Situated in the video game design literature to foster problem-based learning, this chapter illustrates the application of educational theories to create Serious Educational Games (SEGs). SEGs present a learning condition where students can be engaged in standard-based STEM concepts and incorporate these concepts into a fun, interactive challenge where the goal is to solve a problem. This chapter explores a theoretical research investigation of such a learning environment. Students researched standard-based STEM concepts then used design techniques (i.e., story creation, flow chart, decision trees, and storyboarding techniques) and proprietary software to develop their own SEGs. This work sheds light on the process and encourages others to partake in creating similar learning environments, while providing insight into how to design for sustainability.
Serious Educational Games (SEGs) are on the rise and several psychological and educational theories have been utilized by researchers to justify why educators should invest time and energy to incorporate SEGs into teaching environments (Dede, 1995; Dede, 2005; Gee, 2003; Gee, 2005; Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005). SEGs “allow teachers and students to connect real-world scenarios with common school content, thus answering the age-old question, ‘Why do I need to know this?’ (Annetta, 2010). Teachers face this question often. In an effort to incorporate a more well-rounded and holistic curriculum we highlight in this chapter a three-year project to bring STEM boldly into one teacher’s classroom. The project entailed teachers attending professional development for video-game construction then bringing their students to summer workshops to have students create their own video games. Science and mathematics teachers were invited to summer institutes where they used game development software to create content standard-based video games their students would play during the school year. Student perceptions were gathered after they played their teacher’s game. This feedback was used to inform further development of the software funded through the National Science Foundation (for further details see Annetta, Holmes, Cheng, & Folta, 2010). The software was scaled-up and used the following year by the same students to create their science content standard-based video game. The intention was to have the video games from the project in a repository to be used as part of educational activities.
In this chapter we will first present the research foundation of SEGs and problem-based learning then we turn to our theoretical research, a study where teachers and students created science content video games. Third, we discuss focus group interviews conducted to gather information about student perceptions toward their learning of and engagement with scientific concepts through research and SEG development. We also interviewed a teacher who explored the value of integrating SEGs into the curriculum. We complete the chapter with classroom models for the incorporation of SEGs into science classrooms.
According to Shaffer (2006), games provide a more authentic context for student inquiries. This supports the National Science Education Standards position that “inquiry into authentic questions generated from student experiences is the central strategy for teaching science” (NSES, 1996).
Annetta, Cook, and Schultz (2007) explored how video game design could foster problem-based learning that was congruent with inquiry-based instruction. In the article, they discuss a game that was created by a high school science teacher based on science competency goals that allowed for students to engage in an interactive environment while learning the science content. According to the researchers, “one way to harness the power of video games for science instruction is to design games as problem based learning scenarios” (Annetta, Cook, & Schultz, 2007). As students played the game, their prior knowledge of the science content the teacher had taught was connected to real-life experiences that students could experience through the virtual world as they engaged in solving a problem within the gaming environment.
According to Dickey (2007), educational game design is based on constructivist teaching models. As students play the game, they are able to explore and construct knowledge. Challenges embedded for players throughout the game allow students to use their critical thinking skills to solve problems. In this way, educational games become more than just a way to entertain students and captivate students’ attention within the classroom. Educational games become a purposeful educational tool or instructional method to promote student learning.
Studies have shown SEGs to increase students’ academic performance, with positive learning gains after play (Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002; Linn, 2004; Mayo, 2009; Tuzun, Yilmaz-Soylu, Karakus, Inal, & Kizilkaya, 2009). With the advent of SEGs and integration of these technologies in today’s K-12 science classrooms we may begin to see improvements in science scores across the country as more students become motivated and are engaged to learn science. Mayo (2007) proposed five reasons why video games could potentially address the science deficiencies seen in the educational system today. First, video games are able to reach a large number of students since a number of students already play video games on a daily basis. Second, video games give students the opportunity to learn science content outside of the classroom as they engage with the video games outside of school. The third reason proposed, Mayo bases that video games are compelling for students because they involve experiential and inquiry learning. As students play the game, they are learning by doing. Throughout the game, students are making decisions that have either positive or negative consequences that affect the player’s ability to reach the end goal of the game. As students progress through the game and are rewarded for making correct decisions, students are encouraged to continue playing the game to reach the end goal. The fourth reason Mayo proposes video games have the potential to address science deficiencies is based on research that has shown gaming to increase dopamine levels, which has been found to be important in memory storage. As students engage in the game, dopamine levels increase, which may stimulate learning of content material embedded within the game. The final reason proposed by Mayo is that video games are a better alternative to lecture as they increase time students are on task. As students play, they are actively engaging with not only the gaming environment, but also with the content embedded within that environment. As students play games, they may have a greater depth of understanding of the content and be better able to recall the concepts they learned through play.
Piaget (1962) suggested the main organizing element in game play consists of explicit rules that guide children's group behavior. Game play is very organized in comparison to sociodramatic play. Games usually involve two or more sides, competition, and agreed-upon criteria for determining a winner. Children use games flexibly to meet social and intellectual needs. In single player games, the “other side” in the competitive duo is the machine-through interaction with non-player characters. This allows for learning to be replicable and the learning objects to be met by a variety of learners who possess a variety of skills and competencies. The rules need be explicit so learning can increase and become more complex as the player proceeds through the game environment. The actions of the player are usually repetitive and serve to explore the environment and its objects (Phillips, 1981; Piaget, 1962).
Several studies and articles, including the article “Major changes needed to boost K-8 science achievement” (2006) have elucidated that our current methods of teaching science are insufficient at preparing students to enter fields related to science and technology. Students in K-12 are traditionally taught science using lecture based teaching methodologies. Studies that have compared traditional lecture teaching to teaching approaches that utilize video games have been positive, in that students score higher after learning through video game play than learning through lecture (McClean, Saini-Eidukat, Schwert, Slator, & White, 2001; Annetta, Klesath, & Meyer, 2009), indicating that lecture based learning may not be the best instructional approach for today’s students. Although these teaching and learning techniques may have been sufficient before today’s students referred to as digital natives require an alternative approach to teaching and learning to motivate and interest them in learning science.
Spires (2008) elaborates on the challenge teachers face today reaching today’s generation of students coined the N generation or Net generation. Spires proposes that serious games have the potential to not only reach today’s students who come into classrooms a different set of skills, needs, and interests, but also to redefine how students learn. In order to reach today’s students and prepare these students with the 21st century skills needed to be successful, teachers must understand and be able to meet the needs of today’s students through their design of appropriate instruction. Since a growing number of students are playing video games, video games afford teachers the opportunity to transform an activity students are already doing for entertainment to an activity that engages students to learn. SEGs require students to utilize critical thinking and problem solving skills. SEGs, if integrated properly into classrooms as an instructional method, can increase students’ problem solving skills and thus better prepare today’s students.
One way to motivate and interest students to learn science is through serious educational games. Rieber (1998) suggested that serious play provides students with both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to learn. As students play, they engage in the activity at hand and devote their time and energy to accomplishing the task (Cheng, Annetta, Folta, & Holmes, 2009; Rieber, 1998).
Although research has shown the potential for SEGs to increase student motivation and learning, eSchool News (2008) reports that only 10% of teachers use gaming as an instructional too although 64% of students surveyed indicated that they play online games regularly. Of the students surveyed, 51% indicated they were interested in educational gaming because it makes difficult topics easier to understand. Video games are educational tools that can teach students about real-life problems, while entertaining and engaging students (Reuters, 2007). Borja (2006) indicated, “educational video games have great potential to hone critical thinking skills, help teach academic curricula, and evaluate what students learn.” Other studies indicated the impact SEGs have on 21st Century Skills (Annetta, Cheng, & Holmes, 2010; Federation of American Scientists, 2006; Galarneau & Zibit, 2006; Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson, & Weigel, 2007; Rosser, et al., 2007), Universal Design (Annetta, Cook, & Schultz, 2007), and student engagement (Annetta, Mangrum, Holmes, Collazo, & Cheng, 2009; Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Cheng, 2009).
The purpose of incorporating SEGs into science classrooms is to engage students with scientific concepts and increase student learning. In order for SEGs to be utilized as instructional tools, the SEGs have to be designed to address the needs of today’s learners. To be successful, SEGs must have the following elements, including: giving the player an identity, immersing the player into the game and motivating them to learn, allowing the player to interact with an ever increasingly complex gaming environment, and increasing assessment through informed learning within game play. In addition, the SEG should inform teaching practice and allow teachers to create other instructional activities that are in line with the learning goals of the SEG (Annetta, 2010).
Our theoretical research into the ability of SEGs to teach and engage students with scientific concepts revealed that students believed games made the learning of science concepts fun and interesting, and that it was a useful tool that teachers could use to engage and entertain students. Although still in its infant stages, the integration of gaming technologies, such as the student created SEGs in this study into science classrooms, is a potential model for future STEM instruction. The aim of this study was to bridge the current gap between research and practice. Research has shown the potential for SEGs to motivate and interest students in science (Zyda, 2007) and has shown that SEGs can help students understand and master science concepts (Shaffer, 2006); yet few teachers are using SEGs as an instructional tool in their classrooms (Stransbury, 2008).
This study was part of a larger research project and sought to investigate student perceptions of learning and engagement with scientific concepts through research and SEG development. The two phases of this study involved both teacher creation of SEGs and student creation of SEGs. Teachers participated in professional development to create SEGs situated in standard-based science and math curriculum over a two-year period. Students of those teachers participating were incorporated into the study during the second year to play the teacher created game and provide feedback. This feedback was used to improve the SEG software package design for phase two of the study, which began in the third year of the project and involved students creating their own SEGs. In this study, we focused on one teacher from a small, urban, technology-focused high school and his students.
Students Develop SEGs
Students participating in this study, included students who had participated in both phase one and phase two of the project (Group A) and students who had participated only in phase two of the project (Group B). With the support of their school and their mentor teacher, the students from both groups participated in the study to fulfill part of their graduation project requirement. Students attended a summer workshop during which the students began creating a SEG based on a science topic that they had previously researched. Both groups of students had previously researched a standard-based science topic during the school year and completed the research paper requirement prior to creating their game.
During the three-day summer workshop, students worked on their game design, created storyboards and flow charts, and began developing their SEG. The first day of the workshop, students created storyboards for their games (See Figure 1). Creating storyboards allowed the students to outline major aspects of their game from the starting point of the game to the end goal of the game. Each student’s game was broken up into at least four episodes that were based on STEM content gleaned from the topic chosen for the student’s research paper. Episodes were then broken down into segments of the game with each segment representing a single decision or problem-solving portion of the game. In these segments, the player would assume the role of a scientist, engineer, mathematician, or technologist and make decisions based on STEM content knowledge. Segments were further broken down into nodes, each node representing a single scene when playing the game or some decision point where the player needed to make a choice. Each decision point had benefits and/or consequences for the user playing. At the beginning of each episode, tutorials were included to introduce a learning concept and/or explain the game goals to the player. After a segment or during an episode, assessments were included, which was arguably the most important piece that students needed to include in each episode. During the assessments, users would be quizzed and graded on the information that was explained in the tutorial and experienced in that segment of the game. The embedded assessments within the SEGs allowed for scaffolding and support of specific learning outcomes that the game creator wanted the player to reach (Annetta, 2010). During the students’ creation of the game, teachers and/or project staff facilitated the STEM content to be sure misconceptions were not perpetuated in the game.
| Figure 1. Student creating a storyboard to outline the SEG from the beginning to the end goal |
|---|
|
After creating their storyboards, students were introduced to the upgraded SEG software package and started to “play” with the program to learn the new version and start building their game. The remaining two days of the workshop, students continued working on their game design documents and further developed their SEGs by designing their gaming environments; adding characters, objects, and sounds; and coding action events and player quizzes. It is important to note that during the three-day workshop, explicit directions were not provided to students as previous workshops revealed that students progressed more rapidly when individualized instruction was provided to students as they needed help.
Towards the end of the summer workshop, interviews were conducted with five students from Group A and four students from Group B to answer the following research questions:
Student Focus Groups
Although more students participated in the summer workshop to build SEGs, a convenience sample of nine students were interviewed in two focus groups. These nine students were selected based on their length of participation in the study. Five students were from Group A, those who participated in the project for three years, and four students from Group B, who participated in the project for one year. Students interviewed were between 15 to 17 years old and included seven males and two females, with self-described ethnicities as Asian American (1), African (1), White (1), Hispanic (1) and African American (5). Interviews were conducted with these selected students to elicit responses related to student perceptions of their learning and engagement with scientific concepts through the writing of their research papers and through the creation of their SEGs. The two groups were selected to determine the effects, if any, that participating in phase one had on the development of student SEGs in phase two of the study and student perception toward their learning of and engagement with scientific concepts through research and SEG development.
Data analysis followed a qualitative methodology that was both inductive and recursive, involving transcription of audio taped interviews, identification of themes and categories, and recognition of similarities and differences between participant responses (Creswell, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Interviews were individually coded and emergent themes were identified by two researchers using a constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to describe student perceptions of learning and engagement within the project. The refined data from both researchers were reviewed collectively and consensus was obtained on all themes.
During the interviews, students were asked about their experiences in science classes that had taken, their usage of computers and video games in class and at home, and questions relating to their experience playing and creating games and their knowledge of science content.
Student Experience With Computers
Of the five students in Group A, who had been a part of Phase I and Phase II of the study, only one student indicated science as their favorite class, with English being favored by most of the other students. All four students in Group B, who were only a part of Phase II, reported science as their favorite class. Overall, students in both groups reported an average rating of 8 with regards to how much they liked science on a scale from 1-10, with certain science classes, including biology and elective science classes being rated higher than other science classes, such as chemistry.
Students in Group A reported labs and hands-on experience being their favorite part of science class, while students in Group B reported learning new things and learning about life to be their favorite part. Students in both groups reported using computers in their science classes on a regular basis, with varying degrees of usage and type of usage depending on the particular science class. Students reported little usage of computers in their chemistry classes, limited to using the computers as a reference or to look up assignments posted online. While other classes, including the life science classes (Biology and Anatomy & Physiology) utilized the computers for conducting lab simulations and research.
Students in both groups reported using computers and playing video games outside of school, with the amount of time spent on the computer or playing video games depending on parental control, school, and interaction with other individuals in the computer/gaming environment. The students reported a range of computer and video game usage from less than one hour a day to up to fifteen hours a day. Group A students reported playing video games an average of two hours per day on school days and between five to fifteen hours during the weekend.
Experience Creating and Playing SEGs
When asked about student preference for creating versus playing a video game, all students responded that they would rather play versus create a video game. Group A students reported that while creating a video game allowed them to funnel their ideas, utilize their creativity, and have a sense of pride for what they had created, that creating a game took time, that the game they were creating was not what they had envisioned due to restrictions of the software program, and that creating a game required problem solving. “What I don’t like is when you are programming and you have so many ideas of exactly how to do it. You know it is going to be awesome when you are done, but you [have] to figure out what you have to do to make it that awesome. It’s hard.” Group B students enjoyed learning how to create a game, having control over the gaming environment, and being able to program, but believed creating a game was more work and didn’t involve the “fun” of being able to play the game.
Prior to creating their SEGs, students wrote a research paper about a specific science topic that later influenced the direction of their game development. Students in Group A indicated that writing the research paper prior to building their game was helpful, because it allowed the student to work faster by having something to build from, while students from Group B either had not seen the connection yet between their research paper and the game they were creating or found it difficult to connect the two. “[The research paper] gives me ideas of what I want to do for my game. The hard part is trying to connect what you are trying to teach the player and make the game.” These differences may be in part attributed to Group A students being part of Phase I in which they were able to play a game that their teacher had created prior to writing their research paper and creating their own game. Although some students in both groups reported having to change their game due to programming restrictions, no students reported having to conduct more research during the game development phase, indicating that the research they had already done for their research paper about that science topic gave them more than enough ideas from which to build their game. All of the student concerns were skills we wanted them to learn, including problem solving and critical thinking. It was hard because they have not learned these skills though traditional instruction.
Finally, students were asked about whether they believed they learned more science content by creating or playing SEGs. Students from both groups believed that both creating and playing games allowed them to learn science content, but that true mastery of the content came from developing their own game. In addition, students from Group A reported that you have to know the content in order to create the game and you spend more time creating a game than playing it, so the knowledge is longer lasting. “While creating a game, you are working on it for a longer period of time and even though you are learning it, ten years from now you probably won’t [remember it] if you are playing a game for like 10 minutes, while if you are creating a game that took you 3 or 4 months to make, it’s probably going to be pretty deep in your head.” Students also indicated that while playing allows you to refresh your knowledge, you are limited in the knowledge of the content that the game creator felt was important for you to know.
With regards to the ability of games to teach science concepts, both groups of students believed that using games to teach concepts made learning those concepts fun and interesting and that it was a useful tool that teachers could use to engage and entertain students. One student from Group A reported that the use of games to teach concepts could be equivalent to a textbook if created efficiently. Students already having experienced playing video games inside and outside of school reported that video games are a form of media that relates to the students and captures their attention. They also indicated that they would like to see more games integrated into science classrooms to help them learn science concepts, but that it can’t just be any game – it needs to be a game that is created well.
By participating in this study, students were able to create a SEG that hopefully will be utilized by other teachers and students alike to teach science concepts. Students in Group A, having participated in the first phase of the project, were better prepared for developing their own SEG during the second phase. Those students were also able to better connect the science concepts in their research paper and integrate those concepts into their game development, than the students who did not participate in the first phase of the study.
While the students in this study believed that both playing and creating games can help them to learn science concepts in a more engaging environment, they also believed that by creating their own game versus merely playing the game that they had developed a deeper understanding and true mastery of the concepts, but that playing games was more fun than creating games. From our interviews with students from both groups, it was evident that as students created their games that students had to first learn the content of game development before they learned the science content, as creating games requires more than just integrating science content knowledge. Until the student is able to overcome problems with programming and able to learn the controls and coding required creating their game, they are not truly engaging in learning science concepts. It was only after students utilized their problem solving skills and learned the content of game development that they began to connect their game to the science content.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
Our theoretical research sought to evaluate students’ creation of SEGs as a method for engaging and teaching students about science content. The findings from this research study have implications not only for those interested in integrating technology, such as SEGs into the classroom to engage students to learn science concepts, but also for those interested in improving how we teach and how students learn science through innovative instructional approaches, including the integration of video games in classrooms as educational tools. With ongoing discussions about how science is best learned and how students should be taught science, our research into the ability of SEGs to teach and engage students with scientific concepts is not only timely with today’s generation of students, but also provides insight into a method of teaching that could be utilized to teach today’s students not only about science concepts, but also to prepare them with the 21st century skills they need to be successful in science and technology related fields. This study exemplifies how teachers could integrate SEGs into their curriculum to positively impact student learning, though this approach requires some out of school time since the curriculum is so packed.
Teacher Reflection
The teacher whose students were involved in the study, who had also created his own SEG for his students to play the previous year, reflected on the role of SEGs in the future of math and science education and the value of integrating SEGs into the curriculum. Although he was unsure about the future use of SEGs in math and science classrooms due to the lack of accessible games that would be both fun and educational for students stating, “we are just not there yet,” he did see the value of integrating SEGs into the curriculum. “It strengthened me as a teacher to rethink my curriculum in terms of how I could get topics to be experiential instead of just problems on paper. To create a game, design a game, around curriculum made me think: How does this stuff relate to the real world?”
During his creation of his own mathematics game in phase one of the project, the teacher indicated that he first wanted to get students into the game and learning how to use the controls within the game, before introducing the algebra content. “There was some definite intention in getting the kids sucked into the game atmosphere and the skill part of it and then once they’re invested in the game...bringing in some of the math concepts as they came to decision points.” This statement highlights a key and important aspect of integrating games as instructional tools in classrooms and echoes what students indicated from our interviews, that in order for students to be engaged with the content, they must first be engaged with the game.
As the teacher reflected on the second phase of the project, during which his students were creating SEGs, he indicated that motivation was a key component to whether the experience of creating a SEG could improve student learning of STEM concepts and/or encourage students to pursue STEM careers in the future. While some students were extrinsically motivated to participate in the project and create a SEG, because they had chosen this as their graduation project; other students were intrinsically motivated and were interested in and curious about the topic they had chosen and gained satisfaction by creating an SEG that other students could play to learn that topic.
While most of the SEGs created during the summer workshop focused on life sciences (Figure 2), with a strong emphasis on medical science, the integration of SEGs into the science curriculum is not limited to just life sciences. SEGs have the potential to be integrated in other science content areas, including chemistry and physics. While we are not claiming that SEGs are the only way to engage students to learn science concepts, from our previous research and this particular study, it is apparent that SEGs can be one instructional approach that teacher’s can integrate in their classrooms to improve student engagement and understanding of science concepts.
| Figure 2. Student building a SEG that explores standard-based STEM concepts |
|---|
 |
Although instructional time is a concern for most teachers, SEGs do not have to monopolize class time. One of the benefits of educational games is that Serious Gaming can extend the classroom learning experience as students play the games and continue their learning from home. Students are already spending hours playing video games at home each week. If we could integrate science video game play into students’ home lives, we could double the amount of time students spend learning science (Mayo, 2007).
When they get home from school, children eagerly devour new information and concepts through the virtual environments of video games. In what I call a stealth-learning environment, children develop skills that connect and manipulate information in the virtual worlds of video games without really knowing that they're learning. Rather than fight what children obviously enjoy and what is natural for them, the enticement of video games can be used to enhance K-12 education. (Annetta, 2007)
As educators, we need to seriously consider what role educational games play in the science classroom and access the learning outcomes achieved by student play of games. The Federation of American Scientists (Feller, 2006) has indicated that video games have the potential to “redefine education.” From our research and other studies, it is evident that it is not just playing video games that benefit students, that students can also have positive learning gains from creating video games. In this way students develop a deeper understanding of the science content (Mayo, 2007). Regardless of whether SEGs are teacher, student, or commercially created, in order for SEGs to be successfully integrated into science classrooms and have a positive effect on student learning outcomes, the game must be embedded into the curriculum in such a way that the game becomes more than just a “one-time adventure” for students (Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Cheng, 2009). Incorporating SEGs into the curriculum requires teachers to re-examine the relationship between the teacher, the learner, and curriculum and instruction (Rieber, Smith, & Noah, 1998). When incorporated effectively into the curriculum, SEGs have the potential to enhance instruction, promote learning, and increase achievement among students in science classrooms.
Classroom Models
While “games provide an alternative platform for communicating science” (Krotoski, 2010) to students, it is difficult at this stage of SEG development to elaborate on a single classroom model in which teachers can integrate SEGs into science classrooms to engage students and help students learn scientific concepts. Although research has shown that games have the potential to teach concepts just as well as other media, including books (Schollmeyer, 2006), research into the extent to which teachers could implement SEGs in classrooms to improve student learning is still in its infant stages. The following examples will hopefully provide classroom teachers with a better understanding of the potential of SEGs to be integrated into their own science classrooms to impact student learning.
Rankin, Vargas, and Taylor (2009) conducted a study to examine the potential of two games, designed for high school chemistry classes, to teach students about solubility curves and chemical reactions involving precipitation. Although designed for high school students, the study involved 27 university students who were introduced to the games, given the opportunity to play the games, and then asked to evaluate their experience playing the games. Results from the study indicated that overall the university students enjoyed the games, would play the games again, and believed the games were helpful for learning the chemistry concepts embedded within the games. It is interesting to note that during the interviews with students from our study, students noted the limited usage of computers or games in chemistry classes. This research shows the potential for teaching students about chemistry concepts using a gaming environment. Rankin, Vargas, and Taylor (2009) elaborated on their vision for incorporating these games into high school chemistry classes, providing teachers with a potential model for incorporating SEGs into the classroom. They indicated that the games by themselves were not intended to teach the concepts of solubility curves or chemical reactions, but rather the games were to be incorporated as part of the classroom teacher’s lesson. They envisioned the classroom teacher using the game to first engage students with the concepts and then to do a follow-up lesson, during which the teacher would teach the students about the concepts that they had engaged with in the game. Another key feature of their research that could be utilized as a model for future integration of SEGs into classrooms was the usage of workbooks. As students played the games and solved problems throughout the game, they utilized workbooks to record their results. Using workbooks during SEG play could be a valuable tool for teachers to evaluate student learning during game play.
Unlike the above example that involved an outsider creating SEGs for student use within the classroom, another potential classroom model for the integration of SEGs into science classrooms involves teacher created SEGs. It is possible that teachers that create SEGs are more likely to utilize the SEG within the classroom to teach their students, because they take ownership in the game they have created for their students (Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Cheng, 2009). It is also possible, as indicated during our interviews with students in our study, that students may have a greater appreciation for playing a game that their teacher created. Students in Group A of our study, who were involved in both phases of the study (Phase I playing the teacher created game and Phase II creating their own game) indicated that they enjoyed playing the game that their teacher had created during Phase I because they knew the individual who had created it and it wasn’t a random game they were playing, it was a game created by their teacher to teach them specific concepts. In speaking with the students, it was apparent that the students respected the efforts the teacher went through to create a game to help teach them the concepts they needed to know, and was respect that was strengthened by the students’ struggles creating their own educational games.
Although creating a SEG takes considerable time, especially for the novice teacher with little experience programming and gaming, the time invested to create an SEG is not unreasonable considering the amount of time the teacher might invest in creating or finding another activity to engage students with and teach students about various scientific concepts. In a study by Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, and Cheng (2009), a high school biology teacher created a game for her students to review genetics concepts. The teacher created game was a problem-based crime scene investigation that tested students’ knowledge about pedigrees, Mendelian genetics, blood typing, and DNA fingerprinting as students worked to solve to the mystery of who committed the crime. In order to compare engagement and learning of students using the teacher created game, the researchers established a control and experimental group of students who were taught by the same biology teacher. Both the control students (n=63) and experimental students (n=66) were first taught about genetics by their classroom teacher using lecture, hands-on inquiry activities, discussions, and independent practice. Following the lesson on genetics, students in the experimental group reviewed genetics concepts by playing the teacher created genetics game, while the control group of students reviewed by using group discussions and doing independent practice activities. After reviewing, both groups were given the end of unit test to access their understanding of genetics concepts. Although post test scores from both groups revealed no significant difference between the two groups, the researchers attributed this to the short time of game play during which the students may have been learning more about maneuvering through the gaming environment rather than engaging with the content of the game, and that maybe both groups had learned the material just as well from the regular instruction rather than what was gained from the review. Although the results of this particular study indicate no difference in student learning of genetic concepts by playing a game to review the concepts versus an alternative method of review, students did report being more engaged by playing the game and again several factors could have been attributed to the lack of statistical differences in students’ posttest scores. The model described here is different from the previously mentioned model with chemistry games, in that the teacher created the game versus an outsider. Teacher created SEGs allow the teacher to align the game with classroom instruction and content standards and allows for the facilitation of inquiry based instruction as teachers select specific content to embed within the game based on the experiences of the teacher’s own students. In this way, the teacher utilizes her students’ experiences to give students a deeper understanding of the content. This model is also different in that the teacher utilized the game as a review for students instead of as a hook to immerse students in the content prior to teaching the content.
Another potential model for the integration of SEGs into classrooms is to allow students to experience the virtual world within the SEG and the real world. A study conducted by Folta (2010), 81 middle school students played the SEG Red Wolf Caper. In the game, students played the role of a wildlife biologist, botanist, or an entomologist to figure out the mystery of who was poisoning the red wolves. At two points during the game, students left the virtual world to venture out into the real world to conduct field tests, in which students identified tracks, scat, trees, or invertebrates depending on the role (wildlife biologist, botanist, entomologist) they chose to play in the game. The researcher hoped that by students experiencing both the virtual and real worlds, students would have a greater interest in the natural world around them and an improved understanding of environmental education concepts. Results from the study indicated that all but one student enjoyed the game and felt the game would be a useful educational tool. As a measure of whether the game increased student learning of environmental concepts, students took a pre and post test and were asked to write a letter to a judge explaining the importance of the reintroducing wolves to the area. From the letters, it was evident that the students were able to apply the concepts learned in the game to a real world scenario. Furthermore, pre and post test scores were statistically different, with higher post test score averages, indicating that students came away from the SEG game experience with more environmental content knowledge. This model is unique and is one that classroom teachers could implement in their efforts to engage students using inquiry based teaching methods.
