This article was downloaded by: [Columbia University]On: 13 February 2015, At: 05:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Computers in the Schools:Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice,Theory, and Applied ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Toward Understanding the Potential ofGames for Learning: Learning Theory,Game Design Characteristics, andSituating Video Games in ClassroomsSelen Turkaya, Daniel Hoffmanb, Charles K. Kinzerc, PantipharChantesc & Christopher Vicarica Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAb University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois,USAc Columbia University, New York, New York, USAPublished online: 18 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Selen Turkay, Daniel Hoffman, Charles K. Kinzer, Pantiphar Chantes &Christopher Vicari (2014) Toward Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning: LearningTheory, Game Design Characteristics, and Situating Video Games in Classrooms, Computers in theSchools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 31:1-2, 2-22, DOI:10.1080/07380569.2014.890879

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.890879

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Computers in the Schools, 31:2–22, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0738-0569 print / 1528-7033 onlineDOI: 10.1080/07380569.2014.890879

Toward Understanding the Potential of Gamesfor Learning: Learning Theory, Game DesignCharacteristics, and Situating Video Games

in Classrooms

SELEN TURKAYHarvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

DANIEL HOFFMANUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA

CHARLES K. KINZER, PANTIPHAR CHANTES,and CHRISTOPHER VICARI

Columbia University, New York, New York, USA

Researchers have argued that an effort should be made to raiseteachers’ and parents’ awareness of the potentially positive educa-tional benefits of playing video games (e.g., see Baek, 2008). Onepart of this effort should be to increase understanding of how videogames can be situated within teachers’ existing goals and knowl-edge of learning and instruction. However, relatively little researchon game-based learning addresses teachers (Ketelhut & Schifter,2011), and for many a gap remains between the apparent enthu-siasm of researchers and policy makers relative to the potential ofeducational games and the attendant practicalities of selecting andimplementing video games in classroom settings. This article beginsto bridge this gap by providing research-based areas of awarenessand a discussion of factors that can facilitate understanding re-lated to choosing and using video games. To this end, we show howeducational games can be conceptualized from different theoreticalperspectives on learning and discuss a number of essential designissues that educators should take into account when considering avideo game for educational use.

Address correspondence to Selen Turkay, Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching,Harvard University, 1350 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 780, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. E-mail:selen_turkay@harvard.edu

2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 3

Keywords video games, game-based learning, design issues,learning mechanics, assessment mechanics

Play, for the child and for the adult alike, is a way of using mind, or betteryet, an attitude toward the use of mind. It is a test frame, a hot house fortrying out ways of combining thought and language and fantasy—playunder the control of the player gives to the child his first and most crucialopportunity to have the courage to think, to talk, and perhaps even tobe him. (Bruner, 1983, p. 69)

INTRODUCTION

Many educators are looking for ways to use technology to integrate real-world problems into their teaching or provide scaffolds and tools to en-hance learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), and are consideringvideo games as one way to accomplish these goals. After all, video games arean increasingly important part of children’s lives, arguments that games forlearning can be used to provide authentic educational experiences havereceived significant notice (e.g., see Gee, 2007; Oblinger, 2004), federalagencies are stimulating the use of digital games in education, and majoreducational funding agencies are supporting game-related research and de-velopment (e.g., see Gates Foundation, 2011).

Researchers have argued that efforts should be made to raise teachers’and parents’ awareness of the potential educational benefits of playing videogames (Baek, 2008). One part of this effort should be to increase understand-ing of how video games can be situated within teachers’ existing goals andknowledge of learning and instruction. But because video games are an“increasingly complex and varied medium, available in an expanding rangeof formats and places” (Olson, 2010, p. 185), it is likely that many teachersfeel ill-equipped to make informed decisions related to deploying gamesfor their classrooms. Furthermore, relatively little research on game-basedlearning addresses teachers (Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011), and for many thereremains a gap between the enthusiasm of researchers and policy makers andthe practicalities of evaluating, selecting, and implementing video games inclassroom settings.

This article begins to bridge this gap by providing research-based areasof awareness and a discussion of factors that can facilitate understandingrelated to choosing and using video games. To this end, we briefly note thepopularity of games in the lives of today’s youth. Then we show how edu-cational games can be conceptualized from different theoretical perspectiveson learning. Finally, we discuss a number of design characteristics that ed-ucators should take into account when considering a game for educationaluse.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

4 S. Turkay et al.

BACKGROUND

Although many forms of play exist, a mention of play today is often closelyassociated with video games (Amory, 2007), and is one reason that they arecatching the attention of so many educators (Lenhart et al., 2008). Studiesreport an increasing allocation of time to video game play over the lastdecade. For example, a national survey of school-aged children found thatthey devote about seven hours per week to playing video games (Woodard& Gridina, 2000). Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and Walsh (2004) reported thateighth- and ninth-grade students averaged nine hours per week of videogame play. Furthermore, video game play seems to impact children acrossa wide range of ages—the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that childrenaged 8 to 18 years spend an average of 73 minutes a day playing videogames (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010).

Clearly, the video game industry is both an economic and social phe-nomenon. Perhaps one of the most startling contrasts educators can maketoday is one between the enthusiasm youth exhibit for video games andstatistics that show their declining enthusiasm and motivation for school,especially in the middle school years (e.g., Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Kemp,2006). Games appear to have high intrinsic motivational value, and this hasbeen the basis for game-related research for some time. For example, Maloneand Lepper’s (1987) early work in intrinsic motivation studied what makescomputer games interesting and exciting. Their work related to a taxonomyof intrinsic motivation has arguably influenced, at least to some degree, allresearch in game-based learning.

Of course, as research and development in video games has matured,video games are being recognized as being much more than motivationalbells and whistles. As Stevens, Satwicz, and McCarthy (2008) noted, it isnot enough to think simplistically about what makes video games motivat-ing, with the goal of capturing that special ingredient and deploying it formore serious pedagogical purposes. The interest in examining the poten-tial of games beyond their motivational value for learning has resulted in adramatic increase in the number of game-related research papers and aca-demic conferences. Tobias and Fletcher (2011, p. 4) noted an “explosionof publications and research studies dealing with the value and effects ofgames.” They further stated that the “high volume” of research makes it diffi-cult to “review available evidence since it is continually enlarging” (Tobias &Fletcher, 2012, p. 235). While this may be true, a number of well-establishedlines of research have evolved and can inform educators interested in thepossible value of games in education.

A central idea to emerge in recent years is to think of video games as“designed experiences” in which participants learn through “a grammar ofdoing and being” (Squire, 2006, p. 24). Similarly, Shaffer, Squire, Halverson,and Gee (2005) saw the worlds of games as powerful because they make

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 5

it possible to develop situated understanding (p. 106). This idea is relatedto research and theory in situated cognition, which suggests that learning istied to the authentic activity, context, and culture within which knowledgeis developed and used (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Situated learningtheory is a commonly used instructional theory employed within games forlearning and is often related to epistemic games—games where players playin a game experience that simulates a respective professional activity (Shafferet al., 2005).

To achieve an authentic game environment, Squire (2008) suggested thatgame developers create game experiences where players develop divergentknowledge, interests, and skills such that novices would eventually evolveinto experts, as they ultimately understand and master the game space. QuestAtlantis (QA) is an example of a carefully designed game ecology that teachesand informs (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005) using a multi-user environment to establish an “immersive narrative” (p. 87). Elementaryschool students who played QA demonstrated statistically significant learningover time in the areas of science and social studies, and a sense of academicefficacy (Barab, Dodge, Jackson, & Arici, 2003).

The Games for Learning Institute (G4LI), a multidisciplinary alliance ofgame designers, computer scientists, and education researchers, has urgedgame designers to distinguish between three categories of mechanics: game,learning, and assessment (Plass et al., 2013; Plass, Homer, Kinzer, Frye, &Perlin, 2011). Game mechanics describe essential gameplay activity, andinclude well-known patterns such as leveling up, managing resources, andtaking turns. Much has been written about the topic of game mechanicsfrom a variety of perspectives (see Lundgren & Bjork, 2003; Sicart, 2008),but for the purposes of the current discussion, they are a means to “guideplayer behavior” and “create interactions” (Fullerton, Swain, & Hoffman,2008, p. 25). On the other hand, learning mechanics are theoretical in natureand must be instantiated into the game world through the use of gamemechanics. Learning mechanics are “patterns of behavior” that “form theessential learning activity [emphasis added] that is repeated throughout agame” (Plass et al., 2013, p. 709). Since learning mechanics are concernedwith learning as the primary objective, they must be rooted in a learningtheory. For example, using a social-cognitive theory, a game might draw onthe well-documented instructional practice of peer-tutoring (see Topping,1988). The specifics of how peer-tutoring is integrated into a game is thebusiness of game designers, but one possibility might be to require players togenerate authentic problems to be solved by other players, thus establishing apeer-to-peer interaction. Regardless of the specifics, an effective educationalgame will use learning mechanics to present to-be-learned content as wellas specific user actions (game mechanics) to foster the acquisition of relatedknowledge or skills (Plass et al., 2012, p. 65). Assessment mechanics are alsotheoretical in nature and are also instantiated or operationalized into a game

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

6 S. Turkay et al.

in some manner. These mechanics are grounded in measurement theoryand relate to activities that have assessment as their primary objective. Anexample, drawing on adaptive testing theory (Weiss & Kingsbury, 1984), isa game that progressively challenges players by adaptively adjusting andsetting the difficulty level based on player performance as assessed duringgameplay.

Understanding these mechanics, and how they interact, may lead tomore alignment between games and educators’ goals. When carefully de-signed and implemented, game, learning, and assessment mechanics canwork in concert to create a game experience that is effective both as a playexperience and as a learning/instructional experience (Kinzer et al., 2012).With these distinctions established, it becomes easier to consider how gamescan be based on learning theories and how such understanding allows edu-cators to use their own pedagogical knowledge to evaluate existing gamesfor learning.

LEARNING THEORIES INFLUENCE GAMES FOR LEARNING

As opposed to games that have entertainment as their primary goal, gamesfor learning must include sound pedagogical principles in their design (seeShaffer et al., 2005). Without such underpinnings, video games may be enjoy-able, but do not support academic learning (Barab et al., 2005). To identify,evaluate, and integrate games for learning into classroom contexts, it is im-portant to understand the ways in which learning theory can be embeddedin games.

Some learning theories embrace a cognitive perspective. Cognitive the-ories focus on the relationship between human cognitive architecture, thedesign of educational materials, and successful learning (Plass, Moreno, &Brunken, 2010). Such theories often analyze cognition as a set of steps inwhich an abstract entity called “information” is processed (Anderson, 2009,p. 10). According to cognitive perspectives, the purpose of instruction isto increase the store of knowledge (and strategies for its use) in long-termmemory (Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011, p. 24). Learning from this pointof view requires cognitive activity such as “selecting relevant information,mentally organizing it into a coherent structure, and integrating the newknowledge with existing knowledge” (Moreno & Mayer, 2007, p. 312). Ex-amples of cognitive theories of learning and instruction include cognitiveload theory (Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), the cognitive-affectivetheory of learning with media (Moreno, 2005), and the theories of embodiedcognition (see Shapiro, 2011).

When considering or evaluating a game from a cognitive perspective,one might weigh the cognitive load of a given gameplay environment fora group of learners. Cognitive load refers to the “demands a certain task

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 7

imposes on an individual” (Moreno & Park, 2010, p. 10). A game that under-whelms or overwhelms the cognitive resources of its players likely will resultin a negative experience. A popular feature of games is their user-based flex-ibility, allowing players to adjust settings such as speed and level of difficultyin ways that can tailor gameplay to fit their cognitive needs over time.

Another way to consider video games using a cognitive lens is throughtheir use of the human body to directly control gameplay. Theories of em-bodied cognition argue that most cognitive processes are deeply rooted inthe body’s interactions with its physical environment (Wilson, 2002). Thanksto motion-sensing technologies, such as Nintendo’s Wii (Nintendo of AmericaInc., Redmond, WA) or Microsoft’s Kinect (Microsoft, Redmond, WA), gamesthat take advantage of human movement are possible. These capabilitiesare allowing players to explore concepts physically as opposed to reading,watching, or hearing descriptions in a textbook, or video or audio presenta-tion. A growing body of research has suggested that changing how playersmove can impact the concepts they learn in math (Paek, 2012), geology, andphysics (Johnson-Glenberg, Birchfield, Savvides, & Megowan-Romanowicz,2011).

Of course, cognitive theories are not the only way to approach learning.Another category of theories relies on the social aspects of learning. In fact,the influence of social groups in learning has a long history, and the useof multiplayer games and environments can maximize the benefits of sociallearning groups. Needless to say, the growth and popularity of social mediaare indicative of the power of social groups and of individuals’ needs toparticipate in social acts.

Social learning theory posits that children can learn patterns of behav-ior through repeated observations of symbolic models depicted in media(Bandura, 1977). For example, images of science and scientists in the mediahave been shown to influence public attitudes about these same topics inthe real world (National Science Board, 2006). Thus, it is possible that atti-tudes toward subjects like science can be influenced by using well-designedcharacters and worlds in video games. For example, a game-based learningenvironment, River City, implements problem-based science curricula thatprovides deep inquiry skills and content coverage (Ketelhut, Nelson, Clarke,& Dede, 2010, p. 57). This immersive environment places players in a 19th-century city where they practice being scientists and develop scientific habitsof mind (Ketelhut & Schifter, 2011). By interacting with other players andnon-player characters, players experience the social practices of being sci-entists by actually “doing science” in a virtual environment (Bloome, Puro,& Theodorou, 1989).

Being able to engage with fellow students can facilitate a stronger learn-ing experience. Many psychologists have hypothesized that individual cog-nitive skills develop in a social context (Resnick, 1991), and a “communityof enquiry” is crucial for higher level development (Lipman, 1991; see also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

8 S. Turkay et al.

Lave & Wenger, 1991). Such learning communities can encourage social in-teraction and participation among students (Newman, Webb, & Cochrane,1995), which can foster a productive learning environment and a “partici-patory culture,” such as those found in game forums (Jenkins, Purushotma,Weigel, Clinton, & Robinson, 2009, p. xiii).

Forums can be described as virtual affinity spaces, which according toGee (2004, p. 67), are “places where people affiliate with others based pri-marily on shared activities, interests, and goals.” Some research indicates thatthe majority of forum discussions consist of “social knowledge construction,”implying that a large percentage of the discussions concern joint problemsolving, knowledge sharing, and evidence-based debates (Steinkuehler &Duncan, 2008, p. 543). Steinkuehler and Duncan (p. 530) suggested thatcommunities that form around games could be an alternative to textbooksand science labs.

In addition to cognitive and social theories, cultural learning theories addanother perspective to what influences learning. From a cultural perspective,cultural subgroups use language and other artifacts to shape individual viewsof reality linked to that culture’s needs (Hung, 2001). Sometimes called an-thropological approaches (Barab & Duffy, 2000, p. 26), such theories focuson communities and what it means to learn as a function of being part of acommunity’s culture. Squire (2008) argued that an important cultural factorin effective gaming environments is the ideological worlds that players beginto form once they participate in the game. Ideological worlds are environ-ments with values, visions, and ideas in which players perform and reflect onmeanings that are “negotiated in interpretative communities” (Squire, 2008,p. 172). These negotiations often occur through social relationships but arebased in the cultural practices and norms important to the respective com-munity. Thus, cultural and social theories are closely related, but differ inthat cultural norms may determine the content and value of the learning thatoccurs.

To summarize, there are different views as to the ways learners con-struct knowledge and how this can happen in and out of games. Of course,cognitive, social, and cultural aspects of learning interact, but instructionalmaterials, including games, can be designed to foreground one perspectiveover the other, or to facilitate the interaction of the three. Recognizing howgames align to these learning theories is important to understanding theirpotential as vehicles of learning. An educator well versed in the relationshipbetween video games and different aspects of learning theory will be betterequipped to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of a given gamefor a specific audience in a particular context.

Thus far, an effort has been made to situate games within the contextof theories of how people learn; the sections that follow address partic-ular features of games that research has shown influence their effective-ness and impact. This is undertaken with an understanding that no single

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 9

combination of features will result in a perfect game for learning. Rather,the considerations that follow should be seen as “design issues” that do notlead to “prescriptions” but rather to “important issues” (Collin, 1996, p. 348)that should be weighed. The aim is to better equip educators to chooseappropriate games for learning.

CONSIDERING FEEDBACK IN GAMES FOR LEARNING

Feedback is one of the crucial components of video games. It is half ofthe circular model of gameplay as described by Heaton (2006), where the“gamer’s input and the game’s output reciprocally influence each other”(Arsenault & Perron, 2008, p. 114). For example, many games use visual andauditory feedback to let players know if certain actions have succeeded orfailed. Such feedback elements communicate details about the game’s innerstates and its core game mechanics to the player almost instantly (Adams,2009, p. 225).

Instant feedback can be seen in different outcomes. For example, suchfeedback allows players to immediately see the outcome of an action orresponse, or can result in more global changes such as leveling up. Pushingbuttons can make a game character move, but gaining experience points thatrelate to learning can change difficulty level. Importantly, feedback encour-ages players to reflect on strategy and to reevaluate their decision making.If players use an ability that proves ineffective, then they can change toa different strategy, utilizing more effective options. Such learning throughfailure and feedback is both an important aspect of learning theories and ahallmark of video games.

In traditional classroom learning, negative feedback is often discour-aging to students (Sadler, 1998). However, this is not generally the case invideo games. As Gee (2007) noted, “In video games, losing is not losing, andthe point is not winning easily or judging yourself a failure. In playing videogames, hard is not bad and easy is not good” (p. 125). Players are allowed,repeatedly, to try again if they do not succeed, which is not common inclassroom-based learning. In fact, game players are encouraged to evaluatetheir errors and play again, especially as more arduous challenges occur.Players hope to challenge themselves at a level of difficulty that is neithertoo difficult to complete or too simple to be engaging. In effect, they de-termine their own zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), and thefeedback found in video games can allow students to evaluate and amendtheir strategies accordingly.

However, feedback can be delayed, as occurs when points are pro-vided only before signing out once several activities have been completed,or in leaderboards showing others’ point totals. However, while feedbackin the form of leaderboards can be motivating, it can also be discouraging,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

10 S. Turkay et al.

with players giving up and thinking that they will never achieve the scoresbeing shown. For example, research with an educational game about mathfound the ability-beliefs of some players were actually lowered as a result ofgameplay (Hoffman, Paek, Zhou, & Turkay, 2009). The authors argued thatstudents inappropriately interpreted their in-game performance, and the ac-companying feedback, as an objective assessment of their math ability. Suchpossibilities should be considered by teachers in terms of the personalitiesand affective responses that they know to be a part of the learners in theirclassrooms.

CONSIDERING PLAYER CHOICE IN GAMES FOR LEARNING

Providing students with choices can increase their enjoyment (Csikzentmi-halyi, 1990), as well as self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, sense of control,and task persistence (Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). This,in turn, can lead to better performance in the task at hand (Cordova &Lepper, 1996). The motivational aspects of choice have been part of manyframeworks, including Eccles and Wigfield’s (1995) expectancy-value modelof achievement motivation, and Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory.Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and self-determination theory (Deci &Ryan, 1985), which have been used to explain the psychological aspects offun associated with games, highlight user control and autonomy in intrinsicmotivation and enjoyment.

Leotti, Iyengar, and Ochsner (2010) have argued that opportunities toexercise control may be necessary to foster self-efficacy beliefs. They furtherassert that “each choice—no matter how small—reinforces the perceptionof control and self-efficacy, and removing choice likely undermines thisadaptive belief” (p. 458). Providing choices, in fact, may be central to game-play, reinforcing Salen and Zimmerman’s (2004) argument that games canbe seen as “systems whose meaning emerges from the experience of playersas they make choices in a game” (p. 316). Yee (2006) found that choicesconcerning appearance, accessories, and color scheme in games were impor-tant subcomponents of massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) players’motivation, while Turkay and Adinolf’s (2010) study showed that sense ofcontrol and customization are correlated and valued as aspects of playerengagement.

There appears to be a relationship between allowing choices and learn-ing in games. For example, Cordova and Lepper (1996) found that childrenwho were given more choices about their representation in a learning gameenvironment exhibited not only more intrinsic motivation, but also greaterdepth of engagement, as evidenced by a preference for more challengingversions of the game, the greater use of complex operations, and an empha-sis on strategic play. Moreover, the amount they learned increased, as did

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 11

their perceived competence and level of aspiration. Reflecting on Cordovaand Lepper’s findings, it can be argued that the opportunity to choose evenseemingly low-level items such as icons, names representing the player, andin-game opponents made the game personally meaningful to participantsand influenced their learning.

In a study with sixth-grade students (Kinzer et al., 2012), user choice wasoperationalized for a mathematics game by asking players to choose a non-player character (NPC) to act as their “guide” during gameplay. These NPCguides provided feedback to players in the case of incorrect answers. Playersin the choice condition could manually select a guide from six potential NPCsat the start of gameplay. Players in the non-choice condition were assignedguides automatically in the same proportions as those players who selectedtheir own. A paired-samples t test found a significant change in knowledgeof angles from pretest to posttest score for subjects in the choice condition(t(68) = 4.043, p < .001), but not for the non-choice group. Such resultsillustrate the potential of embedding player choice into a game to supportengagement and motivation.

This brief overview demonstrates that choice and a player’s sense ofcontrol over the game environment might be leveraged to influence learning,motivation, and in-game performance. However, choice has to be integratedinto the game in meaningful ways that are complementary to gameplay.Educators should consider the types and number of choices provided ingames and how these choices match their students’ abilities and personalities.

We have presented choice as an aspect of a player’s ability to cus-tomize a game, resulting in feelings of control and making the game a morepersonal experience. However, the choices that players make during actualgameplay—whether to buy certain items over others, whether to indulge inone activity over another, whether to consider consequences of game ac-tions on other game characters, and so on—can facilitate teaching aspects ofethical thinking (Schrier & Kinzer, 2009; Schrier & Gibson, 2010). For exam-ple, Jenkins (2006, p. 17) contended that working with students to questionethical practices can be more valuable than finding actual answers, as theprocess allows students to recognize and describe the varying assumptionsthat guide behavior. Presenting ethical dilemmas as choice points in games isbecoming a popular game design pattern, and using them in classroom en-vironments could provide benefits when preparing students to be informed,engaged, and critical individuals.

Through video games, players can look through the eyes of other “peo-ple” (in-game characters), gain a glimpse into the motivations behind theiractions, and allow players to experience situations through the perspectivesof other identities. This can potentially expose players to divergent pointsof view while allowing them to weigh these views against their own beliefs.As Schrier and Kinzer (2009, p. 313) mentioned, games allow players to re-flect on their decisions and consider the implications of their choices in a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

12 S. Turkay et al.

risk-free environment. Schrier and Gibson (2010) suggested asking partici-pants not about how a game requires them to behave, but rather how thegame enables them to try out different actions, evaluate their implications,and consider alternate systems of morals. Through games, players have theopportunity to observe perspectives that they may not normally have thechance to experience without compromising their personal beliefs. Such atool may aid teachers in fostering empathy and cross-cultural understandingin their classrooms, which have been designated as important in a 21st-century curriculum (e.g., Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009).

CONSIDERING THE INFLUENCE OF INTERFACE

Although an oft-overlooked aspect of gameplay, how a player interacts withand controls a game (historically, with computer mice and keyboards orjoysticks and buttons) can impact a number of learning-related variables,including motivation to play, enjoyment, and sense of presence (Tamborini& Bowman, 2010). Cummings (2007) pointed out that the evolution of thegame controller over the last 45 years has taken it from the simplest knobsand buttons to computer vision, and touch and motion control. Today’sgames are controlled by touchscreens, dance pads, wireless remotes, andeven directly by the arms and legs of the human body.

One must consider the developmental and social appropriateness of agame’s control scheme for a given audience in conjunction with individu-als’ experiences as video game players. Some game controllers have up to10 separate buttons, often with confusing labels, and different directionalnavigation choices that often must be managed in coordination with the but-tons (Marshall, Ward, & McLoone, 2006, p. 10). Learning games should nothave an unnecessarily “overly complex interface that subjectively ‘gets in theway’ of what the player wants to achieve in the game” (Juul & Norton, 2009,p. 108). While unfamiliar and complex interfaces may result in frustration andcognitive overload (Ang, Zaphiris, & Mahmood, 2006), interface customiza-tion may allow players to manage and process information by allowing acloser match between users’ cognitive resources and the cognitive demandsof their gameplay experience (Adinolf & Turkay, 2011).

A discussion of game interfaces has to acknowledge the challengesand opportunities presented by mobile platforms. On the positive side, suchtechnologies offer the opportunity to embed learning wherever one is located(Schwabe & Goth, 2005). However, Albers and Kim (2002) underscoredseveral issues that impact the use of handheld devices: (a) users’ readingof text on small screens is more difficult, (b) graphical information is bynecessity limited in its size and complexity, and (c) interactivity can bea challenge due to the lack of keyboard and mouse and the limits of asmall screen to display multiple interactive elements. Similarly, Churchill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 13

and Hedberg (2008) recognized small screen size as the key limitation ofhandhelds to deliver learning material, noting the relative lack of guidelinesand supporting literature on the issue.

Beyond mobile devices, many games now employ motion-sensing in-put devices. Such technology uses perceptual devices to detect and interpretthe gestures and body position of players. The promise of such motion-based games is a more natural way of interacting with the game as playersdraw upon mental models from the real world and apply them to the gameworld (Skalski, Tamborini, Shelton, Buncher, & Lindmark, 2011). The overlapbetween real-world and game-world gestures is considered a natural map-ping, which Tamborini and Bowman (2010, p. 90) defined as how closelyactions represented in the game match the actions used to bring aboutthat change in a real environment. Although promising and ultimately anexciting development for both entertainment and educational games, onemust consider the physical context within which such devices and gamesare used. For example, Microsoft’s Kinect add-on for the Xbox 360 con-sole requires players to stand at a range of 6–8 feet away from the sen-sor, and there needs to be enough horizontal space for one or more play-ers to move side-to-side. In classrooms, space limitations or the distractionthat can occur during gameplay for those attempting other tasks may beproblematic.

When considering games that rely on a motion-sensing technology,those that require simple motions may be best for educational games. Astudy of a motion-sensing input system tested with both adults and children(Payne et al., 2006) found players preferred games with simple gestures,allowing them immediately to understand and play, rather than games withmore complex gestures that had to be learned and remembered. Similar workby Limperos, Schmierbach, Kegerise, and Dardis (2011), comparing a gameplayed by 139 undergraduates using either a PlayStation 2 (Sony, New York,NY) controller or a Wiimote (Nintendo), concluded that the advanced-motionsensing technology may have actually detracted from players’ enjoyment (p.348).

However, promising and exciting work related to learning with motion-sensing interfaces is emerging. For example, in the Kinect-based fractionsgame called Scoop!, developed by researchers at New York University’sPolytechnic School of Engineering Game Innovation Lab (see Isbister, Kar-lesky, Frye, & Rao, 2012), players adjust the width of their outstretched armsin proportion to a fraction falling down the screen. This is an innovativeexample of leveraging emerging input paradigms to incorporate a learningtheory, in this case embodied or grounded cognition (Barsalou, 2008). Isbis-ter’s research concerned the affective results of movement mechanics (seehttp://engineering.nyu.edu/people/katherine-isbister). With Scoop!, Isbisterhas been studying the differential effects of high-power (i.e., expansive) po-sitions versus low-power (i.e., contracted with arms tucked into the body)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

14 S. Turkay et al.

poses on math anxiety. Pretesting suggests that high-power positions canimpact a user’s emotional state, raising confidence levels (Isbister, 2011).

CONCLUSION

The field of game-based learning has matured significantly in recent years,resulting in important advances in our knowledge of the complexities andpossibilities of creating, evaluating, and implementing games for learn-ing. However, for educators who may be somewhat outside the field ofgames research and game culture in general, much of this work may seemsomewhat inaccessible. When video games are considered for instructionaluse, many factors must be weighed. These include the teacher’s goals, theinstructional context in which the game will be used, the time available forgameplay relative to other classroom activities, the learner’s level of academicknowledge and his or her gaming expertise, and the teacher’s familiarity withgames and his or her knowledge about the factors that can make a gamemore or less appropriate for the envisioned learning activity. While each ofthese areas is important, less has been written about the last point than theothers, and it is this area that has been addressed.

We considered it a given that teachers can articulate their goals forlearners and their students’ levels and needs. Previously, researchers haveidentified a need for teachers to acquire additional background in how in-structional technologies in general, and educational games in particular, arebuilt around different learning theories (Dede, 2008). Recent research alsohighlights important educational factors, such as providing learners withchoice, feedback, and accommodations to the instructional interface, all ofwhich can vary across games and can influence learning (Kinzer et al., 2012).We believe that foundational knowledge in these areas will allow teachersto match their own theoretical knowledge and perspectives about learningto these aspects incorporated in games. We further believe that this is acritical aspect of integrating any instructional material, including games, intoteachers’ repertoires, as teachers are less likely to use and be satisfied withinstructional tools that do not match their internal theoretical perspectives(Ertmer, 2005; Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001).

Just as teachers with a social, child-centered perspective would be dis-satisfied with materials built around behavioral, teacher-centered pedagogy,such teachers would be dissatisfied with video games that direct knowledgeto the student rather than allowing players/learners to discover knowledgeas they play. Similarly, teachers who have initial conceptual learning astheir goal would be dissatisfied with an educational game that targets prac-tice rather than initial learning, and teachers who want immediate feedbackwould be unhappy with the use of a game that provides delayed feedback.Additionally, classroom implementation that does not consider issues of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 15

interface (e.g., the demands of a movement interface, such as a MicrosoftKinect, Nintendo Wii, or Sony Move) would potentially lead to dissatisfactionwith an educational games’ integration into the physical instructional con-text. To help summarize the points raised in this article in a way that mightbe of practical use for those considering educational games as instructionaltools in classrooms, Table 1 provides a series of questions that will helpmake decisions about the potential benefits of an educational game in termsof its match with instructional goals and contexts of use.

TABLE 1 Questions to Consider When Integrating Games into Instruction

General questions to considerwhen integrating games intoinstruction

Specific questions to aid in addressing the generalquestion

1. What is my instructionalgoal and how well does thegame being consideredmatch?

(a) Does the content match?(b) Does the specific skill match?(c) Does the game provide conceptual learning or

practice?(d) Does the game provide initial teaching or

reinforcement?

2. Does the game match myinstructional philosophy andincorporate learning theoriesconsistent with my goals?

(a) Is the game’s instruction based on cognitive theory?(b) Social theory?(c) Cultural learning theory?(d) An appropriate interaction of those?

3. Does the game match myinstructional philosophyregarding appropriatefeedback?

(a) Does the game provide immediate feedback?(b) Comparative feedback based on others’

performance?(c) Delayed feedback?(d) Direct “yes/no” or “correct/incorrect” feedback?

Conceptual feedback? Informative feedback?

4. Does the game match myinstructional philosophyregarding the availability oflearner choice?

(a) Does the game provide the learner with choices tocustomize the game’s instructional elements (e.g.,avatar/instructional agent, type of feedback,presentation of content)?

(b) Does the game provide the learner with options tomake choices early (before the game begins) and/orlater, as the game goes on?

(c) Does the game provide the learner with ethical ormoral choices, if appropriate?

5. Does the interface matchmy instructional context?

(a) Is the game/interface appropriate for myinstructional situation? (e.g., Do I have space for thegiven interface [e.g., Wii, Kinect or Move controllers])?

(b) Do I need additional peripherals (e.g.,headphones) to avoid distraction to non-playingstudents?

(c) Are the monitors and graphics cards my students willuse compatible with the game?

(d) Does the game allow the learner to customize videogame interface settings (e.g., colors or size of thetext)?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

16 S. Turkay et al.

Our broad-based discussion of general categories of learning theoriesand design characteristics is limited by the space constraints and introductoryfocus of this article. We hope, however, to have provided basic knowledgeand perhaps the motivation for teachers to look more deeply into the designand structure of games for use in their students’ learning. We also believethat a categorization of educational games that includes the factors we havepresented should be incorporated into calls for a general repository of ed-ucational games (e.g., see Young, et al., 2012) and for taxonomies (e.g., byTobias & Fletcher, 2012). The goal, of course, is to bring teachers working informal and informal settings one step closer to the rich possibilities affordedby games for learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Christian deLuna, Francis McGreever, Jenna Marks, and Wen (Ariel)Zhang for their important comments and editorial assistance.

FUNDING

This work was funded in part by Microsoft Research through the Games forLearning Institute and the Game Research Lab at Teachers College ColumbiaUniversity, New York, NY. The content and opinions are those of authorsand may not reflect the funders’ views, nor does mention of trade names,products, or organizations imply endorsement.

REFERENCES

Adams, E. (2009). Fundamentals of game design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Adinolf, S., & Turkay, S. (2011). Controlling your game controls: Interface and cus-

tomization. In C. Steinkuehler, C. Martin, & A. Ochsner (Eds.), Proceedings ofGames + Learning + Society Conference (pp. 23–32). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC.

Albers, M., & Kim, L. (2002). Information design for the small-screen interface:An overview of Web design issues for personal digital assistants. TechnicalCommunication, 49(1), 45–60.

Amory, A. (2007). Game object model version II: A theoretical framework for educa-tional game development. Educational Technology Research and Development,55(1), 51–77.

Anderson, J. R. (2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed.). New York,NY: Worth.

Ang, C. S., Zaphiris, P., & Mahmood, S. (2006, June). Cognitive load issues inMMORPGs. Paper presented at the Fun ‘n’ Games Conference 2006 (FNG2006),Preston, England.

Arsenault, D., & Perron, B. (2008). In the frame of the magic cycle: The circle(s) ofgameplay. In B. Perron & M. J. P. Wolf (Eds.), The video game theory reader 2(Vol. 2, pp. 109–131). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 17

Baek, Y. K. (2008). What hinders teachers in using computer and video games inthe classroom? Exploring factors inhibiting the uptake of computer and videogames. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 665–671.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Place.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.

Freeman.Barab, S., Dodge, T., Jackson, C., & Arici, A. (2003). Technical report on Quest Atlantis

(Vol. 1). Bloomington, IN: Center for Research on Learning and Technology.Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning

fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 53(1), 86–107.

Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice.In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learningenvironments (pp. 25–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1),617–645.

Bloome, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroomlessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 265–291.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain,mind, experience, and school (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture oflearning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.

Bruner, J. (1983). Play, thought and language. Peabody Journal of Education, 60(3),60–69.

Churchill, D., & Hedberg, J. (2008). Learning object design considerations for small-screen handheld devices. Computers & Education, 50, 881–893.

Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. DeCorte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the psycho-logical foundations of technology-based learning environments (pp. 347–361).Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.

Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process oflearning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice.Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(88), 715–730.

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1990). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in con-sciousness. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cummings, A. H. (2007, January). The evolution of game controllers and controlschemes and their effect on their games. Paper presented at the Proceedings ofMC07, Southampton, UK.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination inhuman behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information tech-nology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Vol.20, pp. 43–62). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropri-ate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Researchon motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 139–186). NewYork, NY: Academic.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

18 S. Turkay et al.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adoles-cents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our questfor technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development,53(4), 25–39.

Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2008). Game design workshop: A playcen-tric approach to creating innovative games. Burlington, MA: Elsevier MorganKaufmann.

Gates Foundation. (2011). Gates Foundation announces portfolio of innovativegrants to develop new teaching and learning tools that support teachers andhelp students. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2011/04/Gates-Foundation-Announces-Portfolio-of-Innovative-Grants-to-Develop-New-Teaching-and-Learning-Tools-that-Support-Teachers-and-Help-Students

Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.New York, NY: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan

Gentile, D., Lynch, P., Linder, J., & Walsh, D. (2004). The effects of violent videogame habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school perfor-mance. Journal of Adolescence, 27(1), 5–22.

Heaton, T. (2006). A circular model of gameplay. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2569/a_circular_model_of_gameplay.php.

Hoffman, D., Paek, S., Zhou, Z., & Turkay, S. (2009, April). The impact of students’domain-specific motivations on educational video game play. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, SanDiego, CA.

Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional tech-nologies. Educational Media International, 38, 281–287.

Isbister, K. (2011). Emotion and motion: Games as inspiration for shaping the futureof interface. Interactions, 18(5), 24–27.

Isbister, K., Karlesky, M., Frye, J., & Rao, R. (2012, May). Scoop! A movement-basedmath game designed to reduce math anxiety. Paper presented at Computer-Human Interaction 2012 (CHI 2012): ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac-tors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NewYork, NY: New York University Press.

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. (2009). Con-fronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21stcentury. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D., Savvides, P., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C.(2011). Semi-virtual embodied learning—Real world STEM assessment seriouseducational game assessment. In L. Annetta & S. C. Bronack (Eds.), Seriouseducational game assessment: Practical methods and models for educationalgames, simulations and virtual worlds (pp. 241–257). Rotterdam, The Nether-lands: Sense.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 19

Juul, J., & Norton, M. (2009, April). Easy to use and incredibly difficult: On themythical border between interface and gameplay. Paper presented at the In-ternational Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, Port Canaveral,FL.

Kemp, S. E. (2006). Dropout policies and trends for students with and withoutdisabilities. Adolescence, 41(162), 235–250.

Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtualenvironment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science.British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56–68.

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

Kinzer, C. K., Hoffman, D., Turkay, S., Gunbas, N., Pantiphar, C., Dvorkin, T., &Chaiwinij, A. (2012). The impact of choice and feedback on learning, motivation,and performance in an educational video game. In K. Squire, C. Martin, & A.Ochsner (Eds.), Proceedings of the Games, Learning, and Society Conference:Vol. 2 (pp. 175–181). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge Press.

Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A. R., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008).Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and in-clude significant social interaction and civic engagement. Washington, DC: PewInternet & American Life Project.

Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: Biological basesfor the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14, 457–463.

Limperos, A. M., Schmierbach, M. G., Kegerise, A. D., & Dardis, F. E. (2011). Gam-ing across different consoles: Exploring the influence of control scheme ongame-player enjoyment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14,345–350.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Lundgren, S., & Bjork, S. (2003, March). Describing computer-augmented games interms of interaction. Paper presented at Technologies for Interactive DigitalStorytelling and Entertainment, Darmstadt, Germany.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsicmotivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 223–253.

Marshall, D., Ward, T., & McLoone, S. (2006). From chasing dots to reading minds:The past, present, and future of video game interaction. Crossroads, 13(2), 10.

Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. M. PytlikZillig,M. Bodvarsson, & R. L. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringingresearchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Charlotte, NC: InformationAge.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Edu-cational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.

Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development andrelation to other theories. In J. Plass, R. Moreno & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitiveload theory (pp. 9–28). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

20 S. Turkay et al.

National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Arlington,VA: National Science Foundation.

Newman, D., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to mea-sure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning.Interpersonal Computer and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Cen-tury, 3(2), 56–77.

Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives anduse of educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15–31.

Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal ofInteractive Media in Education, 8(1), 1–18.

Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context ofnormal development. Review of General Psychology, 14, 180–187.

Paek, S. (2012). Concrete mathematics through multi-modal virtual manipulativeinteraction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, New York, NY.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved fromhttp://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

Payne, J., Keir, P., Elgoyhen, J., McLundie, M., Naef, M., Horner, M., & Anderson,P. (2006, April). Gameplay issues in the design of spatial 3D gestures for videogames. Paper presented at Computer-Human Interaction 2006 (CHI EA ‘06) onHuman Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Hayward, E., Frye, J., Huang, T., Biles, M., . . . & Per-lin, K. (2012). The effect of learning mechanics design on learning outcomesin a computer-based geometry game. In S. Gobel, W. Muller, B. Urban, & J.Wiemeyer (Eds.), Paper presented at the Third International Conference on E-Learning and Games for Training, Education, Health and Sports, 18–20 Septem-ber (pp. 65–71). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Chang, Y. K., Frye, J., Kaczetow, W., Isbister,K., & Perlin, K. (2013). Metrics in simulations and games for learning. In M.S. El-Nasr, A. Drachen, & A. Canossa (Eds.), Game analytics: Maximizing thevalue of player data (pp. 297–729). New York, NY: Springer.

Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C. K., Frye, J., & Perlin, K. (2011). Learning mechan-ics and assessment mechanics for games for learning. New York. NY: Games forLearning Institute. Retrieved from http://g4li.org/?research=g4li-white-paper-learning-mechanics-and-assessment-mechanics-for-games-for-learning

Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick,J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition(pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). GENERATION M2: Media in thelives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf

Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment inEducation: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). The rules of play. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

Understanding the Potential of Games for Learning 21

Schrier, K., & Gibson, D. (Eds.). (2010). Ethics and game design: Teaching valuesthrough play. Hershey, PA: IGI.

Schrier, K., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Using digital games to develop ethical teachers.In D. Gibson & Y. Baek (Eds.), Digital simulations for improving education:Learning through artificial teaching environments (pp. 308–333). Hershey, PA:IGI Global.

Schwabe, G., & Goth, C. (2005). Mobile learning with a mobile game: Design andmotivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 204–216.

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. D., Halverson, R., & Gee J. P. (2005). Video games andthe future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 104–111.

Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2), 1–14.Skalski, P., Tamborini, R., Shelton, A., Buncher, M., & Lindmark, P. (2011). Mapping

the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment.New Media & Society, 13, 224–242.

Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Video games as designed experience.Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.

Squire, K. (2008). Open-ended video games: A model for developing learning forthe interactive age. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth,games, and learning (pp. 167–198). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 530–543.

Stevens, R., Satwicz, T., & McCarthy, L. (2008). In game, in room, in world: Recon-necting video game play to the rest of kids’ lives. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecologyof games (pp. 41–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Amassing information: The informationstore. In J. M. Spector & S. P. Lajoie (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (Vol. 1, pp.17–25). New York, NY: Springer.

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instruc-tional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

Tamborini, R., & Bowman, N. D. (2010). Presence in video games. In C. C. Bracken& P. D. Skalski (Eds.), Immersed in media: Telepresence in everyday life (pp.87–110). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2011). Introduction. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.),Computer games and instruction (pp. 3–15). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2012). Reflections on “a review of trends in seriousgaming.” Review of Educational Research, 82, 233–237.

Topping, K. J. (1988). The peer tutoring handbook: Promoting co-operative learning.Cambridge, MA: Croom Helm.

Turkay, S., & Adinolf, S. (2010). Free to be me: A survey study on customizationwith World of Warcraft and City of Heroes/Villains players. Procedia-Social andBehavioral Sciences, 2, 1840–1845.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weiss, D. J., & Kingsbury, G. (1984). Application of computerized adaptive testingto educational problems. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 361–375.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin andReview, 9, 625–636.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

22 S. Turkay et al.

Woodard, E., & Gridina, N. (2000). Media in the home 2000: The fifth annual surveyof parents and children. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg Public Policy Centerof the University of Pennsylvania.

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior,9, 772–775.

Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., . . .,Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trendsin serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82, 61–89.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance ofself-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 4, 443–446.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

42 1

3 Fe

brua

ry 2

015