Game-based practice versus traditional practice in computer-based writing strategy training: effects on motivation and achievement
- 1.6k Downloads
Achieving sustained student engagement with practice in computer-based writing strategy training can be a challenge. One potential solution is to foster engagement by embedding practice in educational games; yet there is currently little research comparing the effectiveness of game-based practice versus more traditional forms of practice. In this study, the ARCS model (Keller, Perform Instr 26(8):1–7, 1987b) was used to investigate the motivational characteristics of different practice conditions. To this end, 175 students were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: game-based, question-based, model-based, and writing-based practice. All students first learned strategies to write an essay introduction. Subsequently, students practiced using the strategies in the four different conditions. Game-based practice was expected to positively affect ARCS-related motivation toward practice. Results showed that students perceived game-based practice as significantly more interesting and engaging than question-based practice. However, although game-based practice was perceived more positively, only model-based and question-based practice demonstrated a beneficial impact on students’ ability to implement the writing strategies. These results underline the necessity of interconnecting motivational and instructional design when developing practice methods for computer-based writing strategy training.
KeywordsSerious games Game-based learning Writing strategy instruction ARCS model
We are grateful to Jianmin Dai, Rüdiger Krauße, and Russell Brandon for their assistance in programming and preparing the study materials. We also thank Antje Neuhoff, as well as the teachers and students of the participating English courses. Special thanks go to Christin Höppner, Esther Herrmann, Anna-Lena Thoms, and Monique Zimmermann for their assistance during data collection. This research was supported in part by the Institute for Education Sciences (IES R305A080589; R305A120707). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IES.
- Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Astleitner, H., & Lintner, P. (2004). The effects of ARCS-strategies on self-regulated learning with instructional texts. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(1), 15. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/Vol7_No1/content2.htm.
- Bai, H., Pan, W., Hirumi, A., & Kebritchi, M. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-D instructional game on improving mathematics achievement and motivation of middle school students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 993–1003. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01269.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cameron, B., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The effect of online gaming, cognition and feedback type in facilitating delayed achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(3), 243–258.Google Scholar
- Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/lang-CEFR. Accessed 12 July 2014.
- Dai, J., Raine, R. B., Roscoe, R. D., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The Writing-Pal tutoring system: Development and design. Journal of Engineering and Computer Innovations, 2(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
- Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 230–240. doi: 10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2011). Rules for writers (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.Google Scholar
- Huang, W.-H., Huang, W.-Y., Diefes-Dux, H., & Imbrie, P. K. (2006). A preliminary validation of Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction model-based Instructional Material Motivational Survey in a computer-based tutorial setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 243–259. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00582.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jackson, G., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Short and long term benefits of enjoyment and learning within a serious game. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: 15th International Conference, AIED 2011 (pp. 139–146). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 7–30.Google Scholar
- Klein, J. D., & Freitag, E. (1991). Enhancing motivation using an instructional game. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18(2), 111–115.Google Scholar
- Leemkuil, H. H., & de Jong, T. (2011). Instructional support in games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 353–369). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Loorbach, N., Peters, O., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2014). Validation of the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) in a self-directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12138.Google Scholar
- McNamara, D. S., Raine, R. B., Roscoe, R. D., Crossley, S., Jackson, G. T., Dai, J., et al. (2012). The Writing-Pal: Natural language algorithms to support intelligent tutoring on writing strategies. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 298–311). Hershey: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
- Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Paras, B., & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2005: Changing Views: Worlds in Play. Vancouver, Canada: Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06276.18065.pdf.
- Proske, A., Körndle, H., & Narciss, S. (2012). Interactive learning tasks. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1606–1611). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Rodgers, D. L., & Withrow-Thorton, B. J. (2005). The effect of instructional media on learner motivation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 333–342.Google Scholar
- Roscoe, R. D., Brandon, R. D., Snow, R. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Game-based writing strategy practice with the Writing Pal. In K. E. Pytash & R. E. Ferdig (Eds.), Exploring Technology for Writing and Writing Instruction (pp. 1–20). Hershey: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
- Roscoe, R. D., Varner, L., Weston, J., Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. S. (in press). The Writing Pal intelligent tutoring system: usability testing and development. Computers and Composition.Google Scholar
- Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., Dai, D. Y., & Wind, A. P. (2011). Review of research on computer games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 127–221). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 16–30.Google Scholar