Advertisement

Games, Learning, and Assessment

  • Valerie J. ShuteEmail author
  • Fengfeng Ke
Chapter

Abstract

Learning in games has historically been assessed indirectly and/or in a post hoc manner. What’s needed instead is real-time assessment and support of learning based on the dynamic needs of players. We need to be able to experimentally determine the degree to which games can support learning, and how and why they achieve this objective. In this chapter we describe an approach to designing and developing evidence-based diagnostic assessments that may be embedded in a game environment. When embedded assessments are so seamlessly woven into the game that they’re virtually invisible, we call this “stealth assessment.” Embedding assessments within games provides a way to monitor a player’s current level on valued competencies, and then use that information as the basis for support, such as adjusting the difficulty level of challenges or providing a report for the teacher.

Keywords

Competency Model Educational Game Digital Game Game Environment 21st Century Skill 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We’d like to offer special thanks to Matthew Ventura and Yoon Jeon Kim for their help on conceptualizing various parts of this paper, regarding the categorization of the seven core elements of games and game-based assessment issues.

References

  1. Alkan, S., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Studying computer game learning experience through eye tracking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 538–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, R. G., & Mislevy, R. J. (1999). Graphical models and computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bethesda Softworks (2006). Elder schools VI: Oblivion. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://www.bethsoft.com/games/games_oblivion.html.
  7. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optical experience. New York: Harper Perrennial.Google Scholar
  11. Dempsey, J. V., Haynes, L. L., Lucassen, B. A., & Casey, M. S. (2002). Forty simple computer games and what they could mean to educators. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996). Instructional gaming: Implications for instructional technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  13. Emes, C. E. (1997). Is Mr Pac Man eating our children? A review of the effect of digital games on children. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(4), 409–414.Google Scholar
  14. Fabricatore, C., Nussbaum, M., & Rosas, R. (2002). Playability in action videogames: A qualitative design model. Human Computer Interaction, 17(4), 311–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falmagne, J.-C., Cosyn, E., Doignon, J.-P., & Thiery, N. (2003). The assessment of knowledge, in theory and in practice. In R. Missaoui & J. Schmidt (Eds.), Fourth international conference on formal concept analysis (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 3874, pp. 61–79). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gee, J. P. (2003). What digital games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Gee, J. P. (2009). Deep learning properties of good digital games: How far can they go? In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 65–80). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://adlcommunity.net/file.php/23/GrooveFiles/Instr_Game_Review_Tr_2005.pdf.
  20. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogle, J. G. (1996). Considering games as cognitive tools: In search of effective “Edutainment”. Retrieved January 12, 2005, from ERIC, ED 425737.Google Scholar
  22. Howard, L. F., Paul, J. H., Marisa, P. P., & Brooke, E. S. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NCES 2011–004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Kafai, Y. B. (2005). The classroom as “living laboratory”: Design-based research for understanding, comparing, and evaluating learning science through design. Educational Technology, 65(1), 28–34.Google Scholar
  24. Ke, F. (2008). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1–32). New York: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirkpatrick, G. (2007). Between art and gameness: Critical theory and computer game aesthetics. Thesis Eleven, 89, 74–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities & openness. Cambridge, MA: The Education Arcade.Google Scholar
  28. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  30. 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. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59, 439–483.Google Scholar
  33. Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.Google Scholar
  34. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–62.Google Scholar
  35. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Results that matter: 21st century skills and high school reform. Retrieved from April 28, 2012. http://www.p21.org/documents/RTM2006.pdf.
  36. Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). The future of play theory: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pillay, H. (2002). An investigation of cognitive processes engaged in by recreational computer game players: Implications for skills of the future. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 336–350.Google Scholar
  38. Pillay, H., Brownlee, J., & Wilss, L. (1999). Cognition and recreational computer games: Implications for educational technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 203.Google Scholar
  39. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom, I’m learning!: How computer and digital games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  41. Quinn, C. (2005). Engaging learning: Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  42. Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehil, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(4). Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol8/4.
  45. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and meaningful play. In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 59–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Studio mathematics: The epistemology and practice of design pedagogy as a model for mathematics learning. Wisconsin Center for Education Research Working paper, No. 2005-3.Google Scholar
  47. Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  48. Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. A., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Digital games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111.Google Scholar
  49. Shute, V. J. (2007). Tensions, trends, tools, and technologies: Time for an educational sea change. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 139–187). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  50. Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503–524). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  51. Shute, V. J., Rieber, L., & Van Eck, R. (2011). Games … and … learning. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 321–332). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  52. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  53. Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. ProQuest Dissertations, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  54. Steinberg, L. S., & Gitomer, D. G. (1996). Intelligent tutoring and assessment built on an understanding of a technical problem-solving task. Instructional Science, 24, 223–258.Google Scholar
  55. Suits, B. H. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Torres, R. J. (2009). Using Gamestar Mechanic within a nodal learning ecology to learn systems thinking: A worked example. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vogel, J. F., 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(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  61. Wolfe, J. (1997). The effectiveness of business games in strategic management course work. Simulation & Gaming, 28(4), 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(3), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations