a research agenda for developing and implementing educational computer games

Colloquium

A research agenda for developing and implementing educationalcomputer games

Yuxin Ma, Douglas Williams, Louise Prejean and Charles Richard

Yuxin Ma, Douglas Williams and Louise Prejean teach courses and conduct research in the field ofeducational technology at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Charles Richard teaches creativewriting and film at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette where he directs the Cinematic Arts Work-shop. Address for correspondence: Yuxin Ma, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, PO Box 42051,Lafayette, LA 70504. Email: [email protected]

The need for a research agendaComputer games have emerged as the most frequently used interactive media amongchildren (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003). Researchers argue that this powerfulmedium can and should be utilised for laudable educational outcomes (Gee 2003;Prensky, 2001). However, the type of educational computer games that schools arefamiliar with is edutainment, which usually focuses on the motivational effects ofgames and typically employs game-like drill and practice activities to achieve lower levellearning goals. Many of the edutainment endeavours failed to produce anything eithereducational or entertaining (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2003; Okan, 2003). Educatorshave limited experience designing or implementing effective educational computergames; research is needed to inform practitioners.

To provide guidance for developing and implementing educational computer games, weidentified a set of general design guidelines that leverage the strengths of computergames and various learning and instructional theories such as problem-based learning(Barrows, 1996), situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989), cognitive appren-ticeship (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991), to name just a few. The guidelines we synthe-sised include: (1) situating problems in a rich context in order to engage students inscientific inquiry that reflects the way experts work, (2) presenting problems in all theircomplexity and offer tools, resources and scaffolds to make complexity manageable, (3)providing learners with increased power of agency, and (4) providing opportunities forauthentic assessment of student performance. How should one implement these guide-lines in educational computer games? Which strategies or theories should be created andtested? This paper presents a research agenda that explores these issues.

Potential research areasThe first four research areas to be listed later are related to the four design guidelines wegenerated from the literature. The rest of the research areas concern other importantfactors impacting the use of educational computer games.

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 38 No 3 2007 513–518doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00714.x

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published byBlackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

mailto:[email protected]

Problem presentationMany contemporary theories on learning environments emphasise the role of a centralproblem in a rich context (eg, Barrows, 1996; Jonassen, 1999; Schank et al, 1994;Spiro & Jehng, 1990). Commercial computer games provide opportunities for immer-sive and authentic representations of problems with the use of rich narratives, 3Denvironments, cinematics, as well as stirring audio effects and music. What mediacomponents should be used to present the problem context in educational computergames? How do these different media components impact learning? In some com-mercial computer games, problems or tasks are presented to the players when theyapproach a nonplayer character (NPC) to receive a quest or quests. Problems are orga-nised either in a structured ‘quest’ or an unstructured ‘sandbox’ format. How can thesedifferent strategies be used in educational computer games? Which format, for example,‘quest’ or ‘sandbox’ is more appropriate for certain types of problems, learning out-comes or content areas?

Facilitation and scaffolding strategiesFacilitation and scaffolding strategies are key components that may enable learning ineducational computer games. Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) found that although studentsmay generate spontaneous concepts themselves from game playing; developing scien-tific concepts from the experience requires assistance from the facilitator. Whichstrategies and tools should be used to facilitate and scaffold learning in educationalcomputer games? Learning and instructional theories may provide suggestions(Barrows, 1996; Brown et al, 1989; Collins et al, 1991; Jonassen, 1999; Schank, Fano,Bell & Jona 1994). For example, cognitive apprenticeship is a theory that recommendsstrategies such as modelling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection and explo-ration (Collins et al, 1991). How can these strategies be applied in educational com-puter games? Can the facilitation and scaffolding role be shared by the teacher andNPCs? Which scaffolding tasks are more appropriate for NPCs? Which tasks are moreappropriate for teachers?

Narrative may play important roles in facilitating and scaffolding learning in educa-tional computer games. Narrative is used by commercial game developers to engagethe player. It is also an essential element in some learning and instructional theories(Kolodner et al, 2003; Schank et al, 1994) that emphasise the use of narratives as theproblem context, as tools to facilitate reflection and as resources to provide advice andfeedback. What roles can narratives play in educational computer games?

Formative assessmentFormative assessment plays a critical role in effective teaching (Brandsford, Pellegrino &Donovan, 1999). Computer game technologies may provide more frequent and effectivemeans to assess students’ performance and to provide feedback. Many commercialgames allow players-as-characters to interact with their simulated environments, andwith other players, in real time. Simulation reinforces the connection between decisionmaking and outcome; interactions among multiple players provide opportunities forpeer feedback. Moreover, commercial computer games allow players to retain and

514 British Journal of Education Technology Vol 38 No 3 2007

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.

access large volumes of data through score keeping, item acquisitions, increases inabilities and aptitudes, verbal record-keeping devices and mapping. The persistence ofdata not only allows players to assess their own performances against that of the systemor of other players, it may also enable performance assessments by external observerssuch as a teacher. How can these tools be built into educational computer games toenable formative assessment? How can the results of assessment be used to customisean individual’s learning experience? Squire, Giovanetto, Devane & Durga (2005) foundin their study that a key role the facilitators played was to constantly monitor and assessstudents’ game playing. When the game was too complex for students, the facilitatorshad to create simplified, customised game scenarios on the fly. This type of assessmentand facilitation requires high facilitator to student ratio, which might not be feasible inmany situations. More research is needed in this area.

Learner agencyLearner agency is a key factor that may contribute to intrinsic motivation (Malone,1981) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). Commercial computer games may providethe players with increased power of agency with features such as simulations, interac-tive storytelling and choices of roles and tasks. Simulations enable the players to trans-cend the constraints of time and space to explore the dynamics of a real or imaginarysystem. Players manipulate variables and test hypotheses to construct mental models ofa domain (Rieber, 1996). Moreover, in computer games, simulations are embedded ininteractive storytelling, which allows the players identify fully with a character, act onthe plot and experience the cause and effect of their actions. Additionally, cutting-edgeartificial intelligence allows computer games to offer players a choice of roles and tasks,and challenges them with tasks appropriate for their ability level. How can these stra-tegies be used to enhance a sense of agency in educational computer games? How toreconcile the conflict between learner agency and academic achievement? Players havepreferences in regards to the types of activities they will pursue in games. Some areprimarily motivated by wanting to win the game; some are fascinated by the virtualgame world and enjoy exploring its intricacies; some are primarily driven by the desireto socialise with other players; and others focus more on dominating competitors. Ineducational computer games, how might we design the game in order to help childrenwith varying gameplay preferences achieve academic goals while still giving them asense of agency?

Settings for educational game useSome research exists on the use of educational computer games in school classrooms(Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux & Tuzun 2005; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Ketelhut,Clarke, Dede, Nelson & Bowman, 2005), in afternoon school programmes in youthfacilities outside of school (Squire et al, 2005), and in learners’ homes (McFarlaneSparrowhawk & Heald 2002). Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) argues that educational com-puter games may not be appropriate for the classroom setting because it is difficult toconfine gameplay within a short classroom period. In addition, learning in mostclassrooms is typically teacher-centred and is considered as work, whereas computergames are more player- or learner-centred and are perceived as play. Different settings

Colloquium 515


have different dynamics and sociocultural rules. What strategies are needed to imple-ment educational computer games in various settings, including the classrooms? Howshould teachers and administrators be involved and supported? Are some games moreappropriate for one setting than the other?

Facilitator knowledge, attitude and rolesFacilitators may play various important roles in implementing educational computergames. For example, in an after-school programme in which students played a strategygame, Civilization III, to learn history (Squire et al, 2005), facilitators played the role ofteachers and cheerleaders at the beginning of the programme; they became mentors orexpert players as students gained more competence. Similarly, in Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s(2005) study, facilitators played many roles. On one hand, they had to solve computerproblems and help students play the game. On the other hand, they had a critical role ofhelping students appreciate historical information and dynamics, as well as make theconnection between gameplaying and scientific concepts. The facilitator who had moreexperience and knowledge with computer games, and who had a more constructivistview of history, was more successful in facilitating history learning with the use of acomputer game. However, both facilitators in the study were overwhelmed by theamount of work placed on them and were not very successful in facilitating studentlearning. What support should be provided to facilitators in educational computergames? How should the support be provided?

Addressing learner differencesComputer games are arguably the most popular media among children. However,educators should not assume that all children have experience and skills in playingcomputer games. Squire et al (2005) found that boys from middle class backgroundsdesired to become game designers, whereas children with lower socio-economic back-grounds found games challenging and did not have game design aspirations. Similarly,Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005) found that some students had little experience with computergames. The groups with no computer game experience gave up playing the games in thestudy. Only a few students succeeded in appreciating the educational value of the gameand in learning meaningful concepts from the game. Those who succeeded generallyhad more experience with computer games, liked history and had much energy toengage in learning. In summary, learners in educational computer games may havedifferent levels of experience, skill, and self-efficacy with games. How can educationalcomputer games be designed and implemented to meet learners’ varying needs?

MethodologyDesign-based research may inform the methodology that guides research on educationalcomputer games. The development and implementation of educational computer gamesis a complex process in which a series of research issues should be addressed. Design-based research emphasises the design of innovative learning environments throughan iterative process of design, implementation, analysis and redesign (Design-BasedResearch Collective 2003). It is a rigorous process in which design decisions are basedon theory and research, and the project not only creates practical solutions



but also generates guidelines that add to the body of knowledge and that informpractitioners. This approach may be a good fit for research on educational computergames. It may create much-needed research-based models and guidelines to informeducators on how to develop or implement educational computer games.

In design-based research, both qualitative and quantitative methods can be used toguide data gathering and analysis. These methods are appropriate for different stages ofdesign-based research (Design-Based Research Collective 2003; Kelly 2004). Qualita-tive methods are especially helpful during the exploration phase of a design-basedresearch project when models, conjectures or hypothesis are formulated in the contextof real-world problems and interventions. Quantitative methods are helpful later whenknowledge that emerged from qualitative explorations is validated.

SummaryEducational computer games have become increasingly popular among educators.However, the field has limited experience designing or implementing effective educa-tional computer games. Empirical research should be conducted to develop a knowledgebase that provides guidance for educators. This paper presents a research agenda thathelps researchers systemically address issues related to the development and implemen-tation of educational computer games. This agenda focuses on research issues in thefollowing areas: problem presentation, facilitation and scaffolding strategies, formativeassessment, learner agency, settings for educational game use, facilitator knowledge,attitude and roles, as well as learner differences. The authors argue that design-basedresearch may inform the methodology for research on educational computer games. Itmay help generate research-based models and guidelines for developing and imple-menting educational computer games.

ReferencesBarab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R. & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun:

Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational technology, research and Development, 53,1, 86.

Barrows, H. S. (1996). ‘Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview’. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3–12.

Brandsford, J. D., Pellegrino, J. W. & Donovan, S. (1999). How people learn: bridging research andpractice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 1, 32–42.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S. & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible.American Educator, 15, 3, 6–11, 38–46.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.

Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm foreducational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 1, 5–8.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment: exploring the educational potential of computergames. Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.

Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

Colloquium 517


Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Design constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory. Vol. 2 (pp. 115–140) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: yes, but is it methodological?. Journal of theLearning Sciences, 13, 1, 115–128.

Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dede, C., Nelson, B. & Bowman, C. (2005). Inquiry teaching for depth andcoverage via multi-user virtual environments. Paper presented at the National Association ofResearch in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

Kirriemuir, J. and McFarlane, A. (2003). Literature review in games and learning. Retrieved October10, 2005, from http://www.nestafuturelab.org/research/reviews/08_01.htm

Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J.Holbrook, J., et al (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Puttinglearning by design(tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 4, 495–548.

Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science,5, 4, 333–369.

McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A. & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use ofgames. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.teem.org.uk/publications/teem_gamesined_full.pdf

Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: is learning at risk? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 3,255–264.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments

based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Researchand Development, 44, 2, 43–58.

Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B. & Jona, M. (1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. Journal ofthe Learning Sciences, 3, 4: 305–346.

Spiro, R. J. & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: theory and technology for thenonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds),Cognition, education, multimedia: exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Squire, K., Giovanetto, K., Devane, B. & Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers: building aself-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice toImprove Learning, 49, 5, 34–42.



http://www.nestafuturelab.org/research/reviews/08_01.htm

http://www.teem.org.uk/publications/teem_

a research agenda for developing and implementing educational computer games

Documents