J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
DOI 10.1007/s10956-015-9587-z
Examination of the Effects of Dimensionality on Cognitive
Processing in Science: A Computational Modeling Experiment
Comparing Online Laboratory Simulations and Serious
Educational Games
Richard L. Lamb1
Published online: 16 October 2015
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Within the last 10 years, new tools for assisting
in the teaching and learning of academic skills and content
within the context of science have arisen. These new tools
include multiple types of computer software and hardware
to include (video) games. The purpose of this study was to
examine and compare the effect of computer learning
games in the form of three-dimensional serious educational
games, two-dimensional online laboratories, and traditional
lecture-based instruction in the context of student content
learning in science. In particular, this study examines the
impact of dimensionality, or the ability to move along the
X-, Y-, and Z-axis in the games. Study subjects (N = 551)
were randomly selected using a stratified sampling tech-
nique. Independent strata subsamples were developed
based upon the conditions of serious educational games,
online laboratories, and lecture. The study also computa-
tionally models a potential mechanism of action and
compares two- and three-dimensional learning environ-
ments. F test results suggest a significant difference for the
main effect of condition across the factor of content gain
score with large effect. Overall, comparisons using com-
putational models suggest that three-dimensional serious
educational games increase the level of success in learning
as measured with content examinations through greater
recruitment and attributional retraining of cognitive sys-
tems. The study supports assertions in the literature that the
use of games in higher dimensions (i.e., three-dimensional
versus two-dimensional) helps to increase student under-
standing of science concepts.
& Richard L. Lamb
richard.lamb@wsu.edu
1
Department of Teaching and Learning, Washington State
University, 321 Cleveland Hall, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
Keywords Computational models
Serious educational
games
Online simulations
Cognition
Introduction
Within the last 10 years, new tools for assisting in the
teaching and learning of academic skills and content within
the context of science have arisen. These new tools include
multiple types of computer software and hardware to
include simulations and (video) games (Eliceiri et al.
2012). Games as effective learning tools have been
extensively explored, but little is understood about why
games are successful (Wu et al. 2012). Other questions
about the use of games and simulations in education have
arisen. Specifically, questions such as what role do video
games play in the development of socioemotional skills
such as twenty-first century skills, what specific charac-
teristics of games are important for leaning, and what is the
role of video games such as serious educational games play
in the development of content knowledge in science? These
and other questions have only recently become the subject
of experimental research in psychology and science edu-
cation (Turner 2014).
Current research by Lamb 2014 and others has begun to
explore the advantages that game play not only has con-
ferred on student learning, but also has started to explore
the mechanism of action establishing how educational
games produces these differences through computational
modeling techniques. Annetta et al. (2006) suggested that
students would spend as many if not more hours engaging
in video games rather than formal face-to-face instruction
as the use of computer systems increases in educational
environments. If used as a tool for inquiry-based teaching
and learning, then video games such as serious educational
123
2 J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
games (SEGs) (Annetta 2008, 2010) support learner-cen-
tered models and problem-based learning practices. SEGs
and related tools also support assessment in three-dimen-
sional virtual environments contextualized in science
(Rutten et al. 2012). For example, within the SEG students
can play the role of a scientist and complete a polymerase
chain reaction or explore the magma chamber of a volcano.
In addition to inclusion in the classroom for teaching
purposes, video games allow educators to move away from
traditional forms of assessment and teaching of content to
more interactive modes making use of open-ended game
play (Lamb et al. 2015c). The movement away from pure
lecture and paper-and-pencil testing as means to involve
students within the science education process is a driving
force for the selection of educational modes of instruction
to include the use of video games in which three-dimen-
sional representations are used (Dalgarno and Lee 2010).
To clarify, the use of three-dimensional environments
within this study occurs in the context of a video game. The
three-dimensional description applies to virtual game
environments in which the player can manipulate the game
character, objects, and other aspects of the game in the X-,
Y-, and Z-axis of the Cartesian coordinate system. This is
opposed to the two-dimensional games in which the char-
acters, objects, and other aspects of the video game are
manipulated only in the X- and Y-axis. Very little research
has addressed the role of dimensionality related to learning
or testing outcomes.
Limited time and resources within school systems cre-
ates difficulty for teachers making use of multiple modes of
instruction such as laboratories and other hands on work.
Hands on laboratories are time consuming, resource
intensive, expensive, and potentially unsafe (Annetta et al.
2014). Other modes of instruction such as lecture are often
not student centered (Baeten et al. 2013). Other concerns
about classroom instruction arise when considering how to
provide real-life or ‘‘authentic’’ applications of learning.
The lack of real-life application can create a disconnection
from reality related to the cognitive processing of the
concept, and thus, students may be unable to apply con-
cepts in the real world (Moran et al. 2014). For the prac-
titioner, there is little time to assess all of the different
technological learning modes and teachers are often del-
uged with multiple messages about the benefits and
drawbacks related to these technologies (Davies et al.
2014). In addition, recent technological advances within
educational games allow for more interactive learning,
three-dimensional environments, and truer to life experi-
ences that are radically different from interactive learning
experiences as recent as 5 years ago (Monahan et al. 2006).
Two particularly interesting modes of technology-mediated
learning are those of two-dimensional online laboratories
(OLS) and three-dimensional SEGs. With the current
123
advances in technology, relatively few studies directly
compare modes of instruction or characteristics such as the
dimensionality of the computer game learning
environments.
Literature Review
Modern educational software (such as interactive, multi-
media Web sites, and immersive first-person games) allows
students to receive and process greater amounts of infor-
mation than they do through lecture and written forms due
to processes such as cognitive offloading and reductions in
cognitive load (Young et al. 2014; Connolly and Stansfield
2007). While the literature does provide some evidence of
these processes occurring, these processes alone do not
fully account for differences in outcomes between two-
dimensional simulations and three-dimensional learning
games on measures of science content knowledge (Hegarty
et al. 2006). The literature has also shown that students
who engage in the use of multimedia Web sites and
immersive games during instruction show larger gain
scores on content knowledge assessments. In addition,
students who take part in immersive games and simulations
report more positive attitudes regarding science versus
student who do not (Hwang et al. 2012). Students also
show increased attentiveness and engagement in the edu-
cational process (Gilbert et al. 2003; Hannafin et al. 2008;
Annetta 2008; Annetta et al. 2011; Muller 2008). As
model-based teaching creates an emphasis on many dif-
ferent skill types, there are frequent attempts to reach
students with Web sites and immersive games designed to
aid instruction (Najafi et al. 2007; Waight et al. 2014).
SEGs Versus Online Laboratories
One potential way to improve our understanding about the
role of video games in education is with the use of serious
educational games (SEG). SEG computer games and their
closely related brethren, virtual laboratory simulations are
of immediate interest to the science education community.
SEGs are games designed for educational purposes with
specific pedagogical approaches included a priori as
opposed to post hoc as in serious games. The inclusion of
pedagogical approaches specifically differentiates SEGs
from other forms of computer-based learning and gaming.
The use of two-dimensional online laboratories and three-
dimensional serious educational games took hold during
the early part of the new millennium (2005) (Lamb 2013;
Annetta 2008). These two modes of instruction provide
similar stimuli and prompts to the casual observer. Each
mode provides onscreen instructions and directive path-
ways providing visual and auditory prompting and
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
activation of additional cognitive attributes for the partic-
ipants (Kalyuga 2012). Three-dimensional SEGs promote
this prompting to a greater degree. Three-dimensional
immersion in the content of the SEG means that players
have a heightened sense of presence as the students engage
with the content. Online laboratories and SEGs also pro-
vide scaffolding and initial training (Coller and Scott
2009). SEG often provide more scaffolding than online
laboratories as the SEGs tend to be longer and require the
use of greater cognitive processing due to their complexity.
Online laboratories tend to place the participant into the
role of a participant early on, and very quickly, the central
primary task is emphasized due the short duration of the
activity experience. SEGs by contrast place the individual
as a peripheral participant early on and through training,
character development, and scaffolding move the player
toward the role of central participant (Green and McNeese
2011). Online laboratories are often environmentally static
unlike SEGs, and this may account for the different
learning outcomes when researchers directly compare these
modes.
Environmentally static simulations such as online lab-
oratories have prescribed input–output systems with little
to no opportunity to deviate from the specific tasks under
exploration. The input–output nature of online laboratory
simulation does not allow for exploration and learning
through failure (Jamone et al. 2012). SEGs by their very
nature allow for open world play, multiple pathway
development, and the potential for soft failure in addition
to increased cognitive processing due to the three-dimen-
sional aspects of the game (Vallett 2013).
Game Playing to Learn
There is general acceptance in psychology and education
that play is a critical and beneficial means for children to
learn (Gray 2011). Game play acts as an extension of
general play providing children with targeted learning
through specific pedagogical approaches (Howard 2014).
While play contributes to skill building through repeated
practice, there is a second aspect of associated with game
play, constructivism, occurring through exploration while
playing (Matzen et al. 2013). During this exploration, the
player is confronted with tasks that are often just beyond
the child’s knowledge and/or skill level, moving beyond
the child’s skill level requires the recruitment and training
of additional cognitive attributes for processing purposes
(Lamb et al. 2014a; Greiff et al. 2013). Increased pro-
cessing requirements create proportionate changes in cog-
nition related to the challenges being met in the game. This
development is particularly true in the case of SEGs where
players negotiate rules, discover boundaries, develop cre-
ative strategies, and provide the basis for an instructional
3
context that stimulates multiple cycles of assimilation and
accommodation (Annetta 2008, 2010). The stimulation of
these cycles of assimilation and accommodation arises
from the increase complexity associated with immersive
games making use of three-dimensional environments.
Complexity associated within SEGs develops out of the
stimulation of both audio sensory and visual sensory, and
memory systems within the brain activating additional
cognitive attributes (Nikolaidis et al. 2014). One necessary
trait for positive learning outcomes when playing games is
the need for realistic contextualization of the interactions.
One way to increase the realism of interactions is with
three-dimensional environments. Rosser et al. (2007) sug-
gest that three-dimensional games increase eye–hand
coordination, neuropsychological connections, reaction
time, spatial visualization, visual attention, and mental
rotation while playing (Rosser et al. 2007). In turn, these
particular cognitive attributes are tightly linked to learning
in science (Lamb et al. 2015b).
Three-dimensional games such as SEGs and two-di-
mensional simulations such as online laboratories—
through to a lesser degree—also encourage participants to
practice information management, critical evaluation, and
comparison skills as these games and simulations often
contain large amounts of text and information designed to
direct the player. The text and direction are often not linear,
nor do the directions provide an established path through
the game. Information management often leads to the
development of media fluency, as the participants are
required to integrate textual, graphical, and physical
information from the environment within the game.
Immersive games require the use of critical thinking,
problem-solving, collection of data, and evaluation of the
relative importance of the data within the simulation or
game (Shute 2011). The open-ended aspects of the game
enable participants to uncover and develop the player’s
narrative through self-directed exploratory behavior.
Three-Dimensional Serious Educational Games
All people work, learn, and develop in a three-dimensional
world. Regardless of how well people move, orientate, and
negotiate through three-dimensional space, they require the
cognitive structures to complete these tasks (Best and
Butler 2014). Specifically, people make use of cognitive
structures associated with mental rotation and spatial
visualization. Until recently, the majority of psychophysi-
ological research about the role of three-dimensional
games in learning has not been extensively explored.
However, there is some evidence about the key role of
spatial visualization and mental rotation in science content
learning. This is because science fields are among the most
123
4 J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
visually intensive fields along with mathematics and
engineering (Harris et al. 2013; Cox 1928).
Spatial visualization and mental rotation as cognitive
constructs have their origins in the study of engineering
and are of immediate importance in science education
(Lamb et al. 2015b). The visual intensity of science arises
from representations, diagrams, and models developed to
describe natural phenomena. The use of representations,
diagrams, and models has increased as educators and stu-
dents make greater use of computers to represent concepts
due to explicit requirements in the Next Generation Sci-
ence Standards. Correlational and more recently predictive
studies have solidly demonstrated the relationship between
science achievement, spatial visualization, and mental
rotation (Kaplan 2013). This is the primary reason for the
inclusion of spatial visualization and mental rotation in
models of student science achievement. Specifically, Lamb
et al. (2015b) suggest that increases in achievement may
result from undergoing cognitive reformulation and
restructuring using the spatial domain systems in the brain,
specifically the cognitive attributes responsible for mental
manipulation of quantities and numbers. These cognitive
attributes are used in a large number of tasks in all science
domains.
Neuroimaging making use of fNIR and fMRI illustrates
activation within brain areas related to spatial tasks when
engaging in mathematics tasks, engineering tasks, and
science tasks (Pike et al. 2014). The increases in processing
in the spatial visualization locations set the conditions for
the reduction of cognitive load during processing through
the addition of cognitive channels to process data streams
(Plank et al. 2014).
Spatial visualization is a more general construct com-
posed of spatial relation and orientations (SR–O), visual-
ization (V), and kinesthetic imagery (K) (Zimmermann and
Cunningham 1991). Spatial visualization and mental rota-
tion are more substantively defined from a cognitive per-
spective as a cognitive attribute (visuospatial) and subset of
latent attributes related to movement and positioning of
stimulus within three-dimensional space (Lamb et al.
2014a; Lamb 2014; Spence and Feng 2010). Cognitive
processing of three-dimensional orientation information
consists of using fundamental representations, and each
representation is developed from a small number of
viewpoints transformed to appropriate size, orientation,
and location of the nearest similar shape held in stored
memory. This allows one to conceptualize the same object
and place in space in different rotations. Mental rotation is
the incremental analogue transformation process under-
taken when attempting to recognize three-dimensional
objects in space (Gregory 2015). This particular cognitive
attribute develops earlier than spatial visualization (Harris
et al. 2013). Marmor (1975) demonstrated that children
123
starting at approximately 4 years of age (and as young as 3)
use mental rotation to solve tasks in their environments.
One should note that mental rotation is a component of
spatial ability and relates to spatial visualization through it
is not interchangeable with spatial visualization.
Two-Dimensional Online Laboratory Simulations
Simulations are a broad subclass of educational technology
that uses situations with many simultaneously interacting
components (Hulme et al. 2009). The goal for all partici-
pants is to take on a particular aspect within the simulation
and solve problems ultimately resolving the situations
(Tomasello 2014). The multiple aspects of the simulation
allow the student to make limited choices allowing the
simulation to evolve to a degree. There are some key
characteristics such as representation of complex real-
world processes, defined roles for each user constraining
the number of possible outcomes, and the ability to expe-
rience feedback allowing for course and strategy correction
(Jonassen and Grabowski 2012).
Online science laboratory simulations are specifically
designed with the same characteristics common to simu-
lations in general but with the addition of science content
and pedagogical approaches. The addition of the peda-
gogical approaches differentiates learning simulations and
serious educational games from their counterparts in the
entertainment realm (Annetta 2010). A second aspect of
simulations that assists in the reduction in cognitive load
within the model of the real-world system is that elements
have been simplified or removed to increase learning (Chen
and The 2013). Removal of items from the simulations
occurs in an effort to reduce complexity associated with the
modeled system and subsequently reduces the cognitive
load associated with processing of tasks in the simulation.
Online Laboratory Simulations (OLS)
Educational simulations have multiple advantages over
other instructional methods and modes. Simulations pro-
vide students with increased engagement in the learning
process with examples of real-world problems for students
to investigate in an active way through prompts and non-
linear processing (Shen et al. 2015). Online simulations
also provide the student with a soft-failure environment
(Annetta et al. 2014). More importantly, there is evidence
that simulations assist in the transfer of learning from the
classroom to those applications outside of the classroom
through exposure to real-world learning within a controlled
environment (Nadolny et al. 2013). Within this context, the
simulation allows students to experience aspects of reality
that are not otherwise possible in the conventional class-
room. For example, it would not be possible for students to
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
have access to a level 4 biosafety laboratory; however, in
the context of a simulation it is entirely possible for the
student to have this kind of access. Recent meta-analysis of
studies conducted on student learning related to online
simulations has shown a positive effect on student
achievement across grade levels to include middle school
students (Schroeder et al. 2007; Lamb et al. 2015a).
Specifically, it is the student-centered nature of simulations
that is credited with the resultant learning gains (Chi et al.
2004). However, this explanation seems to provide only
part of the mechanism of action and does not address the
underlying processing aspects of student learning when
engaged in OLS use. Many other variables moderate stu-
dent outcomes that are not accounted for in current models.
Some of these variables are associated with psychosocial
stress, individual difference, and aspects of cognitive
processing.
Purpose, Research Questions, and Hypothesis
The purpose of this study is to examine and compare the
effect of computer learning games in the form of three-
dimensional SEGs, two-dimensional online laboratories,
and traditional instruction in the context of student content
learning in science. The study also seeks to computation-
ally model a potential mechanism of action and compare
two and three-dimensional learning games. The research
questions addressed in this study are:
1. Is there a significant difference on gain score outcomes
for students using three-dimensional learning games
when compared to traditional instruction, and two-
dimensional learning games?
2. What are the characteristics of two-dimensional and
three-dimensional games that assist in the production
of differential outcomes when compared to traditional
instruction?
3. How do cognitive processes change based upon
changes in the dimensionality of the learning game?
Consideration of the research question and current lit-
erature supports the following hypothesis: three-dimen-
sional games when controlling for other factors will
provide significant increases in gain scores over traditional
instruction, and two-dimensional game instruction. The
authors suggest this may relate to increases in the number
of recruited cognitive processing elements known as cog-
nitive attributes when engaging in the use of a three-di-
mensional learning games. Specifically, the author suggests
that the inclusion of cognitive attributes related to visual
spatial orientation and mental rotation may provide addi-
tional processing capacity in a three-dimensional game not
otherwise recruited in the two-dimensional games, and
traditional instructional environments. A cognitive attribute
5
is the lowest level cognitive system retaining its individual
characteristics associated with the cognitive system.
Methods
Sample
The total number of available study subjects is N = 551.
Subjects from this total pool were randomly selected using
a stratified sampling technique. Independent strata were
developed based upon condition type. Condition types
were labeled three-dimensional SEG (N = 152), two-di-
mensional online laboratory (N = 351), and traditional
lecture-based instruction (no technology) (N = 96). From
each of the condition’s subject pool, 70 students were
randomly selected using a sampling rate of 0.02 within the
JMP 11.0 Statistical Discover Software package. Thus, the
total number of subjects randomly selected from each strata
is n = 70. Each of the subsamples was analyzed to ensure
homogeneity of the sample to the whole and subsample to
subsample. Power analysis using Cohen’s power table of
a = 0.90, g2 = 0.02 (small) resulted in a minimum nec-
essary sample size of n = 40 in order to reject the null
hypothesis (Cohen and Cohen 1983). Thus, using an
n = 70 provides a sufficient number of subjects to detect a
small effect. Due to sufficient power to detect a small
effect, any larger effects would also be detected. Study
subjects were in the 11th grade and 12th grade, with a
majority of subjects in the 11th grade. An initial compar-
ison of male and female subjects reveals an almost even
number of subjects both within condition groups and across
condition groupings. Table 1 shows the demographic data
for each of the study groups by condition type.
Design
The study design is a block randomized pretest–posttest
intact group design. This design has a primary benefit of
more closely aligning with ‘‘normal’’ classroom and school
conditions improving the ecological validity of the results
and providing directly usable information for practitioners.
While the study participants were not randomly selected
from the target population, the intact classes were randomly
designated for each of the conditions or a comparison group
as given in Table 2. This study design also tends to mini-
mize disruption of student learning and teacher planning.
Table 2 illustrates the grouping and condition type.
Condition Description
Students within each of the studies participated in one of
three conditions. The three treatment conditions were
123
6 J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
Table 1 Frequencies and sample description of demographics
Condition type Subject pool Number selected
Three-dimensional SEG 152 70
Two-dimensional online 351 70
Traditional lecture (no technology) 96 70
Table 2 Study design
Assignment Pretest Condition
Group 1 X Three-dimensional SEG O1
Group 2 X Two-dimensional online O1
Group 3 X Lecture O1
online laboratory simulation—two-dimensional, SEGs—
three-dimensional, and traditional lecture or non-com-
puter-based instruction. Each of these conditions was
conducted separately, and data collection for the total study
occurred over a period of 1 year. Appropriate content
pretests and posttests were given to students prior to the
initiation of the condition. Posttest data were collected at
the conclusion of the condition, and the time interval
between the pretest and posttest was 8 weeks. This assisted
in the mitigation of carry-over effects from pretesting.
Fidelity of Treatment
Treatment fidelity is the strategies and approaches used to
ensure the reliability and validity of the interventions.
Proper treatment fidelity assists researchers in assigning
and explaining results. Resnick et al. (2005) suggest a
comprehensive model of treatment fidelity. The model of
fidelity of treatment consists of five components: (a) study
design, (b) training for data collection, (c) delivery of
treatment, (d) measurement of receipt of treatment, and
(e) measurement of treatment outcomes. Table 3 provides a
summary of fidelity of treatment and the associated
evidence.
Observation of treatments and consultation with teach-
ers pretreatment helped to assure teacher understanding
and fidelity. Teacher assent and assistance in implemen-
tation timing of the treatment helped to increase teacher
‘‘buy-in’’ and maintenance of the treatment plan. Feedback
to the teacher of where the teacher deviated from treatment
plan allowed teachers and researchers to identify areas of
concern and correct them as teachers engaged with
students.
123
Grade Gender Ethnicity
11 12 Male Female Majority Minority
23 9 20 12 23 9
22 10 17 15 12 20
24 8 13 19 15 17
Two-Dimensional Online Laboratory Simulations
(OLS)
Posttest
X The two-dimensional computerized learning simulation is a
X web-based online laboratory based on the constructivist
X approach to learning. The OLS is designed to assist
classroom teachers by providing students with content
instruction via online laboratory simulations of biotech-
nology phenomena at the macroscopic and microscopic
level. The OLS represents content using interactive two-
dimensional graphical representations allowing students to
manipulate relationships and examine outcomes. The OLS
also provides the students the opportunity to communicate
with one another via focus questions, postings, and group
discussion prompts all within an online environment. The
role of the teacher is limited as the OLS is designed to be
self-contained with little input or direction from the tea-
cher. One of the major components of the OLS simulations
is the use of non-traditional models to aid in instruction. In
these simulations, students review different aspects of
biological phenomena in an online laboratory setting. The
OLS then allows the students to discuss and develop con-
sensus and reestablish equilibrium. The vague and open-
ended focus questions prompt students to work through this
reestablishment of cognitive equilibrium. The simulation
contains a selected laboratory topic around polymerase
chain reactions and DNA base pair identification. The
simulation was presented to the students as part of the
instructional unit.
Three-Dimensional Serious Educational Games
(SEGs)
The immersive environment associated with the serious
educational games (SEG) is ‘‘based upon the use of logic,
memory, and problem-solving associated with the thinking
skills, visualization and discovery in a problem-based
learning environment’’ (Annetta 2008 p. 6). The intent of
the SEG is to provide stimulus prompting the student to
generate understanding of the complex systems expressed
in the immersive game. The SEG used in this study was a
first-person, interactive instructional tool, based on a
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
Table 3 Evidence of fidelity of treatment
Fidelity component Source of evidence
Study design Block randomized pretest–posttest comparison of
conditions
Data collection Training occurred in year 1 of the study with
training refresher training occurring before data collection
Delivery of Observation during each condition with correction
treatment as necessary
Measurement of Student completion of computer-based
receipt of interventions and attendance of lecture sessions
treatment
Measurement of Content examinations
treatment
outcomes
problem-based learning model. As with the OLS, the role
of the teacher is limited and students are guided through the
game via prompts and interactions with characters in the
game. The game was designed to provide students with a
realistic reproduction of scientific problem-solving and
research work in a series of scenario-based learning
activities. Upon initial login, students are presented with a
description of an outbreak of an unknown disease occurring
around the world. The student is assigned to an epidemi-
ological organization that is responsible for attempting to
stop a viral outbreak. The student is then required to
complete various science-based problem-solving tasks in
an effort to solve the complex ill-defined problem. These
complex tasks involve the use of polymerase chain reac-
tion, DNA base pair identification, and other laboratory-
based actions. Through these processes, the student is led
to identify and isolate the source of the outbreak while
learning biological concepts through mentor characters,
readings, and singular task-based training.
Lecture-Based Instruction (No Technology)
The traditional instruction is defined as the use of low-
interaction-based educational methods such as lecture with
minimal content discussion. The teachers within this
approach used PowerPoint slides as a part of a purely
lecture, drill, and paper-and-pencil practice-based format.
Student within this mode of instruction was presented with
simple two-dimensional representations of content (poly-
merase chain reactions and DNA base pair identification)
without the benefit of manipulation or adjustments on the
screen. Within this condition, the role of the teacher is
central. This differs from the two-dimensional online lab-
oratory simulation and the three-dimensional SEG in which
the students were allowed to manipulate interactions and
move through the conditions without teacher input.
7
Evidence
Allows comparison across groups and isolation of intervention
effects
All members of the team engaging in data collection remained the
same throughout each year
Treatments were observed to ensure topics were as per the research
plan
Student completion rates are as follows: serious educational game
92 %, online laboratory 94 %, and lecture attendance 100 %
Outcomes are given in ‘‘Results’’
Measures
The researchers collected data using a paper-and-pencil
content measure. The content test consisted of released
state-created science examination. Questions were
designed to examine retention and application of knowl-
edge. Student content measures for each of the conditions
consisted of 25 multiple-choice questions regarding sci-
ence content knowledge related to the areas of content
taught in each condition. Pretests were given to determine
initial understanding of concepts, and a posttest was given
after the condition to assess changes. The content examined
is a criterion-referenced examination consisting of released
items from state tests. The test questions link directly to
state standards and state curriculum guides. Overall inter-
nal consistency and reliability of the content exam is
a = 0.84.
Data Analysis and Assumptions
Prior to conversion to logits, gain score means for each
condition content test results were centered on zero to
assist in the normalization of data. Conversion to logit
served two purposes, first to place all measures on a
common scale for presentation to the computational model
and second for uniformity of examination across measures.
Study scales were converted from transformed raw gain
scores to logit scores using the relationship between raw
scored and a logistic model (Rasch model). This relation-
ship is always correlated at 0.97 ± 0.2, making the raw
scores immediately available for conversion to logits using
the equation 1/(S2 - (1 - R)) (Fan 1998; Malec et al.
2000, Linacre 2002). When logits are compared between
tests, their probabilistic meanings are maintained (Linacre
and Wright 2003). This maintenance of probabilistic
meaning is vital to the comparison of each measures scale.
123
8 J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
Plots of measures obtained from the tests allow for an
assessment of the nature of the relationship between the
three tests and each condition. If the relationship is linear,
then the tests are measuring the same theta or ability (Cook
and Eignor 2002, 2005). Linearization of the logit data
allowed for analysis of logit gain score across each con-
dition type. This analysis was accomplished using analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA) with a post hoc Tukey–Kramer
HSD test. Inter-item reliability for each test was assessed
and averaged across the three measures using Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha.
Computational Modeling
A computational model is mathematical model designed to
study, predict, and simulate complex systems not otherwise
readily accessible to researchers either due to their com-
plexity or due to the researcher’s inability to measure them.
Typically, these models are dynamic real-time systems
requiring extensive computational power. Examples of
computational models are weather prediction models,
groundwater flow models, and engineering process models.
Computational models have only recently (within the last
2 years) been used and applied to educational and cogni-
tive studies. It is important to note that this model was
developed in a series of papers prior to this study.
The student task and cognition model (STAC-M) is a
computational model designed to mimic biological cogni-
tion associated within the critical thinking systems of the
human brain (Lamb et al. 2014c). The computational
model, STAC-M, is based upon the statistical interactions
of multiple processing systems in the form of an artificial
neural network as a part of a nonlinear dynamic system
designed to mimic cognitive systems (Lamb et al. 2014b).
A critical feature of the STAC-M in its current form is that
it allows for analysis and isolation of complex cognitive
systems such as critical thinking, retrieval, estimation,
mental rotation, spatial visualization, and parity judgment
(Lamb et al. 2014a, c; Lamb and Annetta 2013; Lamb
2013, 2014; Lamb and Premo 2015). The definition of
retrieval is the recall or reactivation of information from
past previously encode memories (Tulving et al. 1994).
The definition of estimation is the process and strategy of
developing answers despite having imperfect information
and context (Sprouse 2011). Lastly, parity judgment is the
ability to judge qualities as being equal (Berteletti et al.
2015).
Each of these cognitive attribute systems was identified,
quantified, and linked to the volume conservation task as
an outcome measure for science learning. This model
allows the researcher to model, generate data, experiment,
and simulate student cognitive processing. This linkage is
established in series of seven previously published papers
123
related to the development and measurement of the STAC-
M computational model (Lamb 2014; Lamb et al. 2012,
2014a, c, d, 2015b). The ability of the model to replicate
nonlinear dynamic complexity in the form of cognitive
processing is due to the underlying artificial neural net-
work, which is the most appropriate base model for the
development of this computational model of cognition
given the trend toward connectionist theories of informa-
tion processing in neuroscience. The current version of the
model consists of seven processing nodes representing
cognitive systems, one node acting as the input or cogni-
tion priming node (Lamb et al. 2015b) from the environ-
ment and memory, and two nodes: one representing
successfully completing the task and one node failing to
complete the task. The remaining nodes are processing
nodes. The model was developed using a combination of
item response theory and a modified form of cognitive
diagnostics (Lamb 2013). Each of these measurement
techniques allows researchers to parameterize data in such
a way as to allow input into the ANN. The use of the ANN
as the underlying computational aspect of the STAC-M
allows users of the model to examine results using Baye-
sian assumptions and estimations. Within this model, each
individual subtask within the Piagetian volume task is
assigned as a success or failure. Each task is then tied to a
specific set of cognitive processing systems using cognitive
diagnostic techniques designed by Lamb 2013. Data for the
original development of the STAC-M were gathered from
645 high school students aged 15 through 19 in the mid-
Atlantic region of the USA, over the course of 15 h in a
virtual environment solving science tasks. After 15 h of
play, the students generated 750,000 data points for train-
ing and development of the underlying ANN that later
acted as the processing component of the STAC-M model.
Task Presentation to STAC-M
The novel tasks presented to the STAC-M (Lamb 2013;
Lamb et al. 2014a, c) are versions of the Piagetian volume
conservation task (Piaget 1970) taken from a serious edu-
cational game as conceptualized by Annetta (2010). Piaget
developed several of these tasks to examine how quantities
remain unchanged despite configuration changes. Piaget
noted that children do not acquire the ability to successfully
complete these tasks until particular developmental mile-
stones are reached. Specifically, the Piagetian volume task
is not typically mastered until at the earliest age nine or ten,
or the onset of Piaget’s formal operations stage. The
computational model is designed to solve the Piagetian
volume task and other related near-transfer tasks such as
quantity conservation and mass conservation. It is impor-
tant to understand the STAC-M was not programed with
the ability to solve these tasks but learned how to solve the
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15 9

task by ‘‘watching’’ others via machine learning algo- 10

rithms. The authors also are able to simulate two-dimen-
sional and three-dimensional game environments for the
STAC-M to operate. The environments arise though the
manipulation of the node propagation weighting and the 5

Scale Adjusted Mean

weighting of the individual attributes through learning and
evolutionary algorithms.

Results

Results of the testing outcome scaled in logits indicate a

-5
linear relationship in the data, with an r2 value of 0.47.
Correlation analysis between tests shows a significant
moderate relationship between scales t (94) = 10.91 at an
3D SEG Lecture 2D OLS
alpha of 0.01. These results suggest that the scales, when
Condition
expressed in terms of logit gain scores, have community of
scale making it possible to compare treatment methods. Fig. 1 ANCOVA results with scale adjusted means by condition
Item reliability was measured at a mean a of 0.91 for the
three content knowledge measures.
Table 4 Post hoc Tukey–Kramer test for significant difference
The ANCOVA, covarying for pretest score, F test
between conditions
results suggest a significant difference for the main effect
of condition type across the factor of content gain score Condition 99 % Confidence p value Significant
F(2, 93) = 13.87, p \ 0.001, g2 = 0.2 large effect size. Lower Upper
Further, the results of the Tukey–Kramer post hoc multiple
3D SEG versus lecture 1.48 5.37 \0.001 Yes
comparison indicates that there is a statistically significant
2D OLS versus 3D SEG 0.18 3.70 0.0218 Yes
difference between the condition types. Mitigation of tea-
2D OLS versus lecture 0.27 3.60 0.0321 Yes
cher effects was accomplished through covariance of a
teacher grouping variable. Table 3 shows the result of the
post hoc tests (Fig. 1).
The Tukey–Kramer post hoc test (Table 4) compares
treatment conditions and allows for an increase in power, training data and the testing data for each of the compu-
as there is a resulting Dp of 0.01 for the simulation tational models.
condition. Figure 2 shows a graphical overview of the interactions
The 99 % confidence interval for the differences sug- of the cognitive systems used to solve the Piagetian volume
gests that students using a three-dimensional SEG learning tasks and the working environment. Model 0 is the baseline
game score better by between 1.48 and 5.37 points on computational model acting as a comparison of the
posttests, when compared to students in a traditional remaining three models. Model 1 illustrates the number of
learning environment. Comparisons of the SEG to a sim- possible ‘‘cognitive interactions’’ that may occur in solving
ulation game, at a 99 % confidence interval, display the Piagetian volume task during lecture. Model 2 and
between a 0.18- and 2.90-point difference in favor of an Model 3 represent the student cognitive processing occur-
SEG. Post hoc tests also indicate that a comparison of ring during two-dimensional and three-dimensional con-
simulation games and traditional games shows a difference ditions. Comparing Model 2 and Model 3 allows for
between 0.27 and 3.60 points in favor of simulation. examination of the role of two-dimensional and three-di-
mensional learning games on science content outcomes as
Computational Results a function of the cognitive attributes of mental rotation
(MR) and spatial visualization (SV).
Table 4 shows the model fit statistics and percentages Figure 2 also shows an overview and comparison of the
correct and incorrect as produced by the computational each of the cognitive attribute systems and the success rate
mode solving the Piagetian volume task as a function of of each system. Overall comparison suggests that three-
learning environment. RMSE and r-squared statistics dimensional learning games increase the level of success
illustrate adequate model fit (Yudelson et al. 2013). through greater recruitment and attributional retrain of the
Table 5 also provides a comparison of the model fit for the cognitive systems. Each model was run 100,000 times,

123
10 J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15

Table 5 Neural network comparisons

Neural network Parameter Estimate Change from training Correct Incorrect
Training/testing Training/testing

STAC-M base (Model 0) r2 0.81 -0.04 0.581/0.527 0.42/0.48

RMSE 0.21 ?0.05
Mean abs error 0.11 ?0.02
STAC-M lecture (Model 1) r2 0.82 -0.03 0.594/0.515 0.13/0.17
RMSE 0.18 ?0.04
Mean abs error 0.13 ?0.03
2
STAC-M 2D (Model 2) r 0.79 -0.04 0.681/0.632 0.32/0.37
RMSE 0.13 ?0.01
Mean abs error 0.15 ?0.03
STAC-M 3D (Model 3) r2 0.86 -0.02 0.811/0.721 0.19/0.28
RMSE 0.14 ?0.07
Mean abs error 0.16 ?0.03
Across all models Generalized r2 0.82
Correlation coefficient 0.77

representing a sampling of 100,000 students. Convergence
of the model occurred for the three-dimensional model at
iteration 10,302, which is far earlier than each of the other
models. While success rates do change when cognitive
attribute systems like estimation are removed, the change is
simply not as dramatic or as significant when compared to
the loss of mental rotation and spatial visualization.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to compare tradi-
tional instruction, two-dimensional online laboratory sim-
ulations, and three-dimensional immersive learning games
(SEGs). Results provide evidence that SEGs and simula-
tion outcomes would demonstrate statistically significant
differences in gain score outcomes when compared to
traditional lecture on science content learning outcomes.
Comparison of the SEG to the simulation also resulted in
statistically significant differences. ANCOVA results sug-
gest that there are significant factors associated with both
the simulation and the SEG primarily the three-dimen-
sional aspect of the SEGs. More research is required to
elucidate the factors and attributes, which create the
observed differences between modes of instruction. In
addition, the differences between the simulation and SEG
games suggest that there are specific cognitive components
in the form of cognitive attribute recruitment and learning
actions that occur when using problem-based, interactive
SEGs. This difference is illustrated in Fig. 2 by the dif-
ferences on the MR and SV nodes in Model 2 and Model 3.
In addition to cognitive components, one must also con-
sider behavioral and affective components such as flow,
engagement, and content discipline interest as suggested by
Annetta (2007). Other behaviors that may result in the
significant difference are exploratory behaviors and mul-
tiple iterations allowing learners to link variables.
There are additional features to simulations and SEGs
that allow for soft-failure environments. Soft-failure envi-
ronments allow for a repetitive approach to problem-solv-
ing by providing more available information in multiple
forms (such as graphs, text, pictures, and interactions) than
is otherwise possible during traditional leaning experi-
ences. Furthermore, the use of virtual manipulatives within
the immersive game allows for more rapid cycling of
support and scaffolding of student understanding within the
context of learning. This self-explanation can lead to
greater understanding of content. Using self-referencing
through externalized validation via immersive character
interactions provides for more opportunities to engage in
consensus checking using the characters in the game as a
reference. The self-explanation acts as a higher-order
cognitive strategy for student learning and increases stu-
dent understanding. Results support a previous study by
Aleven and Koedinger (2002). The Aleven and Koedinger
study examined the use of both simulations and SEG
environments as a means for increasing student’s content
understanding. Evidence was obtained from that study that
is consistent with the view that providing students with
interactive simulations and nonlinear learning with open-
ended questions may help to provide the catalyst for con-
ceptual change through constructivist approaches and
promotes increased understanding of science content.

123
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15 11

51.5%

S F

52 7%
S F LT

LT PJ ES R

PJ ES R
CR
CR

I
I

STAC-M Base (Model 0) STAC-M Lecture (Model 1)

63.2%
72.1%
S F
S F

LT
LT

PJ ES R MR SV
.39 .52 PJ ES R MR SV
.69 .52

CR CR

I I

STAC-M 2D (Model 2) STAC-M 3D (Model 3)

Fig. 2 STAC-M treatment condition computational models

Computational Model Discussion increased requirements in mathematical processing pro-

The use of the computational models provides a mecha-
nism of action as to why the three-dimensional game may
provide superior outcomes when compared to a two-di-
mensional game. Three-dimensional games are more cog-
nitively demanding making greater use of mental rotation
and spatial visualization attributes and related cognitive
systems. Increases in processing capacity specifically
related to spatial visualization and mental rotation are also
shown to have marked increase in mathematical reasoning
that is in turn linked to higher-order functions such as
critical thinking and lateral thinking. One suggested dif-
ference between abilities of spatial relations, orientation,
and visualization is that spatial relations and orientations
require an origin point and visualization only requires the
detachment of the observer from the stimulus to manipulate
the components. Making use of the origin point promotes
moting recruitment of addition data processing systems via
cognitive attributes and systems. More to this point, visu-
alization occurs within more complex stimulus patterns
providing details about the pattern to the viewer. Essen-
tially, between the three factors, one is able to reference the
place of the object in three-dimensional space, internalize
via memory and retrieval providing details for processing
and applying motion to the static stimuli and promote
reasoning. This is evidenced in the comparison and
removal of attributes in the computational model, removal
of all but the mental rotation and spatial visualization
components still leads to success. This implies an inter-
action effect between these cognitive systems.
Researchers also describe spatial visualization as the
ability to manipulate, rotate, and twist presented visual
stimuli from the game, though this would seem to be
mental rotation a separate but related cognitive attribute

123
12
(Baki et al. 2011). Spatial reasoning, of which spatial
visualization is a component, develops during middle
childhood, which begins approximately between ages five
and seven, and is usually fully developed by the end of
puberty (Piaget 1963). The visual intensity of science fields
arises from representations and models developed to
describe natural phenomena. Correlational and more
recently predictive studies have solidly demonstrated the
relationship between science achievement and spatial
visualization (Pruden et al. 2011; Wu and Shah 2004). The
increase in achievement may result from undergoing cog-
nitive reformulation and restructuring using the spatial
domain, specifically mental manipulation of quantities and
numbers are a large component of all science domains.
Thus, increased processing in the spatial visualization
locations within the brain allows for reduced cognitive load
during processing through the addition of cognitive chan-
nels to process data streams (Arsalidou et al. 2013).
Implications for Practitioners
The study supports the assertions in the literature that the
use of simulations in higher dimensions helps to increase
student understanding of science concepts. Wu and Shah
2004 suggested the use of the computers and virtual models
at the macroscopic and microscopic levels allows students
to visualize science concepts by providing multiple repre-
sentations and descriptions (Wu and Shah 2004). Wu and
Shah, however, did not provide a specific mechanism of
action to describe why this occurred. By successfully
visualizing science through multiple representations, stu-
dents are able to increase cognitive attribute and cognitive
system recruitment thereby reducing cognitive load. This is
essentially the same as increasing the size of the pipeline
while maintaining the same flow of water thought the pipe.
These particular online simulations accomplished this
through representation of the interactive nature of science
through laboratory simulations and immersive play. The
laboratory simulations also allowed students to move
between a traditional two-dimensional representation of
biotechnology concepts and three-dimensional representa-
tions of science with modeling and virtual manipulation.
The simulations and immersive play also reduce cognitive
load by making information more explicit and integrated
within the students classroom work. Simulation and
immersion aids in the promotion of understanding of
concepts through manipulations on the computer not
otherwise available to students when taught using tradi-
tional pedagogy. This study further supports the assertion
that the development of a learner-centered education sys-
tem with technology used as an adjunct significantly
increases the achievement of students in the classroom.
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
Limitations
Computational modeling of real-world complex systems
has increased in recent years with increases in computing
power. Computational simulations of the complex factors
associated with cognition have become increasingly
important in decision-making and pre-analysis of research.
The successes of these models are often heralded as a
means to answer questions using fewer resources; however,
a model is only a representation of reality. By its very
nature, it is a simplification and abstraction with nothing
more than assumptions and judgments of its creators. More
importantly, it is not a physical model, but a series of
equations consisting of two components: parameters and
variables. Within this framework, it is important to
understand that an initial limitation within a computational
model is the judgments necessary to decide what variables
should and should not be included within the model. As
information about the real-world systems related to cog-
nition become less precise, it becomes increasingly difficult
to approximate interaction—and, by extension, reduces the
precision of outcomes in the model. More explicitly, to
state key limitations of computational study models, one
has to make two assumptions limiting their use. First, all
models are incomplete; and second, models assume that the
future outcomes will be similar to past outcomes. This is
not to say that the models are useless, as numerous fields
have made use of computational models to draw conclu-
sions and direct future research. This model does not
explicitly account for sex differences in cognitive attributes
associated with mental rotation and spatial visualization.
However, as this computational model is a composite of
the measured content and cognitive process of the students
during the models original design, there is some accounting
for sex difference though not as an explicit variable. As
with any advancement in a field, modeling is one tool in a
series of tools to help us answer questions related to edu-
cation. Lastly, the authors would like to point out that while
computational models provide a means to research,
experiment, and answer questions around learning, it is not
to suggest that educational research should not also take
place in the classroom.
Conclusion
Teachers leveraging the multiple teaching aspects of SEGs
though its treatment as a learning tool assist students in
knowledge construction in key skill areas needed in the
future. The use of immersive games can also be used to
help develop assessments of content through task-based
academic domains such as those associated with science
learning. Science learning has received considerable
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
attention and funding; however, current models within the
science classroom provide for a one-size fits all learning
environment. While there is considerable effort put forward
by practitioners to target conditions and instruction for
struggling students, it is sometimes difficult to identify
students early on in the class who may struggle. This lack
of identification may be due to overdependence on grade-
based data, as there is often little else for the teacher to use.
The use of immersive game environments adds an addi-
tional avenue for the practitioner to assess a struggling
student early on and provide conditions that may aid the
student.
Acknowledgments The author of this study wishes to acknowledge
the support of the Washington State University Partnership for the
study of Learning and Learning Environments specifically the Neu-
rocognition Science Laboratory and the Immersive Science Leaning
Environment Laboratory.
References
Aleven V, Koedinger K (2002) An effective metacognitive strategy:
learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based
cognitive tutor. Cogn Sci 26:147–179
Annetta L (2008) Video games in education: why they should
be used and how they are being used. Theory Pract 47(3):
229–239
Annetta L (2010) The ‘‘I’s’’ have it: a framework for serious
educational game design. Rev General Psychol 14(2):105–112
Annetta LA, Murray MR, Laird SG, Bohr SC, Park JC (2006) Serious
games: incorporating video games in the classroom. Educ Q
29(3):16
Annetta LA, Lamb R, Bowling B, Cheng R (2011) Assessing
engagement in Serious Educational Games: the development of
the student engaged learning in a technology rich interactive
classroom (SELTIC). Handbook of research on improving and
motivation through educational games. IGI Global, Hershey
(invited)
Annetta L, Lamb R, Minogue J, Folta E, Holmes S, Vallett D, Cheng
R (2014) Safe science classrooms: teacher training through
Serious Educational Games. Inf Sci 264:61–74
Arsalidou M, Pascual-Leone J, Johnson J, Morris D, Taylor MJ
(2013) A balancing act of the brain: activations and deactivations
driven by cognitive load. Brain Behav 3(3):273–285
Baeten M, Struyven K, Dochy F (2013) Student-centered teaching
methods: can they optimize students’ approaches to learning in
professional higher education? Studies in Educational Evaluation
39(1):14–22
Berteletti I, Man G, Booth JR (2015) How number line estimation
skills relate to neural activations in single digit subtraction
problems. NeuroImage 107:198–206
Best K, Butler S (2014) Virtual space: creating a place for social
support in second life. Space Cult 20(1):93–121
Chi MT, Siler SA, Jeong H (2004) Can tutors monitor students’
understanding accurately? Cogn Instruct 22(3):363–387
Cohen J, Cohen P (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Coller B, Scott M (2009) Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a
course in mechanical engineering. Comput Educ 53(3):900–912
13
Connolly T, Stansfield M (2007) An application of games-based
learning within software engineering. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology 38(3):416
Cook L, Eignor D (2002) Using item response theory in test score
equating. Int J Educ Res 13(2):161–173
Cook L, Eignor D (2005) IRT equating methods. Educ Meas Issues
Pract 10(3):37–45
Cox JW (1928) Mechanical aptitude. Methuen, London
Dalgarno B, Lee MJ (2010) What are the learning affordances of 3-D
virtual environments? Br J Educ Technol 41(1):10–32
Davies D, Howe A, Collier C, Digby R, Earle S, McMahon K (2014)
Teaching science and technology in the early years (3–7).
Routledge, New York
Eliceiri KW, Berthold MR, Goldberg IG, Ibáñez L, Manjunath BS,
Martone ME, Carpenter AE (2012) Biological imaging software
tools. Nat Methods 9(7):697–710
Fan X (1998) Item response theory and classical test theory (CTT): an
empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educ
Psychol Measur 58:357–381
Gilbert JK, de Jong O, Justi R, Treagust DF, van Driel JH (2003)
Chemical education: towards research-based practice. Springer,
New York
Gray P (2011) The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in
children and adolescents. Am J Play 3(4):443–463
Green ME, McNeese MN (2011) using digital games and virtual
environments to enhance learning. Learn Play Explor Future
Educ Video Games 53:22–79
Gregory RL (2015) Eye and brain: the psychology of seeing.
University Press, Princeton
Greiff S, Wüstenberg S, Molnár G, Fischer A, Funke J, Csapó B
(2013) Complex problem solving in educational contexts—
something beyond g: concept, assessment, measurement invari-
ance, and construct validity. J Educ Psychol 105(2):364
Hannafin M, West R, Shepard C (2008) The cognitive demands of
students-centered, web-based multimedia: current and emerging
perspectives. IGI Global, Hershey
Harris J, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcombe NS (2013) Understanding spatial
transformations: similarities and differences between mental
rotation and mental folding. Cogn Process 14(2):105–115
Hegarty M, Montello DR, Richardson AE, Ishikawa T, Lovelace K
(2006) Spatial abilities at different scales: individual differences
in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelli-
gence 34(2):151–176
Howard J (2014) The importance of play. Found Early Child Princ
Pract 1(22):20–45
Hulme K, Kasprzak E, English K, Moore-Russo D, Lewis K (2009)
Experiential learning in vehicle dynamics education via motion
simulation and interactive gaming. Int J Comput Games Technol
2:1–15
Hwang GJ, Sung HY, Hung CM, Huang I, Tsai CC (2012)
Development of a personalized educational computer game
based on students’ learning styles. Education Tech Research Dev
60(4):623–638
Jamone L, Natale L, Nori F, Metta G, Sandini G (2012) Autonomous
online learning of reaching behavior in a humanoid robot. Int J
Humanoid Rob 9(3):1–26
Jonassen DH, Grabowski BL (2012) Handbook of individual differ-
ences, learning, and instruction. Routledge, New York
Kalyuga S (2012) Interactive distance education: a cognitive load
perspective. J Comput High Educ 24(3):182–208
Kaplan DM (2013) The complex interplay between three-dimensional
egocentric and allocentric spatial representation. Behav Brain
Sci 36(5):553–554
Lamb RL (2013) The application of cognitive diagnostic approaches
via neural network analysis of Serious Educational Games.
Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University
123
14
Lamb R (2014) Examination of allostasis and online laboratory
simulations in a middle school science classroom. Comput Hum
Behav 39:224–234
Lamb RL, Annetta L (2013) The use of online modules and the effect
on student outcomes in a high school chemistry class. J Sci Educ
Technol 22(5):603–613
Lamb R, Premo J (2015) Computational modeling of teaching and
learning through application of evolutionary algorithms. Com-
putation 3(3):427–443
Lamb R, Annetta L, Firestone J (2015a) A meta-analysis with
examination of moderators of student cognition, affect, and
learning outcomes while using Serious Educational Games,
Serious Games, and simulations in the science classroom. J Sci
Educ Technol. (submitted)
Lamb RL, Annetta L, Meldrum J, Vallett D (2012) Measuring science
interest: Rasch validation of the science interest survey. Int J Sci
Math Educ 10(3):643–668
Lamb RL, Annetta L, Vallett DB, Sadler TD (2014a) Cognitive
diagnostic like approaches using neural-network analysis of
serious educational videogames. Comput Educ 70:92–104
Lamb R, Cavagnetto A, Akmal T (2014b) Examination of the
nonlinear dynamic systems associated with science student
cognition while engaging in science information processing. Int J
Sci Math Educ 12(6):1–19
Lamb RL, Vallett DB, Akmal T, Baldwin K (2014c) A computational
modeling of student cognitive processes in science education.
Comput Educ 79:116–125
Lamb RL, Vallett D, Annetta L (2014d) Development of a short-form
measure of science and technology self-efficacy using Rasch
analysis. J Sci Educ Technol 23(5):641–657
Lamb R, Akmal T, Petrie K (2015b) Development of a cognition-
priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. J Res
Sci Teach 52(3):410–437
Lamb R, Annetta L, Vallett D (2015c) The interface of creativity,
fluency, lateral thinking and technology while designing Serious
Educational Games in a science classroom. Electron J Res Educ
Psychol 13(2):219–242
Linacre J (2002) Immediate raw score to logit conversion. Rasch
Meas Trans 16(2):825–877
Linacre M, Wright B (2003) A user guide to bigsteps. Retrived from
http://www.winsteps.com/a/bigsteps.pdf
Malec JF, Moessner AM, Kragness M, Lezak MD (2000) Refining a
measure of brain injury sequal to predict post acute rehabilitation
outcome: rating scale analysis of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability
Inventory (MPAI). J Head Trauma Rehabil 15(1):670–682
Marmor GS (1975) Development of kinetic images: when does the
child first represent movement in mental images? Cogn Psychol
7:548–559
Matzen NJ, Becnel K, Purpur G (2013) Pedagogical evolution in the
teaching of reference services enabled by the use of 3D
immersive virtual world technology. Adv Libr EducTechnol
Innov Instruct Des 40(3):414–426
Monahan T, McArdle G, Bertolotto M (2006) Virtual reality for
collaborative e-learning. Comput Educ 50(4):1339–1353
Moran S, Luger E, Rodden T (2014) Exploring patterns as a
framework for embedding consent mechanisms in human-agent
collectives. In active media technology. Springer, New York,
pp 475–486
Muller DA (2008) Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with
multimedia by including misconceptions. J Comput Assist Learn
24(2):144–155
Nadolny L, Woolfrey J, Pierlott M, Kahn S (2013) SciEthics
Interactive: science and ethics learning in a virtual environment.
Educ Tech Res Dev 61(6):979–999
Najafi H, Ellis S, Cox K, Calvert D (2007) Exploring the effect of
computer mediated communication tools on online learners’
123
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15
participation and learning: a review of research. In: Proceedings
of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government,
healthcare, and higher education, Chesapeake, VA
Nikolaidis A, Voss MW, Lee H, Vo LT, Kramer AF (2014)
Parietal plasticity after training with a complex video
game is associated with individual differences in improvements
in an untrained working memory task. Front Hum Neurosci
8:1–11
Piaget J (1970) Science of education and the psychology of the child.
Trans. D. Coltman
Pike MF, Maior HA, Porcheron M, Sharples SC, Wilson ML (2014)
Measuring the effect of think aloud protocols on workload using
fNIRS. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human
factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3807–3816
Plank M, Snider J, Kaestner E, Halgren E, Poizner H (2014)
Neurocognitive stages of spatial cognitive mapping measured
during free exploration of a large-scale virtual environment.
J Neurophysiol 113(3):740–753
Pruden SM, Levine SC, Huttenlocher J (2011) Children’s spatial
thinking: does talk about the spatial world matter? Develop-
mental Science 14(6):1417–1430
Resnick B, Inguito P, Orwig D, Yahiro JY, Hawkes W, Werner M,
Magaziner J (2005) Treatment fidelity in behavior change
research: a case example. Nurs Res 54(2):139–143
Rosser J, Paul L, Cuddihy L, Gentile D, Klonsky J, Merrell R (2007)
The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st
century. Arch Surg 142(2):181–186
Rutten N, van Joolingen WR, van der Veen JT (2012) The learning
effects of computer simulations in science education. Comput
Educ 58(1):136–153
Schroeder CM, Scott TP, Tolson H, Huang TY, Lee YH (2007) A
meta-analysis of national research: effects of teaching strategies
on student achievement in science in the United States. J Res Sci
Teach 44(10):1436–1460
Shen J, Jiang S, Liu OL (2015) Reconceptualizing a college science
learning experience in the new digital era: a review of literature.
In: Emerging technologies for STEAM education. Springer,
Gewerbestrasse, pp 61–79
Shute VJ (2011) Stealth assessment in computer-based games to
support learning. Comput Games Instruct 55(2):503–524
Spence I, Feng J (2010) Video games and spatial cognition. Rev
General Psychol 14(2):92
Sprouse J (2011) A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the
collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behav
Res Methods 43(1):155–167
Tomasello M (2014) A natural history of human thinking. Harvard
University Press, Boston
Tulving E, Kapur S, Craik FI, Moscovitch M, Houle S (1994)
Hemispheric encoding/retrieval asymmetry in episodic memory:
positron emission tomography findings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
91(6):2016–2020
Turner AJ (2014) Play to pay? Adolescent video game play & STEM
choice. Communication and information technologies annual.
Stud Media Commun 8:55–71
Vallett DB (2013) Factors influencing learner conceptions of force:
exploring the interaction among visuospatial ability, motivation,
and conceptions of newtonian mechanics in university under-
graduates from an evolutionary perspective. Doctoral disserta-
tion, George Mason University
Waight N, Liu X, Gregorius RM, Smith E, Park M (2014) Teacher
conceptions and approaches associated with an immersive
instructional implementation of computer-based models and
assessment in a secondary chemistry classroom. Int J Sci Educ
36(3):467–505
Wu H, Shah P (2004) Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry
learning. Sci Educ 88:465–492
J Sci Educ Technol (2016) 25:1–15 15

Wu WH, Chiou WB, Kao HY, Hu CHA, Huang SH (2012) Re- Zimmermann W, Cunningham S (eds) (1991) Visualization in
exploring game-assisted learning research: the perspective of teaching and learning mathematics. Committee on Computers
learning theoretical bases. Comput Educ 59(4):1153–1161 in Mathematics Education of the Mathematical Association of
Young JQ, Van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O (2014) America, Washington, DC
Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education:
aMEE guide no. 86. Med Teach 36(5):371–384
Yudelson MV, Koedinger KR, Gordon GJ (2013) Individualized
Bayesian knowledge tracing models. In Artificial intelligence in
education. Springer, Berlin, pp 171–180

123