Using Activity Theory in Designing Science Inquiry Games

  • Yiping Lou
  • Lucille Moon-Michel


It’s been widely recognized that students in middle and high schools are often disengaged in the didactic science classrooms. Game-based learning has the potential to better engage students in meaningful learning. This chapter describes the design and development of a scenario-based science inquiry game using Activity Theory as a design framework. Evaluation results showed that both teachers and students perceived the science inquiry game positively in increasing the students’ situational interests and cognitive learning through active real-world problem-solving activities in a fun and concrete context.


Game-based learning Science inquiry Activity Theory 


  1. Ainley, M. (2006). Connecting with learning: Motivation, affect, and cognition in interest processes. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 391e–3405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. (2006). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking patterns of student interaction with achievement activities. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 267e–2286. Scholar
  4. Allen, M. W. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM. ASTD.Google Scholar
  5. Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.Google Scholar
  6. Banville, L. (2016). McGraw-hill sees future in gamelets rather than games. Games and learning. Retrieved from
  7. Berger, A. A. (1993). An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 180e191.Google Scholar
  9. Bertelsen, O. W., & Bodker, S. (2003). Activity theory. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories and frameworks: Towards a multidisciplinary science (pp. 291–324). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colon, E. (2015). An MSP 5E lesson plan: Investigating how heat flows. Available at:
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: DC Heath.Google Scholar
  14. Dormann, C., & Biddle, R. (2009). A review of humor for computer games: Play, laugh and more. Simulation & Gaming, 40(6), 802–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597e–5610. 0022-0663.99.3.597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fishman, B., Riconscente, M., Snider, R., Tsai, T., & Plass, J. (2014). Empowering educators: Supporting student progress in the classroom with digital games. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Gaydos, M. (2015). Seriously considering design in educational games. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness: A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10(2), 179e194.Google Scholar
  20. Honey, M., & Hillton, M. (Eds.). (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jabbar, A., Iliya., A., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., MacGill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games, and civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Available at
  24. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Lou, Y., Hooper, J. & Blanchard, P. (2016). Bald eagle adventure: A game-based approach to promoting learning through science inquiry. In: G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2016 (pp. 597–598). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  26. Martinez-Garza, M., Clark, D. B., & Nelson, B. C. (2013). Digital games and the US National Research Council’s science proficiency goals. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 170–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424e–4436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Research Council [NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council [NRC]. (2013). The next generational science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Office of Educational Technology. (2016). 2016 national educational technology plan, future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
  32. Olakanmi, E. O., & Doyoyo, M. (2014). Using structured examples and promoting reflective questions to correct misconceptions about thermodynamic concepts. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(2), 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prevost, L., Moon-Michel, L., Romero, R., & Lou, Y. (2016). Air potato invaders: Scenario-based digital games for science inquiry learning and assessment. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2016 (pp. 2655–2660). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  34. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Situational interest and learning: Thirst for knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 32, 37–50. Scholar
  35. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 299e–2323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211e–2224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vandaele, J. (2002). Humor mechanisms in film comedy: Incongruity and superiority. Poetics Today, 23(2), 221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations