Teacher Implementation and the Impact of Game-Based Science Curriculum Materials

  • Christopher D. Wilson
  • Frieda Reichsman
  • Karen Mutch-Jones
  • April Gardner
  • Lisa Marchi
  • Susan Kowalski
  • Trudi Lord
  • Chad Dorsey
Article

Abstract

Research-based digital games hold great potential to be effective tools in supporting next-generation science learning. However, as with all instructional materials, teachers significantly influence their implementation and contribute to their effectiveness. To more fully understand the contributions and challenges of teacher implementation of digital games, we studied the replacement of existing high school biology genetics lessons over a 3- to 6-week period with Geniverse, an immersive, game-like learning environment designed to be used in classrooms. The Geniverse materials infuse virtual experimentation in genetics with a narrative of a quest to heal a genetic disease; incorporate the topics of meiosis and protein synthesis with inheritance; and include the science practices of explanation and argumentation. The research design involved a quasi-experiment with 48 high school teachers and about 2000 students, student science content knowledge and argumentation outcome measures, and analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Results indicate that when Geniverse was implemented as the designers intended, student learning of genetics content was significantly greater than in the comparison, business-as-usual group. However, a wide range of levels of Geniverse implementation resulted in no significant difference between the groups as a whole. Students’ abilities to engage in scientific explanation and argumentation were greater in the Geniverse group, but these differences were not statistically significant. Observation, survey, and interview data indicate a range of barriers to implementation and teacher instructional decisions that may have influenced student outcomes. Implications for the role of the teacher in the implementation of game-based instructional materials are discussed.

Keywords

Educational games Game-based learning Genetics Argumentation Teacher implementation Fidelity of implementation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Randy von Smith, Paul Szauter, and the Jackson Laboratories for crafting drake genes and genotypes, to Lisa Carey at BSCS for her help with data collection, to the Geniverse research teachers for their hard work and timely feedback, and to Arthur Libby for his design work on advanced genetics challenges. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Supplementary material

10956_2017_9724_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 17.7 kb)

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://global.oup.com/academic/product/benchmarks-for-science-literacy-9780195089868?q=Benchmarks for Science Literacy, AAAS 1993&lang=en&cc=us.
  2. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–2.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ault, M., Craig-Hare, J., Frey, B., Ellis, J. D., & Bulgren, J. (2015). The effectiveness of Reason Racer, a game designed to engage middle school students in scientific argumentation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(1), 21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.967542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: what is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: a dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1988.11076050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9043-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barko, T., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Learning outcomes associated with classroom implementation of a biotechnology-themed video game. The American Biology Teacher, 75(1), 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Begle, E. G. (1973). Mathematics reading ability [SMESG working paper no. 1]. Stanford University: Stanford Mathematics Education Study Group.Google Scholar
  10. Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J., Kindfield, A. C., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R., & Gerlits, B. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica™: what do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23–41.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019636.06814.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Horwitz, P., & Dwyer, L. M. O. (2010). Looking inside the black box: assessing model-based learning and inquiry in BioLogica™. International Journal of Learning Technology, 5(2), 166–190.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2010.034548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, T., Dowdle, G., Shelton, B. E., Olsen, J., Longhurst, M., & Beckett, H. (2013). Gaming as a platform for developing science practices. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 50(3), 90–98.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. (2014). Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis (executive summary). Menlo Park: SRI International.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(1), 6–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multileveled phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271–336.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A., & Bausch, A. (2009). Promoting middle school students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 147–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9150-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655–674.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eastwood, J. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). Teachers’ implementation of a game-based biotechnology curriculum. Computers & Education, 66, 11–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers’ adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 48(2), 149–169.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820–839.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 289–310.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Glass Lab Research. (2015). Field study results: Mars Generation One. Retrieved from http://about.glasslabgames.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ResearchMGOFull.pdf
  27. Haga, S. B. (2006). Teaching resources for genetics. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 7(3), 223–229.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495–538.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Journal of Education, 181, 25–55.Google Scholar
  30. Higgin, T. (2014). Game-based learning and the NGSS. Common Sense Media. Retrieved from https://www.graphite.org/blog/game-based-learning-and-the-ngss
  31. Kangas, M., Koskinen, A., & Krokfors, L. (2016). A qualitative literature review of educational games in the classroom: the teacher’s pedagogical activities. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 451–471.Google Scholar
  32. Keeley, P. (2008). Science formative assessment: 75 practical strategies for linking assessment, instruction, and learning (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  33. Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S., & Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers' use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch, S. J., Pyke, C., & Grafton, B. H. (2012). A retrospective view of a study of middle school science curriculum materials: Implementation, scale-up, and sustainability in a changing policy environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(3), 305–332.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: the claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  36. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://inquiryproject.terc.edu/shared/pd/TalkScience_Primer.pdf
  38. National Research Council. (2011). In M. A. Honey, M. Hilton, & Committee on Science Learning (Eds.), Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  40. Osborne, J. F., Henderson, B., MacPherson, A., & Szu, E. (2013). Validating and assessing a new progress map for student argumentation in science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  41. Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019638.01800.d0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavlova, I. V., & Kreher, S. A. (2013). Missing links in genes to traits. The American Biology Teacher, 75(9), 641–649.  https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2013.75.9.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation fidelity and variation in a science inquiry program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 294–315.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth, K. J., Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Curriculum materials, teacher talk and student learning: case studies in fifth grade science teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 527–548.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027870190605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369–393.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., Menon, D., Ferdig, R. E., & Annetta, L. (2015). Learning biology through innovative curricula: a comparison of game- and nongame-based approaches. Science Education, 99(4), 696–720.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schaefer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: an investigation of U.S. science and mathematics. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spybrook, J., Bloom, H., Congdon, R., Hill, C., Martinez, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2011). Optimal design plus empirical evidence: documentation for the “optimal design” [software version 3.0]. www.wtgrantfoundation.org.
  53. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steinkuehler, C., & Chmiel, M. (2006). Fostering scientific habits of mind in the context of online play. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 723–729). Mahwah: Erlbuam Retrieved from http://website.education.wisc.edu/steinkuehler/blog/papers/tenure/publications/51_SteinkuehlerChmiel.pdf.Google Scholar
  55. Steinkuehler, C., & Squire, K. (2014). Videogames and learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.023.Google Scholar
  56. Stevens, S. Y., & Shin, N. (2010). An investigation into students’ interpretations of submicroscopic representations. (pp. 439–440). Paper presented at International Conferences of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223–241.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199604)80:2<223::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-I.
  59. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353–1368.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1073–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902951429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Usiskin, Z. (1985). We need another revolution in secondary school mathematics. Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  62. Vega, V (2013). Technology integration research review. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-learning-outcomes
  63. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2011). Thinking through quality questioning: deepening student engagement. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.Google Scholar
  65. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher D. Wilson
    • 1
  • Frieda Reichsman
    • 2
  • Karen Mutch-Jones
    • 3
  • April Gardner
    • 1
  • Lisa Marchi
    • 4
  • Susan Kowalski
    • 1
  • Trudi Lord
    • 2
  • Chad Dorsey
    • 2
  1. 1.BSCSColorado SpringsUSA
  2. 2.The Concord ConsortiumConcordUSA
  3. 3.TERCCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Maine Mathematics and Science AllianceAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations