Framing the issue
Initially I framed the issue as ‘how to promote learning engagement in STEM’ based on my personal experience in learning math and science. I am always highly self-motivated and engaged in challenging tasks and tend to use technology to solve my problems, which result in low barriers to understand abstract concepts and positive learning outcomes in math and science. In the auto e-ograph discussion, I shared a well-remembered event of the first time I used the search engine to find the answer to a tricky Olympiad math problem in grade 5. I wrote down: ‘I was amazed by the search engine’s prompt and accurate response, then I realized I could utilize the internet to solve all kinds of academic problems! It was in 2003 and it was a magical night to me’ (Week 1 Discussion: Auto e-Ography, 2021). However, in the later learning experiences through discussions and case analyses, I realized that many students who have lower confidence levels or lower internal motivation in STEM education disciplines tend to be less willing to engage in the learning curriculum. In the discussion of ‘Unpacking Assumptions’, without referring to any books or resources, I proposed from my perspective ‘the good use of technology in learning math and science could be leveraged to solve math and science classrooms’ most challenging problem: learning engagement’ (Week 2 Discussion: Unpacking Assumptions, 2021). Based on my observations, I believed the variety of educational technologies would offer less-engaged students with practical tools to visualize concepts, fun opportunities to explore related topics of personal interests, and empowered channels for interactive learning.
I also saw how experienced teachers in contemporary discourse address the problem of lowered learning engagement in the math and science classroom (Case Building: ETEC 533 65A 2020W Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom, 2021). Some of the shared cases successfully integrate different educational hardware and software to promote students’ learning engagement during class time and even after school. The graphing calculators in middle school math classrooms in Video Case #2, the clickers in university lectures in Video Case #7 and the simulation software in middle school physics labs in Video Case #3 are all exemplary exhibitions of how effective the educational technologies can be in promoting learners’ engagement, then lead to increased enrollment rates, class participation, team collaborations and test performances. Nevertheless, there are always concerns and shortcomings in integrating technologies. I remember in Video Case #2, a female student stated, ‘when you type in equations, and you don’t understand what’s happening inside the calculator,’ and the teacher admitted how time-consuming the setup was for a graphing calculator. Therefore, I re-framed my issue as ‘how to effectively promote learning engagement in STEM’ to avoid potential disengagement and to solve underlying issues with new technologies in the classroom.
Based on the progressive learning and discussions, I believe educators can effectively integrate technologies to promote learning engagement in the math and science classroom. Recent experience gives me the privilege of working with a team of developers interested in incorporating serious play into the course content, I narrowed down the issue to ‘how to effectively use Game-Based Learning (GBL) to promote learning engagement in math’ with this annotated bibliography assignment for ETEC 533 Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom. Some of the underlying assumptions associated with my perspective on the issue are:
• Learning engagement is positively associated with learning outcomes.
• Learning engagement indicates students’ cognitive awareness of knowledge application with high internal motivation.
• Game-Based Learning (GBL) can effectively promote learning engagement in math.
Analyzing the issue
I primarily searched the UBC library Summon database for peer-reviewed journal articles with various combinations of terms related to serious play, gamification, game-based learning, math, education, learning engagement, with a date after Jan 01, 2010, and a restricted discipline to education only.
Annotated Journal #1
Moon, J., & Ke, F. (2020). In-game actions to promote game-based math learning engagement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 863–885. doi:10.1177/0735633119878611
This article scrutinized whether middle school students’ in-game actions are likely to promote certain types of learning engagement through a mixed-method empirical study in 2020. For this study, Moon and Ke employed the behavior analysis frameworks to examine the type and frequency of students’ game actions associated with learning engagement. Authors adopted two analytic approaches, sequential analysis and thematic analysis, to explore to what extent certain game actions promote learning engagement. Whereas sequential analysis explored which in-game actions were likely to promote each type of learning engagement, the thematic analysis depicted how certain gameplay contexts contributed to students’ enhanced learning engagement. This study sampled a total of 92 screen-recorded and video-captured gameplay sessions participated by 25 students from a public secondary school in the Southern United States. The game employed in the study design was a single-player three-dimensional architecture game called E-Rebuild, which requires learners’ application of math knowledge. The study findings evidenced that some in-game actions such as refugee allocation and material trading promoted students’ content engagement, whereas using in-game building tools and learning support boosted their cognitive engagement. This study exhibited that students’ learning engagement was positively associated with their mathematical thinking development in GBL. Researchers also suggested that ‘the in-game learning support enhances students’ understandings of math variables and actions’. Although the overall instrumentation demonstrated strong validity and reliability, many improvements can be made to the research. This mixed-method study investigated the association between students’ in-game behaviors and their learning engagement with a relatively small sample size, and all participating students were from the same school. Also, the male to female participants rate is 1.5, which exhibited a paucity of random selection and resulted in a poor representation of the target population.
This article responded to my raised issue, ‘how to effectively use Game-Based Learning (GBL) to promote learning engagement in math ‘ in many directions. First of all, it corroborated my underlying assumptions of ‘Game-Based Learning (GBL) can effectively promote learning engagement’, as well as ‘learning engagement can foster the development of mathematical thinking’. Secondly, it confirmed my assumption of the definition of ‘learning engagement’ pedagogically. It further discussed the difference between cognitive engagement and content engagement, and their corresponding effects on learning outcomes. Additionally, it reminded education designers of the importance of scrutinizing the natures of different game actions in order to promote meaningful engagement in math learning. It provided empirical evidence to prove problem-solving in-game tasks (including mining information, planning, evaluating, testing, and refining) significantly promote cognitive engagement, while content knowledge comprehension in-game tasks (including processing, application, and calculation) heavily foster content engagement in mathematical learning and thinking development.
Annotated Journal #2:
Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740–779.
doi:10.3102/0034654315577210
This paper aimed to address the lack of empirical evidence on game design’s impact on learning outcomes, identified how the design of game-based activities may affect learning engagement, and developed a set of general recommendations for GBL instructional designs. The authors, Abdul Jabbar and Felicia, scrutinized major gaming elements that help learners to attain high learning engagement. The study samples 91 peer-reviewed journals supported with empirical evidence from experimental studies, observational studies, or mixed-method studies on GBL and learning engagement between 2003 to 2013 in the context of primary and secondary schools. The study examined raw data from these high-quality articles under the framework of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy on learning outcomes associated with five core game-design features through the applications of both quantitative and qualitative analyses. For instances,
(a) VR and Multimedia Elements for playful learning and discoveries;
(b) Challenges and Conflicts for gameplay enjoyment and learning motivation;
(c) Control and Choices facilitate attention and interests;
(d) Scaffolding helps support gameplay and learning, and
(e) Learning Tools and Gaming aids for competency support.
This study summarized that ‘giving students opportunities to discover and test interactive visual stimuli in their game environment may enhance the students’ learning engagement’. In addition to the visual stimuli, authors believed using a variety of game support tools inherent to GBL can facilitate students’ proactive game actions in experiencing meaningful learning. Although the reliability of the findings was limited due to the relatively small sample size, the quality of sample papers was reassured according to the quality assessments of selected studies. Besides the limitation on the sample, this review provides readers with empirical evidence and provoking recommendations in researching the impact of GBL on engagement and learning outcomes.
To me and my framed issue ‘how to effectively use Game-Based Learning (GBL) to promote learning engagement in math’, this study also confirmed my assumptions and provided practical pedagogical strategies on incorporating various game design features to influence students’ learning engagement in all disciplines. It suggested that ‘the learning experience is considered more sensory and playful if the learning content is accessible through a selection of virtual characters, environments, narratives, and multimedia elements’. These elements ‘are integrated to facilitate attention and to promote the player’s interest, which in turns triggers his/her engagement, providing opportunities to observe and browse visuals but not to read’.
Annotated Journal #3:
Chen, CH., Shih, CC., & Law, V. (2020). The effects of competition in digital game-based learning (DGBL): A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1855–1873. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09794-1
This meta-analysis, which included 25 articles written between 2008 and 2019 in the context of K-12 and post-secondary education, revealed that digital game-based learning (DGBL) had produced improvements for learning outcomes ‘with an overall effect size of .386’. In addition, researchers investigated multiple moderators to understand how competition in DGBL influenced student learning for different learners, contexts, game types, and learning outcomes. Through well-structured quantitative analyses, this research demonstrated that competition in DGBL was effective for math, science and language, but not for social science and other subjects. It was effective for K-12 students and college students. It was effective for puzzle, strategy, role-playing, and simulation, but not for action games. Finally, competition in DGBL was equally effective for cognitive and non-cognitive engagements. Although the sample size was as small as 25 cases in total for this meta-analysis, the writers tried their best to collect updated empirical studies to fill a critical gap in the research left by recent reviews, which do not examine competition’s role as a vital gaming element in DGBL.
Among the core gaming features of GBL, competition has been a very controversial topic. Researchers from my Annotated Journal #2 also argued: ‘learning could become engaging and rewarding if perceived as being competitive, as competing may have been the reason for playing in the first place… Meanwhile, among the primary determiners of appeal for multiplayer browser games, competition was a less important motive for playing such games, while the most appealing was the socializing aspect. This could make collaborative play a better choice than competitive play for GBL’ (Abdul Jabbar & Felicia, 2015). In this journal, Chen et al. helped readers clarify how to integrate GBL’s competition feature in different contexts. The research