Computer game-based learning in Higher Education

Nicola Whitton

May 2007

Background

Games Human-computer interaction

gamesdesign

online learning

Learning in Higher Education

computer game-based

learning

games-basedlearning

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?

Overview of activities

1

2

3

4

Gamesanalysis

Preliminaryinterviews

Preliminarysurvey

Literaturereview

Questionnaire design

Game design and development

Comparativestudy

}

}

}}

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 goodDemotivators• 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?

Motivated 63%

Neither 28%

Demotivated 9%

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 Outcomes

Fantasy People

Goals Rules

Immersion 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 (think-

aloud / 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?