1 / 30

The Potential of Games & Simulations for Learning and Assessment

The Potential of Games & Simulations for Learning and Assessment. Richard Wainess: wainess@cse.ucla.edu Presented Monday, January 22, 2007 at the 2007 CRESST Conference. Overview. Do games & simulations foster learning? Issues affecting learning from games & simulations

chase
Download Presentation

The Potential of Games & Simulations for Learning and Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Potential ofGames & Simulationsfor Learning and Assessment Richard Wainess: wainess@cse.ucla.edu Presented Monday, January 22, 2007 at the 2007 CRESST Conference

  2. Overview • Do games & simulations foster learning? • Issues affecting learning from games& simulations • Assessments using games & simulations • Embedding instructional methods into games& simulations • The bottom line

  3. Do games and simulations foster learning?

  4. The promise of game/sim-based learning • General belief is games & simulations improve instruction • Provide complex and diverse approaches to learning • Provide learner control • Can address both cognitive and affective needs • Motivate learners

  5. What the evidence shows • Positive outcomes? • Numerous knowledge outcomes are attributed to games and simulations • Studies also warn about anecdotal and descriptive evidence(Leemkuil et al., 2003; Wolfe, 1997) • Generalizable skills outcomes have been cited(Day et al. 2001; Green & Bavelier, 2003; Greenfield et al., 1994) • Negative or null outcomes? • Reviews and meta-analyses cite mixed or negative reviews(Dekkers & Donatti, 1981; Druckman, 1995) • Positive attitude toward games (i.e., motivation) doesn’t necessarily equal learning(Brougere, 1999; Salas et al., 1998; Salomon, 1984)

  6. What the evidence shows(cont’d) So, do games & simulationsfoster learning? NO!!!! • Learning is related to Instructional Methods, not media (games/simulations, book, lectures, etc.)(de Jong & van Joolingen, 1998; Garris et al., 2002; Gredler, 1996; Leemkuil et al., 2003; Thiagarajan, 1998)

  7. Implied model of games & simulations based on erroneous and/or unsupported research conclusions Games and simulations Increased Learning

  8. True model of games & simulations based on empirical evidence Games and simulations Studying Student Attitude Student Ability Prior Knowl. Instructional Components Teacher Training Teacher Attitude Increased Learning?

  9. Issues affecting learningfrom games and simulations

  10. Cognitive load = burden placed on our working memory • Affected by instructional components • Number and nature of elements needing processing (Cooper, 1998; Paas et al., 2003) • Message complexity, stimulus features(Daniels & Moore, 2000) • Particular to computer media & interactivity • Additional media-related cognitive demands(Daniels & Moore, 2000) • Level of learner control and autonomy(Dias, Gomes, & Correia, 1999)

  11. Enjoyment of a game/simis linked mental effort Mental effort is linked totask difficulty More Effort Less More Task difficulty Task difficulty • Relationship of taskdifficulty to mental effortis an inverted U(Clark, 1999; Malone & Lepper, 1987) • Too easy = player gets bored • Too hard = player disengages • Optimal cognitive load = neither too hard nor too easy

  12. Sources of cognitive load • Intrinsic Cognitive Load • Germane Cognitive Load • Extraneous Cognitive Load • Learner Control

  13. Sources of cognitive load • Intrinsic Cognitive Load • Load incurred by the to-be-learned material(Brunken et al., 2003; Paas et al., 2003) • (i.e., metacognition, forming schema, chunking, automating) • Germane Cognitive Load • Cognitive load imposed by instruction; methods and strategies required to process intrinsic load(Renkl & Atkinson, 2003) • (e.g., instruction, examples, reading, searching, problem solving, interface elements)

  14. Sources of cognitive load • Extraneous Cognitive Load • Imposed by an unnecessary stimuli (e.g., interface artwork, extraneous sounds)(Brunken et al. 2003) • Seductive details(Mayer et al., 2001; Schraw, 1998) • Learner Control • Pacing & navigation(Barab et al., 1999; Cutmore et al., 2000) • Metacognitive processes(Clark, 2003; Daniels & Moore, 2000; Dillon & Gabbard, 1998) • Goal setting and planning, monitoring, selecting, organizing, etc.)

  15. Issues pertaining to games Extraneous details, split attention, learner control Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon (Red Storm Entertainment, 2002)

  16. Issues pertaining to simulations Extraneous & seductive details, split attention, learner control (cognitive load issues)

  17. Issues pertaining to simulations Experiential/Discovery-based Learning(metacognitive and cognitive load issues) Developed by the University of Southern California’s Center for Cognitive Technology (USC/CCT) using iRidesAuthor

  18. What’s bad about games/sims? • Extraneous and Seductive details • Learner Control • Mindless manipulation • Potential for unguided learning

  19. What’s good about games/sims? • Authentic tasks • Personalization • Presence/immersion • Motivation(and persistence)

  20. What game/sim elements are detrimental? • Rich, engaging content • Immersive environments • Impressive sound tracks • Spectacular effects • Compelling fantasy • Gives learner control • Can promote mindlessmanipulation

  21. What game/sim elements are beneficial? • Rich, engaging content? • Immersive environments? • Impressive sound tracks? • Spectacular effects? • Compelling fantasy? • Gives learner control? • Opportunity to experiment? • Potential for adaptive learning

  22. Assessment usinggames and simulations

  23. Computer-based assessments Requirements • Ability of computer to assess and report performance • Ability of computer to use outcomes to adapt learning • Ability to assess meaningful learning • Applying knowledge and skills • Authentic task performance

  24. Computer-based assessments(cont’d) Examples • Retention assessments(assess memory) • Fill-in-the-blank • Knowledge maps • Performance based assessments(assess problem solving, decision-making) • Knowledge maps • Fill-in-the-blank • Process maps • Authentic tasks

  25. Embedding assessments • Pre-assessments(diagnostic assessment) • Adaptive instruction • Assess learning gains • In-course assessments(formative assessment) • Signaling/Priming/Cueing • Feedback/Monitoring • Authentic tasks • Post-assessments(summative assessment) • Assess learning outcomes • Provide predictions of future performance (transfer) Developed by the University of Southern California’sCenter for Cognitive Technology (USC/CCT) using iRidesAuthor

  26. EmbeddingInstructional Methods intoGames and Simulations

  27. Embedded Guidance • Instruction • Worked examples • Practice opportunities • With goals • Signaling/cueing • Other learning scaffolds(instructional methods/strategies) Developed by the University of Southern California’sCenter for Cognitive Technology (USC/CCT) using iRidesAuthor

  28. The bottom line

  29. The bottom line Can we learn from games and simulations? YESWith proper instructional methods Can games and simulations provideeffective assessments? YESParticularly if they exploit the capabilities of computers

More Related