SURGE’s Evolution Deeper into Formal Representations: The Siren’s Call of Popular Game-Play Mechanics

Main Article Content

Douglas B. Clark
Satyugjit Virk
Pratim Sengupta
Corey Brady
Mario Martinez-Garza
Kara Krinks
Stephen S. Killingsworth
John Kinnebrew
Gautam Biswas
Jacqueline Barnes
James Minstrell
Brian Nelson
Kent Slack
Cynthia M. D'Angelo


We have iteratively designed and researched five digital games focusing on Newtonian dynamics for middle school classrooms during the past seven years. The designs have evolved dramatically in terms of the roles and relationships of the formal representations, phenomenological representations, and control schemes. Phenomenological representations can be thought of as the “world” representations that depict the actual actions and motion of a game as they occur (i.e., the central representations in most recreational games). Formal representations highlight the disciplinary relationships of interest from a pedagogical perspective (such as vector arrows, graphs, and dot traces). Our initial design perspective focused on highlighting the formal physics relationships within popular game-play mechanics. This perspective prioritized a commitment to the phenomenological representations and controls of recreational games, specifically marble-genre games. We designed formal representations around and over the phenomenological representations of that genre. Over the next seven years, we navigated the tensions between the original recreational genre and creating a new genre situated within the formal representations themselves. More specifically, our designs evolved to situate the game-play squarely in the formal representations in terms of the controls as well as in terms of the communication of goals and challenges. We backgrounded phenomenological representations and streamlined visual complexity to focus on key relationships. Our discussion compares our design evolution to the SimCalc design evolution recounted in IJDL’s recent special issue on historic design cases.



Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Clark, D. B., Virk, S., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., Krinks, K., Killingsworth, S. S., Kinnebrew, J., Biswas, G., Barnes, J., Minstrell, J., Nelson, B., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2016). SURGE’s Evolution Deeper into Formal Representations: The Siren’s Call of Popular Game-Play Mechanics. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1).
K-12 Classroom Implementation


Aarseth, E. (2007). I fought the law: Transgressive play and the implied player. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: Situated Play. Retrieved from

Adams, D. & Clark D. B. (2014). Integrating self-explanation functionality into a complex game environment: Keeping gaming in motion. Computers and Education, 73, 149-159.

Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.

Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S., & Warren, S. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305-320.

Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385-395.

Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students’ understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.

Clark, D. B. (2011). “Games and simulations bridging intuitive and formal understandings of physics.” Keynote commissioned by the Gordon Research Conference on Visualization, Smithfield, RI.

Clark, D. B., & Martinez-Garza, M. (2012). Prediction and explanation as design mechanics in conceptually-integrated digital games to help players articulate the tacit understandings they build through gameplay. In C. Steinkuhler, K. Squire, & S. Barab (Eds.), Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 279-305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, D. B., Martinez-Garza, M., Biswas, G., Luecht, R. M., & Sengupta, P. (2012). Driving assessment of students’ explanations in game dialog using computer-adaptive testing and hidden Markov Modeling. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & G. Xun (Eds.), Game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 173-199). New York, NY: Springer.

Clark, D. B., Nelson, B. C., Chang, H.-Y., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2011). Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: Comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2178-2195.

Clark, D. B., Sengupta, P. & Virk, S. (2016). Disciplinarily-integrated games: Generalizing across domains and model types. In D. Russell and J. Laffey (Eds.), Handbook of research on gaming trends in P-12 education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-9629-7

Clark, D. B., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., & Killingsworth, S. (2015). Disciplinary integration in digital games for science learning. International STEM Education Journal, 2(2), 1-21.

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2015). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research.

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.

diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B. & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 10, 117–160.

diSessa A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. G. Greeno and S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 155-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Research Council Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441-467.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies). Peter Lang Publishers.

Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97-127.

Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics. New York, NY: Springer.

Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller. The Physics Teacher, 33(8), 502–506.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.

Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New perspectives on gender and gaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook on research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Killingsworth, S., Clark, D. B., & Adams, D. (2015). Self-explanation and explanatory feedback in games: individual differences, gameplay, and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. 3(3), 162-186. Retrieved from

Kinnebrew, J., Killingsworth, S., Clark, D. B., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Minstrell, J., Martinez-Garza, M., & Krinks, K., (in press). Contextual Markup and Mining in Digital Games for Science Learning: Connecting Player Behaviors to Learning Goals. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

Koster, R. (2004). A Theory of fun for game design (1st ed.). Paraglyph Press.

Krinks, K. D., Sengupta, P., Clark, D. B. (2013, April). Conceptual change in physics through use of digital games. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Rio Mar, Puerto Rico.

Krinks, K., Sengupta, P., & Clark, D. (2015, April). Benchmark lessons: Integrating modeling with games for learning physics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Kuo, M.-J. (2007). How does an online game based learning environment promote students’ intrinsic motivation for learning natural science and how does it affect their learning outcomes? Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, 2007. DIGITEL ’07. The First IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 135-142).

Lehrer, R, & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In RK Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lehrer, R, & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning contexts. In W Damon, RM Lerner, KA Renninger, & IE Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Martinez-Garza, M., Clark, D. B. & Nelson, B. (2013). Digital games and the US National Research Council’s science proficiency goals. Studies in Science Education, 49, 170-208.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Minstrell, J. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet assessment-based learning environment. In N. Raju, Pellegrino, J., Jones, L., & Mitchell, K. (Eds.), Grading the Nation’s report card: Research from the evaluation of NAEP. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Minstrell, J. Anderson, R. & Li, M. (in press). Diagnostic instruction: Toward an integrated system for classroom assessment. In R. Duschl & A. Bismack (Eds.), Reconceptualizing STEM education: The central role of practices. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputerbased labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369–383.

Munz, U., Schumm, P., Wiesebrock, A., & Allgower, F. (2007). Motivation and learning progress through educational games. Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 54(6), 3141-3144.

Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 251-280. NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pelletier, C. (2008). Gaming in context: How young people construct their gendered identities in playing and making games. In Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Y. Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New perspectives on gender and gaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In M.J. Jacobsen & R.B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 47-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 233-262). New York, NY: Springer.

Sengupta, P. & Clark, D. B. (in press). Playing modeling games in the science classroom: The case for disciplinary integration. Educational Technology.

Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19(4), 479-541.

Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19.

Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J. M., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism supercharged!: Learning physics with digital simulation games. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 513–520).

Tatar, D., Roschelle, J. and Hegedus, S. (2014). SimCalc: Democratizing access to advanced mathematics, International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5(2), 83-100.

White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1-100.

White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.