Ready Coder One: Collaborative Game Design-Based Learning on Gifted Fourth Graders’ 21st Century Skills

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to describe the impact of digital game building on fourth grade gifted and talented students’ problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration skills. Increasingly, there has been a call to involve students in real-world experiences through projects that explore authentic issues using technology. Game design-based learning with its unique set of affordances may offer a path to integrating technology, computer science education, creativity, and problem-solving. Increasingly, the ability to create rather than just consume technology has gained attention linking creativity and collaboration to using coding language. In this study, data collection included student reflection journals, classroom observations, classroom video recordings, a focus group interview, and students’ games. Participants came from two GT classes (n = 45). Qualitative analysis identified five themes: overcoming challenges of group work, developing a culture of collaboration, creating narrative, and connecting science, problem-solving in Scratch’s coding environment, and reflecting on learning. Findings indicated involving gifted students in game design-based learning in science had a positive impact on student perceptions of problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration.

Keywords

gifted and talented students digital game-based learning coding computer science education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams Becker

Freeman

Giesinger Hall

Cummins

Yuhnke

(2016). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. The New Media Consortium. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570463.pdf

Akcaoglu

(2013). Cognitive and motivational impacts of learning game design on middle school children [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3587683).

Akcaoglu

(2014). Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9347-4

Akcaoglu

(2016). Design and implementation of the game-design and learning program. TechTrends, 60(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y

Akcaoglu

Green

L. S.

(2019). Teaching systems thinking through game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9596-8

Akcaoglu

Koehler

M. J.

(2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers and Education, 75, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003

Amabile

T. M.

(2013). Componential theory of creativity. In Kessler

E. H.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory. SAGE. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6188/5f52d813d518b4ed5b833b4022990211f063.pdf

Y.- J.

(2016). A case study of educational computer game design by middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9428-7

Baytak

(2009). An investigation of the artifacts, outcomes, and processes of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth grade science classroom [Doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3399626) https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED515246

10.

Baytak

Land

S. M.

(2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.853

11.

Baytak

Land

S. M.

(2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z

12.

Beghetto

(2016). Big wins, small steps: How to lead for and with creativity. SAGE.

13.

Beghetto

R. A.

Karwowski

(2017). Toward untangling creative self-beliefs. In Karwowski

Kaufman

J. C.

(Eds.), The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self- efficacy, mindset, and identity (pp. 3–22). Academic Press.

14.

Beghetto

R. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for “mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.73

15.

Besnoy

K. D.

Dantzler

J. A.

Siders

J. A.

(2012). Creating a digital ecosystem for the gifted education classroom. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(4), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12461005

16.

Brien

B. O.

Friedman-Nimz

Lacey

Denson

(2005). From bits and bytes to C ++ and web sites: What is computer talent made of? Gifted Child Today, 28(3), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2005-178

17.

Bruckman

Resnick

(1995). The mediaMOO project: Constructionism and professional community. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 1(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/135485659500100110

18.

Bulut

Samur

Cömert

(2022). The effect of educational game design process on students’ creativity. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00188-9

19.

Burke

O’Byrne

W. I.

Kafai

Y. B.

(2016). Computational participation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.496

20.

Ching

C. C.

Kafai

Y. B.

(2008). Peer pedagogy: Student collaboration and reflection in a learning-through-design project. The Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2601–2632. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811001203

21.

Cicchino

(2013). Using game-based learning to foster critical thinking in student discourse [Doctoral dissertation]. Rutgers The State University of New Jersey. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3604050).

22.

Collins

K. H.

Joseph

N. M.

Ford

D. Y.

(2020). Missing in action: Gifted Black girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Gifted Child Today, 43(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519880593

23.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

24.

Diezmann

C. M.

Watters

J. J.

(2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320102500102

25.

Ertmer

P. A.

Simons

K. D.

(2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem- Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1005

26.

French

L. R.

Walker

C. L.

Shore

B. M.

(2011). Do gifted students really prefer to work alone? Roeper Review, 33(3), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580497

27.

Grant

M. M.

Branch

R. M.

(2005). Project-based learning in a middle school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782450

28.

Guo

Woulfin

(2016). Twenty-first century creativity: An investigation of how the partnership for 21st century instructional framework reflects the principles of creativity. Roeper Review, 38(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1183741

29.

Hacıoğlu

Dönmez Usta

(2020). Digital game design-based STEM activity: Biodiversity example. Science Activities, 57(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2020.1764468

30.

Hagge

(2017). Scratching beyond the surface of literacy. Gifted Child Today, 40(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517707233

31.

Harel

Papert

(1991). Constructionism. Ablex.

32.

Hava

Guyer

Cakir

(2020). Gifted students’ learning experiences in systematic game development process in after-school activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09750-z

33.

Henriksen

Mishra

Fisser

(2016). Infusing creativity and technology in 21st century education: A systemic view for change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(193), 27–37. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1107143

34.

Herro

Quigley

Andrews

Delacruz

(2017). Co-measure: Developing an assessment for student collaboration in STEAM activities. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0094-z

35.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

(2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:edpr.0000034022.16470.f3

36.

Holm

(2011). Project-based instruction: A review of the literature on effectiveness in prekindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. InSight: Rivier Academic Journal, 7(2), 1–13.

37.

Housand

A. M.

Housand

B. C.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2017). Using the schoolwide enrichment model with technology. Prufrock Press.

38.

Housand

B. C.

Housand

A. M.

(2012). The role of technology in gifted students’ motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 706–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21629

39.

Hung

H.-T.

Yang

J. C.

Tsai

Y.-C.

(2020). Student game design as a literacy practice: A 10-year review. Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 50–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26915406

40.

Hussein

M. H.

S. H.

Cheong

L. S.

Thong

M.-K.

Ebrahim

N. A.

(2019). Effects of digital game-based learning on elementary science learning: A systematic review. IEEE Access, 7, 62465–62478. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2916324

41.

Hwang

G. J.

Hung

C. M.

Chen

N. S.

(2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations, and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7

42.

Jenson

Droumeva

(2015). Making games with game maker: A computational thinking curriculum case study. In Munkvold

Kolas

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Games-Based Learning (pp. 260–268). https://milunesco.unaoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ECGBL2015-Proceedings-embedded.pdf

43.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2014). Cooperative learning in 21st century the tools for meeting four important challenges of the 21st century. Anales de Psicologia/Annals of Psychology, 30(3), 841–851. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201241

44.

Jonassen

(2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1256

45.

Jonassen

D. H.

(1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

46.

Jonassen

D.H.

Howland

Moore

Marra

R.M.

(2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Pearson.

47.

Kafai

Resnick

(1996). Constructionism in practice. Erlbaum.

48.

Kafai

Y. B.

Burke

(2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9992.001.0001

49.

Kafai

Y. B.

Ching

C. C.

(2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323–363. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1003_4

50.

Kalelioğlu

Gülbahar

(2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2014.03

51.

Kanevsky

(2015). Do high ability learners enjoy learning alone or in groups? It depends. International Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 32–43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1094834

52.

Kapp

K.M.

(2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.

53.

Kaufman

J. C.

Beghetto

R. A.

(2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688

54.

(2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers and Education, 73, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010

55.

(2014). A case study on collective cognition and operation in team-based computer game design by middle-school children. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 187–201. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9248-6

56.

Khalili

(2014). Student designed science games: A study of the design process, artifacts, and attitudes in a constructivist and constructionist learning environment. Doctoral dissertation. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. UMI No. 3671734.

57.

Kim

Bastani

(2017). Students as game designers: Transdisciplinary approach to STEAM education. Alberta Science Education Journal, 45(1), 45–53.

58.

Kim

K. H.

(2019). Demystifying creativity: What creativity isn’t and is? Roeper Review, 41(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1585397

59.

Kontostavlou

E. – Z.

Drigas

A. S.

(2019). The use of information and communications technology (I.C.T.) in gifted students. International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering Science & IT (IJES), 7(2), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v7i2.10815

60.

Leu

Y.-C.

Chiu

M.-S.

(2015). Creative behaviours in mathematics: Relationships with abilities, demographics, affects and gifted behaviours. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.01.001

61.

(2010). Digital game building: Learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research, 52(4), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2010.524752

62.

(2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 785–806. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9255-4

63.

Lou

Abrami

P. C.

d'Apolonia

(2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003449

64.

Lye

S. Y.

Koh

J. H. L.

(2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

65.

MacFarlane

Mina

(2018). Cyberbullying and the gifted: Considerations for social and emotional development. Gifted Child Today, 41(3), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768362

66.

Marx

R. W.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Krajcik

J. S.

Soloway

(1997). Enacting project- based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdfplus/10.1086/461870

67.

McDooley

C. M.

Ellison

T. L.

Welch

M. M.

Allen

Bauer

(2016). Digital participatory pedagogy digital participation as a method for technology integration in curriculum. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(2), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1138912

68.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case learning applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

69.

Mertler

C. A.

(2017). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (5th ed.). SAGE.

70.

Mofield

E. L.

Peters

M. P.

(2018). Mindset misconception? Comparing mindsets, perfectionism, and attitudes of achievement in gifted, advanced, and typical students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218758440

71.

Morris

Slater

Fitzgerald

M. T.

Lummis

G. W.

van Etten

(2021). Using local rural knowledge to enhance STEM learning for gifted and talented students in Australia. Research in Science Education, 51(S1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9823-2

72.

National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] . (2010, March). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. [Position Statement]. http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/PositionStatement/RedefiningGiftednessforaNewCentury.pdf

73.

Navarrete

C. C.

(2013). Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case study. Computers and Education, 69, 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.025

74.

Newton

K. J.

Leonard

Buss

Wright

C. G.

Barnes-Johnson

(2020). Informal STEM: Learning with robotics and game design in an urban context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1713263

75.

Øygardslia

(2018). ‘But this isn’t school’: Exploring tensions in the intersection between school and leisure activities in classroom game design. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2017.1421553

76.

Papert

(1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books.

77.

Pareto

Haake

Lindström

Sjödén

Gulz

(2012). A teachable-agent- based game affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 723–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5

78.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2009). Frameworks for 21st century learning. http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

79.

Patrick

Bangel

N. J.

Jeon

K. N.

Townsend

M. A. R.

(2005). Reconsidering the issue of cooperative learning with gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900105

80.

Pedersen

Arslanyilmaz

Williams

(2009). Teachers’ assessment-related local adaptations of a problem-based learning module. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9044-7

81.

Periathiruvadi

Rinn

A. N.

(2012). Technology in gifted education: A review of best practices and empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782601

82.

Poce

Amenduni

Medio

C. De.

(2019). From tinkering to thinkering. Tinkering as critical and creative thinking enhancer. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1639

83.

Prater

M. L.

(2016). Student authored digital games as authentic learning: Using the can you create a game challenge in elementary classrooms [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Kentucky. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edc_etds/15

84.

Qian

Clark

K. R.

(2016). Game-based learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023

85.

Rahimi

F. B.

Kim

(2019). The role of interest-driven participatory game design: Considering design literacy within a technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9451-6

86.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901

87.

Resnick

(2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In Singer

Golikoff

Hirsh-Pasek

(Eds.), Play = Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 192–206). Oxford University Press.

88.

Resnick

(2014). Give p’s a chance: Projects, peers, passion, play. Constructionism and Creativity Conference, opening keynote. Vienna. https://web.media.mit.edu/∼mres/papers/constructionism-2014.pdf

89.

Resnick

(2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

90.

Resnick

Rusk

(1996). The computer clubhouse: Preparing for life in a digital world. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3-4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.353.0431

91.

Reynolds

R. B.

(2016). Relationships among tasks, collaborative inquiry processes, inquiry resolutions, and knowledge outcomes in adolescents during guided discovery-based game design in school. Journal of Information Science, 42(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551515614537

92.

Rieber

Davis

Matzko

Grant

M. M.

(2001, April). Children as multimedia critics: Middle school students’ motivation for and critical analysis of educational multimedia designed by other children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

93.

Robertson

Howells

(2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers and Education, 50(2), 559–578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.020

94.

Robinson

Dailey

Hughes

Cotabish

(2014). The effects of a science- focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14533799

95.

Ross

J. A.

Smyth

(1995). Thinking skills for gifted students: The case for correlational reasoning. Roeper Review, 17(4), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199509553672

96.

Rugelj

Lapina

(2019, May). Game design based learning of programming. In Rugelj

Lapina

(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Innovative Approaches to the Application of Digital Technologies in Education and Research (SLET-2019), Stavropol-Dombay, Russia (2494). https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2494/invited_paper_4.pdf

97.

Ruggiero

Green

(2017). Problem solving through digital game design: A quantitative content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.024

98.

Runco

M. A.

(2014). “Big c, little c” creativity as a false dichotomy: Reality is not categorical. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 131–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.873676

99.

Sáez López

J. M.

Román-González

Vázquez-Cano

(2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003

100.

Saldaña

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

101.

Salen

(2007). Gaming literacies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301–322. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ776068

102.

Salen

Zimmerman

(2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

103.

Salomon

Globerson

(1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90018-9

104.

Serrano

(2019). The effect of digital game-based learning on student learning: A literature review. University of Northern Iowa. [Unpublished Thesis]. Graduate Research Papers. 943 https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/943

105.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2004-22201

106.

Siegle

(2017). Encouraging creativity and problem solving through coding. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517690861

107.

A. Y. S.

Yang

S. J. H.

Hwang

W.-Y.

Huang

C. S. J.

Tern

M.-Y.

(2014). Investigating the role of computer-supported annotation in problem-solving-based teaching: An empirical study of a scratch programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 647–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12058

108.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Sciences in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

109.

Torrance

E.P.

(1972). Predictive validity of Torrance tests of creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x

110.

Trilling

Fadel

(2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.

111.

Tüzün

Yilmaz-Soylu

Karakuş

Inal

Kizilkaya

(2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers and Education, 52(1), 68–77. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.008

112.

Vos

van der Meijden

Denessen

(2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers and Education, 56(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.013

113.

Wang

H.-Y.

Huang

Hwang

G.-J.

(2016). Comparison of the effects of project- based computer programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0047-9

114.

Winstanley

(2010). The ingredients of challenge. Trentham.

115.

Yang

K.-K.

Lin

S.-F.

Hong

Z.-R.

Lin

H.-S.

(2016). Exploring the assessment of and relationship between elementary students’ scientific creativity and science inquiry. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 16–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125270

116.

Yang

Y. T. C.

Chang

C. H.

(2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers and Education, 68, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.023

117.

Zimlich

S. L.

(2015). Using technology in gifted and talented education classrooms: The teachers’ perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 14(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.28945/2209