Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Copy of Research process template
Transcript of Copy of Research process template
behind this frame! Double click to crop it if necessary Tested
Hypotheses (cc) photo by Metro Centric on Flickr (cc) photo by jimmyharris on Flickr (cc) photo by Metro Centric on Flickr Topic I think this is about facts! I think this is about feelings! I think this is about data! First Secondly Conclusions Citations Robyn Goodfellow
Priyanka Vittipalli The challenging group will experience more immersive game-play than matching-challenging group H1 The matching-challenging group will have better understanding of concepts than challenging group H2 The preference-matched group is expected to experience more immersive game-play H3 The preference-matched group is expected to perform better than preference-mismatched group H4 Experimental Learning Cycle Games have been shown to keep people engaged Problems with Learning Programming Computer languages are abstract and hard to understand Makes it hard to keep students motivated and engaged Games involving: Game Scenario- Simulations of skills to be learned
Matching- Linking terms with their definitions
Challenging- Testing the students knowledge about subject
Problem Solving- Using learned knowlege How different game types interact with cyclic learning process Methodology Dependent Variables Independent Variables Types of game Strategy (Matching-challenging vs. challenging)
Preferences-Matched vs Preference-Mismatched Flow experience,
Programing performance Participants 115 participants (56 male 59 female) All participants from northern Taiwan
From junior-high school tech class
Learning Flash Action Script
All novices to programing Game scenarios Provide real-life events (concrete experiences)
Purchasing Treasures - related to constants, variables and equation Constants = Price
Variables = amount
Sum = equations Feedback was given to the learners acceptable or unacceptable actions (cc) photo by jimmyharris on Flickr (cc) photo by Metro Centric on Flickr Game play (cc) photo by Metro Centric on Flickr Instruments Game Preference Questionnaire
Used to examine learners’ preference toward game types
Asked to list Three favorite game types
Game flow experience and motivation questionnaire
Flow antecedent (17), measured flow experience(5), intrinsic motivation (3), extrinsic motivation (3)
Project grading rubric
Using Flash Actionscript to solve Body Mass Index calulations
Graded on aspects of: Variables, Text field, Button
Grading correlation coefficient .96 Effects of game strategy and preference Groups Matching - Challenging
Preference Mismatched 2x2 MANOVA
Significance level P<.05 2X2 MANOVA ANOVA The challenging group will experience more immersive game-play than matching-challenging group H1 The matching-challenging group will have better understanding of concepts than challenging group H2 The preference-matched group is expected to experience more immersive game-play H3 The preference-matched group is expected to perform better than preference-mismatched group H4 Embedding matching game in experiential gaming activity diminishes learners flow experience Matching learner's challenging game preference did not enhance their flow experience Embedding a matching game enhanced learning Matching learners' challenging game preference did not enhance performance Are Hypotheses Accepted? Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based learning environments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23. Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preferencematching on flow experience and programming performance in gamebased learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52. Questions? Flow Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. New York, NY: Wiley.