Abstract
This article reports findings on a study of educational computer games used within various classroom situations. Employing an across-stage, mixed method model, the study examined whether educational computer games, in comparison to traditional paper-and-pencil drills, would be more effective in facilitating comprehensive math learning outcomes, and whether alternative classroom goal structures would enhance or reduce the effects of computer games. The findings indicated that computer games, compared with paper-and-pencil drills, were significantly more effective in promoting learning motivation but not significantly different in facilitating cognitive math test performance and metacognitive awareness. Additionally, this study established that alternative classroom goal structures mediated the effects of computer games on mathematical learning outcomes. Cooperative goal structure, as opposed to competitive and individualistic structures, significantly enhanced the effects of computer games on attitudes toward math learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this paper, qualitative data was cited using pseudo names.
References
Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.
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.
Bryce, J., & Rutter, J. (2003). Gender dynamics and the social and spatial organization of computer gaming. Leisure Studies, 22(1), 1–15.
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
Crawford, C. (1997). The art of computer game design. Berkeley, CA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
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.
Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996, October). Instructional gaming: Implications for instructional technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2006). Using games and simulations for instruction: A research review. In Proceedings of the New Learning Technologies 2006 Conference, Warrenton, VA: Society for Applied Learning Technology.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 571–603). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
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.
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.
Malone, T. W. (1981). What makes computer games fun? Byte, 6, 258–277.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 49–63.
Mevarech, Z., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365–394.
Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336.
Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith. C. (2000). The use of computer and video games for learning. London: Learning and Skill Development.
Moreno, R. (2002). 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.
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.
Papert, S. (1998). Does easy do it? Children, games, and learning. Game Developer, 6, 87–88.
Pass, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.
Pillay, H. (2002). An investigation of cognitive processes engaged in by recreational computer game players: Implication for skills of the future. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 54–56.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
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.
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.
Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Company.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51–79.
Strommen, E. F. (1993). “Does yours eat leaves?” cooperative learning in an educational software task. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 4(1), 45–56.
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.
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.
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.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. D. B. R. Caffee (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). NY: Macmillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ke, F. Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Education Tech Research Dev 56, 539–556 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5