Targeted as a highly desired skill for contemporary work and life, problem solving is central to game-based learning research. In this study, middle grade students achieved significant learning gains from gameplay interactions that required solving a science mystery based on microbiology content. Student trace data results indicated that effective exploration and navigation of the hypothesis space within a science problem-solving task was predictive of student science content learning and in-game performance. Students who selected a higher proportion of appropriate hypotheses demonstrated greater learning gains and completed more in-game goals. Students providing correct explanations for hypothesis selection completed more in-game goals; however, providing the correct explanation for hypothesis selection did not account for greater learning gains. From the analysis, we concluded that hypothesis testing strategies play a central role in game-based learning environments that involve problem-solving tasks, thereby demonstrating strong connections to science content learning and in-game performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarabS. A.GresalfiM., & Ingram-GobleA. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.
2.
BrunerJ. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
ColeM., & EngestromY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
DeslandesJ. (2004). A philosophy of emoting. Journal of Narrative Theory, 34(3), 335–372. doi: 10.1353/jnt.2005.0003
6.
EngeströmY. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
7.
Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Retrieved from http://fas.org/gamesummit/
8.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games can teach us about literacy and learning. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. doi: 10.1145/950566.950595
9.
GerrigR. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
HayesR. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (No. 2005-004), Orlando, FL.
11.
JonassenD. H. (Ed.). (2006). Learning to solve complex, scientific problems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
KaptelininV., & NardiB. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
KetelhutD. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education & Technology, 16(1), 99–111. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9038-y
14.
KlopferE.OsterweilS., & SalenK. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities, & openness. The Education Arcade: MIT.
15.
LevyF., & MurnaneR. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
MayerR. E., & JohnsonC. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265. doi: 10.2190/EC.42.3.a
17.
MayerR. E., & WittrockM. C. (2006). Problem solving. In AlexanderP.WinneP., & PhyeG. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
MayerR. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MetcalfS.DedeC.GrotzerT., & KamarainenA. (2010). EcoMUVE: Design of virtual environments to address science learning goals. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, Denver, CO.
20.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158
MottB.CallawayC.ZettlemoyerL.LeeS., & LesterJ. (1999). Towards narrative-centered learning environments. In working notes of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Narrative Intelligence, pp. 78–82. Cape Cod, MA.
23.
MottB., & LesterJ. (2006). U-Director: A decision-theoretic narrative planning architecture for storytelling environments. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 977–984). Hakodate, Japan.
24.
MottB., & LesterJ. (2006). Narrative-centered tutorial planning for inquiry-based learning environments. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 675–684). Jhongli, Taiwan.
25.
National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. HiltonM. (Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
NelsonB. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9039-x
PelletierC. (2009). Games and learning: What's the connection?International Journal of Learning & Media, 1(1), 83–97. doi: 10.1162/ijlm.2009.0006
29.
RosenblattL. M. (2004). The transactional model of reading and writing. In RuddellR. B.RuddellM. R., & SingerH. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1363–1398). Newark, DE: IRA.
30.
SchafferD. W.HatfieldD.SvarovskyG.NashP.NultyA.BagleyE. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 33–53. doi: 10.1162/ijlm. 2009.0013
31.
SpiresH.TurnerK.RoweJ.MottB., & LesterJ. (2010, April/May). Effects of game-based performance on science learning: A transactional theoretical perspective. Paper presented at AERA, Denver, CO.
32.
SpiresH. (2008). 21st century skills and serious games: Preparing the N generation. In AnnettaL. A. (Ed.), Serious educational games (pp. 13–23). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
33.
SquireK. D. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29. doi: 10.3102/0013189times035008019
34.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
35.
SwellerJ. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
