Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Project NEO: A Video Game to Promote STEM Competency for Preservice Elementary Teachers

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The need for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors for our future workforce is growing, yet fewer students are choosing to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics areas, and many are underprepared, in part because elementary school preservice teachers are also underprepared. This National Science Foundation-supported project developed and tested the first of several planned modules of a video game based on the Next Generation Science Standards. Results suggest that preservice teachers who play the video game demonstrate improved science content knowledge. The study also found that preservice teachers had positive attitudes toward video games as instructional tools. Implications for preservice teacher education relating to games and science education are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that the postinstruction measures also served as the pregame measures.

References

  • AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, V., & Atwood, R. (1995). Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of what causes night and day. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D., & Leary, R. (1995). Letting girls speak out about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Bass, H., Sleep, L., & Thames, M. (2005). A theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Paper presented at The Fifteenth ICMI Study: The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics, May 15–21, 2005, State University of Sao Paolo at Rio Claro, Brazil. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/G-math/ICMI/ball_ICMI_prop_oct11.doc

  • Baltra, A. (1990). Language learning through computer adventure games. Simulation and Gaming, 21(4), 445–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbas, A., & Psillos, D. (1997). Causal reasoning as a base for advancing a systemic approach to simple electrical circuits. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, K. A., & Johnson, W. L. (2010). Developing serious games for learning language-in-culture. In R. Van Eck (Ed.), Gaming and cognition: Theories and perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 282–315). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggs, T. (2000). Influences and barriers to the adoption of instructional technology. In Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Murfreesboro, TN (ED446764).

  • Bell-Basca, B., Grotzer, T. A., Donis, K., & Shaw, S. (2000, April). Using domino and relational causality to analyze ecosystems: Realizing that what goes around comes around. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

  • Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broussard, S. R., La Lopa, J. M., & Ross-Davis, A. (2007). Synergistic knowledge development in interdisciplinary teams. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 36, 129–133.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., Davis, J., Onarheim, K., & Quitadamo, I. (2002). Carrots, velvet whips, and propeller beanies: Providing incentives that facilitate institutional change. In D. Willis, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1521–1523). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, W., & Broughton, P. (2002). New instructional technology and faculty development: Negotiating the Titanic through the North Atlantic. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2002, No. 1, pp. 748–751).

  • Butler, D., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 22(2), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., et al. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the Office of Science Education National Institutes of Health. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from http://sharepoint.snoqualmie.k12.wa.us/mshs/ramseyerd/Science Inquiry 1 20112012/What is Inquiry Sciecne (long version).pdf

  • Bybee, R. W., et al. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Washington, DC: The National Center for Improving Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Council on Science and Technology. (2010). The preparation of elementary school teachers to teach science in California. Sacramento: CCST. Retrieved February 5 from the World Wide Web at http://www.ccst.us/publications/2010/2010K-6.php

  • CCF, Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K–12 Science Education Standards & National Research Council. (2012). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Christiansen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992a). An anchored instruction approach to cognitive skill acquisition and intelligent tutoring. In J. W. Regian & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to automated instruction (pp. 135–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992b). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2000–2003). Museum-related multimedia and virtual environments for teaching and learning science. [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $359,510.

  • Dede, C. (2003–2005). Studying situated learning and knowledge transfer in a multi-user environment. [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $784,244.

  • Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. (2003). Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1971). How we think. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Originally published in 1910.

  • Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 22(4), 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durndell, A., Glissov, P., & Siann, G. (1995). Gender and computing: Persisting differences. Educational Research, 37(3), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESA (2013). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Retrieved July 17, 2013 from, http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf

  • Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes (TOSRA). Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futurelab. (2005). Teaching with games: Teachers’ attitudes to games and learning. Topline survey results, taken from Ipsos MORI Teachers’ Omnibus Wave 4. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/project_reports/teaching_with_games/TWG_teachers_survey.pdf

  • Gaydos, M., & Squire, K. (2010). Citizen science: Designing a game for the 21st century. In R. Van Eck (Ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious games: Emerging concepts and future directions. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2007a). Games and learning: Issues, perils and potentials. In J. P. Gee (Ed.), Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (pp. 129–174). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2007b). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring, J. (2001). Not enough girls. Education Week, 20(35), 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1994). Learning theory and instruction. In G. d’Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: Vol. 2. The state of the art (pp. 341–357). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.

  • Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. W. (1997). Explaining and envisaging an ecological phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (2006). Misconceptions-oriented standards-based assessment resources for teachers. Retrieved on August 1, 2014, from www.cfa.harvard.edu/sed/mosart/

  • Hawk, P. P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Does certification matter? Journal of Teacher Education, May, 36(3), 13–15. doi:10.1177/002248718503600303

  • Hayden, K., & Ouyang, Y. (2009–2012). iQUEST: Investigators for quality understanding and engagement for students and teachers [ITEST project]. Sponsored by University Auxiliary and Research Services Corporation. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $1,493,541.

  • Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Technical Report 2005–004. Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA441935

  • Heiss, E. D., et al. (1950). Modern science teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbart, J. (1901). Outlines of educational doctrine. (C. DeGarmo, trans); A. Lange (Ed). New York: Macmillan.

  • Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarret, O. S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(1), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser Family Foundation. (2010). Generation M 2 : Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy-Clark, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on using scenario-based virtual worlds in science education. Computers & Education, 57, 2224–2235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers’ expectations and value assessments of video games play in their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, M., Locwood, J., Malhotra, R., Harris, C., & Johnson, K. (2008–2012). Strategies: Girls innovating with technology as entrepreneurial engineers [ITEST project]. Sponsored by SRI International. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $1,599,208.

  • Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future. U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) Issue Brief #03-11. Retrieved November 3, 2012, at www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf

  • Leemkuil, H., de Jong, T., de Hoog, R., & Christoph, N. (2003). KM Quest: A collaborative Internet-based simulation game. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, K. (2002). Impacts of personal characteristics on computer attitude and academic users information system satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 395–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, D. (2002). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, K. H. (2003). Evaluation of a statewide science in-service and outreach program: Teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, C., & Johnson, L. (2010). Information technology in higher education: Tensions and barriers. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, M. J. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education? Science, 323(5910), 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, J. R., & Watanabe, T. (1999, Spring). The use of research to inform the evaluation of the Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations, 2, 91–104.

  • McGinnis, J. R., Watanabe, T., Roth McDuffie, A., Kramer, S., & Shama, G. (1997). The Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation: Making sense of the enactment of reform in the preparation of specialist teachers of mathematics and science. In P. Rubba, P. Keig, & J. Rye, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1997 Association for the education of teachers of science (pp. 326–347). Pensacola, FL: Association for the Education of Teachers of Science.

  • McGinnis, J. R., Kramer, S., Shama, G., Graeber, A. O., Parker, C. A., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Undergraduates’ attitudes and beliefs about subject matter and pedagogy measured periodically in a reform-based mathematics and science teacher preparation program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(8), 713–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J., Wood, W., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc., on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Retrieved February 5, 2014, from the World Wide Web at www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards

  • O’Hanlon, C. (2009). Resistance is futile. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 36(3), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H. F., Wainess, R., & Baker, E. (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: Evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 455–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). Education at a glance indicators. [report]. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm

  • Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000, April). Models and moves: Focusing on dimensions of causal complexity to achieve deeper scientific understanding. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 441698.

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2010). Americans and their gadgets. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP-Americans%20and%20their%20Gadgets.pdf

  • Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, S. D. (2015). Introduction to middle level education (3rd ed.). Pearson: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, B., & Coulter, G. A. (2010). Perceptions of the value of digital mini-games: Implications for middle school classrooms. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., O’Dwyer, L., Bebell, D., & Tao, W. (2007). How teachers’ uses of technology vary by tenure and longevity. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 393–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. M., Smith, R., Smith, J., & Orgill, S. (2002). Qualtrics [online software]. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneider, C., Bar, V., & Kavanagh, C. (2011). Learning about seasons: A guide for teachers and curriculum developers. Astronomy Education Review, 10, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. (2008–2012). CAREER: Scientific role-playing games for 21st-century citizenship [DRL project]. Funded by the National Science Foundation for $795,809.

  • Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School and Science Mathematics, 96(1), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y., & Wind, A. P. (2011). Review of research on computer games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 127–221). Charlotte, NC: IAP.

  • Trumper, R. (2006). Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts—seasonal change—at a time of reform in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 879–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(2), 165–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R. (2007). Six ideas in search of a discipline. In M. Spector, N. Seel, & K. Morgan (Eds.), The design and use of simulation computer games in education. New York: Sense Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R., & The AIM Lab at the University of Memphis (2006, February/March). Using games to promote girls’ positive attitudes toward technology. Innovate Journal, 2(3). Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=209

  • 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, 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 16, 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. (1999). Preservice professional development of mathematics teachers. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/pspd2.pdf

  • Yair, Y., Schur, Y., & Mintz, R. (2003). A “thinking journey” to the planets using scientific visualization technologies: Implications to astronomy education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

    Richard N. Van Eck, Mark Guy, Timothy Young & Austin T. Winger

  2. Triad Interactive Media, Inc., Jamestown, NC, USA

    Scott Brewster

Authors
  1. Richard N. Van Eck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Guy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Austin T. Winger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott Brewster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard N. Van Eck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Eck, R.N., Guy, M., Young, T. et al. Project NEO: A Video Game to Promote STEM Competency for Preservice Elementary Teachers. Tech Know Learn 20, 277–297 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9245-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9245-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation