• 沒有找到結果。

數位遊戲學習對學生學習成效影響之後設分析

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "數位遊戲學習對學生學習成效影響之後設分析"

Copied!
271
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文. 指導教授:廖遠光 博士 劉美慧 博士. The Effect of Digital Game-Based Learning on Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. 研究生:賴宛靖 撰. 中華民國 104 年 6 月.

(2)

(3)

(4) 誌謝詞. 禮記學記篇云:「學然後知不足,教然後知困。知不足,然後能自反也;知困, 然後能自強也」 ,道盡了自己持續進修的因由。在這六年來的研究所進修生涯中, 要面面俱到並不容易,然而走過之後,回首過往,一切的一切,除了感恩,還是 感恩。. 首先要感謝指導教授廖遠光博士及劉美慧博士,沒有兩位指導教授的耐心提攜與 細心指導,在我遇到研究瓶頸時給予支持與鼓勵,就沒有一步一步成長的我。. 其次要感謝淡江大學徐新逸博士、國立臺灣師範大學陳明溥博士、國立臺灣大學 梁朝雲博士及國立臺北教育大學趙貞怡博士,在論文計畫口試及學位論文口試時, 提供重要的思考方向與建議,拓展了思考面向及可能性,使我獲益良多,受益匪 淺。. 最後要感謝我的家人朋友及同事給我的支持鼓勵,僅將此份研究獻給所有關心我、 愛護我的師長、家人、朋友及同事,謝謝你們的愛、關懷與照顧。. 賴宛靖. 謹誌. 中華民國 104 年 6 月. i.

(5) 數位遊戲學習對學生學習成效影響之後設分析 摘要 因為數位原民的概念,數位遊戲被認為是一種有效的學習方式。然而,根據研 究顯示,結果卻是眾說紛紜。基於此,本文運用後設分析為研究工具,搜尋 了 78 個資料庫,初步獲得 21,502 筆摘要,逐步隨著研究步驟篩選,最後獲得 96 篇符合研究目的及方法之文章,得到 11,898 樣本數。此 96 篇研究樣本依 研究特性、樣本特性、研究設計特性、研究案特性、數位遊戲種類及數位遊 戲特性六個面向探究,並使用 29 個調節變項檢驗。本研究獲致結論如下:不 論是在學業成就、情意或高層次方面,DGBL 均顯著優於 Non-DGBL。 學業 成就達中度效果量,情意達中度效果量,高層次達高度效果量。調節變項顯 著影響學習效果。因此,基於本研究結果,研究者針對現場教師提出六點建 議,針對遊戲設計者提出五點建議,針對未來研究者提出五點建議。. 關鍵字:DGBL、數位遊戲式學習、後設分析、學習成效. ii.

(6) The Effect of Digital Game-Based Learning on students’ Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis Abstract It is assumed that Digital Game-Based Learning is effective because the students now are digital natives. However, the results from previous reviews are ambiguous. This study used meta-analysis as research tool, searched on 78 electronic databases and got 21,502 abstracts at first round search. Followed by the research procedure, 96 articles fitted in the inclusion criteria and yielded 11,898 sample sizes. These 96 articles were carefully coded into six categories: sample characteristics, research design characteristics, program characteristics, digital game categories and digital game characteristics, which 29 moderators were examined. The findings are: DGBL is significantly better than Non-DGBL in academic achievement, affective outcomes and higher level thinking. Academic achievement achieved medium effect size level; affective outcomes achieved medium level; higher level thinking achieved large effect level. Moderators significantly affected the effect of learning. Therefore, based on the research, the researcher gave 16 suggestions: six suggestions for educational field teacher; five suggestions for game designers and five suggestions for future researchers.. Keywords: DGBL, digital game-based learning, meta-analysis, learning outcomes. iii.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................i ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENT.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................x. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 1. Research background and motivation of the study ........................................... 1 2. The significance of this study.............................................................................. 6 3. Research purpose and research questions.......................................................... 9 3.1 Research purpose……………….................................................................. 9 3.2 Research questions….................................................................................... 9 4. Definition of terms............................................................................................ 10 4.1 DGBL ..........................................................................................................10 4.2 Learning outcomes ..................................................................................... 10 4.3 Meta-analysis ............................................................................................. 11 5. Limitation. ..........................................................................................................11 5.1 Research scope......................................................................................11 5.2 Meta-analysis limitation..............................................................................12. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................14 1. The relevant concept of DGBL.........................................................................14 1.1 Game and play ............................................................................................14 1.2 Game and learning ......................................................................................21 iv.

(8) 2. The theoretical framework of DGBL................................................................28 2.1 Behaviorism.................................................................................................28 2.2 Cognitivism. ................................................................................................31 2.3 Constructivism.. ........................................................................................32. 2.4 Related theories ...........................................................................................33 3. The characteristics of DGBL..............................................................................35 3.1 Interaction....................................................................................................35 3.2 Reward. .......................................................................................................35 3.3 Practice and drill..........................................................................................36 3.4 Incremental learning. ..................................................................................36 3.5 Linearity.......................................................................................................36 3.6 Attention span. ............................................................................................36 3.7 Transfer of learnt skill..................................................................................37 3.8 Scaffolding...................................................................................................37 3.9 Learner control............................................................................................37 4. The Literature on DGBL....................................................................................38 4.1 The related study..........................................................................................38 4.2 The variables contribute to the study. .........................................................50 5. Meta-Analysis.....................................................................................................62 5.1 The beginning of meta-analysis. ................................................................62 5.2 The definition of meta-analysis. ................................................................63 5.3 Meta-analytic approaches..........................................................................64 5.4 Strength and weakness of meta-analysis......................................................77 6. Learning effect...................................................................................................81 6.1 Academic achievement................................................................................81 6.2 Affective outcomes......................................................................................84 v.

(9) 6.3 Higher level thinking...................................................................................86. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................90 1. Research framework............................................................................................90 2. Research procedure.............................................................................................91 3. Implement process...............................................................................................92 3.1 Confirm the theme of the study....................................................................92 3.2 Search the relative articles...........................................................................92 3.3 Establish the inclusion criteria....................................................................95 4. Extract the qualified articles................................................................................96 5. Exam the publication bias..................................................................................97 6. Set study variables and develop coding sheet accordingly..................................97 6.1 Study characteristics....................................................................................97 6.2 Sample characteristics..................................................................................98 6.3 Research design characteristics....................................................................98 6.4 Program characteristics ...............................................................................99 6.5 Digital game categories..............................................................................100 6.6 Digital game characteristics.......................................................................102 7. Analyze qualified articles and perform coding...............................................104 8. Calculate the effect sizes of each article.........................................................104 9. Proceed homogeneity of variance tests...........................................................105 10. Report the findings and write the thesis..........................................................105. vi.

(10) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS..................................................................................................................107 1. Descriptive analysis...........................................................................................107 2. Academic achievement analysis........................................................................109 2.1 Main effect size analysis on academic achievement...................................109 2.2 Moderator analysis on academic achievement...................................112 2.3 Secondary moderator analysis on academic achievement..........................130 3. Affective outcomes analysis..............................................................................154 3.1 Main effect size analysis on affective outcomes........................................154 3.2 Moderator analysis on affective outcomes...................................157 4. Higher level thinking analysis...........................................................................173. CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................175 1. Overall weighted mean ES................................................................................175 2. Moderator analysis............................................................................................177 2.1 Study characteristics..................................................................................178 2.2 Sample characteristics.................................................................................181 2.3 Research design characteristics ..................................................................184 2.4 Program characteristics...............................................................................188 2.5 Digital game categories…...........................................................................192 2.6 Digital game characteristics........................................................................194 3. Academic achievement secondary moderator cross analysis...........................197 3.1 Subject matter…........................................................................................197 3.2 Educational level…....................................................................................199 3.3 Sample location…......................................................................................200 vii.

(11) 3.4 Digital game category…............................................................................201. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.............................................................204 1. Conclusions.......................................................................................................204 2. Suggestions........................................................................................................222. Reference ...................................................................................................................229. viii.

(12) LIST OF TABLES. Table. Page. Table 2.1 Summary of articles which claim DGBL is effective…………….……..39 Table 2.2 Summary of articles which claim the effectiveness depends on the situation………………..…………………………………46 Table 2.3 Summary of articles which claim DGBL is not effective……………….49 Table 2.4 Meta-analysis calculation type and equation…………………...……….69 Table 2.5 Meta-analysis equation…………………………...……………………….72 Table 2.6 Three types of effect size indicators…………...…………………………75 Table 2.7 Cognitive domain (original) ……..………….……………………………83 Table 2.8 Five basic objectives in the affective domain……...………………………84 Table 2.9 Five basic objectives in the affective domain…………………….……..…85 Table 2.10 Structure of the cognitive process dimension of the revised taxonomy……………………………………………….87 Table 2.11 Structure of the knowledge dimension of the revised taxonomy……....89 Table.3.1 Database searched list and the number got…………………………93 Table 4.1 Calculations of academic achievement …………………...…………110 Table 4.2 Results of study characteristics examination………………………..115 Table 4.3 Results of sample characteristics examination………………….…..117 Table 4.4 Results of research design characteristics examination………...….120 Table 4.5 Results of program characteristics examination………………..……123 Table 4.6 Results of digital game categories examination ……………..…..125 Table 4.7 Results of digital game characteristics examination………….….…129 Table 4.8 Nature & Science secondary moderator cross analysis……………..133 Table 4.9 Elementary secondary moderator cross analysis……………...……136 ix.

(13) Table 4.10 University secondary moderator cross analysis……….…..…………139 Table 4.11 Asia secondary moderator cross analysis…….……………………….142 Table 4.12 Europe secondary moderator cross analysis…….………………..146 Table 4.13 North America secondary moderator cross analysis………………….149 Table 4.14 Puzzle games secondary moderator cross analysis………………….151 Table 4.15 Simulation secondary moderator cross analysis…………………….154 Table 4.16 Calculation of affective outcomes …………..……………………156 Table 4.17 Results of study characteristic examination…………….…………159 Table 4.18 Results of sample characteristic examination………..…………….161 Table 4.19 Results of research design characteristics examination…………..164 Table 4.20 Results of program characteristics examination…………………...167 Table 4.21 Results of digital game categories examination………….……….168 Table 4.22 Results of digital game characteristic examination………….……172 Table 4.23 Calculations of higher level thinking…………………….……….174 Table 5.1 Total weighted mean ES comparison……………………………………177 Table 5.2 Comparison with other studies…………………………………………197 Table 5.3 Secondary moderator analysis……………………………………..……203. LIST OF FIGURES Figure. Page. Figure 3.1 Research framework…………………………………………………….90 Figure 3.2 Research procedure………………………………………………………91 Figure 4.1 Distribution figure of publication year……………………………..107 Figure 4.2 Distribution figure of educational level…………………………….108 Figure 4.3 Distribution figure of sample location………………………..…….108 x.

(14) The Effect of Digital Game-Based Learning on Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Chapter One Introduction. 1. Research Background and Motivation of the Study From history we know that the progress of human never stops. For instance, we human being experience from hunting to agriculture to industrialization and now information era. We cannot deny that every era has it’s “technology form”. In the technology era, whether technology will promote students’ learning outcomes has been tested and researched over and over in the past two decades (e.g., Betz, 1996; Gee, 2003; Gredler, 1996; Kafai, 1996; Malone, 1981; Prensky, 2001; Rieber, 1996; Squire, 2005; Ke, 2009).. The reason why researchers are interested in the effect of utilizing technology in education is because people believe that the form of technology will affect people’s life or even thinking pattern. Marc Prensky (2001, 2006) suggested that the students now under college level are in fact “digital natives” while most instructors are “digital immigrants”. Digital natives are fundamentally different from digital immigrants even in their thinking patterns. The characteristics the digital natives have are: twitch speed, parallel processing, graphics first, random access, connected, active, play, payoff, fantasy, and technology-as-friend. Therefore, Prensky (2001) proposed that learning via digital games is a good way to reach digital natives in their “native language.” 1.

(15) A lot of research results did support Presky’s claim (e.g. Alcaniz & Botella, 2013; Banos, Cebolla, Oliver, Núñez Castellar, Van Looy, Szmalec, & de Marez, 2013; Erhel & Jamet, 2013; Hung, Hwang, Lee & Su, 2012; Owston, Wideman, Ronda & Brown, 2009; Sung & Hwang, 2013). Sung and Hwang (2013) reported that Mindtool-integrated collaborative educational game not only benefited the students in promoting their learning attitudes and learning motivation, but also improved their learning achievement and self-efficacy owing to the provision of the knowledge organizing and sharing facility embedded in the collaborative gaming environment. Ricci, Salas and Cannon-Bowers (1996) reported that participants assigned to the game condition scored significantly higher on a retention test compared to pretest performance. Furthermore, participants assigned to the game condition scored significantly higher on a retention test than participants assigned to the text condition.. On the other hand, some studies revealed the results that digital game-based learning (DGBL) did not achieve better results than traditional way (e.g. Panoutsopoulos & Sampson, 2012; Lucht & Heidig, 2013; Gao, Yang & Chen, 2009; Panoutsopoulos & Sampson, 2010; Wrzesien & Alcañiz Raya, 2010). Furio, Gonzalez-Gancedo, Juan, Segui and Rando (2013) proved that there was no significant difference between using digital game and traditional way. Students can achieve similar knowledge improvement using either way. Jong, Shang, Lee, Lee, and Law (2006) reported that no significant difference of students’ learning outcome with respect to these two approaches was found. Moreover, McQuiggan, Rowe, Lee and Lester (2008) found that students learning gains were less than those produced by traditional instructional approaches, and that showed that the effect of traditional way was better than DGBL.. 2.

(16) With these diversity research results, some researchers were aware that it is important to use literature review as an instrumentation to figure out whether DGBL is effective or not. There are two ways to do the literature review. One way is descriptive literature review. Taking Randel, Morris, Wetzel and Whitehill (1992) as the example of descriptive literature review, they covered the years 1984 to 1991 and reported that of the 67 articles included, 38 found no differences between computer games and traditional teaching methods, 22 favored games, an additional four with questionable control groups also favored games, and only three favored traditional methods. However, the review can only count how many researches related to the topic were effective but cannot calculate the effect due to the instrumentation it used. It may be an effective way if the data is not much; however, if the research data is a lot, this method may fall into vote counting. The weakness of vote counting is that it neglects the fact that the quality of each article is affected by the size of sample population, different significance level, and different sampling. Therefore, it is not reasonable to give each study the same weight.. Another way to do the literature review is meta-analysis. In order to overcome the above limitations and problems, meta-analysis has become an option. Meta-analysis is a quantitative literature review. The advantage of meta-analysis is that the result can be generalized to a larger population; the precision and accuracy of estimates can be improved as more data is used; inconsistency of results across studies can be quantified and analyzed; moderators can be included to explain variation between studies, and the presence of publication bias can be investigated.. Hartley (1977) is the first person to apply meta-analysis on computer-based instruction and from 1977 until now, the effect of DGBL still interests researchers, 3.

(17) showing that it is an important topic worthy of digging in. There are 19 previous reviews of the effectiveness of DGBL: six qualitative reviews(Kulik, 1981; Bangert-Drowns, 1986; Thomas & Hooper, 1991; Emes, 1997; ke, 2009; van der Spek & van Oostendorp, 2009) and 13 quantitative reviews (Hartley, 1977; Kulik, Kulik & Cohen, 1980; Burns & Bozeman, 1981; Kulik, Banggert & Williams, 1983; Dekkers & Donatti, 1981; Randel, Morris, Wetzel & Whitehill, 1992; Dempsey, Rasmussen & Lucassen, 1996; Wolfe, 1997; Lee, 1999; Hays, 2005; Vogel et al., 2006; Sitzmann, 2011; Wouters, van Nimwegen, van Oostendorp & van der Spek, 2013).. The reviews of Burns and Bozeman (1981), Emes (1997) and Hays (2005) found that virtually no evidence of a relationship between experimental design features and study outcomes, while Vogel et al. (2006) and Wouters, Spek, van der and Oostendorp (2009) found positive effect sizes of interactive simulations and games vs. traditional teaching methods for both cognitive gains and attitude. Dekkers and Donatti(1981) showed that the effect of DGBL only workd on attitude whereas Wouters et al. (2013) reported that serious games were found to be more effective in terms of learning and retention but they were not more motivating than conventional instruction methods.. The difference may due to the reason that each of these studies focused on different skills to learn, used the computers differently, used different subjects and used in different instructional domain etc. The differences caused by moderators have been confirmed by several reviews. Kulik (1981), reviewing evidence from his own quantitative synthesis of findings and from Hartley (1977), concluded that the effectiveness of computer-based teaching was a function of instructional level, at least in mathematics education. Kulik (1981), therefore, suggested that at the lower levels of instruction, learners needed the stimulation and guidance provided by a highly 4.

(18) reactive teaching medium. At the upper levels of instruction, a highly reactive instructional medium may not only be unnecessary but may even hinder learning. Dekkers and Donatti(1981) suggested that the digital game characteristics, duration, and sample size of the digital game group were important variables, and Wouters et al. (2013) reported that the learners in serious games learnt more, relative to those taught with conventional instruction methods, when the game was supplemented with other instruction methods, when multiple training sessions are involved, and when players work in groups. These all show that moderators do influence the effectiveness of DGBL.. Besides of each article may focus on different aspect, the effect for each article also varies. Sitzmann (2011) stated that his review focused on the effect of learning. However, the learning he meant only limited on cognitive level (declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, retention and training transfer). Wouters et al. (2013) separated learning gains into two categories: knowledge and motivation. Though Wouters et al. (2013) investigated the learning outcomes; they put academic achievement and higher level thinking in the same category, which may influence the conclusion drawn from data.. Various differences exist among articles even if they study on the same topic. For example, Cheng and Su (2012) developed a game-based learning system to improve self-efficacy for student’s learning; Panoutsopoulos and Sampson (2012) provided evidence for the effect of a general-purpose commercial digital game on the achievement of standard curriculum; Hwang, Wu, and Chen (2012) developed a competitive board game for conducting web-based problem-solving activities; Hummel, Geerts, Slootmaker, Kuipers and Westera (2013) described an empirical 5.

(19) study into the feasibility of an online collaboration game that facilitated teacher-in-training to deal with classroom management dilemmas. With the diverse focuses, it is necessary to properly arrange them into suitable categories and consider the different characteristics they have. Specifically saying, what kind of effect are they evaluating? What kind of moderator do they use? These questions may depend on meta-analysis to get a meaningful answer, and the descriptive literature review cannot deal with the subtle difference of each article.. 2. The Significance of this Study First, although there are 19 literature reviews related to the effect of DGBL, their research database pool and their sample size are all small. Lee (1999) mentioned that because of the very limited number of his primary studies (19 articles), he should be cautious in drawing any conclusions from the review results for the reason that there might be some more methodologically well-designed studies out there. Wouters et al. (2009) had the same saying in their discussion. They said that it should be noted that the number of studies was too low to make definite conclusions. In order to substantiate the claims regarding the learning potential of serious games, more research is required. The current research searched on 78 electronic databases and got 21,502 abstracts at first round search. Followed by screen procedures, the article numbers narrowed down to 96, which yield 11,898 sample sizes.. Second, not all reviews exam all facets of learning outcomes. For example, Dekkers and Donatti (1981) only investigated cognitive, retention and attitudinal, but neglect the higher level thinking ability. Wouters et al. (2009) evaluated cognitive, motor skill, affective and communication. However, they put academic performance and higher level thinking in the same categories, which may lead to an ambiguous conclusion. In 6.

(20) this research, learning outcomes are divided into three aspects: academic achievement, affective outcomes, and higher level thinking abilities. Academic achievement refers to the performance that students perform in a test or evaluation; affective outcomes contain motivation, learning willing, engagement, acceptance, awareness, conference, and attitude changing; higher level thinking abilities include creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, reasoning, question posing and solving and spacial ability. By separating the learning outcomes into three individual categories, the effect of DGBL can be fully investigated.. Third, this research has more moderators than any of the meta-analysis reviews the researcher has found. Most scholars set their moderators as: study characteristics; sample characteristics; research design; program characteristics; game type research. However, they didn’t investigate them fully. The researcher separates moderators into six categories: study characteristics, sample characteristics, research design characteristics, program characteristics, digital game categories and digital game characteristics. Study characteristic include subject matter, publication type, publication year. Sample characteristics include educational level, sample location. Research design includes instrumentation, instructor bias, experiment design. Program characteristic include the duration of treatment, the purpose of treatment, group size in experiment group, and strategy involved. Digital game categories include role-playing games, puzzle games, simulation games, adventure games, shooting games, sports games, strategy games, mini games, fighting games. Digital game characteristics include intrinsic/extrinsic, tightly linked/loosely linked, hard-wired/engines. and. templates. or. shells,. reflective/action,. synchronous/asynchronous, single-player/multiplayer, video-based/animation-based, narrative-based/reflex-based. The researcher not only tries to stand on the giants 7.

(21) shoulder but tries to find out some new moderators by carefully investigating the articles found because moderator is the key.. Fourth, in order to thoroughly investigate what kind of game may affect the effect of learning outcomes, the researcher set game categories and game characteristics as moderators, which allow more studies to be included and prevent the lack of sufficient research data. And, through moderator analysis, the researcher can understand if different game categories and game characteristics really affect the learning outcomes. Mayer (2011) divided game research into three categories: a value-added approach, a cognitive consequences approach, and a media comparison approach. Value-added approach investigates how specific game features fosters learning and motivation; cognitive consequences approach investigates what people learn from serious game; media comparison approach investigates whether people learn better from digital game than traditional way. Hence, the game which DGBL uses may affect the effect of the learning outcomes. Because this study focuses on the effect of DGBL on students’ learning outcomes, the researcher adopts the media comparison approach, set game categories and the game characteristic as moderators.. 8.

(22) 3. Research Purpose and Research Questions 3.1 Research purpose Based on the research background and motivation, the purpose of the study is trying to find out: 3.1.1 The effectiveness of DGBL on students’ learning outcomes. 3.1.2 The moderators that might affect students’ learning outcomes.. 3.2 Research questions According to the research purpose, the research questions are: 3.2.1 What is the effect size of DGBL on students’ learning outcomes? (1) What is the effect of DGBL on students’ academic achievement? (2) What is the effect of DGBL on students’ affective outcomes? (3) What is the effect of DGBL on students’ higher level thinking ability?. 3.2.2 What kind of moderators might affect the learning outcomes? (1) Are study characteristics moderated the learning outcomes? (2) Are sample characteristics moderated the learning outcomes? (3) Are research design characteristics moderated the learning outcomes? (4) Are program characteristics moderated the learning outcomes? (5) Are digital game categories moderated the learning outcomes? (6) Are digital game characteristics moderated the learning outcomes?. 9.

(23) 4. Definition of Terms 4.1 DGBL In this study, DGBL refers to a teaching or learning which involves a digital game inside. Digital game means any game that is used for educational purpose and applies programming language as a medium to compose as a game, which may include computer game, online game, mobile game, serious game, and educational game.. 4.2 Learning outcomes In this study, learning outcomes are divided into three aspects: academic achievement, affective outcomes, and higher level thinking ability.. 4.2.1 Academic achievement The academic achievement refers to the performance that students perform in a test or evaluation.. 4.2.2 Affective outcomes The affective outcomes refer to the outcome of students’ emotional feeling, motivation, learning willing, engagement, acceptance, awareness, conference, and attitude changing.. 4.2.3 Higher level thinking ability Higher level thinking abilities include creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, reasoning, question posing and solving and spacial ability.. 10.

(24) 4.3 Meta-analysis In this study, Hedges and Olkin (1985) meta-analysis procedures is used as methodology. Meta-analysis means to use systematic calculation technique to analyze studies in order to get the whole picture of a theme. By calculating the effect size, researcher can use the result to infer, conclude, or modify his/her study or hypothesis.. 5. Limitation 5.1 Research scope 5.1.1 This research only includes English published studies. This research only includes English published studies, which were written in English and in the form of journal or proceedings. Therefore, those studies which were written in other languages and those which were unpublished are excluded. For the reason above, the finding of the research cannot infer to all the countries which are included or not included in this research.. 5.1.2 The research only includes studies which the research samples are students and the experiment took place in actual educational settings. This research only includes studies which research samples are students. Because the samples are students, the experiment should be done in actual educational settings. Those experiments which are not on actual educational settings will be excluded. Hence, the finding of this research only grounds on student learning effect.. 5.1.3 The research only includes studies which compare the effects of DGBL vs. non-DGBL on students’ learning outcomes.. 11.

(25) Because the research is focus on the effect of DGBL, the researcher focuses on the comparison on DGBL and non-DGBL. Other types of comparison, for example, compare two digital game in order to find out which one is better, will be excluded because this kind of comparison is DGBL vs. DGBL.. 5.1.4 The research only includes quantitative studies which. Meta-analysis is a quantitative study, which needs statistical data to support it. Those which cannot provide “t and sample size” or “F and sample size” or “mean and standard deviation” will be regard as unqualified articles.. 5.1.5 The research only includes studies which perform experimental design and provide enough statistical data for effect size calculation. Meta-analysis is a quantitative study, which needs statistical data to support it. So, the foundation of the research is based on comparison and quantitative data, and the research design of the original article must be experimental designs, which include one-group pretest posttest design, pretest-posttest control group design, posttest-only control group design, the nonequivalent pretest-posttest and the nonequivalent posttest only. Those which cannot provide “t and sample size” or “F and sample size” or “mean and standard deviation” will be regard as unqualified articles.. 5.2 Meta-analysis limitation 5.2.1 Meta-analysis can only deal with quantitative data. Meta-analysis can only deal with quantitative data. Therefore, the studies which are qualitative cannot be calculated. Those cannot offer enough statistical data for effect size calculation are excluded. 12.

(26) 5.2.2 The quantitative data which meta-analysis uses is adopted from the original study. The quantitative data which meta-analysis used is adopted from the original study. Therefore, the researcher cannot change or revise the study other than excludes it.. 5.2.3 Moderator analysis cannot build the relation between cause and effect. Moderator analysis is a way of using post hoc comparison to understand the differences between groups. However, the difference between groups may be affected by the confounding variables because we cannot use experimental control way to control them. Therefore, moderator analysis cannot build the relation between cause and effect.. 13.

(27) Chapter Two Literature Review No theory or method is out of nowhere, and the trace of it can lead us to get a better understanding of it. Hence, the literature review is important for it help us to understand what it was, is, and will be. In this chapter, the researcher began with the relevant concept of DGBL, which included the relation between game and play, and game and learning. Then, based on the relation among game and play and learning, the researcher discussed about the theoretical framework of DGBL in order to find out the theoretical support of DGBL. In the third part, the researcher investigated the characteristics of DGBL, and in the fourth part, the researcher investigated the literature on DGBL, which included the related study, and the variables contribute to the study; in the fifth part, the researcher introduced the meta-analysis and in the sixth part, learning effect was discussed.. 1. The Relevant Concept of DGBL 1.1 Game and play Why children play? Is the action of play equals to a game? Do children learn when they play? According to psychologist, the answer is Yes. Therefore, understand the relation of game and learning can help us understand the role of game in learning.. It’s not easy to define game since non-English languages tend to have just one term for what the English call “play” and “game”. Take Chinese for example, when Chinese people say “Yu-Hsi”, it could mean “I am playing” or “I am gaming”. In this case, the word “game” and “play” become a synonym.. 14.

(28) Holsbrink-Engels (1997) also gave us examples. For instance, In Dutch, “Spel” is used for both play and game, and so are “jeu” in French, “Spiel” in German, “gioco” in Italian and “uego” in Spanish. The English word “play” is related to the experience of pleasure; the word “game” is related to competition. Games are contests among adversaries (players) operating under constraints (rules) for an objective (winning, victory or pay-off).. Prensky (2001) thought that play as well as game has many meanings and implications. The OED provided 39 numbered definitions of play, each with many subcategories. With such a wide variety of meanings, turn our focus to the theorists may be more helpful to the study. Johan Huizinga(1938), in his book of Homo Ludens, characterized play as a free activity that is consciously outside of “ordinary” life and is “not serious” . Play, he said, absorbs the player “intensely and utterly”. It has fixed rules and order, does not have any material interest or profit, and encourages the formation of social groupings.. Roger Caillois (1961) , in Man, Play and Games, defined play as an activity that is not obligatory, has its own space and time, is uncertain in its outcomes, creates no material wealth, is governed by rules, and has elements of make-believe and unreality. Therefore, from these definitions of play above, play is something one chooses to do; play is intensely and utterly absorbing play promotes the formation of social groupings.. Play, in its diverse forms, constitutes an important part of children’s cognitive and social development (Csikszentmihaly, 1990; Provost, 1990; Rogoff, 1993; Rosas et al., 2003). In the context of cognitive development, playing is considered fundamental to 15.

(29) the stabilizing processes that are essential for the development of cognitive structures. It is indiscernible for cognitive development by way of assimilation and accommodation processes. Through playing, children rehearse basic cognitive operations such as conservation, classification and reversibility (Piaget, 1951).. Playing is above all, a privileged learning experience. As Vygotsky (1979) stated, a child learns through playing with others, creating and improving his or her zone of proximal development, because playing often involves more complex activities than those the child experiences in daily life. In correspondence with this idea are Bruner’s (1986) findings that children normally use more complex grammatical structures while playing than they do in real life situations. As such, playing offers the cognitive support needed to develop higher order mental processes.. Playing initiates the symbolic use of objects and is therefore considered the first form of symbolization (Piaget, 1951). Thus, playing constitutes the first step towards abstract thinking (Vygotsky, 1976).. What is a game, then? Like play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. Huizinga (1938) stated that a contest is also play and distinguished the following crucial elements of a game: an informal act or activity; occurring within certain temporal and spatial boundaries; developing according to freely chosen, but afterwards committing rules; the goal is the activity itself; the activity is accompanied by a feeling of tension and/or enjoyment and the consciousness that the activity is different from real life.. 16.

(30) Dempsey, Haynes, Lucassen and Casey (2002) gave a more precise description: “A game is a set of activities involving one or more players. It has goals, constraints, payoffs, and consequences. A game is rule guided and artificial in some respects. Finally a game involves some aspect of competition, even if that competition is with oneself”.. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953) was probably the first academic philosopher to address the definition of the word game. Wittgenstein demonstrated that the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games are. Wittgenstein concluded that people apply the term game to a range of disparate human activities that bear to one another only what one might call family resemblances.. Piaget defined game as assimilation of stimuli from outside world and put them into adaptation system. Piaget made comments on games only in terms of their effects on children’s development. However, in today’s changing educational system, it can be said that games may be effective on every age group by shaping them appropriately during developmental period (Donmus, 2010).. Prensky (2001) and Huizinga (1938) regarded games as a subset of play. The Encyclopedia Britannica provided the following diagram (figure2.1) of the relation between play and games which also showed that games are a subset of play. However, Salen and Zimmerman (2003) stated that “play” also can be seen as a subset of the concept “game”. 17.

(31) Figure 2.1 The relation between play and games. Adapted from Encyclopedia Britannica.. Games are a common form of playing. All games have properties, rules and procedures that must be mastered in order to become a “player”. The understanding of the underlying concepts of games plays an important organizing role in cognition, similar to that of a story schema (Schank, 1990), in that it requires a mental frame work which includes goals, conditions, players, and resolutions. Since playing games is a natural activity for children, it is considered an excellent example of situated or “anchored” learning through authentic situations (Choi & Hannafin, 1995; Herrington & Oliver, 1999; Rogoff, 1993).. Playing changes as children grow up, following the course of cognitive development. The games played, their rules and meanings change as a child grows up. Once a child reaches school age, she or he is able to understand and follow the rules involved in structured games. Even though such rules are also present in learning situations found in a school setting, teachers usually view them as different and tend to separate school from play (Rieber, 1996).. 18.

(32) Gadamer (1975), a philosopher, in his Truth and Method, told us that play equals to game. Play has a special relation to what is serious. It is not only that the latter gives it its "purpose": we play "for the sake of recreation," as Aristotle said. More important, play itself contains its own, even sacred, seriousness. Seriousness in playing is necessary to make the play wholly play. It is the game that is played -- it is irrelevant whether or not there is a subject who plays it. The real subject of the game is not the player but instead the game itself. What holds the player in its spell, draws him into play, and keeps him there is the game itself.. From this point of view, play equals to game for the playing field on which the game is played is, as it were, set by the nature of the game itself and is defined far more by the structure that determines the movement of the game. Therefore, it’s not important that who is the subset, play or game; what really matter is that they have the same quality (for example, the back and forth movement, transformation into structure) and it’s hard to clearly separate them apart.. According to Juul (2003), a game is a rule based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable. The game definition he proposed contained six parameters: (1) Rules (2) Outcome (3) Value (4) Effort (5) Player’s attachment (6) Negotiable consequences (Ang & Zaphiris, 2008).. Game with educational purpose is educational game. Educational games are generally targeted to young people who are viewed as “averse to learning” by educators ( Belotti, Berta, De Gloria & Primavera, 2009). Educational games are activities that 19.

(33) provide students the opportunity to reinforce the previous knowledge by repeating it in a more comfortable environment. Donmus (2010) thought that Educational games are software that helps students to learn the lesson subjects and to develop their problem solving skills by using their desire and enthusiasm to play.. When discussing about educational game, serious game cannot be neglect. “Serious games” is a term which has been adopted in recent years to describe games with educational benefits (Blackman, 2005). Clark defined serious games by stating: "We are concerned with serious games in the sense that these games have an explicit and carefully thought-out educational purpose and are not intended to be played primarily for amusement." ( Abt, 1975).. A growing number of buzz words have been further used to attempt to categorize different styles of education gaming, such as “edutainment”, “game-based learning” and “immersive learning environments” (Sawyer & Smith, 2008) . In truth, serious gaming is not a new phenomenon, and, in fact, computer games have been exploited for training applications ever since their emergence in the early 1980s.. So, the terms ‘‘serious games’’, ‘‘game-based learning’’ and ‘‘digital educational games’’ --widely used synonymously-- mark the initiative to use the potential of digital games to actively engage players for learning (e.g. Brannigan & Owen, 2006; Gee, 2007; Ritterfeld, Cody & Vorderer, 2009). Though game, play, computer game, digital game, serious game, and educational game may have slide differences, and some may argue about their hierarchy, their essence is the same: serve for specific purpose -- to educate.. 20.

(34) 1.2 Game and learning Confucius’ proverb “I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand” is very applicable to illustrate the relation between game and learning (Yang, 2012). Game playing is integral to learning and human development. As children we spend hours playing hide and seek, learning the rules of board games, such as chess, and engaging in imaginative play. In these cases, play is synonymous with learning, leading to cognitive and emotional development within a social and cultural context.. Take, for example, the game of hide and seek. Good hiders require visual and spatial perspective to determine the best hiding places, while seekers must be adept at searching for cues from the environment and selecting the most probable position for the hider among various possible locations. As this example illustrates, while playing games children are not only having fun, but are also developing learning skills, enhancing visual and spatial perspective, as well as practicing decision making.. In the context of cognitive development, playing is considered fundamental to the stabilizing processes that are essential for the development of cognitive structures. It is indiscernible for cognitive development by way of assimilation and accommodation processes. Through playing, children rehearse basic cognitive operations such as conservation, classification and reversibility (Piaget, 1951).. Playing is above all, a privileged learning experience. Playing initiates the symbolic use of objects and is therefore considered the first form of symbolization (Piaget, 1951). Thus, playing constitutes the first step towards abstract thinking (Vygotsky, 1976).. 21.

(35) As Vygotsky (1979) stated, a child learns through playing with others, creating and improving his or her zone of proximal development, because playing often involves more complex activities than those the child experiences in daily life. In correspondence with this idea are Bruner’s (1986) findings that children normally use more complex grammatical structures while playing than they do in real life situations. As such, playing offers the cognitive support needed to develop higher order mental processes.. So, from these perspectives above, we know that game and human development are inseparable. Game may help and stimulate human development because it provides a chance for people to think and act.. Followed by the progress of technology, the facet of game expands and so as learning. Game-based learning (GBL) is thought to be an effective tool for learning (Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008; Papastergiou, 2009) that can promote enhanced learning experiences (Connolly, Stansfield, & Hainey, 2007) and student motivation (Papastergiou, 2009). According to Connolly et al. (2007), GBL can be defined as “the use of a computer game-based approach to deliver, support, and enhance teaching, learning, assessment, and evaluation”. There is also widespread acknowledgment of the advantages that the use of games has in elementary and secondary education (Ebner & Holzinger, 2007).. Kebritchi and Hirumi (2008) identified the following five reasons for defining GBL as an effective tool for learning: (1) GBL uses action instead of explanation; (2) GBL creates personal motivation and satisfaction; (3) GBL accommodates multiple learning styles and skills; (4) GBL reinforces mastery of skills; and (5) GBL provides an interactive and decision-making context. Computer games not only integrate 22.

(36) knowing and doing, but they also “bring together ways of knowing, ways of doing, ways of being, and ways of caring: the situated understandings, effective social practices, powerful identities, and shared values that make someone an expert” (Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2004).. According to O’Neil, Wainess and Baker (2005), computer games are useful for instructional purposes and they also provide multiple benefits: (1) complex and diverse approaches to learning processes and outcomes; (2) interactivity; (3) ability to address cognitive as well as affective learning issues; and (4) motivation for learning.. Robertson and Howells (2008) considered that computer games could develop a number of cognitive skills. Moreover, game-playing activity is linked with the possibility of developing skills in decision-making, design, strategy, cooperation, and problem solving (Ebner & Holzinger, 2007; McFarlane, Sparrowhawk, & Heald, 2002). Students use games to explore, discover, and question. These “learning by doing” and “active learning” concepts are important principles, which underlie GBL (Yang, 2012).. In recent years, owing to the advancement of computer and multimedia technologies, the impacts of digital games on students’ learning performance have been widely discussed (Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey & Boyle, 2012). Computer and video games sales in the United States in 2012 amounted to $14.8 billion (ESA, 2012). Computer and video games are played in 67 % of North American households (ESA, 2010); one-third of the gamers are children and adolescents under the age of 18. Ninety per cent of parents surveyed said that their top reason for playing video games with their children was that it was fun for the entire family (ESA, 2012). Games, 23.

(37) therefore, have an enormous potential to engage players.. Computer games meet the actual needs and interests of children, and are becoming the most popular computer activity and provide a new mode of interaction. Some of the advantages of games are that they are attractive, novel, provide a better atmosphere and help keep the learner focused on the task (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino,2002), therefore suggesting games as valuable educational tools.. Until very recently, studies of e-learning environments tended to focus on how to optimize the processing of information contained in multimedia or hypermedia documents (Clark & Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 2005). Now, however, researchers are starting to turn their attention to the effects on learning of a new medium: digital games.. DGBL is a competitive activity in which students are set educational goals intended to promote knowledge acquisition; DGBL refers to any form of use or integration of computer games into a learning environment in which the game plays a central role (van Eck, 2009; Prensky, 2001), or is defined as instruction and learning derived from methodologies and design features of the game (Alessi & Trollip, 2000; Squire, 2006).. DGBL may involve serious games (de Freitas & Jarvis, 2007; Michael & Chen, 2006) or the commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) educational software (Redfield, Gaither, & Redfield, 2009). This field, with its promising educational benefits, encompasses a very wide range of studies using different approaches, definitions and applications (Torrente, Lavín-Mera, Moreno-Ger, & Fernández-Manjón, 2009). 24.

(38) The games may either be designed to promote learning or the development of cognitive skills, or else take the form of simulations allowing learners to practice their skills in a virtual environment. Several authors have come up with definitions of DGBL. For Mayer and Johnson (2010), for instance, a DGBL environment should feature (1) a set of rules and constraints, (2) a set of dynamic responses to the learners’ actions, (3) appropriate challenges enabling learners to experience a feeling of self-efficacy, and (4) gradual, learning outcome-oriented increases in difficulty. As Mayer and Johnson (2010) acknowledged, this is a very broad-brush definition, as it can apply just as easily to digital games as it can to traditional ones, such as chess. We gain a clearer idea of what DGBL is all about from the research conducted by Prensky(2001). For this author, one of the medium’s key characteristics is the “coming together” of serious learning and interactive entertainment. In other words, digital games can be regarded as an entertainment medium designed to bring about cognitive changes in its players (Erhel & Jamet, 2013).. The primary goal of game-based learning, however, is not to provide an opportunity for enjoyable play, but to foster an increase in intrinsic motivation and, knowledge acquisition (Dumbleton & Kirriemuir 2006; Goldstein, Buckingham & Brougre, 2004). Prensky (2001) indicated that using digital games in educational settings can motivate students to learn via providing enjoyable, interactive and challenging learning scenarios and ambiance. Intrinsic motivation arises from activity-specific incentives that are inherent in games, but not necessarily in learning activities (Vorderer, Steen & Chan, 2006). Learning activities are often performed to achieve certain external goals (to get good marks, to pass an exam, etc.), while game activities are focused more on fun and flow experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Malone, 1980). 25.

(39) Game-based learning tries to create intrinsically motivating learning experiences through integrated game activities that offer activity-specific incentives. Further, digital games afford continuous and immediate feedback to the learner that can be used as progressional reinforcement (Oerter, 1993). This feedback serves to indicate to the learner the correctness of answers and/or to motivate the learner to persist and succeed or, having achieved one game objective, to explore a subject area in more depth and breadth. Researchers further called those digital games developed for educational. purposes. ‘‘educational. computer. games’’ or. ‘‘serious. games’’. (Guille´n-Nieto & Aleson-Carbonell, 2012; Kinzie & Joseph, 2008; Rutten, van Joolingen & van der Veen, 2012; Chu & Chang, 2013).. In the past decade, researchers have reported the advantages of applying educational computer games in promoting students’ learning motivations or interest (Burguillo, 2010; Dickey, 2011; Miller et al., 2011; Ebner & Holzinger, 2007; Papastergiou, 2009). Some studies have also reported the potential of educational computer games for improving students’ learning performance (Connolly et al., 2012; Hwang et al., 2012; Liu & Chu, 2011; Tu¨zu¨n et al., 2009; Wang & Chen, 2010; Yang, 2012). Ricci,Salas and Cannon-Bowers (1996) pointed out that in a review of the effectiveness of games for educational purposes; Randel et al. (1992) examined 67 investigations covering a period of 28 years. Of these investigations, 38 found no difference between games and conventional classroom instruction, 22 favored the use of games, five favored games but used questionable control groups, and only three favored conventional instruction. Ten of the 14 efforts measuring retention reported significant effects favoring simulation and gaming for retention, whereas the remaining four found no difference in retention between the games and conventional 26.

(40) instruction. Twelve of 14 investigations found that student interested in game conditions was higher than in traditional classroom approaches. Overall, Randel et al. (1992) concluded that subject matter domains are more likely to show beneficial effects for gaming when they allow very specific content to be targeted.. However, a key challenge for game-based learning designers is how to find an appropriate balance between enjoyable play and fulfilling specified learning goals and outcomes (de Freita, 2006). Papert (1998) said that real learning “is essentially hard; it happens best when one is deeply engaged in hard and challenging activities.” Likewise, good games allow players to operate within, but at the outer edge of their competence (Gee, 2003). Charsky and Ressler (2011) indicated that improperly embedding learning strategies or tools in educational computer games is likely to cause negative impacts on students’ learning motivations and outcomes and the study conducted by Sung and Hwang (2013) confirmed this point.. The strong, widespread appeal of computer and console gaming to today’s students has motivated a number of researchers to look for meaningful ways to understand the principles behind learning through games, so as to better harness the educational potential of gaming (de Castell & Jenson, 2003).. Prominent educational theorists have argued that successful recreational games employ many principles of effective learning (FAS, 2006; Gee, 2003; Mitchell & Savill-Smith, 2004; Prensky, 2006). Games create opportunities for situated learning by providing immersive and motivating contexts for players to engage in a wide variety of activities and to develop and practice the skills necessary to be successful in those activities (Gee, 2003; Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005). Successful 27.

(41) games support players through creating scaffolds, or built-in cues, hints, and practical solutions to keep them immersed in the game (FAS, 2006).. Therefore, DGBL, extended from the idea of game-based learning, follows the wheel of technology progress and the more understanding of human learning, representing itself in the back and forth movement process, transforming itself and fusion the horizons to achieve dialogue between text and reader, author and reader, even reader with reader.. 2. The Theoretical Framework of DGBL In the education field, we care about learning because it’s the core of education. But, what is learning, actually? How can we claim that somebody has learnt something? From historical perspective, a lot of metaphors exist from the view point of learning as response, learning as knowledge acquisition, learning as knowledge construction to learning as participation. Each metaphor represents different academic tribes and territories. Luckily, good parts of each claim have kept and continue to breed or nourish the next theory in the education field.. The theoretical framework of DGBL is unavoidably affected by other great theories because history is our fortune and through it we know how to make us human beings better and keep moving.. 2.1 Behaviorism The behaviorist theory is based on theory of reinforcement by stimuli and response, which can be applied to the interactive process in a game such as matching to the correct answer (Paraskeva, Mysirlaki, & Papagianni, 2010). This is a view that 28.

(42) learning is based upon experience and this includes the theory of classical conditioning (Pavlov, 1927), law of effect (Thorndike, 1914) and operant conditioning (Skinner, 1993).Behaviorists believe that learning is organized by a series of events and response sequences during the observable period.. Pavlov demonstrated classical conditioning by conducting an experiment on a dog. Normally, the dog would produce saliva (response) when food was brought (unconditioned stimulus). In his experiment of the conditioned stimulus, he rang a bell every time he brought food to the dog. After a while, he stopped the food and just rang the bell to see the behavior of the dog. The result showed that the dog still produced saliva, even though no food was present. This showed that behavior or learning could be conditioned or trained by this method.. In his book “The Technology of Teaching”, Skinner (1993) listed three theories: “We learn by doing”, “We learn from experience”, “We learn by trial and error” to propose his idea. He said that “We learn by doing” is important, but a student does not learn simply by doing, it is because other conditions have been inadvertently arranged. Therefore he thought that arrangement of the learning is important.. Thorndike’s law of effect showed that, by giving out a reward in responding to or following a certain action, certain behavior is strengthened and helps to continue a habitual process. Operant conditioning (also called reinforcement theory) developed Thorndike’s work to examine the role of reinforcement more closely. Learners learn more if they are positively reinforced or if a pleasant experience occurs.. 29.

(43) In the “We learn from experience”, Skinner thought that from experience alone a student probably learns nothing because “experience” represents stimulus or input and “doing” represents response or output. Probably what is learned is a connection between the two, but we neglect the important variables in the environment to which the result could otherwise be traced. Here again he proposed that the “We learn from experience” ignore the environment as a variable.. In the “We learn by trial and error”, Skinner stated that no doubt we often learn from our errors, but correct behavior is not simply what remains when erroneous behavior has been chipped away, the term “error” does not refer to the physical dimension of the consequences, even those called punishment. The implication that learning occurs only when errors are made is false.. In Skinner’s eye, he thought that these classical theories represent the three essential parts of any set of contingencies of reinforcement, and all three parts must recognized in formulating any given instance of learning, therefore he proposed the idea of teaching machine for the reason that he regarded it can motivate students because students can follow his/her own learning pace, gain self confidence due to each small steps of success and be creative due to the behavior of self-management and self-reliance.. From behaviorism, we know that interaction, environment, reward, practice and drill are important when we talk about learning. Classical conditioning theory showed how skills can be learned and the law of effect and operant conditioning theories showed how important a reward factor is for learning, and repetition of practice and drill can used for reinforcing the learner’s memory learning and retention while planning a 30.

(44) DGBL learning.. 2.2 Cognitivism Cognitive theory deals with how learning is processed inside the mind and how the individual processes the information inside the brain. Piaget’s stage theory (Piaget, 1954) showed how the mind develops through certain stages. Piaget identified four development stages: sensorimotor, pre-operation, concrete operation, and formal operation.. The sensorimotor is the first stage, and here the child is learning through its senses what is happening from its surroundings, and developing its coordination; In the pre-operation stage, the child is capable of using symbols to represent objects; In the concrete operation stage, a child can think logically and reversibly; In the stage of formal operation, the child is capable of solving a complex problem or analyzing a problem. Each stage must be completed before proceeding to the next stage, and this is not automatic. So, this theory suggests that learners need to construct their learning through activity and exploration.. Piaget’s stage of cognitive development theory (1954) showed how the mind is developed through certain stages in life. Piaget’s theory of accommodation stated that if new information (learning) is received by a learner, then this information can easily be absorbed into the memory. In contrast, Piaget’s theory of assimilation stated that if new information received by the learner contradicts existing information, the learner needs time to adjust before assimilating this second information into the memory (Atherton, 2009; McLeod, 2007). Sweller’s theory of cognitive load (1988) looked into the capacity and the limitation of human memory in processing incoming 31.

(45) information. The level of complexity and the representation of content can influence the amount of information absorbed by the human brain.. From Piaget’s theories of assimilation and accommodation, we know that the learning material should be introduced in an incremental way, and a learner takes some time to digest new information. Therefore, providing meaningful learning and reducing the cognitive load is necessary while considering attention span within the games. And, according to Piaget’s stages of cognitive development theory, learning can be easy and uncomplicated if it can be structured in sequence and in a linear fashion while planning a DGBL learning.. 2.3 Constructivism Constructivist theory indicated knowledge is created, constructed and organized from the learner’s own experience. The learner also needs to collaborate within a social community in order to construct knowledge from the social world. Language learning is one example of learning created by experience. Bruner (1983) showed that children learn a new language, not just by themselves, but from close interaction and help from the parent or social community. Vicarious learning (Bandura, 1989) is a learning experience that is gained by observing others in the community of practice performing a task or skills.. From Constructivist theory, we know that learner control is important and learning is built up by the learner who collaborates and negotiates with peers or with the community of practice. Therefore, scaffolding and learner control should be considered while planning DGBL learning.. 32.

(46) 2.4 Related theories 2.4.1 Situated and authentic learning Situated learning describes the concept where the learner needs to become involved with the community of practice, and should be more engaged and active in learning within this community, then becoming an expert in this field (Lave & Wenger, 1991). For a learning to become effective, the learner needs to learn it with, and in, the relevant context.. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) explained that situated learning is important for effective learning and gives the example of learning new vocabulary from a dictionary. Here, learners find it hard to learn or to remember words, but if this is used, together with accompanying sentences where the words are relevant and situated in the right context, learning becomes much simpler and effective. Suchman (1987) took this concept of situated learning further and uses it in a framework of human-computer interaction.. 2.4.2 Flow theory Flow is a state of deep absorption in an activity that is intrinsically enjoyable, as when artists or athletes are focused on their play or performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow theory is based on a symbiotic relationship between challenges and skills needed to meet those challenges. The flow experience is believed to occur when one’s skills are neither overmatched nor underutilized to meet a given challenge (Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, & Shernoff, 2003). Individuals in this state perceive their performance to be pleasurable and successful, and the activity is perceived as worth doing for its own sake, even if no further goal is reached (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 33.

參考文獻

相關文件

Wave Function of the Hydrogen Atom’s Ground

 Light travels between source and detector as a probability wave.

Macro Evolution of core-collapse supernovae (giant P violation) Chiral kinetic theory. Son, Yamamoto (2012); Stephanov, Yin

3.師培生修習教育課程期間,學期成績不及 格學分達該學期修習學分數 1/2、操行成績 未達 80 分或記 2

建立常規,培養學生養成良好學習習 慣,懂得尊重課堂,努力完成家課,.

Playing computer games is interesting for my brother.(To play computer games is interesting for my brother.)(It is interesting for my brother to play computer

With regards to the questionnaire and interview aspects, we employed those made up by ourselves "The Questionnaire of trigonometry study present situation

Researches of game algorithms from earlier two-player games and perfect information games extend to multi-player games and imperfect information games3. There are many kinds of