High school and middle school students are not the only students that can benefit from the integration of SEGs into the science classroom, or are SEGs limited to particular science subjects. In a 2008 study conducted by Annetta, 74 fifth grade students played a teacher created game called Dr. Friction to learn more about simple machines. Prior to playing the game, the students had studied forces and motion for three weeks. Two days prior to playing the game, the teacher introduced the students to the gaming environment to get them familiar with the controls of the game. The researchers were interested in examining whether playing the game enhanced student learning of simple machines and student engagement. Pre and post test score results revealed that students had positive gains in their learning of simple machines from playing the game Dr. Friction and observational video analysis revealed high student engagement during play. In this particular study, students played the teacher created game for several days in the middle of the unit, instead of at the beginning of the unit to capture student interest or at the end of the unit to review concepts with students. This is yet another model that a classroom teacher could utilize when thinking about how to integrate SEGs as an instructional teaching method to increase student engagement and learning of various science concepts.
The classroom models presented above are only but a few of the ways that SEGs could be incorporated into science classrooms not only to entertain and engage students, but also to foster learning of science concepts. Although there is no single best model for how SEGs should or could be integrated into classroom learning environments, as more teachers integrate SEGs into their classrooms and as researchers continue to evaluate the effect of SEGs on student motivation, engagement, and learning, more models will likely emerge. It is important for teachers to evaluate each of these potential models to determine which model(s) are best suited or applicable to teaching within the teacher’s context specific classroom, because “games designed using sound pedagogy actively engage the Net Generation in learning” (Annetta, Murray, Laird, Bohr, & Park, 2006). Annetta, Cook, and Schultz (2007) propose that video games have the potential to meet the growing needs of today’s students who are not only diverse in their learning styles but also in their experiences with technology. Integrating SEGs into science classrooms should be engaging for all students and should provide all students with the opportunity to learn science concepts in an innovative way; however, research has shown that this may not be the case. Therefore, it is important for teachers to consider culture, race, and gender issues that might inhibit the effectiveness of integrating SEGs into their classroom to increase student learning and engagement with scientific concepts.
Although there is a limited commercial market at this time for serious educational games and the games that are commercially available are likely out of the budget range of most schools and teachers, there are several gaming platforms that teachers and students alike can utilize to create educational games situated in constructivist and inquiry based teaching and learning. For those teachers that might be weary of creating a SEG or doubtful of their own skills, continue reading about how a group of in-service teachers participating in a university course designed educational games for their students that were aligned with state science standards and required students to utilize problem solving skills. Annetta, Murray, Laird, Bohr, and Park (2006) evaluated a course that was designed for in-service teachers to create SEGs for students in grades 5-12. The in-service teachers participating in the course were diverse in terms of their technological and computer skill and comfort levels. During the course, the teachers were tasked with creating a game for their students that taught the students about science content. All of the in-service teachers successfully completed the task and created games that had the potential to teach and engage their students with the science content they had chosen. Reflecting on the experience, most of the in-service teachers reported that not only were they excited about implementing the games into their classroom instruction, but that they felt their students would also be excited about playing the games because it would give students a break from the traditional classroom activities. Although teachers felt students would be enthusiastic about playing the game to learn the science content, it was mentioned a particular in-service teacher, like students in our study mentioned, that it would really depend on how well the game was designed. This research with in-service teachers should provide some encouragement for those teachers who do not feel that they are technologically savvy enough to create a SEG or who are not avid gamers. Although creating a SEG takes considerable time, teachers with the resources and support to implement SEGs into the classroom can have positive impacts on their students learning of science concepts.
This research was previously published in Cases on Inquiry through Instructional Technology in Math and Science edited by Lesia Lennex and Kimberely Fletcher Nettleton, pages 464-486, copyright year 2012 by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
Annetta, L. (2007). Video games and simulations as teaching tools. MultiMedia & Internet at Schools , 14(6), 9.
Annetta, L. A. (2008). Video games in education: Why they should be used and how they should be used. Theory into Practice , 47(3), 229–239. doi:10.1080/00405840802153940
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
Annetta, L. A., Cheng, M. T., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing 21st century skills through a teacher created video game for high school biology students. Research in Science & Technological Education , 28(2), 101–114. doi:10.1080/02635141003748358
Annetta, L. A., Cook, M. P., & Schultz, M. (2007). Video games and universal design: A vehicle for problem-based learning. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology , 10(1). Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/vol10_no1/papers/current_practice/annetta_cook_schultz.htm
Annetta, L. A., Holmes, S. Y., Cheng, M. T., & Folta, E. (2010). Measuring student perceptions: Designing an evidenced centered activity model for a serious educational game development software. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations , 2(3). doi:10.4018/jgcms.2010070102
Annetta, L. A., Klesath, M., & Meyer, J. (2009). Taking science online: Evaluating presence through a laboratory experience in a virtual learning environment for entomology students. Journal of College Science Teaching , 39(1), 27–33.
Annetta, L. A., Mangrum, J., Holmes, S., Collazo, K., & Cheng, M. (2009). Bridging reality to virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through video game play in an elementary school classroom. International Journal of Science Education , 31(8), 1091–1113. doi:10.1080/09500690801968656
Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J. A., Holmes, S., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education , 53, 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020
Annetta, L. A., Murray, M., Laird, S. G., Bohr, S. C., & Park, J. C. (2006). Serious games: Incorporating video games the classroom. EDUCAUSE Quarterly , 29(3), 16–22.
Borja, R. (2006). Video games can improve learning, scientist’s report says. Education Week , 26(9), 12–14.
Cheng, M. T., Annetta, L. A., Folta, E., & Holmes, S. Y. (2009). Teaching and learning the impact of amphetamine use on the brain from a neuroscience perspective through serious game play. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Science Education Research Association. Istanbul, Turkey.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed virtual worlds. Educational Technology , 35(5), 46–52.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause. Retrieved from www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm05/eqmo511.
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, 253–273. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9004-7
Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists.
Feller, B. (2006). Scientists say video games can reshape education. The Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.ap.org.
Folta, E. (2010). Investigating the impact on student learning and outdoor science interest through modular educational games: A design-based research study. NCSU Institutional Repository. Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/6136.
Galarneau, L., & Zibit, M. (2006). Multiplayer online games as practice arenas for 21st century competencies . In Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (Eds.), Games and Simulations in Online Learning: Research and Development Frameworks (pp. 59–88). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishers. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3.ch004
Galarneau, L., & Zibit, M. (2006). Online games for 21st century skills . In Gibson, C. A. D., & Prensky, M. (Eds.), Games and Simulations in Online Learning: Research and Development Frameworks (pp. 59–88). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3.ch004
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. (2003). Video games in the classroom? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-learning , 2(1), 5–16. doi:10.2304/elea.2005.2.1.5
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2007). Confronting the challenges of particpatory culture: Media education for the 21st century . Washington, DC: MacArthur Foundation.
Krotoski, A. (2010). Serious fun with computer games. Nature , 466, 695. doi:10.1038/466695a
Linn, M. C. (2004). Using ICT to teach and learn science . In Holliman, R., & Scanlon, E. (Eds.), Mediating Science Learning through Information and Communication Technology . London: Routledge Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203464007_chapter_1.1
Mayo, M. (2007). Games for science and engineering education. Communications of the ACM , 50(7), 31–35. doi:10.1145/1272516.1272536
Mayo, M. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education? Science , 323, 79–82. doi:10.1126/science.1166900
McClean, P., Saini-Eidukat, B., Schwert, D., Slator, B., & White, A. (2001). Virtual worlds in large-enrollment science classes significantly improve authentic learning. In J. Chambers (ed.), Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning. Jacksonville, FL: AAAE Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Academies. (2006). Major changes needed to boost K-8 science achievement . Washington, DC: The National Academies.
NRC. (1996). National committee on science education standards and assessment . Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Phillips, J. L. (1981). Piaget's theory: A primer . San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood (Gattegno, C., & Hodgson, F. M., Trans.). New York, NY: Norton.
Rankin, J., Vargas, S., & Taylor, P. (2009). Testing metaphorical educational FPS games. International Journal of Computer Games Technology , 1–5. doi:10.1155/2009/456763
Reuters. (2007). More video games, fewer books at schools? CNETNEWS.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnetnews.com.
Rieber, L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology , 38(6), 29–37.
Rosser, J. C. Jr, 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 , 12(2), 181–186. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.2.181
Schollmeyer, J. (2006). Games get serious. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 62(4), 34–39. doi:10.2968/062004010
Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillian. doi:10.1057/9780230601994
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan , 87(2), 105–111.
Spires, H. A. (2008). 21st century skills and serious games: Preparing the ngeneration . In Annetta, L. A. (Ed.), Serious Educational Games (pp. 13–23). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
Stansbury, M. (2008). Students want more use of gaming technology. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/04/08/students-want-more-use-of-gaming-technology/.
Tuzun, H., Yilmaz-Soylu, M., Karakus, T., Inal, Y., & Kizilkaya, 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
Zyda, M. (2007). Creating a science of games. Communications of the ACM , 50(7), 27–29.
Educational Game Creation: The design and construction of a Serious Educational game.
Educational Video Games: Synonymous with SEG.
Gaming Technologies: Immersive 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional environments used to play competitive or collaborative games.
Problem-Based Learning: Instructional approach where students are confronted with a problem and challenged to work towards a solution. The problem is complex and ill-structured, and does not provide enough information for a simple resolution.
Serious Educational Games (SEG): Games used for training and learning for K-16 educational purposes and not for entertainment. A derivative of the commonly used Serious Games, which is defined as games designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment.
STEM Concepts: The Big Ideas in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Student Engagement: Skinner and Belmont (1993) posit engagement has interacting components of affect, cognition, and behavior; where there is tension between challenging learning environments and freedom to interact coupled with positive emotions.