An Instructional Design Approach to Effective Instructional Game Design and Assessment

  • Debbie Denise ReeseEmail author
Part of the Educational Media and Technology Yearbook book series (EMTY, volume 36)


CyGaMEs is a formalism for instructional game design that aligns an instructional game with targeted content. The CyGaMEs method derives from instructional design, cognitive science analogical reasoning, learning science, and game design theory. The author summarizes the theoretical foundations, introduces the method, describes the CyGaMEs assessment tools, and summarizes research that demonstrates how game-based technologies can be used to authentically assess knowledge growth as it occurs during game-based learning. The author argues that theoretically and empirically sound instructional design methods like CyGaMEs enhance the effectiveness of game-based learning and assessment.


Target Domain Instructional Technology Analogical Reasoning Game Design Source Domain 
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.



Debbie Denise Reese, Research and Evaluation, Center for Educational Technologies, Wheeling Jesuit University.

This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant DRL-0814512 awarded to the author and National Aeronautics and Space Association NCC5-451, NNX06AB09G-Basic, NNX06AB09G-Supplement #1, NNX06AB09G-Supplement #2, NNX08AJ71A-Basic and No. NAG-13782 awarded to the NASA-sponsored Classroom of the Future.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Aeronautics and Space Association.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Debbie Denise Reese, Center for Educational Technologies, Wheeling Jesuit University, 316 Washington Ave, Wheeling, WV 26003. E-mail:


  1. Archald, D. A., & Newmann, F. M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing authentic academic achievement in the secondary school. Reston: VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved from
  2. Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., Lynch, C. A. et al. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge: A 21st century agenda for the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from .Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D. (2005). Benjamin Cluff Lecture. Provo, UT: David O. McKay School of Educat­ion, Brigham Young University. Retrieved from
  4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Creativity, fulfillment, and flow. TED: Ideas worth spreading. Retrieved from
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds.). (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2004). Game design workshop: Designing, prototyping, and playtesting games. San Francisco: CMP Books.Google Scholar
  8. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  9. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Gee, J. P. (2005a). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. e-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gee, J. P. (2005b). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like? Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved from
  12. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  14. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berlinger & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Jenkins, H. (2002). Game theory. Technology Review. Retrieved from
  21. Jenkins, H., Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Tan, P. (2003). Entering the education arcade. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research, & Development, 54(2), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities, and openness. Boston, MA: The Education Arcade, MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
  26. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine: Supplement, 65(9), S63–S67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowsky, R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Carmichael, D. L. (2007). Authentic instruction and assesssment: Common standards or rigor and relevance in teaching academic subjects. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education. Retrieved from
  30. Newmann, F. M., Ron, B., & Wiggins, G. (1998). An exchange of views on “semantics, psychometrics, and assessment reform: A close look at ‘authentic’ assessments”. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 19–22.Google Scholar
  31. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Reese, D. D. (2006). Foundations of serious games design and assessment. (COTF/LVP/Sep-2006). Wheeling, WV: Center for Educational Technologies, Wheeling Jesuit University.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Reese, D. D. (2008). GaME design for intuitive concept knowledge. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 3, pp. 1104–1126). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reese, D. D. (2009a). Replication supports Flowometer: Advancing cyberlearning through game-based assessment technologies. Paper presented at the 2009 international conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Reese, D. D., Diehl, V. A., & Lurquin, J. L. (2009). Metaphor enhanced instructional video game causes conceptual gains in lunar science knowledge. Poster presented at the Association for Psychological Science 21st Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Reese, D. D., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2010). The moment of learning: Quantitative analysis of exemplar gameplay supports CyGaMEs approach to embedded assessment [structured abstract]. Paper to be presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness 2010 Annual Research Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  40. Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  43. Spellman, B. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 307–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Educational TechnologiesWheeling Jesuit UniversityWheelingUSA

Personalised recommendations