Skip to main content

Game-based practice versus traditional practice in computer-based writing strategy training: effects on motivation and achievement

Educational Technology Research and Development volume 62, pages 481–505 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. Similar regression analyses were conducted additionally including video-viewing time and practice time as predictors. The pattern of results did not change when they were included.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536. doi:10.3102/0013189x10386593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760. doi:10.1177/1046878112439444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. doi:10.2307/1170684.

    Article  Google 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 

  • Cheng, Y.-C., & Yeh, H.-T. (2009). From concepts of motivation to its application in instructional design: Reconsidering motivation from an instructional design perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 597–605. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00857.x.

    Article  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.

  • D’Amico, E., Neilands, T., & Zambarano, R. (2001). Power analysis for multivariate and repeated measures designs: A flexible approach using the SPSS MANOVA procedure. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(4), 479–484. doi:10.3758/BF03195405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687–698. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, J. V., Haynes, L. L., Lucassen, B. A., & Casey, M. S. (2002). Forty simple computer games and what they could mean to educators. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2), 157–168. doi:10.1177/1046878102332003.

    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. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607.

    Article  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:10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, G., Kenny, R., & Vick, E. (2008). Taking educational games seriously: Using the RETAIN model to design endogenous fantasy into standalone educational games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5), 511–537. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9073-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D., & Sommers, N. (2011). Rules for writers (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children’s argument writing, interest and self-efficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 429–446. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00009-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W.-H. (2011). Evaluating learners’ motivational and cognitive processing in an online game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 694–704. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.021.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W.-H., Huang, W.-Y., & Tschopp, J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Computers & Education, 55(2), 789–797. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.011.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsdóttir, S., & Hooper, S. (1995). Computer-assisted foreign language learning: Effects of text, context, and gender on listening comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 43–59. doi:10.1007/BF02300490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5), 539–556. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. doi:10.1007/BF02905780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1–7. doi:10.1002/pfi.4160260802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2010). Tools to support motivational design. In J. M. Keller (Ed.), Motivational design for learning and performance (pp. 267–295). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266. doi:10.1080/00461520903213600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. D., & Freitag, E. (1991). Enhancing motivation using an instructional game. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 18(2), 111–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudson, R. E. (1989). Effects of instructional strategies on children’s informational writing. Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.290.

    Article  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 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Wooldridge, C. (2012). The science of learning and its applications. In W. Buskist & V. A. Benassi (Eds.), Effective college and university teaching: Strategies and tactics for the new professoriate (pp. 49–60). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  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 

  • Means, T., Jonassen, D., & Dwyer, F. (1997). Enhancing relevance: Embedded ARCS strategies vs. purpose. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 5–17. doi:10.1007/BF02299610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117.

    Article  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 

  • Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158. doi:10.1080/10573560308222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotakopoulos, C. T. (2011). Applying a conceptual mini game for supporting simple mathematical calculation akills: Students’ perceptions and considerations. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 3–14. doi:10.5430/wje.v1n1p3.

    Article  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 

  • Rausch, J. R., Maxwell, S. E., & Kelly, K. (2003). Analytic methods for questions pertaining to a randomized pretest, posttest, follow-up design. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 467–486. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, K. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Do computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention? Military Psychology, 8(4), 295–307. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp0804_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58. doi:10.1007/BF02300540.

    Article  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 

  • Roediger, H. L, I. I. I., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., et al. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(1), 71–94. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00099-4.

    Article  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., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1010–1025. doi:10.1037/a0032340.

    Article  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.

  • Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.2307/1170684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. A., & Sanchez, A. (2010). Mini-games with major impacts. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & C. A. Bowers (Eds.), Serious game design and development: Technologies for training and learning (pp. 1–12). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  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 

  • Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., et al. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217–266. doi:10.1177/1046878108321866.

    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 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241–250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology of Learning and Instruction, TU Dresden, Zellescher Weg 17, 01062, Dresden, Germany

    Antje Proske

  2. Human Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, 7271 E. Sonoran Arroyo Mall, Santa Catalina 150D, Mesa, AZ, 85212, USA

    Rod D. Roscoe

  3. Psychology Department, Learning Sciences Institute, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 872111, Tempe, AZ, 85287-2111, USA

    Danielle S. McNamara

Authors
  1. Antje Proske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rod D. Roscoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danielle S. McNamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antje Proske.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Proske, A., Roscoe, R.D. & McNamara, D.S. Game-based practice versus traditional practice in computer-based writing strategy training: effects on motivation and achievement. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 481–505 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9349-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9349-2

Keywords

  • Serious games
  • Game-based learning
  • Writing strategy instruction
  • ARCS model