Author: Arnel F. Gutierrez
Year: 2014
Journal: CBE—Life Sciences Education

Method:
The study used a pretest-posttest experimental design to determine whether an educational card game was more effective than traditional exercises for reinforcing previously taught biology concepts. Two intact university biology classes at Bulacan State University–Sarmiento Campus participated. One class was assigned to the experimental condition and the other to the control condition. After exclusions, 40 students from each group were included in the effectiveness analysis. The groups had statistically similar mean IQ scores and statistically equivalent pretest performance. Both groups received the same lecture and discussion instruction on two biology topics: nutrition and digestion, and respiration and circulation. The key difference occurred during reinforcement. The experimental group reinforced the material by playing an educational card game in small groups during break periods, while the control group reinforced the same material using traditional assignments and exercises. The game contained 90 biological terms per topic, with each term appearing twice for 180 cards. Students attempted to form combinations of cards representing meaningful conceptual relationships between biological terms and then had to justify the relationships, requiring them to retrieve, connect, discuss, and apply previously taught concepts. Academic performance was measured using a researcher-developed 50-item multiple-choice pretest/posttest with a reported Cronbach's alpha reliability of 0.861. Researchers compared pre/post improvement within each condition and then used an independent-means t-test to compare the groups' gain scores. Students also evaluated the game for its goals, design, organization, playability, and usefulness. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Findings:
Both groups improved significantly, but students using the educational card game improved significantly more than students using traditional review exercises. The control group's mean score increased from 19.225/50 to 28.45/50, a gain of 9.225 points. The game group's mean increased from 20.00/50 to 32.675/50, a gain of 12.675 points. The difference between the two groups' gain scores was 3.45 points and was statistically significant (t = 2.508, exceeding the reported critical value of 1.96 at the .05 level). Thus, students who used the game achieved approximately 37% greater raw-score improvement than students using traditional assignments/exercises (12.675 versus 9.225 points). Students also strongly perceived the game as useful for reinforcement: recall of concepts/terms received a 4.58/5 rating, and the usefulness category averaged 4.40/5. Students specifically rated the game highly for reviewing material, exploring subject matter more deeply, promoting discussion, cooperation, and recall. The author concluded that although traditional exercises successfully reinforced biology concepts, the educational card game was significantly more effective as a supplemental reinforcement activity and improved academic performance to a greater extent than traditional methods. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Author: Ismail Kiliç; Özkan Gürbüz
Year: 2022
Journal: African Educational Research Journal

Method:
The study examined whether educational game activities improved fifth-grade students' academic achievement in science. Participants were 71 fifth-grade students attending a public secondary school in Türkiye during the 2017–2018 school year. Two classes were randomly selected from five similar fifth-grade classes and assigned as the experimental group (36 students) and control group (35 students). Both groups studied the same five-week science unit, "The Spread of Light." The control group received instruction using the existing science curriculum, while the experimental group's lessons incorporated seven educational game activities designed around six curriculum outcomes. Games addressed concepts including linear light propagation, reflection from smooth and rough surfaces, incident/reflected rays, light transmittance, and shadow formation. One game, for example, had groups of four students compete to match cards showing transparent, translucent, and opaque materials. Correct matches earned points, winners advanced through successive rounds, and an overall winner received a prize. Importantly for review/reinforcement, one of the seven activities—"Is it correct? Is that wrong?"—was explicitly described as a general replay/review game covering all six learning outcomes, and the authors state that educational games provide opportunities for reinforcement and repetition of information. Academic achievement was measured before and after the intervention using a researcher-developed 22-item multiple-choice Academic Achievement Test (AAT). The test was piloted with 110 students and had a KR-20 reliability coefficient of .773. Independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups.

Findings:
The two groups began at essentially identical achievement levels: the control group's pretest mean was 9.54/22, compared with 9.55/22 for the game group, with no significant difference (p = .987). After five weeks, both groups improved, but students receiving the educational games improved substantially more. The control group increased from 9.54 to 13.43, a gain of approximately 3.89 points, whereas the experimental group increased from 9.55 to 17.50, a gain of approximately 7.95 points. Thus, the game group's raw-score improvement was roughly twice that of the traditional-instruction group. On the posttest, the game group averaged approximately 79.5% correct (17.5/22) compared with approximately 61.0% (13.43/22) for controls. Since posttest scores were not normally distributed, the researchers used a Mann-Whitney U test. The experimental group's mean rank was 46.13, compared with 25.59 for controls, producing a statistically significant difference favoring educational games (U = 265.500, p < .05; the table reports p = .000). The authors concluded that incorporating educational game activities into fifth-grade science instruction had a positive and statistically significant effect on measured academic achievement compared with the standard curriculum.

Author: Lee Revere
Year: 2004
Journal: Decision Line

Method:
The study examined whether a team-based Jeopardy-style game exam could improve student performance, assessment, and satisfaction in undergraduate statistics courses. Two undergraduate statistics classes were used. Both classes initially completed the same traditional individual Exam 1. For Exam 2, the control (non-Jeopardy) class completed another individual exam, while the experimental (Jeopardy) class completed a team-based Jeopardy game exam. The Jeopardy exam was delivered using Microsoft PowerPoint and modeled on the television game show. Students formed self-selected teams of 4–6 students and competed to answer statistics questions. Questions included short-answer/multiple-choice items and computational problems. Individual students answered the shorter questions, while teams collaborated on computational questions. Participation rules required each team member to answer a question correctly before another member could answer a second question, encouraging participation across the team. When students answered incorrectly, the instructor immediately reviewed the question and clarified misunderstood concepts, incorporating immediate corrective feedback into the game. The researchers compared Exam 1 and Exam 2 performance using paired t-tests and also conducted an analysis of covariance/variance examining exam performance and exam format. Post-exam questionnaires were used to assess students' self-reported preparedness, learning/understanding, and satisfaction with the exam experience. (ResearchGate)

Findings:
Students receiving the Jeopardy game exam demonstrated a substantially larger improvement in measured exam performance than students receiving the traditional exam. The Jeopardy class improved by 2.13 points out of 15 (14.3%), compared with approximately 1.01–1.02 points out of 15 (6.7%) for the non-Jeopardy class. Improvement within the Jeopardy class was highly statistically significant (p < .001), while the difference in improvement between the Jeopardy and non-Jeopardy classes was reported as significant at p < .10. Analysis accounting for prior exam performance also indicated that the team-based game format contributed positively to student performance. The authors suggested that peer mentoring and collaborative learning within teams may have contributed to the improvement. The game also produced benefits beyond scores: post-exam survey analyses indicated that preparing for and participating in Jeopardy was associated with greater self-reported exam preparedness and a more positive exam experience. Students in the Jeopardy class showed a stronger positive relationship between perceived understanding gained through the exam and their overall exam experience than students taking the conventional exam. Overall, the study concluded that the team-based Jeopardy format improved measured academic performance while also improving students' perceived preparedness, understanding, and exam experience. (ResearchGate)

Author: Antonio Joaquín Franco-Mariscal; José María Oliva-Martínez; Ángel Blanco-López; Enrique España-Ramos
Year: 2016
Journal: Journal of Chemical Education

Method:
The study examined whether an extended game-based chemistry teaching unit could improve secondary students' understanding of chemical elements and the Periodic Table. The experimental group consisted of 38 Spanish 10th-grade students aged 15–16, taught in two cohorts of 17 and 21 students. A comparison/control group consisted of 67 10th-grade students from three other Spanish secondary schools with broadly similar characteristics who studied the same curriculum using a more traditional instructional approach. The experimental intervention consisted of 24 one-hour sessions integrating a wide variety of educational games and "tasks involving play" rather than using one isolated game. Activities included board games, card games, puzzles, competitive activities, simulations, creative/play-based tasks, and chemistry exercises designed around Periodic Table concepts. Examples included a World Cup-style chemistry game in which students competed by answering chemistry questions, an octet-rule card game, and other activities addressing element names and symbols, element properties and classification, atomic structure, periodic trends, scientific models, and the history/nature of the Periodic Table. Learning was measured with a 14-item assessment covering four areas: acquisition of scientific knowledge, application of knowledge to new contexts, use of scientific evidence to draw conclusions, and understanding of the nature/history of science. The experimental students took the assessment before the unit and again one month after completing it, deliberately allowing the researchers to examine more durable learning rather than only immediate recall. Student responses were scored as inappropriate/blank, partially appropriate, or appropriate. The study also compared the experimental group's final performance with the traditional-instruction control group and administered a questionnaire about students' perceptions of games. Statistical analyses included Wilcoxon tests for experimental-group pre/post comparisons and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for experimental-versus-control comparisons. (Pendidikan Kimia)

Findings:
The experimental group showed a large and statistically significant overall improvement in measured chemistry knowledge after the game-based unit. Their mean assessment score increased from 10.8 +/- 0.7 before the intervention to 18.5 +/- 0.5 one month after it, with the overall pre/post change statistically significant (Z = -5.320, p < .001). Significant improvement occurred on 11 of the 14 assessment items; notably, the three items without significant improvement were identified by the authors as tasks not directly related to games. The strongest gains involved knowledge of the Periodic Table and understanding its nature and historical development, although gains were smaller for some higher-order applications of knowledge and use of scientific evidence. When the experimental group was compared with the 67 students receiving traditional instruction, the game-based group performed significantly better on 8 of the 14 final assessment items, and every statistically significant between-group difference favored the game-based students. For example, 95% of game-based students appropriately identified properties distinguishing elements compared with 54% of controls (p = .001); 89% vs. 55% appropriately classified elements based on properties (p = .007); and 50% vs. 3% appropriately determined atomic composition (p < .001). Students also reported strongly positive perceptions of the games' usefulness for learning, participation, and motivation. However, the authors explicitly caution that the study did not administer a pretest to the control group, so equivalence in initial chemistry knowledge cannot be established definitively. They therefore describe the evidence favoring the game-based unit as strong but not unequivocally causal. (Pendidikan Kimia)

Author: Ian M Devonshire; Jenny Davis; Sophie Fairweather; Lauren Highfield; Chandni Thaker; Ashleigh Walsh; Rachel Wilson; Gareth J Hathway
Year: 2014
Journal: PLOS ONE

Method:
The study investigated whether adding a competitive, risk-based game to classroom instruction improved students' retention of information. Participants were 448 pupils aged 9–10 years (Year 5) from 18 classes across 13 schools. Students participated in 90-minute neuroscience workshops and were assigned by class to one of three conditions: Control, which received no reinforcement questions; No Risk, which received five equally spaced multiple-choice review questions answered collaboratively in small teams; or Risk, which received the same review questions but incorporated a competitive game in which teams wagered tokens on answers. Six classes were included in each condition. In the Risk condition, classes were divided into teams of 4–6 pupils. Each team began with 20 tokens and periodically answered five multiple-choice questions reviewing information that had just been taught. Teams decided collaboratively how many tokens to risk on possible answers. Tokens wagered on correct answers were doubled, while tokens placed on incorrect answers were lost. The team accumulating the most tokens received a small brain-related prize. Thus, the Risk and No Risk groups received essentially the same review questions, allowing researchers to investigate whether the competitive/risk-based game element produced benefits beyond simply reviewing the material. The primary outcome was performance on an eight-question neuroscience quiz, administered immediately after the workshop (Day 0) and again one week later (Day 7). Researchers also matched individual pupils' Day 0 and Day 7 scores to measure changes in retention over time. Students additionally completed evaluations measuring interest, perceived learning, enjoyment, understanding, and willingness to participate again. Non-parametric statistical analyses, primarily Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn's multiple comparisons, were used to compare conditions. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Findings:
The game did not produce an immediate advantage in quiz performance. Immediately following the workshop, average scores were 5.81/8 for Control, 6.14/8 for No Risk, and 5.80/8 for Risk, with no statistically significant difference among the three conditions (p = .189). The important difference appeared one week later. Average scores were 5.80 for Control, 5.70 for No Risk, and 6.30 for Risk, producing a significant overall difference (p < .01); post-hoc analysis showed that the Risk group significantly outperformed the No Risk group (p < .01). The strongest evidence came from the 291 students whose individual scores could be matched between Day 0 and Day 7. Risk-game students improved by an average of +0.50 points, whereas Control students declined by -0.15 points and No Risk students declined by -0.14 points. The Risk group's change was significantly better than both Control (p < .05) and No Risk (p < .01). This is especially important because the No Risk students received the same review questions without the wagering/game mechanic, suggesting that simply answering review questions did not account for the improved retention. The Risk condition also produced significantly higher ratings for "The session was interesting" (p < .05) and "I learned new information" (p < .01) compared with Control. The authors concluded that incorporating the risk-based competitive game improved longer-term retention and student engagement, although they cautioned that the precise causal mechanism was uncertain. They proposed that greater interest may have encouraged students to discuss the material after the workshop, potentially contributing to the increase in knowledge observed one week later. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Author: Nancy A. Neef; Christopher J. Perrin; Alayna T. Haberlin; Lilian C. Rodrigues
Year: 2011
Journal: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Method:
The study examined whether a classroom review game used to study course material improved subsequent quiz performance. Participants were 11 practitioners, such as teachers and behavior therapists, enrolled in a graduate-level applied behavior analysis course; data were reported for the 8 participants who consented to inclusion. Students were randomly assigned to two groups and, within each group, to teams of 2–4 students. The researchers used a counterbalanced multielement design in which the two groups alternated every other week between a review-game condition and a no-game attention-control condition across the academic quarter. During the game condition, students were required to prepare at least four questions and corresponding answers covering key points from that week's assigned textbook reading before attending class. The instructor reviewed these questions beforehand and provided corrective feedback when necessary. During the 20-minute classroom game, teams took turns asking the opposing team their student-generated questions. Students could answer individually or collaboratively, but every team member had to answer at least one question independently for the team to be eligible to win. Teams received one point for each correct answer, and when an incorrect answer was given, the student who created the question provided the correct answer. Members of the winning team received 4 bonus points toward their course grade. In the no-game condition, students spent the same 20-minute period discussing a behavior-change project with a graduate teaching associate, providing an attention-control comparison. All students subsequently completed cumulative weekly quizzes. The dependent measure was the percentage correct on quiz questions covering the material that had previously been subjected to either the game or no-game condition. The researchers compared performance within instructional units and conducted a paired-samples t-test to determine whether game versus no-game differences were statistically significant. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Findings:
Students generally performed better on quizzes after participating in the review game than after the no-game condition. With the exception of Week 8, the game group outperformed the no-game group every week, although differences were small during Weeks 5 and 6. Across individual students, 7 of the 8 participants achieved higher average quiz performance following the game condition. Mean quiz performance was 84.4% during the game condition compared with 72.1% during the no-game condition, a difference of 12.3 percentage points. The researchers described this improvement as educationally meaningful because it represented approximately one letter grade, and the difference was also statistically significant: t(7) = 2.87, p = .02. The authors suggested that several aspects of the game may have contributed to improved performance, including requiring students to generate their own review questions, evaluate opponents' answers, interact with course material before class, collaborate as teams, and maintain individual accountability within the team. Importantly, the authors did not conclude that competition itself caused the improvement. Students sometimes deliberately allowed games to end in ties so both teams could receive bonus points, and only 28.6% reported preferring games over the alternative project discussions. The authors therefore concluded that the game-based study activity was associated with substantially improved measured quiz performance, while acknowledging that further research was necessary to determine which particular components of the game produced the improvement. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Author: Serdar Arcagök
Year: 2021
Journal: International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET)

Method:
This study used a meta-analysis to determine whether game-based teaching practices improve students' academic achievement across different curricula. The researcher searched multiple academic databases, including Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar/Google Academic, the British Education Index, Australian Education Index, and the Turkish Higher Education Council National Thesis Center. Studies conducted between 2000 and 2020 were considered. The analysis specifically required studies to compare an experimental group receiving game-based teaching with a control group receiving traditional/non-game instruction and to report sufficient quantitative achievement data for calculating an effect size. From the literature search, 54 experimental or quasi-experimental studies meeting the inclusion criteria were ultimately analyzed. Across those studies, there were 1,876 students in game-based experimental groups and 2,125 students in control groups, for a combined sample of 4,001 students. The included studies covered preschool, primary, and secondary education and multiple curriculum areas, including mathematics, science, language, geography, physical education, and others. The researcher calculated effect sizes using Hedges' g and analyzed the data with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) and MetaWin. Since the studies were statistically heterogeneous, the primary overall result was evaluated using a random-effects model. Moderator analyses examined whether results differed according to education level, treatment duration, sample size, and publication type.

Findings:
Overall, the meta-analysis found that game-based teaching produced significantly better academic achievement than traditional teaching. Of the 54 included studies, 50 (92.59%) showed a positive effect of game-based teaching on student achievement. Under the random-effects model, the overall effect size was approximately Hedges' g = 0.826, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.585 to 1.067, indicating a substantial positive advantage for game-based instruction over traditional practices. The paper classified this as a medium effect and concluded that the difference was statistically significant. Positive achievement effects were reported across subjects such as mathematics, science, geometry, language skills, geography, and physical education. Effects also varied significantly according to education level, treatment duration, sample size, and publication type. For education level, reported effect sizes were 0.614 for preschool, 0.693 for primary school, and 0.369 for secondary school, indicating positive effects at all three levels but a larger effect in younger students. Overall, the author concluded that game-based teaching increases measured student academic achievement and is more effective than traditional instructional practices.

Author: Yuanyuan Hu; Timothy Gallagher; Pieter Wouters; Marieke van der Schaaf; Liesbeth Kester
Year: 2022
Journal: Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Method:
This study conducted a three-level meta-analysis of game-based learning (GBL) in chemistry education. The researchers systematically screened 842 articles and ultimately included 34 studies published between 2006 and 2020. The included studies involved secondary-school and university students and examined chemistry topics including nomenclature, the periodic table, organic chemistry, and other chemistry content. The researchers primarily compared students learning chemistry through games with students receiving non-game-based instruction ("media comparisons"). Thirty studies provided these comparisons, while only three examined whether particular game/design features added benefits. Outcomes were categorized as cognition/academic learning, retention, motivation, and emotion. Cognitive outcomes were generally measured using achievement or knowledge tests, while motivation was typically measured using questionnaires. To account for multiple dependent effect sizes coming from individual studies, the researchers used a three-level random-effects meta-analysis rather than treating all effect sizes as independent. Hedges' g was used to quantify differences between game-based and non-game conditions. Moderator analyses examined characteristics such as control-group activity, additional instruction, individual versus group play, number of game sessions, randomization, sample size, publication source, and assessment type. (Wiley Online Library)

Findings:
Game-based chemistry learning produced significantly better measured cognitive/academic outcomes than non-game instruction. Across 30 studies involving 4,155 students, the pooled effect on cognition was g = 0.70 (95% CI [0.51, 0.89]), representing a statistically significant, medium positive effect. Game-based learning also improved retention, with g = 0.59 (95% CI [0.35, 0.83]) across 20 studies involving 2,860 students. The authors explain that the magnitude of the cognitive/retention advantage corresponds roughly to the average student receiving game-based chemistry learning performing about 0.6 standard deviations above students receiving non-game instruction, exceeding approximately 73% of students in the non-game condition. Motivation was also significantly higher with game-based learning, although the effect was smaller: g = 0.35 (95% CI [0.19, 0.50]) across seven studies involving 974 students. Thus, the combined evidence showed positive effects on immediate academic learning, longer-term retention, and student motivation. However, substantial variation existed among studies, and the authors identified possible small-study/publication-bias effects. Only three studies isolated specific game-design features, which was insufficient to determine exactly which aspects of games caused the learning improvements. (Wiley Online Library)

Author: Naim Uzun
Year: 2012
Journal: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Method:
The study used a pretest-posttest control-group experimental design to examine whether educational game-based active learning improved sixth-grade students' achievement when learning about cells and cell organelles. A total of 193 sixth-grade students participated: 121 students in three classes formed the experimental group, while 72 students in two classes formed the control group. The experimental group received an educational game/active-learning intervention, while the control group was taught according to the regular curriculum. The intervention covered four class periods. During the game-based activities, experimental students were divided into groups and assigned roles representing different cell organelles. Students created labels identifying their organelles and learned their functions. They then physically constructed models of plant and animal cells in the school garden, with individual students acting as the nucleus, mitochondria, chloroplasts, cell wall, centrosome, and other structures. The teacher assumed the role of the nucleus and directed interactions among the "organelles." Students participated in question-and-answer dialogues requiring them to identify their organelle's function and explain interactions among cell structures. The activities were specifically intended to reinforce and consolidate learning about cell structures, their functions, and differences between plant and animal cells. Academic achievement was measured using a researcher-developed 16-item multiple-choice achievement test administered before and after the intervention. The instrument had a reported KR-21 reliability coefficient of 0.74. Researchers analyzed pre/post performance using a two-way mixed-measures ANOVA. (ResearchGate)

Findings:
Both groups improved, but students receiving the educational-game intervention demonstrated substantially greater improvement in measured academic achievement. The control group's mean score increased from 4.89/16 on the pretest to 7.56/16 on the posttest, a gain of 2.67 points. The experimental game group's mean increased from 5.66/16 to 12.72/16, a gain of 7.06 points. Thus, after the intervention, game-based students averaged 12.72/16 (79.5%), compared with 7.56/16 (47.3%) for traditionally instructed students—a posttest difference of 5.16 points, or approximately 32 percentage points of the total test. The critical group × time interaction was statistically significant, F(1,191) = 69.543, p < .001, demonstrating that the experimental group's improvement over time was significantly greater than the control group's improvement. The researchers also reported observing greater student interest, more effective information exchange, and increased cooperation among students during the game-based activities. They concluded that educational game-based active learning significantly improved students' academic achievement compared with traditional science teaching and promoted active student participation. (ResearchGate)

Author: Kyli White; Leah P. McCoy
Year: 2019
Journal: Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research

Method:
This action research study investigated game-based mathematics learning in a standard-level fifth-grade classroom at a public elementary school in the southeastern United States. The class contained 27 students, with complete research data collected from 24 fifth-grade students who had consent and were present throughout the study. The intervention lasted five school days: the first and last days were primarily used for pre/post assessments and attitude measures, while the middle three days consisted of 60-minute game-based mathematics lessons focused on ordered pairs and the coordinate plane. Students participated in multiple games and game-like activities. After initial instruction on Day 2, students played Coordinate Battleship to reinforce their understanding of ordered pairs. On Day 3, students completed an "Emojilicious Coordinate Story," identifying at least 15 points on a coordinate grid and using those points to create a story. On the final instructional day, students rotated through five game/activity stations: Dice Game, Mission: Zombies, Connect Four, Finger Twister, and City Planner. These required students to apply their ordered-pair knowledge, solve problems, develop strategies, and frequently work with partners. Achievement was objectively measured using an identical 10-question pretest and posttest based on state mathematics standards. Five questions required students to identify ordered pairs from points on a graph, and five required them to plot specified ordered pairs. A mid-unit performance activity was also assessed. In addition to achievement testing, researchers collected attitude surveys, student interviews, student work, photographs, video recordings, and field notes to examine engagement and perceptions of mathematics. (ERIC)

Findings:
Student achievement increased substantially over the short game-based unit. The average pretest score was 55.95%, compared with 86.38% on the mid-unit assessment and 96.14% on the posttest. For students with individual pre/post comparisons, the average increase was 39.5 percentage points, and all but one student demonstrated a large increase from pretest to posttest. Student work during the games also indicated high levels of accuracy: Coordinate Battleship produced an 84% class average, while the final game/activity stations produced approximately 91% accuracy across submitted worksheets. Attitudes toward mathematics improved substantially as well. At baseline, 83% of students indicated being unhappy, worried, or bored about mathematics, whereas by the final instructional day 100% indicated feeling good or happy about mathematics. The qualitative evidence also indicated greater engagement, peer correction, collaborative problem solving, willingness to persist, and student confidence. The authors concluded that game-based learning was associated with substantial improvements in both mathematics achievement and attitudes during the ordered-pairs unit. However, there was no non-game control group, so the study cannot establish that games themselves caused the 39.5-point improvement rather than instruction, practice, repeated exposure to the material, or other aspects of the unit. (ERIC)

Author: Muhamad Hugerat; Naji Kortam; Nassrin Toubia Maroun; Ahmad Basheer
Year: 2020
Journal: EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

Method:
The study examined whether incorporating didactic games into fifth-grade science instruction improved academic achievement, motivation, and the classroom learning environment. Participants were 188 fifth-grade students from two primary schools, with 92 students in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. Both groups studied the same science curriculum unit concerning digestion over 11 lessons. The experimental students received a short teacher-led lesson followed by a relevant educational game during each lesson. Students worked in groups of five using a Problem-Based Learning–Jigsaw Discussion (PBL-JD) approach. A different game was used during each of the 11 lessons, including dramatic play, computer games, bingo, puzzles, and other didactic games. Students discussed, argued, consulted, helped one another, completed game-related tasks, and presented their conclusions to the class. The teacher primarily acted as a guide. The control students studied the same topics over 11 lessons using conventional frontal teaching, the standard textbook, and practice questions appearing at the end of textbook chapters. Achievement was measured with equivalent pre- and post-tests on digestion, developed by the science teachers and validated by science-education experts and experienced elementary science teachers. The posttest included multiple-choice, open-response, agreement, and true/false items. Students also completed validated questionnaires measuring science motivation and perceptions of the learning environment, and researchers conducted semi-structured interviews. (ERIC)

Findings:
Students receiving the game-based instruction achieved significantly higher science scores than students receiving conventional instruction. Following the intervention, the control group had a mean achievement score of 71.63 (SD = 8.29), whereas the game group averaged 82.29 (SD = 9.48)—an advantage of 10.66 points. The difference was statistically significant, t(186) = 6.47, p < .01. Thus, students learning science with didactic games demonstrated substantially better measured achievement than those studying the same material without games. The game group also showed significantly greater overall motivation to learn science, t(186) = 18.82, p < .01, with significant advantages in intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, self-determination, career motivation, and grade motivation. Students receiving games also reported significantly greater satisfaction/enjoyment, better student-teacher and student-student relationships, and greater productive competitiveness. Interviewed students described the games as helping them understand difficult material and reported that the activities reinforced their learning and helped with retention. Overall, the researchers concluded that incorporating didactic games into science instruction produced higher academic achievement, greater motivation, and a more positive learning environment than conventional instruction alone. (ERIC)

Author: Lisa K. Fazio; Casey A. Kennedy; Robert S. Siegler
Year: 2016
Journal: PLOS ONE

Method:
The researchers conducted two studies examining a computerized mathematics game called "Catch the Monster with Fractions" with fourth- and fifth-grade students. The intervention was deliberately brief—less than 15 minutes—and focused on improving students' understanding of fraction magnitudes. Students first received conceptual instruction about unit fractions and then played the game. During gameplay, students were shown a fraction and attempted to locate an escaped monster at the corresponding position on a 0–1 number line. Students received immediate, detailed corrective feedback after each estimate. The number line was divided according to the denominator and labeled to show the correct fraction magnitude, allowing students to see why their answer was correct or incorrect. The game provided an engaging context in which successfully locating the monster resulted in capturing it, while incorrect estimates generated game feedback. Study 1 used a pretest-intervention-posttest design with 26 fourth- and fifth-grade students. Students were assessed on three measures: fraction number-line estimation, fraction magnitude comparison, and recall of fraction magnitudes presented within stories. Study 2 provided the more rigorous test, involving 51 fifth graders who were randomly assigned to either the experimental intervention (n=26) or a control condition (n=25). The experimental students received the conceptual instruction and played Catch the Monster with Fractions. Control students completed 30 fraction number-line estimation trials using the same computer program but without instructional/game feedback. Both groups completed the same three pre/post measures. Thus, Study 2 tested whether the instructional/game/feedback intervention produced improvements beyond simply practicing fraction problems. (ERIC)

Findings:
Study 1 showed significant improvement on all three measured outcomes following the game intervention. Number-line estimation error fell from 19% to 10% (p < .001, d = 1.10); magnitude-comparison accuracy increased from 62% to 70% (p = .026, d = .48); and error in recalling fraction magnitudes decreased from 20% to 16% (p = .021, d = .52). More importantly, the randomized Study 2 replicated the improvement against a control condition. Experimental students' number-line estimation error decreased from 18% to 10% (p < .001, d = .86), while control students changed only from 17% to 16%, which was not significant. The condition-by-time interaction was significant (p = .002). For fraction magnitude comparisons, game students increased from 75% to 80%, while controls declined from 74% to 71%; the condition-by-time interaction was significant (p = .043). Fraction-recall accuracy also improved among game students, although the game group's improvement was not significantly different from the control group's improvement on this particular measure. Across both studies, students who began with lower fraction knowledge tended to make greater gains. The researchers concluded that the brief intervention produced substantial improvements in fraction magnitude understanding that transferred beyond the specific number-line task practiced during the game. However, they emphasized that the intervention combined conceptual instruction, detailed feedback, and an engaging game context, so the study cannot determine that the game element alone caused the gains. (ERIC)

Author: Yen-Hua Chen; Chiu-Pin Lin; Chee-Kit Looi; Yin-juan Shao; Tak-Wai Chan
Year: 2012
Journal: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET)

Method:
The study investigated whether a digital Cross Number Puzzle game could improve Grade 4 students' addition and subtraction skills, and whether playing collaboratively provided additional benefits. Participants were 83 Grade 4 students, ages 10–11, divided among three existing classes. Class A (24 students) played the Cross Number Puzzle collaboratively in small groups; Class B (28 students) played the same game individually; and Class C (31 students) received traditional whole-class instruction without the game. The game was delivered through the Group Scribbles (GS) computer-supported learning system using Tablet PCs. Problems progressed through five difficulty levels involving addition and subtraction, ranging from basic calculations to problems containing unknown operators or numbers. The game also provided feedback: correct answers produced explanations of key points, while incorrect answers generated progressively detailed hints and eventually showed the correct answer and problem-solving method. The study lasted four weeks and included a pretest, game/system training, a 60-minute game session, posttest, questionnaire, and interviews. The pretest and posttest contained the same questions in different orders. Researchers measured arithmetic achievement and student confidence and also examined performance according to prior achievement level. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, regression analysis, and ANOVA to compare changes in performance among conditions. (ERIC)

Findings:
Both groups using the game demonstrated improvements in measured arithmetic performance, whereas the traditional control class showed essentially no improvement. The collaborative game class increased from a mean pretest score of 50.29 to 63.29, an improvement of 13.00 points, which was statistically significant (p = .002). The individual game class also improved significantly, from approximately 53.83 to 58.94, an improvement of 5.13 points (p = .008). In contrast, the traditional class remained virtually unchanged, moving from 58.35 to 58.36 (p = .961). The collaborative game produced significantly greater improvement than playing the same game individually (F = 4.479, p = .039), suggesting that collaboration added benefits beyond the game itself. Low-achieving students showed particularly large gains. Low-achieving students in the collaborative game condition increased from 30.56 to 53.89, a gain of 23.33 points (p = .001). Their gains occurred across basic computation, unknown-number problems, and Cross Number Puzzle problems. The researchers concluded that the Cross Number Puzzle game improved students' arithmetic skills and that collaborative game play was more effective than individual game play, with especially substantial benefits for lower-achieving students. (ERIC)

Author: Jui-Mei Yien; Chun-Ming Hung; Gwo-Jen Hwang; Yueh-Chiao Lin
Year: 2011
Journal: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET)

Method:
The study used a quasi-experimental nonequivalent-control-group design to investigate whether computer game-based instruction improved third-grade students' nutrition learning. Participants were 66 third graders from two elementary-school classes in southern Taiwan, with 33 students in the experimental group and 33 in the control group. Both groups were taught by the same instructor and covered the same nutrition content over four weeks, with one 40-minute class each week. The experimental group learned through five educational computer games, while the control group learned the same nutrition material through multimedia PowerPoint instruction. The games addressed food classification, balanced diets, unhealthy foods, meal planning, nutrients, and diet-related diseases. Some games required students to classify foods, follow hints, make food selections, observe and evaluate diets, and answer nutrition questions. The researchers measured academic achievement using a 20-item nutrition knowledge test administered before and after the intervention. They also measured nutrition attitudes and food/drink habits using 20-item questionnaires and collected student feedback about the game-based approach. ANCOVA was used to compare post-intervention outcomes while controlling for students' pretest scores. (ERIC)

Findings:
Students receiving the game-based instruction demonstrated significantly greater nutrition knowledge achievement than students receiving conventional multimedia instruction. After controlling for pretest scores, the experimental group's adjusted posttest mean was 17.39/20, compared with 14.64/20 for the control group, a statistically significant difference (F = 20.01, p < .001). Thus, the researchers concluded that computer game-based instruction effectively improved measured nutrition knowledge. The games also produced a significant advantage in reported food-and-drink habits: adjusted means were 89.28 for the game group versus 86.05 for the control group (F = 4.17, p < .05). However, the game group did not significantly outperform the control group on nutrition attitudes (88.98 vs. 88.36; F = .19, p = .66), an important qualification to the positive findings. Students nevertheless reported very favorable perceptions of the games: the experimental group averaged 4.85/5 for perceived effects on nutrition knowledge and 4.89/5 for overall viewpoints toward game-based learning. The authors concluded that game-based learning can improve student academic achievement in nutrition education, while recommending larger samples and longer experiments to further establish its effectiveness. (ERIC)