Games Design Learning Review And Meta-Analysis-Clark
#notesFromPaper
Year : Tags : Authors: Clark Tanner-Smith Killingsworth
!docs/Games Design Learning Review And Meta-Analysis-Clark.pdf
#gamifiedEducation
digital games and learning for K-16
digital games significantly enhance student learning relative to nongame conditions
3 previous meta analyses. Discusses some things known as moderator variables? I’m unsure of what those are… it talks about how the various meta analyses controlled for things? idk seems specific and not conclusion focused
- Vogel et. al found that games and simulations led to higher cognitive outcomes and attitudinal outcomes than traditional instruction
- Sitzmann et. al found higher self-efficacy, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and retention
- Wouters et. al found that serious games were more effective than conventional instruction. Schematic serious games were significantly more effective than cartoon like or realistic games. Serious games showed larger gains compared to mixed instruction rather than when compared to passive instruction.
some stuff about the way they searched in the meta-analysis…
media comparison vs value added comparison
unlimited access to a game is better. Multiple sessions is better. One session? You might as well just not game
hypothesis: more complex games better
visual stuff
- visual realism
- camera perspective
- anthropomorphism
apparently there’s something wrong with the way games studies are done? Didn’t fully understand it
p9 is some eligibility criteria…
p10 has some neat stuff on how they actually performed the meta analysis
So moving on they look at a variety of characteristics and talk about how they might have affected pre / post test
Design is just as important as medium. Don’t assume a shittily designed game will do what you want it to
Alright so I’ve skimmed it, it was neat but I didn’t get any big conclusions
