Alternative goal structures for computer game-based learning

Article

Abstract

This field study investigated the application of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures in classroom use of computer math games and its impact on students’ math performance and math learning attitudes. One hundred and sixty 5th-grade students were recruited and randomly assigned to Teams–Games–Tournament cooperative gaming, interpersonal competitive gaming, individualistic gaming, and the control group. A state-standards-based math exam and an inventory on attitudes toward mathematics were used in pretest and posttest. Students’ gender and socioeconomic status were examined as the moderating variables. Results indicated that even though there was not a significant effect of classroom goal structure in reinforcing computer gaming for math test performance, game-based learning in cooperative goal structure was most effective in promoting positive math attitudes. It was also found that students with different socioeconomic statuses were influenced differently by gaming within alternative goal structures.

Keywords

Cooperative learning Instructional gaming Teams–Games–Tournament 

References

  1. Bahr, C., & Rieth, H. (1989). The effects of instructional computers games and drill and practice software on learning disabled students’ mathematics achievement. Computers in the Schools, 6(3–4), 87–101.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Theory-guided technology in computer science. Science and Education, 10(5), 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossert, S. T. (1989). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225–250.Google Scholar
  4. Bozionelos, N. (2003). Socio-economic background and computer use: The role of computer anxiety and computer experience in their relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 725–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. De Jean, J., Upitis, R., Koch, C., & Young, J. (1999). The story of “Phoenix Quest”: How girls respond to a prototype language and mathematics computer game. Gender and Education, 11(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 627–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996, October). Instructional gaming: Implications for instructional technology. Paper presented at the 96th International Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  10. Ertl, B., & Mandl, H. (2006). Effects of an individual’s prior knowledge on collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes in videoconferencing. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences ICLS’06 (pp. 161–167). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 377038.Google Scholar
  12. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynes, L. C. (2000). Gender differences in the use of a computer-based mathematics game: Strategies, motivation, and beliefs about mathematics and computers. ProQuest Information & Learning, 60(9), 3328–3624.Google Scholar
  14. Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from http://adlcommunity.net/file.php/23/GrooveFiles/Instr_Game_Review_Tr_2005.pdf.
  15. Inkpen, K., Upitis, R., Klawe, M., Lawry, J., Anderson, A., Ndunda, M., et al. (1994). “We have never-forgetful flowers in our garden”: Girls’ responses to electronic games. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13(4), 383–403.Google Scholar
  16. Järvelä, S., Bonk, C. J., Lehtinen, E., & Lehti, S. (1999). A theoretical analysis of social interactions in computer-based learning environments: Evidence for reciprocal understandings. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(3), 359–384.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In: D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 785–811). Bloomington, IN: The Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaptelinin, V., & Cole, M. (2002). Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/MCole/Activities.html.
  20. Ke, F. (2008). Computer-based games as cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational learning tool: A systematic review and qualitative meta-analysis. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  21. Kirriemuir, J. K., & McFarlane, A. (2003). Use of computer and video games in the classroom. Proceedings of the Level Up Digital Games Research Conference, University Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  22. Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  23. Koran, L. J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). Games or drill: Increasing the multiplication skills of students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 17(4), 222–230.Google Scholar
  24. Laird, N. (1983). Further comparative analyses of pretest-posttest research designs. The American Statistician, 37(4), 329–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, J., Luchini, K., Michael, B., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). More than just fun and games: Assessing the value of educational video games in the classroom. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems (pp. 1375–1378), Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  26. Littleton, K., Light, P., Joiner, R., Messer, D., & Barnes, P. (1998). Gender, task scenarios and children’s computer-based problem solving. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 18(3), 327–340.Google Scholar
  27. Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31(5), 499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonald, K. K., & Hannafin, R. D. (2003). Using web-based computer games to meet the demands of today’s high-stakes testing: A mixed method inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 459–472.Google Scholar
  29. McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games: An exploration by TEEM of the contribution which games can make to the educational process. Cambridge, UK: TEEM.Google Scholar
  30. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreno, R. (2002, June). Who learns best with multiple representations? Cognitive theory implications for individual differences in multimedia learning. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunications. Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  33. Morgan, G. A., Griego, O. V., & Gloeckner, G. (2001). Introduction to SPSS: An introduction to use and interpretation in research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Retrieved June 8, 2005 from http://standards.nctm.org/.
  35. Oakes, J. M., & Feldman, H. A. (2001). Statistical power for nonequivalent pretest–posttest designs: The impact of change-score versus ANCOVA models. Evaluation Review, 25(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ota, K. R., & DuPaul, G. J. (2002). Task engagement and mathematics performance in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of supplemental computer instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(3), 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paperny, D. M., & Starn, J. R. (1989). Adolescent pregnancy prevention by health education computer games: Computer-assisted instruction of knowledge and attitudes. Pediatrics, 83(5), 742.Google Scholar
  38. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004). Academic standards for mathematics education. Retrieved January 12, 2004 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us.
  39. Person, N. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Evolution of discourse in cross-age tutoring. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 69–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Prinsen, F., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1037–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehall, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rice, J. (2007). New media resistance: Barriers to implementation of computer video games in the classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 249–261.Google Scholar
  44. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the faciliation of intrinsci motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  49. Squire, K. D. (2003). Gameplay in context: Learning through participation in communities of civilization III players. Unpublished PhD thesis. Instructional Systems Technology Department, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  50. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tanner, M., & Lindquist, T. (1998). Using MONOPOLY and Teams-Games-Tournaments in accounting education: A cooperative learning teaching resource. Accounting Education, 7(2), 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measurement mathematics attitudes, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 2. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho25344l.htm.
  53. Terwel, J., Gillies, R. M., Van den Eeden, P., & Hoek, D. (2001). Cooperative learning processes of students: A longitudinal multilevel perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 619–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Townsend, M., & Hicks, L. (1995, April). Classroom goal structures, social satisfaction and the perceived value of academic tasks. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting and Exhibit of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 25(2), 165–195.Google Scholar
  56. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). Skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vogel, J. F., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Webb, N. M. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 102–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Winn, W. (2000). Educational Psychology Review, 14, 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yu, F. (2001). Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning environments: Cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Organizational Learning and Instructional Technology Program, College of EducationUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations