The quantitative results show that there are significant differences in learning time.
Learners pay more time in the learning process and they may have better grades in the test (as shown in table 1 and 2). The other finding is that learners in AVG group get better grades than RPG group (as shown in figure 6). The reason for the result may owing to that learner have to continuously answer the questions of AVG game till they answer the correct answer. Therefore learners have lots of chance to practice in the AVG game. They also have a deep impression of the knowledge from the AVG game in the end. The last finding from quantitative data is that we do not have significant difference in the sexual variable (as shown in table 3 and 4). No matter the learners are male or female and which game they play, the learning result will be influenced by the difference of sexual variable.
Figure 6. Score of RPG and AVG
The open questionnaire provides us information to know learners’ attitude toward to the game. The qualitative data can be broke into several part for us to discuss.
a. Promote learning motivation: Many learners have the same opinion about this. The digital game-based learning method makes the learning not boring
any longer. The traditional learning way lacks for the fun factors. This makes learner feel boring and have no passion to pay attention in.
b. Familiar the process: About 30% of learners agree that the game helps them familiar to the whole project estimation process. They play the game and repeatedly review the process. Unconsciously learners learn the process during the playing period.
c. Hints: Some learners did not understand the content and goal of the game.
But they can look up hints in the game to make themselves understand the previous status. Therefore the hint can be treated as support tool to help learners to learn the concepts in the game.
d. Warning message and knowledge search mechanism: No one can complete the game in one trial. Half of the learners think that there should be some warning messages to tell them that they are making mistakes. This is also a way for them to learn from making mistakes. The other suggestion of the learners is that they recommend us to create a knowledge search mechanism.
After playing the game, learner can also learn knowledge from the game if there is a knowledge search mechanism.
e. Sense of achievement: Some learners get the sense of achievement from the game. Learners have to answer the questions, complete the tasks, and brain storming by their own in the game. After complete the tasks they feel they are with ability to complete the game. Hence that they are willing to continue play the game.
f. Promotion of specialized knowledge: In RPG group, there are over 70% of learners think that they can learn the specialized knowledge from the game.
But in AVG group, there are only about 20% learners have the same opinion.
We can directly know the project estimation process in the RPG game. In AVG game we can practice every single step of project estimation. But learners cannot easily to find the whole project estimation in AVG game.
This is the reason why learners in AVG group think that the game cannot promote their specialized knowledge.
g. Case study: In the playing game period, 30% of learners think they cannot carry on the game due to the reason that they did not know how to play game in some stages of the game. The hints provide not enough information for them to understanding the task and question in the game. Learners suggest game designers can only use hints to educate them but also use some case study examples.
h. Interactivity of the game: 40% of AVG learners think that AVG game is with good interactivity. But in the RPG group, one fifth of the learners think the interactivity of RPG is bad. The reason is that there are different types of task in AVG game. Learners will feel that the game interact with them in various ways. The weak point of RPG is that there is an only one type of game. This phenomenon tells us the AVG is with better interactivity than RPG.
arrange much about the social interaction materials. In future research, we will take into consideration to add more materials about social interaction.
VIII. Conclusion
The assessment location is in the computer room of the school. The participants are randomly arranged into two groups. Before the assessment we have introduce the game system, content, and the process of the whole assessment. And after the assessment we have a post-test and questionnaire for them to understand their feelings to the assessment.
Digital game-based learning is a hot research topic and the pedagogy can help learners learn in the game with fun during the process. This phenomenon cannot be realized easily by traditional pedagogies. After the assessment we find that each game style is with its own advantages. Such as RPG game can make learners realizes the whole process of project estimation and AVG game provide learners a lot of chance to practice every step during the project estimation. Therefore we cannot have a conclusion of which game style is better. But we can adopt the advantages of these games in the proper situation in order to gain learners’ knowledge or make them practice more. With the game, learners learn not knowledge but also have a simulated environment which closed to the real situation for them to practice and with fun. Although there are some factors we did not take in considered such as the quantity of learning content, degree of difficulty, and lots detail of the representation. Therefore we still have room for improve the games in next research. Hope the results of the research can provide game designers and related researchers basis to follow. And makes digital learning better and more fitting to learners need.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financially supporting this research under Contract No. NSC97-2511-S-218-003-MY3, NSC97-2511-S-006-001-MY3, and NSC 97-2511-S-151 -001 -MY2.
References
[1] Rich, L., Cowan, W., Herring, S. & Wilkes, W. (2009). Collaborate, engage, and interact in online learning: Successes with wikis and synchronous virtual classrooms at Athens State University, Online Submission [serial online]. January 01, 2009.
Available from: ERIC, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 19, 2009
[2] Pivec, M. (2007). Editorial: play and learn: potentials of game-based learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 387-393.
[3] Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[4] Bramucci, R. S. (2002). Digital Game-Based Learning In Webct, Proceedings of WebCT 2002, 4th Annual User. Conference, 2002.
[5] Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation, Computers and Education, 52 (1), 1-12.
[6] Smith, L. & Mann, S. (2002). Playing the game: a model for gameness in interactive game based learning, Proceedings of the 15th Annual NACCQ, New Zealand, pp.
397-402.
[7] Deway, J. (1938). Education and experience, Simon and Schuster, New York.
[8] Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
[9] Killi, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: towards an experiential gaming model, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 13-24.
[10] Ladousse, G. P. (1989). Role play: resource books for teachers, Oxford University Press, New York.
[11] Ju, E. & Wanger, C. (1997). Personal computer adventure: their structure, principles, and applicability for training, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 78-92.
[12] Pressman, R. (2005). Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach, 4th ed, McGraw-Hill, New York.