Your search
Results 7 resources
-
In this meta-analysis, we systematically reviewed research on digital games and learning for K–16 students. We synthesized comparisons of game versus nongame conditions (i.e., media comparisons) and comparisons of augmented games versus standard game designs (i.e., value-added comparisons). We used random-effects meta-regression models with robust variance estimates to summarize overall effects and explore potential moderator effects. Results from media comparisons indicated that digital...
-
This report presents an overview of the process and initial findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on computer simulations for K–12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning topics. Both quantitative and qualitative research studies on the effects of simulation in STEM were reviewed. Studies that reported effect size measures or the data to calculate effect sizes were included in the meta-analysis. Important moderating factors related to...
-
It is assumed that serious games influences learning in 2 ways, by changing cognitive processes and by affecting motivation. However, until now research has shown little evidence for these assumptions. We used meta-analytic techniques to investigate whether serious games are more effective in terms of learning and more motivating than conventional instruction methods (learning: k ϭ 77, N ϭ 5,547; motivation: k ϭ 31, N ϭ 2,216). Consistent with our hypotheses, serious games were found to be...
-
A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize existing research comparing the effects of computerassisted instruction (CAI) versus traditional instruction (TI) on studentsÕ achievement in Taiwan. Fiftytwo studies were located from our sources, and their quantitative data was transformed into effect size (ES). The overall grand mean of the study-weighted ES for all 52 studies was 0.55. The results suggest that CAI is more effective than TI in Taiwan. In addition, two of the seventeen variables...
Explore
Outcome measure
- Attitudes (1)
- Learning
- Motivation (1)
Instructional domain (subject)
- Literacy (1)
- Multiple (5)
- Science (1)
- Social Studies (1)
- STEM (1)
Education Level and Type
- High school 16-18 (1)
- K-12 (7)
- Secondary 11-16 (1)
- Tertiary (3)
Groups of students
- _No mention (1)
- EAL (1)
- Learning difficulties (1)
- SEND (1)
School or home
- _No mention (1)
- School (5)
Moderating variables
- Assessments (1)
- Country / culture (1)
- Design-type/ testing instruments (4)
- Feedback (1)
- Grade/education level (4)
- Length of time (6)
- Multiple exposures (2)
- Novelty Effect (1)
- Peer involvement/group learning (3)
- Student characteristics (1)
- Subject (2)
- Teacher involvement (2)
- Teacher pedagogy/implementation (2)
- Tech structure (2)
- Type of instruction methods (student/teacher centered)
- Type of knowledge or task (exposing, procedural, active, etc (2)
Tech Hardware
- Computer (5)
- Interactive whiteboards (1)
- Mobile/Smartphone (1)
- Multimedia (1 or more) (2)
- Tablet (1)
Tech Software
- Augmented Reality (1)
- Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) (3)
- Computer-Based Teaching (CBT) (1)
- Digital Media (audiovisuals) (1)
- E-book software (1)
- Game learning (1)
- General apps (1)
- Graphic organisers/Visualisations (3)
- LMS (1)
- Serious games (1)
- Simulations (1)
- Virtual manipulatives (2)
Tech mechanism
- Cooperative learning (e.g. discussion areas) (2)
- Direct instruction (1)
- Drill and practice (1)
- Feedback (5)
- Gamification (2)
- Instructional supports/Demos: worked out examples (5)
- Multimedia effects (1)
- Personalization effect (1)
- Scaffolding/Varying difficulty levels (4)
- Virtual pen and notetaking (1)
Learning Approach
- _No mention (1)
- Blended learning (1)
- Classroom learning (5)
Teacher Pedagogy
- _No mention (1)
- Collaboration (3)
- Game-based learning (2)
- Group learning (2)
- PC mixed with real objects (1)
- Peer learning (3)
- Scaffolding (3)
Research methods
Effect size/ heterogeneity
HIC/LMIC
- HIC (high income) (1)
- LMIC (middle/low) (1)
- Mixture or unknown (4)
Quality of research
- High: 6+ (5)
- Low: 3 or below (1)
- Medium: 4 or above (2)