Abstract
In this study, teachers are giving an opportunity to design and develop their own educational games. The following three questions guide the research: (1) What are the characteristics of teacher designed and developed games? (2) What theories do teachers use when they make games for educational purposes? (3) What are the design considerations when teachers engage in game authoring experiences? Framed in a qualitative, naturalistic case study perspective, this paper explores 83 teachers’ experience and thinking grounded in enactivism. Participating teachers are enrolled in a graduate course focusing on game based learning. Data sources include: teacher written assignments, teacher created digital artifacts, instructor’s reflective journal, and learner feedback after class. The analysis of the data show that teachers tend to create quiz games using the software they are familiar with, prefer collaborative design process, and math is a popular subject for games. They like to author games that are customized, with detailed storylines, and are appropriate for the local contexts. Implication and recommendations are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akcaoglu, M., & Kale, U. (2016). Teaching to teach (with) game design: Game design and learning workshops for preservice teachers. Education, 16(1), 60–81.
An, Y.-J., & Cao, L. (2017). The Effects of Game Design Experience on Teachers’ Attitudes and Perceptions regarding the Use of Digital Games in the Classroom. TechTrends, 61(2), 162–170.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballentine Books.
Baytak, A., & Land, S. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(7), 765–782.
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.
Coles, A. (2007). Mathematics education—A field in disarray? Paper presented at the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design; Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409–428.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. New York: Routledge.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Ertzberger, J. (2009). An exploration of factors affecting teachers’ use of video games as instructional tools. Ed.D. EDD Dissertation, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.
Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Summit on educational games: Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Washington, DC: Author .
Games, A., & Squire, K. (2011). Searching for the fun in learning: A historical perspective on the evolution of educational viedo games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 17–46). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Gee, J. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Giannotta, A. P. (2017). Varela on the pragmatic dimension of phenomenology. Constructivist Foundations, 13(1), 78–81.
Hirose, N. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 289–299.
Hogle, J. G. (1996). Considering games as cognitive tools: In search of effective. Edutainment. Working Paper.
Hutto, D. D., Kirchhoff, M. D., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 371–389.
Hutto, D., Kirchhoff, M., & Myin, E. (2014). Extensive enactivism: Why keep it all in? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00706.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Electronic playworlds: Gender differences in children’s constructions of video games. In P. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with video. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M. L., Shih, J. C., & Ching, C. C. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184.
Kamil, M., & Taitague, C. (2011). Developing an electronic game for vocabulary learning: A case study. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 331–351). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Kamisah, O., & Nurul, A. B. (2011). Implementation of educational computer games in Malaysian chemistry classrooms: Challenges for game designers. Paper presented at the 10th WSEAS International Conference on Education and Educational Technology, Penang, Malaysia.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2009a). The instructional power of digital games, social networking, simulations and how teachers can leverage them. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Klopfer, E., Scheintau, H., Huang, W., Wendel, D., & Roque, R. (2009b). The simulation cycle—Combining games, simulations, engineering and science using StarLogo TNG. E-Learning and Digital Media, 6(1), 71–96.
Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints of engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 785–806.
Li, Q. (2013). Digital games and learning: A study of preservice teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Play, 2(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2013.817105.
Li, Q. (2014). Learning through digital game design and building in a participatory culture: An enactivist approach. New York: Peter Lang.
Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enactivism: A paradigm shift? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403–419.
Li, Q., Lemieux, C., Vandermeiden, E., & Nathoo, S. (2013). Are you ready to teach secondary mathematics in the 21st century? A study of preservice teachers’ digital game design experience. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 309–337.
Li, Q., Vandermeiden, E., Lemieux, C., & Nathoo, S. (2016). Secondary students learning mathematics through digital game building: A study of the effects and students’ perceptions. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 25–35.
Maheux, J.-F., & Proulx, J. (2015). Doing| mathematics: Analysing data with/in an enactivist-inspired approach. ZDM Mathematics Education, 2(47), 211–221.
Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 9(3–4), 5–34.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.
McPhail, G. (2016). The fault lines of recontextualisation: The limits of constructivism in education. British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 294–313.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception and other essays. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Michie, M. (2004, April). Teaching science to Indigenous students: Teachers as culture broker or is it something else? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.
Osman, K., & Bakar, N. A. (2013). Teachers and students as game designers: Designing games for. In S. de Freitas, M. Ott, M. M. Popescu, & I. Stanescu (Eds.), New pedagogical approaches in game enhanced learning: Curriculum integration (pp. 102–113). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of computers. New York: Basic Books.
Proulx, J. (2004). The enactivist theory of cognition and behaviorism: An account of the processes of individual sense-making. Paper presented at the Complexity Science and Educational Research conference, Chaffey’ Locks, Canada.
Reid, D., & Mgombelo, J. (2015). Survey of key concepts in enactivist theory and methodology. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0634-7.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 105–111.
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.
Uluay, G., & Dogan, A. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ practices towards digital game design for technology integration into science classrooms. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(10), 2483–2498.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Vogel, J. J., 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.
Vos, N., Van Der Meijden, H., & Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, 56(1), 127–137.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition & Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.
Williamson, B. (2009). Computer games, schools, and young people: A report for educators on using games for learning. Bristol: Futurelab.
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., & Van Der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265.
Yang, Y.-T. C., & Chang, C.-H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334–344.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Acknowledgement
The author thanks the support from all the teacher participants, the graduate assistants, including Arkhadi Pustaka, for their assistance with data analysis, and the ETRD editor and anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Q. Enactivism and teacher instructional game building: an inquiry of theory adoption and design consideration. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1339–1358 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9584-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9584-z