Disciplinary integration of digital games for science learning

International Journal of STEM Education

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Clark, Douglas B ^a   Sengupta, Pratim ^a   Brady, Corey E ^b   Martinez Garza, Mario M ^a   Killingsworth, Stephen S ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital games; Learning; Learning technologies; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84988708146     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21967822     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40594-014-0014-4     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Adams, DM, & Clark, DB. (2014). Integrating self-explanation functionality into a complex game environment: Keeping gaming in motion. Computers and Education, 73, 149–159
2. Amin, TG. (2009). Conceptual metaphor meets conceptual change. Human Development, 52(3), 165–197
3. Annetta, LA, Minogue, J, Holmes, SY, & Cheng, M. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students' engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85
4. Berger, AA. (2002). Video Games: A Popular Culture Phenomenon. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers
5. Bielaczyc, K, Pirolli, P, & Brown, AL. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221–252
6. Bransford, JD, & Schwartz, DL. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100
7. Champagne, AB, Klopfer, LE, & Gunstone, RF. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31
8. Chi, MTH, & VanLehn, KA. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 69–105
9. Chi, MTH, Bassok, M, Lewis, MW, Reimann, P, & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182
10. Clark, DB. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467–563
11. Clark, DB, & Martinez-Garza, M. (2012). Prediction and explanation as design mechanics in conceptually-integrated digital games to help players articulate the tacit understandings they build through gameplay. In C Steinkuhler, K Squire, & S Barab (Eds.), Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age (pp. 279–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
12. Clark, DB, Nelson, B, Sengupta, P, & D’Angelo, CM. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. Washington, DC: Paper commissioned for the National Research Council Workshop on Games and Simulations
13. Clark, DB, Nelson, B, Chang, H, D’Angelo, CM, Slack, K, & Martinez-Garza, 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:16/j.compedu.2011.05.007
14. Clark, DB, Martinez-Garza, M, Biswas, G, Luecht, RM, & Sengupta, P. (2012). Driving assessment of students’ explanations in game dialog using computer-adaptive testing and hidden Markov Modeling. In D Ifenthaler, D Eseryel, & G Xun (Eds.), Game-based Learning: Foundations, Innovations, and Perspectives (pp. 173–199). New York: Springer
15. Clark, DB, Sengupta, P, Kinnebrew, J, Killingsworth, S, Krinks, K, Martinez-Garza, M, & Biswas, G. (2013). Enhancing Games with Assessment and Metacognitive Emphases. Washington, DC: Annual Report to the National Science Foundation
16. Clark, DB, Brady, C, Sengupta, P, Martinez-Garza, M, Adams, D, Killingsworth, S, & Van Eaton, G. (2014a). Evolving and balancing informal and formal representations. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Boulder, CO: ISLS
17. Clark, DB, Tanner-Smith, E, & Killingsworth, S. (2014). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Report to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Available at http://www.sri.com/work/projects/glasslab-research
18. Collins, A. (2011). A study of expert theory formation: The role of model types and domain frameworks. In MS Khine & I Saleh (Eds.), Models and Modeling: Cognitive Tools for Scientific Enquiry (pp. 23–40). London: Springer
19. Collins, A, & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25–42
20. Council, NR. (2009). National Research Council Workshop on Games and Simulations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
21. Crawford, C. (1984). The Art of Computer Game Design. Berkeley, CA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill
22. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial
23. D’Angelo, CM, Clark, DB, Nelson, BC, Slack, K, & Menekse, M. (2010). Connecting tacit understanding from video games to formalized vector concepts. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST) 2010 meeting
24. Dickes, AC, & Sengupta, P. (2013). Learning natural selection in 4th grade with multi-agent-based computational models. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 921–953
25. diSessa, AA. (1983). Phenomenology and the evolution of intuition. In D Gentner & AL Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models (pp. 15–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
26. diSessa, AA. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G Forman & P Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the Computer Age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
27. diSessa, AA. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225
28. diSessa, AA, Gillespie, NM, & Esterly, JB. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900
29. Duschl, RA, Schweingruber, HA, & Shouse, AW. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (National Research Council Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
30. Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466
31. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Report: Summit on Educational Games: Harnessing the Power of Video Games for Learning. Washington, D.C: Federation of American Scientists
32. Fox-Keller, E. (1983). A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W.H. Freeman
