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: Previous work has identified that the benefits of learning with videogames and learning from simulations. However, recent meta‐analytic work has also identified that little research directly compares learning with videogames and learning with simulations. Objectives: This study examines two learning technologies and their corresponding pedagogical approaches and compares them for learning the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics topic of electric charges. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention using a computer simulation for inquiry‐based learning or a computer videogame for game‐based learning. Their learning gains, self‐reported emotional state and experienced cognitive load were recorded. Results: We found that both learning environments improved conceptual learning, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions. Participants did perceive the game‐based environment to be more engaging as well as more frustrating. We also found that cognitive load did not predict learning—however, different types of cognitive load correlated with different emotions. Overall, participants in both conditions were engaged and perceived understanding of the topic, yet they also experienced both confusion and task‐unrelated thoughts. Takeaways: When learning with simulations and videogames, educators need to align intended learning outcomes with pedagogical approaches enabled by technology. In addition, a balance between principles of multimedia learning to reduce or prevent extraneous processing, and scaffolding to reduce negative effects of learning with technology, need to be considered. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Research on the use of computer simulations for learning has identified positive learning effects regarding achievement outcomes, inquiry skills and noncognitive outcomes.Research on the use of videogames for learning has suggested learning benefits, such as improved working memory, development of creativity skills and achievement outcomes.Recent meta‐analytic work has identified that there is little research that directly compares learning with videogames and learning with simulations. What this paper adds: Learning benefits of difficult Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) concepts may be different for game‐based learning (GBL) than inquiry‐based learning (IBL).Positive emotions can be experienced when learning via GBL than when learning via IBL.Students, who experience more positive emotions may also achieve higher learning gains.Students' cognitive load may be different when learning with GBL than when learning via IBL.Students experiencing high cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic and extraneous) may show lower learning gains.Students experiencing high cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic and extraneous) may show higher level of mind‐wandering, frustration, or confusion. Implications for practice and/or policy: Learning with simulated inquiry base environment and game base environment improved conceptual learning.GBL was more engaging and more frustrating for students, when learning with computer videogames.Cognitive load did not predict STEM learning with technologies.Different cognitive load correlated with different learning emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated changes in learners' motivation, engagement, performance, and spatial reasoning over time and across different levels of virtual reality (VR) immersion. Undergraduate participants explored a virtual solar system via a moderately immersive or highly immersive VR platform over three sessions. In a third condition, participants initially learned with moderate immersion and transitioned to higher immersion after the second session. Following research on novelty effects, we explored whether subjective experiences and performance would decline over time (e.g., decreasing motivation or performance) as participants became familiar with the virtual environment and tools. However, we hypothesized that transitional immersion (i.e., switching from moderate to higher immersion) might lead to a renewed sense of novelty. Results suggested that both moderate and higher levels of immersion were motivating, engaging, and supportive of learning. In contrast to predictions based on novelty effects, these outcomes did not decline overall as learners gained familiarity with the systems. However, transitional immersion emerged as a promising and testable pedagogical approach for future VR education. All participants also showed gains in spatial reasoning. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic?: Virtual reality can support motivation and learning in STEM education.Novelty may elicit motivation, engagement and learning.Virtual reality may benefit development of spatial reasoning skills. What this paper adds?: Motivation, engagement and performance persist across multiple sessions of VR learning.Switching from moderate to higher immersion increases motivation and engagement.Both moderate and higher immersion support improvements in spatial reasoning. Implications for practice and/or policy: Novelty effects are not a significant concern when implementing VR education over multiple sessions.More immersive VR tools may be progressively introduced during learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the best approach to educating students is, evidently, the pivotal question in educational research. In the general debate on this question, clear positions are often taken―for example, whether teacher‐led instruction or more student‐directed approaches should be followed. In the current narrative review, this central question and the different stances taken are explored for a specific field of learning, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) domains. The current article starts with an argument as to why the traditional, more directive teacher‐led educational approach to STEM learning may not always lead to deep conceptual knowledge and proposes exploring more engaged forms of learning. More specifically, a particular arrangement for engaged learning, inquiry learning, is taken as an example in this exploration. It is argued that the effects of educational methods are influenced by a multitude of (interacting) factors related to student and teacher characteristics, context, domain, frequency of use, timing, and probably more. Therefore, this article tries to outline a more nuanced and balanced stance towards choosing educational approaches. A picture is presented to show that adopting and combining different approaches, at both the lesson and the curricular levels, may be necessary to reach optimal levels of learning. Existing and upcoming technologies may play a decisive role in realizing this more complex, but also more realistic view of learning in STEM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]