The science of serious games is growing at a substantial pace, providing new insights into the nature of game-based learning. Recently, research has begun to focus on the elements that comprise serious games and how these elements relate to learning (Wilson et al., 2009; Pavlas et al., 2009). As part of an effort to understand how these attributes impact learning outcomes, a study manipulating a number of game attributes in an immune system game was conducted. From this effort, two psychological constructs initially considered as mere covariates – video game self-efficacy and flow state – emerged as significant and highly explanatory predictors of learning. This article provides an overview of these constructs, describes the research that led to this finding, presents the results of this research, and offers implications and suggestions for future work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
2.
BaranauskasM. C. C.NetoN. G. G.BorgesM. A. F. (1999). Learning at work through a multi-user synchronous simulation game. In Proceedings of the PEG′99 Conference, Exeter, UK (pp. 137–144). Exeter, UK: University of Exeter. Retrieved on 5/13/2008 from http://www.ic.unicamp.br/˜maborges/PEG99.htm.
3.
BloomB.S.EngelhartM.D.FurstE.J.HillW.H.KrathwohlD.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
4.
BluntR. (2007). Does game-based learning work? Results from three recent studies. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, & Education Conference (pp. 945–955). Orlando, FL: National Defense Industrial Association.
5.
ChenJ. (2007). Flow in games (and everything else). Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 31–34.
6.
ChristophR. T.SchoenfeldG. A.Jr.TanskyJ. W. (1998). Overcoming barriers to training utilizing technology: The influence of self- efficacy factors on multimedia-based training receptiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 25–38.
7.
CowleyB.CharlesD.BlackM.HickeyR. (2008). Toward an understanding of flow in video games. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 6(2), 20:1–27.
8.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Collins.
9.
DoyleD.BrownF. W. (2000). Using a business simulation to teach applied skills – the benefits and the challenges of using teams from multiple countries. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(6), 330–336.
10.
EbnerM.HolzingerA. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49, 873–890.
11.
FongG. (2004). Adapting COTS games for military simulation. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry (pp. 269–272). New York: ACM Press.
12.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation Gaming, 33, 441–467.
13.
GredlerM. E. (1996). Educational games and simulation: A technology in search of a research paradigm. In JonassenD. H. (ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 521–540). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
14.
HabgoodM. P. J.AinsworthS. E.BenfordS. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 483–498.
15.
HoL.KuoT. (2010). How can one amplify the effect of e-learning? An examination of high-tech employees' computer attitude and flow experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 23–31.
16.
JacksonS. A.MarshH. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
17.
JohnsonR. D.HornikS.SalasE. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 356–369.
18.
JuulJ. (2003). The game, the player, the world: looking for a heart of gameness. In CopierM.RaessensJ. (Eds.), Proceedings at the Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference, November 4–6 (pp. 30–45). Utrecht: Utrecht University.
LeemkuilH.de JongT.OotesS. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulations (Knowledge management Interactive Training System Project No. IST-1999–13078). The Netherlands: University of Twente. Retrieved on 5/13/2008 from http://kits.edte.utwente.nl/documents/D1.pdf.
21.
LemayP. (2008). Game and flow concepts for learning: Some considerations. In McFerrinK. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 510–515). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
22.
MaloneT. W. (1981). Towards a theory of intrinsically motivation instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333–369.
23.
MaloneT. W.LepperM. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In SnowR. E.FarrM. J. (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol. 3. Cognitive and affective process and analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
McAuleyE.DuncanT.TammenV.V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.
25.
NackeL.LindleyC. A. (2008). Flow and immersion in first-person shooters: Measuring the player's gameplay experience. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share. (pp. 81–88). Toronto, Canada: ACM.
26.
OrvisK. A.HornD. B.BelanichJ. (2007). The roles of task difficulty and prior videogame experience on performance and motivation in instructional videogame. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2415–2433.
27.
ParasB.BizzochiJ. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2005: Changing Views – Worlds in Play..
28.
PavlasD.BedwellW.WootenS.IIHeyneK.SalasE. (2009). Investigating the attributes in serious games that contribute to learning. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. San Antonio, TX.
29.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
30.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
31.
SchunkD. H. (2006). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in Schools, 22(2), 208–223.
32.
SchwarzerR.JerusalemM. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In WeinmanJ.WrightS.JohnstonM., Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
33.
SchwarzerR. (2008). Modeling health behavior change: How to predict and modify the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(1), 1–29.
34.
SquireK. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.
35.
SweetserP.WyethP. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment, 3(3), 1–24.
36.
ThiagarajanS. (1999). Team activities for learning and performance. In StolovitchH. D.KeepsE. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology (pp. 518–544). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
37.
WhitsonC.ConsoliJ. (2009). Flow theory and student engagement. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2(1), 40–49.
38.
WilsonK. A.BedwellW. L.LazzaraE. H.SalasE.BurkeC. S.EstockJ. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 217–266.