33. Garris, R, Ahlers, R, & Driskell, JE. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607
34. Gee, JP. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: Falmer Press
35. Gee, JP. (2007a). Good Video Games and Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning, and Literacy (New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies). New York: Peter Lang Pub Inc
36. Gee, JP. (2007b). What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy. Second Edition: Revised and Updated Edition (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan
37. Gee, JP. (2008). Learning and games. In K Salen (Ed.), The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. doi:10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.021
38. Giere, RN. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
39. Gravemeijer, K, Cobb, P, Bowers, J, & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P Cobb, E Yackel, & K McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
40. Habgood, MPJ, & Ainsworth, SE. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 169–206
41. Hall, R, & Stevens, R. (1995). Making space: A comparison of mathematical work in school and professional design practices. In SL Star (Ed.), The Cultures of Computing (pp. 118–145). London, UK: Basil Blackwell
42. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127
43. Hammer, D, Redish, EF, Elby, A, & Scherr, RE. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives (pp. 89–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc
44. Hegedus, SJ, & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures. ZDM, 41(4), 399–412
45. Hegedus, S, & Roschelle, J (Eds.). (2013). The SimCalc Vision and Contributions: Democratizing Access to Important Mathematics. New York, NY: Springer
46. Hesse, MB. (1974). The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
47. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 732–748
48. Hestenes, D. (1993). MODELING is the Name of the Game. Washington, DC: Presentation at the NSF Modeling Conference
49. Hestenes, D, & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller. The Physics Teacher, 33(8), 502–506
50. Hestenes, D, Wells, M, & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158
51. Hines, PJ, Jasny, BR, & Merris, J. (2009). Adding a T to the three R's. Science, 323, 53
52. Honey, MA, & Hilton, M (Eds.). (2010). Learning Science through Computer Games and Simulations. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
53. Jeppsson, F, Haglund, J, Amin, TG, & Strömdahl, H. (2013). Exploring the use of conceptual metaphors in solving problems on entropy. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 70–120
54. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes to old roots. In A Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 77–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
55. Kearney, M. (2004). Classroom use of multimedia-supported predict–observe–explain tasks in a social constructivist learning environment. Research in Science Education, 34(4), 427–453
56. Kiili, K. (2005). On Educational Game Design: Building Blocks of Flow Experience. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology Press
57. Kiili, K, & Lainema, T. (2008). Foundation for measuring engagement in education games. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3), 469–488
58. Kirsh, D, & Maglio, P. (1994). On the distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513–549
59. Koster, R. (2004). A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press
60. Krinks, KD, Sengupta, P, & Clark, DB. (2013). Conceptual Change in Physics through use of Digital Games. Paper presented at annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Puerto Rico: Rio Mar
61. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M Lynch & S Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
62. Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement. In J Kilpatrick, WG Martin, & DE Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 179–192). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
63. Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. American Psychologist, 64(8), 759–71. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.759
64. Lehrer, R, & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In K Gravemeijer, R Lehrer, B van Oers, & L Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, Modeling and Tool use in Mathematics Education (pp. 59–86). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press
65. Lehrer, R, & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E Amsel & J Byrnes (Eds.), The development of symbolic communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
66. Lehrer, R, & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In RK Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
67. Lehrer, R, & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy: supporting development in learning in contexts. In W Damon, RM Lerner, KA Renninger, & IE Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons
68. Lehrer, R, & Schauble, L. (2010). What kind of explanation is a model? In MK Stein (Ed.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 9–22). New York: Springer
69. Lehrer, R, Schauble, L, Carpenter, S, & Penner, D. (2000). The inter-related development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P Cobb, E Yackel, & K McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools and Instructional Design (pp. 325–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
70. Lynch, M. (1990). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M Lynch & S Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice (pp. 153–186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
71. Martinez-Garza, M, Clark, DB, & Nelson, B. (2013). Digital games and the US National Research Council's science proficiency goals. Studies in Science Education, 49, 170–208. doi:10.1080/03057267.2013.839372
72. Mayer, RE. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
73. Mayer, RE, & Johnson, CI. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265
74. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin Press
75. Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In K Crowley, CD Schunn, & T Okada (Eds.), Designing for Science: Implications for Professional, Instructional, and Everyday Science. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
76. Morrison, D, & Collins, A. (1995). Epistemic fluency and constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 39–45
77. Munz, U, Schumm, P, Wiesebrock, A, & Allgower, F. (2007). Motivation and learning progress through educational games. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 54(6), 3141–3144. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2007.907030
78. Nersessian, NJ. (1998). Modeling practices in conceptual change in science. In T Borsche, J Kreuzer, & C Strub (Eds.), Cognition and Imagination (pp. 149–168). Munich: Fink Verlag
79. Nersessian, NJ. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P Carruthers, S Stich, & M Siegal (Eds.), The Cognitive Basis of Science (pp. 133–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
80. Nersessian, NJ. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
81. Pelletier, C. (2008). Gaming in context: How young people construct their gendered identities in playing and making games. In YB Kafai, C Heeter, J Denner, & JY Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press
82. Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
83. Rapp, DN, & Sengupta, P. (2012). Models and modeling in science learning. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 2320–2322). New York: Springer
84. Rochelle, J, & Kaput, J. (1996). Educational software architecture and systemic impact: The promise of component software. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(3), 217–228
85. Roy, M, & Chi, MTH. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In RE Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press
86. Rueda, MR, Fan, J, McCandliss, BD, Halparin, JD, Gruber, DB, Lercari, LP, & Posner, MI. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029–1040. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.012
87. Salen, K, & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press
88. Schwartz, D, & Arena, D. (2013). Measuring What Matters Most: Choice-Based Assessments for the Digital Age. Cambridge: MIT Press
89. Scott, PH, Asoko, HM, & Driver, RH. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: a review of strategies. In R Duit, F Goldberg, & H Niedderer (Eds.), Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies (pp. 310–329). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel
90. Sengupta, P, Clark, D, Krinks, K, Killingsworth, S, & Brady, C. (2014). Integrating Modeling with Games for Learning Newtonian Mechanics. In N. Holbert & D. Weintrop (Org), N. Holbert (Chair), and Y. Kafai (Discussant), Combining Video Games and Constructionist Design to Support Deep Learning in Play. In J. Poleman, E. Kyza, I. Tabak & K. O'Neill (Eds.), Proceedings of "Learning and Becoming in Practice," the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2014), pp 1388 – 1395. University of Colorado at Boulder: ISLS
91. Sherin, BL. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479–541
92. Slack, K, Nelson, B, Clark, DB, & Martinez-Garza, M. (2010). Influence of Visual Cues on Learning and In-Game Performance in an Educational Physics Game Environment. Anaheim, California: Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2010 meeting
93. Slack, K, Nelson, B, Clark, DB, & Martinez-Garza, M. (2011). Model-Based Thinking in the Scaffolding Understanding by Redesigning Games for Education (SURGE) Project. New Orleans, LA: Poster presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2011 meeting
94. Smith, JP, diSessa, A, & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163
95. Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate, 1(6), 25–49
96. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29
97. Squire, K. (2011). Video Games and Learning: Teaching and Participatory Culture in the Digital age. New York: Teachers College Press
98. Steinkuehler, D, & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530–543
99. Tao, P-K, & Gunstone, RF. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859–882
100. Team, G-t-T. (2003). Design principles of next-generation digital gaming for education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17–33
101. Van Eaton, G, Clark, DB, & Beutel, D. (2013). Designing Digital Objects to Scaffold Learning. Memphis TN: Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2013)
102. White, B. (1984). Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton's laws of motion. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 69–108
103. White, B, & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118
104. White, BY, & Frederiksen, JR. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In JA Minstrell & EH Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science
105. 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
106. Wouters, P, van Nimwegen, C, van Oostendorp, H, & van der Spek, ED. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265. Doi: 10.1037/a0031311
107. Wright, W. (2006). Dream machines. Wired, 14(4), 110–112