Collaborative MAR gameplay exceeds competitive gameplay on observed physical activity and interest in exploring the tool¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The collaborative mode produced a statistically significant but low increase in physical activity relative to the competitive mode (means 1.2678 vs 1.1012, p = 0.026). → López-Faican 2020 q2 i? Children explored the tool with more interest in the collaborative mode (79%) than the competitive mode (53%, p = 0.000). → López-Faican 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

López-Faican 2020¶

López-Faican, L.; Jaén Martínez, FJ. (2020). EmoFindAR: Evaluation of a mobile multiplayer augmented reality game for primary school children. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103814

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Observational analysis of physical activity (P1Obs2) in the paired-children evaluation; Table 6 reports means of 1.1012 competitive vs 1.2678 collaborative, p = 0.026, so H0d was rejected. Both modes still showed generally low activity levels at the end of the game, and overall physical activity remained low in both modes.

"In the present evaluation, even though a limited physical space was used, the collaborative style enhanced the level of physical activity (H0d) because the children had to move around during the planning phase in search of the next target."

López-Faican 2020 (2)¶

López-Faican, L.; Jaén Martínez, FJ. (2020). EmoFindAR: Evaluation of a mobile multiplayer augmented reality game for primary school children. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103814

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Observational analysis of tool use (P1Obs4) in the same paired evaluation; Table 6 reports means of 1.4213 competitive vs 1.7200 collaborative, p = 0.000, so H0f was rejected. The authors note children spent more planning-phase time exploring available objects and targets in the collaborative version.

"The use of the tool (P1Obs4), indicates that the two game modes motivated the children to be interested in its technical aspects, with a higher percentage in the collaborative version (53% competitive and 79% collaborative)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Physical Well-Being — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Collaborative MAR gameplay raises children's observable enjoyment and mood more than competitive gameplay — related
• Both competitive and collaborative MAR game modes are highly enjoyable and easy to use for primary school children, with no significant differences between modes — related