A Review of Serious Games Literature from a Socio-Cultural and Constructivist Perspective

A  Review  of  Serious  Games  Literature  from  a  Socio-­‐Cultural  and   Constructivist  Perspective   Elizabeth Dalton EDUC 985 Spring, 2009 Abstract: The “Serious Games” movement has been gaining in popularity and political support. A substantial subset of that genre consists of explicitly educational games, intended to be used in K-12 schools, higher education, and workplace training. Most recent educational game and literature makes at least a token reference to constructivism. But to what extent is educational game research conducted within the theoretical framework of “strong” constructivism as described by Vygotsky, Piaget, and Rogoff? A review of a sample of books and journal articles in the field finds that while many researchers embrace the sociocognitive nature of learning, others align more with “weak” constructivism, emphasizing the need for active learning, but focusing on individual learner development and ignoring the social contexts of learning. This may reflect trends in the broader game design literature, as well as divisions still evident in contemporary educational research. It has become routine to see mainstream news media reporting on the educational use of games (e.g. BBC, 2008). Games, whether digital or not, are supposed by many to increase “active” learning and are usually aligned, at least in part, with constructivist theories of learning. However, many reports of the use of games in education show little familiarity with the key concepts of constructivism. In particular, few writers reference the socio-cultural nature of learning, or examine learning in terms of the role the learner is able to play within a community of practice. To what extent can educational game research be considered properly constructivist at all? To begin, we offer some brief definitions. For the purposes of this study, we will adopt the following definition of a “game”: an activity which embodies a simplified or abstract subject in a format which provides constraints, goals and scoring, often including fantasy and mystery elements as well. We define learning games as games which use scoring or other symbolic representations to provide integrated feedback on skill accomplishment to learners, teachers, etc. Learning games can provide context for

learning, simplification of related but non-critical subject areas, a safe learning environment, social interaction opportunities between students, and motivational support. “Serious games,” a term coined by Clark Abt (1977) are a superset of learning games; games which are used in educational settings, but also in industry training, to attempt to increase awareness of or intervene in social issues, or for other purposes in addition to (or sometimes instead of) entertainment. “Simulations” form the core of many serious games, providing exploration opportunities in a simplified representation of a real-world context. Not all serious games, educational games, or simulations are computer-based (and in fact Abt's original use referred to card and board games), though much of the current literature focuses on this category. Within the broad literature of serious games studies, there are a number of subcategories we might examine, including literature specifically devoted to educational games, related literature investigating educational technology (which often covers digital games), game-related research and references in general education or educational theory literature, subject-specific educational literature, industry-specific educational or training literature, and finally, literature explicitly devoted to game design and game studies, whether for “serious” or educational purposes or not. It is beyond the scope of this work to examine all of these categories in detail. We will, instead, focus on the first category and the last: literature specifically devoted to educational games, and literature of game design and game studies. As we will see below, these different categories treat the nature of games and learning differently, though in some surprising ways at times. In considering whether the serious games literature aligns with constructivist principles, we examine the review of constructivist “dimensions” provided by Phillips (1995). Phillips offers three axes of constructivist focus, against which he attempts to categorize various theorists: 1. Individual psychology vs. public discipline 2. Humans the creators vs. nature the instructor 3. Knowledge constructed by cognition of individuals vs. by social and political processes

Phillips suggests that the second axis is the most critical, noting that a theory which does not consider that humans create knowledge to a large extent can hardly be called constructivist. He uses the other two categories, which describe the focus of study and the agent of knowledge creation, as means of categorizing constructivist theories. However, it may be argued that Phillips has missed the point entirely in this categorization scheme. Researchers such as Barbara Rogoff (e.g. 1990, 1995) would argue that constructivism cannot be placed at any specific point along these axes (or any other bipolar dualities, for that matter). An essential feature of Rogoff's constructivism is that factors such as these are mutually-constituting bipolar unities--knowledge is constructed within and by individuals and communities, through the interaction of the knowledge creators and nature, which change each other in the process. This process of change is itself the learning process, which is characterized not by the “acquisition” or “internalization” of concepts, but by the way learners are able to change the nature of their participation within a community of practice from peripheral to central, at the same time changing the community of practice itself. (Rogoff examines these changes via the “planes” of participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship). This theoretical standpoint affects every aspect of educational games, from design and implementation to analysis and evaluation. As one simple example, much of the serious games literature still evaluates the effectiveness of games based on the same objectivist measures used in behaviorist learning; at best, learners are asked to solve word problems using the concepts they have “acquired” while playing the game, and often they are merely asked to answer multiple-choice fact-based questions about “content.” A far more constructivist approach would be to evaluate the change in the learner's capacity for role, both while playing the game and in the real-world social context the game is meant to support. Very few examples exist in contemporary serious games literature which take this approach, but some selected examples are described below. We will refer to such examples as “strongly” constructivist, and to literature which takes an approach more similar to Phillips as “weakly” constructivist, accepting that even weakly constructivist research may offer observations of interest and value. Interestingly, some of the strongest examples of a constructivist understanding occur in game studies literature itself, rather than in literature more explicitly devoted to the educational aspects of games.

The  literature  of  educational  games Several key texts are often cited in serious games research, and are worth a thorough examination here. Among these are James Paul Gee's highly influential 2003 book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy, Clark Quinn's 2005 Engaging Learning: Designing e-Learning Simulation Games, and Clark Aldrich's Learning by Doing: A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-Learning and Other Educational Experiences. These texts cover a range from strongly constructivist through weakly constructivist to minimally pedagogical. We will also briefly examine Serious games: games that educate, train, and inform, by Michael and Chen, which heavily quotes all three of the previous texts. Gee leads the field in his constructivist understanding of learning and the place games have within the process of learning. Trained as a theoretical linguist, Gee became interested in how games influence learning while watching his young son (then six years old) learning to play games for the first time. His research now centers on learning and games. In this text, Gee analyzes both games and learning as “semiotic domains.” “By a semiotic domain I mean any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g. oral or written language, images, equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive types of meanings. Here are some examples of semiotic domains: cellular biology, postmodern literary criticism, first-person-shooter video games, high-fashion advertisements, Roman Catholic theology, modernist painting, midwifery, rap music, wine connoisseurship—through a nearly endless, motley, and everchanging list” (p. 18). Gee is well aware that learning is more often considered as “content acquisition, and lucidly explains the shortcomings of this view. “The problem with the content view is that an academic discipline, or any other semiotic domain, for that matter, is not primarily content, in the sense of facts and principles. It is rather primarily a lived and historically changing set of distinctive social practices. It is in these social practices that 'content' is generated, debated, and transformed via certain distinctive ways of thinking, talking, valuing, acting, and often, writing and reading” (p. 21).

Gee focuses much of the early part of his text (which has been excerpted in publications such as Chronicle of Higher Education and Phi Kappa Phi Forum) on establishing definitions for what he calls “active and critical” learning: “When we learn a new semiotic domain in a more active way, not as passive content, three things are at stake: 1. We learn to experience (see, feel, and operate on) the world in new ways. 2. Since semiotic domains usually are shared by groups of people who carry them on as distinctive social practices, we gain the potential to join this social group, to become affiliated with such kinds of people (even though we may never see all of them, or any of them, face to face). 3. We gain resources that prepare us for future learning and problem solving in the domain and, perhaps, more important, in related domains. Three things, then, are involved in active learning: experiencing the world in new ways, forming new affiliations, and preparation for future learning. This is 'active learning.' However, such learning is not yet what I call 'critical learning.' For learning to be critical as well as active, one additional feature is needed. The learner needs to learn not only how to understand and produce meanings in a particular semiotic domain that are recognizable to those affiliated with the domain, but, in addition, how to think about the domain at a 'meta' level as a complex system of interrelated parts. The learner also needs to learn how to innovate in the domain—how to produce meanings that, while recognizable, are seen as somehow novel or unpredictable.” (p. 23) We can see that Gee's descriptions of active and critical learning are quite compatable with Rogoff's descriptions of participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. Learning is not the acquisition of “knowledge objects,” but a transformation in the learner and the learning community. Gee makes this connection to learning communities or communities of practice more explicit here: “There are two different ways to look at semiotic domains: internally and externally. Any

domain can be viewed internally as a type of content or externally in terms of people engaged in a set of social practices” (p. 26). He indicates that the internal and external approaches to semiotic domains are inextricable and mutually constituting: “Do the internal and external aspects of a semiotic domain have anything to do with each other? Of course, if we are talking about academic disciplines as semiotic domains, most academics would like to think that the answer to this question is no. But the answer is, in fact, yes. Content, the internal part of a semiotic domain, gets made in history by real people and their social interactions. They build that content—in part, not wholly—in certain ways because of the people they are (socially, historically, culturally). That content comes to define one of their important identities in the world. As those identities develop through further social interactions, they come to affect the ongoing development and transformation of the content of the semiotic domain in yet new ways. In turn, that new content helps further develop and transform those identities. The relationship between the internal and external is reciprocal” (p. 28-29). Gee also refers explicitly to the historical nature of this process, echoing Vygotsky's socio-historical ideas: “The American philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce argued that 'in the end,' after all the efforts of scientists over time, all possible theories in an area like theoretical linguistics would converge on the 'true' one. But you and I won't be here for 'the end' of time, so we are stuck with the fact that the internal and external aspects of semiotic domains—even academic fields and area of science—influence one another.” (2003, p. 29-30) Finally, Gee makes his case for the need, as a matter of social justice, to investigate the way in which access to sophisticated games (not only games intended as learning games, but many other games as well) privileges some learners: “Let me make this discussion more concrete. A game like Pikmin recruits from our six-year-old a complex identity composed of various related traits. The game encourages him to think of himself an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes; one who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning. It encourages him to be the sort of problem solver who, rather than ritualizing the solutions to problems, leaves himself open to undoing former mastery and finding new ways to solve new problems in new situations.

At the same time, the boy is encouraged to seem himself as solving problems from the perspective of a particular fantasy creature (Captain Olimar) and his faithful helpers (the Pikmin) and, thus, to get outside his 'real' identity and play with the notions of perspectives and identities themselves.... The identity that Pikmin invites the player to take on relates in a variety of ways to other identities he takes on in other domains. I believe, for example, that the identity Pikmin recruits relates rather well to the sort of identity a learner is called on to assume in the best active science learning in schools and other sites. If this is true, then our six-year-old is privileged in this respect over children who do not have the opportunity to play such games (in an active and critical way). An issue of social justice is at stake here in regard to the distribution of, and access to, this identity, whether through video games or science.” Gee's theories (with co-authors Shaffer, Squire, & Halverson) also appear in a featured article in the October 2005 issue of Phi Delta Kappan. Gee's work is often quoted in serious games literature, but usually not well-understood. He is cited as a supporter of the use of games in learning by those looking for such support, but the core ideas of his work are usually not carried over to research that cites him. Quinn arrives in serious games via the Instructional Systems Design methodology used in industry training, and this background shows in his work. He emphasizes instructional design processes such as ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation), though he critiques behavioral objectives. His text reviews cognitive research (e.g. Lepper & Cordova, 1992, Schank & Cleary, 1995) and does try to distinguish between knowledge and competence: “Our goal is not to help people learn. That's a tactic. If we said people need to learn X and then made sure that happened, we wouldn't be doing our job.... the industry has moved beyond return-oninvestment arguments. It's not about showing that improvement happens as an outcome of the training. Or even counting the dollar benefits of the outcomes. Instead, the goal now for training is to target and improve the key performance indicators of the organization. This trend is currently also reflected in the metrics associated with schools,

though I hope that schools will soon move to a more realistic way of assessment that targets what learners actually can do (for example, portfolios of work) and not just what they know. No, the goal is clear: we must help people do” (p. 15). Quinn emphasizes the use of games as a means of practicing an activity: “...our goal is to provide sufficient, meaningful practice to help ensure that the learning will be retained and recognized as appropriate to apply to all relevant situations” (p. 30). He does refer to “cognitive apprenticeship,” citing Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, Susan Newman (1989) and briefly mentions constructivism and Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development. He does not use these concepts clearly as a framework for the guidance he offers to the reader, however. He remains rooted in the concept of learning as an individual endeavor, rather than a sociocultural activity. This is clear in his views of assessment: “I'm going to suggest, as an abstraction across a number of the approaches, that the objective to be addressed by the learning needs to be of sufficient complexity to be interesting to the learner. This suggests that we need to move from knowledge test , where we ask learners whether the know the elements or can identify them, to a knowledge application level, where learners have to use the knowledge to solve a contextualized problem to make a discrimination—essentially to make a decision in the colloquial sense of the word.” He refers to context, but does not question the division between learner and context. Dispite the title of his book, Aldrich doesn't discuss pedagogy at a formal level, and does not explicitly refer to constructivism or the sociocultural nature of learning. Like Quinn, Aldrich comes from the training industry, which places less emphasis on pedagogical theory than academic studies do. Aldrich asserts that simulations will work better to teach complex subjects, but offers little or no basis of evaluating that claim. His text is presented as a “how to” manual, and leaves questions of “why” to other writers. As noted earlier, Michael & Chen's Serious Games: Games that Educate, Train, and Inform references all three of the preceding texts. This book attempts to help existing game designers and developers to “cash in” on what is seen as a growing market for serious games. Pedagogy is not explicitly considered; it is assumed that game developers

will work with “subject matter experts” or others who will commission game development projects for purposes of their own. Despite this, the text does offer a few indications that some constructive ideas have permeated the game development community. In the forward, we are told “In preschool and in kindergarten, children are taught games as a social activity and to prepare children for organized learning.” Later, when the authors enumerate possible markets for serious games, they note: “Every community, big or small, has a rich history and goals for the future. Both of these, past and future, as well as the present, are excellent material for serious games. Such games can teach local school students about the community's colorful history” (p. 13). Michael & Chen seem unaware of the parallel threads of constructivist research into learning games. “In his 2004 presentation to the Serious Games Summit in Washington, D.C., 'What happens when Games Go into Any Classroom Situation?' , Kurt Squire, Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, pointed out that as an industry, game developers, academics, and educational professionals still don't know how to make a good serious game nor do they fully understand how players interpret the content of a game. Despite their apparent usefulness, games, he said, are not grounded in any theory of learning.” As we saw in Gee's work, this is not the case. Rather, it would seem that many researchers in the serious games community are unaware of how games are implicitly grounded in theories of learning, and of what choices might be available to them in this choice of grounding. Michael & Chen express the most awareness of their implied theoretical stance while discussing the evaluation of learning games, predicting that most games will be evaluated by much the same methods as the lectures they are meant to replace. “Prensky called the current testing approach the 'tell-test' system of education. In tell-test education, somebody who knows more than the students is telling them what they have to learn, and then testing them on it. This approach continues to be popular for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most important reasons are, first, that it's a rather simple approach and relatively fast. Standardized, computer-readable tests help reduce a teacher's

workload. Secondly, education is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are notoriously slow to change. Regardless of whether or not the developer agrees with the current emphasis on testing, it's a part of modern education and will have to be included in serious games. Fortunately, not all of the methods of assessment need to be integrated into the game itself. The most obvious way to assess content knowledge is using traditional types of testing, such as multiple-choice questions, either in the game or out of it. Other options are interviews, based around particular problems, general problem solving, surveys, or a mixture of observation, tests, and interviews. On the other hand, traditional methods of grading and testing may be problematic. Does a student's grade really reflect the student's progress in the material or the teacher's abilities? These questions underscore the difficulty faced by designers of serious games” (p 133-134). Michael & Chen provide a cursory critique of this position, with some gestures toward using the games themselves to test, presuming that the game embodies a simulation that is relatively authentic to the subject matter, but for the most part the authors assume that this decision is out of the hands of the audience of the book. The primary journal in this area is Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, edited by David Crookall and published by Sage Publications. As described on the journal's web page (http://www.unice.fr/sg/), “Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Theory, Practice and Research (S&G) is the world's foremost scientific review devoted to academic and applied issues in the increasingly popular methodology of simulation/gaming as used in education, training, consultation and research round the world. Simulation/gaming is to be taken in its broadest meaning, to encompass such areas as simulation, computerized simulation, internet simulation, gaming, simulation/gaming, serious games, educational games, training games, e-games, internet games, video games, policy exercises, planning exercises, debriefing, analytic discussion, post-experience analysis, modeling, virtual reality, game theory, role-play, role-playing, play, active learning, experiential learning, learning from experience, toys, augmented reality, playthings, structured exercises, education games, alternative purpose games, edutainment, digital game-based learning, immersive learning, brain games, social impact games, games for change, games for

good, synthetic learning environments, synthetic task environments. This bi-monthly journal examines the methodologies and explores their application to real-world problems and situations.” Articles in Simulation & Gaming include a broad spectrum of theoretical positions, due in part to the broad intended audience. We will examine a few sample articles in detail here: “A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games” (Peters & Vissers, 2004), “EMERGO: A methodology and toolkit for developing serious games in higher education” (Nadolski et al., 2008), and “Pervasive learning games: Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes” (Thomas, 2006). Peters & Vissers, like Quinn and Aldrich, seem to approach serious games from the tradition of corporate training and Instructional Systems Design. Their approach to the debriefing process is nearly behaviorist in nature: “Simulation games are widely used for training or education (see Lane, 1995). Participants are brought into an artificial environment that resembles a specific real-life situation so that they may acquire knowledge and skills pertaining to some real-life situation. Specific knowledge and specific skills are to be acquired and, as a rule, it is known in advance what knowledge and skills should be acquired. Thus, it is possible to set criteria for the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and it is possible to observe whether participants reach the required level of knowledge and skills. An account system might be used to support this type of observation. Such a system may rate behaviors (e.g., in terms of tokens or score points) according to a predefined rating procedure. In the final debriefing session a concluding assessment can be made, perhaps also relying on a test to determine if learning objectives have been achieved” (p. 75). Peters & Vissers do describe several different purposes for which simulation games might be used, however, and if for some purposes they retain their behaviorist or objectivist outlook, in other cases they begin to approach a more constructivist point of view. “If a simulation game is used for job performance prediction (often referred to as exercise), the performance of a participant is compared to some ideal model that may include decision making, administrative, and interpersonal skills necessary for effective

management and leadership (Thornton & Morris, 2001)” (p. 76). “In the case of an exploratory simulation game, the debriefing facilitator cannot claim that he or she knows how to proceed, or even that there is a single best way to proceed. Participants themselves may decide on a course of action and develop performance criteria (individually or collectively) while participating in the simulation game. The debriefing session should support this process: assisting participants in making an analysis of events and processes in the simulation game, of their own contributions to these processes, and helping them to draw conclusions (in line with a participant’s own value system) that may be relevant for future real life situations” (p. 77). “If the focus is on collective learning, a joint reconstruction and analysis is imperative, because problems within or between groups or organizations always are interactive in nature. They are the result of interaction (cooperation, conflict, misunderstanding, etc.) between different persons. Therefore, if learning from the simulation game is aimed at (whether or not the performance is considered successful), it must be analyzed how this interaction evolved. In such a joint debriefing, all participants need to be present and contribute to the analysis.” (p. 77) Although Peters & Vassers do not refer directly to constructivism and sociocultural activity, they do draw on some related traditions within the field of industry training: “In the literature on debriefing, learning is almost invariably described as a process taking place within individuals. If a simulation game aims at learning by individual participants, and if participants do not know each other, this view on learning may suffice. However, in an existing group of participants, issues of distributed cognitions (Salomon, 1993), collective learning (Miner & Anderson, 1999), or organizational learning (Senge, 1990) may present themselves. Some examples of concrete simulation games’ objectives representing this cluster of issues are: encouraging mutual understanding, dealing with interpersonal conflict, improving communication, creating a shared vision, team building, joint problem solving and decision making, assessment, and testing of procedures. Such objectives (often to be found in the realm of exploratory simulation games) require that the debriefing is focusing on group-level phenomena rather than individual knowledge and skills” (p. 80).

By contrast, Nadolski et al. explicitly identify constructivism as a theory of learning: “We see a growing demand for new ways of learning that are often based on constructivist principles” (p. 338). However, Nadolski et al. Are also coming from an ISD tradition, with its inherent objectification of learning: “This article has an instructional design perspective and focuses on the use of the methodology and toolkit by case developers and the use of its resulting cases by students” (p. 340). There is a constant tension in their work between these two realms. They cite the need for “meaningful” activity, “Situated learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) emphasizes that learning environments need to offer realistic situations in which learning through meaningful practice takes place, the premise being that the acquisition of complex cognitive skills is context dependent and occurs most effectively in a relevant context (Anderson, 1993; Brown et al., 1989; Kolb, 1984)” (p. 340), and note the importance of providing communicative opportunities during learning: “In the study environment, students can conduct conversations, visit locations, use equipment or tools, participate in discussions, and so on.” (p. 344). Here, they again display a tension between knowledge as object and knowledge as social construction. “For learning to actually take place, students need to digest and store their impressions and attach personal meaning to them” (p. 344). Most of the article deals with game design and development methodology of casebased simulation games using the EMERGO game development toolkit, which is intended to make the production of such games more streamlined and efficient, but the authors also evaluated the learner experience in games created with the system. “A small group of students from the Open University of the Netherlands (n = 8) used three EMERGO cases (the first three out of the five mentioned above) when taking their course in environmental policy for regular credit points. The estimated study time of these three cases was 22 hours; cases showed increasing complexity and decreasing support” (p. 349). Amazingly, there was no attempt to evaluate the products of the toolkit from any kind of learning standpoint: “Because the actual learning results were not measured during this evaluative pilot study, it still remains unclear whether the cases were also effective. Indeed, more research is needed to see whether such serious games are beneficial for learning and whether the EMERGO methodology and toolkit also support

the delivery of more effective scenario-based serious games” (p. 351). Finally, Thomas offers a fascinating account of the phenomenon of “pervasive games” and their use in education. Pervasive games use multiple media platforms— mobile phones, computers, PDAs, fax machines, television, and newspapers—to deliver game content in real time (p. 41). Thomas immediately identifies the sociocultural context as critical: “In this article, I examine the implications of pervasive gaming and pervasive and ubiquitous computing for learning, suggesting that of primary importance is not the use of so-called pervasive technologies but the social processes that connect learners to communities of devices, people, and situations” (p. 42). Thomas suggests that the education process fostered by the pervasive game becomes mutually constituting with the “real world”: “In pervasive games, the game world is the everyday world. But the social implications of pervasive gaming do not end at the mere fact that the games are part and parcel of everyday life. Sotamaa (2002) suggests that pervasive games alter the social landscape in which the player exists: just as the real environment infers meaning on the game, the game informs the real world” (p. 45). The social nature of pervasive learning is clarified here: “Pervasive learning is a social process that connects learners to communities of devices, people, and situations so that learners can construct relevant and meaningful learning experiences, that they author themselves, in locations and at times that they find meaningful and relevant.” (p. 45) Thomas is strongly constructivist, but does not present research results; this article represents, rather, a call to research this area further. Other articles of interest in Simulation & Gaming include “Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games” (Habgood, Ainsworth & Benford, 2005), “Enhancing environmental awareness: Ecological and economic effects of food consumption” (Hansmann et al., 2005), “Exploring interactive stories in an HIV/AIDS learning game: HEALTHSIMNET” (Dobson & Ha. 2008), “Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes Review and Research Proposals” (Wilson et al., 2009), “Teaching with game-based learning management systems: Exploring a pedagogical dungeon” (Carron, Marty & Heraud, 2008), “The convention game” (Horn, 1999), “Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research” (Wideman et al.,

2009), “When worlds collide: Developing game-design partnerships in universities” (Lynch & Tunstall, 2008), “Building adaptive game-based learning resources: The integration of IMS Learning Design and ” (Burgos et al., 2008) and “A survey of simulation game users, former-users, and never-users” (Faria & Wellington, 2009). These titles show the range of topics covered in this journal, with a similarly broad range of theoretical groundings.

Educational  literature  outside  of  learning  games As noted above, we will not attempt to deal with the literature categories not specifically devoted to learning games or game design, but a brief summary is provided here of those other categories, with examples of journals and topics in each. In the category of educational technology not specific to games, we find articles in journals such as Computers & Education (e.g. Lee & Chen, 2009; Papastergiou, 2009; Kim, Park & Baek, 2009; Akkerman, Admiraal & Huizenga, 2009; Jarmon et al., 2009), Computers in Human Behavior (e.g. Ciavarro, Dobson & Goodman, 2008 and Burgos, Tattersall, & Koper, 2007), British Journal of Educational Technology (e.g. Dondi & Moretti, 2007, Connolly, Stansfield, & Hainey, 2007; Kearney, 2007; Becker, 2007; Oliver & Carr, 2009; Kearney & Pivec, 2007; Alkan & Cagiltay, 2007; and Williams et al., 2007), Educational Technology Research & Development (Dickey, 2006; Dickey, 2007; Amory, 2007; Kinzie & Joseph, 2008), TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning (e.g. Stowell & Shelton, 2008; Simpson, 2005), Technology & Learning (e.g. McLester, 2005), Internet & Higher Education (e.g. Kiili, 2005; Hämäläinen et. al., 2006), International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (e.g. Jong et al., 2008), Journal of Research on Technology in Education (e.g. Gros, 2007), Technology & Learning (e.g. McLester, 2005), Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (e.g. Westera et al., 2008), Digital Creativity (e.g. Moschini, 2006), Interactive Learning Environments (Hong et. al., 2009), Educational Media International (Rieber & Noah, 2008), New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia (Marković et al., 2007), Journal of Media Practice (Ashton, 2009), Learning, Media, & Technology (de Freitas, 2006;

Williamson, 2007), and the Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology (e.g. Branston, 2006). The theoretical orientation of these journals varies widely, and even articles within specific journals can vary in theoretical orientation. For example, in the British Journal of Educational Technology, Dondi & Moretti (2007) defines a “methodological proposal for learning games selection and quality assessment” in terms of “Didactic strategies” such as “Indication of the average play time,” “Coherence between the game strategy and learning objectives,” and “Coherence of the social and collaborative activity with the objectives” (p. 510), but provides little detail in how to use these criteria. Kearney (2007) proposes a software assessment program that will include “several cognitive tests,” but offers only weakly constructivist theoretical groundings. Olivier & Carr (2009) describe a qualitative research study looking explicitly at games from “a social perspective on learning,” evaluating learning based on ability to participate within the social context. Alkan & Cagiltay (2007) describe a method of studying how players learn to play digital games by tracking eye movements, but give no pedagogically theoretical orientation at all. Moving beyond technology studies, we find a smaller sample of serious game topics in more general educational or education theory literature. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education offers Sefton-Green's 2005 article, “ Changing the Rules? Computer Games, Theory, Learning, and Play.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society includes “More than a metaphor: the education of Joseph Knecht” (Roberts, 2008). In Teacher Librarian we find an exploration of virtual worlds in “The potential, the pitfalls, and the promise of multi-user virtual environments: getting a Second Life” (Lamb & Johnson, 2009), and we find additional articles in Active Learning in Higher Education (Lean et al., 2006), NEA Today (Walker, 2009), Education Week (Ash, 2009), and Educause Review (Alexander, 2008). Most of these are at least weakly constructivist in orientation. Finally, articles on serious games appear occasionally in subject-specific educational journals such as Modern Language Journal (Marsh & Tainio, 2009), Reading Teacher (McGee & Ukrainetz, 2009), Teaching Children Mathematics (Brown, 2009), or

Medical Teacher (Bochennek et al., 2007), where again we usually see at least a weakly constructivist approach, and industry-specific journals such as ANZ Journal of Surgery (Collins, 2009), Pediatrics (Paperny & Starn, 1989), World Patent Information (de Parga, 2009), and Journal of Cleaner Production (Dieleman & Huisingh, 2006). Pedagogy tends not to be the focus of these journals, though some theoretical justification might be offered in the form of a cite of Vygotsky, Piaget, or Gee.

Game  design,  game  studies Finally, it is worthwhile to consider the literature of game studies, or “ludology,” directly. (This field is not to be confused with “game theory,” which is related to economics and behavior prediction.) We will consider three texts in this field: Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004), A Theory of Fun for Game Designers (Koster, 2005), and Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, and Playtesting Games (Fullerton, Swain & Hoffman, 2004). The first two are true game design references, extensively quoted in game design literature and in serious games literature, and as we will see, both express strongly constructivist stances. Game Design Workshop is intended more as a practical reference for the process of game development, rather than focusing specifically on design theory, and as a consequence spends little time on the psychology of games or learning. Salen and Zimmerman make their positions clear in the first pages, in terms strongly reminiscent of Rogoff's three planes of observation: “Most of the chapters of this book are organized under the heading of a game design schema. A schema is a way of framing and organizing knowledge. A game design schema is a way of understanding games, a conceptual lens that we can apply to the analysis or creation of a game. What are some of the game design schemas we employ in the course of this book? We look at games through the mathematical lens of probability. We look at them as contexts for social interaction. We look at games as storytelling systems. We look at them as sites of cultural resistance.

We organize these varied points of view according to three primary schemas, each one containing a cluster of related schemas. Our primary schemas are RULES, PLAY, and CULTURE: •

RULES contains formal game design schemas that focus on the essential logical and mathematical structures of a game.

•

PLAY contains experiential, social, and representational game design schemas that foreground the player's participation with the game and with other players.

•

CULTURE contains contextual game design schemas that investigate the larger cultural contexts within which games are designed and played. These schemas not only organize ways of looking at games but also, when taken

as a whole, offer a general method for the study of game design. Each schema brings certain aspects of games to light, while building on previous schemas to arrive at a multivalent understanding of games. The three primary schemas are neither mutually exclusive nor scientific in nature. We have not created them as a taxonomy, on order to say 'this is a feature of RULES, not a feature of PLAY.' Rather, they are conceptual design tools to help focus our thinking for particular design problems” (p. 5-6). This last paragraph, in particular, emphasizes the conscious awareness of metaphor and frame of reference that Salen and Zimmerman bring to their analysis of games. There are many sections of the text that display strongly constructivist grounding, but the opening chapter of the section on Culture highlights this alignment. Salen and Zimmerman cite Piaget when discussing how players learn the rules of games: “Piaget's model for the acquisition of rules sheds light on a number of issues relating to social play. When a child acquires an understanding of a game's rules, he or she also develops an understanding of the social contract of a game. Like adults, children at this stage of development are able to see rules as structures that describe how players are to relate to one another within the game, both formally and socially” (p. 474). “Additionally, Piaget's developmental model has a loose correlation to the way an

adult player comes to know a game. When a player is initially brought into the magic circle of a game, a player is often not yet familiar with specific rules. Instead, a player has a vague sense of the game's operation, similar to a child in Stage One of Piaget's model. When a player is learning to play a game, the mechanisms of the game seem fixed and the player's attention is focused on learning how to play, like a child in Stage Two. The more that a player plays a game the more she sees the game as a system open to manipulation (albeit one whose binding authority must be respected). When the player gets stuck in the middle of a computer adventure game, for example, she might purchase a strategy guide or go online to find a walkthrough guide. Later in her play experience, she might download a hack, design her own level, or start a fan web page. The play patterns of an experienced player demonstrate an understanding of the game as something that is amenable to change” (p. 475). Although the work of Piaget being referenced here is some of his earlier stagebased theory, Salen and Zimmerman appropriate it in a flexible way that allows them to bring some sociocultural aspects of gaming and game learning into sharper focus. Salen and Zimmerman then go on to describe how players interact with both the rules of the game, transforming and being transformed by them, and with the social context of the game itself: “Whether describing the way a child comes to know the rules of Marbles or the way an adult gradually enters into a game's fan community, the rules of a game are experienced and transformed through social play. In Defining Play, we identified transformative play as an instance of play when free movement within the more rigid structure of a game actually changes the game structure itself. We can also consider transformative play from a social play point of view, a phenomenon we call transformative social play. “In transformative social play, players use the game context to transform social relationships. They actively engage with the rule system of a game, manipulating it in order to shift, extend, or subvert their relations with other players” (p. 475). “Ideal rules refer to the “official” regulations of a game, the rules written in a

player's guide to Zelda or printed on the inside cover of a game of Candyland. Real rules, on the other hand, are the codes and conventions held by a play community. Real rules are a consensus of how the game ought to be played” (p. 475). “The real rules matter a great deal to players, for they transform the formal structure to support existing social relations. Players often dismissed the basic rules as “just things you had to do”--they were not included among the list of “real rules” reported by the children. As Hughes notes, 'Players were far more interested in the rules they generated and controlled, and that they could use to introduce excitement, variety, strategy, and fun into the game.' This elaboration of basic, ideal rules into a complex set of real rules is transformative social play. It is not that the basic rules of the game undergo a radical change; rather, they are experienced within a social context that decreases their value in favor of a socially-biased ruleset over which players have more control” (p. 476). Salen and Zimmerman invite other authors to play in their sandbox in The game design reader: a rules of play anthology (2006). Unlike Salen and Zimmerman's substantial tome of scholarly work, Koster's short book A Theory of Fun for Game Designers is meant to be a quick and easy read, but prompts a surprising depth of thought. The format of the book is unusual, being short and wide, with only a couple of hundred pages. Each set of facing pages constitutes a condensation of a presentation Koster has delivered to audiences of game developers. On the left, text provides thoughtful consideration of what exactly happens when we are having “fun.” On the right, quirky illustrations and cartoons approach the same topic from a different direction. Although the only educational researcher mentioned by name is Csikszentmihalyi, Koster finds his way to a strongly constructivist viewpoint through his exploration of “fun.” He begins by listing ways in which we experience pleasure, describing the chemicals our bodies use to react to various events. “One of the subtlest releases of chemicals [in the brain] is at that moment of triumph when we learn something or master a task. This almost always causes us to break out into a smile. After all, it is important to

the survival of the species that we learn—therefore our bodies reward us for it with moments of pleasure. There are many ways we find fun in games, and I will talk about the others. But this is the most important” (p. 40). It would be easy to conclude at this point that Koster is leaning toward a mechanistic view of mind and thought. But his explorations take a surprising turn. “Exploring conceptual spaces is critical to our success in life. Merely understanding a space and how the rules make it work isn't enough, though. We also need to understand how it will react to change to exercise power over it. This is why games progress over time. There are no games that take just one turn” (p. 56). Here, Koster begins to sketch the connection between learners and their contexts. Koster almost seems to be channeling Piaget's work with snails here: “I have been using the analogy of a trellis. If people are the plants and the game is the trellis, it should not surprise us that the plants are shaped to some degree by the trellis. It also shouldn't surprise us that the plants grow to escape the trellis. Both of these are merely in the nature of the plant. It learns from its environment and its inborn nature both, and it works to escape those confines, to progress, to reproduce and be the tallest plant in the garden” (p. 178). Regrettably, not all game design literature is so intriguing or thoughtful. While there is nothing wrong the practical advice provided in Fullerton, Swain, and Hoffman's Game Design Workshop , it simply doesn't have the philosophical depth of the previous two texts. “Our goal in this book is to make you a game designer. We want to give you the skills and tools you'll need to take your ideas and craft them into games that aren't mere extensions of the games already on the market. We want to enable you to push the envelop on game design, and the key to doing this is process. The approach you will learn here is about internalizing a method of iterative design and playtesting that will make you more creative and productive, while helping you to avoid many of the pitfalls that plague game designers” (p. 21). The theoretical stance here is clear. Knowledge is an object. There is no sense of the social structure of games, or of games as learning environments, intentionally or otherwise.

Conclusions We can see from this review that the serious games literature is not monolithic with respect to educational theory, but rather highly diverse. With participants entering the field from so many different backgrounds, this can hardly be surprising. Based on the work reviewed, serious games can and probably should align strongly with constructivism. We can hope that this will become more the rule than the exception as this young field develops.

References Abt, C. (1970). Serious Games . New York: The Viking Press. Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., & Huizenga, J. (2009, February). Storification in History education: A mobile game in and about medieval Amsterdam. Computers & Education, 52(2), 449-459. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.014 Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: a comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Alexander, B. (2008, July). Games for Education: 2008. Educause Review, 43 (4), 64-65. Alkan, S., & Cagiltay, K. (2007, May). Studying computer game learning experience through eye tracking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 538542. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00721.x Amory, A. (2007, February). Game object model version II: a theoretical framework for educational game development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(1), 51-77. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9001-x Ash, K. (2009, April 8). High-Tech Simulations Linked to Learning. Education Week, 28 (28), 20-23.

Ashton, D. (2009, April). Thinking with games: exploring digital gaming imaginaries and values in higher education. Journal of Media Practice, 10(1), 57-68. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1386/jmpr.10.1.57_1 BBC (2008, September 16). Computer games drive social ties. BBC News. Retrieved May 11, 2009 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7619372.stm. Becker, K. (2007, May). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478-488. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00711.x Bell, P., Adkins, A., Gamble, R., & Schultz, L. (2009, April). Enthalpy Costs of Making and Breaking Bonds: A Game of Generating Molecules with Proper Lewis Structures. Journal of Chemical Education , 86(4), 450-453. Bochennek, K., Wittekindt, B., Zimmermann, S., & Klingebiel, T. (2007, November). More than mere games: a review of card and board games for medical education. Medical Teacher, 29(9/10), 941-948. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/01421590701749813 Branston, C. (2006, April). From Game Studies to Bibliographic Gaming: Libraries Tap into the Video Game Culture. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology , 32(4), 24-29. Brown, C. (2009, April). More than just number. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(8), 474-479. Burgos, D., Moreno-Ger, P., Sierra, J., Fernández-Manjón, B., Specht, M., & Koper, R. (2008, September). Building adaptive game-based learning resources: The integration of IMS Learning Design and . Simulation & Gaming, 39(3), 414-431. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878108319595 Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., & Koper, R. (2007, November). Re-purposing existing generic games and simulations for e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2656-2667. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.08.002

Carron, T., Marty, J., & Heraud, J. (2008, September). Teaching with game-based learning management systems: Exploring a pedagogical dungeon. Simulation & Gaming, 39(3), 353-378. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878108319580 Ciavarro, C., Dobson, M., & Goodman, D. (2008, September 17). Implicit learning as a design strategy for learning games: Alert Hockey. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2862-2872. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.011 Collins, J. (2009, May 2). SE17 surgical education and training: a quest for excellence in a changing society. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 79, A73-A73. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.04930_17.x Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & Hainey, T. (2007, May). An application of gamesbased learning within software engineering. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 416-428. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00706.x Crookall, D. and Oxford, R. L. (1990). Simulation, gaming, and language learning. New York: Newbury House Publishers. de Freitas, S. (2006, December). Using games and simulations for supporting learning. Learning, Media, & Technology, 31(4), 343-358. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/17439880601021967 de Parga, L. (2009, June). The IP game, a playful way to amuse and train young people. World Patent Information, 31(2), 111-116. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2008.09.011 Dickey, M. (2007, June). Game design and learning: a conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 253-273. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9004-7 Dickey, M. (2006, June). Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating Adventure Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54 (3), 245-

263. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-006-8806-y Dieleman, H., & Huisingh, D. (2006, May 15). Games by which to learn and teach about sustainable development: exploring the relevance of games and experiential learning for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9-11), 837-847. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.031 Dobson, M., & Ha, D. (2008, March). Exploring interactive stories in an HIV/AIDS learning game: HEALTHSIMNET. Simulation & Gaming, 39(1), 39-63. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878107308093 Dondi, C., & Moretti, M. (2007, May). A methodological proposal for learning games selection and quality assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 502-512. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00713.x Faria, A., & Wellington, W. (2004, June). A survey of simulation game users, former-users, and never-users. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 178-207. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.11 77/10468781/263543 Fullerton, T., Swain, C. and Hoffman, S. (2004). Game design workshop: designing, prototyping, and playtesting games. San Francisco: CMP Books. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gee, J. (2003, June 20). From Video Games, Learning About Learning. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(41), B13. Gee, J. (2005, Summer). Good Video Games and Good Learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37. Gros, B. (2007, Fall2007). Digital Games in Education: The Design of GamesBased Learning Environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23-38.

Habgood, M., Ainsworth, S., & Benford, S. (2005, December). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 483-498. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878105282276 Hämäläinen, R., Manninen, T., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2006, January). Learning to collaborate: Designing collaboration in a 3-D game environment. Internet & Higher Education , 9(1), 47-61. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.12.004 Hansmann, R., Scholz, R., Francke, C., & Weymann, M. (2005, September). Enhancing environmental awareness: Ecological and economic effects of food consumption. Simulation & Gaming , 36(3), 364-382. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878105279116 Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., & Jameson, E. (2009, April). Designing Assessments and Assessing Designs in Virtual Educational Environments. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(2), 187-208. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9143-1 Hong, J., Hwang, M., Lu, C., Cheng, C., Lee, Y., & Lin, C. (2009, April). Playfulness-based design in educational games: a perspective on an evolutionary contest game. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 15-35. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/10494820701483615 Horn, H. (1999, December). The convention game. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 456. Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009, August). Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53(1), 169-182. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.010 Jong, M., Shang, J., Lee, F., & Lee, J. (2008, January). Harnessing Computer Games in Education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 6(1), 1-

9. Kearney, P. (2007, May). Cognitive assessment of game-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 529-531. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00718.x Kearney, P., & Pivec, M. (2007, May). Sex, lies and video games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 489-501. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2007.00712.x Kiili, K. (2005, January). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet & Higher Education, 8(1), 13-24. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001 Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009, May). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800-810. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.004 Kinkley, J. (2009, April). Art Thief: An Educational Computer Game Model for Art Historical Instruction. Leonardo, 42 (2), 133-137. Kinzie, M., & Joseph, D. (2008, October). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 643-663. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9076-z Koster, R. (2005). A theory of fun for game designers. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press. Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2009, April). the potential, the pitfalls, and the promise of multi-user virtual environments: getting a Second Life. Teacher Librarian, 36(4), 6872. Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. (2006, November). Simulations and games: Use and barriers in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3),

227-242. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1469787406069056 Lee, C., & Chen, M. (2009, April). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: The effects of type of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 52(3), 530-542. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.008 Lynch, M., & Tunstall, R. (2008, September). When worlds collide: Developing game-design partnerships in universities. Simulation & Gaming, 39(3), 379-398. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878108319275 Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009, Summer). Other-Repetition as a Resource for Participation in the Activity of Playing a Video Game. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 153-169. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00853.x Marković, F., Petrovic, O., Kittl, C., & Edegger, B. (2007, December). Pervasive learning games: A comparative study. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia, 13(2), 93-116. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/13614560701712873 McGee, L., & Ukrainetz, T. (2009, April). Using Scaffolding to Teach Phonemic Awareness in Preschool and Kindergarten. Reading Teacher, 62(7), 599-603. McLester, S. (2005, October). Game plan. Technology & Learning, 26(3), 18-26. McMichael, A. (2007, February). PC Games and the Teaching of History. History Teacher, 40 (2), 203-218. Michael, D. and Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: games that educate, train, and inform. Boston: Thompson Course Technology PTR. Moschini, E. (2006, September). Designing for the smart player: usability design and user-centred design in game-based learning. Digital Creativity, 17(3), 140-147. Nadolski, R., Hummel, H., van den Brink, H., Hoefakker, R., Slootmaker, A., Kurvers, H., et al. (2008, September). EMERGO: A methodology and toolkit for

developing serious games in higher education. Simulation & Gaming, 39(3), 338-352. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878108319278 Oliver, M., & Carr, D. (2009, May). Learning in virtual worlds: Using communities of practice to explain how people learn from play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 444-457. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2009.00948.x Papastergiou, M. (2009, January). Digital Game-Based Learning in high school Computer Science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education , 52(1), 1-12. Paperny, D., & Starn, J. (1989, May). Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention by Health Education Computer Games: Computer-Assisted Instruction of Knowledge and Attitudes. Pediatrics, 83(5), 742. Peters, V., & Vissers, G. (2004, March). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 70-84. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878103253719 Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24, 5-12. Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging learning: designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Richardson, M. (2009, Summer2009). Using an Exploratory Internet Activity & Trivia Game to Teach Students about Biomes. Science Activities, 46(2), 19-24. Rieber, L., & Noah, D. (2008, June). Games, simulations, and visual metaphors in education: antagonism between enjoyment and learning. Educational Media International, 45(2), 77-92. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/09523980802107096 Roberts, P. (2008, July). More than a metaphor: the education of Joseph Knecht. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 16(2), 163-175. Retrieved May 10, 2009,

doi:10.1080/14681360802142138 Rogoff, b. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (p. 139-164). New York: Cambridge University Press. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (eds.) (2006). The game design reader: a rules of play anthology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sefton-Green, J. (2005, September). Changing the Rules? Computer Games, Theory, Learning, and Play. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 411-419. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/01596300500200318 Shaffer, D., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. (2005, October). Video Games and The Future of Learning. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 105-111. Shaftel, J., Pass, L., & Schnabel, S. (2005, January). Math Games for Adolescents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(3), 25-30. Simpson, E. (2005, September). What Teachers Need to Know about the Video Game Generation. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(5), 17-22. Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007, February). Mad City Mystery: Developing Scientific Argumentation Skills with a Place-based Augmented Reality Game on Handheld Computers. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 16(1), 5-29. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z

Stowell, T., & Shelton, B. (2008, September). Challenges, Frustrations and Triumphs of Remixing an Open Source Game Engine for Educational Purposes. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 32-37. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0194-1 Thomas, S. (2006, March). Pervasive learning games: Explorations of hybrid educational gamescapes. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 41-55. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878105282274 Walker, T. (2009, May). Spy games. NEA Today, 27(6), 30-31. Westera, W., Nadolski, R., Hummel, H., & Wopereis, I. (2008, October). Serious games for higher education: a framework for reducing design complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 24(5), 420-432. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00279.x Wideman, H., Owston, R., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., & Pitts, K. (2007, March). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & Gaming , 38(1), 9-29. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1177/1046878106297650 Williams, D., Ma, Y., Feist, S., Richard, C., & Prejean, L. (2007, May). The design of an analogical encoding tool for game-based virtual learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology , 38(3), 429-437. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00707.x Williamson, B. (2007, March). Viewpoints: Teaching and learning with games?. Learning, Media, & Technology, 32(1), 99-105. Retrieved May 10, 2009, doi:10.1080/17439880601141492 Wilson, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., Salas, E., Burke, C., Estock, J., et al. (2009, April). Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes Review and Research Proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217-266.