The play curricular activity reflection and discussion model for game-based learning

The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion Model for Game-Based Learning

Aroutis Foster* Mamta Shah

School of Education Drexel University

*Corresponding author email – [email protected]

Cite as: Foster, A. & Shah, M. (In Press). The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion Model for Game-Based Learning. Journal of Research in Technology Education 47(1).

The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion Model for Game-Based Learning

Abstract

This paper elucidates the process of game-based learning in classrooms through the use of the

Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) model. A mixed-methods study was

conducted at a high school to implement three games with the PCaRD model in a yearlong

elective course. Data sources included interviews and observations for understanding the process

of students’ content knowledge and motivation to learn. Pre to post assessments were

administered for measuring achievement gains and motivational changes. Interpretive analysis

indicated that PCaRD aided student learning, motivation to learn, and identification with the

content. We found mixed quantitative results for student knowledge gain with only statistical

significant gains for mathematics. We also found that PCaRD provided teachers with an adaptive

structure for integrating games in an existing and new curriculum. PCaRD has implications for

research, teaching, and design of games for learning.

Introduction

Game-based learning is rapidly gaining acceptance as researchers illustrate the

advantages of using games for pedagogical purposes by demonstrating improvements in

academic achievement and motivation (Yang, 2012; Squire, DeVane & Durga, 2008). However,

more research is needed to better elucidate how students are engaged in diverse academic

domains through game-based learning involving systematic teacher intervention in school

contexts (Young, et al., 2012).

This paper reports a mixed-methods study conducted in a high school over one academic

year for teaching a game-based learning elective course to support student learning and

motivation in Mathematics, Physics, and Social Studies. First, a brief overview of the literature

on teachers and game-based learning is presented. Thereafter, the theoretical foundations of the

Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) model are described. Next, the research

questions and methodology are described. The results section highlights the process of game-

based learning through the Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion model with a focus on

student learning and teacher roles. The concluding sections discuss the benefits of the model

used for integrating games into K-12 classrooms, supporting teachers and students, and

highlighting the implication for research and practice.

Theoretical Framework

Teachers and Game Integration

An increasing number of teachers and administrators have expressed positive attitudes

towards the use of games in schools (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010). Researchers also argue that

teachers can play an integral part in enhancing the learning and motivational effectiveness of

 game-based learning for students (Akcaoglu, 2013). However, this has resulted in neither a

heavy adoption of games use within K-12 classrooms (Millstone, 2012) nor an increase in

teachers’ competence in using games for instruction (Kenny & Gunter, 2011). This could be

attributed to (a) several barriers impeding the adoption of games in school contexts, and (b) our

emerging understanding of the pedagogical processes involved in implementing games.

Game-based learning researchers have recognized a number of factors that impact the

comprehensive adoption of game-based learning in K-12 schools. Some of these factors include:

(1) schools bell-schedules are constricted for facilitating the integration of long complex games;

(2) poor physical and old technological infrastructure add limitations; (3) rigid acceptable user

policies limits game use at schools; and (4) there is a paucity of models to aid teachers in using

games (Baek, 2008; Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Squire, 2005; Tuzun, 2007).

Additionally, the knowledge available in relation to the pedagogical roles involved in

facilitating game-based learning is still in its infancy (Hanghøj & Brund, 2011). Only recently, in

a review of literature, Tzuo and colleagues (2012) listed the roles teachers are known to play in

game-studies, including observing students game-play, scaffolding, serving as a consultant to

students and providing them with meta-cognitive aids among others. Barab and colleagues

(2012) described how teachers could become expert guides to help students navigate the nuances

of a game and make connections with the learning objectives, adopt multiple pedagogical

approaches to support student reflection and provide feedback and discussion, and aid students to

understand the relevance of their academic knowledge beyond the course. Nevertheless, teachers

do not acquire these skills naturally or through game manuals (Magnussen, 2007).

Game-based Pedagogical Model For Supporting Teachers

There is a need for empowering teachers with the pedagogical competence in integrating

 games in classrooms (Gresalfi, Barnes & Pettyjohn, 2011; Tzou, Ling, Yang, & Chen, 2012).

Specifically, researchers have argued that a pedagogical model is required for implementing

games efficaciously within K-12 schools, guiding teacher intervention, and aiding student

learning and assessment (Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011; Gros, 2010). The need for a pedagogical

model to aid teachers has also been necessitated by studies documenting teachers’ use of games

in classrooms to support student learning. For instance, Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2004) found that

teachers (a) experienced difficulties in planning instruction with a commercial game to

accomplish learning goals, (b) reported inadequate support for students to comprehend a

complex game, and (c) reported organizational limitations such as insufficient technical

infrastructure. Jaipal and Figg (2009) argued that using games for supporting student learning

necessitated teachers to have knowledge about the game to design appropriate curricular

activities that connect to gameplay. Furthermore, Watson and colleagues (2011) illustrated how a

lack of guidance could lead teachers with game knowledge to lose valuable information about

student learning through games, and create assessments that do not fully combine the strengths

of the game with student curricular activities. Similarly, Silseth (2012) stressed on the

importance of teachers being able to identify ‘teachable moments’ during game play and learn

strategies to unite in-game and out-of-game experiences to support students’ personal

engagement with the curriculum (Silseth, 2012). Lastly, Eastwood and Sadler (2013) concluded

how a game-based learning pedagogical model could provide guidance to novice and veteran

teachers in synthesizing their content and pedagogical expertise, and in adapting the use of

games according to the needs of their teaching contexts.

Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD)

The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) pedagogical model

 addresses some of the aforementioned gaps and trends to aid in the integration of games into

classrooms (Foster, 2012). PCaRD is nested in a larger framework known as the Game Network

Analysis (GaNA) (See Figure 1), which was conceptualized for facilitating teachers and

researchers in introducing game-based learning in classrooms by guiding them in game analysis

and game integration within an existing or a new curriculum (Foster, 2012). GaNA provides the

adaptive structure teachers need within their classroom context to focus on the pedagogy and

content of games and then employ games for supporting teaching and learning. Therefore, GaNA

includes (a) game analysis for technology, pedagogy, and content using the Technological

Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework as a lens (Foster, Mishra & Koehler,

2011; Foster, 2012), and (b) the Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) model

for integrating games in classrooms in a step-by-step approach to support teachers (Foster &

Shah, 2012). The inquiry, communication, construction, and expression (ICCE) framework

bridges game analysis and game integration by aiding teachers in the identification of learning

experiences and design of opportunities that may be lacking in a game. This paper focuses only

on the game integration aspect of GaNA; namely, the use of games through PCaRD including

opportunities for ICCE (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Game Network Analysis Framework

The PCaRD model leverages teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge

(TPACK; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) about games for creating learning activities and assessments

(Foster, 2012). TPACK provides a lens for teachers to explore a game focusing on pedagogy

and content. Teachers use their TPACK lens to engage in the PCaRD process. PCaRD is a

process to engage students in naturalistic gameplay, reflective of playing normally with friends,

followed by engaging in curricular activities designed by teachers that are connected to

gameplay. This is followed by reflection tasks on the curricular activities, including students

writing to express and reconcile their thoughts about the process from play and curricular

activities. Finally, students engage in discussion tasks led by students and teachers to reconcile

classroom-learning goals from the activities, what was learned, and what needs further work (See

Figure 2).

 Figure 2: Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) Game-Based Learning Pedagogical Model

The role of PCaRD in student learning and motivation. In the PCaRD process, learning

is conceptualized as a situated process involving an interaction between the students, the game,

and the classroom environments with designed opportunities for ICCE. Additionally, learning is

considered as a synthesis of students’ knowledge construction and motivational valuing of

academic content. Thus, in order to make playing digital games academically meaningful and

personally relevant to students, PCaRD engages students in activities that are sensitive to their

locally situated experiences (Brophy, 2004). Further, the curricular activities, reflection, and

discussion in PCaRD are designed by using anchored instruction and culturally congruent

pedagogical strategies in problems and cases connected to gameplay (Cognition and Technology

Group at Vanderbilt, 1992)

In the PCaRD process, the anchored and case-based pedagogical nature of learning

activities connected to gameplay and situated in local contexts facilitates students in thinking

 beyond the game and transfering what they learn in games as a result of knowledge they derive

from personal and pedagogical experiences in activities that are grounded in the defining

concepts of the learning domains being explored (National Research Council, 2000). Building

facilitates visible models of constructed knowledge and aids students in understanding the utility

of such knowledge (Whitehead, 1929). These experiences assist students in adopting identities

and epistemic frames for future selves, which are essential for developing expertise in a learning

domain (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Shaffer, 2004). The PCaRD process allows students to find

relatedness and to become more competent in the class agenda or learning goals. It also aids in

the development of autonomous and self-regulated learning habits, which have been shown to

lead to engagement and intrinsic motivation in learners (Greene, Muis, & Pieschl, 2010). Lastly,

through purposeful engagement with games, PCaRD facilitates the growth of students’

situational interest to more personal interest (Litman, Crowson, & Kolinski, 2010; Schraw &

Lehman, 2001), which is crucial as students begin to value their experiences and their curiosity

for learning moves from being perceptual to being epistemic.

PCaRD and the design of learning opportunities. PCaRD facilitates student learning

with teacher-designed opportunities for inquiry, construction, communication, and expression

(ICCE) (Foster, 2012; Shah & Foster, In Press-a). ICCE experiences are based on the premise

that such opportunities are essential for tapping into the natural curiosities of learners (Dewey,

1902). The process of inquiry, an iterative process of problem generation to solution should be

facilitated through guided discovery-based learning (Mayer, 2004). It should result in mastery-

approach learning orientation and more self-regulated learning (Foster, 2011; Hadwin & Oshige,

2011). In order to guide players towards meeting the objectives and to become self-regulated

learners, player-game and player-peer communication must be useful, contextual, and situated in

 the world enacted within the game (Gee, 2005). Construction involves creating or building

artifacts as part of the process of playing to construct knowledge that is interdisciplinary and is

concerned with the development of sufficient declarative, procedural, and conditional

understanding within foundational (e.g. subject matter), humanistic (e.g. cultural competence)

and meta-knowledge (e.g. creativity) areas. Expression includes opportunities for identity

exploration and self-representation by sharing ones emotions, feelings, values, and ideas (Bruce,

1999).

Shah and colleagues (2013) described a case study involving teacher-designed

opportunities using PCaRD. One science/technology in-service teacher created a curricular

activity connected to a simulation game being played to learn about system thinking. She

discussed the concept of a feedback loop within systems, and anchored it in relevant stories and

cases associated with systems such as a sensor, comparator, and activator. The teacher first

recapped the concept of a feedback and used examples from commonly played games by the

students such as soccer to illustrate the balancing and amplifying kinds of feedback loops. The

teacher also situated students’ understanding of the new terms in other local contexts such as

heating systems used in students’ homes. Later, groups of students constructed a game with a

balancing and an amplifying scenario, and demonstrated their games before the class. This

example highlights how one teacher was able to use PCaRD to support students learning.

Why PCaRD is a pedagogical model for teaching with games. PCaRD is a pedagogical

model for teaching and learning with games, unlike a generic technology integration model. It is

a play-based model in which the learning activities are anchored in the game; that is, they are not

separate from the game or the game-based learning environment. Furthermore, teachers create

activities based on game play to support the advancement of learning goals.

 Previous work on the model focused on reporting the development of PCaRD using a

design based research (DBR) methodology. For instance, in conference papers, Foster and Shah

(2011) described the iterative development of the model in cycles of application over one

academic year. Thereafter, Foster and colleagues (2011) outlined the factors affecting the

integration of games while working with teachers, administrators, and students in an urban

school setting and how these benefits and challenges influenced the implementation process.

Foster and Shah (2012) evaluated the implementation of PCaRD to support student learning.

More recently, Shah and Foster (In Press-b) reported the ecological validity of implementing

PCaRD in a school context, followed by Shah, Foster, and Betser (2013) establishing construct

validity through the application of PCaRD in diverse academic settings. Lastly, Shah and Foster

(In Press-a) described the use of PCaRD in overcoming the limitations of a game in providing

opportunities for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression and motivational

obstructions experienced by students in learning mathematics.

In this paper, we describe the PCaRD model by addressing the following research

question, “To what extent does a systematic process of integrating game-based learning in

classrooms influence student learning and motivation?” The purpose of the current investigation

is to use findings from the most robust iteration of the Play Curricular activity Reflection

Discussion (PCaRD) model to describe the teacher roles and the process of supporting student

learning using games.

Methods

Participants and Settings

A game-based learning course was created collaboratively with researchers and teachers

at an urban high school in a US Northeastern city. It was offered to incoming 9th graders to

 develop motivation to learn and to support alternative ways of participating in mathematics,

science, and social studies. Twenty-five students were enrolled in the course and 21 completed

the yearlong course. Four dropped out due to missing classes or transferring to other high schools

in the first term. Ninety percent of the students in the course identified as African American and

10% were White, Latino, or other. However, the school had over 97% African American

enrollment. The students were not typical gamers, averaging 4-hrs/week of gameplay as

compared to the national average of 7-hrs/week (Rideout, et. al., 2010). One male teacher, the

mathematics/technology teacher actively participated throughout the year. Two science teachers

participated sparingly in the course. All three teachers were male and had less than 5 years of K-

12 teaching experience.

Measures

The measures in the study included multiple choice and short-answer pre-post knowledge

tests for mathematics with 32-items, science with 20-items, and social studies with 18-items (See

Table 1). The mathematics and science tests were created with the participating teachers. To aid

in item construction, the researchers played the games before the start of the study using the

TPACK framework as an analytical lens for determining the technological characteristics,

pedagogical affordances, and the content that was embedded in the games (Foster, 2012). The

mathematics teacher and the researchers created the mathematics test based on school district

standards for 9th grade and existing questions that were designed in the game by its developers

that supported those standards. It measured knowledge about algebra, roots, real numbers, and

numbers and operations. Similarly, one science teacher and the researchers created the science

test based on the school district standards for 9th grade and Physics concepts (heat transfer, optics,

mechanics) embedded in the respective game. Lastly, the social studies test was based on the

 microeconomics concepts that students would encounter in the game, such as opportunity cost,

scarcity, profit and loss, and ethical decision-making. The creation of the knowledge tests with

the teacher-researcher partnership ensured ecological and construct validity.

Other measures included Likert-scaled surveys for Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

(α= .71) with the subscales for perceived competence, valuing, and interest (McAuley, et. al.,

1987; Foster, 2011); and a 20-item Self Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) (α= .80) with the

subscales autonomous regulation and controlled regulation (Ryan & Connell 1989). These

motivational assessments were used since they have been validated in several studies over a

period of years and shown to be valid even with modification.

Table 1: Example of items on the knowledge test Knowledge Test Item Mathematics What number is 5-less than four times the absolute value of -7?

Matt has a bag containing 12 one-dollar bills and 8 five-dollar bills. Without looking, he pulls out one bill and places it on the table. He then picks a second bill from the bag. What is the probability he will have 2 five-dollar bills?

Science (Physics) How many volts are required to create 10 amperes when there is a 30-ohm resistance? The spectral colors of the electromagnetic spectrum ranges from red to violet. If all the colors were refracted through a prism at once, what color light would emerge from the combination of all these light colors?

Social Studies (Basic Microeconomics)

In a shopping center that you own, if the shops and facilities become too busy, what would you do to make sure all the people who visit your shopping center are receiving good service?

Qualitative sources included interviews with 7 students from week 4 onwards of each

term. Students were chosen purposively to represent a range of interest in the subject areas,

understanding of content, experience with game play, and participation in the class activities

through the term. Examples of interview questions included, “What do you think about learning

 mathematics with Dimension M?”, “How has Physicus helped you think differently about

Science?” and “How, if at all, has learning with RCT3 changed your interest in learning

economics?” Additional data sources included video-taped sessions of PCaRD activities,

classroom obervations of teachers and students, student and teacher interviews about their

experiences with the game-based learning course, and researcher memos to document the in-

class learning process. We observed the teachers for three terms for a total of 10 months for 100

minutes of instructional time each week. During interviews, we asked questions such as, “What

is the role technology in teaching and learning in your view?” and “What are your thoughts about

PCaRD?”

Data Analysis

This study primarily used qualitative analysis combined with exploratory quantitative

analysis. Classroom observations, interviews, researcher memos, classroom activities, and web-

blog entries were analyzed using grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) (a) to document the P-Ca-R-

D integration process, (b) to record those ICCE opportunities that were emebedded in the games

for engaging students in relevant learning goals and the ICCE oppportunities experienced by

students during the course for aiding their knowledge construction and motivation to learn, and

(c) to explain student learning around the content areas, interest and self-regulation, and

identification with content. Paired t-tests were used to measure the change in students knowledge

and motivation to learn mathematics, physics, and microeconomics. The assumptions for the t-

tests were met.

Games Description and Rationale

The three games chosen for this study to use PCaRD were Dimension M for mathematics,

Physicus for physics, and Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 for microeconomics. Dimension M is a

 massively multiplayer online first and third person server-based game, popularly marketed as an

educational videogame to engage K-12 students in mathematics practice (See Figure 3). Within

Dimension M, students had options of playing in four different scenarios in which they could set

the duration of play, the number of players, teams, and mathematics content. It included content

for high school such as algebra and numbers and operations. Physicus is a first-person puzzle-

based adventure edutainment game based on saving the world with science. Students had to set

up and connect three distantly located transformers (See Figure 4) to form one large electrical

circuit in order to start an impulse machine to get Earth start rotating again. Physicus included

content related to electromagnetism, optics, mechanics, and heat transfer. RollerCoaster Tycoon

3 (RCT3) is a single-player simulation strategy game allowing players to build and manage an

amusement park, progressing from being an apprentice, entrepreneur, to a tycoon. RCT3

embedded content that covered basic microeconomics principles such as scarcity, opportunity

cost, and ethical decision-making (See Figure 5).

These games were chosen because of their commercial popularity, varying pedagogical

approaches, and alignment with the content focus of the study. Additionally, the three games

have been used in previous studies for assessing student achievement gains and motivational

changes, without a focus on the pedagogical approach used to implement the games. For instance,

Kebritchi and colleagues (2010) used Dimension M to conduct an experimental study with 193

high school students in classrooms and labs. They found statistically significant differences for

mathematics achievement, but not for motivation. In another experimental study with 22

students, Foster and colleagues (2007) found that the experimental group, which played Physicus

made statistically significant knowledge gains on the physics test. However, the physics group

was not more motivated than those in the control group to learn physics. Lastly, Foster (2011)

 examined 30 students’ construction of microeconomics knowledge and skills while playing

RCT3 in an afterschool study. He identified two player types during the process of learning in

RCT3- explorers and goal seekers. Although both player types made statistically significant

knowledge and skill gains, only the explorers significantly valued the learning.

Figure 3: A Typical Multiple-Choice Mathematical Pop-Up Question in Dimension M

Figure 4: A Mini-Lesson or Tutorial on Mechanics in Physicus

 Figure 5: Installing amenities for park guests in Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 (RCT3)

Procedures and Roles

Prior to the start of the course, the researchers met with the school administrators and

participating teachers to design the game-based learning elective course. These meetings focused

on developing a course that would integrate well into the existing school curriculum to support

mathematics, science, and social studies knowledge and valuing. The aim was to provide

students with an alternative learning experience through the use of interactive learning

environments. Teachers were given access to the games and encouraged to play them in order to

become familiar with the content and pedagogical approaches of the games.

During enrollment and recruitment, the principal and the assistant principal invited

parents to learn about the nature of the course and seek their support for students’ participation.

Professional development for using Dimension M was also offered to the teachers.

During the integration phase, participants were introduced to the course objectives at the

start of the intervention. Thereafter, students completed pretests followed by the P-Ca-R-D

 process, which was one class length each week. The game-based learning elective course was

offered to the ninth graders once per week with two 50-minute sessions, separated by a lunch

break. Students played three games during the year over three terms- Dimension M (September-

December) in a computer lab with desktop computers, Physicus (February-March) and

RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (RCT3) (April-June) in a classroom with laptops. Posttests were

administered at the end of each term specific to each game and content area. End of the year

district-testing schedule prevented the teachers and researchers from administering posttests for

RCT3.

Roles. Due to the novelty of the PCaRD approach for the course, the researchers were

present to lead with more content support from the participating teachers. Teachers modeled the

process in later weeks. Researchers were always present to offer support. The researchers met

with teachers weekly to discuss activities and met intermittently with the principal and assistant

principal to discuss progress and classroom management issues. Having access to the games and

participating in the classroom sessions provided the teachers with an opportunity to develop their

TPACK as it related to game in terms of pedagogy and content. This facilitated teachers in

creating curricular activities that related to gameplay and accomplishment of learning objectives

in an alternative way. Additionally, it allowed the researchers and teachers to overcome the

limitations of the games in terms of the opportunities they afforded for inquiry, communication,

construction, and expression.

Results

For answering the question, “To what extent does a systematic process of integrating

game-based learning in classrooms influence student learning and motivation?” we used

 examples from each game to illustrate the application of the P-Ca-R-D process, including teacher

roles and results obtained for student learning.

Play

At the beginning of each class, students engaged in gameplay to experience ‘hard fun’

(Papert, 1997) for 30-40 minutes. Students were observed discussing their personal experiences

as they related to play, asking their peers questions and providing play strategies to learn.

Observations revealed that across all three games, most students started off with an exploration

of the game environment, followed by a focus on developing skills to beat the game and

competing with each other. For instance, in the mathematics game, initially, students’ play

experiences centered on interacting with peers to discuss the purpose of Dimension M and

learning the game controls through questions and comments such as, “What is this game about,

can somebody tell me how are we going to shoot?” and “Go back…right there….run in to it and

then you have to answer the question.” Gradually over the course of the term, students’ focus

shifted to excelling in game strategies to gain advantage over peers (e.g. answering x number of

questions in a row to gain bonus points), beating personal and class records of highest points

obtained (e.g. “I like the fact that I am learning how to play the game now and I can get more

points and beat the people who I play with”), and establishing a lead position among peers (e.g.

“I am on the second position” “Haha…second position, I am better than you” “I am the leader”).

The role of teachers was to support students in gameplay as it matched their classroom

learning goals by facilitating a connection between students’ personal experiences, interest in the

game, and school knowledge. In doing so, teachers nurtured motivational habits including self-

regulation and interest in the classroom learning goals through the play process. For instance,

RCT3 engaged players in an interdisciplinary experience that most closely reflected the complex

 real life opportunity of operating a business. Among the three games, we noted that RCT3 was

the preference for students in connecting their personal experiences and school knowledge.

Students used lessons learned from their life experiences of managing scarce resources, weighing

opportunity costs to make strategic play decisions, learning from immediate and delayed

consequences in building rides by planning ahead of time or waiting and losing money, and

pragmatically considering personal values versus the ones expected to have success in the game.

Students evaluated their performance using the on-demand feedback mechanisms in the game

such as graphs, statistics, and guests’ comments.

The researchers and teachers used this blend of formal and informal learning in

conversations with students during play to better understand and support student knowledge

construction and motivation. For instance, whereas boys unanimously adapted a more

competitive style in playing Dimension M, the girls expressed disinterest in the game. In-class

interactions and end of term interviews confirmed that one of the reasons for this displeasure was

the disconnection between gameplay actions (e.g. gooping and shooting colored rings) and

mathematics content inquiry (e.g. square roots) in Dimension M. The students also thought that

the game did not situate mathematics in real-world contexts, so it was no different from school

learning. The following is an interview excerpt of gameplay in Dimension M reflecting how

gameplay inquiry stymied students learning and motivation to learn mathematics:

“We had to collect these little balls and then you have to activate it and then you

have to go down in this little tunnel and that’s where you have to answer the

questions and if you get it right, I think you get like 200 points.” “It does not help

me learn math.”

 Students indicated that the form of inquiry used was constrained to drill and practice in

all the missions with questions sometimes repeating from the game database.

The disconnection between gameplay and content was also reflective in Physicus.

Gameplay in Physicus was reflective of pure discovery-based learning approach without timely

feedback to scaffold learners’ gameplay when they needed it and to aid them in applying the

scientific concepts covered in the game. Players were expected to exit gameplay and engage in a

tutorial about the scientific concepts in order to understand and succeed within the game. Exiting

gameplay to engage in the tutorial ruined students play experiences and shifted their attention

from learning physics in an applied, qualitative and interdisciplinary manner to applying abstract

physics concepts, thus generating more dislike for the subject (DiSessa, 1982). As learners in 9th

grade at the beginning stage of physics, this gameplay made developing declarative, procedural,

and conditional knowledge more difficult (Schraw & Moshman, 1995).

As such, whereas play naturally included opportunities for inquiry, insights gained from

the play session highlighted that these popular games fell short on one or more of ICCE elements

in form or extent. Thus, in order to scaffold students’ play and learning experiences,

opportunities for ICCE were designed in the Ca-R-D part of the model. This was done to support

students disconnect between content and gameplay, as was the case in Dimension M and

Physicus.

Curricular Activity

In the curricular activity (20-30 minutes), teachers used their knowledge of the game and

students’ play experiences as anchors for developing problem-based or case-based activities with

opportunities for ICCE. In relation to Physicus, one of the science teachers prepared a

PowerPoint presentation to revisit the physics concepts and the process of scientific inquiry that

 was problematic in play; however, it was decontextualized from students’ experiences in

Physicus. Observations revealed that the science teacher was not very familiar with Physicus and

the students also realized the teacher’s lack of knowledge about the game. The science teacher’s

intervention was further disadvantaged by his absence during play sessions to understand

students’ struggles and successes in Physicus. Thus, to support students’ understanding of a

scientific inquiry approach, the researchers and the mathematics teacher introduced a curricular

activity in which they discussed the scientific inquiry approach with the students devoid of the

science content, which had made the students anxious. Later, students individually designed a

game to engage in a creative construction process such that it employed the scientific method

and aided their gameplay and confidence in Physicus. The following example reveals a student’s

rudimentary conceptualization of the scientific method for a game design:

Objective: You have to try and fix [a] spacecraft before you and your team run out of air. Task: To go around the space station looking for clues. There will be 13 rooms with different things around it. You’ll have to use the objects you found to find the clues. There will be a question for every object you find to be able to get the clue. You will be timed. You have 7 hours before your oxygen tank runs out. Hypothesis: You will be able to fix the spacecraft if you pay attention to your surroundings and clues. This example and others illustrated that students developed a rudimentary understanding

of hypothesizing and setting objectives, but they did not clearly understand the scientific method.

Therefore, the curricular activity continued for three weeks. It aided students in valuing the

experience as useful knowledge beyond gameplay and to their lives, but students did not gain

significant knowledge in the science content explored in Physicus. In addition, personal interests

and identities were projected onto the descriptions of their games as students’ hypotheses

reflected their interest and aspirations for the future, such as interests in spacecraft design.

 During the curricular activity, it was important for teachers have a good knowledge of

the content and pedagogy of the game so that they could introduce curricular concepts related to

the game and course objectives. The curricular activity was significant for steering students’

future experiences with the game in relation to academic learning. As such, one curricular

activity was dedicated to revisiting mathematics concepts learned in their regular mathematics

class and encountered in Dimension M. This was essential because students had an aversion to

mathematics, a low perceived competence, and the in-game feedback was only limited to the

indication of right or wrong answers. Thus, the mathematics teacher retrieved student

performance logs from the Dimension M game database server. The performance log displayed

the type, the number, and the complexity of mathematical problems attempted, and questions

correctly and incorrectly answered. The teacher explored problems related to square roots,

equivalent real numbers, scientific notations and fractions, and discussed these problems by

engaging students in reading problems correctly. Additionally, the teacher reviewed the

underlying concepts, approaches, and methods that were also learned in their regular

mathematics class in the school and made connection to real-contexts.

Reflection

The curricular activity was followed by a 15-20 minutes reflection session facilitated in

blogs for each class. Researchers supported teachers, as the latter created prompts based on their

understanding of the game, classroom observations, and learning objectives for the week. Each

student responded to the prompts to articulate their experiences from play in relation to the

curricular activity and to demonstrate their understanding of the learning goals. Moreover,

students visited each other’s responses and provided peer feedback.

 The reflection session provided an integrated space for individual students to write and

interact with peers about how their game experiences, school knowledge, and personal

experiences merged. In reflections and during interviews, students varied in how well they

articulated their knowledge around design and motivation behind their actions within the game.

For instance, in one reflection session with RCT3, the microeconomic concept of opportunity

cost was being discussed in the context of building rides vs. buying rides. Students recognized

that building an original ride would be a creative advantage to their amusement park, but most

students chose to buy a pre-designed ride for practical reasons related to more profit. The

following statement reflects the majority opinion for students’ reason when polled:

“I would rather buy them [rides] because it cost too much to just to build them, and if you build them you have to do extra thinking. For example you have to do a blueprint, think about the perfect location, decide how big you want it; its just too much extra stuff too do. You can avoid the extra stuff by buying a much cheaper ride!” Alternatively, one student personally valued building rides and took pride in designing

them, knowing that it was the harder way. However, he was unable to think of the value for the

ride from a park guests’ perspective or from a business perspective. Thus, he could not think like

a park guest or a businessperson based on the experiences from the game and the decisions he

made in designing the park. These two perspectives reflected teachers and researchers thoughts

that students understanding of micro-economic principles was basic. The reflection process

showed that most students did not want to engage in the critical thinking required to engage in

more creative designs.

As students composed blog posts, the role of the teacher was to communicate with them,

both offline and online, with the aim of stimulating and scaffolding students’ reflections.

 Simultaneously, the instructors wrote notes about students’ reflections and other observations,

which they used as prompts for initiating the discussion.

Discussion

Closure to teaching through a PCaRD session was brought with a 15-25 minute

discussion led by the teachers. All the students reconvened as a large group to synthesize their

experiences in P-Ca-R, express their opinions, seek explanations to their questions, defend their

ideas, and see the relevance of the game-based learning course to their academic and personal

lives. Discussions were valuable for showcasing exemplars of student engagement in learning

through play, engaging students’ attention to occurrences from the curricular activity that were

relevant to the learning objectives, and inviting students to participate in a dialogue with peers

about their reflections.

The score in Dimension M game were a combination of answering mathematical

questions correctly and having good gameplay skills. Mastering the game was as important as

competence in mathematics. Since most students in the class played in teams or groups, this

relationship was the focus of a discussion session. Four students were invited to share their

experiences of playing Dimension M with the entire class. These students were chosen because

of consistently high performances and a proactive approach in team play in the game. According

to these students, tasks were divided according to individual strengths (as one answered the pop-

up questions, the other killed/gooped opponents in Dimension M) and game features were

exploited (avatar powers were activated). These four students believed they worked well because

of their friendship, which allowed them to communicate and express their emotions with ease.

The sharing of experiences encouraged all the students to be proactive in the course and heighten

their engagement and confidence in themselves. The teacher’s management strategy to allow

 students to form their groups worked well in nurturing expression and communication within

groups.

Quantitative Results of Student Learning. Students had statistically significant gains in

mathematics knowledge, which included numbers and operations, algebra, and geometry using

Dimension M (See Tables 2 and 3). Nonetheless, the ninth graders were not intrinsically

motivated to learn the mathematics or play the game. This may be a result of students’ general

aversion to mathematics, low perceived competence, limited experiences playing games, and the

game design not integrating gameplay with mathematics learning. An alternative reason could be

that participants’ intrinsic motivation was already low for playing games. The course was an

elective that was selected by students and their parents, but students did not know what it meant

to play games in schools to learn.

Table 2 Paired t-Tests Analysis Of The Knowledge Test For The Overall Sample

Source df t d p Pre-Post Mathematics Knowledge 18 4.70** 0.83* 0.001 Pre-Post Motivation (IMI) 18 -3.77 0.30 0.170 Pre-Post Self-regulation 17 -1.34 -0.34 0.198 Pre-Post Valuing 18 0.59 -0.14 0.562 Pre-Post Perceived Competence 18 0.39 -0.65 0.699

Note: P<.01**, R2 = 0.39* Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Mathematics, Intrinsic Motivation, Self-Regulation, Valuing and Perceive Competence

Source N PreMean PreSD PostMean PostSD Mathematics Knowledge 19 13.53 3.52 16.68 4.01 Intrinsic Motivation (IMI) 19 116.37 24.39 124.42 28.64 Self-regulation 18 105.67 22.20 98.83 17.66 Motivational Valuing 19 38.42 10.38 39.63 6.85 Perceived Competence 19 40.16 9.64 45.74 7.49

Students did not have statistically significant gains in physics knowledge and motivation.

Limited play time for Physicus as compared to the other games due to infrastructural and

 technological problems, the science teachers’ absence in many sessions to support students, and

the design of Physicus without informative content scaffolds during play led to a poor play

experience. Nonetheless, curricular activities provided students with opportunities to create

games to represent the scientific method in personally relevant contexts, which stimulated

interest and a qualitative understanding of the method.

Changes in the schedule of the third term to facilitate district testing prevented

instructors from administering post-tests related to RCT3 in the high school.

Teacher Observations and Insights. The course sought participation from three

teachers for the entire duration of the study. Only the mathematics/technology teacher

participated for the yearlong period and the two science teachers participated in some

classes during the second term for science. At the beginning, the mathematics teacher

was hesitant with limited participation related to classroom management, technological

set up, and problem solving with students. He resisted leading play sessions, but took

control during Ca-R-D activities. The mathematics teacher was often observed interacting

with the students during sessions, making connections with their interest in basketball to

Physics concepts, and attempting to improve students’ weaknesses through mathematics

curricular activities. By the end of the year, he began playing RCT3 with the students.

The science teacher who played Physicus and helped to create the physics test

was very keen on participating regularly and showed potential to lead PCaRD sessions.

On the occasions that his schedule allowed him to attend the PCaRD sessions, he

interacted with students during play and problem solved with them in the context of the

game. However, the science teachers were not freed from their schedules and school

responsibilities (e.g. disciplinarian) to facilitate the science term when Physicus was used.

 In final interviews at the end the course, the mathematics teacher shared his

thoughts about PCaRD for supporting teachers and students in participating in a game-

based learning course in a school setting. He said, “the model is a good process especially

since I don’t get a chance to play games to teach much and it supports my learning

goals.” He reported that PCaRD facilitated his pedagogical process, supported his

teaching beliefs, and provided a good experience for students.  

Discussion

This paper reported how the Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD)

pedagogical model for game-based learning is integrated in K-12 contexts to support students

and teachers. The model combined informal play of digital games with a formal classroom

setting and met the needs of students and teachers for structure within a play-based participatory

learning environment consisting of curricular activities, reflection, and discussion.

PCaRD makes at least two contributions in the process of using games to support student

learning and motivation in the classroom. First, unlike previous game-based learning studies

(Kebritchi, et al., 2010; Foster, et al., 2007), game play alone may or may not result in

knowledge gains or motivational changes, but a complete application and participatory

environment afforded by a pedagogical model such as PCaRD can facilitate educators to support

students’ qualitative knowledge construction, motivational valuing, and identity formation.

Second, PCaRD can be used with educational and commercial games to connect content that is

unfamiliar or qualitatively not understood by students to aid in their exposure to new experiences.

Such an approach allows game-supported learning to provide opportunities for generating or

strengthening interest in a domain and also help students find relatedness to what they learn. In

this study, PCaRD resulted in statistical significant knowledge gain for mathematics, but none

 for physics. School district testing policies prevented post-assessments with social studies.

However, students began to perceive the relevance of learning mathematics and science for

pursuing their professional interests and the importance of managing resources effectively in

personal life. Additionally, students’ grades improved towards the end of the school year along

with their attitude toward content areas, which could be the unforeseen impact of engaging in the

PCaRD process for a year. These strengths of PCaRD are particularly important for addressing

barriers identified in the effective use of games to support student knowledge construction and

motivational valuing: (a) students need support in adjusting to the novel experiences of using

games for learning in school contexts (Rice, 2007), and (b) students perceived and learned

obstructions towards specific subject areas can lead them to feel disenfranchised and disengaged

from the learning process (Squire et al., 2008).

The adoption of game-based learning in schools can be facilitated through empowering

teachers in deciphering the relationship between a game, the achievement of curricular goals, and

the fit within the school context (e.g. physical infrastructure) prior to and during its educational

use. In this study, PCaRD integrated flexibly within the culture of the school, specifically due to

a favorable school schedule, technological resources, and administrative support. Infrastructural

and server problems prevented some testing and gameplay at the high school, but in general the

culture was supportive. PCaRD provided an adaptive procedure for teachers and aided their use

of pedagogical practices that innovative game-based learning teachers are known to employ (e.g.

invoking reflection, connecting students’ game and cultural experiences) (Barab et al, 2012;

Eastwood & Sadler, 2013; Silseth, 2012). These are important factors that determine the degree

to which technological innovations like games can be adopted successfully within K-12 schools.

Limitations of the Study

 Teachers’ expertise in using games for instruction not only requires them to be able to

choose games with appropriate characteristics (Watson, et al., 2011), but also ensure a synergy

between student engagement and pedagogy through digital games (Barab, et al., 2012). The

participation of three in-service teachers was marked with marginal (science teachers) to

moderate involvement (mathematics teacher) in teaching their courses with PCaRD. Despite

administrative support, teachers had less freedom to adjust their schedules and responsibilities in

order to learn to lead a game-based learning course, a common factor reported in the literature

(Kenny & Gunter, 2011). This prevented them from utilizing PCaRD to overcome curricular

misconceptions, and address learning and motivational obstructions towards different content

areas. Lastly, in this study, our sample size of 21 students was small. However, we believe that

by using an intact actual classroom for a year allowed us to obtain an authentic understanding of

implementing games to support students and teachers.

Implications for Practice

Games for learning should be designed to satisfy learners’ need for ICCE (Shah & Foster,

In Press-a). When a game lacks opportunities for experiences of ICCE, it limits students from

experiencing transformative learning in a Deweyan sense (Dewey, 1902). Through PCaRD,

teachers can design learning activities that are grounded in ICCE and scaffold students’ play

experiences. To do this however, teachers must develop a deep awareness of the game even

before students are introduced to it. A flexible knowledge of the game(s) in terms of its

pedagogical affordances and embedded content (Foster, et al., 2011) in the context of its use (e.g.

course goals, existing within the school) allows teachers to anticipate likely obstructions for

students’ learning and motivation, and assess the alignment of the game in relation to their class

goals.

 Some obstructions may naturally be overcome through play, an organic way of providing

differentiated instruction. Furthermore, in-class conversations between teacher-student and

student-peers help resolve additional issues. However, some motivational obstructions and

curricular goals may need to be met through the design of problem-based curricular activities

grounded in students’ locally situated experiences (Brophy, 2004). Teachers should create these

activities to aid students in applying the expertise gained from play experiences, on dilemmas of

personal or global relevance for constructing useful knowledge. Reflection provides a space for

students to articulate the personal connections they make between the curricular activity and play

to develop metacognitive strategies. Based on their understanding of the game and classroom

observations, teachers can create prompts that propel students to make their learning in play and

curricular activity more conscious. Lastly, teachers can optimize the discussion session by

reconvening students in a large group to scaffold their experiences of gameplay, curricular

activity, and reflection as students explain their responses to reflection prompts, seek

explanations to questions they have, and gain insights from peers’ experiences. Teachers are

encouraged to utilize the discussion to bring closure to students’ experience of the day and use

insights for the following session to refine their application of PCaRD.

Game designers can also use the Play-Curricular activity-Reflection-Discussion process

to design play-based learning environments that also include opportunities for ICCE (Zhu, Foster,

& Muschio, 2013). However, in such an environment, P-Ca-R-D may not occur in the order

described in a classroom-based application of PCaRD. Instead, the Ca-R-D experiences would

take place in game play. Nevertheless, such games would offer situated learning environments,

which are beneficial for supporting student learning and motivation in disciplinary and

interdisciplinary areas (Foster & Katz-Buonincontro, 2013).

 Recommendations for Future Research

The decision to use a certain game for teaching and learning is an important one because

a game should be thought of as a curriculum with an implicit pedagogical stance (Foster, 2012).

The success of implementing PCaRD depends on the ecological factors in a learning context.

Thus, teachers should play and experience games in order to identify the pedagogy and content

that can be practiced and acquired. Additionally, teachers should be mentored and supported in

integrating games through a systematic model such as PCaRD. Administrators should create a

culture that supports use of games. Lastly, additional research is required in which PCaRD is

implemented in regular courses in diverse K-12 schools.

References Akcaoglu, M. (2013). Using MMORPGs in classrooms: Stories vs. teachers as sources of

motivation Cases on Digital Game-Based Learning: Methods, Models, and Strategies (pp. 15-24): IGI Global.

Baek, Y. K. (2008). What hinders teachers in using computer and video games in the classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and video games. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 11(6), 665-71 Barab, S., Pettyjohn, P., Gresalfi, M., Volk, C., & Solomou, M. (2012). Game-based curriculum and transformational play: Designing to meaningfully positioning person, content, and context. Computers & Education, 58(1), 518-533 Brophy, J. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates. Bruce, B. (1999). Learning through expression (Technology). Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 42(4), 306-10 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A priactical guide through qualitative

analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The jasper series as an example of

anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. diSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning.

Cognitive Science, 5, 37-75. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2004). Practical barriers in using educational computer games. On the

Horizon - the Strategic Planning Resource for Education Professionals, 12, 1, 18-21. Eastwood, J. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Teachers' implementation of a game-based

biotechnology curriculum. Computers & Education, 66(0), 11-24. Foster, A. & Katz-Buonincontro. (2013). Playing to See: A Research and Development Digital

Game-Based Learning Project with the Barnes Foundation. Drexel University. Foster, A. (2012). Assessing learning games for school content: Framework and methodology. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in Game-based Learning: Foundations, Innovations, and Perspectives. New York: Springer. Foster, A. & Shah, M. (2012). PCaRD: A model for teachers to integrate games in their classrooms. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012(pp. 2525-2533). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Foster, A. N. (2011). The process of learning in a simulation strategy game: Disciplinary knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Computing Research,45(1), 1-27. Foster, A., & Shah, M. (2011). PCaRD: Integrating games into classrooms. In D. Gouscos & M.

Meimaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 183-194). The National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece: Academic Publishing Limited, Reading, UK

Foster, A., Katz-Buonincontro, J. & Shah, M. (2011). Designing a game-based learning course: K-12 integration and pedagogical model. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1477-1483).

 Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Foster, A., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2011). Digital game analysis: Using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework to determine the affordances of a game for learning. In M. Khine (Ed.), Learning to Play: Exploring the Future of Education with Video Games. New York: Peter Lang Publications.

Foster, A., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2007). Learning physics through playing games: What is learned and How? Paper presented at the 2007 Annual AERA meeting, Chicago, Il., April 9-13. Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R. and Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students' self-

regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45, 245-257.

Gros, B. (2010). Game-based learning: A strategy to integrate digital games in schools. In J. Yamamoto, J. Kush, R. Lombard, & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology Implementation and Teacher Education: Reflective Models (pp. 365-379). Hadwin, A. & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, Co-regulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social and self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240-264. Hanghøj, T. & Brund, C. E. (2011). Teachers and serious games: Teachers roles and positionings in relation to educational games. In Serious games in education: a global perspective. 1.ed. København: Aarhus Universitetsforlag (pp. 125-136). Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2009). Using video games in science instruction: Pedagogical, social, and concept-related aspects. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(2), 117-134. Kebrtichi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427-443. Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 259-276 Litman, J. A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K. (2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation- type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 531-536. Magnussen, R. (2007). Teacher roles in learning games: When games become situated in schools. Paper presented at the Situated Play- Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA) International Conference, Tokyo, Japan. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case

for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. Millstone, J. (2012). Teacher attitudes about digital games in the classroom: National survey and video case studies. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop in Collaboration with BrainPOP® Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A

framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. National Academies Press. Papert, S. (1997). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Marietta, Georgia:

 Longstreet Press.

Rice, J. W. (2007). New media resistance: Barriers to implementation of computer video games in the classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 249-261 Rideout, V., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8 to 18-

year olds (Report). Menlo Park, CA. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions

for Future Research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive Theories. Educational Psychology Papers

and Publications. Educational Psychology. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for postindustrialization. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401.

Shah, M., Foster, A. & Betser, S. (2013). Empowering teachers towards efficacious adoption of game-based learning. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 2956-2964). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Shah, M. & Foster, A. (In Press-a). The inquiry, communication, construction and expression (ICCE) framework for understanding learning experiences in games. Special Issue on Applied Research in Immersive Environments for Learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments

Shah, M. & Foster, A. (In Press-b). Undertaking an ecological approach to advance game-based learning: A case study. Special issue on game-based learning for 21st century transferable skills: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Educational Technology and Society Silseth, K. (2012). The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s

learning trajectory in a gaming context at school. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 63-84.

Squire, K. D., DeVane, B., & Durga, S. (2008). Designing centers of expertise for academic learning through video games. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 240-251 Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom?

Innovate, 1. Tuzun, H. (2007). Blending video games with learning: Issues and challenges with classroom

implementations in the Turkish context". British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 465-477.

Ulicsak. M., & Williamson. B. (2010). Computer games and learning: A Futurelab handbook. Available at: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Computer_games_and_learning.pdf Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of the in-class use of a video

game for teaching high school history. Computers & Education, 56(2), 466-474 Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: MacMilan. Yang, Y. T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students' problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education, 59(2), 365-377.

 Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61-89. Zhu, J., Foster, A., & Muschio, G. (2013). EAGER - TAEMILE: Towards Automating

Experience Management in Interactive Learning Environments. Drexel University. National Science Foundation (IIS-1349082).