a brief summary of the educational benefits
of video games are offered.

THE EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS OF VIDEO GAMES

The scholastic potential of video games to enhance learning has been the subject of fierce debate
(Guillén-Nieto & Aleson-Carbonell, 2012). A good deal of attention continues to focus on the discourag-
ing aspects of violence in games (DaCosta, Nasah, Kinsell, & Seok, 2011) and video games have long
been viewed as a social concern in the U.S. and other countries (Kirsh, 2003; Schneider, Lang, Shin, &
Bradley, 2004). Nevertheless, there is research evidence that supports their educational benefits. Inter-
est has been increasing, for example, in the utilization of video games in K-12 and higher education,
government, financial services, healthcare, hospitality, science and technology, telecommunications, as
well as corporate and military training (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) for the purpose of facilitating
and achieving a variety of learning outcomes (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008).
This has resulted in empirically-based investigations focused on the influence and use of these games in
the areas of mathematics, science, language, photography, geography, and computer science, all showing
positive outcomes in terms of learning effectiveness (DaCosta, Seok, & Kinsell, 2015; Papastergiou, 2009).
For example, it has been argued that video games are more flexible than other media, almost naturally
supporting adaptive learning (del Blanco, Marchiori, Torrente, Martínez-Ortiz, & Fernández-Manjón,
2013). To some extent, this has promoted the idea that video games can be an important participant
in active learning with regard to the development of critical thinking skills, knowledge construction,
collaboration, and the effective use of and access to information and communication technology (Ellis,
Heppell, Kirriemuir, Krotoski, & McFarlane, 2006).
Furthermore, because these games offer immediate feedback on actions and decisions, sometimes
within a complete and interactive virtual playing environment, it is also believed that ambient information
can foster an immersive experience, helping to sustain interest in the game (Mitchell & Savill-Smith,
2004) as well as cultivate exploration and experimentation (Kirriemuir, 2002). This, in turn, can be used
in authentic learning, allowing learners to practice within highly realistic, but safe and risk-free environ-

323

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

ments (del Blanco et al., 2013). What’s more, it has been proposed that video games put the learner in
a decision-making role, by presenting harder and harder challenges, allowing learning to occur through
trial and error (Gee, 2007) or through the presentation of increasingly difficult challenges that are adapted
to the learner’s mastery of previously acquired knowledge and skills (Gentile & Gentile, 2008).
This means that video games can potentially offer activities that are paced to the aptitude of the
learner, providing differentiated instruction (Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, & Papagianni, 2010). As a result,
knowledge or skills learned can be practiced to a mastery level, becoming automatized, allowing the
learner to focus consciously on comprehending or applying new information (Gentile & Gentile, 2008).
These are all skills and knowledge believed to be vital both academically and professionally in today’s
digital information age (Watson, Mong, & Harris, 2011).
Regrettably, the ever-increasing popularity of video games outside of educational constructs, and the
failure to adopt the games in learning environments, has been argued to continue to widen the gap in
their relevance between these two contexts (Kenny & Gunter, 2011). This is especially true given that
game technology and its potential uses are outpacing research on their educational applicability (Keb-
ritchi & Hirumi, 2008). Hence the importance in promoting scholarship into the study of these games
as potential vehicles of instruction.
Attention is now turned to the purpose of this chapter. The study methodology, results and discussion,
limitations and future research, and conclusions are presented.

METHOD

Setting

The study took place in 2012 at four high schools and six colleges near Seoul, South Korea. Three of
the high schools were vocational-track institutions focused on commercial, agricultural, or mechanical
trade curricula.
Korea was chosen as a well-suited population from which to draw participants because the country is
one of the world leaders in the research and development of mobile and wireless communication tech-
nologies (Park & Chang, 2004) and because of its high broadband penetration rate (Anderson, 2009).

Participants

A total of 2,600 students across the schools were invited to participate. Of the 2,465 who accepted, 515
were excluded because they did not complete the questionnaire (n = 48), never played mobile games (n
= 378), did not specify if they played (n = 60), or did not own or use a mobile phone (n = 29), resulting
in a sample of 1,950 participants.
Of this sample, 48% (n = 931) were 18 to 20 years of age, and 19% were 15 to 17 (n = 375) and 21
to 23 (n = 373); 70% (n = 1,373) were male and 29% (n = 569) female (missing responses, 1%, n =
8); 31% (n = 598) of households earned $20,000 to $39,999, followed by 21% (n = 412) at $40,000 to
$59,999, and 18% (n = 353) making less than $19,999.
Moreover, 64% (n = 1,241) attended high school and 36% (n = 709) college. Participants’ primary area
of study was specific to the type of school they attended, with engineering (29%, n = 287), architecture/
drafting (17%, n = 163), mechanical and repair technologies (14%, n = 140), and computer science and

324

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

information technology (10%, n = 100) the most studied at the mechanical high school, and education
the most studied at the postsecondary levels (undergraduate: 48%, n = 296; graduate: 52%, n = 49).

Materials

The instrument comprised a 92-item questionnaire designed to capture data on mobile game play in the
contexts of game preference, frequency of play, spending habits, problematic playing behavior, person-
ality traits, and demographics. Part of a larger body of research focused on understanding video game
play in a rich gaming culture, the findings presented here were derived using a subset of the items found
in the questionnaire. That is, those measuring game preference, frequency of play, spending habits, and
demographics. Items designed to examine mobile game play in the context of problematic playing be-
havior and personality traits were not included in the statistical analysis, and thus, not included as part
of the results and ensuing discussion.

Procedure

The paper-and-pencil questionnaire was administered by volunteer faculty and undergraduate students.
The participants were instructed to answer truthfully and, unless told otherwise, to treat each question-
naire item independently. Items could be answered in any order or skipped entirely, and all responses
were self-reported.

Ethical Clearance and Informed Consent

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from school officials; in addition, parental consent was
sought for participants 17 years of age and younger. All participants were treated in accordance with the
American Psychological Association’s (2002)Ethics in Research with Human Participants.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Technology Ownership

The study focused explicitly on games played on mobile phones. Although the participants were asked
about their tablet ownership, at the time of data collection, these devices were still a relatively new
mobile technology growing in popularity. As shown in Table 1, among the different classifications of
phones (based on capability), 89% (n = 1,738) of the participants owned and used smartphones capable

325

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Table 1. Game play in the context of technology ownership

Item Frequency Percentage

What type of mobile phone do you currently Basic (voice and text) 91 4.7
own and use?
Web-enabled (voice, text, and data) 121 6.2
Smartphone (voice, text, data, and apps) 1738 89.1
Which device do you play games on the most? PC (desktop, laptop) 1169 59.9
Game console (e.g., PlayStation , Wii , Xbox )
® ® ®
36 1.8
Handheld game device (e.g., 3DS , Vita )
® ®
29 1.5
Tablet 40 2.1
Mobile phone 657 33.7
Missing 19 1.0

of voice, text, data, and running applications, hereafter “apps”. However, mobile phones were not the
first choice for game play. When given the opportunity, 60% (n = 1,169) preferred to play video games
on a PC (either desktop or laptop). By comparison, 34% (n = 657) mostly played games on their phones.
This may suggest that the participants were more avid gamers, arguably along the lines of hardcore
players (if only taking gaming platform into consideration in making such a conclusion), interested in
game titles specific to traditional gaming platforms (in this case, the PC). That is, titles that may not yet
be available on mobile phones. This finding may also suggest that when given a choice, participants
used their leisure time for planned video game play, with their mobile phones serving as an alternate
and noncommittal form of entertainment when their primary preference for game play was unavailable.
Also of interest, the dedicated game devices, console and handheld, fared the worst among participant
ownership at 2% (n = 36) and 1.5% (n = 29), respectively. Tablets fared no better, with 2% (n = 40) of
the participants claiming this platform as their primary means of game play.
This appears to be a departure from research suggesting that mobile game play is moving from phones
to tablets (Information Solutions Group, 2013). Again, this may be explained in that tablets were a
relatively new technology at the time this study was conducted. Hence future studies examining the role
of these devices in mobile game play might show different results. This finding may also be explained
as a matter of socioeconomics. In Korea, students who attend vocational institutions often do so as a
result of economically disadvantaged households and/or lack of academic aptitude. It is plausible, that
the households in the study did not have the discretionary funds to purchase tablets in favor of, say, the
more practical (and possibly less costly) desktop or laptop. This would also help explain the low game
console and handheld device ownership, as these devices can also be expensive. Furthermore, consoles
and handhelds are dedicated devices, with the single utility of gaming (although some consoles [e.g.,
PlayStation®, Xbox®] provide other forms of entertainment, to include DVD and Blue-Ray players, along
with content streaming apps [e.g., Hulu®, Netflix®]), whereas PCs can be multipurpose, possibly making
desktops and laptops more attractive. Finally, the sale of game consoles in Korea has struggled for years
believed to be the result of an epilepsy hysteria scare in the 1990s, further compounded by censorship
regulation in the 2000s with regard to video game content. Although there are signs that this may be
changing, sales have lagged well behind that of PCs in the country (Rumas, 2007).

326

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Game Genre and Titles

Shown in Table 2, action-themed games were the most popular, with 25.5% (n = 497) of the participants
claiming to mostly play this genre. This was followed by 19% (n = 370) who predominantly played ar-
cade games, and 12.5% (n = 243) who mostly played games that could be categorized as sports-themed.
For example, Temple Run® (10.8%, n = 140), 9 Innings: Pro Baseball® (8.8%, n = 115), Angry Birds®
(4.5%, n = 59), and Sonic the Hedgehog® (4.2%, n = 55) were among the most popular mobile games
played. These games could be easily classified as action, arcade, or sports-themed.
Interestingly, puzzle-themed games were only played among 8% (n = 149) of the participants. This
may be viewed as yet another departure from what is characteristically casual play in that research sug-
gests that mobile games differentiate themselves from more traditional video games because they are
typically categorized as problem-based or puzzle-themed. In other words, these activities generally lend
themselves well to the mobile gaming platform because they can be implemented using simple game
mechanics.
Furthermore, video game genres have resulted in a wide range of categorizations (Elliott, Ream,
McGinsky, & Dunlap, 2012), and the continuous release of new titles has possibly contributed to the
creation of new genres (e.g., massively multiplayer online first-person shooter [MMOFPS], CrossFire®,
PlanetSide®) that comprise dominant characteristics from some of the more popular genres. Thus, in
the same way that some MMOs allow players to explore respective virtual worlds from an FP viewpoint
(with some providing a shooter element), different genres may have varying qualities and amounts of
problem-solving challenges. In short, although some games could easily be classified as puzzles (e.g.,
Tetris®, Threes®), other games, such as Angry Birds® and Temple Run®, which might be viewed as arcade
games, could also be said to include problem-solving elements or puzzles (e.g., in the case of Angry
Birds®, figuring out how to best fling poultry at sniggering pork; while with Temple Run®, figuring out

Table 2. Game play in the context of genre

Item Frequency Percentage

What genre of mobile (phone) game do you play Action 497 25.5
the most?
Adventure 158 8.1
Arcade 370 19.0
Board 120 6.2
Educational 23 1.2
Fighting 63 3.2
Puzzle 149 7.6
Racing 47 2.4
Role-play 6 .3
Simulation 107 5.5
Sports 243 12.5
Strategy 95 4.9
Trivia 36 1.8
Missing 36 1.8

327

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

how to avoid objects and being eaten by demonic monkeys in order to collect coins that can be used to
purchase enhancements).

Location of Game Play

When asked about location, as shown in Table 3, 41% (n = 796) of the participants reported that they
chose to play video games on a PC—at home, at a PC bang (pronounced “bahngs”; Chee, 2006; i.e.,
Internet café in which individuals can use a PC capable of playing MMOGs for an hourly fee), or some
other location. This finding corroborates the prior finding that 60% (n = 1,169) of the participants, when
given the choice, played video games on a computer. With regard to actual game play on a mobile phone,
15.5% (n = 303) of the participants reported that they typically played in their bedroom, followed by
13% (n = 262), who played in between classes, and 12% (n = 240), who played while commuting to
and from school.
These findings support the belief that people play mobile games in between activities, to kill brief
periods of time (i.e., between classes), while waiting (i.e., commuting to and from school), or as a means
to combat boredom (i.e., playing in the bedroom). More importantly, these findings help support the idea
that mobile game play is a casual activity, not necessarily planned, and certainly not a social replace-
ment or alternative. For example, playing mobile games at restaurants (n = 12) or the dinner table (n
= 6), at parks (n = 9), and parties (n = 2), as well as other social events (n = 6) was found among less
than 1% of the participants; showing, perhaps, that when other social activities are present, these games
are not played.

Table 3. Game play in the context of location

Item Frequency Percentage

Where do you typically play mobile (phone) PC (e.g., home, PC bang, other location) 796 40.8
games?
Restaurant 12 .6
Bathroom 109 5.6
Bedroom 303 15.5
Dinner table 6 .3
Parks 9 .5
Parties 2 .1
Between classes 262 13.4
To and from school 240 12.3
In class 58 3.0
Social events 6 .3
Work 19 1.0
Other 84 4.3
Missing 44 2.3

328

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Frequency of Game Play

The frequency with which the participants played mobile games also supported the notion of the casual
player. That is, as shown in Table 4, while 49% (n = 944) played daily and 31% (n = 604) played weekly,
actual play time was reported to be less than an hour. This comprised 65% (n = 1,269) who played for
less than 30 minutes and 20.5% (n = 399) who played between 30 and 60 minutes. These findings add
credence to the belief that people play mobile games in between activities, as shown in the previous
findings, in which participants played games between classes, commuting to and from school, or in their
bedroom; but did not play while engaging in social activities, to include meals, parks, or social events
(e.g., parties).
Furthermore, mobile game play was a relatively new activity for the participants, with many playing
for less than four months. That is, 30% (n = 584) had only started playing mobile games within the past
month, followed by 23% (n = 445) who had been playing one to four months, and 11% (n = 213) five to
eight. This finding may suggest that although smartphones have been increasing in popularity in recent
years (e.g., the first generation iPhone® was released in 2007), mobile game play was still a relatively
new experience for many and that mobile games may have needed time to gain traction (Bouça, 2012;
e.g., Angry Birds® was first released on the iOS® in 2009, whereas this study was conducted in 2012).
Finally, of the time spent using their mobile phones, 70% (n = 1,366) of the participants responded
that they gamed less than 25% of the time. This was followed by 21% (n = 402) who dedicated 26% to
50% of their phone usage to game play. While this finding may suggest that this type of play is more
than a casual pastime, 43% (n = 843) had not experienced any change in frequency of game play since
they had started playing, with 30% (n = 582) actually reporting a decrease in play.

Selection, Features, Rationale, and Psychophysical Changes

Shown in Table 4, among the 25% (n = 490) who did see an increase in gaming, Table 5 depicts numerous
cited reasons. Recommendations from friends were the most frequent, as reported by 10% (n = 196) of
the participants. This was closely followed by 9% (n = 177), who cited better game quality, and 8.5% (n
= 165) who said a larger selection of titles influenced their reason for playing more. This finding may
also help explain why mobile game play was still a relatively new experience for so many. In addition
to spreading in popularity as a result of word of mouth, as previously mentioned, innovations in mobile
games (and the respective devices) may also play a role in these games becoming popular.
Being free of charge was also a large factor in certain games’ popularity, as reported by 24% (n =
476) of the participants who looked explicitly for free games. This was followed by 20% (n = 387) who
selected games based on their fun and entertainment value and not being boring. Easy and simple game
mechanics was another factor in the selection of these games, with 13% (n = 245) wanting ease and
simplicity in the controls.
The interest in free games may originate from the lack of discretionary funds, in that the participants
may not have had the disposable income to purchase games or invest in mobile games that adopt a
pay-to-play software model. This presents a challenge to game developers and publishers who must be
creative in finding other ways in which to generate revenue from their games (e.g., microtransactions;
Clash of Clans®, Plants vs. Zombies 2: It’s About Time®).
Perhaps the most interesting of the findings thus far are those that deal with the reasons why the
participants played the games, as this helps solidify the notion of casual play. Boredom was the most

329

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Table 4. Game play in the context of frequency of play

Item Frequency Percentage

When was the last time you played a game on Within the past day 1113 57.1
your mobile phone?
Within the past week 366 18.8
Within the past month 187 9.6
Within the past 2 to 4 months 142 7.3
Within the past 5 to 8 months 32 1.6
Within the past 9 to 12 months 12 .6
More than a year ago 79 4.1
Missing 19 1.0
How often do you typically play games on your Daily 944 48.4
mobile phone?
Weekly 604 31.0
Monthly 333 17.1
Missing 69 3.5
(Based on your answer to the previous question) Less than 30 minutes 1269 65.1
How many hours do you play games on your
30 to 60 minutes 399 20.5
mobile phone?
1 to 2 hours 174 8.9
3 to 4 hours 35 1.8
More than 4 hours 36 1.8
Missing 37 1.9
How long have you been playing games on a Less than 1 month 584 29.9
mobile phone?
1 to 4 months 445 22.8
5 to 8 months 213 10.9
9 to 12 months 124 6.4
1 to 2 years 257 13.2
3 to 5 years 210 10.8
6 to 10 years 68 3.5
More than 10 years 27 1.4
Missing 22 1.1
Of the time you spend using your mobile phone, 1 to 25 percent 1366 70.1
what percentage is spent playing games?
26 to 50 percent 402 20.6
51 to 75 percent 129 6.6
76 to 100 percent 33 1.7
Missing 20 1.0
(Based on your answer to the previous question) Increased 490 25.1
How has this percentage changed since you began
Decreased 582 29.8
playing games on your mobile phone?
No change 843 43.2
Missing 35 1.8

330

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Table 5. Game play in the context of selection, features, rationale, and psychophysical changes

Item Frequency Percentage

What has influenced an increase in game play on your Increase in game titles 165 8.5
mobile phone the most?
Better game quality 177 9.1

New mobile phone with improved capabilities 97 5.0

Easier to download games 144 7.4

Recommendations from my friends 196 10.1

Other 185 9.5

Missing 986 50.6

Which of the following changes have you experienced Distraction from pain/discomfort 180 9.2
the most as a result of your mobile (phone) game play?
Improved attitude 62 3.2

Improved creativity 155 7.9

Improved decision making 63 3.2

Improved hand-eye coordination 183 9.4

Improved mental attention/focus 237 12.2

Improved mood or feelings of well-being 476 24.4

Improved self-confidence 4 .2

Improved sense of accomplishment 20 1.0

Improved social skills 12 .6

Less stress/anxiety 92 4.7

None of these 425 21.8

Missing 41 2.1

Why do you mostly play games on your mobile phone? Addiction 84 4.3

Avoid face-to-face encounters 27 1.4

Avoid responsibility (e.g., school work) 20 1.0

Challenge 102 5.2

Socialize 74 3.8

Boredom 898 46.1

Distraction from daily life 16 .8

Flirt with others 7 .4

Friends 60 3.1

Fun to play 164 8.4

Great graphics and sound 17 .9

Lots of levels and modes 13 .7

Meet with new friends 2 .1

Provide a quick distraction 51 2.6

To pass the time 233 11.9

Try something new 10 .5

Waiting 66 3.4

Other 91 4.7

Missing 15 .8

continued on following page

331

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Table 5.Continued
Item Frequency Percentage
What do you look for the most in the selection of Easy and simple game mechanics 245 12.6
mobile (phone) games?
Challenge 132 6.8

Characters/Avatars 48 2.5

Not boring 387 19.8

Easy to learn 50 2.6

Easy to win 38 1.9

Free 476 24.4

Fun to play 387 19.8

Genre 48 2.5

Great graphics and sound 43 2.2

Good value for the price 16 .8

Lots of levels and modes 18 .9

Storytelling 8 .4

Unique or unusual 13 .7

Other 26 1.3

Missing 15 .8

frequent reason mentioned, with 46% (n = 898) of the participants claiming they played these games to
fight tedium. This was followed by 12% (n = 233) who played to pass the time. Fun to play was among
the top three reasons, at 8% (n = 164), a result that is consistent with the previously reported finding
that fun was an important factor in game selection.
Also of interest was the discovery that 24% (n = 476) of the participants claimed that playing mobile
games improved their mood and created feelings of well-being. This was followed by 12% (n = 237),
who found that these games improved their mental attention/focus, and 9% (n = 183), who saw an im-
provement in hand-eye coordination and another 9% (n = 180) who played mobile games as a distraction
from pain/discomfort. Although much more research is needed in this area, it appears that video games
do not diminish aptitude, as is often argued, but instead, based on different factors, such as the situation,
the person, the game, and other influences, may actually be beneficial. Again, such a conclusion needs
further, careful investigation.

Spending Habits

Shown in Table 6, participants’ spending habits were next examined in the context of mobile game
purchases. Consistent with the finding that being free was a major contributing factor in participants’
selection of mobile games, further analysis revealed that 66% (n = 1,292) had not spent money on games
in the past year, with this percentage anticipated to increase to 84% (n = 1,632) in the subsequent year
(i.e., 2013). In addition, 70% (n = 1,357) of the participants indicated that they did not purchase games
they originally acquired for free. Games that are distributed free of charge (i.e., free-to-play; based on
the freemium software model) may be restricted in use by time, moves, or levels, preventing the player

332

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

from enhancing until the game is purchased or payment is made; that is, based on a microtransaction
system to access additional content or upgrades (e.g., in the various Temple Run® releases [1, 2, Brave,
Oz] players are allowed to play the game for free but are offered opportunities to purchase upgrades
for enhancement that is either based on coins collected during game play or the use of real currency;
whereas in Farm Heroes Saga®, players are given five lives with a new life every 20 minutes with the
free version, but can also purchase additional lives if so desired).
In addition, 75% (n = 1,459) of the participants stored five or fewer games in their mobile phone.
This may simply be a result of the limitations of mobile devices in terms of storage at the time this study
was conducted. Finally, 57% (n = 1,117) had recommended mobile games to others (although the games

Table 6. Game play in the context of spending habits

Item Frequency Percentage

How many games do you store on your mobile 1 to 5 1459 74.8
phone?
6 to 10 286 14.7
11 to 15 79 4.1
16 to 25 46 2.4
26 or more 41 2.1
Missing 39 2.0
In the past year, have you purchased a mobile Yes 565 29.0
(phone) game that you originally got for free?
No 1357 69.6
Missing 28 1.4
In the past year, how much have you spent on $0 (I only play free games) 1292 66.3
games for your mobile phone?
$1 to $5 340 17.4
$6 to $10 143 7.3
$11 to $15 60 3.1
$16 to $25 37 1.9
$26 to $50 27 1.4
More than $50 31 1.6
Missing 20 1.0
In the next year, how much do you plan to spend $0 (I only play free games) 1632 83.7
on games for your mobile phone?
$1 to $5 180 9.2
$6 to $10 53 2.7
$11 to $15 30 1.5
$16 to $25 10 .5
$26 to $50 7 .4
More than $50 14 .7
Missing 24 1.2
Have you ever recommended a mobile phone Yes 1117 57.3
game to someone?
No 817 41.9
Missing 16 .8

333

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

were most likely free). This finding helps substantiate the previous discovery that a recommendation
from a friend was the most frequent reason why some of the participants had seen an increase in their
mobile game play.

Limitations and Future Research

A summary of the aforementioned findings can be found in Table 7. Care should be taken in interpreting
these findings, however, as certain aspects of the study, while not necessarily limitations, pose concern
and, as a consequence, warrant future investigation.
For instance, when using self-reported data, social desirability is always a concern, in that it is con-
ceivable that the participants responded based on what they felt were “social norms” or what they felt
others wanted to hear. The disproportion in the number of males and females is a concern. In Korea,
vocational high schools are predominantly comprised of male students, which may help explain this
disparity. Given the interest in female game players, future investigations may wish to emphasize this
gender. Furthermore, although the participants were 17 and older, the majority were no older than 23
(86%, n = 1,679). Given the casual nature of mobile games and their potential broad popularity, future
studies should investigate a wide range of ages, from the very young to the elderly. In addition, although
today’s mobile games can be played on a number of devices, this study focused explicitly on games
played on phones. As mentioned, with research suggesting these games are moving to tablets, future
studies should explicitly investigate game play on these and similar devices. As also discussed, Korean
students attending vocational schools are known to come from economically disadvantaged homes,
perhaps explaining the low tablet ownership in this study. Thus, future research should also take into
account higher income households. Finally, many studies have been conducted in South Eastern Asian
countries (as was the case here). This, in part, stems from the view that these countries are breeding
grounds of problematic video game play (see Seok & DaCosta, 2012 for an in-depth review) in addi-
tion to being meccas of technological innovation. Given the widespread popularity of mobile devices
and, consequently, the availability of mobile games, future studies may wish to sample populations in
other parts of the world. Perhaps in nontechnology-rich cultures, as such investigations may be helpful
in acquiring different perspectives on mobile game play, particularly in the context of players who may
be experiencing some technologies for the very first time.

CONCLUSION

Although exceptions were found, the findings presented herein support many of the claims made about
the casual player. Perhaps the most notable of these are the results revealing that mobile games were
predominantly played for short periods of time, in between activities, and as a means to combat boredom
or as a way to pass the time. These findings add credence to the idea that mobile game play is a casual
activity opposed to a social replacement or alternative.
Results also revealed potentially positive benefits, to include improved mood and feelings of well-being
and better mental attention and focus. Although more research is needed before definitive conclusions
can be drawn, findings such as these suggest that this form of play can be beneficial in certain contexts.
Researchers, educators, and practitioners may find such data helpful, as these games may have applica-
tion to other contexts, to include those outside of entertainment.

334

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Table 7. Summary of the characteristics of the casual (mobile game) player

Technology Ownership
Although the participants owned mobile phones (89%, n = 1,738) used smartphones, 60% (n = 1,169) preferred game play on a PC,
compared to 34% (n = 657) who mostly played games on their phones.
Game Genre and Titles
Action-themed (25.5%, n = 497), arcade (19%, n = 370), and sports-themed (12.5%, n = 243) were the most popular game genres.

Temple Run® (10.8%, n = 140), 9 Innings: Pro Baseball® (8.8%, n = 115), Angry Birds® (4.5%, n = 59), and Sonic the Hedgehog®
(4.2%, n = 55) were among the most popular mobile games played.

Explicit puzzle-themed games were played among 8% (n = 149) of the participants; however, many game genres (e.g., arcade) can be
viewed as including problem-solving challenges and puzzles.
Location of Game Play
Video game play on a PC at home, an Internet café, or other location was the most popular among the participants (41%, n = 796).

Mobile games were predominantly played in the bedroom (15.5%, n = 303), between classes (13%, n = 262), and commuting to and
from school (12%, n = 240).

Mobile game play at restaurants (n = 12), the dinner table (n = 6), parks (n = 9), and parties (n = 2) and other social events (n = 6) was
found among less than 1% of the participants.
Frequency of Game Play
Daily game play (49%, n = 944) was the most popular, followed by games played weekly (31%, n = 604).

Play time was reported to be less than an hour, with 65% (n = 1,269) playing for less than 30 minutes and 20.5% (n = 399) between 30
and 60 minutes.

Of the participants, 30% (n = 584) had started playing within the past month, followed by 23% (n = 445) who had been playing one to
four months and 11% (n = 213) five to eight.

Of the time spent using their mobile phones, 70% (n = 1,366) gamed less than 25% of the time, followed by 21% (n = 402) who
dedicated 26% to 50% of their phone usage to game play.
Selection, Features, Rationale, and Psychophysical Changes
Recommendations from friends (10%, n = 196) was the most frequent reason influencing an increase in game play, followed by better
game quality (9%, n = 177) and a larger selection of titles (8.5%, n = 165).

Being free was the largest factor in game selection (24%, n = 476), followed by being fun and entertaining and not being boring (20%, n
= 387), and offering easy and simple game mechanics (13%, n = 245).

Boredom (46%, n = 898) was the largest reason cited for gaming, followed by passing the time (12%, n = 233) and fun to play (8%, n =
164).

Playing mobile games was reported to improve mood and create feelings of well-being (24%, n = 476), followed by improved mental
attention/focus (12%, n = 237), improved hand-eye coordination (9%, n = 183), and distraction from pain/discomfort (9%, n = 180).
Spending Habits
Free games were predominantly played, with no money spent on games in the past year (66%, n = 1,292) and less money anticipated to
be spent in the near future (84%, n = 1,632).

Participants did not purchase games they originally acquired for free (70%, n = 1,357), stored five or fewer games in their mobile phone
(75%, n = 1,459), and mostly recommended mobile games to others (57%, n = 1,117).

335

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

In the second part of this two chapter piece, we further explore characteristics of the casual player
and mobile game play. Offering empirically-based data focused on the same factors discussed thus far;
however, this is done from the perspective of age and gender.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/code-1992.aspx
Anderson, N. (2009). US 20th in broadband penetration, trails S. Korea, Estonia. ARS. Retrieved from http://
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/us-20th-in-broadband-penetration-trails-s-korea-estonia.ars
Bouça, M. (2012). Angry Birds, uncommitted players. In Proceedings of DiGRA Nordic 2012 Confer-
ence: Local and global — Games in culture and society (pp. 1-13). Tampere, Finland: Digital Games
Research Association.
Chatfield, T. (2010). Fun Inc: Why games are the 21st century’s most serious business. London, UK:
Virgin Books.
Chee, F. (2006). The games we play online and offline: Making Wang-tta in Korea. Popular Communi-
cation, 4(3), 225–239. doi:10.1207/s15405710pc0403_6
DaCosta, B., Nasah, A., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2011). Digital propensity: An investigation of video
game and information and communication technology practices. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research
on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp.
1148–1173). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch052
DaCosta, B., Seok, S., & Kinsell, C. (2015). Mobile games and learning. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of mobile phone behavior. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8239-9.ch004
del Blanco, A., Marchiori, E. J., Torrente, J., Martínez-Ortiz, I., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2013). Using
e-learning standards in educational video games. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 36(1), 178–187.
doi:10.1016/j.csi.2013.06.002
Elliott, L., Ream, G., McGinsky, E., & Dunlap, E. (2012). The contribution of game genre and other use
patterns to problem video game play among adult video gamers. International Journal of Mental Health
and Addiction, 10(6), 948–969. doi:10.1007/s11469-012-9391-4 PMID:23284310
Ellis, H., Heppell, S., Kirriemuir, J., Krotoski, A., & McFarlane, A. (2006). Unlimited learning. Computer
and video games in the learning landscape. London, UK: ELSPA (Entertainment and Leisure Software
Publishers Association).
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York:
Palgrave.

336

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Violent games as exemplary teachers. A conceptual analysis.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(2), 127–141. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9206-2
Grimes, A., Kantroo, V., & Grinter, R. E. (2010). Let’s play! Mobile health games for adults. In Proceed-
ings of the 12th ACM international conference on ubiquitous computing (pp. 241-250). Copenhagen,
Denmark: ACM. doi:10.1145/1864349.1864370
Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious games and learning effectiveness: The case
of It’s a Deal! Computers & Education, 58(1), 435–448. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015
Information Solutions Group. (2011). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from
http://www.infosolutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2012.pdf
Information Solutions Group. (2013). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from
http://www.infosolutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2013.pdf
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kallio, K. P., Mäyrä, F., & Kaipainen, K. (2011). At least nine ways to play: Approaching gamer men-
talities. Games and Culture, 6(4), 327–353. doi:10.1177/1555412010391089
Katz, J. E., & Krzys Acord, S. (2008). Mobile games and entertainment. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook
of mobile communication studies (pp. 403–418). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mit-
press/9780262113120.003.0030
Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational
computer games. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1729–1743. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.004
Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 259–276.
Kirriemuir, J. (2002). The relevance of games and gaming consoles to the higher and further education
learning experience. Techwatch Report TSW 02.01. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_docu-
ments/tsw_02-01.rtf
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Report 8: Literature review in gaming and learning. FutureLab.
Retrieved from http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf
Kirsh, S. J. (2003). The effects of violent video games on adolescents: The overlooked influence of
development. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(4), 377–389. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00056-3
McAteer, S. (2005). (X marks the spot.) So Y are games targeted at men? Connected Planet. Retrieved
from http://connectedplanetonline.com/wireless/commentary/wireless_marks_spot_games
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review
of the literature. Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from http://www.m-learning.org/
docs/The%20use%20of%20computer%20and%20video%20games%20for%20learning.pdf

337

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Moore, K., & Rutter, J. (2004). Understanding consumers’ understanding of mobile entertainment. In K.
Moore & J. Rutter (Eds.), Proceedings of 2004 mobile entertainment: User-centered perspectives (pp.
49-65). Manchester, UK: Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester.
Nacke, L. E., & Lindley, C. A. (2010). Affective ludology, flow and immersion in a first-person shooter:
Measurement of player experience. Arxiv Preprint arXiv, 12(31), 248-255.
Paavilainen, J. (2003). Mobile games: Creating business with Nokia N-gage. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high-school computer science education: Impact
on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.06.004
Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing
new challenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 498–505. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.001
Park, H.-Y., & Chang, S.-G. (2004). Mobile network evolution toward IMT-2000 in Korea: A techno-
economic analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 28(2), 177–196. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2003.12.004
Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2006). Using ubiquitous computing to extend and enhance learning experiences.
In M. van ¨et Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible
impact (pp. 329–347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rumas, N. (2007). The state of Korea: Console games. Gamasutra. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.
com/view/feature/130020/the_state_of_korea_console_games.php
Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story: How story impacts
emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Human Com-
munication Research, 30(3), 361–375.
Seok, S., & DaCosta, B. (2012). The world’s most intense online gaming culture: Addiction and high-
engagement prevalence rates among South Korean adolescents and young adults. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(6), 2143–2151. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.019
Seok, S., & DaCosta, B. (2014). Distinguishing addiction from high engagement: An investigation into
the social lives of adolescent and young adult massively multiplayer online game players. Games and
Culture, 9(4), 227–254. doi:10.1177/1555412014538811
Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of the in-class use of a video game for
teaching high school history. Computers & Education, 56(2), 466–474. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.007

ADDITIONAL READING

Barlett, C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Swing, E. L. (2009). Video game effects—Confirmed, suspected, and spec-
ulative: A review of the evidence. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 377–403. doi:10.1177/1046878108327539
DaCosta, B., Seok, S., & Kinsell, C. (2015). Mobile games and learning. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of mobile phone behavior. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8239-9.ch004

338

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 1

Davidsson, O., Peitz, J., & Björk, S. (2004). Game design patterns for mobile games. Retrieved from
http://web.science.mq.edu.au/~isvr/Documents/pdf%20files/game-master/Game_Design_Patterns_for_
Mobile_Games.pdf
de Souza e Silva, A., & Hjorth, L. (2009). Playful urban spaces. Simulation & Gaming, 40(5), 602–625.
doi:10.1177/1046878109333723

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Casual Player: Individuals who play video games, but do not spend a significant part of their time
playing or learning about games. These individuals may restrict their play to games of a particular genre
(e.g., problem-solving, puzzle), platform (e.g., smartphone, tablet), and may only play games under
certain situations (e.g., kill brief periods of time, waiting in between activities, combat boredom).
Game-Based Learning: This type of learning is rooted in the belief that games, if used properly,
can be leveraged in the learning process (DaCosta et al., 2011).
Gamer: An individual who plays video games. The term is used independent of level of dedication
and frequency of game play, game title and genre (e.g., action, role-playing), platform (e.g., dedicated
game console, handheld game device, mobile device, PC), and other factors.
Hardcore Player: Individuals who play video games, and spend a significant part of their time
playing or learning about games. These avid players may play a wide genre of games, across numerous
platforms (e.g., dedicated game console, handheld game device, mobile device, PC), and seek out games
that are complex, and with depth.1
Mobile Game: A video game, more often than not, played on a mobile device (e.g., smartphone,
tablet; DaCosta, Seok, & Kinsell, 2015).
Video Game: A digitally-based game typically played on a PC or dedicated gaming device, such as
a game console (e.g., Xbox®, PlayStation®, Wii®) or handheld game device (e.g., 3DS®, Vita®; DaCosta,
Seok, & Kinsell, 2015).

ENDNOTES
1
Numerous factors have been used to individually define as well as compare and contrast the casual
and hardcore player, to include frequency of game play, game title and genre, preferred gaming
platform, and circumstances for play. There is no general consensus on definitions or names for
these classifications or delineations, and any definitions offered, to include those found in this
chapter should be interpreted and used with care.

339
340

Chapter 16
Factors That Explain
Adolescent and Young Adult
Mobile Game Play, Part 2:
A Quantitative Examination of the Casual
Player in the Context of Age and Gender

Boaventura DaCosta
Solers Research Group, USA

Soonhwa Seok
Korea University, South Korea

ABSTRACT
The second of two chapters, a study is presented that quantitatively examined the adolescent and young
adult casual video game player from the perspective of age and gender. A total of 1,950 South Korean
students self-reported their game play on mobile phones by answering a 92-item questionnaire designed
to capture data on technology ownership; preference for game genre and titles; where and how often
games were played; what factors influence the selection of games to play, what game features were the
most desirable, the rationale behind playing games, and psychophysical changes experienced as a result
of playing; as well as, spending habits with regard to game purchases. The findings supported many
of the age and gender suppositions made about the casual player. For example, females played mobile
games as much as males, and play time was limited to 30 minute increments almost equally among age
groups and gender. New discoveries were also found to include positive benefits stemming from mobile
games, such as improved mood and feelings of well-being along with better mental attention and focus.

INTRODUCTION

In part one of this two chapter presentation, we discussed that considerable attention continues to con-
centrate on the unfavorable aspects of video games (DaCosta, Nasah, Kinsell, & Seok, 2011), with these
games long viewed a public concern in the U.S. and other countries (Kirsh, 2003; Schneider, Lang, Shin,

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch016

& Bradley, 2004). Even so, advocates have strived to comprehend the attractiveness of video games and
how such overwhelming interest can be harnessed to encourage the use of these games in nonentertain-
ment contexts. This interest is not baseless, as there is empirical evidence supporting the educational
benefits of these games. With interest increasing in the utilization of video games in primary, secondary,
and higher education; government; financial services; healthcare; hospitality; science and technology;
telecommunications, and corporate and military training (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002), purposed
for achieving a variety of learning outcomes (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008).
Advancements in mobile computing have, to some extent, paved the way for research in video games,
with focus on social development, intellectual activities (Spikol & Milrad, 2008), and general learning
(Facer et al., 2004; Rogers & Price, 2006). As discussed in part one, video games played on mobile
devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets), hereafter “mobile games”, have been of interest because they are
frequently depicted as different from video games played on traditional gaming platforms (e.g., dedicated
game console, handheld game device, personal computer [PC]). Mobile games have been characteristi-
cally regarded as simple, problem-solving or puzzle-based games (e.g., Sudoku®, Where’s My Water®),
a departure from complex, traditional games commonly cited for their massively multiplayer online
(MMO; e.g., Lineage®, RuneScape®) features and mature content (e.g., Alien: Isolation®, The Walking
Dead® season series). Resulting in considerable debate about the notion of the “casual” player, often
contrasted with the “hardcore” counterpart, pointing to tribal divisions within the video game culture
(Nelson, 2013; see part one of this two chapter presentation for a more in-depth discussion on differences
between the casual and hardcore player).
Delineating between the casual and hardcore player, however, is difficult (Juul, 2010). For example,
although casual play has become almost synonymous with mobile games, there are many factors that
play a role beyond preference for gaming platform, to include, frequency of play, game titles and genre,
and circumstances for play. Age and gender are said also to be such factors in this form of game play.
Mobile game play is oftentimes portrayed as being the predominant pastime of young people. This
may stem from the fact that these individuals already use mobile devices (Paavilainen, 2003). They are
also more likely to be smartphone owners (Information Solutions Group, 2011). This is important because
it has been proposed that those who rely heavily on their mobile phones are more likely to play these
types of games opposed to those who depend on landlines (Rainie & Keeter, 2006, as cited in Katz &
Krzys Acord, 2008). However, there is research to suggest that mobile games appeal to a much broader
audience, and are actually played by people of all ages (Grimes, Kantroo, & Grinter, 2010).
Furthermore, females are also thought to play mobile games as much as males (Information Solutions
Group, 2011, 2013; McAteer, 2005). A departure from what has primarily been seen as a male-dominated
activity (admittedly, it could be argued that the game industry has traditionally targeted males [Fron,
Fullerton, Morie, & Pearce, 2007]). In fact there is considerable research to suggest that middle-aged
females dominate the mobile gaming market, comprising Caucasian, high school-educated women, who
play in their living rooms and bedrooms in the evening (as well as proposing that this demographic are
the highest spenders of mobile games; e.g., PlayPhone, 2014). This could be explained by the increasing
popularity of social networking (Information Solutions Group, 2011) or social games (e.g., Words with
Friends®, Minecraft: Pocket Edition®; Information Solutions Group, 2011; Kirriemuir & McFarlane,
2004). In that those who play mobile games are believed to also frequent social media (e.g., Instagram®,
Twitter®; Information Solutions Group, 2011). Another explanation may lie in the game genre, in that
females are said to prefer card, puzzle, and arcade games (McAteer, 2005). There is data to support this
supposition. There are findings, for instance, showing that Clash of Clan® players are predominately

341

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

male, whereas those who play Candy Crush® are more likely to be female. With Clash of Clan® play-
ers viewing themselves hardcore, compared to Candy Crush® players, who see themselves as casual
participants (NewZoo, 2013).
Findings such as these are no doubt important in shaping our understanding of the mobile game player.
As stated in part one, the mobile gaming landscape is continuously changing, and as a consequence, so
does the notion of the casual player. Research into the characteristics of casual play, to include mobile
game play, must, therefore, be ongoing, with findings updated and published regularly.

Purpose of the Chapter

Toward this goal, we continue to present the findings of a study that quantitatively examined character-
istics of the casual player, but do so from the perspective of age and gender. As with part one, we offer
empirically-based data focused on technology ownership; preference for game genre and titles; where
and how often casual games are played; what factors influence the selection of games to play, what game
features are the most desirable, the rationale behind playing casual games, and psychophysical changes
experienced as a result of playing; and finally, spending habits with regard to game purchases. Focus is
again placed on video games played exclusively on mobile phones.
As explained in part one, this chapter is not intended to debate the use of video games in educational
contexts, but instead, offer empirically supported and pragmatic data to researchers, educators, and prac-
titioners interested in bettering their understanding of mobile game play and the casual player. Attention
is now turned to the purpose of this chapter. The study methodology, results and discussion, limitations
and future research, and final conclusions are offered in what follows.

METHOD

Setting

Participants

342

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

8); 31% (n = 598) of households earned $20,000 to $39,999, followed by 21% (n = 412) at $40,000 to
$59,999, and 18% (n = 353) making less than $19,999.
Moreover, 64% (n = 1,241) attended high school and 36% (n = 709) college. Participants’ primary area
of study was specific to the type of school they attended, with engineering (29%, n = 287), architecture/
drafting (17%, n = 163), mechanical and repair technologies (14%, n = 140), and computer science and
information technology (10%, n = 100) the most studied at the mechanical high school, and education
the most studied at the postsecondary levels (undergraduate: 48%, n = 296; graduate: 52%, n = 49).

Materials

Procedure

Ethical Clearance and Informed Consent

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As stated—(a) technology ownership; (b) preference for game genre and titles; (c) where and (d) how
often these games are played; (e) what factors influence the selection of games to play, what game
features are the most desirable, the rationale behind playing these games, and psychophysical changes
experienced as a result of playing; and finally, (f) spending habits with regard to the purchase of mobile
games—were investigated to explain mobile game play as well as identify characteristics of their players
in the context of age and gender.
Pearson’s chi-square tests of independence were conducted to determine relationships between the
various factors and the demographics of age and gender. A value of .05 was used to determine statistical
significance. Overall, the findings revealed statistically significant relationships among almost all of the

343

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

items and the demographics of age and gender, although the strength of associations among a number
of these relationships was weak.
The findings are discussed in what follows organized by the aforementioned factors. The findings
are first presented in the context of age, and then by gender.

Age

Technology Ownership: A statistically significant relationship was found with regard to technology
ownership and age, χ2 (10, N = 1,946) = 56.11, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .120. As shown in Table 1,

Table 1. Game Play in the Context of Age

Item Age
15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30 and
older
Technology Ownership

What type of mobile phone Basic (voice and text) 31 (8.3%) 43 (4.6%) 7 (1.9%) 1 (0.6%) 4 (6.0%) 4 (12.9%)
do you currently own and
use? Web-enabled (voice, text, and data) 41 (10.9%) 56 (6.0%) 15 (4.0%) 3 (1.8%) 3 (4.5%) 3 (9.7%)

Smartphone (voice, text, data, and 303 832 351 165 60 (89.6%) 24 (77.4%)
apps) (80.8%) (89.4%) (94.1%) (97.6%)

Which device do you play PC (desktop, laptop) 246 675 152 64 (38.8%) 19 (28.4%) 12 (38.7%)
games on the most? (66.3%) (73.1%) (41.0%)

Game console (e.g., PlayStation®, 8 (2.2%) 14 (1.5%) 5 (1.3%) 4 (2.4%) 5 (7.5%) -

Wii®, Xbox®)

Handheld game device (e.g., 3DS®, 10 (2.7%) 14 (1.5%) 5 (1.3%) - - -

Vita®)

Tablet 9 (2.4%) 16 (1.7%) 6 (1.6%) 6 (3.6%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.2%)

Mobile phone 98 (26.4%) 204 203 91 (55.2%) 41 (61.2%) 18 (58.1%)

(22.1%) (54.7%)

Game Genre

What genre of mobile Action 126 287 41 (11.1%) 23 (13.9%) 12 (18.2%) 6 (19.4%)
(phone) game do you play (34.3%) (31.5%)
the most?
Adventure 34 (9.3%) 82 (9.0%) 27 (7.3%) 12 (7.3%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (3.2%)

Arcade 68 (18.5%) 164 87 (23.5%) 36 (21.8%) 10 (15.2%) 5 (16.1%)

(18.0%)

Board 17 (4.6%) 46 (5.1%) 32 (8.6%) 16 (9.7%) 6 (9.1%) 3 (9.7%)

Educational 5 (1.4%) 8 (0.9%) 5 (1.3%) 1 (0.6%) 3 (4.5%) 1 (3.2%)

Fighting 9 (2.5%) 42 (4.6%) 6 (1.6%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) -

Puzzle 10 (2.7%) 43 (4.7%) 53 (14.3%) 27 (16.4%) 8 (12.1%) 8 (25.8%)

Racing 11 (3.0%) 21 (2.3%) 11 (3.0%) 2 (1.2%) 1 (1.5%) -

Role-play - 4 (0.4%) - - 1 (1.5%) 1 (3.2%)

Simulation 15 (4.1%) 36 (4.0%) 40 (10.8%) 10 (6.1%) 5 (7.6%) 1 (3.2%)

Sports 45 (12.3%) 116 48 (12.9%) 21 (12.7%) 9 (13.6%) 4 (12.9%)

(12.7%)

Strategy 23 (6.3%) 48 (5.3%) 10 (2.7%) 8 (4.8%) 5 (7.6%) 1 (3.2%)

Trivia 4 (1.1%) 13 (1.4%) 11 (3.0%) 5 (3.0%) 3 (4.5%) -

continued on following page

344

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 1. Continued
Item Age
15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30 and
older
Location of Game Play

Where do you typically PC (e.g., home, PC bang, other 175 411 133 48 (28.9%) 20 (30.8%) 8 (26.7%)
play mobile (phone) location) (47.8%) (45.5%) (35.8%)
games?
Restaurant 2 (0.5%) 5 (0.6%) 5 (1.3%) - - -

Bathroom 16 (4.4%) 36 (4.0%) 32 (8.6%) 15 (9.0%) 7 (10.8%) 3 (10.0%)

Bedroom 67 (18.3%) 138 51 (13.7%) 29 (17.5%) 13 (20.0%) 3 (10.0%)

(15.3%)

Dinner table 2 (0.5%) - - 3 (1.8%) - 4 (13.3%)

Parks 3 (0.8%) 1 (0.1%) 2 (0.5%) - 1 (1.5%) 1 (3.3%)

Parties - - 1 (0.3%) - - 1 (3.3%)

Between classes 67 (18.3%) 162 15 (4.0%) 12 (7.2%) 3 (4.6%) 1 (3.3%)

(17.9%)

To and from school 17 (4.6%) 70 (7.8%) 92 (24.7%) 38 (22.9%) 18 (27.7%) 5 (16.7%)

In class 6 (1.6%) 30 (3.3%) 13 (3.5%) 8 (4.8%) 1 (1.5%) -

Social events 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.1%) 2 (0.5%) - 1 (1.5%) -

Work - 6 (0.7%) 7 (1.9%) 3 (1.8%) 1 (1.5%) 2 (6.7%)

Other 9 (2.5%) 43 (4.8%) 19 (5.1%) 10 (6.0%) - 2 (6.7%)

Frequency of Game Play

When was the last time Within the past day 216 551 209 87 (51.8%) 36 (54.5%) 12 (40.0%)
you played a game on your (58.2%) (59.6%) (56.8%)
mobile phone?
Within the past week 70 (18.9%) 182 67 (18.2%) 33 (19.6%) 11 (16.7%) 3 (10.0%)
(19.7%)

Within the past month 42 (11.3%) 88 (9.5%) 31 (8.4%) 12 (7.1%) 9 (13.6%) 4 (13.3%)

Within the past 2 to 4 months 21 (5.7%) 50 (5.4%) 34 (9.2%) 21 (12.5%) 8 (12.1%) 7 (23.3%)

Within the past 5 to 8 months 5 (1.3%) 14 (1.5%) 7 (1.9%) 2 (1.2%) 1 (1.5%) 3 (10.0%)

Within the past 9 to 12 months 2 (0.5%) 4 (0.4%) 4 (1.1%) 2 (1.2%) - -

More than a year ago 15 (4.0%) 35 (3.8%) 16 (4.3%) 11 (6.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (3.3%)

How often do you typically Daily 192 456 184 67 (41.6%) 31 (48.4%) 12 (40.0%)
play games on your mobile (52.3%) (50.9%) (51.3%)
phone?
Weekly 128 291 104 54 (33.5%) 18 (28.1%) 9 (30.0%)
(34.9%) (32.5%) (29.0%)

Monthly 47 (12.8%) 149 71 (19.8%) 40 (24.8%) 15 (23.4%) 9 (30.0%)

(16.6%)

(Based on your answer Less than 30 minutes 246 624 232 98 (59.4%) 45 (67.2%) 21 (67.7%)
to the previous question) (67.0%) (68.6%) (62.9%)
How many hours do you
play games on your mobile 30 to 60 minutes 71 (19.3%) 177 90 (24.4%) 45 (27.3%) 13 (19.4%) 3 (9.7%)
phone? (19.5%)

1 to 2 hours 33 (9.0%) 77 (8.5%) 40 (10.8%) 17 (10.3%) 5 (7.5%) 1 (3.2%)

3 to 4 hours 10 (2.7%) 14 (1.5%) 4 (1.1%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.2%)

More than 4 hours 7 (1.9%) 18 (2.0%) 3 (0.8%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (3.0%) 5 (16.1%)

continued on following page

345

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 1. Continued
Item Age
15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30 and
older
How long have you been Less than 1 month 121 299 97 (26.1%) 43 (25.7%) 16 (24.2%) 6 (20.0%)
playing games on a mobile (32.7%) (32.5%)
phone?
1 to 4 months 89 (24.1%) 207 90 (24.3%) 39 (23.4%) 8 (12.1%) 11 (36.7%)
(22.5%)

5 to 8 months 44 (11.9%) 101 31 (8.4%) 23 (13.8% 13 (19.7%) 1 (3.3%)

(11.0%)

9 to 12 months 21 (5.7%) 58 (6.3%) 27 (7.3%) 12 (7.2%) 2 (3.0%) 4 (13.3%)

1 to 2 years 47 (12.7%) 123 54 (14.6%) 18 (10.8%) 11 (16.7%) 3 (10.0%)

(13.4%)

3 to 5 years 39 (10.5%) 98 (10.7%) 45 (12.1%) 16 (9.6%) 10 (15.2%) 2 (6.7%)

6 to 10 years 2 (0.5%) 31 (3.4%) 17 (4.6%) 14 (8.4%) 4 (6.1%) -

More than 10 years 7 (1.9%) 3 (0.3%) 10 (2.7%) 2 (1.2%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (10.0%)

Of the time you spend 1 to 25 percent 248 661 255 126 53 (79.1%) 21 (70.0%)
using your mobile phone, (67.0%) (71.6%) (69.1%) (75.4%)
what percentage is spent
playing games? 26 to 50 percent 84 (22.7%) 187 89 (24.1%) 29 (17.4%) 7 (10.4%) 5 (16.7%)
(20.3%)

51 to 75 percent 32 (8.6%) 62 (6.7%) 20 (5.4%) 8 (4.8%) 5 (7.5%) 1 (3.3%)

76 to 100 percent 6 (1.6%) 13 (1.4%) 5 (1.4%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (10.0%)

(Based on your answer to Increased 113 211 100 44 (26.3%) 13 (19.4%) 7 (23.3%)
the previous question) How (31.0%) (23.1%) (27.1%)
has this percentage changed
since you began playing Decreased 111 259 127 52 (31.1%) 20 (29.9%) 13 (43.3%)
games on your mobile (30.4%) (28.4%) (34.4%)
phone? No change 141 443 142 71 (42.5%) 34 (50.7%) 10 (33.3%)
(38.6%) (48.5%) (38.5%)

Selection, Features, Rationale, and Psychophysical Changes

What has influenced an Increase in game titles 48 (26.7%) 65 (16.0%) 34 (15.3%) 12 (12.4%) 4 (10.5%) 2 (10.5%)
increase in game play on
your mobile phone the Better game quality 36 (20.0%) 84 (20.7%) 31 (14.0%) 14 (14.4%) 8 (21.1%) 4 (21.1%)
most? New mobile phone with improved 10 (5.6%) 42 (10.4%) 28 (12.6%) 6 (6.2%) 5 (13.2%) 5 (26.3%)
capabilities

Easier to download games 27 (15.0%) 53 (13.1%) 37 (16.7%) 18 (18.6%) 8 (21.1%) 1 (5.3%)

Recommendations from my friends 38 (21.1%) 100 39 (17.6%) 16 (16.5%) 3 (7.9%) -

(24.7%)

Other 21 (11.7%) 61 (15.1%) 53 (23.9%) 31 (32.0%) 10 (26.3%) 7 (36.8%)

continued on following page

346

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 1. Continued
Item Age
15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30 and
older
Which of the following Distraction from pain/discomfort 31 (8.5%) 77 (8.5%) 32 (8.6%) 24 (14.5%) 12 (17.9%) 4 (13.3%)
changes have you
experienced the most as Improved attitude 9 (2.5%) 39 (4.3%) 9 (2.4%) 2 (1.2%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.3%)
a result of your mobile Improved creativity 35 (9.6%) 91 (10.0%) 15 (4.1%) 10 (6.0%) 1 (1.5%) 3 (10.0%)
(phone) game play?
Improved decision making 9 (2.5%) 37 (4.1%) 10 (2.7%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.3%)

Improved hand-eye coordination 39 (10.7%) 89 (9.8%) 38 (10.3%) 12 (7.2%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (10.0%)

Improved mental attention/focus 60 (16.4%) 115 40 (10.8%) 18 (10.8%) 4 (6.0%) -

(12.7%)

Improved mood or feelings of well- 91 (24.9%) 215 100 40 (24.1%) 24 (35.8%) 5 (16.7%)
being (23.7%) (27.0%)

Improved self-confidence 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.1%) - - 1 (1.5%) -

Improved sense of accomplishment 3 (0.8%) 7 (0.8%) 3 (0.8%) 3 (1.8%) 2 (3.0%) 2 (6.7%)

Improved social skills 3 (0.8%) 3 (0.3%) 6 (1.6%) - - -

Less stress/anxiety 14 (3.8%) 34 (3.8%) 27 (7.3%) 11 (6.6%) 3 (4.5%) 2 (6.7%)

None of these 70 (19.1%) 198 90 (24.3%) 42 (25.3%) 14 (20.9%) 9 (30.0%)

(21.9%)

Why do you mostly play Addiction 17 (4.6%) 35 (3.8%) 16 (4.3%) 11 (6.6%) 1 (1.5%) 4 (13.3%)
games on your mobile
phone? Avoid face-to-face encounters 7 (1.9%) 12 (1.3%) 5 (1.3%) - 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.3%)

Avoid responsibility (e.g., school 2 (0.5%) 9 (1.0%) 4 (1.1%) 2 (1.2%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.3%)
work)

Challenge 24 (6.5%) 50 (5.4%) 15 (4.0%) 8 (4.8%) 3 (4.5%) 2 (6.7%)

Socialize 21 (5.7%) 37 (4.0%) 8 (2.1%) 8 (4.8%) - -

Boredom 141 403 216 86 (51.5%) 40 (59.7%) 11 (36.7%)

(38.2%) (43.6%) (57.9%)

Distraction from daily life 5 (1.4%) 4 (0.4%) 3 (0.8%) - 1 (1.5%) 2 (6.7%)

Flirt with others 2 (0.5%) 3 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) - - 1 (3.3%)

Friends 16 (4.3%) 34 (3.7%) 8 (2.1%) 2 (1.2%) - -

Fun to play 48 (13.0%) 71 (7.7%) 29 (7.8%) 13 (7.8%) - 3 (10.0%)

Great graphics and sound 4 (1.1%) 8 (0.9%) 3 (0.8%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (1.5%) -

Lots of levels and modes 5 (1.4%) 5 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 2 (1.2%) - -

Meet with new friends 1 (0.3%) - 1 (0.3%) - - -

Provide a quick distraction 4 (1.1%) 24 (2.6%) 11 (2.9%) 10 (6.0%) 2 (3.0%) -

To pass the time 42 (11.4%) 132 32 (8.6%) 16 (9.6%) 10 (14.9%) -

(14.3%)

Try something new 3 (0.8%) 5 (0.5%) 2 (0.5%) - - -

Waiting 10 (2.7%) 38 (4.1%) 10 (2.7%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) 2 (6.7%)

Other 17 (4.6%) 55 (5.9%) 8 (2.1%) 4 (2.4%) 3 (4.5%) 3 (10.0%)

continued on following page

347

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 1. Continued
Item Age
15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30 and
older
What do you look for in the Easy and simple game mechanics 34 (9.2%) 112 46 (12.3%) 28 (16.8%) 14 (20.9%) 10 (32.3%)
selection of mobile (phone) (12.1%)
games the most?
Challenge 28 (7.6%) 56 (6.1%) 27 (7.2%) 20 (12.0%) 1 (1.5%) -

Characters/Avatars 14 (3.8%) 23 (2.5%) 8 (2.1%) - 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.2%)

Not boring 74 (20.0%) 195 76 (20.4%) 29 (17.4%) 9 (13.4%) 4 (12.9%)

(21.1%)

Easy to learn 11 (3.0%) 20 (2.2%) 8 (2.1%) 5 (3.0%) 3 (4.5%) 3 (9.7%)

Easy to win 8 (2.2%) 10 (1.1%) 12 (3.2%) 3 (1.8%) 3 (4.5%) 2 (6.5%)

Free 90 (24.3%) 246 81 (21.7%) 44 (26.3%) 11 (16.4%) 4 (12.9%)

(26.7%)

Fun to play 66 (17.8%) 170 100 31 (18.6%) 15 (22.4%) 3 (9.7%)

(18.4%) (26.8%)

Genre 15 (4.1%) 22 (2.4%) 5 (1.3%) 2 (1.2%) 4 (6.0%) -

Great graphics and sound 13 (3.5%) 27 (2.9%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (1.5%) -

Good value for the price 4 (1.1%) 6 (0.7%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (3.0%) -

Lots of levels and modes 5 (1.4%) 7 (0.8%) 3 (0.8%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (3.2%)

Storytelling 1 (0.3%) 6 (0.7%) - - - 1 (3.2%)

Unique or unusual 4 (1.1%) 7 (0.8%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.6%) - -

Other 3 (0.8%) 16 (1.7%) 3 (0.8%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (1.5%) 2 (6.5%)

Spending Habits

How many games do 1 to 5 261 731 273 127 46 (69.7%) 18 (58.1%)

you store on your mobile (71.1%) (80.7%) (73.8%) (76.0%)
phone?
6 to 10 71 (19.3%) 96 (10.6%) 71 (19.2%) 28 (16.8%) 14 (21.2%) 5 (16.1%)

11 to 15 19 (5.2%) 33 (3.6%) 17 (4.6%) 5 (3.0%) 1 (1.5%) 4 (12.9%)

16 to 25 9 (2.5%) 24 (2.6%) 4 (1.1%) 5 (3.0%) 3 (4.5%) 1 (3.2%)

26 or more 7 (1.9%) 22 (2.4%) 5 (1.4%) 2 (1.2%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (9.7%)

In the past year, have you Yes 127 257 110 47 (28.7%) 13 (19.4%) 11 (35.5%)
purchased a mobile (phone) (34.5%) (28.0%) (29.8%)
game that you originally
got for free? No 241 662 259 117 54 (80.6%) 20 (64.5%)
(65.5%) (72.0%) (70.2%) (71.3%)

In the past year, how much $0 (I only play free games) 243 632 240 111 44 (66.7%) 18 (58.1%)
have you spent on games (65.7%) (68.7%) (64.5%) (66.5%)
for your mobile phone?
$1 to $5 71 (19.2%) 149 71 (19.1%) 31 (18.6%) 14 (21.2%) 4 (12.9%)
(16.2%)

$6 to $10 23 (6.2%) 74 (8.0%) 28 (7.5%) 13 (7.8%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (9.7%)

$11 to $15 8 (2.2%) 24 (2.6%) 19 (5.1%) 4 (2.4%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (9.7%)

$16 to $25 9 (2.4%) 20 (2.2%) 7 (1.9%) 1 (0.6%) - -

$26 to $50 8 (2.2%) 9 (1.0%) 3 (0.8%) 5 (3.0%) 2 (3.0%) -

More than $50 8 (2.2%) 12 (1.3%) 4 (1.1%) 2 (1.2%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (9.7%)

continued on following page

348

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 1. Continued
Item Age
15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30 and
older
In the next year, how much $0 (I only play free games) 313 809 301 138 50 (74.6%) 18 (58.1%)
do you plan to spend on (84.6%) (88.3%) (80.9%) (82.6%)
games for your mobile
phone? $1 to $5 36 (9.7%) 67 (7.3%) 45 (12.1%) 15 (9.0%) 11 (16.4%) 6 (19.4%)

$6 to $10 10 (2.7%) 22 (2.4%) 10 (2.7%) 8 (4.8%) 2 (3.0%) 1 (3.2%)

$11 to $15 6 (1.6%) 10 (1.1%) 10 (2.7%) 2 (1.2%) - 2 (6.5%)

$16 to $25 1 (0.3%) 4 (0.4%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (3.2%)

$26 to $50 1 (0.3%) - 3 (0.8%) 2 (1.2%) 1 (1.5%) -

More than $50 3 (0.8%) 4 (0.4%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (3.0%) 3 (9.7%)

Have you ever Yes 213 532 231 86 (51.5%) 38 (57.6%) 15 (48.4%)
recommended a mobile (57.6%) (57.6%) (62.1%)
phone game to someone?
No 157 392 141 81 (48.5%) 28 (42.4%) 16 (51.6%)
(42.4%) (42.4%) (37.9%)

smartphones capable of voice, text, data, and applications, hereafter “apps”, were the most popular,
with the smallest of the age groups, those 30 years of age and older, reporting ownership among 77%
(n = 24). Also of interest, smartphone ownership among the age groups followed a normal distribution,
with the participants 21 to 23 (94%, n = 351) and 24 to 26 (98%, n = 165) showing the highest rates
of ownership. This is a finding perhaps explained by socioeconomics, in that those older may have the
discretionary funds to afford such devices.
Gaming platform also turned out to be statistically significant with age, χ2 (20, N = 1,928) = 234.07,
p < .01, Cramér’s V = .170. Personal computers were the most popular for gaming across all the age
groups, with those 18 to 20 (73%, n = 675) showing the most interest. Games played on mobile phones
followed as the second most popular platform. Generally speaking, interest in mobile gaming increased
among the participants with age, with those 27 to 29 (61%, n = 41) showing the most interest.
Based on these findings, when given the option, participants chose video games playable on a PC.
This was the case among all the age groups, but particularly among the younger age bracket. This finding
may suggest that the participants were more avid gamers, arguably along the lines of hardcore players
(if only taking gaming platform into consideration in making such a conclusion), interested in game
titles specific to traditional gaming platforms (in this case, the PC). That is, titles that may not yet be
available on the mobile platform. This finding may also suggest that when given a choice, participants
used their leisure time for planned video game play, with their mobile phones serving as an alternate
and noncommittal form of entertainment when their primary preference for game play was unavailable.
At the same time, games played on mobile phones were the second most popular platform, and inter-
est in mobile gaming increased among the participants by age. These findings add credence to the belief
that mobile games have broad popularity across age groups, showing that these games are more popular
among adults than adolescents. This may suggest, perhaps, that those older are more casual players,
playing mobile games as an alternative, noncommittal form of entertainment, compared to those younger,
who might be more hardcore players, scheduling and committing time to playing video games on a PC.

349

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Game Genre: A statistically significant relationship was found with regard to game genre and age, χ2
(60, N = 1,910) = 236.50, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .157. As shown in Table 1, action, arcade, and sports
were the most popular genres of games played across the age groups. Action was the most popular
among those 15 to 17 (34%, n = 126); arcade was the most popular among those 21 to 23 (23.5%, n =
87). By comparison, sports games were more evenly distributed by age, with those 27 to 29 (14%, n =
9), ranking slightly higher among the age groups.
Location of Game Play: A statistically significant relationship was also found with regard to location
of game play and age, χ2 (60, N = 1,902) = 311.25, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .181. As shown in Table 1, the
participants predominantly played video games on a PC at home, at a PC bang (pronounced “bahngs”;
Chee, 2006; i.e., Internet café in which individuals can use a PC capable of playing MMOGs for an
hourly fee), or some other location. This is consistent with the finding that PCs were the most popular
for gaming across all the age groups. As it was with the earlier finding, it was the younger participants
comprising the 15 to 17 (48%, n = 175) and 18 to 20 (45.5%, n = 411) age groups that predominantly
played video games on a PC in comparison to the older participants.
With regard to mobile game play, the bedroom, between classes, and to and from school were the
most cited locations. Interestingly, the bedroom was the most popular place to play these games for those
27 to 29 (20%, n = 13), which was closely followed by those 15 to 17 (18%, n = 67). This finding may
show that these games are played by different age groups during down time, during periods of boredom,
or perhaps as a way to unwind before going to bed. Playing between classes was most popular among the
younger participants, 15 to 17 (18%, n = 67) and 18 to 20 (18%, n = 162). A finding that may be explained
by the fact that these age groups were most likely traditional students (i.e., high school, undergraduate),
who, given their full-time class schedules, would play these games in between classes, compared to the
older age groups, who most likely were graduate students, with schedules possibly comprising work and
school, making it less likely that they played these games in this context. Finally, with regard to com-
muting, the games were mostly played by those 27 to 29 (28%, n = 18). Extending the prior argument,
graduate students were most likely to play these games while commuting.
Frequency of Game Play: Statistically significant relationships were found between frequency of
game play and age. As shown in Table 1, the last time participants had played games on their phones
was significant, χ2 (30, N = 1,927) = 56.60, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .171. Participants had predominantly
played within the past day, followed by those who had played within the past week. The highest percent-
age who had played within the past day was found among the younger groups, those 18 to 20 (60%, n
= 551) and 15 to 17 (58%, n = 216), whereas those who had played within the past week were more
evenly distributed across those 15 to 27 (18 to 20: 20%, n = 182; 24 to 27: 20%, n = 33; 15 to 17: 19%,
n = 70; 21 to 23: 18%, n = 67). This pattern can also be seen with regard to how often the participants
played, χ2 (10, N = 1,877) = 20.86, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .075. Most of the participants played on a
daily basis, with higher percentages found among the younger groups (15 to 17: 52%, n = 192; 21 to
23: 51%, n = 184; 18 to 20: 51%, n = 456). However, compared to those who played weekly, age was
more evenly distributed across the groups. The same was true for time, χ2 (20, N = 1,909) = 56.30, p <
.01, Cramér’s V = .172. That is, most of the participants played for less than 30 minutes at a time, with
percentages almost the same for both the younger (18 to 20: 69%, n = 624; 15 to 17: 67%, n = 246) and
the older age groups (30 and older: 68%, n = 21; 27 to 29: 67%, n = 45). Thus, although participants
across the groups played mobile games on a regular basis, the younger participants played more frequently
per week. However, when measured in terms of how long participants played either daily or weekly,
most did so for less than 30 minute increments, almost equally among those 15 to 20 and 27 and older.

350

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

In addition to showing that mobile game play is not skewed in favor of any particular age group, these
findings also add credibility to the supposition that mobile games are played for short periods of time.
The length of time the participants reported having been playing mobile games also turned out to be
significantly related to age, χ2 (35, N = 1,924) = 86.14, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .095. For the most part,
participants had only been playing mobile games on their phones for less than four months. This was
predominantly true among those 15 to 20 (15 to 17: 33%, n = 121; 18 to 20: 32.5%, n = 299), who had
been playing for less than one month. By comparison, those who had been playing between one and
four months were almost evenly distributed among groups, with the exception of those 27 and older.
Finally, phone usage dedicated to gaming was significant, χ2 (15, N = 1,926) = 27.92, p < .01, Cra-
mér’s V = .070. Most of the participants dedicated up to a quarter of their mobile phone time to play-
ing games, close to being evenly distributed across groups. How this percentage had changed since the
participants had begun playing games on their phones was also significant, χ2 (10, N = 1,911) = 23.36,
p < .01, Cramér’s V = .078. The largest group of participants reported no change, but among those who
reported change, with the largest age group consisting of those 27 to 29 (51%, n = 34), immediately
followed by those 18 to 20 (48.5%, n = 443).
Selection Features, Rationale, and Psychosocial Changes: Statistically significant relationships were
found with regard to factors that attempted to measure selection of mobile games, rationale behind play,
and psychosocial changes reported as a result of playing. Of those who had seen an increase in their
mobile game play, a significant relationship was found with regard to influence and age, χ2 (25, N = 961)
= 70.21, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .121. As reflected in Table 1, influence given for increase in game play
varied by age group; thus, no single reason stood out. For instance, among those citing an increase in
game titles, the highest percentage was among those 15 to 17 (27%, n = 48), whereas easier to download
games was mostly cited by those 27 to 29 (21%, n = 8) and the acquisition of a new phone with new
capabilities by those 30 and older (26%, n = 5). Thus, convenience, access, and/or ease of use contributed
to increases in game play among the older participants. By comparison, recommendations from friends as
the rationale for what influenced an increase in game play were higher among the younger groups (18 to
20: 25%, n = 100; 17 to 19: 21%, n = 38), perhaps an indication of peer pressure among youth. Finally,
better game quality was the most evenly distributed among the reasons, with almost equal percentages
found among the younger (18 to 20: 21%, n = 84; 15 to 17: 20%, n = 36) and the older (27 to 29: 21%, n
= 8; 30 and older: 21%, n = 4) groups. This may mean that of the reasons cited, enhancements in game
quality were the most consistent explanation across the groups for an increase in game play.
A statistically significant relationship was also found with regard to changes experienced as a result
of mobile game play and age, χ2 (55, N = 1,905) = 104.43, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .105. Again, changes
varied by age group. Generally speaking, improved mood or feelings of well-being appeared to be the
largest change experienced across the groups, with those in the 27 to 29 (36%, n = 24) age range report-
ing the largest percentage. This might mean that mobile games provide a way to relieve stress for these
individuals leading to a happier state, however, if that were true, the finding that those in the 30 and
older (17%, n = 5) age group reporting the lowest percentage is contrary to expectations.
The rationale for why the participants played mobile games was also significant with regard to age, χ2
(85, N = 1,931) = 156.27, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .127. Boredom, to pass the time, and fun to play were
the top three reasons cited across the age groups. Boredom led the groups with those 27 to 29 (60%, n
= 40) and 21 to 23 (58%, n = 216) having the largest percentages. To pass the time followed, with those
in the 27 to 29 (15%, n = 10) and 18 to 20 (14%, n = 132) age groups being almost equal. Finally, per-
haps not surprising, those in the 15 to 17 (13%, n = 48) age group cited fun to play the most frequently.

351

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Finally, what the participants looked for in mobile games and age was statistically significant, χ2 (70,
N = 1,931) = 136.76, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .119. Among the numerous factors cited as features the
participants looked for in mobile games, free, fun to play, and not boring were the top three across age
groups. Specifically, free was cited more by those 15 to 26 (18 to 20: 27%, n = 246; 24 to 26: 26%, n =
44; 15 to 17: 24%, n = 90; 21 to 23: 22%, n = 81) than those 27 and older (27 to 29: 16%, n = 11; 30
and older: 13%, n = 4). This finding perhaps makes sense if described in the context of money, in that
the older participants may have the discretionary funds to purchase games. Fun to play—which is in line
with the previous finding that fun was one of the top reasons why participants played mobile games—was
cited by those 21 to 23 (27%, n = 100) more so than the other groupings. Finally, not being boring was
stressed more by the younger participants and was not much of a concern to those in the older age groups.
Spending Habits: Concluding our analysis with regard to age, factors examined in the context of
participants’ spending habits showed statistically significant relationships, with the exception of recom-
mending games to others. Specifically, a significant relationship was found with the number of games the
participants stored on their phones, χ2 (20, N = 1,907) = 52.61, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .083. As shown
in Table 1, most of the participants stored five or fewer games across the age groups, with those 18 to
20 (81%, n = 731) having the highest percentage.
Money spent on mobile gaming was also statistically significant. Consistent with an earlier find-
ing, free carried throughout the factors examined. That is, in response to the question of whether the
participants had purchased games they originally received for free, χ2 (5, N = 1,918) = 9.38, p < .01,
Cramér’s V = .070, the majority across the age groups had not. Similar percentages were found among
many of the age groups, with those 27 to 29 (81%, n = 54) showing the highest percentage. This finding
appears to be at odds with the previous discovery that free games were sought more so by those 15 to
26 than those 27 and older. Yet, those 30 and older (64.5%, n = 20; along with those 15 to 17: 65.5%, n
= 241) had the lowest percentage claiming not to have purchased games they received for free, perhaps
helping the argument that the older participants were not constrained by monetary costs (except that in
this specific finding, this argument is made for those 30 and older, instead of those 27 and older, as was
with the prior finding). However, the fact that those 15 to 17 (65.5%, n = 241) also showed a similar low
percentage makes this finding difficult to explain and, as a consequence, warrants further investigation.
Interest in free games was also found to have a statistically significant relationship with age with
regard to the amount of money spent on games in the past year, χ2 (30, N = 1,926) = 46.48, p < .01,
Cramér’s V = .069, and anticipated to be spent in the next year, χ2 (30, N = 1,923) = 91.05, p < .01,
Cramér’s V = .097. Thus, the majority of participants across the age groups spent no money—playing
only free games—with this percentage anticipated to increase in the subsequent year. A similar pattern
was found among the factors, in that proportionally speaking, the percentages are almost identical for
each of the age groups, with those 18 to 20 showing the highest percentage among the groups for the
past year (69%, n = 632) and anticipated coming year (88%, n = 809). Finally, no statistically significant
relationship was found between recommending mobile game titles to others and age, χ2 (5, N = 1,930)
= 6.69, p = .25, Cramér’s V = .059.

Gender

Technology Ownership: A statistically significant relationship was found between technology ownership
and gender, χ2 (2, N = 1,942) = 7.78, p < .05, Cramér’s V = .063. As shown in Table 2, smartphones
were slightly more popular among females (91%, n = 520; males: 88%, n = 1,210) than males.

352

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 2. Game Play in the Context of Gender

Item Gender
Male Female
Technology Ownership

What type of mobile phone do you currently Basic (voice and text) 76 (5.5%) 15 (2.6%)
own and use?
Web-enabled (voice, text, and data) 87 (6.3%) 34 (6.0%)

Smartphone (voice, text, data, and apps) 1210 (88.1%) 520 (91.4%)

Which device do you play games on the most? PC (desktop, laptop) 1015 (74.6%) 150 (26.6%)

Game console (e.g., PlayStation®, Wii®, Xbox®) 32 (2.4%) 4 (0.7%)

Handheld game device (e.g., 3DS , Vita )

® ®
21 (1.5%) 8 (1.4%)

Tablet 28 (2.1%) 12 (2.1%)

Mobile phone 264 (19.4%) 390 (69.1%)

Game Genre

What genre of mobile (phone) game do you Action 431 (32.0%) 63 (11.3%)
play the most?
Adventure 121 (9.0%) 36 (6.4%)

Arcade 198 (14.7%) 172 (30.8%)

Board 63 (4.7%) 56 (10.0%)

Educational 13 (1.0%) 10 (1.8%)

Fighting 56 (4.2%) 6 (1.1%)

Puzzle 61 (4.5%) 88 (15.7%)

Racing 36 (2.7%) 10 (1.8%)

Role-play 4 (0.3%) 2 (0.4%)

Simulation 39 (2.9%) 67 (12.0%)

Sports 229 (17.0%) 14 (2.5%)

Strategy 81 (6.0%) 14 (2.5%)

Trivia 15 (1.1%) 21 (3.8%)

Location of Game Play

Where do you typically play mobile (phone) PC (e.g., home, PC bang, other location) 550 (41.1%) 243 (43.3%)
games?
Restaurant 9 (0.7%) 3 (0.5%)

Bathroom 85 (6.4%) 24 (4.3%)

Bedroom 223 (16.7%) 79 (14.1%)

Dinner table 3 (0.2%) 3 (0.5%)

Parks 5 (0.4%) 4 (0.7%)

Parties 2 (0.1%) -

Between classes 212 (15.9%) 50 (8.9%)

To and from school 137 (10.2%) 100 (17.8%)

In class 40 (3.0%) 17 (3.0%)

Social events 4 (0.3%) 2 (0.4%)

Work 7 (0.5%) 12 (2.1%)

Other 60 (4.5%) 24 (4.3%)

continued on following page

353

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 2. Continued
Item Gender
Male Female
Frequency of Game Play

When was the last time you played a game on Within the past day 827 (60.7%) 281 (50.2%)
your mobile phone?
Within the past week 249 (18.3%) 114 (20.4%)

Within the past month 125 (9.2%) 62 (11.1%)

Within the past 2 to 4 months 84 (6.2%) 58 (10.4%)

Within the past 5 to 8 months 19 (1.4%) 13 (2.3%)

Within the past 9 to 12 months 6 (0.4%) 6 (1.1%)

More than a year ago 53 (3.9%) 26 (4.6%)

How often do you typically play games on Daily 687 (51.5%) 253 (46.9%)
your mobile phone?
Weekly 448 (33.6%) 152 (28.2%)

Monthly 199 (14.9%) 134 (24.9%)

(Based on your answer to the previous Less than 30 minutes 902 (67.1%) 363 (64.8%)
question) How many hours do you play games
on your mobile phone? 30 to 60 minutes 274 (20.4%) 124 (22.1%)

1 to 2 hours 118 (8.8%) 53 (9.5%)

3 to 4 hours 28 (2.1%) 7 (1.2%)

More than 4 hours 23 (1.7%) 13 (2.3%)

How long have you been playing games on a Less than 1 month 436 (32.2%) 147 (26.1%)
mobile phone?
1 to 4 months 308 (22.7%) 133 (23.6%)

5 to 8 months 140 (10.3%) 73 (12.9%)

9 to 12 months 86 (6.3%) 37 (6.6%)

1 to 2 years 175 (12.9%) 82 (14.5%)

3 to 5 years 151 (11.1%) 58 (10.3%)

6 to 10 years 47 (3.5%) 20 (3.5%)

More than 10 years 13 (1.0%) 14 (2.5%)

Of the time you spend using your mobile 1 to 25 percent 950 (70.0%) 412 (73.0%)
phone, what percentage is spent playing
games? 26 to 50 percent 282 (20.8%) 116 (20.6%)

51 to 75 percent 107 (7.9%) 22 (3.9%)

76 to 100 percent 19 (1.4%) 14 (2.5%)

(Based on your answer to the previous Increased 328 (24.4%) 158 (28.1%)
question) How has this percentage changed
since you began playing games on your Decreased 396 (29.4%) 184 (32.7%)
mobile phone? No change 621 (46.2%) 220 (39.1%)

Selection, Features, Rationale, and Psychophysical Changes

What has influenced an increase in game play Increase in game titles 116 (18.0%) 47 (14.9%)
on your mobile phone the most?
Better game quality 142 (22.0%) 35 (11.1%)

New mobile phone with improved capabilities 51 (7.9%) 45 (14.3%)

Easier to download games 94 (14.6%) 49 (15.6%)

Recommendations from my friends 126 (19.5%) 70 (22.2%)

Other 116 (18.0%) 69 (21.9%)

continued on following page

354

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 2. Continued

Item Gender
Male Female
Which of the following changes have you Distraction from pain/discomfort 135 (10.1%) 44 (7.8%)
experienced the most as a result of your
mobile (phone) game play? Improved attitude 53 (4.0%) 9 (1.6%)

Improved creativity 128 (9.6%) 27 (4.8%)

Improved decision making 56 (4.2%) 7 (1.2%)

Improved hand-eye coordination 131 (9.8%) 51 (9.1%)

Improved mental attention/focus 157 (11.7%) 79 (14.1%)

Improved mood or feelings of well-being 334 (24.9%) 141 (25.1%)

Improved self-confidence 2 (0.1%) 2 (0.4%)

Improved sense of accomplishment 11 (0.8%) 9 (1.6%)

Improved social skills 3 (0.2%) 9 (1.6%)

Less stress/anxiety 60 (4.5%) 32 (5.7%)

None of these 269 (20.1%) 152 (27.0%)

Why do you mostly play games on your Addiction 58 (4.3%) 26 (4.6%)

mobile phone?
Avoid face-to-face encounters 19 (1.4%) 8 (1.4%)

Avoid responsibility (e.g., school work) 14 (1.0%) 6 (1.1%)

Challenge 76 (5.6%) 25 (4.4%)

Socialize 54 (4.0%) 19 (3.4%)

Boredom 582 (42.8%) 312 (55.0%)

Distraction from daily life 8 (0.6%) 7 (1.2%)

Flirt with others 4 (0.3%) 3 (0.5%)

Friends 50 (3.7%) 10 (1.8%)

Fun to play 122 (9.0%) 41 (7.2%)

Great graphics and sound 14 (1.0%) 3 (0.5%)

Lots of levels and modes 10 (0.7%) 3 (0.5%)

Meet with new friends 2 (0.1%) -

Provide a quick distraction 30 (2.2%) 21 (3.7%)

To pass the time 186 (13.7%) 47 (8.3%)

Try something new 8 (0.6%) 2 (0.4%)

Waiting 55 (4.0%) 11 (1.9%)

Other 68 (5.0%) 23 (4.1%)

continued on following page

355

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 2. Continued

Item Gender
Male Female
What do you look for in the selection of Easy and simple game mechanics 160 (11.8%) 84 (14.8%)
mobile (phone) games the most?
Challenge 94 (6.9%) 38 (6.7%)

Characters/Avatars 40 (2.9%) 7 (1.2%)

Not boring 274 (20.1%) 109 (19.3%)

Easy to learn 35 (2.6%) 15 (2.7%)

Easy to win 23 (1.7%) 15 (2.7%)

Free 346 (25.4%) 129 (22.8%)

Fun to play 253 (18.6%) 133 (23.5%)

Genre 45 (3.3%) 3 (0.5%)

Great graphics and sound 33 (2.4%) 10 (1.8%)

Good value for the price 12 (0.9%) 4 (0.7%)

Lots of levels and modes 9 (0.7%) 9 (1.6%)

Storytelling 5 (0.4%) 3 (0.5%)

Unique or unusual 9 (0.7%) 4 (0.7%)

Other 23 (1.7%) 3 (0.5%)

Spending Habits

How many games do you store on your 1 to 5 1051 (78.2%) 401 (71.7%)
mobile phone?
6 to 10 182 (13.5%) 104 (18.6%)

11 to 15 51 (3.8%) 27 (4.8%)

16 to 25 32 (2.4%) 14 (2.5%)

26 or more 28 (2.1%) 13 (2.3%)

In the past year, have you purchased a mobile Yes 427 (31.5%) 137 (24.5%)
(phone) game that you originally got for free?
No 927 (68.5%) 423 (75.5%)

In the past year, how much have you spent on $0 (I only play free games) 875 (64.4%) 411 (73.0%)
games for your mobile phone?
$1 to $5 248 (18.2%) 92 (16.3%)

$6 to $10 118 (8.7%) 24 (4.3%)

$11 to $15 46 (3.4%) 13 (2.3%)

$16 to $25 29 (2.1%) 8 (1.4%)

$26 to $50 21 (1.5%) 6 (1.1%)

More than $50 22 (1.6%) 9 (1.6%)

In the next year, how much do you plan to $0 (I only play free games) 1137 (83.9%) 487 (86.5%)
spend on games for your mobile phone?
$1 to $5 131 (9.7%) 49 (8.7%)

$6 to $10 44 (3.2%) 9 (1.6%)

$11 to $15 24 (1.8%) 6 (1.1%)

$16 to $25 7 (0.5%) 3 (0.5%)

$26 to $50 4 (0.3%) 3 (0.5%)

More than $50 8 (0.6%) 6 (1.1%)

Have you ever recommended a mobile phone Yes 749 (55.0%) 361 (64.1%)
game to someone else?
No 614 (45.0%) 202 (35.9%)

356

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Likewise, a statistically significant relationship was found between gender and the type of device on
which the participants played games the most, χ2 (4, N = 1,924) = 447.87, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .482.
Here, again participants cited the PC, followed by mobile phones, as the gaming platforms of choice.
While interest in gaming on a PC was overwhelmingly skewed in favor of males (75%, n = 1,015;
females: 27%, n = 150), the opposite was found with regard to games played on mobile phones, with
females mostly interested in this gaming platform (69%, n = 390). This finding is perhaps in support
of the belief that females play these games as much as males and that mobile games may be viewed as
a casual form of game play opposed to the hardcore persona commonly attached to traditional video
games played on PCs or dedicated gaming platforms.
Game Genre: A statistically significant relationship was found between technology ownership and
gender, χ2 (12, N = 1,906) = 366.02, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .438. Action (32%, n = 431) and sports
(17%, n = 229) were the most popular among males, whereas females preferred to play arcade (31%,
n = 172) and puzzle (16%, n = 88) games. A finding that supports the belief that females prefer card,
puzzle, and arcade games.
Location of Game Play: Another statistically significant relationship was found between location
of game play and gender, χ2 (12, N = 1,898) = 50.59, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .163. As shown in Table
2, and in step with the findings reported for age, the participants predominantly played video games on
a PC at home, at a PC bang, or some other location, almost equally distributed by gender, but in favor
of females (43%, n = 243; males: 41%, n = 550). This is an interesting finding given that video games
played on a PC might be viewed as mostly a male-dominated activity.
With regard to mobile game play, the bedroom, between classes, and to and from school were the
most cited locations. Among males, the order of importance was as follows: the bedroom (17%, n =
223), between classes (16%, n = 212), and to and from school (10%, n = 137); for females, it was as fol-
lows: to and from school (18%, n = 100), the bedroom (14%, n = 79), and between classes (9%, n = 50).
Frequency of Game Play: Statistically significant relationships were found between frequency of
game play and gender. As shown in Table 2, the last time participants had played games on their phones
was significant, χ2 (6, N = 1,923) = 24.57, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .113; as with age, participants had
predominantly played within the past day, followed by play within the past week. A higher percentage
of males (61%, n = 827; females: 50%, n = 281) had played within the day, whereas a higher percentage
of females (20%, n = 114; males: 18%, n = 249) had played within the past week.
Further, a statistically significant relationship was found between how often the participants played
and gender, χ2 (2, N = 1,873) = 26.41, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .119. Whereas males were found to play
more often daily (51.5%, n = 687; females: 47%, n = 253) and weekly (34%, n = 448; females: 28%, n
= 152), females were found to play more often monthly (25%, n = 134; males: 15%, n = 199).
Interestingly, in terms of time, no statistically significant relationship was found with gender χ2 (4,
N = 1,905) = 3.37, p = .50, Cramér’s V = .042. The percentages of males vs. females were very close.
A slightly larger percentage of males (67%, n = 902; females: 65%, n = 363) played for less than 30
minutes, whereas a slightly larger percentage of females (22%, n = 124; males: 20%, n = 274) played
for 30 minutes to an hour. The majority of participants played for less than an hour.
A statistically significant relationship was found between how long the participants had been playing
and gender, χ2 (7, N = 1,920) = 15.13, p < .05, Cramér’s V = .089. The majority of participants had been
playing for less than four months, with females having played mobile games longer than males. That is,

357

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

whereas more males (32%, n = 436; females: 26%, n = 147) had been playing for less than one month,
more females (24%, n = 133; males: 23%, n = 308) had been playing one to four months.
Finally, statistically significant relationships were found with regard to the percentage of phone us-
age dedicated to gaming, χ2 (3, N = 1,922) = 12.67, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .081, and the change in this
percentage over time, χ2 (2, N = 1,907) = 8.01, p < .05, Cramér’s V = .065. Spending less than 25% on
gaming was almost equally distributed by gender, but in favor of females (73%, n = 412; males: 70%,
n = 950; the same percentage between males and females was found among those who dedicated up to
half of their phone usage to gaming). Furthermore, the majority of participants reported no change in
their game play. More males (46%, n = 621) reported not seeing a change in their game play compared
to females (39%, n = 220). In fact, an increase in mobile game play was found among females (28%, n
= 158; males: 24%, n = 328).
These findings show that although males played mobile games on a daily and weekly basis more than
females, no relationship was found between how long participants had played and gender, with males
and females playing for almost the same amount of time, in favor of females. Furthermore, females
were found to have been playing mobile games longer than males. Finally, a slightly larger percentage
of females dedicated at least 25% of their phone use to gaming and reported seeing an increase in their
mobile game play since first starting to play. Overall, these findings add weight to the supposition that
females play mobile games as much as males.
Selection Features, Rationale, and Psychosocial Changes: As with age, statistically significant re-
lationships were found between gender and factors that attempted to measure the selection of mobile
games, rationale behind play, and psychosocial changes experienced. Of those who had seen an increase
in their mobile game play, a significant relationship was found with regard to influence and gender, χ2 (5,
N = 960) = 26.00, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .165. Game quality was most important among males (22%,
n = 142). Recommendations from friends was important among both genders, although more so among
females (22%, n = 70; males: 19.5%, n = 126). An increase in available game titles was also important,
in favor of males (18%, n = 116; females: 15%, n = 47), with the influence of easier to download games
being almost equal by gender, but in favor of females (16%, n = 49; males: 15%, n = 94).
A statistically significant relationship was also found with regard to changes experienced as a result
of mobile game play and gender, χ2 (11, N = 1,901) = 56.94, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .173. As with age,
improved mood and feelings of well-being were the most reported change for both genders (females:
25%, n = 141; females: 25%, n = 334). However, differences in gender were found among the other
changes cited. For example, improved mental attention/focus was the second most reported change. This
improvement was found among more females (14%, n = 79) than males (12%, n = 157). As illustrated
in Table 2, females reported many positive benefits resulting from their mobile game play.
With regard to why participants mostly played mobile games, a statistically significant relationship
was also found with gender, χ2 (17, N = 1,927) = 44.93, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .153. Not surprisingly,
boredom, to pass the time, and fun to play were the most frequently reported reasons for playing. More
females played to fight tedium (55%, n = 312; males: 43%, n = 582), whereas more males reported play-
ing to pass the time (14%, n = 186; females: 8%, n = 47) and for fun (9%, n = 122; females: 7%, n = 41).
Finally, a statistically significant relationship was found between what the participants looked for in
mobile games and gender, χ2 (14, N = 1,927) = 36.98, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .139. As for age, being free,
fun to play, and not boring were among the qualities most sought in games by the participants. Interest

358

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

in free games was found more so among males (25%, n = 346; females: 23%, n = 129). With regard
to fun, more females than males (23.5%, n = 133; males: 19%, n = 253) reported that this quality was
important to them. This finding is not necessarily consistent with the discovery that more males than
females reported fun to play was the reason why they played mobile games. This finding may mean that
while more males play for fun, this feature is not the most important element they look for in mobile
games (when compared to seeking out games that are free). Not being boring also showed importance,
almost equally distributed among males (20%, n = 274) and females (19%, n = 109).
Spending Habits: As with age, we conclude our analysis of gender by examining factors related to
participants’ spending habits. Again, all but one—this time related to spending money in the following
year—showed statistically significant relationships. Specifically, a significant relationship was found
between gender and the number of games the participants stored on their phones, χ2 (4, N = 1,903) =
10.06, p < .05, Cramér’s V = .073. As shown in Table 2, participants predominantly stored one to five
games on their phones. A practice found more among males than females (78%, n = 1,051; females:
72%, n = 401).
Once again free games were of specific interest to the participants, with regard to purchasing games
acquired for free, χ2 (1, N = 1,914) = 9.53, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .071, and the amount of money spent
on mobile games in the previous year, χ2 (6, N = 1,922) = 18.96, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .099. No statisti-
cally significant relationship was found between spending money in the following year and gender, χ2 (6,
N = 1,918) = 7.73, p = .26, Cramér’s V = .064. The majority of participants did not purchase games they
received for free. Interestingly, this was more the case for females than males (75.5%, n = 423; males:
68.5%, n = 927). A contradictory finding proposing that the older female demographic are the biggest
spenders with regard to mobile game purchases. Furthermore, findings revealed that males were more
open to purchasing games. Consistent with this finding, more females (73%, n = 411; males: 64%, n =
875) had not spent money in the past year (a similar finding was found for the next year).
Finally, unlike age, a statistically significant relationship was also found between recommending
mobile games to others and gender, χ2 (1, N = 1,926) = 13.72, p < .01, Cramér’s V = .084. Here, females
(64%, n = 361; males: 55%, n = 749) showed a higher percentage of making recommendations. This
finding may speak to the social nature of females. That is, the belief that those who play mobile games
are thought to also use their mobile devices to frequent social websites (e.g., Instagram®, Twitter®; In-
formation Solutions Group, 2011).

Limitations and Future Research

A summary of the aforementioned findings can be found in Table 3. Care should be taken in interpreting
these results, however, as certain aspects of the study, while not necessarily limitations, pose concern
and, as a consequence, warrant future investigation.
For instance, when using self-reported data, social desirability is always a concern, in that it is
conceivable that the participants responded based on what they felt were “social norms” or what they
felt others wanted to hear. The disproportion in the number of males vs. females is another concern.
Korean vocational high schools are typically comprised of male students, which explain the low female
participation. Given the importance of females among mobile gamers, future investigations may wish
to explicitly emphasize this gender. The age groups represented in the sample also pose a concern.
Although the participants were 15 and older, most were no older than 23 (86%, n = 1,679). To more
thoroughly investigate the suppositions made about the broad popularity of mobile games with regard to

359

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

age, future investigations may wish to include a wider and more even distribution of age groups. There
is also the possibility that age may be correlated with gender, given that the older participants were
primarily education majors, and students in this major (at least in the U.S.) tend to be female. Thus, age
and gender are potentially confounded. Future investigations may wish to take this possible relationship
into consideration. Also, disposable income may have played a role in situations where the youngest

Table 3. Summary of the Characteristics of the Casual (Mobile Game) Player in the Context of Age and
Gender

Technology Ownership
Age

Smartphones were the most popular among those 30 and older (77%, n = 24).

Smartphone ownership followed a normal distribution, with the highest ownership among those 21 to 23 (94%, n = 351) and 24 to 26
(98%, n = 165).

The PC was the most popular gaming platform, with the most interest among those 18 to 20 (73%, n = 675).

Interest in mobile gaming increased with age, with the most interest among those 27 to 29 (61%, n = 41).

Gender

Smartphones were slightly more popular among females (91%, n = 520; males: 88%, n = 1,210).

Interest in gaming on a PC was favored by males (75%, n = 1,015; females: 27%, n = 150).

Interest in gaming on mobile phones was favored by females (69%, n = 390).

Game Genre and Titles
Age
Action, arcade, and sports were the most popular genres of games played among the age groups.
Action was the most popular among those 15 to 17 (34%, n = 126); arcade was the most popular among those 21 to 23 (23.5%, n = 87);
and sports was more evenly distributed by age, with interest slightly higher among those 27 to 29 (14%, n = 9).
Gender
Action (32%, n = 431) and sports (17%, n = 229) were the most popular among males.
Arcade (31%, n = 172) and puzzle (16%, n = 88) were the most popular among females.
Location of Game Play
Age

Those 15 to 17 (48%, n = 175) and 18 to 20 (45.5%, n = 411) predominantly played video games on a PC.

Gaming in the bedroom was the most popular among those 27 to 29 (20%, n = 13) and 15 to 17 (18%, n = 67).

Gaming between classes was most popular among those 15 to 17 (18%, n = 67) and 18 to 20 (18%, n = 162).

Gaming while commuting was most popular among those 27 to 29 (28%, n = 18).

Gender

Gaming in the bedroom (17%, n = 223), between classes (16%, n = 212), and to and from school (10%, n = 137) were most popular
among males.

Gaming to and from school (18%, n = 100), the bedroom (14%, n = 79), and between classes (9%, n = 50) were most popular among
females.

continued on following page

360

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Table 3. Continued
Frequency of Game Play
Age
Gaming occurred daily, more so among the younger groups (15 to 17: 52%, n = 192; 21 to 23: 51%, n = 184; 18 to 20: 51%, n = 456).

Gaming occurred for less than 30 minute increments, equally distributed among the younger (18 to 20: 69%, n = 624; 15 to 17: 67%, n =
246) and older age groups (30 and older: 68%, n = 21; 27 to 29: 67%, n = 45).

Those 27 to 29 (51%, n = 34) and 18 to 20 (48.5%, n = 443) reported a change in their mobile game play over time.

Gender
Males played more often daily (51.5%, n = 687; females: 47%, n = 253) and weekly (34%, n = 448; females: 28%, n = 152); females
played more often monthly (25%, n = 134; males: 15%, n = 199).

Slightly more males (67%, n = 902; females: 65%, n = 363) played for less than 30 minutes; slightly more females (22%, n = 124; males:
20%, n = 274) played for 30 minutes to an hour.

Females saw an increase in mobile game play over time (28%, n = 158; males: 24%, n = 328).
Selection, Features, Rationale, and Psychophysical Changes
Age

Increase in game play influenced by: Game titles (15 to 17: 27%, n = 48); easier to download games (27 to 29: 21%, n = 8); and new
phone enhancements (30 and older: 26%, n = 5).

The younger groups (18 to 20: 25%, n = 100; 17 to 19: 21%, n =38) gamed as a result of recommendations from friends.

Improved mood or feelings of well-being was the largest change experienced, mostly among those 27 to 29 (36%, n = 24).

Those 27 to 29 (60%, n = 40) and 21 to 23 (58%, n = 216) played as a result of boredom; those 27 to 29 (15%, n = 10) and 18 to 20
(14%, n = 132) played to pass the time; and those 15 to 17 (13%, n = 48) play for fun.

Free games was more important among those 15 to 26 (18 to 20: 27%, n = 246; 24 to 26: 26%, n = 44; 15 to 17: 24%, n = 90; 21 to 23:
22%, n = 81) than those 27 and older (27 to 29: 16%, n = 11; 30 and older: 13%, n = 4).

Gender

Game quality was important among males (22%, n = 142); game title availability was important among males (18%, n = 116; females:
15%, n = 47); and easier to download games was important among females (16%, n = 49; males: 15%, n = 94).

Recommendations from friends was more important among females (22%, n = 70; males: 19.5%, n = 126).

Improved mood or feelings of well-being was the largest change experienced, among both genders (females: 25%, n = 141; females: 25%,
n = 334).

More females played to fight tedium (55%, n = 312; males: 43%, n = 582); more males played to pass the time (14%, n = 186; females:
8%, n = 47) and for fun (9%, n = 122; females: 7%, n = 41).

Free games was more important among males (25%, n = 346; females: 23%, n = 129).
Spending Habits
Age

Those 18 to 20 (81%, n = 731) stored five or fewer games on their phones.

Gender

More males (78%, n = 1,051; females: 72%, n = 401) stored five or fewer games on their phones.

More females (75.5%, n = 423; males: 68.5%, n = 927) did not purchase games they originally received for free.

361

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

and oldest groups appeared to be similar. Although it could be argued that the oldest group had the most
disposable income, it could also be rationalized that the youngest groups simply had the least money,
but the oldest group was also short of disposable income as a result of life expenses (e.g., marriage,
families, mortgages, etc.). In addition, chi-square tests treat divisions between categories exactly the
same (age groupings, for example, are treated in the same way as divisions between males and females).
Although a conscious effort was made to categorize participants’ ages into meaningful groupings, it is
possible that the age groups did not adequately distinguish between young and old, thus, adding to the
argument for future investigations to use samples comprising a much wider and more evenly distributed
range of ages. What’s more, with the exception of technology ownership and gender as well as the type
of gaming device used by the participants and gender, the strength of associations was weak, warranting
further study before definitive conclusions can be made. And finally, Southeast Asian countries have
been popular among gaming researchers, in part, because these cultures are viewed as technology-savvy
and innovative. Given the popularity of mobile games, resulting from the global availability of mobile
devices, future investigations may wish to sample populations in other areas of the world, to include
nontechnology-rich cultures.

CONCLUSION

Although exceptions were found, the findings support many of the age and gender suppositions made
about the casual player. Not surprising, gaming on PCs was favored by males, 18 to 20 years of age;
a finding arguably in line with the stereotypical male gamer. In the context of mobile games, though,
females, 27 to 29, were more interested in playing these games on their phones; a finding in line with
research suggesting that today’s casual player is an older female demographic. In addition, while the
reputation of puzzle games was not borne out of the findings, this genre was nonetheless popular among
females, but second to that of arcade games. With regard to frequency of play, mobile games were played
by males on a daily and weekly basis compared to the monthly game play of females. With those in the
younger age brackets playing more often. When examined in terms of time, however, males and females
both restricted their play to 30 minute increments. Exceptions fell along the lines of a small percentage
of females showing interest in playing these games for 30 minutes to an hour, as well as reporting an
increase in mobile game play over time, with males showing no such change in play. Similar findings
were found with regard to age. That is, although those younger played more frequently, when described
by time, play was again limited to 30 minute increments, almost equally distributed by those 15 to 20
and those 27 and older. Taken as a whole, these findings depict the casual player as a departure from
the stereotypical video game player of the past.
There were also new discoveries that may bear out to be beneficial in educational contexts. Evidence
was found, for example, that positive benefits could stem from mobile gaming, to include improved mood
and feelings of well-being and mental attention and focus. These are changes which were reported equally
by males and females. While promising, the findings also showed that this change, which resulted from
mobile game play, was reported more so among those 27 to 29 than the other age groups. Warranting
further research at understanding the role these games play in the areas of mental attention and focus,
and how such an understanding can be used in educational situations.
In conclusion, this chapter brings to a close a two part presentation that discussed the findings of a
study aimed at quantitatively examining mobile games and the adolescent and young adult casual gam-

362

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

ers who play them. While the empirically supported and pragmatic data offered in these two chapters
are anticipated to aid researchers, educators, and practitioners in bettering their understanding of these
games and their players, these chapters should also serve as a call for future and ongoing research into
this genre of game play and players.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/code-1992.aspx
Anderson, N. (2009). US 20th in broadband penetration, trails S. Korea, Estonia. ARS. Retrieved from http://
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/us-20th-in-broadband-penetration-trails-s-korea-estonia.ars
DaCosta, B., Nasah, A., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2011). Digital propensity: An investigation of video
game and information and communication technology practices. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research
on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp.
1148–1173). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch052
DaCosta, B., Seok, S., & Kinsell, C. (2015). Mobile games and learning. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of mobile phone behavior (Volumes 1, 2, & 3). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-
8239-9.ch004
Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R., & Kirk, D. (2004). Savannah: Mobile gaming and
learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 399–409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00105.x
Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. F., & Pearce, C. (2007). The hegemony of play. In Proceedings of DiGRA:
Situated play (pp. 24-28). Tokyo, Japan: Digital Games Research Association.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
Grimes, A., Kantroo, V., & Grinter, R. E. (2010). Let’s play! Mobile health games for adults. In Proceed-
ings of the 12th ACM international conference on ubiquitous computing (pp. 241-250). Copenhagen,
Denmark: ACM. doi:10.1145/1864349.1864370
Information Solutions Group. (2011). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from
http://www.infosolutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2012.pdf
Information Solutions Group. (2013). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from
http://www.infosolutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2013.pdf
Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Katz, J. E., & Krzys Acord, S. (2008). Mobile games and entertainment. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook
of mobile communication studies (pp. 403–418). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mit-
press/9780262113120.003.0030

363

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational
computer games. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1729–1743. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.004
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Report 8: Literature review in gaming and learning. FutureLab.
Retrieved from http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf
Kirsh, S. J. (2003). The effects of violent video games on adolescents: The overlooked influence of
development. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(4), 377–389. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00056-3
McAteer, S. (2005). (X marks the spot.) So Y are games targeted at men? Connected Planet. Retrieved
from http://connectedplanetonline.com/wireless/commentary/wireless_marks_spot_games
Nelson, N. (2013). Hard-core and casual gamers play in different worlds. NPR. Retrieved from http://
www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/29/246747168/hard-core-and-casual-gamers-play-in-
different-worlds
NewZoo. (2013). Supercell vs King: How do Clash of Clans and Candy Crush gamers compare? Re-
trieved from http://www.newzoo.com/insights/supercell-vs-king-how-do-their-gamers-compare/
Paavilainen, J. (2003). Mobile games: Creating business with Nokia N-gage. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
Park, H.-Y., & Chang, S.-G. (2004). Mobile network evolution toward IMT-2000 in Korea: A techno-
economic analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 28(2), 177–196. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2003.12.004
PlayPhone. (2014). Mobile gaming’s biggest spenders are adults 25 to 39; Middle aged women still
dominate mobile gaming. Retrieved from http://www.financialmirror.com/newsml_story.php?id=16805
Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2006). Using ubiquitous computing to extend and enhance learning experiences.
In M. van ¨et Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible
impact (pp. 329–347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story: How story impacts
emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Human Com-
munication Research, 30(3), 361–375.
Spikol, D., & Milrad, M. (2008). Physical activities and playful learning using mobile games. Research
and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 275–295. doi:10.1142/S1793206808000562

ADDITIONAL READING

Barlett, C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Swing, E. L. (2009). Video game effects—Confirmed, suspected, and spec-
ulative: A review of the evidence. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 377–403. doi:10.1177/1046878108327539
DaCosta, B., Seok, S., & Kinsell, C. (2015). Mobile games and learning. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of mobile phone behavior (Volumes 1, 2, & 3). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-
8239-9.ch004

364

Factors That Explain Adolescent and Young Adult Mobile Game Play, Part 2

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Casual Player: Individuals who play video games, but do not spend a significant part of their time
playing or learning about games. These individuals may restrict their play to games of a particular genre
(e.g., problem-solving, puzzle), platform (e.g., smartphone, tablet), and may only play games under
certain situations (e.g., kill brief periods of time, waiting in between activities, combat boredom).1
Game-Based Learning: This type of learning is rooted in the belief that games, if used properly,
can be leveraged in the learning process (DaCosta et al., 2011).
Gamer: An individual who plays video games. The term is used independent of level of dedication
and frequency of game play, game title and genre (e.g., action, role-playing), platform (e.g., dedicated
game console, handheld game device, mobile device, PC), and other factors.
Hardcore Player: Individuals who play video games, and spend a significant part of their time
playing or learning about games. These avid players may play a wide genre of games, across numerous
platforms (e.g., dedicated game console, handheld game device, mobile device, PC), and seek out games
that are complex, and with depth.1
Mobile Game: A video game, more often than not, played on a mobile device (e.g., smartphone,
tablet; DaCosta, Seok, & Kinsell, 2015).
Video Game: A digitally-based game typically played on a PC or dedicated gaming device, such as
a game console (e.g., Xbox®, PlayStation®, Wii®) or handheld game device (e.g., 3DS®, Vita®; DaCosta,
Seok, & Kinsell, 2015).

365
366

Chapter 17
Level Up:
Multiple Player Professional Development

Oliver Dreon
Millersville University, USA

Greg Szczyrbak
Millersville University, USA

ABSTRACT
Gamification is becoming increasingly popular in both K-12 and higher education settings. By infusing
game elements into learning environments, educators believe that students will be more engaged and more
motivated to learn (Bowman, 1982, Deterding, 2012, Dominguez et al, 2013). But what about the use
of gamification to support the professional development of educators? What impact would gamification
have on the participation and motivation of professors and faculty involved in an intensive professional
development experience? This chapter describes the creation and implementation of Level Up, a two
week long professional development game involving twenty faculty member participants. The chapter
outlines the process of designing the game and the game elements used throughout its implementation.
The chapter also examines some challenges the designers and participants experienced during the game
implementation and provides several design considerations for professional developers who wish to
gamify their faculty programs.

INTRODUCTION

Why do we play games? Some people may be attracted to the competitive environments that games
create. Others may enjoy the intellectual involvement or the emotional arousal that occurs from game
play. In education, debate continues about the potential for increased student motivation, participation
and engagement via gaming (Hanus and Fox, 2015, Filsecker and Hickey 2104). Over the last decade,
there has been an increased focus on the incorporation of games and game elements in learning envi-
ronments. Educators are exploring the use of serious games to teach complex and challenging content
through interactive simulations. Additionally, teachers have begun to incorporate game elements such
as challenges, leaderboards and Easter eggs into more traditional educational settings to increase student
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch017

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Level Up

involvement. This process is more broadly defined as “gamification” and involves the use of “game based
mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning and solve
problems.” (Kapp, 2012, p. 10) Outside of education, gamification has been used to promote customer
loyalty programs, support weight loss and exercise programs and a multitude of other activities. (Bittner
and Shipper, 2014, Keller, 2015)
While the use of gamification in education has spanned both K-12 and collegiate settings, the use of
game elements has been mostly limited to fostering student involvement and learning. Although educa-
tors often create the learning environments and opportunities for students, they also routinely participate
in professional development activities to expand their content area knowledge and their pedagogical
approaches. The success of professional development for faculty has been tied to extended involve-
ment and focus in collaborative environments (Chong and Kong, 2012). Could gamification be used to
promote faculty involvement in professional development activities? Looking at existing research, few
in-depth studies have examined the use of gamified learning environments to support the professional
development of instructors. This gap in research motivated the creation of the Level Up pilot workshop.
In Fall 2014, twenty faculty members participated in Level Up, a two-week professional development
online workshop on the use of gamification in education. The workshop was unique in that it used game
elements to teach concepts and implementation of gamification. Faculty members participated in chal-
lenges, accumulated points and were ranked each day on an overall leaderboard. During the workshop,
the participants not only learned how game elements could be used in educational settings but also
experienced firsthand how the elements impacted their own learning.

BACKGROUND

Though difficult to characterize, Level Up could be described as an adventure game. Participants in the
Level Up game, learned about gamification by completing challenges (quests) tied to learning objectives.
Additional game elements were used to enhance the experience and motivate participants. Level Up was
created in the D2L™ (Brightspace) learning management system. Though custom gaming and badging
systems are available, a learning management system is readily available and well known to faculty and
staff at many higher education institutions. It can serve as a reasonable, if not fancy gaming platform.

MAIN THRUST OF THE CHAPTER

Designing the Level Up Workshop

To build the Level Up professional development workshop, game designers followed a five step process
outlined by Huang and Soman (2013). Each of these steps provided critical information for the creation
and implementation of the Level Up game and helped the game run smoothly as a comprehensive learn-
ing program.

367

Level Up

Understanding the Target Audience and the Context

To attract participants to the Level Up game, organization-wide communications were sent out to faculty
and several participants volunteered. Once a group of participants had volunteered for the game, surveys
were used to assess participants’ background knowledge with gamification concepts and motivations for
participating in the Level Up experience. David Ausubel writes that “the single most important factor
influencing learning is what the learner already knows” (Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978). This prior
knowledge assessment formed as starting point for the design of Level Up experience. Twenty faculty
members volunteered to participate in the Level Up experience and came from a variety of backgrounds
and content areas. The group included faculty from different academic disciplines including education,
biology, English and chemistry. The faculty also spanned the higher education career terrain. There were
several full professors participating in the game experience as well as several associate and assistant
professors. Two adjunct instructors, one administrator and three support staff members also joined the
Level Up group.
While the variety of background offered diverse points of view to the game experience, it presented
a unique hurdle when creating Level Up. To better target the needs of the participating members, the
first challenge in the game was called Prior Knowledge Pro. This challenge was designed to assess
the participants’ prior knowledge of gamification in education. The challenge included a short survey
which examined whether the participants knew what gamification was and how it could be applied in
educational environments. While many of the participants had a basic understanding of gamification,
they could not identify how the process could be used in educational settings and could not detail the
connections between learning theory (motivation, social constructivism, etc.) and gamification. Through
the survey data, it was clear that while the participants could identify how gamification is being applied
in everyday life (consumer and fitness apps, for instance), they could not readily see how game elements
could be including in educational environments.
Additionally, examining the contextual factors helped to identify the “pain points” in the game (Huang
& Soman, 2013). A pain point is a factor that inhibits a participant from advancing in a learning program.
Looking at our population, several pain points were apparent. First, since all of the members worked at
an institution of higher education, instructional materials and readings should show how gamification is
applied in collegiate environments rather than K-12 or commercial settings. It was feared that individuals
who could not see the direct connection between the readings and their instructional roles at the university
would stop participating in the game. Carefully selecting content that highlighted relevant gamification
applications in collegiate environment would encourage continued participation.
Another pain point related to the academic background of the target population. Because the group
included so many individuals with research experience, the instructional content that was included in
the Level Up experience needed to be evidence-based whenever possible. The last pain point that was
identified prior to designing Level Up involved the timing of the game experience. While Level Up was
designed to last two weeks during the semester, the game was scheduled early in the semester to avoid
conflicts with other events and activities on campus. Additionally, each of the eight main challenges
were designed as asynchronous activities that could be completed in less than two hours to coordinate
with the busy schedules of the participating faculty.

368

Level Up

Defining the Learning Objectives

Working with a group of experienced faculty members offered unique opportunities for learning. While
the Level Up experience was intended to help participants learn how to apply game elements in class-
room contexts to engage and motivate students, the game was also intended to have the participants
experience these elements firsthand. The design of the challenges in the Level Up game reflected these
complementary objectives.
The learning objectives were presented to participants as integrated game elements. Game participants
were presented with eight required challenges and three bonus challenges, each containing one or more
tasks. As challenges were completed, new challenges were released either individually or as sequenced
groups. For instance, after the Prior Knowledge Pro Challenge that assessed participants’ experience
with the topic of gamification, the next challenge asked participants to introduce themselves to each
other with a six sentence introduction using an online tool called Fotobabble (http://www.fotobabble.
com/). Participants were also asked to contribute to a discussion forum, listing their top 5 most influential
or memorable games. Completion of both tasks in the Challenge earned the participant the ‘Meet the
Gamers’ badge and 50 points. Their participation in the discussion added additional points for starting
and contributing to discussions. 5 Bonus points were available to participants who uploaded a photo
of their game shelf at home and 10 Bonus points were awarded for a ‘Throwback” photo of themselves
playing a game as a child.
This relatively easy challenge introduced the participants to important game elements including
badges, scoring, and the leaderboard. It signaled the kind of social interaction that would be expected
throughout the experience. Furthermore, participants were exposed to the tone of the game, which was
unequivocally fun with a dash of snark. Though games can deal with fun or serious topics, they each
have their own milieu. Game designers should take care to create an environment in a way that encour-
ages participants to contribute to the overall experience. Gamers take their direction from the built game
environment including the words used in the directions and descriptions, colors, graphics and sound.
While the built game environment contributes to the overall game play, individual gamers can approach
the same experience very differently. In his work with Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs), Richard Bartle
identified four main gamer types: killers, socializers, achievers and explorers (1996). While the Level
Up experience didn’t assess the gamer types of the participants, the individual challenges were designed
to support a variety of different interests and motivations.
Each of the eight main challenges were designed to tackle different learning objectives that spanned
Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl & Bloom, 2001). The challenges included (table 1):

Structuring the Experience

To experience the game elements in the professional development workshop, we sought to foster a larger
community across the participants. While the game occurred primarily in the institution’s learning man-
agement system, the participants were also physically located on campus throughout the workshop and
were interacting with each other during the game. Since the game spanned both online and physical space,
we drew on community-based research to foster collaboration across the group. Garrison, Anderson and
Archer (1999) outline the “community of inquiry” framework for online instruction. In this framework,
instructors must support three overlapping presences (social, cognitive and teaching) to provide a rich,
educational experience for students. While the Level Up professional development workshop wasn’t an

369

Level Up

Table 1. Level Up challenges

Challenge Name Objective

Challenge 1: Prior Knowledge Pro To assess participants’ baseline knowledge of game elements and their
application to learning environments
Challenge 2: Meet the Gamers To introduce gamers to the rest of the community
To examine gamer’s individual history with games
Challenge 3: Gamify Me To examine the basic principles of gamification
To recognize the learning theories that apply to gamification
Challenge 4: In It to Win It To evaluate the role that motivation plays in games and in learning
environments
Challenge 5: It’s Elemental To identify the different types of game elements and examine how they are
being used to foster student learning in higher education
Challenge 6: What a Tool To evaluate technologies that are used to support gamification of learning
Challenge 7: Action Jackson To develop an action plan that incorporates game elements in an upcoming
class or assignment
Challenge 8: The End To review the concepts learned during Level Up and assess how the game
elements supported participation

actual online class, designers still relied on the community of inquiry (COI) framework to consciously
construct opportunities for content-based discourse across participants. These discussions helped to
support participants’ meaning making and also foster competition across the game-based challenges.
In addition to examining the COI framework, designers also relied upon Lave and Wenger’s work
with communities of practice (1991). In their conceptualization of the community of practice, learning
is a social process involving individuals interacting with groups of practitioners (1991). Within the com-
munity, individual learners communicate and collaborate with other participants by utilizing unique tools
and developing norms of practice to construct their understanding of the content. This perspective was
vital for the structuring of the experience for Level Up. In his book on communities of practice, Wenger
(1998) outlines different dimensions of design that can help designers confront the fundamental “issues
of meaning, time, space and power” inherent in communities. (p 231) The dimensions of participation/
reification and designed/emergent were critical in our design. For instance, while we structured the
experience so individuals could participate in different learning activities, each activity required that
individuals create a tangible product that they shared with the larger community. For instance, returning
to the Meet the Gamers challenge that occurred early in the workshop, each participant created an online
video introduction that they shared with the group. In a later challenge entitled Action Jackson, participants
created detailed action plans that described how they would use game elements in an upcoming lesson
or project in their class. Beyond asking gamers to interact with instructional materials such as reading
journal articles or watching videos, each challenge required some product that could tangibly represent
their learning and their participation in the game. This served as a way to keep gamers involved and to
foster a larger collaborative learning community during the game experience.
The balance of the designed/emergent dimension was also critical to the success of Level Up. While
the majority of the game experience was created prior to the start of the workshop, several aspects were
included based on the participation of the gamers. These emergent aspects helped to foster more involve-
ment in the game and prolong participation. For instance, during the Gamify Me challenge, the group
read about the inclusion of Easter Eggs in video games. These hidden prizes create an element of surprise

370

Level Up

in games and help to extend gameplay for even the most experienced gamers. During this challenge, one
of the participants remarked about searching for Easter Eggs within Level Up because she was certain
that they would be present. Even though they were not originally part of the game design, several Easter
Eggs were added at this time. While the original design of the game was thoughtfully constructed, it also
needed to flexibly evolve to respond to the emergent participation of the group.

Identifying Resources

To participate in the Level Up experience, faculty navigated through digital and physical environments and
participated in instructional and social spaces. To foster the game play and focus on learning, designers
selected and developed resources that connected with the overall objectives of the Level Up experience
and drew on the participants’ responses in Prior Knowledge Pro challenge. Since the participants were
a diverse group of faculty members at a public institution of higher education, evidence-based examples
of gamification in education was included as learning resources for the community. For instance, the
group read peer-reviewed journal articles that outlined research on gamification in education. Beyond
showing examples of how game elements can be used in learning environments, the articles served as
opportunities for the group to critique the research designs of the studies and examine the generalizability
of the research to their local educational setting.
Since the group included so many faculty members without a comprehensive background in learning
theory, resources were selected that connected gamification to concepts of motivation, social construc-
tivism and collegiate pedagogy. For instance, during the In It to Win It challenge, participants read a
chapter on motivation from How Learning Works: Seven Research Based Principles for Smart Teach-
ing by Ambrose et al. (2010). The group also read several sections from Kapp’s The Gamification of
Learning and Instruction (2012). Through the selection of appropriate resources, the Level Up game
was constructed so that gamification would serve a platform for a deeper exploration in teaching and
learning at the collegiate level.
One last aspect of Level Up involved the online nature of the interaction and game play. The game
used the university’s learning management system as the architecture for communication and collabora-
tion between game designers and players. Since many of the group were relatively inexperienced with
online education, several challenges involved resources and activities that could develop proficiency with
online pedagogy. While this wasn’t an explicit focus of the Level Up game, the design of the experience
helped participants see firsthand how learning could be supported through online means.

Applying Game Elements

Incorporating game elements was important for the Level Up experience. While Kapp outlines a variety of
game elements in his book The Gamification of Learning and Instruction, the designers incorporated only
those elements that could support the targeted population to meet the learning objectives. For instance,
Kapp suggests that game elements that include a fictional storyline can help to engage participants. With
the pragmatic, data-driven population that participated in Level Up, the designers felt a storyline would
have a much different response. Instead, competitive and collaborative elements were applied. These
elements included challenges, badges, leaderboards, chance/randomness, Easter Eggs and time/narrative.

371

Level Up

Challenges

The game was designed with eight main challenges and three bonus challenges. Each main challenge
involved participants exploring learning resources (readings, videos, etc.) that built a knowledge base
and had participants apply that information by creating some product. The challenges were structured
as mini-online modules with step-by-step procedures outlined for participants to follow. The bonus
challenges involved the gamers leaving the Level Up online system to interact with each other in some
face-to-face way on campus. The intention of these bonus challenges was to extend the community that
was being fostered online to the physical world as well.

Badges

After completing each challenge, participants were awarded badges. These small digital images were
created using the Badge Designer at www.openbadges.me and were displayed on the main page in the
Level Up game. Besides serving as a visual marker to identify when a gamer had completed a challenge,
the badges fostered a competitiveness across the Level Up community. Participants could see which
gamers were “outscoring” them and were progressing through the game more quickly than others.

Leaderboard

A leaderboard was prominently displayed in the game environment. Leaderboards display the partici-
pants in a game in descending order of the number of points scored, with the leader listed at the top. The
leaderboard in Level Up was created as a widget using the existing tools already available in the learning
management system. A simple table was created with columns for an avatar image, name, badge images,
and score. The leaderboard was updated manually by the game designers/wizards on a daily basis. Though
time consuming to create and update, the leaderboard was an essential component to the gaming experi-
ence, providing motivation (or demotivation) to the participants. A more automatic approach is possible
with badging or gaming platforms and recommended for games with a larger number of participants.

Chance/Randomness

One only need to visit the many casinos around the world to find evidence of the appeal of chance in
gaming. Introducing something unexpected into a game experience provides a thrill for the participants.
It can also be quite fun. It can have both positive and negative consequences though. During the course
of the Level Up game, participants suddenly learned that all badges and challenges achieved that day
would be worth double their value. On the positive side, this stimulated some game activity from par-
ticipants who were lagging behind and falling down the leaderboard. Some participants near the top of
the leaderboard, though, were irritated that their early active participation was being devalued.

Easter Eggs

As discussed earlier in this chapter, Easter Eggs were not initially designed to be part of the game.
The inclusion of Easter Eggs resulted from conversations with participants who were looking for them

372

Level Up

within the Level Up environment. This “emergent” part of the game added a random, fun element to the
experience and offered opportunities to support other aspects of the game. For instance, while the Level
Up experience was designed to help participants learn about gamification in education, the game was
also intended to foster a collaborative learning community at the institution around larger concepts of
teaching and learning. With the diverse group coming from across campus, several faculty members did
not know each other. One of the Easter Eggs played off of this. A character “Agnes Teager” was added
to the leaderboard. The name “Agnes Teager” is an anagram of the words “An Easter Egg.” Clicking
on Agnes Teager’s name in the leaderboard rewarded the player with bonus points. By including this
element, the game encouraged the participants to research the other people on the leaderboard to see
if they were real faculty members on campus. Another Easter egg was hidden in one of the learning
resources used within one of the challenges. The word “cooperation” was highlighted in a digital ver-
sion of one of the readings. When the word was clicked, it sent the participant to a hidden badge called
the Altruism Award that could be earned only by sharing points with five other participants. Lastly, a
Twitter account was created for Agnes Teager. A bonus challenge called Twitter Maven rewarded par-
ticipants for tweeting and responding to tweets from other gamers. Agnes Teager tweeted a link to an
additional challenge called Good Sport which rewarded players for encouraging other gamers who may
have lagged in participation to continue to contribute. While the Easter Eggs weren’t a central part of
the game and didn’t explicitly support the learning objectives of the experience, they helped to foster
more collaboration across participants.

Time/Narrative

Narrative or storytelling elements can be an effective means of engaging participants in a game environ-
ment. While an obvious fictional narrative (i.e. “You are an CIA operative who must….”) was avoided for
the Level Up participants, other narrative elements were included. The profile picture of each participant
was used as an avatar. Especially in the leaderboard, this provided a sense of characters in a story. This
was enhanced further with the addition of ‘Agnes’ as a non-player character (NPC). A live countdown
timer was displayed on the main game page, indicating a narrative sense of time - a beginning, middle
and end. The playful names of challenges and badges mimicked chapters in a book.

Lessons Learned

Through the use of a variety of game elements, the Level Up workshop showed that games could be an
effective means of delivering professional development to faculty at an institution of higher education.
Looking at the post-workshop survey completed by the participants, the majority of the gamers felt that
the Level Up experience contributed to their learning of gamification concepts. While many of the par-
ticipants didn’t foresee themselves using gamification in an upcoming course, they did report that that
the game elements were motivating and contributed to their overall engagement in Level Up (table 2).
While many participants felt that Level Up was a positive learning experience, they also felt that the
process could not be widely used with all faculty. When asked whether gamification could be used with
other professional development activities on campus, one Level Up player responded:

373

Level Up

Table 2. Response averages from post-activity survey

Question Average Response

1=Strongly Disagree
5 = Strongly Agree
My participation in Level Up increased my understanding of the concept of gamification. 4.55
The gamification elements (leaderboards, badges, etc...) contributed positively to my learning 4.11
experience.
The gamification elements (leaderboards, badges, etc...) contributed positively to my 4.11
motivation to complete the game challenges.
The gamification elements (leaderboards, badges, etc...) contributed positively to my 4.22
engagement in the activities.
As a result of my participation in Level Up, I plan to incorporate game elements into a course. 3.56

Yes. Many of the participants were pulled in by the gaming aspects, myself included. This would work
with some faculty members, but likely not with all faculty members.

This proved to be the case even with the faculty members who volunteered to participate in Level Up.
Although twenty people participated in Level Up, only half of the group completed all of the main chal-
lenges in the game. Several of the non-completers still accessed the learning resources but didn’t actively
work to complete the challenges as stated in the game. Other participants completed all of the bonus
challenges (Twitter Maven, etc.) without completing the main challenges. At first glance, the challenge
completion rate may communicate a lack of success of the Level Up experience. Like the comment from
the Level Up participant, one could conclude that possibly gamified professional development activities
may not work for all individuals. Even though the participants included only those faculty members who
volunteered to participate in the Level Up workshop, the completion data suggests that the activities did
not resonate with everyone.
Looking at Bartle’s gamer types, however, a different conclusion could be reached. Looking at the
participation and access from the faculty members, it appeared that most of the gamer types identified
by Bartle were present in the Level Up experience. Some participants were “achievers” and worked to
complete every challenge available to them. Other participants were “explorers” and used the Level Up
experience to search through the learning resources without actively completing the challenges or com-
peting in the game. Other gamers, the “socializers,” participated in only the more collaborative, social
aspects of the game. For instance, several of the participants actively contributed to the Twitter discussions
without completing many of the main challenges. Since Level Up was designed to foster collaboration,
gamers were not able to take on the role as “killers” and undermine the success of other participants.
Looking across the participation data from the Level Up game, it is clear that people play games
for different reasons. While the game was designed with clear challenges that were created to foster
competition and collaboration, the individual gamers adopted their identities within the space. Much
like any community of practice, Level Up provided the opportunity for practitioners to interact, learn
and grow. The participation and individual identities, however, were negotiated by the members of the
group (Wenger, 1999). This dimension of identification and negotiation is critical for game designers
and professional developers wishing to use game elements in learning environments.

374

Level Up

Design Considerations

After creating and implementing the Level Up professional development game, several suggestions can
be offered to future designers. While Level Up showed that game elements can support professional
development of university faculty, it also demonstrates some important aspects that designers should
consider as they develop similar experiences. While these design consideration were derived from our
experiences with the Level Up workshop, due to the nature of the participant pool and the implementation
location, the generalizability of these recommendations may be limited. They are offered as a starting
point to guide future designers.
Know your participants. While a variety of game elements could have been incorporated into the
Level up experience, some elements would not have resonated with the group. Also, it is important to
recognize the prior knowledge of the group and select appropriate resources based on this. Conducting
surveys with participants prior to starting the game is a critical way to gather data to inform the design
of the game experience.
Focus on the learning. While including game elements into Level Up motivated participants and made
the overall experience more fun, the main objective was to build an understanding of how gamification
can be used in educational settings. The selection of game elements for any professional development
experience should be based on whether the element supports the learning goals of the activity.
Allow for multiple levels of participation. Some gamers didn’t fully participate in the Level Up expe-
rience. Despite challenges that asked gamers to encourage the other players, some members still chose
to participate on the periphery of the Level Up experience. Some chose to access the learning resources
without completing challenges. Others participated in the social bonus challenges without actively en-
gaging in other areas of the game. While game designers may create spaces where competitiveness is
rewarded, some participants may still choose to explore with others choosing to socialize. This activity
reflects Bartle’s typology of gamers as well as Wenger’s duality of identification/negotiation present in
communities of practice.
Make it fun! While the primary focus of Level Up was on learning, the element of fun was still needed.
Since faculty members volunteered to participate in the experience, the challenges were designed to be
both applicable to their roles as instructors and enjoyable. For instance, funny titles were given to each
challenge and the participants were asked to complete silly tasks throughout the game. Integrating these
elements throughout Level Up helped to foster more involvement by players.
Be inclusive. In the book You Can’t Say You Can’t Play (Paley, 1993), the author discusses the
importance of inviting a diverse group into the fray and how damaging exclusivity can be on a child’s
development. While Paley’s work focuses on school-aged children, the same motivation should apply
to games designed for professional development purposes with adult learners. Diverse perspectives can
lend additional points of view and can foster a more supportive community.
Balance the designed and the emergent. While the designed game offered a starting point for the
Level Up experience, the emergent features helped to build interest and excitement in the game. When
gamifying a professional development activity, be open to new avenues and opportunities. While the main
rules and guidelines should provide the structure for the overall experience, adding elements of chance/
randomness through the inclusion of more emergent aspects can build interest with the participants.
Build community. Playing games is rarely a solitary activity. When designing a professional devel-
opment game, it is critical to make interaction and community building at the core of the experience.

375

Level Up

This can be achieved by balancing competitive and collaborative activities and encouraging players to
support the success of one another.

CONCLUSION

This chapter examined the creation and implementation of a professional development game for instruc-
tors at an institution of higher education. To design the professional development game, a five-step
process was utilized. First, assessments were used to better understand the target audience and context
for the game. Next, the overall learning objectives were identified and a coherent learning experience
was organized. After identifying specific learning resources that matched the target audience and content
area, game elements were included. By infusing game elements such as challenges, leaderboards, chance/
randomness and Easter Eggs into an online educational environment, participants reported being more
motivated to engage with the activities. Respondents also reported that the game elements positively
contributed to their learning and helped them learn firsthand about gamification in education. The chapter
concludes with design considerations and observation that can support the inclusion of game elements
in professional development activities.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The creation of the Level Up experience shows that game elements can be used in professional develop-
ment situations to foster involvement, interaction and community building. While this chapter examined
the design aspects of Level Up, additional research could be conducted to assess other aspects of the
game. For instance, while game mechanics were included to foster motivation with participants, additional
research could examine the direct impacts of each of these elements on participation and completion
rates to better understand their effectiveness. Additionally, while the game elements seemed to work
particularly well as a vehicle for learning about gamification as a content area, would a similar structure
be an effective vehicle for another subject matter in a different environment. Future research could study
the efficacy of this structure for other professional development activities outside of education.
The literature on gamification of faculty professional development is sparse. Outside of a handful
of conference presentations (Pope et al, 2014; Wilder, 2014), one article by Vrasidas, C., & Solomou,
M (2013) “examines the affordances and opportunities from using online games in teacher professional
development.” Other professions including medicine, business, and military have more active scholar-
ship on gamification of professional development.

REFERENCES

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning
works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

376

Level Up

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research,
1(1), 19.
Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product
advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 391–400. doi:10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0945
Bowman, R. F. (1982). Pac-Man theory of motivation: Tactical implications for classroom instruction.
Educational Technology, 2214–2216.
Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-Efficacy: The
Case of Lesson Study. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263–283. doi:10.1080/00220973.20
11.596854
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for Motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-
Herráiz, J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers
& Education, 63380–63392.
Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elemen-
tary students’ motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Computers & Education,
75136–75148.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Com-
puter conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/
S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal
study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Com-
puters & Education, 80, 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of Education. Research Report Series: Behavioural
Economics in Action. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco: Wiley.
Keller, M. (2015). The Gamification of Weight Loss. Today’s Dietitian, 17(1), 40.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Paley, V. G. (1993). You can’t say you can’t play. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pope, N., Hammonds, L., & Meira, A. (2014). Gamification and Faculty Development: Practices from
a Pilot Program. Paper presented at Sloan C 7th Annual International Symposium Emerging Technolo-
gies for Online Learning, Dallas, TX.

377

Level Up

Vrasidas, C., & Solomou, M. (2013). Using educational design research methods to examine the af-
fordances of online games for teacher learning. Educational Media International, 50(3), 192–205. doi
:10.1080/09523987.2013.839151
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wilder, M. (2014). Applying Gamification Principles to Online Faculty Professional Development. Paper
presented at Online Learning Consortium International Conference 2014, Orlando, FL.

ADDITIONAL READING

Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do amazing things. Brookline, MA:
Bibliomotion.
Chou, Y. K. (2015). Actionable gamification - Beyond points, badges and leaderboards. Fremont, CA:
Octalysis Media.
Classcraft – Make learning an adventure . (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from http://www.
classcraft.com/
Gabe Zichermann | Speaker | TED.com. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from http://www.ted.
com/speakers/gabe_zichermann
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating Children to Learn Effectively: Exploring the
Value of Intrinsic Integration in Educational Games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.
doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of Empirical
Studies on Gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)
(pp. 3025–3034).
Kapp, K. M. (2013). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook: Ideas into practice. San
Francisco: Wiley.
Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic Ex-
change Quarterly, 15(2).
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world.
New York: Penguin Press.
Sheldon, L. (2011). The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game. Boston, Mass:
Cengage Learning PTR.

378

Level Up

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Asynchronous Activities: Learning processes that do not require simultaneous participation by

students and instructor.
Community of Inquiry: A theoretical framework that represents the complex processes of support-
ing learning through the development of three interdependent elements- social, cognitive and teaching
presence.
Gamification: The application of game elements to other activities and processes.
Learning Management System: A web-based delivery system that supports instructional processes
from a distance.
Professional Development: The process of advancing the skills and capabilities of a group of
practictioners.

379
380

Chapter 18
The Development of a Gamified
System for Health Activism as
a Graduate Student Project
David Kirschner
Georgia Gwinnett College, USA

ABSTRACT
This chapter presents a case of the development, implementation, and iteration of a gamified, graduate-
student-driven, collaborative class project about community health activism. The project was founded
on three principles: (1) people define, interpret, and modify the meanings of health and wellbeing based
on past experiences and in diverse contexts; (2) both learning and iterative design are adaptations to
problems; and (3) knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Prior to the class
project, the researchers designed a web-based platform for people to publicly recognize and motivate
one another for being healthcaring, exhibiting positive attitudes and behaviors toward the health and
wellbeing of themselves and others. This chapter shows how students, researchers, and the community
refined a definition of healthcaring while trying to change people’s health attitudes and behaviors
through gamification. After contextualizing the project and discussing its foundations, the chapter offers
a discussion on its four phases and results.

INTRODUCTION

Health activism is action on behalf of health-related causes that goes above and beyond the norm (Mar-
tin, 2007), often challenging those perceived as responsible for social injustice or health inequality in
the process. Obstacles that health activists face include individualism, unsupportive political environ-
ments, and commercial and corporate interests (Laverack, 2012). The need for health activism today is
obvious. Structural strains such as food deserts (Walker, Keane, & Burke, 2010) and long work hours
(Virtanen et al., 2012) intersect with personal health behaviors such as lack of exercise to act against
healthy lifestyle choices and outcomes, leading to escalating rates of chronic diseases and conditions,
including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2015).

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch018

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Additionally, these factors intersect with other social structures. For example, governments play a key
role in protecting public health and safety (Frieden, 2013) through programs like implementing city-wide
nutrition standards (Lederer, Curtis, Silver, & Angell, 2014) and mandating that fast food menus show
calorie information (Dumanovsky, Huang, Bassett, & Silver, 2010). Such top-down approaches to health
promotion aim to uniformly benefit large numbers of people, although the national data highlighting
significant health disparities and inequalities among race, class, and other groups indicate that many
are left out (CDC, 2013). Other people object to top-down approaches on philosophical grounds by ar-
guing against perceived government intrusion in their lives and liberties (Harsayani, 2007). Purveyors
of unhealthy food products employ flavorists to maximize consumers’ favorable responses to artificial
tastes and smells (Schlosser, 2001), and fast food advertising all but ensures that people, especially kids,
develop a relationship to the food and the companies selling it. Fast food restaurants spent $4.6 billion
on advertising in 2012, almost half of that specifically targeting children, while in the same year Mc-
Donald’s demonstrated its market dominance by spending 2.7 times as much to advertise its products
than all bottled water, milk, fruit, and vegetable advertisers combined (Yale Rudd Center, 2013). It is no
wonder that changing people’s health behaviors is hard; they experience structural inequalities, exhibit
individual resistance, and face the challenge of shrugging off corporate socialization efforts, not to men-
tion the fact that, to many, unhealthy food tastes good and routine is easy, even preferable to change. The
point: top-down approaches to health promotion are confronted with opposition due to various factors
and face the difficulties inherent in employing blanket solutions. Top-down approaches are typically
divorced from everyday health activism.
Bottom-up approaches to attitudinal and behavioral health change are more closely intertwined with
health activism in forms similar to grassroots environmentalism (see Bullard, 1993, 2000). These “people-
centered” (Biehl & Petryna, 2013) approaches are positioned to avoid top-down pitfalls and can subvert
the interests of oppositional corporate and political voices on local levels (Zoller, 2005). Additionally,
innovative approaches to effecting health change are likely to be developed from the bottom up because
bottom-up innovation is often apart from or in direct opposition to the dominant healthcare culture. To
the extent that innovative ideas are perceived as threats by the dominant health, political, financial, or
other institutional culture, they are unlikely to receive funding or attention, pushing them further away
from the mainstream and toward the local level (Bergman, Markusson, Connor, Middlemiss, & Ricci,
2010), where they are more likely to become embedded in people’s everyday lives.
One core feature of 21st century activism representative of such embeddedness is a participatory shift
into the digital realm. Although digitally- or technologically-mediated activism often entails low-risk,
low-cost participation with potentially divergent outcomes and engagement levels (Rotman et al., 2011),
this relatively new avenue for health activism has already yielded impressive results (e.g., Flicker et al.,
2008). Digitally-mediated health activism is a core feature of this study, particularly as it intersects with
educational contexts and gamification, the relationships of which will be explored in the following sec-
tion. Health technologies, from Fitbits to the hundreds of smartphone apps on the market, can promote
health activism, but are tailored to the individual and their physical improvement over time. Connec-
tions to the larger social world of health and wellbeing are often limited to badges and leaderboards,
common game elements entailing low levels of participation that are easily ticked off the gamification
design checklist. Health technologies that link individuals to their communities and that promote col-
laboration and knowledge sharing over individual competition and metrics offer relatively unexplored,
and potentially fruitful, terrain.

381

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

This chapter shows how students, researchers, and the community refined a definition of healthcar-
ing while trying to change people’s health attitudes and behaviors through gamification. It first offers a
background of the healthcaring concept and organization, including its theoretical foundations in linguistic
relativism, before incorporating motivational theory and gamification design. Simultaneously providing
a narrative of the genesis of the healthcaring course project, the chapter then describes healthcaring’s
shift to an educational context rooted in health activism. It then outlines the four phases of the course
project, including successes and failures, before discussing the project’s results and future.

BACKGROUND

Healthcaring is an initiative involving an ever-growing group of multidisciplinary volunteers. The core

team is currently composed of an industrial engineer, a sociologist (this author), a psychologist/coun-
selor, a technologist, and a physical therapist. Healthcaring is primarily located in the Metro Atlanta,
Georgia area, but has dozens of volunteers and collaborators across the United States. The purpose of
the initiative is to promote healthcaring, a multifunctional word that means to exhibit positive attitudes
and behaviors toward the health and wellbeing of oneself and others (e.g., exercising, being a designated
driver, volunteering at domestic violence shelters). Healthcaring emerged from a parent organization
called Open4Definition that sought to facilitate community improvement projects across a broad range of
fields, from politics to education to the environment. As Open4Definition evolved, its members began to
focus on the purposeful use of language for changing attitudes and behaviors in the community projects
they guided. In order to develop this idea and share it with others who could copy their organizational
template, they chose healthcaring as an example initiative around which to promote health activism and
formed the Healthcaring team.
This section flows temporally across three subsections that outline the theoretical and methodologi-
cal foundations of this research. First is a discussion of the Healthcaring project and its foundations in
language and behavior change. The second subsection tracks the Healthcaring team’s developing inter-
est in motivational theories and gamification for health activism in the classroom and community. The
third subsection bridges theory, pedagogy, and method by incorporating into the established framework
a micro-sociological perspective called symbolic interactionism and a model of experiential learning to
guide the development of a collaborative graduate student project.

Healthcaring’s Foundations in Language and Behavior Change

Healthcaring began life as an example of a “keystone behavioral definition,” a class of concepts designed
to efficiently cue behavior and to be memorable, spreadable, and capable of spawning other behavioral
definitions. If such words are thoughtfully engineered, spread, and adopted, they can modify social
norms and cause positive social change. Classic examples include designated driver (Winsten & Dean,
1993) and secondhand smoke. The Harvard Alcohol Project (Winsten, 1994) sought to rapidly diffuse
the designated driver concept through mass media, including television shows such as Cheers, The Cosby
Show, and L.A. Law, public service announcements via ABC, CBS, and NBC, major news programs,
and newspapers. The shows’ characters mentioned and modeled the designated driver concept, the idea
being that media messages shape social reality and that viewers would learn appropriate behaviors and

382

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

expectations attached to the designated driver role (McCombs, 2002). The concept of secondhand smoke
originated in the tobacco industry in the early 1970s, although it was more benignly referred to as pas-
sive smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (Chapman, 2003). As more research was conducted on
the effects of passive inhalation, concerned citizens organized around a term that drew attention to the
nonsmokers whom cigarette smoke affected. A loose coalition of local organizations, individually called
chapters of Group Against Smoking Pollution (GASP), combined in 1976 to form the California Group
Against Smoking Pollution, and after successful educational outreach programs and legislative victories to
limit smoking in public places, continued to expand, eventually becoming the national group, Americans
for Nonsmokers’ Rights (2015). Secondhand smoke has generated additional behavioral definitions such
as thirdhand smoke (Protano & Vitali, 2011), no-smoking area, and smoke-free. These two examples
demonstrate the power of language to cause behavioral change, and they are both examples beneath the
arch of healthcaring: to responsibly abstain from drinking in order to drive friends safely home and to
reduce others’ exposure to secondhand smoke are both healthcaring behaviors.
Linguistic relativism, usually distilled into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, posits that language structures
cognitive processes, and in turn the ways people conceptualize and act in the world (see Putz & Vespoor,
2000). Eschewing the linguistic determinism popularized in dystopian science fiction novels like 1984
(Orwell, 1949) and Atlas Shrugged (Rand, 1957), and without drawing on cross-linguistic research where
the bulk of research in the field lies, this relativist position is supported using examples from modern
English. Why develop the term healthcaring? What is the matter with the term healthcare? Healthcare
is a noun; it is inert. A quick Google search of the term as of this writing returns top results dominated
by government and healthcare providers clarifying the law, coverage, and payment, as well as negative
news and magazine articles stating that American healthcare is broken, expensive, and that it “killed
my father” (Goldhill, 2009). This suggests that healthcare is perceived as a bureaucratic, institutional
system with a negative connotation, exemplified by ample research showing that many Americans per-
ceive race- and class-based discrimination in their healthcare experiences (Han, Call, Pintor, Alarcon-
Espinoza, & Simon, 2015; Lillie-Blanton, Brodie, Rowland, Altman, & McIntosh, 2000; Shavers et al.,
2012). None of these features of the healthcare system reflect ideal healthcare culture. Healthcaring,
which may function as a verb or adjective, implies or describes action. Healthcaring, unlike healthcare,
is not an inert, discriminating, uncaring thing.
The connotation of a word and the potentiality for thought and behavior that it affords are of practical
significance, affecting not only our perceptions of the world, but our experiences of it. Euphemisms,
for example, are nicer ways of expressing not-so-nice concepts. When a group of study participants
read aloud curse words, euphemisms for those words, and neutral words, they experienced heightened
autonomic responses after expressing the offensive words but not the latter two types (Bowers & Pley-
dell-Pearce, 2011). In a medical context, cancer patients’ anxiety levels were significantly lower when
medical professionals used the word “illness” with them instead of the word “cancer” (Dunn et al., 1993).
Language therefore influences cognition and emotions, and in the medical example, could affect patient
coping and quality of life outcomes. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argued that our conceptual system is
metaphorical in nature. Consider the metaphor “love is war.” Conceptualizing love in terms of war is
reflected in everyday language: I won the fight with my partner; She pursued him relentlessly; Theirs is
a weak alliance (p. 90). This prominent metaphor, relying on what we know about war, may shape our
thoughts about and actions in love. Imagine instead that love is a collaborative work of art. What entail-
ments do collaboration and art bring? Love requires dedication and patience, involves creativity, and is
an aesthetic, even beautiful, experience (p. 92). Lakoff and Johnson note that “the metaphor highlights

383

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

certain features while suppressing others… [and can]…sanction actions, justify inferences, and help
us set goals” (p. 93). Portmanteaus like healthcaring lump together “islands of meaning” (Zerubavel
1991), merging disparate concepts into one classification, putting each in the context of the other. Like
a metaphor, a portmanteau highlights features of each concept through juxtaposition: the caring aspect
of health and the health aspect of caring. Like a metaphor, a portmanteau sanctions actions, especially
when pairing a verb or adjective with a noun: Do (it like) this regarding that.
Healthcaring and other behavioral definitions demonstrate conscious linguistic engineering enabled
by understanding the relationship between language, thought, and behavior. But just because a new
concept is introduced does not mean it will become adopted, or that even when spread, that it will cause
the desired change. Meanings are not inherent in words; people define and interpret words in diverse
contexts. The next subsection discusses the role of motivation in attitudinal and behavioral change, and
proposes gamification as a vehicle for motivation to adopt behavioral definitions and change health-
related attitudes and behaviors.

Motivation and Gamifying Healthcaring

The Healthcaring team had been refining the healthcaring concept, its particular brand of health activism,
and the concept’s relationship to thought and behavior through writing (Helton, 2013), but was stum-
bling over how to meaningfully attract allies beyond that. How could a small, non-funded, all-volunteer
organization copy Jay Winsten and the Harvard Alcohol Project’s success with designated driver in
the 21st century? Reflecting on my background in digital media, gaming, and game design, I suggested
gamification as a potential pathway toward wider engagement, and offered to guide another team mem-
ber through a gamification course offered online through Coursera, much of which also appears in the
book, For the Win (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). The course provided the team with further insight into
motivational theories related to gamification and tools to apply in gamifying the healthcaring concept.
Setting aside the question of why it is difficult for people to change their health behaviors (see Taylor,
2011, Part 2 for an overview), this subsection focuses on how gamification can enhance motivation to
foster attitudinal and behavioral change, and considers research on the utility of key gamification ele-
ments that the Healthcaring team implemented.
The Fogg behavioral models (2009; 2015) have three factors: motivation, ability, and triggers. People
are most likely to achieve a target behavior if they have high motivation and high ability relative to the
behavior and if the target behavior is effectively triggered. However, motivation and ability can offset one
another: A person who is extremely motivated to quit smoking can overcome the difficulties associated
with it, especially with a positive trigger behavior such as eating a mint when the nicotine craving hits,
or a person for whom it is extremely easy to eat healthier (there are cheap fruits and vegetables in the
workplace that act as a trigger, for example) may do so despite relatively low motivation. Likelihood
of achieving the target behavior decreases from high motivation and ability to low motivation and abil-
ity, which does not imply that people so located will not or cannot do a task or work toward changing
a behavior. The gamification of the healthcaring concept was broadly designed to include people with
low motivation and ability, and to provide simple, effective techno-social triggers.
Gamification is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled,
& Nacke, 2011, p.1). Often cited examples include Nike Plus, which turns exercise into a social competi-
tion to make it more fun (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011, pp. 96-98) and Foursquare, a mobile social
app that rewards users with badges and discounts for visiting restaurants, bars, and other entertainment

384

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

venues, and can impact people’s decisions about leisure activities (Frith, 2013). Game design elements
that gamified systems commonly feature include virtual badges, leaderboards, points, levels, challenges,
and so on, often with the purpose of fostering collaboration and competition. Virtual badges in particular
have received much scholarly attention since the Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance
Collaboratory’s Badges for Lifelong Learning initiative and Mozilla’s Open Badge Infrastructure were
created (see Grant & Shawgo, 2013 for an annotated bibliography on badge research). Badges, like any
extrinsic motivator, can increase or decrease motivation depending on various factors, including the type
of badge and the user’s prior knowledge (Abramovich, Schunn, & Higashi, 2013), their prior motivations
and goals, and perception of their competence relative to others. For example, Antin (2009) found that
people are more motivated to participate in collective action sites (e.g., editing a Wikipedia page) when
they believe they are highly competent and more competent than others. Virtual badges serve as such
identity markers, conferring expertise to the individual and the community (Antin & Churchill, 2011).
Without considering these and other factors, it is highly likely that badges will have a negative effect on
learning (Abramovich et al., 2013).
Badges and other game design elements have the potential to enhance intrinsic motivation, the desire
to do something for its own sake, by promoting altruism, cooperation, and a sense of belonging, but tend
to strongly provide extrinsic motivation, the desire to do something to earn a reward or avoid a punish-
ment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001), for example, found in a meta-analysis
of 128 studies examining motivation in educational contexts that external rewards tended to decrease
intrinsic motivation. A cascade of unexpected achievements (rewards) for completing repetitive tasks,
for example, may decrease motivation in intrinsically motivated people, but increase it in extrinsically
motivated people, while offering a difficult challenge with no promise of an external reward may have
the opposite effect. Designing gamified systems that enhance the psychological needs of competence,
autonomy, and relatedness increases the appeal of these systems (Przybylski, Scott, & Ryan, 2010). In
effect, this makes gamified systems more people-centered, as long as designers can make interaction
with the system meaningful (Nicholson, 2012). Both types of motivation are important to consider, and
finding a functional balance between the two is a delicate dance.
Context and users’ qualities are also crucial design considerations (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014).
For example, gamification in educational contexts promotes participatory culture and sets clear goals
and outcomes for learners (Glover, 2013), and may incorporate pre-existing or custom-made persuasive
technology (Muntean, 2011). One widely publicized success in health gamification is Jane McGonigal’s
SuperBetter (2015). McGonigal created the resilience-building game to help battle depression and anxiety
after sustaining a severe concussion. These studies point to the importance of determining the gamified
system’s goals, what types of motivation it enhances, the contexts within which people will engage with
the system, and the kinds of people comprising the target audience.
Considering the contexts within which gamified systems exist, as well as the plethora of game ele-
ments that could comprise them, a viable design strategy is to incorporate a functional variety of game
design elements and other conditions into gamified systems to increase the system’s breadth by offer-
ing activities drawing upon the whole motivational spectrum. This subsection has shown that effective
gamification in educational contexts and health domains can motivate users to change health-related
attitudes and behaviors, and that technology can make health management easier.

385

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Toward an Experiential, Micro-Sociological Pedagogy

The final subsection here describes the Healthcaring team’s move from gamifying the concept generally to
orienting it specifically toward an educational context. At the time of this shift, I had recently completed
a design document and our technologist was building the framework of the web-based platform. This
platform enables users to publicly recognize and motivate one another for being “healthcaring,” exhibit-
ing positive attitudes and behaviors toward the health and wellbeing of themselves and others. Public
recognition revolves around sharing “healthcaring credits,” which are virtual badges that are passed on
from person to person, and vibrant stories of healthcaring experiences. During this initial development,
the Healthcaring team was invited by a physical therapist and professor (now part of the team) to test the
nascent gamified system in a classroom by using it to guide a group of 38 Doctor of Physical Therapy
students at a small liberal arts college through a Community Health course project during the Fall 2014
semester. This prompted a number of design reconsiderations, as it required the team to rethink the
project in terms of pedagogy and health activism instead of just gamification and behavioral change.
In a sense, the shift from broadly gamifying healthcaring to streamlining the project in an educational
context brought the realization that the project was not initially focused on health activism, although we
would have previously argued otherwise.
The first key challenge of the course project was to teach 38 students about healthcaring such that
they could become advocates in their families and communities and could learn to use the gamified
system to generate and supplement hands-on learning experiences. To this end, the Healthcaring team
developed four project goals: (1) Design a project that effectively plunges students into the practical
experience of everyday community health and wellbeing; (2) Determine appropriate methods to spread
healthcaring knowledge and behaviors among people and organizations; (3) Explore student and user
motivations for interacting with the web-based platform; and (4) Test and iterate on web technology
and design for supporting communication, gamifying health, and capturing user-generated data. Nestled
within these project goals are kernels of an experiential, micro-sociological pedagogy rooted in symbolic
interactionism and experiential learning.
Symbolic interactionism is a micro-sociological perspective emphasizing the meaning-making
process comprising human interaction. Symbolic interactionists accept three premises about the social
world: (1) People act toward things based on the meanings those things hold for them; (2) Meanings
develop through interactions with others; and (3) Meanings can be modified through an interpretive
process (Blumer, 1969). Interactional experiences are foregrounded as the source of meaning. Design
philosophies intended to elicit specific meanings in users—a type of top-down approach—tend to miss
or ignore the interactionist perspective: people define, interpret, and modify the meanings of health
and wellbeing based on past experiences and in diverse contexts. This is part of the reason that no one
diet or health app works for everyone. An example of this may be found in the games studies literature.
Ducheneaut, Moore, and Nickell (2007) conducted research on how well the design of the massively
multiplayer online game (MMOG) Star Wars Galaxies (SWG) promoted sociability. They compared
the game’s informal public gathering spaces, cantinas in particular, to Oldenburg’s third places (1989).
Player interdependencies (player classes relied on one another to achieve goals), using space to promote
sociability (by creating a sense of vibrant social life in the cantinas), and the interaction system (macros
and gestures facilitating multimodal communication) combined such that cantinas appeared to mirror
the local hangout spot. However, upon analyzing player-to-player interactions recorded in cantinas, the
researchers found that there were differences in sociable interaction (hanging out) and instrumental

386

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

interaction (spamming, performing repetitive tasks to gain character skill points), and that the cantinas,
despite being designed to facilitate the former, just as often facilitated the latter.
This is the difference between “designed sociality” and “played sociality.” By examining players’
motivations for collaborating and the forms and functions that such player configurations take, researchers
can explain how designed sociality (socially enabling structures encoded in games) and played sociality
(how players interact within those structures) (Simon, Boudreau, & Silverman, 2009) are interdepen-
dent. For example, two forms of organization are common in MMOGs, differing primarily in their level
of transience. First, players form temporary pick-up-groups (PUGs) to accomplish mutually beneficial
shared goals or tasks (Eklund & Johansson, 2010; 2013). In the case of World of Warcraft, players
use a game feature called the “Dungeon Finder” to queue for group play, and the game automatically
assembles groups from the queue. Although the Dungeon Finder brings players together to pursue a
common goal, the played sociality that they experience is often strikingly at odds against the Dungeon
Finder’s designed sociality: PUG interactions tend to be purely instrumental, groups of experienced play-
ers can complete dungeons without verbal communication, and there is a distinct lack of concern for or
sanctions against players violating typical MMOG group norms such as abandoning the group halfway
through a dungeon. These experiences of highly instrumental, rationalized played sociality result from
the lack of shared pasts or futures among many PUG players, the routinization of combat encounters
within dungeons, and the external reward structure for completing dungeons, all of which are affected
by game design (Eklund & Johansson, 2013).
Along with a symbolic interactionist perspective to guide the healthcaring project design, Kolb’s
(1984) experiential learning framework was useful. Knowledge is created through the transformation of
experience (p. 38). This statement applies on two levels in the educational gamification design context:
on the level of the teacher/designer and the learner. The latter has been the subject of unquantifiable
studies, but the experiential learning of the former has not. Studies promoting the value of reflection in
teaching (Hatton & Smith, 1995) and creative design (Plattner, Meinel, & Leifer, 2012) illustrate that
both learning (Becker, 1986) and iterative design (Goodyear, 2005) are adaptations to problems. Since
the Healthcaring team was initially testing and iterating on the web-based platform’s design at the same
time as students were experiencing it, we were unsure what kinds of problems would arise. This led
to an open-ended, constantly fluctuating project wherein the class’s efforts influenced ongoing project
design. It also meant that the students had to refine their own understandings of the variety of meanings
that people hold regarding, and the variety of contexts within which people negotiate, health and wellbe-
ing. This extended to self-reflection and their engagement with the gamified healthcaring system. Thus,
they began the project by outlining ten objectives, which included identifying the personal meaning(s)
of healthcaring, identifying how the healthcaring project affected their local community, mobilizing
healthcaring on social media to provide another avenue of communication for community members, and
creating and disseminating healthcaring artifacts (videos, stickers, pamphlets) at public events. Their
overarching goal, underneath which all of these fit, was to assess the healthcare environments in which
people of diverse demographic backgrounds participate.

IMPLEMENTATION AND ITERATION OF THE HEALTHCARING PROJECT

The healthcaring class project had four phases: (1) onboarding; (2) experiential learning conditions;
(3) social media and story catching; and (4) reflection. As mentioned above, these phases were not pre-

387

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

planned, but arose out of interactions between students, researchers, community, and technology. The
Healthcaring team iterated on the gamified project design and the web-based platform as students used
it to accomplish project goals, adapting the design to address new problems and explore new avenues for
innovation in health activism. This section describes the project’s first three phases in turn, answering
three key questions for each: (1) What did we do? (2) What did students do? and (3) What did we learn?

Onboarding

The first phase of the project involved students developing an initial understanding of the healthcaring
concept and of the web-based platform, accessible through healthcaring.info. Onboarding, the process
that helps new organizational members learn the knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary to succeed
(Bauer & Erdogan, 2011), was crucial for the Healthcaring team to ensure students shared a common
understanding of the healthcaring concept and web-based platform. The onboarding phase socialized
the students into healthcaring and reduced their uncertainty about definitions and expectations (see
Kramer, 2010).
We exhaustively covered all aspects of the web-based platform and scaffolded our instruction, pro-
viding students with problem-solving supports to achieve goals, removing those supports as they gained
confidence and expertise (Sharma & Hannafin, 2007), and then providing assistance in a more difficult
task (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). In this case, the initial goal was to share healthcaring credits, virtual
badges that are passed on from person to person, and vibrant stories of healthcaring experiences over the
course of several weeks of onboarding. To share a healthcaring credit, students logged into the platform
and provided the email address of the recipient in a form. They were also prompted to state the reason
why they awarded the credit to that recipient. The recipient was notified via a welcome email that the
student had shared a healthcaring credit with them, and was directed to the platform to accept their
credit, share a personal story about being healthcaring, and pass the credit on to someone they wanted
to recognize for being healthcaring.
Each credit has a unique identification code and captures data about where in the world its recipients
are located. This feature automatically generates a map of all healthcaring credit locations. Users can
select any one credit’s map marker to see where that individual credit has traveled and to read all stories
associated with that credit. We quickly recognized the significance of sharing stories, not just credits,
for motivating users and for defining healthcaring through examples from the bottom up. Indeed, we
began to conceptualize healthcaring credits as vessels for sharing stories. To manifest this purpose, we
created a news feed of user-generated stories that visitors to the website could see.
The goal of sharing credits was the first element of gamification, and it was soon joined by introduc-
ing both cooperative and competitive aspects. We grouped students into ten teams (three to five students
per team) and gave “homework” assignments to share an increasing number of credits per week. To
monitor progress, inspire competition, and recognize achievements, we created leaderboards tracking the
daily number of credits awarded per team and per student, who had shared the most credits, and which
credits had been shared the most.
During the onboarding phase, students created short interview schedules, conversed with users (other
people who had accepted and/or shared credits) about their experience, transcribed the interviews, and
posted the transcriptions to an online course forum on Blackboard, the university’s learning management
system. I coded these interview data and found that users had two key issues with the web-based platform.
First, users found the overall process of receiving a welcome email (which contained an explanation of

388

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

healthcaring and instructions for participating), navigating the website, and determining how to follow
the instructions confusing. The rationale, objectives, and instructions were not clear enough. Second,
users reported that the email felt like spam. Its wordiness and lack of clarity contributed to this problem,
in addition to the fact that it asked users to go to a website to accept and share a “credit,” which some
users associated with “credit card” and therefore with a scam. To address these issues, the Healthcaring
team completely revised the website content and email message with a focus on concision and clarity.
We also introduced new fields so that the students could further personalize the welcome email in order
to combat the spam-like impersonality of the communications.
Students reported that interacting with other users helped them through the onboarding process.
During interviews, they were often asked to explain healthcaring, as the initial email was perceived as
confusing, and so they began to develop an interest and expertise in thinking about healthcaring in new
ways to explain it to novices; they were becoming socialized into healthcaring.

Experiential Learning Conditions

In the experiential learning conditions phase, students developed specialized roles and expertise in
their teams and in the class. They began to internalize healthcaring through practice outside of sharing
credits. The Healthcaring team developed eight experiential learning conditions which operated like
experimental trials. Each team chose two conditions to work on during this phase, in addition to con-
tinuing to compete in sharing healthcaring credits through the web-based platform. These conditions
included engaging with social media, creating face-to-face credits, developing a new way to recognize
healthcaring, partnering with a small or mid-sized group or organization to spread healthcaring, becom-
ing interview experts, and developing a system of achievements as an element of gamification. These
experiential learning conditions stem from Kolb’s (1984) theorizing about learning by doing, and also
from the desire to engage students in health activism through technology (Flicker et al., 2008). Flicker
et al. argued that “Participatory Action Research (PAR) can be a powerful mechanism for galvanizing
youth to become active agents of [community health] change” (p. 285). Additionally, experiential learn-
ing conditions that students could choose are examples of two learning principles in games: ongoing
learning and regime of competence (Gee, 2003, pp. 208-209). These principles state that good games
continually provide users with challenging conditions that they must adapt to and into which they must
integrate new ways of thinking and patterns of action, and also that the user has the ability to operate at
the edge of competence.
The experiential learning conditions were more or less successful, with the most successful being
those that focused on communication (social media, face-to-face, partnering with an organization, and
interviewing). Students particularly enjoyed the ethnographic aspects of some conditions. For example,
the face-to-face groups excelled in devising novel ways to talk to people about healthcaring, whether
it was strangers in a park, friends and family at dinner, or co-workers in the office. They created props
such as buttons, stickers, flyers, and pamphlets to support their explanations. Students reported that this
condition allowed them to develop personal relationships and see the effects of knowledge sharing in
the community. Such a community-oriented condition aligned with students’ project goals of impacting
the local community and performing outreach. Some face-to-face groups participated in 5k races, blood
drives, and other events that they perceived to be healthcaring.
One especially challenging and instructive condition was to partner with organizations to test health-
caring credits internally. The Healthcaring team was interested to see how credits would spread within

389

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

a closed group, members of which shared certain characteristics (e.g., medical professionals in a doc-
tor’s office). Students gained access to several organizations, including a local gym, hospital, and their
families’ businesses. They practiced pitching the idea of using a gamified system of sharing healthcaring
credits to increase motivation for employees to change their health behaviors, but time and again were
rejected. Why were organizations hesitant to trial healthcaring credits? Aside from the obvious fact that
the gamified healthcaring credit system was untested and in development, students found that many or-
ganizations already had health promotion programs in place and they questioned whether healthcaring
credits could meaningfully enhance their existing programs. This finding highlighted the need to find a
niche, perhaps as an enhancement to existing programs instead of as a standalone program. No student
team found that niche during the semester, and this has been a persistent conundrum.
Finally, students who served as interview experts greatly contributed to the iteration of the project
and platform. In this experiential condition, students explored user motivations through conducting user
experience research. They developed questions such as “What motivated you to pass this healthcaring
credit along?” and “What was difficult about your experience with healthcaring? Why?” Again, students
transcribed interviews and submitted them to Blackboard forums, and after coding them, the Healthcaring
team modified the website, emails, and other features accordingly. What emerged even more strongly
in the second round of interviews was the significance of stories for user engagement. This student-led
discovery of the significance of stories was the impetus for us to shift the project’s focus into the realm of
social media. Students and other users continued to resist the method of email communication and, after
successfully experimenting with social media for communicating, vocalized their support for leveraging
social media to share stories, plan events, and interact with community members.

Social Media and Story Catching

The experiential learning condition to engage with social media proved the most popular choice. We
initially limited it to two teams, but under pressure and having been convinced by students of its potential
as a new avenue for communication and sharing credits and stories, we embraced it. The social media
and story-catching phase promoted collaboration among students, dialogue between students and the
public, and their embodiment of the healthcaring concept.
Student teams created and managed healthcaring Twitter and Facebook accounts for the remainder
of the semester. On Twitter, they followed relevant organizations, tweeted user-generated stories, and
shared healthcaring content from other accounts. For example, on October 28th, the student team account
BeHealthCARING tweeted, “‘My daughter recognized my effort of donating blood to save lives’ – a
HealthCARER #BeHealthCARING #Spreadtheword #Raisehealthawareness.” In this single example,
students shared a story captured via a healthcaring credit that was also visible on the website’s story feed,
provided an example of healthcaring behavior (donating blood), showed that recognition by loved ones
is a reward for healthcaring, used a coined word (HealthCARER) to identify and label a healthcaring
individual, and utilized hashtags to increase the tweet’s visibility.
Facebook proved even more useful. First, it simplified communication between the students and
researchers. Previously, we held weekly or biweekly Skype sessions with students, attempted to engage
on Blackboard forums, and even drove the 400 miles from Georgia to Indiana to meet face-to-face. The
students experienced constant Skype connection problems due to campus wifi network issues, sustain-
ing engagement beyond what was required for students to earn grades on assignments was difficult
via Blackboard forums, and driving 400 miles was obviously not a sustainable practice. Student teams

390

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

created both opened and closed healthcaring Facebook groups, and we observed three types of student-
centered interaction across these groups: student-student, student-researcher, and student-community.
Within these interactional types, students shared content from other sources, created and shared original
content (including a video representing what healthcaring meant to them, which was one of their project
goals), “caught” and shared healthcaring stories of their own, of people they knew, and from around the
internet, and participated in synchronous group conversations.
These latter two activities were particularly important because they generated abundant data for
analysis. Students shared over 100 stories of healthcaring and produced over 400 responses to discus-
sion questions in group conversations. Discussion questions explored the healthcaring concept, such as
“What role does identity play in everyday health and wellbeing?”, “What insights have you gained from
being a story catcher?”, and “In what ways do you see yourself as a healthcarer?” A typical response to
the latter question was, “I feel like I am a healthcarer because I enjoy taking care of other people, both
in my profession and in my everyday life. However, because of this I tend not to take care of myself
enough.” Stories and responses were coded using NVivo, a qualitative research software package, in
order to uncover the essence of healthcaring.
Through coding student responses and student-collected data, we refined the healthcaring concept.
Healthcaring involves three key features: embodiment, facilitation, and selflessness. Embodiment is
the notion of “practicing what you preach.” From this perspective, healthcaring is a normative lifestyle
choice that is closely related to students’ values. Students reported internalizing healthcaring to the extent
that it became unconscious or “a part of everyday life.” Others equated the taken-for-granted nature of
embodiment to simplicity and common sense. Many students’ discussion responses and stories demon-
strated the feature of facilitation. A healthcaring person encourages others to be healthcaring, often by
recognizing their accomplishments. A healthcaring person is inspirational and can lead others to change
their health attitudes and behaviors. A fine point here is that to be healthcaring is not only to help oth-
ers by encouragement and the rest, but to actively be aware of others’ goals. Finally, as the quote in the
previous paragraph shows, healthcaring people demonstrate selflessness in their helping behaviors. They
often put others’ wellbeing ahead of their own. This involves one’s self-concept deriving in part from
the community, which they were all eager to impact through this project. Further, “care” was sometimes
perceived as a limited resource (care is likely intertwined with “time,” but this relationship was not re-
ported). Selflessness can increase the difficulty of taking care of oneself. This final feature makes special
sense in the context of this class project because the students were all training to be physical therapists.
Helping people was part of their future career, and so healthcaring values were highly correlated with
values of medical professionals. Students often qualified statements with, “As a physician…”
Although communication by the end of the semester took place largely through social media outlets,
this did not displace previous forms of communication, but was additive. Social media allowed for
students, researchers, and the community to engage one another in more meaningful ways than those
initially designed by the researchers—played sociality over designed sociality.

REFLECTION, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSION

The healthcaring project overall demonstrated the emergent nature of sociality in a gamified educa-
tional context and its resistance to top-down design. By letting the student and user feedback guide the
design process, the project evolved organically. This was an unexpected outcome and a valuable lesson,

391

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

something that we likely would have ignored during the initial months-long design phase prior to and
immediately following being invited to orchestrate the class project. The final phase of the project was
(and still is) reflection.
Students were required to write final papers reflecting on the status of the course project, includ-
ing what they liked and disliked, learning outcomes, and recommendations for the researchers going
forward. These were coded and provided important perspectives on healthcaring and the project as a
whole. Although onboarding was challenging, students eventually developed a shared understanding
of the healthcaring concept as a way to describe healthfulness. Many reported planning to use the con-
cept in their professional practices. Students learned that healthcaring is a broad concept, personal yet
communal, that exists along a continuum. Overall, they felt that healthcaring had a positive impact on
their personal lives and the lives of loved ones, and that it has potential to impact their community at
large. Although they appreciated the concept and motivation behind healthcaring, they suggested that
the main barriers to increased adoption of the concept were its breadth (“Healthcaring doesn’t target a
specific behavior like secondhand smoke or designated driver”) and its lack of fluid integration with
social media (“Everyone is on Facebook and Twitter all the time. You need to make an iPhone app.”)
Finally, students reported learning to see healthcaring everywhere, but upon seeing how common it is,
they began taking it for granted. The pattern of healthcaring attitudes and behaviors exists in plain sight,
but usually goes unnoticed or unnamed.
The two things students liked most about the project were the more socially oriented experiential
conditions and collaborating with one another in teams. They stated that positive experiential conditions
were challenging but not impossible (existing at the edge of competence), enabled them to play to their
strengths and express creativity, and provided opportunities for personal involvement with people in the
community. Students especially appreciated the communicative move toward embracing social media
because it facilitated or enhanced the social characteristics of experiential conditions and facilitated col-
laboration, sharing stories, and learning about one another. The class as a whole highly valued developing
interpersonal relationships with one another; these were facilitated through interaction with and within
the gamified system. Finally, through story catching, they were able to gain insights into healthcaring
patterns that others exhibited, which they reported would help them in their professional lives.
Key student dislikes were already discussed (spam-like emails, impersonal platform, wordy and
confusing content), but one other key dislike emerged in the reflection papers. Students reported feeling
frequently discouraged and disheartened by others’ lack of acceptance of the healthcaring concept, lack
of participation in sharing credits, and the perceived difficulty of some assignments, particularly allying
with an established organization. Students’ frustration increased each time they pitched healthcaring
credits and were turned down or met with confusion. This led to feelings of futility and meaninglessness,
which decreased their motivation to actively participate in the project. Indeed, although most students
persevered through obstacles, some were casualties of perceived insurmountable barriers.
In addition to dislikes, we identified four additional classes of problems with the project that inhib-
ited its greater success. The first was goal mismatch between students’ stated goals at the beginning of
the semester and their retrospective goals coded in their reflection papers. For example, students later
reported that they wanted to volunteer, work (effectively) with people and businesses in the community,
impact the local community, and establish meaningful personal connections in the community. It is no
surprise that none of these were stated at the beginning of the semester because of the loose organiza-
tion and iterative design of the project. No one knew how it would look in the end, so students tended
to perceive goals that developed over the course of the project to be outside its bounds. However, given

392

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

the student-centered, bottom-up development of the project throughout the semester, there is no reason
these goals could not have become included. Because students did not have a clear roadmap to follow,
they did not recognize the agency they possessed to create their own roadmap. This is something the
Healthcaring team could have conveyed more clearly, but because the project did not meet many new,
retrospective goals, some students deemed it an overall failure. Other issues included healthcare saturation
(organizations already had health programs in place), communication issues (as previously discussed),
and issues of authority over the students. The Healthcaring team worked closely with the course professor
throughout the semester, but ultimately, we had no control over grades, and therefore little meaningful
authority over the students, who were cognizant of this fact. This negatively affected student motivation
and participation, regardless of game elements designed into the system.
The researchers likewise reflected on the project and its outcomes. Regarding healthcaring as a con-
cept, the emphasis on caring not only for oneself, but also for others, is significant for scholars doing
health activism and community health work, in no small part because the definition of healthcaring has
been (co)created by the community. As part of our initial trial, users publicly recognized one another
for their healthcaring behaviors and attitudes in almost one thousand digitally collected stories bursting
with personal examples of healthcaring attitudes and behaviors.
Although we initially designed for a mixture of collaboration and competition using healthcaring
credits, collaboration emerged as the preeminent mode of being healthcaring. In the onboarding phase,
we encouraged students to top the leaderboards by sharing credits. Once they were comfortable with the
system, we introduced eight experiential conditions, and the most successful were the most collaborative.
We observed a simultaneous shift in student interest from sharing credits via the healthcaring platform
to sharing credits via social media, from interacting in a rather isolated part of the internet to Facebook,
through which many of them lived out their digital lives. At the same time during the experiential
condition phase, we realized that healthcaring credits were perhaps most significant for capturing user-
generated stories. Given the massive student interest in social media, the eponymous third phase shifted
the focus almost entirely away from competition to collaboration. This shift in student orientation was
reflected in their final papers and partially explains the mismatch between their initial project goals and
their retrospective goals; given the opportunity to shape healthcaring, they crafted an intensely social,
communal concept. Perhaps this should not be surprising given their imminent professions as physical
therapists. As they and other users concretized the healthcaring concept, they simultaneously shed many
of the extrinsically motivating gamification elements we had initially designed into the system. No one
was competing on leaderboards, and the competition-inspiring healthcaring credits had become vessels
for sharing social experiences. Healthcaring credits were no longer badges of mastery over others, but
badges of intrinsic caring for and about others.
Scholars tend to study the social world without inspiring change—reporting rather than revolution-
izing. The healthcaring project enables health promotion activities and health activism by habituating
participants to praise health-thoughtful behaviors in others and themselves. This is applied sociology—
studying social patterns, while at the same time advocating for people and facilitating positive social
change in the areas of health and wellbeing (see Steele & Price, 2007). The project may also be described
as cyber activism, which involves using digital (usually internet-based) socializing and communication
methods to create and manage activism. Cyber activism has the benefit of leveraging vast online and
face-to-face social networks to spread change (see McCaughey & Ayers, 2013). Our approach to (co)
creating a technological social media platform for and with students was an application to introducing
an innovative, collaborative classroom project. We drew students into the research process, prodding

393

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

them to do community outreach and social research simultaneously (even though they were not neces-
sarily aware of the latter).
In sum, healthcaring, as a behavioral definition, involves a socialization process. The implication of
this is that healthcaring attitudes and behaviors can be learned, internalized, and passed on to others.
This was accomplished through gamifying the healthcaring concept and iterative design of a web-based
platform, in addition to granting students agency to guide the development of the course project to meet
their goals. This project highlights the potential that scholars have to promote activism and create posi-
tive change. Implementing this project via a classroom was an added bonus for attempting to spread
healthcaring to future physical therapists, who can then spread it to clients, who can then spread it to
family and friends, and so on.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

A Healthcaring team member custom-built the project’s technology. This means that we can create
proofs of concept. In this sense, the concept of healthcaring came first, and then we created the gamified
system of healthcaring credits and the student project to test the concept and the technology. We have
great control over how we design the system, and can therefore tailor the effort to what we are interested
in studying. Unlike other digital media platforms and social networking sites like Facebook, we can
structure users’ interactions or allow users to guide iterative design, instead of having their interactions
externally structured by a third party.
The clear next step for healthcaring is to conduct further trials in sharing healthcaring credits and
healthcaring stories with a redesigned and updated gamified platform. Potential allies and settings include
local governments, community settings, and mixed methods social science research courses or graduate
courses on the sociology of health. Another option is to release healthcaring credits to the larger popula-
tion, removing initial barriers to participation.
With control over technology, organizations gamifying health activism can pose research questions
to answer. For example, what is the effect of public recognition on motivations and perceptions of car-
ing among the “sandwich generation,” those children of baby boomers who simultaneously take care
of their aging parents and their own children? How do people of different races or ethnicities define
healthcaring? People of higher or lower incomes? People in certain professions? People in urban vs.
rural areas? People in certain neighborhoods? Three contextual elements emerged in the data through
which people understand health and wellbeing: identity, affinity, and vicinity (self, social groups, and
socio-geographic environment, respectively). This trio of contextual elements that such research ques-
tions can help us unpack is powerful for audience or participant segmentation in health activism, and
researchers can develop numerous research questions from them.

REFERENCES

Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. (2013). Are badges useful in education? It depends upon the
type of badge and expertise of learner. Education Tech Research Development. Retrieved from http://
www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/research/papers/Abramovich-Schunn-Higashi.pdf

394

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. (2015). About us. Retrieved from http://www.no-smoke.org/aboutus.
php?id=436
Antin, J. (2009). Motivated by information: Information about online collective action as an incentive
for participation. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work
(pp. 371–372). Sanibel Island, FL: ACM. doi:10.1145/1531674.1531729
Antin, J., & Churchill, E. (2011). Badges in social media: A social psychology perspective. Human
Factors, 1–4.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). The effective onboarding of new employees. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA
handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 51–64). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Becker, H. S. (1986). Culture: A sociological view. In H. S. Becker (Ed.), Doing things together: Selected
Essays (pp. 7–17). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Bergman, N., Markusson, N., Connor, P., Middlemiss, L., & Ricci, M. (2010). Bottom-up, social innova-
tion for addressing climate change. Conference on Energy Transitions in an Interdependent World: What
and Where Are the Future Social Science Research Agendas. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Peter_Connor2/publication/271214929_Bottom-up_social_innovation_for_addressing_cli-
mate_change/links/54c2ac190cf2911c7a49aa23.pdf
Biehl, J., & Petryna, A. (2013). When people come first: Critical studies in global health. Princeton
University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400846801
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of
Chicago Press.
Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered constructivist and sociocultural
components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic
collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bowers, J. S., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2011). Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity. PLoS
ONE, 6(7), e22341. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022341 PMID:21799832
Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston: South
End Press.
Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC health disparities and inequalities report.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62(3), 1–187. PMID:24264482
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Chronic disease prevention and health promotion.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/#ref7

395

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Chapman, S. (2003). Other people’s smoke: What’s in a name? Tobacco Control, 12(2), 113–114.
doi:10.1136/tc.12.2.113 PMID:12773710
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education:
Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. doi:10.3102/00346543071001001
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gameful-
ness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference:
Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.
cfm?id=2181040
Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., & Nickell, E. (2007). Virtual “third places”: A case study of sociability in
massively multiplayer games. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(1-2), 129–166. doi:10.1007/
s10606-007-9041-8
Dumanovsky, T., Huang, C. Y., Bassett, M. T., & Silver, L. D. (2010). Consumer awareness of fast-food
calorie information in New York City after implementation of a menu labeling regulation. American
Journal of Public Health, 100(12), 2520–2525. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.191908 PMID:20966367
Dunn, S. M., Patterson, P. U., Butow, P. N., Smartt, H. H., McCarthy, W. H., & Tattersall, M. H. (1993).
Cancer by another name: A randomized trial of the effects of euphemism and uncertainty in communi-
cating with cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(5), 989–996. PMID:8487062
Eklund, L., & Johansson, M. (2010). Social play? A study of social interaction in temporary group
formation (PUG). In World of Warcraft. DiGRA Nordic. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/
db/10343.55072.pdf
Eklund, L., & Johansson, M. (2013). Played and designed sociality in a massive multiplayer online game.
Eludamos (Göttingen), 7(1), 35–54.
Flicker, S., Maley, O., Ridgley, A., Biscope, S., Lombardo, C., & Skinner, H. A. (2008). e-PAR: Using
technology and participatory action research to engage youth in health promotion. Action Research, 6(3),
285–303. doi:10.1177/1476750307083711
Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Persuasive ’09, Claremont, CA.
doi:10.1145/1541948.1541999
Fogg, B. J. (2015). BJ Fogg’s behavior model. Retrieved from http://www.behaviormodel.org/
Frieden, T. R. (2013). Government’s role in protecting health and safety. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 368(20), 1857–1859. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1303819 PMID:23593978
Frith, J. (2013). Turning life into a game: Foursquare, gamification, and personal mobility. Mobile Media
& Communication, 1(2), 248–262. doi:10.1177/2050157912474811
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

396

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In J. Her-
rington, A. Couros, & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013 (pp. 1999–2008). Chesapeake, VA: AACE; Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/112246
Goldhill, D. (2009, September). How American health care killed my father. The Atlantic. Retrieved
from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-
father/307617/
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design
practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1). doi:10.14742/ajet.1344
Grant, S., & Shawgo, K. E. (2013). Digital badges: An annotated research bibliography. Retrieved from
https://www.hastac.org/digital-badges-bibliography
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical
studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)
(pp. 3025–3034). http://doi.org/ doi:<ALIGNMENT.qj></ALIGNMENT>10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Han, X., Call, K. T., Pintor, J. K., Alarcon-Espinoza, G., & Simon, A. B. (2015). Reports of insurance-
based discrimination in health care and its association with access to care. American Journal of Public
Health, 105(S3), S517–S525. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302668 PMID:25905821
Harsanyi, D. (2007). Nanny state: How food fascists, teetotaling do-gooders, priggish moralists, and other
boneheaded bureaucrats are turning America into a nation of children. New York: Broadway Books.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
Helton, B. (2013). HealthCARING: A reset for health and healthcare. Newnan, GA: Prancing Pony Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kramer, M. W. (2010). Organizational socialization: Joining and leaving organizations. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality
(5th ed.; pp. 87–98). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Laverack, G. (2012). Health activism. Health Promotion International, 27(4), 429–434. doi:10.1093/
heapro/das044 PMID:22923451
Lederer, A., Curtis, C. J., Silver, L. D., & Angell, S. Y. (2014). Toward a healthier city. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 46(4), 423–428. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.011 PMID:24650846
Lillie-Blanton, M., Brodie, M., Rowland, D., Altman, D., & McIntosh, M. (2000). Race, ethnicity, and the
health care system: Public perceptions and experiences. Medical Care Research and Review, 57(4suppl
1), 218–235. doi:10.1177/107755800773743664 PMID:11092164

397

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Martin, B. (2007). Activism, social and political. In G. L. Anderson & K. G. Herr (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of activism and social justice. London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412956215.n12
McCaughey, M., & Ayers, M. D. (2013). Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. New
York: Routledge.
McCombs, M. (2002). The agenda-setting role of the mass media in the shaping of public opinion. In
Mass Media Economics 2002 Conference, London School of Economics. Retrieved from http://www.
infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/mccombs01.pdf
McGonigal, J. (2015). Superbetter. Penguin Press.
Muntean, C. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In The 6th International
Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2011.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In
Games+Learning+Society 8.0, Madison, WI.
Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place. New York: Parragon Books.
Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. New York: New American Library.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2012). Design thinking research: Studying co-creation in practice.
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Protano, C., & Vitali, M. (2011). The new danger of thirdhand smoke: Why passive smoking does
not stop at secondhand smoke. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(10), a422–a422. doi:10.1289/
ehp.1103956 PMID:21968336
Przybylski, A. K., Scott, C., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement.
Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166. doi:10.1037/a0019440
Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M. (2000). Explorations in linguistic relativity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing. doi:10.1075/cilt.199
Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Random House.
Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., … Glaisyer, T. (2011). From
slacktivism to activism: Participatory culture in the age of social media. In CHI ’11 Extended Ab-
stracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 819–822). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/
doi:<ALIGNMENT.qj></ALIGNMENT>10.1145/1979742.1979543
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new direc-
tions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 PMID:10620381
Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. New York: First Mariner
Books.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. In-
teractive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46. doi:10.1080/10494820600996972

398

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Shavers, V. L., Fagan, P., Jones, D., Klein, W. M. P., Boyington, J., Moten, C., & Rorie, E. (2012). The
state of research on racial/ethnic discrimination in the receipt of health care. American Journal of Public
Health, 102(5), 953–966. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300773 PMID:22494002
Simon, B., Boudreau, K., & Silverman, M. (2009). Two players: Biography and ‘played sociality in
EverQuest. Game Studies, 9(1). Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/0901/articles/simon_boudreau_sil-
verman
Steele, S., & Price, J. (2007). Applied sociology: Terms, topics, tools, and tasks (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Taylor, S. E. (2011). Health psychology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Virtanen, M., Heikkilä, K., Jokela, M., Ferrie, J. E., Batty, G. D., Vahtera, J., & Kivimäki, M. (2012).
Long working hours and coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American
Journal of Epidemiology, 176(7), 586–596. doi:10.1093/aje/kws139 PMID:22952309
Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United
States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16(5), 876–884. doi:10.1016/j.health-
place.2010.04.013 PMID:20462784
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business.
Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
Winsten, J. A. (1994). Promoting designated drivers: The Harvard Alcohol Project. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 10(3Suppl), 11–14. PMID:7917447
Winsten, J. A., & Dean, A. (1993). Designated driver campaign. Health Education Quarterly, 20(2),
147–153. doi:10.1177/109019819302000201 PMID:8491629
Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. (2013). Fast food f.a.c.t.s.: Food advertising to children
and teens score: Measuring progress in nutrition and marketing to children and teens. Retrieved from
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf408549
Zerubavel, E. (1991). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in
web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Zoller, H. M. (2005). Health activism: Communication theory and action for social change. Communica-
tion Theory, 15(4), 341–364. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00339.x

ADDITIONAL READING

Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of video games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York: New York
University Press.

399

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies
for training and education. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Kirschner, D., & Williams, J. P. (2014). Measuring video game engagement through gameplay reviews.
Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 45(4-5), 593–610. doi:10.1177/1046878114554185
Laverack, G. (2013). Health activism: Foundations and strategies. London: SAGE.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken. New York: Penguin Press.
Prus, R. (1996). Symbolic interactionism and ethnographic research. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Riekert, K. A., Ockene, J. K., & Pbert, L. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of health behavior change (4th
ed.). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Schell, J. (2014). The art of game design: A book of lenses (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis
Group. doi:10.1201/b17723
Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher,
35(8), 19–29. doi:10.3102/0013189X035008019
Thornton, R., & Nardi, P. M. (1975). The dynamics of role acquisition. American Journal of Sociology,
80(4), 870–885. doi:10.1086/225897
Walz, S. P., & Deterding, S. (Eds.). (2015). The gameful world: Approaches, issues, and applications.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whitton, N. (2010). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdis-
ciplinary Journal, 42(5), 596–609. doi:10.1177/1046878110378587
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772 PMID:17201605
Zerubavel, E. (1997). Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive sociology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Behavioral Definition: A word or phrase that is designed to cue behavior for social good. Examples
include designated driver, secondhand smoke, and healthcaring.
Experiential Learning: Learning by doing; hands-on learning; getting one’s hands dirty through
practice.
Gamification: The practice of applying game design to contexts so as to purposefully increase user
motivation, fun, and engagement.
Health Activism: Advocating for equality in health contexts; spreading awareness about health
knowledge and practices; working to promote improved health and wellbeing in a population.

400

The Development of a Gamified System for Health Activism

Healthcaring: Exhibiting positive attitudes and behaviors toward the health and wellbeing of oneself
and others. Healthcaring has three key features: embodiment (internalizing healthcaring), facilitation
(awareness of and helping others reach health goals), and selflessness (working for the good of the
community).
Linguistic Relativism: Language shapes thought and thought guides behavior. For example, if people
accept the metaphor, “love is a collaborative work of art,” then they are likely to think of love in terms
of hard work, beauty, and creativity, as opposed to entailments of the metaphor, “love is war,” such as
fighting, winning or losing, and surrendering.
Symbolic Interaction: A microsociological perspective foregrounding meaning-making in every-
day life. We act toward things based on the meanings those things hold for us; meanings arise through
interaction with others; and meanings may be modified through an interpretive process.

401
402

Chapter 19
Game Dimensions and
Pedagogical Dimension
in Serious Games
Begoña Gros
University of Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT
Designing serious games is a complex process because finding the right balance between the ‘serious’ and
the ‘game’ dimensions is vital, as pointed out in some meta-analyses (Wouters, et al. 2013). If educational
content prevails over the entertainment element, users’ motivation may decrease and this can have a
negative impact on the effectiveness of learning. On the other hand, if entertainment predominates over
content, this can also limit learning opportunities. Another major concern identified regarding the use
of digital games in education is the difficulty in assessing effectiveness in achieving the learning goals.
This chapter discusses and analyses different models for guiding the design cycle of serious games with
the aim of supporting not only the design process but also the implementation and assessment of serious
games in education. This contribution emphasises the importance of in-game assessment and the need
for further research on adaptive serious games.

INTRODUCTION

Electronic games were initially developed in the entertainment market without considering their impact
on learning. However, in recent years, educators and researchers have gradually focused their attention
on the use of digital games for educational purposes. Since the 1980s, several studies have identified the
potential of games for learning (e.g. Arnseth 2006; Clark, et. 2014; de Freitas & Oliver 2006; Gee 2003;
Hainey et al. 2011; Kafai and Chin 1996; Malone 1981; Prensky 2001; Squire 2002;). In general, it is
believed that video games offer virtual environments in which players can become engaged in learning
activities (Connolly et al. 2012; Gee 2003). Some authors consider that video games help to develop
strategic thinking, group decision-making and higher cognitive skills (Arnseth 2006; Clark, et. 2014; de
Freitas & Oliver 2006). Researchers claim that games permit constructive, situated and experiential learn-

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0513-6.ch019

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

ing, which is enhanced by active experimentation and immersion in the game (Squire 2008). Moreover,
it is hoped that the use of games might not only increase motivation but also improve specific abilities,
such as problem solving and collaboration (Sánchez & Olivares, 2011).
Important developments in producing digital games and the increasingly positive view that digital
games are a useful tool for supporting learning have helped to extend the production and use of gaming
beyond formal learning. It has spread as a common resource in training at all levels and for all ages.
According to the Serious Game Market (2015), North America has the largest market for serious games
and this trend is expected to continue during the next decade. Meanwhile, Europe is the second-largest
market for serious games. The U.S. government has continually supported the serious game market,
with serious games mainly being developed for training purposes by the military and in the healthcare
sector, as well as for a broad spectrum of industry, such as government, education and corporate. This
explicit support has helped to boost the development of serious games.
Before the development of computer games, the term ‘serious game’ was introduced by Abt (1970;
p.9) to refer to games that have “an explicit and carefully thought-out educational purpose and are not
intended to be played primarily for amusement.” The term was primarily used in regard to board games
and card games. Later, Michael and Chen (2006) promoted serious games initiatives which consider that
serious games are those “in which education (in its various forms) is the primary goal, rather than enter-
tainment.” (Michael & Chen, 2006, p.16) These serious games may be differentiated from educational
games because of their focus on the post-secondary market and training. According to Djaouti, Alvarez
and Jessel (2011), serious games can be designed from scratch but there are also some serious games
that are built as software modifications of successful entertainment video games. For example, Escape
from Woomera1is a serious game that provides information about living conditions inside an Australian
immigration centre. It is based on the video game Half-Life2, which originally referred to fighting an alien
invasion. Both games use similar gaming mechanics, but the content and aim have nothing in common.
The growing interest in serious games is also linked to economic considerations. Many companies
need to instruct employees and individuals need to update or innovate their skills from a lifelong learn-
ing perspective. In addition, serious games are also entertaining and this should encourage people to
spend their free time on educational activities. While most research focuses on the use of serious games
in formal contexts, the use of serious games in lifelong learning is also important. Current trends in
professional development are committed to active learning models, including serious games (Usart &
Romero, 2013). Serious games must offer specific help to learners for planning, organising and directing
their research and exploration, as well as for evaluating their own progress.
The chapter is divided into three sections. Firstly, we describe different ways to classify serious games.
Secondly, we analyse the relationship between the game and the pedagogical dimensions to support
learning. Finally, we discuss different assessment strategies in serious games.

CLASSIFICATION OF SERIOUS GAMES

The major distinction between video games and serious games is the purpose. Video games are designed
for entertainment; there is no intention for them to serve for educational purposes. Whereas ‘serious
games’ is a label that refers to applications featuring both a ‘serious’ and a ‘game’ dimension within
the software. It is possible for teachers to use entertainment digital games in their classes. In this case,
they are creating pedagogical scenarios in which the game is a tool to support learning. This ‘serious’

403

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

dimension is not directly embedded in the design of the games but is related to the pedagogical design.
This is an important distinction, because the design of serious games must take into account not only
the game dimension but also the pedagogical dimension. The combination of both aspects is the main
challenge in designing serious games.
Due to the size and variation of the serious games market, a great number of products can be found
in many different areas (health, communication, defence, politics, education, etc.) that try to fulfil dif-
ferent learning goals (cognitive skills, social skills, motivation, etc.). Despite the growth of interest in
serious games, there is still little systematic guidance concerning which kind of game is better for which
purpose. In a review study, Connolly, Boyle, et al. (2012) illustrated the complexity of this topic and
showed the limitations and flaws in the design of serious games.
Selecting the most appropriate product is not an easy task. For this reason a lot of effort has been made
to classify serious games in order to help players, teachers and instructors select the appropriate games.
Below we describe some examples of serious games classification that we have grouped according
to the dimensions covered by the classification (from simple to more complex):

1. Classifications based on one dimension: the sector or purpose

Michael and Chen (2006) consider that the design and development of serious games differ from en-
tertainment games. The design of serious games has to take into account that there are different types of
markets that include not only experienced gamers, but also novice players, and the games must therefore
be more accessible. For serious games, the main goal is that the model or simulation can be used to solve
a problem and it is therefore essential that the most important elements of the games support learning.
In the video game market is common to use classifications based on the sector or the type of game.
The same applies in the case of serious games. Some classifications mainly centre on the content of
the game according to the markets. For instance, Michael and Chen (2006) classified serious games in
eight different categories: military, government, educational, corporate, healthcare, political, religious,
and art. Along the same lines, Alvarez and Michaud (2008) identified seven serious games markets,
quite similar to those mentioned above: defence, training and education, advertising, information and
communication, health, culture, and activism.
Other classifications are based on the intention or purpose of the serious games. For instance, Bergeron
(2006) presented seven ‘purpose’ categories of games: activism, advergames, business, exergaming,
health and medicine, news, and political. Alvarez et al. (2007) also introduced six categories: edugames,
advergames, newsgames, activism games, edumarket games, training and simulation games.
Such classifications are interesting to describe the different types of serious games but have certainly
not provided much information about the learning objectives of the products.

2. Classifications based on two dimensions: the sector and purpose

Sawyer and Smith (2008) proposed a taxonomy taking into account two dimensions: the sector and
the purpose of the game. They included seven sectors (similar to the previous classification): government
and NGO, defence, healthcare, marketing and communications, education, corporate, and industry. And
they add the identification of the game according to its purpose. The classification includes games for
health, advergames, training, education, science and research, production and games as work. Each cat-
egory also comes with a sub-taxonomy (the classification provides a total of 49 categories). For instance,

404

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

the content of ‘games for health’ can be related to public health (government and NGO), advertising a
treatment (marketing and communications) or informing about disease (games for education).
This classification is more complex than using one single criterion, but it is not clear whether it
provides a better understanding or clearer guidance for selecting serious games and it is not so easy to
identify the existence of all the 49 different types of games.

3. Classifications based on multiple dimensions

From the point of view of selecting games for training, while taking into account the sector and ob-
jectives, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the game itself. In this regard, Djaouti, Alvarez
and Jessel (2011) developed a classification called ‘the G/P/S model’, which combines the analysis of
three different dimensions: gameplay, purpose and scope.

• G (Gameplay) refers to the type of game. This aspect should provide information about the struc-
ture and mechanism of the game. The main distinction established by these authors is based on
two forms of play: play framed by a defined set of rules and a more freeform kind of play. The
analysis of gameplay rules provides several ways to classify video games with differing levels
of accuracy. The G/P/S model relies on two levels of gameplay analysis: the difference between
‘game’ or ‘play’ types and a general overview of the basic rules.
• P (Purpose) refers to the designed goal. This aspect offers information about the main serious
purpose of the game. These authors intended to classify the purpose by taking into account that
one serious game can be designed for one or more of the following aims:
◦◦ Message-broadcasting: the game is designed to broadcast a message. This message can be
of several types: educative (edugames), informative (newsgames), persuasive (advergames)
and/or subjective (military games, art games).
◦◦ Training: the game is designed to improve cognitive performance or motor skills. For in-
stance, exergames (related to brain training or fitness).
◦◦ Data exchange: the game is designed as support for exchanging data. Games collecting in-
formation from their players or encouraging them to exchange data are examples of this
purpose.
• S (Scope) refers to the target of the game. In fact, the G/P/S model uses similar classifications to
those mentioned previously: state and government, military and defence, healthcare, education,
corporate, religious, culture and art, ecology, politics, humanitarian, advertising, and scientific
research.

This model is very interesting and can be extremely useful for teachers and educators because it is
intended to provide common ground for identifying games relevant for educational use. Along these
lines, Djaouti, Alvarez and Jessel (2011) developed a collaborative database3 that contains the descrip-
tion of games following the G/P/S model. Table 1 provides an example of the characteristics of the game
Fatworld4.
Fatworld is a game that aims to teach people how to eat healthily. Each player creates their own
character and health status. During the game, players must choose what to eat for breakfast, lunch and
dinner. At the beginning, the game provides money that can be used to buy a house, a business and food.
Players can also see how many calories they have consumed, and how many they have burned depending

405

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

Table 1. Example of the description of Fatworld.

