Title: Using Educational and Gaming Design Theories On Purpose To Produce High-Quality Learning Content
Author Name: Maribel Wegmann
Selected Case (Published Article):
Es-Sajjade, A., & Paas, F. (2020). Educational theories and computer game design: lessons from an experiment in elementary mathematics education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2685-2703.
1. Introduction
With the prevalence of technology increasing in day-to-day life, there are concerted efforts to understand and ensure K-12 educators leverage these emerging learning resources for students in useful and compelling ways, while providing measurable means of assessment. The development of educational technologies has commonly been learner-centered; the aims of improving learning, instruction, and performance informed by design-based research resulting in learning resources, activities, and outcomes which can have a major impact on reducing the inadequacies and inequities in the classroom (Amiel and Reeves 2008, Spector et al 2014). One such resource is game-based learning. According to Takeuchi and Vaala (2014), a sampling of nearly fifty percent of K-12 classroom teachers incorporated game-based learning into their instruction, while a Project Tomorrow (2013) report noted how teachers felt “student outcomes… [and] productivity improved” (Ottenbreit-Leftwich and Brush 2018). Despite the conclusions drawn by classroom teachers, there is inconclusive definitive evidence on the achievement effects of math games due to educational games rarely being founded on established instructional theories (Es-Sajjade and Paas 2020).
Es-Sajjade and Paas (2020) confronted this matter of inconclusive evidence, asserting that games simply branded as “educational” were not necessarily realizing the “full potential” of educational games. Es-Sajjade and Paas developed a math game for fifth- and sixth- grade students to explore how best to unlock the potential of educational games. Their math game, tailored using cognitive load theory (CLT) and game design theory (GDT) backed by the guiding principles of educational game design proposed by Annetta (2010), facilitated their research question: “Can elementary students’ math achievement and math motivation [improve] by using a simple computer game… designed and built based on insights from CLT and GDT?” (Es-Sajjade and Paas 2020) The results of their research revealed improved student math achievement in comparison to those students who did not play their game, though there was little difference in math motivation.
2. Overview of the Case
This empirical study utilized a simple math computer game developed by the researchers, MATHERIAL, as well as quasi-experimental design to implement the treatment to the experimental and control fifth- and sixth- grade student groups across five schools in the Netherlands. MATHERIAL’s simplicity was established through its presentation of audio and visual information, which reflected findings in CLT research. Given CLT, the modality effect concludes that information split between audio and visual presentation increases cognitive capacity for working memory, while in the case of tutorials and worked examples, allowing game players to control the progression of dynamic visuals minimizes the probability of cognitive overload (Es-Sajjade and Paas 2020). For these instances, minimal animations were used to avoid player overstimulation while processing new information.
Finally, CLT research highlights the benefits of worked examples, allowing a learner to study the process by which problems are solved, step by step. All of these factors were taken into consideration when developing MATHERIAL, resulting in a simple two-player math game in which competing players progress in status by winning competitions and earning points solving and creating math equations. The educational game design principles proposed by Annetta (2010) facilitated the game’s development, which served to answer their two hypotheses: (1) Students who play the game for 2 h per week over a 4-week period will achieve better math results than students who have not played the game, and (2) Students who have played the game for 2 h per week over a 4-week period will report a higher level of motivation to learn math than students who have not played the game.
Coming to an agreement with school administration and teachers on the amount of time that student participants in the experimental group could commit to playing the game was the only problematic situation, but once the timeframe that could be dedicated to intervention was established upon, implementation could proceed.
3. Solutions Implemented
Preceding the experiment, teachers and students were presented with the rules of the game and the nature of the experimental design therein. Five schools in the Netherlands were the setting for implementation, with 227 fifth- and sixth- grade students. Students in the experimental group were given 2 hours per week, over 4 days per week and 4 total weeks to play. The control group was given regular math lessons without the game intervention. After the 4-week period, all of the students were given a written test with math problems and questions about their math motivation; this final test given to students was used to collect data and draw conclusions regarding the math achievement and math motivation hypotheses.
Over the course of the experiment, the researchers visited the schools and kept the teachers up to date on the game scores of students. Researchers also set up a Facebook page to allow students to post screenshots of their progress and game results.
4. Outcomes
Test result data collected from the experimental group indicated that MATHERIAL produced higher math achievement in comparison to the control group, results consistent with the first hypothesis (the achievement hypothesis). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined that the experimental group scored higher than the control group, to a great extent. However, a second ANOVA analysis revealed that there was no variation in time to complete the math test. Regarding math motivation (motivation hypothesis), an ANOVA showed no change with intervention, and that the game had little overall effect on motivation.
These results were approximately on par with the body of research, reporting the positive effects of games on student math performance. Additionally, the results note a particular case of a student with behavioral issues having a marked improvement in classroom behavior and interaction with other students.
5. Implications
The study highlights the benefits of even a simple math game intervention in the elementary classroom, and shows that similar, inexpensive, computer games are a viable alternative to more expensive commercial games that may not have been developed using educational GDT. Furthermore, these simpler games are less taxing on computer hardware and could be utilized in schools with varying technological resources looking for low-cost game options.
That being said, the simple nature of the game did reveal that the visually stimulating, high visual fidelity of a commercial game may be necessary to increase student motivation to play and learn math. While there was marginal change in math motivation overall, one student case with behavioral issues revealed to the researchers a potential avenue for further research, observing behavioral changes in students as a result of playing games.
The researchers encourage further research into “simple, scientifically validated games that can affect learner motivation” potentially even into other learning domains such as literacy (Es-Sajjade and Paas 2020). Additionally, in their game development, the researchers noted future research into cognitive load in relation to other learner variables would be beneficial, and they noted that game development was limited without the input of instructors and professional game designers, as they were mainly guided by their assumptions arrived upon from academic research in CLT and GDT.
References
Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of educational technology & society, 11(4), 29-40.
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of general psychology, 14(2), 105-113.
Es-Sajjade, A., & Paas, F. (2020). Educational theories and computer game design: lessons from an experiment in elementary mathematics education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2685-2703.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Brush, T. (2018). Integrating technology into K-12 education. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 176-184.
Spector, J. M., Johnson, T. E., & Young, P. A. (2014). An editorial on research and development in and with educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 1-12.
Takeuchi, L. M., & Vaala, S. (2014). Level up Learning: A National Survey on Teaching with Digital Games. In Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. 1900 Broadway, New York, NY 10023.