Chronicle of Designing a Game-Based Learning Platform

  • Fengfeng Ke
  • Valerie Shute
  • Kathleen M. Clark
  • Gordon Erlebacher
Part of the Advances in Game-Based Learning book series (AGBL)


Our phenomenological examination of learning game design is situated in a four-year, longitudinal design-based research project that encompasses iterative design processes to develop, refine, and study a game-based learning platform called E-Rebuild. This chapter presents an introductory overview of the four facets of the interdisciplinary educational game design—interdisciplinary collaboration, learning-play integration, integrative task and assessment design, and game-based learning support. We then provide a design chronicle of E-Rebuild as the key setting of the phenomenon examined, by explaining its iterative design, testing, and refining processes. The authors’ researcher positionality and reflective summaries of design experiences are presented as well.


Interdisciplinary design Gameplay Integrative design Game-based learning support Design chronicle 


  1. Almond, R. G., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L., Yan, D., & Williamson, D. (2015). Bayesian networks in educational assessment. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Breuer, J., & Bente, G. (2010). Why so serious? On the relation of serious games and learning. Journal for Computer Game Culture, 4(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, E., Andersen, E., Smith, A. M., Gulwani, S., & Popović, Z. (2015). Automatic game progression design through analysis of solution features. In April (Ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2407–2416). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest of certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Eriksson, I., & Lindberg, V. (2016). Enriching ‘learning activity’ with ‘epistemic practices’–enhancing students’ epistemic agency and authority. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2016(1) Retrieved from: Scholar
  6. Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004, July). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (vol. 4(1), p. 1722–1726) Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rodriguez, H. (2006). The playful and the serious: An approximation to Huizinga’s Homo Ludens. Game Studies, 6(1). Retrieved from:
  12. Van Manen, M. (1990). Beyond assumptions: Shifting the limits of action research. Theory Into Practice, 29(3), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 25–41). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fengfeng Ke
    • 1
  • Valerie Shute
    • 1
  • Kathleen M. Clark
    • 2
  • Gordon Erlebacher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology and Learning SystemsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.School of Teacher EducationFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Scientific ComputingFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations