Literature review: game-based learning in science education
Science Education for the 21st Century
Game-Based Learning in Science: A Post-progressive Approach
Principles of Games Applied to Science Education
Research questions
This design-based research study explores the hypothesis that games designed according to the principles of contemporary computer and video games might be a productive vehicle for supporting students in developing scientific argumentation skills in a manner productive for the 21st century. This study investigates the learning that occurs within game play designed around such a game, and in particular, whether a game designed around such principles can engage students in scientific thinking, specifically hypothesis formation and reasoning from evidence. First, we investigate how game structures scaffold students’ thinking.
(1)
(2)
(3)
In the context of this study, we pay particular attention to students’ argumentation, asking:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Finally, we investigate how situating a game in their physical environment affects students’ learning:
(1)
(2)
Methodology
To investigate these questions, we designed and enacted Mad City Mystery, a place-based augmented reality game with three groups of students in the spring and fall of 2005 (see Rosenbaum, Klopfer, and Perry, this issue for more discussion of augmented reality). These three classes were purposively chosen for convenience and to elicit a wide range of experiences (See Table I). Using design-based research techniques, this study pursues the design of an education curriculum built according to contemporary game-based learning theory, in an effort to both improve the quality of the design while also building more robust theory (Barab and Squire, 2004; Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992). The logic of the inquiry involves one of iterative cycles of design, theory generation, redesign, and theory refinement, with evidence for the validity of assertions residing in the quality of the educational outcomes in situ. The game was designed in accordance with contemporary game theory to encourage players (1) to inhabit professional roles with specific professional identities and perspectives, (2) to challenge players through multiple layers of narratives and tasks, (3) to situate the contested game space in a local/physical place where the meaning of a place is perceived from professional perspectives, (4) to scaffold learning through multimodal representations, and (5) to create social interactions that promote collaboration, competition, and reflection-in-action.
Table I.
Group
|
Number of participants
|
Ages/grades
|
Characteristics
|
Instructional context
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Elementary
|
18
|
4th grade (ages 9–11)
|
Middle class district; range of socio-economic backgrounds
|
Inquiry-based science unit; in preparation for larger inquiry-based game design activity
|
Middle school
|
3
|
12–13
|
Enrichment program on science education
|
|
Senior high
|
7
|
Grades 9–10 (ages 15–16)
|
Alternative high school, environmental science and media
|
Part of inquiry-based unit on the media, technology, and science
|
Graduate students
|
6
|
Augmented Reality Game Design Intervention: Mad City Mystery
Ivan Illyich is dead.Police claimed that he drowned while fishing by the south shore of Lake Mendota.Between January and the time of his death, Ivan put on 25 pounds and started drinking heavily. His health condition had deteriorated considerably.As one of his friends, your task is to investigate the case with two of your best friends. It is your duty to present a clear picture about the causes and effects of these to the public.
Overview of Problem
Roles
Challenges
Place-based Learning
Resources
In the context of play, players encounter up to 13 non-player characters (NPCs) who propel the narrative, engage the player, and introduce documents. Consistent with the game-based project orientation, the NPCs were written to be as engaging as possible. In this interaction, Bartleby, a friend of Ivan’s, talks to the doctor and environmental scientist. He tells both about their friendship and his fishing habits.
“Fishing really isn’t my thing, but it turned out to be fun, mainly because I got to hang out with Ivan. You see, I don’t really like fish, so I always gave mine to Ivan. Man did he like fish! I bet that you could find fish in his refrigerator at anytime. His wife Even really loved eating fish, especially catfish because they were so much juicier.”
This passage (part of a longer passage) tells the player that Bartleby did not eat fish, but that Ivan and his wife ate a lot of fish, particularly catfish (a bottom feeding fish that frequently has mercury). Bartleby then goes on to tell the doctor,
Honestly, the past few weeks I have been feeling kind of dizzy and dull. I don’t know what’s up though. I have to admit that doctors kind of freak me out, so I haven’t been to one. No offense Doc. I worked out everyday and am feeling much better now. Working out is great. Don’t you think? I don’t touch the booze, though. You might work out sometimes, too, I think.
In contrast, the Environmental Scientist reads,
Like Ivan, I worked at Eraser for a few months as a temp. eRaser is a typewriter correction fluid producer in the northwest side of Sun Prairie, not far from Token Creek… because of budget cuts, they are hiring more temporary workers which has, or had us both a little stressed.
Here, the doctor learns that Bartleby showed symptoms (dizziness, dullness) similar to Ivan, but does not drink alcohol, suggesting that perhaps there was a chemical at eRaser (which is TCE) that has serious side effects, causing players to (potentially) ask what the interactions with alcohol might be. The environmental scientist learns about the location of the plant, which happens to be upstream from Lake Mendota, placing them as a possible contaminator of the water source via TCE. The government official received similar information, but in addition received an ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registery) document describing the health effects of PCBs (See Appendix B). Figure 1 shows the placement and functional roles of the various NPCs in communicating the story.

Fig. 1.
Collaboration and Competition
In addition to receiving differentiated information and having differentiated tools, the game includes triggered events designed to support collaboration and reflection-in-action. The first and simplest form of these events is that players must decide as a group with whom they should speak, requiring them to anticipate, estimate, and debate the relative quality of information that might come from NPCs (done face to face). Earlier studies of augmented reality environments (cf. Klopfer and Squire, in press) suggested that having triggered actions was critical in promoting the activity as one of inquiry, where participants think through what information to pursue and see such interactions as trade-offs, as opposed to seeing the activity as a “treasure hunt” whereby the goal was to accumulate as many facts as possible. Thus, as players talk to NPCs, new NPCs become available, potentially giving students reasons to evaluate what they know and do not know. Further, NPCs were strategically placed in the game to introduce counter-theories or, at times, to induce reflection. Late in the game, Willy Lowman, an insurance investigator appears in the game, providing a well supported and argued counter-theory that Ivan’s death was suicide. Lowman says,
Let me tell you the truth. Ivan’s death was an insurance fraud. This man could not live without a full-time job, and he had problems finding one. His addiction to alcohol made him sick, and he simply lost the will to live. He was a good husband, but he could not afford to raise his family. What would you do if you were Ivan? He set everything up to make it look like an accident so that his wife could get insurance compensation from his death. I know that it is hard to swallow, but what evidence suggests otherwise?
Participants
4th Grade Class
Middle School Students
Alternative High School
Data Collection
Observations
Interviews
Assessment Instruments
Data Analysis
Results
4th Grade Class: The Eager Researchers
After reading the debriefing, the girls quickly walk to unlock their first NPC, Ivan’s coworker Bartleby, and another NPC, Ivan’s doctor. Each girl took turns reading her text aloud, occasionally skipping text to summarize the findings for the group. On occasion, each girl would ask to look at the text on another girl’s machine, leaning over her shoulder to read. Here, the student playing as the doctor reads aloud, interrupting to summarize from her interview with Ivan’s doctor:
-
Student Doctor (MD): …6–8 glasses per evening…That could have contributed to his deteriorating health and increased the risk of developing diabetes and stroke…
-
Student Scientist (SCI): True. Maybe he fell over (interrupted by MD)
-
Student Gov. Official (GOV) : Maybe has been eating ice cream and fishing, and he had diabetes…(interrupted).
Fifteen minutes later, the group meets another NPC, Mary Shirley, an Environmental Studies doctoral student. After the interview with Mary Shirley, the government official receives a document from her that she had picked up from Ivan’s wife, explaining the health effects of PCBs. (The team received the PCBs document from Mary Shirley, and the document reminded the team (especially the MD) of their earlier interview with Eve and Adam, Ivan’s wife and baby, from which the MD received a medical record that indicates Ivan’s baby was slightly underweight and showed abnormal responses in tests of infant behavior.)
-
GOV: PCBs…used as coolants…may remain dissolved, but most stick to organic particles and bottom sediments…reaching levels that may be many thousands of times higher than in water…PCBs had babies that weighed slightly less…showed abnormal responses in tests of infant behavior.
-
MD: Guys…since he likes to eat fish, maybe he ate PCBs…and the babies who are exposed to PCB….they weigh slightly less and they have abnormal tests of something…and the baby weighs less.
The passage begins with the government official summarizing her document for the others who did not receive it. This design feature of providing unique information for each character produced “jigsaw” discussions across most groups, although in a few cases the groups failed to notice that a team member had received unique information. The medical doctor makes a link among PCBs, the fish, breast milk (which is implied), and the baby, thinking that perhaps PCBs were present in the fish.
-
Teacher: (While walking) You girls have any theories about Ivan?
-
GOV: I think that he caught all these fishes and then he got these diseases and then he was fishing and then he got the diseases and then he died.
-
MD: Oh, NO. I think he…
-
SCI: I think we need to talk to more people…I think Ivan died…(interrupted).
-
GOV: Maybe he was drinking breast milk.
-
SCI: Yeah, really!!!
-
MD: No. Maybe Ivan ate the PCB and got the disease…
However, a few times this group (unlike the others) did stop to reflect on what they know. By this point, they were exposed to nearly all of the salient facts. They still were jumping from hypothesis to hypothesis, based on their latest interviews. At this point the government official read her interview aloud while her teammates read from their PDAs partially tuning in to what she read.
-
GOV: I think there are two things we need to figure out. One thing is how it affects grown-ups and the other thing is…if could just be a coincidence that he died fishing and it wasn’t really the reason that he died…could be like he was really sick and jump off the cliff….
-
MD: (Trying to propose an alternative theory) Maybe he was depressed….because he lost his job and gained lot of weight. He was drinking too much because he was depressed.
-
GOV: What I am saying is that it might be that he was really sick, it might be something else… (she attempted to call up her PCB document but was confused by the interface and unable to).
Middle School Students
On a similarly beautiful fall weekend, three middle school students volunteered to play Mad City Mystery to further their interest in game design. Like the 4th graders, this group eagerly jumped into the game. As they read the interview with their first character, Bartleby, the doctor queried the group:
-
MD: Did he (Bartleby) say he ate any of the fish? Because if he did…
-
SCI: Nope. He gave them all…
-
MD: Because if he did, it could mean that he got dizzy and fell out of his boat and drowned. It might have been something like the fish or something, but since he did not eat the fish, it might be something in the air. We just have to go to the next person.
The medical doctor hypothesized that perhaps eating fish (presumably on the spot, in the water) could cause someone to drown. Observing that Bartleby did not eat the fish, she raises a counter hypothesis: perhaps there was an airborne pollutant (an original hypothesis; no evidence of an airborne pollutant has been introduced). They decide to gather more evidence from Ivan’s doctor.
-
MD: Yeah. This guy is his doctor. He said Ivan was also suffering from dizziness like the other guy (Bartleby) we interviewed.
-
SCI: Ivan was feeling dizziness, too.
-
MD: Yeah, they both felt dizziness…I don’t think it was fish. I think it was something in the air.
Noting that both people felt dizzy, yet only Ivan is sick, they reject the hypothesis that eating fish was responsible for the illness. They tentatively concluded that it was an airborne illness. The group decided to review their interview with Bartleby.
-
GOV: What did the other guy (Bartleby) say?
-
SCI: He said that he had been working out because he had been feeling dizzy. Bartleby said that they worked at a place called eRaser and they were good friends. But they don’t like hiring full-time people…. That’s how they met.
-
MD: Since he is an alcoholic, he is more sus- (susceptible—he is not sure how to pronounce that word).
The next interview was with Captain Ahab, who introduced interconnectedness and complex causality.
-
SCI: It said that there could have been pollution running into the river.
-
MD: Is that what he told you?
-
SCI: Yeah…like we learned at science that poison on the grass and grasshopper at it…and then fish ate it and got the poison, and then people ate the fish and got the poison.
-
MD: Environmental magnification, I think. (What they have learned in class should be “biological magnification”)
-
GOV: Yeah, I notice that’s magnification.
-
MD: We just learned about that a while ago…biology.
At the end of the game, they have a short discussion about what happened in the game, coming to the conclusions that Ivan was poisoned by an airborne toxin (because he fell into the water while fishing), or that he committed suicide to obtain insurance money. The facilitator asks them to explain their case.
-
MD: I actually think it might be an insurance fraud because he knew how to swim. He was gaining weight, but he knew how to swim and everything.
-
GOV: Yeah, what if the toxic made him unable to swim? If he was dizzy and unconscious, it would not matter if he knew how to swim.
-
MD: Oh, yeah!
-
SCI: Maybe some people think it was an insurance fraud, but it might be an accident.
-
MD: Well, because he doesn’t have a job or anything. And he has a new-born child, he wants to keep them happy, healthy and everything. He has been drinking a lot so he gets depressed. He can’t think of any other ways to get money so he tries to make the insurance fraud look like an accident and that gives the family the money they need…like CSI.
-
GOV: Yeah!
-
GOV: It’s possible there were chemicals in the water…well, there were not chemicals in the water, but there were definitely chemicals in the fish. So it’s possible that it’s just accumulated and it happened when he was in the water. It’s a little bit less likely that way, but…
-
MD: Well, I think that might work also, but I can go either way.
Alternative High School Students
Upon reaching the first interview, the medical doctor proposes their first hypothesis.
-
MD: (reading the interview) Hey since you are a doctor, mind if I ask you something? For the past weeks I have been feeling dizzy and dull (now not reading). OH! HE (Bartleby) HAS BEEN POISONED BY THE FISH…(Reading continues). I don’t know what’s up though. I have to admit that doctors kind of freak me out, so I haven’t been to one. No offense, Doc. I worked out everyday and I am feeling much better now. Working out is great, don’t you think? I don’t touch the booze, though. You should work out sometimes, too, I think. (No longer reading). He has been poisoned….All right, I bet that’s why the other guy (Ivan) died.
-
GOV: In the concept map, they talked about mercury. (In post interviews, the participant also mentioned that he had heard of mercury advisories for fish).
-
MD: Yeah…I know, that’s why I am saying, and he gave those fish to that one guy so I guess…let’s go to the next point…(they saw Dr. Zhivago on map) we will go to a doctor or whatever.
They proceeded to read the next two interviews (which provide the story of Ivan’s life) without discussion. While he read, the doctor offered another proposition.
-
MD: This kid has been poisoned…I think…from the water. I bet that Ivan died of poisoning. The baby was feeling bad too, and so is the mother. Neither of them is overweight. (reading) “Diagnosis (Eve and Adam): Eve: Appears slightly overweight. Adam: Weighed 13.9 pounds (Average weight is 14.7 pounds for 5 months old baby). Showed abnormal responses in tests of infant behavior.” Remember that he was showing the same symptom as his wife and son, so they are…both of them are overweight but he was the only drinker, so it could have been alcohol.”
Here, the doctor sought to adjust his story by weaving together new evidence about the baby’s illness, while accounting for their different symptoms and life history. He proposed an interaction between poisons and alcohol. The government official picks up on this line of thinking.
-
GOV: Ok, let’s see poisoning. But is it like food (unclear) poisoning or is it poison (interrupted by the MD).
-
MD: I think it’s fish poison…cause there are tons of mercury in lake. (Note that thus far mercury has not been mentioned in game.
-
GOV: I know.
-
MD: I don’t think it would have been intentional poisoning, Andrew (Andrew is the Government Official).
-
GOV: Well, we don’t actually know any motivations yet.
-
MD: I mean because…remember the wife and the child were showing sings of being overweight (Adam is slightly underweight) and so was the dad…wife and child…not drinker so.. it could have been alcohol.
-
GOV: Yeah.
-
MD: And if they were all eating fish so that’s the only thing we know they are consuming.
-
GOV: Right…(unclear).
-
MD: I remember Bartlely or whatever his name was…he wasn’t eating the fish. He was giving them to…
-
GOV: He did not fish with Ivan?
-
MD: But he gives the fish to Ivan.
The group proceeded through the next interviews in similar fashion, dialectically devising theories and checking hypotheses. Finally, the group decided to check a sample from a fish that has washed ashore to check for signs of mercury.
-
SCI: (paraphrasing) Big walleye…Toxic test result..allowable limit…doesn’t have any amazing mercury…
-
MD: (interrupting) All right. Let’s go to Mary Shirley!
-
GOV: (talking to MD) mercury poisoning…I know it speaks right to you.
-
MD: I know it is positive…positive answer.
Next, the group encounters Willy Lowman, which elicits an emotional response from the MD.
-
MD: …he (Willy Lowman) is wrong. I think obviously the runoff from something…put mercury in the lake. The catfish ate…the catfish consumed the plankton and absorbed the mercury, and then he ate the catfish and brought some home for his wife. That’s why his wife and kid are sick. And he is sick. And the wife transferred it to the baby through breast milk, but not substantially. And the kid suffering from nervous disability so honestly he (Ivan) had died of mercury or some…
After meeting Lowman, the group returns to a room for debriefing. As they review evidence (stored on their PDAs), they note some data that they had missed, eventually revising their hypothesis and generating a new narrative explanation in face of evidence.
-
GOV: (Reviewing secret document he received) For TCE…symptoms of headache, dizziness, nausea, and unconsciousness…Bartleby said he was…(interrupted).
-
MD: So TCE. We never found anything about TCE though.
-
GOV: I think we did.
-
SCI: We did in the fishery talks.
-
MD: So it may not have been mercury. Could have been TCE!
In post interviews, the teacher communicated surprise with the extent to which students were engaged by this activity. In e-mail he wrote,
The students that you worked with all have a history of poor school performance and have difficulty learning in a traditional school environment/classroom. As you probably gleaned, some of them also have issues with communication! The fact that they were engaged and excited for an extended period of time is a great sign for the power of your design and the associated technology and delivery system. You are definitely on to something! The students I talked with on Monday are very interested in trying to create a game that they can share with other students at our school. Is there any way that we can get rights to the engine that you used to create Mad City Mystery?
Cross case discussion
Reading, Comprehension, and Communication
Scientific Argumentation and Literacy
Although previous research has stressed the difficulties that students have in scientific argumentation (Kuhn, 1999), these findings suggest that some secondary students are capable of one particular sort of scientific argumentation, within at least this context. Consider how evidence, rationale, hypotheses, and theory are developed in the exchange reported in the high school case (Table II).
Table II.
Transcript
|
Forms of scientific thinking
|
---|---|
MD: This kid has been poisoned…I think…from the water. I bet that Ivan died of poisoning. The baby was feeling bad too, and so is the mother. Neither of them is overweight.
|
Hypothesis: they are poisoned by waterborne illness.
|
Evidence: All experience the same basic symptoms.
|
|
Evidence: Baby and Mother are not overweight.
|
|
(reading) “Diagnosis (Eve and Adam): Eve: Appears slightly overweight. Adam: Weighed 13.9 pounds (Average weight is 14.7 pounds for 5 months old baby). Showed abnormal responses in tests of infant behavior.” Remember that he was showing the same symptom as his wife and son, so they are…both of them are overweight but he was the only drinker, so it could have been alcohol.”
|
Evidence: Mother is slightly overweight. Misreads that baby is underweight.
|
Hypothesis: Alcohol could be the cause as Ivan is the only one drinking.
|
|
GOV: Ok, let’s see poisoning. But is it like food (unclear) poisoning or is it poison (interrupted by the MD).
|
Question: Seeking more evidence to determine the source of the poison.
|
MD: I think it’s fish poison… cause there are tons of mercury in lake. (Note that thus far mercury has not been mentioned in game).
|
Hypothesis: Fish poison.
|
Evidence: mercury from lake (prior experience).
|
|
GOV: I know.
|
Confirms hypothesis.
|
MD: I don’t think it would have been intentional poisoning, Andy (Andy is the Government Official)
|
Raises and rejects counter-hypothesis.
|
GOV: Well, we don’t actually know any motivations yet.
|
Notes lack of evidence.
|
MD: I mean because…remember the wife and the child were showing sings of being overweight (Adam is slightly underweight) and so was the dad…wife and child…not drinker so.. it could have been alcohol.
|
Revives alcohol hypothesis.
|
GOV: Yeah.
|
Agreement.
|
MD: And if they were all eating fish so that’s the only thing we know they are consuming.
|
Points group to the fish evidence.
|
GOV: Right…(unclear).
|
|
MD: I remember Bartlely or whatever his name was…he wasn’t eating the fish. He was giving them to…
|
Raises counter evidencecontradicting hypothesis.
|
GOV: He did not fish with Ivan?
|
|
MD: But he gives the fish to Ivan.
|
Roles as Mechanisms for Learning
Place
Limitations of this study
Implications
Appendix A
-
C.8.1 Identify* questions they can investigate* using resources and equipment they have available
-
C.8.2 Identify* data and locate sources of information including their own records to answer the questions being investigated
-
C.8.3 Design and safely conduct investigations* that provide reliable quantitative or qualitative data, as appropriate, to answer their questions
-
C.8.4 Use inferences* to help decide possible results of their investigations, use observations to check their inferences
-
C.8.5 Use accepted scientific knowledge, models*, and theories* to explain* their results and to raise further questions about their investigations*
-
C.8.6 State what they have learned from investigations*, relating their inferences* to scientific knowledge and to data they have collected
-
C.8.7 Explain* their data and conclusions in ways that allow an audience to understand the questions they selected for investigation* and the answers they have developed
-
C.8.8 Use computer software and other technologies to organize, process, and present their data
-
C.8.9 Evaluate*, explain*, and defend the validity of questions, hypotheses, and conclusions to their investigations*
-
C.8.10 Discuss the importance of their results and implications of their work with peers, teachers, and other adults
-
C.8.11 Raise further questions which still need to be answered
Populations and Ecosystems
-
F.8.8 Show through investigations how organisms both depend on and contribute to the balance or imbalance of populations and/or ecosystems, which in turn contribute to the total system of life on the planet
Diversity and Adaptations of Organisms
-
F.8.9 Explain how some of the changes on the earth are contributing to changes in the balance of life and affecting the survival or population growth of certain species
-
F.8.10 Project how current trends in human resource use and population growth will influence the natural environment, and show how current policies affect those trends.