Advertisement

Designing Effective Feedback Messages in Serious Games and Simulations: A Research Review

  • Cheryl I. JohnsonEmail author
  • Shannon K. T. Bailey
  • Wendi L. Van Buskirk
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Game-Based Learning book series (AGBL)

Abstract

Taking a value-added approach, we examined the impact of feedback on learning outcomes and performance in serious games and simulations. Although feedback has been demonstrated to be beneficial in traditional learning environments, we explore how feedback has been implemented in game- and simulation-based learning environments. In this review, we discuss critical characteristics that affect the efficacy of feedback, including the content of feedback messages, the modality in which feedback is presented, the timing of feedback presentation, and learner characteristics. General guidelines based on the research evidence are provided, and the theoretical implications are discussed in the context of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML; The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Mayer, 2014b).

Keywords

Feedback Modality of feedback Timing of feedback Content of feedback Adaptation 

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astwood, R., & Smith-Jentsch, K. (2010, April). Feedback timing in team training: Moderating effects of goal orientation. Poster presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  3. Astwood, R. S., Van Buskirk, W. L., Cornejo, J. M., & Dalton, J. (2008). The impact of different feedback types on decision-making in simulation based training environments. Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 52, No. 26, pp. 2062–2066). Santa Monica, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 11–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billings, D. R. (2012). Efficacy of adaptive feedback strategies in simulation-based training. Military Psychology, 24, 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Intelligent tutoring systems. In M. G. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. V. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human–computer interaction (pp. 849–874). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., & Schatz, S. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  12. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hatala, R., Cook, D. A., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., & Brydges, R. (2014). Feedback for simulation-based procedural skills training: A meta-analysis and critical narrative synthesis. Advances in Health Science Education, 19, 21–272.Google Scholar
  14. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion (Technical Report 2005-004). Orlando, FL: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, C. I., & Priest, H. A. (2014). The feedback principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 449–463). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, C. I., Priest, H. A., Glerum, D. R., & Serge, S. R. (2013). Timing of feedback delivery in game-based training. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, Orlando, FL, 2013. Arlington, VA: National Training Systems Association.Google Scholar
  18. Kalyuga, S. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 576–597). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 1, pp. 1–32). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of the constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Technologist, 41, 75–86.Google Scholar
  22. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions of performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulhavy, R. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Landsberg, C., Van Buskirk, W. L., & Astwood, R. S. (2010). Does feedback type matter? Investing the effectiveness of feedback content on performance outcomes. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 227–246). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mason, B., & Bruning, R. (2003). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html
  28. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Should there be a three-strikes rule against discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.Google Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Computer games for learning: An evidence-based approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mayer, R. E. (2014b). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 239–252.Google Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 316–344). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., CiFuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multi-modal environments: Special issue on interactive multimodal environments- Contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning. In H. M. Niegemann, R. Brünken, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181–195). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  44. Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrès, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., et al. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers and Education, 71, 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Neil, H. F., & Perez, R. S. (Eds.). (2008). Computer games and team and individual learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Paris, C. R., Thomas, M. H., Gilson, R. D., & Kincaid, J. P. (2000). Linguistic cues and memory for synthetic and natural speech. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42(3), 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.Google Scholar
  48. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 207-217.Google Scholar
  50. Serge, S. R., Priest, H. A., Durlach, P. J., & Johnson, C. I. (2013). The effects of static and adaptive performance feedback in game-based training. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1150–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of games for computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smither, J. A. A. (1993). Short term memory demands in processing synthetic speech by old and young adults. Behaviour & Information Technology, 12, 330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smits, M. H. S. B., Boon, J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & van Gog, T. (2008). Content and timing of feedback in web-based learning environment: Effects on learning as a function of prior knowledge. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(2), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Timmers, C. F., Braber-van den Broek, J., & van den Berg, S. (2013). Motivational beliefs, student effort, and feedback behavior in computer-based formative assessment. Computers & Education, 60, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Buskirk, W. L. (2011). Investigating the optimal presentation of feedback in simulation-based training: An application of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando.Google Scholar
  57. Vandewaeter, M., Desmet, P., & Clarebout, G. (2011). The contribution of learner characteristics in the development of computer-based adaptive learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Speck, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wouters, P., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60, 412–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl I. Johnson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shannon K. T. Bailey
    • 2
  • Wendi L. Van Buskirk
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems DivisionOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations