Education Tech Research Dev

DOI 10.1007/s11423-017-9537-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Using a digital game as an advance organizer

André R. Denham1

Ó Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2017

Abstract The use of digital games as an instructional tool has garnered increasing
attention in the education community. Empirical work supported by theory on the learning
affordances of digital games allowed the game-based learning community to arrive at the
consensus that digital games provide an excellent medium for the acquisition of skills and
the exploration of concepts. The field, however, lacks research on how best to teach with
games. For example, an unanswered question is whether gameplay should take place
before instruction, after instruction, or integrated throughout in order to maximize the
effectiveness of the game. To answer this question, a study was conducted with 103 middle
school students who either played a digital game designed to teach algebraic concepts
before receiving formal instruction, received formal instruction before playing the game, or
received formal instruction intermittently during their gameplay session. The results
indicate while on average all participants showed improvement in terms of learning, those
who played the game before receiving instruction showed significant improvement. These
results provide evidence supporting the theory that games are effective when used as an
advanced organization tool.

Keywords Digital games  Game based learning  Mathematics  Advance

organizer

Introduction

The consensus surrounding the use of digital games for learning has developed largely
from the prominent role digital games play in modern society and the derived theoretical
affordances of games for learning. In general, games have as native affordances many of

& André R. Denham

[email protected]
1
Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Technology Studies, The University of
Alabama, Box 870302, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA

123
 A. R. Denham

the features necessary to support learning: they can provide experiences formal instruction
cannot (Arena and Schwartz 2014); they may require the use of critical thinking skills; and
have the potential to take concepts from abstract to reality (Jonassen et al. 1998; Frasca
2003; Hwang et al. 2013; Gee 2014). Some games allow for collaboration, and many
provide immediate and continual feedback to participants (Sánchez and Olivares 2011;
Shute and Ke 2012). Games are many times multimodal (Gee 2014), player/learner cen-
tered (Kebritchi 2008), immersive (Prensky 2005), engaging, and motivating (Scanlon
et al. 2005). Finally, games that are scaffolded (e.g., with game levels) can support players
while they master the skills necessary to progress (Van Eck 2006; Schell 2014).
The initial reaction to the use of digital games for learning was not receptive. Educa-
tional stakeholders worried about the unintended consequences of having learners play
games within formal settings (Clark 2007). These fears lessened based on the results of
empirical investigations designed to illuminate and/or validate the theoretical affordances
of games through laboratory and/or classroom experiments (e.g., Connolly et al. 2012;
Rutten et al. 2012; Tobias et al. 2014). These investigations have found digital games to be
beneficial for learning in a variety of domains, which has led to an increase in the adoption
of digital games as a learning tool. The acceptance of games within formal learning
environments now requires those in the digital game-based learning (DGBL) community to
focus less attention on evangelizing and to shift resources towards addressing the chal-
lenges associated with integrating DGBL in the classroom. For DGBL to progress as a
field, concentrated focus must revolve around ‘‘research about why DGBL is effective, and
guidance on how, when, for whom, and under what conditions to integrate games into
formal education’’ (Van Eck 2015, p. 14). Answering these questions is of extreme
importance to further validate DGBL and to provide practitioners evidence-based direction
on the effective and efficient use of digital games for learning.
The work reported in this paper attempts to begin answering the questions related to
when and how to integrate games in formal learning environments. Specifically, this paper
reports on an investigation into the impact of using a digital game as an advance organizer.
Advance organizers were first presented by Ausubel (1960; 1968) to address the role that
prior knowledge has on subsequent learning. An advance organizer is a tool used prior to
instruction to serve as a bridge between what students know and what they are about to
about to learn. In theory this helps to increase the retention of new knowledge, skills, and/
or concepts by identifying to students the information that is the most important, presenting
the connection between concepts, and helping to activate prior knowledge. Advance
organizers are typically presented visually in the form of a narrative or outline and have
been shown to enhance learning, but very little research has been conducted on the use of
digital games as advance organizers (Vogel-Walcutt et al. 2013). Using Ausubel’s and
Mayer’s work on advanced organizers as the theoretical framework, this study investigated
the impact of a digital game designed to teach algebraic properties and concepts on
learning when gameplay takes place prior to instruction, as opposed to after formal
instruction, or intermittently.

Empirical support for learning from digital games

Digital games have the potential to improve learning within a variety of domains (National
Research Council 2009; Honey and Hilton 2010; Sitzmann 2011; Wouters et al. 2013). For
example, studies have shown digital games improve attitudes towards math and compu-
tation skills (Ke 2008; Laffey et al. 2003; Kebritchi et al. 2010), significantly improve the
learning of human immunology concepts (Cheng et al. 2014), and teach students about

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

ancient civilizations (Squire 2005). Several studies using the Quest Atlantis game in
schools found significant improvement in science inquiry skills, writing ability, social
studies knowledge, and understanding of math concepts resulting directly from gameplay
(Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, Barab et al. 2005; Hickey et al. 2009a, b).
Digital games also provide a promising tool for administering the next generation of
formative, summative, and in-process assessments (Shute 2011; Shute and Ke 2012;
Almond et al. 2014).
A recent meta-analysis of the research conducted on DGBL highlights the affordances
of games for learning. Clark et al. (2016) conducted synthesized comparisons of media
comparison studies (game vs. nongame conditions) and value-added comparison studies
(standard game design vs. augmented games). Their findings were that media comparison
studies showed those in game conditions had significantly higher learning outcomes than
those in non-game conditions. Likewise, augmented game design resulted in significant
higher learning outcomes than those resulting from standard game design (Clark et al.
2016). These findings echo the findings of previously conducted meta-analysis which
found that using games resulted in significant improvements in cognitive and attitudinal
outcomes, improved declarative and procedural knowledge, retention, and self-efficacy
when compared to traditional instructional approaches (Sitzmann 2011; Vogel et al. 2006;
Wouters et al. 2013).
While the evidence presented is clearly not exhaustive, it paints a vivid picture of the
pedagogical affordances of using digital games for learning. Even with the evidence in
support of DGBL, many important questions still require answers before DGBL can realize
its full potential. Research has yet to fully tease apart why digital games are effective, how
digital games should be used, and the ecological conditions needed to maximize their
efficiency and effectiveness (Clark et al. 2016; Van Eck 2006, 2015). In other words,
DGBL has the evidence needed to ‘shift emphasis from proof-of-concept studies (‘‘Can
games support learning?’’) and media comparison analyses (‘‘Are games better or worse
than other media for learning?’’) to cognitive-consequence and value-added studies’ (Clark
et al. 2016, p. 116). This shift in focus would allow for the exploratory studies needed to
identify the effect theory driven curriculum and game design decisions impact the diverse
types of learners found in and outside of classrooms (Clark et al. 2016). Attempts at
answering these broad questions about digital games will provide evidence-based guidance
to teachers who are looking for the optimal means of integrating DGBL within their
practice.

Digital game-based learning in the classroom

Teachers want to use digital games in the classroom, and many already do. A recent
nationwide survey of 694 K-8 teachers in the US found that 74% of respondents used
digital games in their classroom (Takeuchi and Vaala 2014). Of those teachers who did use
games, 80% used them at least once a month and 55% used digital games at least once a
week. While 30% of teachers found games to be beneficial to all students, a subset of
teachers saw digital games as having the most impact on at-risk students (those identified
as low-performing, cognitively or developmentally delayed, and/or with behavior issues).
Although this data indicates the acceptance of digital games is high among teachers,
survey results also indicate teachers are not fully integrating digital games into instruction.
For example, 54% of teachers use digital games to motivate/reward students and 43% use
digital games to give students a break. Very few teachers reported using digital games to
teach new concepts (25%) or reinforce previously learned material (33%). Survey results

123
 A. R. Denham

point to the lack of formal professional development focused on the integration of digital
games in teaching as a possible contributing to this phenomenon. Thirty-three percent of
the teachers who used games in the classroom were introduced to DGBL by other col-
leagues, with only 17% having received DGBL professional development on the pre-
service or in-service levels. Furthermore, the majority of the teachers surveyed (68%)
reported a reliance on colleagues for ongoing DGBL professional development. This lack
of professional development leads to teachers devoid of exposure ‘‘to the broader range of
pedagogical strategies, resources, and types of games that can enhance and facilitate digital
game integration’’ (Takeuchi and Vaala 2014, p. 5).
Based on the results of this survey, the lack of formal professional development
opportunities provided to teachers on the in-service and pre-service levels indicates the
need for those in the DGBL community to answer the genre’s pressing questions. In other
words, the lack of evidence-based answers to these questions directly correlates to the lack
of DGBL professional development offerings. Formal DGBL professional development
offerings should rely on work done to illuminate how best to prescriptively apply digital
games. In regards to the question of when to integrate digital games into the learning
process, it is important to determine the sequencing of curricular activities that maximize
the inherent learning affordances of digital games.

Using digital games as an advance organizer

An ongoing discussion amongst those who are involved in curriculum design is how best to
sequence instruction. Sequencing of instruction, or ‘‘the efficient ordering of content in
such a way as to help the learner achieve the objectives’’ is important for a variety of
reasons (Morrison et al. 2004, p. 136). The proper sequencing of instruction avoids
inconsistencies in instructional content, helps to negate duplication, is paramount to a
successful learning experience, and ‘‘the sequence of learning experiences is critical not
only for how well we learn, but also how we feel about learning’’ (Cranton 2012, p. 63).
There are several general methods for the prescriptive sequencing of instruction. For
example, there are the three sequencing schemes proposed by Posner and Strike (1976):
learning-related, world-related, and concept-related. In the learning-related scheme in-
struction is sequenced based on a carefully conducted learner analysis, while instructional
sequencing in the world-related and concept-related schemes are based on the content
being taught. On the other hand, elaboration theory contends the sequencing of instruction
should be based on whether the instructional objective is to have learners develop expertise
in a content area or on a task (English and Reigeluth 1996).
Another method of sequencing instruction focuses on designing curriculum in order to
answer the following question: how do we account for the impact prior experiences and/or
knowledge have on subsequent learning? John Dewey sought to answer this question
through his theory of experience (Dewey 2007). Ausubel’s and Mayer’s answer centered
on the use of advance organizers (Ausubel 1960; Mayer 1979a). Gagne’s conditions of
learning focus initially on preinstructional activities designed to motivate learners and
activate prior knowledge (Gagné 1970). According to Gagné one of the essential functions
of an instructor is to stimulate recall of previously learned capabilities prior to direct
instruction. Gagné stresses this recall of prior knowledge as it facilitates contiguity, which
is critical to learning. Gagné recommends activation of prior knowledge through retrieval
practice as a means of helping learners make connections between prior knowledge and
new learning material, which in turn facilitates the reconstruction of prior knowledge to
include new learning material (1974). Finally, Madeline Hunter sought to use anticipatory

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

sets to prepare students for future learning (Hunter 1982). While each of the above
mentioned theorist had different answers to the same question, each theorist would agree
providing students with an activity designed to leverage prior experiences or create new
ones before receiving formal instruction, is the best means of improving learning
outcomes.
In order to decide on a starting point for determining when to include digital games
within the sequence of instruction, exploring the use of digital games as an advance
organizer is an intriguing idea for several reasons. An advance organizer is an instructional
tool that enhances ‘‘learning by establishing a hierarchical framework to anchor new,
incoming information. Memory traces resulting from such learning would be firm and
enduring, ensuring effective transfer into long-term memory’’ (Relan 1991, p. 214). In
order for an AO to have a positive impact on learning, it must provide a meaningful context
for the learner to use when integrating new knowledge with prior knowledge, and it must
encourage the student to use the context provided by the AO during the learning process
(Mayer 1979a).
Operationally, there are two distinct forms of advance organizers. The first type of AO
is an expository AO, which are used when new information is being presented if com-
pletely unfamiliar to learners as determined by a formative assessment. In this case
expository AO seek to provide information that is related to preexisting concepts that may
be in the students’ cognitive structure and the new information to presented later on
(Ausubel 1978). Comparative AOs are applied when ‘‘new learning material is relatively
familiar or relatable to previously learned ideas’’ (Ausubel 1978, p. 253). In this case, the
intend use of the AO is to help learners differentiate between new learning material and
previously learned concepts, skills, and/or knowledge by making explicit the ways in
which new learning material and previously learned concepts differ and the ways in which
they are similar (Ausubel 1978). Comparative AOs also serve as an ideational scaffold for
learners.
The extant literature provides strong support for the use of advance organizers as a
means of improving learning and retention. In a review of 44 studies in which an AO was
used, Mayer (1979b) found that AOs provided a larger impact on learning when compared
to a control condition, AOs are more impactful when provided to learners with low prior
knowledge and subject ability, and that AOs strongly support far transfer of newly learned
material. A meta-analysis of 135 studies found that AOs had a facilitative effect on
learning and retention with an effect size of .21 when compared those who did not use an
AO (Luiten et al. 1980). The comparative advantage of AOs in terms of learning and
retention held true when studies were classified by grade level, subject area, subject ability,
and presentation mode. These findings have been confirmed by additional meta-analysis
including those that looked specifically at the use of graphic AOs such as concept and
knowledge maps (i.e., Nesbit and Adesope 2006; Stone 1983).
Comparing the affordances of digital games with the conditions needed to yield a
positive effect from the use of an AO, provides a compelling case for investigating the
impact of using digital games as an advance organizer. Impactful AOs and digital games
have the ability to provide an immersive and engaging context for the exploration of
concepts and skills. Similar to successful AOs, digital games have the potential to provide
an introductory experience at a level of abstraction higher than the intended learning task
(Mayer 1979a, b; Vogel-Walcutt et al. 2013). Impactful AOs make use of appropriate
representations, metaphors, and/or analogies, which all characteristics of endogenously
designed games. Finally, digital games are engaging and motivating, so using them as an

123
 A. R. Denham

AO may have the added benefit of helping learners better attend to subsequent instruction
(Mayer 1979a, b; Vogel-Walcutt et al. 2013).
Unfortunately, there is little empirical research on the use of digital games as advanced
organizers. There have been a few studies conducted under the preparation for future
learning (PFL) theoretical framework that may provide ancillary support for using digital
games as advanced organizers (Bransford and Schwartz 1999). PFL is an attempt to
increase the likelihood of consistently finding positive transfer with the central thesis of the
framework being that transfer is difficult to identify because researchers are using the
wrong measures. In terms of PFL studies using games, Hammer and Black (2009) used the
commercial digital games Civilization and SimCity to see the effect playing them before
receiving instruction would have on preparing learners to learn history and urban planning
respectively. By comparing the participants’ learning rates, the authors found Civilization
prepared participants to learn about history, while playing SimCity did not prepare students
to learn about urban planning. In discussing the findings, the authors pointed to the ability
of Civilization to provide experiences learners may not have had in other circumstances
and to how the design of the game requires learners to actively interact with underlying
intricate frameworks and representations of history in order to progress. Significant
emphasis focused on the impact of formal instruction in preparing for future learning. The
formal instruction participants received after playing Civilization served as the catalyst for
future learning. Without it, participants would be left to make the connections between
their experience playing their game and the target learning domain. When discussing why
SimCity did not prepare participants to learn about urban planning, the authors pointed to
differences in how each game handled success and failure. Civilization provided multiple
pathways for success, along with explicit goals and a means of assessing the distal and
proximal ramifications of decisions made. SimCity, on the other hand, is a sandbox game.
Sandbox games do not have clear goals and allow players to determine their own path
through the game without guidance from the game system. Additionally, SimCity required
the use of generic knowledge while Civilization required specific knowledge.
Another PFL study by Arena and Schwartz (2014) investigated the impact having
students play a game prior to receiving formal instruction would have on transfer. The
study used Stats Invader!, a game based on the classic arcade Space Invaders. Stats
Invaders! required participants to match patterns of alien attacks to an image of a distri-
bution, which they were to find out later was a probability density curve. The participants
who played Stats Invader! before being provided with instructional material, performed
better on a transfer measure when compared to those who were only provided with the
same instructional material on identifying probability distributions.

The present research

The aforementioned studies both used digital games prior to instruction. While both of
these studies found support for using digital games as tools to improve future learning, they
occurred in laboratory settings with a post-secondary population, and were conducted
under the PFL theoretical framework, which is centered on improving how transfer is
measured. To confirm the general ability of digital games to serve as a viable advanced
organizer and determine whether having learners participate in gameplay prior to receiving
instruction is a beneficial instructional strategy for teachers to employ, research must occur
within traditional formal learning environments. To that end, this study sought to deter-
mine whether using a digital game as an advanced organizer would better prepare students
to learn algebraic properties and solve single-variable linear equations as opposed to

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

spending time playing a game after receiving instruction or intermittently playing while
receiving direct instruction. Based on the prior laboratory studies conducted using this
approach, it is anticipated those who play the game prior to receiving instruction would
perform better on a measure of conceptual understanding of algebraic properties and be
better prepared to solve single-variable linear equations than those who play the game after
receiving instruction, or who play intermittently during a lecture.
To answer this question, a quasi-experimental study was conducted with 103 sixth
graders. Study proctors initially measured participants on their knowledge, understanding,
and ability to apply algebraic properties and then assigned participants to either a game-
play-first/instruction-after, instruction-first/gameplay-after, or gameplay-during-instruction
condition. All participants played the same game, received instruction from the same
teacher, and retook the measure at the conclusion of the study.

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were sixth grade students enrolled in middle school in a
school district located in the southeast portion of the US. Sixty-five percent of the children
in this school district receive free or reduced lunch, with 71% of the children being Black,
22% White, and 4% Hispanic. One hundred thirteen students agreed to participate in the
study, with usable data collected from 103 participants (56 females and 47 males). Attrition
was a result of students being absent from school during any part of the study. At the
conclusion of the study the gameplay-first/instruction-after condition had n = 35 partici-
pants, with the instruction-first/gameplay-after condition and gameplay-during-instruction
conditions having n = 41 and 27 participants, respectively. The median age of participants
was approximately 11 years old, with participants ranging from 10 to 12 years old.

Design

This study employed a quasi-experimental, non-randomized, intent-to-treat design. Ran-

dom assignment to condition was not possible, as the school system where the study took
place would not allow for any changes to the regular school schedule. For that reason, this
study used intact classes and selected classrooms that were equivalent in composition and
ability. School officials provided access to three intact classrooms in which the average
math standardized test scores where similar. There were three levels of gameplay within
the study, with participating classes randomly assigned to one of three modes of instruction
(gameplay-first/instruction-after, instruction-first/gameplay-after, or gameplay-during-in-
struction). In order to compute gain scores, each participant completed a pretest and
posttest. The gameplay-during-instruction condition was added to provide a variant of the
gameplay-first condition. While those in this condition will play the game first, the
gameplay-first/instruction-after strategy will be repeated across each algebraic concept
presented in the game, as opposed to receiving instruction after exposure to several con-
cepts. The rationale for including this instructional approach was to determine if it is better
to leverage the games’ ability to serve as an advance organizer in small increments of
gameplay or if it is possible to get the same effect over larger increments. Additionally, this
condition was included within the design of the study to determine if interrupting gameplay

123
 A. R. Denham

to provide instruction would have an adverse effect on the pedagogical benefits of flow.
Flow, defined as a ‘‘state of deep absorption in an activity that is intrinsically enjoyable’’
(Admiraal et al. 2011, p. 1185), is achieved by concurrence of concentration, enjoyment,
and engagement in an activity. It is theorized that in order for digital games to impact
learning, learners must enter into a state of flow during gameplay, which in turn will help
them persist through challenges, which will result in increased learning outcomes (Ad-
miraal et al. 2011; Hamari et al. 2016; Kiili 2005; Webster et al. 1994). Comparing this
instructional approach to the other two conditions will provide insights on not just
effectiveness, but efficiency in regards to the use of digital games as an advance organizer
and whether or not interrupting/pausing gameplay in order to provide instruction had an
impact on flow.

Materials

Digital game-based learning environment

This study used the DGBL environment entitled DragonBox Algebra. The basic premise of
DragonBox Algebra is to manipulate the cards (see Fig. 1) presented on the board with the
goal of isolating the box on one side of the board.
The game first introduces players to this concept with instruction to tap a green tile,
called the vortex, which is a metaphor for the number zero (see Fig. 2).
In this level, tapping the green vortices results in the box being the only item left on the
board, and the player moves on to the next level in the game. This introductory level is a
metaphoric representation of the additive identity property (a ? 0 = a). A subsequent
level introduces players to the concept of the additive inverse property (a ? -a = 0) by
asking them to drag and drop light and dark cards on top of each other. Doing so creates a
vortex card, and tapping the vortex card gets the box alone, completing the level (see
Fig. 3).
DragonBox Algebra then introduces the concept of an equation by placing cards on both
sides of the board and instructing players not just to get the box by itself, but to get it by
itself on one side (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 1 Metaphoric
representations used in
DragonBox Algebra

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

Fig. 2 Metaphoric
representation of zero used in
DragonBox Algebra

Fig. 3 Additive inverse property game mechanic

Fig. 4 Example of isolating the

box in DragonBox Algebra

This helps prepare learners for the introduction of the game mechanic representative of
the algebraic property of equality (if a = b, then a ? c = b ? c). This mechanic requires
players to introduce cards to the board to assist in isolating the box (see Fig. 5). In the case
of the board presented in Fig. 5, the player has to drag and drop the card at the bottom of
the screen to the left side of the board to apply the additive inverse property. Doing so
would result in a green vortex and tapping the resulting green vortex would remove the
vortex from the left side of the board and isolate the box. It also means the player must
place the same card on the left side of the board and the right-hand side of the board to

123
 A. R. Denham

Fig. 5 Algebraic property of

equality example

keep the equation balanced. In fact, the game will not let a player proceed until they
correctly balance the equation whenever they introduce a card to one side of the board.
The puzzles DragonBox Algebra asks players to solve get increase in difficultly and
while also introducing players to new game mechanics that are representative of various
algebraic properties along the way (multiplicative inverse, distributive property, commu-
tative, associative, etc.). A three-star scoring system is used, where the game awards three
stars at the end of a level if a player completes the level correctly, removes all inverse
pairs, and completes the level at or under a preset number of moves. Players have access to
an on-demand help feature and may replay levels and/or step back through moves in order
to correct errors. As the game progresses, it eventually replaces the metaphoric cards with
cards containing letters and numbers. It also introduces the equal and plus sign into
gameplay, along with the operations of multiplication and division. DragonBox Algebra
provides gameplay covering 24 algebraic properties, spread over 350 levels. As each
property appears, learners must use the newly introduced property and all previously
introduced properties to solve subsequent puzzles.
For the purposes of this study, the focus was only on the algebraic properties explored
within chapters one and two of DragonBox Algebra. Each chapter contains 20 levels. Six
total algebraic properties appear within the first two chapters of the game: additive identity,
additive inverse, properties of equalities I and II, multiplicative inverse, and multiplicative
identity. Table 1 provides an overview of the properties explored within these chapters,
along with the representation of each property within DragonBox Algebra.
As an example of how DragonBox integrates algebraic properties with the game’s
mechanics, a step-by-step walkthrough of the last puzzle/level in chapter two appears
below. This level requires players to apply all six of the aforementioned properties.
To solve this level in the recommended 10 steps (see the top center of Fig. 6), one
would first tap the green vortex on the right side of the board/equation to remove it, then
apply the additive inverse property to remove the snail card on the left side of the board/
equation by tapping and flipping the snail card at the bottom of the screen, which flips the
card to its opposite, and dragging the dark colored snail to both sides of the equation
(additive inverse and property of equality I). This results in a board that looks like this:
Fig. 7.
The next step is to remove the vortex/zero from the left side of the board/equation by
tapping it and then to divide both sides of the equation by a negative b and snake card
(properties of equality II). The current state of the board at this point would be: Fig. 8.

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

Table 1 Integration of algebraic properties in chapters one and two of DragonBox Algebra
Property Rule Explanation DragonBox Algebra
representation

Additive a?0=a If we add 0 to any number, Zero is represented through the

identity x?0=x we will end up with the ‘‘green vortex.’’ When you
same number click on this card, it
disappears from the board
Additive a ? (-a) = 0 If we add a number to the Each card in the game has two
inverse x ? (-x) = 0 opposite of itself, we will sides: one light and one dark
end up with 0 version. By dragging one on
top of the other, we end up
with a green vortex or 0
Properties of If a = b, then If we add a number or letter In the game, we can drag cards
equality I a?c=b?c on one side of the equation, to both sides of the board and
where we can add c we must do the same on the then continue to solve the
to both sides of the other side equation by removing cards
equation if necessary
1
Multiplicative x  1x ¼ 1 If we multiply a number by In the game, the player can
inverse its reciprocal, we end up drag the bottom card up over
with 1 the top card when the cards
are alike. The result will be a
one card
Multiplicative x1=x If we multiply 1 to any In the game, we can click on a
identity 1x=x number, we will end up one card, which is connected
with the same number to another card, in order to
collapse the expression into
one element
Properties of If ac = bc and c = 0, If we divide a number or You may drag a card
equality II then a = b. We letter on one side of the underneath the card you wish
divide both sides with equation, we must do the to divide; the game reminds
c same on the other side the player to do the same on
both sides of the equation

Fig. 6 Initial layout of last level/

puzzle in chapter two

The final steps at this point would be to simplify the left side of the board/equation by
dragging and dropping the negative b and snake in the denominator to the numerator
(multiplicative inverse) and then multiplying x by the resulting ones (multiplicative
identity) (Fig. 9).

123
 A. R. Denham

Fig. 7 Result of applying

additive inverse and property of
equality I in levels 2–20

Fig. 8 Result of removing

vortex and applying properties of
equality II in levels 2–20

Fig. 9 Final solution to levels 2–20

Measure

Participants took a test designed to measure their conceptual understanding of the algebraic
properties presented in the first two chapters of DragonBox Algebra and their ability to
solve linear equations. The inability to locate a valid and reliable measure of the con-
ceptual understanding of all six of the algebraic properties found in the first two chapters of
DragonBox Algebra necessitated the design and development of a measure for this study.
Crooks and Alibali’s (2014) framework for constructing conceptual understanding mea-
sures for mathematics informed the measure’s design. It is recommended for conceptual

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

measures to contain a variety of tasks, as multiple tasks ‘‘allow for assessment of different
forms of conceptual knowledge (i.e., explicit and implicit knowledge) — and for char-
acterization of patterns of behavior that might indicate conceptual knowledge’’ (Crooks
and Alibali 2014, p. 25). Crooks and Alibali recommend that these multiple tasks measure
two types of knowledge: general principle knowledge and knowledge of principles
underlying procedures.
To that end, the measure used in this study contained items that tested participants’
general principle knowledge and knowledge of principles underlying procedures. To
measure general principle knowledge, participants evaluated example tasks by completing
a match task, which required them to connect algebraic properties to their definition.
Additionally, the measure also asked participants to identify symbolic representation of
algebraic properties (e.g., ‘‘Which equation illustrates the multiplicative inverse prop-
erty?’’) (see Fig. 10).
To measure knowledge of principles underlying procedures and ability to solve linear
equations, participants applied their knowledge by solving several problems which
required them to isolate a variable. Several of the problems related to measuring the
knowledge of principles underlying procedures required participants to apply concepts and
procedures not covered during the time spent playing the game or during time spent in
formal instruction. Researchers included these questions to determine the effect of the
intervention on participants’ perceived ability to solve problems which they did not have
the skills to solve and also to determine how well prepared they were to learn these new
concepts and procedures (see Fig. 11).
There were a total of 18 questions on the paper-and-pencil test. The scores on each
version of the test ranged from 0 to 18, with each participant completing the same measure
at the end of the study. More detailed information on factor analysis and determination of
the reliability of this measure appear in the Results section.

Fig. 10 First two sections of algebraic measure

123
 A. R. Denham

Fig. 11 Third section of

algebraic measure

Procedures

Prior to the commencement of the study, the cooperating teachers sent home a recruitment
letter with each participant to obtain assent from parents for their participation. Students
who did not receive assent still participated in all study activities but did not complete the
pretest or posttest. At the onset of the study, the proctor obtained informed consent from all
participants who received assent to participate in the study. Following the collection of
informed consent, the study proctor assigned participants a study code, which was to save
their progress in the game and to identify their pretest and posttest scores. The study
proctor then administered the pretest and gave participants 30 min to complete it, with
instructions to answer as many questions as possible on the test and skip questions they
were unsure of or unable to solve. Following the completion of the pretest, those assigned
to the gameplay first spent 90 min playing DragonBox Algebra, and then received 90 min
of formal instruction and practice. Those in the instruction first/gameplay received 90 min
of formal instruction and practice, and then played DragonBox Algebra for 90 min. Those
in the gameplay during instruction condition, played the game initially for 30 min. At the
end of each 30-min increment of gameplay the study proctor delivered whole class formal
instruction specific to the properties covered during the prior gameplay session to partic-
ipants along with related practice problems for 30 min. After receiving feedback on their
solutions to practice problems, students were allowed to return to the game until for
another 30 min. This cycle was repeated three times, resulting in 90 min of gameplay and
90 min of instruction. Regardless of condition, participants completed the first two
chapters of DragonBox Algebra, which allowed them to interact with all six of the
aforementioned algebraic properties. The proctor assigned participants an iPad mini, which
they used for the duration of the study. All conditions received whole class formal
instruction from the same study proctor using the same lesson plan and practice problems,
and received feedback on solutions. At the conclusion of the study, the proctor

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

administered the posttest using the same timeframe as the pretest, with the same instruc-
tions to answer as many questions as possible and skip questions students were unsure of or
unable to solve.

Results

An 18-item measure, was constructed, with 10 items designed to assess conceptual

understanding of algebraic properties and 8 items dedicated to assessing the ability to solve
linear equations. The dimensionality of the 18 items from the measure was analyzed using
maximum likelihood analysis. Three criteria were used to determine the number of factors
to rotate: the a priori hypothesis that the measure was unidimensional, the scree test, and
the interoperability of the factor solution. The scree plot indicated the initial hypothesis of
unidimensionality was incorrect. Based on the plot, two factors were rotated using a
Varimax rotation procedure. The rotated solution yielded two interpretable factors: prin-
ciple knowledge of algebraic properties and ability to solve linear equations. The principle
knowledge of algebraic properties factor accounted for 17.7% of the item variance and the
ability to solve linear equations factor accounted for 16.8% of the item variance. Cron-
bach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency estimate for the reliability of
the measure. The reliability of the measure designed for this study is .86, indicating good
reliability.
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine if participants’ perfor-
mance on the pretest differed across conditions, with the pretest being scored out of 18.
The results showed significant differences between the three conditions on this measure,
F(2, 110) = 10.05, p \ 0.05. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2.
To account for the differences in pretest scores, a one-way analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was conducted to evaluate the relationship between when participants played
DragonBox Algebra and posttest scores on the test of algebraic knowledge, controlling for
the scores of participants on the pretest. The independent variable, when gameplay took
place, included three levels: gameplay-first, instruction-first, gameplay-during-instruction.
The dependent variable was the change in scores from pretest to posttest. The ANCOVA
was significant, F(2, 99) = 3.99, p \ .05 after controlling for scores on the pretest.
Adjusted means for the posttest scores appear in Fig. 12.
The means of the differences in scores from pretest to posttest adjusted for initial
differences were ordered as follows across the three conditions: the gameplay-first con-
dition had the largest adjusted mean (M = 9.10), with the gameplay-during-instruction
having a smaller adjusted mean (M = 7.70), and the instruction-first condition having the
smallest adjusted mean (M = 7.60). Follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate the
pairwise differences among these adjusted means. Based on the LSD procedure, the
adjusted mean for the gameplay-first condition differed significantly from the instruction-
first condition and from the gameplay-during-instruction condition. The adjusted means for

Table 2 Pretest means and

Conditions n Ma SD
standard deviations
Gameplay first 34 2.24 1.82
Instruction first 42 4.24 2.10
a
Game play during instruction 27 3.17 2.20
Scale is 18

123
 A. R. Denham

Fig. 12 Adjusted mean posttest scores by condition (out of 18)

the gameplay-during-instruction and instruction-first conditions did not differ significantly.

