Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 59, Issue 6, pp 765–782 | Cite as

An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom

  • Ahmet BaytakEmail author
  • Susan M. Land
Research Article


This study employed a case study design (Yin, Case study research, design and methods, 2009) to investigate the processes used by 5th graders to design and develop computer games within the context of their environmental science unit, using the theoretical framework of constructionism. Ten fifth graders designed computer games using Scratch software. The results showed students were able to design functional games, following a learning-by-design process of planning, designing, testing, and sharing. Observations revealed that game design led to opportunities for informal knowledge building and sharing among students. This, in turn, encouraged students to test and improve their designs. The findings support the conclusion that elementary students can develop programming concepts and create computer games when using graphical programming software developed for their level of experience. Insights into the iterative process of learning-by-game design are presented.


Children’s learning Game design Constructionism Programming Environmental education Educational technology 


  1. 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, 5(1), 86–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.Google Scholar
  3. Bruckman, A., & Resnick, M. (1995). The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and professional community. Convergence, 1(1), 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carver, S. (2006). Assessing for deep understanding. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205–221). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, R. (2009). Encouraging peer sharing: Learning reflections in a community of designers. In Y. B. Kafai, K. A. Peppler, & R. N. Chapman (Eds.), The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities (pp. 81–90). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. In Proceedings of 5th Annual CCSC Northeastern Conference (pp. 28–29). Ramapo, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computers and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Design, 53(2), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gargarian, G. (1996). The art of design. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 125–160). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centered, web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 767–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as learning environment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school (pp. 41–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  11. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ioannidou, A., Rader, C., Repenning, A., Lewis, C., & Cherry, G. (2003). Making constructionism work in the classroom. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(1), 63–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kafai, Y. B. (1998). Video game designs by girls and boys: Variability and consistency of gender differences. In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 90–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kafai, Y. B. (2006a). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kafai, Y. B. (2006b). Case-based reasoning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 323–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers and Education, 51, 1609–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin, J., Yen, L., Yang, M., & Chen., L. (2005). Teaching computer programming in elementary schools: A pilot study. Presented at NECC, Taiwan. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from
  21. Malan D. J., & Leitner, H. H. (2007) Scratch for budding computer scientists. SIGCSE 2007, Covington, KY.Google Scholar
  22. Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. SIGCSE 2008, Portland, OR, USA. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from
  23. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Monroy-Hernández, A., & Resnick, M. (2008). Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions, 15(2), 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Overmars, M. H. (2004). Learning object-oriented design by creating games. IEEE Potentials, 23(5), 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1993a). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Papert, S. (1993b). The children’s machine: Rethinking schools in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007a). What video game making can teach us about learning and literacy: Alternative pathways into participatory cultures. Tokyo, Japan: The Digital International Game Research Association Meeting.Google Scholar
  29. Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2007b). From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Repenning, A., & Ioannidou, A. (2008). Broadening participation through scalable game design. SIGCSE Bulletin, 1(40), 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rieber, L.P., Luke, N., & Smith, J. (1998). Project KID DESIGNER: Constructivism at work through play. Meridian: Middle School Computer Technology Journal, 1(1). Retrieved May 12, 2009, from
  33. Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers and Education, 50, 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Sefton-Green, J. (2003). Informal learning: Substance or style? Teaching Education, 13(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers and Education, 46(3), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Squire, K. (2006). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(3). Retrieved August 15, 2010, from
  38. Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends, 49(5), 34–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T. (2006). A development of portfolio for learning assessment of students taught by full-scale constructionism approach at Darunsikkhalai School. Education, 13(2), 24–36.Google Scholar
  40. Tiong, K., & Yong, S. (2008). Learning through computer game design: Possible success (or failure) factors. The 16th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 947–951). Retrieved May 12, 2009, from
  41. Van Eck, R. (2006). Using games to promote girls’ positive attitudes toward technology. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(3). Retrieved August 11, 2010, from’_Positive_Attitudes_Toward_Technology.pdf.
  42. Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M. J., & Barab, S. A. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113–140.Google Scholar
  43. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research, design and methods (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Lamon, M., Messina, R., & Reeve, R. (2007). Socio-cognitive dynamics of knowledge building in the work of 9- and 10-year-olds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harran UniversitySanliurfaTurkey
  2. 2.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Muhendislik FakültesiHarran UniversitySanliurfaTurkey

Personalised recommendations