Learning on Electrical Circuits While Playing

‘E&E Electrical Endeavours’

Design Research on a Serious Game Optimizing for Conceptual Understanding

Ruurd Taconis

, Mariette Dubois

, Lesley de Putter

3,4

and Henry van Bergen

Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Sondervick College, Knegselseweg 30, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

Heerbeeck College, Willem de Zwijgerweg 150, Best, The Netherlands

Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Keywords: Design Research, Electrical Circuits, Conceptual Development, Serious Games.

Abstract: A serious game was developed in a two year design research project by educational researchers, game-

designers and secondary school teachers in close collaboration. In a first round, students played the game in

class using an open-inquiry strategy. Although the game had a strong impact on the students’ conceptual

development, it provoked the construction of misconceptions. The game was adapted and partially

redesigned on the basis of the evaluation outcomes and an additional expert-review. Also the instructions to

the game were redesigned and written down in a teachers’ guide. In a second round, a pedagogical approach

of alternating open-inquiry type gaming-episodes with guided reflection and internalisation episodes was

used in class. Again a strong impact on students’ conceptual understanding of electrical circuits was found.

Significantly fewer misconceptions occurred. The results indicate that the close collaboration of school

teachers, educational experts and game designers was fruitful for improving the serious game and its use in

school practice. Moreover it became clear that serious games have the potential to contribute to students’

conceptual understanding, in particular when a suitable mental model is coherently represented in the

game´s layout and structure.

1 INTRODUCTION

Serious games are an inviting new option in

education. The game industry is growing

spectacularly. However, the characteristics that

make games adequate serious games and the

pedagogical do’s and don’ts of using them in

education are still largely uncovered (Michael and

Chen, 2006). This paper reports on a design research

project conducted using the game ‘E&E electrical

endeavours’. The project’s aim is to help students

master the subject of electrical circuits in grade 9 of

Dutch secondary education, develop a pedagogical

approach to using serious games in secondary

education, and to motivate students for science and

electrical engineering.

The game was previously developed at the

faculty of Electrical Engineering at Eindhoven

University of Technology mainly for raising the

interest of potential new students. Hence the main

focus in the initial version 1.0 of the E&E electrical

endeavours game was on student involvement and

motivation, excellent graphics and challenging

content on electrical circuits. The game can be

typified as a simulation based game for individual

use. It is not a role-playing game where players are

set against each other. In version 1.0 no match with

formal science curricula was pursued. A pilot

evaluation (Dekker et al., 2010) showed the game

was attractive and entertaining for students in

secondary school.

Secondary schools were seeking ways to

modernize education by implementing ICT, to

enrich science education by e.g. serious games, and

to bring a lively perspective on scientific practice

and careers into the school.

Combining these, the joint conclusion was that

both university and secondary school goals could be

successfully supported if an attractive serious game

Taconis R., Dubois M., de Putter L. and van Bergen H..

Learning on Electrical Circuits While Playing ‘E&E Electrical Endeavours’ - Design Research on a Serious Game Optimizing for Conceptual

Understanding.

DOI: 10.5220/0004793200050013

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 5-13

ISBN: 978-989-758-021-5

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

could be constructed. The game should fit well into

the formal curriculum, clearly contribute to student

learning and should be brought into school as a

sincere and attractive picture of scientific practice

and careers.

To achieve this, a project group was formed

comprising secondary school teachers, experts on

science education and game-designers. Their task

was to: “Construct and evaluate a serious game that

is attractive and motivating on one hand and making

an adequate contribution to formal learning in

secondary education on the other”. In line with this,

a key research question addressed in this paper is:

which characteristics of the game and of the way it

is implemented in classroom make it adequate for

learning about electrical circuits and dealing with

misconceptions in particular? The approach taken to

actually develop the game and answer the question

was a design research project.

2 THEORY

2.1 Design Research

Design research is well known in both engineering

and educational research (Gravemeijer & Cobb,

2006). In design research on education, education is

being (re)designed and evaluated in various rounds.

These comprise an alternating sequence of

(re)design and evaluation leading to new or refined

design criteria. The evaluation adds up to a picture

that allows answering previously set research

questions, as well as bringing forth new hypothesis

and tentative answers. From a methodological point

of view, it is a productive experimental design with

both explorative and confirmative aspects. From a

practitioner’s point of view, it has the strong

advantage of making a very close connection

between research on one hand, and professional

practice and professional development on the other.

2.2 Serious Games and Learning

Theory on the design and use of simulation-type

serious games in education strongly emphasises the

concepts of flow (Csikszentmihaly, 2009) and

experiential learning. A key theory on experiential

learning is developed by Kolb (1984), and adapted

for the case of serious games by various authors

(Ruben, 1999; Koops and Hoevenaar, 2012).

Using insights from general cognitive

constructivist learning theories and the five stage

model of skill acquisition by Dreyfus & Dreyfus

(1980) (shown in Figure 1), Taconis (2011),

developed a hypothetical model of experiential

learning in serious games.

Figure 1: The Dreyfus & Dreyfus five stage model of the

genesis of an expert (http://www.leanleadershipacademy.

com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/novice-expert1.jpg).

The ‘Taconis model’ explicitly pictures how the

rules underlying and governing the game-engine,

through producing the game’s ‘behaviour’ and the

regularities in the gaming environment, structure the

learners experiences while gaming. It also pictures

how skilled action by the learner, the acquisition of

operational rules and ultimately a coherent

reconstruction of the rules underlying the game-

engine´s may result from the learners ‘structured

experiences’.

Figure 2: The hypothetical model of experiential learning

in simulation-based serious games by Taconis (2011).

In the model ‘skilled actions’ (upper box in second

column in Figure 2) are defined as those actions

adequate within the gaming environment that do not

imply or require conscious declarative knowledge.

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

These actions represent adequate behaviour in

standard situations without being underpinned with

knowledge. This corresponds to the advanced

beginner position in the Dreyfus & Dreyfus five-

stage-model.

‘Operational rules’ (middle box in second

column in Figure 2) are – in line with the five- stage-

model – considered a next step in development. The

operational rules are typified by the involvement of

conceptual understanding, though of an operational

type, using concepts that are apparent within the

experienced game environment. An example would

be a learner that acts adequately within the game and

is able to explain why and how he performs in terms

of the game-world. This could be considered

roughly equivalent to the stage of being competent

within the five-stage-model though this concerns the

game-environment only. Reaching this level requires

the constructing (learning) of operational rules from

experience, and it is presumed to require systematic

and reflective thinking. Constructing these rules may

be stimulated by asking the students questions,

facilitating group discussions and adding tasks that

require the construction and verbalization of such

rules. Operational rules and skilled actions may

transfer from the strict game-environment to other

situations/environments, and this is more likely to

occur the more akin these situations are (Vockell,

2013). For example, from a serious game that

models projectile trajectories, skilled actions and

operational rules may relatively easily transfer to

projectile shooting experiments in classroom, but

less easily to text-book questions on this subject or

the context of satellite trajectories.

The (re)construction of ‘theoretical insight’

(lower box in second column in Figure 2), aligns

with both ‘competent within the game-environment’

towards ‘competent in real life’. This splitting-up of

the ‘competent stage’ in the five-stage-model results

from the fact that experiential learning from serious

games involves two realities: the real world and the

game world that simulates it. By its nature,

theoretical insight will formally apply to real-life

situations, since the rules a simulation based serious

game is built upon apply to real world as well. Even

though in many cases the rules underlying the game

are in fact simplified versions of real life rules.

But this equivalence will not be automatically

clear to the learner. Hence, theoretical insight only

principally applies to both the game-world and the

real world. In education, the learner should make

considerable effort to understand and recognize this

difference (transfer) and to achieve a ‘competent in

real-life’ stage.

Constructing or reconstructing theoretical insight

definitely requires systematic and reflective thinking

as described above, but also making comparisons

with contrasting and/or akin situations and

theoretical points of view. The confrontation with

situations other than the game-environment is

needed; both to help constructing the theoretical

ideas independently from the game-world and to

facilitate transfer to other situations (Vockell, 2013).

The presumed necessity to implement in

classthese reflective of theoretical components as

well as exercises in other learning-environments

than the game-environment, conflicts with the

fundamental importance of flow for gaming and the

use of serious games in education. Put in terms of a

concrete design dilemma: how can we have students

‘in the flow’ while gaming within the game-

environment as well as active as critical thinkers on

a theoretical level transcending the game-

environment. This seems to connect to a

fundamental design dilemma in inquiry structured or

open education aiming at conceptual development

described by various authors such as Kirschner,

Sweller and Clark (2006) and - for the case of

education on electrical circuits - Kock et al. (2013).

Once attained, theoretical insight opens up an

avenue to develop towards proficiency with respect

to real-life situations and beyond.

2.3 Learning about Electrical Circuits

Learning problems in electricity have been widely

documented: Over the years remedies have been

suggested to overcome students’ conceptual

problems in electricity, but only with limited success

(Mulhall et al. 2001). The topic is still receiving

attention (for example Engelhardt and Beichner

2004; Hart 2008; Taber et al. 2006; Jaakkola, Nurmi

& Veermans, 2010). Coming to grips with the

scientific concepts in electricity requires an

understanding of the physics involved, which is at

least partly at odds with the everyday experiences

and ways of speaking about electricity (Shipstone

1985; Duit and Schecker, 2007).

A key problem is the development of inadequate

conceptual understanding of various aspects of

electrical circuits and particular persistent

‘misconceptions’ that students tend to develop. In

Duit’s STCSE bibliography on students’

‘misconceptions’ and conceptual change (Duit,

2009) several hundreds of publications are listed on

learning electricity.

Taconis (2010) has described a hierarchical

building of concepts concerning electrical circuits

LearningonElectricalCircuitsWhilePlaying'E&EElectricalEndeavours'-DesignResearchonaSeriousGame

OptimizingforConceptualUnderstanding

based on a review of literature. Each addition to the

concepts requires all concepts in the lower floors to

be rightly understood.

1) Correct understanding of electrical circuits

essentially being closed but not short circuited,

and the electricity circling in the circuit, and the

current not being consumed in the circuit,

2) Understanding that two distinct physical

quantities are necessary to understand/describe

the flow in electrical circuits (and such systems):

electrical current and voltage,

3) Understanding of the topological types of

electrical circuits; series and parallel and their

implications for electrical current and voltage.

4) Understanding of particular electrical

components and their properties.

Students may experience problems on either level of

this hierarchy and students’ alternative ideas often

do not correspond to the scientific view and do not

easily change through instruction (Shipstone 1985;

Duit and Von Rhoeneck 1998; Engelhardt and

Beichner 2004; Taber et al. 2006). Kock et al.

(2013) conclude: when trying to solve problems or

explain phenomena in circuits, students frequently

(a) confuse important concepts such as current and

voltage, (b) use the idea that current is consumed (or

use unipolar, clashing or shared current models), (c)

view power supplies as a source of constant current

instead of constant potential difference, (d) have

difficulties building and drawing circuits and (e) do

not realize that a change of one element can have an

impact on the current in the whole circuit.

A main obstacle here is that students may tend to

understand electrical phenomena in terms of the so

called ‘experiential gestalt of causation’ (Anderson,

1986). This basic misinterpretation may underlay

many of the observed misconceptions.

In the ‘experiential gestalt of causation’ there is an

aim, a cause or chain of causes that instigates a

process, a medium/vehicle, and a desired effect. This

mental model implies a number of intuitive

qualitative rules such as:

• the effect is roughly in the direction of the cause /

chain of causes,

• the stronger the initial cause / chain of causes, the

stronger the effect – by default proportional,

• the cause / chain of causes costs 'effort', and is

weakened in the long run (due to exhaustion) while

the effect continues,

• there is a physical connection of the cause to the

effect, possibly through the medium (or vehicle),

which may damp the effect – by default

proportional to its dimensions,

• the better the medium and / or the smaller the

distance the stronger the effect,

• as the cause stops, of if the contact is ended or the

medium is removed, the effect stops.

Figure 3 shows an example.

Figure 3: ‘Electricity’ effect as experienced in day to day

life: when plugged in (cause) de 'electricity' from the

socket is directed to the light bulb connected (aim) via the

cord (medium/vehicle) to produce the desired effect. An

example of cause - effect reasoning, from which students

may derive interpretations such as: a wire twice as long

will make the light bulb half as bright.

An attempt to counter the misinterpretation of

electrical circuits from such a linear causal

perspective often made is to explain that the

electrical circuit is to be understood in terms of an

analogy. Two such analogies are regularly used in

science education (Hart, 2008) with their own

strengths and weaknesses:

a) Fluid current analogies, that of the home heating

system in particular,

b) Microscopic analogies in which the electrical

current is modelled by a stream of electrons

depicted as e.g. lorries carrying an electrical load

travelling a closed path.

The E&E electrical endeavours game uses the water

current analogy.

2.4 Research Questions

The research questions are:

1. Can we built and use for education a serious

game that leads to adequate qualitative

understanding of electrical circuits without

particular misconceptions?

2. What characteristics of the game and the way it

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

is used in classroom facilitate adequate

understanding of electrical circuits? In particular:

a. in dealing with misconceptions

b. keep a productive the balance between flow-

based gaming and reflective and theoretical

activities.

3 METHODS

The project was performed in two consecutive

rounds each comprising a (re)design and a testing

phase. It started with the game version 1.0 as

previously build. On advice of the secondary school

teachers version 1.0 was upgraded to version 1.1

before starting the project, in order to remove

mistakes and smaller difficulties. Version 1.1 was

tested by panels of experts in the pedagogy of

science, school teachers and students and found

adequate for classroom use.

3.1 Description of the Development

Rounds

Version 1.1 was taken to the classroom in two Dutch

grade 9 classes, one general secondary education

and one pre university education. A third one, also

pre university education, served as a control group.

The lessons were structured to an open inquiry

model. The students were allowed to play with

version 1.1 during 1½ lesson (approximately 75

minutes). The lessons for the experimental and

control groups were partly the same, but deviated in

the experimental group playing the game and the

control book following the textbook. This is shown

in Table 1. Figure 4 a typical screen shot.

In round II, version 3.0 was taken to the

classroom in three Dutch grade 9 classes, one

general secondary education and two pre university

Table 1: The quality of the circuits built.

Experimental groups Control group

Introduction

Activation of basic knowledge from grade 8

Inquiry learning playing

with version 1.1

Individual working

from the textbook

The teacher coaches;

no additional teacher

explanation of theory

The teacher coaches;

no additional teacher

explanation of theory

Learning task: Build a parallel circuit of two light bulbs

Continuation like 1

lesson

Continuation like 1

lesson

3-6

Classical teaching using the textbook

Test

Figure 4: Characteristic screen shot of E&E electrical

endeavours version 1.1.

education. Version 3.0 has a renewed level structure

that closely follows the regular Dutch grade 9 lesson

plan. Also the layout of the game screen is renewed.

First, in the left part of the screen the electrical

circuit is continuously shown as a closed circuit

providing an overview to the students which is much

akin to the electrical schemes’ usually found in

textbooks. Second the working screen on the right is

redesigned to more realistically depict voltage and

current meters and the way they should be

connected. Figure 5 gives an impression.

Figure 5: A characteristic screen shot of E&E electrical

endeavours version 3.0.

In round II there was no control group. The lessons

were structured according to the teacher guide that

was written on the basis of the experiences in the

first round and a review of literature. In the first

lesson –again- the subject was introduced and the

prior knowledge of the students was activated The

students were then allowed to play freely with the

game for approximately 40 minutes, in which they

could take op the challenges built into the games

level structure. The next lesson, a classroom

LearningonElectricalCircuitsWhilePlaying'E&EElectricalEndeavours'-DesignResearchonaSeriousGame

OptimizingforConceptualUnderstanding

discussion was organized evaluating the students

various ideas and results, and drawing common

conclusions on understanding electrical circuits. In

both coaching the students and the classroom

discussions, the teacher could make use of a set of

questions in the teacher guide especially designed to

stimulate the verbalization/construction of

operational rules and theoretical knowledge and to

stimulate transfer (see Figure 2). The whole

experiment comprised 6 lessons (300 minutes).

3.2 Analysis of the Circuit Building

Test

For both rounds, the learning results were obtained

using the standard test results (grades). The same

test was completed by all groups in that round. In

addition an analysis was made of pictures taken

from the circuits built in the learning tasks ‘build a

parallel circuit of two light bulbs’. The analysis

focussed on the correctness of the circuits and the

presence of misconceptions. Four misconceptions

were focussed on in particular: circuit not closed

/incorrect, short circuit, a circuit lay-out depicting a

´linear causal ‘understanding’ of electrical circuits,

and the type of meaning of ´parallel´ the students

displayed in the circuit built. Concerning the latter:

components may be placed ‘visually parallel’ though

when analysing the circuit net ´electrically parallel´

– see figure 6.

A codebook was used to underpin the various

judgements on the circuits and the apparent presence

of misconceptions and two researchers cooperated in

categorizing the various circuits.

Figure 6: Optically parallel though not electrically.

4 RESULTS

In round I, the teacher reported a marked distinction

between students that are experienced gamers and

other students. The non-gamers experience difficulty

in finding their way in the game, while the gamers

seemingly effortless solve the problems presented.

The teacher also reported that all students had

difficulty recognizing the electrical components in

the game. Students in the experimental setting

comment: “it was fun, but I would have preferred an

ordinary lesson since then I would have understood

it much better”.

The result of the analysis of the ‘parallel circuits’

built in the second lesson and their quality in general

is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: The quality of the circuits built.

Round I Round II t-test

M SD n

M SD

g.s.e. exp. 13 -0,54 0,75 11 1,68 1,03 5,94***

g.s.e. contr. --- --- --- --- --- ---

p.u.e exp. 11 1,05 1,59 24 1,92 0,70 1,74*

p.u.e contr. 12 2,75 0,45 --- --- ---

TOTAL 36 1,04 1,70 35 1,84 0,81 2.54**

Abbreviations: g.s.e. = general secondary education, p.u.e = pre

university education. Sign. Levels: * = 5%, ** = 1%, *** = 0,1%

* duo’s of students

The control group that worked from the textbook

clearly outperformed the two experimental groups.

However it was observed that the average grades for

the test at the end of the lessons did not significantly

differ for the three groups. The teacher commented

that she had to make an extra effort in the

experimental groups to secure their progress.

An analysis of misconceptions in the circuits

built after the second lesson is shown in Table 3,

which shows that misconceptions occurred

frequently in the experimental groups.

Table 3: The occurrence of misconceptions in the first and

second round.

Circuit

not closed

/incorrect

Short

circuit

Causal

mental

model

Visual

view of

‘parallel’

Round I

=24)

M 0,45 0,39 0,52 1,19

SD 0,47 0,50 0,45 0,38

Round II

=35)

M 0,03 0,14 0,41 0,16

SD 0,17 0,36 0,35 0,81

t-test -4,19*** -2.10* -1.0 (ns) -6,55***

Sign. Levels: * = 5%, ** = 1%, *** = 0,1%

* duo’s of students

A qualitative analysis of the circuits built revealed a

very interesting pattern.

It appeared that a majority of students (54%)

built a circuit in a very particular manner. For

general secondary education students this is even

77%. First they added a switch to the circuit - a

component that was not at all mentioned in the

assignment. Second they ordered the components in

a linear fashion starting with the switch, followed by

the ‘parallel part’ and ending with a light bulb.

Figure 7 shows three examples (three left columns),

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

Figure 7: Student mimicking the games circuit lay-out and

linear topology when building a parallel circuit.

as well as the game lay-out (right column). This

typical lay-out by the students both resembles the

game’s screen lay-out and is in accordance with the

‘experiential gestalt of causation’.

The disappointing learning result from the game

as such, the lack of student and teacher enthusiasm,

the frequent occurrence of misconceptions, and the

apparent strong but unwanted learning effect arising

from the games lay-out that effectively encourages

students to understand electrical circuits in terms of

‘the experiential gestalt of causation’ formed a

strong incentive to improve both the game, and the

way it is used in classroom. First a panel of teachers

was asked to comment on the game and the inquiry

based classroom implementation. This resulted in

redesigning specifications for the game, and the

conclusion that the open-inquiry approach should be

replaced by a carefully planned approach combining

experiential learning on one hand and reflection,

verbalisation en additional experience on the other.

This criticism was theoretically underpinned by

experimental work of Kock et al. (2013) and the

theoretical insight by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark

(2006). A review of literature led to the model by

Taconis (2011) depicted in Figure 2, and a extend

teacher guide comprising: a) background

information on learning from serious games and

understanding electrical circuits, b) an example time

table, c) concrete questions the teachers could use to

stimulate the verbalization/construction of

operational rules, theoretical knowledge and their

transfer (Figure 2).

In round II the changes were implemented. The

teachers reported the students being enthusiastic

about the game, and students reporting that ‘it really

helped them to understand electrical circuits’. One

student for instance stated: ‘the game really made

me understand what I am doing, and helps me to

explain what it is to my friends’. This was supported

by a very high mean score on the test concluding the

lessons: 7.2 out of 10 (usually 6.3).

The quality of the ‘parallel circuits’ built is

shown in Table 2. It reveals a significant increase

with respect to the quality of the circuits built in the

first round. Table 3 shows that also the occurrence

of misconceptions significantly decreased, except

for the occurrence of the ‘experiential gestalt of

causation’.

Figure 8: Typical wrong placement of the switch.

A qualitative analysis of the circuits built by the

students revealed that in addition many students

(54%) have difficulties with the correct placement of

the switch (Figure 8). It effectively functions as an

optional ’shortcut’ directly at the entrance of the

powering wires from the power unit. Again, this is in

clear accordance with de games lay-out (Figure 5),

were the switch has taken the form of a beam across

and blocking the current at the top of the screen.

4 CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION

We conclude that the close cooperation between

school teachers, experts on science education and

game-designers was a successful way to a clear

improvement in both the game and the way it is

adequately used in classroom. Note that enhancing

the games contributed to cognitive learning did not

imply a decrease in student enthusiasm. The

progress made is documented in the projects

physical products: the game and guideline for its

adequate use in education.

It is concluded that the game when used

according to the guideline, probably contributes to

improved student understanding. However,

misconceptions still occur, those related to ‘the

experiential gestalt of causation’ in particular. In

terms of the model by Taconis (2011) learning

effects seem to concentrate on the level of ‘skilled

action’ (building an electrical circuit) and

LearningonElectricalCircuitsWhilePlaying'E&EElectricalEndeavours'-DesignResearchonaSeriousGame

OptimizingforConceptualUnderstanding

´operational rules´. Students do not report on

theoretical understanding or models they (re-

)constructed.

Concerning the second research question, it is

found that the games screen lay-out has a strong

though undesired impact on students’ mental model

of electrical circuits and student learning. The way

things are presented apparently strongly influences

the students´ way of ‘looking at things’. This

‘topological mimicking’ seems to be a very powerful

learning mechanism. The games lay-out, and

probably its structure as well, sends out a very

strong message about ‘how things are’. Though not

entirely effective in the case of our project, the

strength of this mechanism is potentially valuable

for designing serious games.

Concerning the use of serious games in

classroom, it became clear that ‘open inquiry’ alone

is not the way to go. An approach balancing gaming

and deep cognitive processing in alternating phases

seems much more fruitful. In this a rule of thumb

helping teacher in a practical way could be: “treat

serious games as experiments or practical exercises”.

Our research has been on a fairly small scale, and

as such its outcomes may be easily over generalized.

But they point toward two particular issues of

importance for larger scale future research:

- developing a pedagogical approaches balancing

between play and open inquiry on one hand and

stimulating and structuring deep cognitive

processing on the other. Put more generally:

seeking a productive balance between flow and

reflection.

- taking advantage of the strong modelling impact

the lay-out and the structure of the game have on

student learning.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the SLOA fund of the

Dutch ‘onderwijs cooperation’ seeking to promote

secondary school teachers doing educational

research in cooperation with academic educational

researchers.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. (1986). The experiential gestalt of causation:

a common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science.

European journal of science education, 8, 155-171.

Csikszentmihaly, M. (2009). Creativity: Flow and the

Psychology of Discovery and Invention.

HarperCollins, New York.

Csikszentmihalyi, M.(2000). Das Flow-Erlebnis. Jenseits

von Angst und Langeweile: im Tun aufgehen [Beyond

boredom and anxiety] (8th. Ed.).Stuttgart, Germany:

Klett-Cotta.

Dekker, J., Jacobs, A., van Hensberg, V. (2010). Informal

user test of E&E electrical endeavours. Internal report.

Dreyfus, S., E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (February 1980). A Five-

Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved. In

Directed Skill Acquisition. Washington, DC: Storming

Media. Retrieved June 13, 2010.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA08

4551&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.

Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography STCSE: Students’ and

teachers’ conceptions and science education.

http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse. html.

Accessed 20 April 2009.

Duit, R., & Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching Physics. In S.

K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of

research on science education (pp. 599–629). New

York: Routledge.

Duit, R., & Von Rhoeneck, C. (1998). Learning and

understanding key concepts of electricity. In

A.Tiberghien, E. Leonard Jossem, & J. Barojas (Eds.),

Connecting research in physics education with teacher

education. International Commission on Physics

Education.

Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’

understanding of direct current resistive electrical

circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115.

Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design Research

from a Learning Design Perspective. In J. Van den

Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen

(Eds.), Educational design research. London:

Routledge.

Hart, C. (2008). Models in physics, models for physics

learning, and why the distinction may matter in the

case of electric circuits. Research in Science

Education, 38, 529–544.

Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2010). A

comparison of students' conceptual understanding of

electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-

laboratory contexts. Journal of research in science

teaching. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.

1002/tea.20386/pdf.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why

Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not

Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,

Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-

Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-

86. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/fss/2006-1214 -

211848/kirschner_06_minimal _guidance.pdf.

Kock, Z. D. Q. P., Taconis, R., Bolhuis, S. M &

Gravemeijer, K.P.E. (2013). Some key Issues in

creating inquiry-based instructional practices that aim

at the understanding of simple electric circuits.

Research in Science Education, 43(2), 579-597.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the

source of learning and development. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

Koops, M. C. & Hoevenaar, M. (2012). Conceptual

Change During a Serious Game: Using a Lemniscate

Model to Compare Strategies in a Physics Game.

Simulation & Gaming. http://sag.sagepub.com/

content/early/2012/09/23/1046878112459261.abstract.

Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games

that educate, train and inform. Thomson: Boston, MA.

Mulhall, P., McKittrick, B., & Gunstone, R. (2001). A

perspective on the resolution of confusions in the

teaching of electricity. Research in Science Education,

31, 575–587.

Ruben, B. D. (1999). Simulations, games, and experience-

based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for

teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4),

498–505.

Shipstone, D. (1985). Electricity in Simple Circuits. In R.

Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’

s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University

Press.

Taber, K. S., de Trafford, T., & Quail, T. (2006).

Conceptual resources for constructing the concepts of

electricity: the role of models, analogies and

imagination. Physics Education, 41(2), 155–160.

Vockell, E.L. (2013). Educational Psychology: A

Practical Approach. Chapter 6. Retreived from Perdue

University sept. 2013http://education. purduecal.

edu/Vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy6/edpsy6_transfer.htm.

APPENDIX

The E&E game and its versions:

1.0 and 1.1 (http://www.eeee.tue.nl/ )

2.0 (http://www.eeee.tue.nl/sloa/index.html )

3.0 (http://www.eeee.tue.nl/sloa/thebeginning/index.html )

LearningonElectricalCircuitsWhilePlaying'E&EElectricalEndeavours'-DesignResearchonaSeriousGame

OptimizingforConceptualUnderstanding