Name of the Game Gameplay Purpose Market Target Audience

Fatworld - politics of Game-based. Educative message Healthcare. 8 to 25 year olds.
nutrition, released by the broadcasting.
Corporation for Public Informative message
Broadcasting (USA). broadcasting about
nutrition policies from
the perspective of ‘daily
life’.

on the exercise and the activities of the day. The game shows how different activities and food affect
one’s health and lifespan.
The G/P/S model is very useful but it has certain limitations and does not provide specific informa-
tion about the evaluation mechanisms provided by the game. For this reason, we believe that it could
be completed if we also include information on the type of assessment provided by the game and about
the context where the game can be used. Both aspects are important for differentiating between games
designed for a formal context and serious games that can be used for professional training or indepen-
dent learning.
Table 2 summarises the five dimensions for analysing serious games and the elements present in
each. As we have mentioned, the main difference from the G/P/S model is the addition of the context
and the assessment dimensions. Both questions are discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

GAME DIMENSIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL DIMENSIONS

We have seen that the typologies of serious games are varied and can respond to diverse educational
and training objectives. In this section we focus on analysing the relationship between the technological
services provided by the game and the educational dimensions. It seems clear that to successfully use
serious games it is essential to align the design of the game with the direction of learning, instruction
and assessment. The technological affordances must fit with the pedagogical design and the content
area or the intended learning outcomes. In fact, one of the biggest challenges of using serious games is
to adapt the game design principles to educational purpose. The balance between both aspects is very
important and is not easy to achieve. The meta-analysis developed by Wouters, et al. (2013) shows that

Table 2. Dimensions for analysing serious games.

406

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

serious games are no more motivating than other instructional methods used in the comparison group.
One plausible argument that explains the lack of higher motivation for serious games is that the con-
nection between game design with a focus on entertainment and instructional design with a focus on
learning is not a natural one. In summary, if a game is too ‘serious’, the player may not feel sufficiently
attracted to the game; the dynamics of the game should play an important role without overlooking the
learning objectives.
Digital game designers and educational experts do not usually share a common vocabulary (Bel-
lotti et al., 2013), making it difficult to develop serious games. However, in the last decade significant
contributions have been made to proposing models that provide support for analysing the relationships
between pedagogical design and the different components of serious games.
De Freitas and Oliver (2006) developed the Four-Dimensional Framework, which established that
to analyse the relationship between digital games and the learning process four dimensions must be
taken into account: the learner model, the role of pedagogical approaches for supporting learning (e.g.
associative, cognitive and situated), the representation of the game itself (how high the levels of fidelity
need to be, how interactive the game is and how immersive the game might be), and the context within
which learning takes place (e.g. discipline and setting).
According to this proposal, van Staalduinen and de Freitas (2011) suggest joining up the elements
grouped according to the four dimensions (see Table 3).

Table 3. Game elements grouped according to the four-dimensional framework (Source: van Staalduinen
and de Freitas 2011)

407

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

1. Learner specification, for the individual or group, requires the tutor to consider learners’ preferred
learning style and previous knowledge and what methods would best support them given their dif-
fering needs.
2. Pedagogic principles require the tutor to reflect on the learning models (see the section ‘How do
serious games, simulations and virtual worlds engage with pedagogy?’), which enables them to
produce appropriate lesson plans.
3. Mode of representation includes the level of interactivity required, the fidelity, level of immer-
sion produced, the separation of the immersion aspect with reflection on the process of playing
the game. Most importantly it highlights the potential of briefing and debriefing to reinforce the
learning outcomes.
4. Context, which covers where the learning occurs —including the macro level, from historical,
political and economic factors (for example, are you playing because it is a school directive?),
through to micro, the tutor’s background and experience.

The COCO (collaboration and communication) Framework (Butt & Wills, 2015) is similar to the
previous proposal. However, in this case the conceptual framework centres on analysing collaborative
serious games. The main goal of the proposal is to contribute to studying the best design to support
collaboration in serious games.
The COCO framework consists of five dimensions and nineteen different components.

1. The gameplay dimension includes the features of the game that control how the game is played.
This dimension consists of shared goals, gameplay customisation, feedback system, team progres-
sion and team ownership.
2. The context dimension relates to the entities and mechanisms that are external to the game but have
an impact on the way that players use the game. This dimension consists of localisation, prevailing
climate, support mechanisms and team composition.
3. The profile dimension relates to a learner’s prior learning and expectations. This dimension consists
of competence, exposure and reflective practice.
4. The content dimension is the actual learning content provided in the game and consists of concept,
relatedness and storyline. Concept is the need and degree to which a concept or idea is abstracted in
relation to its real-world concrete equivalent. Relatedness is the degree of affinity and connection
between the learner and the subject matter. Storyline is the need and extent to which the storyline
is interwoven into gameplay and has a purpose, is meaningful and supports progression.
5. The balance dimension represents the components of the game that affect or are affected by the
components in each of the other dimensions and controls the overall presentation of the game as
well as the relationships in the game.

Some models consider that the main challenge is to link experiential learning with the game. This is
the case of the Experiential Gaming Model proposed by Kiili (2005), which is based on the four succes-
sive stages of Kolb’s experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). Experiential learning describes the acquisition
of knowledge in a learning cycle with four successive stages: concrete experience, reflective observation,
abstract conceptualisation and feedback or active experimentation.
The design cycle proposed by Kiili (2005) (Figure 1) describes the main phases of game design and
works as a guideline in the design process. The design process is presented abstractly because it may

408

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

vary among the different game genres. The model emphasises the importance of considering several flow
antecedents in educational game design: challenges matched to the skill level of a player, clear goals,
unambiguous feedback, a sense of control, playability, gamefulness, focused attention and a frame story.
The model (Kiili, 2006) emphasises the importance of providing clear goals and appropriate feedback
for the player to facilitate the experience.
It is important to establish the difference between the learning and the instructional activities in
serious games. In general, the instructional activity focuses on the content provided by the game, while
the learning activity corresponds to the activities proposed to the player. This distinction is relevant
because learners can use some educational serious games on their own, while other games may also
rely on complementary instructor-led activities. The ATMSG model (Activity Theory-based Model for
Serious Games)(Carvalho, et al., 2015) explicitly accounts for this distinction, in order to clarify the role
of the teacher/instructor in the game.
According to Carvalho et al (2015, p.168), educational serious games are typically used in the con-
text of at least three activities: the gaming activity, the learning activity and the instructional activity.
Instructional activity can be intrinsic and/or extrinsic. The intrinsic instructional activity takes place
solely inside the game and involves the way in which the game itself supports learning (e.g. via tips,
help messages, automatic assessments, in-game adaptive features). The extrinsic instructional activity
is performed outside by the teacher/instructor before, during or after the playing session, in the context
of the overall learning setting (e.g. class, workshop, course, etc.).
The ATMSG model proposes that to analyse the design of serious games it is necessary to analyse the
goals, actions and tools for each situation: the gaming activity, the learning activity and the intrinsic and
extrinsic activities. For instance, we can analyse the learning activity provided by the game by asking

Figure 1. Experiential gaming model (Kiili 2005: 18)

409

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

what kind of tasks the player has to do that are directly related to the learning goal, which elements are
involved in the learning actions, and what knowledge or skills the learner is expected to acquire through
the learning actions.
Another important contribution was developed by the Games and Learning Alliance (GALA5), a
European network dedicated to the study and application of serious games. The Alliance has adopted
the Learning Mechanics-Game Mechanics model (LM-GM) (Arnab et al., 2014) for supporting serious
games analysis. The model allows the LM-GM map to be drawn for a game to identify and highlight
its main pedagogical and entertainment features, and their interrelations. It is important to note that
the LM-GM framework is a method for analysing and suggesting game mechanics that could stimulate
deeper learning. The tool may also be useful for teachers deploying a game in educational settings. By
exploring the LM-GM model, the GALA network aims to address the mismatch between game mechan-
ics and educational components at the implementation level. “The model enables further questioning
as to whether the games should adapt to existing pedagogical practices or whether they should be used
to change practices since they form an entity which functions to educate and entertain through a single
compelling experience. The impact from the serious games mechanics investigations would draw out
larger research themes on the intersections of games and pedagogy (both traditional and modern)”
(Arnab et al. 2014, p.400).
The LM-GM model (Figure 2) can be used to either aid serious games design or game analysis. Ac-
cording to Lim et al. (2015), critical learning principles and framework were extracted from the literature
and discussions with educational theorists on 21st-century pedagogy by considering a wide range of
educational theories that encompass constructivism, behaviourism, personalism, and so forth. In the
same manner, “the GM nodes were obtained by reviewing papers on game mechanics and dynamics, and
they represent the backbone of many game theories” (Arnab et al. 2014, p. 396). The model provides a
concise means to map how ludic elements link to pedagogical aims that are directly related to a player’s
actions and gameplay, i.e. SG mechanics.

Figure 2. Learning and game mechanics used as the basis to construct the LM-GM map for a game.
(Source: Lim et al. 2015)

410

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

All these models are very useful proposals for guiding the relationship between the design of the
game and its use. However, among the different models we notice that in most cases the learning theories
of reference are located in the field of behavioural, cognitive approaches, and also in the application of
the four successive stages of Kolb’s experiential learning. The contributions focused on self-regulated
learning are scarce, although many serious games have a significant impact on training. Serious games
for training and continuous learning have to provide some means of testing and progress tracking to
support progression and guarantee the learning goals. In the next section we focus on assessment in
serious games.

ASSESSMENT IN SERIOUS GAMES

One of the major concerns identified in the use of serious games is the difficulty in assessing effective-
ness in achieving the learning goals. Serious games must provide players with assessment, as this is a
crucial element for the success of these products. Videogames afford many different types of feedback
for players in order to support their activities in the game. In the case of serious games, the feedback
must also provide indicators of learning progress and achievement of the purpose of the game.
Serious games must provide both the learner and instructor with assessments to facilitate learning
progress and outcomes. Learners need to understand how to use the facts, procedures and processes
learnt and practiced within the game. Some games incorporate explicit scoring mechanisms, such as the
number of correct answers, time taken to complete the game, an analysis of the choices, the outcome and
the decisions made to reach that solution compared to the ideal, etc. Usually, the diagnostic assessment is
done before or in the early stages of the game through a first mission, which helps to situate the learners’
prior knowledge and skills. During the game, continuous assessment of the learning progression and its
individual or collective reflection could contribute to the self-regulation process (Panadero & Romero,
2014) and the development of knowledge group awareness.
Considering the specific serious game domain, Michael and Chen (2005) describe three primary
types of assessment:

1. Completion assessment that is concerned with whether the player successfully completes the game.
2. In-process assessment which examines how, when and why the player made their choices.
3. Teacher assessment, which focuses on the instructor’s observations and judgments of the learner
while they are playing the game.

The first two correspond to summative and formative assessments, respectively.

Completion assessment occurs naturally in a game due to the immediate feedback. However, recent
studies have explored how in-process assessment can provide more detailed and reliable support, and
the emerging interest in this field reflects the need for alternative and/or supplemental assessment tools
to overcome limitations in the standard approaches. According to Bellotti et al. (2013), completion as-
sessment and in-process assessment usually focus on the activity of the games without considering the
achievement of the learning purpose of the game. According to Ash (2012), the challenge lies in assess-
ing the appropriate knowledge, skills or abilities. Shute (2013, p.31) considers that “given the goal of
using well-designed games to support learning in school settings and elsewhere, we need to ensure that

411

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

the assessments are valid, reliable, and also unobtrusive (to keep engagement intact). The output from
the assessments, however, should be transparent.”
It is important to incorporate not only completion and in-process assessment but also formative
assessment. This type of evaluation should provide greater gaming experience. Today, as most games
do not allow an assessment of learning outcomes, formative assessment is provided by the teacher or
instructor. Therefore, the teacher or instructor must stop the game and design complementary activities
to assess whether the educational goals are being achieved. Indeed, for many years we have argued that
this is a good method for using games in school (Gros, 2007, 2015). However, this method has important
limitations in non-formal settings, and it is much more valuable for the game itself to provide adequate
feedback. “Designing proper in-game assessment is a challenging and time-consuming activity. However,
it should be a distinctive feature of any well-designed serious game, where all the mechanics (e.g. score,
levels, performance indicators) should be consistent with and inspired by the set pedagogical targets.”
(Bellotti, et al., 2013: p.7).
A good example along these lines is the serious game called CancerSpace6 (Swarz et al, 2010). Accord-
ing to Bellotti et al. (2013), This game supports learning, promotes knowledge retention and encourages
behavioural change. CancerSpace’s design encourages self-directed learning by presenting the players
with authentic scenarios based on which they would make decisions, in a similar way to how they would
do so in clinics. The targeted users are professionals working in community health centres. The gameplay
is based on role-playing: the user would assist the clinical staff to review the clinical literature, incorpo-
rate the evidence into their clinical decision-making, propose changes to cancer-screening delivery, and
accrue points by correlating to increased cancer-screening rates. The decisions will be made the players
with observations on whether the chosen course of action improves the cancer screening rates, which
is the main indicator of performance. The game includes a small number of patient-provider interac-
tions in which the decider must talk with a patient reluctant to be screened. The player’s conversation
choices are evaluated in pre-programmed decision trees, leading either to success (the patient decides
to be screened) or failure.
Shute (2013) has developed models for embedding evidence-based assessment. The use of artificial
intelligence provides an opportunity for serious games to be developed with in-game assessment, due
to their capacity to collect data about students. Some serious games can use modules to deploy learning
assessment and even adapt to the learners’ progression. The combination of different assessment agents
could improve the quality and accuracy of activity-related assessment.
Shute (2013) proposes a method for requiring students to create causal diagrams electronically. Instead
of teacher assessment, the software can compare the students’ proposals against expert diagrams and
provide appropriate feedback and measure progress over time. She refers to this embedded gathering
of information about players as ‘stealth assessment’, an evidence-based process by which assessment
can be integrated directly into learning environments. During gameplay, students naturally produce rich
sequences of actions while performing complex tasks, drawing on the very skills or competencies that
we want to assess (e.g. scientific inquiry skills and creativity). Evidence needed to assess the skills is
thus provided by the players’ interactions with the game itself, which can be contrasted with a typically
singular outcome of an activity. Moreover, Shute and Kim (2011) demonstrate how assessments can be
embedded within a commercial game to examine the learning of educationally relevant knowledge and
skills. In addition, in-game assessment provides the opportunity to take advantage of the medium itself
and employ alternative, less intrusive, and less obvious forms of assessment. In this way, the player can
concentrate solely on the game.

412

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

ELEKTRA7 is a good example of an adaptive serious game to help students learn the physics of
optics. During the game, players tackle different challenges related to the physics of optics. The activities
take different forms, such as solving a puzzle, performing a task, or manipulating a device. The game
uses rule-based and probabilistic methods to interpret the events in the game and to transform them
into evidence about the learner, the adaptation, and the game state. This evidence is used to continu-
ally assess and select the most appropriate adaptation to apply from a predefined repository of options
throughout the gameplay.
To adapt the game to the features of the player is the main challenge for the next generation of seri-
ous games, so that the progress of game will be controlled in accordance to the learners’ behaviour.
According to Zarraonandía et al. (2016, p.218), “adapting an educational game might imply not only
the capacity to modify specific characteristics of the game but also the whole philosophy of the game.
Thus, the set of games offered to the learner, the interaction mode, the game rules or even the game
pace might depend on specific requirements of the users, both static (such as previous knowledge or
the preferred learning style) and dynamic (such as a level of achievement of the educational goals).”
Adaptive serious games try to address these differences by dynamically adapting the game experience
to accommodate the requirements of the players.
In summary, for serious games to be considered a good educational tool, they must provide in-game
assessment and be better adapted to the profile of the learners. These are not easy tasks, and further
work and studies are required.

REFERENCES

Abt, C. (1970). Serious Games. Viking Press.

Alvarez, J., & Michaud, L. (2008). Serious Games: Advergaming, edugaming, training and more. France:
IDATE.
Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. (2015). Map-
ping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 46(2), 391–411. doi:10.1111/bjet.12113
Arnseth, H. C. (2006). Learning to play or playing to learn: A critical account of the models of com-
munication informing educational research on computer gameplay. Game Studies. The International
Journal of Computer Game Research, 6(1).
Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., D’ursi, A., & Fiore, V. (2012). A serious game model for cultural
heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 5(4), 17. doi:10.1145/2399180.2399185
Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P., & Berta, R. (2013). Assessment in and of serious
games: An overview. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, 1.
Bergeron, B. (2006). Developing Serious Games. USA: Charles River Media.
Butt, P., & Wills, U. (2015) Encouraging Student Engagement With Collaborative Serious Games: The
Coco Framework. ICICTE 2015 Proceedings (pp. 142-155).

413

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., Sedano, C. I., Hauge, J. B., & Rauterberg, M.
(2015). An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Computers
& Education, 87, 166–181. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & May, S. K. (2014). Digital Games for Learning: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. SRI Publication, Technical Report.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2),
661–686. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
deFreitas, S., Kiili, K., Ney, M., Ott, M., & Popescu, M. (2012). GEL. Exploring Game Enhanced
Learning, 15, 289–292.
deFreitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within
the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2005.11.007
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., & Jessel, J. P. (2011). Classifying serious games: the G/P/S model. In Hand-
book of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary
approaches, (118-136).
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P., & Methel, G. (2008). Play, Game, World: Anatomy of a Videogame.
International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 5(1), 35–39.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782494
Gros, B. (2015). Integration of Digital Games in Learning and E-learning Environments: Connecting
Experiences and Context. In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital Games and Mathematics Learn-
ing. Springer Netherlands.
Hainey, T., Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & Boyle, E. A. (2011). Evaluation of a game to teach require-
ments collection and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education level. Computers & Education,
56(1), 21–35. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.008
Jenkins, H., Camper, B., Chisholm, A., Grigsby, N., Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., . . . Tan, P. (2009). From
Serious Games to Serious Gaming. In Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge.
Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (1996). Meaningful contexts for mathematical learning: The potential of
game making activities. In Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences,
(pp. 164-171).
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and
Higher Education, 8(1), 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001

414

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

Kiili, K. (2006). Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology, 2(2), 187–201.
doi:10.17011/ht/urn.2006518
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Arnab, S., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. (2015). The
LM-GM framework for Serious Games Analysis. Retrieved October 3, 2015, from http://seriousgames-
society.org/download/LMGM_framework.pdf
Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6, 258–277.
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train and inform. Boston, MA:
Thomson Course Technology.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Sánchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games.
Computers & Education, 57(3), 1943–1952. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.012
Sawyer, B., & Smith, P. (2008). Serious Game Taxonomy. Paper presented at the Serious Game Summit
2008, San Francisco, CA.
Serious Game Market. (2015) Forecast to 2020. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://goo.gl/0Y5Pst
Shute, V. J. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2011). Does playing the World of Goo facilitate learning? In D. Y. Dai (Ed.),
Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and
functioning (pp. 359–387). New York, NY: Routledge Books.
Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning for the interactive Age.
In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games and learning (pp. 167–198). Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413. doi:10.1080/10508400701413435
Squire, K., & Patterson, N. (2009). Games and simulations in informal science education. Paper com-
missioned for the National Research Council Workshop on Gaming and Simulations, Washington, DC.
Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Gaming_Sims_Commissioned_Papers.html
Usart, M., & Romero, M. (2013). Students’ Time Perspective And Its Effect On Game-Based Learning.
Internet Learning, 2(1). Available at http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/internetlearning/vol2/iss1/9
Van Staalduinen, J. P., & de Freitas, S. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Linking game design
and learning. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring the future of education with video games
(pp. 29–54). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

415

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, G. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer
gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 34(3), 229–243. doi:10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of
the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2),
249–265. doi:10.1037/a0031311
Zarraonandía, T; Díaz, P; & Aedo, I. (2016). Modelling Games for Adaptive and Personalized Learn-
ing. Academic Press.

ADDITIONAL READING

Aldrich, C. (2009). The complete guide to simulations and serious games: how the most valuable content
will be created in the age beyond Gutenberg to Google. John Wiley & Sons.
Arnab, S. (Ed.). (2012). Serious Games for Healthcare: Applications and Implications: Applications
and Implications. IGI Global.
Arnab, S., Berta, R., Earp, J., De Freitas, S., Popescu, M., Romero, M., ... & Usart, M. (2012). Framing
the Adoption of Serious Games in Formal Education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 159-171.
Backlund, P., & Hendrix, M. (2013, September). Educational games-are they worth the effort? A litera-
ture survey of the effectiveness of serious games. In Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications
(VS-GAMES), 2013 5th International Conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Completion Assessment: Completion assessment refers to whether the player successfully completes
the game or not.
Game Dimensions: Game dimensions of serious games include the features of the game that control
how it is played. This dimension consists of shared goals, gameplay customisation, feedback system,
team progression and team ownership.
In-Game Assessment: In-game assessment. Some serious games can use modules to deploy learning
assessment and even adapt to the learners’ progression. The combination of different assessment agents
could improve the quality and accuracy of activity-related assessment.
In-Process Assessment: In-process assessment examines how, when and why the player made their
choices.
Pedagogical Dimensions: Pedagogical dimensions of serious games include the pedagogical features
of the game that control the content and the activities the learner has to perform.

416

Game Dimensions and Pedagogical Dimension in Serious Games

ENDNOTES
1
http.//serious.gameclassification.com/EN/games/1222-Escape-From-Woomera/index.html
2
http://gameclassification.com/EN/games/1223-Half-Life/index.html
3
http://serious.gameclassification.com/
4
http://fatworld.software.informer.com/
5
http://www.galanoe.eu/
6
www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/cancerspace
7
http://www.elektra-project.org

417
418

Compilation of References

Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F., & D’Ambra, J. (2012). Do nontask interactions matter? The relationship between nontask
sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning and learning outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 43(3), 385–397. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01181.x

Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. (2013). Are badges useful in education? It depends upon the type of badge
and expertise of learner. Education Tech Research Development. Retrieved from http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/research/
papers/Abramovich-Schunn-Higashi.pdf

Abt, C. (1970). Serious Games. Viking Press.

Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & ten Dam, G. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative game-based
learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185–1194. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.013

Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2007). The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing.
Information & Management, 44(3), 263–275. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.12.008

Ahrens, A., & Zascerinska, J. (2012). Perspective of game theory in education for sustainable development. Paper pre-
sented at the ATEE Spring University Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Akcaoglu, M. (2016). Design and implementation of the Game-Design and Learning program. TechTrends, 60(2),
114–123. doi is 10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y..

Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school
program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003

Aldrich, C. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations, and virtual worlds: Strategies for online instruction (Vol.
23). John Wiley & Sons.

Aleman, A., & De Haan, E. H. F. (2004). Fantasy proneness, mental imagery and reality monitoring. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36(8), 1747–1754. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.011

Compilation of References

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2000). Interactive multimedia: Tools for learning and instruction. New York, NY: Allyn
& Bacon.

Altizer, R., & Zagal, J. P. (2014, August). Designing inside the box or pitching practices in industry and education. Paper
presented at the 2014 Digital Games Research Association Conference (DiGRA), Snowbird, UT.

Alvarez, J., & Michaud, L. (2008). Serious Games: Advergaming, edugaming, training and more. France: IDATE.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven
research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. (2015). About us. Retrieved from http://www.no-smoke.org/aboutus.php?id=436

Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identi-
fication of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 311–321.
doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00121

Andersen, E., Liu, Y. E., Snider, R., Szeto, R., & Popović, Z. (2011, May). Placing a value on aesthetics in online casual
games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1275-1278). ACM.
doi:10.1145/1978942.1979131

Anderson, N. (2009). US 20th in broadband penetration, trails S. Korea, Estonia. ARS. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.
com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/us-20th-in-broadband-penetration-trails-s-korea-estonia.ars

Anderson, J. R. (1996). A simple theory of complex cognition. The American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.355

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision
of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments, desires and future
directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193–216. doi:10.1177/1046878108321624

Ang, C. S. (2006). Rules, gameplay, and narratives in video games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3), 306–325.
doi:10.1177/1046878105285604

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Instructional effects on critical thinking: Performance on ill-defined issues. Learning
and Instruction, 19(4), 322–334. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.010

Angell, J. R. (1908). The doctrine of formal discipline in the light of the principles of general psychology. Educational
Review, 36, 1–14.

419
Compilation of References

Ang, R. P., & Ooi, Y. P. (2003a). Helping angry children and youth: Strategies that work. Activity Workbook. Singapore:
Armour Publishing.

Ang, R. P., & Ooi, Y. P. (2003b). Helping angry children and youth: Strategies that work. Training Manual. Singapore:
Armour Publishing.

Ang, R., Tan, J. L., Goh, D., Huan, V., Ooi, Y. P., Boon, J., & Fung, D. (in press). Social problem-solving skills, game,
evaluation, instructional design, game design, Socialdrome. In R. Zheng & M. Gardner (Eds.), Serious games for edu-
cational applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 14(2), 105–112. doi:10.1037/a0018985

Antin, J. (2009). Motivated by information: Information about online collective action as an incentive for participation.
In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 371–372). Sanibel Island,
FL: ACM. doi:10.1145/1531674.1531729

Antin, J., & Churchill, E. (2011). Badges in social media: A social psychology perspective. Human Factors, 1–4.

Appleton, J., Christenson, S., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Valida-
tion of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

Arnab, S., Berta, R., Earp, J., de F., Popescu, M., Romero, M., Stanescu, I., & Usart, M. (2012). Framing the adoption
of serious games in formal education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 159-171.

Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. (2015). Mapping learning and
game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 391–411. doi:10.1111/
bjet.12113

Arnseth, H. C. (2006). Learning to play or playing to learn: A critical account of the models of communication informing
educational research on computer gameplay. Game Studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 6(1).

Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two small groups in web-
based discussion. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 133–158. doi:10.1007/
s11412-007-9013-5

Arvaja, M. (2012). Personal and shared experiences as resources for meaning making in a philosophy of science course.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 85–108. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9137-5

Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2010). Does fantasy enhance learning in digital games? In D. Kaufman & L. Sauve (Eds.),
Educational gameplay and simulation environments: Case studies and lessons learned (pp. 84–95). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-731-2.ch005

Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563.

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W.
Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 2,
pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3

420
Compilation of References

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project manage-
ment. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011

Aulls, M. W. (2002). The contributions of co-occurring forms of classroom discourse and academic activities to cur-
riculum events and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 520–538. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.520

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Azevedo, R., & Aleven, V. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. New
York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3

Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, &
A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). New York: Routledge.

Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 6(4), 355–385. doi:10.1162/
pres.1997.6.4.355

Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented real-
ity. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. doi:10.1109/38.963459

Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic
review of research and applications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.

Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switch-
ing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(4), 641–657. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.641 PMID:11757873

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent Advances in Learning and
Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. New York: Psychology Press.

Badurdeen, F., Marksberry, P., Hall, A., & Gregory, B. (2010). Teaching Lean Manufacturing With Simulations and
Games: A Survey and Future Directions. Simulation & Gaming, 41(4), 465–486. doi:10.1177/1046878109334331

Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The use of immersive virtual
reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 17(1), 102–141. doi:10.1080/10508400701793141

Baird, W. E., & Silvern, S. B. (1990). Electronic games: Children controlling the cognitive environment. Early Child
Development and Care, 61(1), 43–49. doi:10.1080/0300443900610106

Baker, R. S. J., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: The
incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three different com-
puter-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223–241. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhcs.2009.12.003

Balcetis, E., & Cole, S. (2009). Body in mind: The role of embodied cognition in self-regulation. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 3/5(5), 759–774. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00197.x

Ball, G. H. (1978). Telegames teach more than you think. Audiovisual Instruction, 24-26.

421
Compilation of References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2),
117–131. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Barab, S. A., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective.
Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X035005003

Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Transforma-
tional play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 18(4), 305–320. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5

Barab, S., Ingram-Goble, A., & Warren, S. (2009). Conceptual play spaces. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research
on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (pp. 989–1009). New York, NY: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-
808-6.ch057

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
13(1), 1–14. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game
without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–108.

Barbour, M., & Plough, C. (2009). Social networking in cyberschooling: Helping to make online learning less isolating.
TechTrends, 53(4), 56–60. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0307-5

Barlett, C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Swing, E. L. (2009). Video game effects confirmed, suspected and speculative: A
review of the evidence. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 377–403. doi:10.1177/1046878108327539

Barlowe, W. D., & Duskis, N. (1996). Barlowe’s guide to fastasy. New York: HarperPrism.

Barnett, S. M. (2014). Virtual to real life—Assessing transfer of learning from video games. In F. C. Blumberg
(Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso
bl/9780199896646.003.0002

Baron, C. (2012). Understanding historical thinking at historic sites. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 833–847.
doi:10.1037/a0027476

Baroody, A. J. (2003). Expertise and flexibility: The integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge. In A. J. Ba-
roody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise (pp.
1–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. doi:10.1207/
S15327809JLS1203_1

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1), 19.

Basak, C., Boot, W. R., Voss, M. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Can training in a real-time video game attenuate cognitive
decline in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 765–777. doi:10.1037/a0013494 PMID:19140648

Bates, M., Brown, D., Cranton, W., & Lewis, J. (2007). Carving a new approach to learning. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), The
European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 19-26). Reading, UK: Academic Conference Ltd.

422
Compilation of References

Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). The effective onboarding of new employees. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 51–64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, an-
ticipation, and reflections, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167–203.
doi:10.1177/1088868307301033 PMID:18453461

Baylor, A. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4),
373–382. doi:10.2190/1EBD-G126-TFCY-A3K6

Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Procedia: Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246.

Beaumont, R., & Sofronoff, K. (2008). A multi-component social skills intervention for children with Asperger Syn-
drome: The Junior Detective Training Program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,
49(7), 743–753. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01920.x PMID:18503531

Becker, H. S. (1986). Culture: A sociological view. In H. S. Becker (Ed.), Doing things together: Selected Essays (pp.
7–17). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Bedwell, W., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a Taxonomy Linking Game Attributes to
Learning: An Empirical Study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760. doi:10.1177/1046878112439444

Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). The analysis of negotiation of common
ground in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 427–435. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.04.002

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73

Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., D’ursi, A., & Fiore, V. (2012). A serious game model for cultural heritage. Journal
on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 5(4), 17. doi:10.1145/2399180.2399185

Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Moreno-Ger, P., & Berta, R. (2013). Assessment in and of serious games: An overview.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, 1.

Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Bergeron, B. (2006). Developing Serious Games. USA: Charles River Media.

Bergman, N., Markusson, N., Connor, P., Middlemiss, L., & Ricci, M. (2010). Bottom-up, social innovation for ad-
dressing climate change. Conference on Energy Transitions in an Interdependent World: What and Where Are the
Future Social Science Research Agendas. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Connor2/publica-
tion/271214929_Bottom-up_social_innovation_for_addressing_climate_change/links/54c2ac190cf2911c7a49aa23.pdf

Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Bilkstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics: Applications to con-
structionist research. Technology. Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2), 205–220. doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7

Berthold, K., Nuckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role
of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007

Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 14(1), 12–23. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.12

Biehl, J., & Petryna, A. (2013). When people come first: Critical studies in global health. Princeton University Press.
doi:10.1515/9781400846801

423
Compilation of References

BioWare. (2003). Star wars: Knights of the old republic. San Francisco, CA: LucasArts. Retrieved from: http://www.
lucasarts.com/games/platform.html

BioWare. (2008). Mass effect. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Studios. Retrieved from: http://masseffect.bioware.com/

Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product advertising.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 391–400. doi:10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0945

Blacker, K. J., Curby, K. M., Klobusicky, E., & Chein, J. M. (2014). Effects of video action game training on visual work-
ing memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 1992–2004. doi:10.1037/
a0037556 PMID:25068696

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay
Company.

Bluemink, J., Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., & Järvelä, S. (2010). Group-level analysis on multiplayer-game collabora-
tion: How do the individuals shape group interaction? Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 18(4), 365–383.
doi:10.1080/10494820802602444

Blumberg, F. C., Almonte, D. E., Barkhardori, Y., & Leno, A. (2014). Academic lessons from video game learning. In
F. C. Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education (pp. 3–11). New York: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.003.0001

Blumberg, F. C., Rosenthal, S. F., & Randall, J. D. (2008). Impasse-driven learning in the context of video games.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1530–1541. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.010

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of Chicago Press.

Bobrowsky, W., Marx, R., & Fishman, B. (2001, March). The empirical base for professional development in science
education: Moving beyond volunteers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research
in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bonanno, P., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2005). Gender differences and styles in the use of digital games. Educational Psychol-
ogy: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25(1), 13–41. doi:10.1080/0144341042000294877

Bonanno, P., & Kommers, P. A. M. (2008). Exploring the influence of gender and gaming competence on attitudes
towards using instructional games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 97–109.

Bongers, I., Koot, H., Van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. (2008). Predicting young adult social functioning from developmental
trajectories of externalizing behaviour. Psychological Medicine, 38(07), 989–1000. doi:10.1017/S0033291707002309
PMID:18047767

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered constructivist and sociocultural components of
collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered
technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Boot, W. R., Blakely, D. P., & Simons, D. J. (2011). Do action video games improve perception and cognition? Frontiers
in Science, 2, 1–6. PMID:21949513

Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and
response quality. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 66(1), 60–75. doi:10.1177/075910630006600106

424
Compilation of References

Bottino, R. M., Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2014). Serious gaming at school: Reflections on students’ performance, engage-
ment and motivation. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(1), 21–36. doi:10.4018/IJGBL.2014010102

Bouça, M. (2012). Angry Birds, uncommitted players. In Proceedings of DiGRA Nordic 2012 Conference: Local and
global — Games in culture and society (pp. 1-13). Tampere, Finland: Digital Games Research Association.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in
the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–1156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022

Bouvier, P., Lavoué, E., & Sehaba, K. (2014). Defining engagement and characterizing engaged-behaviors in digital
gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 491–507. doi:10.1177/1046878114553571

Bowen, D. H., Greene, J. P., & Kisida, B. (2014). Learning to think critically: A visual art experiment. Educational
Researcher, 43(1), 37–44. doi:10.3102/0013189X13512675

Bowers, C. A., & Jentsch, F. (2001). Use of commercial, off-the-shelf, simulations for team research. Advances in Hu-
man Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, 1, 293–317.

Bowers, J. S., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2011). Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e22341.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022341 PMID:21799832

Bowman, R. F. (1982). A “Pac-Man” theory of motivation: Tactile implications for classroom instruction. Educational
Technology, 22(9), 14–17.

Bowman, R. F. (1982). Pac-Man theory of motivation: Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational
Technology, 2214–2216.

Boyle, E., Connolly, T., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. (2012). Engagement in digital entertainment games: A systematic review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 771–780. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.020

Bradley, P. (2006). The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions. Medical Education,
40(3), 254–262. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02394.x PMID:16483328

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources
about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180–192. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.002

Brederode, B., Markopoulos, P., Gielen, M., Vermeeren, A., & Ridder, H. d. (2005). pOwerball: The design of a novel
mixed-reality game for children with mixed abilities.Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and
Children, Boulder, Colorado. New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1109540.1109545

Bressler, D. M. (2013). Gateways to mobile learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learn-
ing (pp. 224–234). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brockmyer, J., Fox, C., Curtiss, K., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K., & Pidruzny, J. (2009). The development of the game
engagement questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 45(4), 624–634. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016

Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions
in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2

425
Compilation of References

Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 10(1), 12–21. doi:10.1080/17470215808416249

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher,
18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032

Bruckman, A. (1999). Can educational be fun? Paper presented at the Game Developer’s Conference, San Jose, CA.
Retrieved October 10, 2015 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Amy.Bruckman/papers/conference/bruckman-gdc99.pdf

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21. doi:10.1086/448619

Bruner, J. (2004). Life as narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691–710.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a student-centered learning unit: A case study. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 79–100. doi:10.1007/BF02319859

Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston: South End Press.

Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bunch, J. C. (2012). The effects of a serious digital game on the animal science competency, mathematical competency,
knowledge transfer ability, and motivation of secondary agricultural education students. (Doctoral Dissertation). Okla-
homa State University.

Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burton, B., & Martin, B. (2010). Learning in 3D virtual environments: Collaboration and knowledge spirals. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 259–273. doi:10.2190/EC.43.2.f

Butt, P., & Wills, U. (2015) Encouraging Student Engagement With Collaborative Serious Games: The Coco Framework.
ICICTE 2015 Proceedings (pp. 142-155).

Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for transfer. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 37(3), 5–38. doi:10.1007/BF02299054

Cagiltay, N. E. (2007). Teaching software engineering by means of computer-game development: Challenges and op-
portunities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 405–415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00705.x

Calvert, S. L., & Tan, S. L. (1994). Impact of virtual reality on young adults’ physiological arousal and aggressive thoughts:
Interaction versus observation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 125–139. doi:10.1016/0193-
3973(94)90009-4

Cant, R. P., & Cooper, S. J. (2010). Simulation‐based learning in nurse education: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 66(1), 3–15. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05240.x PMID:20423432

Carretero, M., López-Manjón, A., & Jacott, L. (1997). Explaining historical events. International Journal of Educational
Research, 27(3), 245–253. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(97)89732-7

Carroll, M. (2007). Space art: How to draw and paint planets, moons, and landscapes of alien worlds. New York:
Watson-Guptill Publications.

426
Compilation of References

Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A., Sedano, C. I., Hauge, J. B., & Rauterberg, M. (2015). An ac-
tivity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Computers & Education, 87, 166–181.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023

Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differ-
ences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 697–705.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.697

Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitation on problem-solving transfer. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 15, 1147–1156.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC health disparities and inequalities report. Morbidity and Mor-
tality Weekly Report, 62(3), 1–187. PMID:24264482

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Chronic disease prevention and health promotion. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/#ref7

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s
Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 1, 39–64. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840975.004

Chan, R. C., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: Review of instruments
and identification of critical issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(2), 201–216. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010
PMID:18096360

Chapman, S. (2003). Other people’s smoke: What’s in a name? Tobacco Control, 12(2), 113–114. doi:10.1136/tc.12.2.113
PMID:12773710

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing
(pp. 215–281). New York, NY: Academic.

Chatfield, T. (2010). Fun Inc: Why games are the 21st century’s most serious business. London, UK: Virgin Books.

Chee, F. (2006). The games we play online and offline: Making Wang-tta in Korea. Popular Communication, 4(3),
225–239. doi:10.1207/s15405710pc0403_6

Chelune, G. J., & Baer, R. A. (1986). Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8(3), 219–228. doi:10.1080/01688638608401314 PMID:3722348

Chen, N.-S., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Transforming the classrooms: Innovative digital game- based learning designs and
applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 125–128. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9332-y

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All Other Things Being Equal: Acquisition and Transfer of the Control of Variables Strat-
egy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098–1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081 PMID:10546337

Cherney, I. D. (2008). Mom, let me play more computer games: They improve my mental rotation skills. Sex Roles,
59(11-12), 776–786. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9498-z

Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
6(3), 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1

Chi, M. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics
in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x PMID:25164801

Chi, M., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psy-
chologist, 47(3), 177–188. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.695709

427
Compilation of References

Chin, J., Dukes, R., & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in simulation and gaming: A review of the last 40 years. Simula-
tion & Gaming, 40(4), 553–568. doi:10.1177/1046878109332955

Choi, H., & Lane, S. (2013). Impact of spatial characteristics of video games on improvements of cognitive abilities.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting.

Chong, W. H., & Kong, C. A. (2012). Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-Efficacy: The Case of Lesson
Study. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263–283. doi:10.1080/00220973.2011.596854

Chow, T., & Cao, D.-B. (2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of Systems
and Software, 81(6), 961–971. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.08.020

Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy
decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00313.x

Christie, G. J., Cook, C. M., Ward, B. J., Tata, M. S., Sutherland, J., Sutherland, R. J., & Saucier, D. M. (2013). Mental
rotation ability is correlated with spatial but not verbal working memory performance and P300 amplitude in Males.
PLoS ONE, 8(2), e57390. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057390 PMID:23437381

Chung, G. K. W. K., & Baker, E. L. (2003). An exploratory study to examine the feasibility of measuring problem-solving
processes using a click-through interface. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 2(2), Retrieved October 10,
2015 from http://www.jtla.org

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (In Press). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Academic Press.

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & May, S. K. (2014). Digital Games for Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis. SRI Publication, Technical Report.

Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H. Y., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2011). Exploring Newto-
nian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students
in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2178–2195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.007

Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2014). Digital Games, Design and Learning: A Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis (Executive Summary). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Cocciolo, A., & Rabina, D. (2013). Does place affect user engagement and understanding? Mobile learner perceptions
on the streets of New York. The Journal of Documentation, 69(1), 98–120. doi:10.1108/00220411311295342

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition.
Educational Research, 19(6), 2–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X019006002

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993, March). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited.
Educational Technology, 52–70.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing
conceptions of cognitive research. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom
Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using interactive animations
and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 63–71. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.04.002

Cohen, J. (2004). Parasocial break-up from favorite television characters: The role of attachment styles and relationship
intensity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 187–202. doi:10.1177/0265407504041374

428
Compilation of References

Colella, V., Borovoy, R., & Resnick, M. (1998). Participatory simulations: Using computational objects to learn about
dynamic systems. In CHI 98 Conference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 9–10). ACM. Retrieved
from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=286503

Colella, V. (2000). Participatory Simulations: Building Collaborative Understanding Through Immersive Dynamic
Modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_4

Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Pino, J., & Ochoa, S. (2003). Collaborative scenarios to promote positive interdependence
among group members. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2806, 356–370. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39850-9_30

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chap-
ter/10.1007/978-3-642-77750-9_2

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and the schools.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Comalli, P. E. Jr, Wapner, S., & Werner, H. (1962). Interference effects of Stroop Color-Word test in children, adulthood,
and aging. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100(1), 47–53. doi:10.1080/00221325.1962.10533572 PMID:13880724

Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Towards computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework
to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 398–415.

Connolly, T., & Stansfield, M. (2006). Using games-based elearning technologies in overcoming difficulties in teaching
information systems. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 459–476.

Connors, E. C., Chrastil, E. R., Sánchez, J., & Merabet, L. B. (2014). Action video game play and transfer of navigation
and spatial cognition skills in adolescents who are blind. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(133), 1–8. PMID:24653690

Conole, G., & Culver, J. (2010). The design of cloudworks: Applying social networking practice to foster the exchange of
learning and teaching ideas and designs. Computers & Education, 54(3), 679–692. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.013

Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: More evidence for a
general capacity theory. Memory (Hove, England), 4(6), 577–590. doi:10.1080/741940997 PMID:8934455

Cook, L. M. (2002). What happened to the daydream Believer? A Study of imagination and problem-solving. (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Cooper, S. (2014). A framework for scientific discovery through video games. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
doi:10.1145/2625848

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextual-
ization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.715

Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., & Hickey, R. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in video games. ACM Com-
puters in Entertainment, 6(2), 20. doi:10.1145/1371216.1371223

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing. A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

429
Compilation of References

Creighton, R. H. (2010). Unity 3D Game Development by Example Beginner’s Guide. Packt Publishing.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in chil-
dren’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Crone, E. A., Bunge, S. A., van der Molen, M. W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2006). Switching between tasks and responses:
A developmental study. Developmental Science, 9(3), 278–287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00490.x PMID:16669798

Crook, C. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations around traditional vs. computer-based notes. Journal of Com-
puter Assisted Learning, 18(1), 64–76. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00212.x

Crossman, R. R. F. W. (1959). A theory of the acquisition of speed-skill. Ergonomics, 2(2), 153–166.

doi:10.1080/00140135908930419

Csikszebtmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. London, UK: Harper Perennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

DaCosta, B., Seok, S., & Kinsell, C. (2015). Mobile games and learning. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mobile phone
behavior. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8239-9.ch004

DaCosta, B., Nasah, A., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2011). Digital propensity: An investigation of video game and in-
formation and communication technology practices. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving learning
and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 1148–1173). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch052

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in WM and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Danielsson, K., & Wiberg, C. (2006). Participatory design of learning media: Designing educational computer games
with and for teenagers. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(4), 275–291. doi:10.1108/17415650680000068

Danish, J. (2009). BeeSign: A design experiment to teach Kindergarten and first grade students about honeybees
from a complex systems perspective. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved
from https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=TSMP1GEAAAAJ&citation_for_
view=TSMP1GEAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC

Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior,
and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–49.

Darrow, C., & Magie, E. (1934). Monopoly [Board Game]. Salem, MA: Parker Brothers.

de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be
most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.007

De Freitas, S., Rebolledo‐Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive
experiences: Using the four‐dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a
virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x

De Grove, F., Van Looy, J., & Courtois, C. (2010). Towards a serious game experience model: Validation, extension and
adaptation of the GEQ for use in an educational context. In L. Calvi, K. Niujten, & H. Bouwknegt (Eds.), Playability
and player experience (pp. 47–61). Breda, Netherlands: Breda University of Applied Sciences.

430
Compilation of References

De Lisi, R., & Cammarano, D. M. (1996). Computer experience and gender differences in undergraduate mental rotation
performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(3), 351–361. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(96)00013-1

De Lisi, R., & Wolford, J. L. (2002). Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with computer game playing. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(3), 272–282. doi:10.1080/00221320209598683 PMID:12230149

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online
asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005

Dean, M. (1984). The complete guide to fantasy art techniques. Arco Pub.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered
once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. doi:10.3102/00346543071001001

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. doi:10.1126/sci-
ence.1167311 PMID:19119219

deFreitas, S., Kiili, K., Ney, M., Ott, M., & Popescu, M. (2012). GEL. Exploring Game Enhanced Learning, 15, 289–292.

del Blanco, A., Marchiori, E. J., Torrente, J., Martínez-Ortiz, I., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2013). Using e-learning
standards in educational video games. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 36(1), 178–187. doi:10.1016/j.csi.2013.06.002

Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Dempster, F. N. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in a basic processing mechanism. In M. L.

Howe & R. Pasnak (Eds.), Emerging Themes in Cognitive Development, Volume I: Foundations (pp. 3-27). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Dempster, F. N. (1981). Memory span: Sources of individual and developmental differences. Psychological Bulletin,
89(1), 63–100. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.63

Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to mea-
sure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.Funke, J. (2010). Complex
problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142. PMID:22131129

DeRosier, M., & Gilliom, M. (2007). Effectiveness of a parent training program for improving children’s social behavior.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(5), 660–670. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9114-1

Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs provide the
experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 352–362. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.003

Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for Motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamifica-
tion. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments
(pp. 9–15). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181040

Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform
instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67–83. doi:10.1007/BF02504866

431
Compilation of References

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do we mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative
learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1-19). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design.
In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open
Universiteit Nederland.

Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x

Dillon, R. (2010). On the way to fun: An emotion based approach to successful game design. Natick, MA: AK Peters.
doi:10.1201/b10930

Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile
software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033

Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., & Jessel, J. P. (2011). Classifying serious games: the G/P/S model. In Handbook of research on
improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches, (118-136).

Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., & Jessel, J. (2011). Classifying serious games: The G/P/S model. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook
of research on improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (Vol. 2,
pp. 118–136). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch006

Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P., & Methel, G. (2008). Play, Game, World: Anatomy of a Videogame. International
Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 5(1), 35–39.

Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 8–22. doi:10.1177/0146167290161002

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J.
(2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational
Technology, 4(1), 21–31.

Dorval, M., & Pepin, M. (1986). Effect of playing a video game on a measure of spatial visualization. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 62(1), 159–162. doi:10.2466/pms.1986.62.1.159 PMID:3960656

Dreyfus, H. (1992). What computers still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1),
1–25. doi:10.1080/01449290110108659

Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R., & Nickell, E. (2007). Virtual “third places”: A case study of sociability in maasively mul-
tiplayer games. Computer Supported Work, 16(1-2), 129–166. doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9041-8

Dumanovsky, T., Huang, C. Y., Bassett, M. T., & Silver, L. D. (2010). Consumer awareness of fast-food calorie informa-
tion in New York City after implementation of a menu labeling regulation. American Journal of Public Health, 100(12),
2520–2525. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.191908 PMID:20966367

Dunker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

432
Compilation of References

Dunleavy, M. (2014). Design principles for augmented reality learning. TechTrends, 58(1), 28–34. doi:10.1007/s11528-
013-0717-2

Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook
of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4614-3185-5_59

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented
reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22. doi:10.1007/
s10956-008-9119-1

Dunn, S. M., Patterson, P. U., Butow, P. N., Smartt, H. H., McCarthy, W. H., & Tattersall, M. H. (1993). Cancer by
another name: A randomized trial of the effects of euphemism and uncertainty in communicating with cancer patients.
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(5), 989–996. PMID:8487062

Dweck, C. S., Mangels, J. A., & Good, C. (2005). Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and performance. In D.
Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: interactive perspectives on intellectual functioning
and development (pp. 41–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher educa-
tion: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.026

Echeverría, A., García-Campo, C., Nussbaum, M., Gil, F., Villalta, M., Améstica, M., & Echeverría, S. (2011). A
framework for the design and integration of collaborative classroom games. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1127–1136.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.010

Echeverri, J. F., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Gaming as a platform for the development of innovative problem-based learning
opportunities. Science Educator, 20(1), 44–48.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2010). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the educational potential of computer games. Lulu.com.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third Generation Educational Use of Computer Games. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263–281.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third generation educational use of computer games. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 16, 263–281.

Eklund, L., & Johansson, M. (2010). Social play? A study of social interaction in temporary group formation (PUG). In
World of Warcraft. DiGRA Nordic. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/dl/db/10343.55072.pdf

Eklund, L., & Johansson, M. (2013). Played and designed sociality in a massive multiplayer online game. Eludamos
(Göttingen), 7(1), 35–54.

Elliott, L., Ream, G., McGinsky, E., & Dunlap, E. (2012). The contribution of game genre and other use patterns to
problem video game play among adult video gamers. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10(6),
948–969. doi:10.1007/s11469-012-9391-4 PMID:23284310

Elliott, S. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1993). Social skills interventions for children. Behavior Modification, 17(3), 287–313.
doi:10.1177/01454455930173004 PMID:8343100

Ellis, H., Heppell, S., Kirriemuir, J., Krotoski, A., & McFarlane, A. (2006). Unlimited learning. Computer and video
games in the learning landscape. London, UK: ELSPA (Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association).

