Game-based classroom activity is intended to leverage students' interest and motivation to play, and to provide safe contexts for supporting students' academic learning. However, a basic criticism of many games currently used in classroom settings is that they can fail to meaningfully embody academic content. A more subtle concern is that cognitive and social dynamics emerging from the structuring and enactment of poorly designed games may compromise students' affective disposition and, so, undermine their learning opportunities. Using the case of classroom games designed for mathematical learning, I propose to examine how certain structural dynamics of a learning activity such as the rules and protocol for interaction, choice of media, or criteria for success may influence student interest, engagement, and eventual learning outcomes. This theoretical article reviews cognitive, developmental, and game-related literature in order to develop a rationale for accountable design—an approach that considers how these dynamics may be coordinated to support both the instructional objectives of educators, as well as the individual social and developmental needs of students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonD. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Education Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27–47.
2.
AckermannE. (2003). Hidden drivers of pedagogic transactions: Teachers as clinicians and designers. In Proceedings of the 9th EuroLOGO Conference (pp. 29–37). Porto, Portugal.
3.
BallD. L. (1995). Transforming pedagogy: Classrooms as mathematical communities. A response to Timothy Lensmire and John Pryor Harvard Educational Review, 65, 670–677.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action.Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
BarronB. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.
7.
BraggL. (2007). Students' conflicting attitudes towards games as a vehicle for learning mathematics: A methodological dilemma. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(1), 29–44.
8.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA., & CockingR. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
BrightG. W.HarveyJ. G., & WheelerM. M.(1985). Learning and mathematics games. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1, i–189.
10.
BrownA. L., & CampioneJ. (1992). Interactive learning environments: A new look at assessment and instruction. In GiffordB. R. (Ed.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 121–211). Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA., & DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
12.
BrunerJ. (1972). The nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27(8), 687–708.
13.
CharoenyingT. (2008). Accountable game designs for classroom learning. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 1–5). Chicago, IL: ACM.
14.
CohenE. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
15.
ColemanJ. S. (1972). Learning through games. In BrunerJ.JollyA., & SylvaK. (Eds.), Play: Its role in development and evolution.New York: Penguin Books.
CubanL. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920.New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
DettermanD. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In DettermanD. & SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
DeweyJ. (1928). Democracy and education.New York: Macmillan.
20.
DickeyM. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 67–83.
21.
EiffermanR. K. (1972). It's child's play. In ShearsL. M. & BoweE. M. (Ed.), Games in education and development (pp. 75–102). Springfield, CA: Charles C. Thomas.
22.
EriksonE. H. (1950). Childhood and society.New York: W. W. Norton Company.
23.
FischS. (2005). Making educational computer games “educational.” In EisenbergM. & EisenbergA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children (pp. 56–61). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Boulder.
24.
Games-to-Teach Team. (2003). Design principles of next-generation digital games for education. Educational Technology, 43(5), 17–33.
25.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
GickM. L., & HolyoakK. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.
27.
GubermanS. R. (1999). Supportive environments for cognitive development: Illustrations from children's mathematical activities outside of school. In GoncuA. (Ed.), Children's engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 202–227). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HollandW.JenkinsH., & SquireK. (2003). Theory by design. In PerronB. & WolfM. (Ed.), Video game theory.New York: Routledge.
29.
HuizingaJ. (1949/1938). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in culture.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
30.
InbarM., & StollC. S. (1970). Games and learning. Interchange, 1(2), 53–61.
31.
JenkinsH. (1998). Voices from the combat zone: Game grrlz talk back. In CassellJ. & JenkinsH. (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 328–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
JuulJ. (2000). What computer games can and can't do. In Paper presented at the digital arts and culture conference. Bergen, Norway. Retrieved from http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/wcgcacd.html
33.
KafaiY. B. (1998). Video game designs by children: Consistency and variability of gender differences. In CassellJ. & JenkinsH. (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 90–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
KafaiY. B.FrankeM.ChingC., & ShihJ. (1998). Games as interactive learning environments fostering teachers' and students' mathematical thinking. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–193.
35.
KamiiC., & RummelsbergJ. (2008, March). Arithmetic for first graders lacking number concepts. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14, 389–394.
36.
KosterR. (2004). Theory of fun for game design.Phonenix, AZ: Paraglyph Press.
37.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
38.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
LeeC. (2003). Toward a framework for culturally responsive design in multimedia computer environments: Cultural modeling as a case. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(1), 42–61.
41.
LeeC. D. (2006a). “Every good-bye ain't gone”: Analyzing the cultural underpinnings of classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3), 305–327.
42.
LeeC. (2006b). Teaching and learning of intellective competence. In GordonE. W. & BridglallB. L. (Eds.), Affirmative development: Cultivating academic ability (pp. 155–188). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
43.
MichaelD., & ChenS. (2005). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform.Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.
44.
MillerC. S.LehmanJ., & KoedingerK. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(3), 305–336.
45.
NasirN. S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2/3), 213–247.
46.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Curriculum and evaluation of standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: NCTM.
47.
National Science Board (NSB). (2008). Science and Engineering Indicators 2008.Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
48.
NewellA.ShawJ., & SimonH. (1958). Chess playing programs and the problem of complexity. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2(4), 320–335.
49.
PalinscarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
50.
PapertS. (1998, June). Does easy do it? Children, games, and learning. Game Developer Magazine, p. 88.
51.
PiagetJ. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood.New York: W. W. Norton.
52.
PiagetJ. (1965). The rules of the game of marbles. In The moral judgment of the child (pp. 13–76). New York: The Free Press.
53.
PintrichP. R.MarxR., & BoyleR. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.
54.
PowerT. G.(2000). Play and exploration in children and animals.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
RamaniG. B., & SieglerR. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income children's numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79(2), 375–394.
56.
RieberL. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(2), 43–58.
57.
RubinK. H.FeinG. G., & VandenbergB. (1983). Play. In Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 693–774). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
58.
SalenK., & ZimmermanE. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59.
SchankR. C. (1996). Goal-based scenarios: Case-based reasoning meets learning by doing. In LeakeD. B. (Ed.), Case-based reasoning (pp. 295–348). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
ShafferD. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn.New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
61.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
62.
SlavinR. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.
63.
SquireK. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Games, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/squire/
64.
SquireK.MaKinsterJ.BarnettM.LuehmannA., & BarabS. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 468–489.
65.
SteeleC. M., & AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
66.
StigginsR. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 191–198.
67.
Sutton-SmithB. (1997). The ambiguity of play.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet.Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
69.
ValeM. (2001). The princely court: Medieval courts and culture in north-west Europe, 1270–1380.New York: Oxford University Press.
70.
VygotskyL. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 3(5), 62–76.
71.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
72.
WentzelK. (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context. In MaehrM. & PintrichP. R. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (pp. 185–212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
