game-based learning and digital game-based learning: a ... · two terms are commonly utilized in...
TRANSCRIPT
Game-Based Learning and Digital Game-Based Learning:
A Comprehensive Literature Review
Joshua Prieur, Ed.D.
Jiawen Chen, Ph.D.
Nicole Zelem, M.Ed.
Lisa Kilanowski, D.Ed. (Ed.)
Abstract
Research indicates that preadolescents play digital games, on average, between four to six
hours per day (Homer, Hayward, Frye, & Plass, 2012). Worthy of exploration is the notion that
if such gameplay had a serious educational context at its foundation, then students could engage
in serious gaming (Djaouti, Alvarez, & Jessel, 2011) and, thus, experience an increase in
engagement (Huang, Huang, & Wu, 2014; Ninaus, Moeller, McMullen, & Kiili, 2017; Núñez
Castellar, All, De Marez, & Van Looy, 2015) and quantifiable learning outcomes (Byun & Joung,
2018; Clark, Tanner-Smith, & Killingsworth, 2016; Jagušt, Botički, & So, 2018; Ninaus et al.,
2017; Pasnik & Llorente, 2015; Shin, Sutherland, Norris, & Soloway, 2012; Takeuchi & Vaala,
2014; Tokac, Novak, & Thompson, 2019; Van Eck, 2015). This paper introduces game-based
learning and digital game-based learning results from various studies on student engagement and
learning outcomes, as well as a discussion of how these findings affect the development of
Prodigy Math Game, the supplemental math platform.
It has been hypothesized and widely accepted that a child’s involvement in games can
have a profound impact on development (Piaget, 1962). Research on digital game use found that
as recently as 2012, preadolescents were found to play digital games, on average, between four
to six hours per day (Homer et al., 2012; Ofcom, 2016). This is less surprising when one
considers that, worldwide, digital gameplay averages 7.11 hours per week for those aged 18 and
older, with the United States averaging the highest amount of time at 7.61 hours per week, and
India at 6.92 hours per week (Limelight, 2019). With such a large market and call to action for
the creation and development of games that lead to academic development (Richards, Stebbins,
& Moellering, 2013), there has been no shortage of academic games entering the market.
Researchers’ published work broadly supports the notion that teachers are utilizing digital
games in the classroom. In a survey of 700 teachers conducted by Takeuchi & Vela (2014), they
found that 74% of K-8 teachers implement digital game-based learning (DGBL) to augment
instruction, 80% of whom have their students play at least monthly and over half (55%) of whom
have their students play weekly. These academic games often fall into one of a few types, as
outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of Games (Blamire, 2010)
Type Basis for Learning Key Games Key Texts
Active games • Promotes physical activity
• Early learning skills (hand-eye, motor-skills)
Wii Sports Wii Fit
-
Alternate reality games
• Embodied play experience
• Authentic real-world experience
• Social collaboration
Savannah Uncle Roy All Around You
IGDA (2006) White Paper on Alternate Reality Games
Authoring games • Understanding of games’ structure, production, effects and audiences
• Media literacy
Mission Maker Adventure Author
Burn, A and Durran, J (2007) Media Literacy in Schools
Creative games • Creative production • Collaboration and
sharing
Spore LittleBigPlanet
-
Epistemic games • Professional practice PandoraDigital Zoo Urban Science
Shaffer, DW (2006) How Computer Games Help Children Learn
Massively multiplayer online games
• Distributed thinking • Collaboration
World of WarcraftEverquest
Taylor, TL (2006) Playing Between Worlds
Military games • Authentic professional training
America’s ArmyFull Spectrum Warrior
Prensky, M (2002) Digital Game-Based Learning
Mobile games • Authentic real-world contexts
• 21st century skills
Virus Newtoon
Klopfer, E (2008) Augmented Learning
Persuasive games • Critical skills • Critical reflection
Oil God Activism
Bogost, I (2007) Persuasive Games
Role-playing games • Understanding character and identity
• Problem-solving
Deus ExTomb Raider
Gee, JP (2004) What Video Games Have to Teach Us
Two terms are commonly utilized in this domain: game-based learning and the
gamification of learning. In game-based learning (GBL), there is a delicate balance between
gameplay and the necessity to cover desired subject matter (i.e., education content). When GBL
comes in the form of a digital game, it is often referred to in research as digital game-based
learning. In the gamification of learning, elements of a game are added to traditional learning
activities that might not be traditionally exciting for students. Game-like elements added to such
learning activities include the attainment of points, mastery of levels, awards, and other features
commonly observed in digital video games (Plass, Homer, & Kinzer, 2015).
Games that have been designed with an inherent purpose to help teach content or a skill
have been often cited in research as serious games, a term coined by Abt (1970) to separate them
from games created purely for entertainment (De Lope & Medina-Medina, 2017; Tsekleves,
Cosmas, & Aggoun, 2016; Zhonggen, 2019). Figure 1 depicts this separation where “video
Serious games • Managing real-world problems
• Manipulating real-world data sources
Global Conflict: PalestineOperation: Climate ControlCeduceus Supercharged!
Derryberry, A (2006) Serious Games
Simulations/Microworlds
• Management of complex systems
• Testing real-world ideas and scenarios
• Constructing ideas
SimCityThe Sims Rollercoaster Tycoon
Papert, S (1993) The Children’s Machine
Strategy games • Manipulating real-world scenarios
• Conjecturing and trialling
• Strategic thinking
Civilization Europa Universalis Knights of Honor Age of Empires
Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S (2005) Beyond Edutainment
game” refers to games developed purely for entertainment, and where “serious game” refers
specifically to games that were created with the intention of teaching content or a skill (Ratan &
Ritterfeld, 2009). While video games are intended only for fun, teachers can utilize them for
educational purposes, which shifts the purpose of the intended use from gaming to serious
gaming. In comparison, serious games can combine fun elements of video games with an
explicit learning purpose.
Games with a narrative that drive them fall into the category of those referred to as
having serious storytelling whereby “the narration progresses as a sequence of patterns
impressive in quality, relates to a serious context, and is a matter of thoughtful
process” (Lugmayr et al., 2017, p.1509).
Figure 1: The Relationship Between Video Games, Serious Games and Serious Gaming (Djaouti
et al., 2011)
This literature review will have an inherent focus DGBL with a specific emphasis on
pedagogical foundations, findings on motivation and engagement, as well as effectiveness and
efficacy.
Pedagogical Foundations of DGBL/GBL
Informal games, such as “duck-duck-goose” or “ring around the rosy,” are often used as a
means of teaching concepts or ideas to children from an early age, since they engage the child
and their focus is on having fun even as they learn how to take turns and follow directions. As
Piaget (1962) theorized, the play that children engage in shifts as they progress through different
stages of emotional growth. As they age, students become able to participate in more
complicated games that also contribute to cognitive growth.
Over time, the concept of connecting students with digital games was presented as a
means of increasing student engagement (McGonegal, 2011). One of the earliest and most
widely adopted education-based games, The Oregon Trail, was developed and produced by
MECC for release in 1974. The inherent purpose of the game was to help students conceptualize
life as a pioneer and allow them to interactively experience the challenges they faced. This
revolutionary concept led to a shift in the ability of teachers to immerse students in educational
content and a deeper understanding of the facets that come together to make game-based learning
work, as outlined below in Figure 2 (Plass et al., 2015).
Figure 2: Integrated Design Framework of Game-based and Playful Learning (Plass et al., 2015)
As the capacity of technology evolved, so did the ability to more closely personalize
content — something necessary to help students learn to use a growth mindset (Dweck, 2017).
In time, adaptive software became available which allowed the software being used to directly
target students’ weaknesses, strengths, and present a balance of both to help increase student
engagement and achievement. The algorithms behind the adaptive software work in the
background to help students learn at their level or within their zone of proximal development, in
support of the concept first presented by Vygotsky (1978). This type of highly-personalized and
engaging learning also helps to develop 21st century skills, including those suggested by Van
Eck (2015) like: increasing motivation, becoming more effective with communication,
developing critical thinking and communication skills, and, perhaps most importantly, helping
learners develop the ability to become more persistent. Educators who harness the power of
highly effective software can engage all students in class with a level of personalization that
could never practically be achieved without the support of technology.
When technology, content, and pedagogy (Mishra, 2019) are combined (as outlined in
Figure 3 below), digital games can help teachers amplify instruction and deeply personalize
instruction for students on a level that was previously next to impossible. In a recent study
conducted by Schoology (2017), teachers reported that blended learning was the most impactful
method in which student achievement can best be addressed. In addition, these games can help
combat student anxiety that can affect students in the earliest grades (Wu, Barth, Amin,
Malcarne, & Menon, 2012).
Figure 3: TPACK Framework (Mishra, 2019)
Findings on Motivation and Engagement in Relation to GBL/DGBL
It is of great interest that research outlines various cases whereby GBL/DGBL directly
led to an increase in student motivation and engagement (Huang et al., 2014; Ninaus et al., 2017;
Núñez Castellar et al., 2015).
As outlined in Figure 2, this increase in motivation and engagement is potentially tied to
the various ways in which learners can become engaged via GBL/DGBL — namely, cognitive
engagement, affective engagement, and behavioral engagement (Deater-Deckard, Chang, &
Evans M. E., 2018; Phillips, Horstman, Vye, & Bransford, 2014), with others additionally
including sociocultural engagement (Plass et al., 2015).
When deeply engaged in serious gameplay — and a specific lens toward math —
profound attitudinal changes can be detected. For example, research by Phillips et al. (2014, p.
557) revealed that “most [students] reported that playing the game helped them like math more.”
Yet, the findings of the study also included the conclusion that students generally prefer to use
academic games in tandem with live instruction. This finding helps connect the deep
engagement that serious games can provide with the necessity of a teacher who possesses deep
foundational knowledge in technology, content, and pedagogy, as outlined in Figure 3 (Mishra,
2019).
Further supporting the conclusion that math-based GBL/DGBL engagement can impact
student motivation, work completed by Huang et al. (2014) led to the discovery that students
who participated in math-based GBL/DGBL were “positively motivated” while research by
Nunez et al. (2015) identified not only increased enjoyment, but, an increase in the capacity of
students’ working memory.
Research findings are clear that when students are engaged in math-based games, they
end up more focused on the task at hand. Bragg (2012) conducted a study wherein students were
observed in scenarios engaged in tasks that were game-based and tasks that were not game-
based. Results of his analyses indicated that lessons rooted in gameplay led to a 93% rate of time
on task compared to 72% time on task when the lessons did not include games. Furthermore,
Bragg (2012) discovered that the conversation in class was rooted in math 34% of the time when
games were utilized compared to just 11% when they were not. This is supportive of the notion
that increased social and cultural engagement is evident when gameplay is utilized (Plass et al.,
2015).
When reviewing the literature related to game-based learning, widespread implications of
research findings are apparent. These findings span not only the domain of academic growth and
student engagement. They also incorporate elements of social and emotional learning (SEL).
Connections between game-based learning and elements of SEL, which can be defined as
programs to support students’ emotional and academic growth (Jones & Bouffard, 2012), are a
major source of discussion in the field of education and have shown to consistently have a
positive impact on achievement (Corcoran, Cheung, Kim, & Xie, 2018; Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).
Findings on the Effectiveness/Efficacy of GBL/DGBL
Evaluation of research indicating that GBL/DGBL leads to increased motivation,
increased engagement, and alignment with SEL themes is critical to understanding the impact of
game-based learning. However, in an era of accountability, evaluation of research delineating
achievement-oriented outcomes of GBL/DGBL is imperative. To meet such aims, research was
reviewed to determine whether GBL/DGBL can lead to sustainable and improved student
achievement. Much research has been done to determine whether or not increased achievement
can be detected, and, positive results have broadly been found (Byun & Joung, 2018; Clark et al.,
2016; Jagušt et al., 2018; Ninaus et al., 2017; Pasnik & Llorente, 2015; Shin et al., 2012;
Takeuchi & Vaala, 2014; Tokac et al., 2019).
A meta-analysis on the broad impact of DGBL for K-16 students found that “digital
games significantly enhanced student learning relative to nongame conditions” (Clark, Tanner-
Smith, & Killingsworth, 2016, p. 79). When two separate groups of researchers examined GBL/
DGBL specific to mathematics, researchers found there was a statistically positive achievement
correlation for those exposed to this type of learning activity (Byun & Joung, 2018; Tokac et al.,
2019). In their published research, Tokac et al. (2019, p. 407) explicitly stated: “Mathematics
video games contributed to higher learning gains as compared with traditional instructional
methods.”
As a means of better understanding how DGBL affects student mathematics outcomes in the
primary grades, a study was conducted. Though the sample was small, the researchers looked to
determine which type of gamified learning experiences would provide the highest level of
academic gains for students. Ultimately, findings revealed that “significantly higher performance
levels appeared in a gamified condition combining competition, a narrative, and adaptivity with
individual performance game elements” (Jagušt et al., 2018, p. 444). This combination seems to
provide the blend that best captivates students’ imaginations and allows for the highest level of
skill development.
As researchers noticed mounting evidence that digital mathematics games can help improve
student academic outcomes, they sought to confirm this growth and to learn what variables
related to DGBL were causing this. Ninaus et al. (2017) conducted a small sample size study to
determine how students’ acceptance of game-based learning, intrinsic motivation to learn math,
and the quality of the game experience affected student outcomes. Researchers found that game-
based learning was an effective method and that all three tenets explored had an impact on
student outcomes. It was perhaps the unexpected findings, though, that stood out most. The
researchers found that “students with higher self-reported interest in math and better math grades
were not as successful in improving their rational number knowledge as compared to those with
lower interest in math and worse math grades” (Ninaus et al., 2017, p. 23). While there are
variables such as the style of questions or the flow of the algorithm that could have affected the
outcomes for students with higher self-reported interests and higher grades from developing, the
findings related to those who were less interested and had worse grades are critical ones. It is
perhaps here that the power of DGBL is most evident, since even those who may not have a
passion for the subject matter are more apt to participate since they enjoy the game. With
students who are intrinsically motivated by the learning platform, and thus end up learning at a
greater pace via a DGBL platform, they may realize greater gains.
In 2012, Shin et al. conducted a quasi-experimental study of 50 second-grade students to
determine the efficacy of DGBL. It was ultimately found that “when students used or played the
technology-based game more, their performance was higher than that of students who did not use
the technology-based game or who played it less often” (Shin et al., 2012, p. 548). This supports
research by Mishra & Kohler (2006) that indicated that teachers can amplify their impact on
achievement outcomes by allowing students to utilize DGBL tools. Beyond that, it was also
discovered that critical populations such as low-performing female students and high-performing
males benefitted in terms the development of their arithmetic skills as a result of their work on
the DGBL platform. This implies that populations who might not typically benefit from
traditional types of instruction may garner deeper development specifically as a result of the use
of DGBL and its highly personalized approach to learning.
In an effort to better understand the landscape of DGBL and its impact on the American
education system, personnel from the Janz Cooney Center implemented a survey of nearly 700
teachers from across the United States. One among their many findings was that 74% of teachers
report that they were utilizing DGBL platforms and that they are primarily learning how to
implement and use these platforms through their peers. Results specific to math-based DGBL
were very encouraging with “nearly three quarters (71%) of digital game-using teachers report
that games have been effective in improving their students’ mathematics learning” (Takeuchi &
Vaala, 2014, p.5). As a result of this study, we know teachers are embracing the DGBL
movement and willing to teach themselves how to implement them — 75% of whom say that the
games help students to learn math.
The DGBL movement has been so broad that even PBS Kids created a DGBL platform and
conducted a randomized control trial to determine whether DGBL produced increased outcomes
in mathematics learning for four- and five-year-old students. Their target population, including
those who spent time in early childhood education centers primarily serving economically
disadvantaged populations, is of particular interest in outcomes evaluations due to research
surrounding socioeconomic status and student achievement. They found that “children in the …
[game-based supplement] condition learned significantly more mathematics than children in …
[other] conditions (Pasnik & Llorente, 2015, p.3). In addition to the positive academic impacts
observed among this at-risk population, the authors also established that children can profit from
using DGBL platforms as early as age four.
Perhaps the most telling set of results, researchers found that teachers who adjusted the
instruction they provided to students based on feedback they received from the game ultimately
saw higher achievement compared to those who did not (Faber, Luyten, & Visscher, 2017). This
finding is further supported by the research of Ysseldyke and Bolt (2007) and Callaghan, Long,
van Es, Reich, and Rutherford (2018). Excitingly, this positions GBL/DGBL as a helpful tool
when the data made available to teachers is harnessed for targeted improvement in achievement.
Application for Prodigy Math Game
Prodigy Education was founded on the notion that learning math should be as fun as
playing a video game. With preadolescents playing multiple hours of digital games daily
(Homer et al., 2012) and a clear connection with the ability of GBL to positively impact student
achievement across various meta-analyses (Byun & Joung, 2018; Clark et al., 2016; Tokac et al.,
2019), Prodigy has taken the call to action (Richards et al., 2013) and developed a platform,
denoted in Figure 5 below, that can help change student perceptions of their math ability,
empower teachers to deeply personalize instruction, communicate achievement with parents/
guardians, as well as enable administrators at both the school and district level to review student
progress, strengths, and areas of opportunity.
Prodigy Math Game is a serious game that falls into the MMORPG category as outlined
by the definitions found in Table 1 by Blamire (2010) and can be identified as a game that has
been intentionally designed to include both serious and video game features as delineated in
Figure 1 by (Ratan & Ritterfeld, 2009). It encompasses all four of the primary categories of
engagement as proposed by the model developed by Plass et al., (2015) found in Figure 2. Even
so, the Prodigy Math Game team believes that software cannot stand on its own and be deeply
effective, which is congruent with the TPACK framework proposed by Mishra & Koehler
(2006). Rather, it takes an excellent teacher who has a deep foundation in content, pedagogy, and
technology to really exploit the full benefits of adaptive serious games.
To clarify, Figure 5 outlines the Prodigy Math Game platform that is designed to facilitate
student outcomes. It all begins with a foundation in DGBL rooted in research demonstrating the
efficacy of this model (Clark et al., 2016; Jagušt et al., 2018; Ninaus et al., 2017; Pasnik &
Llorente, 2015; Shin et al., 2012; Takeuchi & Vaala, 2014; Tokac et al., 2019).
Figure 4: Prodigy Math Game Platform
Conclusion
Capturing the spirit of play to help children grow through serious games (Abt, 1970) as a
means of increasing student engagement, with the goal of increasing student achievement, has
become a common trend — one that has produced tangible positive results when broadly studied
in various meta-analyses (Byun & Joung, 2018; Clark et al., 2016; Tokac et al., 2019; Zhonggen,
2019). It is evident that children widely play digital games (Homer et al., 2012; Limelight, 2019)
and the advantage of capturing that energy can be used to benefit learning.
Deep research continues to be in need and there are researchers who are focused on
ensuring that research and evidence-based best-practices for DGBL are available to those who
wish to utilize them (All, Nuñez Castellar, & Van Looy, 2015, 2016). The field of GBL/DGBL
has substantial room for continued growth with continuous improvements in technology. It is
becoming easier to imagine a world where content is continuously tailored specifically to
students’ strengths and areas of opportunity. By and large, this means the work of teachers, who
are central student learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), can have their instructional work
enhanced by technology enabling them to deeply personalize learning more than ever, while
allowing students to continuously learn in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978).
References
Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious games. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=axUs9HA-
hF8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
All, A., Nuñez Castellar, E. P., & Van Looy, J. (2015). Towards a conceptual framework for
assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning. Computers and Education, 88,
29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.012
All, A., Nuñez Castellar, E. P., & Van Looy, J. (2016). Assessing the effectiveness of digital
game-based learning: Best practices. Computers and Education, 92–93, 90–103. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.007
Blamire, R. (2010). Digital games for learning: Conclusions and recommendations from the
IMAGINE project.
Bragg, L. A. (2012). The effect of mathematical games on on-task behaviours in the primary
classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13394-012-0045-4
Byun, J., & Joung, E. (2018). Digital game-based learning for K-12 mathematics education: A
meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 113–126. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ssm.12271
Callaghan, M. N., Long, J. J., van Es, E. A., Reich, S. M., & Rutherford, T. (2018). How teachers
integrate a math computer game: Professional development use, teaching practices, and
student achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jcal.12209
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and
learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1),
79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
Corcoran, R. P., Cheung, A. C. K., Kim, E., & Xie, C. (2018). Effective universal school-based
social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic
review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review,
25(November 2018), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.12.001
De Lope, R. P., & Medina-Medina, N. (2017). A Comprehensive Taxonomy for Serious Games.
In Journal of Educational Computing Research (Vol. 55). https://doi.org/
10.1177/0735633116681301
Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., & Evans M. E. (2018). Engagement states and learning from
rducational games. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, (139), 21–30.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cad
Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., & Jessel, J. (2011). Classifying Serious Games: the G / P / S model. In
Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation through Educational Games:
Multidisciplinary Approaches (pp. 10–24). https://doi.org/
10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch006
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The
impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-
based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Dweck, C. S. (2017). The journey to children’s mindsets—and beyond. Child Development
Perspectives, 11(2), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12225
Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment
tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized
experiment. Computers and Education, 106, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2016.12.001
Homer, B. D., Hayward, E. O., Frye, J., & Plass, J. L. (2012). Gender and player characteristics
in video game play of preadolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1782–1789.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.018
Huang, Y. M., Huang, S. H., & Wu, T. T. (2014). Embedding diagnostic mechanisms in a digital
game for learning mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2),
187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9315-4
Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H. J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive
gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers and Education, 125(October
2018), 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.022
Jones, S. M., & Bouffard, S. M. (2012). Social and emotional learning in schools. Social Policy
Report, 26(4)(4), 1 of 33. Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/
spr_264_final_2.pdf [Accessed:December 16, 2013]
Limelight. (2019). The state of online gaming: 2019. Retrieved from https://www.limelight.com/
resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2019/
Lugmayr, A., Sutinen, E., Suhonen, J., Sedano, C. I., Hlavacs, H., & Montero, C. S. (2017).
Serious storytelling – a first definition and review. Multimedia Tools and Applications,
76(14), 15707–15733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-3865-5
McGonegal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change
the world. New York: Penguin Press.
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering Contextual Knowledge: The TPACK Diagram Gets an Upgrade.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Ninaus, M., Moeller, K., McMullen, J., & Kiili, K. (2017). Acceptance of game-based learning
and intrinsic motivation as predictors for learning success and flow experience.
International Journal of Serious Games, 4(3), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v4i3.176
Núñez Castellar, E., All, A., De Marez, L., & Van Looy, J. (2015). Cognitive abilities, digital
games and arithmetic performance enhancement: A study comparing the effects of a math
game and paper exercises. Computers and Education, 85, 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2014.12.021
Ofcom. (2016). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes. Retrieved from http://
stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/october-2013/
research07Oct2013.pdf
Pasnik, S., & Llorente, C. (2015). Preschool teachers can use a PBS KIDS transmedia curriculum
supplement to support young children’s mathematics learning: Results of a randomized
controlled trial. A report to the CPB-PBS ready to learn initiative. Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 10.
Phillips, R. S., Horstman, T., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (2014). Engagement and games for
learning: Expanding definitions and methodologies. Simulation and Gaming, 45, 548–568.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114553576
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning.
Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
Ratan, R., & Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Classifying serious games. In Serious Games: Mechanisms
and Effects (pp. 10–24). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891650
Richards, J., Stebbins, L., & Moellering, K. (2013). Games for a digital age: K-12 market map
and investment analysis. In The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, New York,
3. Retrieved from https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/
glpc_gamesforadigitalage1.pdf
Schoology. (2017). The global state of digital learning in K-12 Education. Retrieved from
https://info.schoology.com/rs/601-CPX-764/images/2017-Global-State-of-Digital-Learning-
in-K-12 Education.pdf
Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on
elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology,
43(4), 540–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01197.x
Takeuchi, L. M., & Vaala, S. (2014). LevelUp learning: A national survey on teaching with
digital games (Joan Ganz Cooney Study). Games & Learning. Retrieved from http://
www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/level-up-learning-a-national-survey-on-
teaching-with-digital-games/
Tokac, U., Novak, E., & Thompson, C. G. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on students’
mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3),
407–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12347
Tsekleves, E., Cosmas, J., & Aggoun, A. (2016). Benefits, barriers and guideline
recommendations for the implementation of serious games in education for stakeholders
and policymakers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 164–183. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12223
Van Eck, R. N. (2015). Digital game-based learning: Still restless, after all these years.
EDUCAUSE Review, 50(6). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/digital-
game-based-learning-still-restless-after-all-these-years
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wu, S. S., Barth, M., Amin, H., Malcarne, V., & Menon, V. (2012). Math anxiety in second and
third graders and its relation to mathematics achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00162
Ysseldyke, J., & Bolt, D. M. (2007). Effect of technology-enhanced continuous progress
monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 453–467.
Zhonggen, Y. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Use of Serious Games in Education over a Decade.
International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2019(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2019/4797032