Table 3 presents the adjusted means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals of
pairwise differences in means.
The effect sizes as measured by Cohen’s d for each conditions in comparison to the
gameplay-first conditions is as follows: instruction-first = .38 (medium effect size) and
gameplay-during-instruction = .28 (medium effect size). This indicates those in the
gameplay first condition scored .38 and .28 standard deviations higher than the instruction
first and gameplay-during-instruction conditions, respectively. With a Cohen’s d of .38,
approximately 66% of the gameplay-first condition will score above the mean of the
instruction first condition on the posttest, with a 61% chance a participant picked at random
from the gameplay-first condition would have a higher score than a participant randomly
chosen from the instruction first condition. With a Cohen’s d of .28, approximately 61% of
the gameplay-first condition will score above the mean of the gameplay during condition

Table 3 Means, adjusted means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals of pairwise
comparisons
Gameplay conditions M Adj. M SD Gameplay first Gameplay after

Gameplay first 8.49 9.10 4.18

Gameplay after 8.02 7.60 3.64 .36 to 2.63a
Gameplay during instruction 7.91 7.70 5.66 .14 to 2.66a -1.12 to 1.31
a
Indicates the 95% confidence interval is significant at the .05 level

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

on the posttest, with a 58% chance a participant picked at random from the gameplay-first
condition would have a higher score than a participant randomly chosen from the gameplay
during condition. These results support the prediction that those who played the game prior
to receiving instruction would outperform those in other conditions.
An additional ANCOVA was conducted to evaluate the relationship between when
participants played DragonBox Algebra and their posttest scores on the section that
measured their ability to apply principles underlying the procedures needed to isolate a
variable, controlling for scores of participants on the pretest. This section contained a total
of eight questions. The independent variable, when gameplay took place, included three
levels: gameplay-first, instruction-first, gameplay-during-instruction. The dependent vari-
able was the scores on section three of the posttest measure. The ANCOVA was signifi-
cant, F(2, 99) = 4.00, p \ .05, after controlling for scores from this section on the pretest.
Adjusted means for the posttest scores on section three appear in Fig. 13.
The means of the scores on section three of posttest adjusted for initial differences were
ordered as follows across the three conditions: the gameplay-first condition had the largest
adjusted mean (M = 3.63), with the gameplay-during having a smaller adjusted mean
(M = 2.38), and the instruction-first condition having the smallest adjusted mean
(M = 2.27). Follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate the pairwise differences between
these adjusted means. Based on the LSD procedure the adjusted means for both the
gameplay-during-instruction and instruction-first condition differed significantly from the
gameplay-first condition, but the adjusted means for gameplay-during-instruction and
instruction-first condition did not differ significantly. The 95% confidence intervals for the
pairwise differences, as well as the adjusted means and standard deviations of the three
conditions, appear in Table 4.
The effect sizes as measured by Cohen’s d for each condition in comparison to the
gameplay-first condition in terms of gain scores on section three is as follows: instruction-
first = .73 (large effect size) and gameplay-during-instruction = .55 (large effect size).
This indicates those in the gameplay-first condition scored .73 and .55 standard deviations
higher than the instruction-first and gameplay-during-instruction conditions, respectively.
With a Cohen’s d of .73, approximately 76% of the gameplay-first condition will score
above the mean of the instruction first condition on section three of the posttest, with a 69%

Fig. 13 Adjusted mean section three posttest scores by condition (out of 8)

123
 A. R. Denham

Table 4 Means, adjusted means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals of pairwise differences
on section three
Gameplay conditions M Adj. M SD Gameplay first Gameplay after

Gameplay first 3.51 3.63 2.13

Gameplay after 2.38 2.27 1.58 .36 to 2.36a
Gameplay during instruction 2.35 2.38 2.37 .22 to 2.28a -0.90 to 1.13
a
Indicates the 95% confidence interval is significant at the .05 level

chance a participant picked at random from the gameplay-first condition would have a
higher score than a participant randomly chosen from the instruction-first condition. With a
Cohen’s d of .55, approximately 73% of the gameplay-first condition will score above the
mean of the gameplay-during-condition on section three of the posttest, with a 66% chance
a participant picked at random from the gameplay-first condition would have a higher score
than a participant randomly chosen from the gameplay-during-instruction condition. Once
again, the results supported the prediction that those who played the game prior to
receiving instruction would outperform those in other conditions.

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to investigate the ability of digital games to be used as
advance organizers. It was hypothesized the pedagogical affordances of digital games
would be more pronounced when combined with formal instruction. Furthermore, it was
predicted those who played a digital game prior to formal instruction would outperform
those who received instruction first. Within the context of algebraic conceptual under-
standing these predictions were shown to be true. Those in the gameplay-first condition on
average performed better on the posttest than those who played the game after receiving
instruction or who played during instruction.
The second hypothesis was that using a game designed to support the learning of
algebraic concepts and procedures as an AO would better prepare students to solve single-
variable equations. Once again, the prediction that those who played the game prior to
receiving instruction would outperform those in the other conditions proved to be true.
Performance on section three of the measure, which required participants to demonstrate
their knowledge of principles underlying the procedures needed to isolate variables in
single-variable algebraic problems, served to confirm this prediction. The problems in this
section were of varying difficulty and had several questions for which students received no
formal instruction and practice, and for which they had no interaction with during
gameplay. As predicted, those in the gameplay-first condition significantly outperformed
those in the gameplay-after and the gameplay-during-instruction conditions.
These findings provide support for the use of digital games as an AO when compared to
the other two instructional approaches investigated in this study. The ability to isolate
variables is a foundational algebraic skill all learners must acquire in order to progress
successfully in higher-level mathematics courses. While the ability to solve single-variable
equations and inequalities falls under the Common Core Standards for sixth grade (Na-
tional Governors Association 2010), some of the problems presented in section three cover

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

content, concepts, and procedures designated for instruction in later grades and not
explicitly taught during the intervention. The fact that those in the gameplay-first condition
outperformed all other conditions attests to the ability of digital games to provide the
experiences needed to better prepare learners to master the ability to isolate variables, if
those experiences take place prior to formal instruction.

Implications

The findings from this study provide several important implications to consider when using
digital games in the classroom. Firstly, this study has shown the importance of providing
learners a unifying experience prior to instruction. While not explicitly investigated in this
study, there was anecdotal evidence that the experience of playing the game prior to
receiving instruction provided a context for students to ground their burgeoning under-
standing of algebraic properties and procedures, while simultaneously providing the
instructor with a multitude of examples to point to when delivering instruction. As with
impactful AOs, the examples used by the teacher can originate from an experience shared
by all students, which in this case was the time spent playing DragonBox Algebra. This
also points to the importance of not expecting games to carry the entire instructional load.
Doing so would place an undue burden on learners by requiring them to make the con-
nections between what they experience in the game and what teachers expect them to learn
from the game. For teachers looking to integrate games efficiently and effectively within
the classroom, the result of this study shows the benefit of allowing games to do what they
do best—provide an experience—and allow formal instruction to do what it does best:
provide explanations.
Another implication from this study relates to game design. While there is much dis-
cussed about the potential of DGBL, any discussion of using digital games as AOs should
contain the caveat that not all AOs are created equal. Mayer’s foundational research on
AOs helped to identify the conditions needed for AOs to have a positive effect on learning.
Mayer contends that advance organizers should be designed in such a manner that it either
provides or pinpoints a meaningful context for the learner. In addition, the advance
organizer ‘‘must encourage the learner to use that context during learning’’ (Mayer 1979b,
p. 134). Lack of adherence to these design principles would diminish the effectiveness of
an AO.
Likewise, just because it is a game does not make it a game that is good for learning. In
actuality, games are ‘‘wildly diverse objects’’ (Hammer and Black 2009, p. 11). In the
present study, one could make the claim the design of DragonBox Algebra lent itself for
use as an effective AO as it met both of Mayer’s requirements for effective AOs. As in the
case of Civilization within the previously discussed PFL study, DragonBox Algebra
required learners to actively interact with the algebraic properties being taught by intrin-
sically integrating them within the game mechanics. For example, once a player is shown
the game mechanic on how to add a card to one side of the game board/equation in order to
isolate the box (properties of equality I), if a player adds a card to one side of the game
board/equation, the game will not allow the player to move on until they add the equivalent
card to the other side of the game board/equation. Likewise, when asked to employ the
additive inverse property during the process of isolating the box, the game makes use of
metaphoric representations of positive and negative numbers through the use of cards that
are light and dark. In order for the simplification to occur the game requires players to drag
the light card on top of the dark card (or vice versa). Upon doing so the two cards turn into
one card, a green vortex, which is the metaphoric representation of zero. As stated earlier,

123
 A. R. Denham

tapping a green vortex removes it entirely from the game board, just as one would remove
a zero when solving an equation using pencil and paper. The intrinsic integration game
design approach employed in DragonBox Algebra has been shown to be an effective means
of improving learning outcomes, when compared to games designed with the instructional
content exogenous to the game mechanics (Denham 2015, 2016a; Habgood 2005; Habgood
and Ainsworth 2011).
The results of this study and previously conducted studies on using games prior to
instruction also provide guidance to educators and educational game designers. Prior to
using a digital game as an AO, educator must do careful analysis of the game to integrate it
properly into the classroom. Careful analysis of games also allows teachers to make use of
games not specifically designed for educational purposes. While a game may not map
directly to instructional standards and objectives, it may provide the experience needed to
be used as an AO (Arena and Schwartz 2014; Foster et al. 2015; Shah and Foster 2014).
Additionally, teachers should make sure to avoid situations that limit the effectiveness of
AOs. For example, AOs will most likely be ineffective when the information presented is
not pertinent to the content being taught, when the learner is not prompted to combine
newly learned information with prior knowledge, when the learner has strong prerequisite
knowledge, and/or when the measurement of assessment only captures factual knowledge
(Mayer 1979b).
Educational game designers interested in creating games to be used as AOs should not
feel burdened to create an all-inclusive learning environment, but one that provides
metaphoric experiences from which learners and teachers can draw at a later time. To
accomplish this, game designers must make conscious decisions with regards to winning
and losing, how to intrinsically integrate the experience so that learner expertise has an
immediate impact on play, how to provide feedback, whether to focus on the use of specific
or general knowledge, and how to represent the domain (Hammer and Black 2009).
An underlying theme found throughout the previously mentioned implications is the
role of the teacher in DGBL. In order to properly integrate DGBL within formal
instruction, teachers need assistance in developing the pedagogical and technological
knowledge necessary to effectively and efficiently use games to teach new concepts
(Denham 2016a). Teachers already using digital games in the classroom need assistance in
furthering their pedagogical and technological knowledge in order to take full advantage of
the affordances of DGBL. On the other hand, teachers who do not use digital games within
their practice may be fully aware of their lack of knowledge, and will not use digital games
until they are ‘‘confident in their ability to use games effectively to enhance learning’’
(Becker 2007, p. 478). Research on the proper integration of technology in the classroom
points to quality professional development as the best means of address improving the
ability and confidence of teachers who have already adopted DGBL and those who are
hesitant (Denham et al. 2016b; Blanchard et al. 2016; Gerard et al. 2011; Thomas et al.
2012). The DGBL learning community can help to support teachers as they build their
DGBL knowledge by conducting more applied research, with the intent to use the results
from those investigations to inform the development of quality professional development
curriculum.

Limitations

While the findings of this study are promising, limitations to this work hinder its gener-
alizability. As stated earlier, the game used within this study could be considered an
endogenous educational game, so it would be unwise to generalize the results of this study

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

to all digital games. It was beyond the scope of this study to examine the impact of the
different games’ ability to be used as AOs. Further work might determine a particular set of
digital game characteristics necessary to elicit the intended pedagogical effect. This study
also had limits imposed by ecological conditions that did not allow for random assignment
to condition. This necessitates the conducting of a randomized controlled replication to
confirm the findings of this study. Additionally, the relatively small sample size and the
fact that only sixth graders participated in the study limits the generalizability of this study.
Finally, future studies should focus on determining the role that motivation plays when
using a digital game as an AO. Although not a specific focus of this study, motivation
always plays an important role in any study that uses digital games. While it is not possible
to say with certainty the degree to which motivation impacted the findings of this study, it
is not hard to speculate that those who played the game prior to instruction and those who
played the game first and stopped to receive instruction whenever new concepts arose in
the game might have been more engaged and motivated to receive instruction when
compared to those who received instruction first. Teasing out the impact of motivation on
learning would help to not just strengthen the use of digital games as AOs, but as a means
of increasing intrinsic mathematics motivation.

Conclusion

Although this study provided foundational support for using digital games as an advance
organizer, there are still many unanswered questions. For example, what are the definitive
characteristics of games that lend them to be used as advance organizers? Who are the
students that benefit the most from playing digital games prior to receiving instruction? In
other words, are the benefits the same for all learners, or do particular groups benefit the
most? Furthermore, what is the opportunity cost of using a digital game as an AO in math
instruction and are digital games more effective than traditional advance organizers? In
regards to professional development, how can the DGBL community help teachers develop
the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge skills needed to properly integrate
digital games in the classroom? Finally, more work should focus on determining the effect
using a digital game as an AO has on transfer, along with investigations on the impact of
gameplay prior to instruction on retention, and identifying the type of curricular activities
which magnify the benefits of using digital gameplay as an AO. Fortunately for those
interested in pursuing this line of inquiry there is a considerable amount of empirical work
that has already been done on advance organizers in a variety of disciplines and contexts.
Future work can leverage these previous findings in the crafting of deeper investigations
into the utility of using digital games as advance organizers.
Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Ten Dam, G. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative
game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185–1194.
Almond, R. G., Kim, Y. J., Velasquez, G., & Shute, V. J. (2014). How task features impact evidence from
assessments embedded in simulations and games. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and
Perspectives, 12(1–2), 1–33.

123
 A. R. Denham

Arena, D. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). Experience and explanation: Using videogames to prepare students
for formal instruction in statistics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(4), 538–548.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal
material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive views. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational
Research, 48(2), 251–257.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a
game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.
Becker, K. (2007). Digital game based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 38(3), 478–488.
Blanchard, M. R., LePrevost, C. E., Tolin, A. D., & Gutierrez, K. S. (2016). Investigating technology-
enhanced teacher professional development in rural, high-poverty middle schools. Educational
Researcher, 45(3), 207–220.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple impli-
cations. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.
Cheng, M. T., Su, T., Huang, W. Y., & Chen, J. H. (2014). An educational game for learning human
immunology: What do students learn and how do they perceive? British Journal of Educational
Technology, 45(5), 820–833.
Clark, R. E. (2007). Learning from serious games? Arguments, evidence, and research suggestions. Edu-
cational Technology, 47(3), 56–59.
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers and Education, 59(2),
661–686.
Cranton, P. (2012). Planning instruction for adult learners. Toronto: Wall and Emerson.
Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics.
Developmental Review, 34(4), 344–377.
Denham, A. R. (2015). Supporting conceptual understanding of the associative and distributive properties
through digital gameplay. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 706–721.
Denham, A. R. (2016a). Improving the design of a learning game through intrinsic integration and
playtesting. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(2), 175–194.
Denham, A. R., Mayben, R., & Boman, T. (2016b). Integrating game-based learning initiative: Increasing
the usage of game-based learning within K-12 classrooms through professional learning groups.
TechTrends, 60(1), 70–76.
Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
English, R. E., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). Formative research on sequencing instruction with the elabo-
ration theory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 23–42.
Foster, A. N., Shah, M., & Duvall, M. (2015). Game network analysis: For teaching with games. In M.
L. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age (pp.
380–411). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Frasca, G. (2003). Simulation versus narrative. In The video game theory reader (pp. 221–235). New York:
Routledge.
Gagné, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R. M. (1974). Instruction and the conditions of learning. Psychology of School Learning: Views of
the Learner, 1, 153–175.
Gee, J. P. (2014). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Macmillan.
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-
enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448.
Habgood, J. (2005). Zombie Division: Intrinsic integration in digital learning games. Cognitive Science
Research Paper: University of Sussex, 576, 45.
Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of
intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging
games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based
learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179.
Hammer, J., & Black, J. (2009). Games and (preparation for future) learning. Educational Technology,
49(2), 29.

123
Using a digital game as an advance organizer

Hickey, D. T., Ingram-Goble, A. A., & Jameson, E. M. (2009a). Designing assessments and assessing
designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2),
187–208.
Hickey, D. T., Kwon, E. J., & Filsecker, M. (2009b). Designing assessments, assessing designs, and
motivating engagement in immersive educational videogames. In Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. (Eds.). (2010). Learning science through computer games and simulations.
National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hunter, M. C. (1982). Mastery teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., Yang, L. H., & Huang, I. (2013). A knowledge engineering
approach to developing educational computer games for improving students’ differentiating knowl-
edge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 183–196.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical
thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.
Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers
and Education, 51(4), 1609–1620.
Kebritchi, M. (2008). Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games.
Computers and Education, 51(4), 1729–1743.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on
mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers and Education, 55(2), 427–443.
Kiili, K. (2005). Content creation challenges and flow experience in educational games: The IT-Emperor
case. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 183–198.
Laffey, J. M., Espinosa, L., Moore, J., & Lodree, A. (2003). Supporting learning and behavior of at-risk
young children: Computers in urban education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
35(4), 423–440.
Luiten, J., Ames, W., & Ackerson, G. (1980). A meta-analysis of the effects of advance organizers on
learning and retention. American Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 211–218.
Mayer, R. E. (1979a). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational
Research, 49(2), 371–383.
Mayer, R. E. (1979b). Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best
predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8(2), 133–167.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Steven, M., & Kemp, J. E. (2004). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley
& Sons.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Research Council. (2009). National Research Council workshop on games and simulations,
October 6–7, 2009. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.
Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1976). A categorization scheme for principles of sequencing content. Review
of Educational Research, 46(4), 665–690.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.
Relan, A. (1991). Effectiveness of a visual comparative advance organizer in teaching biology. Research in
Science and Technological Education, 9(2), 213–222.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations
in science education. Computers and Education, 58(1), 136–153.
Sánchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Com-
puters and Education, 57(3), 1943–1952.
Scanlon, M., Buckingham, D., & Burn, A. (2005). Motivating maths? Digital games and mathematical
learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(1), 127–139.
Schell, J. (2014). The art of game design: A book of lenses. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Shah, M., & Foster, A. (2014, March). Game Network Analysis: Developing and assessing teachers’
knowledge of game-based learning. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education international conference (pp. 685–692).
Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. Computer Games and
Instruction, 55(2), 503–524.
Shute, V. J., & Ke, F. (2012). Games, learning, and assessment. In Assessment in game-based learning (pp.
43–58). New York: Springer.
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based
simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489–528.

123
 A. R. Denham

Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom. Innovate:
Journal of Online Education, 1(6). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate.
Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. The Journal of Experimental Education,
51(4), 194–199.
Takeuchi, L. M., & Vaala, S. (2014). Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games.
New York: Joan Ganz Cooney Center.
Thomas, C. N., Hassaram, B., Rieth, H. J., Raghavan, N. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Mulloy, A. M. (2012). The
integrated curriculum project: Teacher change and student outcomes within a university–school pro-
fessional development collaboration. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 444–464.
Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., & Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-based learning. In Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (pp. 485–503). New York: Springer.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDU-
CAUSE Review, 41(2), 16.
Van Eck, R. (2015). Digital game-based learning: Still restless, after all these years. EDUCAUSE Review,
50(6). http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/digital-game-based-learning-still-restless-after-all-these-
years.
Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., Del Giudice, K., Logan, F., & Nicholson, D. (2013). Using a video game as an advance
organizer: Effects on development of procedural and conceptual knowledge, cognitive load, and casual
adoption. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 376.
Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., 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.
Webster, J., Trevino, L. K., & Ryan, L. (1994). The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human–
computer interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), 411–426.
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the
cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2),
249–265.

André R. Denham is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology in the Department of Educational

Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies at The University of Alabama. His research focuses on the
exploration of the contexts and conditions that support the use of emerging technology in the successful
learning of subject matter. Currently his research is looking at the use of analog and digital games within the
elementary mathematics classroom as a means of improving conceptual understanding, engagement, and
motivation.

123