Summary+of+Science+Learning


 * Research on the value of video games for science learning**

Of the 12 references meta-tagged as related to science education from the whole-class reference list, 2 were deemed not correctly classified. Of note, 4 were dissertations within the last 2 years and not peer reviewed articles. Following from the whole class research, our subgroup located 3 additional references, 1 of which was, again, a recent (2009) dissertation. We reviewed these selected 13 references. Online, we also found a ppt presentation (Mayo) that addressed games for science learning and identified a pool of interesting science-related video games.

The main finding was that the research on learning science content in the context of video games is quite thin, despite the existence of a wide range of science content video games. Science in the K-12 curriculum is primarily about observable natural phenomenon and is associated with well defined stable underlying concepts. Examples would include weather, Newtonian physics, the periodic table of the elements, and the solar system. The natural world may be best learned through direct experience with the natural world. In short, virtual worlds are often a weak substitute for the real world, when considering issues of gravity, space, weather, fluid dynamics, and chemical reactions. In contrast, the human social world is not explained completely by static scientific causality. Human interactions emerge in each unique situation, and in part due to human self awareness and ability to be reflective, can change continuously. Video games, particularly massively multiplayer online games, are perhaps optimally suited for experiencing and learning about such human systems. Most notable among these would be language learning, but also include leadership skills and group dynamics. While our "meta-review" found support for the value of video games in language learning, there is little such evidence in support of the value of video games for science learning. We would posit that this is because video games are a uniquely assessable form of human interaction, but a poor substitute for Nature.

In the period between 1980 and 1996, Dr. Carl Sagan set out to change the way Americans experienced and reflected upon science and the scientific method, hoping to reconstruct the enthusiasm once held during the early years of the Cold War. Unfortunately, as politicians increased emphasis on rote memorization through the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in order to emphasize student growth in discrete areas of biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science, the work completed to revitalize the field ended with decreased student interest and success in the ability to generalize scientific and mathematical processes across disciplines. In a final plea to the public before his death, Sagan wrote that one of the biggest problems he faced in his crusade to bring science to the forefront of American culture was a distinct lack of appropriately trained scientist-educator hybrids, individuals who knew enough about the content to be considered experts, but also possessed the charisma and social skills necessary to take difficult concepts and bring deliver them in an under-informed public.

 Video games, as research has indicated for other fields (including reading, history, medicine, military application, and human health), may be a powerful tool in the attempt to bring science education back to the forefront of student interest. Regrettably, however, research in the field of game-based science is minimal, and though there have been simulations in which science is emphasized (for instance, a //World of Warcraft//-based study on human disease transmission and pandemics), there is simply a lack of published, peer-reviewed articles on the influence of games in science education. Specific games have been created in order to facilitate student learning of subjects ranging from physics to biology, but there is a highly ambiguous definition of the term ‘game’ and many of the so-called games lack the elements of their commercially available counterparts.

 There is established work suggesting that in order to successfully capture an audience, video games must have engaging narratives, relatable characters, distinct goals, or some combination of the three; many science-based games, however, fail to capture all or any of those elements which has left educators wanting for more. Additionally, so few commercially available, science-based games exist that there is no literature describing their mechanics, and even when purely educational science-based simulations are included in the search for research on science gaming, there are few articles describing their effects on student achievement. In the words of Merrilea Mayo, “Everyone wants to fund a game; no one wants to fund evaluation.”

 Part of the issue in generating research about science-based games has been identified as a lack of monetary support for educational games in general as well as a desire to avoid educational content by commercial game companies (for reasons unknown at this time). Presumably, the two primary business models used for generating games (one for educational games and one for commercial games) are problematic because educational games generally do not facilitate the financial gain necessary for large companies to continue game production, while small, not-for-profit, academically-grounded organizations cannot generate the funding needed to create visually intensive, engaging games of caliber equal to that of commercial organizations (for example, //World of Shakespeare//, an experimental Shakepearean massive multiplayer on-line roleplaying game, floundered in large part because of its limited budget of $250,000; research indicates that not-for-profit game designers, with the need for skilled computer software programmers and artists, cannot generate the kind of money necessary to regularly fund the expensive game creation process).

In the period between 1980 and 1996, Dr. Carl Sagan set out to change the way Americans experienced and reflected upon science and the scientific method, hoping to galvanize the enthusiasm for science and engineering the nation held during the early years of the Cold War. However, as greater emphasis was placed on rote memorization to provoke student growth in discrete areas of biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science, the work completed to revitalize the STEM fields began to reverse and unintentionally decrease student ability to generalize scientific and mathematical processes across disciplines. Immediately prior to his death, Sagan wrote that one of the biggest problems he faced in his crusade to bring science to the forefront of American culture was the lack of interested, capable individuals with great enough content knowledge and charisma to take difficult concepts and provocatively entice an under-informed public to become invested in the sciences (Sagan, 1997). Video gaming technology (which has been very economically successful in generating learner interest in content) [MY1]  has been sought as a means to bridge this gap in Sagan’s campaign to increase public engagement with the sciences. However, despite the existence of a wide range of science-based video games, the research on these types of games is quite thin. The few available, peer-reviewed articles discussing science-based gaming present science in the K-12 curriculum as contending with observable natural phenomenon associated with well-defined, stable underlying concepts (including weather, Newtonian physics, the periodic table of the elements, and the solar system), but virtual worlds, which by their very nature do not include the manipulation of physical matter, often serve as a weak substitute for issues of gravity, space, weather, fluid dynamics, and chemical reactions (Clark et al., [Year]). As a result, science-based video games appear to do little in furthering learner understanding of real-world scientific content. Conversely, because the human social world is not entirely explained by static scientific causality, human interactions and social sciences, that emerge in unique situations and (in part due to human self-awareness and ability to be reflective) can change continuously, may be optimal for learning in video game contexts. Video games, particularly massively multiplayer online games (MMORPGs), are perhaps well suited for experiencing and learning about such human systems, but are poorly structured to facilitate the learning of naturally occurring physical science. Most notable among successful game-based learning areas are language education, leadership skills, and group dynamics, which serve to highlight the lack of evidence in support for physical science-based video games. As a result, we posit that this is because video games present a uniquely assessable form of human interaction but act as a poor substitute for Nature and physically-rooted (and measurable) phenomena. In one illustration of this dilemma, science-based games like SURGE or Lunar Lander require students to obtain fragmented portions of science knowledge and use them to form rudimentary understandings of how the physical world is constructed around them, but they do not present the material in a way that is largely transferable to the actual movement of physical objects. While these games are useful in outlining the underlying mathematical principles that govern Newtonian physics, the objects being manipulated have no physical presence in reality, which inadvertently undermines the learning of concepts like force, momentum, and inertia (compared to laboratory experiments in which students physically manipulate such objects). Having students examine force and gravity through tools like the Playstation Move may imply the existence of physical forces and their relationships with one another, but does so in an implicit way that is difficult to generalize to the movement of objects in the real world. This makes it much more difficult for learners to master the investigation of physical reality because, unlike the human interactions reflected in MMORPGs or other types of video games, the structures built into the game do not accurately match their counterparts outside of it. Science-based virtual simulations, on the other hand, tend to produce much higher levels of learner achievement because they make visible underlying conceptual and mathematical dimensions (e.g., acceleration and vector forces), and demonstrate the direct relationship between content and its application. Unlike video games, which are defined by their narrative elements, simulations need not employ story-telling beyond that necessary to explain exactly how the skills being explored are applicable to the real-world. Flight and surgical simulators, for example, are well correlated to achievement by military and medical personnel, respectively; unlike their video game counterparts, they explicitly establish how those flight and surgical skills are to be used in flight and surgical scenarios. The available research on science-based video games (as compared to science-based simulations) appears to imply that the figurative sugar-coating of the content interferes with student understanding and weakens the ability of learners to apply their knowledge in the physical world.

[MY1] This seems an unsubstantiated claim… and misleading in terms of getting ALL learners engaged with SCIENCE content