Game object model version II: a theoretical framework for educational game development

  • Alan AmoryEmail author
Development Article


Complex computer and video games may provide a vehicle, based on appropriate theoretical concepts, to transform the educational landscape. Building on the original game object model (GOM) a new more detailed model is developed to support concepts that educational computer games should: be relevant, explorative, emotive, engaging, and include complex challenges; support authentic learning activities that are designed as narrative social spaces where learners are transformed through exploration of multiple representation, and reflection; be gender-inclusive, include non-confrontational outcomes, and provide appropriate role models; develop democracy, and social capital through dialogue that is supported by means of computer mediated-communication tools; and include challenges, puzzles or quests, which form the core of the learning process, where access to explicit knowledge, conversations, and reflection results in the construction of tacit knowledge. It is argued that the GOM version II can be used not only to support the development of educational computer games but to provide a mechanism to evaluate the use of computer games in the classroom.


Game object model Educational games Narrative social spaces Ideologies Challenges–puzzles–quests 



I wish to thank Tom Reeves, Catharine Dubbeld, David Baxter, Hilary Reynolds, Patsy Clarke, Ruth Maulson and Clive Jackson for advice on and proof reading of the manuscript, and to J. Michael Spector and the reviewers for their insights and encouragements. This research was supported by grants from the South African Government Department of Science and Technology.


