Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative goal structures for computer game-based learning

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This field study investigated the application of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures in classroom use of computer math games and its impact on students’ math performance and math learning attitudes. One hundred and sixty 5th-grade students were recruited and randomly assigned to Teams–Games–Tournament cooperative gaming, interpersonal competitive gaming, individualistic gaming, and the control group. A state-standards-based math exam and an inventory on attitudes toward mathematics were used in pretest and posttest. Students’ gender and socioeconomic status were examined as the moderating variables. Results indicated that even though there was not a significant effect of classroom goal structure in reinforcing computer gaming for math test performance, game-based learning in cooperative goal structure was most effective in promoting positive math attitudes. It was also found that students with different socioeconomic statuses were influenced differently by gaming within alternative goal structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Learners perceive that they will be rewarded based on comparisons with other individual learners and their sense of self-determination decreases.

  2. Learners perceive that they are working together with other students to gain rewards or perceive themselves as working for their own rewards; their sense of self-determination increases.

  3. Levene’s test is non-significant (p > 0.05), indicating the assumption of homogeneity of variance not been violated.

  4. The test of the significance value of the covariates by independent variables interaction is non-significant (p > 0.05), hence the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes (ANCOVA prerequisite) has not been violated.

  5. The adopted procedure of post-hoc analysis for a significant interaction was based on the work by Morgan et al. (2001).

  6. 0 means socio-disadvantaged and 1 means socio-normal.

References

  • Bahr, C., & Rieth, H. (1989). The effects of instructional computers games and drill and practice software on learning disabled students’ mathematics achievement. Computers in the Schools, 6(3–4), 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Theory-guided technology in computer science. Science and Education, 10(5), 477–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossert, S. T. (1989). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozionelos, N. (2003). Socio-economic background and computer use: The role of computer anxiety and computer experience in their relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 725–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalier, J. C., & Klein, J. D. (1998). Effects of cooperative versus individual learning and orienting activities during computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jean, J., Upitis, R., Koch, C., & Young, J. (1999). The story of “Phoenix Quest”: How girls respond to a prototype language and mathematics computer game. Gender and Education, 11(2), 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996, October). Instructional gaming: Implications for instructional technology. Paper presented at the 96th International Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.

  • Ertl, B., & Mandl, H. (2006). Effects of an individual’s prior knowledge on collaborative knowledge construction and individual learning outcomes in videoconferencing. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences ICLS’06 (pp. 161–167). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 377038.

  • Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, L. C. (2000). Gender differences in the use of a computer-based mathematics game: Strategies, motivation, and beliefs about mathematics and computers. ProQuest Information & Learning, 60(9), 3328–3624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from http://adlcommunity.net/file.php/23/GrooveFiles/Instr_Game_Review_Tr_2005.pdf.

  • Inkpen, K., Upitis, R., Klawe, M., Lawry, J., Anderson, A., Ndunda, M., et al. (1994). “We have never-forgetful flowers in our garden”: Girls’ responses to electronic games. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13(4), 383–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Bonk, C. J., Lehtinen, E., & Lehti, S. (1999). A theoretical analysis of social interactions in computer-based learning environments: Evidence for reciprocal understandings. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(3), 359–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In: D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 785–811). Bloomington, IN: The Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

  • Johnson, R., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V., & Cole, M. (2002). Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/MCole/Activities.html.

  • Ke, F. (2008). Computer-based games as cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational learning tool: A systematic review and qualitative meta-analysis. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

  • Kirriemuir, J. K., & McFarlane, A. (2003). Use of computer and video games in the classroom. Proceedings of the Level Up Digital Games Research Conference, University Utrecht, Netherlands.

  • Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koran, L. J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). Games or drill: Increasing the multiplication skills of students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 17(4), 222–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird, N. (1983). Further comparative analyses of pretest-posttest research designs. The American Statistician, 37(4), 329–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Luchini, K., Michael, B., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). More than just fun and games: Assessing the value of educational video games in the classroom. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems (pp. 1375–1378), Vienna, Austria.

  • Littleton, K., Light, P., Joiner, R., Messer, D., & Barnes, P. (1998). Gender, task scenarios and children’s computer-based problem solving. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 18(3), 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31(5), 499–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. K., & Hannafin, R. D. (2003). Using web-based computer games to meet the demands of today’s high-stakes testing: A mixed method inquiry. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 459–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games: An exploration by TEEM of the contribution which games can make to the educational process. Cambridge, UK: TEEM.

  • McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2002, June). Who learns best with multiple representations? Cognitive theory implications for individual differences in multimedia learning. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunications. Denver, Colorado.

  • Morgan, G. A., Griego, O. V., & Gloeckner, G. (2001). Introduction to SPSS: An introduction to use and interpretation in research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Retrieved June 8, 2005 from http://standards.nctm.org/.

  • Oakes, J. M., & Feldman, H. A. (2001). Statistical power for nonequivalent pretest–posttest designs: The impact of change-score versus ANCOVA models. Evaluation Review, 25(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ota, K. R., & DuPaul, G. J. (2002). Task engagement and mathematics performance in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of supplemental computer instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(3), 242–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paperny, D. M., & Starn, J. R. (1989). Adolescent pregnancy prevention by health education computer games: Computer-assisted instruction of knowledge and attitudes. Pediatrics, 83(5), 742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2004). Academic standards for mathematics education. Retrieved January 12, 2004 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us.

  • Person, N. K., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Evolution of discourse in cross-age tutoring. In A. M. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 69–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinsen, F., Volman, M. L. L., & Terwel, J. (2007). The influence of learner characteristics on degree and type of participation in a CSCL environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1037–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehall, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. (2007). New media resistance: Barriers to implementation of computer video games in the classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the faciliation of intrinsci motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. D. (2003). Gameplay in context: Learning through participation in communities of civilization III players. Unpublished PhD thesis. Instructional Systems Technology Department, Indiana University.

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, M., & Lindquist, T. (1998). Using MONOPOLY and Teams-Games-Tournaments in accounting education: A cooperative learning teaching resource. Accounting Education, 7(2), 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measurement mathematics attitudes, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 2. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/cho25344l.htm.

  • Terwel, J., Gillies, R. M., Van den Eeden, P., & Hoek, D. (2001). Cooperative learning processes of students: A longitudinal multilevel perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 619–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, M., & Hicks, L. (1995, April). Classroom goal structures, social satisfaction and the perceived value of academic tasks. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting and Exhibit of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 25(2), 165–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). Skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 102–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (2000). Educational Psychology Review, 14, 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F. (2001). Competition within computer-assisted cooperative learning environments: Cognitive, affective, and social outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Organizational Learning and Instructional Technology Program, College of Education, University of New Mexico, 388 Hokona Hall, MSC05 3040, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-1231, USA

    Fengfeng Ke

Authors
  1. Fengfeng Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fengfeng Ke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ke, F. Alternative goal structures for computer game-based learning. Computer Supported Learning 3, 429–445 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9048-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9048-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation