Children and Digital Games

Children and Digital Games Editors Mark Blades Fran C. Blumberg Caroline Oates

www.hogrefe.com/journals/zfp

Zeitschrift für Psychologie Founded by Hermann Ebbinghaus and Arthur König in 1890 Volume 221 / Number 2 / 2013 ISSN-L 2151-2604 • ISSN-Print 2190-8370 • ISSN-Online 2151-2604 Editor-in-Chief Bernd Leplow Associate Editors Edgar Erdfelder · Herta Flor · Dieter Frey Friedrich W. Hesse · Heinz Holling · Christiane Spiel

Contents Editorial

Review Articles

Original Articles

Research Spotlight

Call for Papers

Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

The Importance of Digital Games for Children and Young People Mark Blades, Fran C. Blumberg, and Caroline Oates

65

Youth and New Media: The Appeal and Educational Ramiﬁcations of Digital Game Play for Children and Adolescents Fran C. Blumberg, Mark Blades, and Caroline Oates

67

Exergaming in Youth: Effects on Physical and Cognitive Health John R. Best

72

Video Games for Children and Adolescents With Special Educational Needs Kevin Durkin, James Boyle, Simon Hunter, and Gina Conti-Ramsden

79

Formative Research for STEM Educational Games: Lessons From the Children’s Television Workshop John L. Sherry

90

Youth and Video Games: Exploring Effects on Learning and Engagement Michael A. Evans, Anderson Norton, Mido Chang, Kirby Deater-Deckard, and Osman Balci

98

Understanding Children’s Choices and Cognition in Video Game Play: A Synthesis of Three Studies Karla R. Hamlen

107

New Research and Practice in the Field of Youth and the Media

115

‘‘Placebo Effects: Basic Mechanisms and Clinical Applications’’: A Topical Issue of the Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie Guest Editors: Regine Klinger and Luana Colloca

119

Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2)

Zeitschrift für Psychologie Your article has appeared in a journal published by Hogrefe Publishing. This e-offprint is provided exclusively for the personal use of the authors. It may not be posted on a personal or institutional website or to an institutional or disciplinary repository. If you wish to post the article to your personal or institutional website or to archive it in an institutional or disciplinary repository, please use either a pre-print or a post-print of your manuscript in accordance with the publication release for your article and our ‘‘Online Rights for Journal Articles’’ (www.hogrefe.com/journals).

Author’s personal copy (e-offprint)

Original Article

Youth and Video Games Exploring Effects on Learning and Engagement Michael A. Evans,1 Anderson Norton,2 Mido Chang,3 Kirby Deater-Deckard,4 and Osman Balci5 1

Department of Learning Sciences & Technologies, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 3Department of Leadership & Professional Studies, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 4Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 5Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA Abstract. Recent research suggests that video games and social media may influence youths’ lives in ways that deserve attention from psychologists, mathematics educators, and learning scientists. For example, positive effects on engagement, which can increase probability of mathematics proficiency, have been reported in the literature. We examine this issue with emphasis on the effects of video game play on youth learning and engagement; what features, attributes, and mechanisms of video games have been identified as most salient for these factors; and how scholarship in the domain might design more rigorous studies to determine the effects of video game play on learning, achievement, and engagement. We include a description of our work developing educational games for middle school youth struggling to become algebra-ready. Keywords: youth, video games, learning, engagement, instructional design

Of late, video game play and the potential effects of game play on learning, achievement, and engagement have attracted psychologists, educational researchers, and learning scientists (Young et al., 2012). As Squire (2006) states, ‘‘the study of [video] games and learning is ready to come of age’’ (p. 167). Attributes of video games such as strong engagement, contextual bridging (the provision of approximations increasing probability of transfer), and learning personalization lead video game proponents to claim, ‘‘a good game’s design is inherently connected to designing good learning for players’’ (Gee, 2008, p. 21). Further, there are concerns regarding the preparation of youth with sufficient knowledge and skills in core subject areas such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to compete globally (MSEB, 2004). According to Jones (1998), video game attributes that attract youth, nominally individuals who are between the ages of 11–15, include production techniques such as graphics, sound effects and sound design, visual effects, and compelling animations. One of the most engaging features is more cognitive in nature and includes the embedding of challenging problems within games that include scaffolds that propel players to a solution (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010). In this way, video games provide youth sufficient challenge and guidance to sustain engagement, contributing to their status as sought-after entertainment and learning technologies. Consequently, we suggest that a robust and up-to-date literature review on youth and video games could be valuable to the education research and game development Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106 DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000135

communities. For example, there is growing, extended interest in the potential of video game technologies in education. A recent review of over 10 years of empirical efforts investigating video games, learning, and engagement notes sustained interest within the research community (Samur & Evans, 2012). Nevertheless, as Young et al. (2012) point out, much work is yet to be done to solidify this work among scholars and continued attention to rigor of research design is needed (see Sherry, 2013). Moreover, sustained criticism is proffered by instructional technologists and game developers noting that insight gained from extant studies has not necessarily led to more robust designs or educational products (Hirumi, Appelman, Rieber, & van Eck, 2010). Thus, this review is offered to respond to the calls for more rigorous designs to assess learning from video games while incorporating findings into the design of future games, the CandyFactory game being our first attempt to do so on a large scale. For this review article, we will address the following questions: (1) What does extant literature say regarding the effects of video game play on youth learning, achievement, and engagement? (2) What features, attributes, and mechanisms of video games have been identified as most salient in the literature? (3) How might psychologists, educational researchers, and learning scientists design rigorous studies to determine the effects of video game play on learning, achievement, and engagement? Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) M. A. Evans et al.: Youth and Video Games

(4) How might game designers, instructional designers, and applied psychologists appropriate these findings to develop more effective video games for education? To provide possible answers to the above, we conclude this review with a brief description of our work developing educational games for middle school youth in the area of mathematics. The CandyFactory game is an iOS-based app (targeting tablet platforms), intended to heighten engagement while attending to the fundamental requirement of scaffolding requisite mental actions in the service of algebra-readiness – a critical milestone toward academic success.

Video Games and Youth: Learning and Engagement Efforts by Gee (2007) and Salen (2007) have done much to establish what might be referred to as the current era of research on educational video games. In a seminal work that has inspired research over the past half-decade, Gee (2007) argued that good video games recruit good learning and that a game’s design is inherently connected to designing good learning for players. The perspective on learning forwarded in this work, now widely adopted in instructional design and the learning sciences research agenda, argues that youth primarily think and learn through experiences they have had, not through abstract calculations and generalizations. Individuals store these experiences in memory and run mental simulations to prepare for problem solving in new situations – what cognitive scientists would refer to as transfer (Rosas et al., 2002; Sims & Mayer, 2001). These simulations could help individuals to form hypotheses about how to proceed in new situations based on past experiences. A range of issues covered in the research on video games and experience include the development of identity in children and learning (Dodge et al., 2008); models and model-based thinking in science learning and the control of avatars for interacting with complex systems (Honey & Hilton, 2011); the presence of distributed intelligence and cross-functional teams for learning in massive multiplayer online role-playing games (Steinkeuhler & Duncan, 2009); and situated meaning, that is, the ways in which games represent verbal meaning through images, actions, and dialog, not just other words and definitions (Ito et al., 2009). The foundation for the ‘‘optimal learning experience’’ viewpoint is based on contemporary learning theories that emphasize mechanisms of motivated engagement (Posner & Rothbart, 2007) – for example, use of challenging yet rewarding learning materials that attract and maintain student attention and application of memory skills. To be successful, such learning experiences must get the balance right between using materials and methods that are sufficiently challenging yet age appropriate for students of various developmental stages, but also attract and maintain student interest and motivation across a wide range of Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

99

developmental and individual differences (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010). In addition, successful optimal learning experiences must maintain a broad range of the affective/ motivational, cognitive, and behavioral features for student motivation and engagement (Deater-Deckard, Chang, & Evans, 2013). For example, experiences that trigger positive emotion (i.e., affective/motivational engagement), build anticipation, interest, and excitement to enter into learning and solving difficult problems. In addition, experiences that sustain attention and application of memory (i.e., cognitive engagement), permit encoding and retrieval of information that is relevant to, rather than irrelevant or distracting from, the learning task at hand. Furthermore, highly effective learning experiences that spur affective/motivational and cognitive features of engagement in turn promote student persistence in the face of challenging material (i.e., behavioral engagement) – the ‘‘Hang in there; keep at it; work hard’’ behavior that students must employ for learning to be optimized (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). Developmentally, there are varying requirements for educational video games in regard to the most effective engagement triggers, with stronger emphasis on frequent and immediate rewards for younger students whose self-regulatory capacities are immature, and stronger emphasis on delayed reward and demand for longer periods of sustained attention and persistence for older students who have much stronger self-regulation capacities (e.g., Blair, 2002). Specific to mathematical learning, video games can afford opportunities for students to enact their mental ways of operating (Olive, 2000). Thus, by interacting with a welldesigned game, students can physically carry out actions that, otherwise, might be carried out only in imagination. Enacting mental actions through manipulation of physical or virtual objects could provide opportunities for students to coordinate those mental actions, resulting in new ways of operating (Simon & Tzur, 2004). Research on the use of physical and virtual manipulatives indicates that such opportunities benefit students’ retention of mathematical concepts and their problem-solving ability (Clements, 1999). Game play on mobile computing devices, such as the iPad, affords a wide array of actions, including tapping, pinching, swiping, rotating, panning (dragging), and long press, or holding one’s finger in place. Moreover, the built-in accelerometer and gyroscope detect movements of the device itself. We designed the CandyFactory game with these affordances in mind, and although research on the effectiveness of this game on mathematical learning is preliminary, two early studies indicate that the game has potential to increase mathematical engagement (Chang, Evans, Kim, Samur, Deater-Deckard, & Norton, 2012) and mathematical learning (Norton, Wilkins, & Boyce, 2012). Empirical research studies examining the efficacy of educational games for increasing mathematics achievement are relatively new. Consistent across the findings of these studies are that the playing of educational video games significantly increases students’ mathematics achievement compared to paper-and-pencil drills. For example, Ke (2008a) and Oblinger (2006) attribute students’ improved learning in the context of serious games to the positive Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106

Author’s personal copy (e-offprint) 100

M. A. Evans et al.: Youth and Video Games

attitudes that are aroused through playing them that then extend toward learning. Rosas et al. (2002) also cite the positive effect of serious games on students’ motivation toward learning. Vogel et al. (2006) further highlighted the cognitive gains from serious games that promoted academic achievement. Using a meta-analysis, Vogel et al. (2006) examined 32 empirical studies and concluded that educational games in classrooms helped students gain cognitively and show significantly higher performance compared to traditional instruction. Studies examining the impact of game play on mathematics achievement also show that the incorporation of competition and cooperation within serious games enhances students’ achievement. Specifically, Ke and Grabowski (2007) assigned 125 fifth-grade students (10–11 year olds) to play a cooperative team-game, an interpersonal competitive game, or no-game-play condition. Based on pre- and posttest findings, students in the cooperative team-game condition showed the most positive attitude toward mathematics; students in both game play conditions showed higher increases in mathematics scores compared to the no-game-play group. General findings from the literature also indicate that the hours of students’ recreational game play was related to mathematics achievement. Many studies indicate that a reasonable amount of game play (i.e., 25 min to 6 h per day) was significantly beneficial to learning than nogame-play (Chang et al., 2012; Gillispie, Martin, & Parker, 2010; Ke & Grabowski, 2007; Kim & Chang, 2010). However, sustained hours of play (i.e., more than 8 h) was shown to impair mathematics achievement (Ritzhaupt, Higgins, & Allred, 2011; Kim & Chang, 2010). Overall, the findings above indicate that, first, when designing research on educational games, the type of video games used in the classrooms, the total duration of game play, and the instruments used to measure students’ mathematics achievement warrant initial validation so that researchers can ensure reliability of results and validity of claims. Second, coherent integration of the selected educational game with the curriculum is essential for sound research. Educational games should be used as supplement, aid, and/or reward for the instruction, not as the only instructional medium for learning or teaching a specific content. We discuss the elements that are important for game designers to include in educational games to increase the likelihood of positive effects on student learning later below.

Video Games and Engagement While reviewing the literature on the effects of video games on performance and engagement, Hoffman and Nadelson (2010) position engagement as academically related to achievement, motivation, and task persistence; the balance between interest and task challenge then determines the strength of engagement. If the task is too easy for students, engagement decreases; however, if the task is within a student’s range of ability, or what Vygotsky called, in zone of Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106

proximal development, and if it is challenging, students’ engagement increases (Chaiklin, 2003). The operationalization of engagement in this way provides potentially useful requirements for researchers investigating the effects of video games and game developers who leverage findings from psychological research to invoke or maintain engagement in intentional ways. According to Van Eck (2006) researchers should be cautious in continuing to claim that all video games are effective for all learners and all learning outcomes. Instead, researchers need to explain why game-based learning is engaging and effective. What are the things that make children interested in games? Jones (1998) defined engagement in games as ‘‘the nexus of intrinsic knowledge and/or interest and external stimuli that promote initial interest in, and continued use of a computer-based learning environment’’ (p. 205). Interest is the main factor for engagement because it provides intrinsic motivation that is initiated by the external stimuli to which learners are exposed. Jones (1998) also contends that games have diverse features that attract children’s interest such as graphics, music, visual effects, and interesting animations. The most important feature pertains to challenge; that is, games should have a challenging problem to solve. Tackling a problem becomes a challenging learning environment for students (Gee, 2010b). If the problem is within their abilities, or even at the limits of their abilities, and if it is meaningful for them, it will attract their interest. Their interest on the problem will help students explore and overcome the problem, and promote their learning how to negotiate similar problems in future (Sandford & Williamson, 2005).

Video Games: Features, Attributes, and Mechanisms As Schell (2008) notes, the professional design of any video game should be focused on those elements (or mechanics) essential to achieve the desired experience. There are known obstacles to designing effective educational games and these obstacles can result in identifiable shortcomings. The efficacy of video games is based on their status as action systems where skills and challenges are progressively balanced, goals are clear, feedback is immediate, and unambiguous and relevant stimuli can be differentiated from irrelevant stimuli. Together, these factors combine to contribute to the flow of experience. First of all, prescription from entertainment video game developers states that a fundamental prerequisite for designers is to provide an authentic challenge for players. Entertainment games enjoyed by youth leverage underlying mechanics that challenge predictably in comparison to video games designed by educators. Two identifiable areas where nonprofessional game designers fail is by making games too difficult and failing to appreciate the power of narrative as integral to game play. Designers and researchers have noted these shortcomings and encourage those entering the video development enterprise such as instructional designers to abide by these well-tested methods Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


(Hirumi et al., 2010; Suh, Moyer, & Heo, 2005). Another feature that contributes to an effective game is that it allows for different ways to solving the puzzle or question to sustain player interest. Second, a feature of good entertainment video games is feedback (Sandford & Williamson, 2005). Most commonly, video games provide scoring systems and on-screen metrics to indicate progress and success. Thus, feedback is provided visually, and the sound design and effects play a critical role in the overall shaping of feedback so that they become integral to game play and enjoyment. Challenge and feedback may be necessary, but are not sufficient, because reflection and articulation are needed to present a fully engaging video game experience. The video game platform should provide players with the opportunity to reflect on performance and, ideally, to share results regarding progress through levels or specific actions in the game so that they can explain what they have learned. This reflective function, which is sound in terms of accepted pedagogical practice, should be integrated seamlessly into gameplay to avoid interference with the engaging qualities that make video games fun. Through investigations of off-the-shelf educational games and during our development of the CandyFactory game, eight elements of effective educational games were identified. These elements can be characterized as reflecting cognitive aspects (clear goals every step of the way, immediate feedback to one’s actions, balance between challenges and skills); affective aspects (no worry of failure, internalization, social aspect of the game); and behavioral aspects (providing opportunities for articulation and reflection, robust reward system) (Atkinson & Hirumi, 2010; Bowman, 1982; Csikzentmihalyi, 1996; Gee, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Kiili, 2005; Kiili & Ketamo, 2007). Incorporating such elements in educational games likely increases the probability of learning and engagement. Consequently, the CandyFactory game was designed to take into consideration cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects thought to facilitate learning in mathematics and capitalize on what is known from industry practice.

The CandyFactory Game The CandyFactory game was designed to facilitate middle school students’ (ages 11–15) algebra-readiness with an emphasis on fractions. The middle school years and fractions context provide an opportune setting to support students’ transition from arithmetic to ‘‘generalized arithmetic’’ – as algebra is characterized (Bastable & Schifter, 2008; Carpenter, Franke, & Levi, 2003) – serving the goal of ‘‘algebra for all’’ (Kaput, 1998, 2008; Moses & Cobb, 2000). The design of the game was based on a hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT; Simon & Tzur, 2004). The HLT is reflected in research demonstrating that developing measurement concepts for fractions is a key component of algebra-readiness (Hackenberg & Lee, 2012), and that tasks requiring students to iterate unit fractions facilitate that development (Olive & Vomvoridi, 2006). Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

101

For example, a measurement conception for 7/5 supports students’ understanding of 7/5 as a size relative to the whole; students can develop this conception by treating 1/5 as a unit measure and iterating (making connected copies of) that unit. Thus, the CandyFactory game was designed to enable students to physically enact their mental actions of partitioning wholes into equal parts (e.g., using finger swipes to slice the whole into five fifths) and iterating one of those parts to produce fractions of various sizes (e.g., dragging a copy of one of the fifths seven times to produce 7/5). However, we recognized that the effectiveness of this researchbased design would not ensure that students would actually want to engage with the game. Thus, participatory design and multiple iterations of playtesting and software testing were undertaken. In the CandyFactory game students work their way through five game levels that are designed to visually introduce them to the underlying principles of fractions. In each level, students are compelled to create customer orders by dividing candy into smaller components and replicating these components to form percentages of the whole. As they progress through the levels, students are directed to visualize increasingly more complex scenarios – from simple parts of a whole to proper and improper fractions. To complete the game, students need to master five fraction schemes across the five game levels: Level 1: Part – whole Level 2: Partitive unit Level 3: Partitive Level 4: Iterative Level 5: Reversible partitive To encourage game play and concept retention, students are assessed at the end of each level and can earn awards based on the speed and accuracy of their work (see Figure 1). Below, we detail levels of the educational video game, identifying how the game incorporates features to enhance cognitive, behavioral, and affective components of engagement.

Level One: Part – Whole Students begin by using visibly partitioned candy pieces to assemble a variety of customer orders. Students must count the number of pieces in the candy tray (n), then select the number of pieces needed to fill a customer order (m) to create the fraction of the whole (m/n). For Level 1, students work only with proper fractions and the number of pieces in a customer order never exceeds the number of pieces available in the candy tray. Beginning with a simple part – whole relationship (m/n) helps acquaint students with game play before progressing onto more complex relationships, reflective of good game design principles. The parts – whole relationship (m/n) is the first scheme students construct to conceptualize fractions and CandyFactory supports that construction through design. Steffe and Olive (2010) refer to this way of operating as the part-whole fraction scheme. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106



Figure 1. Shift log, in left panel, encourages players to reflect on actions after each ‘‘shift’’ within a level. Right panel highlights trophies acquired through game play.

Level Two: Partitive Unit In Level Two, students no longer work with visibly partitioned candy. Instead, they must use finger swipes to slice each bar into smaller pieces of equal size. They then select a single piece to create a unit fraction (1/n) that matches the order size. Imagining the whole as a repeated unit fraction, which is supported through game visuals, mechanics, and user actions, helps students transcend the parts-whole concept of fractions to begin to understand unit fractions as being relative to the whole. Steffe and Olive (2010) refer to this way of operating as the partitive unit fraction scheme.

Level Three: Partitive In Level Three, students are asked to create any proper fraction to complete the customer order. Students are expected to visualize fractions as a size relative to the whole and imagine the solution of m/n as m copies of the unit fraction (1/n). Steffe and Olive (2010) refer to this way of operating as the partitive fraction scheme. This sequence is depicted in Figure 2 (beginning in top left panel and moving clockwise), whereby the student receives the customer order at the bottom and slices manufactured order, copies units of candy to match the order, verifies manufactured piece to ordered piece, and then ships to move to next order.

Level Four: Iterative Level Four again builds on previous learning levels, leveraging sound pedagogy and game design in concert. Students now are asked to create any fraction, including improper fractions (a scenario of m/n where m can be greater than n). Although the logic required to complete orders in Level Four may appear similar to the partitive fraction scheme introduced in Level Three, the reasoning involved is qualitatively different. To properly produce the improper fraction, students must coordinate the unit Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106

fraction, improper fraction, and the whole within the improper fraction. Students who do not coordinate these three units will often confuse the improper fraction with the whole. Students who can coordinate these three units are said to be operating with an iterative fraction scheme (Steffe & Olive, 2010).

Level Five: Reversible Partitive The final level of CandyFactory in its current iteration is the reverse of Level Four, which places the learner on the boundaries of proficiency. Students are given a fraction (proper or improper) and directed to produce the whole from it. For example, a student will be given a piece that is m/n of the whole. The student will need to slice the given piece into m parts and make n copies of that piece. This way of operating is referred to as the reversible partitive fraction scheme (Steffe & Olive, 2010). Overall, CandyFactory represents a first attempt by our multidisciplinary team to design, develop, and deploy an educational game that adheres to sound theoretical, pedagogical, and industry principles. Much effort has been placed in understanding and appropriating industry practice from a game design perspective. One technique that has enhanced the outputs of our efforts is participatory design, a methodology that compels designers to work closely with stakeholders (supervisors and principals), clients (teachers), and end-users (students) in an effort to have players’ needs and expectations drive design as opposed to solely relying on abstract theory and principles (Bødker, Kensing, & Simonsen. 2004).

The Participatory Design of Educational Games Participatory design (PD) is an industry practice that was initially used in the design and development of computer Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


103

Figure 2. Level 3 game play, guiding student to enact operations to support partitive fraction scheme. Video game mechanics and actions are designed to enhance engagement. applications and systems in Scandinavia and referred to as cooperative design. (Bødker, Kensing, & Simonsen, 2004). The primary goal of PD is to help provide greater consideration and understanding of the needs and wants of system users. As the practice moved westward to the US, the term participatory replaced cooperative given the nature of the first applications in business and the need to stress the vested interest of the participants. PD is now an emerging area for instructional design and technology that is an area worthy of more empirical work. In the context of CandyFactory research, PD was used to carefully integrate the needs, perspectives, and contexts of teachers, therefore increasing the likelihood of diffusion, adoption, and impact of the dashboard application to provide a more user centered experience. The dashboard application under development, which draws substantively from teacher input, presents achievement data to allow teachers, in real time, to assess and diagnose individual student performance. The dashboard application relies on principles from data visualization to organize this data for quick and easy reference to counter what could become data deluge. This approach conforms with Kçnings, Brand-Gruwel, Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

and Van Merrinboer (2010) who used a participatory design approach working with secondary teachers and students in a codesign activity that emphasized perspective. Investigators reported that results from exploratory work were encouraging in that a participatory design approach allowed instructional designers and teachers to gain insights about student learning to facilitate improvement in classroom practices (Evans, Abel, & Mussleman, 2012). Another industry practice that we used when developing the CandyFactory was that of playtesting and user-testing processes. Playtesting is performed at various stages of the game development process. The results of this process influence overall game design while findings from playtesting and usability testing empirically drive revisions that lead to overall improvements to game mechanics that then affect game play. Though we continue to refine our educational game design workflow, the development of the CandyFactory provided a useful test case to incorporate participatory design, multiple iterations of playtesting, and software testing in an effort to produce engaging, yet pedagogicallysound, video games. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106



Implications for Pedagogy Educational games such as CandyFactory that incorporate design features described here can be valuable for educators and researchers alike. In particular, we have noted from a review of the literature that providing immediate feedback on students’ actions satisfies conditions necessary for students to reflect on activity-effect relations (Simon & Tzur, 2004), which supports the construction of new concepts. Such design features also incorporate aspects of virtual manipulatives (Clements, 1999), which enable students to physically enact mental actions in new ways. Beyond the potential educational benefits, exemplified in the CandyFactory game, these features can benefit researchers attempting to model students’ knowledge and learning. To build models of students’ mathematical knowledge and learning, researchers often employ teaching experiments methodology with small groups of students (Steffe & Thompson, 2000). During teaching experiments, researchers act as teachers, too, in attempting to provoke and probe students’ problem-solving activity. This activity, including students’ verbalizations, forms the basis for making inferences about, and building models of, students’ mathematical ways of operating. Games designed in the manner described here can support model building by provoking this kind of activity and by providing a medium for students to enact it. Teaching experiments conducted with such games can expand research opportunities in at least two ways. First, as virtual environments, the games may provide opportunities for students to enact actions that could not be otherwise enacted physically, thus making those actions visible and expanding opportunities for researchers to make inferences about and build models of the students’ mathematical knowledge. Second, the devices themselves can capture these actions, making it possible to collect data from a large number of students. In these regards, mobile computing devices present a new opportunity for technology to enhance research.

Implications of effort on the CandyFactory Through our work, we have strengthened our view that technology in and of itself is not the solution to drawing and maintaining student interest. Instead, technology ‘‘works’’ only to the extent that it is developed and tested to be effective with the specific target student population and learning material/content of interest. Universal principles of game design and development eventually must yield to specific (and sometimes highly idiosyncratic) task demands and engagement barriers that rest within a particular learning domain (such as fractions and other pre-algebraic functions) and a particular subpopulation of students (such as middle school students who still are struggling with basic understanding of how to manipulate fractions). And even with successful game development that addresses Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106

relevant universal and specific sets of principles, there remain wide ranging individual differences that students bring to and take away from each and every learning situation (Posner & Rothbart, 2007). These temperament-based differences in emotion, cognition, and behavior represent still another level of variation that must be addressed in any effective ‘‘psychology of learning’’ that utilizes video game mechanics to grow achievement outcomes. How best to do that remains a major challenge for our interdisciplinary fields of education, mathematics, psychology, and engineering, as we strive to develop games that work for the widest variety of students and contexts. Our work also has shown us that using effectively developed educational video games can help build student self-confidence and efficacy in all domains of learning that are critical to academic attainment and success. These various interrelated aspects of student self-concepts provide the foundation for present and future motivation for learning in the face of feedback that often is mixed, and sometimes predominantly negative for students who are really struggling (Marsh & Martin, 2011). Theory and empirical research has demonstrated sometimes powerful links between growth in students’ self-perceptions as people who can learn material that is challenging, and their achievement (Dweck, 2006). This process is fueled in part by enhanced engagement and persistence with learning material, codified in habits and practices that are usually described as ‘‘self-regulation’’ or ‘‘self-discipline’’ that are critical to academic success (Deater-Deckard & Wang, 2012; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). The challenge in this regard is the development of educational video games that build student knowledge and performance, while also building (rather than substituting or even decreasing) student self-efficacy. We see our work as also having ramifications for software engineering. A video game is created in the form of software running on a computer such as handheld (e.g., iOS or Android mobile device), laptop, or desktop computer. A common misconception about youth and video game development is that it is just computer programming, but programming is just one of more than a dozen processes in the software development life cycle. A video game must be developed using software engineering processes (Pressman, 2010). A software engineering life cycle for video game development consists of the processes of: problem formulation, requirements engineering, architecting, design, programming, integration, delivery/deployment, and maintenance. Many more processes exist. However, these software engineering processes should be explicitly defined as applicable to video game development. We plan to create a ‘‘video game development methodology’’ defining these processes through our continuing research on improving the CandyFactory (Evans, Abel, & Mussleman, 2012). Overall, we are cautiously optimistic regarding the role of video games in formal and informal learning environments. Though much work published until recently has investigated video game play and learning in informal environments (Cf. Salen, 2007), increasingly investigators are conducting more rigorous quasi-experimental studies in Ó 2013 Hogrefe Publishing


formal classroom settings (Ke, 2008a, 2008b). The results of these efforts, where our work is squarely positioned, are revealing the potential of educational games to positively influence learning and engagement that predicts enhanced proficiency in strategic content domains. Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. DRL-1118571 and the Institute for Society, Culture and Environment (ISCE) at Virginia Tech. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF or ISCE. The The Learning Transformation Research Group (http://ltrg.centers.vt.edu) at Virginia Tech includes the authors and a talented team of graduate and undergraduate research assistants.

References Atkinson, T., & Hirumi, A. (2010). The game brain. In A. Hirumi (Ed.), Playing games in school (pp. 57–73). Washington, DC: International Society for Technology Education (ISTE). Bastable, V., & Schifter, D. (2008). Classroom stories: Examples of elementary students engaged in early algebra. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of child functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127. Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J. (2004). Participatory IT design: Designing for business and workplace realities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation. Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22, 14–17. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic & algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chang, K., Wu, L., Weng, S., & Sung, Y. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 58, 775–786. Clements, D. H. (1999). Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1, 45–60. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., & Evans, M. (2013). Engagement states and learning from educational games. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 139, 21–30. Deater-Deckard, K., & Wang, Z. (2012). Development of temperament and attention: Behavioral genetic approaches. In M. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (2nd edn., pp. 331–342). New York, NY: Guilford.


105

Dodge, T., Barab, S., Stuckey, B., Warren, S., Heiselt, C., & Stein, R. (2008). Children’s sense of self: Learning and meaning in the digital age. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19, 225–249. Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House/Ballantine. Evans, M. A., Abel, T. D., & Musselman, R. (2010). Designing a data visualization app for Fang, X., & Zhao, F. (2010). Personality and enjoyment of computer game play. Computers in Industry, 61, 342–349. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: MIT Press. Gee, J. (2010a). New digital media and learning as an emerging area and ‘‘worked examples’’ as one way forward: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gee, J. (2010b). Video games: What they can teach us about audience engagement. Nieman Reports, 64, 52–54. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Gillispie, L., Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2010). Effects of a 3D video game on middle school student achievement and attitude in mathematics. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 4, 68–80. Hackenberg, A. J., & Lee, M. Y. (2012). How does students’ fractional knowledge influence equation writing? Manuscript submitted for publication. Hirumi, A., Appelman, B., Rieber, L., & van Eck, R. (2010). Preparing instructional designers for game-based learning: Part 1. Tech Trends, 54, 27–37. Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: a mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 245–270. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9134-9 Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. L. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., HerrStephenson, B., . . . Tripp, L. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jones, M. G. (1998, February). Creating electronic learning environments: Games, flow and the user interface. Presentation at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), St. Louis, MO, USA. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by ‘‘algebrafying’’ the K-12 curriculum. In G. Burrill & J. FerriniMundy (Eds.), The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum (pp. 25–26). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Erlbaum. Ke, F. (2008a). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay?. Computers & Education, 51, 1609–1620. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003 Ke, F. (2008b). Alternative goal structures for computer gamebased learning. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 3, 429–445.

Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106



Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Gameplaying for math’s learning: Cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 249–259. Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 13–24. Kiili, K., & Ketamo, H. (2007). Exploring the learning mechanism in educational games. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 15, 319–324. Kim, S., & Chang, M. (2010). Computer games for the math achievement of diverse students. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 224–232. Kçnings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (2010). An approach to participatory instructional design in secondary education: an exploratory study. Educational Research, 52, 45–59. Marsh, H. W., & Martin, A. J. (2011). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relation and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 59–77. doi: 10.1348/000709910X503501 Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB). (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington DC: National Academies Press. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. Jr. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the algebra project. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Norton, A., Wilkins, J. L. M., & Boyce, S. (2012). Supporting students’ constructions of fractions schemes: Is there an app for that, too? In L. R. Van Zoest, J.-J. Lo, & J. L. Kratke (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology for Mathematics Education. Kalamazoo, MI: University of Western Michigan. Oblinger, D. (2006). Games and learning: Digital games have the potential to bring play back into the educational experience. Educause Quarterly, 3, 5–7. Olive, J. (2000). Computer tools for interactive mathematical activity in the elementary school. International Journal for Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 241–262. Olive, J., & Vomvoridi, E. (2006). Making sense of instruction on fractions when a student lacks necessary fractional schemes: The case of Tim. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 18–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.11.003 Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Educating the human brain. Washington, DC: APA. Pressman, R. S. (2010). Software engineering: A practitioner’s approach (7th edn.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ritzhaupt, A., Higgins, H., & Allred, B. (2011). Effects of modem educational game play on attitudes towards mathematics, mathematics self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22, 277–297. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marlanov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., . . . Salinas, M. (2002). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40, 71–94. Salen, K. (2007). The ecology of games; connecting youth, games, and learning. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Samur, Y., & Evans, M. A. (2012, April). The effects of serious games on performance and engagement: A review of the

Zeitschrift fr Psychologie 2013; Vol. 221(2):98–106

literature (2001–2011) Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Sandford, R., & Williamson, B. (2005). Games and learning. NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved from http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/handbooks/Handbook133 Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book lenses. New York, NY: Morgan Kaufmann. Sherry, J. L. (2013). Formative research for STEM educational games: Lessons from the Children’s Television Workshop. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 221 doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/ a000134 Simon, M. A., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 91–104. Sims, K. V., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: the case of video game players. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 97–115. doi: 10.1002/acp.759 Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35, 19–29. Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children’s fractional knowledge. New York, NY: Springer. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2009). Informal scientific reasoning in online virtual worlds. In Journal of Science Education & Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10956–008-9120–8 Suh, J., Moyer, P., & Heo, H. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3, 1–21. Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 16–30. Vogel, J. J., 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, 229–243. Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., . . . Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82, 61–89. doi: 10.3102/0034654312436980 Michael A. Evans Department of Learning Sciences and Technologies Virginia Tech 306 War Memorial Hall (0313) Blacksburg VA 24061 USA Tel. +1 540 231-3743 E-mail [email protected]
