Digital Games & Learning: Reviews of Research
Checa, D., & Bustillo, A. (2020). A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(9-10), 5501-5527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08348-9
Summary: Through a review of studies on virtual reality and serious games (VR-SGs) in learning and training, the article seeks to identify the factors and standards of VR-SGs. The authors noted that similar reviews were narrowly focused, and with their broader review they would identify recommendations for further study.
The factors and findings included: target audiences included students of all ages and professionals; a prevalent topic was medicine; the most common displays were Oculus Rift and HTC Vive; the preferred typology was interactive experiences, which balances cost and effectiveness; and the average number of test subjects in studies on learning was greater than those on training.
The authors argued that VR-SGs, compared to traditional methods, were more effective in improving learning and training through “greater engagement, interest, and motivation” (Checa & Bustillo, 2020, p. 5514). Assessing the factors on larger scales would help determine the full potential of VR-SGs.
Research methods: To identify studies for this review, the authors searched databases SCOPUS and Web of Science. They also considered articles cited in these studies and additional VR industry sources. Of the 11,183 studies identified, they filtered out those that did not fit their aim and criteria. This resulted in 135 articles analyzed for this review.
Critical evaluation: While the article summarized factors and standards, more details on the methodology would have provided critical context to support its arguments. For example:
-
- The database search term was limiting, and did not include alternate keywords such as “immersive” and “development”. An explanation on the intention would be helpful.
- The article did not reference the reliability and validity of the studies. It also did not detail the approach to interpreting the studies, such as coding protocols. This information was necessary to support the analyses on design and “performance evaluation” (Checa & Bustillo, 2020, p. 5514).
Powers, F. E., & Moore, R. L. (2021). When failure is an option: A scoping review of failure states in game-based learning. TechTrends, 65(4), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00606-8
Summary: The article examines the effect of failure on participants in game-based instructional interventions. Specifically, the authors sought to determine the scope of existing studies on the use and severity of failure states to support learning, noting that while there was extensive research on game-based learning (GBL), there had yet to be a focus on the use of failure within GBL.
The findings included the effectiveness, representations, and perceived risks of failure. In terms of effectiveness, findings suggested deliberate failure can improve engagement, learning, and retention. Representations of failure, or “unit[s] of failure” (Powers & Moore, 2020, p. 619), can take forms such as “degradation of character health, … points, [and] time” (p. 619). Risk was reviewed on a spectrum; too little risk lacks meaning and too much risk causes frustration, whereas ideal risk supports learning with meaningful failure that leads to corrective feedback. Another key finding was that learner anonymity can mitigate negative perceptions of failure.
Research methods: The authors reviewed literature to determine the research questions, and identified potential articles by searching specific and related wildcard keywords in databases. Articles that did not meet the criteria of the review were filtered out, resulting in 14 articles for this review. The authors then identified themes through two rounds of coding and summarized the findings.
Critical evaluation: The article answered its research questions and its methods seemed thorough. However, it could have been strengthened with a summary of any correlations and alternative hypotheses.
Related to the key finding around anonymity, it would be interesting to expand the research question to include the effects of failure in social contexts. Whether the games reviewed were single- or multiplayer, they exist in what Gee and Gee (2017) refer to as “distributed teaching and learning systems”, and it would be worth examining the role failure plays in the broader contexts of learning interactions.
References
Checa, D., & Bustillo, A. (2020). A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(9-10), 5501-5527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08348-9
Gee, E., & Gee, J. P. (2017). Games as distributed teaching and learning systems. Teachers College Record, 119(11). https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711901202
Powers, F. E., & Moore, R. L. (2021). When failure is an option: A scoping review of failure states in game-based learning. TechTrends, 65(4), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00606-8
At the start of the course, I had identified my primary goal for this course as “to strengthen my knowledge on the theory of technology integrations” (Chan, 2022), and my hope was that ETEC 524 would allow me opportunities to connect theory and practice. I was also particularly looking forward to “practic[ing] creating meaningful assessment strategies that support development and measure performance” (Chan, 2022). With these focus areas in mind, I identified the modules “Theoretical Frameworks” and “Assessment” to be most relevant to my goals and therefore potentially of most value to me.
In terms of connecting theory and practice, I found the following concepts to be particularly helpful:
As for creating assessment strategies, I had expected to learn frameworks for assessment in Week 6, and was initially surprised to see just one video in our readings. However, that video ended up being one of my favourite resources from this course.
Looking ahead to next steps, as I also referenced in my response to the “I know the future” discussion, I am particularly interested in the use of virtual reality (VR) in workplace learning. I believe VR could be used to attract attention through “[s]ensory curiosity” and “cognitive curiosity” (Ciampa, 2013, p. 84), invoke emotion and “promot[e] empathy” to “foster … motivation” (Roswell et al., 2020, p. 1883; Dumont et al., 2010, p. 4), and increase self-efficacy by helping learners build “muscle memory” (Farrell, 2018, p. 24). I think scenario-based VR learning could be especially valuable for contexts that are costly or difficult to mimic, so that learners can have the opportunity to learn through trial and error and “repeated performance” (Farrell, 2018, p. 24), receive formative assessment and feedback, and “recogniz[e] the consequences of [their] actions” in a safe environment as they practice “solving … real problem[s]” (Farrell, 2018, p. 24; FNESC, 2015; Derek Bok Center, Harvard University, 2013).
I appreciate that this course gave me the opportunity to connect theory and practice in “evaluating, selecting, and using various learning technologies” (MET, n.d.). While most of the concepts reviewed in this course were not new to me, it was great having the space to build my comfort level in connecting and articulating various concepts in practice through the case studies and course prototype.