You are on page 1of 1

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING MATH COMPUTER GAMES:

ELEMENTARY GAME THEORY DIMENSIONS FOR EDUCATORS

Dmitri Droujkov, Chris Hazard, Maria Droujkova


Phenix Solutions, North Carolina State University, Natural Math
ddroujkov@phenixsolutions.com, cjhazard@hazardoussoftware.com, maria@naturalmath.com

Our study addresses the research problem of constructing an interdisciplinary conceptual


framework for analyzing math games through a series of design decisions. While we focus on
computer games, many of the principles apply to physical space games. Definitions of decisions
come from game theory research and gaming studies (Gee, 2007; Myerson, 1997). The gameplay
consequences of each decision are analyzed based on existing games viewed through the lens of
these definitions. The mathematics education consequences of each decision are then analyzed
based on the pedagogy embodied in the gameplay, and viewed through the lens of learning
theories (Piaget, 1970; Pirie & Kieren, 1994; Vygotskii & Kozulin, 1986). A series of parallels
between gaming concepts and pedagogical notions helps mathematics educators make sense of
game theory concepts, and apply these concepts to teaching. The resulting structure makes it
clear that some types of math games are overused, and other promising types are rarely
employed by mathematics education game developers.
The decisions, as well as their mathematics and math education parallels, are made along
these dimensions that provide dichotomies, gradients or levels:
• Abstraction dichotomy: narrative-based vs. abstract; situated vs. formalized
• Revelation gradient: full disclosure to hidden information; open-book to closed-book
• Strategic gradient: strategic to typed; problem-solving to exercises
• Resource levels: bounded rationality gameplay or not; level or stage learning theories
• Agency and autonomy gradient: high to none; open-ended to closed-ended tasks
• Planning levels: interactions, tasks, tactics, strategies; order of math tasks
• Depth gradient: expert to superficial knowledge; deep learning to expository learning
• Goal gradient: sandbox play to clear goals; conceptual learning to procedural fluency

References
Gee, J. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning
and literacy (1st ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Myerson, R. (1997). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize
it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165-190.
Vygotskii, L., & Kozulin, A. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

You might also like