433
Compilation of References

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’
use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2007.00367.x

El-Nasr, M. S., Drachen, A., & Canossa, A. (Eds.). (2013). Game analytics: Maximizing the value of player data. London:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4769-5

El-Nasr, M., Aghabeigi, B., Milam, D., Erfani, M., Lameman, B., Maygoli, H., & Mah, S. (2010). Understanding and
evaluating cooperative games. In Proceeding of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.
253-262). New York: ACM

Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Engeström, Y. (Ed.). (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki, Finland:
Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining
an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. doi:10.1207/
S1532690XCI2004_1

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
11(1), 19–23. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160

Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher,
18(3), 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004

Ennis, R. H. (1990). The Extent to Which Critical Thinking Is Subject-Specific: Further Clarification. Educational
Researcher, 19(4), 13–16. doi:10.3102/0013189X019004013

Entertainment Software Association. (2015). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved May
14, 2015 from http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented real-
ity environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 347–378. doi:10.1007/
s11412-012-9150-3

Ercikan, K., & Seixas, P. C. (Eds.). (2015). New directions in assessing historical thinking. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.87.3.215

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2011). Alternative assessment strategies for complex problem solving in game-
based learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler, J. M. Spector, Kinshuk, P. Isaias, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.),
Multiple perspectives on problem solving and learning in the digital age (pp. 159-178). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7612-3_11

Eseryel, D., Law, V., Ifenthaler, D., Ge, X., & Miller, R. (2014). An investigation of the interrelationships between
motivation, engagement, and complex problem solving in game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 17(1), 42–53.

434
Compilation of References

Eysenk, H. J. (1939). Review of “primary mental abilities” by L. L. Thurstone. British Journal of Psychology, 9, 270–275.

Facer, K., Joiner, R., Stanton, D., Reid, J., Hull, R., & Kirk, D. (2004). Savannah: Mobile gaming and learning? Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(6), 399–409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00105.x

Fang, X., Chan, S., Brzezinski, J., & Xu, S. (2005). Moderating effects of task type on wireless technology acceptance.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 123–157. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222220305

Faria, A. J., Hutchinson, D., Wellington, W. J., & Gold, S. (2009). Developments in Business Gaming: A review of the
Past 40 Years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 464–487. doi:10.1177/1046878108327585

Feng, J., Pratt, J., & Spence, I. (2012). Attention and visuospatial working memory share the same processing resources.
Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 103. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00103 PMID:22529826

Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition.
Psychological Science, 18(10), 850–854. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x PMID:17894600

Fenstermacher, K., Olympia, D., & Sheridan, S. M. (2006). Effectiveness of a computer-facilitated interactive social skills
training program for boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(2), 197–224.
doi:10.1521/scpq.2006.21.2.197

Ferguson, C. J., Garza, A., Jerabeck, J., Ramos, R., & Galindo, M. (2013). Not worth the fuss after all? Cross-sectional
and prospective data on violent video game influences on aggression, visuospatial cognition and mathematics ability in
a sample of youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 109–122. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9803-6 PMID:22875464

Fernandez, A. (2008). Fun experience with digital games: A model proposition. In O. Leino, H. Wirman, & A. Fernan-
dez (Eds.), Extending experiences: Structure, analysis and design of computer game player experience (pp. 181–190).
Rovaniemi, Finland: Lapland University Press.

Fero, L. J., O’Donnell, J. M., Zullo, T. G., Dabbs, A. D., Kitutu, J., Samosky, J. T., & Hoffman, L. A. (2010). Critical
thinking skills in nursing students: Comparison of simulation-based performance with metrics. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 66(10), 2182–2193. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05385.x PMID:20636471

Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students’
motivation, engagement and learning in an educational game. Computers & Education, 75136–75148.

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational
Researcher, 22(4), 16–23. doi:10.3102/0013189X022004016

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported
collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.748005 PMID:23378679

Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional
development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3

Fladen, E., & Blashki, K. (2005). Learning = playing: Interactive learning and game-based design principles. Paper
presented at the 22nd acsilite annual conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from the acsilite Web site http://www.
ascilite.org.au/ conferences/brisbane05 /blogs/proceedings/25_Fladen.pdf

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The
American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Fleer, M., & Peers, C. (2012). Beyond cognitivisation: Creating collectively constructed imaginary situations for sup-
porting learning and development. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 413–430. doi:10.1007/s13384-012-0073-9

435
Compilation of References

Flicker, S., Maley, O., Ridgley, A., Biscope, S., Lombardo, C., & Skinner, H. A. (2008). e-PAR: Using technology and partici-
patory action research to engage youth in health promotion. Action Research, 6(3), 285–303. doi:10.1177/1476750307083711

Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. In Persuasive ’09, Claremont, CA. doi:10.1145/1541948.1541999

Fogg, B. J. (2015). BJ Fogg’s behavior model. Retrieved from http://www.behaviormodel.org/

Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of
Research in Education, 30(1), 1–32. doi:10.3102/0091732X030001001

Frank, A. (2012). Gaming the Game: A Study of the Gamer Mode in Educational Wargaming. Simulation & Gaming,
43(1), 118–132. doi:10.1177/1046878111408796

Frankosky, M., Wiebe, E., Buffom, P., & Boyer, K. (2015). Spatial Ability and Other Predictors of Gameplay Time:
Understanding Barriers to Learning in Game-based Virtual Environments. In Proceedings of the AERA Annual Meeting.

Frasca, G. (1999). Ludology meets narratology: similitude and differences between (video) games and narrative. Retrieved
March 10, 2013 from http://www.ludology.org/articles/ludology.htm

Frasca, G. (2001). Videogames of the oppressed: Videogames as a means for critical thinking and debate. (Master of
Information Design and Technology). Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.ludology.org/articles/
thesis/FrascaThesisVideogames.pdf

Fraughton, T. B., Sansone, C., Butner, J., & Zachary, J. (2011). Interest and performance when learning online: Provid-
ing utility value information can be important for both novice and experienced students. International Journal of Cyber
Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 1(2), 1–15. doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2011040101

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2014). Discussing implementation choices for serious games supporting spatial and orientation
skills. Proceedings of ICERI2014 Conference.

Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Frieden, T. R. (2013). Government’s role in protecting health and safety. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368(20),
1857–1859. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1303819 PMID:23593978

Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differences. Review of Educational Research, 65(1),
22–50. doi:10.3102/00346543065001022

Frijda, N. H. (2005). Emotion experience. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 473–498. doi:10.1080/02699930441000346

Frith, J. (2013). Turning life into a game: Foursquare, gamification, and personal mobility. Mobile Media & Communica-
tion, 1(2), 248–262. doi:10.1177/2050157912474811

FromSoftware. (2011). Dark souls. Tokyo, Japan: FromSoftware, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.darksoulsii.com/us/

Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. F., & Pearce, C. (2007). The hegemony of play. In Proceedings of DiGRA: Situated play
(pp. 24-28). Tokyo, Japan: Digital Games Research Association.

436
Compilation of References

Fu, F., Su, R., & Yu, S. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers
& Education, 52(1), 101–112. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.004

Funke, J., & Frensch, P. A. (2007). Complex problem solving: The European perspective. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning
to solve complex scientific problems (pp. 25–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malch, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving
conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.002

Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., Keller, J. M., & Russell, J. D. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195–200. doi:10.1177/001698629203600405

Garcia Lopez, L. M., Contreras Jordan, O. R., Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2009). The role of transfer in games teach-
ing: Implications for the development of the sports curriculum. European Physical Education Review, 15(1), 47–63.
doi:10.1177/1356336X09105211

Gardner, M. K., Woltz, D. J., & Bell, B. (2002). Representation of memory for order of mental operations in cognitive
tasks. The American Journal of Psychology, 115(2), 251–274. doi:10.2307/1423438 PMID:12041011

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing
in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation
& Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607

Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15
years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177 PMID:14979759

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia, (8), 15-23.

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (Rev. and updated ed.). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.

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

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Good videogames, the human mind, and good learning. In T. Willoughby & E. Wood (Eds.), Children’s
learning in a digital world (pp. 40–63). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Video games and embodiment. Games and Culture, 3(3-4), 253–263. doi:10.1177/1555412008317309

Gee, J. P. (2009). Deep learning properties of good digital games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Seri-
ous games: Mechanics and effects (pp. 67–82). New York: Routledge.

Gentile, D. (2009). Pathological video-game use among youth ages 8 to 18: A national study. Psychological Science,
20(5), 594–602. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02340.x PMID:19476590

437
Compilation of References

Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Violent games as exemplary teachers. A conceptual analysis. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 37(2), 127–141. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9206-2

Ge, X., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2012). Diagnosis, supporting, and fading: A scaffolding design framework for adaptive
e-learning systems. In H. Wang (Ed.), Interactivity in e-learning: Case studies and frameworks (pp. 116–162). Hershey,
PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-441-3.ch006

Ghiselli, E. E. (1973). The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 26(4), 461–477.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01150.x

Gibbons, R. D., Gudas, C., & Gibbons, S. W. (1983). A study of the relationship between flexibility of closure and surgi-
cal skill. Journal of the American Podiatry Association, 73(1), 12–16. doi:10.7547/87507315-73-1-12 PMID:6822715

Gibson, D. C., & de Freitas, S. (2015). Exploratory analysis in learning analytics. Technology, Knowledge and Learning,
1–15. doi:10.1007/s10758-015-9249-5

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355. doi:10.1016/0010-
0285(80)90013-4

Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.
doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6

Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environ-
ment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2015.07.012

Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-
analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumenta-
tion? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001

Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55. PMID:10096994

Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In J. Herrington, A. Couros, &
V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
2013 (pp. 1999–2008). Chesapeake, VA: AACE; Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/112246

Gobert, J. D., Baker, R. S., & Wixon, M. B. (2015). Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science
microworlds. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 43–57. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.999919

Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Tan, H. C. (2008). Strategies for designing effective psychotherapeutic gaming interventions
for children and adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2217–2235. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.007

Goldhill, D. (2009, September). How American health care killed my father. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/

Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting Transfer by Grounding Complex Systems Principles. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516. doi:10.1080/10508400802394898

Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Aus-
tralasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1). doi:10.14742/ajet.1344

438
Compilation of References

Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game to flight. Human Factors, 36(3),
387–405.

Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Siegel, D. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to training complex skills.
Acta Psychologica, 71(1-3), 147–177. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(89)90007-3

Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation
& Gaming, 35(2), 270–293. doi:10.1177/1046878104263544

Gozli, D., Bavelier, D., & Pratt, J. (2014). The effect of action video game playing on sensorimotor learning: Evidence from
a movement tracking task. Human Movement Science, 38, 152–162. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2014.09.004 PMID:25318081

Graesser, A., Chipman, P., Leeming, F., & Biedenbach, S. (2009). Deep learning and emotion in serious games. In U.
Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanics and effects (pp. 83–102). New York: Routledge.

Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(3), 45–53. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.3.501
PMID:3160813

Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. The American Psychologist, 69(1),
66–78. doi:10.1037/a0034857 PMID:24295515

Grant, S., & Shawgo, K. E. (2013). Digital badges: An annotated research bibliography. Retrieved from https://www.
hastac.org/digital-badges-bibliography

Gratch, J., & Kelly, J. (2009). MMOGs: Beyond the wildest imagination. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20,
175–187.

Gray, J. R., Braver, T. S., & Raichle, M. E. (2002). Integration of emotion and cognition in the lateral prefrontal cortex.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(6), 4115–4120. doi:10.1073/
pnas.062381899 PMID:11904454

Gredler, M. E. (1996). Educational games and simulation: A technology in search of a research paradigm. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521–540). New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423(6939), 534–537.
doi:10.1038/nature01647 PMID:12774121

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006). Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial attention.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(6), 1465–1478. doi:10.1037/0096-
1523.32.6.1465 PMID:17154785

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological
Science, 18(1), 88–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01853.x PMID:17362383

439
Compilation of References

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Exercising your brain: A review of human brain plasticity and training-induced
learning. Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 692–701. doi:10.1037/a0014345 PMID:19140641

Green, C. S., Pouget, A., & Bavelier, D. (2010). Improved probabilistic inference as a general learning mechanism with
action video games. Current Biology, 20(17), 1573–1579. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.07.040 PMID:20833324

Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., Jackson, W. P., Caprino, A. M., Oswald, C., & McVea, M. (2015). Domain-specificity of
self-regulated learning processing in science and history.[Online First]. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42,
111–128. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.001

Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., & Robertson, J. (2010). Fostering historical knowledge and thinking skills using hyperme-
dia learning environments: The role of self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 230–243. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.08.006

Greenfield, P., Brannon, C., & Lohr, D. (1994). Two-dimensional representation of movement through three-dimensional
space: The role of video game expertise. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 87–103. doi:10.1016/0193-
3973(94)90007-8

Gregor, J. (2001). Masks of the world with 255 photographs. Mineola, NY: Dovr Publications.

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-
general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83.

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Funke, J. (2012). Dynamic Problem Solving: A New Assessment Perspective. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 36(3), 189–213. doi:10.1177/0146621612439620

Gresham, F. M. (1988). Social skills: Conceptual and applied aspects of assessment, training, and social validation.
In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of behavior therapy. New York, NY: Plenium Press.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0905-5_20

Griffiths, M. (2002). The educational benefits of videogames. Education for Health, 20, 47–51.

Griffiths, M. D. (1991). The observational analysis of adolescent gambling in U.K. amusement arcades. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 309–320. doi:10.1002/casp.2450010406

Grimes, A., Kantroo, V., & Grinter, R. E. (2010). Let’s play! Mobile health games for adults. In Proceedings of
the 12th ACM international conference on ubiquitous computing (pp. 241-250). Copenhagen, Denmark: ACM.
doi:10.1145/1864349.1864370

Gros, B. (2015). Integration of Digital Games in Learning and E-learning Environments: Connecting Experiences and
Context. In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital Games and Mathematics Learning. Springer Netherlands.

Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 40(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782494

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487 PMID:14771441

Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious games and learning effectiveness: The case of It’s a Deal!
Computers & Education, 58(1), 435–448. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015

Gunter, G., Kenny, R. F., & Vick, E. H. (2006). A case for a formal design paradigm for serious games. The Journal of
the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3, 93–105.

440
Compilation of References

Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design
endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6),
511–537. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2

Haber, K. (2011). Masters of science fiction and fantasy art. Rockport Publishers.

Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic
integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029

Habgood, M. P. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation
& Gaming, 36(4), 483–498. doi:10.1177/1046878105282276

Hacker, D. (in press). The role of metacognition in learning via serious games. In R. Zheng & M. Gardner (Eds.), Serious
games for educational applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),
Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). A growing sense of agency. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 1–4). New York: Routledge.

Hainey, T., Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & Boyle, E. A. (2011). Evaluation of a game to teach requirements collection
and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education level. Computers & Education, 56(1), 21–35. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.09.008

Halpern, D. F., & Collaer, M. L. (2005). More Than Meets the Eye. In The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial think-
ing. CUP.

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. The American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 PMID:9572008

Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education,
50(4), 270–286. doi:10.1353/jge.2001.0024

Hämäläinen, R. (2008). Designing and evaluating collaboration in a virtual game environment for vocational learning.
Computers & Education, 50(1), 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.001

Hämäläinen, R., & Oksanen, K. (2012). Challenge of supporting vocational learning: Empowering collaboration in
a scripted 3D game - How does teachers’ real-time orchestration make a difference? Computers & Education, 59(2),
281–293. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.002

Hämäläinen, R., Oksanen, K., & Häkkinen, P. (2008). Designing and analyzing collaboration in a scripted game for
vocational education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2496–2506. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.010

Hämäläinen, R., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2011). Theoretical and pedagogical perspectives on orchestrating creativity and
collaborative learning. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 169–184. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.08.001

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gami-
fication. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3025–3034). http://doi.org/
doi:<ALIGNMENT.qj></ALIGNMENT>10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117. doi:10.1007/BF02299733

441
Compilation of References

Hanna, L., Neapolitan, D., & Risden, K. (2004). Evaluating computer game concepts with children.Proceedings of the
2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children: Building a Community, Maryland. New York, NY: ACM Press.
doi:10.1145/1017833.1017840

Hansen, L., & Sanders, S. W. (2012). Active gaming: Is “virtual” reality right for your physical education program?
Journal for Physical and Sport Education, 25(6), 24–27.

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic
motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

Han, X., Call, K. T., Pintor, J. K., Alarcon-Espinoza, G., & Simon, A. B. (2015). Reports of insurance-based discrimi-
nation in health care and its association with access to care. American Journal of Public Health, 105(S3), S517–S525.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302668 PMID:25905821

Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-
rich school. Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Harley, J. M., Poitras, E. G., Jarrell, A., Duffy, M. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Comparing virtual and location-based
augmented reality mobile learning: Emotions and learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment, 64(3), 359-388.

Harris, L. M., Halvorsen, A.-L., & Aponte-Martinez, G. J. (in press). “[My] family has gone through that”: How high
school students determine the trustworthiness of historical documents.[Online First]. Journal of Social Studies Research.

Harsanyi, D. (2007). Nanny state: How food fascists, teetotaling do-gooders, priggish moralists, and other boneheaded
bureaucrats are turning America into a nation of children. New York: Broadway Books.

Harviainen, J. T., Lainema, T., & Saarinen, E. (2012). Player-reported impediments to game-based learning. Transactions
of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2). Retrieved from http://todigra.org/index.php/todigra/article/view/14/22

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U

Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Retrieved, May 10,
2006, from http://adlcommunity.net/file.php/23/GrooveFiles/Instr_Game_Review_Tr_2005.pdf

Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000). Community development among distant learners:
Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1).

Heaton, R. K. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Manual, revised and expanded. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.

Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different
scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34(2), 151–176.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005

Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. A. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121–169). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511610448.005

Heidig, S., Müller, J., & Reichelt, M. (2015). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Differentiation on relevant
design features and their effects on emotions and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 81–95. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2014.11.009

442
Compilation of References

Heijltjes, A., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving students’ critical thinking: Empirical support for explicit instruc-
tions combined with practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 518–530. doi:10.1002/acp.3025

Heil, M., Rösler, F., Link, M., & Bajric, J. (1998). What is improved if a mental rotation task is repeated – the efficiency
of memory access, or the speed of a transformation routine? Psychological Research, 61(2), 99–106. doi:10.1007/
s004260050016 PMID:9689906

Helsdingen, A., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. (2011). The effects of practice schedule and critical thinking prompts
on learning and transfer of a complex judgment task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 383–398. doi:10.1037/
a0022370

Helton, B. (2013). HealthCARING: A reset for health and healthcare. Newnan, GA: Prancing Pony Press.

Hemingway, E. (1952). The old man and the sea. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Hennessey, B. A. (2007). Promoting social competence in school-aged children: The effects of the open circle program.
Journal of School Psychology, 45(3), 349–360. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.007

Hennessy, E., & Heary, C. (2005). Researching children’s experiences: Approaches and methods. In S. M. Greene & D.
M. Hogan (Eds.), Exploring children’s views through focus groups (pp. 236–252). London: Sage.

Herrenkohl, L. R., & Marion, R. G. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth
grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 431–473. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_3

Herz, B., & Merz, W. (1998). Experiential learning and the effectiveness of economic simulation games. Simulation &
Gaming, 29(2), 238–250. doi:10.1177/1046878198292007

Hess, T., & Gunter, G. (2013). Serious game-based and nongame-based online courses: Learning experiences and out-
comes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 372–385. doi:10.1111/bjet.12024

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2),
111–127. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Bartholow, B. D. (2013). Individual differences in motives, preferences, and pathol-
ogy in video games: The gaming attitudes, motives, and experiences scales (GAMES). Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 608.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00608 PMID:24058355

Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in
“educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34.
doi:10.1177/1529100615569721 PMID:25985468

Hitch, G. J., Halliday, M. S., & Littler, J. (1984). Memory span and the speed of mental operations. Paper presented at
the joint Experimental Psychology Society/Netherlands Psychonomic Foundation Meeting, Amsterdam.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding
of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331. doi:10.1080/10508400701413401

443
Compilation of References

Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_2

Hobbs, J., & Yan, Z. (2008). Cracking the walnut: Using a computer game to impact cognition, emotion, and behavior of
highly aggressive fifth grade students. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 421–438. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.031

Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and
teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2

Hopkins, I., Gower, M., Perez, T., Smith, D., Amthor, F., Wimsatt, C., & Biasini, F. (2011). Avatar assistant: Improving
social skills in students with an ASD through a computer-based intervention. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 41(11), 1543–1555. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1179-z PMID:21287255

Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (1999). Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning in sci-
ence. In K. Littleton (Ed.), Learning with computers: analyzing productive interaction (pp. 24–45). New York: Routledge.

Huang, W. D., Johnson, T. E., & Han, S. H. C. (2013). Impact of online instructional game features on college students’
perceived motivational support and cognitive investment: A structural equation modeling study. The Internet and Higher
Education, 17, 58–68. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.004

Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of Education. Research Report Series: Behavioural Economics in
Action. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto.

Hughey, L. (2002). A pilot study investigating visual methods of measuring engagement during e-learning. Cambridge,
UK: University of Cambridge.

Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with
a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895. doi:10.1037/a0019506

Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes.
Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. doi:10.1126/science.1177067 PMID:19965759

Hulme, C., Thomson, N., Muir, C., & Lawrence, A. (1984). Speech rate and the development of short-term memory
span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38(2), 241–253. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(84)90124-3

Hume, K. (1984). Fantasy and mimesis: responses to reality in Western literature. New York, NY: Methuen.

Hummel, H., van Houcke, J., Nadolski, R., van der Hiele, T., Kurvers, H., & Löhr, A. (2011). Scripted collaboration in
serious gaming for complex learning: Effects of multiple perspectives when acquiring water management skills. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1029–1041. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01122.x

Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Chen, N.-S. (2013). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving
skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
ment. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7

Hynd, C., Holschuh, J. P., & Hubbard, B. P. (2004). Thinking like a historian: College students’ reading of multiple
historical documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 141–176. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3602_2

Hyun, J. S., & Luck, S. J. (2007). Visual working memory as the substrate for mental rotation. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 14(1), 154–158. doi:10.3758/BF03194043 PMID:17546746

Iarocci, G., Yager, J., & Elfers, T. (2007). What gene-environment interactions can tell us about social competence in
typical and atypical populations. Brain and Cognition, 65(1), 112–127. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2007.01.008 PMID:17628271

444
Compilation of References

Ibrahim, R., Wills, G., & Gilbert, L. (2010). Degendering games: Towards a gender-inclusive framework for games.
Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference: Games and Entertainment Technologies part of the IADIS Multi-
conference on Computer Science & Information Systems (MCCSIS 2010), Freiburg, Germany.

Ifenthaler, D. (2008). Practical solutions for the diagnosis of progressing mental models. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-
Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Norbert M.
Seel (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4_3

Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Using a causal model for the design and development of a simulation game for teacher education.
Technology, Instruction. Cognition and Learning, 6(3), 193–212.

Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 651–665. doi:10.1037/a0035505

Ifenthaler, D. (2015a). Effects of experimentally induced emotions on model-based reasoning. Learning and Individual
Differences, 43, 191–198. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.09.003

Ifenthaler, D. (2015b). Learning analytics. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational technology
(Vol. 2, pp. 447–451). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ifenthaler, D. (in press). The ABC-model of game-design. Technology. Knowledge and Learning.

Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., & Ge, X. (2012). Assessment in game-based learning. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X.
Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 1–8). New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4_1

Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of mental models.
Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 317.

Inal, Y., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 38(3), 455–464. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00709.x

Information Solutions Group. (2011). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from http://www.info-
solutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2012.pdf

Information Solutions Group. (2013). PopCap games mobile phone gaming research. Retrieved from http://www.info-
solutionsgroup.com/popcapmobile2013.pdf

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). ISTE Standards. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from www.iste.
org/standards

Irrational Games. (2007). BioShock. Boston, MA: 2K Games. Retrieved from: http://www.2kgames.com/bioshock/

Jacko, J. A., & Sears, A. (2003). The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and
emerging applications. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and im-
plications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4

Järvinen, A. (2008). Games without Frontiers: Theories and Methods for Game Studies and Design. Tampere: Tampere
University Press.

Jenkins, H., Camper, B., Chisholm, A., Grigsby, N., Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., . . . Tan, P. (2009). From Serious Games
to Serious Gaming. In Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge.

445
Compilation of References

Jenkins, H. (2002). Game design as narrative architecture. In P. Harrington & N. Frup-Waldrop (Eds.), First Person.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jennett, C., Cox, A., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the
experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhcs.2008.04.004

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning
methods (pp. 51–64). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Johnson, L. F., Levine, A., Smith, R. S., & Haywood, K. (2010). Key emerging technologies for postsecondary educa-
tion. Education Digest, 76(2), 34–38.

Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon report 2014 – Higher education edition. Austin,
TX: The New Media Consortium.

Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67–85. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.88.1.67

Johnson, T. E., & Huang, W. D. (2008). Complex skills development for today’s workforce: Using games as a strategy for
engineering model-centered learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Under-
standing models for learning and instruction (pp. 305–325). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4_15

Johnson, W. L. (2010). Serious use of a serious game for language learning. International Journal of Artificial Intel-
ligence in Education, 20, 175–195. doi:10.3233/JAI-2010-0006

Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist
instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational
Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14. doi:10.1007/BF02296434

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC model of academic motivation. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 272–285.

Jones, R. N., Sheridan, S. M., & Binns, W. R. (1993). Schoolwide social skills training: Providing preventive services
to students at-risk. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(1), 57–80. doi:10.1037/h0088832

Jorgensen, E. D., & Grushkin, D. (2011). Engage with, don’t fear, community lab. Nature Medicine, 17(4), 411.
doi:10.1038/nm0411-411 PMID:21475225

Jude, D. (1999). Fantasy arts masters. New York, NY: Watson-Guptill Publications.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual dif-
ferences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92(2), 137–172. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.2.137 PMID:3887449

Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Juul, J. (2010). A casual revolution: Reinventing video games and their players. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (1996). Meaningful contexts for mathematical learning: The potential of game making
activities. In Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Learning Sciences, (pp. 164-171).

446
Compilation of References

Kafai, Y. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in
youth communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kail, R., & Park, Y.-S. (1992). Global developmental change in processing time. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(4), 525–541.

Kallio, K. P., Mäyrä, F., & Kaipainen, K. (2011). At least nine ways to play: Approaching gamer mentalities. Games and
Culture, 6(4), 327–353. doi:10.1177/1555412010391089

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on
long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336 PMID:10764100

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention,
and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637–671.
doi:10.3758/BF03196323 PMID:12613671

Kaplan, S. J. (1983). The image of amusement arcades and differences in male and female video game playing. Journal
of Popular Culture, 16(1), 93–98. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1983.1701_93.x

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco: Wiley.

Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Activity theory in a nutshell. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Inter-
action Design, 29–72.

Kato, P. M. (2012). Evaluating efficacy and validating games for health. Games for Health Journal: Research, Develop-
ment, and Clinical Applications, 1(1), 74–76. doi:10.1089/g4h.2012.1017 PMID:26196436

Katz, J. E., & Krzys Acord, S. (2008). Mobile games and entertainment. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of mobile com-
munication studies (pp. 403–418). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113120.003.0030

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C model of creativity. Review of General
Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0013688

Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2009). Contemporary theories of intelligence. In D. Reisberg (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 811–822). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kear, K. (2010). Social presence in online learning communities. In L. Dirkinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, D
McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp.
1-8). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University

Kebritchi, M. (2010). Factors affects teachers’ adoption of educational computer games: A case study. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 41(2), 256–270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00921.x

Kebritchi, M., & Hirumi, A. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games.
Computers & Education, 51(4), 1729–1743. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.004

Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern Mathematics computer games on Mathematics
achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427–443. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.007

447
Compilation of References

Kee, K. (2011). Queenston 1812: The Bomber’s Plot (6843212 Canada Inc.). Retrieved from www.ihistorytours.com

Kee, K. (Ed.). (2014). Pastplay: Teaching and learning history with technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press. doi:10.3998/dh.12544152.0001.001

Keeley, S. M., Ali, R., & Gebing, T. (1998). Beyond the sponge model: Encouraging students’ questioning skills in
abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 25(4), 270–274. doi:10.1080/00986289809709713

Keenan, A., & Shiri, A. (2009). Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites. Library Review, 58(6),
438–450. doi:10.1108/00242530910969794

Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case
study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73(1), 26–39. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2013.12.010

Ke, F., & Abras, T. (2013). Games for engaged learning of middle school children with special learning needs. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 225–242. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01326.x

Keil, J., Pujol, L., Roussou, M., Engelke, T., Schmitt, M., Bockholt, U., & Eleftheratou, S. (2013). A digital look at
physical museum exhibits: Designing personalized stories with handheld Augmented Reality in museums. In Digital
heritage international congress (DigitalHeritage), 2013 (Vol. 2, pp. 685–688). Marseille, France: IEEE; doi:10.1109/
DigitalHeritage.2013.6744836

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS Model approach. New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1250-3

Keller, M. (2015). The Gamification of Weight Loss. Today’s Dietitian, 17(1), 40.

Kelly, T. L. (1928). Crossroads in the mind of man. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kennedy-Clark, S., & Thompson, K. (2011). What do students learn when collaboratively using a computer games in
the study of historical disease epidemics, and why? Games and Culture, 6(6), 513–537. doi:10.1177/1555412011431361

Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 22(2), 259–276.

Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors Affecting Adoption of Video Games in the Classroom. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 22(2), 259–276.

Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general
education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127–136. doi:10.1177/0016986214522508

Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 8(1), 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001

Kiili, K. (2006). Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology, 2(2), 187–201. doi:10.17011/ht/
urn.2006518

Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394–404.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00704.x

448
Compilation of References

Kiili, K., & Lainema, T. (2008). Foundation for measuring engagement in educational games. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 19(3), 469–488.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafood, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

Kim, I. (2009). A study on the factors and the principles of the fantasy in the educational context. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Seoul National University.

Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based
learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800–810. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.004

Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

King. (2012). Candy Crush Saga. Dublin, Ireland: King Digital Entertainment. Retrieved from: http://candycrushsaga.com/

Kinzie, M. B., & Joseph, D. R. D. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children:
Implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 643–663.
doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9076-z

Kirriemuir, J. (2002). The relevance of games and gaming consoles to the higher and further education learning experi-
ence. Techwatch Report TSW 02.01. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/tsw_02-01.rtf

Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2003). Literature Review in Games and Learning. A Report for NESTA Futurelab.

Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Report 8: Literature review in gaming and learning. FutureLab. Retrieved from
http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf

Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1998). Obstacles to understanding cognition as situated. Educational Researcher, 27(8),
22–28. doi:10.3102/0013189X027008022

Kirsh, S. J. (2003). The effects of violent video games on adolescents: The overlooked influence of development. Ag-
gression and Violent Behavior, 8(4), 377–389. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00056-3

Klabbers, J. (2003). Interactive learning of what? In F. Percival, H. Godfrey, P. Laybourn, & S. Murray (Eds.), The
international simulation & gaming yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 257-266). Edinburgh, UK: Napier University

Klabbers, J. (2001). The Emerging Field of Simulation & Gaming: Meanings of a Retrospect. Simulation & Gaming,
32(4), 471–480. doi:10.1177/104687810103200404

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities & openness. The
Education Arcade, MIT. Retrieved from http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdf

Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambrigde, MA: MIT Press.
doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113151.001.0001

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities, & openness.
Boston, MA: The Education Arcade.

Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental Detectives - the development of an augmented reality platform for
environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203–228. doi:10.1007/s11423-
007-9037-6

Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Rivas, L. (2004). Comparative analysis of Palm and wearable computers for Participatory
Simulations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(5), 347–359. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00094.x

449
Compilation of References

Kluwe, R. H. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Animal mind
-- human mind (pp. 201–224). New York: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-68469-2_12

Koenig, A. D. (2008). Exploring effective educational video game design: The interplay between narrative and game-
schema construction. Dissertation Abstracts International. A, The Humanities and Social Sciences.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation &
Gaming, 40(3), 297–327. doi:10.1177/1046878108325713

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Kolers, P. A., & Perkins, D. N. (1975). Spatial and ordinal components of form perception and literacy. Cognitive Psy-
chology, 7(2), 228–267. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90011-0

Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003).
Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom: Putting learning by design
into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.

Korshak, S. D. (2009). Frank R. Paul: Father of science fiction art. Castle Books.

Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Sci-
ence, 31(4), 549–579. doi:10.1080/15326900701399897 PMID:21635308

Kramer, A. F., & Madden, D. J. (2008). Attention. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), Handbook of aging and
cognition III (pp. 189–249). New York: Psychology Press.

Kramer, M. W. (2010). Organizational socialization: Joining and leaving organizations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported col-
laborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. doi:10.1016/
S0747-5632(02)00057-2

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W., & van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.004

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., & Vermeulen, M. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework.
Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.750225

Kretzschmar, A. (2011). Training und Transfer des komplexen Probnlemlösens [Training and transfer of complex problem
solving]. (Unpublished master thesis). University of Magdeburg, Germany.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46.
doi:10.3102/0013189X028002016

LaBar, K. S., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., & Mesulam, M. (1999). Neuroanatomic overlap of working memory and
spatial attention networks: A functional MRI comparison within subjects. NeuroImage, 10(6), 695–704. doi:10.1006/
nimg.1999.0503 PMID:10600415

450
Compilation of References

Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle childhood. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1), 333–359. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.333 PMID:10074682

Laffey, J., Lin, G. Y., & Lin, Y. (2006). Assessing social ability in online learning environments. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 17(2), 163–177.

Lainema. (2004). Redesigning the Traditional Business Gaming Process – Aiming to Capture Business Process Authen-
ticity. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 35-52.

Laitinen, S. (2008). Usability and playability expert evaluation. In K. Isbister & N. Schaffer (Eds.), Game usability (pp.
91–111). Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), The production of reality (5th ed.; pp.
87–98). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2009). New directions in evaluating social problem solving in childhood:
Early precursors and links to adolescent social competence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
2009(123), 51–68. doi:10.1002/cd.235 PMID:19306274

Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Doukas, G. L., & Munton, S. M. (2005). Designing, implementing,
and evaluating social skills interventions for elementary students: Step-by-step procedures based on actual school-based
investigations. Preventing School Failure, 49(2), 18–26. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2005.10823217

Laru, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2012). Supporting small-group learning using multiple Web 2.0 tools: A case study
in the higher education context. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.08.004

Lau, S.-H., & Woods, P. C. (2009). Understanding learner acceptance of learning objects: The roles of learning object
characteristics and individual differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1059–1075. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2008.00893.x

Lave, J. (1998). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Laverack, G. (2012). Health activism. Health Promotion International, 27(4), 429–434. doi:10.1093/heapro/das044
PMID:22923451

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning:
Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.
doi:10.3102/0034654307309921

Lederer, A., Curtis, C. J., Silver, L. D., & Angell, S. Y. (2014). Toward a healthier city. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 46(4), 423–428. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.011 PMID:24650846

Lee, M.-C., & Tsai, T.-R. (2010). What drives people to continue to play online games? An extension of technol-
ogy model and Theory of Planned Behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(6), 601–620.
doi:10.1080/10447311003781318

Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., & Ootes, S. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulation. Netherlands: Uni-
versity of Twente. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/28235/1/review_of_educational.pdf

451
Compilation of References

Leemkuil, H., & de Jong, T. (2012). Adaptive advice in learning with a computer-based knowledge management simula-
tion game. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 653–665. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0141

Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Confusion and complex learning during interactions with computer
learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 184–194. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.01.002

Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition
and Instruction, 14(4), 441–486. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1404_2

Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. The American Psychologist, 40(1),
1–18. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.1.1

Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. B., & Mizell, A. P. (2003). Teaching and learning with technology. Boston, MA: Allen
& Brown.

Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations
of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(4),
337–359. doi:10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6

Lieberman, D. A., Biely, E., Thai, C. L., & Peinado, S. (2014). Transfer of learning from video game play to the classroom.
In F. C. Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Video gaming in education (pp. 189–203). New York: Oxford University
Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896646.003.0013

Li, L., & Campbell, J. (2010). Emotion modeling and interaction of NPCs in virtual simulation and games. The Inter-
national Journal of Virtual Reality, 9, 1–6.

Lillie-Blanton, M., Brodie, M., Rowland, D., Altman, D., & McIntosh, M. (2000). Race, ethnicity, and the health
care system: Public perceptions and experiences. Medical Care Research and Review, 57(4suppl 1), 218–235.
doi:10.1177/107755800773743664 PMID:11092164

Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., Arnab, S., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., & De Gloria, A. (2015). The LM-GM
framework for Serious Games Analysis. Retrieved October 3, 2015, from http://seriousgamessociety.org/download/
LMGM_framework.pdf

Linden, M., & Wittrock, M. C. (1981). Teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learn-
ing. Reading Quarterly, 17(1), 44–57. doi:10.2307/747248

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Li, R. J., Polat, U., Makous, W., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through action video
game training. Nature Neuroscience, 12(5), 549–551. doi:10.1038/nn.2296 PMID:19330003

Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational
problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907–1918. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002

Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R., & Lee, J. (2013). Using a Ludic Simulation to Make Learning of Middle
School Space Science Fun. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 5(1), 66–86.
doi:10.4018/jgcms.2013010105

452
Compilation of References

Liu, O. L., Bridgeman, B., & Adler, R. M. (2012). Measuring learning outcomes in higher education. Educational Re-
searcher, 41(9), 352–362. doi:10.3102/0013189X12459679

Li, Z. Z., Cheng, Y. B., & Liu, C. C. (2013). A constructionism framework for designing game-like learning systems:
Its effects on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 208–224. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2012.01305.x

Logtenberg, A., van Boxtel, C., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Stimulating situational interest and student questioning
through three types of historical introductory texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 179–198.
doi:10.1007/s10212-010-0041-6

Loh, C. S., Sheng, Y., & Ifenthaler, D. (2015). Serious games analytics: Theoretical framework. In C. S. Loh, Y. Sheng,
& D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Serious games analytics. methodologies for performance measurement, assessment, and improve-
ment (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05834-4_1

Louchart, S., & Aylett, R. (2004). Narrative theory and emergent interactive narrative. International Journal of Continu-
ing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 14(6), 506–518. doi:10.1504/IJCEELL.2004.006017

Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Effects of solving related proofs on memory and transfer to geometry problem
solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 366–378. doi:10.1037/0278-
7393.20.2.366 PMID:8151276

Lukacs, C. (2010). Fantasy genesis: A creativity game for fantasy artists. IMPACT Books.

Luke, J. J., Stein, J., Foutz, S., & Adams, M. (2007). Research to practice: Testing a tool for assessing critical thinking
in art museum programs. Journal of Museum Education, 32(2), 123–135. doi:10.1080/10598650.2007.11510564

MacCallum-Stewart, E. (2011). Stealth learning in online games. Digital Games and Learning (pp. 107–128). New
York: Continuum.

Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been, where we are, and
where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371–409. doi:10.1023/A:1024750807365

Magnussen, R., Hansen, S.D., & Planke, T. (2014). Games as a platform for student participation in authentic scientific
research. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(3), 259-270.

Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A Study of intrinsically motivating computer games. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude,
Learning, and Instruction, 3(1987), 223-253.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E.
Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol 3. Cognitive and affective process and analyses (pp.
223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Palo Alto,
CA: Xerox.

Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333–369.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2

Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6, 258–277.

453
Compilation of References

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In
R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp.
223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Manninen, T., & Korva, T. (2005). Designing puzzles for collaborative gaming experience - Case: eScape. In S. De
Castell & J. Jenson (Eds.), Selected Papers Proceedings of Digital Games Research Association’s Second International
Conference (pp. 233-247). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Digital Games Research Association.

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction
produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, M. (2003). Interaction design and children. Interacting with Computers, 15(2), 141–149.
doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00004-3

Marks, I. M., Cavanagh, K., & Gega, L. (2007). Hands-On Help: Computer-Aided Psychotherapy. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.

Martey, R. M., Kenski, K., Folkestad, J., Gordis, E., Feldman, L., Zhang, H., & Strzalkowski, T. et al. (2014). Mea-
suring game engagement: Multiple methods and construct complexity. Simulation & Gaming, 45(4-5), 528–547.
doi:10.1177/1046878114553575

Martin, A. J., Liem, G. A. D., Mok, M. M. C., & Xu, J. (2012). Problem solving and immigrant student mathematics and
science achievement: Multination findings from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Journal
of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1054–1073. doi:10.1037/a0029152

Martin, B. (2007). Activism, social and political. In G. L. Anderson & K. G. Herr (Eds.), Encyclopedia of activism and
social justice. London: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412956215.n12

Martin, G. R. R. (1996). A game of thrones. New York, NY: Bantam Spectra.

Martin, R. C. (2003). Agile software development, principles, patterns, and practices. New York: Pearson.

Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends in education: Seven
years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893–1906. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003

Maushak, N. J., Chen, H.-H., & Lai, H.-S. (November, 2001). Utilizing edutainment to actively engage K-12 learners
and promote students’ learning: An emergent phenomenon. In Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Practice
Papers at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Maxwell, N., Mergendoller, J., & Bellisimo, Y. (2004). Developing a problem-based learning simulation: An economics
unit on trade. Simulation & Gaming, 35(4), 488–498. doi:10.1177/1046878104264789

Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of edu-
cational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-
set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 96–109. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.96 PMID:11302371

McAteer, S. (2005). (X marks the spot.) So Y are games targeted at men? Connected Planet. Retrieved from http://con-
nectedplanetonline.com/wireless/commentary/wireless_marks_spot_games

454
Compilation of References

McCarthy-Tucker, T. S. N. (1998). Teaching logic to adolescents to improve thinking skills. Korean Journal of Thinking
& Problem Solving, 8(1), 45–66.

McCaughey, M., & Ayers, M. D. (2013). Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. New York: Routledge.

McClarty, K. L., Orr, A., Frey, P. M., Dolan, R. P., Vassileva, V., & McVay, A. (June, 2012). A Literature Review of
Gaming in Education. Pearson. Available online at: http://formative.persaonassessments.com/hai/Images/tmrs/Lit_Re-
view_of_Gaming_in_ Education.pdf

McClurg, P. A., & Chaillé, C. (1987). Computer games: Environments for developing spatial cognition. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 3, 95–111.

McCombs, M. (2002). The agenda-setting role of the mass media in the shaping of public opinion. In Mass Media Eco-
nomics 2002 Conference, London School of Economics. Retrieved from http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/
mccombs01.pdf

McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. TEEM (Teachers evaluat-
ing educational multimedia), Cambridge.

McGonigal, J. (2015). Superbetter. Penguin Press.

McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing college students’ critical thinking: A review of studies. Research in Higher Educa-
tion, 26(1), 3–29. doi:10.1007/BF00991931

McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to
construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793–823. doi:10.1002/tea.20430

McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10–12.
doi:10.3102/0013189X019004010

McQuiggan, S., Rowe, J., Lee, S., & Lester, J. (2008). Story-based learning: the impact of narrative on learning experi-
ences and outcomes. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 530-539).
doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_56

Meadan, H., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2008). Collaboration to promote social competence for students with mild disabilities
in the general classroom: A structure for providing social support. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 158–167.
doi:10.1177/1053451207311617

Medeiros-Ward, N., Cooper, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2014). Hierarchical control and driving. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 143(3), 953–958. doi:10.1037/a0035097 PMID:24274320

Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ): A brief self-report
measure of fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 987–995. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00201-4

Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train and inform. Boston, MA: Thomson Course
Technology.

Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Boston, MA: Thomson Course
Technology.

Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1957). The description of spatial-visualization abili-
ties. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17(2), 185–199. doi:10.1177/001316445701700202

Miell, D., & Littleton, K. (2008). Musical collaboration outside school: Processes of negotiation in band rehearsals.
International Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.006

455
Compilation of References

Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-
virtuality continuum. SPIE (Vol. 2351). Telemanipulator and Telepresence.

Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergradu-
ates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141–152. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.012

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing informa-
tion. Psychological Review, 63(1), 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158 PMID:13310704

Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141–145.
doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9 PMID:12639696

Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature.
Learning and Skills Development Agency. Retrieved from http://www.m-learning.org/docs/The%20use%20of%20com-
puter%20and%20video%20games%20for%20learning.pdf

Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory,
executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 130(4), 621–640. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621 PMID:11757872

Modern Dream. (2013). The Typing of the Dead: Overkill. Modern Dream. Retrieved from: http://thebuttonexperiment.
com/ModernDream/games.htm

Mojang. (2009). Minecraft. Stockholm, Sweden: Mojang. Retrieved from https://minecraft.net/

Montemayor, J., Druin, A., Farber, A., Simms, S., Churaman, W., & D’Amour, A. (2002). Physical programming: design-
ing tools for children to create physical interactive environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 299–306). ACM. doi:10.1145/503376.503430

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117

Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Gill, D., & Romig, C. (2013). Gaming science: The “Gamification of scientific
thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00607 PMID:24058354

Moser, C., Fuchsberger, V., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). Using probes to create child personas for games.Proceedings of the
8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Lisbon, Portugal. New York, NY:
ACM. doi:10.1145/2071423.2071472

Muehrer, R., Jenson, J., Friedberg, J., & Husain, N. (2012). Challenges and opportunities: Using a science-based video
game in secondary school settings. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 783–805. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9409-z

Muilenberg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barrier to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education,
26(1), 29–48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269

Mumaw, R. J., Pellegrino, J. W., Kail, R. V., & Carter, P. (1984). Different slopes for different folks: Process analysis of
spatial aptitude. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 515–521. doi:10.3758/BF03198314 PMID:6521654

456
Compilation of References

Muntean, C. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In The 6th International Conference on
Virtual Learning ICVL 2011.

Murdoch, J. R., Bainbridge, L. C., Fisher, S. G., & Webster, M. H. C. (1994). Can a simple test of visual motor skill predict
the performance of microsurgeons? Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 39, 150–152. PMID:7932332

Murphy, K., McKone, E., & Slee, J. (2003). Dissociations between implicit and explicit memory in children: The role of
strategic processing and the knowledge base. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84(2), 124–165. doi:10.1016/
S0022-0965(03)00002-X PMID:12609496

Nacke, L. E., & Lindley, C. A. (2010). Affective ludology, flow and immersion in a first-person shooter: Measurement
of player experience. Arxiv Preprint arXiv, 12(31), 248-255.

Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C., Carpenter, E. M., & Newman, J. E. (2002). Social skills training as a treatment for aggres-
sive children and adolescents: A developmental-clinical integration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(2), 169–199.
doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00040-9

National Research Council. (2011). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a workshop of
pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations (M. A. Honey & M.
L. Hilton, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy press, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education.

National Research Council. (2011). Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations. Committee on Science
Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, Margaret A. Honey and Margaret L. Hilton, Eds. Board on Science
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Navarrete, C. C. (2013). Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case Study. Computers & Educa-
tion, 69, 320–331. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.025

Nelson, N. (2013). Hard-core and casual gamers play in different worlds. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/
alltechconsidered/2013/11/29/246747168/hard-core-and-casual-gamers-play-in-different-worlds

Nelson, B. C. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual envi-
ronment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9039-x

Neubauer, A. C., Bergner, S., & Schatz, M. (2010). Two- vs. three-dimensional presentation of mental rotation tasks:
Sex differences and effects of training on performance and brain activation. Intelligence, 38(5), 529–539. doi:10.1016/j.
intell.2010.06.001 PMID:20953415

Neves, D. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1981). Knowledge compilation: Mechanisms for the automatization of cognitive skills.
In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 52–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson
(Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

NewZoo. (2013). Supercell vs King: How do Clash of Clans and Candy Crush gamers compare? Retrieved from http://
www.newzoo.com/insights/supercell-vs-king-how-do-their-gamers-compare/

Nguyen, T. N. (2015). Motivational effect of web-based simulation game in teaching operations management. Journal
of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 9–15. doi:10.11114/jets.v3i2.565

457
Compilation of References

Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In Games+Learning+Society

8.0, Madison, WI.

Nicholson, R. (1981). The relationship between memory span and processing speed. In M. Friedman, J. P. Das, & N.
O’Connor (Eds.), Intelligence and Learning (pp. 179–184). New York: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-1083-9_16

Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25–64).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffman, K. F. (2014). Self-Regulation and Gender Within a Game-Based Learning
Environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 961–973. doi:10.1037/a0037116

Niu, L., Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Garvan, C. W. (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students’
critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical
texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492

Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1),
44–64. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3

Norris, N. (1997). Error, bias and validity in qualitative research. Educational Action Research, 5(1), 172–176.
doi:10.1080/09650799700200020

Nousiainen, T. (2009). Children’s involvement in the design of game-based learning environments. In M. Kankaanranta
& P. Neittaanmäki (Eds.), Design and use of serious games (pp. 49–66). New York: Springer Science. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4020-9496-5_4

NRC. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National
Research Council: Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press.

Nussbaum, M., Szewkis, E., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., & Alcoholado, C. et al. (2011). Collabora-
tion within large groups in the classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4),
561–575. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9123-y

Nworie, J., & Haughton, N. (2008). The unintended consequences of the application of technology in teaching and
learning environments. TechTrends, 52(5), 52–58. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0197-y

O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K., Kerr, D., Vendlinski, T. P., Buschang, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Adding self-explanation
prompts to an educational computer game. Computers in Human Behavior, 3023–3028.

OECD. (2014). Pisa 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems (Vol. 5).
Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1994). Effects of video game playing on measures of spatial performance: Gender effects
in late adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 33–58. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90005-1

Oksanen, K. (2014). Serious game design: Supporting collaborative learning and investigating learners’ experiences.
University of Jyväskylä. Finnish Institute for Educational Research.

Oksanen, K. (2013). Subjective experience and sociability in a collaborative serious game. Simulation & Gaming, 44(6),
767–793. doi:10.1177/1046878113513079

458
Compilation of References

Oksanen, K., & Hämäläinen, R. (2013). Perceived sociability and social presence in a collaborative serious game. In-
ternational Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 34–50. doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2013010103

Oksanen, K., & Hämäläinen, R. (2014). Game mechanics in the design of a collaborative 3D serious game. Simulation
& Gaming, 45(2), 255–278.

