No evidence that learning effects differ by variety of player actions or by inclusion of additional nongame instruction¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Effects were strongest for medium or large varieties of game actions, but there was no evidence that the mean effect sizes across the small, medium, and large categories differed from each other. → Clark 2016 q3 i? There was no evidence that effects differed depending on whether game conditions included additional nongame instruction (b = 0.04, CI [−0.23, 0.31]). → 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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-regression moderator analysis of variety of player actions in media comparisons (Table 3: small g = 0.35, medium g = 0.43, large g = 0.40). The review reports "no evidence that the mean effect sizes across these three categories were different from each other"; no effect size is printed for the difference, so impact is null.

"Overall, effects on learning were strongest for game conditions with medium or large varieties of game actions. Effects were somewhat smaller for those games with a small variety of actions, but there was no evidence that the mean effect sizes across these three categories were different from each other."

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

Null moderator result from the media-comparison meta-regression models for supplemental nongame instruction, contrary to Moderator Hypothesis 1b and to the findings of prior meta-analyses the article cites. Only the regression coefficient is printed, so impact is null.

"As shown in Table 3, there was no evidence that effects were different depending on whether or not the game conditions included additional nongame instruction (b = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.23, 0.31])."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Digital game conditions produce significantly better learning outcomes than nongame conditions (g = 0.33) in media comparisons — 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 — related
• Multi-session game conditions outperform nongame conditions while single-session games do not, though total play duration shows no association with effect size — related
• Exploration behavior is associated with the most complex and most varied conceptual models, with statistically significant differences across behavior types — related
• Simulation games are effective as a supplement to other instruction but not as standalone instruction, where comparison groups learned slightly more (a difference not statistically significant) — related