Total views : 292

How are Serious Games used in the Classroom setting? - Based on the Learning Theory

Affiliations

  • Korean National Institute for General Education, Korean Council for University Education, South Korea
  • College of Education, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea

Abstract


Background/Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify how serious games can be utilized for an educational purpose. Educational psychologists categorize learning theories into three subjects; behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism. Methods/Statistical Analysis: This study was designed based on the methodology of Design-Based Research (DBR) and for analysis of research, coding technique of grounded theory was borrowed. To analyze the practical educational use of serious game, the researcher designed and applied high school English class that utilizes a serious game. Findings: In the aspect of behaviorism, advantages of serious game were discovered by seeing the fact that students were exposed to the environment where they could easily memorize through getting achievements and retaining memory with repetition. Such compensation was easily implemented due to a strengthening element that serious game itself has and students could be easily immersed through it. In the aspect of cognitivism, the possibility of a cross subject learning through designing game environment by teachers was discovered and the ease of learning could be utilized through taskbased learning. Also, teachers can make use of this method to connect students’ prior knowledge and new information by presenting appropriate amount of work. On the other hand, in the aspect of constructivism, researchers developed a process of meeting students while maintaining anonymity to effectively observe student problem-solving in the game. Multi-dimensional interaction and resolving issues generated by difference of cultural literacy other than difference of language present not only an environment to students but also new task to teachers. Application/Improvements: The results are significant in the study of serious games that it presented the connection between a function of game and a learning type.

Keywords

Educational Psychology, EFL, Game Learning, Learning Theory, Serious Game

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 250)

References


  • Wouters P, Spek VED, Oostendorp VH, Connolly T, Stansfield M, Boyle L. Current practices in serious game research: A review from a learning outcomes perspective. Games-based Learning Advancements for Multi-SensoryHuman Computer Interfaces: Techniques and Effective Practices. Information ScienceReference; 2009. p. 232–50.
  • Kim J, Jung J, Kim S. The relationship of game elements, fun and flow. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Apr; 8(8):405–11.
  • Ge ZG. Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peerreviewed English writing. Computer Supported Learning. 2011; 6(1):75–91.
  • Zheng D, Young MF, Wagner MM, Brewer RA. Negotiation for action: English Language Learning in game-based virtual worlds. The Modern Language Journal. 2009; 93(4):489–511.
  • Kim SH, Lee JL, Thomas MK. Between purpose and method: A review of educational research on 3D virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. 2012; 5(1):1– 18.
  • Hong SR, Shin IY. The application of multimedia and wireless technology in education. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Aug; 8(20):1–11.
  • Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist. 2003; 38(1):1–4.
  • Ertmer PA, Newby TJ. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1993; 6(4):50–72.
  • Skinner BF. Operant behavior. American Psychologist. 1963; 18(8);503.
  • Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction. 1994; 4(4):295–312.
  • Phillips W. On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception and Psychophysics. 1974; 16(2):283–90.
  • Jonassen DH, Howland J, Moore J, Marra RM. Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. 2nd ed. Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall; 2002. p. 256.
  • Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1978. p. 159.
  • Savery JR, Duffy TM. Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology. 1995; 35(5):31–8.
  • Bell P. Collective TD-BR. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher. 2003; 32(1):5–8.
  • Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. California: Sage publications; 2014. p. 312.
  • Pica T. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes and outcomes?Language Learning. 1994; 44(3):493–527.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.