Transcript Games-based learning: what is the potential?

Computer game-based
learning in Higher Education
Nicola Whitton
May 2007
Background
Learning in Higher
Education
games-based
learning
computer
gamebased
learning
Games
games
design
online
learning
Humancomputer
interaction
Can computer games be used to
support learning in HE?
1. Is there a rationale for using
computer game-based learning in
Higher Education?
2. How best can computer games be
designed to be usable and enhance
learning?
3. How can the educational
effectiveness of computer gamebased learning be measured?
4. How do differences in game design
effect the learning experience?
Overview of activities
Literature
review
Preliminary
interviews
Games
analysis
Preliminary
survey
Game design and
development
Questionnaire
design
Comparative
study
}
}
}
}
1
2
3
4
Key influences
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Constructivism (Bruner, Jonassen)
Experiential learning (Kolb)
Problem-based learning (Boud, Barrows)
Collaborative learning (Vygotsky,
Wenger)
Adult learning (Knowles)
Games-based learning (Prensky, Gee)
Multimedia learning (Mayer)
Engagement (Malone, Csikszentmihalyi)
Q1: Why use games in HE?
• Rationales in literature
– Motivation
– ‘Stealth’ learning
• However… games can be
constructivist learning
environments
• Students in HE motivated to use
games to learn if seen as most
effective way
Research activities
• Interviews (12)
– What is a game?
– Motivations to play games?
– Acceptability of game-based learning?
• Survey (200)
– What types of game do people play?
– What are their motivations?
– Are educational games intrinsically
motivating for students in HE?
What is a game?
•
•
•
•
•
Challenge
Competition
Fantasy
Goals
Immersion
• Fun?
•
•
•
•
•
Interaction
Outcomes
People
Rules
Safety
Why do people play games?
• Cerebral
• Social
• Physical
• Boredom
• Social facilitation
Some results
Computer
Non-computer
Social (52%)
Social (52%)
Cerebral (52%)
Cerebral (34%)
Boredom (48%)
Boredom (30%)
Physical (6%)
Physical (27%)
Social facil. (6%)
Social facil. (12%)
Factors influencing
motivation
Motivators
• Swift and steady improvement
• Perception of being good
Demotivators
• Difficulty getting started
• Getting stuck
• Lack of trust with the game
• Intrinsic uninterest in the subject
Motivation
Are you motivated or demotivated
by game-based learning?
Demotivated 9%
Neither 28%
Motivated 63%
Q2: What is best practice?
• Evaluation of existing guidelines
– Constructivist learning
environments
– Educational multimedia
– Designing for engagement
• Analysis of existing games
– Potential educational value
– Evaluation of interface design
Criteria (1)
• Game design for learning
– Supports active learning
– Engenders engagement
– Appropriateness
– Supports reflection
– Provides equitable experience
– Provides ongoing support
Criteria (2)
• Interface design
– Flexible interaction
– Support for player community
– Transparent navigation
– User control
– Robustness
– Appropriate visual design
Effective games for learning
• Games that involve:
– Problem solving
– Exploration
– Collaboration
– Authentic activities
• For example:
– Adventure
– Role play
– Simulation
Game-based learning
design
• Activity to teach basic group skills
• Two games designed with
identical
– learning outcomes
– support materials
– debriefing
The Time Capsule
• Based on existing classroom
activity
Challenge
 Interaction

Competition


Fantasy
 People

Goals
 Rules

Immersion


Outcomes
Safety
The Time Capsule
Pharaoh’s Tomb
• Developed from scratch
Challenge
 Interaction

Competition
 Outcomes

Fantasy
 People

Goals
 Rules

Immersion
 Safety

The Pharaoh’s Tomb
Development
• Iterative prototyping
– Game play evaluation (observation)
– Group interface evaluation (thinkaloud / observation)
– Individual interface evaluation
(Wizard-of-Oz, think-aloud)
3. How can educational
effectiveness measured?
• Learning
– Pre-test/post-test not applicable
– Self-perception of learning
questionnaire
• Engagement
– Post-experience questionnaire
– 42 question scale tested
– Reduced to 18 questions
Engagement factors
• Challenge
– Motivation
– Clarity
– Achievability
•
•
•
•
Control
Immersion
Interest
Purpose
4. Comparing game-based
learning
• Comparative experiment
– Time Capsule groups
– Pharaoh’s Tomb groups
• Examining differences
– Learning
– Engagement
Experiments
• Edinburgh computing students
– 8 Pharaoh’s tomb
– 9 Time capsule
• Hong Kong marketing students
– 12 Pharaoh’s tomb
– 7 Time capsule
• Edinburgh computing students
– 43 Pharaoh’s Tomb
– 36 Time Capsule
Results
• Learning
– No significant difference
– But questionable reliability
• Engagement
– No significant difference overall
– Significant difference in control
– Difference in immersion
Conclusions
• Games can be collaborative,
authentic, active and experiential
learning environments.
• To be effective games must be
designed with learning in mind and
seen as the best way to learn by
students.
• Games do not have to have every
game characteristic to be engaging.
• How does novelty fit in?