Claims

Theoretically augmented game designs produce better learning outcomes than standard game versions (g = 0.34), with enhanced scaffolding designs showing g = 0.41

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i1 Comparison of all enhanced game versions versus standard versions showed a significant positive effect for the enhanced designs (g = 0.34, 95% CI [0.17, 0.51], 40 effect sizes from 20 studies). → Clark 2016 q3 i2 Enhanced scaffolding designs specifically showed a significant effect versus equivalent standard versions (g = 0.41, 95% CI [0.18, 0.64], 20 effect sizes from 9 studies). → Clark 2016 (2)

q3 i1 Across 40 value-added effect sizes from 20 studies, enhanced game designs significantly outperformed standard versions (g = 0.34). → Clark Douglas B. 2016

q3 i2 Enhanced scaffolding designs, the only well-represented category, showed a significant effect (g = 0.41). → 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

Value-added meta-analysis comparing augmented game designs against equivalent standard versions of the same games, using robust variance estimation. The review reports "a significant positive effect size for the enhanced designs" of g = 0.34 across 40 effect sizes from 20 studies.

"Overall, the comparison of all enhanced versions versus standard versions showed a significant positive effect size for the enhanced designs (g¯ = 0.34, 95% CI [0.17, 0.51]). This comparison involved 40 effect sizes estimated from 20 studies"

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 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup of value-added comparisons focused on enhanced scaffolding, defined broadly to include personalized scaffolding, intelligent agents, adapting game experiences to student needs, and revised game structuring. The review reports g = 0.41, CI [0.18, 0.64], a medium effect by the code table.

"Specific comparisons of enhanced scaffolding demonstrated a significant overall effect size of similar magnitude to the overall value-added findings (g¯ = 0.41, 95% CI [0.18, 0.64])."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id value-added-augmented-designs-benefit-learning
aliases value-added-augmented-designs-benefit
title Theoretically augmented game designs produce better learning outcomes than standard game versions (g = 0.34), with enhanced scaffolding designs showing g = 0.41
description Theoretically augmented game designs produce better learning outcomes than standard game versions (g = 0.34), with enhanced scaffolding designs showing g = 0.41
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2016
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — clark-2016, clark-2016-2

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.