Though serious games have been the topic of much discussion within the scientific community, the theoretical underpinnings of this technology remains largely nascent. Although much of the knowledge base of the simulation and digital learning community applies to serious games, the play-based nature of these tools necessitates additional examination. Games have defining component attributes, and variation of these attributes may affect learning resulting from game play. Thus, understanding of the attributes involved in games and how they map to various learning outcomes will improve the community's ability to effectively design and employ these tools. This article describes research designed to address this need through experimental manipulations of the privately developed InnerCell game. This effort is conducted in the context of game attributes and learning outcomes, and recommendations for attribute-outcome pairs are offered based on preliminary findings of this research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsP. C. (1997). Teaching and learning with SimCity 2000. Journal of Geography, 97(2), 47–55.
2.
AsgariM.KaufmanD. (2004). Relationships among computer games, fantasy, and learning. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Imagination and Education.
3.
BaranauskasM. C. C.NetoN. G. G.BorgesM. A. F. (1999). Learning at work through a multi-user synchronous simulation game. In Proceedings of the PEG1999 Conference, Exeter, UK (pp. 137–144). Exeter, UK: University of Exeter. Retrieved on 5/13/2008 from http://www.ic.unicamp.br/∼maborges/PEG99.htm.
4.
BloomB.S.EngelhartM.D.FurstE.J.HillW.H.KrathwohlD.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
5.
ChenJ. (2007). Flow in games (and everything else). Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 31–34.
6.
CrownS. W. (2001). Improving visualization skills of engineering graphics students using simple JavaScript web based games. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 347–355.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Collins.
8.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation Gaming, 33, 441–467.
9.
GredlerM. E. (1996). Educational games and simulation: A technology in search of a research paradigm. In JonassenD. H. (ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, (pp. 521–540) New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
10.
HarteveldC.GuimaraesR.MayerI.BidarraR. (2007). Balancing pedagogy, game and reality components within a unique serious game for training levee inspection. Hui (Eds.), Edutainment 2007, LNCS 4469, 2007, p. 138–139.
11.
JuulJ. (2003). The game, the player, the world: looking for a heart of gameness. In CopierM.RaessensJ. (Eds.), Proceedings at the Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference, November 4–6 (pp. 30–45). Utrecht: Utrecht University.
12.
LeemkuilH.de JongT.OotesS. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulations (Knowledge management Interactive Training System Project No. IST-1999-13078). The Netherlands: University of Twente. Retrieved on 5/13/2008 from http://kits.edte.utwente.nl/documents/D1.pdf.
13.
LewisS. A. (1976). The role of perceived competence, outcome, and process feedback in the determination of task satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 44, 321–340.
14.
MaloneT. W. (1981). Towards a theory of intrinsically motivation instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.
15.
MaloneT. W.LepperM. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In SnowR. E.FarrM. J. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol. 3. Cognitive and affective process and analyses, (pp. 223–253) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
PassierH.JeuringJ. (2004). Ontology based feedback generation in design-oriented e-learning systems. In IsaiasP.KommersP.McPhersonM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS International conference.
17.
PavlasD.BedwellW. L.LazzaraE. H.WootenS. R.IIBurkeC. S.SalasE.OrvisK. (under review). Learning attributes of games. Computers and Education.
18.
RieberL. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43–58.
19.
RosasR.NussbaumM.CumsilleP.MarianovV.CorreaM.FloresP. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: A design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40, 71–94.
20.
SquireK. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.
21.
SweetserP.WyethP. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24.
22.
ThiagarajanS. (1999). Team activities for learning and performance. In StolovitchH. D.KeepsE. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology, (pp. 518–544) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
23.
WilsonK. A.BedwellW. L.LazzaraE. H.SalasE.BurkeC. S.EstockJ. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 217–266.
24.
YerkesR. M.DodsonJ. D. (1908). The relationship of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology, 18, 459–482.
