The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion model for game-based learning

This article was downloaded by: [Dr Aroutis Foster]On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Research on Technology inEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

The Play Curricular Activity ReflectionDiscussion Model for Game-BasedLearningAroutis Fostera & Mamta Shaha

a Drexel UniversityPublished online: 24 Mar 2015.

To cite this article: Aroutis Foster & Mamta Shah (2015) The Play Curricular Activity ReflectionDiscussion Model for Game-Based Learning, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47:2,71-88, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2015.967551

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.967551

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/15391523.2015.967551&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-03-24

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/15391523.2015.967551

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.967551

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Play Curricular Activity Reflection Discussion Modelfor Game-Based Learning

Aroutis Foster & Mamta ShahDrexel University

Abstract

This article elucidates the process of game-based learning in classrooms through the use of thePlay Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) model. A mixed-methods study wasconducted at a high school to implement three games with the PCaRD model in a year-longelective course. Data sources included interviews and observations for understanding theprocess of students’ content knowledge and motivation to learn. Pre to post assessments wereadministered for measuring achievement gains and motivational changes. Interpretive analysisindicated that PCaRD aided student learning, motivation to learn, and identification with thecontent. We found mixed quantitative results for student knowledge gain with only statisticalsignificant gains for mathematics. We also found that PCaRD provided teachers with an adaptivestructure for integrating games in an existing and new curriculum. PCaRD has implications forresearch, teaching, and design of games for learning. (Keywords: game-based learning,mathematics)

Game-based learning is rapidly gaining acceptance as researchers illustrate the advantages ofusing games for pedagogical purposes by demonstrating improvements in academic achieve-ment and motivation (Squire, DeVane & Durga, 2008; Yang, 2012). 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).

Theoretical Framework

Teachers and Game IntegrationAn increasing number of teachers and administrators have expressed positive attitudes toward theuse of games in schools (Ulicsak & Williamson, 2010). Researchers also argue that teachers canplay an integral part in enhancing the learning and motivational effectiveness of game-based learn-ing for students (Akcaoglu, 2013). However, this has resulted in neither a heavy adoption of gamesuse within K–12 classrooms (Millstone, 2012) nor an increase in teachers’ competence in usinggames for instruction (Kenny & Gunter, 2011). This could be attributed to (a) several barriersimpeding the adoption of games in school contexts, and (b) our emerging understanding of the ped-agogical processes involved in implementing games.

Game-based learning researchers have recognized a number of factors that impact the compre-hensive adoption of game-based learning in K–12 schools. Some of these factors include that (a)schools bell-schedules are constricted for facilitating the integration of long, complex games; (b)poor physical and old technological infrastructure add limitations; (c) rigid acceptable user policieslimit game use at schools; and (d) there is a paucity of models to aid teachers in using games (Baek,2008; Kenny & Gunter, 2011; Squire, 2005; Tuzun, 2007).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/UJRT.

Volume 47 Number 2 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 71

JRTE | Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 71–88 | � 2015 ISTE | iste.org/jrteDOI: 10.1080/15391523.2015.967551

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

Additionally, the knowledge available in relation to the pedagogical roles involved in facilitatinggame-based learning is still in its infancy (Hanghøj & Brund, 2011). Recently, in a review of litera-ture, Tzuo, Ling, Yang, and Chen (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 pro-viding them with meta-cognitive aids, among others. Barab, Pettyjohn, Gresalfi, Volk, and Solomou(2012) described how teachers could become expert guides to help students navigate the nuances ofa game and make connections with the learning objectives, adopt multiple pedagogical approachesto support student reflection and provide feedback and discussion, and aid students to understandthe relevance of their academic knowledge beyond the course. Nevertheless, teachers do not acquirethese skills naturally or through game manuals (Magnussen, 2007).

Game-Based Pedagogical Model For Supporting TeachersThere is a need for empowering teachers with pedagogical competence in integrating games inclassrooms (Gresalfi, Barnes, & Pettyjohn, 2011; Tzou et al., 2012). Specifically, researchers haveargued that a pedagogical model is required for implementing games efficaciously within K–12schools, guiding teacher intervention, and aiding student learning and assessment (Gros, 2010;Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011). The need for a pedagogical model to aid teachers has also been evi-denced 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 planninginstruction with a commercial game to accomplish learning goals, (b) reported inadequate supportfor students to comprehend a complex game, and (c) reported organizational limitations such asinsufficient technical infrastructure. Jaipal and Figg (2009) argued that using games for supportingstudent learning necessitated teachers to have knowledge about the game to design appropriate cur-ricular activities that connect to game-play. Furthermore, Watson, Mong, and Harris (2011) illus-trated how a lack of guidance could lead teachers with game knowledge to lose valuableinformation about student learning through games, and to create assessments that do not fully com-bine the strengths of the game with student curricular activities. Similarly, Silseth (2012) stressedthe importance of teachers being able to identify “teachable moments” during game play and learn-ing strategies to unite in-game and out-of-game experiences to support students’ personal engage-ment with the curriculum (Silseth, 2012). Lastly, Eastwood and Sadler (2013) concluded that agame-based learning pedagogical model could provide guidance to novice and veteran teachers insynthesizing their content and pedagogical expertise, and in adapting the use of games according tothe needs of their teaching contexts.

Play Curricular Activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD)The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) pedagogical model addresses some ofthe 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) (seeFigure 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 anexisting or a new curriculum (Foster, 2012). GaNA provides the adaptive structure teachers needwithin their classroom context to focus on the pedagogy and content of games and then employgames for supporting teaching and learning. Therefore, GaNA includes (a) game analysis for tech-nology, pedagogy, and content using the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge(TPACK) framework as a lens (Foster, 2012; Foster, Mishra, & Koehler, 2011), and (b) the PlayCurricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) model for integrating games in classrooms in astep-by-step approach to support teachers (Foster & Shah, 2012). The inquiry, communication, con-struction, and expression (ICCE) framework bridges game analysis and game integration by aidingteachers in the identification of learning experiences and design of opportunities that may be lackingin a game. This article focuses only on the game integration aspect of GaNA—namely, the use ofgames through PCaRD, including opportunities for ICCE.

Foster & Shah

72 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 47 Number 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

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 stu-dents in naturalistic game-play, reflective of playing normally with friends, followed by engaging incurricular activities designed by teachers that are connected to game-play. This is followed byreflection tasks on the curricular activities, including students writing to express and reconcile theirthoughts about the process from play and curricular activities. Finally, students engage in discussiontasks led by students and teachers to reconcile classroom-learning goals from the activities, whatwas learned, and what needs further work (see Figure 2).

The role of PCaRD in student learning and motivation. In the PCaRD process, learning isconceptualized as a situated process involving an interaction between the students, the game, andthe classroom environments with designed opportunities for ICCE. Additionally, learning is consid-ered as a synthesis of students’ knowledge construction and motivational valuing of academic con-tent. Thus, in order to make playing digital games academically meaningful and personally relevantto students, PCaRD engages students in activities that are sensitive to their locally situated experien-ces (Brophy, 2004). Further, the curricular activities, reflection, and discussion in PCaRD aredesigned by using anchored instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992) andculturally congruent pedagogical strategies in problems and cases connected to game-play.

In the PCaRD process, the anchored and case-based pedagogical nature of learning activitiesconnected to game-play and situated in local contexts facilitates students in thinking beyond the

Figure 1. The Game Network Analysis framework.

Discussion Model for Game-Based Learning


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

game and transfering what they learn in games as a result of knowledge they derive from personaland pedagogical experiences in activities that are grounded in the defining concepts of the learningdomains being explored (National Research Council, 2000). Building facilitates visible models ofconstructed knowledge and aids students in understanding the utility of such knowledge (White-head, 1929). These experiences assist students in adopting identities and epistemic frames for futureselves, 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 compe-tent 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 inlearners (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 valuetheir experiences and their curiosity for learning moves from being perceptual to being epistemic.

PCaRD and the design of learning opportunities. PCaRD facilitates student learning withteacher-designed opportunities for inquiry, construction, communication, and expression (ICCE)(Foster, 2012; Shah & Foster, 2014a). ICCE experiences are based on the premise that such oppor-tunities are essential for tapping into the natural curiosities of learners (Dewey, 1902). The processof inquiry, an iterative process of problem generation to solution, should be facilitated throughguided discovery-based learning (Mayer, 2004). It should result in mastery-approach learning orien-tation and more self-regulated learning (Foster, 2011; Hadwin & Oshige, 2011). In order to guideplayers toward meeting the objectives and toward becoming self-regulated learners, player–game

Figure 2. Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) game-based learning pedagogical model.


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

and player–peer communication must be useful, contextual, and situated in the world enacted withinthe game (Gee, 2005). Construction involves creating or building artifacts as part of the process ofplaying to construct knowledge that is interdisciplinary and is concerned with the development ofsufficient declarative, procedural, and conditional understanding within foundational (e.g., subjectmatter), humanistic (e.g., cultural competence), and meta-knowledge (e.g., creativity) areas. Expres-sion includes opportunities for identity exploration and self-representation by sharing ones emo-tions, feelings, values, and ideas (Bruce, 1999).

Shah, Foster, and Betser (2013) described a case study involving teacher-designed opportunitiesusing PCaRD. One science/technology in-service teacher created a curricular activity connected toa simulation game being played to learn about system thinking. She discussed the concept of a feed-back loop within systems, and anchored it in relevant stories and cases associated with systems suchas a sensor, comparator, and activator. The teacher first recapped the concept of a feedback and usedexamples from games commonly played by the students, such as soccer, to illustrate the balancingand amplifying kinds of feedback loops. The teacher also situated students’ understanding of thenew terms in other local contexts, such as heating systems used in students’ homes. Later, groups ofstudents constructed a game with a balancing and an amplifying scenario and demonstrated theirgames before the class. This example highlights how one teacher was able to use PCaRD to supportstudents learning.

Why PCaRD is a pedagogical model for teaching with games. PCaRD is a pedagogicalmodel for teaching and learning with games, unlike a generic technology integration model. It is aplay-based model in which the learning activities are anchored in the game; that is, they are not sep-arate from the game or the game-based learning environment. Furthermore, teachers create activitiesbased 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 gameswhile working with teachers, administrators, and students in an urban school setting and how thesebenefits and challenges influenced the implementation process. Foster and Shah (2012) evaluatedthe implementation of PCaRD to support student learning. More recently, Shah and Foster (2014b)reported the ecological validity of implementing PCaRD in a school context, followed by Shahet al. (2013) establishing construct validity through the application of PCaRD in diverse academicsettings. Lastly, Shah and Foster (2014a) described the use of PCaRD in overcoming the limitationsof a game in providing opportunities for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression andmotivational obstructions experienced by students in learning mathematics.

In this article, we examine the utility of the PCaRD model by addressing the following researchquestion: “To what extent does a systematic process of integrating game-based learning in class-rooms influence student learning and motivation?” The purpose of the current investigation is to usefindings 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 SettingsA game-based learning course was created collaboratively with researchers and teachers at an urbanhigh school in a northeastern U.S. city. It was offered to incoming ninth graders to develop motivationto 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 year-long course. Fourdropped out due to missing classes or transferring to other high schools in the first term. Ninety per-cent of the students in the course identified as African American and 10% were White, Latino, orother. However, the school had more than 97% African American enrollment. The students were nottypical gamers, averaging 4 hours per week of game-play as compared to the national average of



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

7 hours per week (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). One male teacher, the mathematics/technologyteacher, actively participated throughout the year. Two science teachers participated sparingly in thecourse. All three teachers were male and had less than 5 years of K–12 teaching experience.

Games Description and RationaleThe three games chosen for this study to use PCaRD were Dimension M for mathematics, Physicusfor physics, and RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 for microeconomics. Dimension M is a massively multi-player online first- and third-person server-based game, popularly marketed as an educational video-game 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 ofplay, 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 adventureedutainment game based on saving the world with science. Students had to set up and connect threedistantly located transformers (see Figure 4) to form one large electrical circuit in order to start animpulse machine to get Earth start rotating again. Physicus included content related to electromagne-tism, optics, mechanics, and heat transfer. RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (RCT3) is a single-player simula-tion strategy game allowing players to build and manage an amusement park, progressing from beingan apprentice, to an entrepreneur, to a tycoon. RCT3 embedded content that covered basic microeco-nomics principles such as scarcity, opportunity cost, and ethical decision making (see Figure 5).

These games were chosen because of their commercial popularity, varying pedagogicalapproaches, and alignment with the content focus of the study. Additionally, the three games havebeen 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,Hirumi, and Bai (2010) used Dimension M to conduct an experimental study with 193 high schoolstudents in classrooms and labs. They found statistically significant differences for mathematicsachievement, but not for motivation. In another experimental study with 22 students, Foster, Mishra,and Koehler (2007) found that the experimental group that played Physicus made statistically sig-nificant knowledge gains on the physics test. However, the physics group was not more motivatedthan those in the control group to learn physics. Lastly, Foster (2011) examined 30 students’

Figure 3. A typical multiple-choice mathematical pop-up question in Dimension M.


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

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 explor-ers significantly valued the learning.

Procedures and RolesPrior to the start of the course, the researchers met with the school administrators and participatingteachers to design the game-based learning elective course. These meetings focused on developinga course that would integrate well into the existing school curriculum to support mathematics, sci-ence, and social studies knowledge and valuing. The aim was to provide students with an alternativelearning experience through the use of interactive learning environments. Teachers were givenaccess to the games and encouraged to play them in order to become familiar with the content andpedagogical approaches of the games.

During enrollment and recruitment, the principal and the assistant principal invited parents tolearn about the nature of the course and seek their support for students’ participation. Professionaldevelopment for using Dimension M was also offered to the teachers.

During the integration phase, participants were introduced to the course objectives at the start ofthe intervention. Thereafter, students completed pretests followed by the P-Ca-R-D process, whichwas one class length each week. The game-based learning elective course was offered to the ninthgraders once per week with two 50-minute sessions, separated by a lunch break. Students playedthree games during the year over three terms: Dimension M (September–December) in a computerlab with desktop computers, and Physicus (February–March) and RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (RCT3)

Figure 4. A mini-lesson or tutorial on mechanics in Physicus.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

(April–June) in a classroom with laptops. Posttests were administered at the end of each term spe-cific to each game and content area. The end-of-the-year district testing schedule prevented theteachers and researchers from administering posttests for RCT3.

Roles. Due to the novelty of the PCaRD approach for the course, the researchers were present tolead with more content support from the participating teachers. Teachers modeled the process inlater weeks. Researchers were always present to offer support. The researchers met with teachersweekly to discuss activities and met intermittently with the principal and assistant principal to dis-cuss progress and classroom management issues. Having access to the games and participating inthe classroom sessions provided the teachers with an opportunity to develop their TPACK as itrelated to game in terms of pedagogy and content. This facilitated teachers in creating curricular

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?

Figure 5. Installing amenities for park guests in RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 (RCT3).


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

activities that related to game-play and accomplishment of learning objectives in an alternative way.Additionally, it allowed the researchers and teachers to overcome the limitations of the games interms of the opportunities they afforded for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression.

MeasuresThe measures in the study included multiple choice and short-answer pre–post knowledge tests formathematics 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 con-struction, the researchers played the games before the start of the study using the TPACK frame-work as an analytical lens for determining the technological characteristics, pedagogicalaffordances, and the content that was embedded in the games (Foster, 2012). The mathematicsteacher and the researchers created the mathematics test based on school district standards for ninthgrade and existing questions that were designed in the game by its developers that supported thosestandards. 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 dis-trict standards for ninth grade and physics concepts (heat transfer, optics, mechanics) embedded inthe respective game. Lastly, the social studies test was based on the microeconomics concepts thatstudents would encounter in the game, such as opportunity cost, scarcity, profit and loss, and ethicaldecision making. The creation of the knowledge tests with the teacher–researcher partnershipensured ecological and construct validity.

Other measures included Likert-scaled surveys for the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (a D.71) with the subscales for perceived competence, valuing, and interest (Foster, 2011; McAuley,Duncan, & Tammen, 1987), and a 20-item Self Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) (aD .80) with sub-scales for autonomous regulation and controlled regulation (Ryan & Connell, 1989). These motiva-tional assessments were used because they have been validated in several studies over a period ofyears and shown to be valid even with modification.

Qualitative data sources included interviews with seven students from week 4 onward of eachterm. Students were chosen purposively to represent a range of interest in the subject areas, under-standing of content, experience with game-play, and participation in the class activities through theterm. Examples of interview questions included, “What do you think about learning mathematicswith 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 datasources included videotaped sessions of PCaRD activities, classroom obervations of teachers andstudents, student and teacher interviews about their experiences with the game-based learningcourse, and researcher memos to document the in-class learning process. We observed the teachersfor three terms for a total of 10 months for 100 minutes of instructional time each week. Duringinterviews, we asked questions such as “What is the role technology in teaching and learning inyour view?” and “What are your thoughts about PCaRD?”

Data AnalysisThis study primarily used qualitative analysis combined with exploratory quantitative analysis.Classroom observations, interviews, researcher memos, classroom activities, and web-log (blog)entries were analyzed using grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) (a) to document the P-Ca-R-D inte-gration process, (b) to record those ICCE opportunities that were emebedded in the games forengaging students in relevant learning goals and the ICCE oppportunities experienced by studentsduring the course for aiding their knowledge construction and motivation to learn, and (c) to explainstudent learning around the content areas, interest and self-regulation, and identification with con-tent. Paired t tests were used to measure the change in students’ knowledge and motivation to learnmathematics, physics, and microeconomics. The assumptions for the t tests were met.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

ResultsFor answering the question “To what extent does a systematic process of integrating game-basedlearning in classrooms influence student learning and motivation?” we used examples from eachgame to illustrate the application of the P-Ca-R-D process, including teacher roles and resultsobtained for student learning.

PlayAt the beginning of each class, students engaged in game-play to experience “hard fun” (Papert, 1997)for 30–40 minutes. Students were observed discussing their personal experiences as they related toplay, asking their peers questions, and providing play strategies to learn. Observations revealed thatacross all three games, most students started off with an exploration of the game environment, followedby a focus on developing skills to beat the game and competing with each other. For instance, in themathematics game, initially, students’ play experiences centered on interacting with peers to discuss thepurpose 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 . . . rightthere . . . 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 xnumber of questions in a row to gain bonus points), beating personal and class records of highest pointsobtained (e.g., “I like the fact that I am learning how to play the game now and I can get more pointsand beat the people who I play with”), and establishing a lead position among peers (e.g., “I am on thesecond position,” “Ha ha . . . second position, I am better than you,” “I am the leader”).

The role of teachers was to support students in game-play as it matched their classroom learninggoals by facilitating a connection between students’ personal experiences, interest in the game, andschool knowledge. In doing so, teachers nurtured motivational habits including self-regulation andinterest in the classroom learning goals through the play process. For instance, RCT3 engaged play-ers in an interdisciplinary experience that most closely reflected the complex real life opportunity ofoperating a business. Among the three games, we noted that RCT3 was the preference for studentsin connecting their personal experiences and school knowledge. Students used lessons learned fromtheir life experiences of managing scarce resources, weighing opportunity costs to make strategicplay decisions, learning from immediate and delayed consequences in building rides by planningahead of time or waiting and losing money, and pragmatically considering personal values versusthe 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 conversationswith students during play to better understand and support student knowledge construction andmotivation. For instance, although boys unanimously adapted a more competitive style in playingDimension M, the girls expressed disinterest in the game. In-class interactions and end-of-terminterviews confirmed that one of the reasons for this displeasure was the disconnection betweengame-play 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 mathematicsin real-world contexts, so it was no different from school learning. The following is an interviewexcerpt of game-play in Dimension M reflecting how game-play inquiry stymied students learningand motivation to learn mathematics:

We had to collect these little balls and then you have to activate it and then you have to godown in this little tunnel and that’s where you have to answer the questions and if you get itright, 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 themissions, with questions sometimes repeating from the game database.

The disconnection between game-play and content was also reflective in Physicus. Gameplay inPhysicus was reflective of pure discovery-based learning approach without timely feedback to


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

scaffold learners’ game-play when they needed it and to aid them in applying the scientific conceptscovered in the game. Players were expected to exit game-play and engage in a tutorial about the sci-entific concepts in order to understand and succeed within the game. Exiting game-play to engagein the tutorial ruined students’ play experiences and shifted their attention from learning physics inan applied, qualitative, and interdisciplinary manner to applying abstract physics concepts, thus gen-erating more dislike for the subject (diSessa, 1982). As learners in ninth grade at the beginning stageof physics, this game-play made developing declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledgemore difficult (Schraw & Moshman, 1995).

As such, although play naturally included opportunities for inquiry, insights gained from the playsession highlighted that these popular games fell short on one or more of ICCE elements in form orextent. Thus, in order to scaffold students’ play and learning experiences, opportunities for ICCEwere designed in the Ca-R-D part of the model. This was done to support students’ disconnectbetween content and game-play, as was the case in Dimension M and Physicus.

Curricular ActivityIn 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 opportuni-ties for ICCE. In relation to Physicus, one of the science teachers prepared a PowerPoint presentationto revisit the physics concepts and the process of scientific inquiry that was problematic in play; how-ever, it was decontextualized from students’ experiences in Physicus. Observations revealed that thescience teacher was not very familiar with Physicus and the students also realized the teacher’s lackof knowledge about the game. The science teacher’s intervention was further disadvantaged by hisabsence during play sessions to understand students’ struggles and successes in Physicus. Thus, tosupport students’ understanding of a scientific inquiry approach, the researchers and the mathematicsteacher introduced a curricular activity in which they discussed the scientific inquiry approach withthe students devoid of the science content, which had made the students anxious. Later, students indi-vidually designed a game to engage in a creative construction process such that it employed the scien-tific method and aided their game-play and confidence in Physicus. The following example reveals astudent’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 differentthings around it. You’ll have to use the objects you found to find the clues. There will be aquestion for every object you find to be able to get the clue. You will be timed. You have7 hours before your oxygen tank runs out.

Hypothesis: You will be able to fix the spacecraft if you pay attention to your surroundingsand clues.

This example and others illustrated that students developed a rudimentary understanding ofhypothesizing 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 experi-ence as useful knowledge beyond gameplay and to their lives, but students did not gain significantknowledge in the science content explored in Physicus. In addition, personal interests and identitieswere projected onto the descriptions of their games as students’ hypotheses reflected their interestand 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 contentand pedagogy of the game so that they could introduce curricular concepts related to the game andcourse objectives. The curricular activity was significant for steering students’ future experienceswith the game in relation to academic learning. As such, one curricular activity was dedicated torevisiting mathematics concepts learned in their regular mathematics class and encountered in



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

Dimension M. This was essential because students had an aversion to mathematics, a low perceivedcompetence, 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 gamedatabase server. The performance log displayed the type, the number, and the complexity of mathe-matical problems attempted, and questions correctly and incorrectly answered. The teacher exploredproblems related to square roots, equivalent real numbers, scientific notations, and fractions, anddiscussed these problems by engaging students in reading problems correctly. Additionally, theteacher reviewed the underlying concepts, approaches, and methods that were also learned in theirregular mathematics class in the school and made connection to real contexts.

ReflectionThe curricular activity was followed by a 15- to 20-minute reflection session facilitated in blogs foreach class. Researchers supported teachers, as the latter created prompts based on their understand-ing of the game, classroom observations, and learning objectives for the week. Each studentresponded to the prompts to articulate experiences from play in relation to the curricular activityand to demonstrate understanding of the learning goals. Moreover, students visited each other’sresponses and provided peer feedback.

The reflection session provided an integrated space for individual students to write and interactwith 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 knowledgearound design and motivation behind their actions within the game. For instance, in one reflectionsession with RCT3, the microeconomic concept of opportunity cost was being discussed in the con-text of building rides versus buying rides. Students recognized that building an original ride wouldbe a creative advantage to their amusement park, but most students chose to buy a predesigned ridefor practical reasons related to more profit. The following statement reflects the majority opinion forstudents’ reason when polled:

I would rather buy them [rides] because it cost too much to just to build them, and if you buildthem you have to do extra thinking. For example you have to do a blueprint, think about theperfect location, decide how big you want it; its just too much extra stuff too do. You canavoid 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 froma park guest’s perspective or from a business perspective. Thus, he could not think like a park guestor a businessperson based on the experiences from the game and the decisions he made in designingthe park. These two perspectives reflected teachers’ and researchers’ thoughts that students’ under-standing of microeconomic principles was basic. The reflection process showed that most studentsdid 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, bothoffline 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 asprompts for initiating the discussion.

Student DiscussionClosure to teaching through a PCaRD session was brought with a 15- to 25-minute discussion ledby 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 therelevance of the game-based learning course to their academic and personal lives. Discussions werevaluable for showcasing exemplars of student engagement in learning through play, engaging


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

students’ attention to occurrences from the curricular activity that were relevant to the learningobjectives, and inviting students to participate in a dialogue with peers about their reflections.

The scores in the Dimension M game were a combination of answering mathematical questionscorrectly and having good game-play skills. Mastering the game was as important as competence inmathematics. Since most students in the class played in teams or groups, this relationship was thefocus of a discussion session. Four students were invited to share their experiences of playingDimension M with the entire class. These students were chosen because of consistently high per-formances and a proactive approach in team play in the game. According to these students, taskswere divided according to individual strengths (as one answered the pop-up questions, the otherkilled/gooped opponents in Dimension M) and game features were exploited (avatar powers wereactivated). These four students believed they worked well because of their friendship, whichallowed them to communicate and express their emotions with ease. The sharing of experiencesencouraged all the students to be proactive in the course and heighten their engagement and confi-dence in themselves. The teacher’s management strategy to allow students to form their groupsworked well in nurturing expression and communication within groups.

Quantitative results of student learning. Students had statistically significant gains in mathe-matics knowledge, which included numbers and operations, algebra, and geometry, using Dimen-sion M (see Tables 2 and 3). Nonetheless, the ninth graders were not intrinsically motivated to learnthe mathematics or play the game. This may be a result of students’ general aversion to mathemat-ics, low perceived competence, limited experiences playing games, and the game design not inte-grating 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 wasselected by students and their parents, but students did not know what it meant to play games inschools to learn.

Students did not have statistically significant gains in physics knowledge and motivation. Lim-ited play time for Physicus as compared to the other games due to infrastructural and technologicalproblems, the science teachers’ absence in many sessions to support students, and the design ofPhysicus without informative content scaffolds during play led to a poor play experience. Nonethe-less, curricular activities provided students with opportunities to create games to represent the scien-tific method in personally relevant contexts, which stimulated interest and a qualitativeunderstanding of the method.

Changes in the schedule of the third term to facilitate district testing prevented instructors fromadministering posttests related to RCT3 in the high school.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Mathematics, Intrinsic Motivation, Self-Regulation, Valuing, and Perceived 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

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* .001

Pre–post motivation (IMI) 18 ¡3.77 0.30 .170

Pre–post self-regulation 17 ¡1.34 ¡0.34 .198

Pre–post valuing 18 0.59 ¡0.14 .562

Pre–post perceived competence 18 0.39 ¡0.65 .699

*R2 D .39. **p < .01.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

Teacher observations and insights. The course sought participation from three teachers for theentire duration of the study. Only the mathematics/technology teacher participated for the year-longperiod 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 class-room management, technological setup, and problem solving with students. He resisted leadingplay sessions, but took control during Ca-R-D activities. The mathematics teacher was oftenobserved interacting with the students during sessions, making connections from their interest inbasketball to physics concepts, and attempting to improve students’ weaknesses through mathemat-ics 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 onparticipating regularly and showed potential to lead PCaRD sessions. On the occasions that hisschedule allowed him to attend the PCaRD sessions, he interacted with students during play andproblem solved with them in the context of the game. However, the science teachers were not freedfrom their schedules and school responsibilities (e.g., discipline) to facilitate the science term whenPhysicus was used.

In final interviews at the end the course, the mathematics teacher shared his thoughts aboutPCaRD for supporting teachers and students in participating in a game-based learning course in aschool setting. He said, “The model is a good process especially since I don’t get a chance to playgames to teach much and it supports my learning goals.” He reported that PCaRD facilitated hispedagogical process, supported his teaching beliefs, and provided a good experience for students.

DiscussionThis article reported how the Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion (PCaRD) pedagogicalmodel for game-based learning is integrated in K–12 contexts to support students and teachers. Themodel combined informal play of digital games with a formal classroom setting and met the needsof students and teachers for structure within a play-based participatory learning environment con-sisting of curricular activities, reflection, and discussion.

Key FindingsPCaRD makes at least two contributions in the process of using games to support student learningand motivation in the classroom. First, unlike previous game-based learning studies (Kebritchiet al., 2010; Foster et al., 2007), game-play alone may or may not result in knowledge gains ormotivational changes, but a complete application and participatory environment afforded by a peda-gogical model such as PCaRD can facilitate educators to support students’ qualitative knowledgeconstruction, motivational valuing, and identity formation. Second, PCaRD can be used with educa-tional and commercial games to connect content that is unfamiliar or qualitatively not understood bystudents to aid in their exposure to new experiences. Such an approach allows game-supportedlearning to provide opportunities for generating or strengthening interest in a domain and also tohelp students find relatedness to what they learn. In this study, PCaRD resulted in statistical signifi-cant knowledge gain for mathematics, but none for physics. School district testing policies pre-vented post-assessments with social studies. However, students began to perceive the relevance oflearning mathematics and science for pursuing their professional interests and the importance ofmanaging resources effectively in personal life. Additionally, students’ grades improved toward theend of the school year along with their attitude toward content areas, which could be an unforeseenimpact of engaging in the PCaRD process for a year. These strengths of PCaRD are particularlyimportant for addressing barriers identified in the effective use of games to support student knowl-edge construction and motivational valuing: (a) Students need support in adjusting to the novelexperiences of using games for learning in school contexts (Rice, 2007), and (b) students’ perceivedand learned obstructions toward specific subject areas can lead them to feel disenfranchised and dis-engaged from the learning process (Squire et al., 2008).


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

The adoption of game-based learning in schools can be facilitated through empowering teachersin deciphering the relationship between a game, the achievement of curricular goals, and the fitwithin the school context (e.g., physical infrastructure) prior to and during its educational use. Inthis study, PCaRD integrated flexibly within the culture of the school, specifically due to a favorableschool schedule, technological resources, and administrative support. Infrastructural and serverproblems prevented some testing and game-play at the high school, but in general the culture wassupportive. PCaRD provided an adaptive procedure for teachers and aided their use of pedagogicalpractices that innovative game-based learning teachers are known to employ (e.g., invoking reflec-tion; 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 technologicalinnovations like games can be adopted successfully within K–12 schools.

Limitations of the StudyTeachers’ expertise in using games for instruction requires them not only to be able to choose gameswith appropriate characteristics (Watson et al., 2011), but also to ensure a synergy between studentengagement 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 (mathemat-ics teacher) in teaching their courses with PCaRD. Despite administrative support, teachers had lessfreedom to adjust their schedules and responsibilities in order to learn to lead a game-based learningcourse, a common factor reported in the literature (Kenny & Gunter, 2011). This prevented themfrom utilizing PCaRD to overcome curricular misconceptions, and to address learning and motiva-tional obstructions toward different content areas. Lastly, in this study, our sample size of 21 stu-dents was small. However, we believe that using an intact actual classroom for a year allowed us toobtain an authentic understanding of implementing games to support students and teachers.

Implications for PracticeGames for learning should be designed to satisfy learners’ need for ICCE (Shah & Foster, 2014a).When a game lacks opportunities for experiences of ICCE, it limits students from experiencingtransformative learning in a Deweyan sense (Dewey, 1902). Through PCaRD, teachers can designlearning 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 introducedto it. A flexible knowledge of the game in terms of its pedagogical affordances and embedded con-tent (Foster, Katz-Buonincontro, & Shah, 2011) in the context of its use (e.g., course goals, existingwithin the school) allows teachers to anticipate likely obstructions for students’ learning and moti-vation, 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 differ-entiated instruction. Furthermore, in-class teacher–student and student–peers conversations helpresolve additional issues. However, some motivational obstructions and curricular goals may needto be met through the design of problem-based curricular activities grounded in students’ locally sit-uated experiences (Brophy, 2004). Teachers should create these activities to aid students in applyingthe expertise gained from play experiences, on dilemmas of personal or global relevance for con-structing useful knowledge. Reflection provides a space for students to articulate the personal con-nections 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 promptsthat 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 scaffoldtheir experiences of game-play, curricular activity, and reflection as students explain their responsesto reflection prompts, seek explanations to questions they have, and gain insights from peers’ expe-riences. Teachers are encouraged to utilize the discussion to bring closure to students’ experience ofthe day and use insights for the following session to refine their application of PCaRD.



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

Game designers can also use the Play-Curricular activity-Reflection-Discussion process todesign 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 describedin a classroom-based application of PCaRD. Instead, the Ca-R-D experiences would take place ingame-play. Nevertheless, such games would offer situated learning environments, which are benefi-cial for supporting student learning and motivation in disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas (Foster& Katz-Buonincontro, 2013).

Recommendations for Future ResearchThe decision to use a certain game for teaching and learning is an important one because a gameshould be thought of as a curriculum with an implicit pedagogical stance (Foster, 2012). The suc-cess of implementing PCaRD depends on the ecological factors in a learning context. Thus, teachersshould play and experience games in order to identify the pedagogy and content that can be prac-ticed and acquired. Additionally, teachers should be mentored and supported in integrating gamesthrough a systematic model such as PCaRD. Administrators should create a culture that supportsuse of games. Lastly, additional research is required in which PCaRD is implemented in regularcourses in diverse K–12 schools.

Received: 2/15/13Initial decision: 11/15/13

Revised manuscript accepted: 11/18/13

Declaration of Conflicting Interests. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interestwith respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-tion of this article.

Author NotesAroutis Foster is an assistant professor of learning technologies in the Department of Teaching,Learning, and Curriculum in the School of Education at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA. Hisresearch interests focus on the design and use of games and interactive digital environments to cre-ate designed experiences that enhance learning, cognition, motivation, and identity exploration, andthe integration of games into classrooms. Please address correspondence regarding this article toAroutis Foster, Department of Teaching, Learning, & Curriculum, Drexel University, 3001 MarketStreet, Suite 041, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

Mamta Shah is a doctoral candidate in learning technologies in the Department of Teaching, Learn-ing, andx Curriculum at Drexel University. Her research interests focus on learning in immersivetechnologies such as digital games, developing and assessing teachers’ knowledge in adopting inter-disciplinary digital technologies in their instructional practice, and facilitating technology integra-tion in learning contexts using an ecological approach.

ReferencesAkcaoglu, M. (2013). UsingMMORPGs in classrooms: Stories vs. teachers as sources of motivation. In Y. Baek &N.Whitton (Eds.),

Cases on digital game-based learning:Methods, models, and strategies (pp. 15–24). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.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), 665–671.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 and Education, 58(1), 518–533Brophy, J. E. (2004).Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Bruce, B. (1999). Learning through expression (Technology). Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(4), 306–310.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A priactical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publica-

tions Ltd.


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, pro-gram description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315.

Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: 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 Plan-

ning Resource for Education Professionals, 12(1), 18–21.Eastwood, J. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Teachers’ implementation of a game-based biotechnology curriculum. Computers

and Education, 66(0), 11–24.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. (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 (pp. 201–215). New York,NY: Springer.

Foster, A., & Katz-Buonincontro. (2013). Playing to see: A research and development digital game-based learning projectwith the Barnes Foundation. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.

Foster, A., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Shah, M. (2011). Designing a game-based learning course: K–12 integration and peda-gogical 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. (2007, April). Learning physics through playing games: What is learned and how?Paper presented at the 2007 Annual AERA meeting, Chicago, IL.

Foster, A., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2011). Digital game analysis: Using the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowl-edge framework to determine the affordances of a game for learning. In M. Khine (Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring thefuture of education with video games (pp. 189–212). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Foster, A., & Shah, M. (2011). PCaRD: Integrating games into classrooms. In D. Gouscos & M. Meimaris (Eds.), Proceed-ings of the 5th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 183–194). The National and Kapodistrian Universityof Athens, Greece. Reading, UK: Academic Publishing Limited.

Foster, A. & Shah, M. (2012). PCaRD: A model for teachers to integrate games in their classrooms. In P. Resta (Ed.), Pro-ceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 2525–2533).Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with com-

puter-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45, 245–257.Gresalfi, M., Barnes, J., & Pettyjohn, P. (2011). Why videogames are not teacher-proof: The central role of the teacher when

using new technologies in the classroom. In G. Vincenti & J. Braman (Eds.),Multi-user virtual environments for the class-room: Practical approaches to teaching in virtual worlds (pp. 267–284). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Gros, B. (2010). Game-based learning: A strategy to integrate digital games in schools. In J. Yamamoto, J. Kush, R. Lom-bard, & C. Hertzog (Eds.), Technology implementation and teacher education: Reflective models (pp. 365–379). Hershey,PA: Information Science Reference.

Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives ofsocial 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 educationalgames. In Serious games in education: A global perspective (pp. 125–136). København, Denmark: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

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.

Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achieve-ment and class motivation. Computers and Education, 55(2), 427–443.

Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of video games in the classroom. Journal of Interactive LearningResearch, 22(2), 259–276.

Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning: Improving understanding of how to increase effi-cacy of adoption. Computers & Education, 56(2), 539–546.

Litman, J. A., Crowson, H. M., & Kolinski, K. (2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity dis-tinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 531–536.

Magnussen, R. (2007, September). Teacher roles in learning games: When games become situated in schools. Paper pre-sented 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.McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a com-

petitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.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. Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/jgcc_teacher_survey1.pdf



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

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. Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

Papert, S. (1997). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap.Marietta, GA: 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., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two

domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educa-

tional Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Papers and Publications. Educational

Psychology. DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for postindustrialization. Teachers College Record, 106

(7), 1401.Shah, M., & Foster, A. (2014a). The inquiry, communication, construction and expression (ICCE) framework for understand-

ing learning experiences in games. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 5(2), 1–14.Shah, M., & Foster, A. (2014b). Undertaking an ecological approach to advance game-based learning: A case study. Journal

of Educational Technology and Society, 17(1), 29–41.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 InternationalConference 2013 (pp. 2956–2964). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Silseth, K. (2012). The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gamingcontext at school. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 63–84.

Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate: Journal of OnlineEducation, 1(6). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=8

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.

Tuzun, H. (2007). Blending video games with learning: Issues and challenges with classroom implementations in the Turkishcontext. British Journal of Educational Tecnology, 38, 465–477.

Tzuo, P.-W., Ling, J. I. O. P., Yang, C.-H., & Chen, V. H.-H. (2012). Reconceptualizing pedagogical usability of and teachers’roles in computer game-based learning in school. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(20), 419–429.

Ulicsak, M., & Williamson. B. (2010). Computer games and learning: A Futurelab handbook. Retrieved from 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 schoolhistory. Computers and Education, 56(2), 466–474.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Yang, Y. T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem

solving and learning motivation. Computers and Education, 59(2), 365–377.Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., . . . 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). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1349082&HistoricalAwards=false


Foster & Shah

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dr

Aro

utis

Fos

ter]

at 1

1:16

27

Mar

ch 2

015

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Computer_games_and_learning.pdf

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/sites/default/files/Computer_games_and_learning.pdf

The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion model for game-based learning

Documents

Transcript of The Play Curricular activity Reflection Discussion model for game-based learning