Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 277–297 | Cite as

Project NEO: A Video Game to Promote STEM Competency for Preservice Elementary Teachers

  • Richard N. Van Eck
  • Mark Guy
  • Timothy Young
  • Austin T. Winger
  • Scott Brewster
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

The need for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors for our future workforce is growing, yet fewer students are choosing to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics areas, and many are underprepared, in part because elementary school preservice teachers are also underprepared. This National Science Foundation-supported project developed and tested the first of several planned modules of a video game based on the Next Generation Science Standards. Results suggest that preservice teachers who play the video game demonstrate improved science content knowledge. The study also found that preservice teachers had positive attitudes toward video games as instructional tools. Implications for preservice teacher education relating to games and science education are discussed.

Keywords

Video games Science Preservice teacher education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Atwood, V., & Atwood, R. (1995). Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of what causes night and day. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., Bass, H., Sleep, L., & Thames, M. (2005). A theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Paper presented at The Fifteenth ICMI Study: The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics, May 15–21, 2005, State University of Sao Paolo at Rio Claro, Brazil. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/G-math/ICMI/ball_ICMI_prop_oct11.doc
  5. Baltra, A. (1990). Language learning through computer adventure games. Simulation and Gaming, 21(4), 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbas, A., & Psillos, D. (1997). Causal reasoning as a base for advancing a systemic approach to simple electrical circuits. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, K. A., & Johnson, W. L. (2010). Developing serious games for learning language-in-culture. In R. Van Eck (Ed.), Gaming and cognition: Theories and perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 282–315). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  8. Beggs, T. (2000). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology. In Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN (ED446764).Google Scholar
  9. Bell-Basca, B., Grotzer, T. A., Donis, K., & Shaw, S. (2000, April). Using domino and relational causality to analyze ecosystems: Realizing that what goes around comes around. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  10. Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.Google Scholar
  11. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broussard, S. R., La Lopa, J. M., & Ross-Davis, A. (2007). Synergistic knowledge development in interdisciplinary teams. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 36, 129–133.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, A., Davis, J., Onarheim, K., & Quitadamo, I. (2002). Carrots, velvet whips, and propeller beanies: Providing incentives that facilitate institutional change. In D. Willis, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1521–1523). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  15. Bunch, W., & Broughton, P. (2002). New instructional technology and faculty development: Negotiating the Titanic through the North Atlantic. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2002, No. 1, pp. 748–751).Google Scholar
  16. Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 22(2), 22–28.Google Scholar
  17. Bybee, R. W., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from http://sharepoint.snoqualmie.k12.wa.us/mshs/ramseyerd/Science Inquiry 1 20112012/What is Inquiry Sciecne (long version).pdf
  18. Bybee, R. W., et al. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Center for Improving Instruction.Google Scholar
  19. California Council on Science and Technology. (2010). The preparation of elementary school teachers to teach science in California. Sacramento: CCST. Retrieved February 5 from the World Wide Web at http://www.ccst.us/publications/2010/2010K-6.php
  20. CCF, Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K–12 Science Education Standards & National Research Council. (2012). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Christiansen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  23. CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992a). An anchored instruction approach to cognitive skill acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In J. W. Regian & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to automated instruction (pp. 135–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992b). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.Google Scholar
  27. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  28. Dede, C. (2000–2003). Museum-related multimedia and virtual environments for teaching and learning science. [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $359,510.Google Scholar
  29. Dede, C. (2003–2005). Studying situated learning and knowledge transfer in a multi-user environment. [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $784,244.Google Scholar
  30. Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. (2003). Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dewey, J. (1971). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Originally published in 1910.Google Scholar
  32. Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 22(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Durndell, A., Glissov, P., & Siann, G. (1995). Gender and computing: Persisting differences. Educational Research, 37(3), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ESA (2013). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved July 17, 2013 from, http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf
  36. Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes (TOSRA). Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited.Google Scholar
  37. Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Futurelab. (2005). Teaching with games: Teachers’ attitudes to games and learning. Topline survey results, taken from Ipsos MORI Teachers’ Omnibus Wave 4. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/project_reports/teaching_with_games/TWG_teachers_survey.pdf
  39. Gaydos, M., & Squire, K. (2010). Citizen science: Designing a game for the 21st century. In R. Van Eck (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  40. Gee, J. P. (2007a). Games and learning: Issues, perils and potentials. In J. P. Gee (Ed.), Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (pp. 129–174). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Gee, J. P. (2007b). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gehring, J. (2001). Not enough girls. Education Week, 20(35), 18–19.Google Scholar
  43. Glaser, R. (1994). Learning theory and instruction. In G. d’Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2. The state of the art (pp. 341–357). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Green, D. W. (1997). Explaining and envisaging an ecological phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (2006). Misconceptions-oriented standards-based assessment resources for teachers. Retrieved on August 1, 2014, from www.cfa.harvard.edu/sed/mosart/
  47. Hawk, P. P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Does certification matter? Journal of Teacher Education, May, 36(3), 13–15. doi: 10.1177/002248718503600303
  48. Hayden, K., & Ouyang, Y. (2009–2012). iQUEST: Investigators for quality understanding and engagement for students and teachers [ITEST project]. Sponsored by University Auxiliary and Research Services Corporation. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $1,493,541.Google Scholar
  49. Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Technical Report 2005–004. Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA441935
  50. Heiss, E. D., et al. (1950). Modern science teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Herbart, J. (1901). Outlines of educational doctrine. (C. DeGarmo, trans); A. Lange (Ed). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jarret, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). Generation M 2 : Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  55. Kennedy-Clark, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on using scenario-based virtual worlds in science education. Computers & Education, 57, 2224–2235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koch, M., Locwood, J., Malhotra, R., Harris, C., & Johnson, K. (2008–2012). Strategies: Girls innovating with technology as entrepreneurial engineers [ITEST project]. Sponsored by SRI International. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $1,599,208.Google Scholar
  59. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future. U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) Issue Brief #03-11. Retrieved November 3, 2012, at www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf
  60. Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., de Hoog, R., & Christoph, N. (2003). KM Quest: A collaborative Internet-based simulation game. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lim, K. (2002). Impacts of personal characteristics on computer attitude and academic users information system satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lott, K. H. (2003). Evaluation of a statewide science in-service and outreach program: Teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maddux, C., & Johnson, L. (2010). Information technology in higher education: Tensions and barriers. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayo, M. J. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education? Science, 323(5910), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McGinnis, J. R., & Watanabe, T. (1999, Spring). The use of research to inform the evaluation of the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 2, 91–104.Google Scholar
  67. McGinnis, J. R., Watanabe, T., Roth McDuffie, A., Kramer, S., & Shama, G. (1997). The Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation: Making sense of the enactment of reform in the preparation of specialist teachers of mathematics and science. In P. Rubba, P. Keig, & J. Rye, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 Association for the education of teachers of science (pp. 326–347). Pensacola, FL: Association for the Education of Teachers of Science.Google Scholar
  68. McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A. O., Parker, C. A., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mueller, J., Wood, W., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Retrieved February 5, 2014, from the World Wide Web at www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
  71. O’Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 36(3), 32–36.Google Scholar
  72. O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. OECD. (2012). Education at a glance indicators. [report]. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm
  74. Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000, April). Models and moves: Focusing on dimensions of causal complexity to achieve deeper scientific understanding. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441698.Google Scholar
  75. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2010). Americans and their gadgets. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP-Americans%20and%20their%20Gadgets.pdf
  77. Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Powell, S. D. (2015). Introduction to middle level education (3rd ed.). Pearson: Boston.Google Scholar
  79. Ray, B., & Coulter, G. A. (2010). Perceptions of the value of digital mini-games: Implications for middle school classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 92–100.Google Scholar
  80. Russell, M., O’Dwyer, L., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers’ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  82. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith, S. M., Smith, R., Smith, J., & Orgill, S. (2002). Qualtrics [online software]. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.Google Scholar
  84. Sneider, C., Bar, V., & Kavanagh, C. (2011). Learning about seasons: A guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review, 10, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Squire, K. (2008–2012). CAREER: Scientific role-playing games for 21st-century citizenship [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $795,809.Google Scholar
  86. Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School and Science Mathematics, 96(1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y., & Wind, A. P. (2011). Review of research on computer games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 127–221). Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
  89. Trumper, R. (2006). Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts—seasonal change—at a time of reform in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 879–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(2), 165–195.Google Scholar
  91. Van Eck, R. (2007). Six ideas in search of a discipline. In M. Spector, N. Seel, & K. Morgan (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education. New York: Sense Publishing.Google Scholar
  92. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Eck, R., & The AIM Lab at the University of Memphis (2006, February/March). Using games to promote girls’ positive attitudes toward technology. Innovate Journal, 2(3). Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=209
  94. Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 16, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wu, H. (1999). Preservice professional development of mathematics teachers. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/pspd2.pdf
  98. Yair, Y., Schur, Y., & Mintz, R. (2003). A “thinking journey” to the planets using scientific visualization technologies: Implications to astronomy education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard N. Van Eck
    • 1
  • Mark Guy
    • 1
  • Timothy Young
    • 1
  • Austin T. Winger
    • 1
  • Scott Brewster
    • 2
  1. 1.University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.Triad Interactive Media, Inc.JamestownUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options