Annotation of When failure is an option: A scoping review of failure states in game-based learning
Powers and Moore (2021) argue that the benefits of productive failure could result in engaging and meaningful learning experiences when failure mechanics are used as a tool to provide feedback. A scoping review was conducted to explore relevant game-based failure mechanics research. Five stages were used to select and review the articles (14 in total):
- a preliminary scan to form two research questions
- a search of academic databases between 2010-2020 for peer-reviewed, full-text English articles
- filtering for relevance
- coding articles by themes
- summarizing of findings
According to report findings, the unit of failure must clearly state what learners must achieve to win the game. The unit of failure design can encourage learners to retry a unit until a perfect score is achieved, potentially leading to better knowledge retention. However, if the unit of failure is too real (e.g. grades), risk-taking decreases since there is no option for retries. On the other hand, removing risks entirely could lead to a trial and error approach instead of the application of knowledge. Games’ participatory learning nature shifts to passive when risks are removed.
Powers and Moore (2021) acknowledge that while they consider their scoping review to be “relatively exhaustive” (p. 623), their methods may have excluded relevant articles. Elements of game-based failure mechanics such as productive failure can already be observed within classroom differentiation techniques. As an educator, I feel their scoping review could have benefited from examining classroom differentiation practices. Students are put into different levels based on their class performance, then given instructionally appropriate activities to reach a common learning objective. The desire for a sticker or certificate are like game badges motivating students to study at home before leveling up. While educators can learn from game-based failure mechanics, game designers can also benefit from current differentiation practices.
- publication year range 2000-2017
- use of game-based and traditional nonvideo game-based classroom instruction interventions
- used at least one game-based classroom and on traditional classroom
- participants were PreK-12-grade students
- outcome based on mathematics achievement
- video games could be inferred as “good” according to Shute and Ke’s 2012 definition
- sufficient data reported to calculate effect sizes
- elaborate on research procedures, assessment instruments, learning game(s) and learning outcomes
- examine the effectiveness of video games within different mathematical domains such as geometry, arithmetic, algebra
- links between game characteristics with learning outcomes
Having experience as an Early Years teacher, I think that participants should not include PreK-2-grade students because learning in these grades is more tactile and multi-sensory and often includes cross-curricular learning which could affect the learning achievements of mathematics. Overall, I found these suggestions to be practical. Lessons are formed around learning outcomes, so the dominant factor influencing lesson activities will have to support the learning outcomes. Administrators can be persuaded to set aside budget and training time for professional development and resources if there are strong links to learning outcomes, especially in mathematical domains that students often struggle with.
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
Tokac, Umit, Novak, Elena, & Thompson, Christopher, G. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on students’ mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of computer assisted learning, 35, 407-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12347