You are here:

Conceptual Gaps in Mathematics as a Research Base for a Successful Game-based Mathematics Intervention

, Institute for Equity/Excellence in Math and Science Education/New Mexico State University, United States ; , New Mexico State University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Amsterdam, Netherlands Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


Educational researchers at New Mexico State University found patterns of common mathematical errors and conceptual misunderstandings by students from diverse communities and schools when they analyzed 24,000 student test results on an annual state standardized test. This article describes how knowledge of conceptual gaps in mathematics in Grades 3-8, connected with designs for digital learning, was used as the basis for the development and testing of successful digitally-based mathematics learning materials.


Wiburg, K.M. & Raynor, C. (2018). Conceptual Gaps in Mathematics as a Research Base for a Successful Game-based Mathematics Intervention. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 315-325). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis–matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45 (1), 3-15.
  2. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How people learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy.
  3. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
  4. Brown, E. (2015). What the national drop in 2015 NAEP test scores really means. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
  5. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12 (2), 113–124.
  6. Devlin, K. (2011). Mathematics education for a new era: Videogames as a medium for learning. Natick, MA: A.K. Peters, Ltd.
  7. Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 355-385.
  8. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Psychology Press.
  9. Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw& J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  10. Gonzalez, J.J. (2013). My journey with inquiry-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24 (2), 33–50.
  11. Greeno, J.G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101 (2), 336–342.
  12. Greeno, J.G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Handbook of educational psychology, 77, 15-46.
  13. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63-85.
  14. Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P.A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7–47). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University
  15. Korn, K., Uribe, L., Wiburg, K., & Morales, S. (2013). Annual report: Math Snacks. National Science Foundation. Liebenski, S. (Summer, 2008). Personal conversation with Karin Wiburg, P.I. For Math Snacks. (Liebenski served on a quality review team for our SUMA project (NSF #0096674) as part of our Institute for Equity/Excellence in Math and Science Education (IEMSE). New Mexico State University.
  16. Moses, R.P., & Cobb, C.E., Jr. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston, MA: Beacon Hill Press.
  17. Mullis, M. (2011). Foy & Arora (2012). Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). The TIMSS. NGA Center, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center). Retrieved from, Http://
  18. OECD. (2012). Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. [ 2014-12-03]. Retrieved from http:////
  19. Pearson. (2013). Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test.
  20. REL Technical Brief Southwest. (2008). Aligning mathematics assessment standards: New Mexico and the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: IES Regional Educational Laboratory Program: U.S. Department of Education.
  21. Richland, L.E., Stigler, J.W., & Holyoak, K.J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47 (3), 189-203.
  22. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2008). Pedagogical biases in educational technologies. Educational Technology, 48 (3), 3– 11.
  23. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12 (2), 151–169.
  24. Van Meter, P., & Stevens, R.J. (2000). The role of theory in the study of peer collaboration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69 (1), 113-127.
  25. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23 (3), 3441.
  26. Wiburg, K., Chamberlin, B., Trujillo, K., Parra, J.L., & Stanford, T. (2016). Transforming mathematics teaching through games and inquiry. Handbook of Research on Transforming Mathematics Teacher Education in the Digital Age, 52. Acknowledgements

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact