Classroom-based Games for Student Learning and Engagement

It is now generally accepted that active learning methods can help students learn material at a deeper level, and that students enjoy game-based learning. However, most game-based learning research has focused more on engagement benefits rather than learning, and many lack comparison groups and details on procedures and assessment techniques. Research on classroom-based games is most lacking in learning effectiveness studies compared to digital games and gamification research. However, non-digital games offer many of the same advantages as digital games and may be more accessible. This paper focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of simple classroom-based games to enhance engagement and learning. The evaluation is conducted with two (2) sections of an undergraduate, Introduction to Environmental Engineering course one section acting as the control with no game-based learning, and the other as the experimental section utilizing game-based learning strategies. The games utilized were ‘Heads Up’, ‘Taboo’, ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’, and ‘Two Truths and a Lie’, and could be tailored to almost any topic. Assessment techniques include studentbased surveys, preand post-tests, intervention vs. comparison group statistical analysis, and course evaluations. In this way, technical skills building, as well as attitude and perceptions are evaluated. Results indicate that while similar learning was achieved with the games vs traditional lecture, students’ perception was that the games were not worthwhile in replacing lecture. Details on the games and assessment techniques are included, to allow others to easily adapt this work. Introduction It is now generally accepted that active learning methods can help students learn material at a deeper level [1], and that students enjoy game-based learning. Research has indicated that gamebased activities improve student learning and attitudes [2] by providing immediate feedback and promoting higher intrinsic motivation [2] [3], higher levels of concentration, improved student engagement and enhanced retention of information [4] [3]. Games have also been shown to foster communication, teamwork [2] [5], critical thinking, and complex problem solving skills [5], as well as alleviating the common issue in group-work where one group member dominates [4]. Game-based learning may improve all seven dimensions of the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI): Student Cohesiveness, Individualization, Innovation, Involvement, Personalization, Satisfaction, and Task Orientation [5]. Further, initial research has indicated that involving students in game design can improve engagement, metacognition, and increase retention in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields. Games may even be effective assessment tools in lieu of traditional reports and exams [6]. In spite of the multitude of papers on game-based learning and the indicated benefits, most work has focused more on engagement benefits rather than learning [2]. While much work has been done indicating a correlation between student engagement and learning [3], a direct correlation does not always exist [2]. Interest in understanding the effectiveness of the use of games in teaching is increasing, and it has been recommended that game-based learning research include more than just student attitude and perceptions, and that the engineering community validate the effectiveness of game-based learning strategies compared to traditionally accepted methods. Weaknesses in past studies include lack of validation evidence or procedures for instruments, small or self-selected sample size, lack of rigorous statistical analysis, lack of controls or comparison groups, and a need for more details on procedures and assessment techniques so others can replicate their work [2]. Additionally, research on classroom-based games is most lacking in learning effectiveness studies compared to digital games and gamification research [2]. Most research on game-based learning is focused on digital games. In a systematic literature review, approximately three times more papers were on digital games than on classroom-based games [2]. However, non-digital games offer many of the same advantages as digital games and may be more accessible [6]. Effective teaching requires balancing quality of content (explicit vs implicit), quality of context (tailored vs noisy), and quality of person (detached vs engaged). There are benefits and weaknesses to both game-based learning methods (implicit, noisy, engaged) as well as traditional methods (explicit, tailored, detached) in these areas, and so a balance must be met to keep students engaged, and effectively deliver and uncover academic content with the students [7]. This paper focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of classroom-based games to enhance engagement and learning. The evaluation is conducted with two (2) sections of an undergraduate, Introduction to Environmental Engineering course one section acting as the control with no game-based learning, and the other as the experimental section utilizing gamebased learning techniques. Assessment techniques include student-based surveys, preand posttests, intervention vs. comparison group statistical analysis, and course evaluations. In this way, technical skills building, as well as attitude and perceptions are evaluated. Details on the games and assessment techniques are included, to allow others to easily adapt this work. Methods This research comprises a mixed-methods study of learning and engagement of undergraduate engineering students utilizing classroom-based games. Over the previous two (2) years, games were integrated into lectures approximately three (3) times throughout the semester in various courses by the same instructor, with the intent to provide a change of pace and engage students. The classroom-based games were based on board games and television game shows. Typically, students earned ‘bonus participation points’ by playing these games. Details on how these games were implemented are included in Appendix A. For the focused concurrent cohort study, four (4) different games were utilized: ‘Heads Up’, ‘Taboo’, ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’, and ‘Two Truths and a Lie’. For all games, students were asked to bring their textbooks to class. The class was broken into 4-6 teams, each comprised of 5-10 people. The students were given 510 minutes prior to the game beginning to write down 1-2 sets of questions. The remainder of the 50-minute class period was spent on the game, with the last 5-10 minutes allotted for the students to complete a survey. The instructor also created a few questions to weave into the game. Sometimes students came up with very similar questions as the instructor, but often students found more obscure information from their textbooks. For instance, for the game ‘Heads Up’ on the topic of Risk Assessment, where the team needs to get their teammate to say a certain word, the instructor used words such as ‘Reference Dose’, ‘Chemical Exposure’, and ‘Hazard Index’. The students also used words such as ‘Reference Dose’, but also ‘Neoplasm’, ‘Genotoxic’, and ‘Lymphomas’. Assessment techniques include student-based surveys (included in Appendix B) conducted at the end of each class (both cohorts) when a game was played in the experimental cohort, preand post-quizzes, intervention vs. comparison group statistical analysis, and course evaluations. In this way, technical knowledge as well as students experience with games in the past and their perception of their effectiveness was evaluated. The focus of this study was utilizing concurrent cohorts comprised of two (2) sections of an undergraduate, Introduction to Environmental Engineering course. One section of the class was taught utilizing traditional active learning techniques (think-pair-share, group discussion) as well as the direct transmission method (i.e. lecturing), and the other section utilized these same methods with the addition of game-based learning strategies. As illustrated in Figure 1, the control section contained 26 students: 89% male, 11% female; 58% sophomores, 38% juniors, and 4% seniors; 96% civil engineering majors, and 4% mechanical engineering majors. The experimental section contained 44 students: 84% male, 16% female; 30% sophomores, 20% juniors, and 50% seniors; 96% civil engineering majors and 4% civil engineering technology majors. The students and instructor had no information on which section would be game-based when the students signed up for their sections. Appropriate human subjects clearance was obtained prior to the commencement of this study. Figure 1: Cohort Description Both sections of the course were designed to have assessments comprised of three (3) exams, two (2) individual reports, three (3) homework sets, and six (6) quizzes. Homework sets and quizzes covered material from three (3) to six (6), 50-minute lectures that generally supported one (1) chapter from the textbook. In the experimental section, classroom games replaced two (2) of two (2) lectures on Risk Assessment, two (2) of four (4) lectures on wastewater treatment, and one (1) of three (3) lectures on solid waste management. Pre-tests were given to both sections prior to the material for these topics to compare technical skills building with the material presented with and without classroom-based games. See Appendix C and D for an example of one of the preand post-assessments. Results and Discussion The first time a game was played in class prior to this study, a student commented to the instructor: “I’m not going to lie, that was fun!” After playing the games with students playing individually the first year, it was observed that teams would engage more students. It was also observed that playing the games as a review, or including material previously taught in lecture, was more effective than utilizing brand new material as the game material. An email from