  1. Amory, A. (2001). Building an educational adventure game: Theory, design and lessons. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 129(2/3), 249–264.Google Scholar
  2. Amory, A., & Seagram, R. (2003). Educational game models: Conceptualization and evaluation. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), 206–217.Google Scholar
  3. Amory, A., Naicker, K., Vincent, J., & Adams, C. (1999). The use of computer games as an educational tool: 1. Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to Garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from∼andreoni/Publications/Econometrica02.pdfGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Carteaux, B., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Betz, J. A. (1995). Computer games: Increases learning in an interactive multidisciplinary environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billen, A. (1993). Could it be the end for Super Mario? The Observer 27 June.Google Scholar
  8. Blanchard, J. S., & Cheska, A. (1985). The anthropology of sport: An introduction. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Bonanno, P., & Kommers, P. A. (2005). Gender differences and styles in the use of digital games. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, P. (2005). Producer diary. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from Scholar
  11. Carr, D. (2005). Contexts, gaming pleasures, and gendered preferences. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 464–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. M. (1982). The adventure of getting to know a computer. IEEE Computer, 15, 49–58.Google Scholar
  13. Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. (1998). From barbie to mortal kombat. Gender and computer games. Cambridge Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, C. (1982). The art of computer game design. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from Scholar
  15. Crawford, G., & Gosling, V. (2005) Toys for boys? Women’s marginalization and participation as digital gamers. Sociological Research Online, 10(1). Retrieved July 7, 2006, from Scholar
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  17. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeLoura, M. (2001). Violence and education. Game Developer, 8(2), 6.Google Scholar
  19. Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.Google Scholar
  21. Farnham, S., Kelly, U., Portnoy, W., & Schwartz, L. K. (2004). Wallop: Designing social software for co-located social networks. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from Scholar
  22. Farrar, K. M., Krcmar, M., & Nowak, K. L. (2006). Contextual features of violent video games, mental models, and aggression. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foko, T. (2006). The role of computer games and social constructivism in skills development of learners from different educational backgrounds. Ph.D. Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  24. Foko, T., & Amory, A. (2004). The use of computer games to address misconceptions held by students regarding photosynthesis and respiration: Playing Zadarh. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2004(1), 1766–1772.Google Scholar
  25. Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (pp. 8–33). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy? New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  27. Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning about learning from a video game: rise of nations. SimWorkshops. Retrieved October 6, 2005, from Scholar
  28. Gee, J. P. (2005). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like? Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved October 6, 2005, from Scholar
  29. Graner Ray, S. 2004. Gender inclusive game design: Expanding the market. Hingham, Massachusetts: Charles River Media, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Harrigan, K. A. (1999). Applying theories used in drama to the design of educational multimedia. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 99, world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 1314–1315). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  31. Hlynka, D. (2004). Postmodernism in educational technology: Update: 1996-present. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 243–246). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game design as narrative architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds), First Person: New media as story, performance, game. Cambridge: MIT Press. Retrieved September 16, 2005, from Scholar
  33. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 44, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ju, E., & Wagner, C. (1997). Personal computer adventure games: Their structure, principles and applicability for training. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 28, 78–92.Google Scholar
  36. Juul, J. (2001). Games telling stories – a brief note on games and narratives. Game Studies, 1(1). Retrieved September 15, 2005, from Scholar
  37. Kiili, K. (2005a). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiili, K. (2005b). Content creation challenges and flow experience in educational games: The IT-Emperor case. Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: Effects of adaptive and non-adaptive instructional support. Learning and Instruction, 3, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindley, C. A. (2003). Game taxonomies: A high level framework for game analysis and design. Gamasutra 2003.10.03, Retrieved October 20, 2005, from Scholar
  41. Lindley, C. A. 2005. Story and narrative structures in computer games. In B. Bushoff (Ed.), Developing interactive narrative content: Sagas/Sagasnet reader. Munich: High Text. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from Scholar
  42. Lockerd, A., & Selker, T. (2002). DriftCatcher: Enhancing social networks through email. Proceeding of the international sunbelt social networks conference XXII: Understanding, recognizing and enhancing online communication networks. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from Scholar
  43. Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Technical Report CIS-7, Xerox PARC, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  44. Malone, T. W. (1981a). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5, 333–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Malone, T. W. (1981b). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6, 258–277.Google Scholar
  46. Malone, T. W. (1984). Heuristics for design enjoyable user Interfaces: Lessons from computer games. In J. C. Thomas & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems (pp. 1–12). Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  47. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction, III: Conative and affective process analysis (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Martínez Monés, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia Avi, B., Gómez Sánchez, E., Garrachón, I., & Marcos García, J. A. (2002). Combining qualitative evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. In Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning, workshop on “Documenting collaborative interactions”, Boulder, Colorado, EEUU. Retrieved December 19, 2004, from qualitative evaluation.pdfGoogle Scholar
  49. McAllister, K. (2004). Game work. Language, power and computer game culture. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mobius, M. M., & Quoc-Anh, D. (2004). Social capital in social networks. Retrieved December 18, 2004, from Scholar
  51. Neal, L. (1990). Implications of computer games for system design. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Human–computer interaction – Proceedings of INTERACT ‘90 (pp. 93–99). North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Norris, K. (2004). Gender stereotypes, aggression, and computer games: An online survey of women. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(6), 714–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  54. Prensky, M. (2005). In educational games, complexity matters. Mini-games are trivial – but “complex” games are not. An important way for teachers, parents and others to look at educational computer and video games. Retrieved August 16, 2005, from Scholar
  55. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Retrieved December 18, 2004, from∼HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.htmlGoogle Scholar
  56. Quaiser-Pohl, C., Christian Geiser, C., & Lehmann, W. (2006). The relationship between computer-game preference, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Quinn, C. N. (1994). Designing educational computer games. In K. Beattie, C. McNaught, & S. Wills (Eds.), Interactive multimedia in University Education: Designing for change in teaching and learning (pp. 45–57). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  58. Quinn, C. N. (1997). Engaging learning. Instructional Technology Forum Paper 18. Retrieved January 10, 2001, from Scholar
  59. Quinn, C. N. (2005). Engaging learning. Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. C. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system. A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rieber, L. P. (1995). A historical review of visualisation in human cognition. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 43, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rieber, L. P. (2004). Microworlds. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 583–603). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  66. Rivers, R. (1990). The role of games and cognitive models in the understanding of complex dynamic systems. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Human–computer interaction – Proceedings of INTERACT ‘90 (pp. 87–92). North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  67. Roberts, N. (1976). Simulation gaming: A critical review. ERIC Document No. ED 137165.Google Scholar
  68. Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). Andrew rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  69. Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perceptive. Some common-sense conceptions. Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  70. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.Google Scholar
  71. Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  72. Schumacher, T. (2003). Facilitating simulation use to achieve deep learning in MBA classes. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2003 (pp. 1852–1854). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  73. Seagram, R. (2005). Use of constructivism in the development and evaluation of an educational game environment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  74. Sha, L., & van Aalst, J. (2003). An application of social network analysis to knowledge building. Individual, social and cultural aspects of collaborative knowledge building, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved December 18, 2004, from Scholar
  75. Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved September 19, 2005, from Scholar
  76. Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thick authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–215. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from Scholar
  77. Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. D., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. In Phi Delta Kappan Retrieved September 17, 2005, from http://www. Scholar
  78. Sigurdsson, J. F., Gisli, H., Gudjonsson, G. H., Bragason, A. V., Kristjansdottir, E., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2006). The role of violent cognition in the relationship between personality and the involvement in violent films and computer games. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sorama, K., Katajamäki, A., & Varamäki, E. (2004). Cooperation between SMES: Social capital and learning perspective. Proceedings of the 13th Nordic conference on small business research. Retrieved December 17, 2004, from$FILE/Sorama&al.pdfGoogle Scholar
  80. Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game Studies, 2(1). Retrieved September 15, 2005, from Scholar
  81. Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming, 2(1), 49–62.Google Scholar
  82. Squire, K., & Barab, S. A. (2004). Replaying history. In Proceedings of the 2004 international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 505–512). Los Angeles: UCLA Press. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from Scholar
  83. Squire, K., Jenkins, H., & Holland, W. (2003). Design principles of next-generation digital gaming for education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17–23.Google Scholar
  84. Stanislavski, C. (1981). Creating a role. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  85. Steinkuehler, C.A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. Proceeding of the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS), Los Angeles CA. Retrieved December 12, 2004, from Scholar
  86. Sweeney, K. (1994). Constructivism in cognitive film theory. In A. Casebier (Ed.), Film and Philosophy, Volume II. Retrieved October 30, 2005, from Scholar
  87. Thomas, P., & Macredie, R. (1994). Games and the design of human–computer interfaces. Educational Technology, 31, 134–142.Google Scholar
  88. Van den Abeele, V. A., & Van Rompaey, V. (2006). Introducing human-centered research to game design: Designing game concepts for and with senior citizens. In CHI ‘06 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada, April 22–27, 2006) (pp. 1469–1474) CHI ‘06. New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  89. Veermans, M., & Cesareni, D. (2005). The nature of the discourse in web-based collaborative learning environments: Case studies from four different countries. Computers and Education, 45, 316–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In F. Steier (Ed.), Research and Reflexivity (pp. 12–29). London: Sage. Retrieved December 14, 2004, from Scholar
  91. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Wilson, B. G., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(4), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Information Technology in Higher Education (ITEd), ICTHoward College, University of KwaZulu-NatalDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations