Ap Psychology Board Game Design Project
Introduction
Examining board game popularity in recent years, Donovan (2017) states that board games resurgence can be explained by internet fatigue. The rising trend of board gameplay coincides with the surge of other passions such as video games, fantasy books, and comic book movies, which are part of today's culture (Cross, 2017; Ellwood, 2018). Board games are economically feasible, making their design and reproduction possible for independent game designers or researchers. Yet, in the digital era, board games have not only survived, they have "revealed secrets of lost civilizations. . . exposed the inner workings of our minds, decoded geopolitics, tracked societal changes. . . . And – most of all – they have entertained us" (Donovan, 2017, p. 7).
The relationship between board games and human activity has been largely recorded by researchers in the fields of archaeology and anthropology. Research in these fields has shown that board games contributed to the molding of the world, shaped, explained human thinking, and relationships (de Voogt et al., 2013; Donovan, 2017). Compared to anthropology and archaeology, interest in board games is relatively recent in game studies. Indeed, most research in the modern and interdisciplinary field of game studies focuses on digital games (Carter et al., 2014), which tends to turn digital games into the standard in the field (Stenros & Waern, 2011). Yet, literature shows that games1 are alternative learning spaces with the potential to enable cognitive and behavioral change (Steinkuehler & Squire, 2014). Gameplay is linked to learning because players have to understand the system to interact or engage with the games (Steinkuehler et al., 2012). Building on this premise, researchers in various fields are increasingly exploring board games as learning spaces (Horn et al., 2012; Zagal et al., 2006). A growing number of researchers view board games as appealing spaces for understanding learning because of the simplicity of these games' mechanisms (Horn et al., 2012; Zagal et al., 2006). The affordability and accessibility of board games make them perfect for informal learning settings (Wonica, 2017). Board games developed to teach provide new learning experiences (Wonica, 2017) and new opportunities for investigating learning in board game environments. For example, Nasir (2008) found that board games are environments where learning was ingrained in gameplay. Her work showed that playing the game dominoes facilitated mathematical learning (e.g., addition, multiplication), scaffolding, and enhanced language skills (Nasir, 2002, 2005). Similarly, Smith and Golding (2018) indicated that board gameplay improved mathematical thinking and skills, while Berland and Lee (2011) discovered that board games were sites for computational thinking. Bayeck (2018) observed that African board games have historically been used as learning spaces. Nakao (2019) noted that playing contemporary board games led to behavioral modifications (e.g., healthy eating and smoking cessation), while traditional games such as Chess and Go improved cognitive impairment and depression. Additional studies revealed that board gameplay enhanced collaboration, content learning (Peppler et al., 2013; Zagal et al., 2006), mathematical understanding (Ramani et al., 2012; Siegler & Ramani, 2009), communication, negotiation, and cooperation among players (Rogerson et al., 2018).
Emerging interest in board gameplay in various disciplines and settings (Pierce et al., 2018; Wu & Lee, 2015) not only signaled the usefulness of reviewing empirical evidence related to board gameplay and learning, but also the need to situate these findings within the field of game studies. Moreover, literature shows that playing involves learning as players engage with the games, and learn to interact with the game (Steinkuehler et al., 2012). Furthermore, learning is not necessarily in the outcomes, as much as it is part of the process of playing (Gee, 2005; Pelletier, 2009). Learning is embedded in the process of participating, engaging, and/or interacting with and around the game (Gee & Hayes, 2012; Steinkuehler, 2007). Therefore, learning is not limited to knowledge acquisition, or behavior change. Learning occurs in the various practices and interactions players participate in the board game environment.
Drawing on the understanding of learning to be both part of the natural process of participating in the gameplay within a sociocultural setting (Nasir, 2008), and an activity that involves skills/knowledge acquisition and observable behavior (Peppler et al., 2013; Yilmaz, 2011), the author presents the current state of board game research with a focus on learning. This study reviews recent research on board games and specifically addresses the following main questions: what kind of learning occurs during board gameplay? What skills/knowledge do people acquire during board gameplay? In what practices do players engage in during board gameplay?
The overall goal of this review is to investigate the relationship between board games and learning in recent literature, and to identify areas for further research. Studies from various disciplines and countries that explored board gameplay and learning with diverse participants were reviewed. Relative details of the studies reviewed were provided to highlight the relationship between board gameplay and learning. Finally, the article discusses needs for broadening research on board games and learning on the basis of the gaps in the current research. Prior to discussing the methods and findings, it is useful to provide a definition of board games in relation to other terms found in the literature.
Defining Board Games, Non-Digital Games, Tabletop Games and Analog Games
Given the use of words like non-digital games, tabletop games, and analog games in the literature, it is important, to place this review within the field of game studies, to define these terms. For instance, the term analog games can be considered an umbrella for all non-digital games, while tabletop games include board games. The following section reviews each term.
In game studies, board games are games with rules, a playing surface, and tokens that enable interaction between or among players as players look down at the playing surface and face each other (Barbara, 2017; Zagal et al., 2006). Unlike digital games, player interaction is not mediated by a system in board games, setting board games apart from digital games (Barbara, 2017). As Rogerson and Gibbs (2018) put it, the essential difference between board games and digital games is the medium. Board games (e.g., Pandemic and Warhammer 40,000) are typically designed to be played on a tabletop in one setting, with all the physical pieces unique to the game packaged in a cardboard box (Pierce et al., 2018). Pointing at the medium distinguishes these game researchers' definition of board games from other fields. Some researchers in cognitive psychology define board games as games with stable set of rules that determine the number of pieces on a board, the number of positions for these pieces, and the potential moves players can make (Gobet et al., 2004). These characteristics differentiate board games from card games or lottery games (Gobet et al., 2004). de Voogt et al. (2013) add that a board game is defined by its playing materials, that is, the board, pieces, dice, the game rules, and the game context. In this paper, a board game refers to a game played face-to face, following a set of rules, and using a combination of tangible materials such as dice, board/playing surface, cards2, and tokens.
Tabletop games, in the game literature, often refer to a broad category of games played on tabletop. For Carter et al. (2014), tabletop games are games played around a table with no digitization of the gameplay. Tabletop games, as other games, have rules, structure, playing materials, but "rely on interactions between tokens or playing pieces rather than the physical interaction of player bodies" (Carter et al., 2014, p. 124). Hence, board games such as Monopoly, Poker, Dungeons and Dragons, and Pandemic fall under the broad umbrella of tabletop games. However, tabletop games can also be augmented with digital elements such as touchscreen (Haller et al., 2010; Korozi et al., 2018), while providing collocated and face-to-face interactions (Mahmud et al., 2010). In sum, tabletop games refer to games played on tabletops, face-to-face, with tangible pieces that could include touchscreens.
Similar to tabletop games, analog games in the literature refer to a broad category of games that are played offline. These games allow physical and tactile interactions with other individuals and elements of the game such as dice, cards, board, or game pieces (Nilsen et al., 2018; Wasserman & Banks, 2017). Game researchers use analog and tabletop games interchangeably given the tangible playing pieces and the social setting of the face-to-face gameplay (Rogerson & Gibbs, 2018). For Torner et al. (2017), these games include role-playing games (e.g, pen and paper), board games, card games, carnival games, and non-digital games. Consequently, analog games are a wider category of games that contains board games, tabletop games, and games facilitating tactile interactions with game elements as well as individuals during gameplay.
Finally, non-digital games are the opposite of digital games. They are played without using electronic devices such as consoles, computers, or tablets (Clark et al., 2016; Rogerson & Gibbs, 2018).
Method
Literature Search
This review takes a narrative approach to a literature review by linking together many studies on different topics to interpret and show the interconnection (Paré et al., 2015). This narrative analysis results in a synthesis of recurring themes and a demarcation of present knowledge gaps (Shachak & Reis, 2009). Specifically, it synthesizes relevant literature across disciplines to provide a current state of research on board games and learning, while highlighting the worth of new research (Cronin et al., 2008; van den Berghe et al., 2019). The literature search was performed in Psycinfo, Eric, Google Scholar, and Lion Search, the Pennsylvania State University database search engine. Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2014 and 2019 were searched. This timeframe was chosen because it aligns with the time of Wingfield's (2014) New York Times article on board games' renaissance in the era of digital technologies, and particularly digital games. Search terms included the following terms: "board games" and "learning", "board games learning", and "board games in education". The search yielded 115 articles, and 91 studies were identified as potentially relevant based on their titles.
Inclusion Criteria
Studies were included if they (a) were written in English; (b) used an empirical design (i.e., reviews and articles only discussing board game design were excluded); (c) used a physical board game rather than a virtual board game, given the interest in players' tactile interactions with the board game and others; (d) discussed participants' learning, as broadly defined here, in relation to board gameplay (i.e., studies reporting board games user experience were excluded); and (e) were published in peer-reviewed journals.
After reading the abstracts of all 91 articles, 50 papers were excluded based on the criteria discussed above. Excluded were papers that (a) did not report on an empirical study; (b) focused on game mechanics; (c) proposed a framework for board game design; or (d) compared different games and digital media without singling out the effects of board games. The full text of the remaining 41 articles that met the inclusion criteria were read. The references of these studies were checked and Google Scholar's "cited by" function was also used to locate other studies. This process resulted in three additional articles that met the inclusion criteria, making a total of 44 articles for this review. An overview of the search and inclusion process is shown in Figure 1 .
Details on the research approach, participants, and main findings were retrieved from all 44 studies. The articles were then analyzed using a thematic approach embedded in the narrative approach to literature review (Paré et al., 2015). In other words, articles were synthesized, coded, and grouped into themes to gain a better understanding of the findings and diversity of research being conducted with regard to board games and learning in recent years. See online supplemental information for an overview of the studies that were reviewed, with an alphabetical organization of authors. The next section discusses findings from the analysis of the various studies.
Results
This section discusses the themes revealed by the analysis of the selected articles: (a) mathematical learning; (b) facilitate learning of various topics and skills; (c) board games and motivation to learn; (d) board games as space for engaging in multiple practices; and (e) board games as sites for social interactions and computational thinking.
Mathematical Learning
A number of studies in this review related board gameplay to mathematics. In their study of prekindergartners play of a numerical board game in the United States (U.S.), Hendrix et al. (2018) found an increase in children's numerical skills. A pre-assessment of children's numeracy skills showed that some students could not differentiate larger quantities from smaller quantities, even when they could count from 1-10. Yet, board gameplay engaged these kindergartners in mathematical activities, improved verbal counting, helped the accurate identification of numbers, and enabled participants to compare numeral quantities (Hendrix et al., 2018).
Similar findings were reported among German kindergartners who played the board game 100 House (Skillen et al., 2018). Participants developed mathematical competencies as they played. Indeed, during a period of six weeks, children were assigned to different playing conditions: count-on rule, that is, count from 0, and count from 1 rule. The results indicated that participants' performance in basic numerical competencies (i.e., counting), number comprehension (i.e., making a difference between quantities), and arithmetical abilities (i.e., addition and subtraction) were higher in the posttest compared to the pretest. Participants playing by the count-on rule showed greater improvements in all mathematical skills investigated. In addition, mathematical improvements lasted at least 10 weeks, though a slight decline in performance among children who played by the count-on rule was observed. They concluded that board games supported the acquisition of mathematical skills (Skillen et al., 2018). Laski and Siegler (2014) came to a similar conclusion when investigating numerical board gameplay among kindergartners in the U.S. Students gained numerical knowledge as they played the number board games because counting while moving the token helped participants encode numbers spatial position, which resulted in greater learning. Thus, the relationship between learning activities and physical materials significantly influenced the development of numbers' mental representations (Laski & Siegler, 2014).
Likewise, Elofsson et al. (2016) noticed the development of basic number knowledge and early arithmetical skills among players. They assigned Swedish preschoolers to four conditions: linear number board games; circular board games, nonlinear numerical activities, and a control group. Students participated in six sessions of 10 minutes for a period of three weeks. Mathematical performance was measured in terms of counting skills, ability to identify Arabic numbers, and arithmetic skills (i.e., addition and subtraction). Playing circular board games (i.e., numbers arranged in a circular manner on the board) and linear board games (i.e., linear arrangement of numbers on the board) increased participants' counting skills. For instance, circular board game players performed better in identifying Arabic numbers than students in other groups. Yet, playing the linear board game substantially enhanced the arithmetical skills and basic number knowledge of children (Elofsson et al., 2016).
Satsangi and Bofferding (2017) also showed that board games could improve autistic children's numerical knowledge in the U.S. The authors assigned children with autism who could verbally count to 10, identify written numerals, but could not add numerical quantities. As a result, students' numerical knowledge increased (Satsangi & Bofferding, 2017). Andika et al. (2019) took an interesting approach in examining the effect of board gameplay on early numeracy among kindergartners in Indonesia. Unlike previous studies that explored the relationship between board gameplay and numeracy skills, the authors set out to investigate the effect of linear and circular board games on children's mathematical self-concept, which supports early numeracy skill. Participants' early numeracy was pretested, and the posttest revealed that children playing board games with mathematical self-concept developed numeracy skills compared to students who played the games without mathematical self-concept (Andika et al., 2019).
Facilitate Learning of Various Topics and Skills
Health and medicine related topics
Learning with board games goes beyond mathematics. Studies illustrate that board games can facilitate the learning of different subjects. For instance, in relation to health and medicine, Olympio and Alvin (2018) designed a board game based on data collected from older adults in Brazil to promote active and healthy aging. The game was used as a gerotechnology to help adults participating in a health program in Brazil learn about health, and make decisions related to their well-being. Playing facilitated collaboration, retention of information, and led to a deeper understanding of information related to active and healthy aging, while increasing participants' enthusiasm and motivation (Olympio & Alvin, 2018). Cutumisu et al. (2019) explored learning neonatal resuscitation through board gameplay among Canadian health care providers. The posttest demonstrated that participants' knowledge and performance on particular resuscitation situation such as respiratory management, monitoring, temperature management, and admission to intensive care unit were significantly higher than the pretest after gameplay (Cutumisu et al., 2019).
Board gameplay enhanced midwives and student midwives in Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania labor-monitoring skills (Lavender et al., 2019). The significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores pointed to the impact of gameplay on participants' skills, with students' scoring higher than the midwives in all three countries. Nevertheless, the skills developed after playing the game were still observed among the midwives in the posttest taken three months after the intervention (Lavender et al., 2019). With the intent to assist medicine and dentistry undergraduate students in Nigeria learn anatomy, Anyanwu (2014) developed a board game. Students were assigned to a gaming and non-gaming group. Findings showed improvement between the pretest and posttest of the gaming group, as well as better performance in the knowledge test than the non-gaming group (Anyanwu, 2014).
Ober (2017) equally employed a board game to improve veterinary students' understanding of the relations between images and difference in diagnoses in the U.S. The game purposed to help students identify radiographic findings that can be created by different diseases, and identify the range of possible differentials to consider for a particular radiographic finding. Gameplay resulted in students' posttest results being higher than their pretest, suggesting that playing improved participants' understanding of thoracic differential diagnoses (Ober, 2017). Moreover, Pinhatti et al. (2019) suggested that board gameplay is pleasant and an alternative approach to use in diagnostic imaging classes. Veterinary students in a diagnostic imaging course in Brazil were challenged to interpret radiographic and ultrasound images using a board game. Following lectures and practical activities, students' response to the after board gameplay questionnaire indicated growth in class engagement, exam preparation, and enhanced learning process (Pinhatti et al., 2019).
With regard to burn education, Whittam and Chow (2017) add to the literature by exploring board games. The authors reported findings from a one-day course where emergency healthcare workers played a game designed to equip them with the required knowledge and skills to evaluate and treat severe burn injuries in the United Kingdom. Participants gained burn care knowledge, and gameplay stimulated discussion among doctors, nurses, and therapists about their experiences with burn injuries (Whittam & Chow, 2017). In Washington D.C., Yoon et al. (2014) engaged other healthcare professionals with a game intended to reinforce catheter care concepts, and strengthen practical evidence pertinent to nursing. Playing the game provided feedback, enhanced collaboration with peers, and allowed nurses to recall prior knowledge and experiences (Yoon et al., 2014). Cavalho et al. (2019) focused on biology education as they used a board game with high school students to construct an understanding of a protein synthesis model. They reported that playing facilitated students' understanding of protein synthesis as the game allowed them to interact in order to symbolically represent the process of protein synthesis (Cavalho et al., 2019).
In nutrition, similar increases in knowledge was found by E. Viggiano et al. (2018) in their attempt to improve nutrition knowledge and change eating behavior through board gameplay. The authors randomly placed Italian elementary students in two groups, where the experimental group played a board game for 20 weeks, while the control group did not play the game. This board game was designed to address nutritional knowledge and healthy lifestyle. The game players increased their consumption of healthy food and physical activity, while their intake of high-calorie food decreased compared to non-players (E. Viggiano et al., 2018). In A. Viggiano et al. (2015), the same effect on nutritional knowledge and eating behavior was observed with a group of Italian children and adolescents who played during a period of six months. The pretest and posttest confirmed that the game improved nutritional knowledge, dietary behaviors, and positively affected participants' body mass index (BMI) (A. Viggiano et al., 2015). Sen et al. (2018) employed the same game with obese children and their parents in Turkey. They compared the effectiveness of a family-based behavioral treatment with the board game intervention on children obesity. After six weeks, participants in both groups decreased their BMI, demonstrating that the game was as efficient as the well-known family-based behavioral treatment at addressing childhood obesity (Sen et al., 2018).
In the field of pharmacology, Karbownik et al. (2016) compared board gameplay to lecture-based strategy in teaching undergraduate medical students the pharmacology of antimicrobial drugs in Poland. The game proved to be better at enhancing knowledge than the lecture-based approach as students performed better at the antimicrobial section of the posttest. Furthermore, board gameplay improved students' long-term knowledge retention of antimicrobial drugs pharmacology, though in terms of short-term knowledge retention, students in both conditions experienced a similar increase (Karbownik et al., 2016). Likewise, pharmacology students playing a board game in the U.S. learned more about the pharmacology of the autonomic nervous system than students receiving traditional lectures (Jones et al., 2015). Indeed, game participants' posttest scores increased compared to their pretest. These students also scored higher in their class examination than nonparticipating students who only attended lectures (Jones et al., 2015).
Finally, Kennedy et al. (2017) explored board games in pediatric medicine. In collaboration with children and families, the researchers created a board game to help school-aged children become active partners in chronic illness care, and to encourage family discussion about chronic conditions. Families of boys living with hemophilia and cystic fibrosis from Canada and the U.S. indicated that playing enabled conversation about self-care, allowed children to gain insight into self-care choices and their consequences (Kennedy et al., 2017).
Chemistry and engineering
Researchers also explored board gameplay and learning in fields such as organic chemistry and engineering. Triboni and Weber (2018) found board games to be instrumental in enabling experiential learning, critical thinking, and engagement of 12th graders and undergraduates in an organic chemistry class in Brazil (Triboni & Weber, 2018). Gameplay clarified concepts in organic chemistry, and enabled participants to connect concepts with real laboratory situations (Triboni & Weber, 2018). Dancz et al. (2017) researched board game design as a means to assess and demonstrate American undergraduate students' understanding of engineering concepts. The findings showed that students who created or modified a board game to teach their peers engineering concepts scored higher than their peers who took the traditional assessment test (Dancz et al., 2017). Thus, board game design led to a better learning experience and mastery of these engineering concepts.
Similarly, Azizan et al. (2018) revealed that the process of developing board games led to teamwork, creativity, and deep learning of course material among college engineering students in Malaysia. The analysis of students' surveys, self-reflections, and authors' observations indicated that participants gained communication skills and performed better in the course than students who enrolled in the same course the previous year (Azizan et al., 2018).
Physics and astronomy
Cardinot and Fairfield (2019) designed a board game to engage Irish students in astronomy. The authors noticed that gameplay facilitated students' understanding of astronomy concepts, changed their perceptions of scientists, and promoted social skills. Teachers also demonstrated positive attitudes toward this approach to teaching (Cardinot & Fairfield, 2019). Chiarello and Castellano (2016) evidenced that board games are learning spaces for abstract physics concepts among high school students in Italy. In their study, games created to explain various concepts such as quantum mechanics principles, time dilation, and nano-biotechnologies were excellent in advancing students' interest and comprehension of these notions (Chiarello & Castellano, 2016). Dziob (2020) used board games to assess Polish students' knowledge in a physics course. His study revealed that playing the game increased knowledge as students in the experimental group performed better than the control group at the posttest, a week after playing the game. Furthermore, the game made taking the test enjoyable and motivated participants to continue learning (Dziob, 2020).
Finance
Campbell (2016) demonstrated that playing Monopoly adds a practical and conceptual understanding of real options capital budgeting in finance. Following a session where students in groups of four had to decide how to maximize their investments within the game constraints, participants had a traditional class format on real options. They had to play the game using their new knowledge on complex capital budgeting techniques. Findings point to a statistical difference between game players' scores on the real option part of the final exam and non-gaming students who took the same exam the previous year. Indeed, students who played the game scored higher than their non-gamer counterparts (Campbell, 2016).
Environmental-related topics
To help high school students in Mexico understand the concept of ecological complexity, García-Barrios et al. (2016) designed and implemented the Azteca Chess board game. Like Karbonik et al. (2016), they discovered that board gameplay is better than lectures in facilitating students' understanding of the complex ecological interactions occurring in coffee farms. In the process of playing, participants experienced the consequences of their behaviors on the agricultural ecosystem (García-Barrios et al., 2016). In a follow- up study with small-scale coffee farmers in Mexico, García-Barrios et al. (2017) employed the same game for participants to learn about the ecological interactions occurring in their farms. As in the previous study with high school students, gaming allowed farmers to grasp the interactions among different organisms on their farms. Farmers' lack of formal education did not prevent them from understanding the complex interactions occurring on their farms (García-Barrios et al., 2017). Thus, board games are promising tools and spaces for learning about complex ecological systems.
This potential is further evidenced in Cheng et al. (2019) study as they utilized board gameplay to educate about water resources, create empathy, and negotiating thinking among high school students in Taiwan. Playing the designed game allowed participants to learn about water resources issues, understand their responsibility for the environment and water resources, develop empathy, and negotiating thinking skills. Gameplay gradually influenced participants' decision making, as they integrated societal benefit in their water management strategies (Cheng et al., 2019).
Language, culture, and history learning
Łodzikowski and Jekiel (2019) studied the influence of board gameplay on English prosody among university students, learners of English as a foreign language in Poland. Three games focusing on crucial prosody topics were designed, and gameplay resulted in a moderate increase in students' post-game class exam, higher engagement in class, and preference for board games as an alternative to the traditional in-class worksheets (Łodzikowski & Jekiel, 2019).
C. Wu et al. (2014) also explored language learning through board gameplay among high school students in Taiwan. Participants were randomly assigned to a board game, a digital board game, and a traditional instruction group. Using a speaking test to measure English language learning, they found that students in the digital board game group performed better than those in the board game and traditional teaching group. Yet, there was no difference in performance between the board game group and the traditional instruction group, that is, the digital board game was more conducive for language learning (C. Wu et al., 2014).
To facilitate culture and history learning, researchers developed board games. For instance, faced with the challenge of explaining American middle-school students the values and concepts of Andean culture and folklore, Underberg-Goode and Smith (2018) designed a board game to enhance learning. Compared to the pretest, the posttest revealed greater knowledge of Andean culture, better understanding of family roles, of Peru, and of the Andean land in Peru. Another effect of playing the board game was participants' interest in learning about Peru, and their expressed desire to explore other cultures. Learning about a country's culture and folklore was made easier for students through board gameplay (Underberg-Goode & Smith, 2018).
Hoy (2018) modified a game to teach undergraduate and graduate students history, particularly empathy, while improving class involvement, and understanding of archival collection limitations. Gameplay enabled the learning of historical content, historic empathy, research methodologies, and increased students' participation in class. For instance, students embraced a more thoughtful posture with regard to right and wrong on the issue of smuggling in the United States in the 19th century (Hoy, 2018).
Develop spatial skills and teach about bullying
Newman et al. (2016) analyzed the relationship between block, board gameplay and children's spatial ability in the U.S. Results from a block play group and a spelling board game group functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavior (i.e., reaction time and accuracy) were analyzed. In the post-game evaluation, both groups showed behavioral changes, with faster reaction time and increased accuracy compared to their pre-game evaluation. Yet, only the block group indicated a significant change in their spatial abilities. In fact, the fMRI results demonstrated that brain regions related to spatial working memory and spatial processing improved greatly as a result of block play compared to the board game group (Newman et al., 2016). Thus, when compared to block play, board gameplay showed limited impact on players' spatial abilities.
Board games can also teach about bullying. Nieh and Wu (2018) investigated board games as a tool to teach fifth graders in Taiwan about bullying. The collaborative game objective was to change attitudes toward bullying and to enhance knowledge about bullying. Following a pretest on bullying, students were randomly assigned to three groups: game-only group, game-with debriefing group, and a control group. Interestingly, posttest results showed a significant change in participants' bullying knowledge in both gaming groups, with participants in the game-with-debriefing demonstrating great empathy and less bullying attitude. Besides the joy players derived from playing the board game, the follow-up test also revealed no change in the knowledge gained (Nieh & Wu, 2018).
Board Games and Motivation to Learn
Board games have also been used to motivate students to learn. Taspinar et al. (2016) discovered that board gameplay motivated college students in Germany to learn theory in a knowledge management course. Board gameplay made learning theory-based content enjoyable and encouraged students to learn (Taspinar et al., 2016).
Gonzalo-Iglesia et al. (2018) discussed the experiences of Spanish students in Communication and Biochemistry studies play of commercial board games (i.e., games not designed for these courses) related to their course content. The post-game feedback portrayed board gameplay as motivating students to learn, while enhancing sociability, communication, decision making, and teamwork (Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018).
Board Games as Space for Engaging in Multiple Practices
Carter et al. (2014) revealed that playing Warhammer 40K included multiple practices among players in Australia. For instance, drafting an army consisted of activities such as modeling and painting characters to create an army that is aesthetically appealing; finding and choosing themes or background stories/narratives that inspire the creation of the army; and working within the constraints of time and cost to create the army. In the process of drafting their army lists, some players shared their lists with friends to know how their army could affect the Comp Scores, that is, the composition rating of the army by other players. Board gameplay is consequently a collection of multiple interconnected and related practices (Carter et al., 2014).
Board Games as Sites for Social Interactions and Computational Thinking
In their study of preschool children with or at risk for disabilities in the southeastern part of the U.S, Barton et al. (2018) revealed that board gameplay enhanced social interactions. Participants played independently to identify gameplay skills, and the target population was taught to play with their peers, that is, typically developing children in the game training session. Following the training session, children with or at risk of disabilities played with their peers. Findings showed that board gameplay positively influenced the relationship between children with disabilities and their peers. Moreover, participants acquired board gameplay skills and boosted their social skills. Children learned complex social skills such as tolerance for losing, taking into account other viewpoints, or sharing their views (Barton et al., 2018). Likewise, Davis-Temple et al. (2014) found that teaching board gameplay to preschool special needs children (e.g., language skills delay) from the Midwest improved play skills needed for appropriate social behavior with peers. Fang et al. (2016) suggested that board gameplay improves social interactions, thus interpersonal relationships. They compared board game and digital board gameplay of the same games. Board gamers reported a higher level of intimacy, sympathetic responses, and satisfaction while playing than the digital game players. Participants also expressed preference for board games, which generated stronger emotional reactions than digital games among players in Taiwan. Board games are certainly spaces that enhance social interactions given that they facilitate the development of complex social skills among players.
With regard to computational thinking, Berland and Duncan (2016) reported that playing board games in a social setting with friends engaged players in computational thinking (CT). The analysis of Pandemic gameplay showed that this collaborative board game fostered a significant amount of CT. After observing two groups of undergraduate students playing, the team observed that players displayed CT in their talk. CT was evidenced through players' discussion during gameplay, signaling that board games have the potential to foster CT, or various forms of CT (Berland & Duncan, 2016).
Discussion
The current review reveals the relationship between board games and learning, and highlights the heterogeneity of board game research in terms of field of study, countries, or research settings. Researchers in different fields and settings have explored learning and board games, and showed that board games are instrumental for learning various subjects such as mathematics (Elofsson et al., 2016; Hendrix et al., 2018), health (Olympio & Alvin, 2018; E. Viggiano et al., 2018), and medicine (Cutumisu et al., 2019; Lavender et al., 2019). Taking into account all the studies analyzed in this review, it is clear that board games facilitate learning, and can be used in different subject areas. These findings are consistent with previous studies that described board games as learning environments (Barbara, 2017; Horn et al., 2012), and found board gameplay instrumental in developing mathematical thinking and communication skills (Nakao, 2019; Smith & Golding, 2018). In addition to learning specific contents, board gameplay enhanced communication, social interactions, and relationships among people with different abilities (Barton et al., 2018; Davis-Temple et al., 2014; Fang et al., 2016). Previous research found board games to be inherently designed for social interaction (Carter et al., 2014). Perhaps the most interesting finding with regards to board games and social interactions was these games being a space for individuals with disabilities to learn complex social skills (Barton et al., 2018; Davis-Temple et al., 2014). The effect of board gameplay on participants with disabilities' social interactions could suggest that board games may have the potential to create inclusive learning environments for diverse learners. Further research is warranted to explore board games and learning with diverse population. For instance, research should investigate not only how people with disability learn through board gameplay, but also what they learn during the gameplay.
The current data also show that board games can enable participation in diverse practices that are creative, fun, and engaging (Carter et al., 2014). Gameplay can motivate students to learn, and engage participants in forms of computational thinking (CT). In game research, motivation has mostly been studied with digital games (Granic et al., 2014), and CT is yet to be explored in non-digital environments with the exception of Berland and Lee (2011) study. These findings indicate that more research needs to be conducted to examine motivation and CT in board game environments.
Findings also show that research on board games is still dominated by games designed with a learning or teaching goal, which in contemporary game studies terms would be referred to as serious board games. Only four studies (Berland & Duncan, 2016; Campbell, 2016; Carter et al., 2014; Gonzalo-Iglesia et al., 2018) out of 45, explored commercial board games, which here mean board games designed for public consumption, with no clearly defined learning or teaching objective. This result confirms Wonica's (2017) observation of scholars and developers working together to develop board games to teach or help explain complex real life problems and systems. In this regard, recent studies exploring learning around board games differed from prior studies that prioritized traditional board games (Gobet et al., 2004), which in contemporary game studies terms could be considered commercial board games (Berland & Lee, 2011; Horn et al., 2012). Furthermore, the commercial board games investigated in the four studies (Table 1 in the online supplemental material) were all created in western settings. This may be explained by the fact that previous studies have shown that western-developed games, such as German-style board games are learning spaces (Berland & Lee, 2011; Duncan & Berland, 2012). This shows the need to expand research on commercial board games to games developed in other contexts. In addition, most studies were conducted in western contexts (32 studies), which is not an indication of the absence of board games in non-western contexts, but rather a signal that research in relation to learning and these games in these settings may still be in its infancy. Consequently, there is a need to further explore board gameplay in other contexts, to increase and diversify board game research, and the field of game studies in general.
Conclusion and Future Research
The current review examined learning and board games, building on the idea that games are alternative learning environments. As noted in this review, board games are spaces for mathematical learning, for social interactions, computational thinking, and for engaging in multiple practices. Board games also enable learning of various content, and can motivate players to learn more about a topic. From the data, it is evident that board games are spaces that allowed players to engage in learning and demonstrate the understanding of complex concepts. Indeed, board gameplay facilitated the understanding of complex concepts (e.g., engineering, finance, and science). Board gameplay "de-complexifies" complexity, which may explain the use of board games to teach about complex topics (Wonica, 2017). Though this review was limited to English written articles and covered a period of approximately five years, it showed that board game research is multidisciplinary. As previously stated, more studies need to be conducted to expand our understanding of learning within board game environments in relation to topics such as motivation, and CT, with an increased focus on what the author called commercial board games in different cultural contexts, and in both formal and informal learning environments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Funding Supplemental Material
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material for this article is available online at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/1046878119901286
Notes
1. 2.
The literature distinguishes commercial games (i.e., designed for entertainment) from serious games created with a learning goal (Connolly et al., 2012). A similar distinction is applied to board games in this review.
For example, the board game Mage Knight includes cards in its playing pieces.
References
| Andika, W. D., Akbar, M., Yufiarti, Sumarni, S. (2019). Playing board games with mathematical self-concept to support early numeracy skill of 5-6 years old children. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1166, 12019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1166/1/012019 Google Scholar | |
| Anyanwu, E. G. (2014). Anatomy adventure: A board game for enhancing understanding of anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1389 Google Scholar | |
| Azizan, M. T., Mellon, N., Ramli, R. M., Yusup, S. (2018). Improving teamwork skills and enhancing deep learning via development of board game using cooperative learning method in reaction engineering course. Education for Chemical Engineers, 22, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2017.10.002 Google Scholar | |
| Barbara, J. (2017). Measuring user experience in multiplayer board games. Games and Culture, 12(7–8), 623–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015593419 Google Scholar | |
| Barton, E. E., Pokorski, E. A., Sweeney, E. M., Velez, M., Gossett, S., Qiu, J., . . . Domingo, M. (2018). An empirical examination of effective practices for teaching board game play to young children. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(3), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717753833 Google Scholar | |
| Bayeck, R.Y. (2018). A review of five African board games: Is there any educational potential? Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(5), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1371671 Google Scholar | |
| Berland, M., Duncan, S. (2016). Computational thinking in the wild: Uncovering complex collaborative thinking through gameplay. Educational Technology, 56(3), 29–35. http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/44430490 Google Scholar | |
| Berland, M., Lee, V. R. (2011). Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011040105 Google Scholar | |
| Campbell, T. C. (2016). Putting the "real" in real options: A board game approach. Journal of Financial Education, 42(1–2), 102–115. http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/90000838 Google Scholar | |
| Cardinot, A., Fairfield, J. A. (2019). Game-based learning to engage students with Physics and Astronomy using a board game. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 9(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2019010104 Google Scholar | |
| Carter, M., Gibbs, M., Harrop, M. (2014). Drafting an army: The playful pastime of warhammer 40,000. Games and Culture, 9(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412013513349 Google Scholar | |
| Cavalho, J. C. Q. D., Beltramini, L. M., Bossolan, N. R. S. (2019). Using a board game to teach protein synthesis to high school students. Journal of Biological Education, 53(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469532 Google Scholar | |
| Cheng, P., Yeh, T., Tsai, J., Lin, C., Chang, C. (2019). Development of an issue-situation-based board game: A systemic learning environment for water resource adaptation education. Sustainability, 11(5), 1341–1358. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051341 Google Scholar | |
| Chiarello, F., Castellano, M. G. (2016). Board games and board game design as learning tools for complex scientific concepts: Some experiences. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2016040101 Google Scholar | |
| 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065 Google Scholar | |
| Connolly, T., Boyle, E., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., Boyle, J. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 Google Scholar | |
| Cronin, P., Ryan, F., Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059 Google Scholar | |
| Cross, T. (2017, December 26). Welcome to the golden age of board games—Brought to you by the internet. https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/welcome-to-the-golden-age-of-board-games–brought-to-you-by-the-internet-20171219-h07a36 Google Scholar | |
| Cutumisu, M., Patel, S. D., Brown, M. R. G., Fray, C., von Hauff, P., Jeffery, T., Schmölzer, G. M. (2019). RETAIN: A board game that improves neonatal resuscitation knowledge retention. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 7(13), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00013 Google Scholar | |
| Dancz, C. L. A., Parrish, K., Bilec, M. M., Landis, A. E. (2017). Assessment of students' mastery of construction management and engineering concepts through board game design. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(4). https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EI.1943-5541.0000340 Google Scholar | |
| Davis-Temple, J., Jung, S., Sainato, D. M. (2014). Teaching young children with special needs and their peers to play board games: Effects of a least to most prompting procedure to increase independent performance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 7(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-014-0001-8 Google Scholar | |
| de Voogt, A., Dunn-Vaturi, A., Eerkens, J. (2013). Cultural transmission in the ancient near east: Twenty squares and fifty-eight holes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(4), 1715–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.008 Google Scholar | |
| Donovan, T. (2017). It's all a game: The history of board games from Monopoly to Settlers of Catan. Thomas Dunne Books. Google Scholar | |
| Duncan, S. C., Berland, M. (2012). Triangulating learning in board games: Computational thinking at multiple scales of analysis. In Martin, C., Ochsner, A., Squire, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of games+learning+society 8.0 (pp. 90–95). ETC Press. Google Scholar | |
| Dziob, D. (2020). Board game in physics classes—A proposal for a new method of student assessment. Research in Science Education, 50, 845–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9714-y Google Scholar | |
| Ellwood, M. (2018, April 26). Wall Street's latest secretive trend? Board game nights: This fraternity-like network of players is more Snakes & Ladders than Skull & Bones—but no less well-positioned. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-26/wall-street-s-latest-trend-in-networking-board-game-nights Google Scholar | |
| Elofsson, J., Gustafson, S., Samuelsson, J., Träff, U. (2016). Playing number board games supports 5-year-old children's early mathematical development. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 43, 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.07.003 Google Scholar | |
| Fang, Y., Chen, K., Huang, Y. (2016). Emotional reactions of different interface formats: Comparing digital and traditional board games. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016641902 Google Scholar | |
| García-Barrios, L., Cruz-Morales, J., Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I. (2017). The Azteca chess experience: Learning how to share concepts of ecological complexity with small coffee farmers. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 37–48. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art37/ Google Scholar | |
| García-Barrios, L., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. (2016). Azteca chess: Gamifying a complex ecological process of autonomous pest control in shade coffee. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 232, 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.014 Google Scholar | |
| Gee, J. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. In Barton, D., Tusting, K. (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 214–233). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Gee, J., Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing affinity spaces and game-based learning. In Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., Barab, S. A. (Eds.), Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 129–153). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Gobet, F., de Voogt, A., Retschitzki, J. (2004). Moves in mind: The psychology of board games. Psychology Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Gonzalo-Iglesia, J. L., Lozano-Monterrubio, N., Prades-Tena, J. (2018). Noneducational board games in university education. Perceptions of students experiencing game-based learning methodologies. Revista LUsófona de Educação, 41(41), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.24140/issn.1645-7250.rle41.03 Google Scholar | |
| Granic, I., Lobel, A. M., Engels, R. C. M. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857 Google Scholar | |
| Haller, M., Forlines, C., Koeffel, C., Leitner, J., Shen, C. (2010). Tabletop games: Platforms, experimental games and design recommendations. In Proceedings of art and technology of entertainment computing and communication (pp. 271–297). Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Hendrix, N. M., Hojnoski, R. L., Missall, K. N. (2018). Promoting numeracy skills through board game play. Young Exceptional Children, 20(10), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250618814239 Google Scholar | |
| Horn, M., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Olson, I. (2012, April 13–17). Spinners, dice, and pawns: Using board games to prepare learners for agent-based modeling activities [Paper presentation]. American Education Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Google Scholar | |
| Hoy, B. (2018). Teaching history with custom-built board games. Simulation & Gaming, 49(2), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878118763624 Google Scholar | |
| Jones, J. S., Tincher, L., Odeng-Otu, E., Herdman, M. (2015). An educational board game to assist Pharmd students in learning autonomic nervous system pharmacology. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(8), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe798114 Google Scholar | |
| Kennedy, A., Semple, L., Alderson, K., Bouskill, V., Karasevich, J., Riske, B., van Gunst, S. (2017). Don't push your luck! Educational family board (not bored) game for school-age children living with chronic conditions. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 35, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.02.032 Google Scholar | |
| Karbownik, M. S., Wiktorowska-Owczarek, A., Kowalczyk, E., Kwarta, P., Mokros, Ł, Pietras, T. (2016). Board game versus lecture-based seminar in the teaching of pharmacology of antimicrobial drugs—A randomized controlled trial. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 363(7). https://doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw045 Google Scholar | |
| Korozi, M., Leonidis, A., Ntoa, S., Arampatzis, D., Adami, I., Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (2018). Designing an augmented tabletop game for children with cognitive disabilities: The "Home game" case. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12641 Google Scholar | |
| Laski, E. V., Siegler, R. S. (2014). Learning from number board games: You learn what you encode. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 853–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034321 Google Scholar | |
| Lavender, T., Omoni, G., Laisser, R., McGowan, L., Wakasiaka, S., Maclean, G., Chimwaza, A. (2019). Evaluation of an educational board game to improve use of the partograph in sub-Saharan Africa: A quasi-experimental study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 20, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2019.03.001 Google Scholar | |
| Łodzikowski, K., Jekiel, M. (2019). Board games for teaching English prosody to advanced EFL learners. ELT Journal, 73(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy059 Google Scholar | |
| Mahmud, A. A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., Martens, J. (2010). Designing social games for children and older adults: Two related case studies. Entertainment Computing, 1(3), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2010.09.001 Google Scholar | |
| Nakao, M. (2019). Special series on "effects of board games on health education and promotion" board games as a promising tool for health promotion: A review of recent literature. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 13(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-019-0146-3 Google Scholar | |
| Nasir, N. I. S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: Mathematics in cultural practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2-3), 213–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl04023_6 Google Scholar | |
| Nasir, N. S. (2005). Individual cognitive structuring and the sociocultural context: Strategy shifts in the game of dominoes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1401_2 Google Scholar | |
| Nasir, N. S. (2008). Everyday pedagogy: Lessons from basketball, track, and dominoes. The Phi Delta Kappan, 89(7), 529–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900717 Google Scholar | |
| Newman, S. D., Hansen, M. T., Gutierrez, A. (2016). An fMRI study of the impact of block building and board games on spatial ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1278), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01278 Google Scholar | |
| Nieh, H., Wu, W. (2018). Effects of a collaborative board game on bullying intervention: A Group-Randomized controlled trial. Journal of School Health, 88(10), 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12675 Google Scholar | |
| Nilsen, M., Lundin, M., Wallerstedt, C., Pramling, N. (2018). Evolving and re-mediated activities when preschool children play analogue and digital Memory games. Early Years, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1460803 Google Scholar | |
| Ober, C. P. (2017). Use of a novel board game in a clinical rotation for learning thoracic differential diagnoses in veterinary medical imaging: Thoracic board game in veterinary imaging. Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound, 58(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/vru.12452 Google Scholar | |
| Olympio, P. C. de. A. P., Alvim, N. A. T. (2018). Board games: Gerotechnology in nursing care practice. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, 71(2), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0365 Google Scholar | |
| Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 Google Scholar | |
| Pelletier, C. (2009). Games and learning: What's the connection? International Journal of Learning & Media, 1(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0006 Google Scholar | |
| Peppler, K., Danish, J. A., Phelps, D. (2013). Collaborative gaming: Teaching children about complex systems and collective behavior. Simulation & Gaming, 44(5), 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878113501462 Google Scholar | |
| Pierce, M. B., Shelstad, W. J., Rickel, E., Chaparro, B. S. (2018, September). Thinking "out-of-the-box" with board games. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (pp. 1321–1325). Sage. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
| Pinhatti, K., Amaro, de, Lima, M., Cirimbelli, C. F., Ercolin, A. C. M., Disselli, T., Hage, M. C. F. N. S. (2019). Board game improves the learning process in small-animal diagnostic imaging. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(1), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00034.2018 Google Scholar | |
| Prisma (2018, March 16). Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. http://www.prisma-statement.org/ Google Scholar | |
| Ramani, G., Siegler, R., Hitti, A. (2012). Taking it to the classroom: Number board games as a small group learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 661–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028995 Google Scholar | |
| Rogerson, M. J., Gibbs, M. (2018). Finding time for tabletop: Board game play and parenting. Games and Culture, 13(3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016656324 Google Scholar | |
| Rogerson, M. J., Gibbs, M. R., Smith, W. (2018). Cooperating to compete: The mutuality of cooperation and competition in board game play. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 193–205). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173767 Google Scholar | |
| Satsangi, R., Bofferding, L. (2017). Improving the numerical knowledge of children with autism spectrum disorder: The benefits of linear board games. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12380 Google Scholar | |
| Sen, M., Uzuner, A., Akman, M., Bahadir, A. T., Borekci, N. O., Viggiano, E. (2018). Examination of a board game approach to children's involvement in family-based weight management vs. traditional family-based behavioral counseling in primary care. European Journal of Pediatrics, 177(8), 1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-018-3177-z Google Scholar | |
| Shachak, A., Reis, S. (2009). The impact of electronic medical records on patient–doctor communication during consultation: A narrative literature review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(4), 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01065.x Google Scholar | |
| Siegler, R. S., Ramani, G. B. (2009). Playing linear number board games-but not circular ones-improves low-income preschoolers' numerical understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014239 Google Scholar | |
| Skillen, J., Berner, V., Seitz-Stein, K. (2018). The rule counts! Acquisition of mathematical competencies with a number board game. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 554–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1313187 Google Scholar | |
| Smith, E., Golding, L. (2018). Use of board games in higher education literature review. MSOR Connections, 16(2), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.21100/msor.v16i2.624 Google Scholar | |
| Steinkuehler, C. A. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a constellation of literacy practices. eLearning, 4(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903121_012 Google Scholar | |
| Steinkuehler, C. A., Squire, K. (2014). Videogames and learning. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 377–394). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Steinkuehler, C. A., Squire, K., Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Stenros, J., Waern, A. (2011). Games as activity: Correcting the digital fallacy. In Evans, M. (ed.), Videogame studies: Concepts, cultures and communication (pp. 11–22). Interdisciplinary Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
| Taspinar, B., Schmidt, W., Schuhbauer, H. (2016). Gamification in education: A board game approach to knowledge acquisition. Procedia Computer Science, 99, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.104 Google Scholar | |
| Torner, E., Waldron, E. L., Trammell, A. (2017). Foreword. In Analog game studies (Vol. 2). https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pstorage-cmu-348901238291901/12212546/AnalogGameStudiesVolume2.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Triboni, E., Weber, G. (2018). MOL: Developing a European-style board game to teach organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(5), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00408 Google Scholar | |
| Underberg-Goode, N., Smith, P. (2018). Proceso de lana: Playing Andean culture through board games. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 10(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs.10.2.161_1 Google Scholar | |
| van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., van der Ven, S., Leseman, P. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286 Google Scholar | |
| Viggiano, A., Viggiano, E., Di Costanzo, A., Viggiano, A., Andreozzi, E., Romano, V., . . . Amaro, S. (2015). Kaledo, a board game for nutrition education of children and adolescents at school: Cluster randomized controlled trial of healthy lifestyle promotion. European Journal of Pediatrics, 174(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-014-2381-8 Google Scholar | |
| Viggiano, E., Viggiano, A., Di Costanzo, A., Viggiano, A., Viggiano, A., Andreozzi, E., . . . Amaro, S. (2018). Healthy lifestyle promotion in primary schools through the board game Kaledo: A pilot cluster randomized trial. European Journal of Pediatrics, 177(9), 1371–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-018-3091-4 Google Scholar | |
| Wasserman, J. A., Banks, J. (2017). Details and dynamics: Mental models of complex systems in game-based learning. Simulation & Gaming, 48(5), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878117715056 Google Scholar | |
| Whittam, A. M., Chow, W. (2017). An educational board game for learning and teaching burn care: A preliminary evaluation. Scars, Burns & Healing, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059513117690012 Google Scholar | |
| Wingfield, N. (2014, May 5). High-tech push has board games rolling again. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/technology/high-tech-push-has-board-games-rolling-again.html Google Scholar | |
| Wonica, P. (2017). Learning to evaluate analog games for education. In Analog game studies (Vol. 2, pp. 61–67). https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pstorage-cmu-348901238291901/12212546/AnalogGameStudiesVolume2.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Wu, C., Chen, G., Huang, C. (2014). Using digital board games for genuine communication in EFL classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9329-y Google Scholar | |
| Wu, J. S., Lee, J. J. (2015). Climate change games as tools for education and engagement. Nature Climate Change, 5(5), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2566 Google Scholar | |
| Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.568989 Google Scholar | |
| Yoon, B., Rodriguez, L., Faselis, C. J., Liappis, A. P. (2014). Using a board game to reinforce learning. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 45(3), 110–111. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20140224-14 Google Scholar | |
| Zagal, J. P., Rick, J., Hsi, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878105282279 Google Scholar |
Rebecca Yvonne Bayeck is post-doc at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. Her research interests include literacies, learning in games, particularly board games, the design of inclusive learning environments, and the interplay of gender, culture, and context in learning spaces.
Ap Psychology Board Game Design Project
Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046878119901286
Posted by: chamblisswaregs.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Ap Psychology Board Game Design Project"
Post a Comment