Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Design and Implementation of the Game-Design and Learning Program

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Design involves solving complex, ill-structured problems. Design tasks are consequently, appropriate contexts for children to exercise higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills. Although creating engaging and authentic design contexts for young children is difficult within the confines of traditional schooling, recently, game-design has emerged as an alternative context to provide young children with opportunities to practice design and thinking skills. Despite the increasing interest from educators and researchers to use game-design as a platform to teach young students higher-order thinking skills, literature documenting design and development of such learning experiences has been scarce. This paper provides a detailed account of how a complex network of pedagogies, theories, and technologies were brought together to design and develop the Game Design and Learning (GDL) program, with the purpose of teaching students basics of computer programming, and to give them hands-on experiences in game-design, and teach them complex problem-solving skills. The GDL program can serve as an example for efforts aiming to create similar technology-rich environments.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference? Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 1–11.

  • Akcaoglu M. (2014) Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583-600. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9347-4.

  • Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003.

  • Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The impact of technology on creativity in design: an enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 180–191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00560.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eseryel, D., Ifenthaler, D., & Ge, X. (2013). Towards innovation in complex problem solving research: an introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 359–363. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9299-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, A., & Cusack, B. (2011). Enhancing introductory programming with Kodu Game Lab: An exploratory study. In M. Lopez & M. Verhaart (Eds.), Proceedings from 2nd Annual Conference of Computing and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand (CITRENZ2011) (pp. 69–79). New Zealand: Christchurch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop. Boston, MA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? Cognitive Processing, 11(2), 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Chen, N.-S. (2013). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: a case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73(1), 26–39. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. doi:10.2190/0EW7-01WB-BKHL-QDYV.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(4), 429–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research, 52(4), 427–443. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.524752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLaurin, M. B. (2011). The design of Kodu: a tiny visual programming language for children on the Xbox 360. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 46(1), 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1977). Thinking and problem solving: An introduction to human cognition and learning. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1), 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft Kodu. (2012). Microsoft Research. Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/kodu/.

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (Vol. 36, pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=950596.

  • Resnick, L. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2), 385–398. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1987). Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: when and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scratch. (2012). Retrieved from http://scratch.mit.edu/.

  • Simon, H. A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding, and problem solving in design. In A. Collen & W. W. Gasparski (Eds.), Design and systems: General applications of methodology (Vol. 3)ems (Vol. 3, pp. 245–257). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolee, K. T., & Fristoe, T. (2011). Expressing computer science concepts through Kodu Game Lab. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 99–104).

  • Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 609–614). ACM.

  • Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2012). RoboBuilder: Video game program-to-play constructionist. In Constructionism 2012 (pp. 1–5). Athens, Greece.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, College of Education, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, 30458, USA

    Mete Akcaoglu

Authors
  1. Mete Akcaoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mete Akcaoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akcaoglu, M. Design and Implementation of the Game-Design and Learning Program. TechTrends 60, 114–123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0022-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation