This study examined the learning experiences of 478 middle school science students using a problem-based ludic simulation over a 3-week period to learn space science. Findings from both quantitative and qualitative data revealed that use of the simulation supported student learning and that knowledge gains helped reduce gender-based achievement gaps between boys and girls in the subject matter. Student attitude was additionally linked to learning success while using the simulation. These findings suggest that student engagement and self-recognition of progress and learning are important design factors when developing problem-based learning experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AarsethE. J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
BarabS. A.PettyjohnP.GresalfiM.VolkC.SolomouM. (2012). Game-based curriculum and transformational play: Designing to meaningfully positioning person, content, and context. Computers & Education, 5, 518–533.
3.
BarabS.ThomasM.DodgeT.CarteauxR.TuzunH. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.
4.
BarrowsH. S. (2002). Is it truly possible to have such a thing as dPBL?Distance Education, 23(1), 119–122.
5.
BuckleyB.GobertJ.HorwitzP.O'DwyerL. (2010). Looking inside the black box: Assessing model-based learning and inquiry in BioLogica™. International Journal of Learning Technology, 5(2), 166–190.
6.
ClarkeJ.DedeC.KetelhutD. J.NelsonB. (2006). A design-based research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Educational Technology, 46(3), 27–36.
7.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.
8.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1994). From visual word problems to learning communities: Changing conceptions of cognitive research. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 157–200). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
9.
CrawfordC. (1984). The art of computer game design. New York: Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
10.
CsikszentmihalyiM.BennettS. (1971). An exploratory model of play. American Anthropologist, 73(1), 45–58.
11.
DabbaghN. D.BlijdC. W. (2010). Students' perceptions of their learning experiences in an authentic instructional design context. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 4(1), 3.
12.
DeNeveK. M.HeppnerM. J. (1997). Role-play simulations: The assessment of an active learning technique and comparisons with traditional lectures. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 231–246.
13.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
14.
DormansJ. (2006). The world is yours: Intertextual irony and second level reading strategies in Grand Theft Auto. Game Research. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://game-research.com/
FrascaG. (2003). Simulation versus narrative: Introduction to Ludology. In WolfM. J. P.PerronB. (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader (pp. 221–236). New York: Routledge.
17.
GallagherS. A.StepienW. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American Studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(3), 257–275.
18.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20.
19.
HerringtonJ.OliverR. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.
20.
HmeloC. E.FerrariM. (1997). The problem-based learning tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20(4), 401–422.
21.
HungD.LooiC. K.KohT. S. (2004). Situated cognition and communities of practice: First-person “lived experiences” vs. third-person perspectives. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 193–200.
22.
JuulJ. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and fictional worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
KetelhutD. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.
24.
KimmonsR. (2010). Digital play, ludology, and the future of educational games. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 171–179). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
25.
LeonardD. J. (2006). Not a hater, just keepin'it real: The importance of race- and gender-based game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 83.
26.
LeverJ. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social Problems, 23(4), 478–487.
27.
LiuM. (2004). Examining the performance and attitudes of sixth graders during their use of a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(3), 357–379.
28.
LiuM.BeraS.CorlissS. B.SvinickiM. D.BethA. D. (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive processes as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 309–334.
29.
LiuM.HortonL.KimmonsR.AndersonM.LeeJ.RosenblumJ. (2010). The design and development of a media rich learning environment: A learners-as-designers model. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 213–222). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
30.
LiuM.HortonL.OlmansonJ.TopracP. (2011a). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 249–265. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9192-7
31.
LiuM.HortonL.TopracP.YuenT. (2011b). Examining the design of media rich cognitive tools as scaffolds in a multimedia problem-based learning environment. In OreyM.JonesS. A.BranchR. M. (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook (EMTY), 36. New York: Springer.
32.
LiuM.WilliamsD.PedersenS. (2002). Alien Rescue: A problem-based hypermedia learning environment for middle school science. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(3), 255–270.
33.
McGonigalJ. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: The Penguin Press HC.
34.
MetcalfS.KamarainenA.GrotzerT.DedeC. (2011, April). Ecosystem science learning via multi-user virtual environments. Presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.
35.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
NelsonB. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97.
37.
NelsonB.KetelhutD. J.ClarkeJ.BowmanC.DedeC. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21–27.
38.
OppenheimerT. (2004). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology. New York: Random House, Inc.
39.
PiagetJ.InhelderB. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
40.
PolancoR.CalderónP.DelgadoF. (2004). Effects of a problem-based learning program on engineering students' academic achievements in a Mexican university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 145–155.
41.
ReevesT.HerringtonJ.OliverR. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 96–115.
42.
RieberL. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58.
43.
RoussouM. (2004). Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for children. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 2(1), 10.
44.
SaveryJ. S. (2006). Overview of PBL: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
45.
SchmidtH.Van Der MolenH.Te WinkelW.WijnenW. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227–249. doi: 10.1080/00461520903213592
46.
SingerD. G.GolinkoffR. M.Hirsh-PasekK. (2006). Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children's cognitive and social-emotional growth (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
SquireK. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 2(1), 49–62.
48.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
StrobelJ.Van BarneveldA. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4.
50.
ZechL.VyeN. J.BransfordJ. D.SwinkJ.Mayfield-StewartC.GoldmanS. R. (1994). Bringing geometry into the classroom with videodisc technology. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School Journal, 1(3), 228–233.
