Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

Despite the alleged ability of digital game-based learning (DGBL) to foster positive affect and in turn improve learning, the link between affectivity and learning has not been sufficiently investigated in this field. Regarding learning from team-based games with competitive elements, even less is known about the relationship between competitiveness (as a dispositional trait) and induced positive affect. In this media comparison study with between-subject design, participants (N = 325; high school and college students) learned about the EU’s policy agenda by means of a debate-based method delivered through one of three educational media: a) through a social role-playing game with competitive elements played on computers, b) through a very similar game played without computers and c) through a non-game workshop. Unlike many previous DGBL studies, this study used participant randomization and strived to address the teacher effect and the length of exposure effect, while also using the same learning materials and a very similar educational method for all three treatments. Both games induced comparatively higher generalized positive affect and flow. Participants also learned more with the games. Positive affect, but not flow, mediated the influence of educational media on learning gains. Participants’ competitiveness was partly related to positive affect and experiencing flow but unrelated to learning gains. These outcomes held both when the game was played using computers, as well as without them. The study indicates that the ability of an educational intervention to instigate positive affect is an important feature that should be considered by educational designers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We point out that we assessed participants’ salivary cortisol in seven of these groups (n = 127). That is because cortisol levels are known to correlate with physiological arousal. This part of the study is irrelevant for present purposes, but we want to emphasize partial overlap in the dataset with a different study (Brom et al. 2014b), with a total sample size N = 171. The current study and the second study present, to a large extent, different (but parallel) data.

  2. We created the tests and calibrated them on a sample different from the experimental sample. After the experiment, two additional questions had to be removed because there was no difference between experimental participants’ and naive participants’ scores from these two questions. The test score range is given after these two questions’ removal.

  3. Each subgroup also had one independent research observer, who coded students’ verbal and non-verbal behavior during the discussions. These data are irrelevant for present purposes, but we want to emphasize the presence of another person in the room. We also point out that we assessed participants’ salivary cortisol in seven groups four times during the experiment (see Footnote (1)).

  4. The ranking, stemming from the students’ performance on the diplomatic layer, served primarily as feedback. It also informed students why they hold a particular rank (i.e., what policies compatible with the student’s project had been accepted). The ranking had no consequences for students’ grades and no tangible reward was given for winning as part of the game.

  5. Similar situations would arise in a regular class: many Czech students considered the topic of the EU to be boring.

  6. We use the term groups, class groups or simply classes to refer to 16 participants’ groups (i.e., 14 high school classes and 2 college groups). We use the term conditions or medium to refer to the three experimental conditions. We use the term subgroup to refer to a part of the class: to 6–10 participants who were assigned to one condition together after the class had been split.

References

  • Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., MacNamara, A., Koenig, A., & Wainess, R. (2012). Narrative games for learning: Testing the discovery and narrative hypotheses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • All, A., Nunez Castellar, E. P., & Van Looy, J. (2016). Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning: Best practices. Computers & Education, 92, 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. S. J. d., D'Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223–241.

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 561–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–1156.

  • Bowman, S. L. (2014). Educational live action role-playing games: A secondary literature review. In S. L. Bowman (Ed.), The Wyrd Con Companion Book 2014 (pp. 112–131). Los Angeles: Wyrd Con.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brom, C., Šisler, V., & Slavík, R. (2010). Implementing digital game-based learning in schools: Augmented learning environment of “Europe 2045”. Multimedia Systems, 16(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brom, C., Šisler, V., Buchtová, M., Klement, D., & Levčík, D. (2012). Turning high-schools into laboratories? Lessons learnt from studies of instructional effectiveness of digital games in the curricular schooling system. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 7516. E-Learning and Games for Training, Education, Health and Sports (pp. 41–53): Springer.

  • Brom, C., Bromová, E., Děchtěrenko, F., Buchtová, M., & Pergel, M. (2014a). Personalized messages in a brewery educational simulation: Is the personalization principle less robust than previously thought? Computers & Education, 72, 339–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brom, C., Buchtová, M., Šisler, V., Děchtěrenko, F., Palme, R., & Glenk, L. M. (2014b). Flow, social interaction anxiety and salivary cortisol responses in serious games: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 79, 69–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (Ed.). (2012). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence, second edition (2nd. ed.). Information Age Publishing.

  • Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., et al. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/ (Accessed 20 March 2016).

  • Courtois, C., Montrieux, H., De Grove, F., Raes, A., De Marez, L., & Schellens, T. (2014). Student acceptance of tablet devices in secondary education: A three-wave longitudinal cross-lagged case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 278–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Mello, S. (2013). A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1082–1099.

  • D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). Cognitive consequences of making computer-based learning activities more game-like. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2011–2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 158–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Enjoy and learn with educational games: Examining factors affecting learning performance. Computers & Education, 68, 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjedde, L. (2013). Role Game Playing as a Platform for creative and collaborative learning. Proceedings of European Conference on Games Based Learning’13 (pp. 190–197).

  • Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, P. B., & Houston, J. M. (2010). A reliability analysis of the revised competitiveness index. Psychological Reports, 106(3), 870–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, S., Mercier, E., Burd, L., & Joyce‐Gibbons, A. (2012). Multi‐touch tables and collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 1041–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. M., Harris, P. B., McIntire, S., & Francis, D. (2002). Revising the competitiveness index. Psychological Reports, 90, 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(2), 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iten, N., & Petko, D. (2016). Learning with serious games: is fun playing the game a predictor of learning success? British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 151–163.

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1996). Academic Controversy. Enriching College Instruction through Intellectual Conflict.: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No. 3. Washington, D. C: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

  • Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupper, N., & Denollet, J. (2012). Social anxiety in the general population: Introducing abbreviated versions of SIAS and SPS. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136, 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D. (2014). Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 174–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Role of affect in cognitive processing in academic contexts. Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 57–87). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.): Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayer, R. (2014a). Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. The MIT Press.

  • Mayer, R. (2014b). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of role playing and antiracist teaching in reducing student prejudice. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mochocki, M. (2013). Edu-Larp as revision of subject-matter knowledge. The International Journal of Role-Playing, 4, 55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19): Information Age Publishing.

  • Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R. (1994). The media effects question: “Unresolvable” or asking the right question? Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Knörzer, L., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2015). Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: An eyetracking study on the use of anthropomorphisms. Computers & Education, 86, 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic Emotions and Student Engagement Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 259–282): Springer Science+Business Media.

  • Pierfy, D. A. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling blocks and stepping stones. Simulation and Games, 8, 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., O'Keefe, P. A., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1050–1066. doi:10.1037/a0032688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisberg, D. (2006). Memory for Emotional Episodes: The Strengths and Limits of Arousal‐Based Accounts. Memory and emotion: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 13–36). Wiley.

  • Reisberg, D., & Heuer, F. (2004). Memory for emotional events. In D. Reisberg & P. Hertel (Eds.), Memory and emotion (pp. 3–41). Oxford University Press.

  • Rheinberg, F. (2004). Motivationsdiagnostik [Motivation diagnosis]. Gottingen: Hogrefe (in German).

  • Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Engeser, S. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens [in German]. In J. Steinsmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von motivation und selbstkonzept (pp. 261–279): Hogrefe.

  • Ritterfeld, U., Shen, C., Wang, H., Nocera, L., & Wong, W. L. (2009). Multimodality and interactivity: Connecting properties of serious games with educational outcomes. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 691–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabourin, J., & Lester, J. (2014). Affect and engagement in game-based learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta‐analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer‐based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stege, L., Van Lankveld, G., & Spronck, P. (2012). Teaching high school physics with a serious game. International Journal of Computer Science in Sports, 11(1).

  • Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Vrugte, J., de Jong, T., Vandercruysse, S., Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H., & Elen, J. (2015). How competition and heterogeneous collaboration interact in prevocational game-based mathematics education. Computers & Education, 89, 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Um, E. R., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498. doi:10.1037/a0026609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meij, H. (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, V. (2010). Learning the triage procedure. Serious gaming based on guided discovery learning versus studying worked examples. (Master thesis), University Utrecht, the Netherlands.

  • Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M., Cornillie, F., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Competition and students’ perceptions in a game-based language learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 927–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265. doi:10.1037/a0031311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all research assistants and lecturers who helped to conduct the experiment, namely: T. Holan, I. Šebek, J. Vlasák, L. Kolek, V. Dobrovolný, M. Grecká, M. Denemarková, J. Tupá, O. Smíšek, R. Římanová, J. Lacka, M. Abrahámová, J. Fiala, M. Hampacherová, K. Pavelka, T. Stárková, V. Šálený, J. Volák, V. Zemanová, T. Pospíšil, D. Wagner, S. Feyglová, K. Vávrová, J. Janovský, V. Šnoblová, E. Bednaříková, O. Šíp, I. Pecháčková. We thank Jan L. Plass, Jan Lukavský, and Sidney D’Mello for discussing this work with us. We thank all high school teachers enabling us to conduct the experiment. We also thank three anonymous reviewers and the editor Rolf Steier.

The human data were collected with APA ethical principles in mind.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cyril Brom.

Ethics declarations

Source of funding

This research was funded by Czech Grant Science Foundation (GA ČR) (Project nr. P407/12/P152).

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

(DOCX 52 kb)

Online Resource 2

(DOCX 61.7 kb)

Appendixes

Appendixes

A. Questionnaires and tests

This appendix introduces self-assessment and knowledge questions from the pre-questionnaire and three of the four knowledge tests used in the study.

Prior knowledge questions from pre-questionnaire

  1. 1.

    I follow events on the international political scene:

    1. a.

      not at all

    2. b.

      once a week: (select whatever options apply) TV, online, radio, print media, other sources: …

    3. c.

      2–3 times a week (select whatever options apply) TV, online, radio, print media, other sources: …

    4. d.

      daily (select whatever options apply) TV, online, radio, print media, other sources: …

  2. 2.

    Are you able to explain what the accession criteria are for a country wishing to join the EU? (indicate your ability on a scale of 1 (not at all) - 5 (definitely yes))

  3. 3.

    On topics related to the European Union I consider myself to be: (select one answer)

    1. a.

      A beginner. I know a little about it.

    2. b.

      Slightly advanced. I have average knowledge.

    3. c.

      Advanced. I know quite a bit.

    4. d.

      I don’t know anything. I am not interested in this topic.

  4. 4.

    When I hear about political events in the EU, I can imagine what influences political decisions. (indicate your ability on a scale of 1 (not at all) - 5 (definitely yes))

  5. 5.

    Subject – The Basics of Social Science: (select one answer)

    1. a.

      This is my favorite subject.

    2. b.

      I find it generally interesting. I am often interested in the topics discussed.

    3. c.

      I am not really interested. Most topics do not interest me.

    4. d.

      It is my least favorite subject. I literally have a negative relationship to the subject.

  6. 6.

    Who is the current president of the European Commission? (select one answer)

    1. a.

      Herman Van Rompuy

    2. b.

      Catherine Margaret Ashton

    3. c.

      Vladimír Špidla

    4. d.

      José Manuel Durão Barroso

  7. 7.

    How many member-states does the EU currently have? (select one answer)

    1. a.

      12

    2. b.

      15

    3. c.

      27

    4. d.

      28

  8. 8.

    When did the Czech Republic join the EU? (select one answer)

    1. a.

      1998

    2. b.

      2001

    3. c.

      2003

    4. d.

      2004

  9. 9.

    Štefan Füle is the Czech Republic Commissioner for: (select one answer)

    1. a.

      Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

    2. b.

      Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy

    3. c.

      Agriculture and Rural Development

    4. d.

      Health and Consumer Policy

Policy test

Sample Policy Test. This test is for “Immigration” policy.

  1. 1)

    Please list five words or combinations of words that in your opinion best describe the topic of the EU Common Immigration Policy that you read about today. Please give a detailed response, as in the following example.

Example: Please list five words or combinations of words that in your opinion best describe the topic of the Kyoto Protocol that you read about today.

  1. 1.

    reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

  2. 2.

    international treaty

  3. 3.

    global warming

  4. 4.

    IPCC

  5. 5.

    USA hasn’t signed yet

  1. 2)

    Write down five main benefits that an EU Common Immigration Policy would have for member-states and for the EU in general (or for its residents). Please draw on the same positions that you presented during today’s seminar. Imagine that you are summarizing your main, factual arguments in favor of introducing this policy during a meeting of the Council of the European Union.

  2. 3)

    Were a Common Immigration Policy for all EU member-states to be introduced, it is to be expected that it will limit, on the part of immigrants, abuse of ………… Fill in the missing text.

  3. 4)

    What are the positive impacts of legal migration for EU member-states?

    1. a.

      It will lead to an inflow of financial resources that immigrants bring with them.

    2. b.

      It will help with business and cultural exchange between countries.

    3. c.

      It will reduce the degree of extremist behavior in society.

    4. d.

      It will help counter the negative consequences of the overall aging of the European population.

  4. 5)

    The FRONTEX Agency:

    1. a.

      Handles EU asylum policy

    2. b.

      Coordinates cooperation between the border control services of individual member-states

    3. c.

      Ensures the functioning of the EU Coast Guard along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea

    4. d.

      Ensures the inclusion (integration) of immigrants in EU member-states

Project test

Sample Project Test. This test is for the “Liberalism” project.

  1. 1.

    Some of the terms shown below relate directly to the issue of liberalism. Circle those terms. For the terms that do not relate to the issue of liberalism, please cross them out. Do not do anything to the other terms (i.e. do not circle them, do not cross them out).

    1. 1.

      human rights

    2. 2.

      cultural identity

    3. 3.

      Milton Friedman

    4. 4.

      anti-totalitarian

    5. 5.

      individualism

    6. 6.

      personal ownership

    7. 7.

      revolutionary

    8. 8.

      Winston Churchill

    9. 9.

      collectivism

    10. 10.

      John M. Keynes

  2. 2.

    Please write inside the empty oval the name of the political movement that you received. In the space around it, fill in key terms that relate to this political movement.

Negotiation test

All students received the same Negotiation Test.

  1. 1.

    Describe in several sentences what negotiating steps you would take in order to achieve the implementation of this policy. Do not give detailed arguments, only list the steps in the negotiations.

  2. 2.

    List five words or combinations of words that in your opinion best describe the weaknesses and inadequacies of the EU’s current decision-making process.

B. Assignment conditions

The assignment to subgroups occurred as follows: the optimal number of participants in each subgroup was eight. Table 8 shows how large the subgroups were when a number of participants other than 16 or 24 arrived. Participants were matched based on their pretest score in the following way: in cases of 19 or less participants, pairs and usually also a few singles were formed (see Table 8). Singles were selected randomly. In cases of 20 or more participants, trios and usually also a few pairs or singles were formed. Members of the pairs/trios were then assigned to the subgroups randomly. Singles were assigned according to the table. In case this random assignment resulted in a situation in which the male/female ratio in the subgroups differed and could be improved by an exchange, the researchers swapped members of one or two randomly chosen mixed-sex pairs/trios. Sometimes, one or two students had to leave before the experiment’s end. In such cases the student was assigned to the Class condition.

Table 8 Assignment to conditions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brom, C., Šisler, V., Slussareff, M. et al. You like it, you learn it: affectivity and learning in competitive social role play gaming. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 11, 313–348 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9237-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9237-3

Keywords

Navigation