Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 324–343 | Cite as

Seeing Change in Time: Video Games to Teach about Temporal Change in Scientific Phenomena

  • Javier Corredor
  • Matthew Gaydos
  • Kurt Squire


This article explores how learning biological concepts can be facilitated by playing a video game that depicts interactions and processes at the subcellular level. Particularly, this article reviews the effects of a real-time strategy game that requires players to control the behavior of a virus and interact with cell structures in a way that resembles the actual behavior of biological agents. The evaluation of the video game presented here aims at showing that video games have representational advantages that facilitate the construction of dynamic mental models. Ultimately, the article shows that when video game’s characteristics come in contact with expert knowledge during game design, the game becomes an excellent medium for supporting the learning of disciplinary content related to dynamic processes. In particular, results show that students who participated in a game-based intervention aimed at teaching biology described a higher number of temporal-dependent interactions as measured by the coding of verbal protocols and drawings than students who used texts and diagrams to learn the same topic.


Video games Learning Biology Dynamic mental models Dynamic visual representations 



This research was supported partially by grants from DIB-UNAL to Javier Corredor (Grant: Hermes-14780).


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science-AAAS (2013). Benchmarks for science literacy: a tool for curriculum reform (Current Version). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 22, 2013 from
  2. Anderson J (2005) Cognitive psychology and its implications, 6th edn. Worth, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Annetta LA, Minogue J, Holmes SY, Cheng MT (2009) Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Comput Educ 53(1):74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab SA, Zuiker S, Warren S, Hickey D, Ingram-Goble A, Kwon E-J, Kouper I, Herring SC (2007) Situationally embodied curriculum: relating formalisms to contexts. Sci Educ 91(5):750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barak M, Dori YJ (2011) Science education in primary schools: is an animation worth a thousand pictures? J Sci Educ Technol 20(5):608–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black RW, Steinkuehler C (2009) Literacy in virtual worlds. In: Christenbury L, Bomer R, Smagorinsky P (eds) Handbook of adolescent literacy research. Guilford, New York, pp 271–286Google Scholar
  7. Bodemer D, Ploetzner R, Feuerlein I, Spada H (2004) The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations. Learn Instr 14:325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boucheix J, Guignard H (2005) What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of presentation. Eur J Psychol Educ 20(4):369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boujemaa A, Pierre C, Sabah S, Salaheddine K, Jamal C, Abdellatif C (2010) University students’ conceptions about the concept of gene: interest of historical approach. US China Educ Rev 7(2):9–15Google Scholar
  10. Carreiras M, Carriedo N, Alonso MA, Fernández A (1997) The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading. Mem Cognit 25(4):438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandler P (2004) The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dynamic visualizations. Learn Instr 14:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chattopadhyay A (2004) Understanding of genetic information in higher secondary students in northeast India and the implications for genetics education. Cell Biol Educ 4(1):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi MTH (2008) Three types of conceptual change: belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In: Vosniadou S (ed) Handbook of research on conceptual change. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 61–82Google Scholar
  14. Chi MTH, Feltovich P, Glaser R (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognit Sci 5:121–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chi MTH, Roscoe RD, Slotta JD, Roy M, Chase C (2012) Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognit Sci 36:1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark R, Mayer R (2009) E-Learning and the science of instruction. Pfeiffer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark DB, Sengupta P (2013) Argumentation and modeling: integrating the products and practices of science to improve science education. In: Saleh IM, Khine MS (eds) Approaches and strategies in next generation science learning. Information Science Reference, Hershey, pp 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark DB, Nelson B, Sengupta P, D’Angelo CM (2009) Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: genres, examples, and evidence. Invited topic paper in the proceedings of the national academies board on science education workshop on learning science: computer games, simulations, and education. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from
  19. Clark DB, Nelson BC, Hsin-Yi C, Martinez-Garza M, Slack K, D′Angelo C (2011) Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Comput Educ 57:2178–2195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clement JJ (2008) Creative model construction in scientist and students: the role of imagery, analogy and mental simulation. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Colella V (2000) Participatory simulations: building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. J Learn Sci 9(4):471–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collins A, Gentner D (1987) How people construct mental models. In: Holland D, Quinn N (eds) Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 243–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corredor J, Jiménez-Leal W (2011) Modularity and the reality of psychological processes. Rev Colomb Psicol 20:309–319Google Scholar
  24. Duncan RG, Reiser B (2007) Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: students’ understanding of molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 44(7):938–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duncan RG, Rogat AD, Yarden A (2009) A learning progression for deepening students’ understanding of modern genetics across the 5th–10th grades. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):655–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eklund J, Rogat A, Alozie N, Krajcik J (2007) Promoting student scientific literacy of molecular genetics and genomics. Paper presented at the national association for research in science teaching conference. New Orleans, LousianaGoogle Scholar
  27. Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Evans KL, Yaron D, Leinhardt G (2008) Learning stoichiometry: a comparison of text and multimedia formats. Chem Educ Res Pract 9(3):208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frederiksen JR, White BY, Gutwill J (1999) Dynamic mental models in learning science: the importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. J Res Sci Teach 36(7):806–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Friedrichsen P, Stone B, Brown P (2004) Examining students’ conceptions of molecular biology in an introductory biology course for non-science majors: a self-study. Paper presented at the national association for research in science teaching international conference. Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaydos M, Squire K (2012) Role playing games of scientific citizenship. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 7:821–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garham A (2001) Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Psychology Press, SussexGoogle Scholar
  33. Gee JP (2005) Learning by design: good video games as learning machines. eLearning 2(1):5–16Google Scholar
  34. Gee JP (2008) Learning and games. In: Salen K (ed) The ecology of games: connecting youth, games and learning. The John D and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 21–40Google Scholar
  35. Gelbart H, Yarden A (2006) Learning genetics through an authentic research simulation in bioinformatics. J Biol Educ 40(3):107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibson E, Hu L, Swast T (2010) How effective is “Fuzzies” as a tool for developing a holistic understanding of basic genetic principles. Paper presented at the SPIRE-EIT REU summer program for interdisciplinary research and education emerging interface technologies. Retrieved November 28, 2010 from
  37. Goel V (2005) Cognitive neuroscience and deductive reasoning. In: Holyoak K, Morrison R (eds) The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 475–492Google Scholar
  38. Greenfield PM, Camaioni L, Ercolani P, Weiss L, Lauber BA, Perucchini P (1994) Cognitive socialization by computer games in two cultures: Inductive discovery or mastery of an iconic code? J Appl Dev Psychol 15:59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gutwill JP, Frederiksen JR, White BY (1999) Making their own connections: students’ understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognit Instr 17(3):249–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hahn J, Kim J (1999) Why are some diagrams easier to work with? Effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive integration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 6(3):181–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Halverson R (2005). What can K-12 school leaders learn from video games and gaming? Innovate, 1(6). Retrieved April 24, 2013 from
  42. Hegarty M (2004) Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions. Learn Instr 14:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoffler T, Leutner D (2007) Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr 17:722–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Honey MA, Hilton LH (2011) Learning science through computer games and simulations. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Hubbard TL (1995) Cognitive representations of motion: evidence for friction and gravity analogues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 21:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson M (1987) The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson-Laird PN (1980) Mental models in cognitive science. Cognit Sci 4:71–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson-Laird PN (1995) Mental models, deductive reasoning, and the brain. In: Gazzaniga MS (ed) The cognitive neurosciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 999–1008Google Scholar
  50. Johnson-Laird PN (1998) Imagery, visualization, and thinking. In: Hochberg J (ed) Perception and cognition at the century’s end. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 441–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnson-Laird PN (1999) Deductive reasoning. Annu Rev Psychol 50:109–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ketelhut DJ, Dede C, Clarke J, Nelson B (2007) Studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In: Baker E, Dickieson J, Wulfeck W, O’Neil H (eds) Assessment of problem solving using simulations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 37–58Google Scholar
  53. Kintsch W (1998) Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Klopfer E (2008) Augmented learning: research and design of mobile educational games. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognit Sci 11:65–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lewis J, Kattman U (2004) Traits, genes, particles and information: re-visiting students understanding of genetics. Int J Sci Educ 26:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lewis J, Wood-Robinson C (2000) Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-do students see a relationship? Int J Sci Educ 22(2):177–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lowe RK (1999) Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. Eur J Psychol Educ 14:225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lowe RK (2003) Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Instr 13:157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lowe R (2004) Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learn Instr 14:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. MacWhinney B (2008). How mental models encode embodied linguistic perspectives. CMU Department of Psychology. Paper 172. Retrieved October 16, 2012 from
  63. Marbach-Ad G (2001) Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. J Biol Educ 35(4):183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mayer RE (1997) Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educ Psychol 32(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayer RE (2005) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mayer RE, Chandler P (2001) When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? J Educ Psychol 93:390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mayer RE, Moreno R (2002) Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learn Instr 12:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mayer R, Sims V (1994) For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 86(3):389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McNorgan C, Reid J, McRae K (2011) Integrating conceptual knowledge within and across representational modalities. Cognition 118:211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Meir E, Perry J, Stal D, Maruca S, Klopfer E (2005) How effective are simulated molecular-level experiments for teaching diffusion and osmosis? Cell Biol Educ 4:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller LM, Estrera V, Moreno J, Lane D (2004) Efficacy of MedMyst: an internet teaching tool for middle school microbiology. Microbiology 5(1):13–20Google Scholar
  73. Mills-Shaw K, Van-Horne K, Zhang H, Boughman J (2007) Essay contests reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics 178(3):1157–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ministerio de Educación Nacional-MEN (2006). Estándares Básicos de Competencias en Lenguaje, Matemáticas, Ciencias y Ciudadanas. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional de Colombia. Retrieved October 16, 2012 from
  75. Moon BM, Hoffman RR, Novak JD, Cañas AJ (2011) Applied concept mapping: capturing, analyzing and organizing knowledge. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Moreno R, Mayer RE (2000) Engaging students in active learning: the case for personalized multimedia messages. J Educ Psychol 92(4):724–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nash P, Shaffer D (2010) Mentor modeling: the internalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game. J Comput Assist Learn 27(2):173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. National Research Council-NRC (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. Plass JL, Homer BD, Milne C, Jordan T, Kim M, Barrientos J (2007). Representational mode and cognitive load: optimizing the instructional design of science simulations. Featured research paper presented at the annual convention of the association for educational communication and technology (AECT). Anaheim, CA. Retrieved April 26, 2013 from
  80. Plass JL, Homer BD, Hayward E (2009) Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. J Comput High Educ 21(1):31–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Postigo Y, López-Manjón A (2012) Students’ conceptions of biological images as representational devices. Rev Colomb Psicol 21(2):265–284Google Scholar
  82. Schnotz W, Rasch T (2005) Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educ Technol Res Dev 53(3):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schraw G (2006) Knowledge: structures and processes. In: Alexander PA, Winne PH (eds) Handbook of educational psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 245–264Google Scholar
  84. Schwan S, Riempp R (2004) The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots. Learn Instr 14:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schwandewedel J, HoBle C, Kattmann U (2007) Students’ understanding of social-scientific issues-conception of health and genetic disease. Paper presented at the European science education research association. Malmô, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  86. Schwartz D (1999) Physical imagery: kinematic versus dynamic models. Cognit Psychol 38:433–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sengupta P, Wilensky U (2009) Learning electricity with NIELS: thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. Int J Comput Math Learn 14(1):21–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Shaffer D (2005) Augmented by reality: the pedagogical praxis of urban planning as a pathway to ecological thinking. J Educ Comput Res 33(1):31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shaffer D, Gee P (2005) Before every child is left behind: how epistemic games can solve the coming crisis in education. (WCER Working Paper No. 2005–2007): University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin center for education research. Retrieved October 28, 2012 from
  90. Shaffer DW, Hatfield D, Svarovsky GN, Nash P, Nulty A, Bagley E, Franke K, Rupp AA, Mislevy R (2009) Epistemic network analysis: a prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. Int J Learn Media 1(2):33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shiffrar M, Freyd JJ (1990) Apparent motion of the human body. Psychol Sci 1:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Squire K, Durga S (2009) Productive gaming: the case for historiographic game play. In: Ferdig R (ed) Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  93. Squire K, Patterson, N (2010) Games and simulations in informal science education. In: Honey M, Hilton M (eds) Learning science: computer games, simulations, and education. National Research Council, Washington, DC. Retrieved December 6, 2011 from
  94. Steinkuehler CA (2006) Why game (culture) studies now? Games Cult 1(1):97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Steinkuehler CA (2008) Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In: Coiro J, Knobel M, Lankshear C, Leu D (eds) Handbook of research on new literacies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 611–634Google Scholar
  96. Steinkuehler CA, Duncan S (2008) Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. J Sci Educ Technol 17(6):530–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stewart J, Cartier J, Passmore C (2005) Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In: Donovan S, Bransford J (eds) How people learn II: a view from the classroom. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  98. Sweller J, van Merrienboer JJ, Paas FG (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10:251–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tversky B (2005) Visuospatial reasoning. In: Holyoak K, Morrison R (eds) The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–241Google Scholar
  100. Tversky B, Morrison J, Betrancourt M (2002) Animation: can it facilitate? Int J Hum Comput Stud 57:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Vosniadou S (2002a) Mental models in conceptual development. In: Magnani L, Nersessian N (eds) Model-based reasoning: science, technology, values. Kluwer Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  102. Vosniadou S (2002b) On the nature of naive physics. In: Limon M, Mason L (eds) Reconsidering the processes of conceptual change. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vosniadou S, Brewer WF (1992) Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cogn Psychol 24:535–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vosniadou S, Skopeliti I, Ikospentaki K (2005) Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: children’s understanding of the globe as a model of the earth. Learn Instr 15:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wood-Robinson C, Lewis J, Leach J (2000) Young people’s understanding of the nature of genetic information in the cells of an organism. J Biol Educ 35(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zhang J (1997) The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognit Sci 21(2):179–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Zhang JJ, Norman DA (1994) Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognit Sci 18(1):87–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Center for Games Learning and SocietyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations