You are here:

Innovation in Game-Based Learning Through Play Curricular activity Reflection and Discussion (PCaRD)

, , Drexel University, United States

Global TIME, in Online, Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)


Successful innovations in game-based learning must facilitate a synergy between student engagement and pedagogy through games. This study examines an emerging Play Curricular activity Reflection and Discussion (PCaRD) pedagogical model for the systematic integration of games in K-12 classrooms. As part of a yearlong classroom course, the PCaRD model was iteratively developed using design-based research approach with quantitative and qualitative measures to assess students’ content knowledge and motivation. 20 students completed the game-based learning elective course for engaging students in alternative ways to participate in mathematics, science, and basic microeconomic principles. Findings suggest that the PCaRD model with its underlying theoretical premise and with teachers support provides transformative learning opportunities for students. In addition, participants explored possible selves, valued, and learned the content.


Foster, A. & Shah, M. (2012). Innovation in Game-Based Learning Through Play Curricular activity Reflection and Discussion (PCaRD). In Proceedings of Global TIME -Online Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education (pp. 141-147). Online,: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Barab, S.A., Gresalfi, M., & Arici, A. (2009). Why educators should care about games. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 76-80
  2. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. [Editorial] Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3-7
  3. Brophy, J.E. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Bruce, B.C., & Levin, J.A. (1997). Educational technology: media for inquiry, communication, construction, and expression. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 79-102.
  5. Caperton, I.H. (2010). Towards a theory of game-media literacy: Playing and building as reading and writing. [Conceptual]. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 1-16.
  6. Charsky, D., & Mims, C. (2008). Integrating commercial off-the-shelf videogames into school curriculums. TechTrends, 52(5), 38-44.
  7. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
  8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
  9. Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L.P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  10. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. DiSessa, A.A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: A study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 5, 37-75.
  12. Foster, A., & Shah, M. (2011). PCaRD: Integrating games into classrooms. In D. Gouscos & M. Meimaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 183-194). The National and
  13. Greene, J.A., Muis, K.R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The Role of Epistemic Beliefs in Students' Self-Regulated Learning With Computer-Based Learning Environments: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245-257.
  14. Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 23-38.
  15. ISTE (2008). The ISTE NETS and performance indicators for teachers (NETS•T). Available: (Accessed 09/23/2011)
  16. Kenny, R., & Gunter, G. (2011). Factors affecting adoption of videogame in the classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(2), 259-276.
  17. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2006). Science education and student diversity: Synthesis and research agenda. NY: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. [peer-reviewed]. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.
  19. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
  20. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V.V. (1987). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
  21. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  22. National Research Council (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations". In: Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, S., and Education, Honey, M.A. And Hilton, M. (eds.). Washington, DC: Board on Science Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
  23. National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. National Academies Press.
  24. Papert, S. (1997). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Marietta, Georgia: Longstreet Press.
  25. Rideout, V., Foehr, U.G. And Roberts, D.F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8 to 18-year olds [Report]. Menlo Park, CA.: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
  26. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
  27. Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
  28. Shaffer, D.W. (2004). Pedagogical praxis: The professions as models for postindustrialization. [Theoretical]. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1401.
  29. Shaffer, D.W., Squire, K., Halverson, R., & Gee, J.P. (2005). Videogames and the future of learning. [Conceptual]. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104-111.
  30. Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when videogames enter the classroom? [Conceptual]. Innovate, 1(6).
  31. Tuzun, H. (2007). Blending videogames with learning: Issues and challenges with classroom implementations in the Turkish context". British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 465-477.
  32. Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The aims of education& Other essays. New York,: The Macmillan company.(cid:1)

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