CyGaMEs: A Full-Service Instructional Design Model Harnessing Game-Based Technologies for Learning and Assessment

  • Debbie Denise ReeseEmail author


CyGaMEs harnesses the power of game-based technologies for enhanced learning and embedded assessment. CyGaMEs is a principled and formal approach to instructional game design, assessment, and formative evaluation through applied analogical reasoning, learning science, entertainment game, and instructional design theories. CyGaMEs makes learning more intuitive by creating game-based environments that are analogs of targeted learning domains. Players construct viable intuitions (prior knowledge). Experimental research using CyGaMEs’ Selene, an instructional game targeting lunar geology, supports the approach.


Instructional Design Relational Structure Goal State Target Domain Instructional Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0814512. Grateful appreciation extends to the CyGaMEs staff, partners, and collaborators, recruiters, and players who help make CyGaMEs theory a reality, in particular Lisa McFarland, Andrew Harrison, Ben Hitt, Charles A. Wood, Barbara Tabachnick, Ralph J. Seward, Virginia A. Diehl, Larry Hedges, James Pustejovsky, Cassandra Lightfritz, Don Watson, Janis Worklan, Steven Nowak, and Matt Petrole. Portions of this [Selene] software are provided under license from Second Avenue Software, Inc., Copyright 2007–2010 Second Avenue Software, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. This manuscript is based upon work previously presented at the 2008 and 2009 international conventions of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology as well as work presented at the 2009 annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science and the 2010 meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.


  1. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaus, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  3. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience sampling method. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games (2nd ed.). Burlington: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  6. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Gee, J. P. (2005a). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. e-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gee, J. P. (2005b). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like? Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved June 6, 2006 from
  10. Gentner, D. (1980). The structure of analogical models in science (report No. 4451, NTIS No. AD-A087-625). Springfield: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  11. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gentner, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy: Introduction. American Psychologist, 52(1), 32–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentner, D., & Kurtz, K. J. (2006). Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science, 30, 609–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5(3), 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  17. Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping with constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104(3), 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C.-H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langhoff, S., Cowan-Sharp, J., Dodson, E., Damer, B., Ketner, B., & Reese, D. D. (2009). Workshop report: Virtual worlds and immersive environments (NASA/CP-2009-214598). Moffett Field: NASA Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
  25. Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily life. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 266–287). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me” What today’s learners demand. Educause Review, 40(5), 60–65.Google Scholar
  30. Reese, D. D. (2007). First steps and beyond: Serious games as preparation for future learning. Journal of Educational Media and Hypermedia, 16(3), 283–300.Google Scholar
  31. Reese, D. D. (2009a). Replication supports flowometer: Advancing cyberlearning through game-based assessment technologies. In Paper presented at the 2009 International conference of the association for educational communications and technology, October 2009, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  32. Reese, D. D. (2009b). Structure mapping theory as a formalism for instructional game design and assessment. In D. Gentner, K. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), New frontiers in analogy research: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on analogy (Analogy ’09) (pp. 394–403). Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Reese, D. D. (2010). Introducing flowometer: A CyGaMEs assessment suite tool. In R. V. Eck (Ed.), Gaming & cognition: Theories and perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 227–254). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reese, D. D., & Coffield, J. (2005). Just-in-time conceptual scaffolding: Engineering sound instructional metaphors. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 1(4), 183–198.Google Scholar
  35. Reese, D. D., Diehl, V. A., & Lurquin, J. L. (2009). Metaphor enhanced instructional videogame causes conceptual gains in lunar science knowledge. In Poster presented at the association for psychological science 21st annual convention, San Francisco, May 2009.Google Scholar
  36. Reese, D. D., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2010). The moment of learning: Quantitative analysis of exemplar gameplay supports CyGaMEs approach to embedded assessment. In J. Earle (Ed.), Building a knowledge base to inform educational practice in STEM: Examples from the REESE portfolio. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington. Structured abstract retrieved March 4, 2010 from
  37. Salen, K. (2007). Gaming literacy studies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Media and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301–322.Google Scholar
  38. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  41. Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved June 6, 2006 from
  42. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Spellman, B. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 307–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2005). Cognition and learning in massively multiplayer online games: A critical approach. 2006 dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Retrieved August 2, 2006 from
  45. Wright, W. (2004). Sculpting possibility space. Keynote address presented at the Accelerating Change 2004: Physical space, virtual space, and interface conference, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved June 16, 2010
  46. Wright, W. (2006). Dream machines. Wired, 14(4). Retrieved June 1, 2010 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Educational TechnologiesWheeling Jesuit UniversityWheelingUSA

Personalised recommendations