A Constructivist Perspective on Games in Education



This chapter explores four common perspectives on the study of games and the value of games for learning: games as a delivery mechanism for curricular content; ‘gamification’, which looks at elements of game systems that can be applied to new non-gaming contexts; examination of existing games that can be adapted to serve educational intentions; and games as a component of a larger activity system of play that transcends the game space. This chapter described critical features of games as play spaces to support learning from a sociocultural and activity theory perspective in which learning is viewed as the consequence of culturally mediated activity. The chapter concludes with discussion of issues and recommendations for practitioners considering the use of games for learning.


  1. Aguilar, S. J., Holman, C., & Fishman, B. J. (2015). Game-inspired design empirical evidence in support of gameful learning environments. Games and Culture.
  2. Barab, S., Dodge, T., Tuzun, H., Job-Sluder, K., Jackson, C., Arici, A., et al. (2007). The Quest Atlantis Project: A socially-responsive play space for learning. In B. E. Shelton & D. Wiley (Eds.), The educational design and use of simulation computer games (pp. 159–186). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S., 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. Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmichael, S. (2017). A teacher’s perspective on World of Warcraft in school. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
  7. Choontanom, T., & Nardi, B. (2012). Theorycrafting: The art and science of using numbers to interpret the world. In C. Steinkuehler & K. Squire (Eds.), Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 185–210). London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. De Vries, D. L., & Slavin, R. E. (1978). Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1), 28–38.Google Scholar
  10. Decker, A., & Lawley, E. L. (2013). Life’s a game and the game of life: How making a game out of it can change student behavior. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 233–238). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  11. Dede, C., Clarke, J., Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2005). Students’ motivation and learning of science in a multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  12. Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gillespie, L. (2009). A new project – World of Warcraft in school. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
  15. Glazer, K. (2015). Imagining a constructionist game-based pedagogical model: Using tabletop role-playing game creation to enhance literature education in high school English classes (Order No. 3731117). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Pepperdine University – SCELC; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1727755027). Retrieved at
  16. Glazer, K. (2016). Beyond gameplay – Using role-playing game creation to teach Beowulf in a high school English class. In C. Williams (Ed.), Teacher pioneers: Visions from the edge of the map. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press.Google Scholar
  17. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Gresalfi, M., & Barab, S. (2011). Learning for a reason: Supporting forms of engagement by designing tasks and orchestrating environments. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, B., & Games, I. (2008). Making computer games and design thinking: A review of current software and strategies. Games and Culture, 3(3–4), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hergenrader, T. (2011). Gaming, world building, and narrative: Using role-playing games to teach fiction writing. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Games+ Learning+ Society Conference (pp. 103–108). Pittsburg, PA: ETC Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. IGN. (2017). Education-focused civilization game heading to schools in 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
  24. Kafai, Y. B. (2010). World of Whyville: An introduction to tween virtual life. Games and Culture, 5(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kafai, Y. B., Feldon, D., Fields, D., Giang, M., & Quintero, M. (2007). Life in the times of Whypox: A virtual epidemic as a community event. In Communities and technologies 2007 (pp. 171–190). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2014). Gamification of joint student/system control over problem selection in a linear equation tutor. In S. Trausan-Matu, K. E. Boyer, M. Crosby, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2014 (pp. 378–387). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalf, S. J., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Virtual worlds for education: River City and EcoMUVE. Paper presented at the MiT6 International Conference. Retrieved at
  30. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 18(4), 2214.Google Scholar
  31. Moe, R., & Polin, L. (2016). Locating TPACK in mediated practice. In K. Graziano & S. Bryans-Bongey (Eds.), Online teaching in K-12: Models, methods, and best practices for teachers and administrators. Medford, NJ: Information Today.Google Scholar
  32. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 265–269). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  33. Resnick, L. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogoff, B., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schwartz, K. (2013). World of Warcraft finds its way into class. Mind/Shift KQED. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
  37. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Computers & Education, 46(3), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195.Google Scholar
  39. Sheldon, L. (2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  40. Solarz, I. (2014). A modern tool for a modern student. Video games in the exploration and learning of mathematics. Didactics of Mathematics, 11(15), 65–74.Google Scholar
  41. Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 5. Retrieved at
  42. Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. E-learning and Digital Media, 4(3), 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611–634). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Steinkuehler, C. A., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steinkuehler, C. A., & Oh, Y. (2012). Apprenticeship in massively multiplayer online games. In C. Steinkuehler & K. Squire (Eds.), Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 154–184). London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suchman, L., & Trigg, R. (1996). Artificial intelligence as craftwork. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 144–178). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Davidson Professor of Education and Technology, Graduate School of Education and PsychologyPepperdine UniversityW. Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations