Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Evidence Centered Design: Layers and Models
Case Example: Factorreactor
Case Example: Noobs vs. Leets
Future Directions
Summary and Conclusion
References

Metrics in simulations and games for learning

Profile image of W. KaczetowW. KaczetowProfile image of Jan L PlassJan L PlassProfile image of Bruce HomerBruce Homer
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4769-5_31
visibility

…

description

33 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This chapter elaborates on the Games for Learning Institute's approach to harnessing metrics in games and simulations for learning. It defines crucial concepts such as Learning Mechanics, Assessment Mechanics, and Game Mechanics, exploring how these can be effectively integrated into game design to enhance educational outcomes. By illustrating with examples from various games, the chapter emphasizes the importance of aligning game mechanics with learning objectives to improve player engagement and educational efficacy.

Related papers

Classifying learning objectives in commercial games, Proof of Concept
Katrin Becker

2006

An important step towards gaining an understanding of how a particular medium can be used most effectively in education is to study its outstanding examples, regardless of their original purpose. We already know that people learn from digital games (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; Prensky, 2006; Squire, 2003) even if what they learn is not currently valued by society. It has been suggested that “good” games already embody sound pedagogy in their designs even if that incorporation was not deliberate (Becker, 2006; Gee, 2003). The work described here is part of a larger body of work still in progress which will examine commercially and critically successful video games as though they had been intentionally designed for learning. Through this perspective, it is possible to identify and classify inherent learning elements and from there to associate the mechanisms and strategies that are employed to facilitate that learning. The ultimate outcome of this work will be to describe how the existing strategies used to promote learning in commercial video games can also be used in the design of digital games for education. This paper reports on the results of two games that are used to demonstrate a proof of concept. These games will both be examined as though they had been designed for learning, even though only one of them actually was. In this preliminary work, one of the games is an older entertainment “classic”, chosen because of its generally high ratings and popularity. An older game was chosen because these tend to be simpler, allowing for a relatively comprehensive evaluation in a fairly compact domain. Older games also involve smaller production budgets, and contain fewer “bells and whistles”, which put them closer on par with many existing educational games. The second game is one that received high ratings from educators, but not from games designers. If we conjecture that games designers, by and large, are better equipped to evaluate the game qualities of a given game than are educators, then one possible outcome from such a comparison is that the educational game lacks essential game qualities. Comparing the two will uncover some of these essential qualities. R.S. Peters, in Criteria of Education (1966, pp 25) states that it is impossible to consider education without implying some worthwhile and desirable change in the person being educated. The question of whether and what kind of education is embodied in games is one that will not be addressed here. Analyzing the entertainment game as though it were an educational one requires a dissociation of what is learned in the game from how society values that which is learned. Doing so creates a common plane on which the two games can be assessed. In the full-blown work, games will be chosen based on a combination of points assigned through ratings by game reviewers, designers, and commercial sales. Five to ten of the highest ranking games from a variety of genres will be examined and their learning elements classified along with the procedures employed to support this learning. It is expected that numerous patterns will emerge from this classification.

View PDFchevron_right
Teaching dynamic systems and control with a video game
Brianno Coller

2009

Dynamic Systems and Control is one of the most difficult courses to teach in the mechanical engineering curriculum. The subject is very mathematical and the mathematical framework is unfamiliar to novice students. Recently we began using a video game to demonstrate and teach content of the course. The game provides a natural way to align instruction with constructivist theories on how people learn. Herein, we describe the game and present preliminary results demonstrating its effectiveness.

View PDFchevron_right
Practical application of the Learning Mechanics-Game Mechanics (LM-GM) framework for Serious Games analysis in engineering education
niall mcshane

2016 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), 2016

Serious Games (SG) have proved to have instructional potential but there is still a lack of methodologies and tools not only for their design but also to support game analysis and assessment. This paper explores the use of SG to increase student engagement and retention. The ongoing development phase of a game to teach the theoretical and practical principles of the operation of a sound synthesizer is presented to demonstrate how electronic engineering education can be radically reimagined to create immersive, highly engaging learning experiences that are problem-centered and pedagogically sound. The Learning Mechanics-Game Mechanics (LM-GM) framework for SG game analysis is introduced and its use in an educational game design scenario is shown as a case study.

View PDFchevron_right
Games, Simulations, and Simulation Games for Learning
Lise Renaud

Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
The Seven Circumstances of Game-Based Learning
Dylan Arena

In this worked example, I propose a framework for characterizing the learning that occurs in particular uses of a game for educational purposes. The framework is based upon the ancient Greek rhetorical structure that evolved into the "five W's" of modern journalism (who, what, when, where, why-the Greeks also had "how" and "with what"). This framework is just one (worked) example of how we might achieve the larger aim of this proposal, which is to encourage game designers and researchers to be explicit about the theories of learning, goals, and contexts that undergird their designs or analyses, which might help the field of game-basedlearning research to develop a common language and facilitate exploration of the many regions of what I consider a high-dimensional space. In this example I describe the seven circumstances of game-based learning and offer examples of how we might locate particular games within this space.

View PDFchevron_right
Classifying learning objectives in commercial games
Katrin Becker

Loading, 2007

An important step towards gaining an understanding of how a particular medium can be used most effectively in education is to study its outstanding examples, regardless of their original purpose. It is assumed that “good” games already embody sound pedagogy in their designs even if that incorporation is not deliberate. The work described here is intended as a proof of concept for a larger study in progress. The following paragraphs will examine two games: one is commercial and a critical success, and the other is designed deliberately as an educational game. The commercial game will be viewed as though it had been designed as a learning object. Through this perspective, it is possible to identify and classify built-in learning objectives and from there to associate the mechanisms and strategies employed to teach them. A significant outcome of the final work will be to describe how the existing strategies used to promote “learning objectives” in commercial video games can be used in the design of educational games. An additional outcome will be a synthesis of the core requirements for instructional design of digital games for learning.

View PDFchevron_right
Toward a taxonomy of game based learning
Klaus P . Jantke

2010 IEEE International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing, 2010

Learning by playing is a rather old dream coming next after learning when sleeping; at least, it is ambitious. Some authors report an enormous success of game-based learning, whereas others speak about a caricature of computer games and a reactionary use of learning theory. Opinions are quite divided. It seems difficult to resolve contradictions and to settle a dispute as long as there is no appropriate terminology available. There is an apparent need of some taxonomy for a digital games science. This paper contributes to a taxonomy of digital games, in general, and to taxonomic concepts of game-based learning, in particular. Taxonomic concepts such as extra game play and meta game play prove successful for the understanding of game playing impact as well as for guiding serious games design. Keywords-game-based learning; digital games taxonomy Edutainment started as a serious attempt to create computer games that taught children different subjects. Arguably, it ended up as a caricature of computer games and a reactionary use of learning theory. (Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen [1], p. 42) The present research and development has been partially supported by the Thuringian Ministry for Education, Science, and Culture (TMBWK) within the project iCycle under contract PE-004-2-1.

View PDFchevron_right
Preliminary Results on Using a Video Game in Teaching Dynamics
Brianno Coller

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings

Brianno Coller is an Associate Professor of mechanical engineering. He started his research career applying fairly deep mathematical ideas to gain insight into how complex physical and engineering systems work. His work was theoretical and somewhat abstract. Since then, his research has evolved toward studying a different type of complex system: how students learn and become excited about engineering. In this endeavor, Coller is mostly a "nuts and bolts" practitioner, an engineer, and an experimentalist.

View PDFchevron_right
Mapping Game Mechanics for Learning in a Serious Game for the Energy Transition
Cristina Ampatzidou

IGI Global eBooks, 2022

Theintegrationoflearninggoalswithgamemechanicsinseriousgamesusedinurbanandspatial planningprocesseshasthepotentialtoenablegamedesignersandplannerstocreategameswith narrativestightlyalignedtoparticularprocessesandleadtoincreasedlearningoutcomes.Thisstudy presentstheresultsfromtestingEnergySafari,aseriousgamefortheenergytransitionintheprovince of Groningen, and empirically associates specific game mechanics with learning events, derived fromplayers'reports.Theresearchisbasedontheanalysisofpost-playquestionnaires.Play-testing EnergySafariillustratesthatdifferentlearningeventscanbetriggeredbythesamegamemechanics, anobservationwhichcanbeappliedinseriousgamedesigntofacilitateplayerswithdifferentlearning needsandstyles.Inaddition,playtestingtoevaluatethelearningperformanceofseriousgames shouldbeintegratedinthegamedesignprocess.However,toachievelastinglearningandactionable knowledge,seriousgamesshouldbeusedcomplementarilywithothercivicparticipationmethods.

View PDFchevron_right
Video game learning dynamics: Actionable measures of multidimensional learning trajectories
Debbie Denise Reese

British Journal of Educational Technology, 2015

(Open access, DOI:10.1111/bjet.12128) Valid, accessible, reusable methods for instructional videogamevideo game design and embedded assessment can provide actionable information enhancing individual and collective achievement. CyGaMEs (cyberlearning through game-based, metaphor enhanced learning objects) design and embedded assessment quantifies player behavior to study knowledge discovery and application. CyGaMEs is grounded by analogical reasoning theory, cognitive task analysis, and knowledge representation. A construct representation argument for validity using evidence-centered design warrants CyGaMEs; its web-based learning environment, Selene: A Lunar Construction GaME; its embedded assessment; and a learning dynamics approach to student, measurement, and statistical models. Two studies (USA volunteers, Study 1: N = 267, Mage = 15; Study 2: N = 90, Mage = 12) cross-validate learning dynamics (learner progress, rate of progress, and changes in that rate) for Selene’s multidimensional goals while players learn and apply standards-based science about fundamental geology and space science concepts. Gameplay data analyzed using regression, calculus, and hierarchical linear modeling exhibit overall relatively high standardized rates of progress toward each goal statistically higher than zero. For example, adjusting for nesting within individual players, average rate of progress toward the goal of accreting lunar mass is a z-score of 1.4 (99% CI = 1.40 lower, 1.48 upper) or 1.4 standard deviations above zero.

View PDFchevron_right

References (71)

  1. Iseli, M. R., Koenig, A. D., Lee, J. J., & Wainess, R. (2010). Automatic assessment of complex task performance in games and simulations (CRESST Report 775). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
  2. Kim, J. H., Gunn, D. V., Schuh, E., Phillips, B., Pagulayan, R. J., & Wixon, D. (2008). Tracking real-time user experience (TRUE): A comprehensive instrumentation solution for complex systems. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 443-452). Florence: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1357054.1357126
  3. Plass, J. L., O'Keefe, P., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (in press). Motivational and cognitive outcomes associated with individual, competitive, and collaborative game play. Special issue on advanced learning technologies. Journal of Educational Psychology .
  4. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Kinzer, C., Frye, J., & Perlin, K. (2011, September 30). Learning mechanics and assessment mechanics for games for learning (G4LI White Paper # 01/2011
  5. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295- 321). Mahwah: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
  6. Charles K. Kinzer, Ph.D. is a Professor of Communication and Education at Teachers College Columbia University where he is the program coordinator at Computing, Communication and Technology in Education (CCTE).
  7. Yoo Kyung Chang, Ph.D. is a Lecturer in CCTE at Teachers College Columbia University and former research assistant at the CREATE lab at New York University.
  8. Jonathan Frye is the Technology Coordinator and a Research Assistant for the CREATE lab. He is currently a doctoral candidate in the Educational Communications and Technology program at New York University.
  9. Walter Kaczetow is currently a doctoral student in CUNY Graduate Center's program in Educational Psychology. When not studying Walter can be found teaching mathematics as an adjunct professor at New Jersey City University.
  10. Katherine Isbister, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of both Computer Science Engineering and Digital Media at NYU's Polytechnic Institute. She is the founding director of the Social Game Lab.
  11. Ken Perlin, Ph.D. is a professor in the Department of Computer Science at New York University. In addition to being the director of the Games For Learning Institute, he was also founding director of the Media Research Laboratory and director of the NYU Center for Advanced Technology.
  12. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help? In Gauthier, G., Frasson, C., & VanLehn, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th interna- tional conference on intelligent tutoring systems, ITS 2000 (pp. 292-303). Berlin: Springer.
  13. Ambinder, M. (2009). Valve's approach to playtesting: The application of empiricism . Presented at the 2009 Game Developers Conference, San Francisco.
  14. America's Army. (2012). America's Army: Honor and advances -Army values . Retrieved July 3, 2012 from http://manual.americasarmy.com/index.php/Honor_and_Advancement
  15. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 260-267.
  16. Anderson, A., & Bavelier, D. (2011). Action game play as a tool to enhance perception, attention and cognition. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fleycher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 307-330). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing: IAP.
  17. Brown, T. L. (1997). Task analysis strategies and practices (Practices Application Brief). Washington, DC: Of fi ce of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 571).
  18. Chang, Y. K. (2010). Examining metacognitive processes in exploratory computer-based learning environments using activity log analysis . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, New York.
  19. Chang, Y. K., & Plass, J. L. (2012). Assessment of the metacognitive processes from the behavioral data. (G4LI White Paper # 01/2012). Available online at www.g4li.org
  20. Chang, Y. K., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2008, October). Development and validation of a behavioral measure of metacognitive processes (BMMP) . Featured research presentation at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT), Orlando, FL.
  21. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19 , 2-10.
  22. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cogni- tion revisited. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 52-70.
  23. Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Cook, D. (2006). What are game mechanics? lostgarden.com. Retrieved May 23, 2010 from http:// lostgarden.com/2006/10/what-are-game-mechanics.html
  25. Cordingley, E. S. (1989). Knowledge elicitation techniques for knowledge-based systems. In D. Diaper (Ed.), Knowledge elicitation: Principles, techniques, and application (pp. 89-175). New York: Wiley.
  26. DeRosa, P. (2007, August 7). Tracking player feedback to improve gamedesign. Gamasutra .
  27. Domagk, S., Schwartz, R., & Plass, J. L. (2010). De fi ning interactivity in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 , 1024-1033. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.003 .
  28. Ducheneaut, N., Moore, R. J., & Nickell, E. (2004). Designing for sociability in massively multiplayer games: An examination of the "third places" of SWG. In J. H. Smith & M. Sicart (Eds.), Proceedings of the Other Players Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark.
  29. Efklides, A. (2002). They systemic nature of metacognitive experiences: Feelings, judgment, and their interrelation. In M. Izaute, P. Chambres, & P.-J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function, and use (pp. 19-34). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  30. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York: Guilford Publications.
  31. Gee, J. P. (2008). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (Rev. and updated). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  32. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15 , 1-38.
  33. Heeter, C., Magerko, B., Medler, B., & Fitzgerald, J. (2009). Game design and the challenge- avoiding 'Validator' player type. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1 (3), 53-67.
  34. Hill, J. R., & Hanna fi n, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 , 15-26.
  35. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Game AI Workshop, 19th National Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence, AAAI'04, San Jose, CA. Vancouver: AAAI Press.
