Game On: Teaching Computer Science through Game Design

Purpose & objective

By exploring an equitable and accessible Computer Science model that expands high-impact learning opportunities for all students, participants will develop at least three strategies for implementing inclusive game design, including unplugged and digital activities, into their own classrooms. After completing hands-on activities and discussing practical tips that teachers can immediately use to provide experiential learning through game design, educators in this session will consider how they can help students stay motivated and engaged through game design while building computer science skills.

We will highlight a program called GAME ON: AP CSP THROUGH GAME DESIGN. Funded in part by a USDOE Grant, Game On is a free, research-based school support program for schools to expand or establish an engaging and culturally relevant Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles (AP CSP) course offering through Game Design. CS teachers are supported in teaching AP CSP using Game On’s rigorous curriculum and evidence-based pedagogical approach.

Urban Arts has seen the following evidence of success and teaching computer science through game design:

INTRO CS
100% of teachers reported that they more strongly believe Game Design is an engaging way to teach Computer Science as a result of their participation in SIA Classroom.
Students experienced statistically significant increases in their interest and confidence in CS, feelings that CS could be useful to them, and feelings of belongingness in CS.

ADVANCED CS
The findings around the professional learning (PL) sequence and the initial classroom implementation were widely positive. Teachers found the PL activities to be high quality, engaging, and useful (WestEd, 2022).
Teachers find that the Game On curriculum creates a high level of engagement for their students… some of the visual inquiry activities were clear favorites (WestEd, 2022).
100% of teachers report feeling more confident with curricular AP content through game design (Exit Tickets, 2022).

Outline

INTRO & DISCUSS (10 minutes): We will begin with audience engagement while sharing objectives. We will introduce Computer Science initiatives that build equity and unparalleled access through innovative curriculum with cutting-edge technology accessible on a device as simple as a Chromebook.

UNPLUGGED ACTIVITY & PEER TO PEER (15 minutes): The technology and skills learned in game design allow for artistic expression and career expansion even beyond gaming. A hands-on activity in this session will highlight the value of learning game design in Computer Science, especially for students from backgrounds underrepresented in tech fields.

MAKE IT ACTIONABLE (25 minutes): We will explore practices that ensure student learning differences are honored through student-led, project-based learning to master Computer Science material. After hearing student voices, an additional activity will present free resources for educators and lead attendees in developing their takeaways on connecting game design to AP CSP.

Q&A (10 minutes)

Supporting research

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Game On: Teaching The AP CSP Through Game Design

Adair, A. (2020). Who is Taking Computer Science in New York City Schools? Report summary from The Research Alliance for New York City Schools (NYU) https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/research-alliance/research/spotlight-nyc-schools/who-taking-computer-science-new-york-city-schools, accessed 8/5/2021.

Asbury, C., & Rich, B., (eds.) 2008. Learning, Arts, and the Brain: The Dana Consortium Report on Arts and Cognition. New York/Washington, D.C: Dana Press.

Battistella, P.E. and von Wangenheim, C.G. (2016). Games for Teaching Computing in Higher Education – A Systematic Review. IEEE Technology and Engineering Education (ITEE) 1(3), 8-30.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300.

Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53 (1), 75-103.

Bowen, D. and Kisida, B. (2019). Investigating Causal Effects of Arts Education Experiences: Experimental Evidence from Houston’s Arts Access Initiative. Research Report for the Houston Independent School District, 7: 4. Rice University Houston Education Research Consortium.

Brennan, K. (2013). Learning computing through creating and connecting. Computer, 46 (9), 52-59.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2021). Computer and information technology occupations : Occupational outlook handbook. Accessed 8/3/201 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm

Butzlaff, R. (2000). Can music be used to teach reading? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 167

Calabrese Barton A., and Tan, E. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: Community ethnography as pedagogy as an equity-oriented design approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28 (4-5), 616-658.

CAST (2021). The UDL Guidelines. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ accessed 8/5/2021.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 39.

College Board (2020). AP Computer Science Principles; Course and Exam Description. NYC: College Board.

College Board (2020b). AP Computer Science Principles and the STEM and Computer Science Pipelines (by Wyatt, J., Feng, J., & Ewing, M.). NYC: College Board.

College Board (2021). Adopt Ready-to-Use Curricula; Providers of AP CSP Curricula and Pedagogical Support. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-computer-science-principles/classroom-resources/curricula-pedagogical-support, accessed 8/18/2021

Comber, O., Motschnig, R., Mayer, H., and Haselberger, D. (2019). Engaging Students in Computer Science Education through Game Development with Unity. 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 199-205.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 4th ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Cutts, Q. , Robertson, J., Donaldson, P. and O’Donnell, L. (2017) An evaluation of a professional learning network for computer science teachers. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 30- 53.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute

Deasy, R., & Fulbright, H. (2019, February 23). The Arts' Impact on Learning. Retrieved April 13, 2021, from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-the-arts-impact-on-learning/2001/01

Denner, J., Campe, S., & Werner, L. (2019). Does Computer Game Design and Programming Benefit Children? A Meta-Synthesis of Research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(3).

Doerschuk, P., Juarez, V., Liu, J., Vincent, D., Doss, K., and Mann, J. (2013). Introducing programming concepts through video game creation. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 523- 529).

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Enders, C. K., Keller, B.T., & Levy, R. (2018). A fully conditional specification approach to multilevel imputation of categorical and continuous variables. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 298–317.

Engelman,S., Magerko, B., McKlin, T., Miller, M., Edwards, D., and Freeman., J. (2017). Creativity in Authentic STEAM Education with EarSketch. SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. March 2017 Pages 183–188.

Ericson, B. (2021). A Deeper Look at Women of Color (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Native American) and AP CS in 2020. Computing for Everyone blog, https://cs4all.home.blog/, accessed 8/18/2021.

Ernst, J. and Clark, A. (2012). Fundamental Computer Science Conceptual Understandings for High School Students Using Original Computer Game Design. Journal of STEM Education 13 (5), 40-45.

Farrington, C., Nagaoka, J., Johnson, D.W., Allensworth, E., Roderick, M., Williams Beechum, N., and Keyes, T.S. (2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance. University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.

Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97–109.

Fowler, A., Pirker, J., Pollock, I., de Paula, B.C., Echeveste, M.E., and Gomez, M.J. (2016). Understanding the benefits of game jams: Exploring the potential for engaging young learners in STEM. In Proceedings of the 2016 ITiCSE Working Group Reports, 119-135.

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case study of a professional learning community. RMLE Online, 31(1), 1-17.

Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69, 66-78.

Guskey, T. and Yoon, K.S. (2009). What Works in Professional Development?, Phi Delta Kappan, 9:7, 495-500.

Guzdial, M. (2015). Learning-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.

Hammond, Z. L. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin Press.

Haycock, K. (2007). Collaboration: Critical success factors for student learning. School Libraries Worldwide, 25-35.

Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S. A., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hollands, F.M., Hanisch-Cerda, B., Levin, H. M., Belfield, C.R., Menon, A., Shand, R., Pan, Y., Bakir, I., & Cheng, H. (2015). CostOut - the CBCSE Cost Tool Kit. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from: www.cbcsecosttoolkit.org

Honey, M. and Kanter, D. (eds.) (2013). Design, Make, Play: Growing The Next Generation of STEM Innovators. New York: Routledge.

Howard, K. E., and Havard, D. D. (2019). Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science Principles: Searching for Equity in a Two-Tiered Solution to Underrepresentation. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 2(1), 1-15.

Hubert, B. and Rosen, Y. (2020). Equity in Learning with BrainPOP® : Fostering Access and Impact for All (NYC: BrainPOP®).

Hulleman, C.S., & Cordray, D.S. (2009). Moving From the Lab to the Field: The Role of Fidelity and Achieved Relative Intervention Strength. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 88–110

Kafai, Y. and Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50 (4), 313-334.

Kafai, Y., DeLiema, D., Fields, D., Lewandowski, G. and Lewis, C. (2019). Rethinking Debugging as Productive Failure for CS Education. SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 169–170.

Kraft, M.A. (2018). Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions. Brown University Working Paper.

Lähdemäki J. (2019) Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016—A Co-created National Education Policy. In: Cook J. (eds) Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M. & Selwyn, N. (2018). Twenty years of online teacher communities: A systematic review of formally-organized and informally-developed professional learning groups. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 75(1), 302-315.

Le, V. N., Stecher, B. M., Lockwood, J. R.,Hamilton, L. S., & Robyn, A. (2006). Improving mathematics and science education: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between reform-oriented instruction and student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Levin, G. and Brain, T. (2021). Code as Creative Medium: A Handbook for Computational Art and Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levin, H.M., McEwan, P.J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A.B., Shand, R. (2017). Economic evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M.W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M.A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M.W., Roberts, M., Anthony, K.S., Busick, M.D. (2012). Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms. (NCSER 2013-3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research.

Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Margolis, J.,Holme J.,Estrella, R.,Goode, J., and Nao, K. (2017). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing, revised edition. Boston: MIT Press.

Mark, J., Koehler Zeringue, J., Klein, K., Mitchell, T., and Olivares, J. (2021). Why Do Students Enroll in AP CSP?, paper presented at The Annual Conference on Research in Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT), May 2021; http://respect2021.stcbp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/001_Research_08_paper_39.pdf, accessed 8/17/2021.

Mason, L., and Rich, P. (2020) Development and analysis of the Elementary Student Coding
Attitudes Survey. Computers & Education 153, 103898.

Morrison, B. and Preston, J. (2009). Engagement: gaming throughout the curriculum. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41 (1), 343-346.

Muniz, J. (2019). Culturally Responsive Teaching: A 50-State Survey of Teaching Standards. Washington DC: New America.

Muro, M., Liu, S., Whiton, J., and Kulkarni, S. (2018, October 12). Digitalization and the American workforce. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from https://www.brookings.edu/research/digitalization-and-the-american-workforce/

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine (2021a). Cultivating Interest and Competencies in Computing; Authentic Experiences and Design Factors. Means, B. and Stephens, A. (eds.) Washington DC: National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021b). Meeting Regional STEM Workforce Needs in the Wake of COVID-19: Proceedings of a Virtual Workshop Series. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board (2018). Our Nation’s Future Competitiveness Relies on Building a STEM-Capable U.S. Workforce. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation (2020). "NSF 20-101 // Dear Colleague Letter: Advancing Educational Innovations that Motivate and Prepare PreK-12 Learners for Computationally-Intensive Industries of the Future." https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2020/nsf20101/nsf20101.jsp accessed 7/10/2021

National Science Foundation (2019). "Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier." https://www.nsf.gov/eng/futureofwork.jsp accessed 7/15/2021

National Science & Technology Council (2018). Charting a Course for Success: America's Strategy for STEM Education. Washington DC: NSTC.

NCCAS (2021). National Core Art Standards. https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ accessed 8/5/2021.

NPD Group (2019). “According to The NPD Group, 73 Percent of U.S. Consumers Play Video Games; Notable Increases in Both Engagement and Spending Coming from Kids.” https://www.npd.com/news/press-releases/2019/according-to-the-npd-group--73-percent-of-u-s--consumers-play-video-games/ accessed 8/4/221

Paris, D., Alim, H. S., Kinloch, V., Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D. I., Lee, J.-S., Lee, T. S., McCarty, T. L., Irizarry, J. G., San Pedro, T., Wong, C., Peña, C., Ladson-Billings, G., Haupt, A., Rosa, J., Flores, N., Lee, S. J., González, N., Gutiérrez, K. D., … Lee, C. D. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies : teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Peppler, K., Halverson, E. and Kafai, Y. (eds.) (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as Learning Environments (Vol. 1). London and NY: Routledge.

Perignat, E. and Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31- 43.

Peteranetz, M., Morrow, P. and Soh, L.-K. (2020). Development and Validation of the Computational Thinking Concepts and Skills Test. Proceedings of ACM SIGCSE conference (SIGCSE’20), Portland, OR 926-932.

Pinkard, N., Martin, C., and Erete, S. (2020). Equitable approaches: Opportunities for computational thinking with emphasis on creative production and connections to community. Interactive Learning Environments, 28 (3), 347-361.

Qian, Y., Hambrusch, S., Yadav, A., & Gretter, S. (2018). Who needs what: Recommendations for designing effective online professional development for computer science teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(2), 164-181.

Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rich, K.M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T.A., Moran, C., and Franklin, D. (2017). K-8 Learning Trajectories Derived from Research Literature: Sequence, Repetition, Conditionals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 182--190.

Rickles, J., Zeiser, K. L., Yang, R., O’Day, J., & Garet, M. S. (2019). Promoting Deeper Learning in High School: Evidence of Opportunities and Outcomes.Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 214–234.

Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2009). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from
the study of instructional improvement. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 120–131.

Sax, L., Newhouse,K., Goode, J., Skorodinsky, M., Nakajima, T., and Sendowsk, M. (2020) Does AP CS Principles Broaden Participation in Computing?: An Analysis of APCSA and APCSP Participants. SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 542–548.

Schanzer, E., Krishnamurthi, S., and Fisler, K. (2018). Creativity, Customization, and Ownership: Game Design in Bootstrap:Algebra. ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.

Schochet, P. Z. (2005). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

School of Interactive Arts (2018). Internal report on student outcomes. Available upon request.

Soundy, C., & Qiu, Y. (2006. Portraits of Picture Power: American and Chinese children explore literacy through the visual arts. Childhood Education, 83 (2), 68-74.

Tam, A. C. F. (2015) The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: a perspective from beliefs and practices, Teachers and Teaching, 21:1, 22-43.

Togashi, G. (2019). Motivating Programming Learners through Game Development. Project paper at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 1-28; available at https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/63301

Walters, K., Smith, T.S., Lennon, V., Ogut, B. & Griffin, M. (2018). The better math teaching network: Lessons learned from the second year. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education
Foundation.

Weintrop, D. and Wilensky, U. (2016). Playing by programming: Making gameplay a programming activity. Educational Technology, 56 (3), 36-41.

Weitze, C.L. (2017). Reflective, creative and computational thinking strategies used when students learn through making games. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Game-Based Learning (pp. 744-753).

What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse Standards Handbook, Version 4.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Wijman, T. (2019, December 18). “The global games market will generate $152.1 billion in 2019 as the U.S. overtakes China as the biggest market.” https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-generate-152-1-billion-in-2019-as-the-u-s-overtakes-china-as-the-biggest-market/ accessed 4/13/2021

Wu, S.P.W. and Rau, M.A. (2019). How Students Learn Content in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Through Drawing Activities. Educational Psychology Review 31, 87–120.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------