Webibliography for Chpt 15 regarding the use of games and simulations in elearning

Webibliography:  Simulations and Games in e-Learning

Summary

    
     The mental process or today’s generation functions differently than any other generation to exist previously.  Most learners today have been inundated with various electronic stimuli since near birth age.  According to Clark and Mayer (2008) this has caused a legitimate neurological difference in the way that this generation learns.  It is believed that due to overstimulation and an acceptance of multitasking today’s learners are bored with traditional directed learning methods.  One new approach to reaching these learners is through the use of games and simulations.

     

     Simulations and games offer much to the “digital native”, but the article is concerned more with a best practices approach.  According to the authors there is far more that is not known about the integration of games and simulations than there is known.  This situation exists because there has been a plethora of research into the area from which to draw some basic principles, but that research has lacked the sound empirical practices to establish a solid taxonomy regarding these new advances.   

     Though the research is shaky at best Clark and Mayer (2008) have managed to construct five general principles to use towards the development of effective educational games and simulations.  The principles are as follows:

1.       Match Game Types to Learning Goals.

a.       Different types of games such as arcade style or jeopardy style promote particular types of learning and response. 

b.      One example of a failed match is the use of Oregon Trail game to teach students about frontier life and economics.  Most students were more caught up with shooting animals and racing to the end point.

c.       It is important to evaluate what you want students to learn and choose a game or simulation that will encourage those behaviors.

2.       Make Learning Essential to Progress.

a.       Many times designers try to build objectives into the background of the game or bring irrelevant information to the forefront. 

b.      One example was taken from the game America’s Army where learners where able to answer 75% of questions related to relevant information, but only able to answer 60% of questions related to irrelevant information.

c.       It is important that the objectives themselves are built into the game’s plot and that  some identifiable means of meeting those objectives be required prior to advancing in the game

3.       Build in Guidance.

a.       Without guidance learners can teach themselves the software and perform well on the game, but may not meet the learning objectives.

b.      One of the major ways to build in guidance is by incorporating explanations as feedback and between segments of the game.

c.       Optimizing the visuals is another way of providing guidance.  By keeping the detail for non-relevant aspects low and going higher on the relative details learners can be kept on track.

4.       Promote Reflection on Correct Answers.

a.       One of the largest issues with games is that the high levels of interactivity do not allow for reflection on what has been learned.

b.      When time for reflection is allowed learners may be reflecting on bad information if corrective feedback has not been given.

c.       The key is to provide feedback and time for reflection so that learners can reflect on the correct answers to problems.

5.       Manage Complexity.

a.       Complexity can be managed several ways.  One of the primary means is through goal progression.

b.      Training wheels and faded design are fairly similar concepts that also allow for managing complexity by providing higher levels of support at first and then allowing more user control as they progress.

c.       In an attempt to reduce cognitive overload fast paced games should be avoided, learner paced interaction is most desirable.

Reflection

      

     While Clark and Mayer (2008) propose some great concepts that I can see as extremely useful the most pertinent fact that sticks in my mind is that all of these principles are still based on weak research.  Many practices seem obvious, but when sound research principles are applied we find that they are not nearly as effective or obvious as we had once thought.  This is my concern with much of this chapter until additional empirical evidence is produced.

     

     Aside from the lack of research the concept of matching the type of learning to a particular style of game or simulation is something I could see as a very useful.  Specifically in our ISD project where we are attempting to teach a learner a specific principle I would think that most games would not be appropriate.  Considering that the lesson will also be provided free of charge I would not think that the cost-benefit would be in our favor.  However, a simple simulation where a learner is provided with situations and then asked to select the best response from a bank of choices might be inexpensive, effective, and appropriate.

References

Clark, R., Mayer, R. (2008) e-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven guidelines for    

          consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA. Pfeiffer.

Cognitive Load Theory

     The extent to which any instruction is effective depends heavily on whether it takes the characteristics of human cognition into account (Sweller, 2008).  This is the main premise behind Cognitive Load Theory. 

     Cognitive load theory suggests that there are three major types of load that are imposed upon a learners mind when they are trying to learn something.  These different loads are the Extraneous, the Germane, and the Intrinsic.  Sweller (2008) indicates that intrinsic load is the amount of difficulty imposed on the learning process that is inherent in the information to be learned.  Intrinsic is the one load that cannot be affected by ISD principles, but at the same time must be taken into account when designing instruction.  Extraneous load is the extra load placed on the learning process by disorganized, clunky, and poor instructional design as well as outside factors.  The goal of instructional design would be to reduce this type of load.  Germane load is where the learning is really able to occur.  With higher amounts of germane load the mind is able to organize and process information while at the same time accessing and storing data in long term memory.  This is positively affected by quality instructional design.

      

     One major weakness of cognitive load theory is its lack of a specific form of measure (Jong, 2010).  There have been many attempts at measuring the different levels of cognitive load, but most are relative and seek answers from the subjects.  Until there is some third party scientific way to measure levels of cognitive load the theory will struggle for full acceptance. 

      

      Additionally, Schnotz & Kürschner (2007) indicate that Cognitive load theory is too general in that it does not specify the types of affect that some of the secondary loads have upon one another, and in turn the major forms of cognitive load.

     

      Cognitive load theory does have much to offer in the way of strengths, and is widely accepted and integrated into instructional design theory.  Two of the major effects that I would integrate into my own design toolbox would be the “split-attention effect” and the “modality effect”.  These two are just a small sampling of the many effects proposed by cognitive load theory, but are highly relevant to the development of distance learning. 

     

      Split-attention effect refers to the load that is placed on learners by trying to reconcile two items in isolation and how the load is reduced when those same two items are combined (Sweller, 2008).  For example, a PowerPoint presentation can be combined with an audio lecture into a Captivate presentation.  This combines the two different items into one and reduces extraneous load.

      

     The modality effect takes the split-attention effect simply to another level.  Modality recognizes that each receptive method could be viewed as an individual channel.  Instead of integrating two different types of items, say visual and auditory, this takes into account that a learner may need to view two items on the same channel.  One example would be if a student needed to look at a diagram and a text.  If the visual channel can only handle one at a time then the text could be converted to audio.  From there the audio and the diagram are combined as in the split-attention effect. 

      

References

Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A Reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4

Sweller, J. (2008). Human Cognitive Architecture. In Driscoll, M. P., Merrill, M. D., Merrienboer, J. V.,  & Spector, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Educational-Communications-Technology-ebook/dp/B000SJZO90/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1