Advertisement

Design matters: explorations of content and design in fraction games

  • Melissa Sommerfeld GresalfiEmail author
  • Bethany Rittle-Johnson
  • Abbey Loehr
  • Isaac Nichols
Research Article

Abstract

The goal of the current study was to contribute to our emergent understanding of whether and how particular types of digital games can support student learning and engagement. We focused on commercially available educational apps that focused on similar content (fraction comparison and equivalence) but represented extremes in how game-like they were (games vs. worksheets). Third-grade students (n = 95) worked on the apps for an hour in their math classrooms. Students preformed equally well on a paper-and-pencil assessment, but students’ enjoyment of the games was significantly higher. Student interviews indicated that students who played the games noticed the mathematics content in the games, sometimes linking it to the game mechanics, noticed the relevance of the game for the assessment and talked about enjoying the games. Findings suggest that exploratory games that implicitly support mathematics knowledge can improve students’ math knowledge outside of the game context and improve student engagement.

Keywords

Design Games Mathematics education Elementary Mixed methods 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with the work presented in this paper.

References

  1. Arena, D. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Experience and explanation: Using videogames to prepare students for formal instruction in statistics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 538–548.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9483-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bell, A., & Gresalfi, M. S. (2017). Teaching with videogames: How experience impacts classroom integration. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2015). Digital games, design, and learning a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Common Core State Standards. (2010). Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  8. deWinstanley, P. A., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Generation effects and the lack thereof: The role of transfer-appropriate processing. Memory, 4(1), 31–48.  https://doi.org/10.1080/741940667.CrossRefGoogle 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. Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 67, 156–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishman, B., Riconscente, M., Snider, R., Tasi, T., & Plass, J. (2014). Empowering educators: Supporting student progress in the classroom with digital Games. Retrieved from Ann Arbor: gamesandlearning.umich.edu/agames.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, L. S., Schumacher, R. F., Long, J., Namkung, J., Hamlett, C. L., Cirino, P. T., et al. (2013). Improving at-risk learners’ understanding of fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning literacy. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greeno, J. G., & MMAP. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gresalfi, M. S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gresalfi, M. S., & Barnes, J. (2015). Designing feedback in an immersive videogame: supporting student mathematical engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9411-8.Google Scholar
  20. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larkin, K. (2015). “An App! An App! My Kingdom for An App”: An 18-month quest to determine whether apps support mathematical knowledge building. In Digital games and mathematics learning (pp. 251–276): Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Lave, J. (1980). What’s special about experiments as contexts for thinking. In M. Cole, Y. Engenstrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. LeBlanc, R.-A. (2015). UQAM researchers demonstrate effectiveness of educational video game Slice Fractions. Retrieved from http://salledepresse.uqam.ca/communiques-de-presse/general/7162-uqam-researchers-demonstrate-effectiveness-of-educational-video-game-slice-fractions.
  25. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teen, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  26. Lepper, & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 255–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. 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. Conate and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Mendiburo, M., & Hasselbring, T. (2014). Technology’s impact on fraction learning: An experimental comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(2), 209–231.Google Scholar
  30. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9039-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norton, A., Wilkins, J. L., & Boyce, S. J. (2012). Constructions of fractions schemes: Is there an app for that, too?. In L. R. VanZoest, J.-J. Lo, & J. L. Kratky (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-third annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1135–1138). Kalamazoo, MI: University of Western Michigan.Google Scholar
  33. Nygren, E., Sutinen, E., Blignaut, A. S., Laine, T. H., & Els, C. J. (2012). Motivations for play in the UFractions mobile game in three countries. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 4(2), 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulates: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  36. Riconscente, M. (2013). Results from a controlled study of the iPad fractions game Motion Math. Games and Culture: A Journal of Interactive Media, 8(4), 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Animation as feedback in a computer-based simulation: Representation matters. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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), 344–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Making mathematics and making pasta: From cookbook procedures to really cooking. In J. G. Greeno & S. V. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Schumacher, R. F., Namkung, J. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2010). Fraction Battery. L. S. Fuchs, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  41. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., et al. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sosa, G. W., Berger, D. E., Saw, A. T., & Mary, J. C. (2011). Effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in statistics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 97–127.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310378174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experiences. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., et al. (2012). Our princess is in another castle a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations