Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 513–526 | Cite as

Teaching with Videogames: How Experience Impacts Classroom Integration

  • Amanda Bell
  • Melissa Gresalfi
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

Digital games have demonstrated great potential for supporting students’ learning across disciplines. But integrating games into instruction is challenging and requires teachers to shift instructional practices. One factor that contributes to the successful use of games in a classroom is teachers’ experience implementing the technologies. But how does experience with a game actually affect teacher practice? We explored these issues by comparing years 1 and 2 of a middle-school mathematics teacher’s use of Boone’s Meadow, a digital problem-solving game around ratio and proportion, in her classroom. While the two implementations were quite similar, the teacher was able to give more problem solving agency to students and use students’ gameplay time much more productively in the second year, both for mathematical engagement and for immersing students in the narrative of the game. Findings point to the importance of considering the teacher’s role when designing digital games for learning.

Keywords

Classroom discourse Instructional activities and practices Middle school education Technology Games for learning Mathematics education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1252380. The authors are grateful for Isaac Nichols, Panchompoo Wisittanawat, and Katherine Chapman and their work on this project.

References

  1. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E. J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, A., & Gresalfi, M. (in press). The role of a digital game in a classroom ecology: Exploring teaching using videogames. In M. Young & S. Slota (Eds.), Exploding the castle. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
  5. Boaler, J. (2002). The development of disciplinary relationships: Knowledge, practice and identity in mathematics classrooms. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 42–47.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J., Zech, L., Schwarz, D., Barron, B., & Vye, N. (2000). Designs for environments that invite and sustain mathematical thinking. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms (pp. 275–324). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Dickey, M. D. (2007). Game design and learning: A conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., & Tondeur, J. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st-century teaching and learning. In H. Fives & M. Gregoire Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 403–418). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  14. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61.Google Scholar
  15. Fishman, B., Riconscente, M., Snider, R., Tsai, T., & Plass, J. (2014). Empowering educators: Supporting student progress in the classroom with digital games. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://gamesandlearning.umich.edu/agames.
  16. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & gaming, 33(4), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 170–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greeno, J. G., & Gresalfi, M. S. (2008). Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 170–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gresalfi, M. S. (2015). Designing to support critical engagement with statistics. ZDM, 47(6), 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gresalfi, M., & Barab, S. (2011). Learning for a reason: Supporting forms of engagement by designing tasks and orchestrating environments. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gresalfi, M. S., & Barnes, J. (2016). Designing feedback in an immersive videogame: Supporting student mathematical engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lamon, S. J. (2012). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (3rd Edn.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3, 255–286.Google Scholar
  25. Lobato, J., Ellis, A., & Zbiek, R. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions, and proportional reasoning for teaching mathematics: Grades 6–8. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of information technology for teacher education, 9(3), 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, B. C. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pareto, L., Arvemo, T., Dahl, Y., Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2011). A teachable-agent arithmetic game’s effects on mathematics understanding, attitude and self-efficacy. In S. Lajoie & M. Vivet (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 247–255). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of research on technology in education, 38(3), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  35. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational researcher, 35(8), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Takeuchi, L. M., & Vaala, S. (2014). Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  38. Van Haneghan, J. P., & Stofflett, R. T. (1995). Implementing problem solving technology into classrooms: Four case studies of teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3(1), 57–80.Google Scholar
  39. Van Haneghan, J. P., Barron, L., Young, M., Williams, S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (1992). The Jasper series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 15–38). Hillsdale: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options