Studying worked examples between two rounds of a computer puzzle game produced significantly greater knowledge map improvement than no worked examples for adult players¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 3 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Adults randomly assigned to study worked examples improved significantly more on the content-understanding knowledge map than a control group that did not (mean improvement 2.21 vs. 0.62). → Shen 2006

Evidence¶

Shen 2006¶

Shen, C.-Y., & O’Neil, H. (2006). The Effectiveness of Worked Examples in a Game-Based Learning Environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491961

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Randomized two-group experiment (72 undergraduate or graduate students) with the SafeCracker puzzle game. The worked example group "improved significantly more than those who did not receive worked examples on the knowledge map": average improvement 2.21 (SD = 2.56) vs. 0.62 (SD = 2.45). No test statistic or effect size is printed.

"First, the participants who received worked examples improved significantly more than those who did not receive worked examples on the knowledge map. The average improvement in knowledge map score of the worked example group was more than that of the control group, i.e., 2.21 (SD = 2.56) vs. 0.62 (SD = 2.45)."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Do modelling, tutoring or bridging instruction added around play raise what learners take from a game? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 4 narrower claims that bear on it: 2 distinct studies (1 causal, 1 review), q2–q3, 0 of 2 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Example-based sequences outperform problem-only practice for novices, and fading support is argued to aid transfer — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Worked Example Gains In A Puzzle Game Remain Small Relative To Expert Knowledge Maps
• Worked Examples Reduce Novice Search
• Game-based learning improved pharmacy students' literature searching course scores in one reported study — related
• Individually removing objectives, examples, or review from a well-designed computer-based lesson did not significantly reduce achievement — related
• Adult players who studied worked examples scored significantly higher on a game-based problem-solving retention question than a control group — related
• Adult players who studied worked examples scored significantly higher on a game-based problem-solving transfer question than a control group — related
• In a game-based problem-solving study, trait self-regulation scores related significantly only to knowledge map scores, with higher planning, self-monitoring, effort and self-efficacy going with better knowledge map performance — related
• Greater mathematics content in a practice test improves subsequent mathematics performance by a small amount (~2% of a standard deviation per hour of practice) — related
• Worked examples did not improve application of CDR strategy knowledge relative to problem-solving — related
• A 2017 cyberlearning community report states that students learn more from games when bridging activities connect game learning to classroom instruction, and that learning analytics can strengthen the connection — related