Single noncollaborative, noncompetitive play shows the largest learning effects, significantly larger than single competitive play¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Effects were significantly larger for single noncollaborative/noncompetitive play than for single competitive play (b = 0.69, p < .001). → Clark Douglas B. 2016 q3 i? After controlling for other game characteristics, the single-noncompetitive advantage over collaborative team competition and multiplayer games was no longer significant. → Clark Douglas B. 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Clark Douglas B. 2016¶

Clark Douglas B., Tanner-Smith Emily E., Killingsworth Stephen S. (2016). Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-regression moderator analysis of player configuration in media comparisons; single noncollaborative/noncompetitive play (g = 0.45) was the only configuration with a confidence interval excluding zero, though the authors note small numbers of effect sizes in other categories. No standardized effect size was printed for the moderator coefficients.

"Moreover, average effects were significantly larger for games with single players (with no formal collaboration or competition) relative to those using single/competitive play (b = 0.69, p < .001, 95% CI [0.39, 0.99]), collaborative team competitions (b = 0.29, p = .03, 95% CI [0.02, 0.56]), or multiplayer/MMOs (b = 0.49, p = .001, 95% CI [0.21, 0.78])."

Clark Douglas B. 2016 (2)¶

Clark Douglas B., Tanner-Smith Emily E., Killingsworth Stephen S. (2016). Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Sensitivity re-estimation controlling for visual realism, anthropomorphism, variety of game actions, viewpoint, story relevance, and story depth. The single-noncompetitive versus single-competitive difference persisted; other contrasts became nonsignificant, so the evidence is mixed for those comparisons.

"Results from that model indicated that after controlling for those other game characteristics, games with single noncollaborative/noncompetitive players still exhibited significantly larger mean effect sizes than those with single competitive players (b = 0.71, p = .01, 95% CI [0.23, 1.18]) but no longer had significantly different effect sizes than games with collaborative team competitions or multiplayer games."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Single noncollaborative, noncompetitive play shows the largest learning effects; single competitive play shows no benefit relative to nongame conditions — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Digital game conditions produce significantly better learning outcomes than nongame conditions (g = 0.33) in media comparisons — a broader claim this one bears on
• Playing games in a variety of modes (local and online multiplayer; cooperative and team-based) is associated with higher adaptability and communication scores
• Multi-session game conditions outperform nongame conditions while single-session games do not, though total play duration shows no association with effect size — related
• Multi-session game interventions show significantly larger learning benefits than single-session interventions, while total play duration shows no association with effect size — related
• Digital game-based ICT was associated with significantly smaller effects on writing quality, but the finding rests on a single study — related