Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

According to the Committee on STEM Education, K-12 science students need access to learning experiences that promote collaboration and engagement. To fill that void, we need to develop activities that stimulate engaged learning and scaffold effective collaboration. K-12 teacher candidates see value in utilizing games for this purpose. Specifically, tabletop science games can help teachers engage students in science learning and scaffold collaboration.

Aim

For this study, we designed a collaborative, STEM-themed card game called MOUNTAIN RESCUE and explored its capacity to promote engaged learning and collaboration.

Method

Four groups of STEM campers (n = 14) in a suburban Mid-Atlantic region played MOUNTAIN RESCUE. All groups had a mix of boys and girls. Play-testers ranged from 10–13 years old. The tabletop game took approximately 30-minutes. During gameplay, players embodied unique STEM roles: physicist, chemist, structural engineer, and electrical engineer. They collaborated to solve challenges related to electricity, physics, chemistry, and engineering design. Discourse was audio-recorded throughout gameplay. Immediately after gameplay, self-report survey data were collected to assess flow and perceptions of collaborative learning.

Results

Findings demonstrated that the game promoted engagement and collaboration. Specifically, students had a flow-like experience and felt positively about the game's value for collaborative learning. Utterances demonstrating active engagement and constructive thinking became more group-focused over time.

Conclusion

This study contributes to science education by demonstrating potential benefits of a well-designed, low-tech, science learning environment or—in other words—a tabletop game.

Keywords

collaboration engagement science learning STEM tabletop game flow

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anyanwu

E. G.

(2014). Anatomy adventure: A board game for enhancing understanding of anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1389

Bressler

(2014). Better than business-as-usual: Improving scientific practices during discourse and writing by playing a collaborative mystery game. Double Helix, 2, 1–13.

Bressler

D. M.

Bodzin

A. M.

(2013). A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12008

Bressler

D. M.

Bodzin

A. M.

(2016). Investigating flow experience and scientific practices during a mobile Serious Educational Game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9639-z

Bayeck

R. Y.

(2020). Examining board gameplay and learning: A multidisciplinary review of recent research. Simulation and Gaming, 51(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119901286

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy, Washington, DC (2000).

Bybee

R. W.

(2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221.

Cardinot

Fairfield

J. A.

(2019). Game-based learning to engage students with Physics and Astronomy using a board game. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 9(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2019010104

Chi

M. T. H.

Menekse

(2015). Dialogue patterns in peer collaboration that promote learning. In Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 253–264). https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1

10.

Chiarello

Castellano

M. G.

(2016). Board games and board game design as learning tools for complex scientific concepts: Some experiences. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2016040101

11.

Committee on STEM Education . (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Washington, DC: The United States Government.

12.

Dunleavy

Dede

Mitchell

(2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.

13.

Erb

(2015). Possibilities and limitations of transferring an educational simulation game to a digital platform. Simulation and Gaming, 46(6), 817–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115621980

14.

Fang

Chen

Huang

(2016). Emotional reactions of different interface formats: Comparing digital and traditional board games. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016641902

15.

Fjællingsdal

K. S.

Klöckner

C. A.

(2020). Green across the board: Board games as tools for dialogue and simplified environmental communication. Simulation and Gaming, 51(5), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120925133

16.

Furtak

E. M.

Penuel

W. R.

(2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands-on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167–186.

17.

Hijzen

Boekaerts

Vedder

(2007). Exploring the links between learners’ engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences, and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 673–687.

18.

Illingworth

Wake

(2019). Developing science tabletop games: Catan and global warming. Journal of Science Communication, 18(4), A04.

19.

Jackson

Eklund

Martin

(2010). The FLOW manual. Queensland, Australia: Mind Garden, Inc.

20.

Jin

Mikeska

(2017). Teaching NGSS-Aligned lessons in science classrooms. Science Scope, 41(3), 59-66.

21.

Kaufman

Flanagan

(2016). Playing the system: Comparing the efficacy and impact of digital and non-digital versions of a collaborative strategy game. Proceedings of the DiGRA and FDG First Joint International Conference (DiGRA/FDG 2016), 1–16.

22.

Krajcik

(2015). Three-dimensional instruction: Using a new type of teaching in the science classroom. Science and Children, 53(3), 6-8.

23.

Kuo

W. C.

Hsu

T. C.

(2020). Learning computational thinking without a computer: How computational participation happens in a computational thinking board game. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00479-9

24.

Lauren

Lutz

Wallon

R. C.

Hug

(2016). Integrating the dimensions of NGSS within a collaborative board game about honey bees. American Biology Teacher, 78(9), 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.9.755

25.

National Research Council . (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

26.

Park

Parsons

Ryu

(2010). To flow and not to freeze: Applying flow experience to mobile learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 56-67.

27.

Patrick

Ryan

Kaplan

(2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.

28.

Potvin

Hasni

(2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129.

29.

Ravitch

(2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education (3rd ed). New York: Basic Books.

30.

Ryu

Parsons

(2012). Risky business or sharing the load? Social flow in collaborative mobile learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 707-720.

31.

Sardone

N. B.

(2018). Attitudes toward game adoption: Preservice teachers consider game-based teaching and learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 8(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2018070101

32.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2014). Introduction: The new science of learning. In Sawyer

R. K.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences: 2nd edition (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration (Revised Edition). New York: Basic Books.

34.

Shaffer

D. W.

(2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers in Education, 46(3), 223–234.

35.

Shaffer

D. W.

(2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison, Wisconsin: Cathcart Press.

36.

Shaffer

D. W.

Collier

Ruis

A. R.

(2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9-45.

37.

Squire

Jan

(2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 16(1), 5-29.

38.

Soneral

P. A. G.

Wyse

S. A.

(2017). A SCALE-UP mock-up: Comparison of student learning gains in high- and low-tech active-learning environments. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0228

39.

Tsai

J. C.

Chen

S. Y.

Chang

C. Y.

Liu

S. Y.

(2020). Element enterprise tycoon: Playing board games to learn chemistry in daily life. Education Sciences, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030048

40.

Walker

C. J.

(2010). Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 3–11.

41.

Wangenheim

G. V. C.

Medeiros

G. A. e. S.

De, Filho

R. M.

Petri

Pinheiro

F. D. C.

Ferreira

M. N. F.

Hauck

J. C. R.

(2019). Splash code - a board game for learning an understanding of algorithms in middle school. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2019.12

42.

Wiggins

B. L.

Eddy

S. L.

Wener-Fligner

Freisem

Grunspan

D. Z.

Theobald

E. J.

Crowe

A. J.

(2017). ASPECT: A survey to assess student perspective of engagement in an active-learning classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.31 MB

“What if We Explore…” Promoting Engaged Learning and Collaboration with MOUNTAIN RESCUE

Abstract

Background

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material