1

Assignment: Case 1
Team Name: Team 5
Recorder: Sarah Ricks
Coordinator: Susan Mccoy
Researchers: Kristin Wolf, Mona Antonious, Renee Krueger, Sarah Ricks, Susan Mccoy

Case #1

Group 5

Renee Krueger, Susan McCoy, Mona Aontonious, Sarah Ricks, and Kristin Wolf

California State University Monterey Bay

MIST 524

Dr. Evanick

September 16, 2020

 2

Case Summary

In this paper, the team investigated Case Study One about Michael Bishop in the ID

Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design (Ertmer et al., 2019). This case discusses

Michael Bishop, the developer of Rigglefish, a science game for middle schoolers, who had been

working with a cohort of science students for two years at Oakdale Middle School to develop an

educational game for teaching middle school level science curriculum. Nancy Levin, the

district-level science curriculum specialist, had enthusiastically embraced Michael’s game as part

of a district-wide effort to improve standardized test scores of eighth-graders by implementing

new approaches, including learning software. Just as Michael and Nancy’s cohort of students

was about to enter eighth grade, Oakdale received standardized test results indicating an 8% drop

in proficiency amongst eighth-graders, and worse, the district now trailed state averages by 18%.

After news of low test scores swept across the district, Michael was informed by Tara Jones, the

new, district-level science curriculum specialist, that the superintendent had decided to withdraw

from the program to test Michael’s game, due to needing to focus students' attention on test

preparation for the upcoming school year. Unfortunately, this left Michael without a location to

test his educational science game called ​Rigglefish.​ He met with many different school

personnel at a variety of districts and school sites, to try to secure a testing location for his game.

After many rejections, he decided to try to better understand the resistance he was facing, calling

on some experts in the field and in education to come to test his game and discuss its future.

This discussion brought up many questions and concerns as to its ability to improve test scores,

to collect data about the students’ educational outcomes, the effectiveness of the game, and

methods to overcome teacher and administrator resistance.

 3

Preliminary Analysis Questions

Identifying Barriers to Game Implementation

There are multiple barriers that Michael encountered in trying to convince the school

district personnel to implement the games for the 8th-grade cohort at Oakdale Middle School.

The barriers presented in Case Study 1 (Ertmer et al., 2019) are as follows:

● Nancy Levin (who had supported the proposal) left her job as a curriculum

specialist to return to the classroom and Tara Jones, her replacement, decided to

withdraw from collaborating with Michael on the ​Rigglefish​ project.

● Poor standardized test results, arriving amid changes to the curriculum may have

lowered the confidence of administrators.

● The game, ​Rigglefish, ​is a one-week-long learning module that replaces the

standard curriculum. Because it has not yet demonstrated measurable results as a

learning tool for 8th-grade science, it is not a proven enhancement to the

curriculum.

● Bailey Richards, the science curriculum specialist for the Weyman Independent

School District, expressed concern that kids might waste time not knowing how to

play the game and that she didn’t see how the game would be an efficient use of

time for the “average learner.”

● New games or software require teacher training and implementation, including

elements of student and teacher interaction, student motivation, and the ability to

measure learning outcomes in real-time (throughout the week-long module).

 4

● The recommendation that Michael implement the program with an afterschool

group or summer program or program for gifted students affects the intended

target population.

● Objections raised by other middle school curriculum specialists included concerns

about the amount of time students already spend on computers.

● A district or state-wide move toward “common curriculum,” does not allow for

variation amongst specific groups.

Educational Game Developer Considerations for Game Design

When considering designing a game for K-12 educational designers should ask

themselves questions such as:

● Who is the target audience for the educational game and what are their

characteristics?

● Who is the intended instructor for the game and what are their qualifications?

● How will learning be assessed?

● Can learning be assessed in stages?

● What type of foundational mastery in science is necessary to play the game?

● How will this game raise test scores?

● Can the school districts(s) afford this?

● What type of hardware is required and what is the cost to schools/districts?

● Is WiFi required and if so, do students have available Wifi?

 5

● Is this available in accessible versions for our hearing and sight-impaired students

and students with learning disabilities?

● Is teacher training required? If so, what are the time and cost investments?

● Is there an interaction component built-in between the teacher and students?

● Is there IT support if students/teachers run into difficulties?

Arguments to Convince Administrators to Use Educational Games

Michael and his team created the game following the inquiry-based learning (IBL),

specifically the problem-based learning (PBL) approach (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018), which has

many features and benefits that promote positive learning outcomes. To convince the

administrators in the district to adopt his game Michael could consider using these arguments to

support its usefulness and effectiveness in the classroom:

The game is a complex, ill-structured task that promotes critical thinking.

Michaels game uses authentic ill-structured problems that are introduced before the

relevant content​ ​(PBL approach) promoting creative problem-solving. In the game, students

must breed a mating pair of fish. They can only accomplish this task through observation and

testing, to obtain the target fish. The game encourages the students to build their knowledge, by

engaging them in evidence-based reasoning and creative problem solving, which allows students

to develop important real-life critical thinking skills.

The game was designed with virtual models of real-world scientific instruments.​

Realistic real-world problems stimulate student motivation and are relevant to the content

the student is learning (PBL approach). Sample instruments were introduced such as
 6

Bathysphere, Sample tanks, PCR, & Breeding tanks. Michael created real-world scientific

instruments for students within the game context that the students learn how to use during

gameplay. The game increases students' understanding of real scientific tools and concepts, and

through the PBL approach promotes deeper levels of cognitive learning and increased retention

of the material.

The game encourages students to communicate their reasoning to their classmates.

The game encourages scaffolding of student’s knowledge building (PBL approach) which

encourages collaboration amongst students as they uncover unique ways of accomplishing tasks.

Scaffolding occurs when a knowledgeable peer supports another learner in carrying out a task

which they cannot yet manage independently, allowing the game to engage even the unmotivated

students. Collaborative learning is especially important in the science curriculum because it

promotes students to develop arguments for their reasoning, and use evidence to support their

perspective, which improves their communication skills as well as their critical thinking skills.

The game is student-centered.

Each student can decide how to navigate the tasks and choose different pathways to

accomplish the goal, making the gameplay interesting and fun. Student-centered educational

tools help promote learning through engaging students in fun, relevant activities that increase

their curiosity and quest of knowledge, creating life-long learners. Games like ​Rigglefish​, which

are centered around the learner, also reduce distractions and interruptions in the classroom which

increases student focus and engagement with the curriculum.

 7

Pros and Cons of Not Implementing Game in After-School Program

Michael feels strongly about not putting the game in an afterschool program because he

feels that providing it through school will allow all students to engage in learning about the

scientific inquiry through technology via their science classes. By only offering a game option in

an alternative learning environment such as (a) an after-school program (b) a summer program

or (c) program for gifted children, Michael would not meet his target population of “regular kids

in regular classes” for the implementation stage. Michael opted out of an alternative learning

environment for fear that the purpose of his program would be completely changed if the

program’s location was altered.

Some of the advantages of not implementing it in an alternative learning environment

include (a) holding out could lead to a school adopting the program in the regular classroom

curriculum which would allow all children to benefit from the innovative science experience (b)

the game won’t have to be compromised or altered to fit non-traditional environments which

means the integrity of the learning experience within the game would remain intact, (c) if a

traditional classroom adopts it and it effectively helps children establish a foundation for learning

scientific skills other schools might have enough evidence to support implementation across the

district, and (d) if the game succeeds in a “regular classroom with regular kids” it could open a

door for other innovative or alternative approaches to learning. The games will enhance learning

and studies suggest that using games (Halverson, 2005) offer the prospect of user-defined worlds

in which players try out (and get feedback on) their assumptions, strategies, and identities, which

is why Michael feels strongly that the game needs to be adopted in a normal classroom to prove

its validity with its intended audience. When he designed the game and the curriculum he built it
 8

directly for a specific audience of students, to be a student-centered game. This means by

changing the audience; the game is no longer tailored to the right group of students and risks

being ineffective unless the game is altered for the new audience.

Some cons to denying the implementation of the game in these alternative sites include:

(a) that his game may never get introduced into any program (b) without a program to test his

game Michael may never be able to measure the effectiveness of his educational game (c)

without the implementation of his game somewhere Michael will not have the feedback from

students to continue to improve his game.

Additionally, if Michael does decide to implement the game in an after school program

some of the cons include: (a) not everyone would have access to an afterschool program so there

would be limited access to the game (b) students in an afterschool program can range in age and

education level so players may be different from the target audience, and (c) it may be difficult to

extrapolate the data from an afterschool program and make inferences about results relative to a

school-based science curriculum.

Implications for ID Practice

Characteristics of Middle School Learners for Developing Educational Games

When planning educational games, one should keep in mind that “young adolescent

learners are curious, motivated to achieve when challenged, and capable of critical and complex

thinking….have high achievement when challenged and engaged….and (demonstrate)

preferences for active over passive learning experiences” (The Center for Collaborative

Education, n.d., p. 8 & 10). Bloom’s Taxonomy presents a hierarchy of cognitive ability in
 9

which increasing levels of cognitive ability are presented in ascending order: Knowledge,

Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom, 1956). This model

can be directly applied in the design of a learning game for middle school students.

Research shows that some curriculum development urges creators of the middle school

curriculum to be cognizant of the characteristics of middle schoolers. For example, middle

school-aged students are intensely oriented towards their peers, so game designers should

consider how to develop a game that allows middle school students to either share their game

experience with their friends or work collaboratively to better pique their interest (Know Your

Students, n.d.). Early adolescents such as middle school students also benefit from emotional

resonance in educational curriculum and cycling through the material with time for reflection,

therefore game developers should consider developing an emotional appeal within the game to

captivate the audience and allow for breaks in the game so players can contemplate their

experience or progress (Know Your Students, n.d.). Lastly, middle school students prioritize the

attainment of rewards, meaning game developers should incorporate positive reinforcement in

the gameplay.

Designers of educational games for middle schoolers should keep in mind that “Middle

school brains learn in different ways. The attention span of the average middle school student is

10 to 12 minutes, and there is little evidence that their brains can be trained to develop a longer

span. So, direct instruction should be kept to no more than this span of time” (Vawter, 2009, p.

2). From this research, designers should consider this when developing games, keeping the

objectives under twelve minutes to hold the audience's attention.

 10

Perhaps, by incorporating Bloom’s Taxonomy into the design of ​Rigglefish​, Michael can

implement a learning model that is particularly appropriate for this age group.

Another characteristic of students in grades six through eight is that they tend to be

familiar with video games and to understand that a new video game requires skill-building that

leads to mastery. With this in mind, developers should consider making the games at the

appropriate difficulty level to keep students engaged in the activity.

Different Contexts for Educational Games and Implications on Design Decisions

Educational games are developed and played in a wide variety of situations and very

diverse audiences. For instance, some educational games may be implicitly designed for a

classroom context, while others might be more useful for parents trying to entertain children at

home. Additionally, some games might be built specifically for a target age or grade level while

other contexts might include a wider audience such as kids K-12. An educational game could

also be embedded in the curriculum and played by different educational levels of learners such as

Preschoolers, Elementary-, Middle-, or High-schoolers. These decisions and contexts a

developer makes are extremely important in designing a successful educational game. Although

several things can affect the design decision, any successful game should be able to facilitate the

learning of complex and intimidating concepts and turns them into something understandable

and most importantly, enjoyable for its intended audience.

When developing an educational game, designers need to consider how these factors

listed below might impact their design decisions:

● What are the learning goals?

 11

● What is the knowledge level of learners?

● What grade level(s) will be targeted?

● What type and level of complexity will the game have?

● What subjects will the game target?

● ​What type of valid and reliable ways of assessment will be used?

● How can data from gameplay be collected or presented to learners/instructors?

● Will the game be played at home or played in class?

● Designed to be played in a group or independently

● At what point of instruction will the design be introduced?

Once all of these decisions are made, then the game developer could better move forward

with planning and building the game, for its specific audience and intended purpose.

The game designer or instructor might also need to consider what learning theory best

describes how learners learn a task; Behaviorism, Cognitivism, or Constructivism. The question

arises as to which learning theory is best. According to Ertmer & Newby (1993), they believe

that given that learning is a complex, drawn-out process that seems to be strongly influenced by

one's prior knowledge, perhaps the best answer to these questions is "it depends." These

theories can help better understand students' learning process, but what is more important is

selecting the appropriate instructional design theory for the game, that aligns with all the

information about the inputs, including context, student characteristics, and instructional

characteristics.
 12

As stated by Smith and Ragan "Reasoned and validated theoretical eclecticism has been a

key strength of our field because no single theoretical base provides complete prescriptive

principles for the entire design process" (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 69).

Methods of Assessing Student Learning through Educational Games

As teachers become more motivated to consider innovative solutions to learning, it is

important to coordinate with instructional designers to incorporate learning assessments. In a

partnership between the University of Michigan School and Education and School of Informatics

and the Jan Plass and Michelle Riconscente of the Games for Learning Institute at New York

University, they developed a collaborative tool between BrainPop and GameUp platform. Their

study “aimed to document the various ways teachers use educational games for assessment

purposes, identified game features that support good assessment practices, and generate

assessment-related recommendations for the design of educational games” (Researchers seek

input, 2013). In their study, they built assessment engines that aligned with the formative

assessment that teachers use as a means for supporting and advancing learning. Unfortunately,

they found that not enough teachers were comfortable with using educational games and digital

tools. Fast forward to 2019, the attitude has changed. More educational games are being used to

assess student learning and in fact, 83% of respondents said that the digital tools always (11%) or

most of the time (72%) help teachers achieve their primary educational objective which included

formative assessment of the student’s learning (Digital games, 2019).

In another study that assessed game-based learning and formative assessment, they found

that learning games focus on and assess important learning goals and provide information to

teachers and learners in user-friendly ways (Halverson, 2005).​ ​By having the educational games,
 13

more educators will see the benefits of using data from these games to guide their classroom

instruction.

Teachers can best incorporate their assessments into educational games through a variety

of means: assessing during gameplay as well as after. By walking around and observing students

and groups helps identify which concepts they might be struggling with as well as taking notes

on specific skills that are being performed in the game can help gain formative data during the

gameplay. After the game, there are many ways for students to identify what they learned, such

as modeling the game, game scenarios, and developing a strategy guide (Rufo-Tepper, 2015).

Factors Affecting Game Adoption that are Similar to Other Innovations in Schools

Looking at the factors affecting the adoption of a computer game from a broad

perspective, they are ​similar​ in the way any other new technology would be evaluated. Some

questions to be considered would be: Will using this require more teacher training? Is there a

learning curve for regular students? Is the school ready to accept a learning experience that is not

solely based on the core curriculum? As in Case Study 1, the first school which Michael Bishop

presents the games to, the school administrators are skeptical towards the addition of the science

games in the classroom. They ask if the games will add to the school’s effort to provide the

science students with the greatest depth of learning in the least amount of time, for example, does

it engage all students, raise test scores, support common core curriculum, cost-effective learning,

etc? “Constructivist strategies may be in opposition (to the goals of the science games) if the

situation requires short time frames with limited time and resources to devote to teaching and the

preparation of materials” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2018, p. 64). Another consideration by the
 14

administration to the adoption of a new curriculum is “if the school or business does not support

a learner-centered culture” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2018, p. 64). If teaching resources are not

supported, or the administration does not believe the technology will improve learning, it will not

be an effective classroom tool.

From a narrow perspective, the problem Michael Bishop faces with getting a school

district to uniformly adopt his game into the middle school’s curriculum is similar to many other

educational innovations from Chromebooks in classrooms, to new software like iReady. The

success of any new instructional technology requires all aspects of the instructional model to be

adjusted for proper implementation. For instance, in the case study, Bob explained that without

teacher approval and training, the game wouldn’t work as effectively due to unintended scenarios

that result from teacher resistance and assistance (Ertmer et al., 2019). In a different educational

game, Bob saw teachers showing students particular ways to play the game even though the

students could have used many different strategies to succeed, this resulted in many of the

students mimicking the teacher rather than using their own deductive or critical thinking skills to

beat the game (Ertmer et al., 2019). Even types of educational practices like play-based learning

or project based-learning have faced serious challenges when it comes to convincing educators

and administrators to adopt the innovative style. Research shows that artifacts are implemented

into an educational curriculum successfully only when there is both the individual level and

collective level sense-making and positive outlooks, which means both the teachers and the

group of administrators from principles to school board members must believe in the educational

artifact and agree to adopt it in the classroom for it to increase educational outcomes of students
 15

(März & Kelchtermans, 2013). Michael faced this same problem, he had some support for his

game, but it was not unanimous, which ultimately made it impossible to get approval.

Another article explains that “research on educational reform has amply documented that

implementing innovation involves complex processes of sense-making since innovative ideas

and artifacts (representing the curricular operationalization of these ideas, textbooks and

simulation software) have to be translated into new educational practices” (März &

Kelchtermans, 2013, p. 1). This means that teachers and staff must develop a new instructional

design process to implement the new technology into their lesson plans which requires planning

and teacher training, implementing the game a much more complex process. What Michael

faced was similar to these other types of educational innovations because schools generally have

ISD models they use for designing their curriculum. They put significant effort into developing,

analyzing, implementing, and evaluating these curriculums and once they are implemented they

are willing to make small adjustments, but it can be difficult to make large changes without

starting the process completely over. “The relationship between policy decisions (such as a

curriculum reform) and their actual implementation or enactment in schools’ and teachers’

practices is never simply a matter of executing prescriptions and procedures ” (März &

Kelchtermans, 2013, p. 1). At every stage of developing a curriculum for a school, there are

bureaucratic procedures that must be followed and approval that must be gotten to move into the

implementation stage. Additionally, teachers cannot just decide to adopt a new technology,

game, or otherwise; there must be evidence-based research proving its effectiveness because

students' education is at stake. Unfortunately, schools have a very strong relationship with ISD
 16

models which can be slow, analytical processes (Gordon & Zemke, 2000). This can be one of

the downfalls of ISD models in creating an instructional design.

Factors Affecting Game Adoption that are Different than Other Innovations in Schools

One factor that is ​different​ in the adoption of a computer game is the idea that the

purpose of this science gaming experience, works toward a much larger goal; to develop critical

thinking skills beyond what is currently being taught in the middle school science curriculum.

The scientific games are designed to promote the actual process of scientific thinking: healthy

skepticism, encouraging the learner to demand evidence for claims, and promoting critical

thinking that is evidence unbiased and valid (as Antonia suggests to Michael Bishop). It is an

approach that encourages motivated learning. “Constructivist teaching focuses on

problem-solving and critical thinking, and higher-order cognitive outcomes (Reiser & Dempsey,

2018, p. 63).” In comparison, other educational innovations may not specifically teach these

types of critical thinking skills. Learners need to develop skills while in school for life beyond

the school years to be an educated adult. Connectivism also supports this approach. “The

capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known” (Siemens, 2005, p. 5). To

encourage children in middle school to become engaged, motivated learners are likely to

improve their overall learning potential, and their assessment scores, as they will be more willing

to challenge themselves in high school and beyond.

Kids participating in the games would challenge each other’s claims, defend what they

are doing, ask each other for evidence, and offer it themselves when challenged. In other words,

what they learn through the game becomes part of who they are, allowing each learner to figure

out things for themselves in a uniquely individual way if the games offer a more collaborative
 17

and experiential curriculum. They might also offer the opportunity to do science experiments that

were not previously possible in the classroom due to time, cost, location, etc. Contrast this

experience with a traditional classroom, teachers giving information, and students are the

recipients, it becomes exciting to think about the potential learning benefits.

There are some specific ​differences ​in Michael’s experience and the implementation of

other instructional artifacts because his game was new and fairly unproven. Many of the

questions the experts he brought in asked, were focused on outcomes and how he could prove the

game was effective at increasing test scores. In the case, Craig directly says, “All I’m saying is

that if you want buy-in from schools, you’re going to have to show an impact on performance.”

(Ertmer et al., 2019, p.18). Although Michael is convinced that his game helps improve

educational outcomes especially in engaging students in critical thinking, he is not able to

provide proof that it will improve test scores because it is a new educational product. Other

educational software that has been implemented was able to get approval due to extensive

amounts of testing done that show the evidence of increased test scores. For example, in the case

of the software i-Ready, they utilized a “quasi-experimental study designed to meet ESSA Level

2 criteria, the Human Resources Research Organization, a third party research firm, to examine

the effect of ​i-Ready Instruction​ for Reading for early elementary students in Grades K–2 during

the 2016–2017 school year. Analysis of the implementation of ​i-Ready Instruction​ for Reading in

Grades K–2 resulted in increased student achievement compared to previous years”

(Norman-Dvorak & Randel, 2019, p. 2). This type of research done by the game developers of

i-Ready and external research companies directly shows administrators and educators the proof

behind their educational games’ claims for increased learning outcomes. Many of these types of
 18

new educational artifacts or software have to be tested on a smaller scale to gather the proof

needed to convince educators and administrators of their effectiveness before they will be

adopted on a school- or district-wide basis. Ultimately, if Michael wants to get his science game

adopted on a large scale, he needs to start testing the program where he can, including in after

school programs, summer school, or pre-AP classrooms. Then he will have the data to give

evidence-based testimony of the effectiveness of his game on increasing test scores.

 19

References

Bloom, B. S. (1956). ​Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.

David McKay Co. Inc.

Center for Collaborative Education.​ ​(2003)​. At the turning point: The young adolescent learner.

https://www.cce.org/guide/at-the-turning-point-the-young-adolescent-learner.

Digital games, tools move towards core of classroom. (2019, June 16).

https://www.gamesandlearning.org/2019/06/16/digital-games-tools-move-towards-core-of-

classroom/

Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2019). Case 1 Michael Bishop in ​ID Casebook:

Case Studies in Instructional Design.​ Routledge.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical

features from an Instructional Design Perspective. ​Performance Improvement Quarterly,

6, ​50-72.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-52.

Halverson, R. (2005). What can K-12 school leaders learn from video games and gaming?

Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1​(6), 1-9.

März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of

educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. ​Teaching

and Teacher Education,​ ​29​, 13-24. https://doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.004

Norman-Dvorak, R., & Randel, B. (2019, April). I-Ready Evidence of Impact.

https://www.curriculumassociates.com/research-and-efficacy/i-ready-evidence-impact
 20

Reiser, R.A. & Dempsey, J.V. (2018). ​Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology

(4​th​ ed.). Pearson.

Researchers seek input from teachers on games and assessment. (2013, November 25).

http://www.gamesandlearning.org/2013/11/25/researchers-seek-input-from-teachers-on-g

ames-and-assessment/

Rufo-Tepper, R. (2015, June 17). Assessing students as they play.

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/using-games-for-assessment-rebecca-rufo-tepper

Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. ​Journal of Instructional

Technology and Distance Learning International, 2​(1)

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan05/article01.htm

Vawter, D. (2009). Mining the Middle School Mind. ​Middle Matters,​ ​March 2009