The Impact of Educational Gaming on Student Engagement

8/2/2019 The Impact of Educational Gaming on Student Engagement

1/29

The impact of educational gaming on student engagement

by

Amy Barrieau

230 Barrieau St

Miramichi NB

E1N 4V1

MUN Student ID#200975332

In fulfilment of the requirements for ED6590

Professor Robert Kelly

April 2nd, 2012


2/29

Abstract

The active learners of todaysNet Generation seek engaging experiences through digitalgaming. This paper reviews research literature that examines the impacts ofcomputer-based

educational gaming on student engagement in K-12 learning. Popular commercial games can

inform educational game design, when attempting to enhance learner engagement. Certain design

elements that engage students also provide exploratory, scaffolded and collaborative learningopportunities. These games in turn fulfill constructive and 21st Century learning requirements that

prepare students for the modern workforce. This review suggests that educational gaming merits

attention as a potentially powerful medium for engaging students in 21st Century learning. Digitalgames were found to incite engagement in learning through elements of interactivity, risk,

feedback, narrative, context, flow, scaffolding, competition and collaboration. Drawbacks

regarding engagement in educational gaming include opposing philosophies for instructionaldesign and the somewhat difficult transfer from commercial to educational gaming.


3/29

THE IMPACT OF EDUCATIONAL GAMING ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT 3

Table of Contents

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................4

Purpose, Audience and Organization.............................................................................................5

Shift in Pedagogy..................................................................................................................................6

The Role of the Teacher......................................................................................................................8

Game Design: Engagement as a Precursor to 21st Century Learning...............................................10

Entertaining Game Design Informing Educational Gaming. ..................................................10

Interactivity....12

Risk and Feedback.........13 The Impact of the Narrative.....14

Personal Relevancy and Context....16

Games and Flow....16

Scaffolding.17

Competition. ..18

Socialization and Collaboration.. ..19

The 21st Century Learner as an Active Participant.....................................20

Constructivism, PBL and Accommodating All Learners...21

Other Challenges. ...22

Conclusion......22

References.. 24


4/29

Introduction

Young people today are enamoured by the engaging experience afforded by commercial

video games. TheNet Generation is digitally literate, prefers to learn by doing, and has been

raised in the presence of computers and computer games (Oblinger, 2004). They are also willing

to dedicate many hours of their free-time to gaming. The Entertainment Software Association of

Canada (ESAC, 2011) reported that 96% of Canadian households own a computer, while 47% of

households own a video game console. Commercial games are very powerful in engaging young

players, and are thus attractive to educators who seek similar engagement in learning for their

students.

Paulus, Horvitz and Shi (2006) described engagement as a key component of learning

environments, made evident through a students emotional reaction to, and perceived credibility of

content, as well as their level of reflection and application of learning. Similarly, Lim, Nonis and

Hedberg (2006) characterised engagement as a kind of mindfulness, intrinsic motivation, cognitive

effort and focused attention. According to Annetta, Lamb, Bowling and Cheng (2011),

engagement occurred when students were motivated to participate because they felt a sense of

belonging and connectedness to the activity. Engagement was also described as an important

prerequisite to learning. Herrington, Oliver and Reeves (2003) also found that learner engagement

was important to academic success.

In definition, Oblinger (2004) likened educational gaming to a virtual interface that

integrates learning into self-directed game play. Educational games are digital platforms involving

components and tasks that serve a dual purpose, to be both engaging and genuinely educational

(Carr & Blanchfield, 2011). Games like Second Life, Quest Atlantis, VR Engage, Astroversity

and Dr. Fiction present a virtual or augmented reality environment by using intricate visuals, audio


5/29


and point of view to immerse the player in an educational gaming scenario (Cavanaugh, 2009).

Harnessing gaming as a medium for engaged student learning is a worthy consideration for

educators who struggle firsthand with the increasingly shortened attention span of learners today

(Annetta et al., 2011). However, the integration of digital game-play into education meets with

challenges and considerations. One challenge includes assessing the efficacy of games designed

for education (Leonard, Minogue, Holmes & Cheng, 2009). Certain effective elements and design

strategies must be present in educational games. Otherwise, authentic engagement will not occur

(Dickey, 2005). Teachers, as both designers and software assessors, may benefit from learning

about such elements of successful game play. They may then be better equipped to help create and

facilitate student engagement in both the game and the intended learning within. This is important

since, as Carr and Blanchfield (2011) found, the right computer game has the ability to capture the

attention of students, even those considered the most difficult to engage.

Purpose, Audience and Organization

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the theme of student engagement in

computer-based educational gaming. In doing so, this paper will attempt to answer the following

question: What are the impacts ofcomputer-based educational gaming on student engagement

in K-12 learning? The intended audience includes teachers, administrators, district personnel and

also parents who are curious about the impact of computer-based gaming on student engagement.

Included are reported findings and an analysis of relevant engagement and gaming theory, the role

of the teacher, elements of game design for both entertainment and educational engagement, and

challenges.

Shift in Pedagogy

Computers in education offer students the opportunity for enhanced and meaningful,


6/29


7/29


content material, was pleasurable and didnt feel like working. Hoffman and Nadelson (2010)

reported that engagement in video gaming replicated the enjoyment of childhood play through

active involvement, the quick forgiveness of failure and the expectation of mistakes. Mallan, Foth,

Greenaway and Young (2011) found that a students investment in the non-serious and playful

aspects of an educational game, like modifying their avatars or making them move, positively

affected their engagement in the game as a whole. The concept of digital play in education is one

that holds significance, especially for engaging todays learners.

Despite these findings, shifting pedagogy by embracing digital gaming in education can be

challenging, especially with regard to buy-in from parents and other school faculty. Lim, Nonis

and Hedberg (2006) found that stakeholder buy-in was one of the core challenges and tensions of

implementing virtual gaming in a science classroom. They found that stakeholders were

uncomfortable with the mode of assessment for game-play since it differed from the traditional

drill-and-practice, pen-and-paper examination process. Also, concerns exist about how exactly to

assess student learning in gaming and whether standardized testing accurately measures the

learning experienced through immersive digital environments (Annetta et al, 2009b). Another

obstacle includes general philosophical opposition to the use of games for learning (Cavanaugh,

2009). Not everyone is comfortable with digital game play as a medium for education since it is

conventionally an activity of escapism. Engaging students through game play also sees a dramatic

and potentially daunting shift in the role of the teacher, who is tasked with embracing, training for

and implementing this new student-centered approach to learning.

The Role of the Teacher

A knowledgeable and skilful teacher can make a significant difference in student


8/29

engagement and performance. Sanders and Rivers (1996) reported that the influence of the teacher

is the single most important factor in determining student achievement. Teachers today struggle

with a shifting paradigm that urges them to give up certain long-standing lesson formats and

previous best practice (McNabb et al, 1999). A call for more active, learner-centric education sees

the role of teachers evolve from Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side (O Shea, Allen,

Onderdonk & Allen, 2011). The teacher is tasked with engaging students of the current generation

who are accustomed to having instant access and feedback at the click of a button, and who also

have shorter attention spans (Annetta et al., 2011). Engaging theNet Generation in learning means

that educators need to find out about the preferred electronic media of their students and how it

motivates them in the classroom (Zemsky & Massey, 2004). Gaming is popular and preferred

media for todays students. Adopting digital game-play in the classroom requires teachers to

support and encourage students, especially in the beginning when activities can be unfamiliar and

challenging (Herrington et al., 2003). Teachers are also required to coach, monitor and verify

student achievements on an ongoing basis (McNabb et al., 1999). In order to participate in this

process, it would be beneficial for teachers to understand the language of games. According to

Carr and Blanchfield (2011), if games are to realize their full potential as a medium for learning

as well as engagement we, as educators, must seek to understand the language of games in order to

best utilize them for educational means (p. 653).

In the aforementioned study, teachers were available virtually as a playing piece to offer

interaction and advice to student players. This way, teachers were able to better understand, gain

perspective and offer continued support to students by playing and enjoying games firsthand

themselves. The researchers also advocated for a partnership between educators and game

designers so that factors of education and factors of engaging game play are represented in the


9/29


game. Without the help of game designers, academic games may lack familiar and important game

play elements that young gamers come to expect. Annetta et al. (2009b) also endorsed the

partnership between teachers and game designers but insisted that, in the end, the ultimate

responsibility for design should lie with the teacher. The teacher would thus be responsible for

marrying the best game techniques with proven learning techniques. In a study that involved a

fifth grade teacher who created, developed and facilitated a science game, engagement in the

lesson was found to increase (Annetta et al., 2009b). The studys findings also showed a

significant gain in achievement from pre-test to post-test. In opposition, Dickey (2005) found that

game designers were the best creators of educational games since they were well versed in creating

scenarios and events that would engage learners and invoke skills like critical thinking, analysis

and synthesis. Whether designing or choosing gaming software, teachers are heavily implicated in

the implementation of digital game play. As Dickey (2005) mentions, The teacher acts both as a

facilitator in creating the tasks and environment, and as the guide and co investigator to helping

scaffold student learning (p.70).

In addition to being conscious of aspects of design, teachers are responsible for deciding if

games should be used for quick demonstrations of concepts, for homework, or more ambitiously,

for a central learning activity over a longer period of time (Oblinger, 2004). Teachers must help

ensure that students are well supported and they must make certain that engaged game play, goals,

and concepts covered in the unit are well aligned with curricular expectations (Annetta et al,

2009b). Teachers who understand the impact of gaming on student engagement also need the

appropriate tools, software and backing of school administration.

Game Design: Engagement as Precursor to 21st Century Learning

The impact of game design on student engagement in digital gaming is significant.


10/29

Themes regarding game design found in the literature include interactivity, feedback, flow, risk

and competition. It is important that educational gaming borrows and integrates some methods of

design from popular, commercial games that will result in engagement for players (Dickey, 2003).

This includes sophisticated virtual environments so that educational games may be seen as credible

to avid young gamers (Virvou & Katsionis, 2008). From the perspective of 21st Century learning,

game design must also allow for a constructivist approach to engaging learners (Dickey, 2005).

Such elements, as also gleaned from the literature, include scaffolding, active participation,

problem based learning, collaboration, authenticity and meeting the needs of diverse learners. The

aforementioned themes and game design elements will be discussed in the sections to follow.

Entertaining Game Design Informing Educational Gaming

The popularity of commercial games with young people cannot be ignored, especially by

those attempting to integrate gaming into the classroom. There is however a tendency for some

educational games to focus solely on education while neglecting the engaging elements of game

play (Carr & Blanchfield, 2011). Bruckman (1993) likened such edutainment games to a

chocolate coating on a broccoli-like educational core. Papert (1998) argued that edutainment,

where gaming is the reward for academic applications in the game, represents the worst aspects of

both gaming and education. Taking these failures into account, it is important that educational

games consider certain elements of game design to achieve student engagement and buy in. Lim et

al. (2006) found that activities in an online educational gaming quest needed to be more interactive

and move beyond text and graphics to more multimodal interfaces, where a complete virtual world

with few discontinuities was available to engage students. Educational games have to provide

highly developed virtual reality settings to compete with the commercial games to which students

are accustomed (Virvou & Katsionis, 2006).


11/29


Dickey (2003) found that research into educational gaming had often ignored the design

methods of popular games that lead to player engagement and how these methods might be

integrated into educational game play. Dickey also identified certain interactive, aesthetic game

play mechanisms that lead to heightened engagement, including setting, characters, hooks and

feedback. Other engaging elements of digital game play include authenticity, inquiry,

collaboration and technology (Blumenfeld, Kempler & Krajcik, 2006) as well as challenge,

curiosity and control (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Transferring these elements into the realm of

educational game play is significant since, as Carr and Blanchfield (2011) found, the novelty factor

associated with computer games was also responsible for increased interest and engagement from

students. As described by Wheatley (1999), music, magic and fun improve the dynamism and

excitement of education. The fun features of design may play an important role in engaging

students in educational gaming.

Nevertheless there is research that contradicts the use of novelty factors in educational

games. Virvou et al., (2006) revealed that distractions in the 3D virtual gaming environment

hindered some students from attaining the educational goals of the game. Some students were so

taken with the interactive, immersive environment that they even forgot what their ultimate goal

was. This study also found that usability of sophisticated educational games was difficult for non-

expert game-playing students. Some student gamers reported less engagement because the

educational game lacked violence; a common characteristic of commercial games that would be

unacceptable in a school setting.

Hoffman and Nadelson (2010) found that although students were motivated and engaged in

commercial gaming, it was for reasons of escapism, fun, connectivity, stress relief and

contentment. They thus concluded that such engagement would be difficult to authentically


12/29

transfer to a classroom context. Despite this, Carr and Blanchfield (2011) suggested that designers

attempt to integrate the play elements of commercial games into educational games, so that the fun

elements of these games help engage students in learning.

Interactivity

Carr and Blanchfield (2011) found that when middle school students played an educational

game with commercial design elements, they remained engaged during both the educational and

game-play portions of game. The interactive experience allotted by virtual worlds, including the

aesthetic design and movement control of personal avatars, can be capitalized on for learning

(Mallan et al. 2010). Interactive features that stir initial learner engagement include the ability to

navigate space, interact with other players, objects and places and to manipulate the course of

events (Johnson & Levine, 2008). Lim et al. (2006) found that hooking initial student interest

with interactivity served as extrinsic motivation and was an indication as to whether a student

would progress onto higher levels of engagement. Hooks that allow choice and control are

central to interactive game design and allow for a personalized experience (Dickey, 2005).

Interactivity that permits a player to control their environment engages them by making them

active participants, rather than passive observers (Lim et al., 2006). This study found that students

felt empowered by being able to control multiple features and make choices. Despite these

encouraging findings, they also found that some students were distracted by the freedom and

interactivity available in the game and they lost focus on the learning task at hand. Therefore,

achieving the correct balance of interactivity in educational game design is important to ensure that

students are engaged in play and not overwhelmed by the experience.

Risk and Feedback

Interactivity in gaming allows the player to make choices that involve varying levels of


13/29


risk. Cavanaugh (2009) found that virtual risk taking was a prime motivator and source of

engagement in educational gaming. Some of the appeal of gaming includes the ability to strive for

a goal and take risks, with few negative consequences associated with such risk-taking (Provenzo,

1991). Annetta et al. (2011) found that the engagement level of students fluctuated based on the

feedback responses experienced within the game. Games that could adapt to player ability by

intuitively assessing the risk and choices that players make were most engaging since there was

little fear of failure or consequences for error (Cavanaugh, 2009). Immediate and unambiguous

feedback also helped students feel engaged and become comfortable with risk-taking and making

choices in the game (Dickey, 2005). Feedback to students was received instantly through quick

visual and aural cues. Such immediacy fulfills theNet Generations need for instant feedback

(Oblinger, 2005). According to Dickey (2005), ideal feedback is based on learner choices and also

quickly advances the storyline of the game.

Gaming can provide a forum for risk-taking where students are uninhibited by fears of

failure and negative consequence. This may also allow students who are traditionally passive in

the classroom, to fully engage, participate and make decisions in their own learning. The choices

and risks that students take in a game may also allow them to control aspects of the narrative, again

contributing to their level of involvement and engagement in the game.

The Impact of the Narrative

Interactivity, coupled with effective storytelling in game play, is important in engaging

students in learning. Human beings are naturally inclined to engagement in narrative worlds as a

means of surrogate experience and learning (Tooby & Cosmides, 2001). Clark and Ernst (2009)


14/29

named storytelling as one of the major competencies of game art and design. Intriguing story lines

are influential factors in continued game play for students (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010). Oblinger

(2004) found that students who use the game find that difficult tasks can be engaging, intriguing -

and amusing - when incorporated into a story and a meaningful context (p. 9). Game designers

should understand storytelling techniques and create scenes and worlds that are credible,

controllable and allow the player choice (Clark & Ernest, 2009).

Stories in educational gaming were found to promote student engagement by appealing to

feelings and emotions and by rousing empathetic reactions and personal understanding (Annetta et

al., 2009b). Paulus et al. (2006) found that emotional reactions to characters prompted an initial

engagement for students who were empathetic to the characters situation. Developed scenes and

characters gave context and credibility to the scenarios and consequently encouraged student

engagement. Scenarios that were underdeveloped or unrealistic left students demotivated and

disengaged. Students were engaged in learning when scenarios prompted personal reflection and

awareness. When students were granted the opportunity to apply the learning by relating the

scenario to their personal lives, students were also more engaged.

Storytelling in digital game play upholds credibility by intersecting and weaving in and out

of the actuality of everyday life (Martin & Chatfield, 2006). Engagement in the story of the game

is enhanced through a variety of media, like text, pages, and dialogue that support the integrity of

the story (Whitton, 2011). Herrington et al. (2003) found that learners must be willing to submit

themselves to a suspension of disbelief in the story before engagement could occur. They also

noted an initial delay learners experienced before committing themselves to the disbelief presented

in the stories of the game. One participant likened the delay of engagement in simulated learning to

a theatre-going experience, where if the actors dont win you over then you dont enjoy it, and


15/29


you dont mentally participate. (p.6). The proper application of narrative in educational gaming

may positively affect a students level of engagement.

Gaming also provides a space for students to participate in the production of the narrative

(Mallan et al., 2010). Engagement is increased when players can affect characters in the story

through interactions, choices and control (Hall, Woods, Aylett, Newall & Paiva, 2005). Carr and

Blanchfield (2011) discovered similar finding about role playing games (RPG): An RPG

featuring interactive branching storylines and character interaction where the player has real

influence to affect the storys characters could be a powerful learning environment as well as an

engaging game experience (p. 643). Narrative is most engaging when players have the ability to

advance and help construct the story of the game.

Despite a strong backing for the impact of narrative on engagement in gaming, there are

some opponents to storytelling in games. Dickey (2005) found that because narrative is a

historically linear structure, there are limits on how it can be constructed and influenced by players

in the non-linear realm of the game. The linear narrative is seriously altered by the fact that

players make choices that can affect the storyline (Pedersen, 2003). Rouse (2001) implicated game

designers by stressing the importance of story branching so that storylines and character outcomes

may vary based on the unique decisions of the player. Educational game designers who consider

these concessions may better ensure engagement in the gaming narrative.

Personal Relevancy and Context

Stories in gaming have the ability to offer context to learning (Oblinger, 2004). When

gaming has elements of personal relevance and context, engagement is increased. Students, who

were found to feel connected and personally interested in a virtual space, were more apt to


16/29

experience engagement (Skinner, 2009; Glahn et al., 2009). Feelings of connectedness leading to

engagement were synonymous with feelings of empathy, credibility and worth for the tasks put

forth (Paulus et al., 2006). Similarly, Skinner (2009) also came to this conclusion, finding that a

lack of connectedness on the part of the student equated to poor engagement. Paulus et al. (2006)

also found that personally relatable aspects of contextualized online learning, as well as

opportunities for personal reflection regarding virtual scenarios, positively impacted student

engagement. Opportunities for personal connection to the game may help student reach a state

where they show engagement in learning.

Games and Flow

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) characterized flow state as intense concentration and

excitement. Players experiencing flow find themselves in a heightened state of personal interest

where they become contently absorbed in an activity (Konradt & Sulz, 2001). During the flow

state, outside distracters are not a factor, students feel a sense of connectedness and control and

they also demonstrate high performance (Annetta et al., 2011). Therefore, attaining flow is a

valuable goal for educational gaming, not to mention the benefits of acquiring massive amounts of

time on task. Bowman (1982) asserts that although commercial games as simple as Pac-Man can

incur a flow state, educational games with clear tasks and scaffolded challenges may also induce

this phenomenon in students. In using flow theory to assess student engagement in a science

game, Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider and Shernoff (2003) found that students experienced

more engagement when the challenges were well-adjusted to the highest level of their individual

skill. Using Csikszentmihalyis (1990) eight characteristics for flow state, in an educational game

design context, is crucial when seeking flow engagement for students. These characteristics

include anticipation of success, requiring concentration, clear goals, immediate feedback,


17/29


interactivity, a sense of control, suspending disbelief and a feeling of timelessness. According to

Hoffman and Nadelson (2010), students experienced flow when they reported a heightened sense

of awareness, a degree of separation from the real world and a loss of a sense of time while playing

educational games. Instances of flow derived from educational gaming can allow the

opportunity for students to intensely engage with academic material.

Scaffolding

As mentioned, obtaining a flow state of engagement requires scaffolded challenges that

appropriately confront the highest limits of an individuals skill. Whitton (2011) found that

gaming embodied this learning practice when tasks in the game increased from easy to hard.

Game play for learning is optimal when a task is positioned slightly above a learners existing skill

and students should only be challenged with more complex material, after they have experienced

an initial engagement in the game (Annetta et al., 2011). Gaming that assesses and adjusts to a

students specific skill set can help them more thoroughly engage.

Another purpose of scaffolding is to adequately support players in solving the problem set

forth by the game. Scaffolds can take the form of multi-player information sharing and the ability

to consult experts, electronic tutors and tool options within the game (Brush & Saye, 2002). These

scaffolds direct student attention to key variables that enhance knowledge, skill and cause them to

question and reflect (Land, 2000). Such comprehensive support may help facilitate a healthy

comfort level for students and affect successive engagement and learning.

Scaffolding in educational gaming may favour the teacher as game designer since teachers

may carefully construct these complex learning experiences, according to specific learner needs

(Mallan et al.; 2010, Lim et al., 2006). Teachers, whether designers or facilitators, may better

understand how scaffolding smoothens the learning process by helping students avoid the


18/29

cognition overload that can lead to disengagement.

Competition

Another distinguishing feature of flow state is the tendency for students to compare and

compete with their peers to show their progress in the game (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux &

Tuzun, 2005). Competition prompts students to learn and excel (Yu, 2000). Students desire to

compete as it is innate to human nature and education already indirectly endorses competition with

its grading systems and assessments (Trespalacios, Chamberlin & Gallagher, 2011). Elements of

competition in game design may help affect educational engagement.

Digital gaming has the ability to embrace the competitive nature of the human psyche and

draw the learner to the intended outcomes (Annetta et al., 2009a, p. 1094). Annetta et al. also

found that problem-based gaming involving competition, invoked higher levels of student

engagement. Students want to compete, as one player articulated: I like multiplayer best because

you can compete against your friends and have fun with them, rather than competing against a

computer that doesnt have fun with you (Trespalacios et al., 2011, p. 53). Again, fun and

learning find themselves working together- in this case, under the theme of competition.

Multiplayer games allow for constructive competition where students can compete, but also

solve problems together (Attle & Baker, 2007). Such learning, in the right context, can be viewed

as a variant of cooperative learning (Trespalacios et al., 2011). Competition engages students in

hard work as they attempt to gain status through peer acknowledgement (Oblinger, 2004). Student

achievement is also positively affected by competition (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010). Jayakanthan

(2002) found that multi-player games exhibited improved participation, motivation and

achievement due in part to the competitive aspects of the game.

The use of competition in education can sometimes prove contentious. Using competition


19/29


and play in school has been opposed by some (Annetta et al., 2009a). Some experts claim it can

leave learners with a skewed self worth and unreal competency beliefs (Kohn, 1987). Students

may become more affixed on scores than actual learning in the game, creating anxiety and stress

(Pope, 2003). A game designer attempting to engage players may consider all of these findings

when implementing competition into educational games.

Socialization and Collaboration

Games can be highly social. Commercial gaming has created an intricate online

community of collaboration that involves teaming, competition, discussion boards and sharing

(Oblinger, 2004). Many educational games are now designed so that certain elements cannot be

conquered by individuals alone (Cavanaugh, 2009). In their study, Lim et al. (2006) employed a

science game that allowed both synchronous and asynchronous forms of communication between

players. Findings revealed that both forms of communication facilitated engaged interactions that

supported a shared construction of knowledge among all student players. Collaboration between

players provides opportunity for peer-to-peer teaching and the formation of learning communities

(Oblinger, 2004). Authentic peer communication in gaming also provides emotional support

between players and offers students a sympathetic audience (Bruckman, 1993). Trespalacios et al.

(2011) dubbed communication and collaboration as essential skills for 21 st century learning.

Engaging in 21st century learning activities is integral for todays students who need to develop

skills for the modern workforce.

The 21st Century Learner as an Active Participant

Students today prefer to learn by doing. Learners in the 21st century are internally

motivated, unconstrained by time, place or structure and they rely on technology to help facilitate


20/29

learning (Oblinger, 2004). When it comes to engaged learning, digital gaming is a preferred

medium for students because it offers them the ability to control characters, environment and

challenges (Hoffman & Nadelson, 2010). When students are actively engaged in games, they are

learning (Annetta et al., 2009b). In addition to this, gaming teaches skills that employers want in

the 21st century, including critical thinking, collaboration, multitasking and problem solving under

duress (Clark & Ernst, 2009; Trespalacios et al., 2011). Self-reliant learning is also an appealing

trait for todays market since virtual environments allow student to explore the boundaries of given

content, cultivating a proactive and exploratory nature where a student is encouraged to become a

self-reliant learner (Taradi, Taradi, Radic, & Pokrajac, 2005). Students will be encouraged to learn

this way in the modern job market as well.

Educational games intentionally rely on players to actively solve problems and they require

a challenging cognitive effort from players in order for them to succeed (Cavanaugh, 2009). This

player-centered focus is also why educational games are following the lead of commercial games,

by changing the physical player positioning in the game to a first person point of view. This way,

players become part of the environment and encounter information, events, actions and activities as

they move through the environment (Dickey, 2005). Mallan et al. (2010) found students were

more engaged when they navigated the game with a through your own eyes perspective of their

avatars. Through simulation, gaming has the ability to offer these engaging, active, first person

approach, all involving an interaction with academic content.

Constructivism, PBL and Accommodating All Learners

Education is changing. As player positioning in commercial gaming shifted from an

outside to a first person orthographic view, so did learner positioning in instructional design in


21/29


education (Dickey, 2005). Constructive epistemology in education consists of engaging learning

environments that support the construction of knowledge through experience with authentic tasks

(Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Papert, 1998). Dickey (2005) found that game design containing

interactivity, narrative, role play, and learner positioning assisted instructional design in the

development of constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning through educational

gaming should be interesting, relevant and offer meaningful problems to solve (Mallan et al.,

2010).

Constructivist theory, put into practice through problem-based learning (PBL)

opportunities, reported higher levels of engagement for students (Carle, Jaffee, Vaughan & Eder,

2009). PBL design encourages students to develop their own approaches to investigating and

answering the driving question (Petrosino, 1998). Annetta et al. (2011) found that problem-based

learning in educational gaming positively affected levels of student engagement.

Engaging all students in constructive learning can be a difficult task. In some of the most

challenging cases, educational gaming has been used to effectively engage the attentions of

adolescents who required intense behaviour therapy (Carr & Blanchfield, 2011). Annetta et al.

(2009b) found that gaming was able to engage high school science students who do not usually

experience success in science class. Clark and Ernest (2009) found that digital gaming had the

ability to make learning fun and increase motivation for students who were at risk of dropping out

of school. Overall, students may experience more engagement in educational games that employ

constructivist activities.

Other Challenges

Despite the many ways in which educational gaming was found to encompass elements of

21st Century learning, there are challenges associated with implementation and subsequent learner


22/29

engagement. Belle (2001) found that many overseas students were not comfortable with the self

direction, active participation and critical thinking of gaming education. Belle also noted that the

gaming scenarios encompassed the designers western cultural assumptions, language and sense of

humour, which were confusing for non-native learners and those struggling with the English

language.

Another challenge of educational gaming is the fact that games do not engage and excite

everyone. According to Whitton (2011), games have the capability to disengage and demotivate

some learners, especially those who take a more strategic approach to learning. Gender may also

play a role in gaming engagement since boys have more positive attitudes toward digital media

than girls (Butler, 2000).

Conclusion

The needs of learners today have changed. Digital media, like gaming, has impacted the

way theNet Generation receives information and learns from it (Oblinger, 2004). Educational

pedagogy and the role of the teacher are also changing, in an attempt to seize opportunities to

engage learners and help them learn theirway. A common indication of authentic learning is

engagement exemplified by intense time-on-task (Annetta et al., 2011). Gaming can provide a

platform for such engaged learning and has the potential to hook and maintain student interest

through constructivist-based activities. Elements of commercial games may inform educational

game design and enhance engagement in learning for students. Such elements include

interactivity, risk, feedback, narrative, context, flow, scaffolding, competition and collaboration.

Despite the numerous possibilities and endorsements for gaming in education, there are

also many challenges. Some experts question whether the quintessential elements of commercial

game design can successfully crossover to the educational realm. Another difficulty is the


23/29


availability of appropriate educational games, since they vary in quality and efficacy (Annetta et

al., 2009b; Leonard et al., 2009). Parent, teacher and administrative buy-in for the use of games

for learning can also prove a contentious issue (Annetta et al., 2009b; Cavanaugh, 2009; Lim et al.,

2006).

Overall, the findings reported here suggest that educational gaming merits attention as a

potentially powerful mechanism for reaching and teaching children in the 21st century. These

children will also require unique skills for an ever evolving job market. The technology of

computers and virtual gaming are understood and highly engaging for todays active learners. It

only seems fitting to explore in more detail the possibilities of their use in education.

References

Annetta, L., Lamb, R., Bowling, B., & Cheng, R. (2011). Assessing engagement in serious

educational games: The development of the student engaged learning in a technologyrich interactive classroom (SELTIC). In Felicia, P. (Ed.),Handbook of research on

improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinaryapproaches. (pp. 310-329). MUN Library Online Reserve: IGI Global.

Annetta, L., Mangrum, J., Holmes, S., Collazo, K., & Cheng, M. (2009a). Bridging realty to

virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through


24/29

video game play in an elementary school classroom.International Journal of Science

Education, 31(8), 1091-1113.

Annetta, L., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. & Cheng, M. (2009b). Investigating the impact of videogames on high school students engagement and learning about genetics. Computers &Education, 53(1), 74-85.

Attle, S., & Baker, B. (2007). Cooperative learning in a competitive environment: Classroomapplications.International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(1),

77-83.

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R. & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun:

Quest Atlantis, a game without guns.Educational Technology Research and

Development, 53(1), 86107.

Bell, M. (2001). Online Role-Play: Anonymity, engagement and risk.Educational Media

International, 38(4), 251-260.

Bruckman, A. (1993). Community support for constructivist learning. Computer Supported

Cooperative Work, 7, 4786.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive

engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook

of the learning sciences (pp. 475488). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation: Tactile implications for classroom

instruction.Educational Technology, 22(9), 1417.

Brush, T.A., & Saye, J.W. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffoldingfor teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment.Journal of

Interactive Online Learning, 1(2). Retrieved from:

http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/showissue.cfm?volID=1&IssueID=3

Butler, D. (2000). Gender, girls, and computer technology: Whats the status now? The Clearing

House, 73(4), 225229.


25/29


Carle, A. C., Jaffee, D., Vaughan, N. W., & Eder, D. (2009). Psychometric properties of threenew national survey of student engagement based engagement scales: An item response

theory analysis.Research in Higher Education, 50(8), 775794.

Carr, J., & Blanchfield, P. (2011). Engaging the un-engageable. In Felicia, P. (Ed.),Handbookof research on improving learning and motivation through educational games:

Multidisciplinary approaches. (pp. 633-657). MUN Library Online Reserve: IGI

Global.

Cavanaugh, C. (2009). Augmented reality gaming in education for engaged learning. In Ferdig,R. (Ed.),Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. (pp. 83-95).

MUN Library Online Reserve: IGI Global.

Clark A., & Ernst, J. (2009). Gaming in technology education. The Technology Teacher. 21-26.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990).Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.New York: Harper &Row.

Dickey, M. D. (2003).An investigation of computer gaming strategies for engaged learning.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association. Chicago, IL.

Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and

video games can inform instructional design.Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 53(2), 67-83.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and

delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educationalcommunications and technology.New York: Macmillan.

Entertainment Software Association of Canada (2011).Essential facts about the Canadian

computer and video game industry. Retrieved from: www.theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/.../Essential-Facts-2011.pdf.
http://www.theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/.../Essential-Facts-2011.pdfhttp://www.theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/.../Essential-Facts-2011.pdfhttp://www.theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/.../Essential-Facts-2011.pdfhttp://www.theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/.../Essential-Facts-2011.pdf


26/29

Glahn, C., Specht, M., & Koper, R. (2009). Visualisation of interaction footprints forengagement in online communities.Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 44-57.

Hall, L., Woods, S., Aylett, R., Newall, L., & Paiva, A. (2005). Achieving empathic engagement

through affective interaction with synthetic characters. InProceedings of AffectiveComputing and Intelligent Interaction, (pp. 731-731). Springer.

Herrington J., Olivier, R., Reeves, T. (2002). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning

environments. Australian Research Council: ASCILITE. Retrieved from:

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/herrington.html

Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixedmethods study.Education Technology, Research & Development, 58, 245270.

Jayakanthan, R. (2002). Application of computer games in the field of education. The Electronic

Library, 20(2), 98102.

Johnson, L.F., and A.H. Levine. 2008. Virtual worlds: Inherently immersive, highly

social learning spaces. Theory Into Practice, 47, 16170.

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C. & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in

critical thinking. TechTrends, 43 (2), 24-32.

Kohn, A. (1987). The case against competition. New York: Vanderbilt Press.

Konradt, U. & Sulz, K. (2001). The experience of flow in interacting with a hypermedia learning

environment.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(1), 6984.

Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 6178.

Leonard, A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S., & Cheng, M. (2009). Investigating the impact of video


27/29


games on high school students engagement and learning about genetics.

Computers & Education, 53, 7485.

Lim, C., Nonis, & D., Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment:

Engaging students in Science lessons.British Journal of Educational Technology, 37( 2),211231.

Mallan,K., Foth, M., Greenaway, R., & Young, G. (2010). Serious playground: using Second

Life to engage high school students in urban planning.Learning, Media and

Technology, 35(2), 203225.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic

motivations for learning. In Snow, R. E., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.),Aptitude, Learning andInstruction: III. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223253).

Martin, A. and Chatfield, T. (2006). Alternate reality games: White paper.International Game

Developers Association. Retrieved from: http://igda.org/arg

Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement.Journal of Interactive

Media in Education, 8(8), 1-18.

O Shea, P. M., Allen, D., Onderdonk, J. C. & Allen, D. W. (2011).A Technological Reinventionof the Textbook: A Wikibooks Project. Retrieved from:

http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jdlte-

issues/A_Technological_Reinvention_of_the_Textbook_A_Wikibooks_Project.aspx

Papert, S. (1998). Does easy do it? Children, games and learning. Game Developer, 87-88.

Paulus, T. M., Horvitz, B., & Shi, M. (2006). "Isn't it just like our situation?" Engagement andlearning in an online story-based environment.Educational Technology Research and

Development, 54(4), 355-385.

Pedersen, R. E. (2003). Game design foundations. Plano, TX: Worldware Publishing Inc.
http://igda.org/arghttp://igda.org/arghttp://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jdlte-%09issues/A_Technological_Reinvention_of_the_Textbook_A_Wikibooks_Project.aspxhttp://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jdlte-%09issues/A_Technological_Reinvention_of_the_Textbook_A_Wikibooks_Project.aspxhttp://igda.org/arghttp://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jdlte-%09issues/A_Technological_Reinvention_of_the_Textbook_A_Wikibooks_Project.aspxhttp://www.iste.org/learn/publications/journals/jdlte-%09issues/A_Technological_Reinvention_of_the_Textbook_A_Wikibooks_Project.aspx


28/29

Pope, D. (2003).Doing School: How we are creating a generation of stressed-out, materialistic,

and miseducated students.New Haven, NE: Yale University Press.

Prensky, M. (2001).Digital game-based learning.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pretrosino, A. (1998). Project based learning space.Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retrieved from:

http://college.cengage.com/education/pbl/background.html

Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of nintendo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Rouse, R. (2001). Game design: Theory and practice. Plano, TX: Worldware Publishing, Inc.

Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student

academic achievement. University of Tennessee Value-Added Assessment Center, 1-7.

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Studentengagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School

Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158176.

Skinner, E. (2009). Using community development theory to improve student engagement inonline discussion: A case study.ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 89-100.

Taradi, S.K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learningwith Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base

physiology.Journal of Advanced Physiological Education, 29, 3539.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001) Does beauty build adapted minds? Towards an evolutionary

theory of aesthetics, fiction and the arts. SubStance,30, 94-95.

Trespalacios, J., Chamberlin, B., & Gallagher, R. R. (2011). Collaboration, engagement & fun:How youth preferences in video gaming can inform 21st century education. Techtrends:

Linking Research and Practice To Improve Learning, 55(6), 49-54.
http://college.cengage.com/education/pbl/background.htmlhttp://college.cengage.com/education/pbl/background.htmlhttp://college.cengage.com/education/pbl/background.html


29/29


Virvou, M., & Katsionis, G. (2008). On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for

education: The case of VR-ENGAGE. Computers & Education, 50, 154178.

Virvou, M., Katsionis, G., & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education:

Evaluation of its educational effectiveness.Educational Technology & Society, 8 (2),54-65.

Wheatley, W. (1999). Enhancing the effectiveness and excitement of management education: Acollection of experiential exercises derived from childrens games. Simulation Gaming,

30(2), 181-198.

Whitton, N. (2011). Encouraging engagement in game-based learning.International Journal of

Game-Based Learning, 1(1), 75-84.

Yu, F.Y. (2000).Promoting student learning and development in computer-based cooperative

learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in

education/International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction, Taiwan.

Zemsky, R., Massey, W. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why.

The Learning Alliance for Higher Education: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved

from http://www.thelearningalliance.info/WeatherStation.html.
http://www.thelearningalliance.info/WeatherStation.htmlhttp://www.thelearningalliance.info/WeatherStation.html

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amy-barrieau
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

The Impact of Educational Gaming on Student Engagement

Documents