Game benefits are similar in magnitude for cognitive and intrapersonal outcomes, while the single interpersonal outcome was not significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Mean effect sizes were 0.35 for cognitive and 0.35 for intrapersonal outcomes, with no evidence of a difference between domains (b = 0.03, CI [−0.32, 0.38]). → Clark 2016 q3 i? The single interpersonal outcome effect size was positive but not significantly different from zero (g = 0.25, CI [−0.28, 0.77]). → Clark 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Clark 2016¶

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-regression across media-comparison effect sizes comparing outcome domains; Table 3 reports cognitive g = 0.35 (CI [0.20, 0.51]) and intrapersonal g = 0.35 (CI [0.06, 0.65]), both small-to-borderline effects. The review reports "no evidence of a difference in the magnitude of the mean effect sizes."

"Results from a meta-regression model using robust variance estimates provided no evidence of a difference in the magnitude of the mean effect sizes for the cognitive and intrapersonal learning outcomes (b = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.32, 0.38])."

Clark 2016 (2)¶

Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Single-study interpersonal outcome from the media-comparison set; g = 0.25 with a confidence interval including zero, so no significant effect was detected and no reliable effect size is established from one study.

"Only one study provided an effect size on an interpersonal learning outcome (not shown separately in Table 3), which was positive and favored the digital game conditions but was not significantly different from zero (g¯= 0.25, 95% CI [−0.28, 0.77])."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Social Awareness and Relationship Skills — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Multi-session game conditions outperform nongame conditions while single-session games do not, though total play duration shows no association with effect size — related
• Balanced SEL frameworks cover intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cognitive competencies and mix skills, knowledge, and attitudes — related
• Gamification has small positive effects on cognitive, motivational and behavioral learning outcomes — related
• Digital game conditions produce significantly better learning outcomes than nongame conditions (g = 0.33) in media comparisons — related
• Good Behavior Game shows uncertain effects on intrapersonal competencies, with a pooled effect size of 0.14 that is not statistically significant — related
• Feedback is more effective for cognitive and physical outcomes than for motivational and behavioral outcomes — related