Computer game-based learning in Higher Education

1
Computer game-based learning in Higher Education

• Nicola Whitton
• May 2007

2
Background
3
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
   game-based learning be measured?
4. How do differences in game design effect the
   learning experience?

4
Overview of activities
5
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)

6
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

7
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?

8
What is a game?

• Challenge
• Competition
• Fantasy
• Goals
• Immersion
• Fun?

• Interaction
• Outcomes
• People
• Rules
• Safety

9
Why do people play games?

• Cerebral
• Social
• Physical
• Boredom
• Social facilitation

10
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)
11
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

12
Motivation

• Are you motivated or demotivated by game-based
  learning?

Demotivated 9
Neither 28
Motivated 63
13
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

14
Criteria (1)

• Game design for learning
• Supports active learning
• Engenders engagement
• Appropriateness
• Supports reflection
• Provides equitable experience
• Provides ongoing support

15
Criteria (2)

• Interface design
• Flexible interaction
• Support for player community
• Transparent navigation
• User control
• Robustness
• Appropriate visual design

16
Effective games for learning

• Games that involve
• Problem solving
• Exploration
• Collaboration
• Authentic activities
• For example
• Adventure
• Role play
• Simulation

17
Game-based learning design

• Activity to teach basic group skills
• Two games designed with identical
• learning outcomes
• support materials
• debriefing

18
The Time Capsule

• Based on existing classroom activity

Challenge ? Interaction ?
Competition ? Outcomes ?
Fantasy ? People ?
Goals ? Rules ?
Immersion ? Safety ?
19
The Time Capsule
20
Pharaohs Tomb

• Developed from scratch

Challenge ? Interaction ?
Competition ? Outcomes ?
Fantasy ? People ?
Goals ? Rules ?
Immersion ? Safety ?
21
The Pharaohs Tomb
22
Development

• Iterative prototyping
• Game play evaluation (observation)
• Group interface evaluation (think-aloud /
  observation)
• Individual interface evaluation (Wizard-of-Oz,
  think-aloud)

23
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

24
Engagement factors

• Challenge
• Motivation
• Clarity
• Achievability
• Control
• Immersion
• Interest
• Purpose

25
4. Comparing game-based learning

• Comparative experiment
• Time Capsule groups
• Pharaohs Tomb groups
• Examining differences
• Learning
• Engagement

26
Experiments

• Edinburgh computing students
• 8 Pharaohs tomb
• 9 Time capsule
• Hong Kong marketing students
• 12 Pharaohs tomb
• 7 Time capsule
• Edinburgh computing students
• 43 Pharaohs Tomb
• 36 Time Capsule

27
Results

• Learning
• No significant difference
• But questionable reliability
• Engagement
• No significant difference overall
• Significant difference in control
• Difference in immersion

28
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?