Learning by Playing and Learning by Making

  • Barbara Garneli
  • Michail N. Giannakos
  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
  • Letizia Jaccheri
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8101)


Serious video games have been proposed as a means to engage students with the Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) curriculum, but there is limited research on the required game elements and teaching practices. In particular, there is limited evidence on the effects of the storytelling element and of student involvement in making games on the learning performance and on the attitudes of the students. For this purpose, we designed a between groups experiment with eighty students (12 to 13 years old). They formed three equivalent groups of twenty students each who practiced with a serious game in three different ways. The first group played the storytelling game, the second played the same game but with no story, and the third was engaged with modifying the game code. Finally, the last (control) group practiced traditionally by solving exercises on paper. We found that girls with low grades benefited the most by playing the game and by engaging with the code and that the game making group wishes to repeat the exercise. Further research should perform similar studies with a focus on involving students in serious game modification, over longer periods of time and for additional curriculum topics.


Serious game programming environment behaviorism constructivism storytelling element code engagement CS education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Becker, K.: Teaching with games: the Minesweeper and Asteroids experience. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 17(2), 23–33 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., Crockett, A.: The LilyPadrduino: Using Computational Textiles to Investigate Engagement, Aesthetics, and Diversity in Computer Science Education. In: Proc. of CHI 2008. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bopp, M.: Storytelling as a motivational tool in digital learning games. Didactics of Microlearning. Concepts, Discourses and Examples, 250–266 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charsky, D.: From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics. Games and Culture 5(2), 177–198 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S.: Overview of research on the educational use of video games. Digital Kompetanse 1(3), 184–213 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fu, F.L., Su, R.C., Yu, S.C.: EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education 52(1), 101–112 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giannakos, M., Hubwieser, P., Chrisochoides, N.: How students estimate the effects of ICT and programming courses. In: Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 717–722 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giannakos, M.N., Vlamos, P.: Educational webcasts’ acceptance: Empirical examination and the role of experience. British Journal of Educational Technology 44(1), 125–143 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartmann, T., Klimmt, C.: Gender and computer games: Exploring females’ dislikes. Journal of Computer! Mediated Communication 11(4), 910–931 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis, C.M.: How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. Scratch. In: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 346–350 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy, J.: Effective schools: Legacy and future directions. In: Reynolds, D., Cuttance, P. (eds.) School Effectiveness, Research, policy and practice. Cassel, London (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papert, S., Harel, I.: Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 1–11 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons, D., Haden, P.: Programming osmosis: Knowledge transfer from imperative to visual programming environments. In: Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robinson, K.: Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Skinner, B.F.: The science of learning and the art of teaching, Cambridge, Mass, USA, pp. 99–113 (1954)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spalter, A.M., Simpson, R.M., Legrand, M., Taichi, S.: Considering a full range of teaching techniques for use in interactive educational software: a practical guide and brainstorming session. In: 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2000, pp. S1D–19. IEEE Press (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thorndike, R.L., Hagen, E.P.: Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walberg, H.J., Paik, S.J.: Effective Educational Practices. Educational Practices Series– 3 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Garneli
    • 1
  • Michail N. Giannakos
    • 2
  • Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
    • 1
  • Letizia Jaccheri
    • 2
  1. 1.Ionian UniversityCorfuGreece
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations