Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Games, Learning, and Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Assessment in Game-Based Learning

Abstract

Learning in games has historically been assessed indirectly and/or in a post hoc manner. What’s needed instead is real-time assessment and support of learning based on the dynamic needs of players. We need to be able to experimentally determine the degree to which games can support learning, and how and why they achieve this objective. In this chapter we describe an approach to designing and developing evidence-based diagnostic assessments that may be embedded in a game environment. When embedded assessments are so seamlessly woven into the game that they’re virtually invisible, we call this “stealth assessment.” Embedding assessments within games provides a way to monitor a player’s current level on valued competencies, and then use that information as the basis for support, such as adjusting the difficulty level of challenges or providing a report for the teacher.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alkan, S., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Studying computer game learning experience through eye tracking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 538–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almond, R. G., & Mislevy, R. J. (1999). Graphical models and computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(3), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethesda Softworks (2006). Elder schools VI: Oblivion. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://www.bethsoft.com/games/games_oblivion.html.

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optical experience. New York: Harper Perrennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, J. V., Haynes, L. L., Lucassen, B. A., & Casey, M. S. (2002). Forty simple computer games and what they could mean to educators. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996). Instructional gaming: Implications for instructional technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emes, C. E. (1997). Is Mr Pac Man eating our children? A review of the effect of digital games on children. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42(4), 409–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricatore, C., Nussbaum, M., & Rosas, R. (2002). Playability in action videogames: A qualitative design model. Human Computer Interaction, 17(4), 311–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falmagne, J.-C., Cosyn, E., Doignon, J.-P., & Thiery, N. (2003). The assessment of knowledge, in theory and in practice. In R. Missaoui & J. Schmidt (Eds.), Fourth international conference on formal concept analysis (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 3874, pp. 61–79). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2009). Deep learning properties of good digital games: How far can they go? In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 65–80). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://adlcommunity.net/file.php/23/GrooveFiles/Instr_Game_Review_Tr_2005.pdf.

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, J. G. (1996). Considering games as cognitive tools: In search of effective “Edutainment”. Retrieved January 12, 2005, from ERIC, ED 425737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, L. F., Paul, J. H., Marisa, P. P., & Brooke, E. S. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NCES 2011–004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B. (2005). The classroom as “living laboratory”: Design-based research for understanding, comparing, and evaluating learning science through design. Educational Technology, 65(1), 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2008). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1–32). New York: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kiili, K. (2007). Foundation for problem-based gaming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 394–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, G. (2007). Between art and gameness: Critical theory and computer game aesthetics. Thesis Eleven, 89, 74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities & openness. Cambridge, MA: The Education Arcade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: III. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59, 439–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Results that matter: 21st century skills and high school reform. Retrieved from April 28, 2012. http://www.p21.org/documents/RTM2006.pdf.

  • Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). The future of play theory: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillay, H. (2002). An investigation of cognitive processes engaged in by recreational computer game players: Implications for skills of the future. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 336–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillay, H., Brownlee, J., & Wilss, L. (1999). Cognition and recreational computer games: Implications for educational technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2006). Don’t bother me mom, I’m learning!: How computer and digital games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help! St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, C. (2005). Engaging learning: Designing e-learning simulation games. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehil, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(4). Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol8/4.

  • Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and meaningful play. In J. Raessens & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 59–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Studio mathematics: The epistemology and practice of design pedagogy as a model for mathematics learning. Wisconsin Center for Education Research Working paper, No. 2005-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. A., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Digital games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2007). Tensions, trends, tools, and technologies: Time for an educational sea change. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 139–187). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503–524). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Rieber, L., & Van Eck, R. (2011). Games … and … learning. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 321–332). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. (2004). Replaying history: Learning world history through playing Civilization III. ProQuest Dissertations, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, L. S., & Gitomer, D. G. (1996). Intelligent tutoring and assessment built on an understanding of a technical problem-solving task. Instructional Science, 24, 223–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suits, B. H. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres, R. J. (2009). Using Gamestar Mechanic within a nodal learning ecology to learn systems thinking: A worked example. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. (1997). The effectiveness of business games in strategic management course work. Simulation & Gaming, 28(4), 360–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(3), 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We’d like to offer special thanks to Matthew Ventura and Yoon Jeon Kim for their help on conceptualizing various parts of this paper, regarding the categorization of the seven core elements of games and game-based assessment issues.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida State University, 3205C Stone Building, 1114 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4453, USA

    Valerie J. Shute & Fengfeng Ke

Authors
  1. Valerie J. Shute
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fengfeng Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerie J. Shute .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften, University of Mannheim, Gebaudeteil B A5,6, Mannheim, 68131, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Dirk Ifenthaler

  2. , College of Education, University of Oklahoma, Van Vleet Oval 820, Norman, 73019, Oklahoma, USA

    Deniz Eseryel

  3. Van Fleet Oval 820, Norman, 73019, Oklahoma, USA

    Xun Ge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shute, V.J., Ke, F. (2012). Games, Learning, and Assessment. In: Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., Ge, X. (eds) Assessment in Game-Based Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3546-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation