This article was downloaded by: [melanie stegman]
On: 11 February 2012, At: 08:01
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computers in the Schools
Publication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20

Students Designing Video Games about
Immunology: Insights for Science
Learning
a

a

a

a

Neda Khalili , Kimberly Sheridan , Asia Williams , Kevin Clark &Melanie StegmanabGeorge Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USAb

Federation of American Scientists, Washington, District ofColumbia, USA
Available online: 14 Sep 2011

To cite this article: Neda Khalili, Kimberly Sheridan, Asia Williams, Kevin Clark & Melanie Stegman(2011): Students Designing Video Games about Immunology: Insights for Science Learning, Computersin the Schools, 28:3, 228-240
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.594988

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Computers in the Schools, 28:228–240, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0738-0569 print / 1528-7033 online
DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2011.594988

Students Designing Video Games about
Immunology: Insights for Science Learning
NEDA KHALILI, KIMBERLY SHERIDAN, ASIA WILLIAMS,
and KEVIN CLARK
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

MELANIE STEGMAN
Federation of American Scientists, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Exposing American K–12 students to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) content is a national initiative. Game Design Through Mentoring and Collaboration targets students fromunderserved communities and uses their interest in video games asa way to introduce science, technology, engineering, and math topics. This article describes a Game Design Through Mentoring and
Collaboration summer program for 16 high school students and3 college student mentors who collaborated with a science subject
matter expert. After four weeks, most students produced 2-D video
games with themes based on immunology concepts from the educational science game Immune Attack. Findings from three groups
that finished their games and one group with an uncompleted gameare explored.
KEYWORDS video games, science, game design, educational
games, STEM, peer mentoring, high school, students making games,Game Maker, Immune Attack
Concern over American students’ scores on standardized math and sciencetests may arise from views that careers in science, technology, engineering,and math (STEM) are the gateway to ensuring competitiveness in the global
economy (NGA, 2008). In the United States, women and minorities are particularly underrepresented in STEM fields. The call for introducing American
students to STEM content and careers has been a strong one, and it has been
Address correspondence to Neda Khalili, Doctoral Candidate, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MS4F3, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: nkhalil2@gmu.edu or
nkhalili@gmail.com
228

Science Video Games229

answered by a multitude of initiatives occurring during the school day, after
school, on the weekends, and during the summer. Researchers from George
Mason University developed an innovative program, Game Design throughMentoring and Collaboration (GDTMC) that uses student interest in video
game design as a means to increase motivation, achievement, and exposure
to STEM content for traditionally underserved students (Sheridan, Clark, &Peters, 2009). In this article, the authors discuss one aspect of this program:collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), where students played and designed games with the specific intention of integrating
science content.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

BACKGROUND
Highlighting STEM education is of national importance for American K–12
schools in order to foster future innovators for the 21st century workforce(NSF, 2009). Literacy in STEM content is beneficial to all students, helping
them prepare for the competitive global economy and strengthening skills forcollege, even those who may not choose specific STEM career paths (NGA,
2008). This focus has led the way for a multitude of programs, both inschool and after school, designed to encourage the interest of K–12 students
in STEM content. In particular, the National Science Foundation has createdthe Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST)
program to support such research efforts. ITEST programs specifically aim tobring students closer to choosing careers in science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (NSF, 2009). George Mason University researchers havecreated the ITEST-funded GDTMC to encourage middle and high school
students from underserved populations to increase motivation, achievement,
and exposure to STEM content through video game design classes (Clark &Sheridan, 2010).

Video Games as an Educational Tool
Video games are a major part of life for the American teenager. A national
survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2008) found that
99% of boys and 94% of girls from ages 12–17 play some form of video game,whether on consoles, computers, or mobile devices. The level of engagement
video games command, and the time and effort children devote to learning
how to play the games, have generated interest in using them as tools forlearning and teaching (Gee, 2007; Gros, 2007; Shaffer, Halverson, Squire,& Gee, 2005; Prensky, 2001). Playing games can develop skills in thinking,planning, and learning in specific environments that have rules and boundaries (FAS, 2006; Squire, Giovanetto, Devane, & Durga, 2005). Designing

230

N. Khalili et al.

games gives children the opportunity to create their own rules and boundaries, work collaboratively, and exercise creativity (Kafai & Ching, 2001;
Robertson & Howell, 2008; Roberston & Good, 2005; Tarouco, Cogo, Konrath, & Grando, 2006). Tapping into this interest in video games that young
people already have and subtly using it as the foundation for new learning
experiences can be an excellent way to encourage interest in STEM fields.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

GDTMC
The GDTMC program attracts students who are interested in video games,
typically those whose initial interests only lie in playing the games. Participants are often asked to envision ways to make the digital games they play
better and to imagine their own versions of these games that they play,whether computer-based, downloaded from the Internet, or on video game
consoles. In this way, students begin thinking about game design throughtheir own experiences.
The program exposes students to STEM fields by learning 3-D computermodeling and animation, computer programming concepts, and video gamedesign in a studio learning environment (Sheridan et al; 2009). Peer mentors
that have already completed the game design program and/or are in college
for technology-related fields are hired to assist instructors in carrying out
the lessons. In one of the classes of learning basic game design, students
create their own 2-D video games. In another, mathematics and steps for thescientific method are covertly incorporated into 3-D modeling and animation
lessons. All classes that participants take to learn aspects of video gamedesign are designed to be exercises in critical-thinking skills. Furthermore,
the peer–mentor model is what makes this video game design class unique.
GDTMC was established to build upon and expand activities alreadytaking place during a program that had been operating informally at an urban high school with a technology focus. During the school year, classes
are held on Saturdays for two hours, in 10-week sessions during the fall andspring. These classes are held in labs equipped with cutting-edge computer
hardware and software. Students voluntarily sign up for these classes, which
include one hour for 3-D modeling and animation and one hour for video
game design. Each class is run by an instructor, who plans the lessons andgives an overview to the class at the start of each session. The mentors, whohave been familiarized with the lessons by the instructors prior to class, walkaround the room and help the students as needed. The instructor also observes the class and keeps students on task by announcing the next steps thatshould be taken. The classes are designed so that students can work at theirown pace; advanced students can move ahead when they are ready by elaborating on their projects to make them more complex. The students who arejust beginning or do not catch on as easily as others can receive one-on-one

Science Video Games

231

time with a mentor, without needing to ask the instructor questions to holdup the rest of the class.
Summer sessions usually last for four weeks, four hours a day. Students
from the fall and spring sessions who wish to become mentors go througha training session during this time. The participants of the summer program
are smaller in number than the school-year sessions and may be given a
stipend to attend. In addition to assisting the participants, mentors work on
their own projects for their courses and personal development. The GDTMC
project encourages both the students and mentors to develop STEM interests.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

Collaboration with the Federation of American Scientists
Outreach to professionals in the STEM field is important for GDTMC researchers. In particular, introducing students to women and minorities working in STEM fields helps the students see the potential for their own careers.
In the summer of 2009, George Mason researchers collaborated with the FAS
on their educational science game: Immune Attack. Immune Attack teaches
players about immunology and molecular processes involved in tracking
bacteria (FAS, 2011). In this game, the player controls a nanobot, a minisculemachine that traverses the human body in order to repair the immune system. Immune Attack is currently being updated for a new version in which
the nanobot cures a neurological disorder.
A trial program was launched where Immune Attack was used as thefoundation for the students to create their own educational science games.
The FAS program director for educational technologies became the science
subject matter expert (S-SME). The S-SME assisted students participating in
the GDTMC summer program with creating protoypes for the next Immune
Attack game. GDTMC students learned how to program with the game software, Game Maker, while simultaneously learning about basic immunology
and neurology in order to make a realistic educational game.

DESCRIPTION OF SUMMER PROGRAM
Students
Sixteen high school students and three student mentors (in college or entering college in the fall) participated in the summer class. The majorityof these students were part of a city-wide youth summer program and thehigh school at which GDTMC operates was their work site. GDTMC was
one of several work site programs housed at the high school from which
students could choose. Summer students and mentors were paid throughthe city-wide youth summer program or by GDTMC. Of the students, there
were 6 females and 10 males. Of the mentors, two were male and one was

232

N. Khalili et al.

female. All participants were African American. All groups started out withfour students.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012Tools
The students used a software called Game Maker to create their games.
Game Maker (http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/) is a free softwarethat allows for the creation of 2-D and 3-D games without the need to write
code. Basic object-oriented programming concepts are emphasized as thestudents work with objects and create events and actions through the use of
icons and drag-and-drop moves. Students are able to view the programmingcode created by their actions. Objects, events, and actions are all standard
concepts in the programming languages used to create professional video
games. In this workshop, students concentrated on creating 2-D games thattook place on a single screen.

Game Design Workshop
Students in the Game Maker class met every day for four weeks, spending
two to three hours each day working on their games. The class was directedby an instructor with game programming knowledge and three mentors, whowere all former GDTMC participants. During the first week, the S-SME discussed the concept of the game Immune Attack and gave a brief overview
on basic neurology, a subject that none of the students had yet been exposed to in their classes during the academic year. The S-SME presented fourmolecular processes that occur in neurons. Before she began describing theprocesses in detail, she asked the students to keep in mind the molecular process for which they might want to create a game. The introductory talk lasted
over 60 minutes because students asked so many questions. The students divided themselves into four groups. Group One chose to create a game about
the myelin sheath maintenance; Group Two chose DNA gene regulation;
Group Three chose neurotransmitter receptor functions; Group Four chosesignal integration which eventually morphed into growth factor signaling
and carcinogenesis. After the four groups established their focus, the groups
separated to design their games. Each group had one or two students that
had taken a Game Maker class before, whether through the GDTMC projector through a high school curriculum, and the students varied in their technical skills. Meanwhile, the S-SME spent another 30 minutes with each group,
asking pertinent questions about the molecular mechanisms involved.
Each group met with the subject matter expert individually on subsequent weeks, discussing their specific tasks. Together, they created an
outline for the game, which included pictorial representations and diagrams.
Each group posted their outlines at their workstations, to which they would

Science Video Games

233

later refer. Throughout the entire program student mentors rotated between
groups to assist with the technical aspects of the games.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

Data Collection
The findings are based on the observations of two graduate research assistants (GRAs) in the form of field notes of the summer program, the observations of the S-SME who worked with the students, and the observations of
the principal and co-principal investigators. The S-SME shared onsite observations and communicated student progress both in person and via e-mail.
The GRAs also held informal interviews with peer mentors and students togauge their progress. These interviews were often conducted at the workstations so that students and mentors could reveal their games at various stagesof completion. The final completed games were collected and analyzed aswell.
The focus of the authors in this data collection was to document the process of implementation rather than to rigorously assess student learning, but
insights on student learning were able to be drawn based on observations
and initial analysis. To improve descriptive validity that these observations
accurately represented the range of participants’ activities and thinking in
the program, a triangulation of types of data sources were used, including
observations of students working processes at different points in the gamedesign process, documentation of student interaction with the S-SME bothin person and through e-mail, informal interviews with students about theirdesigns, and documentation of the games at various stages of completion.
To reduce the effects of researcher biases on the interpretations of the findings, member checks with the participants were conducted to assess whether
the researcher interpretation of the students games and their design processaligned. The two researchers independently conducted observations and informal interviews, and reviewed and interpreted this data before discussing
the full data with each other. At first, each individual game design group wasconsidered on its own terms, looking at all the various data sources to document their individual process from start to completion. Then the researchers
looked across these cases for patterns that seemed to emerge. From this discussion, the two researchers wrote memos that were shared with the broader
interpretive community of the S-SME and the principal investigators, who introduced new questions for the data and potential alternative interpretations.
Through this process, the initial themes proposed are presented as potential
insights into student learning, and present evidence that illustrates how theseelements were and were not present in each of the four game design groups
observed. In the instances where the patterns do not seem to hold for all fourgroups, potential alternative interpretations are offered and the researchers
suggest follow-up investigations to study these themes more thoroughly.

234

N. Khalili et al.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

FINDINGS
Three of the four groups were able to complete their games. Group One
created a game they called Myelin Sheath Restoration, demonstrating how
glial cells come to adhere to the axon of the neuron. Group Two entitledtheir game Signal the DNA, which describes a complex relationship between
neuronal signals, proteins, and DNA transcription. Group Three did not finish
their game, as will be discussed in further detail. Group Four developed agame that they named Brain Chemistry. This group wanted to show how
certain growth factors, which the group referred to as chemical signals,
caused a normal neuron to become cancerous.
The video game design approach was primarily chosen for its interest
and relevance to students-video games are well established as an engaging
arena for youth. However, in addition to being an engaging route, three
key learning processes were found that are highlighted by the game design
approach to science learning. The key learning processes are:

1. Questioning one’s own knowledge: Designing a game led students to
notice gaps and question their own understanding of the science concepts
and voluntarily seek avenues to fill in the gaps.
2. Ownership and responsibility: Designing a game created a sense of ownership and responsibility to make the game attractive, engaging, and scientifically accurate.
3. Articulating knowledge: While game design involves creating concepts
in a visual format, students were able to articulate the purpose of theirgames and the science concepts behind them at the completion of thefour weeks.

Questioning One’s Own Knowledge
From at least as early as when Socrates confronted the Oracle in Plato’s
Apology, appreciating one’s own lack of knowledge has been recognized as
an important step of learning. The authors found that, when students had
to design a game that taught others a scientific concept, the science areas
about which they were most unsure became apparent. For instance, during apresentation by Group Two, one member began to explain how the proteinswould bind to the DNA. She began to play her game as the nanobot pushed
the proteins, depicted as balls on the screen, onto a DNA strand. When
the S-SME asked her what these balls were made of, she could not answer.
Yet she was able to explain how pushing these “balls” onto the DNA could
affect the genetic code. Designing a game on a scientific concept is much
like depicting a model of the scientific concept, which has been found to beDownloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

Science Video Games235

an important way to get students to question their incorrect conceptions andgaps in knowlege (Gardner, 1991; Bruer, 1993; Schneps & Sadler, 1987).
In addition to the effect of having to design an explicit model of theconcept, working in groups also helped student misunderstandings surface.
As groups tried to map out what should come next in their game, theywould realize what they did not understand certain aspects when they had
to explain specific concepts to one another. One of the key factors identified
in the correlation between cooperative learning and higher achievement
outcomes is the greater role of student-generated explanations in the learning
process (e.g., Brown & Palinscar, 1989; Sharan, 1990; Slavin, 1992). Sourcesof confusion would also be revealed as students tried to explain their games
to the subject matter expert, the instructor, the mentors, or students in othergroups. Sometimes students would be uncertain about a term or what thegraphics in the game were supposed to represent, which made it clear tothem, and to the researchers, instructors and mentors, that they had grownconfused about their molecular process.

Ownership and Responsibility
When students design and create a product, there is a greater sense ofownership than other modes of demonstrating science knowledge, suchas answering questions on a test, or even the more hands-on following
prescribed steps of an experiment. In collaboration with the S-SME, eachgroup of students was responsible for creating a game that is attractive, fun
to play, and yet clearly and accurately teaches complex scientific concepts.
Finding this balance was challenging to students. One student in Group Four
remarked, “The very first problem was understanding what the teacher told
us. Another problem was actually writing a story to the actual game andseeing what we were actually going to do.” Despite the challenge, students
took a personal responsibility to meet these goals. For instance, when the
S-SME was not on site, students would try to problem-solve with a mentor,
refer to their outlines, use the Internet for research, or communicate with
the S-SME via e-mail. Participants were motivated to find answers to theirquestions using a variety of strategies and did not wait for their weekly
meetings with the S-SME.
While three of the four groups reflected this sense of ownership andresponsibility, our experience with one group showed a different learning
path. Students in Group Three were unable to finish their game, even though
they were the first group to complete their game for review by the S-SME.
During the play and presentation of the game, the S-SME realized that thestudents did not fully understand the scientific concepts behind the game.
She met with them again and gave them points to get back on track. Whilenone of the four groups had a perfect attendance rate, two of the members

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

236

N. Khalili et al.

of Group Three were consistently absent, and of the two remaining members, only one was noticeably active in redesigning the game. After several
failed attempts, this student decided to help the three other groups with theprogramming of their games. One of the mentors remarked that this group
was not unmotivated; they were discouraged. Another mentor decided to doresearch at home in a final attempt to help her group develop a game. This
research, combined with direct communication between the mentor and the
S-SME via e-mail, finally put the group in a place where they could develop
their ideas. Unfortunately, this was at the end of the program and there was
not enough time left for creating the game.
Even though this group did not complete a finished product, they were
initially enthuasiastic about the game and this enthusiasm resurfaced toward
the end of the program. The discouragement they felt at missing the science
concepts in the beginning hindered the time they had to work on the project.
While a number of factors contributed to Group Three’s problems, they area reminder that, even though the design approach seems to foster a senseof ownership and responsibility, there is a need for continued support for
students who feel discouraged and want to walk away from a project, particularly when the discouragement stems from realizing their initial enthusiastic
investment of energies were not successful.

Articulating Knowledge
While designing a workable, accurate game is a form of visual articulationof a concept, it was also important to us that students be able to verbally
articulate their understandings of scientific concepts. At the end of the fourweeks, the three groups finished their games and gave presentations. In orderto demonstrate their work, students played their game while explaining what
was happening on the screen so that everyone watching could understandthe purpose of the game, which was driven by a particular scientific concept.
In Group One’s Myelin Sheath Restoration game, two members of thegroup explained that the myelin sheath is a glial cell, and in the game it is
weak and breaking off of the axon. The player controls the nanobot, whose
job it is to repair the myelin sheath by pushing additional glial cells backonto the axon. Group Two’s game, Signal the DNA, illustrated a complex
neuronal process: The “signals” in this game are proteins that enter the
nucleus in response to the neuron having received a signal from outside.
These proteins would bind to/alter the activities of transcription factors on
the DNA. In the game the signals are falling randomly and the nanobot isrequired to deliver the signals to the appropriate promoter regions of theDNA. In addition to describing how the game works, one of the groupmembers discussed that these proteins can manipulate the DNA, activating
or inactivating different genes, which can have lasting effects, such as alteringDownloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

Science Video Games237

one’s memory, thus showing insight into why the concept matters. Group
Four developed a game which they named Brain Chemistry. This groupwanted to show how certain growth factors, which the group referred toas chemical signals, caused a normal neuron to become cancerous. In theirgame, these chemicals are falling onto a neuron and it is the player’s role
to use the nanobot to push them away. If too many chemicals touch theneuron, it then becomes cancerous.
These presentations showed that, despite having no prior knowledge ofthese neurological concepts, students were able to design reasonably accurate visual representations of the constructs and verbally describe the concepts. In future research, to more fully assess their understanding verbally,
the researchers plan to engage them in more detailed questioning about theirselected scientific concepts; however, the initial observations show that they
were able to make this translation between the visual and the verbal.

DISCUSSION
These high school students, like many in American public schools, had
not learned neurology during the academic year. Over four weeks during
the summer, they grew accustomed to listening to the descriptions of thecomplex molecular processes. Their goal—to create video games—required
them to be active listeners. Additionally, because the subject matter expert
shared the same goal—the creation of the game—she encouraged the active listening and the frequent interruption with questions and ideas fordemonstrating the molecular process in the game. Instead of only conveying
information in lecture format, knowledge was constructed via active interaction and lively exchange between students and subject matter expert. The
S-SME and mentors often reminded the participants that their games would
be useful as prototypes when FAS develops other levels for Immune Attack.
This combination of an interactive, constructivist approach to learning andthe authentic and engaging task of designing a video game, can be seen as
creating a learning environment where students are more likely to question
their understanding, take ownership and responsibility for the quality of theirwork and the accuracy of the knowledge they represent in it, and be able toarticulate their understanding both visually and verbally.
To be sure, other constructivist learning approaches have shownpromise for students working with scientific concepts that are not particular to game design (e.g., Kolodner et al., 2003). However, the authors haveseen that the game design goal provides an opportunity for students tomake visible their scientific understanding in a technology-driven environment, allowing them to interact with their creations. In this way, students
were involved in the collaborative creation of a visual art product—a video
game—and also a scientific model. Through this process the development

238

N. Khalili et al.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012of artistic habits of mind, such as what Hetland, Winner, Veenema, andSheridan (2007) highlighted as developing the habit to envision and reflect,
and what Heath and Roach (1999) and Heath (2001) described as “Imaginative Actuality,” the central function of imagining possibilities, making
plans and bringing them to actuality in the arts (Sheridan, 2011). Development of scientific understanding is also seen as students begin to question
their learning, surface misconceptions, and as they attempt to make their
game scientifically accurate. This approach to learning suggests interesting
possibilities in education that involves integration of artistic and scientificthinking.

FUTURE WORK
While this approach shows promise, the insights are only preliminary. Moreformal research is needed to understand how to support this integrative
design and science learning, how to help students persist through the failures and discouragement they are likely to experience in this type of complex extended design project, and how to assess the learning demonstrated
in students’ visual and verbal articulations of the scientific concepts. This
experience has informed the authors on how to design the next iterationof a summer workshop where students can integrate science content into
their video game design. Further detailed research is planned to understandhow the students take an active part in their learning and if their video
game design experience has encouraged their interests in technology andscience.

REFERENCES
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual
knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science for learning in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, K., & Sheridan, K. (2010). Game design through mentoring and collaboration.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(2), 125–145.
Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Summit on educational games. Retrieved
from http://www.fas.org/gamesummit/.
Federation of American Scientists. (2011). Immune Attack [software]. Retrieved fromhttp://fas.org/immuneattack/Gamemaker [software]. (2007–2011). Retrieved from http://www.yoyogames.
com/gamemaker/
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools
should teach. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

Science Video Games

239

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1),23–38.
Heath, S. B. (2001). Three’s not a crowd: Plans, roles and focus in the arts. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 1–7.
Heath, S. B., & Roach, A. (1999). Imaginative actuality:Learning in the arts during
the nonschool hours. In E. Fisk (Ed.), Champions of change (pp. 19–34). Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership and The President’s Committee on
the Arts and the Humanities.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The
real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kafai, Y., & Ching, C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planningfor elementary students’ science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3),323–63.
Kolodner, J., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., . . . Ryan,
M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middleschool science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journalof the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–497.
National Governor’s Association. (2008). Promoting STEM education: A
communications toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/
0804STEMTOOLKIT.PDF.
National Science Foundation. (2009). Directorate for education and human resources:
Innovative technology experiences for students and teacher. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm summ.jsp?pims id=5467&org=EHR&sel
org=EHR&from=fund.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2008). Teens, video games, andcivics. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/∼/media//Files/Reports/
2008/PIP Teens Games andCivics Report FINAL.pdf.pdf.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer games design: Opportunities for
successful learning. Computers and Education, 50, 559–578.
Robertson, J., & Good, J. (2005). Children’s narrative development through computer
game authoring. TechTrends, 49(5), 43–59.
Schneps, M. H. & Sadler, P. M. (Directors). (1987). A private universe (motion picture). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Shaffer, D., Halverson, R., Squire, K., & Gee, J. (2005). Video games and the future oflearning. (WCER Working Paper No. 2005-4). Wisconsin Center for Education
Research, Madison.
Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sheridan, K. (2011). Envision and observe: Using the studio thinking framework
for learning and teaching in the digital arts. Mind, Brain and Education, 5(1),19–26.
Sheridan, K., Clark, K., & Peters, E. (2009). How scientific inquiry emerges from gamedesign. In I. Gibsonet al (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 1555–1563).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

240

N. Khalili et al.

Downloaded by [melanie stegman] at 08:01 11 February 2012

Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz–Lazarowitz & N. Miller(Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145–173). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., & Durga, S. (2005). From users to designers: Building a self-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends,
49(5), 34–43.
Tarouco, L., Cogo, A., Konrath, M., & Grando, A. (2006). Learning through gameauthoring. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 3(18), 28–33.