Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 179–198 | Cite as

The impacts of peer competition-based science gameplay on conceptual knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and learning behavioral patterns

  • Ching-Huei ChenEmail author
Development Article

Abstract

The present study investigates how the different modes of game-design triggers learning outcomes, focusing on peer learning and intergroup competition. A problem-solving science game was developed to help secondary students to learn about the motion of objects. Participants (N = 110) from an urban middle school were randomly assigned to four game-design conditions (individual-competition, individual-no-competition, peer-competition, and peer-no-competition). The results indicated that the peer-competition and peer-no-competition groups outperformed those in the individual-competition and individual-no-competition groups in terms of conceptual knowledge. Additionally, peer-competition groups exhibited higher interest and value and lower tension than those in the individual gameplay groups. Patterns of learning behavior revealed the emergence of in situ science-related problem solving in the peer-competition mode of GBL. Implications on the effectiveness of game-design for GBL are discussed.

Keywords

Game-based science learning Competition Learning performance Intrinsic motivation Learning behavioral patterns 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (grant number MOST 105-2628-S-018-001-MY3).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Dodge, T., Thomas, M. K., Jackson, C., & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the social agendas they carry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 263–305.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701193713.Google Scholar
  3. Bornstein, G., Gneezy, U., & Nagel, R. (2002). The effect of intergroup competition on group coordination: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 41, 1–25.Google Scholar
  4. Buchinger, D., & Hounsell, M. (2018). Guidelines for designing and using collaborative-competitive serious game. Computers & Education, 118, 133–149.Google Scholar
  5. Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 55, 566–575.Google Scholar
  6. Cagiltay, N. E., Ozcelik, E., & Ozcelik, N. S. (2015). The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education, 87, 35–41.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, C. H., Wang, K. C., & Lin, Y. S. (2015). The comparison of solitary and collaborative modes of game-based learning on students’ science learning and motivation. Educational Technology and Society, 18(2), 237–248.Google Scholar
  8. Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C. (2013). The effects of individual and team competitions on performance, emotions, and effort. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35(2), 132–143.Google Scholar
  9. De Grove, F., Bourgonjon, J., & Van Looy, J. (2012). Digital games in the classroom? A Contextual approach to teachers’ adoption intention of digital games in formal education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2023–2033.Google Scholar
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.Google Scholar
  11. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., & Feltovich, J. (Eds.). (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individuality and in groups. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Fu, F.-L., Wu, Y.-L., & Ho, H.-C. (2009). An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(3), 550–562.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.004.Google Scholar
  13. Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in language learning: Opportunities and challenges. Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 9–19.Google Scholar
  14. Hämäläinen, R. (2008). Designing and evaluating collaboration in a virtual game environment for vocational learning. Computers & Education, 50, 98–109.Google Scholar
  15. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.Google Scholar
  16. Hou, H. T. (2013). Analyzing the behavioral differences between students of different genders, prior knowledge and learning performance with an educational MMORPG: A longitudinal case study in an elementary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E85–E89.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01367.x.Google Scholar
  17. Huang, W. D. (2011). Evaluating learners’ motivational and cognitive processing in an online game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 694–704.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.021.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, W. D., Johnson, T. E., & Han, S.-H. C. (2013). Impact of online instructional game features on college students’ perceived motivational support and cognitive investment: A structural equation modeling study. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 58–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.004.Google Scholar
  19. Hummel, H. G. K., Paas, F., & Koper, R. (2006). Effects of cueing and collaboration on the acquisition of complex legal skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 613–632.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. (2006). Joining together, group theory and group skills (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson A&B.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, G. (1991). Gender differences in science competitions. Science Education, 75(2), 159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750202.Google Scholar
  23. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.Google Scholar
  24. Koschmann, T., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Kosko, K. W., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2010). Mathematical communication and its relation to the frequency of manipulative use. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics, 5(2), 79–90.Google Scholar
  26. Lin, X., Hemelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.Google Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2011). Multimedia learning and games. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  28. Meluso, A., Zheng, M., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. (2012). Enhancing 5th graders’ science content knowledge and self-efficacy through game-based learning. Computers & Education, 59, 497–504.Google Scholar
  29. Mikropolous, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research. Computers & Education, 56, 769–780.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nietfeld, J. L., Shores, L. R., & Hoffmann, K. F. (2014). Self-regulation and gender within a game-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 961–973.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037116.Google Scholar
  32. Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 723–751.Google Scholar
  33. Plass, J. L., O’Keefe, P. A., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M. K., et al. (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning performance and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1050–1066.Google Scholar
  34. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(1), 24–33.Google Scholar
  35. Regueras, L. M., Verdu, E., & Munoz, M. F. (2009). Effects of competitive e-learning tools on higher education students: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(2), 279–285.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2008.928198.Google Scholar
  36. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.Google Scholar
  37. Sánchez, J., & Olivares, R. (2011). Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1943–1952.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.012.Google Scholar
  38. Shih, J. L., Shih, B. J., Shih, C. C., Su, H. Y., & Chuang, C. W. (2010). The influence of collaboration styles to children’s cognitive performance in digital problem-solving game “William Adventure”: A comparative case study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 982–993.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.009.Google Scholar
  39. Sins, P. H. M., Van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2008). Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between students’ achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing, and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 58–77.Google Scholar
  40. Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 849–861.Google Scholar
  41. ter Vrugte, J., de Jong, T., Vandercruysse, S., Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H., & Elen, J. (2015). How competition and heterogeneous collaboration interact in prevocational game-based mathematics education. Computers & Education, 89, 42–52.Google Scholar
  42. van der Meij, H., Albers, E., & Leemkuil, H. (2010). Learning from games: Does collaboration help? British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 655–664.Google Scholar
  43. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. V. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505023.Google Scholar
  44. Vandercruysse, S., Vandewaetere, M., Cornillie, F., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Competition and students’ perceptions in a game-based language learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 927–950.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9314-5.Google Scholar
  45. Watson, G., & Johnson, D. W. (1972). Social psychology: Issues and insights. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  46. Whitin, P. (2004). Promoting problem-posing explorations. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(4), 180–186.Google Scholar
  47. Wildschut, T., Insko, C. A., & Gaertner, L. (2002). Intragroup social influence and intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 975–992.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.975.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, R. B., & Clippinger, C. A. (2002). Aggression, competition and computer games: Computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 495–506.Google Scholar
  49. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265.Google Scholar
  50. Zhu, Y., Wang, J., Lv, X., & Li, Y. (2016). Once failed, twice shy: How group-based competition influences risk preference in young children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 145(4), 397–401.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Education and TechnologyNational Changhua University of EducationChanghuaTaiwan

Personalised recommendations