Digital game conditions produce significantly better learning outcomes than nongame conditions (g = 0.33) in media comparisons¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Across 209 effect sizes from 57 studies, students in digital game conditions demonstrated significantly better learning outcomes than students in nongame comparison conditions (g = 0.33, 95% CI [0.19, 0.48]). → Clark 2016

q3 i1 Across 209 effect sizes from 57 studies, digital game conditions showed significantly better learning outcomes than nongame conditions (g = 0.33). → Clark Douglas B. 2016

q3 i1 The beneficial effect was similar for cognitive (g = 0.35) and intrapersonal (g = 0.35) learning outcomes. → Clark Douglas B. 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

Random-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation across 209 pairwise media-comparison effect sizes from 57 studies of K–16 students. The review reports "students in digital game conditions demonstrated significantly better outcomes overall" with g = 0.33, CI [0.19, 0.48].

"Table 3 shows that students in digital game conditions demonstrated significantly better outcomes overall relative to students in the nongame comparison conditions (g¯ = 0.33, 95% CI [0.19, 0.48], τ2 = 0.28)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Media comparison studies produce uninterpretable "no significant difference" findings. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Multi-session game conditions outperform nongame conditions while single-session games do not, though total play duration shows no association with effect size — related

• Single noncollaborative, noncompetitive play shows the largest learning effects; single competitive play shows no benefit relative to nongame conditions — related
• No evidence that learning effects differ by variety of player actions or by inclusion of additional nongame instruction — related
• Schematic visual games show larger learning effects than realistic games, which show no significant benefit over nongame conditions — related
• Theoretically augmented game designs produce better learning outcomes than standard game versions (g = 0.34), with enhanced scaffolding designs showing g = 0.41 — related
• Game benefits are similar in magnitude for cognitive and intrapersonal outcomes, while the single interpersonal outcome was not significant — related
• Gamification has small positive effects on cognitive, motivational and behavioral learning outcomes — related
• Games with irrelevant story context show significantly larger learning effects than games with relevant story context, and games with no story show a larger, untested mean effect — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Third-person camera perspective games show significant learning benefits while first-person perspective games show no significant benefit — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Multi-session game interventions show significantly larger learning benefits than single-session interventions, while total play duration shows no association with effect size — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Single noncollaborative, noncompetitive play shows the largest learning effects, significantly larger than single competitive play — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Media comparison results favor games in some studies but favor slideshows for games with intrusive narrative themes — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Digital game-based ICT was associated with significantly smaller effects on writing quality, but the finding rests on a single study — related