Oksanen, K., & Hämäläinen, R. (2014). Game mechanics in the design of a collaborative 3d serious game. Simulation
& Gaming, 45(2), 255–278. doi:10.1177/1046878114530799

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place. New York: Parragon Books.

Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review of General
Psychology, 14(2), 180–187. doi:10.1037/a0018984

O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S.-H., & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the computer-based assessment of collaborative prob-
lem solving. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 361–373. doi:10.1080/0969594032000148190

O’Neil, H. F., & Perez, R. S. (2008). Computer games and team and individual learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer
games literature. Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474. doi:10.1080/09585170500384529

Ooi, Y. P., Ang, R. P., Fung, D., Wong, G., & Cai, Y. (2007). Effects of CBT on children with disruptive behaviour
disorders: Findings from a Singapore study. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 8, 71–81.

Ooi, Y. P., Ang, R. P., & Lim-Ashworth, N. (2015). Effective anger management for children and youth: The manual.
Singapore: World Scientific.

Ortner, T. M., & Sieverding, M. (2008). Where are the gender differences? Male priming boosts spatial skills in women.
Sex Roles, 59(3-4), 274–281. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9448-9

Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. New York: New American Library.

Osgood, C. E. (1949). The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution. Psychological Review, 56(3), 132–143.
doi:10.1037/h0057488 PMID:18139121

Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine
mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.

Paavilainen, J. (2003). Mobile games: Creating business with Nokia N-gage. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.

Pagulayan, R., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R., & Fuller, T. (2003). User-centered design in games. In J. A. Jacko
& A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging ap-
plications (pp. 883–905). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.
doi:10.3102/00346543066004543

Paley, V. G. (1993). You can’t say you can’t play. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school Computer Science education: Impact on educa-
tional effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004

459
Compilation of References

Paraskeva, F., Mysirlaki, S., & Papagianni, A. (2010). Multiplayer online games as educational tools: Facing new chal-
lenges in learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 498–505. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.001

Pardo, S., Howard, S., & Vetere, F. (2008). Child-centered evaluation: Broadening the child/designer dyad. Advances in
Human-Computer Interaction, 2008, 1–9. doi:10.1155/2008/597629

Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration
and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development,
60(5), 723–751. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk?
Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357 PMID:3317467

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group accep-
tance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611–621. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.29.4.611

Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children’s learning and motivation: Making learning
more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 625–633. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.625 PMID:1583588

Park, H.-Y., & Chang, S.-G. (2004). Mobile network evolution toward IMT-2000 in Korea: A techno-economic analysis.
Telecommunications Policy, 28(2), 177–196. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2003.12.004

Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Edmonton, Canada:
University of Alberta.

Parsons, S., Leonard, A., & Mitchell, P. (2006). Virtual environments for social skills training: Comments from two ado-
lescents with autistic spectrum disorder. Computers & Education, 47(2), 186–206. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.003

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved
from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

Patel, B. (2007). Designing children’s multimedia. In S. Kurniawan & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Advances in universal web design
and evaluation: Research, trends and opportunities (pp. 43–72). London: University of Cambridge. doi:10.4018/978-
1-59904-096-7.ch003

Pausch, R., & Marinelli, D. (2007). Carnegie Mellon’s entertainment technology center: Combining the left and right
brain. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 50–57. doi:10.1145/1272516.1272539

Pea, R. D., Tinker, R., Linn, M., Means, B., Bransford, J., Roschelle, J., & Songer, N. et al. (1999). Toward a learning
technologies knowledge network. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 19–38. doi:10.1007/
BF02299463

Peck, C., & Seixas, P. (2008). Benchmarks of historical thinking: First steps. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(4),
1015–1038.

Pekrun, R. (2006). The control–value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for
educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo & S. D’Mello (Eds.), New
Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (pp. 23–39). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3

460
Compilation of References

Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control–value theory of achievement emotions: An inte-
grative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4

Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2010). Achievement emotions. A control-value approach. Social and Personality Psychol-
ogy Compass, 4(4), 238–255. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00259.x

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional development effec-
tive? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
doi:10.3102/0002831207308221

Peppler, K., Danish, J., Zatilen, B., Glosson, D., Jacobs, A., & Phelps, D. (2010). BeeSim: Leveraging Wearable Comput-
ers in Participatory Simulations with Young Children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction
Design and Children. Retrieved from http://www.kpeppler.com/Docs/2010_Peppler_BeeSim.pdf

Peppler, K., & Danish, J. (2013). E-textiles for educators: Participatory simulations with e-puppetry. In Textile messages:
Dispatches from the world of e-textiles and education (pp. 133–141). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Perez, L. A., Peynircioğlu, Z. F., & Blaxton, T. A. (1998). Developmental differences in implicit and explicit memory
performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(3), 167–185. doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2449 PMID:9742178

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Georgi, M. C., & Mason, R. A. (1994). How students use texts to learn and
reason about historical uncertainty. In M. Carretero & J. F. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history
and the social sciences (pp. 257–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp
& S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H., & Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based learning: Latest evidence and future
directions. Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 58(3), 193–198. doi:10.1037/h0049234 PMID:14432252

Petranek, C. (1994). A Maturation in Experiential Learning: Principles of Simulation and Gaming. Simulation & Gam-
ing, 25(4), 513–523. doi:10.1177/1046878194254008

Philips, C. A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Home video game playing in schoolchildren: A study of
incidence and pattern of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18(6), 687–691. doi:10.1006/jado.1995.1049

Pill, S. (2014). Game play: What does it mean for pedagogy to think like a game developer? Journal of Physical Educa-
tion, Recreation & Dance, 85(1), 9–15. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.838119

Pillsbury, W. B. (1908). The effects of training on memory. Educational Review, 36, 15–27.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Hayward, E. O., Frye, J., Huang, T. T., Biles, M., & Perlin, K. et al. (2012). The effect of
learning mechanics design on learning outcomes in a computer-based geometry game. In E-Learning and Games for
Training, Education, Health and Sports (pp. 65–71). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33466-5_7

461
Compilation of References

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2012). Design thinking research: Studying co-creation in practice. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer-Verlag.

PlayPhone. (2014). Mobile gaming’s biggest spenders are adults 25 to 39; Middle aged women still dominate mobile
gaming. Retrieved from http://www.financialmirror.com/newsml_story.php?id=16805

Poitras, E., & Lajoie, S. (2013). A domain-specific account of self-regulated learning: The cognitive and metacognitive
activities involved in learning through historical inquiry. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 213–234. doi:10.1007/
s11409-013-9104-9

Poitras, E., & Lajoie, S. (2014). Developing an agent-based adaptive system for scaffolding self-regulated inquiry learning
in history education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 335–366. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9338-5

Poitras, E., Lajoie, S., & Hong, Y.-J. (2012). The design of technology-rich learning environments as metacognitive tools
in history education. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1033–1061. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9194-1

Pope, N., Hammonds, L., & Meira, A. (2014). Gamification and Faculty Development: Practices from a Pilot Program.
Paper presented at Sloan C 7th Annual International Symposium Emerging Technologies for Online Learning, Dallas, TX.

Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2014). Developing attention and self-regulation in childhood. In A. C.
Nobre & K. Sabine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of attention (pp. 541–569). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Powers, K. L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., Palladino, M. A., & Alfieri, L. (2013). Effects of video-game play on in-
formation processing: A meta-analytic investigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1055–1079. doi:10.3758/
s13423-013-0418-z PMID:23519430

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York, NY: Wiley.

Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences
for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015

Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. Handbook of Computer Game Stud-
ies, 18, 97-122.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Price, S., Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Stanton, D., & Neale, H. (2003). Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful
learning. Interacting with Computers, 15(2), 169–185. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00006-7

Protano, C., & Vitali, M. (2011). The new danger of thirdhand smoke: Why passive smoking does not stop at secondhand
smoke. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(10), a422–a422. doi:10.1289/ehp.1103956 PMID:21968336

Provost, A., Johnson, B., Karayanidis, F., Brown, S. D., & Heathecote, A. (2013). Two routes to expertise in mental
rotation. Cognitive Science, 37(7), 1321–1342. doi:10.1111/cogs.12042 PMID:23676091

Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world
matter? Developmental Science, 14(6), 1417–1430. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01088.x PMID:22010900

Przybylski, A. K., Scott, C., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General
Psychology, 14(2), 154–166. doi:10.1037/a0019440

Pujol, L., Katifori, A., Vayanou, M., Roussou, M., Karvounis, M., Kyriakidi, M., . . . Ioannidis, Y. (2013). From per-
sonalization to adaptivity. Creating immersive visits through interactive digital storytelling at the Acropolis Museum.
In J. A. Botía & D. Charitos (Eds.), Museums as intelligent environments workshop (MasIE),Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Intelligent Environments (pp. 541-554). Athens, Greece: IOS Press.

462
Compilation of References

Pütz, M., & Verspoor, M. (2000). Explorations in linguistic relativity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
doi:10.1075/cilt.199

Quaiser-Pohl, C., Geiser, C., & Lehmann, W. (2006). The relationship between computer-game preference, gender, and
mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(3), 609–619. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.015

Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between statistics word
problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 325–342. doi:10.1002/acp.796

Quinn, M. M., Kavale, K. A., Mathur, S. R., Rutherford, J. R. B., & Forness, S. R. (1999). A meta-analysis of social
skill interventions for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
7(1), 54–64. doi:10.1177/106342669900700106

Ramalingam, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1998). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy
scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 367.

Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Random House.

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational pur-
poses: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276. doi:10.1177/1046878192233001

Reed, S. K. (2013). Problem solving. In S. Chipman (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Reed, S., Dempster, A., & Ettinger, M. (1985). Usefullness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 106–125.

Reese, D. D., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2010). The moment of learning: Quantitative analysis of exemplar gameplay supports
CyGaMEs approach to embedded assessment. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness,
Washington, DC.

Reichart, B., & Bruegge, B. (2014). Social interaction patterns for learning in serious games. In Proceedings of the 19th
European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (pp. 1-7). ACM. doi:10.1145/2721956.2721985

Rennick-Egglestone, S. J., Roussou, M., Brundell, P., Chaffardon, C., Kourtis, V., Koleva, B., & Benford, S. (2013).
Indoors and outdoors: designing mobile experiences for Cité de l’Espace. InNODEM (Network of Design and Digital
Heritage) 2013 Conference: Beyond Control – The Collaborative Museum and its Challenges (pp. 89–97).

Repenning, A., Webb, D.C., & Koh, K.H. (2015). Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science
education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 15(2),
Article 11.

Resendes, M., Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Chen, B., & Halewood, C. (2015). Group-level formative feedback and
metadiscourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 309–336. doi:10.1007/
s11412-015-9219-x

Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (1996). The Computer Clubhouse: Preparing for life in a digital world. IBM Systems Journal,
35(3-4), 431–439.

Resnick, L. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.

Resnick, M. (1999). Decentralized modeling and decentralized thinking. In Modeling and simulation in science and
mathematics education (pp. 114–137). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1414-4_5

463
Compilation of References

Reuter, C., Göbel, S., & Steinmetz, R. (2014). A Collection of Collaborative Player Interaction Patterns. TU Darmstadt,
Multimedia Communications Lab.

Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
15(1), 87–100.

Richards, J., Stebbins, L., & Moellering, K. (2013). Games for a digital age: K-12 market map and investment analysis.
Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, New York, NY.

Richert, R. A. (2003). Solving analogies in a fantastical context: Preschoolers’ ability to transfer solutions from fantasy
to reality. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia.

Richert, R. A., & Smith, E. I. (2011). Preschoolers’ Quarantining of Fantasy Stories. Child Development, 82(4), 1106–1119.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01603.x PMID:21679170

Rieber, L., & Noah, D. (2008). Games, simulations, and visual metaphors in education: Antagonism between enjoyment
and learning. Educational Media International, 45(2), 77–92. doi:10.1080/09523980802107096

Riesbeck, C. K., & Schank, R. C. (1989). Inside case-based reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Riesenmy, M. R., Mitchell, S., Hudgins, B. B., & Ebel, D. (1991). Retention and transfer of children’s self-directed critical
thinking skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(1), 14–25. doi:10.1080/00220671.1991.10702808

Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Introduction. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious
games: Mechanics and effects (pp. 3–9). New York: Routledge.

Robertson, B. (1992). Techniques of fantasy art. London: Macdonald and Co (Publishers) Ltd.

Rocha, J. B., Mascarenhas, S., & Prada, R. (2008). Game mechanics for cooperative games. In N. Zagalo & R. Prada
(Eds.), Actas da Conferência ZO. Digit. Games 2008 (pp. 73–80). Porto, Portugal: Universidade do Minho.

Rockwell, G., Henry, C., deJong, E., Lucky, S., Illovan, M., Gutierrez, L., & Stroulia, E. et al. (2013). Campus Mysteries:
Serious walking around. Loading…. The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 7(12), 1–18.

Rogers, Y., & Muller, H. (2006). A framework for designing sensor-based interactions to promote exploration and reflec-
tion in play. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.05.004

Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2006). Using ubiquitous computing to extend and enhance learning experiences. In M. van ¨et
Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact (pp. 329–347). Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). Children’s engagement during digital game-based learning
of reading: The effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Computers & Education, 71, 237–246.

Rosario, R. A. M., & Widmever, G. R. (2009). An exploratory review of design principles in constructivist gaming
learning environments. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 289–300.

Roscoe, R. D., Segedy, J. R., Sulcer, B., Jeong, H., & Biswas, G. (2013). Shallow strategy development in a teachable
agent environment designed to support self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 62, 286–297. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.11.008

464
Compilation of References

Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1997). The role of working memory in retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 126(3), 211–227. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.126.3.211 PMID:9281831

Rosen, V. M., & Engle, R. W. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression. Journal of Memory and Language,
39(3), 418–436. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2590

Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of video games on
training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of Surgery, 142(2), 181–186. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.2.181 PMID:17309970

Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., … Glaisyer, T. (2011). From slacktivism to activism:
Participatory culture in the age of social media. In CHI ’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 819–822). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/ doi:<ALIGNMENT.qj></ALIGNMENT>10.1145/1979742.1979543

Rouet, J.-F., Marron, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Favart, M. (1998). Understanding historical controversies: Students evalu-
ation and use of documentary evidence. In J. Voss & M. Carretero (Eds.) International Review of History Education:
Volume 2, Learning and Reasoning in History. London: Woburn Press.

Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about
history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478

Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual
Conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education.

Roussou, M., Katifori, A., Pujol, L., Vayanou, M., & Rennick-Egglestone, S. (2013). A life of their own: Museum visitor
personas penetrating the design lifecycle of a mobile experience. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts:ACM SIGCHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings (pp. 547–52). New York, NY: ACM.

Rowling, J. K. (2005). Harry potter and the half-blood prince. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Rumas, N. (2007). The state of Korea: Console games. Gamasutra. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/
feature/130020/the_state_of_korea_console_games.php

Ruohomäki, V. (2003). Simulation Gaming for Organizational Development. Simulation & Gaming, 34(4), 531–549.
doi:10.1177/1046878103258203

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-
opment, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 PMID:11392867

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 PMID:10620381

Ryan, R., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory
approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8

Sabourin, J. L., & Lester, J. C. (2014). Affect and engagement in game-based learning environments. Affective Comput-
ing. IEEE Transactions on, 5(1), 45–56.

Sabourin, J. L., Shores, L. R., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Understanding and predicting student self-regulated
learning strategies in game-based learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,
23(1-4), 94–114. doi:10.1007/s40593-013-0004-6

Saidin, N. F., Halim, N. D. A., & Yahaya, N. (2015). A review of research on augmented reality in education: Advantages
and applications. International Education Studies, 8(13), 1–8. doi:10.5539/ies.v8n13p1

465
Compilation of References

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon.
Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1

Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103(3),
403–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.403 PMID:8759042

Sánchez, J. L. G., Zea, N. P., & Gutiérrez, F. L. (2009). From usability to playability: Introduction to player-centred video
game development process. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human Centered Design (Vol. 5619, pp. 65–74). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_9

Sánchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Computers & Educa-
tion, 57(3), 1943–1952. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.012

Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3

Sandoval, W. A. (2013). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 1–19. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.778204

Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.

Sawyer, B., & Smith, P. (2008). Serious Game Taxonomy. Paper presented at the Serious Game Summit 2008, San
Francisco, CA.

Scattone, D. (2007). Social skills interventions for children with autism. Psychology in the Schools, 44(7), 717–726.
doi:10.1002/pits.20260

Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 13(3), 501–518. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.3.501

Schank, R. C. (1991). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Northwestern University Press.

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Schank, R. C., & Berman, T. (2006). Living stories: Designing story-based educational experiences. Narrative Inquiry,
16(1), 220–228. doi:10.1075/ni.16.1.27sch

Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. New York: First Mariner Books.

Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story: How story impacts emotional, motiva-
tional, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 361–375.

Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. (2012). Learning in educational computer games for novices: The impact of support provi-
sion types on virtual presence, cognitive load, and learning outcomes. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 13(3), 206–227.

466
Compilation of References

Schrader, P. G., & McCreery, M. (2008). The acquisition of skill and expertise in massively multiplayer online games.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 557–574. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9055-4

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 13(3), 211–224. doi:10.1023/A:1016619705184

Schrier, K. (2008). Reliving history with Reliving the Revolution: Using augmented reality games to teach. In R. Ferdig
(Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: IGI. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-
808-6.ch085

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist,
32(4), 195–208. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204_1

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writ-
ing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/10573560600837578

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522. doi:10.1207/
s1532690xci1604_4

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating previously success-
ful routines with needs for new learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204–214. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.696317

Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285

Sedig, K. (2008). From play to thoughtful learning: A design strategy to engage children with mathematical representa-
tions. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 65–101.

Segrin, C. (2000). Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(3), 379–403.
doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00104-4 PMID:10779900

Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Aus-
tralian Science Teachers Journal, 46, 21–28.

Seok, S., & DaCosta, B. (2012). The world’s most intense online gaming culture: Addiction and high-engagement
prevalence rates among South Korean adolescents and young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2143–2151.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.019

Seok, S., & DaCosta, B. (2014). Distinguishing addiction from high engagement: An investigation into the social
lives of adolescent and young adult massively multiplayer online game players. Games and Culture, 9(4), 227–254.
doi:10.1177/1555412014538811

Serious Game Market. (2015) Forecast to 2020. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://goo.gl/0Y5Pst

Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved April 2008 from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/
vol1_issue6/Epistemic_Games.pdf

Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1057/9780230601994

467
Compilation of References

Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., & Mislevy, R. et al. (2009). Epistemic
network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media,
1(2), 33–53. doi:10.1162/ijlm.2009.0013

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 87(2), 104–111. doi:10.1177/003172170508700205

Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing:
An individual differences approach. Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1), 4–27. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.1.4
PMID:8851737

Shapiro, R. B., & Ossorio, P. N. (2013). Regulation of online social network studies. Science, 339(6116), 144–145.
doi:10.1126/science.1219025 PMID:23307724

Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning
Environments, 15(1), 27–46. doi:10.1080/10494820600996972

Sharwood, S. (2014). Women are too expensive to draw and code -- Ubisoft. The Register. Retrieved from http://www.
theregister.co.uk/2014/06/12/women_are_too_expensive_to_draw_and_code_says_ubisoft/

Shaw, R. E., Kadar, E., Sim, M., & Repperger, D. W. (1992). The intentional spring: A strategy for modeling systems
that learn to perform intentional acts. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(1), 3–28. doi:10.1080/00222895.1992.9941598
PMID:14766495

Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(1),
102–106. doi:10.3758/BF03210780

Shen, K. N., Yu, A. Y., & Khalifa, M. (2006). Supporting social interaction in virtual communities: Role of social pres-
ence. In Proceedings of the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 4461-4469). ALS Electronic Library.

Sherry, J. L., Lucas, K., Greenberg, B., & Lachlan, K. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use
and game preference. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing computer games: Motives, responses, and consequences
(pp. 248–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Atkinson, R. C. (1969). Storage and retrieval processes in long-term memory. Psychological Review,
76(2), 179–193. doi:10.1037/h0027277

Shin, D.-H. (2009). An empirical investigation of a modified technology acceptance model of IPTV. Behaviour & In-
formation Technology, 28(4), 361–372. doi:10.1080/01449290701814232

Shiratuddin, N., & Landoni, M. (2002). Evaluation of content activities in children’s educational software. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 25(2), 175–182. doi:10.1016/S0149-7189(02)00011-3

Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interac-
tion (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shute, V. J. (2013). Stealth assessment: Measuring and supporting learning in video games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

468
Compilation of References

Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2011). Does playing the World of Goo facilitate learning? In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research
on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 359–387). New
York, NY: Routledge Books.

Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Kim, Y. J. (2013). Assessment and Learning of Qualitative Physics in Newton’s Playground.
The Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 423–430. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.832970

Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2012). Adaptive educational systems. In P. Durlach (Ed.), Adaptive technologies for
training and education (pp. 7–27). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139049580.004

Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2), 1–14.

Siegler, R. S. (1978). The origins of scientific reasoning. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops?
(pp. 109–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Siegler, R. S. (1998). Children’s Thinking (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Simon, B., Boudreau, K., & Silverman, M. (2009). Two players: Biography and ‘played sociality in EverQuest. Game
Studies, 9(1). Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/0901/articles/simon_boudreau_silverman

Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Healthy mind, healthy habits: The influence
of activity involvement in middle childhood. In A. C. Huston & M. N. Ripke (Eds.), Developmental contexts in middle
childhood (pp. 283–302). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499760.015

Sims, V., & Mayer, E. (2002). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: The case of the video game players. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 97–115. doi:10.1002/acp.759

Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in
science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924

Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). The transfer of text-editing skill. International Journal of Man-Machine Stud-
ies, 22(4), 403–423. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(85)80047-X

Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Slota, S. T., & Young, M. F. (2014). Think games on the fly, not gamify: Issues in game-based learning research. Journal
of Graduate Medical Education. Retrieved from: http://www.jgme.org/doi/pdf/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00483.1

Slota, S. T., Ballestrini, K., & Pearsall, M. (2013). Learning through Operation LAPIS: A game-based approach to the
Latin classroom. The Language Educator. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved from:
http://www.practomime.com/pdf/tle_art.pdf

Slota, S. T., Young, M. F., & Travis, R. (2013). The inevitability of epic fail: An investigation of implementation problems
associated with technology-rich research innovations. GLS 9.0 Conference Proceedings.

Small, M. Y., & Morton, M. E. (1983). Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic chemistry. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 13(1), 41–43.

Smyrnaious, Z., Moustaki, F., & Chronis, K. (2012). Students’ constructionist game modeling activities as part of inquiry
learning processes. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(2), 235-248.

Snyder, C. (2003). Paper prototyping: The fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. San Diego, CA:
Morgan Kaufmann.

469
Compilation of References

Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., Keller, U., & Martin, R. (2014). Differential relations between facets of complex problem
solving and students’ immigration background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 681–695. doi:10.1037/a0035506

Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2013). Students’ complex problem-solving abilities: Their structure
and relations to reasoning ability and educational success. Intelligence, 41(5), 289–305. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.002

Sonnleitner, P., Keller, U., Martin, R., Latour, T., & Brunner, M. (in press). Assessing complex problem solving in the
classroom: Meeting challenges and opportunities. In B. Csapó & J. Funke (Eds.), The nature of problem solving. Paris,
France: OECD.

Sorby, S. A. (2009). Education research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal
of Science Education, 31(3), 459–480. doi:10.1080/09500690802595839

Sparrowhawk, A. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. Education and Skills, 33(3), 26. Retrieved from http://
www.teem.org.uk/publications/teem_gamesined_full.pdf

Spector, J. M., Dennen, V. P., & Koszalka, T. A. (2006). Causal maps, mental models and assessing acquisition of ex-
pertise. Technology, Instruction. Cognition and Learning, 3(2), 167–183.

Spence, I., & Feng, J. (2010). Video games and spatial cognition. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 92–104.
doi:10.1037/a0019491

Spence, I., Yu, J. J., Feng, J., & Marshman, J. (2009). Women match men when learning a spatial skill. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 1097–1103. doi:10.1037/a0015641 PMID:19586273

Spence, S. H. (2003). Social skills training with children and young people: Theory, evidence and practice. Child and
Adolescent Mental Health, 8(2), 84–96. doi:10.1111/1475-3588.00051

Spence, S. H., Donovan, C., & Brechman-Toussaint, M. (2000). The treatment of childhood social phobia: The effectiveness
of a social skills training-based, cognitive-behavioural intervention, with and without parental involvement. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 41(6), 713–726. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00659 PMID:11039684

Spikol, D., & Milrad, M. (2008). Physical activities and playful learning using mobile games. Research and Practice in
Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 275–295. doi:10.1142/S1793206808000562

Spillet, M. A. (2003). Peer debriefing: Who, what, when, why, how. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(3), 2529–2532.

Spinks, A. (2011). Terraria. Re-Logic Games. Retrieved from http://www.terraria.org/

Squire, K. D. (2003). Gameplay in context: Learning through participation in communities of civilization III players.
(Unpublished PhD thesis). Instructional Systems Technology Department, Indiana University.

Squire, K., & Patterson, N. (2009). Games and simulations in informal science education. Paper commissioned for
the National Research Council Workshop on Gaming and Simulations, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www7.
nationalacademies.org/bose/Gaming_Sims_Commissioned_Papers.html

Squire, K., Mutlu, B., Ferris, M., Shapiro, B., & Montague, E. (2012). DIP: BioSourcing: A crowdsourcing approach
to increasing public understanding in computational biosciences. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1227530&HistoricalAwards=false

Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming, 2, 49–62.

470
Compilation of References

Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning for the interactive Age. In K. Salen (Ed.),
The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games and learning (pp. 167–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Squire, K. (2010). From information to experience: Place-based augmented reality games as a model for learning in a
globally networked society. Teachers College Record, 112(10), 2565–2602.

Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. (Technology, Educa-
tion -- Connections. The TEC series.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Squire, K. D. (2008). Video game–based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 21(2), 7–36. doi:10.1002/piq.20020

Squire, K. D. (2008). Video games and education: Designing learning systems for an interactive age. Educational Tech-
nology, 48(2), 17–26.

Squire, K. D., Jan, M., Mathews, J., Wagler, M., Martin, J., Devane, B., & Holden, C. (2007). Wherever you go, there
you are: The design of local games for learning. In B. Sheldon & D. Wiley (Eds.), The design and use of simulation
computer games in education (pp. 265–296). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishing.

Squire, K., & Barab, S. (2004). Replaying history: engaging urban underserved students in learning world history through
computer simulation games. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning sciences (pp. 505-512).
Santa Monica, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based aug-
mented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29. doi:10.1007/
s10956-006-9037-z

Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sci-
ences, 16(3), 371–413. doi:10.1080/10508400701413435

Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In Computer-supported col-
laborative learning, Vol 3. What we know about CSCL. and implementing it in higher education (pp. 53-85). Boston,
MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stahl, G. (2015). A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(4),
337–344. doi:10.1007/s11412-015-9222-2

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read
multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5

Staib, S. (2003). Teaching and measuring critical thinking. The Journal of Nursing Education, 42(11), 498–508. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=507862441&site=ehost-live PMID:14626388

Steele, S., & Price, J. (2007). Applied sociology: Terms, topics, tools, and tasks (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Steinkuehler, C. (2010). Video games and digital literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 61–63.
doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.1.7

Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the
digital age. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139031127

Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Reasoning, problem solving, and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human
intelligence (pp. 225–351). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

471
Compilation of References

Stewart, P. M. (2013). Learning the rules of the game: The nature of game and classroom supports when using a concept-
integrated digital physics game in the middle school science classroom. (Ph.D. Dissertation). Columbia University.

Stieff, M. (2011). When is a molecule three-dimensional? A task-specific role for imagistic reasoning in advanced
chemistry. Science Education, 95(2), 310–336. doi:10.1002/sce.20427

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007). Attention. In F. Durson, R. Nickerson, S. Dumais, S. Lewandowsky, & T. Perfect
(Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition II (pp. 29–54). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470713181.ch2

Strijbos, J. W., & De Laat, M. (2010). Developing the role concept for computer-supported collaborative learning: An
explorative synthesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 495–505. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.014

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies in interference in serial verbal recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.
doi:10.1037/h0054651

Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 13–32. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3

Suits, B. (2005). Construction of a definition. The Game Design Reader, 172–191.

Suits, B. H. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto: University of Tronto Press.

Sung, H.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning
performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63(4), 43–51. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019

SuperData. (2015). MMO Market Report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-

market/

Susaeta, H., Jimenez, F., Nussbaum, M., Gajardo, I., Andreu, J., & Villalta, M. (2010). From MMORP to a classroom
multiplayer presential role playing game. Education Technology & Society, 13(3), 257–269.

Susi, T., Johanesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games - An overview (Technical Report). Skövde, Sweden:
University of Skövde.

Suter, W. N. (2012). Qualitative data, analysis, and design. Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking
approach (2nd ed., pp. 342–386). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Sweeney, L. B. (2012). Learning to Connect the Dots: Developing Children’s Systems Literacy. Solutions, 5(3), 55–62.

Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model of evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in
Entertainment, 3(3), 3. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4),
295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439–471. doi:10.1037/
a0033138 PMID:23750831

Tabary, Z. (2015, April 20). The skills agenda: Preparing students for the future. The Economist. Retrieved from http://
www.economistinsights.com/

472
Compilation of References

Tallon, L. (2013). Mobile strategy in 2013: An analysis of the annual museums & mobile survey. Retrieved from http://
www.museums-mobile.org/survey

Tan, J. L., Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2011). Child-centered interaction in the design of a game for social
skills intervention. Computers in Entertainment, 9(1), 1–17. doi:10.1145/1953005.1953007

Tan, J. L., Goh, D. H., Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2013). Participatory evaluation of an educational game for social skills
acquisition. Computers & Education, 64, 70–80. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.006

Tarr, M. J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognitive Psychology,
21(2), 233–282. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90009-1 PMID:2706928

Tartre, L. A. (1990). Spatial skills, gender, and mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and
gender (pp. 27–59). New York: Teachers College Press.

Taylor, N., Jenson, J., & de Castell, S. (2007). Gender in play: Mapping a girls’ gaming club. In Proceedings of DiGRA
2007 Conference.

Taylor, S. E. (2011). Health psychology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

ter Horst, A. C., Jongsma, M. L., Janssen, L. K., van Lier, R., & Steenbergen, B. (2012). Different mental rotation strate-
gies reflected in the rotation related negativity. Psychophysiology, 49(4), 566–573. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01322.x
PMID:22091978

Terlecki, M. S., Newcombe, N. S., & Little, M. (2008). Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental
rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 996–1013. doi:10.1002/acp.1420

Terlecki, M., & Newcombe, N. (2005). How important is the digit divide? The relation of computer and videogame
usage to gender differences in mental rotation ability? Sex Roles, 53(5-6), 433–441. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-6765-0

The Design Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001005

Thelen, E. (1995). Time-scale dynamics in the development of an embodied cognition. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.),
Mind in motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 69–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Team activities for learning and performance. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook
of human performance technology (pp. 518–544). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, R., Cahill, J., & Santilli, L. (1997). Using an interactive computer game to increase skill and self-efficacy regarding
safer sex negotiation: Field test results. Health Education & Behavior, 24(1), 71–86. doi:10.1177/109019819702400108
PMID:9112099

Thorndike, E. L. (1903). Educational psychology. New York: Lemke & Buechner. doi:10.1037/10528-000

Thorndike, E. L. (1922). The effect of changed data upon reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5(1), 33–38.
doi:10.1037/h0072415

Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency
of other functions. (I). Psychological Review, 8(6), 247–261. doi:10.1037/h0071363

Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901b). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency
of other functions. (II). The estimation of magnitudes. Psychological Review, 8(4), 384–395. doi:10.1037/h0071280

473
Compilation of References

Thorndyke, P. W., & Goldin, S. E. (1983). Spatial learning and reasoning skill. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial
orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 195–217). New York: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-9325-6_9

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. G. (1941). Factorial studies of intelligence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmeuli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve
self-regulation following ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 379–384. doi:10.1016/j.
jesp.2006.05.007

Ting, Y. L. (2010). Using mainstream game to teach technology through an interest framework. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 13(2), 141–152.

Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2011). Computer games and instruction. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Tolkien, J. R. R. (1977). The silmarillion. Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.

Tomasino, B., & Rumiati, R. I. (2004). Effects of strategies on mental rotation and hemispheric lateralization: Neuropsy-
chological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 878–888. doi:10.1162/089892904970753 PMID:15200714

Torrente, J., Mera, P. L., Moreno-Ger, P., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Coordinating heterogeneous game-based
learning approaches in online environments. In Z. Pan, A. D. Cheok, W. Müller, & A. El Rhalibi (Eds.), Transactions
on edutainment II. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03270-7_1

Toups, Z. O., Kerne, A., & Hamilton, W. (2009). Designing core mechanics and interfaces for engaging cooperative play:
Nonmimetic simulation of fire emergency response. In S. Spencer (Ed.), Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium
on Video Games (pp. 71-78). New York, NY: ACM.

Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking
using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science
education (pp. 609-614). ACM. doi:10.1145/2445196.2445374

Travis, R. (2010). A note on the word “practomime”. Living Epic. Accessed April 22, 2014: http://livingepic.blogspot.
com/2010/01/note-on-word-practomime.html

Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2012). Preventing Early Conduct Problems and Later Delinquency. In E. L. Gri-
gorenko (Ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry (pp. 309–322). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2_20

Triantafyllakos, G., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2010). Fictional characters in participatory design sessions: In-
troducing the “design alter egos” technique. Interacting with Computers, 22(3), 165–175. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.12.003

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. York, UK: Higher Education Academy.

Truong, K. N., Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Storyboarding: An empirical determination of best practices and
effective guidelines.Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, University Park, PA. New
York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142410

Tsalgatidou, A., Louridas, P., Fesakis, G., & Schizas, T. (1996). Multilevel Petri Nets for Modeling and Simulating
Organizational Dynamic Behavior. Simulation & Gaming, 27(4), 484–506. doi:10.1177/1046878196274005

Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal
of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_2

474
Compilation of References

Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of Memory (pp.
381–403). New York: Academic Press.

Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1971). Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of associative context. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 87(1), 116–124. doi:10.1037/h0030186

Tulving, E., & Thomspon, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological
Review, 80(5), 352–373. doi:10.1037/h0020071

Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language,
28(2), 127–154. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5

Tüzün, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary
school students’ achievement and motivation in Geography learning. Computers & Education, 52(1), 68–77. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.06.008

Twyman, A. D., Newcombe, N. S., & Gould, T. J. (2013). Malleability in the development of spatial reorientation. De-
velopmental Psychobiology, 55(3), 243–255. doi:10.1002/dev.21017 PMID:22407824

Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498. doi:10.1037/a0026609

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals.
Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213–243. doi:10.3102/00346543065003213

Usart, M., & Romero, M. (2013). Students’ Time Perspective And Its Effect On Game-Based Learning. Internet Learn-
ing, 2(1). Available at http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/internetlearning/vol2/iss1/9

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013a). The mal-
leability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. doi:10.1037/
a0028446 PMID:22663761

Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013b). Exploring and Enhancing Spatial Thinking: Links to Achievement
in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 367–373.
doi:10.1177/0963721413484756

Utting, I. A. N., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch – A Discussion. ACM Transactions
on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–11. doi:10.1145/1868358.1868364

van de Sande, E., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). The role of executive control in young children’s serious gaming
behavior. Computers & Education, 82, 432–441. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.004

van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. Management Information Systems Quar-
terly, 28, 695–704.

van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2004). Historical reasoning: A comparison of how experts and novices contextualise
historical sources. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching, and Research, 4(2), 84–91.

van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about
the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1

van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C., & van der Linden, J. L. (2006). Historical reasoning in a computer-supported collaborative
learning environment. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and
technology (pp. 265–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

475
Compilation of References

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers & Education, 64, 153–160.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Routledge.

Van Ravenzwaaij, D., Boekel, W., Forstmann, B. U., Ratcliff, R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Action video games
do not improve the speed of information processing in simple perceptual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
General, 143(5), 1794–1805. doi:10.1037/a0036923 PMID:24933517

Van Staalduinen, J. P., & de Freitas, S. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Linking game design and learning.
In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring the future of education with video games (pp. 29–54). New York:
Peter Lang Publishing.

VanSledright, B. A. (2008). Narratives of nation-state, historical knowledge, and school history education. Review of
Research in Education, 32(1), 109–146. doi:10.3102/0091732X07311065

VanSledright, B. A. (2013). Assessing Historical Thinking & Understanding: Innovative Design for New Standards.
New York, NY: Routledge.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1999). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.

Vayanou, M., Karvounis, M., Kyriakidi, M., Katifori, A., Manola, N., Roussou, M., & Ioannidis, Y. (2012). Towards
Personalized Storytelling for Museum Visits. In 6th International Workshop on Personalized Access, Profile Manage-
ment, and Context Awareness in Databases (PersDB 2012).

Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7–48.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1701_2

Verner, I. M., Leibowitz, D., & Gamer, S. (2014). Puzzling exercises for spatial training with robot manipulators. Proceedings
of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 312-313. doi:10.1145/2559636.2559792

Virtanen, M., Heikkilä, K., Jokela, M., Ferrie, J. E., Batty, G. D., Vahtera, J., & Kivimäki, M. (2012). Long working
hours and coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 176(7),
586–596. doi:10.1093/aje/kws139 PMID:22952309

Virvou, M., Katsionis, G., & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education: Evaluation of its educational
effectiveness. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8, 54–65.

Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and
interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.
doi:10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-H0YM

Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to
promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4), 381–419. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4

Voss, J. F., & Wiley, J. (2006). Expertise in history. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman
(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 1746–24240). Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816796.033

476
Compilation of References

Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consid-
eration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250–270. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250 PMID:7724690

Vrasidas, C., & Solomou, M. (2013). Using educational design research methods to examine the affordances of online
games for teacher learning. Educational Media International, 50(3), 192–205. doi:10.1080/09523987.2013.839151

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Min in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology,
42(1), 7–97.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative
psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. doi:10.1037/
a0016127

Walker, R. E., Keane, C. R., & Burke, J. G. (2010). Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review
of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16(5), 876–884. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013 PMID:20462784

Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(4),
1138–1146. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.023

Watson, J. M., Lambert, A. E., Miller, A. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2011). The magical letters P, F, Q and sometimes U: The
rise and fall of executive attention with the development of prefrontal cortex. In K. L. Fingerman, C. A. Berg, J. Smith,
& T. C. Antonuuci (Eds.), Handbook of lifespan development (pp. 407–436). New York, NY: Springer.

Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of the in-class use of a video game for teaching high
school History. Computers & Education, 56(2), 466–474. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.007

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Net-
works, 2(1), 34–49.

Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation
scripts on collaborative knowledge construction (Dissertation). München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität.

Welsh, M., Parke, R. D., Widaman, K., & O’Neil, R. (2006). Linkages between children’s social and academic compe-
tence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39(6), 463–482. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00084-X

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia:
Wharton Digital Press.

West, G. L., Stevens, S. A., Pun, C., & Pratt, J. (2008). Visuospatial experience modulates attentional capture: Evidence
from action video game players. Journal of Vision (Charlottesville, Va.), 8(16), 1–9. doi:10.1167/8.16.13 PMID:19146279

White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Collins, A. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition. In D. J. Hacker,
J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in education (pp. 175–205). New York: Routledge.

Whitlock, L. A., McLaughlin, A. C., & Allaire, J. C. (2012). Individual differences in response to cognitive training:
Using a multi-modal, attentionally demanding game-based intervention for older adults. Computers in Human Behavior,
28(4), 1091–1096. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.012

477
Compilation of References

Whitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games. A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. New York,
NY: Routledge.

Whitton, N. (2011). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation & Gaming, 42(5), 596–609.
doi:10.1177/1046878110378587

Whitton, N., & Moseley, A. (2014). Deconstructing engagement: Rethinking involvement in learning. Simulation &
Gaming, 45(4-5), 433–449. doi:10.1177/1046878114554755

Wiest, L. R. (2001). The role of fantasy contexts in word problems. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13(2),
74–90. doi:10.1007/BF03217100

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational

Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78. doi:10.1007/BF02209024

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 PMID:10620382

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In D. M. McInerney & S.
Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 165–198). Information Age Publishing.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Da-
mon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 406–434). New Jersey: John
Wiley and Sons.

Wilder, M. (2014). Applying Gamification Principles to Online Faculty Professional Development. Paper presented at
Online Learning Consortium International Conference 2014, Orlando, FL.

Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through construct-
ing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.
doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. doi:10.1023/A:1009421303064

Wilkinson, N., Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2008). Online video game therapy for mental health concerns: A review. The
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54(4), 370–382. doi:10.1177/0020764008091659 PMID:18720897

Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 58.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058 PMID:23408669

Wilson, C. E. (2006). Brainstorming pitfalls and best practices. Interaction, 13(5), 50–63. doi:10.1145/1151314.1151342

Wilson, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., Salas, E., Burke, C., Estock, J., & Conkey, C. et al. (2009). Relationships be-
tween game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217–266.
doi:10.1177/1046878108321866

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. doi:10.3758/
BF03196322 PMID:12613670

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of docu-
mentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73

478
Compilation of References

Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts.
Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2203_3

Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D.
H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.; pp. 153–189).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Winne, P. H. (2005). A perspective on state-of-the-art research on self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5-6),
559–565. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1280-9

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser
(Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.
Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2010). Self-regulated learning and sociocognitive theory. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, &
B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 5, pp. 503–508). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-08-044894-7.00470-X

Winne, P., Hadwin, A., & Gress, C. (2010). The learning kit project: Software tools for supporting and researching
regulation of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 787–793. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.09.009

Winsten, J. A. (1994). Promoting designated drivers: The Harvard Alcohol Project. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 10(3Suppl), 11–14. PMID:7917447

Winsten, J. A., & Dean, A. (1993). Designated driver campaign. Health Education Quarterly, 20(2), 147–153.
doi:10.1177/109019819302000201 PMID:8491629

Wirth, J., & Klieme, E. (2003). Computer-based Assessment of Problem Solving Competence. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(3), 329–345. doi:10.1080/0969594032000148172

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, G. E., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation.
New York: John Wiley.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.

Wolfe, J. (1993). A History of Business TEaching Games in English-Speaking and Post-Socialist Countries: The Origina-
tion and Diffusion of a Management Education and Development TEchnology. Simulation & Gaming, 24(4), 446–463.
doi:10.1177/1046878193244003

Woltz, D. J., Bell, B. G., Kyllonen, P. C., & Gardner, M. K. (1996). Memory for order of operations in the acquisition and
transfer of sequential cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(2),
438–457. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.2.438

Woltz, D. J., Gardner, M. K., & Gyll, S. P. (2000). The role of attention processes in near transfer of cognitive skills.
Learning and Individual Differences, 12(3), 209–251. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(01)00038-3

Woodrow, H. (1927). The effect of the type of training upon transference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(3),
159–172. doi:10.1037/h0071868

Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive
and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265. doi:10.1037/a0031311

479
Compilation of References

Wraga, M., Thompson, W. L., Alpert, N. M., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2003). Implicit transfer of motor strategies in mental
rotation. Brain and Cognition, 52(2), 135–143. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00033-2 PMID:12821095

Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Vadewater, E. A., Bickham, D. S., Scantlin, R. M., & Kotler, J. A. (2001). American chil-
dren’s use of electronic media in 1997: A national survey. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(1), 31–47. doi:10.1016/
S0193-3973(00)00064-2

Wright, R., Thompson, W. L., Ganis, G., Newcombe, N. S., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Training generalized spatial skills.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 763–771. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.4.763 PMID:18792502

Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented
reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

Wu, S., Cheng, C. K., Feng, J., D’Angelo, L., Alain, C., & Spence, I. (2012). Playing a first-person shooter video
game induces neuroplastic change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(6), 1286–1293. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00192
PMID:22264193

Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. (2013). Fast food f.a.c.t.s.: Food advertising to children and teens score:
Measuring progress in nutrition and marketing to children and teens. Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/
farm/reports/reports/2013/rwjf408549

Yeow, A., Johnson, S., & Faraj, S. (2006). Lurking: Legitimate or illegitimate peripheral participation?International
Conference on Information Systems Conference Proceedings, (pp. 967-982).

Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., Travis, R. & Choi, B. (In Press). Game narrative, interactive fiction, and storytelling: Creat-
ing a “time for telling” in the classroom. Academic Press.

Young, M. F. (2004). An ecological psychology of instructional design: Learning and thinking by perceiving-acting
systems. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., & Lai, B. (2012). Comments on “Reflections on ‘A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming.’”.
Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 296–299. doi:10.3102/0034654312456606

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mulling, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. et al. (2012). Our princess
is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.
doi:10.3102/0034654312436980

Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisiting “play”: Analyzing and articulating acts of inquiry. Early Child-
hood Education Journal, 31(3), 171–178. doi:10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000012135.73710.0c

Zagal, J., Rick, J., & His, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming,
37(1), 24–40. doi:10.1177/1046878105282279

Zarraonandía, T; Díaz, P; & Aedo, I. (2016). Modelling Games for Adaptive and Personalized Learning. Academic Press.

Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.
doi:10.1002/sce.20325

Zerfass, A., & Hartmann, B. (2005). The usability factor: Improving the quality of e-content. In P. A. Bruck, Z. Karssen,
A. Buchholz, & A. Zerfass (Eds.), E-Content (pp. 165–182). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-26387-X_9

480
Compilation of References

Zerubavel, E. (1991). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zheng, R., Yang, W., Garcia, D., & McCadden, B. P. (2008). Effects of multimedia on schema induced analogical reason-
ing in science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(6), 474–482. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00282.x

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile
apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich,

& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-37). Sand Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-
012109890-2/50031-7

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In
B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives
(2nd ed.; pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological develop-
ments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. doi:10.3102/0002831207312909

Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker,
J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). New York: Routledge.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919

Zoller, H. M. (2005). Health activism: Communication theory and action for social change. Communication Theory,
15(4), 341–364. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00339.x

Zosh, J. M., Verdine, B. N., Filipowicz, A., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Talking
shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 136–144.
doi:10.1111/mbe.12082

Zynga. (2009). Farmville. San Francisco, CA: Zynga. Retrieved from: https://company.zynga.com/games/farmville

481
482

About the Contributors

Robert Zheng is an associate professor of instructional design and educational technology in the
Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Utah. His research area includes multimedia
and cognition, instructional design and development, web-based learning, educational gamification. He
has published five edited books, numerous refereed journal papers and book chapters.

Michael K. Gardner is professor of learning sciences and Associate Chair in the Department of
Educational Psychology at the University of Utah. His research area includes cognitive processes,
memory, individual differences, cognition in aging, and measurement. He has published one edited book
and one co-authored book, has numerous journal articles and book chapters, and has received over $1
million in external support for his research. He is former Acting Dean of the College of Education at
the University of Utah.

***

Mete Akcaoglu, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Instructional Technology in the College of

Education at Georgia Southern University. His scholarly interests include the design and evaluation
of technology-rich and innovative learning environments for K-12 children. He can be found at http://
meteakcaoglu.com.

Roger Altizer Jr. is the co-founder of the University of Utah’s Entertainment Arts and Engineer-
ing program, the top ranked game design program in the nation. Roger also is the Director of Digital
Medicine for the Center for Medical Innovation, the Director of The GApp lab (Therapeutic Games and
Apps), and former director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Art and Technology at the University of
Utah. Roger earned his Ph.D. in Communication at the University of Utah and specializes in game de-
sign education and participatory design. A former games journalist, he is an internationally-recognized
speaker who has presented at industry conferences such as the Games Developer Conference and Penny
Arcade Expo, and academic conferences including the Digital Games Research Association and Foun-
dations of Digital Games.

Rebecca P. Ang is an Associate Professor at the Psychological Studies Academic Group, National
Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She obtained her PhD in School
Psychology (specializing in clinical child psychology) from Texas A&M University. She is a Nationally
Certified School Psychologist in the USA, and a Registered Psychologist in Singapore. Her research

About the Contributors

and professional interests include developmental child psychopathology, and in particular antisocial and
aggressive behavior, and related prevention and intervention work. She is also interested in parent-child
relationships, teacher-student relationships, and the impact of the quality of such relationships on child,
familial and school adjustment/functioning.

Jillian Boon is a Senior Educational Psychologist in a community mental health team, REACH
(Response, Early interventions and Assessment in Community mental Health), under the Department
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in the Institute of Mental Health. At REACH, she works closely
with school personnel in triaging cases, providing intervention and consultation within the community.
She has graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Psychology from Monash University and has a Masters
Degree in Applied Psychology (specializing in Educational Psychology) from Nanyang Technological
University of Singapore. Jillian’s research interest lies in improving psychological treatment through the
use of technology and gamification.

Kirsten Butcher is an Associate Professor in Educational Psychology and the Director of the Instruc-
tional Design and Educational Technology program at the University of Utah. Kirsten has a Ph.D. in
Cognitive Science and Psychology from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her work focuses on the
impact of multimedia materials and visual interactions on high-level cognitive processes and transferrable
learning outcomes. She studies educational technology from both a design and assessment perspective,
grounding each approach in cognitive theories of learning and comprehension. Kirsten’s work appears in
high-impact scholarly journals and books, including the Journal of Educational Psychology and Human
Computer Interaction. She is a frequent presenter at national conferences, including the Annual Meeting
of the Cognitive Science Society and the American Educational Research Association.

HeeSun Choi (MS) is a PhD student in the Human Factors and Applied Cognition program at the
Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University. Her primary research interests are in attention-
related errors during task performance, driving risks with cognitive aging, and cognitive training methods.

Timothy Compeau is postdoctoral researcher at Brock Univeristy in St. Catharines, Ontario. Com-
peau is a cultural historian of colonial North America and the Atlantic World with a special interest in
honour culture and loyalism in the American Revolution. He is presently conducting research on the
application of augmented reality technology for public history and museums.

Boaventura DaCosta holds a Ph.D. in instructional technology, a M.A. in instructional technology/

media, instructional systems, and a B.S in computer science. His research interests span numerous topics
in the areas of assistive technology, information and communication technology, and gaming.

Joshua A. Danish is an Associate Professor of the Learning Sciences at Indiana University. His
research explores how we can support early elementary children in learning complex science concepts
that are often thought to be out of reach for them. Danish seeks to support early elementary students in
these efforts through the design of innovative activities, curricula, and technologies. He is particularly
interested in how students represent their emerging science ideas in a range of formats from drawings,
to sculptures, to embodied play, as well as how we can design new representations to help students at-
tend to these important concepts.

483
About the Contributors

Oliver Dreon is an associate professor and director of the Center for Academic Excellence at Mill-
ersville University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Dreon earned his PhD in Curriculum & Instruction from Penn
State University where he focused on science education and instructional systems. At Millersville, Dr.
Dreon teaches a wide variety of education and instructional technology courses both in face-to-face and
online formats, and also coordinates the university’s Digital Learning Studio. He is the co-author of the
book Authentic Instruction with Technology: A Student-Centered Approach and has published in various
journals, including the Middle Level Journal, TechTrends, Teachers and Teaching, Science Education,
Online Classroom and Teacher Education & Practice. Dr. Dreon also contributes to Faculty Focus, an
online newsletter providing pedagogical and technological strategies for higher education. Dr. Dreon
has spent over twenty years teaching in various educational environments. His research examines how
technology can be used to support student development through physical, online, and hybrid learning
spaces. Dr. Dreon also studies the role that technology plays in supporting communities of practice for
educators across the educational landscape.

Jing Feng (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in the Human Factors and Applied Cognition Program at
the Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University. She studies human attention and cogni-
tion, with applications of cognitive principles to human factors. On the theoretical side, she conducts
research to investigate attention across an extended visual field, individual differences and age-related
changes in attention and spatial skills, and the effects of cognitive training using video games. On the
practical side, she applies these theoretical findings to understand aging and driving, driver distraction
and the design of information technology.

Daniel Fung is the Chairman, Medical Board, at the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore since Dec
2011. He is an Adjunct Associate Professor at all 3 medical schools in Singapore. Dr Fung volunteers
with many international and local NGOs on mental health. He has received several awards including
the National Healthcare Group’s Distinguished Achievement Award in 2010, and the Singapore Chil-
dren’s Society Gold Service Award 2012. Dr Fung has been involved in over 10 national level funded
research grants. He has coauthored over 75 peer reviewed research papers, 27 books and more than 10
book chapters.

Xun Ge (University of Oklahoma) is Professor of Instructional Psychology and Technology and Chair
of Department of Educational Psychology at Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education, the University of
Oklahoma. She holds Ph.D. in Instructional Systems from the Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Ge’s
primary research involves scaffolding students’ complex and ill-structured problem solving and self-
regulated learning through designing instructional scaffolds, cognitive tools, learning technologies, and
open learning environments (including virtual learning community, game-based learning, inquiry-based
learning, and problem-based learning). Over the years, her scholarly works have evolved to link cognition
with motivation. Dr. Ge is also interested in studying the impact and assessment of game-based learn-
ing in supporting complex, ill-structured problem solving. Dr. Ge has extensive research experience in
STEM education, and she has collaborated with scholars from diverse disciplines around the world. Dr.
Ge’s research has been published in two co-edited books published by Springer (one on game-based
assessment, and the other on STEM education), multiple book chapters in highly regarded books, and
numerous articles in many leading journals of the field, not to mention many other conference proceed-
ing papers. Dr. Ge has been recognized for three prestigious awards – 2012 Outstanding Journal Article,

484
About the Contributors

2004 Outstanding Journal Article, and 2003 Young Scholar by Educational Technology Research &
Development and the Association for Education Communications and Technology. Dr. Ge has been
serving on the editorial boards of several important refereed journals, including Educational Technol-
ogy Research & Development, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, and Technology,
and Knowledge and Learning. In addition, she is currently the Chair of the Problem-based Education
Special Interest Group for the American Educational Research Association.

Dion Goh has a PhD in computer science. He is currently Associate Professor with Nanyang Techno-
logical University (Singapore) where is also the Director of the Masters of Information Systems program.
His major areas of research are in gamification techniques for shaping user perceptions and motivating
behavior, social media perceptions and practices, and evaluation of information systems and services.
He has over 200 publications in these areas. Dr. Goh has led a number of funded projects in the use of
games for mental health interventions, the use of gamification in mobile content sharing, and human
computation games for data analytics.

Begoña Gros received the PhD degree in Pedagogy at the University of Barcelona in 1987. She
was at the Open University of Catalunya (2007-2012), and currently is professor at the University of
Barcelona. She is the director of the research group “Environments and materials for learning” (EMA).
She is an author of more than 100 publications in the areas of the use of ICT in education, digital games
for learning, learning design and innovation. She has participated in national and international projects
funded by the European Union. She is an associated editor of the Journal “Cultura y Educación”. More
information: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Begona_Gros.

Antonio P. Gutierrez, Ph.D., is currently an Assistant Professor of Research at Georgia Southern

University. He is interested in researching metacognition under the theory of self-regulated learning.
More specifically, he is interested in how learners monitor their comprehension during learning episodes.
His program of research includes examining the effects of dispositional characteristics (e.g., various
aspects of motivation) and metacognitive monitoring training on learners’ calibration, confidence, and
performance as well as investigating the latent dimensions of calibration to improve its measurement.
In addition, he is currently examining the factors involved in the work life of faculty members and the
aspects of academic organizations that influence their intent to leave or stay in the academe.

Douglas J. Hacker is a full professor at the University of Utah. Dr. Hacker received his Ph.D. in
educational psychology from the University of Washington in 1994. From 1994 to 1999, Dr. Hacker
was an assistant/associate professor in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Re-
search at The University of Memphis. During those years, he worked in the areas of reading and writing
processes, metacognition, self-regulated learning, teacher education, and school and program evalua-
tion. Dr. Hacker moved to the University of Utah in 1999 and has continued his research in the previous
areas and has added to them research in the area of the detection of deception. Also at the University
of Utah, he served as chair of the Teaching and Learning Department. His publications have appeared
in the Journal of Educational Psychology, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Applied, and Journal of Experimental Education. At both universities, Dr. Hacker
has maintained a strong commitment to work in schools, working directly with teachers by providing
professional development in reading and writing instruction.

485
About the Contributors

Raija Hämäläinen works as a Full Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Jyväskylä.
She has designed a long-term research project that focuses on investigating new learning spaces for future
education. Currently, she is leading several research projects focusing on future learning technologies.
Her main research interests deal with inquiry learning, orchestrating learning processes and scripted
computer-supported collaborative learning in technology enhanced learning (TEL) environments. Her
research has been based on active international collaboration in theoretical and design issues of TEL.
Her recent publications include articles in Computers & Education, Teaching and Teacher Education,
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Technology, Pedagogy and Edu-
cation, and Educational Research Review.

Jason M. Harley is an Assistant Professor of Educational Technology and Educational Psychology

at the University of Alberta. He completed his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology at McGill in the sum-
mer of 2014, and served as a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Computer Science and Operations Research
Department at the Université de Montréal and Research Associate at McGill University in the Depart-
ment of Educational and Counselling Psychology from 2014-2015. His research examines emotions, self
and co-regulated learning, and advanced learning technologies, including intelligent tutoring systems,
serious games, and mobile augmented reality. He has published over twenty journal articles, handbook
chapters, and conference proceedings and presented or co-authored forty conference papers in peer-
reviewed, international venues in education, psychology, and computer science. He has contributed to
numerous research projects that have been funded by American and Canadian funding agencies and has
been awarded doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société
et culture (FRQSC), and a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canadian Graduate Scholarship (CGS) from the
Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). You can learn more about his
scientific work that explores the intersections between advanced technology, psychological processes,
and education on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/jasonmharley/.

Charles B. Hodges earned a Ph.D. from the Learning Sciences and Technologies program at Virginia
Tech, and mathematics degrees from Fairmont State University (B.S.) and West Virginia University
(M.S.). His professional interests are learner self-efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, teacher professional
development, and the teaching and learning of computational thinking. He is an Associate Professor of
Instructional Technology at Georgia Southern University where he teaches in the online Instructional
Technology Program. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice
to Improve Learning.

Vivien S. Huan is an Associate Professor at Psychological Studies Academic Group, National

Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interests include
juvenile delinquency, deviancy, serious and violent youth offenders, managing aggressive and disruptive
students, conflict resolution, and youth at-risk related issues. She is the recipient for NIE’s Excellence in
Teaching Commendation Award for 2006 to 2008, and NTU’s Nanyang Excellence in Teaching Award
in 2008. Apart from her work at the National Institute of Education, Dr. Huan is a panel advisor with
the Singapore Youth Court and is also on the expert panel of the Family Court.

Dirk Ifenthaler is Professor for Learning, Design and Technology at the University of Mannheim,
Germany, Adjunct Professor at Deakin University, Australia, and Affiliate Research Scholar at the Univer-

486
About the Contributors

sity of Oklahoma, USA. His previous roles include Professor and Director, Centre for Research in Digital
Learning at Deakin University, Australia, Manager of Applied Research and Learning Analytics at Open
Universities, Australia, and Professor for Applied Teaching and Learning Research at the University of
Potsdam, Germany. He was a 2012 Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence at the Jeannine Rainbolt College of
Education, at the University of Oklahoma, USA. Professor Ifenthaler’s research focuses on the intersection
of cognitive psychology, educational technology, learning science, data analytics, and computer science.
He developed automated and computer-based methodologies for the assessment, analysis, and feedback of
graphical and natural language representations, as well as simulation and game environments for teacher
education. His research outcomes include numerous co-authored books, book series, book chapters,
journal articles, and international conference papers, as well as successful grant funding in Australia,
Germany, and USA – see Dirk’s website for a full list of scholarly outcomes at www.ifenthaler.info.
Professor Ifenthaler is the Editor-in-Chief of the Springer journal Technology, Knowledge and Learning
(www.springer.com/10758). Dirk is the Past-President for the AECT (Association for Educational Com-
munications and Technology) Design and Development Division, Past-Chair for the AERA (American
Educational Research Association) Special Interest Group Technology, Instruction, Cognition and
Learning, and Co-Program Chair for the international conference series on Cognition and Exploratory
Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA).

Fengfeng Ke is an associate professor in Educational Psychology and Learning Systems at the Florida
State University. Her research has focused on digital game-based learning, inclusive design of computer-
supported collaborative learning, and mixed-reality-integrated immersive learning.

Kevin Kee is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts / La Faculté des arts à l’Université d’Ottawa / at the
University of Ottawa, the world’s largest bilingual university, and one of Canada’s top 10 research-
intensive institutions. The Faculty of Arts comprises 17 departments, centres and institutes in Languages
and Literatures, the Humanities, and the Fine and Performing Arts. His research lies at the intersection
of history, computing, education, and game studies. Many of his research projects develop and support
university to public- and private-sector technology transfers and partnerships. Together with his team
he has produced history Web sites, games and simulations. He has published books and articles on the
use of computer simulations for history and history teaching and learning, and on Canadian cultural
history, and is a proud winner of a Faculty Award for Excellence in Teaching.

David Kirschner is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Georgia Gwinnett College. He earned his
Ph.D. in Sociology at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore in 2014. His dissertation focused
on how players make meaning in virtual environments and how players experience socialization into
digital games. Leveraging his background in social science education, David’s work brings together
human-computer interaction, learning, literacy, and new media. David’s current research involves ex-
ploring communities of practice among human and non-human agents in digital games and developing
a gamified, web-based platform for health activism.

Timo Lainema is a Senior Research Fellow at Turku School of Economics, University of Turku,
Finland. He holds a Ph.D. and a master degree in economics and business administration from TSE
with an emphasis on Information Management. His Ph.D. thesis (2003) focused on the use of business
simulation games in business process education. He constructed his first business simulation game in

487
About the Contributors

1987 and since then he has applied simulation games in in university teaching, executive education and
in in-house management training programs. His research interests are learning through simulation gam-
ing and knowledge sharing in virtual working contexts.

Susanne Lajoie is a Professor and Canadian Research Chair Tier 1 in Advanced Technologies for
Learning in Authentic Settings in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill
University and a member of the Centre for Medical Education. She received her Doctorate from Stanford
University. Dr. Lajoie is the Director of the Learning Environments Across Disciplines partnership grant
funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in Canada. Her research involves the
design of technology rich learning environments for educational and professional practices. She explores
how theories of learning and affect can be used to guide the design of advanced technology rich learning
environments in different domains, i.e. medicine, mathematics, history, etc. These environments serve
as research platforms to study student engagement and problem solving in authentic settings. She uses a
cognitive approach to identify learning trajectories that help novice learners become more skilled in spe-
cific areas and designs computer tools to enhance self-regulation, memory, and domain-specific learning.

Jaejin Lee (Ph.D.) is a research professor in Center for Teaching and Learning at University of Seoul.
His research interests focus on educational uses of new media and 3D educational games in public educa-
tion. His R&D experience includes designing 3D learning objects and environments and examining the
effectiveness of immersive media environments for science learning and engagement. His recent interests
include the use of Game Based Learning (GBL) in public classrooms and integration of gamification
elements in diverse teaching and learning environments such as flipped instruction and blended learning.
He is also interested in developing new data analysis techniques using data mining and data visualization
for the examination of learning patterns in GBL and other online learning.

Min Liu (Ed.D) is Professor of Learning Technologies at the University of Texas at Austin. She is
the Program Coordinator & Graduate Advisor. Her teaching and research interests center on educational
uses of new media and other emerging technologies and their impact on teaching and learning for learn-
ers at all age levels. She has published over 64 research articles in leading peer-reviewed educational
technology journals (e.g., Educational Technology Research and Development (EDR&D), Computers
in Human Behavior (CHB), Journal of Research on Technology in Education (JRTE), Journal of Edu-
cational Computing Research (JECR), Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, (IJPBL),
The American Journal of Distance Education, (AJDE), Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
Journal of Interactive Learning Research, The International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated
Simulations), nine peer-reviewed book chapters, 48 peer-reviewed conference proceeding papers, and
presents regularly at national and international conferences. She has also served on numerous editorial
boards for peer-reviewed research journals. Her current R&D projects include studying the design and
effectiveness of immersive, rich media environments on learning and motivation; learning analytics
and data visualizations; understanding MOOCs as an emerging online learning tool; examining the
affordances and constraints of using mobile technologies in teaching and learning; and use of Web 2.0
tools to facilitate instruction.

Kimmo Oksanen is a project manager at Digital Lessons Finland Ltd. Oksanen has been doing
research within the field of game-based learning for years. His PhD thesis was about supporting col-

488
About the Contributors

laborative learning and investigating learners’ experiences in serious games. Thus, his main research
interests include serious game design, collaborative learning and gaming experiences in serious games.
Oksanen’s research is closely connected to the practical design and development of serious games and
other virtual environments especially from the perspective of collaborative learning.

Yoon Phaik Ooi is a Research Scientist at the Division of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,
Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Switzerland. She is also a Visiting Research Fellow
with the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. She obtained her PhD from the National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is a certified independent trainer for the
Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised. Her research interests are on evidence-based assessments and
psychosocial treatments for children and adolescents, in particular, Autism Spectrum Disorders and
Disruptive Behavior Disorders.

Kylie Peppler is an Associate Professor in the Learning Sciences Program at Indiana University and
the director of the Creativity Labs. An artist by training, Peppler engages in research that focuses on the
intersection of arts, technology, and interest-driven learning. As Creativity Labs Director, Peppler brings
together educators, designers, artists, and learning theorists interested in constructionist and hands-on,
design-based learning. She works to capture youths’ pre-existing interests in areas such as new media,
fashion, and design while supporting learning and creativity in arts, design, and STEM (science, tech-
nology, engineering, math) areas.

Eric Poitras is an Assistant Professor for Instructional Design and Educational Technology in the
Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Utah. He graduated from McGill University,
where he earned a graduate degree in the Learning Sciences and worked as a postdoctoral researcher at
the Learning Environments Across Disciplines research partnership. His research aim is to improve the
adaptive capabilities of instructional systems and technologies designed as cognitive and metacognitive
tools as a means to foster self-regulated learning; in particular, the capabilities of intelligent tutoring
systems and augmented reality applications to capture and analyze learner behaviors in order to deliver
the most suitable instructional content in domain areas such as medical diagnostic reasoning, historical
thinking, and teacher professional development.

Madlyn Runburg is the Director of Education Initiatives at the Natural History Museum of Utah.
Madlyn has a M.A. in Education from Northern Arizona University. Her work focuses on ways in which
informal institutions like museums can support K-12 teachers and students with a particular focus on
technology enabled learning. She works in partnership with diverse groups of stakeholders – both lo-
cally and nationally - to provide project leadership on new and emerging programs. Madlyn’s work has
been recognized at national conferences in education, gaming and science, including the New Media
Consortium, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and the Foundations of Digital Games conference.

Soonhwa Seok is a research professor at Korea University. Her research foci include assistive tech-
nology and the digital literacy of students with autism, intellectual, and developmental disabilities. She
has conducted extensive research in the area of behavior interventions using single case design. Comple-
menting her research interests, she serves as a reviewer for a number of journals, to include Educational
Technology Research and Development and the British Journal of Educational Technology.

489
About the Contributors

Stephen T. Slota (PhD) is an Instructional Design Specialist and Game Design Scientist. He holds a
Ph.D. in Educational Psychology: Cognition, Instruction, & Learning Technologies and has worked on
a variety of game and instructional design projects with organizations including Arizona State Univer-
sity’s Center for Games & Impact, Intel Corporation, Pfizer, InSync Training, LLC, and the University
of Connecticut Health Center. Separate from his other ventures, he co-owns and operates an educational
game development and consultation company, The Pericles Group, LLC, with colleagues Kevin Ball-
estrini and Dr. Roger Travis.

Philipp Sonnleitner, Ph.D., is a researcher at the Luxembourg Centre of Educational Testing (LU-
CET) at the University of Luxembourg. In his research, he explores students’ complex problem solving
behavior and which benefits computer-based assessment instruments provide for testing students’ com-
petencies and skills. An outcome of his work is the Genetics Lab (www.assessment.lu/GeneticsLab), a
web-based, free online tool to assess complex problem solving behavior that was especially developed
for the educational sector. Meanwhile, the Genetics Lab is available in English, French, German, and
Italian and enjoys a growing global user community. In addition, Dr. Sonnleitner is responsible for test
development within the Luxembourgish school monitoring program.

David Strayer is a professor in the Cognition and Neural Sciences in the Department of Psychology
at the University of Utah. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois@ Urbana-Champaign in
1989 and worked at GTE laboratories before joining the faculty at the University of Utah in 1991. Dr.
Strayer is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Sciences, and a recipient of the University of
Utah Distinguished Scholarly and Creative Research Award. His research examines basic and applied
issues of attention and cognitive control. For the last 15 years he has been conducting research on at-
tention and driver distraction.

Greg Szczyrbak is the Learning Technologies Librarian at Millersville University where he enjoys
contributing to professional development initiatives, serving as a member of the Center for Academic
Excellence advisory board and as co-director of the Digital Learning Studio. Greg presents about li-
braries and learning technologies including learning space design, innovative classroom technology,
and creative approaches to online learning. He has a Masters of Library and Information Science from
Drexel University and a Masters of Distance Education from University of Maryland University College.

Jean Lee Tan obtained her PhD in Information Studies from Nanyang Technological University. She
is currently a Senior Education Officer with the Ministry of Education, Singapore and is also lecturing
at the Division of Information Studies, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU.
Her research interests primarily lie in new literacies in education and the innovative use of IDM-based
learning environments which have the potential to bring about engaged learning for students. Her other
interests are on information management, user interfaces and usability studies. Her latest project involved
a research to explore how game-based pedagogies can affect the cognitive-social development of children.

Naomi Thompson is a Graduate Research Assistant working in the Creativity Labs with Dr. Kylie
Peppler. Her background is in psychology, education, and arts programming. Her interests include
learning in informal spaces, such as museums and libraries, hands-on learning, and utilizing activities
such as crafting and making to encourage wider interest and participation in STEM fields. She is cur-

490
About the Contributors

rently assisting with BioSim, an NSF funded project to continue developing a participatory simulation
where young students enact the roles of honeybees and biological systems through the assistance of
electronically-enhanced e-puppets to enhance understanding of complex systems.

Thanh N. Truong received his Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from the University of Minnesota in 1990
and appointed the Assistant Professor position in the Chemistry Department at the University of Utah
in 1992 and raised to the current rank of Full Professor in 2002. Prof. Truong was named as one of the
prestigious National Science Foundation Young Investigators in 1993. In addition, he has been the af-
filiated member of the Global Change and Sustainability Center and the Interdisciplinary Computational
Engineering and Science Graduate Program at the University of Utah. Dr. Truong is the author or co-
author of more than 190 publications and two US/International patents. His current research spans a
broad range from computational chemistry, computer-aided drug design, and nanomaterials science to
cyberinfrastructure development for research and education.

Michael F. Young (PhD) is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of

Connecticut and serves as both leader of the UConn General Education Oversight Committee and coor-
dinator for the Two Summers Master’s/Sixth Year degree program in Learning Technologies. He teaches
undergraduate and graduate courses relating to Instructional Design, Situated Cognition, and Learning
Theory, and he is a member of the Ellington, Connecticut Board of Education. His primary research
interests include contemporary learning theory, instructional design, the strategic application of learn-
ing technologies in K-12 and higher education, online course development, and game-based learning.

491
492

Index

A community of inquiry 369-370, 379

comparison 25, 80, 83, 100, 102, 127, 132, 135-136,
active learning 237, 323, 403 147, 162, 185, 204, 211, 240-242, 273, 321,
Affordance 29-31, 33-34, 39, 49-50, 162, 234-235, 326, 350-351, 407
272-274, 278, 283, 285-286, 294, 300-301, Completion assessment 411, 416
303, 312-313, 319, 376, 406 complex problem solving 217-219, 222-228, 233
age 5, 7-8, 11, 19, 85, 98, 150, 154-155, 173, 180, Complex System 149-150, 152-156, 162, 167, 235,
184, 212, 281, 324-325, 336, 340-344, 349- 254, 260
352, 357-360, 362 computer-supported collaborative learning 41, 43,
architecture 234-236, 240, 244, 278, 324, 343, 371 46, 55
assessment of serious games 402 connection 45, 72-74, 147, 152, 226, 236, 280, 285,
Asynchronous Activities 368, 379 295, 368, 390, 407
attention 2, 6-7, 11-12, 18, 22-24, 28, 32, 34, 55-56, Constructivist Paradigm in Game Design 69, 91
68, 71, 73, 84, 94, 99-104, 114, 138, 152, 172- content-generic play 244-245, 252
173, 182-183, 185, 219-221, 255, 270, 274, Content-Related Play 243, 252
307, 310-311, 313, 320, 323-324, 332, 334, contextualization 236, 245, 277, 284, 293
340, 342, 358, 362, 381, 383, 385, 402, 409 Corroboration 276-277, 293
attentional capacity 1, 6 creative fantasy 197, 200, 203, 208, 211-212, 216
augmented reality 173, 272-273, 278, 282-283, 293 critical thinking 20, 32, 80, 115-124, 127-129, 131-
Authentic games 147 132, 134-141, 147-148, 234, 244, 256, 264,
300-301, 309, 323
B
badges 179, 369, 371-373, 381, 384-386, 388, 393
D
behavioral definition 382, 394, 400 data visualization 212-213, 216
behavioral engagement 255-258, 260, 264, 270 declarative memory 4-5, 18
Bicentric Gaming Mode 239, 252 Design Box 125-127, 147
business simulation games 42 digital game-based learning 234
digital games 22, 24, 26-27, 223, 235, 253-256, 261,
C 300, 402-403, 407
Double-Bind 155, 167
casual games 323, 342
casual player 320-323, 329, 334, 336, 339-340, 342,
362, 365
E
cognitive engagement 240, 242, 245, 255-258, 260- early elementary 5, 150
261, 270 educational computer games 1-2, 5, 7, 67
cognitive psychology 1, 26 educational games 1, 9, 43, 46-49, 70-72, 95, 116,
cognitive training 94, 105, 114 124, 140, 148, 172, 197, 216, 236, 253-255,
collaborative learning 41, 43, 46-47, 50, 52, 54-56, 258-260, 262-264, 270, 403
65, 370, 373 embodied cognition 19, 21, 26-29, 32-34, 39
Index

Embodied Self (in games) 147 H

Emergent Narrative 131, 147
emotional engagement 27, 255, 257-258, 260-261, hardcore player 321-322, 339, 341, 365
264, 270 health activism 380-382, 384, 386, 388-389, 393-
engagement 19-20, 22-24, 27-28, 32, 41, 43-46, 55, 394, 400
65, 94-95, 101, 105, 115, 119, 123-124, 129, healthcaring 380, 382-384, 386-394, 400-401
131, 147, 150, 152-153, 169, 171-172, 185, Heuristic Evaluation 180, 195
197-198, 202, 205-208, 210-212, 216, 218, higher education 300-301, 323, 341, 366-368, 371,
220-221, 234-240, 242-243, 245, 253-258, 260- 373, 376
262, 264, 270, 273-274, 278, 281, 283-286, history 8, 12, 93-96, 115, 154, 260, 272-278, 282-
298, 306-307, 313, 319, 366, 373, 381, 384, 283, 285-286, 301, 309-310
387, 390, 400, 412
experiential learning 41, 172, 175, 234, 237-238, I
382, 386-387, 389-390, 400, 402, 408, 411
in-game assessment 402, 412-413, 416
in-process assessment 411-412, 416
F interest 3, 20, 22-23, 32, 34, 52, 56, 66, 72-73, 77,
fantasy design 197, 199-200, 202-203, 210, 212 82, 94, 105, 118, 172, 177, 180, 182, 198, 206,
fantasy in education 202 217-218, 221-222, 225-227, 233, 254-255, 257,
Fantasy type 206-207, 216 261-262, 270, 275, 281, 283-284, 321-323,
flexible thinking 121, 127, 136, 147 326, 329, 332, 334, 341, 349, 352, 357-359,
flow 45, 65, 103-104, 114, 127, 174, 206, 255, 257, 362, 375, 382, 389, 393, 403-404, 411
261, 321, 409 Intermediary Interface 242, 245, 252
Formative Evaluation 168, 173, 178, 180, 182-184, interpretation 3, 19, 69, 91, 121, 127-128, 133, 135,
195 141, 148, 236, 240-241, 244, 296, 298

G K
game algorithm 128, 147 knowledge construction 43, 46-48, 50-52, 54-56, 65,
game-based learning 23, 41-47, 50, 55, 66-71, 73- 68-70, 72, 91, 218, 323
74, 76-80, 82-84, 91, 95, 169, 171, 185-186, knowledge transfer 66-68, 71, 73-74, 76-78, 81-85,
234-238, 245-246, 253-255, 262, 273, 294, 91
298, 313, 339, 365
Game Design 1, 20, 31, 42-43, 45, 48, 52-53, 55-56, L
65-66, 68-70, 84, 91, 95-96, 102, 105, 116,
learning management system 367, 369, 371-372,
168-169, 171-173, 175, 180, 185, 217-218,
379, 388
220-228, 234-235, 253-254, 257-258, 260-264,
Linguistic Relativism 382-383, 401
300, 371, 384-385, 387, 400, 406-409
LOCATION-BASED 283
Game Dimensions 402, 406, 416
Game Ecosystem 319
game engagement 45, 65, 197, 205-208, 210-212,
M
216 mathematics 9, 68, 93, 97, 114, 118, 198-199, 223,
game features 117, 127, 181, 254, 258, 263, 320, 226, 237, 297, 323
323, 325, 340, 342-343 mental rotation 19, 94, 97-102, 114, 240
gamer 102, 244, 339, 362, 365, 369, 372, 374 metacognition 19, 21-23, 25, 29, 31-32, 40, 124,
gamification 273, 293, 298, 311, 366-369, 371, 373, 256, 270
375-376, 379-382, 384-389, 393, 400 middle school science 206, 212
gender 85, 97-101, 129, 175, 178, 181, 183-185, Mobile Game 320-329, 332-334, 336, 339-343, 349-
205, 213, 334, 336, 340-344, 352, 357-360, 362 352, 357-359, 362, 365
Granularity Level of Gaming Action 252 mobile phones 320, 322-323, 325-326, 329, 340-
342, 349, 357

493
Index

motivation 10-12, 19-20, 22-25, 28, 32, 44-45, 47, S

67, 71-74, 76-77, 83-84, 101, 105, 123, 128,
131-132, 137, 139, 171, 175-177, 182, 198- self-reflection 67, 70-71, 73-74, 76-77, 83-84, 91,
199, 211, 219, 221, 225, 234, 253-258, 260, 387
263-264, 270, 275, 283-284, 307, 310, 313, self-regulated learning 19, 21, 23, 26, 31-32, 34, 40,
366, 368, 371-372, 375-376, 384-385, 390, 71, 256, 270, 274, 411
392-393, 400, 402-404, 407 Serious Game 19-27, 29, 31-34, 40, 44-45, 50, 52,
56, 66-68, 71, 74, 84-85, 96, 115-116, 123,
O 129, 139-141, 150, 197-199, 202, 206, 210,
212, 216, 254, 258, 262, 270, 280, 366, 402-
observation 23, 25, 32, 121, 132-133, 148, 175, 184, 405, 407-413, 416
237-238, 376, 408 simulation 21-22, 28, 41-43, 56, 95, 124, 129, 131,
Online learning 66 141, 150-154, 167, 234, 236-237, 245, 260,
Opaque 217, 233 298, 319, 404
simulation game 41-42, 153, 234, 236, 245, 260
P situated cognition 26, 40, 294-295, 298, 304, 312,
participatory design 125, 147, 171, 173, 180-181, 319
195 smartphones 278, 322, 325, 329, 341, 349, 352
participatory simulation 150, 152-153, 167 sociability 41, 43, 48-50, 52, 55, 65, 386
Pedagogical dimensions 403, 406, 416 social interaction 41, 43, 47-56, 65, 72, 174, 262,
pheromone 157, 160-161, 167 319, 369
place-based 273 social networking 66-67, 71-72, 76-77, 81-85, 91,
Player-Game Interaction 319 322, 341, 394
Polytelic 217, 233 social presence 43, 48-49, 52, 55, 65
portrayal fantasy 197, 199-200, 203, 206, 208, 210- Social Problem Solving Skills 168-169, 171, 176-
212, 216 177, 184-186, 195
positive feedback loop 157, 167 social skills 169-171, 174, 176, 178-179, 184-186,
problem-based learning 42, 67-69, 71, 74, 76-77, 404
82-85, 91 Sourcing 274-275, 293, 299
problem finding 122, 132-133, 148 spatial skills 93-105, 114
problem solving 9, 25, 51, 54, 56, 68-69, 74, 84, STEM education 93-94, 114
168, 176, 198, 212, 217-220, 222-228, 233- summative evaluation 153, 168-169, 173, 183-185,
234, 236-237, 240, 253-254, 256, 264, 270, 195
297, 300-301, 308, 403 Symbolic Interaction 401
Procedural Memory 4, 18
professional development 308, 366-367, 369, 373- T
376, 379, 403 transfer 1-2, 4, 8-12, 18-21, 23-25, 27-33, 39, 66-68,
71-78, 80-85, 91, 98, 105, 119, 134, 150, 155-
R 156, 161-162, 178, 186, 219-220, 235, 294-
Real-time orchestration 55, 65 295, 299, 301-303, 307, 313
reflection 22, 24, 68, 91, 115, 117-118, 124, 128- Transfer of Training 1, 8, 18
129, 131, 134-138, 141, 148, 151, 172, 178-
181, 183-184, 246, 257, 302, 308-309, 319, U
387, 391-392, 411 utility value 221, 225, 233
Reflection Questions (in educational games) 148
Reproductive and Combinative Representation of
Fantasy 216

494
Index

V W
Video Games 10-11, 19-20, 27-28, 30-34, 40, 52, waggle dance 150, 155, 157, 160-161, 167
93-96, 98-105, 123, 152, 174, 216, 258, 261, working memory 1, 3-7, 11-12, 18, 94, 96, 101, 103-
297, 300, 320-328, 332, 334, 339-343, 349- 104, 114
350, 357, 362, 365, 370, 402-404

495

Are Games Effective Learning Tools? A Review of Educational Games
No ratings yet
Are Games Effective Learning Tools? A Review of Educational Games
12 pages
GELESEN Esports Research and Its Integration in Education
No ratings yet
GELESEN Esports Research and Its Integration in Education
345 pages
[Ebooks PDF] download Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng full chapters
100% (2)
[Ebooks PDF] download Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng full chapters
52 pages
Report On Gaming Industry by Murd0cH University
No ratings yet
Report On Gaming Industry by Murd0cH University
74 pages
Design, Motivation, and Frameworks in Game-Based Learning (Wee Hoe Tan (Editor) )
No ratings yet
Design, Motivation, and Frameworks in Game-Based Learning (Wee Hoe Tan (Editor) )
333 pages
MA, M. OIKONOMOU, A. Jain, L. C. (Eds.) - Serious Games and Edutainment Applications
No ratings yet
MA, M. OIKONOMOU, A. Jain, L. C. (Eds.) - Serious Games and Edutainment Applications
501 pages
Gaming and Cognition Theories and Practice from the Learning Sciences 1st Edition by Richard Van Eck ISBN 1615207171 9781615207176 - The full ebook set is available with all chapters for download
100% (5)
Gaming and Cognition Theories and Practice from the Learning Sciences 1st Edition by Richard Van Eck ISBN 1615207171 9781615207176 - The full ebook set is available with all chapters for download
76 pages
[Ebooks PDF] download Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng full chapters
100% (1)
[Ebooks PDF] download Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng full chapters
55 pages
Michael Burmester, Daniela Gerhard, Frank Thissen - Digital Game Based Learning (2010)
No ratings yet
Michael Burmester, Daniela Gerhard, Frank Thissen - Digital Game Based Learning (2010)
264 pages
Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng download
100% (1)
Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng download
64 pages
Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng 2024 Scribd Download
100% (3)
Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng 2024 Scribd Download
55 pages
Games Based Learning Advancements for Multi Sensory Human Computer Interfaces 1st Edition by Thomas Connolly ISBN 1605663611 9781605663616 - Download the ebook with all fully detailed chapters
100% (9)
Games Based Learning Advancements for Multi Sensory Human Computer Interfaces 1st Edition by Thomas Connolly ISBN 1605663611 9781605663616 - Download the ebook with all fully detailed chapters
84 pages
Digital Game Based LEARNING Its Not Just The Digi
No ratings yet
Digital Game Based LEARNING Its Not Just The Digi
17 pages
A Model to Support Outside Classroom Learning
No ratings yet
A Model to Support Outside Classroom Learning
10 pages
Franz Wa 2014
No ratings yet
Franz Wa 2014
21 pages
Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng download
No ratings yet
Handbook of Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications Robert Zheng download
58 pages
Historical Perspectives on Games and Education from the Learning Sciences
No ratings yet
Historical Perspectives on Games and Education from the Learning Sciences
24 pages
Games Based Learning Advancements for Multi Sensory Human Computer Interfaces 1st Edition by Thomas Connolly ISBN 1605663611 9781605663616 - Quickly download the ebook to read anytime, anywhere
No ratings yet
Games Based Learning Advancements for Multi Sensory Human Computer Interfaces 1st Edition by Thomas Connolly ISBN 1605663611 9781605663616 - Quickly download the ebook to read anytime, anywhere
41 pages
1639
100% (1)
1639
74 pages
Digital_game_based_learning_Its_not_just
No ratings yet
Digital_game_based_learning_Its_not_just
16 pages
Juegos para La Clase
No ratings yet
Juegos para La Clase
359 pages
1734504Smart Pedagogy Of Gamebased Learning 1st Edition Linda Daniela instant download
No ratings yet
1734504Smart Pedagogy Of Gamebased Learning 1st Edition Linda Daniela instant download
85 pages
1 s2.0 S1875952121000562 Main
No ratings yet
1 s2.0 S1875952121000562 Main
11 pages
Game-based Learning Pedagogy a Review of the Literature
No ratings yet
Game-based Learning Pedagogy a Review of the Literature
14 pages
Handbook Of Research On Acquiring 21st Century Literacy Skills Through Gamebased Learning Carolann Lane pdf download
No ratings yet
Handbook Of Research On Acquiring 21st Century Literacy Skills Through Gamebased Learning Carolann Lane pdf download
83 pages
Are-Games-Effective-Learning-Tools_-A-Review-of-Educational-Games
No ratings yet
Are-Games-Effective-Learning-Tools_-A-Review-of-Educational-Games
12 pages
Interdisciplinary Design
No ratings yet
Interdisciplinary Design
166 pages
1 s2.0 S187595212300040X Main
No ratings yet
1 s2.0 S187595212300040X Main
9 pages
Gaming and Cognition Theories and Practice from the Learning Sciences Premier Reference Source 1st Edition Richard Van Eck - Quickly download the ebook to start your content journey
No ratings yet
Gaming and Cognition Theories and Practice from the Learning Sciences Premier Reference Source 1st Edition Richard Van Eck - Quickly download the ebook to start your content journey
78 pages
International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Journal of Educational Technology & Society
No ratings yet
International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Journal of Educational Technology & Society
12 pages
To Learn Scientifically, Effectively, and Enjoyably-A Review of Educational Games
No ratings yet
To Learn Scientifically, Effectively, and Enjoyably-A Review of Educational Games
10 pages
Video Games As Learning Tools.
No ratings yet
Video Games As Learning Tools.
12 pages
Learning Education and Games Volume One
No ratings yet
Learning Education and Games Volume One
295 pages
The Effect of Games and Simulations On Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review
No ratings yet
The Effect of Games and Simulations On Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review
33 pages
A Theoretical Framework For Serious Game Design - Exploring Pedago
No ratings yet
A Theoretical Framework For Serious Game Design - Exploring Pedago
23 pages
Games For Learning and Learning From Games: January 2007
No ratings yet
Games For Learning and Learning From Games: January 2007
11 pages
Valdes Final Id Brief
No ratings yet
Valdes Final Id Brief
6 pages
Games For Learning and Learning From Games: January 2007
No ratings yet
Games For Learning and Learning From Games: January 2007
11 pages
Digital Game Based Learning 2006
No ratings yet
Digital Game Based Learning 2006
16 pages
Veles Ist 511 Annotated Bibliography
No ratings yet
Veles Ist 511 Annotated Bibliography
8 pages
Teaching Me Softly: Experiences and Reflections On Informal Educational Game Design
No ratings yet
Teaching Me Softly: Experiences and Reflections On Informal Educational Game Design
15 pages
Games For Learning and Learning From Games PDF
No ratings yet
Games For Learning and Learning From Games PDF
11 pages
Geog 2025 Gr 11 June Exam Marking Guidelines
No ratings yet
Geog 2025 Gr 11 June Exam Marking Guidelines
8 pages
Editorial Play and Learn Potentials of G
No ratings yet
Editorial Play and Learn Potentials of G
7 pages
Proof of Concept
No ratings yet
Proof of Concept
20 pages
Dpe PDF
100% (1)
Dpe PDF
17 pages
Digital Game-Based Learning and Serious Games in Education
No ratings yet
Digital Game-Based Learning and Serious Games in Education
6 pages
CREST Reasoning 3 Workbook
100% (1)
CREST Reasoning 3 Workbook
79 pages
Homeopathy - Lanthanides Vs Bird Remedies
100% (2)
Homeopathy - Lanthanides Vs Bird Remedies
8 pages
Learning Education Games Schreier Etal Web
No ratings yet
Learning Education Games Schreier Etal Web
295 pages
Manual CAT Articulated Truck 730
100% (1)
Manual CAT Articulated Truck 730
20 pages
2024 EOY 91578 Differentiation Exam.docx
No ratings yet
2024 EOY 91578 Differentiation Exam.docx
15 pages
JAVA ANSWERS
No ratings yet
JAVA ANSWERS
23 pages
For Students PPT ch03
No ratings yet
For Students PPT ch03
82 pages
The Development of Scienti WC Thinking Skills in Elementary and Middle School
No ratings yet
The Development of Scienti WC Thinking Skills in Elementary and Middle School
52 pages
Asking The Right Wquestions About Tehacer Thinking
No ratings yet
Asking The Right Wquestions About Tehacer Thinking
8 pages
Storywork-Indigenopus
No ratings yet
Storywork-Indigenopus
17 pages
Peran Ngo Dalam Mendukung Sdgs Pendidikan Berkualitas (Studi Kasus: Project Child Indonesia Di Yogyakarta (2018-2022)
No ratings yet
Peran Ngo Dalam Mendukung Sdgs Pendidikan Berkualitas (Studi Kasus: Project Child Indonesia Di Yogyakarta (2018-2022)
16 pages
Gamification Intensity in Web-Based Virtual Training Environments and Its Effect On Learning
No ratings yet
Gamification Intensity in Web-Based Virtual Training Environments and Its Effect On Learning
19 pages
BME 403-Sp 2020-Exam 3
No ratings yet
BME 403-Sp 2020-Exam 3
4 pages
Agrimate HTP Sprayer Am30 Am30 2
No ratings yet
Agrimate HTP Sprayer Am30 Am30 2
14 pages
Necessary Definitions For Understanding Gamification in Education
No ratings yet
Necessary Definitions For Understanding Gamification in Education
21 pages
Game-Based Learning. Teaching Principles of Economics and Investment Finance Through Monopoly
No ratings yet
Game-Based Learning. Teaching Principles of Economics and Investment Finance Through Monopoly
17 pages
Grout Release Form
No ratings yet
Grout Release Form
2 pages
Escape Rooms As A Clinical Evaluation Method For Nursing Students
No ratings yet
Escape Rooms As A Clinical Evaluation Method For Nursing Students
8 pages
B.P.Ed. Third Semester (CBS) Examination Sports Medicine Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (Elective Course)
100% (1)
B.P.Ed. Third Semester (CBS) Examination Sports Medicine Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation (Elective Course)
6 pages
Sven Gustavsson's Bibliography
No ratings yet
Sven Gustavsson's Bibliography
16 pages
A Meta-Analysis of Use of Serious Games in Education Over A Decade
No ratings yet
A Meta-Analysis of Use of Serious Games in Education Over A Decade
9 pages
Pre-Training and Cueing Effects On Students' Visual Behavior and Task Outcomes in Game-Based Learning
No ratings yet
Pre-Training and Cueing Effects On Students' Visual Behavior and Task Outcomes in Game-Based Learning
9 pages
Complete Subjects and Predicates
No ratings yet
Complete Subjects and Predicates
10 pages
солнечная батарея swiss
No ratings yet
солнечная батарея swiss
2 pages
UNIT-2 TEST-Dr - PVR-DT 1-5-2020
No ratings yet
UNIT-2 TEST-Dr - PVR-DT 1-5-2020
5 pages
Operating Manual: Technosys Systems
No ratings yet
Operating Manual: Technosys Systems
7 pages
ANSI Relay Codes
No ratings yet
ANSI Relay Codes
8 pages
DOP HEA DK PANEL GL10 300 10mm
No ratings yet
DOP HEA DK PANEL GL10 300 10mm
1 page
2015 JMEMS X Rays Velasquez
No ratings yet
2015 JMEMS X Rays Velasquez
11 pages
T.E (2019 PATTERN) - Removed
No ratings yet
T.E (2019 PATTERN) - Removed
11 pages
Change Auditor For Active Directory Queries: Benefits
No ratings yet
Change Auditor For Active Directory Queries: Benefits
2 pages
Design and Implementation of An Educational Game For Teaching Chemistry in Higher Education
No ratings yet
Design and Implementation of An Educational Game For Teaching Chemistry in Higher Education
5 pages
9 EÈ Ú ºÃ ÄÑ Ï°×ÊÁÏ
100% (3)
9 EÈ Ú ºÃ ÄÑ Ï°×ÊÁÏ
80 pages
Chapter 1: The Nature of The Economic Problem: Suggested Answers To Individual and Group Activities
100% (2)
Chapter 1: The Nature of The Economic Problem: Suggested Answers To Individual and Group Activities
11 pages
BioNavis AN108 Performance SPR
No ratings yet
BioNavis AN108 Performance SPR
2 pages
Galvanizing Process
No ratings yet
Galvanizing Process
7 pages
Chapter 3 - Exception Handling
No ratings yet
Chapter 3 - Exception Handling
13 pages
ARM-JTAG Wiggler Compatible Dongle For Programming and Debugging
No ratings yet
ARM-JTAG Wiggler Compatible Dongle For Programming and Debugging
1 page
Thermo 5th Chap03P061
No ratings yet
Thermo 5th Chap03P061
22 pages
Design Ed: Connecting Learning Science Research to Practice
From Everand
Design Ed: Connecting Learning Science Research to Practice
Angela Elkordy
No ratings yet
Inequality in Key Skills of City Youth: An International Comparison
From Everand
Inequality in Key Skills of City Youth: An International Comparison
Stephen Lamb
No ratings yet
Teaching the Game: A collection of syllabi for game design, development, and implementation, Vol. 2
From Everand
Teaching the Game: A collection of syllabi for game design, development, and implementation, Vol. 2
Richard E. Ferdig
No ratings yet
Teaching the Game: A collection of syllabi for game design, development, and implementation, Vol. 1
From Everand
Teaching the Game: A collection of syllabi for game design, development, and implementation, Vol. 1
Richard E. Ferdig
No ratings yet
Power Up Your Classroom: Reimagine Learning Through Gameplay
From Everand
Power Up Your Classroom: Reimagine Learning Through Gameplay
Lindsey Blass
No ratings yet
Getting Started with LEGO Robotics: A Guide for K-12 Educators
From Everand
Getting Started with LEGO Robotics: A Guide for K-12 Educators
Mark Gura
No ratings yet
The Maker Playbook: A Guide to Creating Inclusive Learning Experiences
From Everand
The Maker Playbook: A Guide to Creating Inclusive Learning Experiences
Caroline Haebig
No ratings yet
Learning First, Technology Second in Practice: New Strategies, Research and Tools for Student Success
From Everand
Learning First, Technology Second in Practice: New Strategies, Research and Tools for Student Success
Liz Kolb
No ratings yet
Teaching the Common Core Math Standards with Hands-On Activities, Grades 9-12
From Everand
Teaching the Common Core Math Standards with Hands-On Activities, Grades 9-12
Gary R. Muschla
5/5 (1)
The Leadership Brain: Strategies for Leading Today?s Schools More Effectively
From Everand
The Leadership Brain: Strategies for Leading Today?s Schools More Effectively
David A. Sousa
No ratings yet
Brain-Compatible Activities for Mathematics, Grades 4-5
From Everand
Brain-Compatible Activities for Mathematics, Grades 4-5
David A. Sousa
4.5/5 (2)
Teaching the Common Core Math Standards with Hands-On Activities, Grades 6-8
From Everand
Teaching the Common Core Math Standards with Hands-On Activities, Grades 6-8
Judith A Muschla
No ratings yet
Hands-On STEAM - Life Science Gr. 1-5
From Everand
Hands-On STEAM - Life Science Gr. 1-5
George Graybill
No ratings yet

Handbook of Research On Serious Games For Educational Applications-Information Science Reference (2016)

Uploaded by

Handbook of Research On Serious Games For Educational Applications-Information Science Reference (2016)

Uploaded by

Handbook of Research

on Serious Games for

A volume in the Advances in Game-Based

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Handbook of Research on Gaming Trends in P-12 Education

Psychology, Pedagogy, and Assessment in Serious Games

Student Usability in Educational Software and Games Improving Experiences

Interactivity in E-Learning Case Studies and Frameworks

701 E. Chocolate Ave., Hershey, PA 17033

Akcaoglu, Mete / Georgia Southern University, USA........................................................................ 217

Seok, Soonhwa / Korea University, South Korea......................................................................... 320,340

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 418

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 482

summarize speculated underlying mechanisms of spatial learning. We also discuss considerations in

Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 418

About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 482

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS BOOK

ORGANIZATION OF THE THIS BOOK

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER

The Development of Cognitive Abilities

Attention or Executive Control

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

An important starting point is to define metacognition. Metacognition is “knowledge of one’s knowledge,

AWARENESS OF ONESELF AS A LEARNER

INTERACTIONS AMONG BODY, MIND, AND GAME ENVIRONMENT

TEACHING FOR TRANSFER

FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION

1. What is the task to be solved?

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Self-Regulated Learning: “Self-regulated learning refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and

Figure 1. Learning as a result of the game characteristics

Figure 2. Learning as a result of game-produced engagement

GAME CHARACTERISTICS AND LEARNING

ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING

COLLABORATION AND LEARNING

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Figure 3. Learning as a result of social and collaborative activities

Educational Games as Sociable CSCL Environments

The Sense of Social Presence and the Sociability of the Environment

1. the sense of social presence, and

Figure 5. Sociability and sense of social presence

1. the sociability of the game environment,

Evaluating Collaborative Learning in Serious Games

How to Evaluate Socio-Emotional Processes?

• the ability of the environment to support the learners’ socio-emotional processes,

Figure 6. Successful social interaction may lead to shared knowledge construction

Game Mechanics Promoting Social Interaction and Collaboration

Elements Leading to Improved Social Interaction

Figure 7. Game design support socio-emotional processes

Figure 8. Game mechanics promote social interaction

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Arvaja, M. (2007). Contextual perspective in analysing collaborative knowledge construction of two

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES IN SNS GAME-BASED LEARNING

Kiili’s PBL Model in Game Design

Squire’s Model of Games for Discovery

Constructivist Paradigm in Game Design

Rosario and Widmever’s Design Principles

Relationship between Surface and Deep Structures in Knowledge Transfer

Dissimilar Surfaces with Similar Deep Structures

Facilitate Knowledge Transfer in Problems with Dissimilar Surface Structure

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE

A PILOT STUDY BASED ON PARTIAL COMPONENTS

About the Study

Figure 4. Components tested in the SNS game-based learning

Participants and Procedures

Methods and Results

Practices Mean Std. Deviation

Table 2. The tests of within-subjects effects.

Type III Partial

Table 3. Tests of between-subjects effects Measure MEASURE 1 Transformed Variable Average

Figure 6. Group plotting of the means of the performance in ten practices

Figure 7. Plotting of individual performance in ten practices

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].