Advertisement

Designing an Intrinsically Integrated Educational Game on Newtonian Mechanics

  • Anne van der LindenEmail author
  • Wouter R. van Joolingen
  • Ralph F. G. Meulenbroeks
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11385)

Abstract

In the current paper we present the design process of an intrinsically integrated educational game on Newtonian mechanics. The design is based on a guiding frame in line with the intrinsic integration theory, which states that in a game, learning goal and game goal should be aligned. This also results in an alignment between a pedagogical approach and game mechanics. Our findings suggest three guidelines within this guiding frame. First, the guiding frame works in a specific order starting with forming a learning goal and ending with the game goal. Also, to optimize the alignment between the learning goal and the game goal, it should only be possible for players to reach the game goal when the desired learning goal is reached. Finally, during the iterations of the design process the focus is on aligning the pedagogical approach with the game mechanics. This proved to be an essential but difficult step.

Keywords

Educational game Intrinsic integration Newtonian mechanics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the fruitful discussions with Dr. Nico Rutten. The present paper was made possible by funding from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, OCW/PromoDoc/1065001.

References

  1. 1.
    Csíkszentmihályi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, D.B., Tanner-Smith, E.E., Killingsworth, S.S.: Digital games, design, and learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 86(1), 79–122 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., van der Spek, E.D.: A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J. Educ. Psychol. 105(2), 249–265 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ke, F.: Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 56(5–6), 539–556 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denham, A.: Improving the design of a learning game through intrinsic integration and playtesting. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 21(2), 175–194 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ke, F.: Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: a systematic review. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 64(2), 219–244 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., Petridis, P.: Essential features of serious games design in higher education: linking learning attributes to game mechanics. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 48(4), 972–994 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sicart, M.: Designing game mechanics. Int. J. Comput. Game Res. 8(2) (2008). http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart. Accessed 27 Sept 2018
  9. 9.
    Van Eck, R.: Digital game-based learning: it’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Rev. 41(2), 16–30 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kafai, Y.: Learning design by making games: children’s development of strategies in the creation of a complex computational artifact. In: Kafai, Y., Resnick, M. (eds.) Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking and Learning in a Digital World, pp. 71–96. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vandercruysse, S., Elen, J.: Towards a game-based learning instructional design model focusing on integration. In: Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H. (eds.) Instructional Techniques to Facilitate Learning and Motivation of Serious Games. AGL, pp. 17–35. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S.E.: Motivating children to learn effectively: exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. J. Learn. Sci. 20(2), 169–206 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halloun, I.A., Hestenes, D.: Common sense concepts about motion. Am. J. Phys. 53(11), 1056 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., Wood-Robinson, V.: Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into Children’s Ideas. Routledge, Oxen (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vosniadou, S.: Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learn. Instr. 4, 45–69 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duit, R., Treagust, D.: Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 671–688 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schumacher, R.S., Hofer, S., Rubin, H., Stern, E.: How teachers can boost conceptual understanding in physics classes. In: Looi, C.K., Polman, J.L., Cress, U., Reimann, P. (eds.) Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS, vol. 2, pp. 1167–1168. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Singapore (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klaassen, K.: A Problem-Posing Approach to Teaching the Topic of Radioactivity. Cdβ Press, Utrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van der Linden, A., van Joolingen, W.: A serious game for interactive teaching of Newton’s laws. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Europe Symposium on Simulation and Serious Gaming - 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, VRCAI 2016, pp. 165–167. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne van der Linden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wouter R. van Joolingen
    • 1
  • Ralph F. G. Meulenbroeks
    • 1
  1. 1.Freudenthal InstituteUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations