Search

Background: The substantial growth in gamification research has connected gamified learning to enhanced engagement, improved performance, and greater motivation. Similar to gamification, personalized learning analytics dashboards can enhance student engagement. Objectives: This study explores the student experiences and academic achievements using a gamified dashboard in a large, introductory STEM course. Methods: We examined two groups of students enrolled in different sections of a one‐semester‐long physical geology course with a total enrollment of 223 students. The only difference between the groups was that one had access to the dashboard. The data collection included students' assignments, overall performances, and exam scores. Students in both sections completed a Science Literacy Concept Inventory survey at the beginning and end of the term. Additionally, students completed an end‐of‐term survey containing open‐ended questions on their experience and interactions with specific elements. Results: Students shared mostly positive comments about their experience with the dashboard, and the final grade of students with access to the dashboard was 13% higher, on average, compared to their peers in the non‐dashboard section. Conclusion: With low costs and little time invested, gamified dashboards could have a significant impact on student performance in large STEM lecture courses. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Leaner dashboards that provide personalized feedback are linked to improved student performance in undergraduate STEM courses. However, students may be reticent to adopt dashboards, especially students in the middle range of the performance distribution, for whom the impact of the dashboard may be most significant.Prior research on gamification in STEM courses suggests that adding gameful elements like progress trackers, badges, and rewards can increase students' engagement in undergraduate coursework.The combination of personalized learning in dashboards and the motivational experience of gamification should boost student engagement, dashboard adoption, and ultimately foster academic achievement. What this paper adds: In this paper, we examine the differences in academic performance between students with and without access to a gamified learning dashboard in an undergraduate Geology course.We observe that students with access to the dashboard (the treatment group), outperform students without access (the control group). The greatest benefit is observed for students who use the dashboard more frequently.Students reported that the progress tracker, the badges, and the rewards all incentivized their use and provided useful feedback about their performance. Students who did not adopt the dashboard expressed a need for more detail about the tool and its purpose. Implications for practice and/or policy: Instructors and instructional designers for large enrollment undergraduate STEM courses should consider the affordances of gamified learner dashboards for increasing engagement and for providing synchronous feedback about learners' strategies in the course.Aligning the dashboard to the content of the curriculum—by ensuring that badges reflect key concepts‐ encouraged participation and helped students identify the utility of the tool. Dashboards should be personalized to individuals and to the course.Adding gameful elements in a low‐cost intervention for increasing adoption and engagement of dashboards in large enrollment introductory courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Students who are blind are integrated into public schools in many countries, yet are often excluded from full participation in science since most learning materials are visual. To create a compensatory route, an existing model‐based inquiry‐learning environment was adapted by means of sonification (addition of non‐speech sounds that represent dynamic information). The learning environment uses agent‐based models and a complex systems approach to teach the Kinetic Molecular Theory (KMT) and Gas Laws. The models are accompanied by a workbook consisting of text (printed or auditory) and images (printed or tactile). Objectives: The current research examined whether such perceptual compensation creates a comparable learning environment for learners who are blind compared with learners who are sighted using the original learning environment. The aim of the study is to expand knowledge about how the auditory channel may compensate the visual channel among individuals who are blind. Methods: Conceptual learning in science and reasoning about complex systems were assessed using pre‐ and post‐questionnaires. To explore learners' learning progression throughout the unit, four progression analysis 'windows' were selected. These were groups of adjacent or nearly adjacent items in the workbook that permitted a glimpse of learners' progression. Results: The sonified environment not only supported the learning of learners who are blind compared with the learning of learners who are sighted using visual material, but even furthered their learning with respect to diffusion, one of the more challenging concepts in KMT. It seems the types of sonified representations used in this study increased listeners' sensitivity to the micro‐level interactions in a way less accessible in visual representations. Takeaways: Sonified environments can be provide learners who are blind with equitable participation by compensating and complementing the visual channel. Sonification can have implications for students who are blind as well as students who are sighted. Lay Description: What is already known: Sonification is the use of non‐speech sounds to represent dynamic information. Sonification can potentialy be used to allow equitable participation for students who are blind. What this paper adds: To test this, the study compared the outcomes of learners who are blind who used a sonified learning environment (L2C) to that of learners who are sighted who used a visual environment. Implications for practice: Learners who are blind showed equal or better learning outcomes using the sonified models compared with the learners who are sighted using the visual models. There are major implications for integrating students who are blind in public school classrooms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As immersive virtual reality (IVR) systems proliferate in classrooms, it is important to understand how they affect learning outcomes and the underlying affective and cognitive processes that may cause these outcomes. Proponents argue that IVR could improve learning by increasing positive affective and cognitive processing, thereby supporting improved performance on tests of learning outcome, whereas opponents of IVR contend that it could hurt learning by increasing distraction, thereby disrupting cognitive learning processes and leading to poorer learning outcomes. In a media comparison study, students viewed a biology lesson either as an interactive animated journey in IVR or as a slideshow on a desktop monitor. Those who viewed the IVR lesson performed significantly worse on transfer tests, reported higher emotional arousal, reported more extraneous cognitive load and showed less engagement based on EEG measures than those who viewed the slideshow lesson, with or without practice questions added to the lessons. Mediational analyses showed that the lower retention scores for the IVR lesson were related to an increase in self‐reported extraneous cognitive load and emotional arousal. These results support the notion that immersive environments create high affective and cognitive distraction, which leads to poorer learning outcomes than desktop environments. Lay Description: What is already known about the topic: IVR is gaining popularity in classrooms, and it is important to understand its effects on learning.Some theories suggest IVR could help learning because it may increase motivation.Other theories suggest IVR could hurt learning because it causes distraction. What this paper adds: The biology lesson displayed in IVR led to less learning than a PowerPoint lesson.Viewing the IVR lesson caused higher emotional arousal than viewing the PowerPoint lesson.The IVR lesson led to more distraction based on self‐report and EEG measures than the PowerPoint lesson.These results suggest that IVR creates high emotional and cognitive distraction, which leads to less learning. Implications for practice: Using IVR to replace traditional classroom lessons may not yet be useful.However, because students report enjoying IVR, it may be useful to use in addition to conventional lessons.Future research should determine how specific factors of the technology and the learners affect learning outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]