Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Knowledge Maps: The Foundation for Learning Analytics Through Instructional Games

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Knowledge Maps in Education

Abstract

The CyGaMEs (Cyberlearning through Game-based, Metaphor Enhanced Learning Objects) approach to instructional game design and embedded assessment provides a formalism to translate domain knowledge into procedural gameplay. As such, CyGaMEs learning environments are transactional digital knowledge maps that make abstract concepts concrete and actionable: translating what experts know into procedures learners do (discover and apply). CyGaMEs produces games designed to provide viable prior knowledge as preparation for future learning. After knowledge specification through a task analysis, the method applies cognitive science analogical reasoning theory to translate targeted learning goals into game goals and translate targeted knowledge as the game world (e.g., rules and core mechanics). The CyGaMEs approach designs gameplay parameters as the Timed Report measure of player performance to quantify and trace trajectories of learning and achievement. The approach is one way to address design for alignment and shortcomings and limitations documented in the literature that plague current learning game design, embedded assessment, and research. Chapter discussion introduces the national initiative for cyberlearning and embedded assessment and insights from evidence-centered design and cognitive tutor development practices, especially regarding task analysis and cognitive task analysis. Then CyGaMEs’ Selene: A Lunar Construction GaME design artifacts, screen captures, gameplay data, and analyses illustrate this approach to design and embedded assessment. A case is made that instructional game design with embedded assessment is an enterprise requiring complex expertise among teams of professionals—topped by talent and creativity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Attention is both a top-down and bottom-up process. Thus, it is also informed by prior knowledge (e.g., expectations). For example, a face in a crowd might stand out due to resemblance to a close friend.

  2. 2.

    Within this volume digital knowledge maps are defined as “at a glance” visual representations that enable enriching, imaginative, and transformative ways for teaching and learning, with the potential to enhance outcomes.

  3. 3.

    The author thanks research partner Barbara G. Tabachnick for contributing this paragraph.

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 167–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Delacruz, G. C. (2007). Design and validation of technology-based performance assessments. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. MerriĂ«nboer, & M. R. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 595–604). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics. Washington, DC: Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Technology website: http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2012/03/edm-la-brief.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., Lynch, C. A., Szalay, A. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge: A 21st century agenda for the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA. Retrieved June 24, 2012 from National Science Foundation website: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf?govDel=USNSF_124.

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. LimĂłn & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., Feldon, D. F., MerriĂ«nboer, J. J. G., Yates, K. A., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van MerriĂ«nboer, & M. R. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 577–593). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards, & National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC. Retrieved from National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.

  • Cruikshank, D. P., Hartmann, W. K., & Wood, C. A. (1973). Moon: Ghost craters formed during mare filling. The Moon, 7(3–4), 440–452. doi:10.1007/BF00564645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruikshank, D. P., & Wood, C. A. (1972). Lunar rilles and Hawaiian volcanic features: Possible analogues. Earth, Moon, and Planets, 3(4), 412–447. doi:10.1007/BF00562463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, V. A., & Reese, D. D. (2010). Elaborated metaphors support viable inferences about difficult science concepts. Educational Psychology, 30(7), 771–791. doi:10.1080/01443410.2010.504996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E-Line Media, & Institute of Play. (2013). Gamestar mechanic. Retrieved January 4, 2013 from http://gamestarmechanic.com/.

  • Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: A Playcentric approach to creating innovative games (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2004). Game design workshop: Designing, prototyping, and playtesting games. San Francisco, CA: CMP Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • GagnĂ©, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69(4), 355–365. doi:10.1037/h0042650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GagnĂ©, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • GagnĂ©, R. M. (2012/2000/1968). Learning hierarchies. In R. C. Richey (Ed.), The legacy of Robert M. GagnĂ© (pp. 63-84). Tulsa, OK: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology and International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.ibstpi.org/Products/pdf/chapter_2.pdf. (Reprinted from: Learning Hierarchies. Experimental Psychologist, 6, 1–9, by Robert M. GagnĂ©, 1968.).

  • GagnĂ©, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1980). The structure of analogical models in science (report no. 4451, NTIS no. AD-A087-625). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, W. K., & Wood, C. A. (1971). Moon: Origin and evolution of multi-ring basins. Moon, 3(1), 3–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158. doi:10.1119/1.2343497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234–259). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). Introduction: The place of analogy in cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping with constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104(3), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2006). On the role of concepts in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research, & Development, 54(2), 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities, and openness. Boston: The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, R. D., Turtle, E. P., Stiles, B., Le Gall, A., Hayes, A., Aharonson, O., et al. (2011). Hypsometry of Titan. Icarus, 211(1), 334–558. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research, & Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J. (2011). Evidence-Centered Design for simulation-based assessment. (CRESST Report 800). Los Angeles. Retrieved from University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) website: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R800.pdf.

  • Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessment. (CSE 597). Los Angeles. Retrieved from University of California Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation website: http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TR597.pdf.

  • National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. In Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education. M. A. Honey and M. L. Hilton (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, Board on Testing and Assessment, C. f. E., & Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. In J. Pelligrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072727/html/.

  • National Science Foundation. (2012a). Building community and capacity for data-intensive research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences and in education and human resources (BBC-SBE/EHR): program solicitation NSF 12-538. Arlington, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2012b, June 19, 2012). Cyberinfrastructure framework for 21st century science and engineering (CIF21). Retrieved July 7, 2012 from http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgmsumm.jsp?pims_id=504730.

  • Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Science Standards Team. (2012). Next generation science standards (Draft). Washington, DC: Achieve Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrie, H. G., & Oshlag, R. S. (1993). Metaphor and learning. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 579–609). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Volume 1: Induction and analogy in mathematics (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., & Schneider, S. A. (2009). Assessment of student learning in science simulations and games. Paper commissioned for the National Research Council Workshop on gaming and simulations, October 6–7. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Schneider_Gaming_CommissionedPaper.pdf.

  • Reese, D. D. (2003a). Metaphor and content: An embodied paradigm for learning. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-03312003-115151/unrestricted/Reese_D_D.pdf.

  • Reese, D. D. (2003b). Trees of knowledge: Changing mental models through metaphorical episodes and concept maps. In R. E. Griffin, V. S. Williams, & J. Lee (Eds.), Turning trees: Selected readings (pp. 205–214). Tempe, AZ: International Visual Literacy Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese, D. D. (2008). Engineering instructional metaphors within virtual environments to enhance visualization. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Nakhleh, & M. Reiner (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 133–153). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reese, D. D. (2009). Structure mapping theory as a formalism for instructional game design and assessment. In B. Kokinov, K. Holyoak, & D. Gentner (Eds.), New frontiers in analogy research: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Analogy (Analogy '09) (pp. 394–403). Sofia, Bulgaria: New Bulgarian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese, D. D., & Coffield, J. (2005). Just-in-time conceptual scaffolding: Engineering sound instructional metaphors. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 1(4), 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese, D. D., Seward, R. J., Tabachnick, B. G., Hitt, B., Harrison, A., & McFarland, L. (2012). Timed Report measures learning: Game-based embedded assessment. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 145–172). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reese, D. D., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2010). The moment of learning: Quantitative analysis of exemplar gameplay supports CyGaMEs approach to embedded assessment. In J. Earle (Ed.), Building a knowledge base to inform educational practice in STEM: Examples from the REESE portfolio. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness 2010, Washington, DC. Structured abstract retrieved from http://www.sree.org/conferences/2010/program/abstracts/191.pdf.

  • Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47(3). doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.667065.

  • Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(4). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/download/1623/1467.

  • Salen, K. (2007). Gaming literacy studies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Media and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salthouse, T. A. (1991). Expertise as the circumvention of human processing limitations. In K. A. Ericcson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 286–300). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schell, J. (2008). The art of game design: A book of lenses. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirao, M., & Wood, C. A. (2011). The Kaguya lunar atlas. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. E. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design (1st ed.). New York: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timms, M., Clements, D. H., Gobert, J., Ketelhut, D. J., Lester, J. C., Reese, D. D., & Wiebe, E. (2012). New measurement paradigms. Retrieved from http://cadrek12.org/sites/default/files/NMPReport0414120.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology: National education technology plan 2010. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. A. (1972). The system of lunar craters, revised. The Moon, 3(4), 408–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. A. (1973). Moon: Central peak heights and crater origins. Icarus, 20(4), 503. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(73)90023-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. A. (2003). The modern Moon: A personal view. Cambridge, MA: Sky Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. A., Lorenz, R., Kirk, R., Lopes, R., Mitchell, K., Stofan, E., & Cassini RADAR Team. (2010). Impact craters on Titan. Icarus, 206(1), 540–558. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.08.021

  • ZeptoLab. (2012). Cut the Rope developer candy: Behind the scenes. Retrieved October 12, 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxn1pNzEwI.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Grateful appreciation to the CyGaMEs team (Charles A. Wood, Robert E. Kosko, Barbara G. Tabachnick, Douglas Moore, Janis Worklan, Cassie Lightfritz, Nieves Leticia Martín Hernández, Ronald Magers, Matthew Petrole, and Steven Nowak), CyGaMEs Junior Research Advisory Council (JRAC) member Gabrielle Ménard, and all of the CyGaMEs recruiters and players.

This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant DRL-0814512. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Portions of this [Selene] software are provided under license from Second Avenue Software Inc., copyright 2007–2010 Second Avenue Software Inc. All rights reserved.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Educational Technologies, Wheeling Jesuit University, 316 Washington Ave., Wheeling, WV, 26003, USA

    Debbie Denise Reese

Authors
  1. Debbie Denise Reese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debbie Denise Reese .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Open Universities Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  2. CfBT Education Trust, Maktab Rendah Sains Mara Felda (Trolak), Sungkai, Perak, Malaysia

    Ria Hanewald

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reese, D.D. (2014). Digital Knowledge Maps: The Foundation for Learning Analytics Through Instructional Games. In: Ifenthaler, D., Hanewald, R. (eds) Digital Knowledge Maps in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3178-7_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation