↓ Skip to main content

Gaming science: the “Gamification” of scientific thinking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
50 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
625 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Gaming science: the “Gamification” of scientific thinking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00607
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradley J. Morris, Steve Croker, Corinne Zimmerman, Devin Gill, Connie Romig

Abstract

Science is critically important for advancing economics, health, and social well-being in the twenty-first century. A scientifically literate workforce is one that is well-suited to meet the challenges of an information economy. However, scientific thinking skills do not routinely develop and must be scaffolded via educational and cultural tools. In this paper we outline a rationale for why we believe that video games have the potential to be exploited for gain in science education. The premise we entertain is that several classes of video games can be viewed as a type of cultural tool that is capable of supporting three key elements of scientific literacy: content knowledge, process skills, and understanding the nature of science. We argue that there are three classes of mechanisms through which video games can support scientific thinking. First, there are a number of motivational scaffolds, such as feedback, rewards, and flow states that engage students relative to traditional cultural learning tools. Second, there are a number of cognitive scaffolds, such as simulations and embedded reasoning skills that compensate for the limitations of the individual cognitive system. Third, fully developed scientific thinking requires metacognition, and video games provide metacognitive scaffolding in the form of constrained learning and identity adoption. We conclude by outlining a series of recommendations for integrating games and game elements in science education and provide suggestions for evaluating their effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 625 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 1%
Spain 7 1%
Germany 3 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 596 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 119 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 15%
Student > Bachelor 63 10%
Researcher 45 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 38 6%
Other 140 22%
Unknown 124 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 100 16%
Psychology 70 11%
Computer Science 61 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 5%
Other 179 29%
Unknown 143 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#920,357
of 24,527,525 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,916
of 33,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,442
of 290,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#88
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,527,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.