Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Taking educational games seriously: using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We are witnessing a mad rush to pour educational content into games in an ad hoc manner in hopes that player/learners are motivated simply because the content is housed inside a game. A failure to base educational game design on well-established learning and instructional theories increases the risk of the game failing to meet its intended educational goals, and yielding students who are entertained but who have not acquired any academic skills or knowledge. Our review of standalone educational games has shown that they are not always based on sound educational principles and theories. We contend that, if academic learning is to take place, a new design paradigm must be developed. This article discusses the RETAIN design and evaluation model for educational games that was developed to aide in the evaluation of how well academic content is endogenously immersed and embedded within the game’s fantasy and story context, promoters transfer of knowledge, and encourages repetitive usage to that content becomes available for use in an automatic way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2004). Relationships among computer games, fantasy, and learning. International Conferences on Imagination and Education 2004 2nd International Conference on Imagination in Education. Vancouver, BC. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://www.ierg.net/confs/2004/Proceedings/Asgari_Kaufman.pdf.

  • Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H. (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brainerd, C. (1978). Piaget’s Theory of Intelligence. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cermak, L., & Craik, F. (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiklin, S. (2003) The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cordova, D. I. (1993). The effects of personalization and choice on students’ intrinsic motivation and learning. Dissertation, San Jose, CA: Stanford University.

  • Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996) Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, J. V., & Johnson, R. B. (1998). The development of an ARCS gaming scale. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(4), 215–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, S. M. (2005). Making educational computer games educational. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, June 8–10, Boulder, CO, pp. 56–61.

  • Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. (1987). Instructional technology foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, G. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2004). Video in the classroom: Learning objects or objects of learning? Paper presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, Illinois, October.

  • Gunter, G. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2005). Thinking out of the hexagon: Digital media in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual convention of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, Florida, November.

  • Harlow, D. (2004). Games as an educational tool. http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article2082.asp. Retrieved 24, Feb 2006.

  • Karoulis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2004). Motivation and representation in educational games. In Interaction between learner’s internal and external representations in a multimedia environment, state-of-the-art report. Kaleidoscope NoE, D21-1-1, 296–312.

  • Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1998). Using the ARCS process in CBI and distance education. In M. Theall (Ed.), Motivation in teaching and learning: New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. W. (1987). Application of the ARCS model to motivational design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories (pp. 289–320). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F. (2004). Teaching television in a digital world: Integrating media literacy (4th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., & Gunter, G. A. (2004). Digital booktalk: Pairing books with potential readers. Paper presented at Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, Illinois, October.

  • Kenny, R. F., & Gunter, G. A. (2005). Literacy through the arts. Paper presented at the annual Conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, Florida, November.

  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1974). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theater. New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. R. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: III. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 255–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, D. (1985). Improving student achievement through mastery learning programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W. (1980a). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Technical Report. Palo Alto: Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

  • Malone, T. W. (1980b). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL Symposium and the First SIGPC Symposium on Small systems, Palo Alto, California, pp. 162–169.

  • Malone, T.W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W. (1983a). What makes computer games fun? BYTE, 5, 258–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W. (1983b). Guidelines for designing educational computer programs. Childhood Education, 59(4), 241–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W. (1984). What makes computer games fun? Guidelines for designing educational computer programs. In D. Peterson (Ed.), Intelligent schoolhouse (pp. 78–92). Reston: Reston Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1981). Elaboration theory and cognitive psychology. Instructional Science, 10(3), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. (1999). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H. F., Waines, R., & Baker, E. L. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paquin, M. (2002). Effects of a museum interactive CD-ROM on knowledge and attitude of secondary school students in Ontario. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1992). Effects of fantasy contexts on children’s learning and motivation: Making learning more fun. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 625–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1).

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Meaningfulness and instruction: Relating what is being learned to what a student knows. Instructional Science, 12(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8(4), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (2001). Designing learning environments that excite serious play. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Melbourne, Australia, Dec 9–12, 2001.

  • Rigby, S., Ryan, R. (2007). Rethinking carrots: A new method for measuring what players find most rewarding and motivating about your game. http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070116/rigby_01.shtml. Retrieved 17 Aug 2007.

  • Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterly, D. (1987) Piaget and education. In R. L. Gregory (Ed.), The oxford companion to the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., Gunter, G. A., & Gunter, R. E. (2006). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology into the classroom (4th ed.). Cambridge: Course Technology, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. D. (2003) Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming. http://simschoolresources.edreform.net. Retrieved 16 Oct 2006.

  • Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. Dissertation, University of Indiana, Bloomington.

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. T., & Gunter, G. A (2006). The K-12 literacy leadership fieldbook. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2004). Examples of using multiple representations. In Interaction between learner’s internal and external representations in multimedia Environment, state-of-the-art report. Kaleidoscope NoE, D21-1-1, pp. 66–80.

  • Waal, B. D. (1995). Motivations for video game play: A study of social, cultural and physiological factors. Master’s thesis, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University.

  • Wadsworth, B. (1978). Piaget for the classroom teacher. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Cultural, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, J. (1994). Interactive acting: Acting, improvisation, and interacting for audience participatory theatre. Fall Creek: Fall Creek Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Glenda A. Gunter

  2. School of Film and Digital Media, University of Central Florida, 12461 Research Parkway, Suite 500, Orlando, FL, 32826, USA

    Robert F. Kenny & Erik H. Vick

Authors
  1. Glenda A. Gunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert F. Kenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik H. Vick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert F. Kenny.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gunter, G.A., Kenny, R.F. & Vick, E.H. Taking educational games seriously: using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Education Tech Research Dev 56, 511–537 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation