Wouters
Which two dimensions of learning does game-based learning hypothetically address?
Cognitive & affective (motivational) dimensions
Name three key features of formative assessment.
Improves student learning
Promotes student self-efficacy
Provides timely feedback
Provides information at multiple levels of aggregation
Provides low-to-mid stakes assessment
Uses developmental models
The article hypothesized that a serious game that dynamically adapts its challenge, or complexity presentation, to quick learners could make a serious game (1)more engaging and (2)more efficient. Which part(s) of the hypothesis is confirmed?
The first part of the hypothesis was not confirmed, while the second part was confirmed.
Game-based learning comprises of three main categories: Value-added, cognitive consequences, media comparison approaches. Which category did the meta-analysis of Wouters, Van Nimwegen, Van Oostendorp & Van der Spek (2013) address?
Media comparison approaches
What is the difference between summative and formative assessment?
Summative assessment is assessment of learning, formative assessment is assessment for learning.
The authors of the article decided to use learning performance divided by the number of cases triaged as a measure of learning efficiency. Why did the authors made this choice instead of e.g. divide learning performance by total time spent playing the game?
Some players navigate more efficiently than others towards the platforms etc, which blurs what we want to measure.
You are employed as an educational advisor at “Het Friese Vrijland College” in Leeuwarden, Friesland. It’s the oldest highschool in Friesland. They are interested in game-based learning, but also conservative as to its implementation. Based on the meta-analysis (2013), for which course(s) within the curriculum would you advice starting with game-based learning?
Game-based learning had the most effect in language domains.
What is not a goal of stealth assessment?
Comparing learner performances across diverse populations on clearly defined educational objectives and standards.
An example of adaptation is ‘rubber banding’. What does this mean?
When a player is behind he will have advantage of the player in front so that he can catch up.
In the meta-analysis (2013) the main effect was confirmed. Problem-based learning yielded higher learning gain (both knowledge & cognitive) (d=0.29). Which theory or set of premises, according to Wouters, Van Nimwegen, Van Oostendorp & Van der Spek, explain this result?
The authors of the meta-analysis do not substantiate this finding with a specific theory. They do mention in the theoretical framework that:
(1) “the (inter)active nature of computer game aligns with the current emphasis in educational psychology that active cognitive processing of educational material is a prerequisite for effective and sustainable learning.”
(2) “Second, it is possible with computer games to simulate tasks in such a way that performing them in the game involves the same cognitive processes that are required for task performance in the real world.”
(3) “the immediate feedback in computer games provides players information regarding the correctness of their actions and decisions and thus gives them the opportunity to correct inaccurate information.”
With stealth assessment the line between learning and assessment is blurred. This allows the assessor to:
1. Extract dynamic, ongoing information of various grain sizes from the learner in real-time.
2. Make accurate inferences of the learner’s competencies and support learning after the assessment.
Which statement or statements is/are true?
Statement 1 is true, statement 2 is not true.
In this study no differences in engagement are found. Four explanations are presented in the article. Which is not one of them?
There was no reference point, because they didn’t know the other condition.
Participants were only asked one time after the game.
It was clear for what reason people played this game.
Homogeneity of the engagement questionnaire was low.
3. It was clear for what reason people played this game.
How does the result of this meta-analysis regarding motivation i.e. that game-based learning does (perhaps) not improve motivation. A finding which is counter-intuitive. Relate to points 1 & 2 of their theoretical framework concerning the effectiveness of game-based learning? i.e. activating & real world experience, constructs that have elements of motivation.
In the discussion section the authors still assume that game-based learning improves motivation. Providing that:
(1) games do not have “conditions that limit the sense of control or freedom of action may undermine intrinsic motivation.”
(2) “Several dimensions that have to be resolved in order to create really engaging serious games.” And that motivation is measured correctly measured.
(3) “the question can be raised whether it makes sense to measure affective states such as motivation and enjoyment with questionnaires and surveys after game play; physiological or behavioral measures such as eye tracking and skin conductance seem to be more appropriate methods, because they can be collected during game play.”
The authors also indicate that other measurement instruments have found more motivation in game-based learning.
A teacher wants to get information about the progress of his students. He wants to use this information as the basis of altering his instruction and/or feedback. Then he has to compare the students progress to the….
Competency model
For who are the results of this study interesting? Explain why.
Interesting for whoever makes games. Explanation should be something with adapting to a players proficiency so that the player’s learning is more efficient and it might speed up and so that the game is more challenging.