Game-Based Learning in Science Education: A Reviewof Relevant Research

Ming-Chaun Li • Chin-Chung Tsai

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The purpose of this study is to review empirical

research articles regarding game-based science learning

(GBSL) published from 2000 to 2011. Thirty-one articles

were identified through the Web of Science and SCOPUS

databases. A qualitative content analysis technique was

adopted to analyze the research purposes and designs,

game design and implementation, theoretical backgrounds

and learning foci of these reviewed studies. The theories

and models employed by these studies were classified into

four theoretical foundations including cognitivism, con-

structivism, the socio-cultural perspective, and enactivism.

The results indicate that cognitivism and constructivism

were the major theoretical foundations employed by the

GBSL researchers and that the socio-cultural perspective

and enactivism are two emerging theoretical paradigms

that have started to draw attention from GBSL researchers

in recent years. The analysis of the learning foci showed

that most of the digital games were utilized to promote

scientific knowledge/concept learning, while less than one-

third were implemented to facilitate the students’ problem-

solving skills. Only a few studies explored the GBSL

outcomes from the aspects of scientific processes, affect,

engagement, and socio-contextual learning. Suggestions

are made to extend the current GBSL research to address

the affective and socio-contextual aspects of science

learning. The roles of digital games as tutor, tool, and tutee

for science education are discussed, while the potentials of

digital games to bridge science learning between real and

virtual worlds, to promote collaborative problem-solving,

to provide affective learning environments, and to facilitate

science learning for younger students are also addressed.

Keywords Science education � Science learning �Game-based learning � Digital games

Introduction

With the prevalence of game playing among children and

young people, the potentials of using digital games to

facilitate learning have been suggested by researchers and

educators alike (e.g., Gee 2007; Oblinger 2004; Prensky

2001; Squire and Jenkins 2003). Learning occurs naturally

while playing games. As stated by Gee (2007), ‘‘you can-

not play a game if you cannot learn it’’ (p. 3). Although fun

and entertainment are generally what first attract people to

games, the engaging learning experience of game playing

is contributed to by the effective principles or approaches

embedded in game designs to facilitate positive learning

outcomes (Becker 2007; Gee 2007). Gee (2007) proposed

36 learning principles (e.g., active and critical learning

principle, multiple routes principle, and situated meaning

principle) for game design. Becker (2007) indicated that

good games already embrace sound learning approaches

(e.g., Gagne’s ‘‘Nine Events of Instruction’’ and Bruner’s

psycho-cultural approach). However, pedagogical princi-

ples alone cannot constitute an interesting and attractive

game that motivates people to play. The characteristics of

digital games (e.g., goals, rules, interactivity, feedback, and

M.-C. Li (&)

Graduate Institute of Applied Science and Technology, National

Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec. 4,

Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan

e-mail: mli1tw@gmail.com; D9722301@mail.ntust.edu.tw

C.-C. Tsai (&)

Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National

Taiwan University of Science and Technology, #43, Sec. 4,

Keelung Rd., Taipei 106, Taiwan

e-mail: cctsai@mail.ntust.edu.tw

123

J Sci Educ Technol

DOI 10.1007/s10956-013-9436-x

challenges) also play important roles in making games

engaging (Prensky 2001). Together with these character-

istics and effective learning principles, well-designed dig-

ital games are able to motivate and promote effective

learning by providing opportunities for players to actively

and critically experience, practice, and reflect on their ideas

in a problem-based, situated, and low-risk context (Gee

2007; Oblinger 2004; Squire and Jenkins 2003). As pre-

dicted in ‘‘The 2011 Horizon Report’’ (Johnson et al.

2011), game-based learning is likely to become one of the

mainstreams in the coming 2–3 years.

The effectiveness of game-based learning has been

reviewed in several studies. Vogel et al. (2006) conducted a

meta-analysis and concluded that those students who used

computer games or interactive simulations showed better

results in cognitive gains and attitudes toward learning than

those who experienced traditional instruction. Divjak and

Tomic (2011) reviewed studies that adopted computer

games to promote mathematics learning and found positive

impacts of the games on students’ learning outcomes and

their motivation and attitude toward mathematics. More-

over, Young et al. (2012) review provided evidence to

support the effectiveness of using video games on lan-

guage, history, and physical education. In Mayer and

Johnson’s (2010) and Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s (2006) reviews

of related research, digital games were also found to be

helpful in improving spatial cognition, visual attentional

processing, perceptual-motor skills, and problem solving

skills as well as facilitating changes in everyday habits

(e.g., eating habits).

The capability of digital games to raise students’ moti-

vation and to facilitate their learning in an engaging and

joyful manner has drawn the attention of the community of

science education. Researchers have indicated the disad-

vantages of traditional science teaching, namely that stu-

dents’ interest and willingness to study science is likely to

be diminished when their learning is decontextualized and

requires mainly rote memorizing (Honey and Hilton 2011;

Mayo 2007). As a result, students might not be sufficiently

prepared with the important knowledge and abilities (e.g.,

critical thinking and problem-solving abilities) needed for

the 21st century. To deal with the abovementioned prob-

lem, learning by playing digital games has been advocated

as a promising approach to implementing science educa-

tion (e.g., Barab and Dede 2007; Maxmen 2010; Mayo

2007). There are already a number of educational games

created for science learning. For example, Quest Atlantis

(http://www.questatlantis.org) and River City (http://muve.

gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject) provide 3D multi-user

virtual game worlds where students learn scientific knowl-

edge and inquiry skills by accomplishing assigned tasks.

Other digital games, such as SURGE (https://sites.google.

com/site/surgeuniverse2) and Supercharged! (http://www.

educationarcade.org/supercharged), provide a closed game

world with specific game goals and rules to engage students

in science learning. Research on game-based learning in

science education is also emerging.

To demonstrate the potential of digital games for sci-

ence learning, Clark et al. (2009) organized the results

found in the related studies into four learning aspects

including ‘‘conceptual and process skills learning,’’ ‘‘epis-

temological understanding,’’ ‘‘attitude, identity, and moti-

vation,’’ and ‘‘optimal structuring of games for learning.’’

Although the findings from these studies suggest a prom-

ising future for game-based learning in science education,

there is a lack of coherent and comprehensive evidence to

support the effectiveness of this new learning technology

and to inform the improvement of its design for learning

(Honey and Hilton 2011). Even though there is a research

trend in game-based learning, with studies in science

learning increasing during the period 2006–2010 (Hwang

and Wu 2012), this body of research is still relatively small.

The challenges to synthesize the studies of game-based

science learning (GBSL) also come from the rapid devel-

opment of the technology, and other methodology issues

such as unclear descriptions of the context in which the

games were adopted, small sample size, the variety of

research methods, and the appropriateness of the instru-

ments to assess learning outcomes (Clark et al. 2009;

Honey and Hilton 2011). In Clark et al. (2009) review, they

provided detailed descriptions of individual studies to

illustrate different aspects of learning results. However,

they did not make further synthesis of those studies.

Moreover, the studies included in their review seemed not

be systematically identified from the literature source. In

addition, most of the published review studies of game-

based learning were mainly focused on the learning

effectiveness or the outcomes classifications (Clark et al.

2009; Connolly et al. 2012; Divjak and Tomic 2011;

O’Neil et al. 2005; Vogel et al. 2006; Young et al. 2012).

Only few studies provided review on aspects other than

learning outcomes (e.g., game genre, purpose of game,

study design, learning domain, and target learners)

(Connolly et al. 2012; Hwang and Wu 2012). To gain more

insights into the current status of GBSL, the purpose of this

review study is to analyze the existing GBSL literature

from a more systematic perspective using a qualitative

analysis approach.

In this study, GBSL research was explored from mul-

tiple aspects. As stated by Mayer and Johnson (2010),

game-based learning researchers were generally interested

in investigating the learning outcomes of educational

computer games, the effectiveness of using games com-

pared to conventional instructional media, or the design of

game features to promote learning. In addition, various

research designs were found to be employed in game-based

J Sci Educ Technol

123

learning literature (Connolly et al. 2012). Therefore, the

investigation of research purposes and their corresponding

research designs will provide an overview of current GBSL

research interests. Two other important aspects that seemed

to be overlooked by previous review studies were also

explored. One is the way how games were designed and

implemented. The other one is the pedagogies or instruc-

tional designs embedded in the games that should play a

critical role to make effective learning (Becker 2007;

Divjak and Tomic 2011; Gee 2007). Since digital games

were used to achieve various learning outcomes (Connolly

et al. 2012), what learning outcomes were stressed by

GBSL researchers is also the interest of this current review.

In this study, four main questions are used to guide the

analysis of the literature:

1. What are the research purposes and designs of the

GBSL studies?

2. How are the digital games designed and implemented

to promote science learning?

3. What are the theoretical foundations of the GBSL

studies?

4. What are the foci of the GBSL studies in terms of

learning?

Methodology

Paper Selection and Analysis

In this review, the Web of Science and SCOPUS database

were used to search for GBSL research articles published

from 2000 to 2011. The Web of Science provides a com-

prehensive coverage of high quality and high impact

journals from multidisciplinary including science educa-

tion and educational technology. When using the Web of

Science database, journals indexed in Science Citation

Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index were

searched for the reviewed literature. To extend the cover-

age of GBSL studies, the SCOPUS database was used as

the second literature source. SCOPUS is stated as the

largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed

research literature and quality web sources. To ensure the

quality of the studies reviewed, the search of the literature

was limited to journal articles only. Moreover, only articles

written in English were targeted due to a lack of compre-

hension of other languages.

The search of the literature was carried out in January

2012. The reviewed research papers were identified

through the following procedures. First, the same keywords

were used to search both databases. A set of keywords

regarding science learning was used in combination with

the keyword game by employing the Boolean operator

‘‘AND.’’ The keywords for science learning were science

learning, learning science, science teaching, teaching sci-

ence, science education, science instruction, biology learn-

ing, physics learning, chemistry learning, biology teaching,

physics teaching, chemistry teaching, biology educa-

tion, physics education, chemistry education, biology

instruction, physics instruction, and chemistry instruction.

The Boolean operator ‘‘OR’’ was adopted to combine all

these science learning keywords. In addition, another com-

bination of keywords (i.e., science ‘AND’ game-based

learning) were used to identify papers that focused on game-

based learning but which did not clearly emphasize science

education. The keyword search resulted in 203 articles for

further selection.

Following the keyword search, the researchers read

through the titles and abstracts of the articles to select

target papers that met the following criteria: (1) imple-

menting at least one specific digital game, (2) the use of the

digital game should be related to science education, (3)

providing empirical evaluations or descriptions of students’

learning process or outcomes, and (4) the full text of the

article should be available either in paper or electronic

format. If sufficient information for selecting the articles

was not provided in the abstracts, the researchers then went

through the major parts of the articles (e.g., methodology

and results) to make the judgments. Several exclusion

criteria listed below were also employed to screen out those

articles that were not to be reviewed in this study.

• The research did not target student groups. If a study

investigated different groups of participants, only the

instruction and results in relation to students’ learning

were reviewed.

• The digital games were specifically used for the

professional learning of computer science, engineering,

or medical education.

• The main focus of the research was on game develop-

ment, and no essential outcome data were provided

(e.g., only quoting some conversation among students

or stating in a few sentences the implementation

results).

• The authors of the articles neither identified the

software or environment clearly as a digital game nor

provided enough information to verify its game

characteristics.

By adopting the above-mentioned criteria, 31 empirical

papers that employed digital games to promote students’

science learning were identified for review. In other words,

172 studies initially included but finally were excluded

from this review. Among 172 articles that were screened

out from this review, 133 of them did not employ digital

games and/or did not promote science learning. The rest of

39 articles were excluded because they did not conduct

J Sci Educ Technol

123

empirical research (n = 28), did not provide corresponding

data (n = 2), did not target on students’ learning (n = 8),

or had no full text available (n = 1). The 31 articles

qualified for this review are listed in ‘‘Appendix’’.

It should be noted that the papers selected for the current

review were limited to journal articles included in the Web

of Science and SCOPUS database that published from 2000

to 2011. As publishing timelines in journal are relatively

long, studies that investigate new emerging technologies

(e.g., multi-touch technology) or issues regarding GBSL

might be missing from this review. There should be also

relevant research that was not included in the literature

source of this review. While the keywords used to search

for the literature might also limit the scope of articles, this

study has set the keywords as broad as possible to contain

related GBSL studies.

The identified articles were analyzed using a content

analysis technique. The key information corresponding to

the research questions was first identified from each study.

This information was then categorized based on the coding

framework and presented with frequencies along with

detailed descriptions. For example, after research designs

were identified for individual studies, the number of studies

of each design was reported, and the example studies were

described to illustrate the designs. According to the

research questions stated previously, the research purposes

and designs, designs and implementations of the digital

games, and the theoretical foundations and learning foci

were identified from the content of the studies. The

research purposes and designs were identified according to

the research questions and designs of the studies. The

designs of the digital games were classified into single-

player or multi-player games based on the game descrip-

tions provided in the articles. Digital games that were

developed in conjunction with distinguishing technologies

(i.e., mobile or augmented reality technologies) were also

identified. In addition, the implementations of digital

games were explored from two aspects including the

approaches of game use in GBSL and the ways students

were assigned to play the games.

Moreover, the theoretical foundations and learning foci

of these GBSL studies were investigated and synthesized.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s (2006) suggested that different learn-

ing aspects will be stressed in digital games when different

learning perspectives (e.g., cognitivism and socio-cultural

approach) are adopted. However, the connections between

the pedagogies and learning foci have not been explored in

previous review studies. In this study, the attempts were

not only to categorize the theoretical foundations and

learning foci of each study, but also to explore whether the

theories employed in the studies will lead to different

emphases of learning. For example, as researchers adopted

cognitivist learning approach, their learning foci were on

scientific knowledge/concept learning (e.g., Johnson and

Mayer 2010), scientific processes (Spires et al. 2011),

problem-solving (e.g., Moreno and Mayer 2005), affect

(e.g., Ting 2010), or engagement (e.g., Annetta et al. 2009).

Other researchers who employed socio-cultural perspective

emphasized scientific knowledge/concept learning (e.g.,

Johnson and Mayer 2010) and scientific processes (Spires

et al. 2011). The content analysis procedures of these two

parts are illustrated separately as follows. All of the content

analyses conducted by the first author of this study were

validated by the other author who is an experienced

researcher specializing in both science education and dig-

ital learning.

Analysis of Theoretical Foundations

Since the theoretical foundations described by the

researchers varied in depth and detail, the theories, models,

approaches, or principles mentioned in the studies across

the introduction, literature, and method sections were all

first recorded as they were stated in the articles. It was

intended to identify the hierarchical relationships of these

theoretical backgrounds from the conceptualized theory

level to specific instructional principles/methods. The

analysis was based on the four levels of theoretical back-

ground including theory, model/assumption, approach, and

principle/method.

The analysis began with the theories that were explicitly

indicated in the articles. These theories were directly

classified into theory level. For example, Wrzesien and

Raya (2010) employed Kolb’s experiential learning theory

and Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence in game

design. When a theoretical foundation was not yet devel-

oped to the theoretical level, the foundation was then

classified into the level that could represent it most

appropriately. For example, CSCL (computer-supported

collaborative learning) adopted by Echeverrıa et al. (2011)

was identified as a ‘‘model’’ that illustrated the interaction

of learners. The narrative-centered learning employed by

Spires et al. (2011) was identified as an ‘‘approach’’ that

utilized the storyline and dialogues to create a sense of

immersion for game players. Moreover, Moreno and Mayer

(2000) compared the effect of personalized and neutral

explanations on students’ learning in a multimedia game.

The personalized explanation was identified as a ‘‘princi-

ple/method’’ to design the game mechanism.

For those articles that stated specific models, approa-

ches, or principles but which did not specify the upper

levels of their theoretical foundations, the connections and

hierarchical relationships between the theories and these

foundations were identified according to the literature. For

example, Moreno and Mayer (2000) studied self-referential

effect when comparing the learning outcomes of

J Sci Educ Technol

123

personalized messages and neutral messages embedded in

the game. The personalization of messages was one of the

multimedia principles for fostering generative processing

based on the assumption of limited capacity of the Cogni-

tive theory of multimedia learning. However, in their study,

Moreno and Mayer did not explicitly state the upper theo-

retical levels (i.e., theory, model/assumption, approach) of

this principle. In this case, the theoretical foundation of

Moreno and Mayer’s study was then identified from the

theory level (Cognitive theory of multimedia learning),

model/assumption level (limited capacity), approach level

(fostering generative processing), to the principle/method

level (personalization). When a theoretical foundation was

described generally or roughly without indication of spe-

cific theory, model, etc., the foundation was later catego-

rized into a broader learning perspective. For example,

Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011) proposed a sociocultural

framework to explore students’ science learning in a com-

puter game without further specifying particular theory or

model. This study was later classified under the socio-cul-

tural learning perspective.

After the levels of the theoretical foundations were

identified, a broader level regarding learning perspectives

was used to synthesize these theories or models. Four

learning perspectives embedded in these theoretical foun-

dations were elicited including cognitivism, constructiv-

ism, the socio-cultural perspective, and enactivism. A

description and example studies of each learning perspec-

tive are presented in Table 1. The first two learning per-

spectives have been well established in the literature. The

theories of cognitivism focus on the individual’s cognitive

process, while the constructivist learning theories empha-

size the active knowledge construction of individuals. The

socio-cultural learning perspective has started to draw

attention from educational technology researchers and

stresses the interactions between learners and their sur-

rounding contexts. The last is enactivism, a newly pro-

posed learning perspective suggested by Li (2010) and Li

et al. (2010). Enactivism is rooted in phenomenology and

biology and embraces an eastern philosophy that mind,

body, and the world are inseparable (Li et al. 2010).

Analysis of Learning Foci

The learning foci of the studies were mainly identified

through the research purposes, questions, or hypotheses

and sometimes through research instruments and results

when necessary. Although various outcomes were usually

collected and analyzed in the reviewed studies, the learning

foci targeted here were the major learning objectives of

these studies regarding science learning. The identified

learning foci were then classified into six categories drawn

from the literature of science learning and digital learning

(Alsop and Watts 2003; Fredricks et al. 2004; OECD 2003;

Osborne et al. 2003; Stone and Glascott 1997). These six

categories are scientific knowledge/concept, scientific

processes, problem-solving, affect, engagement, and socio-

contextual learning. The first three categories that empha-

size the cognitive aspects of science learning were derived

from the assessment framework proposed by the Pro-

gramme for International Student Assessment (PISA) with

regard to scientific literacy and problem solving (OECD

2003). In addition to the cognitive aspects of science

learning, the affect stressed by educational specialists and

science educators (e.g., Alsop and Watts 2003; Osborne

et al. 2003; Stone and Glascott 1997) was identified as the

fourth category of learning foci. Since digital games are

thought to provide engaging experience for players (Gee

2007; Jayakanthan 2002; Prensky 2001; Rieber et al. 1998),

engagement in learning is another learning focus under

Table 1 The categories and descriptions of learning perspectives

Learning

perspective

Description Example studies

Cognitivism Theories/models/approaches/principles that emphasize knowledge acquisition, mental

structure construction, and information processing of individuals and the factors that

would promote their active involvement (Ertmer and Newby 1993)

Moreno and Mayer (2005)

Cognitive theory of

multimedia learning

Ting (2010)—Interest for

learning

Constructivism Theories/models/approaches/principles that emphasize individuals’ active construction of

knowledge through their experience and interpretation occurring in a situated context

(Ertmer and Newby 1993)

Barab et al. (2009)—

Transformational play

Miller et al. (2006)—Problem-

based learning

Socio-cultural

perspective

Theories/models/approaches/principles that emphasize the interactions between learning

and the social, cultural, historical, and institutional context in which it occurs

(O’Loughlin 1992)

Spires et al. (2011)—Activity

theory

Enactivism Theories/models/approaches/principles that emphasize the integral nature of mind, body,

and the world that learning is through acting and participating (Li 2010; Li et al. 2010)

Li (2010)—Enactivism

J Sci Educ Technol

123

investigation. According to Fredricks et al. (2004), engage-

ment is a multidimensional phenomenon that entails

behavioral, emotional, and cognitive aspects. Because the

previous stated five categories are limited to considering

individual learners’ learning, the last category (i.e., socio-

contextual learning) was added to represent the social or

contextual focus of learning. As stressed by the OECD

(2003), it is also important to take situations or contexts into

account when students learn or use scientific knowledge and

processes and solve problems. The description and example

studies of each learning focus are presented in Table 2.

The classifications of learning foci were identified

considering both the data collected and the way they were

analyzed. For example, in Hickey et al. (2009) study, open-

ended problem-solving activities were employed to evalu-

ate students’ learning outcomes. However, the rubric was

used to assess only the concepts that students utilized to

answer the questions, but not the problem-solving process

performed during the activities. In this study, the learning

focus was categorized as scientific knowledge/concept. In

another study conducted by Spires et al. (2011), although

they designed game tasks asking students to solve prob-

lems, their result analyses focused on investigating the

relationships among students’ hypothesis testing strategies,

science content learning improvements, and in-game per-

formance. According to the descriptions of the learning foci,

hypothesis testing was identified as scientific processes.

Moreover, the in-game performance was represented by the

number of goals completed in the game and viewed by

Spires et al. as an indicator of the students’ behavioral

engagement. Therefore, the learning foci of this study were

classified as scientific processes, scientific knowledge/con-

cept, and engagement, respectively.

Results

The analysis results of these reviewed studies are presented

in the following subsections. First, an overview of the

GBSL studies is provided. Next, the results are organized

to answer the four research questions of this study:

(1) What are the research purposes of the GBSL studies?

(2) How are the digital games designed and implemented to

promote science learning? (3) What are the theoretical

foundations of the GBSL studies? (4) What are the foci of

the GBSL studies in terms of learning? Lastly, the results

of the cross-analysis of the theoretical foundations and

learning foci are illustrated.

Overview of the Reviewed Studies

The background information of the reviewed studies is

presented in the Appendix. Among 31 reviewed papers, 25

were published after 2006, with 11 published in 2011. All

of these articles were published in 18 peer-reviewed jour-

nals. Most of the articles were published in three journals:

Table 2 The categories and descriptions of learning focus

Learning focus Description Example studies

Scientific

knowledge/

concept

To obtain or increase the knowledge or concepts (e.g., facts, ideas, models,

relationships) of a targeted science domain (e.g., physics, chemistry,

biology, earth science)

Barab et al. (2007)—Scientific formalisms

Hsu et al. (2011)—Light and shadow

Scientific

processes

To learn or perform the scientific methods including observing, explaining,

predicting, investigating, interpreting and concluding

Spires et al. (2011)—Hypothesis testing

strategies used in the game

Squire and Jan (2007)—Scientific thinking

(Argumentation)

Problem-

solving

To learn to solve problems or to perform the cognitive process of problem-

solving (e.g., understanding, characterizing, representing, solving,

reflecting, communicating and reasoning)

Moreno and Mayer (2000)—Results of

answering problem-solving questions about

lightening

Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011)—How students

use and apply scientific concepts and theories to

create a sustainable future city

Affect To investigate the affective side of science learning such as attitude,

motivation, and interest

Ting (2010)—Interest for learning

Li (2010)—Emotions experienced during game

making project

Engagement To investigate students’ involvement in learning including cognitive,

affective, and behavioral engagement

Lim et al. (2006)—Learning engagement during

game activity

Spires et al. (2011)—In-game performance

(behavioral engagement)

Socio-

contextual

learning

To emphasize the social or contextual aspects of science learning Khalili et al. (2011)—Collaboration skills

Squire and Klopfer (2007)—Understanding the

socially situated nature of science

J Sci Educ Technol

123

Journal of Science Education and Technology (6 articles),

Computers & Education (5 articles), and Journal of Edu-

cational Psychology (4 articles). There were 32 different

digital games used in these studies. Most of the researchers

only adopted one digital game in their studies with two

exceptions that adopted multiple games for students to

learn different concepts (Tuysuz 2009; Yien et al. 2011).

More than half of the studies implemented digital games or

game making software to facilitate the learning of physics

(10 studies) and biology (7 studies). The other learning

subjects were ecological science (4 studies), neuroscience

(4 studies), environmental education (3 studies), earth

science (1 study), chemistry (1 study), and nutrition edu-

cation (1 study). Except for the popular commercial games

used by Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011) and Ting (2010), the

rest of the digital games were developed by the science

teaching experts or research teams themselves. The par-

ticipants of these studies were mainly high school or uni-

versity students. Only one study, conducted by Hsu et al.

(2011), implemented a computer game to teach pre-

schoolers about light and shadow.

Research Purposes and Designs of the GBSL Studies

The research purposes of these reviewed studies could be

classified into 5 different categories including (1) com-

paring different designs of game mechanisms, (2) com-

paring digital games with other learning methods, (3)

evaluating game implementation, (4) improving game

design, and (5) investigating game-making outcomes. The

research purpose of each study is listed in Table 3. The

evaluation of game implementation was the most studied

Table 3 Research purposes of the GBSL studies

Author(s) (year) Comparing game

mechanism design

Comparing games with

other learning methods

Game

implementation

Game design

improvement

Investigating

game-making

Anderson and Barnett (2011) X

Annetta et al. (2009) X

Barab et al. (2007) X

Barab et al. (2009) X

Carr and Bossomaier (2011) X

Cheng et al. (2011) X

Clark et al. (2011) X

Echeverrıa et al. (2011) X

Hickey et al. (2009) X X

Hsu et al. (2011) X

Johnson and Mayer (2010) X

Kali (2003) X

Khalili et al. (2011) X

Li (2010) X

Lim et al. (2006) X

Mayer and Johnson (2010) X

Miller et al. (2002) X

Miller et al. (2006) X

Moreno and Mayer (2000) X

Moreno and Mayer (2002) X

Moreno and Mayer (2004) X

Moreno and Mayer (2005) X

Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011) X

Sanchez and Olivares (2011) X

Spires et al. (2011) X

Squire and Jan (2007) X

Squire and Klopfer (2007) X

Ting (2010) X

Tuysuz (2009) X

Wrzesien and Raya (2010) X

Yien et al. (2011) X

J Sci Educ Technol

123

topic among these GBSL studies. The comparisons among

different game mechanisms and between games and other

learning methods were less researched but gained equal

attention from researchers. In addition to the research

purposes stated by Mayer and Johnson (2010), two other

research purposes (i.e., improving game design and

investigating game-making outcomes) were emerging in

GBSL studies.

Various research designs were adopted to accomplish

different research purposes. Experimental design was

employed by all the studies (7 studies) that aimed to com-

pare the effectiveness of different game mechanism designs.

For example, Hsu et al. (2011) compared a computer game

based on the prediction-observation-explanation (POE)

model to a game without the model. Moreover, Mayer and

his colleagues conducted a series of studies investigating the

influence of different game mechanisms in terms of

instructional methods or game-playing media on learning

such as the effects of personalized messages (Moreno and

Mayer 2000), types of self-explanation (Johnson and Mayer

2010), and method versus media effects (Moreno and Mayer

2002, 2004). When comparing digital games with other

learning methods (e.g., traditional curriculum, guided

inquiry), most of the studies adopted a quasi-experimental

design (6 studies), and only two (Barab et al. 2009; Wrze-

sien and Raya 2010) employed a true experimental design.

For the rest of the studies (16 studies), case study design was

implemented to demonstrate the outcomes of the game

implementation, to illustrate improvements in the game

design, and to investigate the results of game-making

activities. One of these studies conducted a cross-country

investigation that compared the learning outcomes of stu-

dents in Taiwan and in the US (Clark et al. 2011). When the

research purpose was to improve the game design, a design-

based research approach was utilized along with a case study

design (Barab et al. 2007) or quasi-experimental design

(Hickey et al. 2009).

Game Designs and Implementations of the GBSL

Studies

According to this review, the games were found to vary in

types of design, approaches of game use, and ways of playing

to facilitate learning. The analysis results are presented in

Table 4. The majority of the studies adopted the game-

playing approach and only two facilitated learning by asking

students to design their own digital games. Among 29 studies

that promoted students’ science learning through game

playing, 19 adopted single-player games and 6 utilized multi-

player virtual game environments including massively mul-

tiplayer online games (MMO) and classroom multiplayer

presential games (CMPG). Four other studies employed

mobile or augmented reality technologies. Students in almost

all the studies were arranged to learn individually in the

games, regardless of whether the games were designed as

single-player or multi-player. Only two games were imple-

mented using their original design, whereby students were

asked to collaborate and interact in the virtual game worlds.

Even though in most studies the students played the games

individually, 11 of the studies provided real-world collabo-

ration opportunities for the students. These students either

played the game in pairs to complete the game tasks or

participated in group or class discussion to share their ideas

about the inquiries in the game worlds.

The Analysis Results of Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical foundations of each reviewed study are

listed in Table 5. Among the 31 studies, the authors of 22

of them indicated the theoretical background of principles

employed in or related to their research. About 25 % of the

studies stated more than one theory.

Moreover, the theoretical foundations of these 22 studies

were categorized into four learning perspectives: cognitiv-

ism, constructivism, the socio-cultural perspective, and

enactivism. Cognitivism and constructivism were the most

commonly adopted theoretical foundations in the reviewed

studies, with 19 of 22 studies adopting one (or both) of these

two theoretical foundations. Only three studies employed the

socio-cultural perspective, and one study indicated the

adoption of enactivism. When the studies were based on

multiple theories or models, three of them employed the

theories or models under a single learning perspective, while

the other three adopted the theories or models from different

learning perspectives. Moreno and Mayer (2002, 2004)

employed different theories under the cognitivist learning

perspective and Miller et al. (2006) adopted constructivist

theories. Wrzesien and Raya (2010) guided their game

design from both cognitivist (Gardner’s Theory of Multiple

Intelligence) and constructivist (Kolb’s experiential learning

theory) learning perspectives. Yien et al. (2011) also indi-

cated both cognitivist and constructivist learning perspec-

tives in their study. Only one study conducted by Spires

et al. (2011) utilized theories from three learning perspec-

tives (i.e., cognitivism, constructivism, and the socio-

cultural perspective) as the basis of their game design. The

level and the category of the theoretical foundations adopted

by the reviewed studies are illustrated as Fig. 1.

As shown in Fig. 1, various theories and models were

utilized by these GBSL studies. When the design of GBSL

was guided by the cognitivist learning perspective, five

different theories were adopted by the research. Among

these theories, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

was the most frequently employed theory. On the other

hand, when studies designed games based on the construc-

tivist learning perspective, situated learning theories were

J Sci Educ Technol

123

the dominant theories that various models adopted. The

studies that utilized the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia

Learning provided important suggestions about effective

instructional mechanisms to be implemented in the game

design. The studies based on situated learning models

demonstrated good examples of using digital games as a

situated learning environment for knowledge construction.

Although the levels of theoretical foundations applied in

the GBSL studies varied from the broadest learning per-

spectives to the most specific principles/methods, the

majority of the studies (14 out of 22) adopted theories at

the model level. The studies that employed newer learning

perspectives (i.e., the socio-cultural perspective and

enactivism) just mentioned general ideas of learning

without utilizing specific models, approaches, or principles

to guide their design of GBSL. Only three studies con-

ducted by Moreno and Mayer (2000, 2002, 2004) applied

particular principles of the Cognitive Theory of Multi-

media learning in their game designs and examined the

effectiveness of these instructional principles.

The Analysis Results of Learning Foci

The learning foci of the studies are listed in Table 5. Sci-

entific knowledge/concept was the dominant learning focus

across the studies (27 studies). Problem-solving ability was

Table 4 Game designs and implementations of the GBSL studies

Author(s) (year) Game typea Approachb Collaboration of game playing

Real-world Virtual None

Anderson and Barnett (2011) Single-player GP X

Annetta et al. (2009) MMO GP X

Barab et al. (2007) MMO GP X X

Barab et al. (2009) MMO GP X X

Carr and Bossomaier (2011) Single-player GP X

Cheng et al. (2011) Single-player GP X

Clark et al. (2011) Single-player GP X

Echeverrıa et al. (2011) CMPG GP X

Hickey et al. (2009) MMO GP X X

Hsu et al. (2011) Single-player GP X

Johnson and Mayer (2010) Single-player GP X

Kali (2003) Single-player GP X X

Khalili et al. (2011) N/A GM

Li (2010) N/A GM

Lim et al. (2006) MMO GP X

Mayer and Johnson (2010) Single-player GP X

Miller et al. (2002) Single-player GP X

Miller et al. (2006) Single-player GP X

Moreno and Mayer (2000) Single-player GP X

Moreno and Mayer (2002) Single-player GP X

Moreno and Mayer (2004) Single-player GP X

Moreno and Mayer (2005) Single-player GP X

Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011) Single-player GP X

Sanchez and Olivares (2011) Single-player & Mobile GP X

Spires et al. (2011) Single-player GP X

Squire and Jan (2007) Single-player & AR GP X

Squire and Klopfer (2007) Single-player & AR GP X

Ting (2010) Single-player GP X

Tuysuz (2009) Single-player GP X

Wrzesien and Raya (2010) Multi-player & AR GP X

Yien et al. (2011) Single-player GP X

a MMO massively multiplayer online game, CMPG classroom multiplayer presential games, AR augmented realityb GP game-playing approach, GM game-making approach

J Sci Educ Technol

123

Table 5 Theoretical foundations and learning foci of the studies

Author(s) (year) Theoretical foundations Learning focus

Anderson and Barnett (2011) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Annetta et al. (2009) Cognitive load theory

Cognition and multiple-representations

Cognitive theory of multimedia learning

Scientific knowledge/concept

Engagement

Barab et al. (2007) Situative embodiment Scientific knowledge/concept

Barab et al. (2009) Transformational play Scientific knowledge/concept

Carr and Bossomaier (2011) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Cheng et al. (2011) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Affect

Clark et al. (2011) Multimedia principles Scientific knowledge/concept

Echeverrıa et al. (2011) CSCL Scientific knowledge/concept

Hickey et al. (2009) Situated theories of knowing and learning Scientific knowledge/concept

Hsu et al. (2011) POE model (prediction-observation-explanation) Scientific knowledge/concept

Johnson and Mayer (2010) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning

Limited capacity (extraneous, essential, and generative cognitive

processing)

Scientific knowledge/concept

Kali (2003) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Khalili et al. (2011) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Li (2010) Enactivism Scientific knowledge/concept

Problem-solving

Affect

Lim et al. (2006) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Engagement

Mayer and Johnson (2010) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning

Limited capacity: (extraneous, essential, and generative cognitive

processing)

Scientific knowledge/concept

Miller et al. (2002) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Miller et al. (2006) Problem-based learning (constructivist theory)

Narrative approach (reflects the anchored instruction research)

Scientific knowledge/concept

Moreno and Mayer (2000) Self-referential effect

(Cognitive theory of multimedia learning—personalization

principle)

Scientific knowledge/concept

Problem-solving

Moreno and Mayer (2002) Modality effect, Redundancy effect

(Cognitive theory of multimedia learning)

Interest theory of learning (Dewey)

Cognitive load theory

Scientific knowledge/concept

Problem-solving

Moreno and Mayer (2004) Personalization

(Cognitive theory of multimedia learning)

Immersion level

(Dewey: Interest theory of learning, presence)

Scientific knowledge/concept

Problem-solving

Moreno and Mayer (2005) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning

Cognitive process (select, organize, integrate)

Scientific knowledge/concept

Problem-solving

Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011) Sociocultural perspective Scientific knowledge/concept

Problem-solving

Sanchez and Olivares (2011) None Problem-solving

Socio-contextual learning

Spires et al. (2011) Narrative-centered learning

Activity theory

Cognitive load theory

Scientific knowledge/concept

Scientific processes

Engagement

J Sci Educ Technol

123

the second most studied, as the learning focus of 8 studies.

The affective aspect of science learning was emphasized by

5 studies. Scientific processes, engagement, and socio-

contextual learning were the least researched aspects of

these reviewed studies. More than half of the studies (17

studies) merely stressed one learning focus, and almost all

of them focused on knowledge/concept learning. Among

the studies that investigated students’ learning across dif-

ferent categories of learning foci, 5 solely emphasized the

cognitive aspects (i.e., scientific knowledge/concept and

problem-solving). Only 9 studies explored students’ learn-

ing outcomes from cognitive and other learning aspects

(i.e., affect, engagement, or socio-contextual learning).

The Results of Cross-analysis of Theoretical

Foundations and Learning Foci

Almost all studies that employed only cognitivist learning

perspectives focused on the students’ learning of scien-

tific knowledge or concepts. Four of them also examined

the students’ problem-solving outcomes. Only one study

conducted by Ting (2010) emphasized the affective side

of science learning. In his research, Ting explored the

use of a mainstream digital game to promote students’

cognitive and personal interests in the learning of sci-

ence. When studies adopted merely constructivist learn-

ing perspectives, knowledge or concept learning was still

the main emphasis, except for Squire and Klopfer’s

(2007) research which promoted students’ understanding

of the socially situated nature of scientific practice (i.e.,

socio-contextual learning) and investigated their problem-

solving processes. The three studies that employed the

socio-cultural perspective focused on the learning of

scientific knowledge/concept and scientific processes, and

none of them investigated the socio-contextual aspect of

science learning. The only study that applied enactivism

set its learning foci on scientific knowledge/concept,

problem-solving, and affect (i.e., emotion) (Li 2010). It is

evident that scientific knowledge/concept learning

remains the major focus of science education regardless

of the theoretical perspectives applied in GBSL. More-

over, problem-solving ability was more frequently

focused by the studies that adopted cognitivist learning

perspective. It is also noted that even when the studies

employed theories from different learning perspectives

(Spires et al. 2011; Wrzesien and Raya 2010; Yien et al.

2011), the emphases of the learning were still limited to

certain aspects that did not reflect a broader range of

learning foci.

Discussion

By reviewing these empirical GBSL studies, several issues

are uncovered and discussed: (1) gaps between the theories

and game design practice; (2) mismatches between the

affordances of game environments and the learning foci;

(3) employment of different research methods to expand

the literature of GBSL; and (4) the potential of using digital

games in science education.

Gaps Between the Theories and Game Design Practice

Among the 31 GBSL studies reviewed, about 30 % of the

studies were conducted without the guidance of any

learning theories. When theoretical foundations were

explicitly indicated, most were applied at the model level

and some only addressed a general view of a particular

learning perspective. Even though these learning perspec-

tives, theories, and models provided useful guidance for

Table 5 continued

Author(s) (year) Theoretical foundations Learning focus

Squire and Jan (2007) Sociocultural approach Scientific processes

Squire and Klopfer (2007) Situated learning theory

Apprenticeships

Practice field

Problem-solving

Socio-contextual learning

Ting (2010) Interest for learning Affect

Tuysuz (2009) None Scientific knowledge/concept

Affect

Wrzesien and Raya (2010) Experiential learning theory

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence

Scientific knowledge/concept

Yien et al. (2011) Cognitive theory

Situated learning theory

Scientific knowledge/concept

Affect

J Sci Educ Technol

123

GBSL, there were still gaps between the theories and game

design practice due to a lack of principles being followed.

Only a few studies empirically examined the effectiveness

of designing specific principles in the game mechanisms.

To better integrate learning and gaming, the researchers

need to make more efforts to correspond the game designs

to specific learning principles and carefully evaluate the

effectiveness of those designs.

Fig. 1 Theoretical foundations of the studies (The studies marked with an asterisk were those stated more than one theoretical foundation.)

J Sci Educ Technol

123

Mismatches Between the Affordances of Game

Environments and Learning Foci

This literature review found a gap existed between stu-

dents’ possible learning experience in the games, and their

learning outcomes being assessed. For example, the quests

provided in the virtual game worlds (e.g., Quest Atlantis)

asked students to use their scientific knowledge, identify

problems, draw evidence-based conclusions, and make

decisions about the world. Other single-player games (e.g.,

Supercharged! and SURGE) also provided contexts for the

students to figure out the ways to accomplish the required

game goals. These gaming processes could provide stu-

dents with opportunities to enhance their scientific literacy

and problem-solving ability. However, the evaluations of

their learning outcomes were still limited to knowledge

learning. Moreover, even though multi-player game envi-

ronments could afford the opportunities for collaborative

learning among students, most of them did not require the

students to collaborate in the game worlds. The students

were only asked to explore the game world individually

and to participate in group or class discussions. It seems

that the potential and advantages of this type of game world

were not fully investigated.

Moreover, even when game designs were guided by

different theories or models to provide a variety of learning

opportunities, the learning was still mainly focused on

scientific knowledge or concepts. For example, when vir-

tual collaborations were allowed following the construc-

tivist learning approach (Echeverrıa et al. 2011; Wrzesien

and Raya 2010), the learning focus of the studies was only

on scientific knowledge/concept. How the students inter-

acted with each other, constructed their knowledge, played

their chosen roles as well as how they developed their

collaboration skills through game playing were overlooked.

Even those studies that developed the games tailored to

socio-cultural learning perspective did not emphasize the

socio-contextual learning aspect of science learning.

What makes digital games appealing is that they can

provide joyful and engaging experience for students and

provoke their learning interest, motivation, and engagement.

However, the examinations of how or to what degree game-

based learning could promote the affect and engagement of

science learning were relatively few. This finding is similar

to a review study of Internet-based science learning con-

ducted by Lee et al. (2011), which also found that attitude

and motivation were less studied by the researchers. It is

possible that it has been taken for granted that technology

motivates students’ learning and engagement, so few

researchers consider it necessary to investigate this issue. It

is obvious that the affordance of game environments to

facilitate science learning has not been fully explored and

needs further investigation.

Employment of Different Research Methods to Expand

the Literature of GBSL

Of the studies that were reviewed, 16 adopted a case study

design to investigate the implementation outcomes of the

digital games, the improvement of the game designs, and to

examine the learning outcomes of the students’ game-

making activities. By using the case study method, the

researchers could study the influence of the digital games

on the students’ learning in depth. They could also explore

the students’ game playing processes, experience, and

opinions and examine the design of the games. This kind of

study would add to our knowledge of this newly developed

research area (i.e., GBSL). However, most of the learning

or outcomes were quantitatively evaluated by test instru-

ments or qualitatively illustrated from the interviews or

observations. For example, student’s scientific knowledge/

concepts were mostly tested using standard or self-devel-

oped achievement tests. Also, the students’ problem-solv-

ing processes were either assessed by open-ended questions

or were descriptively presented based on the observation or

interview findings. Besides, even though several research-

ers explored the students’ game playing behaviors, in-game

or in-class discussions, and their engagement in playing

games using multiple methods (e.g., interviews, observa-

tions, open-ended questionnaires, and surveys), they usu-

ally presented these findings in a more descriptive way

without deeply or systematically analyzing the data. Nor

did they investigate the relationships between the students’

behaviors or performance in the games or game-related

activities and their learning outcomes.

Besides the studies utilizing a case study design, the rest

of the studies adopted either experimental or quasi-exper-

imental designs to compare different game mechanisms or

to compare games with other instructional methods. The

findings of these studies provide important suggestions

about which game mechanisms would be more beneficial

for science learning. They also present empirical evidence

to show whether the game-based learning was actually a

more effective way of science learning among various

teaching methods. Nevertheless, almost all of these studies

drew their conclusions based on the comparison results of

scientific knowledge/concept learning. Some of them

(Moreno and Mayer 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005; Sanchez and

Olivares 2011) also compared the students’ problem-solv-

ing results. The rest of the learning aspects (i.e., scientific

processes, affect, engagement, and socio-contextual learn-

ing) were examined to a lesser extent. To fully understand

the advantages of game-based learning over other instruc-

tional methods and the effectiveness of different game

mechanisms in learning, it is suggested that students’

learning outcomes be compared with different aspects,

including those that have been less emphasized. When

J Sci Educ Technol

123

researchers started to consider game designs in which they

incorporated particular instructional principles or models

into the game mechanisms, the influence of the game ele-

ments on learning was still overlooked. As stated by

Prensky (2001), there are several important game elements

which make digital games engaging and fun (e.g., goals,

challenges and interactivity). How to design the game

contexts, tasks, and mechanisms to meet the requirements

of these elements is as important as the instructional

strategies embedded in the games. It is also necessary to

explore whether the arrangement of specific game elements

would influence students’ learning outcomes or other game

playing experiences and performance if one would like to

develop an effective and popular educational game for

science learning.

According to this review, most of the games were

developed by the researchers themselves. To make the

design of a game better facilitate learning, it is necessary to

evaluate the digital game empirically and to identify any

improvements that might be needed. Design-based research

has been suggested as a suitable methodology for those

researchers who seek to improve their designs of technol-

ogy-enhanced learning environments both theoretically and

practically (Wang and Hannafin 2005). In design-based

research, an instructional (system) design is led by theory

and implemented in real-world context; the design and

research activities can mutually guide each other to make

improvement in both practice and theory; the collabora-

tions between researchers and participants through research

process and the flexibility of employing or integrating

various data collection methods will provide valuable and

practical insights into design and research; the research

process, research findings, and design changes are con-

textually dependent that should be documented to inform

future design and research. Since GBSL is in its developing

stage, the principles of game designs and their impacts on

science learning still have much room for exploration. By

adopting this methodology, researchers can systematically

examine and refine their designs and make enhancements

in theory, research, and practice concurrently. This meth-

odology was applied by two of the reviewed studies con-

ducted by Barab et al. (2007) and Hickey et al. (2009).

Barab et al. (2007) improved the design of their game quest

to include more interactive rules, embedded pedagogical

scaffolds and a narrative storyline, and introduced multiple

levels of interaction with the formalisms to be consistent

with multilevel assessment. Hickey et al. (2009) made

refinements to their game environment and enhanced the

scoring and mechanisms of the formative feedback pro-

vided in the game quest. The approach of design-based

research was also mentioned by Lim et al. (2006) and

Squire and Jan (2007), even though they did not report the

improvement process and results of the games or research

designs in their studies. More design-based research will be

needed to accumulate the knowledge of this emerging field

of research and practice.

The Potential of Using Digital Games in Science

Education

Based on this literature review, several potentials of using

digital games to promote science learning are proposed.

First, the potential of digital games is discussed using the

tutor/tool/tutee framework proposed by Taylor (1980).

Second, the potential of digital games to enhance learning

by connecting game worlds and real worlds is stated. Third,

the possibility of digital games to facilitate collaborative

problem-solving is addressed. Fourth, the capability of

digital games to provide an affective environment for sci-

ence learning is suggested. Last, the potential of using

digital games to promote science learning for younger

students is indicated.

Taylor (1980) proposed a tutor/tool/tutee framework to

classify all educational computing. This framework pro-

vides an important foundation when considering the roles

played by technologies in education. The ways the digital

games were used in these reviewed studies could be dis-

cussed using this framework. According to Taylor’s illus-

tration, most of the digital games were employed as tutors

for science learning. For example, The Reconstructors was

developed by Miller et al. (2002, 2006) to teach adoles-

cents about neuroscience through a series of adventure

episodes. Wrzesien and Raya (2010) adopted augmented

reality (AR) technology to design a multi-player game,

E-Junior, for students to learn knowledge about natural

science and ecology by collaboratively playing with team

members in the game. Some other researchers developed

science quests in virtual game environments (e.g., Taiga

Virtual Park in Quest Atlantis) for students to learn about

ecological science.

The digital games were also implemented as tools to

support science learning. For example, by adopting mobile

and AR technologies, Squire and Klopfer (2007) developed

Environmental Detectives as a tool for students to collect

and test water samples and gather information to solve

game tasks. Nilsson and Jakobsson (2011) utilized a pop-

ular simulation game, SimCity 4, as a reflective and meta-

cognitive tool for students to test their scientific models and

to visualize the corresponding outcomes. Whether these

digitals games were designed as tutors or tools, they all

required a great deal of time, resources, and manpower to

develop. Even though several 3D multi-player virtual game

environments (e.g., Quest Atlantis and Active World) or

game developing software (e.g., RPG Maker for role-

playing games) are available for researchers or teachers to

develop learning quests or games in easier ways that

J Sci Educ Technol

123

require no programming background, it would still take

them much effort and time to design game content to

provide sufficient and appropriate context, content, and

mechanisms for science learning.

A new approach to game-based learning is emerging. As

found in this review, two studies facilitated students’ science

learning by asking the students themselves to design digital

games to teach others (Khalili et al. 2011; Li 2010). This

game-making approach corresponds to the idea of using

computers as tutees, as stated by Taylor (1980). Scholars

have suggested that by using computers in this way, learners

could learn in more depth, learn more about the learning

process, and link their experience to the fundamental

concepts of learning subjects (c.f., Taylor 1980). These

viewpoints were also found among the researchers who

recommended learning through game designing. Prensky

(2008) stated that students are capable of game design

because they are the ones that are closely related to the

learning subjects and who understand most about the power

of games for learning. Lim (2008) also stressed the impor-

tance of empowering students to take charge of their own

learning. Game-making could provide an opportunity for

students to experience empowerment and therefore become

more engaged in their learning process. By learning through

designing games, students were found to increase their

understanding of subject concepts, enhance their general

problem-solving abilities, actively search for answers, and

engage in the design process (El-Nasr and Smith 2006;

Khalili et al. 2011; Li 2010). In accordance with Aristotle’s

statement that teaching is the highest form of understanding,

Annetta et al. (2009) suggested that game-making might be a

more sensitive assessment for evaluating students’ learning

of science concepts. With the increasing availability of game

making software such as GameMaker (http://www.yoyo

games.com/gamemaker) and Scratch (http://scratch.mit.

edu/) that require no professional programming abilities,

adopting digital games as tutees might become an important

approach for GBSL. Moreover, researchers (Li 2010; Li

et al. 2010) have proposed enactivism as a philosophical

foundation of game-making instruction. According to the

perspectives of enactivists, learning is not only a mental

process but is also an integration of mind, body and the

world. Through thinking and acting, people could construct

and develop their knowledge. This new learning perspective

is still in its developing stage and needs more discussion and

exploration, as do the theories, models, design principles,

and research methods based on it.

The second potential of the digital game to facilitate

learning is its capability to connect the game worlds with

real worlds, either by adopting advanced technologies or by

building communities of practice. With proper technology

and storylines, digital games could extend learning from the

virtual game world to the real world, providing students with

more authentic experience of doing science. Squire and

Klopfer (2007) and Rosenbaum et al. (2007) illustrated

examples of utilizing AR technology to support GBSL

whereby students were asked to explore the real world

through digital games. Moreover, Kinect technology could

facilitate students’ learning by integrating their mental and

physical activities. For example, Price et al. (2003) designed

a game for children to discover an imaginary creature. The

students were required to collect as much information about

the creature as they could by interacting with it using body

movements such as flapping their arms. This embodiment

technology could help to provide students with rich science

learning experience because they not only have to think but

also act in their learning process. The other way for games to

connect the virtual and real worlds of learning is by forming

communities of practice. Ducheneaut and Moore (2005)

indicated that the massively multi-player online role-playing

games (MMORPGs) could provide a social learning envi-

ronment and naturally form a ‘‘community of practice’’ for

players. Besides in-game discussion and observation, play-

ers could also share their knowledge and experience in

various game forums and acquire important game informa-

tion. Steinkuehler and Duncan (2008) found that scientific

habits of mind were naturally formed by the participants of a

game forum, especially with regard to social knowledge

construction and system based reasoning. Therefore, a

forum of a science learning game can not only provide the

opportunity for learners to discuss and exchange their sci-

entific knowledge and ideas with other learners or experts,

but can also foster their scientific habits of mind outside the

game worlds.

The implementations of GBSL reviewed in this study

also demonstrate the potential of using digital games to

facilitate collaborative problem-solving. The importance of

collaborative problem-solving ability has been addressed

and included as one of the future components of assess-

ment in PISA (OECD 2003). Collaborative learning is

viewed as an important instructional strategy for promoting

students’ learning. However, several problems usually

occur during group projects, regardless of whether the

collaborations and discussions are arranged in traditional

classrooms or in online learning environments. One prob-

lem is that the group project may easily become the

responsibility of only a few people in the group

(Hamalainen and Arvaja 2009; Roberts and McInnerney

2007; Zurita and Nussbaum 2004). In addition, the col-

laborative process might often turn out to be socialization

between students or mainly task planning and monitoring

activities during which the students seldom discuss task-related

information or the group process of collaboration (Janssen

et al. 2012). How to engage all members of the group to

actively participate and collaborate in their group project is

viewed as a great challenge. Many of the studies that were

J Sci Educ Technol

123

reviewed arranged students to play digital games as a team

either virtually or in the real world. This implies that col-

laboration is considered as an important aspect of game

playing.

It is common for players to form a team with their friends

or with other players to achieve the game quests collabo-

ratively in online games. For example, in World of Warcraft

(WoW), a popular MMORPG, there are challenges that can

only be conquered by groups. Players recruit their team-

mates (as avatars) considering the professions, skills, and

levels needed for the missions. Ducheneaut and Moore

(2005) identified three important social interactions in

MMORPG that would help players to achieve effective and

successful teamwork. These interactions are small-group

self-organization, instrumental coordination, and sociability.

While players learn how to meet people and behave as

community members of the game from small-group self-

organization activities and learn how to socialize with other

players (sociability) during the breaks between game tasks,

the success of the game tasks relies on the instrumental

coordination among group members. Players have to col-

laborate and coordinate in a way which allows everyone to

appropriately demonstrate the abilities or expertise of their

roles (or avatars) in the game so that they can accomplish

the quests together. Therefore, with appropriate design of

game tasks and mechanisms, collaboration among players

can be promoted.

Digital games can better facilitate collaboration because

they have clear goals, rules, and feedback. Even though a

rewards mechanism could be applied to encourage students

to engage in traditional face-to-face or online group pro-

jects, whether or not they participate in the collaboration is

not directly related to the success or failure of the project

outcomes. The projects can still be completed as long as

someone in the group is willing to take the responsibility.

This will not work in the game world. If participants are

unable to play their game roles appropriately in the group

collaboration, they cannot complete the game missions.

Because players always want to win the game, they are

motivated to figure out a way to make the teamwork

effective and efficient. Through this process, they will learn

how to solve problems (i.e., game quests) collaboratively.

Such problem-solving collaboration can also be per-

formed in the real world during game playing. Playing

games with others seems to be a natural and favorite

activity for children. In a study conducted by Inal and

Cagiltay (2007), they found that most of the elementary

students who participated in their study liked to play games

with their friends. The real-world collaboration mode was

often adopted by researchers, who either arranged students

to play games in pairs on a computer (e.g., Anderson and

Barnett 2011; Annetta et al. 2009) or put them in the same

physical game context (e.g., Price et al. 2003; Sanchez and

Olivares 2011; Wrzesien and Raya 2010). An individual is

usually limited in experience, knowledge and information

processing capacity. However, when people play a game

together, they can exchange their experience and knowl-

edge through discussion and share the information pro-

cessing load. By collaboration, it is expected that the

effectiveness and efficiency of game playing as well as the

chance of success will increase. Price et al. (2003) found

that collaboration might help to enhance children’s

engagement level, their ways of game exploration, and

their abilities to reflect on their experience. Shih et al.

(2010) also showed that children could enhance their

cognitive performance and problem-solving skills when

playing games collaboratively. In sum, with the advantages

of game characteristics and mechanisms, students could

process and practice their collaborative problem-solving

skills by playing games together in either the real or virtual

worlds.

The fourth potential of digital games is to provide an

affective environment for science learning. Affect (e.g.,

curiosity and enjoyment) was viewed as the foundation of

science by Einstein (c.f., Stone and Glascott 1997). Stone

and Glascott (1997) emphasized that it is necessary to

establish an affective environment so that the cognitive

learning of science can be promoted. Stone and Glascott

suggested that an affective environment should (1) provide

risk-free opportunities and enjoyable experiences for stu-

dents to explore science; (2) give enough and flexible time

for students to examine the science materials and find out

the solutions or conclusions to their investigations; and (3)

allow students to discover science and construct their

knowledge using their own ways. Based on Stone and

Glascott’s description, it seems that digital games are just

the right place to provide such an environment. Though not

explicitly stated by the researchers of GBSL, the games

were all designed to provide a safe and enjoyable context in

which students could explore the science inquiries freely in

the game worlds without having to worry about failing to

complete the tasks. With their capability of providing both

affective and cognitive experiences for students, digital

games could be expected to better promote science learning

than other instructional methods.

Lastly, digital games have the potential to facilitate

students’ science learning across different school levels. In

this current review, most of the GBSL studies were tar-

geted on high school and university students. As found in

Hwang and Wu’s (2012) review of digital game-based

learning trend from 2001 to 2010, the number of studies

targeted on high school students and higher education

increased by as much as five times during 2006 to 2010.

Other than these two student populations, they also found

about three times of the studies were conducted to promote

learning of elementary school students during this same

J Sci Educ Technol

123

period. This indicates that the use of digital games is not

only limited to higher education but also appropriate for

younger students. The gap between the results of currently

reviewed GBSL studies and overall game-based learning

trend with regard to target learners might due to some

acceptance or implementation issues. For example, parents

and teachers might be concerned about the negative

impacts of game playing (e.g., game addiction or health

problem), especially for younger students. The availability

of digital games designed for younger students or the

constraints of game implementation in elementary schools

and preschools may also be a concern. Since digital

game-based learning is viewed as an interesting and

motivating learning approach to facilitate learning,

younger students may also benefit from GBSL by build-

ing their science learning interests from early stage of

science education if the games can be appropriately

designed and implemented.

Conclusions and Implications

The purposes of this study were to review empirical studies

of GBSL published between 2000 and 2011 in terms of

four aspects: (1) their research purposes and designs, (2)

digital game design and implementation, (3) theoretical

foundations, and (4) their learning foci. Major conclusions

and implications are summarized in Table 6. As the

majority of the studies emphasized game implementation

and the comparisons between different game mechanisms

and between game and other learning methods, more

studies are needed to systematically develop and improve

game design by adopting design-based research method.

Although most of the games were implemented to promote

science learning of high school and undergraduate students,

they may also be helpful to facilitate learning for younger

students. In addition, how to employ pedagogical theories

to practical game design and make better connections

between theoretical foundations and learning foci are

worthy of attention. The adoption of game-making

approach to foster science learning also indicates the

potential of using digital games as tutees and the emer-

gence of a new learning perspective (i.e., enactivism).

Based on this review, the potentials of GBSL to blend the

learning in the game world with the real world, to promote

collaborative problem-solving ability, and to provide an

affective learning environment were observed as well.

In addition to the potential of GBSL, several research

issues are also identified that need to be explored in the

future. First, students’ learning processes in gameplay are

as important as their learning outcomes. Although several

studies in this review have investigated students’ gaming

behaviors or problem solving processes in the games

through log files, observations, or interviews, most of the

results were limited to descriptive illustrations or were only

utilized to count the frequency of the behaviors (e.g.,

number of goals completed, number of strategies used). To

gain more knowledge of students’ behaviors during game

playing, advanced and systematic analysis of behavioral

patterns (e.g., quantitative content analysis, lag sequential

analysis, and cluster analysis) should be conducted in

future investigations. Second, researchers who adopted

GBSL seemed to make an implicit assumption that students

learned when they played the digital games. The relation-

ships among in-game performance, game playing experi-

ence (e.g., flow experience), gaming behaviors, and

science learning outcomes will need to be analyzed to

validate this assumption. Third, the relationships among

different learning outcomes and between learning perfor-

mance and behaviors need to be examined in the future.

As suggested by scholars, digital games play a critical

role in promoting students’ motivation, interest, and

engagement in science learning. Whether the increase in

their learning motivation, interest, and engagement would

impact their performance in terms of cognitive aspects of

learning (i.e., scientific knowledge/concept, scientific

processes, and problem-solving) is left for future investi-

gation. Last, in the studies that were reviewed, the digital

games were either used alone or were incorporated with

other instructional activities such as class discussion or

group discussion. Digital games were also found to have

the potential to connect the real world and the game

worlds by adopting AR or Kinect technology or through

the community of practice in the game or the real worlds.

How students perceive of and what they could benefit

from these different GBSL experiences should be further

explored.

Limitations

The papers reviewed in this study were limited to journal

articles indexed in the Web of Science and SCOPUS

database that published from 2000 to 2011. The inclusion

of conference papers in future reviews may help to provide

a more up-to-date overview in this field. A more compre-

hensive review may also be conducted by extending the

literature search to other academic databases (e.g., IEEE/

IET Electronic Library) or sources (e.g., Google scholar).

Although the paper sample reviewed in this study was

relatively small, the sampling process and criteria were

carefully implemented to lessen the paper selection bias.

Moreover, since the current review was not attempted to be

inclusive but to provide a systematic overview of GBSL,

the analysis in this review may provide a framework for

future research integration that explores GBSL literature

J Sci Educ Technol

123

from some broader aspects, including the purposes and

designs of the research, the design and implementation of

the game, and the theoretical foundations and the learning

foci of GBSL. By using this framework, the present study

contributes a summary and some reflections of the GBSL

research and implementations at the current stage of this

field. The last note to make is that the effectiveness of

GBSL was not discussed and analyzed in this study

because of the diversity of research purposes, designs,

theoretical foundations, and learning foci. More empirical

research will be needed before one can draw a more valid

conclusion on GBSL effectiveness.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by the projects

from the National Science Council, Taiwan, under contract number

NSC 98-2511-S-011-005-MY3 and NSC 99-2511-S-011-011-MY3.

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 6 Summary of major findings and implications

Review aspects Major findings Implications

Research purposes

and designs

The evaluation of game implementation was the most studied topic

following the comparisons among different game mechanisms and

between games and other learning methods

The improvement of game design and learning through game-making

were emerging study topics

Case study design was employed by almost half of the studies to

demonstrate the outcomes of the game implementation, to illustrate

improvements in the game design, and to investigate the results of

game-making activities

High school and undergraduate students were major target learners

More studies are needed to evaluate and improve

digital games by considering the essential game

elements in their design

Design-based research methodology is suggested

for the continuous and systematic evaluation and

refinement of digital games from both theoretical

and practical aspects

The future research is expected to apply GBSL to

younger students and examine the outcomes

Digital game

design and

implementation

The majority of the studies adopted the game-playing approach and

only two adopted game-making approach

Most of the studies adopted single-player games and some utilized

multi-player virtual game environments

Students in almost all the studies were arranged to learn individually

in the games, regardless of whether the games were designed as

single-player or multi-player

Real-world collaboration on game playing was arranged much more

frequently than collaborations in virtual game worlds

The potential of using digital games as tutees to

facilitate science learning is needed to be

explored in more empirical studies

Teachers and researchers are suggested to make

better use of multi-player gaming environment

to provide virtual collaboration opportunities

and to promote collaborative problem-solving

abilities of students

It is important to investigate and discuss critical

game design factors relating to the facilitation of

collaboration in the future studies

Theoretical

foundations

Cognitivism and constructivism were mostly adopted in GBSL

studies to guide the development of educational games for science

learning

Socio-cultural perspective and enactivism are two emerging

theoretical paradigms that have started to gain attention in this field

The theoretical foundations were mostly employed at the model level

and only a few studies applied specific theoretical principles to

game design practice

In order to make practical use of theories to design

effective digital games for science learning,

researchers need to identify or develop specific

principles/methods of the theories, apply them

on game designs, and evaluate their

effectiveness in future studies

The newly proposed philosophical foundation of

game-making instruction, enactivism, will need

more discussion and exploration, as do the

theories, models, design principles, and research

methods based on it

Learning foci Scientific knowledge/concept was the major learning focus of science

education regardless of the theoretical perspectives applied in

GBSL

Affective, scientific processes, engagement, and socio-contextual

learning were less researched learning aspects

The learning aspects focused or investigated in the studies did not

reflect the learning emphases of different theoretical foundations

A gap was found between the affordances of digital games and their

use in promoting science learning

The link between learning foci and theoretical

foundations of GBSL should be better

emphasized in future studies.

More research is needed to explore the influence

of GBSL on affective, engagement, and socio-

contextual learning aspects

The effectiveness of using digital games to

promote the collaborative problem-solving in

science learning will need to be studied in the

future

J Sci Educ Technol

123

Table 7 Background information of reviewed articles

Author (s) (year) Science domain Game name School level of

participants

Number of

participants

Research

method

Anderson and Barnett

(2011)

Physics Supercharged! Undergraduate 136 Quasi-

experiment

Annetta et al. (2009) Biology Not available High school 129 Quasi-

experiment

Barab et al. (2007) Ecological science Taiga Virtual Park (Quest Atlantis) Elementary school 23 Case study

(DBR)

Barab et al. (2009) Ecological science Taiga Virtual Park (Quest Atlantis) Undergraduate 51 Experiment

Carr and Bossomaier

(2011)

Physics Relativistic Asteroids High school

Higher education

67 Case study

Cheng et al. (2011) Neuroscience Not available Across different levels 175 Case study

Clark et al. (2011) Physics SURGE High school 143 Case study

Echeverrıa et al. (2011) Physics First Colony High school 27 Case study

Hickey et al. (2009) Ecological Science Taiga virtual park (Quest Atlantis) Elementary school 116 Quasi-

experiment

DBR

Hsu et al. (2011) Physics Not available Preschooler 50 Experiment

Johnson and Mayer

(2010)

Physics Circuit Game Undergraduate 104 Experiment

Kali (2003) Earth Science A virtual journey within the Rock

Cycle

Junior & Senior high

school

Not

available

Case study

Khalili et al. (2011) Neurology Game Maker High school 16 Case study

Li (2010) Physics Scratch Elementary school 21 Case study

Lim et al. (2006) Physics Quest Atlantis Elementary school 8 Case study

Mayer and Johnson

(2010)

Physics Circuit Game Undergraduate 117 Experiment

Miller et al. (2002) Neuroscience The Reconstructors

(Series title: Medicinal Mysteries

from History)

High school 148 Case study

Miller et al. (2006) Neuroscience The Reconstructors

(Series title: Nothing to Rave About)

High school 289 Case study

Moreno and Mayer

(2000)

Biology Design-A-Plant Undergraduate 124 Experiment

Moreno and Mayer

(2002)

Biology Design-A-Plant Undergraduate 164 Experiment

Moreno and Mayer

(2004)

Biology Design-A-Plant Undergraduate 48 Experiment

Moreno and Mayer

(2005)

Biology Design-A-Plant Undergraduate 176 Experiment

Nilsson and Jakobsson

(2011)

Environmental

education

SimCity 4 High school 42 Case study

Sanchez and Olivares

(2011)

Biology MSG Evolution High school 373 Quasi-

experiment

Spires et al. (2011) Biology Crystal Island High school 137 Case study

Squire and Jan (2007) Environmental

education

Mad City Mystery Across different levels 34 Case study

Squire and Klopfer

(2007)

Environmental

education

Environmental Detectives High school

Undergraduate

76 Case study

Ting (2010) Physics Wii game Vocational high

school

48 Case study

J Sci Educ Technol

123

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate the articles

analyzed in this paper

Alsop S, Watts M (2003) Science education and affect. Int J Sci Educ

25(9):1043–1047

*Anderson J, Barnett M (2011) Using video games to support pre-

service elementary teachers learning of basic physics principles.

J Sci Educ Technol 20(4):347–362

*Annetta LA, Minogue J, Holmes SY, Cheng MT (2009) Investigating

the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement

and learning about genetics. Comput Educ 53(1):74–85

Barab S, Dede C (2007) Games and immersive participatory

simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula.

J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):1–3

*Barab S, Zuiker S, Warren S, Hickey D, Ingram-Goble A, Kwon EJ,

Herring SC (2007) Situationally embodied curriculum: relating

formalisms and contexts. Sci Educ 91(5):750–782

*Barab SA, Scott B, Siyahhan S, Goldstone R, Ingram-Goble A,

Zuiker SJ, Warren S (2009) Transformational play as a curricular

scaffold: using videogames to support science education. J Sci

Educ Technol 18(4):305–320

Becker K (2007) Pedagogy in commercial video games. In: Gibson D,

Clark A, Prensky M (eds) Games and simulations in online

learning: research and development frameworks. Information

Science Publishing, Hershey, pp 21–47

*Carr D, Bossomaier T (2011) Relativity in a rock field: a study of

physics learning with a computer game. Aus J Educ Technol

27(6):1042–1067

*Cheng MT, Annetta L, Folta E, Holmes SY (2011) Drugs and the

brain: learning the impact of methamphetamine abuse on the

brain through a virtual brain exhibit in the museum. Int J Sci

Educ 33(2):299–319

*Clark DB, Nelson BC, Chang HY, Martinez-Garza M, Slack K,

D’Angelo CM (2011) Exploring Newtonian mechanisms in a

conceptually-integrated digital game: comparison of learning

and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United

States. Comput Educ 57(3):2178–2195

Clark DB, Nelson BC, Sengupta P, D’Angelo CM (2009) Rethinking

science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres,

examples, and evidence. Paper commissioned for The National

Research Council Workshop on Gaming and Simulations,

Washington. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Clark_

Gaming_CommissionedPaper.pdf

Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) A

systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer

games and serious games. Comput Educ 59(2):661–686. doi:

10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

Divjak B, Tomic D (2011) The impact of game-based learning on the

achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning

mathematics—literature review. J Inf Organiz Sci 35(1):15–30

Ducheneaut N, Moore RJ (2005) More than just ‘XP’: learning social

skills in massively multiplayer online games. Int Technol Smart

Educ 2(2):89–100

*Echeverrıa A, Garcıa-Campo C, Nussbaum M, Gil F, Villalta M,

Amestica M, Echeverrıa S (2011) A framework for the design

and integration of collaborative classroom games. Comput Educ

57(1):1127–1136

Egenfeldt-Nielsen S (2006) Overview of research on the educational

use of video games. Digital Kompetanse 1(3):184–213

El-Nasr MS, Smith BK (2006) Learning through game modding.

Comput Entertain 4(1):45–64

Ertmer PA, Newby TJ (1993) Behaviorism, cognitivism, construc-

tivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design

perspective. Perform Improv Quart 6(4):50–72

Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH (2004) School engagement:

potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res

74(1):59–109

Gee JP (2007) What video games have to teach us about learning and

literacy (Revised and updated edition). Palgrave Macmillan,

New York

Hamalainen R, Arvaja M (2009) Scripted collaboration and group-

based variations in a higher education CSCL context. Scand J

Educ Res 53(1):1–16

*Hickey DT, Ingram-Goble AA, Jameson EM (2009) Designing

assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational envi-

ronments. J Sci Educ Technol 18(2):187–208

Honey MA, Hilton M (eds) (2011) Learning science through

computer games and simulations. National Academy of Sci-

ences, Washington

Table 7 continued

Author (s) (year) Science domain Game name School level of

participants

Number of

participants

Research

method

Tuysuz (2009) Chemistry Element matching game

Atom game

Periodic table game

Chemical bound game

Forming compound game

Crossword puzzle

Undergraduate 176 Quasi-

experiment

Wrzesien and Raya

(2010)

Nature science and

ecology

E-Junior Elementary school 48 Experiment

Yien et al. (2011) Nutrition education Little Dietician

Gifts from Heaven

Saving Health Kingdom

Health Superman’s Delicacy Island

Nutrition Supplement Battle

Elementary school 66 Quasi-

experiment

J Sci Educ Technol

123

*Hsu CY, Tsai CC, Liang JC (2011) Facilitating preschoolers’

scientific knowledge construction via computer games regarding

light and shadow: the effect of the Prediction- Observation-

Explanation (POE) strategy. J Sci Educ Technol 20(5):482–493

Hwang GJ, Wu PH (2012) Advancements and trends in digital game-

based learning research: a review of publications in selected

journals from 2001 to 2010. Br J Educ Technol 43(1):E6–E10

Inal Y, Cagiltay K (2007) Flow experiences of children in an interactive

social game environment. Br J Educ Technol 38(3):455–464

Janssen J, Erkens G, Kirschner PA, Kanselaar G (2012) Task-related

and social regulation during online collaborative learning.

Metacogn Learn 7(1):25–43

Jayakanthan R (2002) Application of computer games in the field of

education. Elect Lib 20(2):98–102

*Johnson CI, Mayer RE (2010) Applying the self-explanation

principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like

environment. Comput Hum Behav 26(6):1246–1252

Johnson L, Smith R, Willis H, Levine A, Haywood K (2011) The 2011

Horizon Report. The New Media Consortium, Austin. Retrieved

from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf

*Kali Y (2003) A virtual journey within the rock-cycle: a software kit

for the development of systems-thinking in the context of the

Earth’s crust. J Geosci Educ 51(2):165–170

*Khalili N, Sheridan K, Williams A, Clark K, Stegman M (2011)

Students designing video games about immunology: insights for

science learning. Comput Schools 28(3):228–240

Lee SWY, Tsai CC, Wu YT, Tsai MJ, Liu TC, Hwang FK, Chang CY

(2011) Internet-based science learning: a review of journal

publications. Int J Sci Educ 33(14):1893–1925

*Li Q (2010) Digital game building: learning in a participatory

culture. Educ Res 52(4):427–443

Li Q, Clark B, Winchester I (2010) Instructional design and

technology grounded in enactivism: a paradigm shift? Br J

Educ Technol 41(3):403–419

Lim CP (2008) Spirit of the game: empowering students as designers

in schools? Br J Educ Technol 39(6):996–1003

*Lim CP, Nonis D, Hedberg J (2006) Gaming in a 3D multiuser

virtual environment: engaging students in science lessons. Br J

Educ Technol 37(2):211–231

Maxmen A (2010) Video games and the second life of science class.

Cell 141(2):201–203

*Mayer RE, Johnson CI (2010) Adding instructional features that

promote learning in a game-like environment. J Educ Comput

Res 42(3):241–265

Mayo MJ (2007) Games for science and engineering education.

Commun ACM 50(7):30–35. doi:10.1145/1272516.1272536

*Miller L, Moreno J, Willcockson I, Smith D, Mayes J (2006) An

online, interactive approach to teaching neuroscience to adoles-

cents. CBE Life Sci Educ 5(2):137–143

*Miller L, Schweingruber H, Oliver R, Mayes J, Smith D (2002)

Teaching neuroscience through Web adventures: adolescents

reconstruct the history and science of opioids. Neuroscientist

8(1):16–21

*Moreno R, Mayer RE (2000) Engaging students in active learning:

the case for personalized multimedia messages. J Educ Psychol

92(4):724–733

*Moreno R, Mayer RE (2002) Learning science in virtual reality

multimedia environments: role of methods and media. J Educ

Psychol 94(3):598–610

*Moreno R, Mayer RE (2004) Personalized messages that promote

science learning in virtual environments. J Educ Psychol

96(1):165–173

*Moreno R, Mayer RE (2005) Role of guidance, reflection, and

interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. J Educ Psychol

97(1):117–128

*Nilsson EM, Jakobsson A (2011) Simulated sustainable societies:

students’ reflections on creating future cities in computer games.

J Sci Educ Technol 20(1):33–50

Oblinger D (2004) The next generation of educational engagement.

J Interact Media Educ 8. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/

jime/article/viewArticle/2004-8-oblinger/198

OECD (2003) The PISA 2003 assessment framework: mathematics,

reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Retrieved

from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf

O’Loughlin M (1992) Rethinking science education: beyond piage-

tian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and

learning. J Res Sci Teach 29(8):791–820

O’Neil HF, Wainess R, Baker EL (2005) Classification of learning

outcomes: evidence from the computer games literature. Curr J

16(4):455–474. doi:10.1080/09585170500384529

Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S (2003) Attitudes towards science: a

review of the literature and its implications. Int J Sci Educ

25(9):1049–1079

Prensky M (2001) Digital game-based learning. McGraw-Hill, New

York

Prensky M (2008) Students as designers and creators of educational

computer games: who else? Br J Educ Technol 39(6):1004–1019

Price S, Rogers Y, Scaife M, Stanton D, Neale H (2003) Using

‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interact

Comput 15(2):169–185

Rieber LP, Smith L, Noah D (1998) The value of serious play. Educ

Technol 38(6):29–37

Roberts TS, McInnerney JM (2007) Seven problems of online group

learning (and their solutions). Educ Technol Soc 10(4):257–268

Rosenbaum E, Klopfer E, Perry J (2007) On location learning: authentic

applied science with networked augmented realities. J Sci Educ

Technol 16(1):31–45. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9036-0

*Sanchez J, Olivares R (2011) Problem solving and collaboration

using mobile serious games. Comput Educ 57(3):1943–1952

Shih JL, Shih BJ, Shih CC, Su HY, Chuang CW (2010) The influence

of collaboration styles to children’s cognitive performance in

digital problem-solving game ‘‘william adventure’’: a compar-

ative case study. Comput Educ 55(3):982–993. doi:10.1016/

j.compedu.2010.04.009

*Spires HA, Rowe JP, Mott BW, Lester JC (2011) Problem solving

and game-based learning: effects of middle grade students’

hypothesis testing strategies on learning outcomes. J Educ

Comput Res 44(4):453–472

*Squire K, Jan M (2007) Mad city mystery: developing scientific

argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game

on handheld computers. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):5–29

Squire K, Jenkins H (2003) Harnessing the power of games in

education. InSight 3. Retrieved from http://www.edvantia.org/

products/pdf/InSight_3-1_Vision.pdf

*Squire K, Klopfer E (2007) Augmented reality simulations on

handheld computers. J Learn Sci 16(3):371–413

Steinkuehler C, Duncan S (2008) Scientific habits of mind in virtual

worlds. J Sci Educ Technol 17(6):530–543

Stone SJ, Glascott K (1997) The affective side of science instruction.

Child Educ 74(2):102–104

Taylor R (ed) (1980) The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee.

Teachers College Press, New York

*Ting YL (2010) Using mainstream game to teach technology

through an interest framework. Educ Technol Soc 13(2):141–152

*Tuysuz C (2009) Effect of the computer based game on pre-service

teachers’ achievement, attitudes, metacognition and motivation

in chemistry. Sci Res Essays 4(8):780–790

Vogel JJ, Vogel DS, Cannon-Bowers J, Bowers GA, Muse K, Wright

M (2006) Computer gaming and interactive simulations for

learning: a meta-analysis. J Educ Comput Res 34(3):229–243

J Sci Educ Technol

123

Wang F, Hannafin M (2005) Design-based research and technology-

enhanced learning environments. Educ Tech Res Dev 53(4):5–23

*Wrzesien M, Raya MA (2010) Learning in serious virtual worlds:

evaluation of learning effectiveness and appeal to students in the

E-Junior project. Comput Educ 55(1):178–187

*Yien JM, Hung CM, Hwang GJ, Lin YC (2011) A game-based

learning approach to improving students’ learning achievements

in a nutrition course. Turkish Online J Educ Technol 10(2):1–10

Young MF, Slota S, Cutter AB, Jalette G, Mullin G, Lai B,

Yukhymenko M (2012) Our princess is in another castle: a

review of trends in serious gaming for education. Rev Educ Res

82(1):61–89. doi:10.3102/0034654312436980

Zurita G, Nussbaum M (2004) Computer supported collaborative

learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers.

Comput Educ 42(3):289–314

J Sci Educ Technol

123