  36. Isbister, K., & Schaffer, N. (2008). Game usability. Advice from the experts for advancing the payer experience . New York: Morgan Kaufman.
  37. Isbister, K., Flanagan, M., & Hash, C. (2010). Designing games for learning: Insights from conver- sations with designers. In Proceedings of CHI ( Conference on human factors in computing ), Atlanta, GA.
  38. Järvinen, A. (2008). Games without frontiers: Theories and methods for game studies and design . Tampere: Tampere University Press.
  39. Juul, J. (2003). The game, the player, the world: Looking for a heart of gameness. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level up: Digital games research conference proceedings (pp. 30-45). Utrecht: Utrecht University.
  40. Lajoie, S. P., Azevedo, R., & Fleiszer, D. M. (1998). Cognitive tools for assessment and learning in a high fl ow information environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 18 (3), 205-235.
  41. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Liu, M. (1998). A study of engaging high-school students as multimedia designers in a cognitive apprenticeship-style learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (3), 387-415.
  43. McCombs, B. L. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 67-123). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  44. Mislevy, R. J., & Gitomer, D. H. (1996). The role of probability-based inference in an intelligent tutoring system. User-Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 5 , 253-282.
  45. Mislevy, R. J., & Riconscente, M. (2005). Evidence-centered assessment design: Layers, struc- tures, and terminology (PADI Technical Report 9). Menlo Park: SRI International.
  46. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Breyer, F. J., Almond, R. G., & Johnson, L. (1999). A cognitive task analysis with implications for designing a simulation-based assessment system. Computers in Human Behavior, 15 , 335-374.
  47. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2002). Design and analysis in task-based language assessment. Language Testing, 19 , 477-496.
  48. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1 , 3-67.
  49. Nelson, B., Erlandson, B., & Denham, A . (2010). Global channels for learning and assessment in complex game environments. British Journal of Educational Technology. Published online, January 2010. To appear in print, June 2010.
  50. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher- student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37 (1), 5-15.
  51. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 , 801-813.
  52. Plass, J. L., O'Keefe, P., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein. M., & Perlin, K. (in press). Motivational and educational outcomes associated with individual, competitive, and collabora- tive game play. Journal of Educational Psychology .
  53. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Hayward, E. O., Frye, J., Huang, T. T., Biles, M., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2012, September 18-20). The effect of learning mechanics design on learning outcomes in a computer-based geometry game. Paper presented at GameDays 2012 held, at Fraunhofer IGD TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
  54. Roth, E. M., & Woods, D. D. (1989). Cognitive task analysis: An approach to knowledge acquisi- tion of intelligent system design. In G. Guida & C. Tasso (Eds.), Topics in expert system design (pp. 233-264). New York: Elsevier Science.
  55. Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8 (4). Retrieved June 1, 2011 from / http://www.jtla.org
  56. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals . Cambridge: MIT Press.
  57. Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (Eds.). (2000). Cognitive task analysis . Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  58. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7 (4), 351-371.
  59. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1990). The induction of rules from analog, mental models . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Shaffer, D. W. (2006). How computer games help children learn . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  60. Shute, V. J. (2010). Innovative assessment for the 21st century: Supporting educational needs . New York: Springer.
  61. Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth assessment in computer-based games to support learning. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 503-524). Charlotte: Information Age.
  62. Shute, V. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2011). Does playing the World of Goo facilitate learning? In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellec- tual growth and functioning (pp. 243-267). New York: Routledge Books.
  63. Shute, V. J., & Torreano, L. A. (2003). Formative evaluation of an automated knowledge elicitation and organization tool. In Murray, T., Ainsworth, S., & Blessing, S. (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology learning environments: Toward cost-effective adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 149-180). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  64. Sicart, M. (2008). De fi ning game mechanics. Game Studies, 8 (2). Retrieved June 1, 2011 from http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart
  65. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitive fl exibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the cognitive science society . Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  66. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive fl exibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In Nix, D. & Spiro, R. (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  67. Swink, S. (2008). Game feel: A game designer's guide to virtual sensation . New York: Morgan Kaufmann.
  68. Tychsen, A., & Canossa, A. (2008). De fi ning personas in games using metrics. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference on future play: Research, play, share (pp. 73-80). New York/Boston: Association Computing Machinery.
  69. Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2011). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (2), 485-498.
  70. Williamson, D., Bauer, M., Steinberg, L. S., Mislevy, R. J., Behrens, J., & DeMark, S. (2004). Design rationale for a complex performance assessment. International Journal of Testing, 4 , 303-332.
  71. Winne, P. H. (1982). Minimizing the black box problem to enhance the validity of theories about instructional effects. Instructional Science, 11 , 13-28.

Related papers

Learning Mechanics and Assessment Mechanics for Games for Learning
Jan L Plass, Bruce Homer

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Assessing Learning from, with, and in Games Revisited: A Heuristic for Emerging Methods and Commercial Off-the-Shelf Games
Michael McCreery
View PDFchevron_right
Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis
Sylvester Arnab

British Journal of Educational Technology, 2014

While there is a consensus on the instructional potential of Serious Games (SGs), there is still a lack of methodologies and tools not only for design but also to support analysis and assessment. Filling this gap is one of the main aims of the Games and Learning Alliance (GALA, www.galanoe.eu) European Network of Excellence on Serious Games (SGs), which has a focus upon pedagogy-driven SGs. This paper relies on the assumption that the fundamental aspect of SG design consists in the translation of learning goals/practices into mechanical element of game-play, serving to an instructional purpose beside that of play and fun. This paper proposes the Learning Mechanics-Game Mechanics (LM-GM) model, which supports SG analysis and design by allowing reflection on the various pedagogical and game elements in a SG. The LM-GM model includes a set of pre-defined game mechanics and pedagogical elements that we have abstracted from literature on learning theories and game studies. Designers and analysts can exploit these mechanics to draw the LM-GM map for a game, so as to identify and highlight its main pedagogical and entertainment features, and their interrelations. A case study is reported to illustrate the framework's support in determining how game-play and pedagogy intertwine in a SG. Finally, the paper presents the results of two comparative user tests demonstrating the advantages of the proposed model with respect to a similar state-of-theart framework.

View PDFchevron_right
ASSESSING LEARNING IN VIDEO GAMES
Valerie Shute

Conclusion As described in this chapter, games often require a player to apply various competencies to succeed. Many of these competencies are considered to be valuable for college graduates to succeed in 21 st century workforce. 40 For instance, in a strategy-based game like Starcraft, players must engage in causal reasoning and systems thinking. That is, they need to consider the ramifications of their actions in the game—not only on aspects of building their own interstellar galaxy, but also in relation to other players' ...

View PDFchevron_right
V 28 ( 3 ) Fall / automne , 2002 Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology Volume 28 ( 3 ) Fall / automne , 2002 Research Reports / Rapports de recherche
Ismael Rumzan

2013

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Effects of Embodied Learning and Digital Platform on the Retention of Physics Content: Centripetal Force
C Megowan-romanowicz

Frontiers in Psychology, 2016

Embodiment theory proposes that knowledge is grounded in sensorimotor systems, and that learning can be facilitated to the extent that lessons can be mapped to these systems. This study with 109 college-age participants addresses two overarching questions: (a) how are immediate and delayed learning gains affected by the degree to which a lesson is embodied, and (b) how do the affordances of three different educational platforms affect immediate and delayed learning? Six 50 min-long lessons on centripetal force were created. The first factor was the degree of embodiment with two levels: (1) low and (2) high. The second factor was platform with three levels: (1) a large scale "mixed reality" immersive environment containing both digital and hands-on components called SMALLab, (2) an interactive whiteboard system, and (3) a mouse-driven desktop computer. Pre-tests, post-tests, and 1-week follow-up (retention or delayed learning gains) tests were administered resulting in a 2 × 3 × 3 design. Two knowledge subtests were analyzed, one that relied on more declarative knowledge and one that relied on more generative knowledge, e.g., hand-drawing vectors. Regardless of condition, participants made significant immediate learning gains from pre-test to post-test. There were no significant main effects or interactions due to platform or embodiment on immediate learning. However, from post-test to followup the level of embodiment interacted significantly with time, such that participants in the high embodiment conditions performed better on the subtest devoted to generative knowledge questions. We posit that better retention of certain types of knowledge can be seen over time when more embodiment is present during the encoding phase. This sort of retention may not appear on more traditional factual/declarative tests. Educational technology designers should consider using more sensorimotor feedback and gestural congruency when designing and opportunities for instructor professional development need to be provided as well.

View PDFchevron_right
Operationalization and Measurement of Evaluation Constructs
Katharina Emmerich

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2016

This chapter deals with the operationalization and measurement of evaluation constructs, an important and challenging part of the serious games evaluation process. Hereby, advices will be given on what has to be measured and how to quantify an abstract concept. Thus, the chapter makes two main contributions. First, general data gathering methods are described and discussed in terms of advantages and disadvantages. Second, main psychological concepts and evaluation constructs relevant in the context of serious games, as well as their theoretical foundations, are introduced. In order to support the reader on planning future serious game evaluations, a list and description of concrete techniques and questionnaires addressing concepts like motivation, player experience, learning outcomes, health, well-being, and attitudes are compiled.

View PDFchevron_right
A think-aloud study to inform the design of radiograph interpretation practice
Martin Pusic

Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2020

Models for diagnostic reasoning in radiology have been based on the observed behaviors of experienced radiologists but have not directly focused on the thought processes of novices as they improve their accuracy of image interpretation. By collecting think-aloud verbal reports, the current study was designed to investigate differences in specific thought processes between medical students (novices) as they learn and radiologists (experts), so that we can better design future instructional environments. Seven medical students and four physicians with radiology training were asked to interpret and diagnose pediatric elbow radiographs where fracture is suspected. After reporting their diagnosis of a case, they were given immediate feedback. Participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts while completing the diagnosis and while they reflected on the provided feedback. The protocol analysis of their verbalizations showed that participants used some combination of four processes to i...

View PDFchevron_right
Eğitim Bilişim Ağı (EBA) İçeriklerinde Yer Alan Dijital Matematik Oyunlarının Bloom Taksonomisine Göre İncelenmesi
Nilgun Gunbas

e-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi

Educational digital games increase students' learning, academic success, and motivation, increase active participation, and offer better problem-solving environments than traditional environments. In Turkey, mathematics curriculum standards were prepared based on Bloom's taxonomy, which include high-level thinking skills. Before games can be integrated into education, they need to be checked in accordance with the curriculum and evaluated based on the curriculum standards. For this reason, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the middle school mathematics games included in the contents of the Education Information Network (EBA) based on the Bloom taxonomy. One of the qualitative research methods, a document analysis, was utilized and rubrics containing game and learning mechanics were created to evaluate the games. The rubrics were prepared based on the classifications of the mechanics based on Bloom taxonomy based on the relevant literature. Results showed that only games at the fifth and sixth grades were included in the platform. However, games in the seventh and eighth grade levels did not exist in the platform. Seven of games were in the "Numbers and Operations" and two games were in the "Geometry and Measurement" learning areas. The game mechanics included interaction, story, instruction, training, simulation, feedback, reward-punishment, and situation mechanics were present in the games. The learning mechanics included discovery, participation, real-life learning, and trial-error were present in the games. However, the games didn't have levels, didn't support group learning, didn't contain competition, didn't offer an environment of experimentation and discovery. In general, it was observed that in Bloom's taxonomy the games address the low-order learning skills including remember, understand, and apply at a moderate level, however they didn't address the levels of evaluate and create which are high-order learning skills.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved