Jl. of Interactive Learning Research (2008) 19(4), 597-614
Games and Motivation to Learn Science: Personal Identity, Applicability, Relevance and Meaningfulness AROUTIS FOSTER Michigan State University, USA
[email protected] Game-based learning and designing has become a hot topic in educational technology. It is believed that video gaming is one way to get students engaged in learning complex and illstructured material, holistic learning, and preparing learners for 21st century jobs. However, beyond engagement, games may also be used for learning and developing personal interest in science by utilizing the affordances for personal identity, applicability beyond the school setting and for a personal agenda, and relevance and meaningfulness of scientific practices and ideas. This article, based on the synthesis of information from the games, science education, and motivational research literatures present a focused view on how games for learning (serious games) can be designed and used for learning and developing an interest in science. The article also points in the direction of much needed research to assess the claims about games for learning.
Science is often taught in ways that make the information irrelevant, abstract, and disconnected from students’ experiences (Aikenhead, 2006; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). Although most students do expect to learn science, they often see it as being presented in uninteresting ways. This often leads to students not appreciating or valuing science activities, seeing science as not personally relevant to their lives, and not understanding science (Aikenhead; Lee & Luykx, 2006). In this article, it is argued that serious games (games for learning, not entertainment) have the capability to make science personally valued, concrete, and applicable to students’ lives, as well as make students understand science activities.
598
Foster
This article focuses on how games can enhance students’ interest in science learning by connecting it to their experiences and making them value science. This is explored through gaming affordances for (a) shaping personal identity, (b) making science activity relevant and meaningful, and (c) showing the applicability of science beyond school settings and for personal agendas. This argument is constructed by first establishing the type of games being discussed, capability for games and learning goals, the nature of scientific inquiry for students, and finally games and motivation to learn science. The implications of these ideas are discussed as new directions for game-based inquiry since most the claims for games need assessment. Game playing activities can provide opportunities for active engagement in highly contextual, authentic, and manipulative tasks. The premise stems from a synthesis of ideas in current literature about virtual environments for learning, science learning, games, and motivation (Aikenhead, 2006; Asgari, 2005; Brophy, 2004; Driver et al., 1994; Jonassen & Land, 2000; Wong, Pugh, & Dewey Ideas Group at Michigan State University, 2001). The argument explores the idea that well-designed games for learning involve a combination of traditional educational simulations and what video game characteristics may afford for students in science classrooms. However, it is important to distinguish between traditional educational simulations and video games in order to clarify the kinds of games that are discussed. Simulations Simulations have been researched and used extensively in science education (Windschitl, 2000). Good simulations allow a user to manipulate multiple variables while engaging in exploration and discovery of new phenomena (Gredler, 1996). They provide an environment for inquiry based learning, exploration, discovery, and authentic activities (Honebein, 1996). Good simulations also help teachers to save time in doing activities that may take days to do otherwise (Turkle, 1997) and allow students to use models to explain science phenomena (Huppert, Lomask, & Lazarowitz, 2002). Good simulations such as StarLogo (Resnick, 1994) or ThinkerTools (White & Frederiksen, 2000) provide pedagogically sound environments that have credibility in science learning, but are still removed from students’ experiences and do not capture their interest. Despite various teaching methods including the use of computer simulations, most students still do not value science in scientific ways or develop interest in science beyond the classroom (de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998; Federation of American Scientists, 2006; Kelly, 2005; L. B. Resnick, 1987). Games With the average American child 8-18 years old playing seven hours of video games each week, it is clear that video games do capture students’ attention and interest (Gentile & Walsh, 2002; National Institute on the
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
599
Media and the Family, 2002). Games present a medium in which students can be competent, autonomous, take risks without serious consequences (Gee, 2005), and develop cognitive flexibility in dealing with ill-structured and complex ideas (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson & Coulson, 1992). Malone (1981) argued that games are ideal for learning because they challenge, present fantasy, and generate curiosity during play. Thus, games present an opportunity to use students’ interests as a way to educate them. When users play games, they have the potential to become active participants in shaping their game role and actions. When students become active participants in the knowledge construction process (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996), the focus of learning shifts from covering the curriculum to working with ideas (Scardamalia, 2000). The immersive nature of gaming activities has the potential to give reading, writing, and science literacy their purpose and point. A combination of video games and educational simulations can enable students to work with big ideas contextually as well as symbolically so they learn how to apply abstract ideas in qualitative and meaningful ways (diSessa, 1982) and develop interest in the content. Games and Simulations: Combining for a Synergistic Effect Clearly games and simulations have much to offer education – however in complementary ways (Figure 1). Games researchers do not have much empirically supported evidence to warrant many of their claims about games
Figure 1. Area of interest in game-based learning
600
Foster
for learning. In contrast, research has shown that good educational simulations are pedagogically sound for science learning, but students still do not find them interesting. Combining the affordances of videogames and simulations might solve this problem (Galarneau, 2005). However, few educational games lie in this intersection. Theory and framework building is needed to design and validate educational games that would be worthwhile for students and teachers. Research is needed about combining content with game design (Jenkins & Squire, 2005). Good combinations of content, pedagogy, and technology can form games that make learning relevant and meaningful for both teachers and students. It is important for students to both learn and develop deep interests in the content; being able to understand or a get a high score on a test is not the only purpose of schooling. Games and Learning Goals Well-designed video games meet players’ needs for creating interest, but also focus students on learning goals. That is, they afford motivation to learn (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2003). Enhanced interest and enjoyment typically stem from the affordances of gaming activities for personal identity, applicability, relevance, and meaningfulness. Science educators and software designers such as Linn (1998) and Vye, et al. (1998) have proposed principles for designing software environments for science inquiry that promotes meaningful science learning. These principles adhere to the National Educational Technology Standards ([NETS]; (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000) and Bruce and Levin’s (1997) taxonomy for what technology should allow students to do when learning. The software or technology is designed to identify learning goals that are clear and authentic, make thinking visible, encourage autonomy, and scaffold learning. A game may be designed to present information in engaging ways that focus on the content to be learned and make the activity worthwhile and meaningful, or it may be designed purely for entertainment with incidental content learning. Unlike entertainment games, well-designed games for education focus on learning goals through game activities that enhance interest or perceived value. The affordance of games to bring in ideas that connect to a person’s identity also makes them capable of creating personal relevance for learners. Video game environments allow learners to identify with avatars or situations, which creates value or appreciation for the learning of activities. Identifying with an avatar (virtual character representing player/user) who is, for example, a biomedical scientist can lead to focus on achievement goals, which can lead to better self-esteem (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003) and identity for students in science classrooms.
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
601
THE NATURE OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY FOR STUDENTS
Within science education a critical issue is trying to bridge the language of students to that of the science community. We need students to understand science so they can make informed decisions in their lives as citizens or as scientists. This is an important part of being a world citizen and for preserving life (Smith, Wiser, Anderson, & Krajcik, in press; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Roseberry, & Hudicort-Barnes, 2001). The problem is getting students to understand science and value it, because it usually is presented as a discourse that is not connected to their lives. There is a need to connect students’ tacit or everyday discourse to science discourse as valued by the science community, but in ways that recognize and value students’ tacit knowledge. Congruent instruction has been proposed to help connect students’ backgrounds or cultural experiences to science learning (Lee & Luykx, 2006). Congruent instruction involves exploring the relationship between academic disciplines and students’ cultural and linguistic knowledge and devising ways to link the two (Lee & Luykx). This is one way to attach personal relevance and meaningfulness to what students learn. Driver, et al (1994) commented that this can be done in classrooms with teachers mediating students’ observation of phenomena with questions and discussions that help the students build scientific understandings. However, some things cannot be done in classrooms due to time, pedagogical, and visual representational limitations, such as tracing invisible systems or predicting present activities’ impact on the future. Another way to present information in a meaningful way is through big ideas. Anderson (2002) presented some ways of thinking about big ideas in science: Big ideas focus on the most important patterns, models, and theories for a topic. They don’t include every vocabulary word in the unit (though they should include the most important ones), and they don’t have many specific examples. The language you use in your summary of big ideas should be the language you would like your students to use. (p. 12)
However, teachers tend to focus on topics rather than big ideas. Learning games are good for focusing on learning orientations and can be designed to include congruent instructions, embed big ideas, and solve the time, visual, representational, and other limitations. They can show students science and its application beyond the classroom (Marshall, 1994) because they can present big ideas and allow for deep exploration, which takes significant time. Teachers are crunched for time and tend to focus on surface knowledge and achieving curriculum goals that are mile-wide, but inch-deep.
602
Foster
GAMES AND MOTIVATION: CLAIMS FOR LEARNING Examining the Claims There have been many claims about games and their affordances for motivation to learn in education. Proponents of game-based learning make their arguments based on the philosophical tenets for learning that they think may be afforded by games and also from peripheral research in cognitive science and education (Gee, 2003; Prensky, 2001; Shaffer, 2006). For instance, James Gee has listed 36 such claims and the author has cataloged over 200 (see http://theclaimsofgames.netcipia.net). Educators such as Gee and Seymour Papert (1997) said that games already have a lot of the learning theory used in education embedded in them, and their interactive experiences create personal stories, which students can relate to or find meaningful. However, most claims about games for learning are based on studies from peripheral fields, not education. They are often lab studies with unusual samples that try to generalize beyond their sampled audience and they conflate game genres (Prensky; Squire, 2003; Williams, 2004, 2005). The claims are mostly based on intrinsic motivational theories (Asgari, 2005; Malone, 1981) and consequently, focus on entertainment value, not learning goals. In education students are expected to invest effort in learning activities, so focusing on the affective components of intrinsic motivation alone will not work. Yet, focusing on learning goals without valuing of the activity and developing interest in the content also will not be prudent. For serious games or games for learning, the motivation focus should be on identification or identified regulation. According to Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Deci (2006), identified regulation and intrinsic motivation are similar, but not the same. Intrinsic motivation comes from doing something purely for fun or out of interest. Serious games use intrinsically motivational activities to slowly move learners in the direction of valuing the learning. Through engaging in the activity, learners become interested and then begin to find it relevant and valuable to them. Identified regulation is important because students usually do not find learning science personally relevant or interesting enough to make them want to value, think or act like a scientist, even though they may see doing so as important. Identified regulation moves them beyond doing the activity only for fun to doing it for personal meaningfulness. It may even help in predicting learners’ behavior (Losier & Koestner, 1999). Game proponents align gaming activities with intrinsic motivation because of features found in both. Intrinsic motivation activities incorporate an optimal challenge; have an appropriate goal and uncertain outcomes; provide clear, constructive, and encouraging feedback; and offer elements of curiosity and fantasy (Brophy, 2004; Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Malone, 1981). Games include an intermediate number of choices and give players
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
603
intermediate control over the features of the game (Malone & Lepper, 1987); they also offer interactivity, nonlinearity (Wilson, 1996), and competition (Malone & Lepper). Proponents such as Prensky (2001) and academics such as Asgari (2005) claimed that while part of the motivation may initially come from novelty effects, competitive enjoyment, or stimulation, the best types of engagement come from learners’ enjoyment of a more effective learning experience, one that puts them in control and encourages active participation, exploration, reflection, and the individual construction of meaning. Asgari (2005) presented this experience as what Papert (1997) referred to as hard fun: enjoyment derived from a challenging but meaningful learning experience, or as Gee (2003) said, an experience “that is or should be both frustrating and lifeenhancing” (p.6). However, the arguments are not evidence based. Little is known about the effectiveness of game playing for learning in the sciences, about using games for congruent instruction, or about what content and which learners games are good for. It is claimed that games can enable learning experiences that are similar to congruent instruction in the classroom and create conditions that are contextually relevant, motivating, and meaningful by anchoring the phenomena to be examined in contexts that are familiar (or easily made familiar through game playing; Asgari, 2005; Galarneau, 2005; Malone, 1981). Conditions include worlds that allow the suspension of disbelief, but have application to authentic situations (Ijsselsteijn, 2003). The suspension of disbelief allows students to become immersed in the activity and enhances their valuing of it. Engaging in science activities through experiences that create qualitative understanding enables students to know intuitively how the science concepts being learned are used in everyday practical situations. Traditional educational simulations hold much promise for student learning and understanding (Ardac & Akaygun, 2004; de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998; Hinostroza & Mellar, 2001). For instance, Ardac and Akaygun used simulations to develop understanding from macroscopic to microscopic levels in chemistry. They found that students were able to learn science ideas and understand them qualitatively, but they complained about the dullness of the simulations. Games: Natural Learning Environments Games and simulations are natural learning environments because they are usually contextualized, they provide social interaction with artificial intelligence or avatars representing players, and provide authentic activities. Authentic activities are real in the context or transferable to real world situations. According to the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, (1997) natural learning environments are contextualized: “In natural learn-
604
Foster
ing environments, the tasks the learners perform are authentic. They arise naturally in the context, and the participants care about the outcomes” (p.810). Finally, the knowledge that is being learned is often viewed as a tool to accomplish the tasks, and the learner sees it as valuable knowledge that can be used in new situations. The Jasper Woodbury series (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992) uses videodiscs to enhance natural learning environments through anchored instruction that enables situated and active learning. Games have the potential to do the same by anchoring a phenomenon in an interactive experience, which provides individual stories with specified goals that are scaffolded throughout the experience. Anchored instruction refers to “instruction that reflects realistic, complex, ill-structured situations” (Dunlap & Grabinger, 1996). Therefore, rather than separating science content into topics or component skills, the skills or ideas are taught holistically within a meaningful game playing context that keeps the links between science, technology, and society intact. This idea is supported by Barab, Hay, Barnett, and Squire (2001), who investigated students’ interactions when learning by modeling with a 3-D software to develop a virtual space. They found that learning emerged as part of doing the activities and was valued by the students. Learning and doing were inextricably related, not separated. In a game environment, like an immersive 3-D virtual space, the playing of the game and doing of the activities is the process of constructing knowledge. GAMES AND MOTIVATION TO LEARN SCIENCE
Besides their intrinsic motivating capabilities, which are more about the affective component of motivation, games have the potential for developing “motivation to learn,” defined by Brophy (2004) as “students’ tendency to find academic activities meaningful and worthwhile and try to get the intended learning benefits from them” (p. 249). According to Brophy, motivation to learn is an “adoption of learning goals and related strategies” (p. 250). Hence, for games to make students find science learning relevant and meaningful, they must focus on learning goals and let the learning experience evolve from there. How can games motivate students to learn science by focusing on learning goals? Theoretically, they must focus on interest, especially by connecting to students’ experiences and making them value science experiences through gaming affordances for shaping personal identity, making the activity relevant and meaningful, and showing the applicability of science activity beyond school settings and for personal agendas. 1. Making an activity relevant and meaningful Making an activity relevant and meaningful entails working within the construct of personal interest. Relevance, in this case personal relevance, as
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
605
defined by Keller (1983) is when a learner perceives that important personal needs or goals are being met by an activity. Meaningfulness is defined “as fitting content into the larger cultural context” (Turner et al., 1998). Thus an activity that meets students’ perceived needs and occurs in a larger cultural context could be considered a personally relevant and meaningful activity to a student. Implicit in relevance and meaningfulness is interest. Interest occurs because there is a gap between a given and desired state of knowledge (Keller, 1983). Therefore the aim is to work within a student’s cognitive and motivational Zone of Proximal Development ([ZPD]; Brophy, 2004; Vygotsky, 1978) while adhering to activities that meet relevance and meaningfulness criteria. Within the ZPD, there is a natural yearning for sustenance – some need. Deci and Ryan (2002) in their self-determination theory explored the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness as basic for all human beings. For science, interest dwindles because these needs are not being met. There is a breakdown between perceptual curiosity (Keller, 1983) or catch factors – various ways to stimulate students (Mitchell, 1993) and the more important epistemic curiosity (Keller) or hold factors – variables that empower students (Mitchell, 1993). Learners’ interest is not maintained because there is disconnect between their curiosity and the activity being learned. In gaming situations, situational interest (Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001) is one way to catch students’ interest and hold it long enough to develop personal interest by empowering students through absorption and identification as discussed by Dewey (Mitchell, 1993). Games can create situational interest by using catch factors that are novel, incongruous, conflictual, or paradoxical (but focused on learning goals). For instance, in learning about use of electricity in a game, catch factors such as a trailer (brief synopsis of situation and goal) that is similar to an anchor in anchored instruction in the Jasper Series (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992) could be used to present information that is novel, conflictual, or paradoxical. This information would focus on learning goals while enhancing perceptual curiosity. Students would seek information to satisfy conceptual conflict. For instance, if a learner starts with a given or created question about an unusual situation or perspective, the conceptual conflict will create/spark interest. This puts the learner in a problemsolving mode. In a game, starting with a trailer that has text, audio, and video creates the same effect as an anchor does in anchored instruction. The situation in the game could be presented as a scenario: how to generate voltage to save your town because the power station’s three generators were damaged by a storm. In the town there is a river, a windmill, and an old nuclear submarine at the dock to use to generate this voltage. You must collect artifacts (equipment to build a circuit or grid), talk to the people in your town (character interaction), let them know about the situation as the work
606
Foster
evolves, and so forth. While doing these activities, you must generate the right amount of voltage or else you will overload the circuits in people’s homes and possibly damage them or even destroy their homes by starting fires. Game trailers present the expectations and situations in a given scenario to engage in problem solving. They set the stage for the coming events. The events or activities would be things common to students’ experience such as activities that affect students’ power station knowledge including how the power station works, how electricity is generated, how it affects the town, how it relates to students’ lives, and so forth. Students learn in concrete ways, not only about abstract science ideas, but also about the social aspects associated with science, while engaging in discussion with other characters in their town to solve a problem that requires scientific understanding. The big ideas coupled with human systems and practices in the game create relevance in the eyes of the students. However, the big ideas also incorporate scientific principles and processes that teachers would want their students to learn. The students pursue solving their conceptual conflict or incongruity through gameplay that connects to learning goals. Further, learning goals are presented in ways that empower students. They are meaningful in that they connect to students’ experiences outside the classroom. By presenting science learning in a concrete way with authentic events and role-playing, students develop interest through personal relevance. If games are designed to use situational interest that becomes personal interest through game play, learners may develop intrinsic interest in science beyond the classroom. Science activities would become a salient part of their lives and not an abstract entity.
2. Applicability of science activity in contexts outside of school and for personal agendas The depiction of science knowledge and skill as needed to solve problems in authentic contexts builds value into students’ perceptions of science. They see science as useful for their own purposes and much more. However, for science to be viewed as useful it must be learned through authentic tasks.
Authentic Tasks. Big ideas in science education developed with an emphasis on their application to real world settings are important for connecting learning to students’ life experiences and making it transferable or applicable in out-of-school settings. If they cannot apply school learning outside of school, chances are that they will not see any usefulness to it, and the learning will not meet any personal agenda beyond getting a grade. Authentic science tasks combined with game play enable students to value science activities and eventually the science discourse for themselves; they do not see science as merely having some abstract relevance that they will never use in their lives. If students are presented with open activities in games where they
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
607
create worlds or navigate openly, or worlds where the activities are authentic and in which they decide what information to use and how they want to use it (such as for pursuit of individual interests, autonomy, challenge, and self-improvement), the information will meet their personal agendas. For instance, consider the following scenario: You are living in a city not far away from a nearby town called Percolate where some of your city’s water supply originates. Percolate’s water supply has been contaminated by mercury. Your job as a scientist is to find the source of this mercury pollution. Search for all possible sources of contaminants and find ways to save this town and its people. You will have to interview the town’s people such as farmers and companies known to use chemicals, conduct experiments, and find a way to deal with the mercury seepage. Now go and save your city, the environment, and the nearby town. Such an anchor or trailer gives meaning to a task for applicability to real world contexts. The task also draws on personalization by recognizing the student playing the game by using second person language – you and your. It also relates to most students who have tap water supplies in their homes or use ground water supplies. It presents the idea of the water in a student’s city or town as having origins in other towns – referring to the watershed areas usually on the outskirts of cities or big towns. It connects to learning goals, but most importantly, this scenario engages students in using science to solve problems that affect them in an authentic context. It addresses both personal agendas and applicability to a context beyond the school setting.
3. Shaping identities and implications for learning Personal identity refers to the degree to which someone can identify characteristics of themselves in another person or character. It can also refer to the degree which students see aspects of themselves represented culturally or personally in situations with which they can identify. It pertains to how individuals think about their potential and about their future – a possible self. Markus and Nurius (1986) noted that possible selves include the ideal selves that we would like to become as well as the selves we are afraid of becoming. For instance, what we want to become may include the successful self, the creative self, the scientist, and so forth, while the feared possible selves could be the alone self, the depressed self, the incompetent self or the “ascientific” self. The development of possible selves depends on the development of students’ self-schemas as well as their perceived competence. Without appropriate self-schemas, learners cannot perceive or know what to do to become a specific possible self such as a doctor, a lawyer, or a scientist. Good selfschemas allow students to have better perceived competence (Brophy, 2004). Possible selves are not the same as one's current self-concept, so they motivate by providing goals to reach as well as outcomes that students may
608
Foster
try to avoid. Thus, “whether or not the possible self is attained depends on many things, one of which is the individual's current perceived competence” (Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006, p. 939). Markus and Nurius (1986) claimed that possible selves “are individualized or personalized, but they are also distinctly social” (p. 956). Therefore, possible selves are the result of “previous social comparisons in which the individual's own thoughts, feelings, characteristics, and behaviors have been contrasted to those of salient others” (Markus & Nurius, 1986, p. 954). Thus, to become what others are, students need to identify with the characteristics of those others and develop their self-schemas. In a sense, students need to see themselves in models in order to envision what they can become.
Possible selves in games for science learning. Within game environments, personalizing characters to reflect students’ world could lead to self-referential feelings being projected onto a character that they can manipulate to achieve learning goals. Students learn more and show greater interest in activities when given personalization options that increase their sense of control and autonomy as well as show how they see themselves in a role (Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Moreno and Mayer (2000) showed that college students in a multimedia science course, who were using a personalized version of a program, learned more and with less cognitive effort than students who did not use a personalized program. One reason for the difference was that the self-referential language of the personalized software encouraged students to elaborate the content (Moreno & Mayer). Self-referential feelings increase aspects of one’s possible self and motivation to learn. Fantasy elements add interest and value to activities because they allow for people to identify with fantasy characters, feel emotional reactions, and vicariously experience situations that may be available to them in real life (Asgari & Kaufman, 2005; Turkle, 1995). The notion that “you are who you pretend to be” was captured by multiple Multi-User Domains (MUD) users in Turkle’s study of role-playing in MUDs. Turkle found that MUDs have helped in psychotherapy and addiction alleviation. Some MUD users found solace in MUDding and helped themselves overcome problems. They became the selves they imagined and rose above their problems (Turkle). In science learning, games could be used to evoke the same actions and feelings as displayed by some of the participants in Turkle’s (1995) study. Game-based learning could be a powerful way for many students, especially those from diverse backgrounds engaging in science discourse, to value the experience and develop a personal interest in science activities. For instance, many minority students may not possess the self-schemas to aspire to scientific careers or may not identify with teachers or scientists in ways that make them want to become scientists or see the connection of science to their lives. Further, minority students who want to enter the general sci-
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
609
ence discourse must learn the science discourse that is being shaped by gatekeepers who represent a different set of cultural characteristics than they do. Fantasy in games and simulations can provide helpful metaphors for learning complex content and also provide real-world contexts within which the skills can be used. Games can help students develop self-schemas for science careers through congruent instruction and big ideas. Within the game environment, self-schemas can be constructed creatively and selectively from an individual's past experiences, in particular when students engage in situations where they role-play or control characters that they can identify with; characters who engage in science activities that meet students’ agendas, but focus on learning goals. According to Markus and Nurius (1986), selfschemas “reflect personal concerns of enduring salience and investment, and they have been shown to have a systematic and pervasive influence on how information about the self is processed” (p. 960). Brophy (2004) claimed that developing self-schema is particularly useful for boys and girls who are aschematic or lack self-schemas for a particular area they want to get into as a job. Their chances of finding someone of like culture and race to teach or mentor them are limited. However, by incorporating cultural elements and possible selves, games can help students gain schematic knowledge of a particular area and also see a connection to the material. Allowing students to role-play as certain identities makes them value their efforts more. Rowell (2002), in a study about peer interaction for designing a robot in a science learning activity centered around the big idea of electric circuits, showed that students valued their efforts more when they assumed the identities of the professionals who design robots. Rowell claimed that overt recognition of character identities (electrician, handyman) offered an avenue for acknowledgement of the contributions of these characters to the progress of the task. It was important for the contribution of each student-partner to be acknowledged in the interactions and the naming of identities. Games can help students build science-valuing self-schemas, by scaffolding schemas through the steps of scientific work. Thus, building schemas for a possible-self as a scientist in games is one way for students to value science learning and find it relevant and meaningful. NEW DIRECTIONS
Much has been said from game-based inquiry about what is possible for learners. However, most of these claims have not been explored empirically. Exploring what games afford for making science learning personally relevant and meaningful by connecting the games, motivation, and science literatures is feasible, but more importantly it presents a theoretical view that offers opportunity for exploring empirically what is possible theoretically.
610
Foster
Some claims for games about motivation and learning in science are well established, such as multimodality – meaning and knowledge are built up through various modalities and the ability to reduce cognitive overload. However, other claims such as identity formation, relevance and meaningfulness, and applicability to out-of-school contexts are borrowed from other domains without yet being studied with games in education. Motivation research presents a foundation to delve further in exploring games for learning, but with students’ interest in mind. The design of an activity or content area in a game that contains the exploration of a phenomenon or big idea that could spark situational interest in that content area is one possible way to spark more long term interest in science. Games can also be used to capitalize on students’ individual interests or natural interests in play (Williamson, Land, Butler, & Ndahi, 2004). The virtual world of games can be designed to reflect the big ideas of the real world and science, but students can play these ideas out in worlds that they can manipulate and control. For instance in physics, students playing the game Physicus learn about electricity while playing the game that involves them in saving the world. They solve puzzles and use strategies while learning how to use transformers to generate voltage to get a machine working. In this activity students come to also understand how their cell phone chargers work, how current gets to their house and other direct connections to their life and social context. They may also feel motivated by the activity and pursue learning more about the nature of electricity. CONCLUSIONS
The capability of games to afford the ability to shape personal identity, make science activity relevant and meaningful, and show the applicability of science activity beyond school settings and for personal agendas presents situations for involvement, curiosity and understanding. However, this does not guarantee continued motivation to learn if gaming situations are not supported elsewhere such as by parents or the social milieu. Like other methods of engaging students in inquiry, games present one way to design for holistic science learning. However, research needs to be done to assess most of the claims for games for learning effectiveness. References Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Anderson, C. W. (2002). Learning to teach science for understanding: Intern year version. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337.
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
611
Asgari, M. (2005). A three-factor model of motivation and game design. Paper presented at the 2005 International DiGRA Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2005, June). Relationships among computer games, fantasy, and learning. Paper presented at the 2005 International DiGRA Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47-94. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44. Brophy, J. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational technology: Media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79-102. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807-840). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-730. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179-202. diSessa, A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 5, 37-75. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Dunlap, J. C., & Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environment for active learning in the higher education classroom. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Summit of educational games: Harnessing the power of video games for learning. Washington, DC: Author. Galarneau, L. (2005, June). Authentic learning experiences through play: Games, simulations and the construction of knowledge. Paper presented at the 2005 International DiGRA Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5-16. Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A normative study of family media habits. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 157-178.
612
Foster
Gredler, M. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a research paradigm. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 521-539): New York: MacMilan. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 11-24). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821. Ijsselsteijn, W. (2003). Presence in the past: What can we learn from media history? In G. Riva, F. Davide, & W. A. Ijsselsteijn (Eds.), Being there: Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Ios Press. International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards. In R. Pea (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and learning (pp. 3-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jenkins, H., & Squire, K. (2005). Theory theories. Computer Games Magazine. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivation design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. New York: Cambridge University Press. Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 265-2994). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Losier, G. F., & Koestner, R. (1999). Intrinsic versus identified regulation in distinct political campaigns: The consequences of following politics for pleasure versus personal meaningfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 287-298. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333-369. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Apptitude, learning and instruction: Cognitive and affective processed analysis. (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969. Marshall, H. (1994). Children's understanding of academic tasks: Work, play, or learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9, 35-46. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424-436. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 724-733.
Games and Motivation to Learn Science
613
National Institute on the Media and the Family. (2002, November 6). Media use. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_mediause.shtml Papert, S. (1997). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Marietta, GA: Longstreet Press. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20, 54. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Exploration in massively parallel worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Media Press. Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 1-22. Scardamalia, M. (2000). Can schools enter a knowledge society? In M. Selinger & J. Wynn (Eds.), Educational technology and the impact on teaching and learning (pp. 6-10). Abingdon, UK: RM. Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J., & Coppola, B. (in press). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (1st ed., pp. 232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming, 2(1). Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster. Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing through computers. The American Prospect, 8(31). Turner, J., Cox, K. E., DiCinto, M., Meyer, D. K., Logan, C., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 730-745. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. Vye, N. J., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. L., Barron, B. J., Zech, L., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART enviroments that support monitoring, reflecting and revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Roseberry, A. S., & Hudicort-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552.
614
Foster
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. V. Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, 6th ed.; 933-1002). New York: John Wiley. Williams, D. C. (2004). Trouble in river city: The social life of video games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Williams, D. C. (2005). Bridging the methodological divide in game research. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 447-463. Williamson, K. M., Land, L., Butler, B., & Ndahi, H. B. (2004). A structured framework for using games to teach mathematics and science in K-12 classrooms. The Technology Teacher, 64(3), 15-18. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology and Research Development, 48(2), 81-95. Wong, D., Pugh, K., & Dewey Ideas Group at Michigan State University. (2001). Learning science: A dewey perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 317-336.
