v. . . 7:

mum". . . “w . .

35%..NWWH .w x.
. 7 .55..

b

.55

t f
. ,. :15?
. ﬁﬁm?a
? T. 4. ..
. «w? 1m. w.
.. nan“? . I

..r‘.

 

k

.nu‘v. L. .1
...:.. 5. is.
..n... 7

 

st 50...... \di l9.
‘5 I“ .
‘li "Ql.

t .2.
.O‘ .l

.- .lvsuéihhuwﬂ
..

 

:
3.3:"..1
2.1.5.34
lib
it}.
EEO-1.5;? .0.
: E“:IA.\I§..
{3.16.6.2}
. :l...ix..v

 

.tl . 3. q
92.}! al.7t.’ l
.. I. 1.1!. 5......Iv... .
..Iln... ... a I .. vi
\. 3s; .

4.4.“... ..
anarﬁz $1. , .
3......

s as...
33$. ..
_ , . ....; S“

 

/’

'77 7

LIBRARY
Michigai‘. State
University

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

GAMING THEIR WAY:

LEARNING IN SIMULATION STRATEGY GAMES

PhD

 

presented by

AROUTIS N. FOSTER

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

degree in Educational Psychology and
Educational Technology

 

@‘P
/

Major Professor’s Signature
'1! ‘t l 04

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

..-g-.---.-.-.-.-.--.--—.-«-.--._.-

- -.—.--«-v-o--c—.-.— — -.-l- -.-—.-.--- -

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Proleoc&PrelelRC/DateDue.indd

GAMING THEIR WAY:
LEARNING IN SIMULATION STRATEGY VIDEO GAMES

By

Aroutis N. Foster

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Educational Psychology and Educational Technology

2009

ABSTRACT

GAMING THEIR WAY:
LEARNING IN SIMULATION STRATEGY VIDEO GAMES
By
Aroutis N. Foster

This mixed methods study investigates how and what students learn by playing a
simulation strategy game. 26 children averaging 11 years old played the simulation
strategy game RollerCoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum (RCT3) for 24 hours over seven
weeks. It was found that the participants learned economics and social studies principles,
developed information and technology literacy, and transferred these acquired knowledge
and skills to new contexts. They also valued the gaming experience and the disciplinary
knowledge gained.

The quantitative component of the study examined disciplinary knowledge gain
and transfer as well as motivational valuing. A range of instruments were used to collect
data, including pretest-posttest knowledge tests, transfer questions, and a pretest-posttest
intrinsic motivation inventory. Despite no prior formal education about basic and
foundational economic principles, and their initial belief that games are not for learning
school content, participants both acquired disciplinary knowledge and skills and
transferred them to new contexts. Participants also reported valuing the experience of
learning economics and social studies in a game environment.

The qualitative component of the study examined the process by which students
acquired knowledge, and their motivation for doing so. The data for this part of the study
came from video-taping of participants as they played the game, interviews of

participants, log-sheets of their progress, and participant observation. Analysis of this

data indicates that learning by game play was highly personalized and identiﬁed two
general categories (goal seekers and explorers) of player types that inﬂuenced the process
of learning. Further quantitative analysis on each of these player types show that though
both explorers and goal seekers had signiﬁcant knowledge gains, explorers were more
likely to value the experience of gaming and learning content compared to goal seekers.
The ﬁndings of this study indicate that learning of core disciplinary ideas from
games is possible. However, it is a complex process dependent on player type, and the
nature of game play. This study can inform the design of better games for learning and
suggest ways in which such games can be integrated into the curriculum. Finally, this

research supports the arguments for mixed methods research on learning from media.

Cepyn'ght by
AROUTIS N. FOSTER
2009

Dedicated to:
My father - Herbert Foster,
My mother - Paulette Robertson,
My brother - Andre Foster,

My relatives and friends who have helped to shaped me as a man and scholar.

 

ACKNOWLEDMENTS

Special thanks to my Advisor and Chair, Dr. Punya Mishra and my committee
members Dr. Jere Brophy, Dr. Carrie Heeter, and Dr. Matthew J. Koehler. My committee
members have been instrumental in my doctoral studies both as teachers of classes I took
with them and as supporters in helping me to think critically about my work. They have
helped me to shed my cheerleading approach when I was a new graduate student to being
a critically thinking scholar who approaches topics with a lens of looking at both sides of
arguments weighing both the affordances and constraints or positive and negative views.

Special thanks also go to Dr. Ross Emmett and Dr. Edward Roeber who were
instrumental consultants in my dissertation. I wish to thank the Mellon Mays Proposal
Writing and Dissertation Development Seminar hosts, including Dr. Travis Jackson from
the University of Chicago, who helped me to start focusing and writing chapters of my
dissertation that I kept postponing. I also wish to thank the SSRC Mellon Mays Initiative
program which has been pivotal in helping and supporting my progress as a minority
graduate student. Many thanks also goes to the SSRC for the SSRC Dissertation
Completion Fellowship and MSU College of Education for the MSU College of
Education urban education summer research fellowship which helped me to make great
strides in writing my dissertation.

I wish to thank Dr. Mary A. Lundeberg who played a signiﬁcant role in shaping
my stance and knowledge of science education research and assessment. Dr. Lundeberg
was my research assistant director and mentor for four years of my tenure as a graduate
student. Research studies on problern-based learning, assessment for motivation and

knowledge construction of science learning in case-based multimedia environments

vi

 

helped shaped my writing and thinking about science learning. I also wish to thank the
Center for Curriculum Materials in Science, in particular Dr. Ed Smith and Dr. Andy
Anderson, for their tutelage in science education research and curriculum development.

Many thanks to Dr. Sonya Gunnings-Moton, Dean Ames, and Dr. Cass Book
who have been tremendous in their support for me in the doctoral program. I thank the
administrative secretaries for all their support in helping me to take another step in my
life goals. A special thank you goes to Sue Barratt, the Educational Psychology and
Educational Technology secretary, for all her support in my projects. The secretaries in
MSU College of Education have been helpful in giving insightful advice to successful
ends and in completing the right paper work.

Finally, I thank my support groups — the Black Graduate Student Association and
the Caribbean Students Association — who were tremendous in helping me as social
groups within the MSU community. They allowed me to participate in mentoring off-
carnpus and developing relationships with people in other students’ organizations, such
as the Black Students Alliance. Finally, I also thank my writing support group of Ghida
Rakad Banat, Annalie L. Campos, Terri McElhinny, Anne Exel, Siddhartha Shankar
Menon and Sarah Lynn Surface-Evans. I also thank Dr. Sean Kottke for reading my ﬁrst

draft and providing exceptional advice for editing the dissertation.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... x11

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................. 1
This Dissertation Study ................................................................................................... 3
Project Signiﬁcance ........................................................................................................ 4
Overview of Chapters ..................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ........................................................................ 7
Setting the Stage ............................................................................................................. 7
Overview of the Affordances of Games ......................................................................... 8
Learning from Games ................................................................................................... 13
Motivation and Games: External Aspects as Valuing the Game and Content ............. 21
Strategies: Elucidating Play Characteristics Using Player Types ................................. 25
Context for This Study .................................................................................................. 28
lntemal Aspects of RCT3 ............................................................................................. 32
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge ................................................... 39
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 42

CHAPTER 3 .

RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................................... 44
Rationale for Mixed Methods ....................................................................................... 44
Methodological Approach and Research Questions ..................................................... 46
Settings for Study ......................................................................................................... 47
Physical Settings ........................................................................................................... 47
Virtual Settings ............................................................................................................. 47
Participants .................................................................................................................... 48
Researcher’s Role ......................................................................................................... 50
Materials ....................................................................................................................... 51
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 51
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 52
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 61

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS: QUANTITATIVE .......................................................................................... 66
Participants Backgrounds .............................................................................................. 66
Overview of Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 68
Research Questions and Results ................................................................................... 69
What did Participants Learn: Knowledge Test Findings .............................................. 72
Summary of Knowledge Test Findings ........................................................................ 76
Participants Motivation and Valuing: Motivation Assessment Findings ..................... 76

viii

Summary of Motivation Assessment Findings ............................................................. 85

 

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS: MIXED METHODS ...................................................................................... 87
What Strategies did Participants use to Navigate in the Game? ................................... 88
Explorers ....................................................................................................................... 93
Localized explorers ....................................................................................................... 98
Snapshot of a Typical Localized Explorer .................................................................. 102
Localized Explorers: Navigation Strategies for Game Progress ................................. 103
Localized Explorers: Attitudes Toward the School Content and
Game and what was Learned ...................................................................................... 106
Comprehensive Explorers ........................................................................................... 110
Comprehensive Explorers: Navigation Strategies for Game Progress ....................... 114
Comprehensive Explorers: Attitudes Toward the School Content and
the Game and What was Learned ............................................................................... 118
Goal Seekers ............................................................................................................... 123
Goal Seekers: Competitors ......................................................................................... 127
Competitors: Navigating Strategies in RCT3 ............................................................. 130
Competitors: Attitudes Toward the School Content and Game and
What was Learned ....................................................................................................... 135
Goal Seekers: Achievers ............................................................................................. 139
Achievers: Navigating Strategies in RCT3 ................................................................. 142
Achievers: Attitudes Toward the School Content and Game and
What Was Learned ...................................................................................................... 144
Messy Borders: Player Characteristics ....................................................................... 145
Summary of Results for Chapter 4 and 5 ................................................................... 146

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 151
What is Learning in the Simulation Strategy Game RCT3? ....................................... 151
Player Characteristics and Progress in Garneplay ...................................................... 156
Motivational Valuing .................................................................................................. 160
The Big Picture: RCT3 and Learning ......................................................................... 163
The Field: RCT3 and Education ................................................................................ 166
Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 167
Learning from Games: For Teachers, Researchers, Policymakers and Parents ......... 167
Designing Games for Learning ................................................................................... 170
Research on Games for Learning ................................................................................ 171
Limitations of Study ................................................................................................... 172
Summary of Acknowledgement of the Presence of Bias in Data ............................... 175
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 1 75

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 177

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 223

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Connection of Research Questions to Participants, Content,

Methods and Data ............................................................................................................ 60
Table 2: How the Research Questions Will be Analyzed ................................................. 61
Table 3: Data Sources, Methods, Data Analysis and Resulting Data from

Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 62
Table 4: Participants Average Gaming and Reading Hours each week .......................... 68
Table 5: General Statistical Results for Each Research Question ................................... 70
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational Assessment .......... 71
Table 7: Match Paired t-tests Analysis of Knowledge Test .............................................. 76
Table 8: Source T able for Motivation Assessments .......................................................... 84
Table 9: Players Characteristics and Attributes .............................................................. 90

Table 10: General Emerging Player Categories and Learning

Disciplinary Knowledge and Skills .................................................................................. 91
Table 11: General Emerging Player Categories for Motivation and Valuing ................. 92
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational

Assessment for Explorers ................................................................................................. 93
Table 13: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Explorers on the Knowledge test ................ 96

Table 14: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Explorers on the Motivation Assessment 96

Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational
Assessment for Localized Explorers ............................................................................... 101

Table 16: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Localized Explorers on
Knowledge Test .............................................................................................................. 102

Table 17: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Localized Explorers on the Motivation
Assessment ...................................................................................................................... l 02

Table 18: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge test and Motivational
assessment for Comprehensive Explorers ...................................................................... 1 13

Table 19: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Comprehensive Explorers on
Knowledge Test .............................................................................................................. 1 14

Table 20: Match Paired t-tests analysis for Comprehensive Explorers on
the Motivation Assessment ............................................................................................. 1 14

Table 21 : Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational
Assessment for Goal Seekers .......................................................................................... 126

Table 22: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Goal Seekers on Knowledge Test ............. 127

Table 23: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Goal Seekers on the
Motivation Assessment ................................................................................................... 127

Table 24: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge test and Motivational
Assessment for Competitors ........................................................................................... 128

Table 25: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Competitors on Knowledge Test .............. 129

Table 26: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Competitors on the
Motivation Assessment ................................................................................................... 129

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational
Assessment for Achievers ............................................................................................... 140

Table 28: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Achievers on Knowledge Test .................. 141
Table 29: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Achievers on the Motivation Assessment . 141

Table 30: Description of Vanilla Hills and Gold Rush Scenarios and
Level Requirements ....................................................................................................... 184

Table 31: Description of Checkered Flags and Box Oﬂice Scenarios and Level
Requirements .................................................................................................................. l 85

Table 32: Description of Fright Night and Go With The Flow Scenarios and Level
Requirements .................................................................................................................. 1 86

Table 33: Example of Analysis of Scenarios .................................................................. 193

Table 34: Example of Possible Economics and Social Studies Concepts to
be Learned Within a Scenario ........................................................................................ 194

xi

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Images in this dissertation are presented in color.

Figure I: Emergent Themes from the Claims of Games Survey about
Game Affordances ............................................................................................................ 10

Figure 2: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework .......................... 41
Figure 3: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods Used to Collect and Analyze Data ...... 45

Figure 4: Example of a localized explorer park- Vanilla Hills: Two

Giant Rollercoasters ......................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5: Water Park Under Construction by a Comprehensive Explorer ...................... 98
Figure 6: Explorer Vanilla Hills Park Under Construction With Terrain Tool ............... 99
Figure 7: Drop-down Window in the Second Scenario Gold-Rush .............................. 118
Figure 8: Finances Window in RCT 3 Regarding Income (in black)

and Cash Spent (in red) for Each Type of Attraction in a Theme Park .......................... 123
Figure 9: Long Queue to a Ride With Guests and Hiked Prices ................................... 132
Figure 10: Scenario Objectives to be met by Participants ............................................. 134
Figure 1 I : Hiring and Managing Staff Through Park Management .............................. 137
Figure 12: Fast Forwarding Strategy Employed by an Achiever Participant ................ 143
Figure 13: Some Visual Cues that Draw Players’ Attention While Observing ............. 189
Figure 14: Scenario Objectives for Gold Rush, the Second Scenario ........................... 190

Figure 15: Three Colors Coded Circular Visual Icon for Opening and
Closing Rides ................................................................................................................. 192

Figure 16: Icons on Left of Screen and Drop-down Screen Provides
Information to Guide Players ......................................................................................... 195

xii

 

 

 

Chapter 1
Purpose of the Study
Video games1 are all around us. Electronic games are a big part of the lives of
American students. In 2006, 30% of the most frequent computer game players and 40%
of console game players were under 18 years old (Entertainment Software Association,
2006). American children between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games for an average
of seven hours per week (National Institute on the Media and the Family, 2002). It is
argued that electronic games capture the attention of children and engage them in
important ways by posing challenging tasks that are set at levels that are neither too easy
nor too difﬁcult and include scaffolding elements to support the players (Buchanan,
2005; Gee, 2003; Malone, 1981; Prensky, 2001). It has been suggested that these
elements make games ideal environments for learning (Gee, 2003). Support for the use
of digital games for learning is echoed by the government and notable researchers in
education (Federation of American Scientists, 2006; Shaffer, 2006). The President of the
Federation of American Scientists, Henry Kelly, argues that education in the United
States is facing a critical problem in preparing students to face the challenges of
America. He believes that electronic games can help (Federation of American Scientists,

2005; Kelly, 2005).

 

’9 ‘6 ’9 ‘6

I “Video games, electronic games, games” and “digital games” will be used interchangeably in this
dissertation as general terms to refer to any electronic, computer, console or arcade games that meet the
parameters of the following. A digital game is an interactive, oﬁen automated, complex system in which
players store and manipulate information and engage in an artiﬁcial conﬂict deﬁned by rules of the system
that results in a quantiﬁable outcome.

Clearly games are a pervasive technology that has spawned many claims about
learning, and these claims have been the topic of many debates (Mishra & Foster,
2007a). The claimed aﬂordances of games2 range from arguments about games causing
violence or obesity to games being good for preparing children for the 21St century
workforce (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Anderson & Ford, 1986; Foreman, 2003; Shaffer,
Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005). The general consensus from these debates is that there
is some kind of learning from video games; however, what is learning meaning how it is
often conceptualized, how it happens meaning the process of learning, and whether or
not it is beneﬁcial meaning does it help children learn content and skills that can help
them personally as well as prepare them for lifelong learning, is still in question.

The research ﬁndings in the area of learning from games are mixed. Large scale
analyses of studies done on games for learning did not show signiﬁcant effects on
learning outcomes (Emes, 1997; Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004). In addition, there has
not been much research on the claims about games and learning school content (Mishra
& Foster, 2007a, 2007b). Mishra and Foster argue that there are methodological
problems with the general lack of focus on disciplinary knowledge3, and ignoring the
differential potential of game genres in current research practice on learning (Williams,
2005)

Few studies have investigated the knowledge and skills that children gain when

they play games ﬁeely and also examined the process of learning via player types. In

 

2 “Claimed affordances of games” refers to philosophical, anecdotal or poorly warranted arguments about
what video games can do for learning. A deeper analysis is presented in the review of relevant literature
(Chapter 2).

3 Disciplinary Knowledge refers to understanding subject matter and how it relates to other aspects beyond
a discipline or domain.

 

addition few studies in game-based learning research and motivation research have
looked at the valuing of disciplinary knowledge and skills (Brophy, 2008; Heeter, 2009).
In addition, Williams (2005) argues for a multiple methods approach for research in
game based learning. Most studies are either qualitative (with small samples that inhibit
the ability to generalize) or quantitative (missing the rich, individualistic interaction that
is at the heart of playing and learning with games). They each have their own strengths
and focus. Nonetheless, Williams argue for multiple methods that will combine the
strengths of both qualitative and quantitative approaches in game studies. Finally, given
the large range of commercially available video games, it is surprising that few studies
have looked at the learning of subject matter that occurs (or could occur) through playing
these games, a question of ecological validity.
This Dissertation Study

This dissertation research seeks to address some of these concerns. It does so by
designing a mixed-methods study that focuses on learning of subject matter, of game
content, and of technology through extended interaction with a commercially available
video game.

More speciﬁcally, this dissertation is designed to examine learning from games by
evaluating what children in grades four to six learn by playing an existing, off the shelf,
commercially available electronic video game: RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 : Platinum
(RCT 3). The game RCT 3 was developed to entertain, but can also be used to teach
economics because of its business or entrepreneurial focus. The study is done in two
parts: Part one or Study 1 (Appendix A) addresses question 1 is a detailed game analysis

of the selected game focusing on the content, pedagogy, and technology in order to

understand the pedagogical potentials of playing. The researcher played RCT 3 and
analyzed it by focusing on its content to determine what disciplinary knowledge and
skills could be learned, including social studies, economics, information literacy, and
technological literacy. The researcher also focused on the pedagogy via the genre of the
game to determine its interactivity inﬂuenced learning. The game was viewed as form of
technology. Thus, the game was analyzed by focusing on the game as form of
technology, focusing on the content, and focusing the embedded pedagogy. Appendix A
shows the preparation that was done to aid in determining what to assess and in thinking
about appropriate ways to assess the skills and content.

This was followed by the empirical mixed method study, part two, that evaluated
what was actually learned, transferred, and valued from game play. Learning in this study
was speciﬁed in multiple ways: disciplinary knowledge — economics and social studies
content ideas inherent in the game; game knowledge — knowledge of the gameplay; and
technology knowledge — information and technology skills. The study also looks at
motivational valuing in what participants valued in terms of game and disciplinary
knowledge and how they transferred the knowledge gained to new tasks or problems.
Finally, the study also looks at the nature of gameplay or the process of learning (i.e.,
what play strategies did the participants use to navigate the game).

Project Signiﬁcance

This dissertation aims to construct a comprehensive view of leaming through
games and to apply a framework for assessing games for learning based on the claimed
affordances. An examination of the claims for games through the framework of

appropriate assessments is signiﬁcant because it can help teachers, parents, and

researchers become better able to examine and analyze games for instructional purposes
and to help game developers to design better games and similar interactive digital
environments for learning. Further, it highlights the strength of the various
interdisciplinary approaches to research when they combine the literature from
education, psychology, and media studies. It could inﬂuence policy on games and
learning by helping policymakers to understand the power of games for learning in
informal settings outside of school and for after school programs. It could also inform
theory from the situative learning perspective as it relates to discussing and developing
disciplinary knowledge and motivational valuing in interactive digital environments.
Overview of Chapters

This dissertation is organized into six chapters.

Chapter 1, the current chapter, provides an overview of the research problem,
purpose of the study, signiﬁcance of the study and overall organization of the project.

Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature and theoretical perspectives needed for
examining the research questions. Relevant literature and theoretical perspectives are
integrated ﬁom game studies, educational psychology, educational technology, and
media studies.

Chapter 3 outlines the concurrent mixed methods approach that is employed in the
study to collect data and provide for triangulation of data in the results. It provides the
research context, design, data collection procedures, and data analysis.

Chapter 4 reports the results for the whole group of participants using quantitative
data analysis for questions 2 and 3 of study 2, the empirical study. Question 2 and 3

examines content and skills learning, and motivational valuing in the simulation strategy

 

game. Chapter 4 shows that there is statistically signiﬁcant learning of the content and
skills as well as motivational valuing of the game and content for the participants in the
study.

Chapter 5 reports results using a mixed methods approach for study 2, the empirical
study. It addresses questions 2 to 4 examining content and skills learning, motivational
valuing in the simulation strategy game, and the process of learning by way of player
strategies in gameplay. It provides a closer examination of learning and motivation by
player types using mixed methods, unlike Chapter 4 which shows learning and
motivation for only the whole group of participants. Chapter 5 shows the emerging
player types based on play strategies which highlights the process of learning and
participants’ attitude to the game and content.

Chapter 6 discusses the results of the study. In essence, it connects the results of the
study to the theoretical arguments presented by the ﬁeld about what is learned from
digital games. It also discusses implications for policymakers, parents, teachers, students,

and researchers.

Chapter 2
Review of Relevant Literature

This chapter provides a review of literature from educational psychology,
educational technology, and game studies in an integrated manner to outline a ﬁamework
for studying games and learning. Much of current game-based research has examined
learning and motivation behind the playing of games; however, few have focused on
disciplinary knowledge and transfer, motivational valuing, and the process of learning
educational content through player strategies. In addition, few studies have focused on
the role of the game genres in inﬂuencing learning through games.

The chapter is outlined ﬁrst by setting the stage through a discussion of our
socialization in a technology and media driven culture. This is followed by discussing the
affordances of games based on what researchers say games have the potential to do. Next
a review of learning in games is conducted. This is followed by discussing games and
motivation based on research of motivational valuing of game and content. Next a review
of play strategies is discussed to elucidate the role of play styles or characteristics to aid
in understanding the process of learning in games. Next, the context for this study is
discussed by introducing the game to be examined and addressing the need to focus on
game genres. Finally, the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge ﬁ'amework
is used to frame the disciplinary knowledge and motivational valuing within the
simulation strategy genre (Mishra and Koehler, 2006).

Setting the Stage
We live in a technology and media driven culture that affects how we are

socialized and how we learn (Jenkins, 2006; Turkle, 1995, 1997). Today many young

 

people socialize themselves through commercial video games (Roberts, F oehr, &
Rideout, 2005). American children play video games for about 365 hours each year
(Roberts et al., 2005). According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA),
across all age groups, video games generate an estimated $10.3 billion in direct sales per
year and another $7.8 billion in sales of complementary products (Crandall & Sidak,
2006). In 2007, sales of video and computer games exceeded $18.8 billion dollars and
the top games such as Halo 3 made more money in sales in the opening weeks than the
top box ofﬁce movies (The NPD Group, 2008).

The ﬁrst video game was attributed to William Higginbotham, who created
Tennis for Two in 1958 to help ease the anxiety and tension in people who visited the
government lab to learn more about nuclear energy (Rabin, 2005). Since then the
technological sophistication of electronic games has grown to rival that of the movie
industry (The NPD Group, 2008). As the technological attributes and popularity of
games grow, so do the claims about what games can do for learning (Fabricatore, 2000;
Shaffer, 2006; Williams, 2004). These claims are related to the affordances of games for
learning and for motivating players to value what they are doing.
Overview of the Aﬂordances of Games

The affordances for games to help learners are widely proclaimed and are evident
in the claims made by opponents and proponents about what games can do for people
and by extension for society (For examples see Appendix B) (Foster & Mishra, 2009;
Mishra & Foster, 2007a). Mishra and Foster (2007a) conducted a survey about the claims
about games affordances where the researchers argued that affordances fall within two

sets of claims: psychological and physiological (See Figure l). Psychological claims

included cognitive, practical, motivational, and social claims, while physiological claims
refer to seven speciﬁc claims including aggressiveness, antisocial behavior, coordination,
introversion, motor skills, obesity and violence. The researchers contend that the
physiological and psychological effects inﬂuence each other. In addition, the claims
afford experiences that inﬂuence motivational orientation as well as cognitive, social,
and practical knowledge. In addition, Mishra and Foster (2007a) argue that digital games
afford learning and development by shaping attitudes, affecting behavior, inﬂuencing
understanding, and affecting spatial and motor abilities.

Other researchers argue that games demand things from players in ways that other
texts do not (Krzywinska, 2006; Oblinger, 2004). Proponents say that some of these
attributes included in games is the ability for contextualizing, individualizing and
collaborating, feedback and assessment, experiential and social learning, active learning,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, transfer, and scaffolding (Asgari, 2005; Gee, 2003;
Oblinger, 2004; Prensky, 2001). The claimed affordances of games for learning and
motivation shape games as an embodied semiotic domain much like a curriculum.

For instance, studies on the affordances of games tend to focus on the principles
or elements of games that make these environments suitable for experiences that are
anchored, generative, and embodied (Aarseth, 1997; Barab, Dodge, & Ingram-Goble,
2007; Calleja, 2007; Malone & Lepper, 1987). It is argued that games present a
fundamentally different pedagogical stance from traditional direct or guided instructional
practices. Learning in gaming environments is based on challenge, reward, learning by
doing and guided discovery as opposed to “tell and test” methods (Federation of

American Scientists, 2006, p. 6). It has been argued that when users play games, they

have the potential to become active participants in shaping their role and game actions.
Thus it is suggested that when students become active participants in the knowledge
construction process (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996), the focus of learning shifts

from covering the curriculum to working with ideas (Scardamalia, 2000).

PRACTICAL SKILLS
- Digital/Technological Literacy (+)

    

Expertise development (+)
Innovative/Creativity!
Design Skills (+)
Data-Handling (+)
Multimodal Literacy/

PHYSIOLOGICAL

Aggressiveness (+l-)
Antisocial Behavior (-)
lntroversion (-)

 

Coordination (+/-)
Motor Skills (+I-)
Violence (-)
Obesnv (-)
Egg-2:325 COGNITIVE SKILLS
conﬁdence (+/-) Innovative/Critical
Immersion (fantasy, thlnklng (_+/-)' _
curiosity) (+/-) Systemic thinking (+)
Immediate feedback] - Inqurry skills (+/-)
Scaffolds (+) - Deductlye/Igrpgctrve
Control. Choice, reasoning -
Autonomy/Clear goals (+) ’1' a , - Metaphonc to Model-based
Discovery/Exploration (+/-) 4909a spoil! reasoning ((+/-)
Valuing (+/-) S - Causal/Complex/Iterative
relations (+)
- Memorizing (+)
KEY SOCIAL SKILLS
- . _ Communications (+)
E'é’lﬁi’mi'gi‘i’aﬂﬁséi’ W... a)
Competitive behavior (+)

.Physiological Claims Communities/Emergent culture (+)
Psychological Continuum Claims CIVIC roles/Duties/lnfomred Crtrzenry (+)
Collaboration (+)

.Motrvatlon Identity Formation (+/-)

. Social Skills - Value Roles (+l-) Multiple Perspectives (+)
- Roleplaying (+l-) Discourse Acquisition (+)

. Cognitive Skils - Possible selves (+l-) Decision-maker (+)

0 Practical Skills
Figure 1: Emergent Themes from the Claims of Games Survey about Game Affordances
In a small—scale pilot study by BECTA (2006) involving the use of six computer
games in school settings to better understand their relationship to learning, the

10

researchers found that gameplay can be competitive, co-operative or individualistic.
BECTA concludes that the aspects of game that make them important in education is that
they are narrative, personal, and interactive. Further, they build curiosity and logic, have
a story line, challenge players, enable problem-solving, and encourage imagination
(BECTA, 2006).

In general, historical trends about the affordances of games for learning and
motivation focused on aspects such as intrinsic and extrinsic engagement and spatial
abilities and other skills (Ball, 1978; P. Greenﬁeld & Subrahmanyan, 1994). In the
1980’s Greenﬁeld’s research epitomized the focus on studies of sensory-motor skills
using games. De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003), in their meta-analysis of studies on games
from the 1970’s to the 1990’s, concluded that adolescents with medium- or long-term
experience playing video games show greater visual capacity, motor activity, and spatial
abilities-reﬂexes and responses. They contend that early work seemed to have focused on
the development of skills including psychomotor skills. De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003)
also argued that the ﬁrst studies on cognitive abilities in game studies focused on the
potential of games in the development of learning processes such as trial and error. De
Aguliera and Mendiz (2003) contends that the ﬁrst researchers who focused on cognitive
abilities in the ﬁeld concentrated on problem-solving strategies and on a series of
markedly cognitive questions involving learning as the main focus of educational
interest. However, researchers still argued that the learning was not focused on content
and even within studies on learning a clear understanding of the process of learning was
not the focus (Squire, 2003). By 1994 researchers such as Greenﬁeld (1984) argued that

games were good for helping children with basic skills. De Aguilera and Mendiz (2003)

11

concluded that many video games are conducive to the development of speciﬁc skills:
attention, spatial concentration, problem-solving, decision-making, collaborative work,
creativity, and information and technology skills.

The claims about games tend to focus on affordances to develop skills and
learning. However, the affordances do not point to the learning of content or even the
role of game genres. The studies discussed here indicate that the focus is on the structural
elements of video games and its ability to develop skills. Some researchers said games
are good for helping with intellectual development and argue about the cognitive
affordances of games (Squire, 2003); however, there is a paucity of work in the area of
disciplinary knowledge, skills, and the transfer of the knowledge. Jenkins and Squire
(2005) are among researchers who have called for research that focuses on content in
order to build theory. If we are to use games in education, games should be viewed as for
of technology and then there should be a focus on content knowledge and pedagogy
when discussing learning or teaching.

In order to understand what to look for in terms of disciplinary knowledge and
skills within the genre of the game to be studied, an analysis should be done to
understand the affordances for learning. According to Aarseth (2003), there are three
ways to acquire knowledge about what is in a game or what it affords: 1) by studying the
mechanics and design of the game, 2) by observing others play the game, and 3) by
playing the game yourself to develop an understanding. Aarseth argues that the third way
is the best, especially when combined with one or both of the other ways. Hence, a
central step in this study follows Aarseth’s third charge of addressing the affordances for

learning provided by the game. This game analysis was conducted by the researcher to

12

help determine the content, pedagogy, and the affordances within the design of the game
and its genre (See Appendix A). The game analysis along with the help of a content
expert from an economics department and a psychometrician from a measurement and
quantitative methods department aided the researcher in creating assessments and in
determining an appropriate methodological approach. The ﬁrst question which focused
on the affordances for learning provided by the selected game aided in the literature
review in knowing what content to focus on, the kinds of pedagogy in the game, and in
determining if the game had a good mix of disciplinary knowledge and gameplay. Thus it
is reported as research Study 1 in Appendix A because it was a preparatory stage before
the empirical study 2 which addresses Aarseth’s second charge.

In the literature there appears to be little focus on disciplinary knowledge or
content areas when discussing learning as an affordance of games. Thus, how learning is
investigated when studying games is the focus of the next section.

Learning from Games

Games and learning is a contested terrain with both proponents and opponents
arguing about the ill-effects of learning with games as well as the positive effects of
learning with games (F acer, 2003; Roe & Muijs, 1998). They agree that there is some
learning. However, reviews of several studies (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004; Mitchell
& Savill-Smith, 2004; Randel, Morris, Wetzel, & Whitehill, 1992) about learning with
games found that there are no ﬁrm conclusions about learning. Nonetheless, researchers
continue to advocate games for learning (Gee, 2005b, 2006; Steinkuehler, 2006) arguing
that current commercial games contain the “best” theories of learning from the cognitive

sciences (Foreman, 2003; Gee, 2003). To complicate learning with games even more,

13

 

Mitchell and Savill-Smith (2004) noted that the literature base relating to the use of
computer games for learning remains small and that of the eleven reviews they examined
prior to their own, none of the studies focused on learners who had basic skills. With the
continued push to use games for learning, what is the current status of research about
learning from games? Before answering that question, how is learning conceptualized?

Learning as conceptualized: Traditionally, learning was viewed as a mental
process void of context (Phillips & Soltis, 1998) or acknowledging the role of the body
or affect (Barab, Bransford, Greeno, & Gee, 2007). Current theories of learning see it as
the active construction of knowledge via the cognitive or situative perspectives (Brown,
1994; Greeno, 2007; Greeno et al., 1996; Phillips & Soltis, 1998). From the situative
perspective, (Greeno, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991), learners learn through a process of
social interactions that depends on the context or speciﬁc setting. From a situative
perspective, knowledge refers to an activity (not a thing), is always embodied (not
abstract), is reciprocally constructed as part of the individual-environment interaction
(not objectively deﬁned or subjectively created), and involves whole persons (not
disembodied minds) (Barab, Bransford et al., 2007). Thus, in the embodied cognition
view, learning takes into consideration both mental processes and processes of the whole
body in an activity.

Researchers and scholars in the area of game based learning often argue for
learning from games as being an instantiation of these theories. Thus, many researchers
using virtual environments, such as games or simulations, conceptualize learning through
situative learning and embodied perspectives (Barab, Bransford et al., 2007; Barab et al.,

In Press; Gee, 2007b). According to Gee (2007b) in a game environment “players inhabit

l4

the goals of a virtual character... [and] the virtual world is designed to be attuned to
those goals. In these video games, the real—world player gains a surrogate, i.e., the virtual
character the player is playing” (p. l 1). The player has knowledge and skills that the
virtual character does not have and vice versa. Thus, players become embodied in a
participative or virtual presence way in adopting the goals, values, attitudes, and feelings
that is attuned to the goals of the game.

The initial question asked, what is the current status of research about learning
from games? A quick response is that research on the games for learning has shown that
learning is possible in games, irrespective whether it is negative or positive or if the
focus is on disciplinary knowledge. A more nuanced response, however, includes how
games studies are done and paints a picture of what is learning from games. Foster and
Mishra (2009) argues that current studies treat games as being a monolithic entity (i.e.,
ignoring game genres and their differential potential for learning), and the content-neutral
nature of many of these claims ignores disciplinary knowledge. Squire (2003) argue that
computer and video games are a maturing medium and industry and have caught the
attention of scholars across a variety of disciplines; however, when educators have
discussed games, they have focused on the social consequences of game play while
ignoring important educational potentials of gaming. From an educational perspective, it
appears that what is learning in games is complex and to discuss learning in education
without any focus on disciplinary knowledge is problematic because disciplines vary.

Disciplinary knowledge varies greatly from one discipline to another and this
needs to be reﬂected in both the design and research on games for learning in order for

learners to capture big ideas and have transfonnative experiences. Gardner (2007) argues

15

that students must learn disciplinary knowledge, be able to synthesize large amounts of
information, be able to think out of the box, and be creative. Gardner (2006) contends
that students must learn disciplinary knowledge (the ways of thinking and working with
information that are particular to a given subject matter), but this is difﬁcult and requires
years of education in the big ideas and nuances of the disciplines. Thus, if games are to
be successful for pedagogical purposes they need to consider what must be learned in the
form of disciplinary knowledge and skills.

Games based learning studies: Studies that examine learning from games range
widely from basic content focus to enhancing interest in content to developing skill. For
instance, Foster, Koehler and Mishra (2006) using an edutainment game to learn basic
physics principles found that the participants who were non-science college students
learned the basic concepts. The study had two groups: An experimental group playing a
game called Physicus and a control group playing a game called Tropical America. Both
groups played for an average of about 82 minutes of game play to complete their game.
Participants in playing Physicus played from a saved point in the game. It was a lab-
study without elements of naturalistic play, such as free-play, and it had a very short
duration of one session per player. The study found signiﬁcant learning of the basic
physics content; however, it did not give a complete picture about the process of learning
in the game, such as how and why learning occurred. In addition, the learning effects of
the game are difﬁcult to validate because participants did not play freely or for an
extended period of time, and the process of learning was not examined.

Two recent qualitative dissertations (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Squire, 2004)

conducted in classrooms revealed that students learned superﬁcial information, not

16

enough to satisfy educational school needs of the students, but enough for them to grasp
basic ideas. Using three cases to examine learning in the classroom with Civilization III,
Squire reported an incompatibility between the game’s content and what was required for
the school’s curriculum. Learning for the class was difﬁcult to be validated because what
was learned from the game was incompatible with what was required for the classroom
curriculum. In Civilization III handling of the content was different from what was
required in classroom. Egenfeldt-Nielsen (2005), using the game Europa Universalis II
in schools, found a similar problem and also added other limitations such as gender
differences, teachers’ knowledge of games, and students’ questioning whether playing
the game in school was a valid activity. Even so, both Squire and Egenfeldt-Nielsen
concluded that students developed a more holistic understanding and interest in historical
information through playing these games. Squire and Egenfeldt-Nielsen noted that
because of the classroom setting, player strategies or process of learning was difﬁcult to
assess. In both of these studies, the focus was on integrating the commercial game into
the classroom, and content learning became problematic because of the differences in the
game design stance on epistemological approach and the school curriculum.

In a study that used an augmented-by-reality approach, Beckett and Shaffer (2005)
examined learning and valuing by students. Beckett and Shaffer’s qualitatively weighted
mixed-methods study used a computer game-simulation called Madison 2200, a game for
learning urban planning. The aim was to examine innovative approaches to learn by
having high-risk high school students work as urban planners toredesign a popular
downtown mall. The students visited the mall, collected data, and also worked in their

class on the design in Madison 2200. Based on the theory of pedagogical praxis (Shaffer,

l7

2004), the researchers hypothesized that using a computer simulation game augmented by
reality and the practices and tools of urban planners would help students develop an
understanding of what it means to be an urban planner. They concluded that students were
beginning to adopt the epistemic or professional frames of urban planners. This study also
showed an example of how transfer of knowledge was conducted via augmented play with
reality. Nonetheless, the study had a short duration of several weekends. It was not
focused on learning disciplinary knowledge, but on learning how to think like an urban
planner to design cities. It was conducted with participants who did not have basic skills
to play the game or learn the content of urban planning. In addition, the study did not
encourage free-play. Thus the learning is difﬁcult to validate because of the conﬂation of
the background of the participants, game skills, and learning in the game as opposed to
their visit to the mall. The research was not focused on documenting the process of
learning; rather, it was focused on whether students were beginning to develop the basic
skills of urban planners.

In assessing the association of computer games and the parallel-processing skills
for 46 boys and girls aged 4 to 6 years, Yuji (1996), assigned 17 player and 17 non-player
groups by their enthusiasm for computer games. Yuji assessed their skills using tests of
discrimination perception. Yuji found that the game had no effect on parallel-processing
skills. This study did not say what the role of the game genre was or identify the genre and
how it inﬂuenced the developing of skills being assessed.

In another study by Thomas, Cahill and Santilli (1997), the researchers used
computer games with high-risk adolescents to increase their knowledge of HIV/AIDS.

They found statistically signiﬁcant learning gains for both the knowledge items and self-

18

efﬁcacy scores. This study did not give a complete view of learning by the participants
because researchers had no interpretive data. Researchers were interested only if students
had statistical changes in the content being assessed. In addition, the researchers did not
say what role the game genre played in students learning. Mayer (2002) in an after-school
study using a variety of educational games concluded that participants were able to
develop factual computer literacy skills and comprehension skills for following
instructions. Mayer did not assess disciplinary knowledge, but focused on information
literacy and technology skills.

Studies about the transfer of learning from games have shown mixed results, and
many have focused on pure simulations rather than video games (Fletcher & Tobias,
2006; Moreno & Mayer, 2005; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001). Fletcher and
Tobias (2006) argue that transfer is not attributable merely to playing the games or to
superﬁcial similarities between games and an external task, rather transfer seems to be a
function of the similarity in cognitive processes engaged by the game and the transfer
task. Gopher, Weil, and Bareket (1994) found statistically signiﬁcant differences for
transfer between an experimental group trained for 10 hours on the Space Fortress II and
a control group who was not trained. Transfer was assessed on actual ﬂight occurring later
based on the gaming experience. The researcher concluded that differences were
attributed to the similarity of the game to actual ﬂight conditions in terms of coping with
the attention demands and high cognitive load in both situations. Many studies have found
no effects on transfer from games (Fletcher & Tobias, 2006; Hart & Batiste, 1992).
Fletcher and Tobias argue that studies in games and learning seem to focus on transfer of

learning; however, not many focus on transfer in content areas. Squire (2006) argues that

19

transfer ﬁ'om games is possible with content areas, but it should account for the context
within which the content is being learned.

The literature on learning from games indicates that researchers do focus on
learning from games, but what is being learned in terms of content is not so clear (Foster
& Mishra, 2009; Squire, 2002, 2003; Williams, 2005). It is evident that there is a focus in
developing skills (De Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003; P. Greenﬁeld & Subrahmanyan, 1994).
Fletcher and Tobias (2006), in their analysis of numerous studies on learning, motivation
and transfer concluded that learning tends to focus more on skill development for
cognitive structures and less on content areas. What is usually not clear is what content or
disciplinary knowledge is being learned (Foster & Mishra, 2009). This is probably due to
the fact that the content to be learned usually determines what pedagogical approach to
use to meet learning goals, and there is not much discussion of the pedagogy of games,
except that it is embedded within the game, and it is the best for learning. In this study a
central focus is on what disciplinary knowledge and skills are learned and transferred
from the game.

Learning educational content in games is crucial, but learning it without valuing
the experience and the content leads to inert knowledge (Whitehead, 1929). Coupled with
the fact that an important reason for using games is because of the claimed affordances
that they can engage, immerse (Asgari, 2005) and enable players to have ﬂow like
experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) that may lead to creating interest and enabling
players to value the activity. Thus the next section discusses games and motivation,
especially the motivational valuing aspect. The motivational valuing is within the

external aspects of studying games, one of the social practices within a domain.

20

Motivation and Games: External Aspects as Valuing the Game and Content

According to Williamson, Land, Butler, and Ndahi (2004) using games to engage
or motivate children in learning activities is not new. They argue that children
instinctively create games to help make sense of the world around them. Digital games
add to the mix by enhancing imagination and role-playing in children through rules.
Research has shown that one major reason researchers tend to use games in education is
to motivate students to learn (Asgari & Kaufman, 2005; Calleja, 2007; Foster, 2008;
Galameau, 2005; Shaffer, 2006; Steinkuehler, 2006).

Initially, the sort of motivation many researchers referred to when studying games
was intrinsic motivation (Asgari & Kauﬁnan, 2005; Greer, Schwartzberg, & Laycock,
1977; Malone, 1981). Intrinsic motivation theories warrant only seeking for pleasure
(Brophy, 2004). This is not surprising, since a major goal of commercial video games is
to entertain (Buchanan, 2005; Foreman, 2004). The self-deterministic value in
videogarnes does not stem from focusing on learning goals, but rather on its
entertainment value associated with gameplay. In supporting this argument, Gee (2007a)
argued that when gamers play games, they do not focus on content, but on gameplay. If a
game is designed without focusing on learning goals for education, then focusing on
gameplay does not help educational learning goals, but rather its entertainment value.
Currently, researchers argue that while part of the motivation may initially come from
novelty effects, competitive enjoyment, or the stimulation younger generations seek, the
best types of engagement come from the learner’s enjoyment of a more effective learning

experience (Asgari, 2005; Papert, 1997).

21

A primary goal in education is to motivate learners to value disciplinary
knowledge. Thus, the aims of research with games for learning in education should
involve supporting students to appreciate or value the content being learned in the games.
Brophy (2008) argues that currently there is limited knowledge about situations that
afford opportunities for leaming school content with appreciation for its value. Gee also
argues that studies of games and learning should focus on both the content and the social
practices of the domain being investigated. The social practices of a domain involve
valuing the domain.

In a study by Beckett and Shaffer (2005), the authors describe the learning of
high-risk students by augmenting reality to engage in urban planning and developing the
epistemic ﬂames of urban planners. Shaffer (2004; 2006) describes epistemic frames by
arguing that games can provide students with the beginning of understanding and valuing
what it means to be in certain professional roles. With epistemic frames students do not
need to learn all the beliefs and know everything that professionals know; however, they
do need to know the basics that form the core structure of the content as well as the social
practices or culture of the domain. Epistemic frames are another way of speaking about
valuing the educational content in games. From this perspective, it helps if students learn
to value the basic core structure of the content domain.

Roe and Muijs (1998) in their large-scale survey study of 51 schools with a total
of 1001 Flemish 10- to l 1-year-olds concluded that heavy use of computer games is
associated with negative rather than positive outcomes in terms of academic
achievement, self-esteem, and sociability. The study was design to document the use of

media by children, but focused primarily on games. In the study the aim of researchers

22

was to sketch a proﬁle of heavy computer games use and how it affected learning and
motivation. The study did not involve gameplay. In this study, the results for sociability
and self-concept related to both the expectancy and the valuing aspects of motivation,
and both were signiﬁcantly affected negatively by game playing. However, the study did
not focus on motivational valuing of disciplinary knowledge as the aim of the study was
to examine literacy in the media age.

Malone (1981), in exploring the motivational aspects of digital games, concluded
that content which is intrinsically related to fantasy will produce better learning than
content which is merely extrinsically related. Malone’s goal was not to examine the
motivational valuing of educational content, but to explore ways in which games engage
learners intrinsically and extrinsically. Habgood, Ainsworth, and Benford (2005) argue
that an integration of learning content with ﬂow activities and representations may
increase motivation.

Valuing is a necessary construct for believing, thinking, acting, and seeing as a
professional in a domain because it is connected to interest (Anderman & Wolters, 2006;
Shaffer, 2004). Interest may either be personal (a person’s ongoing attraction or liking
for a domain or activity) or situational (a person’s current enjoyment or satisfaction as
produced by an immediate context) (Anderman & Wolters, 2006). Researchers contend
that the goal is to make situational interest become personal interest and then students
may begin to value an activity. Working within the construct of personal interest, the aim
is to make the activity not only immediately enjoyable or useful, but for it to always be
perceived as attainable, useful, and intrinsically valuable (Anderman & Wolters, 2006;

Wigﬁeld & Eccles, 2002). Theoretically, research has shown that the learner’s interest as

23

it is when discussed with motivational valuing is related to beneﬁcial outcomes. That is
students who are personally interested are more cognitively engaged, cope longer, and
enjoy the tasks more. Research has also shown that situational interest may be beneﬁcial
for students (Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992). As this relates to game playing or
school learning, valuing of disciplinary knowledge or game practices may help students
to have situational interests via catch factors (elements that engage the student and
provide immediate enjoyment) in the game, such as building theme parks, managing
money, and other novel or incongruous situations, and then lead to more personal
interests which are intrinsic in nature (Schraw, F lowerday, & Lehman, 2001).

To date there are few studies that focus on the motivational valuing of content in
games as shown in the review. Many focus on motivation for engagement in the game, but
not motivation to learn content or value the content. Researchers have argued that
motivation in games and learning studies tend to focus on students as being more highly
motivated by games than by more traditional instructional presentations, including those
not especially interested in the subject matter, or they focus on game elements that afford
motivation (Asgari, 2005; Asgari & Kauﬁnan, 2005; Fletcher & Tobias, 2006).
Researchers such as Gee (2003) and Fletcher and Tobias (2006) suggest that there should
be a focus on instructional outcomes that assess the student’s attitude to the game and
content. Motivation researchers, such as Brophy (2008), contend that there is a need for
more studies that documents the valuing of disciplinary knowledge. Therefore, one focus
of this study is on participants motivational valuing of the game and content.

The investigation of learning and motivational valuing in a game would not be

complete if the process by which players learn was not elucidated. For this the next

24

section discusses player strategies or styles using different player types and their
potential characteristics to aid understanding of the process of learning.
Strategies: Elucidating Play Characteristics Using Player Types

Games and simulations provide practice that are tailored to the users’ needs,
interests and intentions (Oblinger, 2004). The plurality of game players is reﬂected in
how they play games. The cliché that one size does not ﬁt all in education is epitomized
in player characteristics or styles and types in games. In Education this has been studied
for years through motivation and learning styles, while in game studies there is a paucity
of research on player styles and learning (Heeter, 2009). According to Heeter (2009)
player types are the archetypes of extreme behaviors by players along observable and
meaningful dimensions. A player type is a combination of a player’s play style and
motivational characteristics. Heeter argues that play styles are behavioral while player
types describe a player. Player types and styles are used by game designers and can be
used by educators to appeal to the individual players and how to design curriculum for
particular types of students. Player styles also highlight the process of play and, by
extension, the process of learning since gameplay is the process of knowledge
construction and both are inextricably linked when students play games (Barab, Hay,
Barnett, & Squire, 2001 ). However, much of the research on player types and styles have
been conducted with Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs) (Heeter, 2009).

Bartle (2006) in his analysis of Multiuser Domains (MUDs) text-like games, such
as Dungeons and Dragons, documented four types of game players: explorers, achievers,
killers, and socializers. Explorers are players who delve into the inner-working of the

game to explore game features, and they prefer interacting with the game rather than

25

socializing. Achievers are players who aim to beat the game. They explore to beat the
game, socializing only to ﬁnd techniques to beat the game. They ﬁnd playing to beat
their peers a bother. Socializers are players who are interested in other players. The game
is only a platform for socializing. They are empathetic to others. Finally, Battle described
killers as players of few words. They try to impose themselves on others, beating other
players, and frustrating other players. For Bartle these player types illustrated the
approach players adopted when playing games.

Following up on Bartle’s player types, Yee (2006) collected data from an online
survey of 30,000 users playing Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games
(MMORPGS).The survey was conducted over a three year period to explore the
demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users. Using an exploratory
factor analysis Yee showed that motivation of players in MMORPGS derived from
achievement of goals, relationship with other players, immersion in the micro-world,
escapism from there daily lives, and manipulation of others. This study document the
motivation of players and their player styles by way of gaming approaches such as
manipulation of other players.

To develop a taxonomy that links player styles with motivation and learning,
Heeter (2009) analyzed data and documented 17 player types from existing game
literature. The palette of player types and learning styles that underlie their motivation
orientation were either social or achievement, including the tendency of players to be
pro-social or anti-social or to be extrinsically or intrinsically motivated. Heeter further
argued that there were four distinct types who played educational games and these

included achievers, explorers, lost, and careless type of players. In demonstrating the

26

player types Heeter conducted two studies online with 90 seventh graders learning
evolutionary science. In the studies, Heeter described the types of players through reward
structures and by those who played individually versus in pairs. Achievers and careless
players played the game the fastest and made more decisions in completing it, while
explorers and lost players played slower and did more exploration. Explorers and
achievers made fewer mistakes in gaming, while lost and careless players made four
times more mistakes. Heeter concluded that achievers “appear to be the best player type
for learning” while explorers were the next best. Lost players learned the least amount of
content and careless players were third. Heeter also concluded that paired playing has
some beneﬁcial impact on the attention to the player to the learning content of the game.

Heeter argues that in reality players usually adopt at least two play styles. Klug
and Schell’s (2006) highlighted nine player types sometimes used by commercial game
companies: competitor, explorer, collector, achiever, joker, director, storyteller,
performer, and craftsmen. They argue that it is clear that there are many player types and
styles. Like Heeter (2009) Klug and Schell argue that a player usually embodies at least
two of the player types. In no way will this study imply players are solely one way or the
other. Players adopt certain play styles to achieve their goals with the design of the game.

This section of the review of literature argued that player styles or strategies are
an important aid in understanding the process of learning through play types adopted by
the players. Through navigational strategies of the players and their attitudes to the
content of the game player types may help to elucidate the process of learning. However,
there are few research studies that show how player styles and learned disciplinary

knowledge interact, and how game genres inﬂuence the adopted player styles. The role

27

of game genres is discussed in the next section, the context for the study. In addition in
this review, no study focused on disciplinary knowledge and the process of learning via
player types. Heeter’s (2009) approach represents one step to achieving a method to
examine the process of learning in games via player types. Thus, in this study one focus
is on player strategies using player types and styles to help elucidate the process used to
navigate the game.
Context for This Study

Within this study, one focus is on the role of game genre in aiding to better
understand learning from games. Many studies that examine content or learning from or
in games usually ignore the differential potential or the role of game genres or the
pedagogical implications of videogame genres (Aarseth, 1997; Caldwell, 2004; Foster &
Mishra, 2009). Game genre, the basic mechanism of gameplay, allows players,
educators, researchers, designers and developers to see differences in games and what
they afford for speciﬁc learning experiences (Foster & Mishra, 2009). Galameau (2005)
argues that games and simulations are only as effective as the pedagogical approach that
is employed, and their effectiveness must be measured against the learning objectives
and methods selected. Galameau contends that this is not being done. However in order
to use the appropriate pedagogical approach one must focus on the genre of the game.

Williams (2004) found that research in game-based learning continues to use
conﬂated variables such as genre difference and fail to acknowledge the manner in which
game genre limits their claims. Foster and Mishra (2009) argue that it is important to
look carefully at game genre because the design stance (including the design of a game,

the kinds of choices regarding the gameplay, the structure, the nature of progress through

28

a game, the nature of representation, and so on), is the result of conscious (and maybe
subconscious) decisions made by game designers. From an educational perspective, this
stance can be seen as an implicit pedagogical approach with implicit theories of learning,
behavior, and epistemology. Thus the pedagogical stance in a game is implicit in the
game genre.

Caldwell (2004) discusses the importance of game genres in his analysis of
Civilization 1] . He contends that game genres help in organizing the knowledge in the
game by how it is played. Game genres inﬂuence play mechanics, which in turn
inﬂuence what can be done and learned through playing electronic games. For instance,
in simulation strategy games there are usually feedback screens such as dropdown
windows, as is found in The SIMS, Civilization series, and the Tycoon series of games. In
this genre, the mechanics of play on a computer is usually done by pointing and clicking
with a computer mouse, while the primary navigation or pedagogical approach is
observing and then intervening in game actions through feedback to manage the micro-
world. This is a result of the simulation strategy genre of games being designed so that
players interact with game from a third person perspective or “gods or birds eye view” to
manage gameplay. This inﬂuences interactivity, the pace of the game, and the nature of
exploration— a reason why simulation strategy games have a slower pace of play and lend
themselves to more exploratory play than ﬁrst—person shooter games. Observing and
then intervening helps to determine what is learned because of the information that is
feedback through drop-down screens on what to focus on in managing the world.

Simulation strategy games have been the focus of many researchers for learning

deep knowledge and basic facts (Oblinger, 2004). According to Oblinger, if the objective

29

is to learn a skill that requires practice, a game or simulation may be best. Gredler (1996)
argues that simulation games have potential to enhance educational learning especially in
ill-structured domains. In discussing simulation games, De Aguilera and Mendiz argue
that simulations stand out for their enormous educational potential. Simulation games
can help in the development of all intellectual abilities and a mind for machines (De
Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003). It is apparent that by ignoring game genres one fails to see
how the genre affects play and by extension what is learning. The game that is used in
this study is a simulation strategy game.

Given the gaps highlighted in the literature and the arguments that well-designed
commercial games have the best learning theories embedded within them as well as the
potentials of simulation strategy genre, this researcher planned to study a commercial
simulation strategy game to examine what knowledge and skills children could gain
when playing the game as well how they learned from the game. To discuss disciplinary
knowledge and skills learned from a simulation strategy game, assessment must focus on
the content and skills within the genre. Thus content and skills will be assessed based on
knowledge gained from playing the game RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum (RCT 3).

RCT 3 is a game from the simulation strategy genre whose focus is on building
and managing resources in theme parks. It covers the content of microeconomics and
social studies as well as information that aids the development of technology and
information literacy. According to the publishers and literature about the game and genre,
it should appeal to both genders because of its characteristics, such as managing
resources, and building and designing artifacts. It also has no explicit violence and no

explicit scoring to record performance and affect self concept or competence. For boys it

30

has the action elements such as building roller coasters and ﬁreworks. For girls it has
managing a world and dealing with exploratory and empathetic elements. In addition, it
embodies a good mix of disciplinary knowledge and skills for upper-elementary or
middle school children 9-12 years of age relating to economics, social studies,
information literacy, and technological literacy. The goals and criteria for success are
also clearly given to players via game objectives and scenarios. Thus, RCT 3 was chosen
for the study primarily because it has a good combination of disciplinary knowledge with
gameplay, it is in a popular genre, it has clear expectations for success, and it is
appealing to both genders. This does not mean that the game is perfect as it only
represents the game designers’ view of some ﬁrndarnental economic principles with
gameplay for entrepreneurial pursuits.

RCT 3 embodies ways of knowing content and developing social practices related
to the content and game including valuing basic ways of being a business professional. In
addition, the simulation strategy genre offers unique ways to communicate meaning and
thus learn from the main content areas and social practices within the game. The speciﬁc
content a participant would be expected to learn would relate to micro-economic
principles such as opportunity cost, supply and demand, and scarcity.

Learning with RCT 3 : A Semiotic Domain

Equally, if we are to examine learning in games in education it has to be done in a
manner that captures the content from the particular game. Gee (2003) says that games
should be examined as semiotic domains to better understand learning. Semiotics is
concerned with meaning making and representations, such as in texts and media. The

texts could be verbal, non-verbal or both (Chandler, 2002). According to Gee (2003), a

31

semiotic domain is “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities to
communicate distinctive types of meanings” (p. 18). A semiotic domain includes self-
contained multimodal situated environments where individuals develop ways of knowing
content and social practices to communicate or participate in the domain.

Games should be treated as semiotic domains because they are self-contained
multimodal situated environments where individuals develop ways of knowing content
and social practices to communicate or participate in the domain (Gee, 2003). According
to Gee, an examination of a semiotic domain should be done internally and externally.
The internal aspects of a semiotic domain refer to its content, while the external aspects
refer to the social practices people engage in within it. Thus an examination of games as
semiotic domains means internally examining the content structure and externally
examining the typical social practices including the ways of thinking, acting, interacting,
valuing, and believing within the domain (Gee, 2003). In this study, the focus is on only
one aspect of social practices and that is the motivational valuing of the game and
content as discussed in motivation and games in order to have a focused and practical
dissertation.

Internal Aspects of RC T 3

The internal aspects of the game are focused on economics, social studies,
information literacy, and technology literacy as game knowledge. RCT 3 is classiﬁed as
an economic simulation strategy (a label used by its publishers) game because the main
content area is economics. However, the game covers other content areas such as social

studies, information literacy, and technological literacy.

32

Economics at the primary grade levels (K-6) is usually within the social studies
curriculum. Social studies is deﬁned as, “the integrated study of the social sciences and
humanities to promote civic competence” mational Council for the Social Studies, 1994,
p. 3). Further, according to the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) (1994),
“the primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to
make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally
diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world” (p. 3). The seventh strand
(production, distribution, and consumption) of the ten strand national standards covers
the deﬁnition of economics indicating the broad purview of social studies and its
relationship to economics education. The National Council on Economic Education
(2005) deﬁnes economics as the study of how limited resources are used to meet the
needs and wants of people in society. Economics is also deﬁned as the study of
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services (Brophy & Alleman,
2007). The latter is the deﬁnition that fulﬁls the social studies requirements for schools. .
It addresses decision making about utilizing and obtaining various forms of resources
such as time and raw materials. The Michigan Curriculum Framework (MCF) has ﬁve
content standards for social studies under the economics perspective from early
elementary to high school; however, later elementary students (as in this study) have not
covered much information ﬁ'om the content standards. Some of the standards information
is introduced. Standards 1, 2, 3, and 4 are covered in the game at both the later
elementary and middle school levels and with more information than is required by the
MCF. These include understanding how purchasers obtain information about goods and

services from advertising, exhibiting decision making on personal choices, and

33

understanding scarcity, opportunity cost, cost beneﬁts, goods and services, proﬁt, and
pricing. The ﬁfth standard is not covered. The NCEE outlines that for K-6, experience
should be provided for simple principles such as scarcity, opportunity cost, or exchange
because they provide labels that can be enriched later.

The NCEE outlined 20 essential principles that K-12 students should understand
by the time they have graduated from high school: 1) scarcity, 2) marginal/cost beneﬁt,
3) allocation of goods and services, 4) role of incentives, 5) gain for trade, 6)
specialization and trade, 7) markets — price and quantity determination, 8) role of price in
market system, 9) role of competition, 10) role of economic institutions, 11) role of
money, 12) role of interest rates, 13) role of resources in determining income, 14) proﬁt
and the entrepreneur, 15) growth, 16) role of government, 17) using cost/beneﬁt analysis
to evaluate government programs, 18) macro-economy-income/employment, prices, 19)
unemployment and inﬂation, and 20) monetary and ﬁscal policy. The standards are
broken in three sets of benchmarks for K-4, K-8, and K-12. According to the NCEE
standards, Sixteen (l 6) of the 20 principles should be introduced by the time students
complete K-4, the exception being content standards 12, l7, l8 and 20. The NCEE
(2005) outlines the following key skills that student must develop in K-12:

“Skills, as well as content, play an important part in economic

reasoning. The key skills students must develop in economics include an

ability to: (a) identify economic problems, alternatives, beneﬁts, and

costs; (b) analyze the incentives at work in an economic situation; (c)

examine the consequences of changes in economic conditions and public

34

 

policies; ((1) collect and organize economic evidence, and (e) compare

beneﬁts with costs.”

RCT3 is a game that involves players in designing and maintaining theme parks.
It has objectives within three levels including Apprentice, Entrepreneur, and Tycoon for
each scenario that tells players what actions they should complete to move on to the next
level and eventually the next scenario. While the game involves theme park designing
and maintaining, it requires players to make decisions using fundamental economic
principles such as scarcity if they are to operate their park successfully.

Economics and social studies principles guide the play and content. Players must
utilize resources to meet their personal game playing needs, the needs of the park
visitors, and the needs of the park to run it effectively. Making decisions about which
need to satisfy requires that participants think critically in evaluating and combining
information from feedback within the game environment. Brophy and Alleman (2007)
argue that while elementary students are not ready for macroeconomics, they should
learn microeconomics and many of the basic economic principles. They contend that
many of the principles, including needs and wants, scarcity, supply and demand, and
opportunity cost lend themselves to experiential learning in activities that require
students to make decisions about time and money. In Michigan, students are not assessed
for social studies knowledge until they are in grade 6 on the Michigan Educational
Assessment Program.

Game based studies on social studies are prevalent, but not many have been done
to focus on economics at middle school or upper elementary levels. Squire (2003) argues

that video games such as Hidden Agenda allow players to play the role of a world leader

35

as well as learn about economics. In studies that examined the learning of economics
concepts from games or simulation based environments, researchers found that high
school students learned core economic ideas and were beginning to take on the values of
professionals in ﬁelds such engineering or urban planning (Beckett & Shaffer, 2005).
Beckett and Shaffer used a game called Madison 2200 with at-risk students to illustrate
how students may begin to develop basic but fundamental understanding. In Kimberley’s
(I995) Master’s thesis using a virtual environment called Marketplace that enables
students to participate in economic simulations over the Internet in the roles of buyers
and sellers, it was concluded that participants gained insights into the economic ideas.
Marketplace included online discussion facilities designed to support not only economic
deal-making among participants, but also reﬂection and analysis of the economic patterns
that arise from the interactions. In a related study, Bos, Shami and Naab (2006) used a
simulation called Island T elecom in a classroom based study with groups of 30 and 60
students in 3-person teams in an attempt to increase ethical business understanding
among MBA students. The simulation, which is set in ﬁve ﬁctional islands, puts players
in a role-playing scenario where they must consider ethical dilemmas in negotiations
because the islands lack natural resources or agricultural products. Conﬂict develops
between the teams over other resources, such as telecommunications, forcing players to
consider ethical problems experienced in the real world where resources are not
abundant. The researchers concluded that the game forced students to take on
perspectives or views that were not very well represented in business schools and at the

same allowed them to be creative in their negotiations.

36

Despite some indication of students gaining insight about economic concepts or
principles, some researchers argue that few studies examine what is learned in games
(Squire, 2003). Further, very few studies examine economics learning at the upper-
elementary school level. In a recent national survey of the state of economics Iearrring,
Hawthorne and Wheeler (2006) discuss the need for alternative assessment of primary
grade level economics for children as well as the need for children to develop the
competencies outlined by the NCEE. The older participants in the studies discussed
were dealing with sophisticated economic principles in virtual or augmented by reality
games such as with Beckett and Shaffer. Through games, elementary and middle school
students may also learn the microeconomic or basic principles as indicated by Brophy
and Alleman and by the NCEE.

The other content areas, information and technology literacy complete the
internal aspects to be examined within RCT 3 . According to the American Association for
School Librarians (1998), information literacy learning means being able to evaluate
information critically, creatively, efﬁciently, effectively, and competently. Implicit in the
three categories of the standards, which have 29 indicators, is that students will know the
importance of having good information to meet the daily challenges, be able to weigh
information carefully and wisely, and be able to organize and integrate information from
a range of sources (American Association of School Librarians & Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, 1998). Like the Information Literacy
Standards, according to the International Society for Technology in Education (2007),
the next generation National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) say that

students should know about creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration;

37

research and information ﬂuency; critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-
making; digital citizenship; and technology operations and concepts. There is a major
overlap between the information and technology literacy standards, hence the content and
requirements for what students should know. Neither the technology nor information
literacy standards specify the requirements for grade 4-6 students though it is required. In
addition, there is no course designed speciﬁcally teach these skills in those grades.

Caldwell (2004) in his analysis of strategy games argues that they allow for the
development of expertise because the observation and intervention interaction approach.
Integrating broader perspectives from the claims of games survey, Caldwell, and Web
information about RCT 3, it is posited that RCT 3 will allow for the development of
practical skills related to expertise development, cognitive skills related to systemic and
critical thinking, motivational affordances related to valuing of the content, and social
skills related to identity/possible selves and communication skills.

Garneplay is a result of the affordances and constraints of the game, such as the
genre. This review highlighted the affordances of games, learning in games, motivation
and games, and the context of study with game genres. Play strategies using player style
and the inﬂuence it may have on the process of learning were also discussed. It also
developed the idea that learning in games for education should involve a focus on content
and game genres or learning goals (Foster, 2008). Game genre has been argued as a form
pedagogy (Foster & Mishra, 2009). The content of games was discussed as disciplinary
knowledge whose focus was on economics and social studies as well as information and

technology literacy skills. The game in itself was presented as a form of technology.

38

 

In this research the argument is promoted that if we are to think about learning as
conceptualized in a productive way from games we need to frame the content being
taught (C), and the genre and implicit pedagogical stance of the game (P) and we have to
discuss using a game to develop learning as a form of technology (T). Technological
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Framework (TPACK) is used to frame this
connection between the game (technology), game genres (pedagogy) and disciplinary
knowledge (content) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) (See Figure 2).

Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge

TPACK is a framework that was designed to be used to describe teacher
knowledge for the integration of technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The framework
focuses on Content, Pedagogy, and Technology individually and synergistically. Within
the context of game-based learning and game design research, TPACK is being co-opted
to help identify critical aspects of what is needed for learning in games as well as what is
learned when players play any game. For this study in the game analysis, TPACK was
used to identify in the game the content, the genre, and focus for assessment of learning.
It aids in preventing the conﬂation of the game genre variable by highlighting the process
of learning through the interactivity allowed by the dominant pedagogy of the genre. The
pedagogy is one factor that helps to determine how players navigate as well as what is
learned in terms of content. The study is framed with TPACK by taking a commercial
game (T) and designing a study that focuses on the disciplinary knowledge and skills (C)
within the simulation strategy genre (P).

According to Mishra & Koehler (2006), any technological solution to a

pedagogical problem needs to consider the role played by Technology (T), Content (C),

39

and Pedagogy (P) (See Figure 2). Further, from the purview of games for learning (a
form of T) and pedagogy (P), Mishra and Koehler describe this intersection as
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), which represents knowledge of the
existence, components and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in
teaching and learning settings. For TPK, Mishra and Koehler argue that teaching and
learning changes depending on particular technologies. This requires knowing the
affordances and constraints of particular technologies as well as the disciplines or content
areas of usage.

From the perspective of game-based Ieaming, TPK is useful because of the strong
resemblances to game genres. The TPACK framework provides for a focused analysis on
how technology integrates with content and pedagogy. When viewed through the lens of
interactivity game genres are another way of describing how a particular game integrates
pedagogy and technology. Thus, the game has T and P via game genre while C is
designed into it. Foster and Mishra (2009) argue that a good educational game would
seamlessly integrate all three aspects of TPACK, namely T, P, and C. Their analysis of
game genres shows that two of the three components of TPACK are already present (i.e.,
T and P). What is missing from the discussion of learning from games is any discussion
of C (content). The goal of educational game designers is to think about how this third
circle can be brought into the framework. From the perspective of research in education,
the TPACK ﬁ'amework allows us to ground the claimed affordances of games in the
speciﬁcs of disciplinary knowledge and what can be learned.

The inclusion of TPACK provides a framework for focusing and analyzing the

content of RCT3 and how it integrates with the simulation strategy genre. It allows the

40

researcher to highlight the game genre, thereby reducing the conﬂation of that variable in
learning, and it provides insight on the focus for learning and how learning could occur
and be assessed. Genre plays a crucial role in game based learning assessment because of
its implicit role as a form of pedagogy. Likewise the content in games needs focus as its

own variable.

’—\

/ \
/
/ Technological \ \
/ Pedagogical Content
Kn \

    

(TPACK)

Tech Technological \
I Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Knowledge
K) (TCK)

Pedagogical
\\ ems. /

\

Figure 2: Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Framework

This review highlighted the studies that focus on learning content in games and
found while many focus on important content, few focused on disciplinary knowledge. In
addition, the role of the game genre is usually overlooked and allows for blanket

statements related to the claimed affordances about what games can do for learning.

41

However, it is shown that many studies tend to focus on skill development or on the
structural elements of games, such as interactivity. Second, valuing the game and content
is important for long term learning and interest. Reviews indicate that studies have
shown games do engage students in learning, but few have discussed whether students
valued the content. Both game studies and motivation researchers have argued that there
is limited knowledge about valuing educational content. While this study does not follow
the long term aspect of valuing, it is an aim of the researcher to begin the process of l
using games as a platform for aiding in the development of valuing educational content
and possible selves. Finally, studies have shown that characteristics of the players such as
player styles and types may inﬂuence their attitudes and approach to playing the game.
However, few have examined the process of learning disciplinary knowledge. This
research may help in developing an understanding of the process of learning through the
characteristics of players.
Research Questions

Four research questions were foreshadowed in the review of literature to help
address the gaps discussed. The issues addressed research lacking focus: on disciplinary
knowledge and skills, on motivational valuing, and on play strategies using player types
to aid understanding the process of learning.

In addition, it was discussed that in order to examine a game for learning, just as
a teacher must know the curriculum materials, a researcher must examine the game as a
whole curriculum, analyzing everything within it to determine what might be learned as
preparatory work to understand the affordances for learning. Thus, the ﬁrst research

question focuses on a systematic analysis of RCT 3 :

42

1. What are the affordances for learning provided by the game? This question helped
address the affordances of RCT3 through a game analysis examining what content is
presented in the game, and how is it presented, by exploring RCT 3 technology,
pedagogy, and content (economics, social studies, and technological literacy).

Three research questions empirically address the learning, motivation, and experience of

the participants.

2. What did the participants learn? To determine what participants learn was examined
in by looking at the knowledge of technology and development of information
literacy, the knowledge of RCT 3 (theme parks), and the knowledge and transfer of
disciplinary knowledge namely the basic economics and the social studies content.

3. What did participants value in terms of having or developing valuing in the game and
content? To determine if participants valued the game and content was examined by
looking at the sociallpractices related to valuing, a key component of the external
aspects of RCT 3.

4. What strategies did participants use to progress in the game? To determine the
process of learning was examined by looking at the strategies participants use to
progress in the game from one objective to the next. This elucidates their play styles
or types which aids in identifying the process of learning. The process by which the

participants use to learn is revealed through the characteristics they displayed in their

play styles.

43

Chapter 3
Research Method

This chapter outlines the convergence concurrent mixed methodology that is
employed in the study to collect data and acquire results using triangulation of data. It
outlines the research approach and process of analysis. The chapter begins with a
rationale for utilizing mixed methods methodology followed by a brief outline of the
research questions. Next, a description of the settings of the study is rendered as well as a
description of the participants selected for the study and the participant selection process.
This is followed by a discussion of the materials, data collection procedures, measures in
the study, and data analysis. 7

The convergence concurrent mixed methods research methodology allows for
both quantitative and qualitative types of data to be collected in one phase and integrated
at the same time during the interpretation and analysis (See Figure 3) (Creswell, 2003;
Creswell & Clark, 2007). Learning is conceptualized through performance, that is, what
knowledge do students exhibit when tested, surveyed, observed, and interviewed in the
study? Further learning is viewed as emerging as part of doing the activities in play
(Barab et al., 2001). Learning and doing are inextricably related. In a game environment,
the playing of the game is the process of constructing knowledge.
Rationale for Mixed Methods

Creswell and Clark (2007) contend that mixed methods research is both
methodology and method. As a methodology, it has philosophical assumptions that guide
the direction of data collection and analysis of the mixture of quantitative and qualitative

approaches. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing of both

44

quantitative and qualitative data. The research questions in this study lend themselves to

both quantitative and qualitative analysis (See Figure 3).

. __________________________________________
QUANTITATIVE ' ® QUALITATIVE
Knowledge test ' Incremental scenario tests

I
I
I
I
I
Field Notes, Log sheets I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Motivational assessment
Incremental scenario tests (Observations)
‘ """"""""""" Interview

Background survey

Figure 3: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods Used to Collect and Analyze Data

Using the mixed methods approach, this study aims to ﬁnd out “what works,”
which is typical of the pragmatic approach (Smith, 2006). When quantitative and
qualitative analyses are combined, the resulting triangulation of data helps to give a
better understanding of the data set (Lukkarinen, 2004) in assessing the knowledge gain
of students and the valuing of the social practices. Lukkarinen (2004) says triangulation
is an effort to deﬁne a study by using more than one study or by using several methods to
capture a social structure or a concept. Thus, in this mixed methods approach both sets of
results are integrated to answer the research questions in ways that both quantitative and
qualitative approaches could not do by themselves.

While there is a need for the quantitative or qualitative approaches to gather
information, at times they are inadequate by themselves alone to address research
problems where mixed methods would be a preferred design (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
Using the quantitative or qualitative method alone may not tell the complete story. The
quantitative method may not take into consideration the researcher’s inﬂuence in the
study and the deep interpretive analysis. On the other hand, qualitative methods do not

provide statistical interpretations, and it is more difﬁcult to generalize the ﬁndings

45

(Green, Carnilli, & Elmore, 2006; Smith, 2006). Quantitative data attempts to provide
statistical answers for what is learned and for ideas about attitudes of participants through
pretests and posttests, incremental scenario tests, and motivational assessments. The
qualitative data collected in the play process attempt to help with an interpretive
understanding of how and why learning occurred via background surveys, interviews,
log-sheets, and participant observations by the researcher. It also aids in creating
qualitative categories, which are analyzed quantitatively to indicate learning in these

categories.

Methodological Approach and Research Questions

Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to examine the research
questions:

I. What affordances for learning were provided by the game? The game analysis that is
conducted answered the question. It examined the game as a technology, while
focusing on the disciplinary knowledge (content) and game genre as form of
pedagogy (See Appendix A).

The other research questions in study 2, the empirical study addressed the learning and

experience of participants based on the following questions:

2. What did the participants learn?

3. What did participants value in terms of having or developing personal interest in the
game and content?

4. What strategies did participants use to progress in the game?

46

Settings for Study

Physical Settings

The location of this study was a technology room in the College of Education at
Michigan State University. The room was set up to accommodate natural gaming and
ﬁee play as a typical game play environment for preteens with ﬁiends. In addition, pizza
and drinks were provided. There were 17 computers (7 desktops and 10 laptops) used in
the study and the room was set up so that the participants could have optimal interaction
with each other if they chose. The aim was to have the participants playing and
socializing with each other during gameplay rather than playing alone with minimal
interaction. This enabled participants to play in a manner which was consistent with the
social setting of typical game playing with friends or siblings (Gee, 2003). As part of the
setting, the researcher was present along with audio-visual equipment to capture the

interaction among participants.

Virtual Settings

In the virtual game setting of RC T 3 there are eighteen scenarios; however, only
the initial six scenarios, which are available at the beginning of gameplay, were used in
the study because of the limited duration of the study. The six scenarios include Vanilla
Hills, Gold Rush, Checkered Flags, Box Oﬂice, Fright Night, and Go With The Flow.
Each scenario has the same available tools on the screen; however, the visual layouts of
the theme parks are different and in some of the parks the tasks are different. In addition,
the same on-screen tools are used repeatedly in various ways to accomplish the
objectives for each level within a scenario. Each scenario has a synopsis. For instance,

the synopsis for Vanilla Hills is “The Vanilla Hills are the starting point on your meteoric

47

— or not — rise to RollerCoaster Tycoon status. Can you turn this plot into the peeps
[people] talk of the town? Your rating as Apprentice, Entrepreneur, or Tycoon depends
on it” (Frontier Developments, 2006). Each scenario has three levels: Apprentice,
Entrepreneur, and Tycoon. Each level has objectives to be met. For instance, to achieve
the goals of being an Apprentice in Vanilla Hills, players must get 400 people in their
park and raise the minimum value of their theme park to $20,000.00. The objectives of
the Entrepreneur and Tycoon levels require more people and higher park values. The
levels are based on the increasing complexity and difﬁculty within scenarios, and this
requires players to master each level to achieve Tycoon status. The scenarios are all at
the same level. Although the scenarios are different visually and generally by tasks, each
scenario tests for the same disciplinary knowledge and skills in the game with slight
variations due to game objectives.

In the career mode, participants played RCT 3 using the same ﬁee play as they
would at home. They may have encountered some difﬁculty or cognitive ﬁiction in
learning to play the game, but that is a part of the naturalistic play. Further, the game
requires time to develop an understanding. Therefore, the study was seven weeks long,
and participants played the game for approximately 24 hours. This allowed sufﬁcient
time for them to develop a good understanding of the game, to see their growth from the
beginning through play, interactions with peers, and ﬁom the Web.

Participants

Thirty participants were selected for the study; however, twenty six completed the
study. Of the four participants who dropped out of the study, two said it was too much

commitment, one said it conﬂicted with future dates for a sporting activity, and one

48

withdrew because of an illness. The participants were from grades four to six, ages 9
t012, and were selected using purposive sampling techniques from a pool of 39 children
who showed interest in the study. Participants were from several ethnic groups: Chinese
Americans, Indian Americans, African Americans, European Americans, and Hispanic
Americans. For three reasons, participants aged nine to twelve were used: First, children
at that age are usually in grade 4, 5, or 6 and have not yet been exposed to the social
studies or economic principles that they will encounter in RCT 3 in the Michigan school
curriculum. At grade six, students would be preparing to do their first assessment of
economies which is under the social studies curriculum. Second, the children are within
the age requirements for the game to be neither too difﬁcult nor too easy for them to play
based on the recommendation of the publishers and based on the performances from a
pilot study using 5 players in the same age range and gaming experience. Third, the
children have matured to an age in their lives where they make decisions (consciously
and subconsciously) about school content that they either like or dislike. Exposing them
to content in multiple ways such as in games, may inﬂuence decisions.

Recruitment was done by way of verbal requests, emails, and ﬂyers requesting for
parents consent and volunteers for the game-based learning study and consent of parents.
From the group of volunteers, potential participants were emailed questions asking about
their frequency of game play and if they had played RCT3. From this pool, 30 children
were purposively selected to represent the wide frequency of games played by American
children that ranged from no playing of games to over the national average of seven
hours a week. Identiﬁcation numbers ranging ﬁ'om RCT 301 to RCT 330 were given to

protect their privacy and their identities to the maximum extent allowable by law.

49

Researcher 's Role

The role of the researcher was different in Study 1 and Study 2. In the game
analysis section (Study 1), the researcher was the participant for the question addressing
the affordances for learning provided by the game. He critically and reﬂexively analyzed
RCT 3 ’3 content and pedagogy in order to understand and provide a credible and reliable
perspective about the nature of what is possible to be learned in the game. This is
reﬂective of Alan Peshkin’s interpretation as “an act of imagination and logic. It entails
perceiving, importance, order and form in what one is learning that relates to the
argument, story, narrative that is continually undergoing creation” (Peshkin, 2000, p. 8).

In study 2, empirical information was needed. The researcher acted as an observer
carefully taking notes of the actions of participants. The seven weeks of the study
allowed the children to develop a sense of trust and to not see the researcher as an
outsider. This enabled the researcher to develop a keen sense of who were the
participants and to recognize behaviors that may not have been addressed by interviews
or by what participants may not have wanted to discuss (Hatch, 2002). In some ways, the
researcher the role of an adult who is usually present at home when children play games
(National Institute on the Media and the Family, 2005). The researcher did not interact
with participants unless it was absolutely necessary to do so and/or requested by
participants, and even then the participants were encouraged to try things on their own or
ask their peers for help. Third, the researcher conducted group interviews of participants
after each session, followed by individual interviews. After the fourth week, further

group interviews were held to get their perspectives on their experiences in the game.

50

Materials

Materials used in this study were 30 CD-ROMS for RC T 3, seven desktop and ten
laptop computers, one digital camcorder, an I-Pod with an audio recorder, approximately
48 one hour mini-DV tapes to supplement observations, a 20—item background survey
(See Appendix C), a 17-item pre-post knowledge test (See Appendix D), a 25-item pre-
post motivational assessment (See Appendix E), six 12-item incremental tests for each
scenario (See Appendix F), a semi-structured interview inventory (See Appendix G), a

log sheet (See Appendix, H), and participant notes from observations.

Data Collection Procedures

The study’s expected duration, the number of participants, and the types of items
were determined after conducting a pilot study with 6 children of similar background as
participants in the study. In the pilot study, data was collected over two weeks with the
participants playing RC T 3 for 8 hours each.

In this study, data was collected over seven weeks from December 2007 to
February 2008 on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday of each week at Michigan
State University. Data was collected twice per week from each student, who played
RCT 3 for two hours or three hours at a time depending on when they started the study in
the ﬁrst, second or third week. During this time, participants played the game for 24
hours over six to seven weeks, enough to develop expertise in gameplay. An
understanding of the individual differences of participants knowledge and skill
development and their social practices was gained through data collected from them

regard of playing 1 or 6 scenarios.

51

For the collection of data, participants were asked to complete and submit several
forms among them a parental consent form, a background survey form, a pre-
motivational assessment, and a pre-knowledge test. After the preliminary information
was obtained the participant was given a log-sheet to record the daily achievements
during play and then told to begin playing the game. While the participant played the
game, he/she was also video-taped and observed by the researcher. After the end of the
ﬁrst week of gaming all the participants were interviewed. Participants were then
interviewed after every gaming session in group sessions. The researcher asked questions
intennittently during gaming to understand what participants were doing. Both individual
and group interviews were conducted after the fourth week. After a participant
completed each game scenario, the participant would then do the corresponding
incremental scenario test. This testing was helpful in assessing the disciplinary
knowledge, skills, and level of appreciation for that particular scenario. After a
participant completed each of the six scenarios covered in the study, or the study had
come to an end after the 24-hours of gameplay at the sixth or seventh week (which ever
came ﬁrst), the participant would then complete the post-knowledge test and post-
motivational assessment. Data was carefully collected and compiled each week.

A description of each measure and the purpose for data collection is detailed in

the next section

Measures

The Background survey, a 20-item measure, was used to gather data about the
demographics and psychographic characteristics of the participants, including experience

with media, social studies, economics, and their information and technology literacy

52

skills. In addition, information about the use of digital media by the participants in and
out of their household, the game playing hours, the nature of their game playing
experience whether alone or with others, favorite games, and so forth was collected. The
aim of the background survey was to provide answers and details ﬁom participants of
their knowledge of games, their experiences with digital media, the number of hours
spent weekly on games whether they play alone or with ﬁiends, and their experience
with the disciplines covered in RCT 3 .

The Pre-Post Knowledge Test, a l7-item test, was used to collect data on the
internal aspects of RCT 3, including the knowledge of the participants before and after
playing RC T 3 for microeconomics principles, social studies, information and technology
literacy. In addition, it used to test for the transfer of disciplinary knowledge. Social
studies was examined from the perspective of managing resources and economic
principles, such as opportunity cost, pricing, reliability, thinking about consumers, and
supply and demand, was assessed. Economics and social studies questions focused on
thinking critically about information relating to goods and services, as well as needs and
wants. Information and technology literacy questions were focused on skills associated
with critical thinking, decision-making, and problem solving as indicated on their
national standards as recommended by the NCSS and NCEE. The quantitative data from
this multiple choice, true-false, and choice selection test assessed knowledge gain as an
increase from pre-test to post-test.

Developed by the researcher, this knowledge test is based on the economics and
social studies content in RCT3. It was developed with support of continuous

consultation with an economics content expert at a large Midwestern University, a social

53

studies researcher on the dissertation committee, a psychometrics expert at a large
Midwestern University, using the framework for teaching basic economics concepts
(National Council on Economics Education, 2005), information from websites about
teaching social studies, information from the cuniculum standards for social studies
(National Council for the Social Studies, 1994), a textbook about social studies for
elementary school students (Brophy & Alleman, 2007), and the Michigan Curriculum
Framework (Michigan Department of Education, 1996). The Information Literacy
Standards for Student Learning (American Association of School Librarians &
Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1998) and the National
Educational Technology Standards (International Society for Technology in Education,
2000b, 2007) were used as aids in determining technology and information literacy
skills.

The Pre-Post Motivational Questionnaire, a 25-item Likert-scale type
questionnaire, is a modiﬁed Intrinsic Motivational Inventory (IMI) that was designed to
assess the subjective experience of participants related to a target activity, such as
playing games (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). The original IMI is a 45-item
scale which has seven subscales; for this study, four subscales were used. These included
perceived-competence (7-items), interest/enjoyment (S-items), pressure/tension (5-
iterns), and valuing/usefulness (8-items). The authors argue that these subscales each
ranging from 5-items to 8-items can be used alone, together, or in a modiﬁed form. It has
been found to be reliable and valid across multiple settings even with modiﬁcation
(McAuley, Duncan, & Tarnmen, 1987). In this study, it had a reliability factor of r = .86.

In this study, the test was primarily used to collect data on the social practices related to

54

valuing as well as within the expectancy x value model of motivation (Brophy, 2004).
All four subscales contribute to the assessment of the development of personal interest
and valuing in both the game and the content.

Interest/enjoyment is a self-report scale speciﬁcally for intrinsic motivation.
Perceived competence concepts are theorized to be positive predictors of both self-report
and behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation. Pressure/tension is theorized to be a
negative predictor of intrinsic motivation. Deci, et al., (1994) argue that the
value/usefulness subscale is used in internalization studies because of the idea that people
intemalize and become self-regulating with respect to activities that they experience as
useful or valuable for themselves. This 25-item motivation assessment examined pretest
to posttest whether participants internalized the value of the game and content, had
motivation to play the game and learn the content, had interest in or enjoyed the
experience, and had belief in their own abilities to do well. This was done speciﬁcally to
better understand if participants were moving from situational interest to more personal
interest in the game and the content. The four categories provided data relating to the
overall motivation to learn the discipline and play the game. It provided an answer to the
overall interest and attitude of participants to their valuing of the content. It also
provided an answer to the identity development component as participants develop
personal interest in or see value in the game and content.

The Incremental Scenario tests, lZ-item-short-answer tests, were used to collect
data on gains participants made in acquiring disciplinary knowledge for economics and
social studies, game knowledge for understanding each scenario, transfer of disciplinary

knowledge, valuing of the content and game, and progress from objective to objective in

55

each scenario. It was given to participants after they had completed a scenario. It
attempts to provide incremental data on the progress of participants in the game in each
scenario as well as data for ﬁnding value in the disciplinary knowledge. In addition, it
provides information on the development of participants and/or knowledge gain from
level to level in each scenario because some questions are repeated across the tests. The
scenarios are different in visual design and basic tasks but test the same skills and
principles in different ways. In addition, while each scenario tests the same skills and
principles they increase in complexity from Apprentice to the Tycoon level. Thus, the
incremental test for each of the six (6) scenarios is generally the same, containing 12
short answer questions addressing the internal aspects and external aspects of the game
with slight variation to address the speciﬁc contextual information for each scenario. For
instance, Checkered Flags has information speciﬁc to catering to a VIP while Go With
The Flow does not. The questions about knowledge and skills when catering for the VIP
in Checkered Flags cannot be asked in Go With The Flow because it is not present there.
The incremental scenario tests were not administered at the same time for all participants,
but only as each participant complete his/her scenario. Not all participants completed the
six scenarios due to individual differences, such as the ability to play the game, play
preferences, or enjoyment of the game.

The researcher developed this instrument based on the content in each of the
scenarios. The same materials and group of consultants that were used to create the pre-
post knowledge tests were used to create the incremental scenario tests.

The In-depth Interviews, a pool of 32 semi-structured in—depth interviews, was

used to gather information about the knowledge and experience of the participants. The

56

interview was designed after consultation with economics content expert who had also
played the game. In addition, with the help of a psychometrics expert it was written at the
level of understanding for students in elementary school. It was designed to explore
questions relating to disciplinary knowledge, to motivation to play the game, to
motivation to learn the disciplinary knowledge, and to transfer knowledge. The questions
addressed the participants strategies used to play the game, their like or dislike of the
game and content, their transfer knowledge related to proﬁt, applying principles from the
game to their lives, and their critical thinking about the information. A few examples of
the questions follow: What are some strategies that you think are needed in this game in
order to be successful? What do you think would be some of the consequences if your
school should raise the price of tickets to enter a party and many of the children cannot
afford the new cost? Would you play this game again? Are you interested in the content
of the game - managing resources and making decisions with all the information that you
are given?

Interviews were conducted with the group each week after each gaming session
including in the ﬁrst week with the participants to get initial reactions. This was followed
by both individual and group interviews after 16 hours of play or 4 weeks. In two of the
group interviews, participants interviewed each other asking what they wanted to know
in the game and how what they learned could help them outside of the game. Johnson
(2005) argues that interviews should be done about half-way through because it is
usually at this point that players have a list of objectives and can give an explicit account
of what they need to do to reach their goals. In addition, from the fourth through seventh

weeks the best and worst players as perceived by the researcher were interviewed for

57

about twenty minutes each at the end of their session to get their experiences. These
interviews provided a consistent view of the best and worst players and gave more
insight into how they were learning and navigating. Johnson (2005) suggests asking
players questions, such as “what problems they are actively working on [and] what
objectives they are trying to achieve”(p. 48).

Aarseth (2003) contends that player interviews are necessary in game analysis
because they provide us with an understanding that we could not get otherwise about the
game. Qualitative researchers also argue that the unstructured, open-ended interview
“offers the opportunity for an authentic gaze into the soul of another” (Slivermarr, 2000,
pp. 822-823). Further, Johnson (2002) contends that in-depth interviews because of their
ﬂexibility with predetermined as well as semi-structured approaches allow researchers to
delve deeply and be able to articulate the multiple views of some activity. Researchers
are able to go beyond common sense explanations to deeper level explanations of an
activity. Thus, the interview helps greatly in collecting data that provide answers to
whether participants develop any of the social practices of the game related to valuing the
game and disciplinary knowledge.

The Participant and Video-taped Observations, ﬁeld notes and video-taped
observation, were used to gather data on the interactions of participants with the game
and each other. It was used to document strategy used by participants as they progressed
in the game. Information was noted as it related to the speed of attaining objectives, and
exploring, and whether participants were aware of their objectives and strategies. The
researcher used a mini-DV camera borrowed from the University to record the sessions.

While the camera recorded the play sessions, the researcher took notes of the

58

interactions. Data drawn from the interactions of participants with the game and between
each other attempt to provide a good picture of the social atmosphere and relationships
while gaming. These should aid in providing answers to the external aspects of the
domain especially when integrated with interview responses to see how participants were
gaining knowledge of playing the game as well as developing the social practices of
gaming.

The Participant Log Sheet, a grid-like sheet containing all six scenarios, was used
by participants to log their progress during gameplay. The sheet logged the game year
and month (April to November used as a time stamp) when participants completed each
level and, eventually, each scenario. It also logged the awards/achievements earned by
participants in each scenario. Additionally, by logging their achievement in every level
and time of achievement, the log sheet also logged progress in gameplay by the
participants. The achievements help to reﬂect what participants focused on in a scenario,
indicating whether they were exploration or objective oriented. After the completion of
each scenario, participants recorded their park value, amount of available cash, company
value, park ratings, and the number of people in their park. Participants also explained
what their awards/achievements meant to them and how it helped their park.

Given the research questions, content, and instruments, Table 1 illustrates how

they are connected and the data that will be yielded.

59

Table 1: Connection of Research Questions to Participants, Content, Methods and Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# Question Participant Content Methods Data
What are the a. Pedagogy
affordances for b.
1 learning provided Researcher Technology Content analysis Qualitative
by the game? c. Subject
Covered
What did the Economics, 1. Overall Pre-Post
participants learn? social knowledge, skills
. studies, assessment
2 (3:338:18 information 3. Incremental scenario Quantitative
p p and assessment question
technology Knowledge test after
literacy each scenario in RC T 3
What did 2. Pre-Post motivational
participants value . Social assessment . _
3 in the game and Chrldren practices _ 3. Incremental scenario Quantitative
content? 13311191me valuing assessment Qualitative
3.1ncremental assessment
4. Random interviews
. after initial level in the
What strategies did (33532116 Pl Str t ﬁrst scenario and then
4 participants using p rcrp ay a egy again half-way into study Qualitative
to navigate in the 5. Video-based
game? observation as well as
participant-observation
6. Log Sheets

 

Table 1 also describes how each research question was addressed. Question 1 or

Study 1 documented how the game was analyzed in preparing for the research and is

reported in Appendix A. Question 1 was examined with the aid of an expert in

economics who has experience with the RCT series (a professor with expertise in

 

economics), data from the literature, and the researcher’s knowledge of the game from
playing it for more than six months in order to determine what disciplinary knowledge
and skills to examine in question 2. Some examples of what question 1 indicated could
be learned included knowledge related to the production-economic focus of the game,
knowledge about game play, and knowledge that requires critical and innovative use of

information to meet objectives. In addition, it also revealed that knowledge construction

60

would be made possible primarily through the dominant pedagogical approach of an

observation and intervention type of interactivity. Question I helped the researcher to

formulate the study’s instruments such as the knowledge test, interview questions, and

incremental scenario assessment used in the study.

Table 2: How the Research Questions Will be Analyzed

 

#

Question

Data Sources

 

1

What are the affordances for learning provided by the game?

Game, Content Expert,
Literature

 

What did the participants learn? This speciﬁcally includes 1)
knowledge of technology and development of information literacy, 2)
knowledge of RC T 3 (theme parks), and 3) knowledge and transfer of
disciplinary content - economics and social studies.

Pre-Post Knowledge
test

Incremental scenario
tests

 

What did participants value, that is have or developing valuing in the
game and content? Examined by looking at the social practices
related to valuing, a key component of the external aspects of RC T 3 .

Pre-Post Motivational
Assessment
Interviews,
Incremental tests,

 

 

 

What strategies did participants using to navigate in the game?
Examined by looking at the progress of participants in the game from
one objective to the next, from an Apprentice, to an entrepreneur, and
ﬁnally to a tycoon in the game within each scenario

 

Incremental tests,
Interviews,
Observations
(participant and video)
Log sheets

 

Data Analysis

Table 3 illustrates how the research question will be analyzed. As illustrated in

Table 2 each research question yielded answers from different data sources. The data

sources were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative techniques (See Table 3).

61

 

Table 3: Data Sources, Methods, Data Analysis and Resulting Data from Data Sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# Data Sources Methods Data Analysis Expected Data
Are students lacking
skills, is there a
. good mix of gamers
a Background survey Qualitative Content Analysrs, and non-gamers, Are
Grounded Theory . . . . .
familiar With digital
media and game
playing
b ESPOSt Knowledge Quantitative Match paired t-tests Internal aspects
c Pre-post motivational Quantitative Match paired t-tests External aspects
questionnaire
Incremental scenario Quantitative and ANQVA’ Descriptive Internal and External
d . . Statistics, Content
short answer test Qualitative . aspects
Analysrs
. . . . . Content Analysis, Internal and External
e Partrcrpant Intervrews Qualitative Grounded theory aspects
Observations: . . Internal and External
f Participant and Video Qualitative Grounded theory aspects
g Participant Log Sheet Qualitative Contextual analysis Partrcrpants game
progress

 

 

The background survey was analyzed using grounded theory analysis (Glaser and
Strauss, 1999) and contextual analysis. This aided in informing the researcher about the
prior knowledge of the participants playing of games, skills, and disciplinary knowledge.

The pre-post Knowledge Test was analyzed using paired t-tests to determine
mean differences pretest to posttest within the one sample used in the study. The
knowledge test examined what was the disciplinary knowledge and skills that was
learned and transferred. Thus, a paired t-test was used in the analysis of what disciplinary
knowledge and skills was learned from RC T 3 to get an overall picture. A power analysis
had shown that 24 participants would have been needed to have at least an 87% chance
of detecting a difference of 1 standard deviation or signiﬁcant difference on the test.

Thus having 26 participants, more than the required 24 participants, increased the

chances of detecting statistical signiﬁcant difference on the knowledge test.

62

The pre-post motivational assessment was analyzed using paired t-tests to
examine the means pretest to posttest for the participants overall intrinsic motivation,
their expectancy x value for the game and content, and their motivation on motivational
subscales for interest, value, pressure and perceived competence. This was done by
scoring the Likert-type items from 1 to 6 and use the resulting number as the item score.
The item score was then totaled and calculated for each subscale score. The subscale
score was then added to get a total assessment score pretest to posttest and further used to
calculate pretest to posttest subscale values. These analyses were an aid to better
understanding results if students were developing interests and attitudes or valuing the
game and content. Research has shown that the students self-concept or perceived
competence is a good predictor of future behavior (Baurneister, Campbell, Krueger, &
Vohs, 2003; Brophy, 2004); thus, the assessment was a viable predictor for the values
and identity developed in the game if the attitudes and interests of the participants were
favorable for the game and content.

The incremental scenario tests were analyzed using an ANOVA with a blocking
design, participants and incremental scenario tests as two ﬁxed factors. The questions on
each scenario tests for each participant were scored and grouped together for
homogeneity by outcome variables: disciplinary knowledge for economics and social
studies, game knowledge as technology knowledge, information literacy, and transfer
knowledge. The aim was to improve the comparisons across the scenario tests. Since
each test had a different number of participants, the scores were scaled out of 1 to
standardize and increase chances for comparison across scenario tests. The mean score

for each test and for each participant for the four outcome variables on all six scenario

63

tests were found. ANOVA analysis with a blocking design was then used for each
outcome variable between scenario tests and within scenario tests for the variation for
each outcome by participants. Each outcome variable was examined with the ﬁxed
factors. They were placed in a customized ANOVA model that was used to examine the
main effects in the analysis across scenario tests for each outcome variable as well as
differences between participants on each test for the outcome variable. The scenario tests
were also examined using planned polynomial contrasts to ﬁnd signiﬁcant linear trends
across the tests; however, this was done only if there was already a signiﬁcant difference
for the outcome variable between each incremental scenario test. Graphs were designed
for each outcome variables across the scenarios tests using the estimated marginal mean
for each scenario test.

Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used to determine the content
knowledge and skills gained from play characteristics, play strategies, and attitudes
employed in the game. The analyses provide a snapshot after each scenario about what
participants learned in terms of the internal and external aspects of RCT 3 . It also provides
a map of the progress made by participants through the scenarios and transfer of the
concepts in disciplinary knowledge such as supply and demand.

The in-depth interviews and observations were coded for themes related to what
was learned for disciplinary knowledge and skills, for transfer knowledge, for motivation
to learn content and play the game, and for strategies for progressing through the game.
A grounded theory analysis was used to code data to generate themes and then recode
those themes further until there was theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1999).

Interview questions focused on the experience of play in RCT 3 socially and cognitively

64

for learning, and transfer of knowledge from RC T 3 to business and economics. Questions
addressed the students navigation strategies, personal objectives, ideas about valuing the
game and content, and ideas about business and economics. Field notes from
observations documented students’ navigational patterns or strategies to complete
objectives. The ﬁeld notes also served as support to help the researcher to recall certain
actions and statements.

Log sheets were analyzed by coding each of the cells for scenarios attempted,
scenarios completed, achievements gained, length of time in each scenario, and what
each achievement meant to a participant. This analysis provided a pattern of navigation
progress for each participant showing the level of struggle, the players’ preferences, and

the players’ achievements.

65

Chapter 4
Results: Quantitative

This chapter reports quantitative results for the whole group in the study on
disciplinary knowledge in economics and social studies, and skills gained in information
and technology literacy, and what the participants valued in the game. This chapter
begins with a description of the study’s sample starting with the background surveys
used to provide an overall picture of the sample. The chapter is divided into parts that
address each of the research questions: What did the participants learn and what did they
value in the game and content? This section shows the results on the quantitative tests:
knowledge tests and motivational assessments to answer the research questions.

The incremental scenario tests results were not used because only ﬁve of the 26
participants completed each of the six tests. The questions were not all the same across
the tests resulting in questions about tests alignment. Total numbers of participants who
completed each scenario was different: Scenario 1, n = 22; Scenario 2, n = 17; Scenario
3, n =11, Scenario 4, n =6; and Scenarios 5 and 6, n =5). In addition, each scenario tested
for the same basic economics principles, but the questions were not written the same.
Participants Backgrounds

Out of thirty participants who started the study, 26 completed it. The average age
of the participants was 11 years old, ranging from ages 9 to 12, with 16 males and 10
females. The participants came from urban, suburban, and rural sections of Michigan.
Each of the participants had basic technological and information literacy skills necessary
for using computers and playing digital games. Based on information on the background

surveys from the participants, the average amount of weekly gameplay across each of the

66

participants was seven hours, the same as the national average. Game play time ranged
from an average of 1 hour to 14 hours each week. In addition, participants averaged
seven hours of reading each week. 62 percent of the participants indicated that their
favorite subjects were either Mathematics or Science, (N = 11 and 5, respectively). The
others preferred English (19%), followed by Computer (7.5%), Social Studies (7 .5%),
and Art (4%).

58 percent of the participants had parental rules about when they can play games
and the length of time each day or each week they can play games. Each of the
participants shared some or all of these rules:

1. Playing video games before and for the same amount of time they do reading;

2. Complete homework or practice play an instrument before playing video

games;

3. No more than one hour of video gaming each day;

4. No playing of games rated M — Mature;

5. Either playing video games or watching TV on a given day;

6. Doing some outdoor activity before playing video games; and

7. No playing of video games after 9:00 P.M. each night.

Each of the participants had some experience using digital equipment ranging
from cellular phones, televisions, DVD, and MP3 players to video games in their homes.
In addition to their technological experience, the participants reported that they had the
necessary prior knowledge needed to develop the disciplinary knowledge found in
microeconomic principles as well as the social studies knowledge that could be learned

from RCT 3 . Each participant reported having exposure to basic algebra and discussions

67

about using money in school; however, none of the participants reported having a class
course in economics or any formal course through social studies about business and
economics. Participants reported classes in general social studies related to history,
civics, and geography, and classes on the use of computers. They had ideas and exposure
to business through their everyday interactions with parents, peers, vendors, and various
forms of media such as TV or the Internet.

Table 4: Participants Average Gaming and Reading Hours Each Week

 

Participants Gaming Hrs/Wk Reading Hrs/Wk

 

26 7 7

 

None of the students were familiar with RC T3: Platinum and its 3-D designed
environment; however, seven of them had had experience with previous Tycoon games
and similar simulation strategy environments such as The SIMS. It was important that
participants had no playing experience with RCT3 because it would have made relating
learning to the gaming experience difﬁcult.

Participants entered the study knowing that they would play a video game and
that they were part of study. They did not know the content area and had no intention to
learn disciplinary knowledge related to economics and social studies or skills related to
information and technology literacy. Participants reported they were interested in playing
games, having a good time, and were capable of learning anything in the game. A
discussion of tests results provides information on disciplinary knowledge, skills, and
their attitudes towards valuing and motivation to learn the content.

Overview of Data Analysis

Preliminary data analysis was done to ensure that the data followed the

assumptions of the match-paired t-tests and ANOVA tests used in the study. Exploration

68

of the data showed that there were no serious violations of the assumptions of these tests
for homogeneity of variances, independent samples, and normality. Since the study had
one sample, and a match-paired t-test was used to analyze the knowledge test and
motivation assessments, homogeneity of variances was not an assumption for that
analysis. Calculations of the skewness and kurtosis of the pre-knowledge test showed no
violations of normality in the distributions of the knowledge test, incremental
assessments, or motivation assessment.

In the analysis of the incremental tests for information literacy, disciplinary
knowledge, and game playing knowledge, the assumption for homogeneity of variances
was violated, but it was not of high concern because of the robustness of the ANOVA.
Examination of the histograms and box- plots revealed one participant outlier in the pre-
knowledge tests. The participant did not complete the pre-knowledge test making the
pretest score very low. This made the score numerically distant from others that were
based on a completed test. Thus the participant post knowledge test was removed so that
the knowledge test (pre-post tests) results would be more conservative. Cronbach’s
Alpha indicated that the motivation assessment, which includes the four subscales of
valuing, interest and enjoyment, felt pressure/tension, and perceived competence created
from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, had a reliability of r = .86.

Table 5 provides an overview of the results for each research question as it is
related to the type of test used to analyze the data source. T—tests were used for the pre-
post instruments (knowledge tests and motivation assessments).

Research Questions and Results

69

Table 5: General Statistical Results for Each Research Question

 

 

 

Research Questions Tests Statistical Results

What did the participants

learn? I - e n e .
Paired-t Statistically srgmﬁcant ﬁnding for economics

Disciplinary Knowledge; and social studies

Economics and Social Studies

Skills: Information and . Statistically signiﬁcant ﬁnding for game

Technology Literacy Parr ed-t knowledge (technology knowledge) and

information literacy

 

Transfer: Near Transfer Pair ed-t No statistically signiﬁcant ﬁnding

 

. Statistically signiﬁcant ﬁnding for transfer of
Transfer: Far Transfer Paired-t knowledge ﬁ'om game to real world contexts
beyond theme parks and business

 

 

What did the participants
value?

Paired-t Not statistically signiﬁcant for having intrinsic
Overall Motivation; Intrinsic interest for learning the content in the game.
Motivation
Motivation: Valuing Paired-t Statistically signiﬁcant for valuing the content

(Economics) and the game

 

, , , , Not statistically signiﬁcant for having perceived
Motivation: Percerve Competence Paired-t competence in the game and content, but

increased pre to post means

 

, , , _ Not statistically signiﬁcant for felt pressure while
Motivation: Felt pressure/tensron Paired-t playing the game. Pre —Post means show

decrease in tension

 

, . , Not statistically signiﬁcant for having interest in
Motivation: Interest Paired-t the game and content, but increased pre to post
means.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6 summarizes the descriptive statistics for the participants’ disciplinary
knowledge in economics and [social studies, game knowledge which accounted

technology and information literacy, transfer knowledge, overall intrinsic motivation to

70

play games and learn disciplinary knowledge and skills, motivational expectations for

learning disciplinary knowledge, and motivational valuing for disciplinary knowledge.

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational Assessment

 

 

Groups Means S.D. Std. Err N
15.48 2.92 .58 25

Post Knowledge RCT3'
Pre Knowledge RCT3” 13.20 2.47 .49 25
Post Knowledge Econ 82 Social Studiesz 20.64 3.51 .70 25
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 18.04 2.96 .59 25
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.81 1.33 .26 25
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.08 1.70 .33 25
Post Near Transfer” 5.44 1.04 .21 25
Pre Near Transfer“ 5.08 1.00 .20 25
Post Motivation to play and learn4 115.27 10.38 2.04 26
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 112.35 11.94 2.34 26
Post-Interest (subscale)5 25.65 3.06 .60 26
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 24.38 2.79 .55 26
Post Value (subscale)6 41.27 4.64 .91 26
Pre Value (subscale)6 38.46 5.20 1.02 26
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 13.58 3.98 .78 26
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 14.00 4.36 .86 26
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 34.77 5.22 1.02 26
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 35.50 5.08 .99 26
Post expectancyg 48.35 4.98 .98 26
Pre expectancy9 49.50 6.46 1.27 26
Post value”) 66.92 6.38 1.25 26
Pre value") 62.85 7.29 1.43 26

 

. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17
Knowledge of Economics and Social Studies scored out of 31
Transfer — scored out of 10 points
Near Transfer — scored out of 7 points

Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales — Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6

Value - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48

Felt Pressure/tension - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
Perceive Competence- Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items)— out of 42
Expectancy derived from perceived competence and pressure/ felt tension scale

1
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5. Interest — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
6
7
8
9.
1

0. Value derived from interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

71

What did Participants Learn: Knowledge Test Findings
For the research question pertaining to what the participants learned the result is

presented in three parts. 1) For the knowledge of technology and development of
information literacy, 2) the knowledge of RC T 3 (including knowledge of the game —
technology and information literacy), and 3) the transfer of disciplinary knowledge —
economics and social studies, the following hypotheses was tested:
1. Ho: there is no difference in students’ disciplinary knowledge and skills after playing

RCT 3 .

H1: there is a difference in the students’ disciplinary knowledge and skills after

playing RCT 3 .

H6: 111 = 112;

Hz: 11175 112;

u. = mean disciplinary knowledge and skills before playing RC T 3

112 = mean disciplinary knowledge and skills after playing RCT 3

The results indicate there was a signiﬁcant difference in the participants’

disciplinary knowledge and skills ﬁ'om pretests (M = 18.04, SD = 2.96) to posttests (M =
20.64, SD = 3.51) playing RCT 3 to learn economics and social studies, t (24) = -3.67, p <
.05, d = 0.80 (See Table 7). Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no signiﬁcant
difference in students’ disciplinary knowledge and skills after playing RC T 3 was
rejected. The sign of the t-statistic (pretest — posttest) indicates that there was a higher
post test score as a result of playing the simulation-strategy game RCT 3 . The test
examined questions about opportunity cost, supply and demand, and other basic

economic principles. Despite participants having no formal education in basic or

72

foundational economics principles, results of the study indicate knowledge gains. The
effect size indicates that the game had a large effect, d = 0.80, r2 = .37.
2. Ho: There is no difference in the participants’ knowledge of the game (RC T 3) after
the gaming experience.
H1: There is a difference in the participants’ knowledge of the game (RC T 3) after the
gaming experience.
Hot 111 = 112;
Hz: 11176 112;
u] = mean of participants’ knowledge of the game (RCT 3) (including technology and
information literacy) before the gaming experience
u; = mean of participants’ knowledge of the game (RCT3) (including technology and
information literacy) after the gaming experience.

Results indicate a signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ game knowledge from
pretest (M = 13.20, SD = 2.47) to posttest (M = 15.48, SD = 2.92) after they experienced
the game, t (24) = -3.77, p < .05, d = 0.84 (See Table 7). Thus, the null hypothesis that
- there is no signiﬁcant difference in participants’ knowledge of the game after engaging in
it is rejected. The sign of the t-statistic indicates that the posttest score is higher than the
pretest score and that the difference came after playing the simulation-strategy game
RCT 3. This is an indication that the game had an effect on the participants and that effect
came after the participants acquired the technology knowledge and information literacy
in developing an understanding of the game. The effect size indicates the game had a

large effect, d = 0.84, r2 = 0.39.

73

Participants were able to develop game knowledge, including technology

knowledge. This is an important variable because playing the game and increasing game

knowledge including technology knowledge is needed to make progress, understand the

game, and develop disciplinary knowledge. This indicates that the participants were able

to understand and use the icons, tools, and symbols to progress through the game and

develop game knowledge in order to play.

3. Ho: There is no difference in students’ transfer of knowledge from the game and

about theme parks to other settings after playing RCT 3 to construct disciplinary
knowledge and skills.

H1: There is a difference in students’ transfer of knowledge from the game and
about theme parks to other settings after playing RCT 3 to construct disciplinary

knowledge and skills.

Ho: m = #2;

H11 H1 75 #2;

u] = mean of transfer knowledge (ﬁ'om the game and about theme parks to other
settings) before playing RCT3 to construct disciplinary knowledge and skills.

in = mean of transfer knowledge (from the game and about theme parks to other
settings) after playing RCT 3 to construct disciplinary knowledge and skills.

The results from the analysis indicated that there was a statistically signiﬁcant

difference in the participants’ transfer of knowledge from pretest (M = 6.08, SD = 1.70)

to posttest (M= 6.81; SD = 1.33), t (24) = -2.38,p < .05, d = 0.48 (See Table 7). Thus,

the null hypothesis that there is no signiﬁcant difference in the transfer of student

knowledge from the game to other settings after playing RCT 3 to construct disciplinary

74

knowledge and skills is rejected. The sign of the t-statistic indicates that there is a higher
posttest score than a pretest score, and the difference may have come as a result of
playing the simulation-strategy game RCT 3. Transfer questions included a range of
concepts that demonstrated understanding of using opportunity cost in settings unlike
theme parks. They also included understanding scarcity, dealing with resources, and
supply and demand. Responses to the questions indicate the study had an effect on
inﬂuencing the participants’ transfer of knowledge after the experience. The effect size is
moderate, d = 0.48, r2 = 0.23.

Participants demonstrated transferred knowledge to real world settings by
answering questions that dealt with use of resources such as money in non-game settings.
The effect size was moderate. This suggests that although there is evidence of transfer,
the claims about transfer are not as strong as expected. Nonetheless, this represents a step
in a positive direction about transfer and learning with digital games.

4. Ho: There is no difference in students’ near transfer of knowledge from the game and
about theme parks after playing RCT 3.
H1: There is a difference in students’ near transfer of knowledge from the game and
about theme parks after playing RCT 3 .
Ho: rt: = “2;
H11 #1 ¢ #2;
u; = mean of near transfer knowledge (from the game and about theme parks) before
playing RCT 3.
pg = mean of near transfer knowledge (from the game and about theme parks) after

playing RCT 3.

75

The results of the analysis indicated that there was no statistically signiﬁcant
difference for near transfer from the participants from pretest (M = 5 .08, SD = 1.00) to

posttest (M= 5.44, SD = 1.04) by playing the game, p = .14, d = .35.

Table 7: Match Paired t-tests Analysis of Knowledge Test

 

 

 

Source df t p ' d 6

Pre-Post Knowledge of Econ

& Social Studies 24 - 3.67" .001 0.84 .93
24 - 3.77** .001 0.80 .93

Pre-Post Knowledge of RCT 3

 

24 -2.38* .025 0.48 .64
Pre-Post Transfer

 

24 -1.52 .142 0.35 .26
Pre-Post near Transfer

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01

 

Summary of Knowledge Test Findings

Despite no formal education about basic economics principles, overall there was a
signiﬁcant difference in the gain in disciplinary knowledge and skills by the participants.
The game had an effect on the participants’ knowledge and skills, and the effect came
after playing the game. In addition, analysis indicates that, after playing the game,
participants were able to perform far transfer to other settings. It should be noted that
near transfer was not found, and this may be related to the fact that there were only four
questions, worth seven points, measuring that variable. The effect size indicates that far
transfer was moderate. Thus, claims about transfer from the game must be guarded until
ﬁrrther interpretive analysis.
Participants Motivation and Valuing: Motivation Assessment Findings

For the research questions asking, “What did the participants value in the game

and content,” the following hypotheses were tested. The research questions provided

76

answer to participants overall interest and attitude towards the valuing of the content.
Further, answers indicated identity development as the participants developed a personal
interest or valuing of the game and content as a social practice. It has been shown that
during gaming, the process of gameplay is the way to construct knowledge. Thus the
overall motivation to play and to learn disciplinary knowledge cannot be separated.
1. Ho: There is no difference in the participants overall motivation to play and to learn

disciplinary knowledge and skills.

H1: There is a difference in the participants overall motivation to play and to learn

disciplinary knowledge and skills.

H03 111 = 112;

Hz: 111% #2;

u. = mean of overall motivation (interest, value, and competence) to play games and

learn disciplinary knowledge and skills before playing RCT 3

112 = mean of overall motivation (interest, value, and competence) to play games and

learn disciplinary knowledge and skills after playing RCT 3

The results indicate that there was no statistical signiﬁcant difference in the

participants’ motivation to play and learn disciplinary knowledge (social studies and
economics) and skills (technology and information literacy) from pretest (M = 112.35,
SD = 11.94) to posttest (M = 115.27, SD=10.38), t (25) = -l .07, p = .29, d = .26 (see
Table 8). Since there is no signiﬁcant difference in the participants overall motivation to
play and to learn disciplinary knowledge and skills, the null hypothesis is retained. The
participants’ overall motivation including interest, valuing of the content and game, and

perceived competence wasfairly high before (M = 112 out of 150) they played RCT 3 and

77

increased slightly after (M = 115 out of 150) playing game (see Table 6). Thus, it is not
surprising that there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference in the participants’
intrinsic motivation; however, it is possible that their motivation did not lessen as

indicated by the mean pretest to posttest.

2. Ho: There is no difference in the participants’ valuing of the game and the
disciplinary knowledge and skills after experiencing RC T 3 .
H1: There is a difference in the participants’ valuing of the game and the disciplinary
knowledge and skills after experiencing RC T3 .
H03 111 = 112;
Hz: 11175 #2;
u; = mean of participants’ valuing of the game and the disciplinary knowledge and
skills before experiencing RCT 3 .
u; = mean of participants’ valuing of the game and the disciplinary knowledge and

skills after experiencing RCT3.

The results of the analysis for the motivation assessment subscale for valuing
indicated that there is a statistically signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ valuing of
the game and the disciplinary knowledge and skills from pretest (M = 38.46, SD = 5.20)
to posttest (M = 41.27, SD = 4.64) experiencing RC T 3, t(25) = -2.28, p < .05, d = 0.57
(See Table 8). The null hypothesis that there is no difference in the participants’ valuing
of the game and the disciplinary knowledge and skills after experiencing RC T 3 is
rejected. The sign of the t-statistic indicates that there is a higher post test than pretest
score, and the difference came after playing the simulation-strategy game RCT 3 . This

also indicates the game had an effect in inﬂuencing the participants’ internalization of

78

content and aiding in self-regulation with respect to playing the game and learning the
disciplinary knowledge and skills that they experience as useful or valuable for
themselves. The effect size is moderate, d =.57, r2 = .27.

The participants valued the content of and the playing of the game. Although,
valuing had a moderate effect size, this represents some evidence that playing this
simulation strategy game allowed the participants who had no formal education in the
content area, and who believed that learning was not possible from games, to value the
content and playing the game.

3. Ho: There is no difference in participants’ interest and enjoyment for learning school
content while playing games after experiencing RC T 3 .
H1: There is a difference in participants’ interest and enjoyment for learning school
content while playing games after experiencing RCT 3 .
Ho: #1 = 112;
H13 111% 112;
u] = mean of participants’ interest and enjoyment for leaming school content while
playing games before experiencing RCT 3 .
u; = mean of participants’ interest and enjoyment for learning school content while
playing games after experiencing RCT 3 .

The results of the analysis for the interest/enjoyment motivation subscale data
indicated that there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference in participants’ interest and
enjoyment for learning school content while playing games from pretest (M = 24.3 8, SD
= 2.79) to posttest (M= 25.65, SD = 3.06), t (25) = -1.60,p =.12, d = .43 (see Table 8).

The null hypothesis is retained that there is no signiﬁcant difference in participants’

79

interest and enjoyment for learning school content while playing games. The

participants’ interest and enjoyment was fairly high before they started the study, M =

24.38 out of 30 and increased slightly after experiencing RC T 3, M = 25.65. The fact that

they volunteered to be in the study and were able to maintain their interest is a positive

sign of their enjoyable experience.

4. Ho: There is no difference in participants’ felt pressure and tension after experiencing
RC T3 .

H1: There is a difference in participants’ felt pressure and tension after experiencing

RCT3.
H031“: “2;
H11 p.96 “2,

u] = mean participants’ felt pressure and tension before experiencing RCT 3

u; = mean participants’ felt pressure and tension after experiencing RCT 3

The results of the analysis for the participants’ felt pressure or tension while
playing the game under the conditions of the study was not statistically signiﬁcant. The
null hypothesis that there is no statistically signiﬁcant difference in participants’ felt
pressure and tension pretest (M = 14, SD = 4.36) to posttest (M = 13.58, SD = 3.98)
experiencing RCT 3 is retained, t (25) = .56, p = .58, d = -.10 (See Table 8). The
participants felt pressure or tension while playing the game, and constructing disciplinary
knowledge and skills decreased from pretest subscale felt pressure/tension mean = 14 to
posttest subscale felt pressure/tension mean = 13.58, both out of 30 (see Table 6). Thus,
the gaming experience may not have been stressﬁrl nor had enough pressure to adversely

inﬂuence participant experience.

80

5. Ho. There is no difference in participants’ perceived competence in playing a game to
learn disciplinary knowledge.
H1: There is a difference in participants’ perceived competence in playing a game to

learn disciplinary knowledge.

H03 111 = H2;

H13 111 ¢ 112;

m = mean participants’ perceived competence in playing a game to learn disciplinary
knowledge before playing RC T 3

”Z = mean participants’ perceived competence in playing a game to learn disciplinary

knowledge after playing RCT 3 .

The results of the analysis for the participants’ perceived competence in playing a
game to learn disciplinary knowledge and skills was not statistically signiﬁcant. Thus,
the null hypothesis that there is no statistically signiﬁcant difference in participants’
perceived competence in playing a game to learn disciplinary knowledge pretest (M =
35.50, SD = 5.08) to posttest (M = 34.77, SD = 5.22) playing the game is retained, t (25)
= .71 , p = .48, d = -.14. The participants had a fairly high belief (pre-perceive
competence subscale mean = 35.50 out of 42) in their abilities to do well in the game, but
they did not know what disciplinary knowledge they were going to learn. After
experiencing the game, their perceived competence or conﬁdence in their own abilities
decreased slightly, post- perceive competence subscale mean = 34.77. This may be due
to the fact that they did not know that they were going to be learning basic economics
principles and develop social studies knowledge. Nonetheless, they started the study with

high expectations to learn the game content in order to be successful at the game;

81

however, they did not believe that school content was possible to be learned from “a
game.” After playing the game, they may have realized that learning school content was
possible. This is counter to the participants’ beliefs that learning is not possible in games.
This may be the reason why their perceived competence remain stable. Had they
expected that the content was to be learned or believed that school content could be
learned from games, then theoretically there could have been a statistical signiﬁcant

difference.

Expectancy x Value
In assessing the motivation assessment using the Expectancy x Value model the

following hypotheses were tested.

la. Ho: There is no difference in participants’ expectation for learning disciplinary
knowledge.
H1: There is a difference in participants’ expectation for learning disciplinary

knowledge.

Ho: 111 = 112;
H1: 111$ H2;
u. = mean of participants’ expectation for learning disciplinary knowledge before
playing RCT 3
112 = mean of participants expectation for learning disciplinary knowledge after
playing RCT 3

The result of the paired t—test analysis for the participants’ expectations

(combination of the subscales of pressure tension and perceived competence) to do well

82

was not statistically signiﬁcant. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no signiﬁcant
difference in participants’ expectations for playing the game well and learning
disciplinary knowledge and skills pretest (M = 49.50, SD = 6.46) to posttest (M = 48.35,

SD = 4.98) is retained, t (25) = .94,p = .36, d = -.20 (See Table 8).

2a. Ho: There is no difference in participants overall valuing the gaming experience and
learning disciplinary knowledge and skills.
H1 : There is a difference in participants overall valuing the gaming experience and
learning disciplinary knowledge and skills.
H03 111 = 112;
H13 11: ¢ 112;
u. = mean of participants’ overall valuing the gaming experience and learning
disciplinary knowledge and skills before playing RC T 3 .
u; = mean of participants’ overall valuing the gaming experience and learning

disciplinary knowledge and skills aﬁer playing RCT 3 .

There was a statistically signiﬁcant difference in the results of the analysis for the
overall valuing in the expectancy x value model (combination of interest/enjoyment and
value subscales) for the participants valuing the gaming experience and learning
disciplinary knowledge and skills. The null hypothesis is rejected because there is no
signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ overall valuing the gaming experience and the
learning of disciplinary knowledge and skills from pretest (M = 62.85, SD = 7.29) to
posttest (M = 66.92, SD = 6.38) playing RCT 3, t (25) = -2.24, p < .05, d = .59 (See Table
8). The sign of the t-statistic indicates that there is a higher post test score than a pretest

score. This indicates that the game had an effect in inﬂuencing the participants’ valuing

83

of the gaming experience and disciplinary knowledge by seeing it as positive and useful
for themselves. The effect size is moderate, d = .59, r2 = .29.

The participants’ expectations were positive for gaming and due to this they
developed a positive attitude in the experience. Although there was no statistical
difference for the expectations to learn the expected content in the game, the means show
that the expectations were high even with their belief that learning as not possible in
games.

Table 8: Source T able for Motivation Assessments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6
Pre-Post Overall Motivation 25 -l .07 .29 .26 .17
Pre-Post Valuing 25 -2.28* .03 .57 .44
Pre-Post Interest/Enjoyment 25 -l .60 .12 .43 .22
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 25 .56 .58 -.10 .10
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 25 .71 .48 -.14 .96
Pre Expectancy 25 .94 .36 -.20 .15
Pre-Combined Valuing 25 ~2.24* .03 .59 .40
Note: *p < .05.

Like the subscale for valuing, in the expectancy x value model, the participants’
valued the experience of learning in a game, but their expectations to learn was not
statistically signiﬁcant. Qualitative results will show that the participants did not believe
learning was possible in games. This may be the reason why expectancy and perceived
competence was not signiﬁcant, but valuing was signiﬁcant because it allowed the

participants to experience learning in a novel and engaging environment.

84

Summary of Motivation Assessment Findings

There was no signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ motivation to play and
learn disciplinary knowledge (social studies and economics) and skills (technology and
information literacy). There was a signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ valuing of
the game and the disciplinary knowledge and skills and this valuing came after playing
RCT 3 . There was no statistically signiﬁcant difference for the participants’ interest and
enjoyment for learning school content while playing the game. There was no statistically
signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ feeling of pressure and tension. There was no
statistically signiﬁcant difference in the participants’ perceived competence in playing a
game to learn disciplinary knowledge and skills.

Overall analyses indicated that the participants statistically gained signiﬁcant
knowledge of microeconomic principles and social studies that included supply and
demand, opportunity cost, and scarcity. They were able to transfer the disciplinary
knowledge and skills to real world settings. Participants also learned about the game
using game knowledge that included technology knowledge and information literacy. In
addition to knowledge and skills gained in playing the game, the participants valued
playing the game and learning economics and social studies principles. High pretest and
posttest means indicated that participants had high perceived competence, interest, and
expectations to do well in the study and this may have affected chances of getting a
statistically signiﬁcant difference for those constructs on the motivation assessment. The
means of these constructs, however, indicate that the participants maintained their
interests and perceived competence. It was a positive sign to see that felt pressure and

tension did not signiﬁcantly affect the participants’ experience. What the participants

85

valued in the experience, why they learned, details about the speciﬁc content they
learned, their attitudes towards learning in a game as well as their play strategies will be

illuminated by the qualitative ﬁndings in the next chapter.

86

Chapter 5
Results: Mixed Methods

This chapter reports both quantitative and qualitative ﬁndings. The quantitative
ﬁndings are based on emergent player types generated from qualitative ﬁndings. The
chapter reports a more interpretive understanding of the empirical questions by
examining learning and motivation by the emergent player types, rather than the whole
group and it provides a view of how the participants progressed in the game. The chapter
is divided into sections that address the research questions, what strategies did
participants use to navigate in the game, what participants learned, and what did
participants value in the game and content. Results are shown from data sources namely
the knowledge tests, motivational assessments, participant interviews, observations, and
log sheets. The mixed methods section shows the results of play strategy as well as how
and why participants learned and valued the disciplinary knowledge and skills.

Beginning in December 2007 and concluding in February 2008, students were
observed during gameplay and interviewed after every session as a group. Occasionally,
the researcher would ask participants questions during gameplay about what they were
doing. During gameplay the participants used a log-sheet to document their progress by
game levels, game achievements within levels, and the time of each achievement using
the in-game technology that tracks the length of time a park is in operation in years and
months. Individually, participants were interviewed intermittently while the whole group
was interviewed after every session throughout the seven weeks of the study.
Throughout those seven weeks the game was played for a total 24 hours. Each participant

was interviewed one to three times from the 4th week onward.

87

Data sources for the qualitative analysis results included log-sheets, interviews,
and observation (participant, written notes, and video taped). In addition, paired-t tests
analyses of the pretest posttests knowledge tests and motivational assessments were
conducted on the qualitatively emergent player types to help elucidate learning and
motivation in the game using the emerging groups for the participants’ play styles.

The purpose of those data sources was to provide results concerning play
progress and strategy, and how and why participants learned and valued the disciplinary
knowledge and the information and technology literacy in the game. The results of the
qualitative section are presented using player characteristics to address the study’s
questions. Research question 4 asked what strategies did participants use to navigate in
the game, question 2 asked what did the participants learn, and question 3 what did the
participants value in the game and content. In this section, for the interpretive analysis,
questions 2 and 3 are explored to provide more support for the quantitative ﬁndings. Play
characteristics are believed to be related to the process of learning by way of navigational
strategy and attitudes toward gameplay and learning.

What Strategies did Participants use to Navigate in the Game?

Using the constant comparative method of grounded theory analysis to analyze
the observation, log-sheets, and interview data, two main categories of players emerged
the explorers and the goal seekers. The two general categories of player types emerged
from the coding of data for play characteristics such as being social, strategies such as
planning ahead, personal goals such as objective oriented, attitudes toward the school
content and game such as valuing the game and content or not, and what was learned in

the form of disciplinary knowledge and skills. A short proﬁle of each participant was

88

created based on observation notes (video taped and written), log-sheets data, and
interview data. From the short proﬁles of the 26 participants that were created and
combined, play characteristics of the participants included 17 explorers and 9 goal
seekers. Further coding revealed two sub-categories within the explorers group, the
localized explorers (attraction builders) and the comprehensive explorers (park
developers) and two ﬁrrther sub-categories within the goal seekers group, the competitors
(beating other players) and the achievers (beating the game for personal achievement).
From both the explorers and goal seekers categories, player differed in their play
strategies, personal goals, and attitudes when gaming; however, each of the participants
had a similar general valuing attitude toward the school content and the game by
indicating interest and liking of the game and the content, economics and social studies
(See Table 9). Player characteristics were related to the process of learning using the
participants navigational strategies and their attitudes to the game and content.

The groups were not mutually exclusive as the characteristics for each category
were based on what participants mostly displayed. Participants were placed in the group
for which they displayed the most characteristics. Sometimes a goal seeker explored to
ﬁnd something new or to learn a new strategy, and likewise an explorer took on the
characteristics of a goal seeker to achieve some tasks. Players are not solely one way or
the other. The characteristics do not deﬁne the players’ personalities, but indicate how
they played this game. The game is inﬂuenced by the game genre and design. The
characteristics are the players dominant play styles or preferred way to play this game.

The researcher was the sole person collecting the data for the qualitative data

analysis. Thus, there is no inter-rater reliability score for analyzing the log sheets,

89

interviews, observational data, or incremental scenario tests for scoring. Instead, the

researcher relied on triangulation of data from all the data sources. Based on the type of

information that was collected to support the ﬁndings for learning, motivation, and

player strategies for navigation, redundancy was apparent. Table 9 illustrates player

characteristics and attributes in the game.

Table 9: Players Characteristics and Attributes

 

Player Type

Characteristics

Some Contrasting Attributes

 

Explorers

Localized Explorers
(attraction builders)

l.Primarily ride and attraction developers

2. Not concerned with managing all the necessary
resources or observing and intervening for navigation
3.Concerned with mainly exploring their personal
preferences in the esthetics of the design of what they
are building

4. Most helpful and also the ones to seek the least
amount of help (gaming extroverts)

 

Comprehensive explorers
(park developers)

1. Primary aim was to use resources in a balanced way
in their park while working diligently to meet game
objectives

2. Focused on trying to manage everything in the park
by aiming to develop a broad understanding of tools
while exploring tools that were not necessary to
advance to new scenarios

3. Did not help or socialize much (gaming introverts)
4. Focus on observation and intervention with drop
down screen to ﬁx immediate problems and navigate

 

Goal Seekers

 

Competitors (beating other
players)

1. Mostly focused on completing the game and less on
exploring to understand problems they may have had
in their park, which was secondary to game objectives
2.Play solely to meet the game objectives and goals in
order to reach the next scenario

3.Used game objectives window to plan ahead before
using drop-down screen for observing and intervening
4. Very social, even if it was dysfunctional at times -
“fun sabotage” among peers — (gaming extroverts)

 

 

Achievers (beating the game
for personal achievement)

 

l.Individualistic game player, rarely sought help
unless in dire circumstances (gaming introverts)

2. Actively developed their knowledge and skills for
ﬁnding out the fastest ways to complete scenarios

3. Employed more strategies for playing the game fast
- they tended to fast forward the game in order to gain
cash because the game speeds up and guests spend
more money per ride.

 

90

 

Table 10 gives an overview for how the two general categories of emerging

player types, the explorers and the goal seekers, are related to learning disciplinary and

skills on the pre-post knowledge test.

Table 10: General Emerging Player Categories and Learning Disciplinary Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Skills
Participants Tests Statistical Results
Explorers
' Statisticall si niﬁcant ﬁnd'n for econom'cs
Disciplinary Knowledge: Paired t and social siudiges l g 1
Economics and Social Studies
Goal-Seekers
. . . p ' d t Statistically signiﬁcant ﬁnding for economics
Drscrplrnary Knowledge: arre and social studies
Economics and Social Studies
Explorers . . . _ .
. Statrstrcally srgmﬁcant frndrng for game
Skills: Information and Paired t knowledge (IFChHOIOSY knowledge) and
Technology Literacy mformatron literacy
Goal-Seekers . _ . . .
. Statrstrcally srgmﬁcant ﬁndrng for game
Skills: Information and Parred t knowledge (technology knowledge) and
Technology Literacy mformatron literacy
Exvlorers . No statistical signiﬁcant ﬁnding for transfer of
. Parredt knowledge from game to real world contexts
Transfer. Near Transfer about theme parks
Goal-Seekers . No statistical signiﬁcant ﬁnding for transfer of
. P arr ed t knowledge from game to real world contexts
Transfer. Near Transfer about theme parks
Explorers . No statistical signiﬁcant ﬁnding for transfer of
. P arr ed t knowledge from game to real world contexts
Transfer. Far Transfer beyond theme parks and business
Goal-Seekers . No statistical signiﬁcant ﬁnding for transfer of
Paired t

Transfer: Far Transfer

 

 

 

knowledge from game to real world contexts
beyond theme parks and business

 

91

 

Table 11 illustrates gives an overview for how the two general categories of
emerging player types, the explorers and the goal seekers, are related to motivation and
valuing of the game and content on the pre-post motivation assessment.

Table ll: General Emerging Player Categories for Motivation and Valuing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants TBS“ Statistical Results
Explorers Not statistically signiﬁcant for having intrinsic
Overall Motivation' Intrinsic Paired t interest for the learning the content in the game.
. . ‘ They had believed that learmng was not possrble
Motrvatron in the game.
Goal-Seekers Not statistically signiﬁcant for having intrinsic
, . . _ . Paired t interest for the learning the content in the game.
Overall Motrvatron. Intnnsrc They had believed that learning was not possible
Motrvatron in the game. _
Explorers . . _ . _
Paired t Statrstrcally srgrnﬁcant for valurng the content
Motivation: Valuing (Economics) and the game
Goal-Seekers . . . . .
Paired t Not statistically srgnrﬁcant for valuing the
Motivation: Valuing content (Economics) and the game
Explorers ' Not statistically signiﬁcant for having perceived
. . . Parred t competence in the game and content, but
Motrvatron: Perceive Competence increased pre to post means
Goal-Seekers . Not statistically signiﬁcant for having perceived
, . , Paired t competence in the game and content, but
Motrvatron: Perceive Competence increased pre to post means
Explorers . Not statistically signiﬁcant for felt pressure while
, , , Parr ed t playing the game. Pre -Post means show
Motrvatron: Felt pressure/tensron decreased in tension
Goal-Seekers _ Not statistically signiﬁcant for felt pressure while
. , , Parr ed t playing the game. Pre -Post means show
Motrvatron: Felt pressure/tensron decreased in tension
EXPIOT er 5 . Not statistically signiﬁcant for having interest in
, . Parr ed t the game and content, but increased pre to post
Motrvatron: Interest means.
Goal-Seekers . Not statistically signiﬁcant for having interest in
, _ P arr ed t the game and content, but increased pre to post
Motrvatron: Interest means.

 

 

 

92

 

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational Assessment for

 

 

Explorers

Explorers Means S.D. Std. Err N
Post Knowledge RCT3‘ 15.56 3.05 .76 16
Pre Knowledge RCT3' 13.06 2.41 .60 16
Post Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 20.69 3.30 .83 16
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 17.94 2.67 .67 16
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.94 1.12 .28 16
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.31 1.20 .30 16
Post Near Transfer3a 5.50 1.03 .26 16
Pre Near Transfer3a 5.19 1.05 .26 16
Post Motivation to play and leam4 113.12 11.27 2.73 17
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 108.76 12.30 2.98 17
Post-Interest (subscale)5 25.06 3.03 .74 17
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 23.29 2.52 .61 17
Post Value (subscale)6 40.82 5.21 1.26 17
Pre Value (subscale)6 36.88 5.44 1.32 17
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 14.29 4.47 1.08 17
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 14.53 4.71 1.14 17
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 32.94 5.25 1.27 17
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 34.06 5.33 1.29 17
Post expectancy9 47.24 4.96 1 .20 1 7
Pre expectancy9 48.59 6.81 1.65 17
Post valueIO 65.88 7.29 1.77 17
Pre value10 60.18 7.21 1.75 17

 

. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17

Knowledge of Econorrrics and Social Studies scored out of 31

Transfer - scored out of 10 points
Near Transfer — scored out of 7 points

Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales — Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6

Value — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48

Felt Pressure/tension - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
Perceive Competence- Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items)— out of 42
Expectancy derived from perceived competence and pressure/felt tension scale

1
2.
3.
3a.
4.
5. Interest — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
6
7
8
9.
1

0. Value derived from interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

Explorers

This group consisted of 17 participants. Explorers are deﬁned as the players who

focused primarily on four areas: (a) learning about the game’s intricate details such as

researching, marketing, or advertising; (b) discovering supplemental tools such as terrain
for landscaping, contouring for helping in designing a park, and exploring the
interactions and feedback from guests by meeting their needs for rides, amenities, and the
theme park; (c) honing their skills in building theme parks by exploring with various
layout styles for the rides in their park, such as thrill rides in one section, gentle rides in
another section, and high excitement rides in another section, and (d) focusing on
building particular rides or attractions, such as roller coasters, rather than purchasing or
building particular displays, such as ﬁreworks. They explored by building various types
of parks that are predominantly made up of rides and/or animals or mainly for certain
types of visitors who like high intensity and excitement level rides or more moderate and
low nauseated rating rides. Although they want to advance, and do seek to advance to
new levels (from Apprentice, to Entrepreneur and ﬁnally to Tycoon level) and scenarios,
it is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is to build the best possible park, build the
biggest roller coaster or some other attraction, and to explore with various designs and
layouts of their parks while trying to meet their needs for a well-designed park and the
needs of guests for certain amenities and rides. They did not focus actively on achieving
the objectives or goals of each scenario in RCT 3 .

The primary strategy of explorers ’ for navigating the game is to explore the game
by building and focusing on all aspects of the game while observing gameplay and
actions, and then intervening based on feedback from the guests about the price of rides,
food, and other amenities. They also focus on the feedback from the park inspector about
the state of their park in terms of ride reliability, park cleanliness, and other park

conditions related to maintenance. How explorers chose to play the game was

94

determined not only by their play characteristics, but also by their attitude to the game
and content, and this inﬂuenced what they learned and how they learned it.

Log-sheet analysis showed that explorers completed fewer scenarios than goal
seekers, resulting in less exposure to different scenarios and learning opportunities for
game knowledge and disciplinary knowledge than their counterparts. Interview reports
indicated that explorers had a positive attitude toward the game and content. Of the 17
explorers (of whom 77% or 13 completed at least one scenario), all said they would
recommend the game to a friend and that they would play the game again. They like the
concept from the game of full control of business, it allowed them to socialize and help,
and it had features to help support their progress. The motivation assessment showed that
explorers statistically signiﬁcantly valued the game and content pretest (M = 40.82, SD =
5.21) to posttest (M = 36.88, SD = 5.44), t (16) = -2.26,p < .05. There was a large effect
size, d = .74, r2 = .35 (See Table 14).

When asked what they learned after the second week of game play, 70% or 12 of
the explorers said they were learning how to save money and make decisions about how
to run a business, their theme park. From interviews and the knowledge tests, by the last
session of game play each participant including explorers understood the basics of what
it meant to be an Apprentice, an Entrepreneur, and a Tycoon from playing the game, and
they knew more about managing resources and making decisions with regard to scarcity,
Opportunity, cost-beneﬁt, pricing, and supply and demand. There was a statistical
signiﬁcant difference pretest (M = 17.94, SD = 2.67) to posttest (M = 20.69, SD = 3.30)

in disciplinary knowledge gain, t (15) = -2.67, p < .05, (See Table 13). The effect size

was large, a' = .92 with r2 = .42. Explorers were also able to statistically signiﬁcantly

95

gain information and technology literacy skills pretest (M = 13.06, SD = 2.41) to posttest

(M = 15.56, SD = 3.05) on the knowledge test, I (15) = -2.83, p < .05. The effect size was

large, d = .91 with r2 = .41 (See Table 13). There was no statistical difference for near or

far transfer knowledge (See Table 13). One explorer was removed from the knowledge

test analysis as an outlier because the participant did not complete the pretest. The result

of the pretest score was very low because the pre-knowledge test was incomplete. This

made the score numerically distant from others that were based on a completed test.

Table 13: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Explorers on the Knowledge test

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d (3
Pre-Post Knowledge of
Economics & Social Studies 15 - 2.67* .02 0.92 .34
15 - 2.83** .01 0.91 .23
Pre-Post Knowledge of RCT 3
15 -1 .91 .08 0.54 .19
Pre-Post Transfer
15 -0.92 37 0.29 .41

Pre-Post near Transfer

 

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01

Table 14: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Explorers on the Motivation Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6

Pre-Post Overall Motivation 16 -1.11 .28 37 .93

Pre-Post Valuing 16 -2.26* .04 .74 .59
Pre-Post Interest/Enjoyment 16 —1.80 .09 .64 .33
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 16 .23 .82 -.05 .70
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 16 .74 .47 -.21 .83
Pre Expectancy 16 .78 .45 -.23 .75
Pre-Combined Valuing 16 -2.25* .04 .79 .40

 

Note: *p < .05.

96

Explorers were able to relate the microeconomics principles to their lives and
they commented about playing the game differently next time (which is similar to their
goal seekers counterparts) only to test their skills for advancing deeper into the game to
play more scenarios. One explorer participant said it was “like being at school on my
hockey team and working with the available skills we have, which is managing those
skills, right? These skills are like resources, and the decisions each player makes as part
of the hockey team affect how those skills are used and if we win. . ..I could have given
you another example of selling lemonades, but that would be easy.” These participants
discovered how to gradually play the game better and constructed knowledge by seeing
relationships to their lives. This is seen in the statistical signiﬁcant ﬁndings for

disciplinary knowledge and skills.

Park rating: 0

Number of Quests: +30

 

Figure 4: Example of a Localized Explorer Park- Vanilla Hills: Two Giant Rollercoasters

97

mu. «tam 1m?
1 In on. unit's time I VIP will arrive
E 3

ﬂ

 

Figure 5: Water Park Under Construction by a Comprehensive Explorer
Localized explorers

Localized explorers are deﬁned as explorer players who are more narrowly
focused on constructing particular rides or technologies in their park rather than actively
seeking to develop their park holistically and meet objectives within scenarios. They are
not concerned with managing all the necessary resources in the game, such as limited
park space and money, or efﬁciently using time to get their park operating in a timely
manner to make money, or train workers to achieve the game objectives. They are
concerned mainly with exploring their personal preferences in the esthetics of the design
of what they are building, such as a rollercoaster or a waterfall, and how it affects guests.
They do not focus on the overall park management or focus on impact of the decisions

they make in managing the resources such as money, workers, and land space.

98

 

.

Figure 6: Explorer Vanilla Hills ParkMUnder Construction With Terrain Tool

Of the seven participants in this group, ﬁve completed at least the ﬁrst scenario,
Vanilla Hills. Two completed the third scenario, Checkered Flags, but none completed
all six scenarios. Localized explorers showed a statistically signiﬁcant gain on the
knowledge test for disciplinary knowledge, pretest (M =17.29, SD = 3.30) to posttest (M
= 21.00, SD = 3.00), t (7) = -2.39,p < .05. There was a large effect size, d =1.18, r2 =.51.
A significant difference was shown in game knowledge, including technology and

information literacy skills for the game pretest (M = 12.57, SD = 2.76) to posttest

99

(M=15.86, SD = 2.48), t (7) = -2.67, p < .05 on the knowledge test. There was large
effect size, d = 1.25, r2 =.53 (See Table 16).

Localized explorers completed the fewest number of scenarios and focused on the
least number of areas in the scenarios. They focused on the details of individual artifacts
in creating rides and attractions. They were resilient and coped with design and building
struggles even though it hindered their chances to advance quickly. Among all the
groups, background reports showed that localized explorers had the highest average
number of hours playing video games each week, M = 9hrs 34mins/wk outside of the
study. In the study, they actively developed their knowledge and skills for building the
biggest and best roller coasters, extravagant ﬁreworks, waterfalls, and pools. Their
knowledge gain as shown in Table 16 may be related to their navigational strategies and
attitudes towards the school content and game, which inﬂuenced how they gained

knowledge in RCT 3 .

100

Table 15: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational Assessment for

 

 

 

Localized Explorers

Localized Explorers Means S.D. Std. Err N
Post Knowledge RCT3' 15-86 2.48 -94 7
Pre Knowledge RCT3' 12.57 2.76 1.04 7
Post Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 21.00 3.00 1.13 7
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 17.29 3.30 1.25 7
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 7.00 1.16 .44 7
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.00 1.53 .58 7
Post Near Transfer3a| 5.43 .54 .20 7
Pre Near Transfer?” 4.86 1.07 .40 7
Post Motivation to play and learn4 116.00 12.73 4.81 7
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 110.00 4.20 1.59 7
Post-Interest (subscale)S 26.00 3.00 1.13 7
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 23.43 1.81 .69 7
Post Value (subscale)6 41.71 5.82 2.20 7
Pre Value (subscale)6 37.29 4.68 1.77 7
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 13.86 5.15 1.95 7
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 12.71 4.82 1.82 7
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 34.43 5.32 2.01 7
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 36.57 3.36 1.27 7
Post expectancy9 48.29 5.65 2.14 7
Pre expectancy9 49.29 3.45 1.30 7
Post value” 67.71 7.65 2.89 7
Pre value” 60.71 5.50 2.07 7
1. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17
2. Knowledge of Economics and Social Studies scored out of 31
3. Transfer — scored out of 10 points
3a. Near Transfer — scored out of 7 points
4. Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales — Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6
5. Interest — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
6. Value — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48
7. Felt Pressure/tension — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
8. Perceive Competence - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items) — out of 42
9. Expectancy derived ﬁ'om perceived competence and pressure/felt tension scale
10. Value derived ﬁ'om interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

101

Table 16: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Localized Explorers on Knowledge Test
Source df t p d 6

 

 

Pre-Post Knowledge of
Economics & Social Studies 6 - 2.39* .05 1.18 .80
- 2.67* .04 1.25 .66

 

Pre-Post Knowledge of RCT 3

 

6 -l.87 .11 0.73 .42
Pre-Post Transfer

 

6 -1.08 .32 0.68 .61
Pre-Post near Transfer

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01

 

Table 17: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Localized Explorers on the Motivation
Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 0‘

Pre-Post Overall Motivation 6 -.99 .36 .63 .85
Pre-Post Valuing 6 -1.32 .24 .84 #

Pre-Post Interest/Enjoyment 6 -1.54 .18 1.03 .82
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 6 -.79 .46 .23 .89
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 6 1.15 .30 -.48 .73
Pre Expectancy 6 .65 .54 -.21 .54
Pre-Combined Valuing 6 -l .51 .18 1.05 .98

 

Note: *p < .05. # - too few cases to compute power
Snapshot of a Typical Localized Explorer

RCT 31 7 was one localized explorer who epitomized a player within the category.
He was helpful and empathetic. He focused on local developments, such as building the
bi ggest and best ﬁreworks. He commented that learning was not possible in games, so he
played the game at a pace that satisﬁed his own needs, and the needs of the guests in his
park, not focusing on the requirements to meet the goals of each level or scenario. He

was the most helpful participant among his peers. He spent numerous hours helping other

102

participants to build rollercoasters and ﬁreworks, and in the process he learned more
about playing the game and about economics based on observing other participants who
were advancing farther into the game. During gameplay he focused on building particular
attractions, such as ﬁreworks and waterfalls, and progressed by mainly observation and
intervening to ﬁx developing problems based on feedback from the drop down screen
(See Figure 9). RCT 31 7 said, “One reason I want to build rollercoasters is because my
dad told me I was afraid of rollercoasters. My dad is afraid of rollercoasters.” RCT3] 7
does not believe he is afraid of rollercoasters, but says that “this will help me because I
talk to my dad every time about this game.” RC T 3 1 7 like other localized explorers
played the game to satisfy some immediate personal need, not to learn the content. He
had explicitly said, “I don’t think learning is possible in games; it is not like school;”
however, during the interviews, he displayed knowledge about scarcity and opportunity
cost when discussing how building ﬁreworks affected his overall park development and
progress in the game and what he gave up to focus on his goals as well as to meet the
needs of the guests in his park. To this end, he realized that he learned from the game and
was surprised.
Localized Explorers: Navigation Strategies for Game Progress

Localized explorers navigated using four broad strategies. First, as described
above by observing and intervening, they built attractions and rides while observing the
game screen and by intervening to ﬁx broken down rides or changing prices and
amenities. Second, they listened to the requests of the guests and the park inspector in
their park. This was done by using game icons to observe guests’ thoughts about

particular rides, the animals, or the park, and by the drop-down window of the game that

103

provided information about the park from the park inspector. Using these tools
effectively required localized explorers to master the game language of icons and
symbols and the relationship of each to actions that must be taken for progress in
gameplay. Localized explorers were less skilled at using the tools effectively for
progressing, but they were more skilled on speciﬁc rides for building. They had early
problems as did other participants, but they did not overcome them. This stalled their
progress and created problems, such as building small hills in their park which they tried
numerous times to ﬂatten with the terrain tool. Rather than starting over as many of the
goal seekers did, localized explorers coped with their problems while slowly advancing.
Third, while money was being generated from rides localized explorers explored
secondary tasks so that they could build or pursue their own ambitions. For instance, one
participant always said it was his strategy to play “a waiting game helping others while
money is generated in his park,” while another says he explores with tools such as
marketing and advertising or ensuring his park is reliable by setting and creating set work
paths for workers. Localized explorers adopted a strategy of ﬁring, hiring, and
disciplining workers rather than training them to perform better. They commented that
these tasks were secondary to their goal of building a giant roller coaster or water ride,
but necessary for gaining and spending less money on things such as workers. This is
because localized explorers are usually concerned with personal design and tend to
charge default prices of $1.00 even with high exciting rides that could easily garner a
higher price. When interviewed, one participant said it was unfair to charge more than a

dollar because guests “do not have a lot of money” and they wanted guests to go on their

104

well-designed rides. Localized explorers were compassionate and empathetic to guests in
their park.

Fourth, localized explorers used a strategy of helping others and learning in the
process. This helped them to afﬁrm their own navigation strategies learn new ones
through insight into what the other participants were doing, and learn content knowledge.
Two localized explorers spent 4 weeks or 16 hours learning how to master ﬁreworks
construction and creating beautiful ﬁreworks. RCT317 said his dedication to the creation
of the most beautiful ﬁreworks was why he spent 4 weeks going through ﬁ'ustration and
happiness. He said, “I really wanted to understand how to make the ﬁreworks work. So I
tried my best not to give up when it was not working, but I tried and tried until it worked;
now I can build any type of ﬁreworks.” RCT317 helped RCT 303 to get started on his
ﬁreworks and after two weeks of working together, RCT 303 built a spectacular ﬁreworks
light show. After helping and learning from each other, both had the best ﬁreworks
display as voted by their peers.

As with all the participants these strategies were perfected through trial and error
or through an iterative process of designing, making mistakes, learning from it, and
trying again because there were no serious consequences for making mistakes for these
participants. Localized explorers had a strong sense of commitment to their designed
product whether it was a park under development or a type of ride. For instance, one
participant, RC T 3 1 2 asserted that the commitment involved in caring for an ostrich in his
park was reﬂective of his commitment to learn a lot and to care for his real life dog. He
commented that “my ostrich is having a baby, now I have to take care of her like my

puppy. My puppy is three months old. I had to learn a lot about dogs to take care of

105

mine.” Of all the four subgroup of players, localized explorers were the most helpful and
empathetic and also the ones to seek the least amount of help.

These strategies though helpful for socializing and learning were not the most
effective and efﬁcient for helping participants advance progressively through scenarios;
however, these strategies reﬂected a genuine sense of commitment to ethical and social
decisions and learning based on personal interest in exploring artifacts and designing
rides. They were social, helpful, and talkative and, along with observing and intervening,
localized explorers declared these strategies were needed in order to be successful in
RCT 3 and to learn. In this sense localized explorers could be considered to be extroverts.

Localized Explorers: Attitudes Toward the School Content and Game and what was
Learned

Localized explorers valued playing the game and generally said they were going
to learn information that could help them in school and out-of-school though, not
necessarily by way of the content areas of economics and social studies. There was no
statistical signiﬁcant ﬁnding for localized explorers valuing of the game content shown
between pretest (M = 37.29, SD = 4.68) to posttest (M = 41.71, SD = 5.82) on the
motivation assessment t (6) = -1.32, p >.05, d = .84 (See Table 17). Nonetheless,
interviews and observations indicated that what participants valued as a navigational
strategy aid what they learned. These strategies involved: (1) observing and intervening,
(2) listening to or following up on the feedback from guests and the park inspector, (3)
exploring secondary tasks while generating money to focus on primary goals, and (4)
mentoring and apprenticeship to learn the skills overlapping with each other in the areas

of valuing and learning for builders.

106

Observing, intervening, and listening to guests and the park inspector are forms
of feedback that helped to scaffold participants’ learning. It was Viewed as an arduous
task, and it was usually ﬁ'ustrating for localized explorers because participants often did
not have immediate feedback on their actions. These strategies were valued because it
allowed participants to learn about how to manage their money, manage park space
resources, and gradually make better decisions about money and other resources.
Delayed feedback is one reason none of the localized explorers completed all six game
scenarios. The main reason for the slow progress was that all seven of the localized
explorers said that the most important thing for them while playing the game was
observing actions not only in the game, but also from peers, learning ﬁ'om them, and then
taking steps to reorganize resources such as rides, park space, managing workers, and
trying to make better decisions with the little money they had after building big rides.

Exploring secondary tasks was a highly valued task by six of the seven
participants. The one exception was a female participant who did it because it was “just a
strategy.” This allowed participants to develop an understanding of the role of managing
resources and dealing with opportunity cost. Localized explorers commented that they
were gaining more in building their favorite ride rather than focusing on using the
minimal resource of money to focus on the game objectives. By focusing on the needs of
guests and their personal goals, they were better able to focus on making good decisions
about how to wisely use their money and the park space. Resources such as money were
used to support guests rather than to directly meet scenario objectives. During interviews,
when asked what they thought about the people who visited their park, they felt that the

guests were ordinary people with little money, and they knew that information based on

107

guests’ thoughts and how much money the guests had, which “averaged about $50
dollars.” This is reﬂected in their thoughts about buying an expensive popular toy versus
buying three cheaper and less popular toys, or their choices about locations of rides in
their park versus locations of stores in a shopping mall by importance. They were not
focused on the importance of rides to the park or the importance of store locations in a
shopping mall to optimize sales or that of buying an expensive popular toy; rather they
were focused on meeting their personal goals of building or buying cheaper items as well
as customers’ needs and not store owner’s sales. It appears that personal needs were
favored over guests’ needs as players tended to focus only on putting a few rides in their
park, thus reducing the number of people who may visit their park at any one time.
Toward the end of the study, localized explorers valued and learned that it was important
to manage all their resources including time, money, park space, and workers. They also
observed after seeing that though some participants completed all of the scenarios,
localized explorers knew more about parts of the game unknown to other participants.
Mentoring and apprenticeship, the idea of helping other less knowledgeable
players to build or work through a problem, learn from those participants being helped,
develop a better understanding of what they were teaching, and learn new skills and
content was mainly experienced by localized explorers more than any other subgroup. Of
the seven localized explorers, one was predominantly a rollercoaster builder, two were
mainly ﬁreworks and light show builders, three were waterfalls builders, and one was
focused on building gentle rides. They were all helpful in aiding their peers in building
these rides or amenities. They spent an average of three hours sitting and helping their

peers, and they were willing to help without being asked to help. They seemed to have an

108

extroverted personality. They also learned from their peers in these situations. RCT 3 02
learned by helping and observing RCT 31 6 that the key to being successful in completing
scenarios was to achieve the game objectives and to make decisions about how to
allocate workers in the park in efﬁcient numbers because having too few workers
resulted in the theme park remaining dirty and having too many workers resulted in
workers quitting and in money loss. In addition, RCT 3 02 said he learned how to help
park VIPs’ though he did not advance that far into the game. He also learned the value of
using park money on the game objectives as well as understanding that guests would like
those things even though decisions were made to meet the game objectives. Nonetheless,
RCT 302 commented that way of playing was one type of success, and it was equally
valuable to focus on the guests’ needs and building big rides. At the end of the study,
builders understood how to work within the affordnaces of the game by trying to manage
all resources to run an efﬁcient park; however, they preferred to focus on their personal
goals or interests.

Localized explorers expressed interest and enjoyment in learning microeconomic
principles and social studies concepts. Although one participant initially did not believe
he was learning anything related to school content until after the third week, he
enlightened himself during questioning from his peers. The participants were
interviewing each other, and he eventually saw that he learned much about managing
resources, such as using his park cash to meet guests’ immediate needs, but also ensuring
there was some left to continue building his ﬁreworks. All the localized explorers and
many of the other participants associated learning school content with stress and hi gh-

stakes situations such as testing. Thus, the idea of playing a game to learn school content

109

was foreign to them. Further, they did not know they were going to learn “school stuf .”
The localized explorers’ strategy of playing for themselves and the guests in the park
was related to the fact that they had nothing to lose, a low risk situation unlike in school.
Exploration in play, trial and error in testing tools, and designing rides or layouts allowed
them to discover and understand some constraints in the game because of the design.
Participants explained they would not do exploration in school because they have to get
things right the ﬁrst time or else their future could be jeopardized. They explained about
not being afraid of hard work, but they were afraid of the high stakes related to schools if
they tried to explore and failed. They liked RCT 3 because it required hard work, but as
one participant said, “you could take chances since the risks and consequences were
low.” This feature aided these participants testing, exploring, and discovering through an
iterative process the unrealistic nature of some rollercoaster designs and problems with
game glitches that allowed guests to walk through walls, but they also said the game was

realistic in terms of how it “dealt with animals or how you have to build roller coasters.”

Comprehensive Explorers

Comprehensive explorers are deﬁned as explorer players who were focused
primarily on learning more about the game in order to: (1) create theme parks that are
clean and beautiful, (2) build rides that are reliable, (3) ensure that workers are happy and
reliable, (4) meet the needs of guests, and (5) meet personal needs related to playing the
game. The primary aim of these players was to use resources in a balanced way in their
park while working diligently to meet game objectives. They were concerned with

ensuring that they learned as much as possible about game play and content while

110

creating a product to be proud of and at the same time meeting game objectives. They
were not concerned with trying to beat other participants to complete all the scenarios.

Whereas localized explorers focused on building grandiose rides, attractions, and
amenities in order to satisfy personal needs for having the best and biggest attractions
and did not have a broad focus on all aspects of the game for progress, comprehensive
explorers ’ primary strategy for game progress was to focus on all aspects of gameplay by
learning as much as possible about the game. In doing this, it afforded the most
opportunity per scenario to learn about economics and social studies, and information
and technology literacy. Nonetheless, there was no statistical signiﬁcant difference ﬁ'om
pretest (M = 18.44, SD = 2.13) to posttest (M = 20.44, SD = 3.68) on the knowledge test
by participants in the areas of disciplinary knowledge, skills, and transfer knowledge, t
(8) = -1 .42, p > .05, d = .67 (See Table 19). There 10 participants in this group. One was
removed during the statistical analysis to make the analysis more conservative because
the pre-knowledge test was not completed. Of the 10 participants in this group, 80% or 8
completed at least the ﬁrst scenario, Vanilla Hills, and 40% or 4 completed at least the
third scenario, Checkered Flags, during gameplay. None of these participants completed
all 6 scenarios, and 10% or one advanced to the penultimate scenario, Fright Night.
Among all the subgroups, they averaged 7hrs and 25mins of gaming each week.

From interviews, written notes, log-sheet analysis, and observations
comprehensive explorers exhibited knowledge of opportunity cost, supply and demand,
scarcity, proﬁt, pricing, and ethical and social decisions related to employees. By
selectively choosing where to place rides based on space availability, guests needs, and

balancing resources to achieve a well-designed and efﬁciently run park, they developed

111

knowledge about scarcity, opportunity cost, supply and demand, and others. They
displayed social skills related to valuing, critical thinking skills related to problem
solving, and self-reﬂection as they‘helped others. In interviews with participants from
this group they valued learning about all aspects of gameplay for managing resources,
having an efﬁciently run park, and empathy toward workers and guests. Nonetheless,
there was no statistical signiﬁcance between the motivational valuing pretest (M = 36.60,
SD = 6.15) and the posttest (M = 40.20, SD = 4.96) on the motivational assessment, t (9)
= -1.82, p > .05, d = .64 (See Table 20). They considered their theme park and made
changes to the parks in order to make them more beautiful based on what they learned
through helping other participants. Their technology skills grew as they became more
familiar with the game tools and by building small rides that utilize space and
accommodate more people over time per park than a few big rides that accommodate
fewer people over time per park. They were able to progress faster from scenario to
scenario, owing to the fact that the same skills were required in each scenario, but
applied to different game content areas. Their understanding of the disciplinary
knowledge and their skill development was inﬂuenced by their navigational strategies or
play styles which afforded the greatest number of opportunities per scenario through a

holistic focus approach to gameplay.

112

Table 18: Descriptive statistics for Knowledge test and Motivational assessment for

Comprehensive Explorers

 

 

Comprehensive Explorers Means S.D. Std. Err N
Post Knowledge RCT3] 15.33 3.57 1.19 9
Pre Knowledge RCT3' 13.44 2.19 .73 9
Post Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 20.44 3.68 1.23 9
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 18.44 2.13 .71 9
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.89 1.17 .39 9
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.56 .88 .29 9
Post Near Transfer3a 5.56 1.33 .44 9
Pre Near Transfer“ 5.44 1.01 .34 9
Post Motivation to play and learn4 111.10 10.33 3.27 10
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 107.90 15.98 5.05 10
Post-Interest (subscale)5 24.40 3.03 .96 10
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 23.20 3.01 .95 10
Post Value (subscale)6 40.20 4.96 1.57 10
Pre Value (subscale)6 36.60 6.15 1.95 10
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 14.60 4.20 1.33 10
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 15.80 4.42 1.40 10
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 31.90 5.22 1.65 10
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 32.30 5.90 1.86 10
Post expectancy" 46.50 4.60 1.45 10
Pre expectancy9 48.10 8.60 2.72 10
Post value” 64.60 7.14 2.26 10
Pre value” 59.80 8.50 2.70 10

 

11. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17

12. Knowledge of Economics and Social Studies scored out of 31

13. Transfer - scored out of 10 points
3a. Near Transfer — scored out of 7 points

14. Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales — Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6
15. Interest — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30

16. .Value — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48

17. Felt Pressure/tension - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
18. Perceive Competence - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items) — out of 42
19. Expectancy derived from perceived competence and pressure/ felt tension scale

20. Value derived from interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

Table 19: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Comprehensive Explorers on Knowledge Test

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 5
Pre-Post Knowledge of
Economics & Social Studies 8 -1.42 .19 .67 .18
-1.48 .18 .64 .70
Pre-Post Knowledge of RCT3
8 -.82 .44 .32 .48

Pre-Post Transfer

 

8 -.24 .8 1 . 1 0 .46
Pre-Post near Transfer

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01

 

Table 20: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Comprehensive Explorers on the Motivation
Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source (if t p d 8
Pre-Post Overall Motivation 9 -.59 .57 .20 #
Pre-Post Valuing 9 -l .82 .10 .64 #
Pre-Post Interest/Enjoyment 9 -.98 .35 .40 .99
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 9 .86 .41 -.28 .81
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 9 .18 .86 -.07 .99
Pre Expectancy 9 .57 .59 -.23 .99
Pre-Combined Valuing 9 -1.59 .15 .61 .73

 

Note: *p < .05. # Too few cases to compute
Comprehensive Explorers: Navigation Strategies for Game Progress

Comprehensive explorers used several navigational strategies. They set personal
goals for each session, observed and intervened in the game primarily using the drop-
down window in the game as a guide and a way to manage game-wide actions related to
feedback ﬁ'om the park inspector and guests, focused on management of everything in
the park by aiming to develop a broad understanding of tools to advance to new scenarios

while exploring tools that were not necessary, and consulted books, peers, and parents to

114

better understand the game and make decisions that were optimal to their success during
gameplay.

Goal setting in each play session allowed comprehensive explorers to focus on
speciﬁc targets in order to accomplish their tasks. This allowed developers to work
towards reaching the game’s objectives while knowing that they could work wholly to
create a park that utilizes resources efﬁciently and symbolizes success for them.
Comprehensive explorers averaged 16 hours 36 minutes in the ﬁrst scenario with 80% or
8 of them completing it. 70% or 7 of them had an initial strategy of exploring the game
while trying to meet game objectives, while three struggled from the outset with how to
manage their resources including money and workers and with various tools, such as
‘terrain,’ that ruined their park. Participants in the study who encountered park disasters
because of a lack of game knowledge at the outset, either did not advance past the ﬁrst
scenario or struggled with gameplay progress because of their play strategies.

A typical comprehensive explorer, RC T 3 0 7, who epitomized how the group
played said, “I started simple exploring with low excitement level rides, gentle rides and
then started attempting to build rides, but I gave up on building.” Like many of the
participants, she struggled with building rides early in the initial weeks and chose to
abandon that task to focus on beautifying, managing, and catering to guests. This is a
crucial difference from that of localized explorers who coped and adapted during the
building of rides and attractions. RCT307 like the other comprehensive explorers wanted
to have a good command of all the tools in the game and this meant taking risks, but not
expending too much time on building. They were capable of building but did not

command the same building skills or interest in building rides like as that of their

115

localized explorers counterparts. In doing so, RCT 307 and the other comprehensive
explorers had the opportunity to focus on trying to manage park operations and resources
more efﬁciently by aiming to develop a broad understanding of tools while exploring
tools that were not necessary to advance to new scenarios. It also meant that they took
chances as did builders in having their park being ruined because of the steep learning
curve for some things, such as landscaping or building roller coasters.

Comprehensive explorers aimed to create holistically, tended to talk-aloud to
themselves when playing, and they sought help from peers, books, and parents only
when needed. RC T 3 08 mentioned how his father made him afraid of rollercoasters, so it
was his goal to build a beautiful park and explore rollercoasters designs in order to build
his conﬁdence. Three other group members discussed and asked their parents directly for
help on how to generate constant cash ﬂow in the game. However, developers did not
offer help unless asked, nor did they socialize by walking around and observing what
their peers were doing. They focused on gaming. In this sense, comprehensive explorers
could be classiﬁed as introverts during gaming.

Interestingly, generating money was a problem for developers. They tended to
want to build/buy many rides or amenities, requiring money to purchase materials to
build rides or to buy pre-built rides or amenities. The comprehensive explorers ' strategy
to navigate widely and to learn as much as they could about a scenario hindered their
ability to generate sufﬁcient money to maintain their heavy spending on park
development. They did focus on generating money. Another reason for the low income

was that they did not charge prices for rides based on the rides’ level of intensity or

116

excitement. They, like the localized explorers, were very sympathetic to guests and the
amount of money guests have, so they tended to charge as little as possible.

Observing game actions and intervening to ﬁx problems based on feedback from
the drop-down window was used as a primary navigational strategy for developers (see
Figure 7). Concerns with the overall look of their park, the broad approach on how
business is conducted to focus on guests, and concerns with solving the design or default
design problems to meet how their park looks and feels led them to mostly use the drop-
down window to focus on only immediate problems that occur. These problems
sometimes include a broken-down “whirling dervish” or a dirty pool house that needs a
more powerful cleaning agent. The comprehensive explorers’ strategy was to use the
drop-down window to ﬁx immediate problems, while developing or modifying the
existing park infrastructure to be beautiful, to be safe through reliable rides, to have
happy workers, and to have well kept animals. For them, this was a key strategy for
effective use of resources for progressing and for learning about the game.
Comprehensive explorers’ reported that strategies in gameplay helped them to appreciate
the game using explorative ways without totally ignoring the required game objectives.
These participants facilitated their personal needs and interests as well as the game needs

using guests’ requests and game objectives.

ll7

tO‘Disko 1 has just had to make an emergency stop.
V‘Disko 1 has been fixed.
Janitor 10 has quit
\New attraction: Spinning Steel
9‘ Helen the Horse has become pregnant!
'You have won an award: Best Reliability
‘New attraction: Tagada

3 Pretzels 1 has just broken down.

It Pretzels 1 has been fix ed.

5New attraction: Custom stall with rotating billboard
’You have won an award: Safest Park

O New attraction: Safari toys

O Steakhouse 4 has just broken down.

a 3
Click and drag open

 

. :1. 1-

Figure 7: Drop-down Window in the Second Scenario Gold-Rush

Comprehensive Explorers: Attitudes Toward the School Content and the Game and What
was Learned

From interviews and observations, the strategy used comprehensive explorers ' in
gameplay was related to the attitude that they adopted towards playing the game and the
learning of school content. Both their strategy in gameplay and their attitude towards the
game and its content were related to what was learned and the process by which they
learned. This was inﬂuenced by having a broad encompassing approach to the need for
managing as many resources as possible in their par. It included managing workers’
satisfaction and assigning workers to patrol speciﬁc locations in their park. They utilized
park space by placing speciﬁc types of rides in set locations, managing a limited amount
of money to get the job done, and paid attention to feedback from guests and the park
inspector. They worked by exploring tools and developing beautiful, safe, and clean

parks. Finally, they tried to meet the game’s objectives. Learning multiple aspects of the

118

game may have helped these participants to value the game more because they were able
to satisfy multiple and competing needs, learn, and transfer some of what they learned.
These participants exhibited transfer knowledge. During interviews, they showed
an understanding of microeconomic principles such as supply and demand, scarcity,
opportunity cost, and pricing. They explained how they designed their park by allocating
rides based on types, such as gentle rides in one section and thrill rides in another. For
instance, RC T 3 06 connnented that after her second week she “observed that the people
would go to certain rides, such as high intensity or gentle rides, so I designed my park
[dividing] it into ride types and with big and small rides.” Along with this design strategy
RCT 3 06 and other comprehensive explorers placed food and drink stalls away from thrill
rides and other rides with high intensity in order “to prevent riders from eating and then
going on the thrill rides which have a high nausea rating and make them vomit.” RCT 327
explained that this decision helped to “keep her parks clean and beautiful because people
like clean places and clean parks will attract more people.” This was a sentiment that
was unanimously shared by comprehensive explorers as a strategy that they used. This
was connected to the increase in their park rating and the number of guests. It also
demonstrated their game knowledge as it related to technology and information literacy.
In interviews, participants spoke about their park not only as a game, but as
connected to a larger world, explaining what is happening in their parks by including
factors that are external to the game but found in their own lives, or what they imagined
would affect their game such as the guests not having much money or about attracting
people to the park because it is clean, safe, and beautiful. These were all factors that

these participants incorporated in order to create a complete world. For comprehensive

ll9

explorers as well as localized explorers, their theme park was more than a game. It was a
world that had rules as well as ethical and social behaviors as in the real world. Their
experience was embodied and connected to the real world.

They were aware about their sacriﬁces when making decisions. What they gave
up may have hindered their chances of doing everything they wanted to do in the park
and being able to complete the game. Nonetheless, they valued how effectively they used
scarce resources such as money, space, and time. This is exempliﬁed by RCT 32 7,

RC T 306, and RCT 307 who commented ﬁequently during group interviews about how
much they liked using the space in the park like a puzzle by deciding how todesign it to
be beautiful as well as making sure they put in rides that will make money and increase
the number of guests that visit their park. Observations and interviews reported from
these participants indicated that park space was used prudently in laying out rides in a
limited area and money was used to buy the best of simple rides to maximize space and
increase the number of guests in their park. Upon generating sufﬁcient money from these
simple rides, they would use the money to buy a thrilling rollercoaster, which they knew
was used by fewer guests because fewer seats were available. They commented that they
were aware of the limitations of fewer seats meaning less money immediately, but “some
guests like thrill rides.” The following statement was echoed by these participants as
explained by one comprehensive explorer, “in the long run I could make more money
because people will love thrill rides more than many small or gentle rides that are less
exciting.” Participants showed an understanding of opportunity cost and scarcity though
they were not aware of the terms in discussions at the end of the study with the

researcher.

120

They explained how they used existing real world knowledge and applied it to the
game. By using prior knowledge from outside the game about real world artifacts and
applying it to the game, these participants believed that the game was mostly realistic in
what can be applied to it and how these things played out in the game. For instance, the
fact that if a player did not properly care for their animals, and animal protection services
would conﬁscate the animal, or the animal would die led the participants to believe that
the game had realistic actions. They also learned that the game was a like a laboratory for
them to test their hypotheses about what they thought to be true in real life in the game,
such as how they treated and designed their theme park for guests.

All the participants did not grasp the idea of pricing and how proﬁt was made,
even though the game clearly had a ﬁnances window that showed items from which
proﬁt was made (in black), how much money was spent (in red) and how pricing affected
proﬁt (see Figure 8). This was due to participants relying on their own understanding of
using trial and error to arrive at good prices, using guest comments that stated the price is
“a good value,” or their real world views that prices and proﬁt are only due to the large
number of people spending or buying, and they do not need to increase prices past a
certain point because it would have burdened guests. 23% or 6 of 26 participants,
including one of the comprehensive explorers, and ﬁve of the goal seekers used the
ﬁnance window to make decisions about proﬁt and pricing rides. Most of the overall
decisions by participants about pricing and proﬁt were not based on mathematical
feedback from the game “ﬁnances” window (see Figure 8). Comprehensive explorers

struggled with satisfying the need for conducting a successful proﬁt making business and

121

the need of not charging overwhelming prices that guests will have to bear, or ﬁnding an
objective method to do pricing.

In interviews, when the participants were asked about the their Views for what
was real in the game, more than half of them believed realism was a factor for them to
value the game; however, they also realized some of the game was unrealistic. One
participant said, “People can walk through walls.” Nonetheless, the idea of realism in
RCT 3 led to the participants in all of the groups mostly valuing the game and the content.
In addition, participants valued the disciplinary knowledge and skills because they were
helping guests to enjoy the park. They perceived the activity as valuable and useful to
being successful in the game and also something they could apply outside of the game to
their lives. This is evident in the comprehensive explorers’ responses on the log-sheets,
responses in interviews, and responses to their peers when helping them or receiving
help. For instance, they would make references to the guests in most of their
explanations and statements about achievements such as “best value means that people
can come to [the] park, spend little money, and enjoy themselves” or “a park needs to be
reliable so that people can feel safe, and it will beneﬁt my park in the long run.” This
group of participants understood the implications of their decisions, opportunity cost, and
scarcity. Their decisions were in part based on the need to satisfy their needs and needs

of guests while knowing they were giving up completing all the scenarios in the study.

122

 

 

Finances
Month‘s Summary .-

Loan: $7, 000 00 S at 3.9% per year

Cash: 59

Entrance gfee: $0.00

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Ride construction $620 00 £975.00
Ride running costs $271 72 $179.29 $178 72 $183.55
Land purchas
Landscaping $120 00 $24.00
Park entrance tickets
Ride tickets $418.00 $419.80 $423.20 $296.20 $71.70
Pool tickets $109.00 $121.00 $103.00 $90.00 $26.00
Viewing gallery tickets $26.40 $42.00 $30.00 $33.60 $15.60
Shop sales $393.75 $425.55 $395.80 $436.15 $79.80
Shop stock £241 05 $261.00 $237.40 $276.80 $49.20
Food a drink sales $357.90 $286.70 $259.70 $377.60 $42.55
Foodﬁdrlnk stock £145 35 $117. 60 $10210 $155. 80 $16 20
Staff wages $556 00 $557 00 558. 00 $556. 00
Staff training
Marketin
Research $193.51 $160.15 $160 25 $86.90 $26.67
Loan interest $19.48 $22.76 $22 76 $22.76
5

Animal purchase] sale

nimal food $50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Animal adoptions $61.00 $61.00 $63.00 $65.00
Other animal costs
Billboards
Other $34.50 $18.80 $18.40 $20.10 $4.40
Total £646 56 $967.95 $.40 13 $15.16 $147.98
Park value: 104 736.30 .
Company va ue: $97 835.89 B Hide empty categories

 

 

Figure 8: Finances Window in RCT 3 Regarding Income (in black) and Cash Spent (in
red) for Each Type of Attraction in a Theme Park.

Goal Seekers

Constant comparative analysis of the participants’ log-sheets and observation data
indicated that there were nine goal seekers. Interviews and observation data showed that
goal seekers were players who focused primarily on the following play and navigation
strategies: (a) playing solely to meet the game objectives and goals; (b) starting by
setting low prices at popular rides, and when there is a long queue, increase the prices
signiﬁcantly; the guests tend to stay in line because of how the game was designed; (c)
always building a platform for a queue to a ride so that guests may get in line (exploiting
the game design), allowing large numbers of guests to wait in an orderly fashion for a
ride; ((1) using the drop-down screen only for signiﬁcant problems that demand
immediate attention; (e) planning ahead using the game objectives window before

123

observing and intervening in game actions; (f) placing best and higher priced rides near
the entrance of the park regardless of design or esthetics, and (g) purchasing rather than
building rides.

The primary purpose for goal seekers to play the game was to “beat it.” They
tended to focus less on exploring and honing their skills in any particular area of the
game, usually doing just enough to move to the next level and scenario. Rarely did they
do any exploration, except at the beginning of the study when they were learning how to
play the game and averaged 9‘/2 hours to get out of Vanilla Hills and into Gold Rush.
After Vanilla Hills, they did not do any exploration to learn about new tools that were
secondary to the game play or secondary to advancing to a new level or scenario.
Nonetheless, on the knowledge test goal seekers had statistically signiﬁcant difference
between the gain on the pretest (M = 18.22, SD = 3.60) and the posttest (M = 20.56, SD =

4.07) for disciplinary knowledge, t (8) = -2.92, p < .05. There was a moderate effect size,
d = .60, r2 = .29.They also had signiﬁcant gains for information and technology literacy
pretest (M = 13.44, SD = 2.70) to posttest (M= 15.33, SD = 2.83), t (8) = -2.98. There

was a large effect size, d =.68, r2 = .32 (See Table 22).

These participants completed the most scenarios. As a result, they had more
opportunities to learn different microeconomics principles related to social studies. For
instance, Gold Rush, the second scenario, demands that participants have to deal with
repaying loans. In that situation participants have the opportunity to see how loans affect
their income, spending, and their park. Gold Rush also asks participants to manage prices I
and proﬁt for dealing with ride income, another learning opportunity, while Box Ofﬁce,

the ﬁfth scenario asks players to understand managing employees to keep a clean park

124

and maintaining ride efﬁciency in order to meet the needs of a VIP. If a player did not
advance to Box Ofﬁce, that opportunity would not be gained for that speciﬁc
requirement in a scenario. The task would not be demanded unless participants chose to
focus on that speciﬁc task while exploring. Goal seekers played more scenarios. It
appears that covering more scenarios is related to more learning opportunities as there
was signiﬁcant disciplinary knowledge and skills gained by goal seekers (See Table 22).
The same is the case for technology and information literacy as both explorers and goal
seekers played the game for 24 hours and both had signiﬁcant gains for skills. While
goal seekers progressed and had opportunities to gain game knowledge and skills by
covering more scenarios, explorers had a similar opportunity for game knowledge and
skills in playing and exploring with tools and gaming opportunities secondary to the
main game objectives.

Both explorers and goal seekers had signiﬁcant knowledge gains, though goal
seekers covered more scenarios than explorers. This may be related to both playing the
game for 6 to 7 weeks. It is logical to infer that playing to cover more scenarios in
beating the game as well as playing the game while focusing on building rides and
attractions or focusing on all aspects both facilitated learning the content and skills.
Strategies used by both explorers and goal seekers helped to facilitate learning in this
game; however, neither explorers nor goal seekers transferred this knowledge
statistically signiﬁcantly. In addition, explorers statistically signiﬁcantly valued the
experience of gaming and learning content while there was no statistical signiﬁcance
valuing for goal seekers. Further analysis of the goal seekers revealed that there were

two types, those focused on beating the game while competing with others (hereafter

125

referred to as competitors), and those focused on heating the game solely for personal
achievement or validation of success based on completing the study (hereafter referred to
as achievers).

Table 2]: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational Assessment for
Goal Seekers

 

 

 

Goal Seekers Means S.D. Std. Err N
Post Knowledge RCT3] 15.33 2.83 .94 9
Pre Knowledge RCT3” 13.44 2.70 .90 9
Post Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 20.56 4.07 1.36 9
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 18.22 3.60 1.20 9
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.89 1.45 .48 9
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.33 1.23 .41 9
Post Near Transfer“ 5.33 1.12 .37 9
Pre Near Transfer3a 4.90 .93 .31 9
Post Motivation to play and learn“ 119.33 7.38 2.46 9
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 119.11 8.01 2.70 9
Post-Interest (subscale)5 26.78 2.95 .98 9
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 26.44 2.07 .70 9
Post Value (subscale)6 42.11 3.41 1.14 9
Pre Value (subscale)6 41.44 3.17 1.06 9
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 12.22 2.54 .85 9
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 13.00 3.67 1.23 9
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 38.22 3.07 1.02 9
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 38.22 3.31 1.10 9
Post expectancy9 50.44 4.56 1.52 9
Pre expectancy9 51.22 5.70 1.90 9
Post value”) 68.90 3.80 1.26 9
Pre valuelo 67.90 4.26 1.42 9
1. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17
2. Knowledge of Economics and Social Studies scored out of 31
3. Transfer — scored out of 10 points
3a. Near Transfer —- scored out of 7 points
4. Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales — Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6
5. Interest — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
6. Value — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48
7. Felt Pressure/tension - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
8. Perceive Competence - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items) — out of 42
9. Expectancy derived from perceived competence and pressure/felt tension scale
10. Value derived from interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

126

Table 22: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Goal Seekers on Knowledge Test
Source df t p d 6

 

 

Pre-Post Knowledge of
Economics & Social Studies 8 -2.92 .02 .60 .86
-2.98 .02 .68 .65

 

Pre-Post Knowledge of RCT 3

 

8 -1 .3 5 .2 1 .42 .3 6
Pre-Post Transfer

 

8 -1 .51 . 1 7 .42 .48
Pre-Post near Transfer

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01

 

Table 23: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Goal Seekers on the Motivation Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6
Pre-Post Overall Motivation 9 -.08 .94 .03 .71
Pre-Post Valuing 9 -.60 .57 .20 .86
Pre-Post Interest/Enjoyment 9 -.24 .81 .1 3 .88
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 9 .70 .51 -.25 .55
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 9 .00 1.00 O .74
Pre-Post Expectancy 9 .57 .52 -. 15 .71
Pre-Post Combined Valuing 9 -1.59 -.52 .25 .25
Note: *p < .05.

Goal Seekers: Competitors

Analysis of video taped and participant observation, interview data, and log-sheet
data indicates that 56% or ﬁve of the goal seekers were classiﬁed as competitors. On a
normal week, they averaged 6hrs 48mins of video gaming. This group of goal seekers
was focused on beating other players and racing to complete the game. They were
interested in the game and had interest in the content, especially in managing money and

making decisions about their business. Nonetheless, they were mostly focused on

127

completing the game and less focused on exploring to understand problems they may
have had in their park, which was secondary to game objectives. 60% of competitors
completed all of the scenarios in the study while the other 40% completed one scenario.

Table 24: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge test and Motivational Assessment for
Competitors

 

 

 

Competitors Means S.D. Std. Err N
Post Knowledge RCT3' 15.40 2.61 1.17 5
Pre Knowledge RCT3' 14.00 2.35 1.05 5
Post Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 20.40 3.36 1.50 5
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 18.80 3.11 1.39 5
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.40 .89 .40 5
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.40 .89 .40 5
Post Near Transfer3‘11 5.40 1.34 .60 5
Pre Near Transfer3a 5.00 .71 .32 5
Post Motivation to play and learn4 121.20 8.56 3.83 5
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 122.20 5.22 2.33 5
Post-Interest (subscale)5 27.80 2.49 1.1 1 5
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 26.00 1.23 .55 5
Post Value (subscale)6 42.00 2.74 1.23 5
Pre Value (subscale)6 42.00 2.35 1.05 5
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 12.20 2.59 1.16 5
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 14.20 4.55 2.04 5
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 39.20 2.28 1.02 5
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 40.00 1.23 .55 5
Post expectancy9 51.40 4.51 2.02 5
Pre expectancy9 54.20 4.60 2.06 5
Post value” 69.80 4.87 2.18 5
Pre value” 69.00 2.00 .89 5
1. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17
2. Knowledge of Economics and Social Studies scored out of 31
3. Transfer — scored out of 10 points
3a. Near Transfer — scored out of 7 points
4. Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales — Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6
5. Interest — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
6. Value — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48
7. Felt Pressure/tension - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
8. Perceive Competence - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items) — out of 42
9. Expectancy derived from perceived competence and pressure/felt tension scale
10. Value derived from interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

128

Table 25: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Competitors on Knowledge Test

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6
Pre-Post Knowledge of
Economics & Social Studies 4 -2.14 .10 .49 a
-2.06 .1 1 .56 .93

Pre-Post Knowledge of RC T3

4 .00 1.00 .00 .14
Pre-Post Transfer

4 -.78 .48 .37 .35

Pre-Post near Transfer

 

Note: a — no variance within group to compute power

Table 26: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Competitors on the Motivation Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6

Pre-Post Overall Motivation 4 .30 .78 -.14 .56
Pre-Post Valuing 4 .00 1.00 .00 .98
Pre-Post Interest/Enjoyment 4 -1.37 .24 .92 .68
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 4 1.58 .19 -.54 .70
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 4 .75 .50 -.44 .04
Pre Expectancy 4 2.26 .09 -.62 #

Pre-Combined Valuing 4 -.79 .48 .48 .11

 

Note: # too few cases

On the knowledge test competitors did not signiﬁcantly gain disciplinary
knowledge and skills, and they did not transfer the knowledge. Competitors did not
signiﬁcantly value the game and content (See Tables 25 and 26). Despite no statistical
signiﬁcant ﬁndings for areas of disciplinary knowledge, skills, transfer knowledge or
valuing of the game and content, interpretive analysis from interviews, observations and

log-sheets indicated that competitors learned the content, valued it, and transferred it.

129

 

Competitors: Navigating Strategies in RC T 3

Competitors ’ main strategies for progressing through the game were all related to
getting to the next scenario by any means. They were achieving, but their explicit goal
was mainly to beat other participants. They played solely to meet the game objectives
and goals and did not do much exploration except when they faced problems that they
could not ignore because the problem had to be solved in order to reach the next
scenario. For instance, in Box Ofﬁce, the fourth scenario, RCT316 was competing with
RCT305 to see who could complete all the scenarios ﬁrst and had difﬁculty in ﬁguring
out how to keep his park clean. One requirement in this scenario was that a VIP who had
low tolerance for dirty parks was visiting, and it was the owner’s job to ensure that the
park was kept clean. He did not want to explore to ﬁnd different ways or amenities that
could keep his park clean, such as placing bathrooms and garbage bins, or design his
park as explorers did by placing high nausea rating rides away ﬁ'om food stalls to reduce
vomiting. Instead, he hired an overwhelming number of janitors who began cleaning his
park, but most quit before the park was in a condition to please the VIP. He did not
advance past the scenario before RCT305 (see Figure 11). This resulted in RCT305
completing all the scenarios before RCT316. RCT316 then began exploring and found
out that his janitors quit because there was not enough work for all of them to do, so they
got bored and quit. In addition, he was not paying enough money for them to be happy.
He also learned by seeking help that he could have placed garbage bins and done other
things, but he did not want to explore to discover those amenities and tools because that

was not his strategy.

130

 

This group of participants was good at getting guests to do what they wanted and
this helped them to progress quickly. They would always build platforms for queues to
rides so that guests could line up. They adopted this strategy from parks they visited in
the real world and said it allowed for large numbers of guests to wait in an orderly way
for a ride. They employed another strategy of starting with low prices at popular rides,
and when the queue became long they increased the prices signiﬁcantly. They exploited a
design ﬂaw in the game in that the guests tend to stay in line if they were there before the
prices went up (see Figure 9). This strategy helped these participants to progress quickly
through scenarios because they were able to gain large sums of cash to spend on buying
rides and other park attractions or amenities, such as bathrooms or souvenir stalls, though
their park values suffered because their parks were usually not well kept, and rides were
usually not very reliable. They developed knowledge of gameplay and exploited design
ﬂaws in the system in order to be successful. They employed real world knowledge and
used the feedback ﬁom the game “ﬁnances” window to understand proﬁt (See Figure 8).

These participants engaged in a dysfunctional, yet “hard fun” activity of
sabotaging each other and other competitors by delaying their gaming. RCT314,
RCT319, RCT305, RCT316, and RCT323 usually sat close to each other or walked over
to each other’s computers, fast-forwarding the game timing feature which sometimes
causes park values to decrease and rides to break down (among other problems), or they
would try to tell each other false strategies such as “when your VIP enters and does not
follow the path you set for her, put her in water, and she will do it next time.” This ploy
would irritate the VIP and have a negative impact on park value. Park value would

decrease and guests would leave the park. Competitors had many problems when

131

working within the two scenarios that required them to meet the needs of a VIP,
primarily because they knew little about how to meet the needs of guests, including

VIPs. This play strategy hindered all of them as well as other participants.

 

Figure 9: Long Queue to a Ride With Guests and Hiked Prices

Competitors used critical information windows such as the drop-down window
with park information, and the game objectives screen with objectives to be met in order
to advance past a scenario. Like all the other subgroups, this group used the drop-down
screen, but unlike the other groups they used it only for signiﬁcant problems that
demanded immediate attention. RCT305, who completed all of the scenarios before all of
the other participants in the study, said that the drop-down window “was my guide, it
told me what was going on in my park, but I ignored everything that was not relevant to
me for completing the game and ﬁxed the ones where I did not have a choice.” RCT305

knew the information from the window was important, but not relevant to be successful

132

within the rules of the game. He said that his strategy, which he shared with other
participants, was good because it was used with “others” and that was the reason he
ﬁnished the game ahead of everyone in the study. The “others” RCT305 was speaking
about referred to planning or looking ahead using the game objectives window before
observing and intervening in game actions with the drop-down screen. By observing the
objectives and looking at the requirements for all three levels, especially Tycoon status,
they realized that rather than working to meet each level requirement one by one, they
could aim to meet the requirements of Tycoon status. To meet the Tycoon status, players
had to satisfy both Apprentice and Entrepreneur statuses (see Figure 10). For example, an
objective at a Tycoon level may ask that participants have 5 rollercoasters of particular
ride intensities and lengths, while the two prior levels may ask for 3 rollercoasters with
less intensity and a smaller length. Thus by meeting the Tycoon requirements, a player
satisﬁes the requirements for both of the prior levels.

This subgroup of participants with huge sums of cash purchased rides rather than
built them because it was more beneﬁcial to them for progressing quickly through
scenarios. They had large sums of cash that were accrued because of their pricing
strategy. RCT323 said that he was concerned initially in the ﬁrst scenario about spending
too much money on buying rides because it was expensive. He did not want his cash to
disappear quickly but when he had accrued large cash sums he spent it to advance
because that was what he wanted, even though he liked saving.

Competitors used effective strategies to help their progress through the game
levels and scenarios. These strategies helped three of the participants in this group to

ﬁnish the study ﬁrst by completing all six game scenarios.

133

0 Scenario objectives

Box Ofﬁce

 

 

Look out, unamusing amusement parksl A movie studio has cast i
you in the role of superhero. Not for a movie, but for the

daunting task of updating its aging back-lot park without ruining
its pedigreed heritage. You're the producer, the director, and the ,
star of the show. Can you deliver the blockbuster the studio !
wants? 1

 

 

Q Apprentice _ U __ i

Q Entrepreneur
i Q Tycoon

VIF’ ( Cami 0 )

Arrives: 19 May

Wants to visit one rollercoaster,

with excitement rating of at least 7.00

Park Rating: 700
Sustained for at least 3 months.

 

Figure 10: Scenario Objectives to be met by Participants

Competitors included two participants who struggled because of “fun sabotage” as they
called it, which was personally destructive as they competed with each other. They tried
to sabotage other players, as was the case with the two participants in this subgroup who
only completed one scenario each. RCT314 was forced to begin his game at least two
times because he tried to sabotage RCT319, and she in turn sabotaged his game by fast-
forwarding it and allowing his park value to decrease until eventually he became
bankrupt. He began his game again. According to RCT319, “I did not have the patience
to again work my way out of that debt, and I wanted to beat the others, so I started over. 1

fast forward, gain money, but just enough not to go bankrupt, and I still try to sabotage

134

[RCT319]. It’s all fun though.” Both players hindered each other’s progress while at the
same time hindering their own progress because they focused so much on each other and
less on their own gaming. The attitude applied by competitors to the strategies they
employed for progressing through the game was related to their attitude toward the game
and content. One evident ﬁnding about competitors is that they were very social, even if
dysfunctional at times. Like localized explorers, they could be classiﬁed as being
extroverts during gaming.
Competitors: Attitudes Toward the School Content and Game and What was Learned
The willingness of competitors to beat the other participants allowed them to
progress further than other participants but also hindered their chances for exploring the
game. This affected their attitude toward trouble-shooting and solving problems that they
encountered. For instance, the following is a dialogue between one competitor participant
and the researcher when the participant asked for help in Vanilla Hills:
Participant: “The high ﬂier is broken down; it’s smoking. I need money and they
say the maintenance people won’t do it. So how do you ﬁx it?”
Researcher: “Perhaps you should explore the game some more and see what tools
you can use and what the icons mean. You may also ask one of the
other players.”
Participant: “1 could ask the janitor.” — referring to hiring a janitor for his park
Researcher: “Perhaps. But think about who you would go to in real life to ﬁx
your car?”
The participant then investigated the icons and learned that he had to go to the

“park management” resource in order to employ mechanics and have them work in his

135

park and not use janitors to ﬁx his rides when they were broken down. The participant
was unwilling to explore, but with some urging to investigate, he prevailed. This
indicated the attitude toward navigation and inﬂuenced their views for testing, trouble-
shooting, and exploring. They were focused on getting from one stage to the next.
Having mishaps in gameplay was not an option for them.

Participants had insightful learning moments when forced by the game to explore
through objectives that required some exploration. For instance, RCT316, like other
members in this subgroup, was forced to explore. They provided an opportunity for
gaining new knowledge. In one moment, RCT316 was forced to engage in problem
solving and thinking about crucial ways to meet the needs of a VIP, if only to move to
the next level. He had to learn how to plan the VIP itinerary and ensure the needs of the
VIP were met by using the rides and attractions that she liked. After spending one week
trying to ﬁgure out how to meet the needs of the VIP, RCT316 sought help and
eventually learned how to design an itinerary and fulﬁll the VIP needs. He commented
that he valued that experience because he also learned from his peers how to organize his
park space more efﬁciently, though he did not get to beat RCT305. RCT305 and

RCT316 were competing with each other to ﬁnish ﬁrst.

136

Staff

Sort by: Job

Janitor 1 J1 56
Sweeping 0 Q9

:1 .Janitor 2 __ PCT __J:] 56
Sweeping GB GD

 

 

 

 

 

latter 4 :22” ”g ”:1 9.
Sweeping 0 ®
J_an_JJJ__itor S _—_ _JJ_A_JJ_Jl £0
Sweeping . ([9
+1 Janitor 7 __J_ j 98
Sweeping . .
+ m iﬁechanic 1 l 98
Hire: {3.3QO
Show:.Q‘ . a ‘n.

 

 

 

Figure 11: Hiring and Managing Staff Through Park Management

During gaming, participants in the subgroup for competitors spoke about how
much they liked the realistic nature of the game, such as managing resources and
applying their “business minds” to gain money, but acknowledged the unrealistic virtual
nature such as disciplining workers to make them happy or hiking prices on guests
without thinking about the guests’ needs. They declared the game was helpful for them in
thinking about other people when making decisions that could affect those people.
However, it was not part of their strategy in the game. They considered other
participants, who mostly helped guests, as not being focused on the game. Competitors
also commented that although it may have been a good strategy to help guests and have a
better park, their aim was to beat the game and the other participants. This attitude
inﬂuenced their actions of both ignoring guests and working to try to balance all

resources to achieve an optimally operated park, although all the members in this

137

subgroup said it was not a reﬂection of what they would do in real life. Thus, not only
did participants distinguish between virtual and real life issues, they also indicated that
their persona in the game for a speciﬁc purpose was not the same if applied to real world
similar situations. They exhibited different ethical and social decision making attitudes in
this particular situation when taken from virtual to real world contexts.

Competitors valued the opportunity to gain huge sums of cash by exploiting a
design ﬂaw in the game. They did not value the points of view of guests unless it meant
to meet the game objectives. In doing so, their park value suffered even though they had
large sums of cash. Park value is inﬂuenced by how well a park is kept in terms of
beauty, cleanliness, workers’ happiness, types of rides and variety, and ride reliability.
These characteristics inﬂuence the number of people in the park and eventually how
much cash is gained, so when these participants gained cash in another manner, they
mostly ignored the guests’ point of view. They commented about being aware of the cost
of not managing their park completely and that the guests in their park liked it. They
explained that business long term was not good, but they were playing to win the game
and the long term did not matter. This suggests it is plausible that they valued
competition in gaming over exploring and trying to learn the content, though they
comment otherwise in interviews arguing that they valued the game and the content. It
indicated they were focused on beating others rather than doing other peripheral activities
related to exploration. Their understanding of opportunity cost was shown when they
explained what they gave up by not exploring, such as marketing and beautiful parks,

which were important, but they preferred to be among the ﬁrst to complete the game.

138

The lack of exploration may be one reason these participants did not signiﬁcantly
show knowledge gain for disciplinary knowledge, skills, and transfer and did not value
the game and content. Nonetheless, interpretively the strategy of the competitors to
progress in the game did not hinder the valuing of the game and content, and they learned
economics and social studies principles such as opportunity cost, supply and demand,
and pricing. RCT305, as well as others in the group, showed the ability to focus on
relevant information to complete the scenarios quickly, despite being bombarded with
information ﬁ'om multiple sources in RC T 3 . Interpretively, they were able to focus, and
they acquired disciplinary knowledge, skills, and value of the game and content, though
it cannot be ignored that narrow focus may be related to one reason Why there was no
statistical signiﬁcance for these variables during quantitative analysis for the group.
Goal Seekers: Achievers

This subgroup of goal seekers consisted of 4 participants or 15% of the overall
sample that completed the study. 50% or 2 achievers completed all six of the scenarios
for the study, while between the other two participants, one completed two scenarios and
the other three scenarios. As a subgroup they completed more scenarios on average than
the other subgroups, thus acquiring more learning opportunities.

Participants in this subgroup tended to focus on heating the game, but they did it
for personal reasons, seeking gratiﬁcation in knowing they were able to accomplish the
task. They did not play the game to compete with others. They actively developed their
knowledge and skills for ﬁnding out the fastest ways to complete scenarios and rarely
sought help from other participants except under dire circumstances. They did not

socialize much with the other participants during gaming unless they were asked for help

139

or they needed help. In this sense, achievers could be considered to be introverted game
players. The knowledge they gained was related to their navigational strategies and

attitudes toward working with other participants, the school content, and the game.

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics for Knowledge Test and Motivational Assessment for

 

 

Achievers

Achievers Means S.D. Std. Err N
Post Knowledge RCT3‘ 15.25 3.50 1.75 4
Pre Knowledge RCT3‘ 12.75 3.30 1.65 4
Post Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 20.75 5.38 2.69 4
Pre Knowledge Econ & Social Studies2 17.50 4.51 2.26 4
Post Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 7.50 1.92 .96 4
Pre Transfer of disciplinary knowledge3 6.25 1.71 .85 4
Post Near Transfer3a 5.25 .96 ..48 4
Pre Near Transfer3a 4.75 1.26 .63 4
Post Motivation to play and learn4 117.00 5.89 2.94 4
Pre Motivation to play and learn4 115.25 9.95 4.97 4
Post-Interest (subscale)5 25.50 3.32 1.66 4
Pre-Interest (subscale)5 27.00 2.94 1.47 4
Post Value (subscale)6 42.25 4.57 2.29 4
Pre Value (subscale)6 40.75 4.27 2.14 4
Post Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 12.25 2.87 1.44 4
Pre Felt Pressure/tension (subscale)7 11.50 1.73 .87 4
Post Perceived Competence (subscale)8 37.00 3.83 1.92 4
Pre Perceived Competence (subscale)8 36.00 3.92 1.96 4
Post expectancy9 49.25 4.99 2.50 4
Pre expectancy9 47.50 5.00 2.50 4
Post value” 67.75 1.89 .95 4
Pre value” 69.75 6.55 3.28 4

 

1. Knowledge of game/RC T 3 scored out of 17

2. Knowledge of Economics and Social Studies scored out of 31

3. Transfer — scored out of 10 points

3a. Near Transfer — scored out of 7 points

4. Overall Motivation 25 items with 4 subscales - Likert type scale with a range from 1 to 6
5. Interest - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30

6 Value — Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (8 items) - out of 48

7 Felt Pressure/tension - Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (5 items) - out of 30
8 Perceive Competence- Subscale of Overall Motivation assessment (7 items)— out of 42
9. Expectancy derived from perceived competence and pressure/ felt tension scale

10. Value derived from interest/enjoyment and valuing scale

140

Table 28: Match Paired t-tests Analysis for Achievers on Knowledge Test

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6
Pre-Post Knowledge of
Economics & Social Studies 3 -2.10 .13 .66 a
-2.10 .13 .74 .66

Pre-Post Knowledge of RC T 3

3 -1.99 .14 .69 a
Pre-Post Transfer

3 -1.73 .18 .67 .82

Pre-Post near Transfer

 

Note: a — too few cases

Table 29: Match Paired t-tests A nalysis for Achievers on the Motivation Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df t p d 6
Pre-Post Overall Motivation 3 -.34 .76 .21 a
Pre-Post Valuing 3 -.73 .52 .34 a
Pre—Post Interest/Enjoyment 3 .59 .60 -.48 a
Pre-Post Felt Pressure/Tension 3 -.41 .71 .32 .50
Pre-Post Perceived Competence 3 -.59 .59 .26 a
Pre Expectancy 3 -.65 .56 .35 a
Pre-Combined Valuing 3 .00 1.00 -.42 a

 

Note: a — too few cases

On the knowledge test, achievers did not signiﬁcantly gain disciplinary

knowledge and skills, and they did not transfer the knowledge. Achievers did not

signiﬁcantly value the game and content (See Tables 28 and 29). Despite no Signiﬁcant

statistical ﬁndings for disciplinary knowledge, skills, transfer of knowledge or valuing of

the game and content, interpretive analysis of competitors ’ navigational strategies and

attitudes used in the game and the content suggests they had a qualitative understanding

of the content.

14]

Achievers: Navigating Strategies in RC T 3

The strategies used by the participants in the achievers subgroup were mostly
similar to those used by the competitors’ subgroup, with a few exceptions and the
similarities were many: a) playing solely to meet the game objectives and goals; (b)
starting with low prices at popular rides but when lines were long increasing the prices
signiﬁcantly because the guests tended to stay in line; (c) always building a platform for
a long line to a ride so that guests would line up, thus allowing large numbers of guests to
wait in orderly lines for a ride; (d) using the drop-down screen only for signiﬁcant
problems that demanded immediate attention; (e) planning ahead using the game
objectives window before observing and intervening in game actions; and (f) purchasing
rather than building rides.

There were some exceptions. Achievers tended to be mostly individualistic game
players. They commented about getting more done by not asking for much help, although
they would ask questions after each gaming session during group interviews. Also, they
tended to fast forward the game in order to gain cash because the game speeds up and
guests spend more money per ride (see Figure 12). This helped them to gain cash, but it
usually resulted in decreased park values because rides, amenities and other attractions
usually developed more problems, and participants were unable to ﬁx them in a

reasonable time to prevent their park value from depreciating.

142

' 1'1,

l x

Fast Forward

 

Figure 12: Fast Forwarding Strategy Employed by an Achiever Participant

Nonetheless, participants realized the drawback and rectiﬁed it by including more
workers when they were about to fast forward. Despite this attempt, they realized fast
forwarding did not work well for them. This is exempliﬁed in a statement by RCT326
who commented about fast forwarding the game to progress, “It still did not result in
advancing faster through the scenarios than when I played without fast forwarding the
game. I lost [park] value, and I had to work harder to save my park in order to meet
objectives, my workers quit, my VIPs complained more, my animals escaped from their
enclosures more, and it was more problems.” These participants knew the drawbacks of
fast forwarding the game as a strategy as they indicated when 75% or three of the four
subgroup’s members shared their knowledge about the affordances and constraints of fast
forwarding the game with the other participants during group interviews. However, they
did not relent and used it as a way to gain cash in short spurts rather than in the extended
periods they had used it prior to knowing about the effects of it. Their approach to
progress through the game, like their competitors counterparts, was focused on
advancing through scenarios and beating the game, and this inﬂuenced their attitude

toward the game and content

143

Achievers: Attitudes Toward the School Content and Game and What Was Learned

The initial attitude of Achievers believing in their ability to achieve victory by
completing all the scenarios to meet their needs while not competing against others
inﬂuenced their navigational strategies. The choices they made were based on actively
deciding how to improve their chances to complete the game for validation. The
following illustrates how participants’ strategies affected their attitude.

These participants sought help only when their chances for advancing were in
dire straits, and were concerned that they could not help themselves to move beyond that
problem point. For instance, RCT326 stated that while playing he wanted to prove to
himself that he is a good game player because it reﬂects on the kind of person he is when
doing something. He wanted to Show that he could play games and learn. Like his
counterparts in the subgroup, RCT326 believed that because he was proving something
to himself, he should not ask for a lot of help unless he truly did not know how to solve a
problem in the game. While RCT326 would ask for some help, RCT318 would not and
did not seek help when she had problems helping a VIP in the third scenario, Checkered
Flags. She said that it was like mathematics, her favorite subject, and that She would
Spend all the time necessary to solve the problem. They had strong beliefs in their ability
to achieve and solve problems. They aimed to focus on both ﬁrst meeting the game
objectives and meeting their personal goals for validation. These participants averaged
the least number of hours of Video gaming each week, M = 4.25 hr/wk.

Achievers found a way to exploit some affordances of the game by using the fast
forwarding feature in Short bursts and preventing the drawback of ruining their park

value. This is an example of the participants’ initial attitude inﬂuencing their adopted

144

strategy. They had an unrelenting attitude for beating the game and that inﬂuenced their
approach to recognize and modify their initial approach. Initially they had used long,
continuous fast forwarding techniques to generate money, but this affected their park
value negatively, so they used short bursts of fast forwarding which increased cash and
did not affect park value adversely. This enabled these participants and others who
learned the technique to reﬂect on the difference between park value and available cash.
One participant, RCT310 reﬂected on that part of gameplay, explaining that it helped her
to understand that cash was “what they have to spend, but [park] value was what the park
was worth.”

Achievers commented that they were not focused on learning school content in
the game, but they valued playing the game and ﬁguring out the best strategies to manage
their park to meet the game objectives. Like the other group members, they learned
through an iterative, reﬂective, and risk taking approach, though they did not like making
mistakes and often restarted the game during the ﬁrst scenario before they grasped how
to play it. Unlike the localized explorers, achievers were willing to begin the game again

if they made a mistake that ruined their park. They did not cope well with disasters.

Messy borders: Player Characteristics

This study indicates that the player employed navigational strategies that related
to achievers, competitors, localized explorers, and comprehensive explorers; however,
this represented the point of view of the researcher. One data collector complicates the
analysis even though information was taken from multiple data sources to triangulate the
results with statistical analysis. These player characteristics represent the adopted play

styles for gaming in RCT3. There were times when achievers adopted the explorers’

145

style because that was what was needed to meet their needs at a particular stage in the
game. For instance, RCT326 changed play to the style of a localized explorer after he
saw how RCT302 built a beautiﬁrl gigantic rollercoaster and he wanted to see if he could
do the same. This represented a moment where RCT3 26 wanted to challenge himself to
see if he could achieve what RCT302 was doing.

Players adopted different player characteristics, but once they established
themselves with a particular set of player characteristics they remained in that mode.
Thus, these player characteristics are generalized snapshots of characteristics that deﬁned
how participants played RCT 3 to meet their personal needs and how they competed in
the game.

Summary of Results for Chapter 4 and 5

These chapters provided results from six of seven data sources used to examine
disciplinary knowledge and skills gained by middle school children as they played the
simulation-strategy game RC T 3 . The incremental scenario tests were not used in
reporting results because of tests alignment and few participants on each test. Each data

source provided answers to several questions:

1. What did the participants learn in terms of disciplinary knowledge and skills?
2. What did participants value, that is have or develop value in the game and
content?
3. What strategies did participants use to navigate in the game?
The results were separated in two sections: quantitative and mixed methods results. The
quantitative section examined learning and motivation of the overall sample. The mixed

methods section examined learning, motivation and player strategies by taking amore

146

 

interpretive approach followed by statistical analysis. Qualitative analysis was conducted
to examine player strategies for progress using emergent player types after which
quantitative analysis was conducted using the player types as groups to examine learning
and motivation.
Disciplinary Knowledge

Despite not having any formal education in the basic economic principles
participants statistically signiﬁcantly learned microeconomic principles related to social
studies for scarcity, opportunity cost, supply and demand, making ethical and social
decisions relating to others, and proﬁt pretest to posttest and across the scenarios during
gameplay. They learned these principles through an iterative process of trial and error,
taking risks, exploring, observing and then intervening, knowing what objectives they
need to meet, setting goals, reﬂecting on their tasks using feedback from the game, and
modifying existing choices during their attempts to meet their needs or other needs
related to game objectives.
Information and Technology Literacy

Participants acquired information and technology literacy Skills including that of
focusing on relevant information. Comprehensive explorers used holistic skills to focus
on the strategies they employed across the scenarios during gameplay. The other
participants focused on particular information as an aid to themselves to play the game in
unique ways. Localized explorers focused on rides, attractions, and amenities to provide
for themselves and their guests. The goals seekers focused on information that would
help them progress quickly through the scenarios and less on exploring. Participants

acquired knowledge of technology including reading and understanding the game

147

language of icons, symbols, and feedback in order to progress in the game. This is related
to the Skills of critical thinking and problem solving to make appropriate choices to
progress or build rides. They were able to use the information from the game using
feedback ﬁ'om guests, park inspectors, and sources within the game with information
about rides and workers that needed to be understood in order to progress successfully, or
build up a park or ride. They evaluated information critically using feedback ﬁom guests
or the game tools, creatively modiﬁed their parks or strategies to get results geared
toward their goals, made their parks run efﬁciently by managing resources that are
scarce, and competently executed their tasks by synthesizing information from multiple
sources in the game and from peers.
Motivational Valuing in Game and Content

Participants signiﬁcantly valued playing the game and the content. Participants
entered the study with high interest and perceived competence in gaming and their
abilities to do well at gaming to learn disciplinary knowledge and skills. They believed in
their ability to play the game and had interest in playing the game because it was about
building and managing resources, especially money. They valued the game because it
allowed them to pursue their own goals in gaming and meet the needs of guests. It had
clear objectives, and they could challenge themselves. Participants also valued the game
for other reasons: the strategies they employed in navigating the game impacted their
attitude toward the content, they accepted the game as realistic in many ways, and it
allowed them to socialize, help others, and meet their needs.

Strategies to Progress

148

Participants progressed fairly well into the game. 85% or 22 of the 26 participants
progressed to at least the second scenario, and 19% or ﬁve of the 26 participants
completed all six scenarios in the study. Their main strategies for progress through the
scenarios included observing actions and intervening based on feedback from the game,
iterative process of trial and error to test their hypothesis about progressing, exploring,
and meeting the needs of guests by addressing their problems which, in turn helped them
to progress, and to plan ahead to focus on game objectives. A number of participants
were willing to socialize (extroverts, the localized explorers and competitors) without
being asked to help, and some who were more focused on game playing and only helped
if asked or sought help only when absolutely needed (introverts, the comprehensive
explorers and achievers). This combination of students helped participants to develop
speciﬁc Skills while learning and helping others to learn those skills and basic economic
principles.

Learning and Navigation

Learning and progress in navigation were related in complicated ways. Both
explorers and goal seekers had signiﬁcant knowledge gains for disciplinary and skills,
though goal seekers covered more scenarios than explorers. This may be related to both
groups playing the game for 6 to 7 weeks. It is logical to infer that playing to accomplish
more scenarios to beat the game as well as playing the game while focusing on building
rides and attractions or focusing on all aspects facilitated both learning the content and
Skills. Both explorers and goal seekers strategies are related to learning in this game;

however, neither explorers nor goal seekers transferred this knowledge signiﬁcantly. In

149

addition, explorers signiﬁcantly valued the experience of gaming and learning content,
while there was no statistical Signiﬁcant valuing for goal seekers.

From the subcategories for both explorers and goal seekers, none of the goal
seeker subgroups had statistically Si gniﬁcant differences for disciplinary knowledge and
skills and transfer. This may be related to the goal seekers not exploring much but
choosing to use game strategies for progessing quickly through the scenarios rather than
trying to learn to play the game as the explorers did. Achievers and competitors
completed the most scenarios. Explorers had the most opportunities per scenario to learn
the content and develop skills because they attempted to learn details about designing
and developing rides as well to focus on all aspects of gameplay. Localized explorers had
statistically signiﬁcant differences for disciplinary knowledge and skills, but not for
transfer. Comprehensive explorers did not statistically signiﬁcantly gain disciplinary
knowledge and skills.

Another possible explanation why there were overall differences from pretest to
posttest for the two general categories of players, but not for the sub-categories of goal

seekers, is the small sample size.

150

Chapter 6
Discussion
This chapter explains the results of the study and discusses them through the lens
of literature from educational psychology, games, new media, and technology that relates
to learning, especially the claims about games and learning. In essence, it connects the
results of the study to the theoretical arguments presented by education and about
learning from digital games and technologies.

The chapter is outlined by ﬁrst discussing learning, player characteristics or types,
and motivation in the study and explaining the results with the support of the literature on
games, new media, and technology for learning. Second, it highlights some affordances
of games and learning in relation to the claimed affordances about games and learning as
discussed by Mishra and Foster (2007). Third, it highlights the role of simulation strategy
games such as RCT 3 and their implications for policymakers, parents, teachers, game
designers, and researchers. In doing so, recommendations are made to each of the parties
about how Simulation strategy games and virtual environments could beneﬁt as well as
hinder the knowledge construction of learners. Finally, it highlights the limitations of the
study, acknowledges the presence of bias in the data, and makes recommendations for

ﬁrrther study.

What is Learning in the Simulation Strategy Game RC T 3 ?
In this study, which was conducted with a diverse and representative sample,
participants were able to gain disciplinary knowledge and skills, transfer it to new

contexts, and value the game and content. In constructing knowledge and being

151

motivated to learn, the intrinsic motivation of the participants, their perceived
competence, and their felt pressure/tension experienced were related to learning.

Participants were highly motivated to play games and learn the content of the
game, though, there was no signiﬁcant change in their overall motivation (intrinsic
motivation), interest, perceived competence, or felt pressure/tension while playing RCT 3 .
Participants did volunteer for the study with the expectation to have fun playing a game
suggesting that their initial interest and motivation would have been high, which was the
case. This is supported with the high pre-means for these constructs as well as with
participants’ comments and reactions before gaming and in gaming. Their motivation
was high ﬁom the outset and did not change signiﬁcantly in the end. Participants were
able to maintain their motivation and interest levels as indicated by post-means scores on
those constructs, a positive sign for using the game as an engaging environment to learn
disciplinary knowledge related to economics, social studies principles, and skills related
to technology and information literacy.

Nonetheless, participants often complained about the assessments that were
given. This was expressed in participants’ ontological beliefs in their comments that
games were not for learning school content because they did not feel the pressure or
stress as is the case in formal schools. This is indicated by the subscale measuring
pressure which Showed a decrease in felt pressure and tension from pre-gameplay to
post-gameplay. Participants said it did not feel like learning to them because there was no
high pressure or high stakes situation associated with playing the game as in a formal
school setting. They said that RCT 3 was hard, but not boring, and they worked hard to be

successful at it. The game was complex and multifaceted, and it had low stress and low-

152

risk conditions for mistakes as indicated by the low felt pressure and tension gaming
experience. The affordance of the game for “on-demand and just-in-time information”
for learning and game objectives are difﬁcult and ﬁ'ustrating at times, yet engaging to the
point where players would not give up and encouraged participants motivation to learn.
The game characteristics and affordances for motivation to learn allowed participants to
believe that since they were not under stress or in a high stakes situation such as in
schools where “failure could have life consequences,” they could not construct useful
knowledge or learn in the same way as it is in schools. Perhaps high stakes testing and
current high stress environments have indoctrinated students to believe that learning can
only be done in such environments; however, this study showed otherwise in a
simulated-strategy game environment. These participants learned because of their
experiences in the game despite their epistemological beliefs about learning.

Research has shown that students have preconceptions about how the world
works before they come to the classroom (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999).
Research also suggests learners start to make sense of the world at a very young age, and
at the same time begin to form their own views based on experiences about how people
learn (Donovan etal., 1999; Resnick, 1987) as shown with these participants’ View of ’
what was realistic in the game as well as initially tending toward the View that learning
was not possible in games. Many research experiments show the persistence of
preexisting understandings (diSessa, 1982; Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott,
1994; Greeno et al., 1996; Resnick, 1987). Therefore, teaching has to integrate the
preexisting knowledge of learners in order to be effective. RCT 3 accomplished this by

connecting to students experiences, such as students exploring the ideas of transfer

153

...I‘...
o»' . , - ,-

 

 

through realism and discussing it by way of connecting it to their own lives as well as
allowing students to identify with parts of- the activities as possible selves which help
them to understand. In this study, though participants initially believed they were not
learning school content, they came to realize that they had learned much about basic and
foundational economic principles and social studies.

The same is true for participants’ perceived competence; it was high from the
outset, and their experience in the game did not change that belief (See Table 6). They
believed in their ability to do well while playing the game and learning, and their beliefs
did not change Signiﬁcantly. Participants did not expect to learn social studies concepts
and economics, nor to focus on information and technology literacy, even though they
knew they were in a study about games and learning. They did not know what content
they were expected to learn. This may have been a small part of why there was no
statistically signiﬁcant difference from pretest to posttest for perceived competence.
Nonetheless, the 26 participants had no formal education about the basic economics
principles, but they statistically signiﬁcantly learned the disciplinary knowledge and
skills, valued playing the game to learn economics and social studies, and they
transferred the knowledge to other settings not dealing with games or theme parks.

This is supported by contemporary theories about learning in virtual
environments that suggests when students become active learners in constructing
knowledge the focus of learning shifts from covering the curriculum to working with
ideas (Greeno et al., 1996; Scardamalia, 2000). The participants learned about
opportunity cost, trade-offs, scarcity, supply and demand, cost and beneﬁts, making

decisions about managing resources, and dealing with ethical and social decisions. They

154

were able to gain knowledge about some of the affordances of the game navigation and
learning such as observation and intervention, trial and error, exploration, and tools for
use for developing information and technology literacy skills. Some skills related to
creativity and innovation as they built extravagant roller coasters or developed theme
parks strategically located to beneﬁt guests or managed information ﬁom multiple
sources in the game to meet the needs of guests, game objectives, and their personal
goals. During gameplay understanding the in-garne text and multimodal context was the
way to develop understanding of technology and information literacy such as when
participants learned to exploit design features such as fast forwarding or using queues as
way to aid the generation of income.
In-Game Text and Multimodal Texts Relationship to Learning

Playing RCT 3 requires the reading of texts. These texts came in the form of
instructions in on-screen messages and print descriptions of icons and tools. Players used
their traditional reading literacy skills to make meaning from these texts. Additionally,
the game’s design has other types of texts for players to interpret, such as text for relating
information or combining information from different media. These include symbols,
icons, sounds, and actions, each with its own unique meaning within the game. The
players developed Skills in technology and information literacy skills to make meaning
from these digital texts as part playing the game. Players had to ﬁnd meaning in these
messages to progress in the game either as explorers or as goal seekers. Gee (2003)
refers to this concept as the intertextual principle for relating information, text principle
for reading in context, and multimodal principle for meshing information from different

media, and it also highlights how the game as a semiotic domain helped participants to

155

 

learn. This is also considered as part of the embodied and situated principle of learning in
games as participants adopt the goals, values, and attitudes by becoming attuned to the
goals of the game to be successful.
Game Genre Relationship to Learning

Learning was also related to the genre’s characteristics that emphasized gameplay
around the internal aspects of the game using activities with embedded pedagogy, such
as building rides, or meeting level requirements through Speciﬁc goals while using the
observing other actions and intervening pedagogy when necessary from a “gods—eye
view” third person perspective controlling a microworld. This was one of the dominant
types of interaction used by players for progressing within the simulation strategy game.
Most participants also realized that in order to be successful in the game, they must
manage all their resources equally and not focus on a primary strategy such as building
roller coasters. Thus, the participants who completed the most scenarios and had more
knowledge gain tried to manage all their resources and also planned ahead by using in-
garne tools to satisfy more than one requirement at a time. Successful participants were
able to manage land space, money, workers, and time, and ensure they provided a variety
of different levels of excitement and intensity rides for park guests while also meeting the
needs of VIPs and their personal goals. They used the tools of the game to manage the
content around theme park building, which had economics and social studies principles
embedded in the gameplay.
Player Characteristics and Progress in Gameplay

In this study there were two general player types, explorers and goal-seekers.

Explorers had two sub-categories localized explorers and comprehensive explorers.

156

Goals-seekers also had two sub-categories, competitors and achievers. Explorers had
statistically signiﬁcant ﬁndings indicating growth in disciplinary knowledge and skills as
well as in valuing the game and content. There was no statistically Si gniﬁcant difference
for transfer (See Tables 12, 13 and 14). Localized explorers had the highest knowledge
gains and scores among all the groups. There was a statistically Signiﬁcant difference in
their acquisition of knowledge for disciplinary knowledge and Skills (See Tables 15, 16,
and 17). There was no statistically signiﬁcant difference for motivational valuing or
transfer. Interpretive analysis suggests that localized explorers valued the game and
content and that they progressed mainly by being gaming extroverts as well as by
focusing on their personal goals, not the given game objectives. Localized explorers were
very helpful and talkative; they were empathetic to both in-game characters and their
peers. This may be related to helping them learn during their social interactions and
understanding more about the game. They focused on developing and designing rides
and attractions. There goal was to be the best at building a ride or attraction. They were
not concerned with beating the game. Comprehensive explorers showed no statistically
signiﬁcant difference in acquiring disciplinary knowledge, motivational valuing, or
transfer (See Tables 18, 19 and 20). Interpretive analysis suggests that they progressed by
focusing on all aspects of gameplay. Comprehensive explorers focused on developing a
comprehensive understanding of the game and were not focused on beating the game.
Beating the game was secondary for them. They were also empathetic to in-garne
characters and only gave help when other players asked. They were gaming introverts

because they did not interact much with participants unless asked.

157

Goal-seekers had statistically signiﬁcant ﬁndings in the area disciplinary
knowledge and skills; however there were no statistical signiﬁcant ﬁndings for valuing
the game and content as well as for transfer (see Tables 21, 22, and 23). For achievers
there were no statistically signiﬁcant ﬁndings for growth in disciplinary knowledge,
skills, transfer, or valuing of the game and content (See Tables 24, 25 and 26).
Interpretive analysis suggests that they progressed through the game by focusing on
beating the game for personal achievement. They focused on the objectives of the game
and were not concerned with in-game character needs. They focused on exploiting the
design of the game to advance quickly through the game. They were considered gaming
introverts because they did not socialize much with other participants. The competitors
indicated no statistically signiﬁcant ﬁnding for disciplinary knowledge, skills, transfer, or
valuing of the game and content (See Tables 27, 28, and 29). Interpretive analysis
suggests that they progressed through the game by focusing on beating the game and
demolishing other players even it meant “ﬁrn sabotaging.” They were considered gaming
extroverts since they were very social in talking to their peers about strategies to meet
their needs and also in talking about fake strategies to Slow down their peers.

The emergent groups in this study had similarities and differences with past
research player types. Heeter’s (2009) player types included explorers, achievers, lost,
and careless player types. Heeter’s (2009) achiever player type would match with goal-
seekers who played the game fastest to complete it. Heeter’s (2009) explorers and lost
players match well with the explorers in this study. In particular, lost player types could
be considered localized explorers who appeared lost because they were focused solely on

designing and developing and not advancing through the scenarios. They were not

158

 

 

focused on the game’s objectives. They had their personal goals. They also played the
slowest. Comprehensive explorers matched well with Heeter’s explorers as they aimed to
play holistically and were the next Slowest in advancing through the RCT3 scenarios.

For Bartle’s (2006) player types, competitors would match up well with Killers.
An exception is that competitors were gaming extroverts, socializing even to promote
their play and doing “fun sabotage” with other players. Localized explorers would match
well with Bartle’s explorers as they explore the game’s inner workings by focusing on
building rides and attractions aiming to be best builders. Comprehensive explorers also
explored the inner workings of the games aiming to comprehensively develop their park
and developing their understanding of all aspects of the game. Localized explorers were
gaming extroverts who were social and empathetic to their peers and in-game characters,
while Bartle’s explorers were more interested in the game than in socializing. Goal-
seekers including achievers and competitors had many of the characteristics of Bartle’s
achievers where both groups aimed to beat the game. However, achievers socialized with
peers only when asked and they rarely sought help. Achievers were game playing
introverts whereas competitors would socialize even if it was “fun sabotage” or giving
fake strategies.

From research in motivation on the goal and achievement theory, from a learning
progress perspective explorers were mastery- goal oriented. For mastery orientation, the
students sense of satisfaction comes from the work and is not inﬂuenced by extrinsic
factors such as scores or grades (Ames, 1992; Grant & Dweck, 2003). It is associated
with deeper engagement and perseverance in the face of set-backs (Ames, 1992) .

Explorers had an intrinsic mastery motivation orientation with their focus on self

159

 

 

achievement and personal goals for success rather than the games objectives determining
success for them.

Performance goal orientation deﬁnes students as focused on external goals, such
as scores and grades, to validate their success (Ames, 1992; Grant & Dweck, 2003).
Extrinsic motivation was evident with the goal seekers who were focused on meeting the
games objectives bottom line for proﬁt or outcomes. Competitors were a performance-
goal oriented group. Achievers were also outcome goal oriented in wanting a good grade
or to do well by the game standards (Grant & Dweck, 2003). In addition, competitors
displayed antisocial behavior. Performance goal orientation ability validation goals in

gameplay are deﬁned by the achievers (Grant & Dweck, 2003).

Motivational Valuing

The participants who struggled from the outset valued the task, but lost hope that
they could complete all the scenarios, though they believed that success for them was in
building rides, developing and beautifying theme parks, and catering to the needs of
guests. In the game, success meant completing the scenarios and speciﬁc tasks for being
a Tycoon. Participants who struggled or who did not want to meet the objectives of the
game for being a Tycoon coped with struggling to meet their goals of designing and
building. Therefore all the participants had personal success at playing the game whether
completing the six game scenarios of the study or working within a Single scenario. For
all the participants, struggle and frustration occurred regardless of their play strategies or
characteristics. The value of the activity and the belief that they would be successful at it
even though it was hard and frustrating at times made participants cope with the task.

They were successful in the end to achieve their personal goals and for some, the game

160

objectives. Participants found the activity relevant and meaningful. In a study about peer
interaction for designing a robot in a science learning activity Rowell (2002) showed that
students valued their efforts more when they assumed the identities of the professionals
who design robots. In this research, participants could relate parts of themselves to
activities such as managing money or making decisions as a future entrepreneur, and this
made them recognize it as being useful to them for fun, for learning, and for possible
selves, what they would like to become or not become (Foster, 2008; Markus & Nurius,
1986).

Based on analysis from sources in this study, learning was related to several
factors: 1) participants valued the activity as being relevant and meaningful, 2)
participants worked with each other to solve problems, 3) participants consulted peers or
information sources, 4) participants saw themselves as able to be successful, 5)
participants related to the activity, that is seeing the activity as connected to
characteristics they have now and would like to have in the future, and 6) participants
saw the activity as being low stress, hard, and frustrating at times, yet engaging with
supports that enabled learning at the right moments to help them move on. In addition,
the genre of the game inﬂuenced the primary pedagogy of activity-based learning using
observation and intervention, and participants saw themselves as controlling a whole
world. This allowed participants to have the perceived belief that they could determine
the outcome of the activity. Both the internal aspects of the game (the content) and the
external aspects (the ways of seeing, believing, acting, interacting, and thinking within

the domain) helped participants to better understand basic and fundamental economic

161

concepts and social. studies knowledge and develop information and technological
literacy skills.

Not only did participants develop content knowledge, but they developed their
ability to think critically and solve problems. Localized explorers were able to evaluate
and discuss what was real in the game and what elements could be transferred and
applied to real world situations, such as how to spend money and how to decide what is
important for their personal needs. They were able to explore and work on problem-
solving on a single issue for longer periods of time than participants who chose to be
more objective/ goal seekers. On the other hand, competitors believed that many of the
strategies used in the game would not change if they applied the same principles to the
real world, such as consistently hiring and ﬁring workers or by hiring high numbers of
workers to get things done quickly. They believed the same principle could work in the
real world, and they could hire and ﬁre people without regard to resources and workers
feelings. Competitors and comprehensive explorers also took real world beliefs or
knowledge and applied them to the game and were successﬁrl. Thus, competitors
believed that the same must be true if you used principles learned in the game and
applied it to the real world without modiﬁcations. This form of thinking is justiﬁed
considering the purpose of well designed learning games; however for many games
today, naive understandings can easily develop as it was in this case with two groups of
participants playing RCT 3, which was designed for entertainment. In this study, the
naivety could have been due to the lack of familiarity with economics principles and
social studies content in the game or the lack of understanding by participants. In any

case, it was possible for the game to reinforce or enable the development of naive

162

 

 

understanding in this context about the applicability of principles from games to the real
world and vice versa. For these participants, it was their ﬁrst time working with basic and
microeconomics principles and applying them in a learning context. Thus, it is possible
that with more familiarity in situations, such as in their parks or with similar contexts, the
participants could have been enabled to make more committed statements about using
what they learned in the virtual environment in much the same way that the localized
explorers did. Clearly, it is not only a matter of time spent playing the game, but more a
matter of what is focused on while playing the game.

While competitor participants were less Speciﬁc about what could be applied
from the real world or from the game world, they had the ability to focus on important
details to meet game objectives versus trying to focus on everything as did the
comprehensive explorers. The consequences of this was that based on the incremental
scenario tests comprehensive explorers learned more disciplinary knowledge, game
knowledge as technology literacy and information literacy, while competitors had more
transfer knowledge. This may indicate that the multiple scenarios allowed more context
and chances to see how principles are applied in different contexts and more chances to

transfer despite fewer chances to develop disciplinary knowledge.

The Big Picture: RC T 3 and Learning

Many researchers agree that learning is possible from games, but identifying just
what players are learning and whether it iS related to academic performance is less clear.
This study took a step towards addressing this problem in assessing learning in games. In
this study, learning was characterized by doing (Schank, Berman, & MacPherson, 1999),

and constructing knowledge through gameplay in gaming as part of the actions of

163

learning the game and advancing through levels and scenarios, consistent with the
situative perspective. Through goal-based scenarios in the simulation-strategy game,
participants pursued a goal by way of a mission to practice certain skills and using the
relevant content knowledge required to achieve their pursued goal.

According to the National Research Council (2005), science processes are more
often assessed by asking students to deﬁne words such as “hypothesis” and “scientiﬁc

method.” However, knowing the deﬁnitions of these words is not synonymous with

-FL ~ Luann-aha

understanding the processes. Further, game scholars argue that when players go through
the iterative process of probe, hypothesize, reprobe and rethink, they develop an
understanding of the scientiﬁc process (Gee, 2007a; Steven Johnson, 2005). RCT 3 and
games of the simulation strategy genre do not explicitly teach students by Showing basic
microeconomics or fundamental economics principles and concepts, but through playing,
students come to understand these economics processes, which is more important than
being able only to memorize the deﬁnition of these principles and concepts. This moves
students beyond developing inert knowledge (Whitehead, 1929) and towards being able
to transfer knowledge more competently. With the original knowledge gains ﬁom the
game, participants understood information from the game and learned the content
sufﬁciently to transfer it (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). Participants were able to
statistically signiﬁcantly transfer knowledge from RC T 3 to non-game settings. This is
because when participants play games, they have the potential to become active
participants in shaping their game role and actions and are more likely to develop their
knowledge from schernas which makes the information more salient, relevant, and

meaningful.

164

The participants said that they did not View playing a game to learn school
content as being the same as learning in school. They said that school learning is
associated with high stakes testing such as standardized tests, where if they fail their lives
may change. In games, they can take risks, make mistakes, and learn in an enjoyable and
engaging way, even if it is frustrating and hard. Thus playing RCT 3 is related to changing
students’ valuing of the disciplinary knowledge and enabling positive knowledge

construction experiences because it allows students to take risks, be innovative, control

IA,-

their learning, and work in a relatively low pressure and low stress situation.

Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning theory offers a connection between
the social aspect of a person and learning, supporting the idea that knowledge is
constructed through participation in a social process. The idea of learning in games
whether it is by using RCT 3 in a naturalistic social setting or whether it is alone in a
room or online in MMORPGS ﬁts the view of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and the
situative View of learning (Greeno et al., 1996; Phillips & Soltis, 1998) including
embodied cognition (Barab, Bransford et al., 2007) and offers a connection between the
social aspect of a person and learning, supporting the idea that knowledge is constructed
through participation in a social process. Mentoring and apprenticeship is the idea of
helping other less knowledgeable players to build or work through a problem, learning
about those participants being helped, developing a better understanding of the subject
being taught, and learning new skills and content. It was mainly experienced by localized
explorers more than any other subgroup, though all the participants beneﬁted from the

social learning and discussions after every game session.

165

 

The Field: RC T 3 and Education

In accordance with the view of many educational researchers that emphasize
connecting cognitive theories of learning with game and simulation based environments,
the software or technology was designed to identify learning goals that are clear and
authentic, make thinking visible, encourage autonomy, and scaffold learning (Linn, 1998;
Vye et al., 1998). Though the game was designed to be focused on building and Fe.-
operating a theme park, it was through the design of the study to focus on disciplinary
knowledge and skills that helped support the learning of the content and skills areas
assessed. Further, RCT 3 covers many of the standards on the National Educational
Technology Standards (International Society for Technology in Education, 20003), meets
Bruce and Levin’s (1997) taxonomy for what technology should allow students to learn,
and it meets the NCEE standards for basic and microeconomic principles geared for
students in upper elementary to middle school. This is not to say that it is without
imperfections as clearly it is possible that without sufﬁcient guidance and scaffolding in
the content areas, learners/players could develop naive understandings.

Finally, this study using a Simulation strategy game that well represents the genre
showed that the claimed affordances of games are indeed related to learning by shaping
attitudes, affecting behavior, and inﬂuencing understanding (Foster & Mishra, 2009;
Mishra & Foster, 2007a). In addition, the study showed that within the psychological
scheme for the claims of games related to learning, participants were able to maintain
their motivation and develop cognitive, practical, and social skills (Mishra & Foster,

2007a)

166

 

Individuals who play video games engage in rapid and complex interaction of
self-regulatory, motivational, and goal directed behaviors. The way individuals regulate

their cognitive, affective, and behavioral psychological processes while playing video

games relates to their abilities to cope with the onslaught of information that video games

require for their mastery. The ability to self-regulate is directly related to the students’
motivation, player characteristics (explorers versus goal seekers), engagement,
experience, and emotions.
Recommendations

This dissertation is one of the ﬁrst of its kind to use a mixed-method and
naturalistic approach to examine learning with games. Based on the results of this study,
there are several implications or recommendations that could be made for learning from
games or designing games for learning. These recommendations affect teachers,

researchers, policy-makers, designers of games, and parents.

Learning from Games: For Teachers, Researchers, Policymakers and Parents

In Experience and Education, Dewey (1 93 8) spoke of students learning from
situations that are connected to their experiences. Dewey went on to say that traditional
educational curriculum is rigid, ignores individuality and the child’s interests and
capacity while new education ignores the past and welcomes individual interests,
capacity, experience and freedom. For Dewey (1938), a combination of the two types of
curricula was needed. Simulation strategy games, such as RC T 3, combine these two
types of curricula. It iS rigid with its rules, yet it values individual differences, interests,
capacities, and experiences with various avenues to success using one set of learning

objectives while teaching students during gameplay. This is a humanistic perspective; it

167

.—- -—-.-—-l
J

 

combines traditional education curricula with modern education which recognizes and
attempts to embrace various cultures that represents the diversity of the world. It has
serious implications for enhancing students’ interest and learning in multiple disciplines
and content areas in and out of school settings. RCT 3 and games of the sort allows
participants to see various aspects of themselves in gaming activities by way of role-
playing and allowing individual interests to grow through possible selves.

Based on this study’s results, it is recommended that school environments utilize
some of the affordances of RCT 3 and games of the genre to enhance learning and
motivation to learn, while reducing the perception of being a high stakes and high stress
testing environment making students believe that learning should always be de-
motivating and stressful. There is no reason why schools cannot be both an environment
that nurtures students’ interests while simultaneously assessing knowledge gains in
engaging ways. In RCT 3, gameplay and knowledge construction was hard, but not de-
motivating. Participants committed themselves to being successful at it and were not
afraid of the difﬁcult and sometimes frustrating task. This is what Papert (1997) referred
to as hard fun: enjoyment derived from a challenging but meaningful learning
experience, or as Gee (2003) said, an experience “that is or should be both frustrating and
life enhancing” (p. 6). The complexities of the game, the perceived stress-free and low-
risk conditions, the scaffolds or “on demand and just-in-time theories” for learning (Gee,
2005a), the challenging yet doable and engaging activities made participants value the
task, cope with the tasks, and remain amenable to learn the disciplinary knowledge and
skills afforded by gameplay. Irnportantly, they perceived the activity as relevant and

meaningful and being neither high stress nor in a high stakes situation as in schools. This

168

 

 

would help students to be more open to engage in activities that may require high stakes
testing but may promote a positive experience that honors the humanistic perspective. As
it is now, students perceive school learning as high stakes testing in high stress
environments.

It is also recommended while enacting these affordances in virtual worlds, that
careful consideration be made to reduce the chances of students developing naive
understandings of the disciplinary knowledge that relates to Virtual worlds and the real-
world. Participants constructed knowledge and Skills, but they also displayed some naive
understanding about what strategies or principles they applied in the game that could be
applied as is in the real-world.

For teachers it is important for them to play games to get closer to students and to
help them determine the genre and usefulness of games as their learning goals. This
would also help them to use the best available pedagogy to guide students in learning
before choosing a game to support a concept they are trying to teach. In the game, the
interactivity dictates pedagogy, and some pedagogy are better than others depending on
the nature of the content to be learned.

This study highlighted the power of mixed-methods, multidisciplinary studies,
and innovative assessments to better understand learning during gameplay. It is
recommendal that future studies continue to develop the incremental scenario tests
which attempted testing for knowledge at natural breaks after levels or scenarios to get an

incremental knowledge gain in disciplinary knowledge and skills.

169

 

Designing Games for Learning

It is also evident that situated learning when viewed through embodied cognition
has implications for transfer knowledge. In this study, multiple scenario coverage
allowed for more contexts and opportunities to see how principles are applied in different
contexts. Participants played the game for up to 7 weeks and this may have had some
impact in developing a better understanding of disciplinary knowledge and skills and not
transfer. Thus, it is important for researchers and designers to provide multiple scenarios 6
for players to engage in play and that these scenarios focus on learning goals. This is
crucial because it also provides an avenue for which designers could build games that do
not take much time to play and learn, but are still challenging and engaging.

In addition, the process of learning considering player characteristics, play styles
and motivation orientations should also be considered when thinking about designing
games for learning. Player characteristics and motivation orientation is related to how
players play games and playing the game is how the process of learning takes place.

For both designing games and learning from games or virtual worlds, it is
recommended that researchers and designers focus on the genre of the game to determine
the type of interactivity that is best for players to play and learn at the same time. The
genre of the game is an indicator of the game designer’s design stance and can be useful
in determining the kinds of choices for interactions, representations, the nature of choices
and progress in gameplay. These can be seen as an implicit pedagogical approach with

implicit learning theories.

170

 

Research on Games for Learning

For research on game-based learning in education, researchers should focus on
game genres and disciplinary knowledge. This is supported by work from researchers
such as Mishra and Koehler (2006), who argue that any integration of technology in
education should consider the relationship of pedagogy and content. The simulation
strategy genre dictated game play and hence the pedagogy of the game. Therefore, it is
recommended that designers and researchers provide gaming environments that utilize
activity based scenarios, focus on learning goals, and combine content and pedagogy
seamlessly. More research is needed to explore the nuances of game genres and
disciplines in games and learning. In addition, more research is needed to explore activity
based scenarios games for gameplay in classrooms and gameplay outside of classroom
for longer play times.

The purpose of this study was to examine learning in games using a
representative simulation strategy game. The study used one game and had favorable
results based on the methods used to address the research questions. It Should be
replicated and expanded. For future studies, the researcher may use more than one game
to represent different genres in order to explain learning in games from multiple genres.
The researcher may also examine gender differences in genres while reﬁning the
methodology employed in this dissertation. In this study, the researcher found that the
incremental scenario tests could be effective, but they require better design to have test
alignment.

Another step to be taken is to examine games in the classroom. This would be

done for two reasons: 1) in this study students stated that learning in schools was high

171

1.7. 1 nan-“q:

 

stress and high stakes, and 2) to better evaluate games and current education curricula.
The researcher plans to write grants to the NSF to start researching and designing games
or virtual worlds for learning science from the humanistic perspective. Clearly this game
was not designed for use with school curricula; however, it gave insight into how
researchers could better understand what characteristics are needed when designing a

game for use with the school curricula for any given content area.

1-‘ ...II al.131

Limitations of Study

Like all research, there are several key limitations to note. The study was seven
weeks long and qualiﬁes as one of the ﬁrst longitudinal mixed-methods studies on game-
based learning; however, had it been done over a longer duration, the results would have
been more conclusive. The study started with 30 participants and concluded with 26. It
would be quite beneﬁcial if the study had more participants for quantitative purposes.
The pragmatic paradigm of this study (trying to ﬁnd out what works), dictated that its
aim was not to provide universal claims about games and learning. Rather, it sought to
examine the claims about learning and game from one representative game of the
simulation strategy genre to better understand the role of games in learning within similar
games.

This study used one game, but it could easily be expanded to use more than one
game of different genres to get a better effect of the genres and games on learning. One
game was used rather than multiple games to investigate what works to address the gaps
discussed in game-based studies. Thus, the study was not comparing games or game
genres. More games with different genres will be studied later. Additionally, the

resources within the dissertation such as the duration of the study, the cost of buying

172

more than one game for a good sample of children, and the required time for one person
doing the comprehensive analysis needed for data generated from the study using the

discussed games and learning approach made it difﬁcult to examine more than one

representative game. One game allowed the researcher to examine how learning occurred

with a comprehensive and systematic focus on game genre, pedagogy, and content using
the games and learning approach.

The collection of data external to the game changed the notion of typical
gameplay because it was not the same as students playing in their basements or data
being collected/logged by the game during gaming. The study attempted to be as
naturalistic to a typical game playing setting as possible by capturing much of the
essential social elements of gameplay when people play together freely, and play
whatever way they choose. Test data was collected at natural game intervals, such as
after scenarios, and this did not change or interfere with normal gameplay actions.

In addition, in Study 2 the researcher was an observer. Hayes (1992) argues that
participant observers are usually visitors because they only come to observe and this
causes a researcher effect since they are not insiders, and there is no expectation of
loyalty from participants. Hence, they inﬂuence the results of the study in that
participants may behave differently before them because there is no trust or loyalty
expectations (Hayes, 1992). This effect was minimized in this study by the unobtrusive

video observation of participants. Also, the researcher spent seven weeks with the

participants in nonthreatening Situations getting to know them and interacting with them.

One researcher collected data. Ideally having more than one researcher would

provide different perspectives on the data and inter-rater reliability. From an executive

173

as .3. mam-nag
' 1'1

l ..
o

 

view of the overall study, acting as a moderate observer and an interviewer in Study 2,
and as a participant in Study 1 is not the most valid way of doing research for some
research paradigms (Adams St Pierre, 2002). This could have impacted the validity of the
study because the researcher could have been tempted to be biased in getting good
results, or the participants may have felt like they had to answer in a certain way to
provide the researcher with what he desired. Thus, the researcher was vigilant to be
objective and critical. In addition, participants were blind to the content for which the
researcher was looking; their assumption was they played the game to learn. However,
playing all three roles by the researcher allowed for the researcher to get a
comprehensive and reliable View of the big picture as well as to focus on the details for
interpretation. It also allowed participants to develop trust with the researcher and
reduced reactivity or participant effects (Hayes, 1992). This does not detract from the
fact that as interviewers, researchers tend to interpret what participants tell them through
their own lens, which paints the world from the researchers’ point of View (Johnson,
2002). Thus, being the researcher, moderate observer, and participant in Study 1 who has
played the game helped the researcher to draw upon his personal knowledge and
experience to present as authentic as possible a representation of what participants
experienced and said. This perspective is supported by Johnson (2002), who argues for
in-depth interviewing and researchers implicitly drawing upon their stock of knowledge
to present the views of participants.

Finally, the study did not have inter-rater reliability. This may have impacted the

overall results; however, the researcher deliberately provided multiple and competing

174

 

data sources for triangulating information that would giving some assurance of
qualitative ﬁndings during the coding for ground theory and content analysis.

Summary of A cknowledgement of the Presence of Bias in Data

The interview questions and other assessments were written by the researcher and

reviewed by consulting faculty members who have experience in creating assessments

9L

and content knowledge to help reduce bias. The results of the interviews, observations

-.v. ...;-rm 20.411

(video and participant), log-sheet data, and background survey were compiled, organized,
and analyzed, and in each case the researcher was careful to reﬂect on the actions and i 1
intent of participants while taking into considerations his own Views; however, the
writing of the questions and the selections and organization of the results inherently, but
unintentionally involves researcher bias.
Conclusions

Games-based learning is a contested terrain with both proponents and opponents
arguing about the beneﬁts of games for learning. The ﬁndings of this study indicate that
learning of core disciplinary ideas from games is possible. However, it is a complex
process dependent on player type, and the nature of game play. Thus, one beneﬁt of
games is to use it to enhance disciplinary knowledge in motivationally valuing ways.

This study can inform the design of better games for learning and suggest ways
in which such games can be integrated into the curriculum. The framework used in this
study can inﬂuence decision makers and researchers about selecting and designing games
for learning. This study is an example of how to focus on games, content, and genres. It
used a well known technological framework for integrating technology into curriculum

or content and pedagogy (see TPACK.org). Teachers can use it to identify which games

 

175

such as RC T 3 would be most appropriate for their classroom in integrating the game as
technology into their curriculum (match their learning objectives).

This research supports the arguments for mixed methods research on learning
from media. It also provided a comprehensive View of assessing games for learning by
highlighting the power of interdisciplinary research using theoretical ideas from media
studies, education, and psychology.

Finally, this study showed that despite students’ doubts regarding learning
“school” content through play, participants developed their knowledge in core economics
concepts as well as skills with technology. The combination of quantitative and
qualitative analysis of data allowed us to develop a richer conception of just how this
learning occurs and the kinds of player characteristics that support learning. Future
research needs to build on these ﬁndings to develop a more comprehensive

understanding of how these powerful digital tools can enhance learning.

176

sun—ﬂ

 

Appendices

Appendix A
Affordances for Learning in RCT3

This chapter reports the results from study one — the game analysis done by the
researcher in deciding to use RollerCoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum (RC T 3) and determining
its affordances for learning disciplinary knowledge (economics and social studies) and
skills (information and technology knowledge). The researcher played RC T 3 and
analyzed its content and pedagogy within the limits of the game technology to determine
the affordances for learning disciplinary knowledge and skills, including social studies,
economics, information literacy, and technology literacy. In previous chapters, the
researcher outlined the rationale, purpose, literature review and the TPACK framework,
and methodology for the study. This chapter reiterates some of the information in the
literature review and method sections because it reports results from preparatory work to
support those sections using the TPACK framework.

Before choosing the game, the researcher played the game for more than six
months, read and made notes about basic microeconomic and foundational economic
principles, and read information about RCT 3 relating to its genre, content, and
popularity. In addition, the researcher consulted an economics professor who was
knowledgeable about the Tycoon series of games with the following general questions in
mind: What level of economics and skills are possible to be learned in the game, and
what type of questions could be asked to assess knowledge of what students learn about

economics and social studies in the game? After the data was analyzed by contextual and

177

_ n ..v- .arngangi
.-

 

content analysis, the researcher deﬁnitively selected the game RC T 3 because of the
following reasons:

1) The Tycoon series of games is popular and representative of its genre,

2) It has a good mix of disciplinary knowledge with gameplay,

3) The game has an “E” for everyone rating so children can play it,

4) The simulation strategy genre is very popular in the computer game industry,

5) It caters to both boys and girls via gameplay.

The analysis also aided the researcher in determining an appropriate methodology
and assessments for the study.

This chapter is organized by ﬁrst describing RCT 3 followed by results of the
analyses of the content of RCT 3 (primarily economics, social studies, mathematics, and
information and technology literacy) and pedagogy (how the game genre allows play to
proceed and players to learn). There is also a brief description of the game technology
(description of the game’s structural elements such as levels, icons, interactivity).
Though these three components are described separately, they do not operate that way in
the game. In fact, it is the game technology (as used here) that interacts with the
simulation strategy genre to determine the pedagogy of the game.

About RC T 3

The computer game RollerCoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum (RC T 3) was released on
November 7, 2006. It is the latest economic Simulation strategy game in the
RollerCoaster Tycoon series of games which were ﬁrst designed and developed by Chris
Sawyer in 1999 (Sawyer, 1999). Overall the RollerCoaster Tycoon series has seen three
major games in the series due to its popularity as indicated by sales units. These titles

includes RollerCoaster Tycoon (RC T) - 1999 (Sawyer, 1999), RollerCoasterTycoon 2 —
178

2002 (Sawyer, 2002), and RollerCoaster T ycooon 3 — 2004 (Frontier Developments,
2004). Each major title spawned expansion packs that were sold as individual games.
Overall there are 13 titles in the series with the most recent being RollerCoaster Tycoon
3 : Platinum which was released on November 21, 2006 (Frontier Developments, 2006).
It includes a combination of RC T 3, which has all the elements of previous RCT games,
including new 3-D views of the games, as well as everything from the expansion packs
of Soaked! - a water park building theme park game - and Wild! — a safari-type theme
park building game. RC T 3 : Platinum gameplay combines everything from RCT 3,
Soaked! and Wild!

RollerCoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum was chosen to be used in this study for several
reasons. First, it is representative of the other games within the Simulation strategy genre
such as Civilization IV in that it requires an observation and intervention level of
interactivity. Second, it is also in a very popular genre as indicated by game sales.
According to the Entertainment Software Association (2006; 2007), in 2005 and 2006
the strategy genre of games was the best selling computer game genre, accounting for
over 30.8% and 35.4% respectively of the market-Share for computer games sold. The
percentage of games sold indicates the popularity of the genre. Third, the ‘E’ for
everyone rating of RCT 3 places it in a rating category which accounted for most of the
games sold in 2005 and 2006 at 53% and 55% respectively. For the year 2005, the year
of relevant statistic based on when the title was released (late 2004), RCT 3 was ranked
5“1 in overall sales for the number of units sold (Entertainment Software Association,
2006). In addition, it was the only ‘E’ game ranked in the top ﬁve for computer games

sold in 2005. Other simulation strategy games in the top ﬁve were The SIMS 2 and The

179

 

 

SIMS 2: University expansion pack (Entertainment Software Association, 2006). The top
ﬁve ranking within a genre that accounted for one-third of the computer games sold in
2005 illustrates the popularity and representativeness of the game with game players.
Fourth, the game combines disciplinary knowledge of economics and social studies, and
Skills including information literacy and technology literacy with gameplay in order to
achieve its objectives and eventual goal to build and operate the business of theme parks.
It does this without saying explicitly to children that they will be learning economics,
social studies, information literacy, and technology literacy. Basic physics principles and
mathematics may also be learned while playing the game. This is important because
children tend to disengage from games that are explicit in their objectives to teach about
some educational content (Laurel, 2003). Fifth, the game caters to both genders because
it does not have explicit Violence, except for rollercoaster disasters in crashing. It
requires players to be empathetic and consider the needs of guests in their park. RCT 3
does not have explicit scoring to measure player performance so both genders may feel at
ease in a non-competitive atmosphere. The game tries to simulate a realistic experience
and in doing so it places the player in a role as a real human being managing resources
and also as a virtual player building in a virtual theme park. These are characteristics that
tend to appeal to girls because of the more realistic role and to boys because of the more
Virtual role. Heeter et al., (In Press) argue that characteristics such as empathy, little
violence, no explicit measuring of performance, and having both realistic and virtual
roles appeals to both genders in computer games.

The aim of the game is to complete objectives and scenarios while redesigning or

building the best amusement park and generating as much proﬁt as possible while

180

AJL‘. -"'
u. .
,1
r
k

managing other resources such as time, money, workers, and land space. The design and
building of the theme park is directly related to game knowledge including technology
literacy and information literacy skills. Learning how to play the game, understanding the
content, and applying the content iS related to knowledge of proﬁt, cost-beneﬁt,
opportunity cost, scarcity, supply and demand and pricing. Learning by doing in
managing the resources and redesigning or building in RC T 3 requires balancing ..
constraints and affordances in the game while working within a particular scenario.

The game like others in the simulation strategy genre allows players to control
whole systems and make decisions about how to manage the system (the virtual world).
In RCT 3, players control the theme park from managing resources, training, disciplining
workers, building rides, and trying to maintain a beautiful and clean park by adding
amenities while also entertaining visitors and VIP’S. Players can design their own theme
park with rollercoasters and other rides or they can modify existing parks and purchase
existing rides developed from research. Players must also meet the needs of guests
visiting their park by building facilities such as food stalls, drink stands, ATMS,
information booths, bathrooms, benches and many more amenities. Central to the game
is that players must manage their resources (time, land space, money, and workers) and
balance their budgets in expenses and income. Players must also consider the affordances
of their designs of rides with respect to the in game (virtual ecological) needs as dictated
by terrain, Space, and available money. In addition, they must meet their personal needs
in how they want to design the park and they must also satisfy guests’ needs for a certain

level of excitement, park type, food, ride intensity, etc. They may also allocate money for

181

 

research to develop rides, attractions, and other amenities. They may also do advertising
or run marketing campaigns in order to publicize the park and rides.

Technology: RC T 3 game

RCT 3 is a computer-based economic simulation strategy game for building
amusement parks. It has a steep learning curve in the beginning because it requires
players to deal with game objectives (see Tables 30, 31, and 32) while trying to
understand gameplay tools which have many visual elements. These include: 1)
navigating with the use of a computer mouse and keyboard, 2) focusing on a computer
screen which has many icons and symbols that each have more icons when clicked (See
Figure 4). Each icon represents either a tool or a gateway to many more tools for building
or getting information about your theme park. 3) It requires players to quickly grasp the
game content in order to be successful. 4) The gameplay changes from scenario to
scenario because of different game requirements such as objectives, in speciﬁc visual
settings (see Tables 30, 31, and 32) but navigation is the same. While gameplay visual
information and/or objectives may change, the game is still soliciting the same type of
psychological or physiological skills over and over, but with increasing complexity
within each scenario. For instance, it requires continual tinkering (trial and error) to
ﬁgure out how to use the terrain tools, or building waterfalls, or thinking about satisfying
guests and yourself while meeting game objectives. The thinking and tinkering required
for these processes builds critical thinking skills and problem solving Skills as well as
design and creativity Skills. These skills are required in every level and scenario of RC T 3
but with various objectives. This is what Gee (2003; 2007) calls cycles of expertise, a

necessary precursor to enhancing or developing creativity and other Skills.

182

Tut-‘-

.-_\L.-q.

 

There are 18 scenarios in RCT 3 and each has three levels — Apprentice,
Entrepreneur, and Tycoon. Only the ﬁrst six scenarios were used in this study. The six
scenarios used include Vanilla Hills, Gold Rush, Checkered Flags, Box Oﬂice, Fright
Night, and Go With The Flow (see Tables 30, 31, and 32). In all of the scenarios, players
start in a theme park with a certain amount of money, which they must use in the park to
generate more money by adding rides and satisfying the needs of guests in various ways
such as keeping the park clean, providing enough food, meeting their ride wants, and
setting prices. The aim is always to build the best park in terms of value — park ratings,
park proﬁt, number of people in the park, beauty of the park, ride reliability, efﬁcient

workers, and prizes or achievements depending on the requirements of the scenario.

183

Table 30: Description of Vanilla Hills and Gold Rush Scenarios and Level Requirements

 

Vanilla Hills

The Vanilla Hills are the starting point on
your meteoric — or not — rise to
RollerCoaster Tycoon status. Can you
turn this plot into the peeps talk of the
town? Your rating as Apprentice,
Entrepreneur, or Tycoon depends on it.

Gold Rush

Now’s your chance to hit paydirt by using this unstable,
abandoned mining area to showcase low-rise coasters.
Over time your coasters must start to make up in
adrenaline what they lack in height to keep your claimed
stake with the visitors.

 

1. Apprentice
a. Guests in Park: 400
Condition can be achieved at any time

b. Minimum park value:
$20,000.00
Condition can be achieved at any time

1. Apprentice
a. Minimum excitement: 3
i. Two coasters
b. Minimum Length: 1000.66ft
1. Two coasters
c. Total Monthly ride income: $300.00
Condition can be achieved at anytime

 

2. Entrepreneur
3. Guests in park: 500
Condition can be achieved at any time

b. Minimum park value:
$60,000.00
Condition can be achieved at any time

2. Entrepreneur
a. Repay loan
Condition can be achieved at any time.

b. Total monthly ride income: $500.00
Condition can be achieved at any time.

 

3. Tycoon
a. Guests in park: 600
Condition can be achieved at any time

b. Minimum park value:
$100,000.00
Condition can be achieved at any time

 

 

3. Tycoon
a. Minimum excitement: 4
1. Three coasters
b. Minimum length: 1213.91 ft
i. Three coasters
c. Total monthly ride income: $700.00
Condition can be achieved at any time.

 

184

 

Table 31: Description of Checkered Flags and Box Office Scenarios and Level

Requirements

 

Checkered Flag

Formula RCT has made a pit-stop in town! It’s
not going to be easy taking this crowd for a
joyride, but put the pedal to the metal and go
for a spin anyhow. Don’t forget to buckle up!

Box Office

Look out, unamusing amusement parks! A movie
studio has cast you in the role of superhero. Not for
a movie, but for the daunting task of updating its
aging back-lot park without ruining its pedigreed
heritage. You’re the producer, the director, and the
star of the Show. Can you deliver the blockbuster
the studio wants?

 

1. Apprentice
a. VIP (Clint Bushton)

i. Arrives: 16 May —
wants to visit one rollercoaster,
with excitement rating of at least
4.00

b. Total monthly shop proﬁt:
$100.00
Condition can be achieved at anytime

I. Apprentice
a. Park Rating: 300
i. Sustained for at least 1 month
b. VIP (Cami O)
i. Arrives: 7 May
ii. Litter Tolerance: Low

 

2. Entrepreneur
a. VIP (Clint Bushton)

i. Arrives 25 July — wants
to visit one rollercoaster, with
excitement rating of at least 5.00

b. Total monthly shop proﬁt:
$150.00
Condition can be achieved at anytime

2. Entrepreneur
a. VIP (Cam 0)
i. Arrives: 19 July
ii. Breakdown Tolerance:
medium
b. Park rating: 500
i. Sustained for at least 2
months
0. Total monthly shop proﬁt: $100.00
Condition can be achieved at any time

 

 

3. Tycoon
VIP (Clint Bushton)
a. Arrives 13 May — wants to visit
one rollercoaster, with excitement rating
of at least 6.00
b. Total monthly shop proﬁt:
$200.00

Condition can be achieved at anytime

 

3. Tycoon
VIP (Cami O)

a. Arrives: 8 October

b. Wants to visit one rollercoaster with

excitement rating of at least 7.00
c. Park Rating: 700
i. Sustained for at least 3
months

 

185

 

 

 

Table 32: Description of F right Night and Go With The Flow Scenarios and Level

 

Requirements
Fright Night Go With the Flow
Forget about haunted houses and costumed Get ready to cool off. Put your park-building skills
characters, because cheap thrills just don’t to work in this watery wonderland to create a park
scare the teens in this town. You’ll need to worthy of this spectacular setting — and one that can
give them something they can really scream soak up as much cash from your guests as possible.

about — like roller coasters that would scare the It’s sink or swim!
hair off a werewolf.

 

 

l. Apprentice l. Apprentice
a. Minimum excitement: 5
i. J ' TWO COﬂStefS a. Minimum park value: $15,000.00
b- Mmrmum length: 524-93 ft 1. Sustained for at least 1 month.
1- TWO 003816” b. Total monthly ride income: $100.00
c. Total monthly ride income:
5200-00 Conditioned can be achieved at any time

Conditioned can be achieved at anytime

 

2. Entrepreneur 2 Entrepreneur
a. Minimum excitement: 6 a. Minimum park value: $30,000.00
i. Two coasters i. Sustained for at least 2
b. Minimum length: 1017.06 ft months
1. Two coasters b. Total monthly ride income: $200.00
c. Repay Loan Condition can be achieved at any time

Condition can be achieved at any time

 

 

3. Tycoon 3 Tycoon
a. Minimum excitement: 7 a. Minimum park value: $45,000.00
1. Two coasters i. Sustained for at least 3
b. Minimum length: 1509.19 ft months
1. Two coasters b. Total monthly ride income: $300.00
c. Total monthly ride income:
$600.00
Condition can be achieved at any time. Condition can be achieved at any time

 

 

 

 

Pedagogy: How does the game teach players and facilitate navigation

Pedagogy, the principles and methods of teaching, in a video game is connected
to the genre of the game. The video game genre dictates the interactivity, which is the
way the game, is experienced (Apperley, 2006). Researchers contend that the

classiﬁcation of video game genres by interactivity is a good method because Video

186

 

games have very speciﬁc objectives (learning goals) that a player tries to complete, and
thus, also have speciﬁc interactions, which the player carries out (Apperley, 2006; Wolf,
2001). The intentions of the player are often clear and can be analyzed as part of the
game (Wolf, 2001). Wolf argues that video games objectives provide the motivation to
play when combined with the various forms of interactivity within a game. A game may
fall into multiple genres because the interactivity of the game may be divided into steps
with multiple objectives, which inﬂuences the ﬁt of the game in various classiﬁcations or
genres. Thus, due to different actions and multiple objectives in video games, a game
may straddle more than one genre.

RCT 3 combines simulation and strategy genre features. In addition, it is often
described as an economic game. This describes the nature of the content of the game;
however, simulation strategy describes the nature of the interactivity, part of the way the
game is experienced.

Being an economic Simulation strategy game, RCT 3 also falls under the broader
genre of strategy games, which consists of tum-based strategy (TBS) games such as the
Civilization series (Briggs & Johnson, 2001; Soren Johnson, 2005; Meier, 1991;
Reynolds, Caspian-Kaufman, & Briggs, 1996) and real-time strategy (RTS) games such
as The SIMS. In addition, it has some simulation characteristics. Pure simulations try to
create real world representations. They are based on a system of expertise development
as in many games such as RCT 3; however, they do not contain rules that guide
exploration such as in games. They allow players to make mistakes, but they do not
provide immediate feedback about the mistake until the simulation indicates (visually or

aurally) that certain desired results are not achievable because somewhere in the progress

187

of play an error was made. Where the error was made is often not clear and must be
discovered by the user or player. RCT 3 does not provide immediate feedback on all
decisions; rather, it allows players to progress whether or not a player is making choices
that will allow him/her to progress to a new level and scenario. The game, however, does
give feedback on mistakes in that if an objective is not fulﬁlled, a player cannot advance
to a new level. Players get this feedback clearly in the game by not advancing. It is also

clear to players what goals they should meet to achieve objectives and eventually pass

KL. £2.14"
9.. . . ._

levels (Apprentice, Entrepreneur, and Tycoon); however, it is not clear about the
processes involved in achieving these objectives. Therefore, players must learn about the
game and the content and how best to solve problems (objectives in RCT3) during
gaming.

Caldwell (2004) in his theoretical analysis of TBS games asserted that RTS
games and TBS are similar and belong in the same genre as they share a lot of the same
characteristics, including similar aesthetics, a general god eye-view and a tendency
towards photorealistic depictions. Apperley (2006) asserts that gameplay in strategy
games is associated with expert play. He contends that expert players contextualize
relationships between certain values within the game world to get the best outcomes,
while beginner players are engaged with the play of the game on the level of response.
That is, they do not strategize much; rather, they proceed by responding to actions in the
game — at the basic observing and intervening pedagogy. That said the genre is also
activity based around observation and intervention. That is, simulation strategy games
are characterized by Visual cues that draw attention in their Visual aesthetics (For

example, see Figure 13). Rather than facing a constant barrage of information such as in

188

ﬁrst-person shooters , players monitor a situation waiting for something that will require
their intervention while all the time contextualizing relationships and developing
expertise in the game. The level of interactivity in simulation strategy games and their

visual aesthetics are the two main elements that characterize the genre and promote

gameplay.

       
 

mandarin-s: Ilium! been no- lured.
3 Roll- 0- Wane 2 has lust had to make an emergency stop.
i-Roll O-Planl 2 has been fixed.
a Roll 0 Plane 1 has Just had to man an morgency step.
i Rdl- O-Pl" htld.
One of your enclosures still hasn't been repaired.
enclosures still hasnt been repaired
9‘ Enterprise 2 has lust had to make an emergency stop.
E I

  
     
   
   
     
   
       
     
       
     
 
  
 
 
    
   
 
 

Staff

  

co r .
:t. $492.00 5°" ' '6‘
zest: . $114 84 $116 9‘ $11904 $11811 run", so
a 824.00 31,395 59 swam sum 0.
' ‘ ' Janitor 10 5.
$689.70 $746.00 $311.70 $864.90 $66.00 I
. Sweeping . .
7y “3

$166. 90 $200.65 $229.55 $268.05 $16.50 Jamar u

558 55 $72.15 $10120 $119.05 $7 on
$384 .90 $383.90 $404.90 $373.40 $31.10
$16110 $15920 IIGON $158.55 31280

5619 50 $620.50 $624 6) $624 00

$203 19 $2015} $200 45 $206 92 £13 36
$32 48 $32 48 $32 48 $65 00

$560 00 $141.00
$506.26 [247 63 $1,196 01 $74 72 $80.44

   

me 930. no
Al. £111 732. 4a

 
  
  

7. Hide empty categories

- mt
Isabelle H: “Loop- 0- Plan! 1 is a really good um."
Al N: 'I win to bongo

       

C

 
   

Figure 13: Some Visual Cues That Draw Players’ Attention While Observing

Players may also plan ahead as a game playing strategy by looking at the
requirements for all the levels and then building and satisfying Tycoon level
requirements. This may allow players to progress faster through the game Since
satisfying Tycoon requirements usually means you will also have satisﬁed Apprentice
and Entrepreneur requirements. For instance, to satisfy Tycoon requirements in Gold
Rush (see Figure 14) a player must build extra rollercoasters that are longer and with

higher excitement levels. Thus, by planning ahead, a player may satisfy both Apprentice

189

and Tycoon requirements. This speeds up their progress. Expert players may plan ahead
rather than only play by observation and intervention methods. Time, in terms of speed
of building the rollercoasters, is important in Gold Rush, Checkered Flags and Fright
Night because players are given a lot of money at the beginning, but the money is quickly
used up on other needs by the game’s artiﬁcial intelligence to help run the park. Thus,
looking ahead and building rollercoasters (usually expensive) saves players time and
money. Satisfying these requirements can allow players to learn about the importance of
using land space wisely in placing or building rides in good locations and at the same

value time and money.

0 8cene_rio objectives

Goldrush!

Now' 5 your chance to hit paydirt by using this unstable i
abandoned mining area to showcase low- -rise coasters. Over time I
your coasters must start to make up in adrenaline what they lack J
i
I

 

 

in height to keep your claim staked with the visitors

Q Apprentice
i Q Entrepreneur

|
i Tycoon
‘ Minimum exotement: 4
Three coasters.
Minimum length: 1213.91“:
Three coasters.
Total monthl'v‘ ride Income: $7130.00
Condition can be achieved at any time.

 

Figure 14: Scenario Objectives for Gold Rush, the Second Scenario

190

Interactivity in RC T 3 allows progress in the game via an immediate or delayed
feedback system in achieving game objectives. The game teaches players in subtle ways,
such as when a VIP visits a player’s park. If the player did not fulﬁll the objectives set
out to satisfy the VIP, RCT 3 provides immediate feedback to say that “you failed to
satisfy the VIP,” and you will be given another opportunity in a year (April to November
in the game) or the next month. In cases where players are building rides and doing
landscaping, the game provides immediate feedback with visual cues that indicate if the
ride is completed and in working condition or if the land has been deformed by creating
small hills, valleys, or undulating surfaces that disconnect walking paths. In both cases of
building rides and landscaping, instructional feedback is given in actions that adversely
affect the value of a park and the speed of play in the game. For instance with a ride that
is not completed properly, the game tells you it cannot be opened for riders. Three color
coded circular visual icons provide feedback on ride readiness (red indicates completed
but not ready to be open, yellow indicates you are getting there but some essential part of

the ride is still missing, and green indicates the ride is ready to be open) (see Figure 15).

191

Open or Close
D

  

‘I‘

Figure 15: Three Colors Coded Circular Visual Icon for Opening and Closing Rides

In other cases, such as when a player is suppose to generate a certain amount of
total sales per month from shops and stalls, let’s say $200, if a player cannot ﬁnd the best
way to provide the conditions to get that amount in sales each month, the game does not
provide help or feedback. The player must instead engage in problem-solving such as
through actions in exploration and/or trial and error until the problem is resolved. That is,
the player must use land space wisely to build shops in optimal locations in the park
(front vs. rear of park) and ensure that there are a lot of people in the park to purchase
goods and services. In order to have a lot of people in the park, the player must have a
signiﬁcant number of rides and other amenities to support a large number of people in a
park. Thus, the player must progress through several stages of play in order to meet the
objective of $200 in shop sales. This is the sort of play process and approach that is
required for each objective and level in RC T 3. It is in these moments of solving game

problems that students are able to learn about supply and demand, the importance of a

192

good location, scarcity, opportunity cost, pricing, the parts needed to run a system, and

managing resources such as time and space. They also have the opportunity to develop

information and technology literacy skills through game knowledge.

Table 33: Example of Analysis of Scenarios

 

Vanilla Hills

Gold Rush

 

Apprentice Level: increase number of rides and
company cash which will increase park value and
guests in park - requires managing the given
$10,000 which includes a $5000 loan at 3.9%/yr by
making decisions that will affect the number of
patrons in the park and park value. Decisions such
as the types of ride- several smaller ones or one
big expensive and exciting ride.

Managing workers, their training and wages;
Research, ride ticketing, food and drink sales and
stock, loan interest. Patron attitude, park
cleanliness, number of workers, loan interest and
ride reliability may be overlooked because reaching
the goals here is easy with main focus on increasing
number of rides and placing food and drink stands.

Apprentice Level: no paid workers:

Under $12,000 with $1000 loan at lO.9°/o/yr.
Given three rides including one rollercoaster.
Given just under $12000, the level can be
achieved by building or buying a rollercoaster
from the available ones in the library that are
over lOOOﬁ long and have an excitement level
of at least 3. More research increases the
number of available rides and park tools. By
increasing ticket prices for rides, monthly ride
ticket sales will go up.

Workers will have to be employed and paid.
This affects ride reliability, and park
cleanliness and value. Food and drinks will
have to be provided. What happens if they
are not provided since they are not
required to fulﬁll achievement?

 

Entrepreneur level: Same as Apprentice —
reiteration of skills but with increased complexity.
Taking into consideration ride value, food value,
park cleanliness, ride reliability, patrons’ attitudes,
and ride reliability.

More patrons mean more trash in the park —
increase budget for park maintenance and amenities
- more janitors. More rides means more mechanics,
more payment for salary, need for more food and
sanitary conditions (bathrooms, bins), better
looking park means more patrons and receiving
good awards. Bad looking park and also a chance to
receive negative rewards. Manage workers attitude.
React to patrons views about the rides and your
decisions enhance the park value.

Repaying the loan can be achieved easily, but
this decrease available cash.

How does repaying a loan affect what you
can do in your park? How does it affect
available cash?

Increasing the number of rides and the ticket
prices will increase monthly ticket sales and
money. Good rides

 

Tycoon level: Same as entrepreneur - reiteration of
skills but with increased complexity

 

 

Tycoon level: Same as Apprentice level -
reiteration of skills but with increase
complexity

 

193

 

Table 34: Example of Possible Economics and Social Studies Concepts to be learned
within a Scenario

 

Scenario Vanilla Hills

 

Apprentice Level: opportunity cost, scarcity (cash), cost-beneﬁts, competition (rides), trade-offs

 

Entrepreneur level: opportunity cost, scarcity (cash), cost-beneﬁts, competition (rides), trade-offs

 

 

Tycoon Level: opportunity cost, scarcity (cash), cost-benefits, competition (rides), trade-offs

 

 

A crucial pedagogical tool in RC T 3 is the icons or visual aesthetics. Icons play a
crucial role as part of video games technology due to their symbolic and interactive
nature. They are symbolic because they represent some action or give meaning to an
action. For instance in RCT 3, on the left of the screen is a long list of icons that represent
different doorways to tools or information for use in the game such as a Ferris wheel icon
that symbolizes or means “rides.” It also gives meaning to the action of building rides
when thought of in the context of the purpose of RCT 3 .

The interactive nature is based on a feedback loop. In this regard, icons are not
only symbolic, but they support or scaffold information via feedback. For instance, the
interactive drop down window has icons to the left of the textual information that give
hints about what needs attention in a theme park (see Figure 16). The icon to the left of
the textual information, when clicked takes you to the location of the park that needs
attention or requires ﬁxing. The icon also shows up in the bottom right comer with
available tools that gives access to it to be ﬁxed. The textual information tells the player
the nature of the problem. The combination of the technology with pedagogy (textual
hints, trial and error, exploration, observation and intervention combining with icons that
when clicked take the player to area of need) helps to promote a better understanding of
the gameplay and content. This may inﬂuence players’ development of knowledge while

playing the game and their speed of progress in the game. Speed of progress should be

194

 

important because it gives players a chance to have more exposure to different game

content and possibility to learn in multiple contexts.

Y in one week's time a VIP will arrive

IYou have won an award: Best Value

‘ Studio Tour has just had to make an emergency stop.
‘Studio Tour has been fixed.

YYou have satisfied the VIP, well done!

 

Figure 16: Icons on Left of Screen and Drop-down Screen Provides Information to
Guide Players

Interactivity and visual aesthetics individually aid in teaching players about the
game, but when combined they provide a very crucial genre characteristic that inﬂuences
the pedagogy of the game. Gee (2003) describes the pedagogy of the game as being
embedded in the design of the game. Observation and intervention is a major pedagogical
approach that is a result of the genre of the game that dictates the pace of the game and
visual aesthetics enhances the play. The pace and visual aesthetics drive the interactive
nature — observe and then intervene or strategize in planning ahead before a problem

occurs or to anticipate future needs of guests or to satisfy some design need of the player.

195

Content and Skills

Content in RCT 3 spans a wide range. It includes information about rollercoasters,
business, economics, social studies, capitalist ideals of buying and selling, mathematics,
physics, technological literacy, social relationships, ethics, and information literacy.
Analysis has shown that four of these areas can be learned in more depth than the others.
The four which were chosen to be focused on include economics, social studies, and
information and technology literacy skills. Economics and social studies are referred to
as the disciplinary knowledge areas, while information and technology literacy are
referred to as possible skills to be gained in gameplay.

Much of how and what is possible to be learned was discussed under the
preceding topic - Pedagogy: How does the game teach players and facilitate navigation.
Content and skills are learned when applying strategies to navigate and play the game.
Much of the economics that is possible to be learned in RCT 3 are microeconomics
principles, such as supply and demand or scarcity. Social studies encompass knowledge
of economics including production, managing resources, and helping young people
making informed decisions. RCT 3 is a production-economic focus game based on
managing resources such as money, time, workers, and space.

Information literacy encompasses being able to evaluate information critically,
creatively, efficiently, effectively, and competently. Technology literacy encompasses
knowledge about creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; research
and information ﬂuency; critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making; digital
citizenship; and technology operations and concepts. Thus, both overlap and can be

learned as a part of gameplay and developing game knowledge.

196

 

APPENDIX B

Examples of the Claims about the Affordances for Games and Learning

 

“Computer and video games can let students learn using the techniques of communities
of innovation — ways of learning that stress immersion in a practice, supported by
structures that lead to expertise, professional-like skills and innovative thinking” (Shaffer
& Gee, 2005, p. 1]).

 

Proﬁciency at game may afford players a temporary sense of mastery, control, and
achievement” that was previously found lacking.(Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004, p. 8)

 

Violent video games increase aggressive cognition, physiological arousal, and aggressive
behavior and affect and decrease prosocial behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2001;
Camagey & Anderson, 2004).

 

Simulator games can help in the development of all intellectual abilities and a mind for
machines ” (De Aguilera & Mendiz, 2003, p. 11).

 

Videogame playing empower players in a way that translates into real world activism
(civic activism) (Williams, 2004).

 

“Heavy use of computer games is associated with negative rather than positive outcomes
in terms of academic achievement, self-esteem and sociability” (Roe & Muijs, 1998, p.

l).

 

“Computer games and simulators enhance learning through visualization,
experimentation, and creativity of play. Increased learning occurs by problem solving in
a complex interactive multidisciplinary environment and by "seeing" causal relationships
between individual actions and whole systems” (Betz, 1996).

 

“Gaming in general is associated with introversion, lower empathic concern and low
feminine identity” (Grifﬁths & Davies, 2002, p. 379).

 

“Good games already possess the major components necessary to meet the needs for
sound instruction as outlined by both Gagné and Gardner” (Becker, 2005, p. 2).

 

 

“Game users are no more likely than non-game users to be involved in risk-taking
behavior” (Bosworth, 1994)

 

197

 

APPENDIX C

Background survey

Please answer the below questions to the best of your ability and as completely as you
can.
Name: ID# RCT3

.V‘PPEVL"

 

Gender: M _ F
How old are you?

What grade are you currently in? 5 6

Do you use a computer at home? Yes _ No _
What sort of media do you have in your household?

TV_

DVD/VCR—

MP3—

Video Game (Xbox, Nintendo, Playstation)__
Cell Phone—

How many hours do you read books each week?
1-6 hours _
7-10 hours _
l 1 or more hours___

Name 3 of your favorite books

Date:

 

 

 

 

Do you play games (computer, video, and arcade)? Yes __

How many hours do you play games each week?
1-6 hours

7-10 hours
11 or more hours

10. What types of electronic games do you like to play?-

No

 

 

 

 

198

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.
18.

19.

Name your three favorite games
1)
2)
3)

 

 

 

Does your family have rules that limit your daily use of your computer and game
playing? If Yes (go to 13, If No go to 15)
Yes , No

 

 

What rules does your family have to limit your use of computer and game playing?

 

 

 

If you have rules, how strictly are they followed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you play games, do you normally play alone or with others?
Mostly with others
Sometimes with others
Mostly alone

Have you ever been to an Amusement! Theme Park?
Yes
No

Which subject has been your favorite in school?

Please check all of the topics you have been taught in school.
Social studies Addition & Subtraction
Economics Multiplication & Division
Reading Percentage & Fraction
Internet Computer & Technology

What do you like doing in your spare

time?

 

 

 

20.

What would like to do as a career when you become an adult?

 

199

APPENDIX D

 

Knowledge assessment

 

 

 

 

 

Name: ID# RCT3___ Date:
Ride Cost to Maximum Actual Cost to Current Projected
Build a Riders per Number of pay for a income income at full
Ride hour Riders Ride per hour capacity per hour
A $5000 150 150 $4.00 $600/hr ?
B & C $5000 300 200 $3.00 $600/hr ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the chart above. It describes two choices that can be made about building new
rides at a theme park. Ride A has a longer duration for a ride than Ride B and C, allows 5
riders per turn and is more popular, but costs more. Rides B and C are two moderate
level rides which accommodates more riders than Ride A and are less popular.

1. Give or list 4 reasons using evidence from the chart why Ride A could be chosen?

 

 

 

 

 

2. Give or list 4 reasons using evidence from the chart why Rides B and C could be
chosen?

 

 

 

 

 

3. Which ride would make the most money per hour at full capacity?

A.
B.
C.
D.

9.0.57?

Ride A
Ride B
Ride C

Ride B and C

What is the best way to increase the value of a theme park?

add more expensive rides to gain money in the short term
delete expensive rides to get quick money
add more food and drinks option to satisfy park visitors
add more park facilities and less expensive rides with more capacity

200

 

5. You are the owner for a theme park and some people who visit your park prefer
bigger and very exciting rides that cost a lot of money to buy or build. What kinds of
ride would be most beneﬁcial to build if 60 of every 100 people in the park prefer to
pay for cheaper and moderately exciting rides while the other 40 prefer to pay for
bigger, very exciting, and expensive rides?

A. Smaller, moderately exciting, and cheaper rides

B. Bigger, very exciting rides, and expensive rides

C. Bigger, moderately exciting, and cheaper rides

D. Smaller, very exciting and expensive exciting rides

6. If you are the owner of an amusement park, identify the most beneﬁcial thing that
should be done if the patrons were not happy with the cost of a ride?

Make the ride more exciting
Advertise how much fun the ride is
Offer them discounts on other rides
Let them ride twice for a higher price

90!”?

7. You are the visitor to a theme park with all your favorite rides. However, you only
have $20.00 to pay for the rides and food. You noticed that the more exciting rides
cost more money. You want to go on 4 rides - 2 exciting roller coaster rides that cost
$7.00 and $6.00 and also 2 other rides - a race car ride for $4.00 and a cool water
rider for $3.00. However, you also have to buy a drink and hotdog for $6.00. If you
must ride on at least 3 rides, which combination of rides and food and drinks would
you choose to completely spend all your money?

 

Your Total Roller Roller Race car ride Water ride Food and drinks
Money coaster 1 coaster 2

 

$20.00 $7.00 $6.00 $4.00 $3.00 $6.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roller coaster 1, Roller coaster 2, Race car, Food and drinks
Roller coaster 1, Race car ride, Food and drinks, Water ride
Roller coaster 2, Race Car ride , Water ride, Roller coaster 1
Roller coaster 2, Race car, Food and drinks, Water ride

90?”?

8. It is most important for the rides in a park to be reliable because if they break down

owners lose time and money

riders will go to that ride more often

owners hire more employees

riders will leave the theme park and come back later

some

201

10.

ll.

12.

13.

If you owned an amusement park, which of the following would not be an important
reason for the rides in your park to be reliable?

Riders may get hurt

Riders will get angry

Riders will want to ride more oﬁen

Riders will not come back to your theme park in the future

some

When managing your company selling lemonade, increasing the price of the
lemonade will always increase the overall proﬁt you make? Circle the correct
response.

True
False

What happens when the price of a product is increased too high so less people can
buy that product?

A. More people will pay for the product

B. Fewer people will pay for the product

C. The product will make more money

D. The product will make the same amount of money

As the owner for Cedar Point amusement park, what do you think will happen in the
park if you do not keep the park clean and beautiful?

More people will come for the exciting and cool rides

Fewer people will come to the park

Theme parks are only about great rides; being clean is unimportant

More money is made because more people will go on rides rather than go
sightseeing

some

If you are a business person operating your own company, circle 3 things from the
list below that you would do to increase the popularity and demand of your product?

Advertise the product

Train workers to be nice about the product

Offer discounts for the product

Make a nice design of the product

Reduce the production of the product and increase prices
Increase the production of the product and reduce prices

Q‘SAPP’P?‘

202

14. From the list below circle the four (4) most important things you would sell in your
own theme park to make the most possible amount of money?

Food
Drinks
Candy
Ride tickets
Souvenirs
Ice cream
Balloons

SQE‘PP’PI‘

15. If you are working for a company that makes ice cream why do you think it would be
important for the company to train and pay you and other workers well for your job?
Circle the best 3 choices from the list below:

Make better ice cream

Trained workers perform better

Trained workers are always happier

Well paid workers are usually the best at their job
The company would make more money

Well paid workers are reliable

9999!”?

16. In a shopping center that you own, if the shops and facilities become too busy, what
would you do to make sure all the people who visit your shopping center are
receiving good service?

A. Keep the same number of shOps and facilities and decrease the prices to
increase demand.

B. Increase the number of shops and facilities to maintain the number of people.

C. Keep the same number of shops and facilities and increase the prices to
increase demand.

D. Leave the number of shops and facilities the same.

17. As the owner of an animal shelter, what is the most important thing you could do to
satisfy customer if the needs of animals and workers are ignored? Choose the best
response.

Fire workers and use more money to take care of the animals
Train the workers to increased animal care

Take animals away and reduce the number of workers
Increase the number of animals and workers

$7.09”?

203

Rubric

Transfer — info Ch. 3 - how people learn, page 830-831 of handbook of educational
psychology, and Greeno Collins Resnick 1996 article.

Ride A

Q1. 4 point — popular ride, longer ride, more money with less people, more bang for your
buck for patrons , rides at full capacity with less people.

Ride B and C — Game knowledge (opportunity cost, decision making, problem-
solving)

Q2. 4 point — Cheaper to build, costs less to patrons, more money in the long term at full
capacity, two rides increases park value more than one - Game knowledge(opportunity
cost, decision making, problem-solving)

Q3. D - l - Game knowledge (mathematics literacy — algebra, profit)
Q4. D. - 1 - Game knowledge

Q5. C. - 1 — near transfer Game knowledge (supply and demand,
scarcity, opportunity cost)

Q6. C - 1 — near transfer Game knowledge (social consequences of
decisions, incentives)

Q7. B - 2 — Game Knowledge (scarcity, decision making, problem
solving)

Q8. A - 1 — Game Knowledge (Time and Money, reliability, social
consequences of decisions)

Q9. C - l - Game knowledge (social consequences of decisions -
reliability)

Q10. False - Transfer - 1 - (proﬁt,

Q11. B — Transfer - l — (Supply and demand, opportunity cost)

Q12. B - near transfer 1 Game knowledge (social consequences of

decisions, supply and demand)
Q13. Advertise the product (Transfer) 3 — (Incentives, discounts, supply and
demand)
Offer discounts
Reduce the production and increase 6 prices
Q14. Food - near transfer 4 — (goods and services, proﬁt)
Drinks
Ride tickets
Souvenirs
Q15. Make better ice cream (Transfer) 3 (social consequences of decisions —
employer-employee)
Trained workers perform better
The company would make more money

Q16. B - Transfer 1 (supply and demand, social consequences
of decisions)

Q17. B — Transfer 1 (social consequences of decisions,
opportunity cost)

204

APPENDIX E

Pre - Motivational questionnaire

Name: ID# RCT3 Date:

 

 

Please read the following statements carefully and then answer to best of your ability by
circling the most appropriate response from 1 for strongly disagree to 6 for strongly
agree.

1. I believe playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum will be of some value to me.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
2. I am interested in playing games for learning in school.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
3. I am anxious when playing games to learning school content.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p)

4. Playing this game is important because it can help me learn about school subjects
in better ways.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
5. I think I will do pretty well at this activity, compared to other students.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
6. I think that doing this activity is useful for understanding how to make decisions.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
7. When I play games, I think about how much I am interest in them.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)

8. I am very relaxed when playing games.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p-r)

205

 

9. Playing a game to learn school related material will be enjoyable.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
10. I feel able to meet the challenge of performing well in this game.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
l l. I enjoy designing and building things.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
12. It is important to me to do well at playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)

13. I think playing a game about business activities will help me develop skills in
case I want to operate my own business.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)

14. I think I am pretty good at playing games.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)

15. Playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 will be useful for helping me learn good subject
matter content.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
16. I feel conﬁdent in my ability to play the game and learn the material.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
17. I am nervous when playing games.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p-r)

18. I believe playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum could be beneficial to me in
school and out of school.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)

206

19. I enjoy activities that deal with managing money and other important resources.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
20. I will be satisﬁed with my performance at playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3
Platinum.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
21. I think playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum is an important activity.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
22. I am not stressed by playing games.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p-r)
23. I am good at activities that allow me to create and design environments.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
24. I value the learning of school material in games.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (V)
25. I feel tense when play games to learn school content.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p)

207

Post- Motivational questionnaire

Name: ID# RCT3 Date:

 

 

Please read the following statements carefully and then answer to best of your ability by
circling the most appropriate response from 1 for strongly disagree to 6 for strongly
agree.

1. I believe playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum was of some value to me.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)

2. I am interested in playing games for learning in school.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
3. I am anxious when playing games to learn school content.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p-r)

4. Playing this game is important because it helped me learn about school subjects
in better ways.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (V)
5. I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other students.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
6. I think that doing this activity was useful for understanding how to make
decisions.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
7. While I was playing RCT3, l was thinking about how much it increased my
interest.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)

208

8. I was very relaxed when playing RCT3.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p-r)
9. Playing a game to learn school related material was enjoyable.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
10. I was able to meet the challenge of performing well in this game.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
11. I enjoyed designing and building the theme parks.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
12. It was important to me to do well at playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)

13. I think playing a game about business activities helped me develop skills in case 1
want to operate my own business.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
14. I think I was pretty good at playing RCT3.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)

15. Playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 helped me learn that running a theme park
requires more than just operating rides.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (V)
16. I felt conﬁdent in my ability to play the game and learn the material.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
17. I was nervous when playing the game.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (IN)

18. I believe playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum will be beneﬁcial to me in
school and out of school.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)

209

19. I enjoy activities that deal with managing money and other important resources.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (i)
20. I am satisﬁed with my performance at playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
21. I think playing RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum was an important activity.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (V)
22. I am not stressed by playing games.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p)

23. I was good at the activities that allow me to create and design environments.

strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (c)
24. I valued the learning of school material in games.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (v)
25. I felt tense when play games to learn school content.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 (p)

210

APPENDIX F

Example of one of six Incremental Scenario tests: Vanilla Hills

Name: ID# RCT3 Date:

 

 

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability with short responses or
listing where appropriate.

1. What did you do to increase the number guests in your park?

 

 

 

 

2. What do you do to keep your workers happy?

 

 

 

 

3. List 3 things you do in your park to increase its value.
1.

 

 

3.

 

4. How do you know when your park or shops are making a proﬁt?

 

 

 

 

5. Which ride or park service makes the most money for you? Why?

 

 

 

 

6. Explain why you would build several cheaper and less exciting rides than one big
exciting and expensive ride?

 

 

 

 

211

7. List 3 things you do to satisfy the people who visit your park.
1.

 

 

3.

 

8. List 3 things that you are trying to do in the game as you play.
1.

 

 

3.

 

9. List 3 things that you would do to increase the demand of something you are selling
if there is not a lot of people interested in it?
1.
2.
3.

 

 

 

10. What did you like or did not like about this game?

 

 

 

 

 

l 1. Was there anything you like about this part of the game? Rate your response by
circling the number that matches how much you like this scenario
I hate this part of the game I like this part of the
game
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12. List 5 strategies you use to play the game to achieve the objectives in the scenario

 

 

 

 

.09-99‘!»

 

212

 

Rubric
Rubric Incremental test — 28pts
1. Vhills

1. Increase guests in park — more rides, mores shops, more food stalls, cleaner park,
new attractions, meet the needs of current guests in park, place important things
near entrance, bill board (advertise) - 4pts

2. Employer-workers - Keep workers happy — trained them, increase their salary,
give them varied jobs — 3pts

3. Park value - Increase park value — add more rides, clean park, purchase
endangered animal species - 3 pts

4. Proﬁt - Shop proﬁt making — check the park maintenance log to see how much is
being versus how much is being made by the shops. — 2pts

5. Proﬁt - Show which ride makes the most money — 1 pt for the name of the show,
and another lpt for explanation of how the show make the money - evidence.
2pts

6. TRADE-off, opportunity cost - Explain why you would build several cheaper
and less exciting rides than one big exciting and expensive ride? (opportunity
cost, trade-off) — 2pts

7. Ethical value social consequences - Satisfy people in park - clean park,
reasonable priced items, reliable rides, beautiful park, reasonable number of
places to get food and other amenities - 3pts

8. Game play strategy - 3 things you are trying to do as you play - get rewards,
money, rides, satisfy guests, get park ratings up, raise park value, keep workers

happy; 3pts

9. Supply and demand - 3 things to increase demand - lower the price, discount
coupons, advertise it, design it to look nice, 3pts

10. Game play - 5 strategies to achieve objectives — start with smaller rides cheaper
rides, get animals, add food and drinks and other amenities, get achievements
because they increase park value, 5pts

11. Like about game ( not scored)

12. Rate (not scored)
RCT306 — Vhills — like that you can change how you look at your park or rides
All 26 participants liked the game - average score 7 out of 10 for the six scenarios

5 of 26 — building and constructing makes the scenarios engaging (fun).

213

2. GRush

1.

10.

Employer —worker relationship - What do you do to keep workers happy —
increase salary, train them, give them varied jobs, lower work hours, - 3pts

Loans - How does repaying a loan affects what you can do in your park — gain in
park value, gain in available cash, stop paying interests, 3pts

Goods- Decision making - about goods to sell in park — design (things that match
theme of park), things that increase value, things that helps me to get objective,
things that help to gain cash, things to satisfy guests, is it affordable, does it look
good - 3pt

Pricing - customer opinions, ride excitement and intensity level, 2pts

Profit - Shop proﬁt making — check the park maintenance log to see how much is
being versus how much is being made by the shops. — 2pts

Profit - Show which ride makes the most money — 1 pt for the name of the show,
and another lpt for explanation of how the show make the money - evidence. 2pts

Game knowledge - 3 things 11 do when deciding how to meet coaster size and
excitement level — cost of coaster, game requirement for objective, length,
potential income, number of riders -3pts

Opportunity cost — given choice to build or buy a big coaster vs. smaller, how
would you decide - cheaper rides (more people can ride them), game
requirement, 2pts

Game play - 5 strategies to achieve objectives — start with smaller rides cheaper
rides, get animals, add food and drinks and other amenities, get achievements
because they increase park value, 5pts

Supply and demand - 3 things to increase demand - lower the price, discount
coupons, 3pts

Most disliked scenario in terms of participants rating - average rated score - 5

3.Chﬂags

1.

Employer —worker relationship — why employ & What do you do to keep
workers happy — increase salary, train them, give them varied jobs, - 4pts

214

 

 

10.

Satisfying VIP — plan route, maintain a good park, don’t interfere with VIP’s
agenda, made rides that the VIP liked — 3pts

Decision making — cookies or cakes — which to sell to make a proﬁt - what is
market like (what do people prefer), cost of making each product, which one is
easier to make, - 2pts

Pricing — customer opinions, ride excitement and intensity level, 2pts

Proﬁt - Shop proﬁt making — check the park maintenance log to see how much is
being versus how much is being made by the shops. — 2pts

Proﬁt - Show which ride makes the most money — 1 pt for the name of the show,
and another lpt for explanation of how the show make the money - evidence.
2pts

Game knowledge — does it help meet objectives, would guests like it, will
generate a lot of money, 8 it cheap enough — 3pts

Transfer - Opportunity cost, trade-offs — 30yr mortgage vs. 20yr and less
comfortable — 2pts

Game play - 5 strategies to achieve objectives — start with smaller rides cheaper
rides, get animals, add food and drinks and other amenities, get achievements
because they increase park value, 5pts

Supply and demand - 3 things to increase demand - lower the price, discount
coupons, advertisement, reduce production, 3pts

Most liked scenario — average score - lO

4. Box Ofﬁce

1.

Game knowledge - 3 things to maintain a clean park — garbage bins, janitors, low
nauseated rides , bathrooms— 3pts

Proﬁt - Shop proﬁt making — check the park maintenance log to see how much is
being versus how much is being made by the shops. — 2pts

. Transfer - Supply & demand — econ - decision — check market value, check

customer opinions , raise prices, - 2pts. ..

Goods - Decision making - about goods to sell in park — design (things that match
theme of park), things that increase value, things that helps me to get objective,
things that help to gain cash, things to satisfy guests, is it affordable, does it look
good - 3pt

215

 

5. Time and resources management —Satisfying VIP — plan route, maintain a good
park, don’t interfere with VIP’s agenda, made rides that the VIP liked — 3pts

6. Game knowledge — reliability , customer satisfaction, park value, park ratings —
importance of rides working properly — 2pts

7. Game knowledge - 3 things to meet park ratings — build rides, lower prices to
increase ridership and value, hire sufﬁcient workers, keep a clean park,

8. Opportunity cost — given choice to build or buy a big coaster vs. smaller, how
would you decide - cheaper rides (more people can ride them), game
requirement, 2pts

9. Game play - 5 strategies to achieve objectives — start with smaller rides cheaper
rides, get animals, add food and drinks and other amenities, get achievements
because they increase park value, 5pts

10. Supply and demand - 3 things to increase demand - lower the price, discount
coupons, advertisement, reduce production, 3pts

5. F Ni ght

1. Game knowledge - 3 things to maintain a clean park — garbage bins, janitors, low
nauseated rides , bathrooms— 3pts

2. _ Employer —worker relationship -— why employ & What do you do to keep
workers happy — increase salary, train them, give them varied jobs, - 4pts

3. Loans - How does repaying a loan affects what you can do in your park - gain in
park value, gain in available cash, stop paying interests, 3pts - is there long term
thinking or only short term impact

4. Reliability, business growth impact — importance to do a good job consistently
create god toys for your business - lpts

5. Pricing — customer opinions, ride excitement and intensity level, 2pts

6. Proﬁt - Shop proﬁt making — check the park maintenance log to see how much is

being versus how much is being made by the shops. — 2pts

Proﬁt - Show which ride makes the most money — 1 pt for the name of the show,
and another lpt for explanation of how the show make the money - evidence. 2pts

216

8.

9.

Game knowledge - 3 things you do when deciding how to meet coaster size and
excitement level — cost of coaster, game requirement for objective, length,
potential income, number of riders , height -3pts

Game play - 5 strategies to achieve objectives -— start with smaller rides cheaper
rides, get animals, add food and drinks and other amenities, get achievements
because they increase park value, meet needs of guestsSpts

10. Supply and demand - 3 things to increase demand - lower the price, discount

coupons, advertisement, reduce production, get another item, 3pts

6. Goﬂow

1.

Game knowledge - 3 things to maintain a clean park — garbage bins, janitors, low
nauseated rides , bathrooms— 3pts

Employer —worker relationship — why employ & What do you do to keep
workers happy - increase salary, train them, give them varied jobs, - 4pts

Park value - Increase park value — add more rides, clean park, purchase
endangered animal species - 3 pts

Goods - Decision making - about goods to sell in park — design (things that match
theme of park), things that increase value, things that helps me to get objective,
things that help to gain cash, things to satisfy guests, is it affordable, does it look
good, feedback from guests - 3pt

Transfer - Proﬁt —- understanding and explaining how u know when u are making
proﬁt lpt

Proﬁt - Show which ride makes the most money — 1 pt for the name of the show,
and another lpt for explanation of how the show make the money - evidence.
2pts

Proﬁt —— list 3 things you do to increase monthly ride income — build more rides,
increase ride prices, increase the number of circuits to enable higher pricing, etc.
— 3 pts (information literacy)

Ethical value, social consequences - Satisfy people in park - clean park,
reasonable priced items, reliable rides, beautiful park, reasonable number of
places to get food and other amenities — 3pts

217

 

 

 

 

9. Game play - 5 strategies to achieve objectives — start with smaller rides cheaper
rides, get animals, add food and drinks and other amenities, get achievements
because they increase park value, meet needs of guests -5pts

10. Supply and demand - 3 things to increase demand - lower the price, discount
coupons, advertisement, reduce production, get another item, 3pts

VHills Grush chﬂags onffce F night goﬂow
10 9 9 9 9 9 game play understanding (info lit) r

9 10 10 10 10 10 supply demand (transfer) 1 J

2 l l 2 2 employer-workers relationship (near
transfer)
4 5 5 2 6 proﬁt
6 8 8 8 opportunity cost, trade-offs (transfer)
4 4 5 pricing
5 6 6 7 6 proﬁt (info lit)
3 4 4 goods and services decision (info lit)

1 l 1 game play knowledge (info lit)

 

2 3 loan (understanding long term impact)
3 3 understanding value, game knowledge (info
lit)

7 8 Decision into action (info lit)
7 8 ethical and social consequences of decision
making 3 3 4 5 Transfer question (Tr_OC,
TO, SupDem)
1 Strategy (StratGK)

RCT318, RCT307, RCT310, RCT319, RCT326, RCT325—checkered ﬂags#3, RCT327-
goldrush, RCT320-boxofﬁce#3

218

Code Book for SPSS Data File — Incremental test

owsewawwr

10.
ll.
12.
l3.
14.
15.
16.
17.
l8.
19.
20.

Game Play — GP

Game/1" echnology Knowledge — GK
Disciplinary Knowledge - DK

Info Lit — IL

Employer-Worker relationship — empwork
Transfer — Tr

Supply Demand — Sup dem

Pricing - pricing

Proﬁt — Prof

Loan — Lo

Ethical and Social consequences of decision making — Eth Soc
Decision Making — DM

Opportunity Cost — OC

Trade-offs — TO

Goods - G

Services — S

Decision — D

Understanding long term Impact — ULT
Time Management — TM

Reliability — Reli

DK out of 23pts — 9Q’s
GK out of 11 pts — 4Q’s
IL out of 16 points — 5Q’s

219

APPENDIX G

Semi-structured interviews

AIM: to get participants’ experiences in the game (cognitive and social) and the about the
content.
Interview Questions: After Scenarios — Semi-Structured

l.

2.

WNQP‘PS”

9.

10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
l7.
l8.
19.
20.

21.

Describe what are the most important things to you while playing RollerCoaster
Tycoon 3 Platinum? Why are these things important to you? (Gen)
What are some strategies that you think are needed in this game in order to be
successful? (businessperson)
What are some things you learned that can be applied to your life? (consumer)
What does it take to maintain a good proﬁt-making amusement park? (business)
What are some things that you did to maintain your theme park? (businessperson)
What did you think about when making choices in the game to win? (businessperson)
How did you balance your tasks while maintaining your theme park? (economist)
What do you think would be some of the consequences if your school should raise
the price of tickets to enter a party and many of the children cannot afford the new
cost? What do think will happen if they have relatively cheap price to enter the party?
What do you think would happen to your school’s proﬁt when they increase the price
to enter the party? (economist)
What do you think about the people who are buying tickets in your theme park?
What did you decide to sell in the park to get money?
Are there extra things that you sold to make money?
What was your particular objective in the game? (business, consumer, economic)
What other objectives did you have?
What did you try in the game that worked to meet your goals?

a. What did not work for you in the game?
What are the things that you do in this game that you would if you are running a
business?
How much money do you charge for your rollercoaster ride?

a. What is the reason why you charge that amount of money?
Why do you think people come to your park?
If I visited your park as a character in the game and I have only $50 for the whole day
and I like rides with high excitement levels, what would do to let me not leave your
park?
What do you think about the various rides in your theme park that offer different
experiences for the patrons in your park? Do you think one ride causes people not to
go another ride? What would you do to make people visit each ride?
Why are more people coming to your park? Are the people happy about increases?
Are they willing to pay more? What are other things that you thing they do with their
money? Shouldn’t they come to your park all the time?
Given the number of the people coming to your park which prices can you increase
and which prices can you lower? Why?

220

22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.

29.
30.

31.
32.

If you are going to a park, will expensive prices keep you away?

Why wont people come if you charge too much money for rides?

What do you think will happen if you increase ride prices and lower food prices?
If you were telling a ﬁiend a great strategy to succeed in the game what would you
suggest?

How do you feel about the game?

Would you play this game again?

Are you interested in the content of the game — managing resources and making
decisions with all the information that you are given?

How would use what you learn in the game to make a decision about buying an
expensive popular toy versus buying three cheaper and less popular toys?

Did you enjoy playing this game? Why or why not?

Did you enjoy what you learned while playing the game? Why or why not?

When you play the game do you prefer to explore and learning about the game or do
you prefer to go through quickly and achieve the objectives

221

APPENDIX H

Log sheets

Carefully write down the year and month when you have reached each level. On the
back of the paper explain what each of your achievements does to help you in your
park. Use these two questions to guide your thoughts and explanation - What does it
mean when you have achieved an award such as “best value” park or “most reliable”
rides? How does the achievement help you in the game?

 

Participant Apprentice Entrepreneur Tycoon Achievements
ID: Level

 

Vanilla Hills Time: E.g.
Yr 1 November

 

Gold Rush

 

Checkered
Flag

 

Box Ofﬁce

 

Fright Night

 

Go with the
ﬂow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222

REFERENCES

Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore. Baltimore,
MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Aarseth, E. (2003). Playing research: Methodological approaches to game analysis.
Paper presented at the Digital Arts and Culture conference.

Adams St Pierre, E. (2002). "Science" rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher,
31(8), 25-27.

American Association of School Librarians, & Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. (1998). Information literacy standards for
student learning: Standards and indicators Chicago: American Library
Association.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261 -271.

Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). Goals,values, and affect: Inﬂuences on
student motivation. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds), Handbook of
Educational Psychology (2 ed., pp. 369-3 89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaurn
Associates.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and
prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientiﬁc literature.
Psychological Science, 12(5), 353-359.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings,
and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.

Anderson, C. A., & Ford, C. M. (1986). Affect of the Game Player: Short-Tenn Effects
of Highly and Mildly Aggressive Video Games. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 12(4),
390-402.

Apperley, T. H. (2006). Genre and game studies: Toward a critical approach to video
game genres. Simulation Gaming, 37(1), 6-23.

Asgari, M. (2005). A three-factor model of motivation and game design. Paper presented
at the 2005 International DiGRA Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.

Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2005). Relationships among computer games, fantasy, and
learning. Paper presented at the 2005 International DiGRA Conference,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

223

 

Ball, G. H. (1978). Telegarnes teach more than you you think. Audiovisual Instruction,
24-26.

Barab, S. A., Bransford, J. D., Greeno, J. G., & Gee, J. P. (2007). Embodied cognition: A
more meaningful ontological unit. Paper presented at the 2007 AERA Annual
Meeting.

Barab, S. A., Dodge, T., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2007). Reﬂexive play spaces: A 21st
century pedagogy. Paper presented at the 2007 AERA Annual Meeting.

Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds:
Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and
Instruction, 19(1), 47-94.

Barab, S. A., Zuiker, 8., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (In
Press). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalism and contexts.
Science Education.

Bartle, R. (2006). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. In K. Salen
& E. Zimmerman (Eds), The game design reader (pp. 754-787). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

Baumeister, R. R, Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. 1., & Vohs, K. (2003). Does high self-
esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Becker, K. (2005). How are games educational? Learning theories embodied in games.
Paper presented at the 2005 International DiGRA Conference, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.

Beckett, K. L., & Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Augmented by reality: The pedagogical praxis
of urban planing as a pathway to ecological thinking. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 33(1), 31-52.

BECTA. (2006). Computer games in education project: Aspects. Computer games in
education project: Report Retrieved September 27, 2006, from
http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&rid=1 1200

Betz, J. A. (1996). Computer games: Increase learning in an interactive multidisciplinary
environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(2), 195-2005.

Bos, N. D., Shami, N. S., & Naab, S. (2006). A globalization simulation to teach
corporate social responsibility: Design features and analysis of student reasoning.
Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 56-72.

Bosworth, K. (1994). Computer games and simulation tools to reach and engage

adolescent in health promotion activities. Computers in Human Services, 11(1),
109-119.

224

 

 

 

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking Transfer: A Simple
Proposal With Multiple Implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1),
61-100.

Briggs, J ., & Johnson, S. (2001). Civilization 111 (Version 3). Hunt Valley, MD:
Infogrames, MacSoft, Aspyr.

Brophy, J. E. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Brophy, J. E. (2008). Developing Students' Appreciation for What Is Taught in School.
Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132 - 141.

Brophy, J. E., & Alleman, J. (2007). Powerﬁil social studies for elementary students (2
ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

Brown, A. L. (1994). The Advancement of Learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-
12.

Bruce, B. C., & Levin, J. A. (1997). Educational technology: media for inquiry,
communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 1 7(1), 79-102.

Buchanan, J. (2005). Experiences, Stories and Video Games. Paper presented at the
Future Play: The International Academic Conference on the Future of Game
Design and Technology, East Lansing, Michigan.

Caldwell, N. (2004). Theoretical analysis of tum-based computer. Media International
Australia, 2004(1 10), 42-51 .

Calleja, G. (2007). Digital game involvement: A conceptual model. Games and Culture,
2(3), 236-260.

Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2004). Violent video game exposure and
aggression: A literature review. MINER VA PSICHIA TR, 45, 1-18.

Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. NY: Routledge.

Crandall, R. W., & Sidak, J. G. (2006). Video games: Serious business for America 's
economy. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (2
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

225

 

 

 

Csikszentrnihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

De Aguilera, M., & Mendiz, A. (2003). Video games and education (Education in the
face of a "parallel school"). ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 1-14.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,
62(1), 119-142.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

diSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based
learning. Cognitive Science, 5, 37-75.

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds). (1999). How people learn:
Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J ., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing
Scientiﬁc Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond edutainment: Exploring the educational potential
of computer games. Unpublished Dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark.

Emes, C. E. (1997). Is Mr Pac Man eating our children? A review of the effect of video
games on children. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(4), 409-414.

Entertainment Software Association. (2006, May 10, 2006). 2006 sales, demographic and
usage data: Essential facts about the computer and video game industry.
Retrieved November 1, 2006, from
http://www.theesa.com/archives/ﬁles/Essentia1%20Facts%202006.pdf

Entertainment Software Association. (2007). 2007 sales, demographic and usage data:
Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved
November 27, 2007

F abricatore, C. (2000, September 26, 2006). Learning and videogames: An unexploited
synergy. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from
h_ttp://www.leamdev.org/FabricatoreAECT2000.pdf

 

Facer, K. (2003, September 27). Computer games and learning: why do we think it's
worth talking about computer games and learning in the same breath? A
discussion paper. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from
http://www.futurelabcgguk/download/pdfs/research/disc_papers/Computcr_Gam
es_and_Leaming_discpaper.pclf

226

Federation of American Scientists. (2005). National summit on educational games: Fact
Sheet. Washington, DC.

Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Summit of educational games: Harnessing the
power of video games for learning. Washington, DC.

Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2006). Using computer games and simulations for
instruction: A research review. Paper presented at the Society for Applied
Learning Technology Meeting: New learning Technologies, Orlando, FL.

Foreman, J. (2003, September 26, 2006). Next generation educational technology versus
the lecture. EDUCA USE Review Retrieved September 27, 2006, from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0340.pdf

 

Foreman, J. (2004). Garne-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21 st
century. EDUCA USE Review, 50-66.

Foster, A. N. (2008). Games and motivation to learn science: Personal identity,
applicability, relevance and meaningfulness. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 19(4), 597-614.

Foster, A. N., Koehler, M. J ., & Mishra, P. (2006, June 26-30, 2006). Game-based
learning of physics content: The eﬂectiveness of a physics game for learning
basic physics concepts. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2006--World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications,
Orlando, Florida.

Foster, A. N., & Mishra, P. (2009). Games, claims, genres & learning. In R. E. F erdig
(Ed), Handbook of Research on Eﬂective Electronic Gaming in Education:
Information Science Reference.

Frontier Developments. (2004). RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 [Computer Game]. NY: Atari.

Frontier Developments. (2006). RollerCoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum [Computer Game].
NY: Atari.

Galameau, L. (2005). Authentic learning experiences through play: Games, simulations
and the construction of knowledge. Paper presented at the 2005 International
DiGRA Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other
people '3 minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Pal grave MacMillan.

227

Gee, J. P. (2005a). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-
Leaming, 2(1), 5-16.

Gee, J. P. (2005b). Why video games are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning.
Australia: Common Ground Publishing.

Gee, J. P. (2006). Why Game Studies Now? Video Games: A New Art Form. Games and
Culture, 1(1), 58-61.

Gee, J. P. (2007a). Good video games + good learning: Collected essays on video games,
learning and literacy. NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Gee, J. P. (2007b). Video games and embodiment. Paper presented at the 2007 AERA
Annual meeting.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game
trainer to ﬂight. Human Factors, 36, 387-405.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553.

Gredler, M. (1996). Educational games and simulations: A technology in search of a
research paradigm. In D. H. J onassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (pp. 521-539). New York:
MacMilan.

Green, J. L., Carnilli, G., & Elmore, P. B. (Eds). (2006). Handbook of complementary
methods in education research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Greenﬁeld, P., & Subrahmanyan, K. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial
skills in girls and boys. Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(1), 13-32.

Greenﬁeld, P. M. (1984). Mind and media: The effects of television, computers and video
games. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational
Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.

Greeno, J. G. (2007). Notes on embodied cognition for AERA 200 7. Paper presented at
the 2007 AERA Annual Meeting.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology. New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

228

Greer, J. G., Schwartzberg, I. M., & Laycock, V. K. (1977). Motivating learners with
instructional games. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.

Grifﬁths, M. D., & Davies, M. N. O. (2002). Research Note - Excessive online computer
gaming: Implications for education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
18(3), 379-380.

Habgood, M. P. J ., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and
learning in digital games. Simulation Gaming, 36(4), 483-498.

Hart, S. G., & Batiste, V. (1992). Flight test of a video game trainer. Paper presented at
the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.

Hayes, J. (1992). Reading research reports. In Reading empirical reserach studies: The
rhetoric of research (pp. 11-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heeter, C. (2009). Play styles and learning. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (Vol. 2, pp. 826-846). Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference.

Heeter, C., Egidio, R., Mishra, P., Winn, B., & Winn, J. (In Press). Alien games: Do girls
prefer games designed by girls? Games and Culture.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000a). National educational
technology standards. In R. Pea (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on technology and
learning (pp. 3-19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000b). National educational
technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS Project.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational
technology standards for students: The next generation. from
http://www.iste.org/Template.cfm?Section=NETS

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. NY: New
York University Press.

Jenkins, H., & Squire, K. (2005). Theory Theories. Computer Games Magazine.

Johnson, J. M. (2002). In depth interviewing. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds),
Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Johnson, S. (2005). Civilization IV (Version 1.61 ). Hunt Valley, MD: 2K Games

229

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you: How today's popular culture is
actually making us smarter. NY: Penguin Group.

Kelly, H. (2005). Games, cookies, and the future of education. Issues in science and
technology Retrieved October 18, 2006, from
http://www.fasorg/resource/07l 52005161632.pdf

 

Kimberley, G. (1995). Learning in MarketPlace: Economic objects to think with and talk
about. Massachusetts Insitute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Kirriemuir, J ., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature Review in Games and Learning (No.
8). Bristol, Canada: Nesta Futurelab.

Klug, G. C., & Schell, J. (2006). Why people play games: An industry perspective. In P.
Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds), Playing video games (pp. 91-100). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Krzywinska, T. (2006). The pleasures and dangers of the game: Up close and personal.
Games and Culture, 1(1), 119-122.

Laurel, B. (Ed.). (2003). Design Research Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Lave, J ., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Linn, M. C. (1998). The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends
and current opportunities. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds), International
handbook of science education (pp. 265-294). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Lukkarinen, H. (2004). Methodological triangulation showed the poorest quality of life
in the youngest people following treatment of coronary artery disease: a
Longitudinal study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 619-627.

Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive
Science, 5(4), 333-369.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic
motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds), Apptitude, learning
and instruction. Volume 3: Cognitive and aﬂective processed analysis. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-
969.

230

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). Psychometric properties of the
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A conﬁrmatory
factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.

Meier, S. (1991). Civilization (Version 1). Hunt Valley, Maryland: MicroProse.

Michigan Department of Education. (1996). Michigan curriculum framework. Lansing,
Michigan: The State of Michigan.

Mishra, P., & Foster, A. (20073). The claims of games: A comprehensive review and
directions for ﬁrture research. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, 1. Gibson,
K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds), Society for Information T echnology &
Teacher Education: 2007 18th International Conference (Vol. 2007, pp. 2227-
2232). San Antonio, Texas: Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE).

Mishra, P., & Foster, A. (2007b). What is learning from games? A critical review and
directions for ﬁiture research. Paper presented at the 2007 AERA Annual

Meeting.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for
learning. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2005). Role of guidance, reﬂection, and interactivity in an
agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117-128.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H. A., & Lester, H. A. (2001). The case for social agency
in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact
with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(177-213).

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum
standards for social studies. Silver Spring, MD: NCSS Publications.

National Council on Economics Education. (2005). Voluntary national content standards
in economics. NY, NY: National Council on Economics Education.

National Institute on the Media and the Family. (2002, 11/06/02). Media use. Retrieved
October 21 , 2005, from http://wwwmediafamily.org[facts/factsimediauseshtml

National Institute on the Media and the Family. (2005). MindGames. Retrieved October
21, 2005, from http://www.mediafamilyorg/facts/tipgmindgamesshtml

National Research Council. (2005). Advancing scientific research in education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

231

Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1-18.

Papert, S. (1997). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Marietta,
Georgia: Longstreet Press.

Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational
Researcher, 29(9), 5-9.

Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Perspectives on learning (3 ed.). NY: Teachers
College Press.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rabin, S. (Ed.). (2005). Introduction to game development. Hingham, Massachusetts:
Charles River Media, Inc.

Randel, J ., Morris, B., Wetzel, C., & Whitehill, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games for
educational purposes: A reviews of recent research. Simulation and Gaming,
23(3), 261-276.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out.
Educational Researcher, 16(9), l3-20+54.

Reynolds, B., Caspian-Kauﬁnan, D., & Briggs, J. (1996). Civilization 11 (Version 2.42)
[Computer Game]. Hunt Valley, MD: MicroProse.

Roberts, D. F ., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of
8-18 year-olds: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Rodgers, Y. V., Hawthorne, S., & Wheeler, R. C. (2006). A state-by-state survey of
economics content standards in the primary grades. New Brunswick, NJ: The
State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.

Roe, K., & Muijs, D. (1998). Children and computer games: A proﬁle of the heavy user.
European Journal of Communication, 13(2), 181-200.

Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of
participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, l-
22.

Sawyer, C. (1999). RollerCoaster Tycoon (Version 1.08.187). Pawtucket, RI: Hasbro
Interactive.

Sawyer, C. (2002). RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 [Computer Game]. NY: Atari, Infogrames.

232

Scardamalia, M. (2000). Can schools enter a knowledge society? In M. Selinger & J.

Wynn (Eds), Educational technology and the impact on teaching and learning
(pp. 6-10). Abingdon, RM.

Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & MacPherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161-181). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., & Winteler, A. (1992). Interest as a predictor of academic
achievement: A meta-analysis of research. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A.
Krapp (Eds), The role fo interest in learning and development (pp. 183-212).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the
classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224.

Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for
postindustrialization. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401.

Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. NY: PALGRAVE
MACMILLAN.

Shaffer, D. W., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Before every child is left behind: How epistemic
games can solve the coming crisis in education (Publication:
http://coweb.wcer.wisc.edu/cv/papers/learning_crisis.pdf

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the
future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104-111.

Sliverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage
Publications.

Smith, M. L. (2006). Multiple methodology in education research. In J. L. Green, G.
Camilli & P. B. Elmore (Eds), Handbook of complementary methods in
education research (pp. 457-475). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game Studies: The
International Journal of Computer Game Research, 2(1).

Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent
Simulations and Gaming, 2(1).

Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing civilization
III. Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana University.

233

 

Squire, K. (2006). From Content to Context: Videogames as Designed Experience.
Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19-29.

Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Why game (culture) studies now? Games and Culture, 1(1),
97-102.

The NPD Group. (2008, July 11, 2008). 2007 US. video game and PC game sales
exceed $18.8 billion making third consecutive year of record breaking sales. from
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/pressi08013 1b.htm1

Thomas, R., Cahill, J ., & Santilli, L. (1997). Using an interactive computer game to
increase skill and self-efﬁcacy regarding safer sex negotiation: Field test results.
Health education & behavior : the oﬂicial publication of the Society for Public
Health Education, 24(1), 71-86.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing Through Computers. The American Prospect, 8(31).

Vye, N. J ., Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. L., Barron, B. J ., Zech, L., & The Cognition
and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). SMART enviroments that support
monitoring, reﬂecting and revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. Graesser
(Eds), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education & other essays. New York,: The
Macmillan company.

Wigﬁeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs,
expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood to adolescence.
In A. Wigﬁeld & J. S. Eccles (Eds), Development of achievement motivation: A
volume in the educational psychology series (pp. 91-120). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Williams, D. C. (2004). Trouble in river city: The social life of video games.
Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Williams, D. C. (2005). Bridging the methodological divide in game research. Simulation
& Gaming, 36(4), 447-463.

Williamson, K. M., Land, L., Butler, B., & Ndahi, H. B. (2004). A structured framework
for using games to teach mathematics and science in K-12 classrooms. The
Technology Teacher, 64(3), 15-18.

Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of

massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence: T eleoperators
and Virtual Environments, 15(3), 309-329.

234

Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information-processing skills. Perceptual and
motor skills, 83(2), 643-647.

235

   

M'11111111211111!LillﬂlﬂllﬂllﬂllIllES .