Anonymous
timer Asked: May 6th, 2020

Question Description

I have attached the research material and a contextual analysis on the topic/draft. i need 7 paged essay on the topic "Do videogames help in learning environments?" in mla format using the research material i provided here. The format is below

Your Research Paper should have the following parts:

  • Creative Title-A title the draws your readers into your piece.
  • Introduction-An engaging introduction that establishes the background and context of your issue, establishes exigency (who cares/why it matters), and makes your audience want to read further. Consider starting with an anecdote, a fact, a scene (real or fictitious), or even a quote (we’ll discuss more about effective introductions)
  • Thesis Statement-Your thesis statement should be a clear, concise statement of your stance on the issue: your overall claim.
  • Body Paragraphs-Discuss the reasons or warrants attached to your main claim, supported with evidence and examples (facts, examples, statistics/data/studies, testimony from experts, even personal experience in limited amounts) that you provide in a variety of ways (illustration, definition, comparison/contrast, cause/effect, analogy, and reiteration). Demonstrate the various argumentative appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos and use a variety of evidence to convince and persuade your audience, as well as overcome any objections they might have. Identify, discuss, and respond to/refute the viewpoints of those who disagree with you (naysayers, skeptics) in order to demonstrate your ethos. Your paragraphs should not only seamlessly present both sides of the issue in your own words and the words of others (more in your words, using sources for support rather than the other way around), but it should also explore the complexity and exigence of the issue through examination of the social, political, racial, economic (etc.) angles of lenses of the topic. Ultimately, your audience should be convinced that your argument is stronger/more credible than the opposition.
  • Conclusion-Remind your reader what you’ve already covered, emphasizing your most important points, including your main claim, without being redundant. Leave your audience with an important thought to think of.
  • Research/Works Cited-You will need 8-10 sources for this essay (at least three of which should be Academic/Scholarly Articles, and none of which should be Wikipedia!). All sources should be properly cited in the text, as well as at the end of the paper in a MLA Works Cited page

Unformatted Attachment Preview

de Freitas, S. (2018). Are Games Effective Learning Tools? A Review of Educational Games. Educational Technology & Society, 21 (2), 74–84. Are Games Effective Learning Tools? A Review of Educational Games Sara de Freitas Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street, London, United Kingdom // sara@dcs.bbk.ac.uk (Submitted December 7, 2016; Accepted January 9, 2017) ABSTRACT The literature around the use, efficacy and design of educational games and game-based learning approaches has been building up gradually and in phases, across different disciplines and in an ad hoc way. This has been problematic in a number of ways and resulted in fragmented literature and inconsistent referencing patterns between different sub-disciplines and countries. This is mainly because no distinct single-disciplinary perspective has emerged because of: the cross-disciplinary nature of educational games, a reliance on single-disciplinary contexts for studies, changing terminologies in different contexts and the use of multi-methodological approaches. Distinct perspectives from education science, game science, neuroscience and information science have deepened our understanding of play and games. This research has become more quantitative, rigorous and nuanced as a result of more studies focused upon therapeutic health applications of games, the serious games research movement and more efficacy and comparative studies that examine and quantify utility. Keywords Educational games, Serious games, Game science, Neuroscience and games Introduction Defining efficacy in educational contexts can be challenging due to the range of variables involved in different learning contexts. Additionally, there are disciplinary restraints that have traditionally meant that crossdisciplinary approaches to data collection and analysis have been broadly discouraged. However to understand education, and in particular questions around efficacy, necessarily we need to adopt more cross-disciplinary approaches. As an example, research emerging from education science is being supplemented by findings from computer science (e.g., interfaces and interactivity), neuroscience (e.g., brain function and activity) and information science (e.g., analytics and user-modelling). Notably these include findings from computer science which allow us to consider usability improvements and human-computer interactions (e.g., Barr et al., 2007), findings from neuroscience which provide a greater understanding of how games impact our brain plasticity (e.g., Bavelier et al., 2012; Kühn et al., 2011; Kühn et al., 2014) and approaches that use analytics in games as a replacement for assessment (e.g., Serrano-Laguna et al., 2012). Together, these findings help provide a broader understanding of how we can model learning experiences in digital, data-rich game environments, and tell us more about how we learn. The review found that “game science” is emerging as a new term to replace “serious games” which has been a significant term for the game studies research community for the last ten years. Similar to “serious games”, the new term aims to link game studies to a greater scientific capability which has the potential to help us model and better understand: the learning behaviours of individuals and groups in game environments, learning design through the metaphor of game design and how games and play work to help people learn. Establishing the efficacy of games and learning is a complicated endeavour. It needs to be kept within a wider context of understanding how we learn. So how game science fits into the wider disciplinary framework is a critical consideration. When viewed from this educational perspective, the notion of “game science” is part of the field we might call, “education science” and due to its digital nature it is often placed within the subdiscipline of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL). However, clearly there is important work to be found across a range of different areas including: human-computer interaction (e.g., Barr et al., 2007), health education and research (e.g., Papastergiou, 2009), neuroscience research (e.g., Kühn et al., 2011; Colzato et al., 2013; Lewis, 2013; Kühn et al., 2014), and across other literature such as business and management (e.g., Pasin & Giroux, 2011), school education (e.g., Hainey et al., 2016), advertising and marketing (e.g., Terlutter & Capella, 2013), military training and simulations (e.g., Hassain et al., 2012), environmental awareness-raising (RebolledoMendez et al., 2009), therapy training (Horne-Moyer et al., 2014), teacher training (e.g., Kenny & McDaniel, 2011) and emergency-response training (e.g., Chen et al., 2008). One challenge with the literature so scattered is that not all researchers acknowledge the breadth of the area and range of applications, and therefore miss vital academic contributions by looking too narrowly at the literature-base. The situation is exacerbated by rifts between US and European research in serious games and between simulation and games literatures, and often you can see researchers will completely ignore critical papers from one “side” of the Atlantic or the other leading ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). This article of the Journal of Educational Technology & Society is available under Creative Commons CC-BY-ND-NC 3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). For further queries, please contact Journal Editors at ets.editors@gmail.com 74 to misunderstandings and incomplete starting points. Despite a number of special issues on games crossing several fields, the continuation of fragmentation of the field has again happened with the split between researchers in serious games and the new area of “gamification”. Gamification here is used to mean the application of elements of game-mechanics and/or game-design techniques. To attempt to bring the literatures closer together and to attempt to harmonize some of the terminology, this paper aims to map out the potential new ground for learning as evidenced in the sub-field of technology enhanced learning that defines game-based learning approaches. To overcome these significant disciplinary challenges, this paper seeks to outline some of the major contributions of the field from different disciplines over time and synthesise these using an integrative approach to a broader education science perspective. The aim is to problematize the current scope of Education Studies and to reposition game science more critically within this educational context and perspective. Methodology of literature review This article has adopted a “grounded theory” approach used over a number of years to assess the main themes emerging from the fields that touch on educational games. The method used included a semi-systematic review process with a single-coder, wide literature searches across databases using keywords to collect high impact and cited articles and is supplemented with a journal hand-search. Keywords included educational games, serious games, learning games, web-based games and digital games. Once key texts were identified from the literature search, these were grouped into disciplinary perspectives. The emerging perspectives of education science, game science/studies, neuroscience and information science were distilled and key articles identified were included in this review. The Review: A recent history of game science Wave 1: What are games? Some of the earliest work in the field of game science focused upon, changing definitions and nominations of educational games. For example, work that outlined classifications of games, typologies and ontologies was found in the early literature (e.g., Caillois & Barash, 1961; Sutton-Smith & Roberts, 1971). While the earlier work focused upon structuralist perspectives upon educational games as consistent with the trend for semiotics and structuralist analysis, the theme re-emerged later on in the more recent literature as a theme of consideration (e.g., Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007; Kamii & DeVries, 1980; Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). But the more consistent theme of poststructuralism and postmodernist perspectives necessarily focused more upon notions of play than structure also in line with constructivist and qualitative studies. It is perhaps ironic that constructivist approaches to learning have become so associated with qualitative approaches as although the work does focus upon individual construction of meaning, the social constructivism of Vygotsky (1980) and others does propose learning in social groups as a central component of learning. But here a split between the American and other literatures can be noted as a de-emphasis of social learning and a greater focus upon Skinnerism and behaviourist approaches as consistent with the individualism and competition of the American ideal. The mode of bringing education theory together with an American individualist twist and its bringing into the paradigm of psychology jointly ensured that the more social focus emphasised by Russian theorist Vygotsky did not become the dominant discourse. The legacy of this can also be seen in the more general sparseness of social learning theory and was compounded by difficulties with researching and analysing group work, a trend that is partially being reversed in studies such as Star where collaboration rather than competition techniques are emerging (Star, 2015). Wave 2: The serious games movement Negative publicity around violence in games, in particular entertainment games have attracted popular attention. The robust evidence of games causing violence has overall been inconclusive (e.g., Elson & Ferguson, 2015) – but nonetheless the distinction between games for entertainment and games for non-entertainment was a major driver for why the “serious games movement” occurred in the early 2000s (Blumberg et al., 2013). However, once non-entertainment games could be demonstrably “taken seriously” for purposes such as military training and health education and therapy then the research field gained greater credibility. 75 Early “serious games” titles, such as America’s Army, have set the bar high in terms of the budget ($33 million invested up until 2015 in all titles). Although small budgets next to entertainment games, (e.g., $265 million for Grand Theft Auto 5), America’s Army is still considered one of the best exemplars of a serious game today. Having been first published in 2002, it has 13 million registered players who have played 260 million hours. Developed by the US Moves Institute to solve the recruitment problems of the US Army, unfortunately the game has proved to be more of an oddity than a trend. Few large budget serious games have been developed since 2002, and those that have been commissioned have not always enjoyed longevity of support once piloting phases have concluded, e.g., Code of Everand (Dunwell et al., 2014). During this period, although relatively disconnected from the mainstream games literature, the “serious games movement” did gain important contributions from game studies, such as a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of competition as a design component (Cagiltay et al., 2015), how to balance entertainment principles of fun with instructional design and the need to integrate teams of developers, writers and instructional designers. Wave 3: Technology-enhanced learning perspectives: Out of the wilderness? The next phase of focus upon educational games borrowed heavily from technology-enhanced learning approaches. There, a focus upon verification and validation of online learning and e-learning was leading to a wide range of comparative learning studies. Again studies were often lacking in robust methodologies, but were beginning to seek a more scientific basis for analysing the efficacy of learning techniques. This approach was driven-out of concerns about the quality of learning in online settings and studies were often more utilityfocused. While the early studies had attempted to group games in typologies and genres, these studies focused upon comparisons with other e-learning formats and against traditional learning measures (e.g., Knight et al., 2010). Out of this work, a movement to understand game design emerged, how could games be designed for different learning contexts? Could commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games be used? These questions led to a range of studies of games in educational contexts and collections of case studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2009; Michael & Chen, 2005; Prensky, 2005; Shute et al., 2009). This phase of research was dominated by educational perspectives. However, there were significant difficulties with uptake of games in educational contexts. As Simon EgenfeldtNielsen outlined in his thesis (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005), games did not fit into the one-hour lessons, into the single disciplinary focus or into the single-teacher model of traditional learning. Games were disruptive, they demanded greater changes to the traditional delivery and infrastructure of education in schools, colleges and universities. Beyond traditional learning paradigms (see Table 1), game-based approaches required: crossdisciplinarity, longer class durations, mixed student groups, social learning and team-teaching models to come into place to really capitalise on the merits of the game and gameplay as learning approaches (de Freitas, 2014). Four disciplinary perspectives from the literature While it is difficult to be too prescriptive with the time periods, the research does seem to fall broadly into four broad disciplinary categories: education science including theory and practice studies and using elements of pedagogy and psychology, game science contextualised through technology enhanced learning, neuroscience that have focused upon brain-function and plasticity and information science-driven studies that focus more upon data analytics and behavioural modelling. The following sections outline these perspectives (see summary in Table 1): Education science perspective on educational games Major contributions to understanding learning formed early theoretical and developmental approaches to learning. Through understanding learning as cognitive and developmental sets of processes, theorists and educationalists, such as Jean Piaget, defined ages and stages of development associated with “normal patterns of development” (Piaget, 1971). But Piaget also understood the importance of play in learning (Piaget, 2013). Play has been a theme of the work around games necessarily, but has not been a well-understood aspect of learning. More recent play research by Jean Twenge and others shows how important and developmental play is to learning (e.g., Campbell & Twenge, 2015; Chudacoff, 2007; de Freitas, 2014; Gray, 2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). 76 In the light of the internet, broadened connectivity and mobile access to online educational content, there has been a de-emphasis on content and curriculum and a sharpened focus upon digital literacy and 21st century skills. Employability for the changing global employment market presents new needs for graduates and students (Harlow & Bowman, 2016). The move to a more utilitarian position, driven by education via web-based technologies and digitisation, has reworked how we deliver a university education and even challenged what the role of the university is (Sugden, 2013). Table 1. Comparing the traditional, new learning and future learning approaches Traditional paradigm of learning New learning paradigm Future learning Curriculum-based pedagogy Challenge and activity-led learning Student developed pedagogy Tutor-led learning delivery Peer-focused interactions Artificial Intelligence (AI) scaffolded learning Classroom and lecture hall focus Any-time, anywhere learning Seamless lifelong learning Summative assessments Formative assessment / Peer No assessments / levelling, assessment points and awards Age and stage Competency and personalised Unique learning patterns learning Text-focused Multimedia usage Adaptive learning Traditional curriculum e.g., New curriculum e.g., 21st century Hidden curriculum e.g. literacy and numeracy skills personalised skills and cognition training Core curriculum Work readiness Blended work and learning In the author’s recent work, she articulates this disruption as a “new learning” paradigm. One that focuses upon problem-, challenge- and active pedagogy, peer learning and is competency-based and personalised (de Freitas, 2014). This differs from the traditional modes of curriculum-based and tutor-led approaches. With the work on games we can begin to see the rudiments of what the author calls a “future learning’” paradigm, which advances to student-led approaches where adaptive learning is scaffolded through AI bots, assessment gives way to inbuilt levelling-up and the curriculum is hidden (See Table 1). Game science perspective upon educational games One of the main stated inhibitors to uptake of educational games and approaches was the lack of robust scientific and evidence-based research. The first randomised and pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs/PCTs) started in the late 2000s. One of the early trials was undertaken by Knight et al. (2010), focusing upon a comparison between traditional and game-based approaches in emergency response training. Arnab et al. undertook an RCT which considered a serious game in a classroom setting. Miller and Robertson undertook an RCT on educational benefits of games consoles in classrooms (Miller & Robertson, 2011). While Star considered a randomised control trial for gamification in StarQuest to identify cooperative and competitive design elements in university students (Star, 2015). Arbogast et al. (2014) were examining the use of an educational game for road crossing in their recent study. Unsurprisingly most recently RCTs involving games have focused upon health and medical conditions including patients with weight conditions (e.g., Ahola et al., 2013; Maddison et al., 2011; Siervo et al., 2013; Straker et al., 2011; Straker et al., 2013). Fung et al. (2012) considered the use of the Wii Fit for knee rehabilitation. Foss et al. (2013) used their randomised control trial to discover effective use of the i-Bit which is a novel binocular device which uses games and videos to improve patients with a lazy eye. Picherri et al. (2012) looked at the impact of a dance game upon gait. Another popular area for study was the impact of games upon the elderly. An interesting study by Nouchi et al. (2012) explored the positive impact on executive and processing speeds on the elderly of brain training games in their study. While Mayas et al. (2014) explored the plasticity of the brain in the elderly after non-violent game play. A study on Wii Fit games for patient’s living with Parkinson’s disease was undertaken recently by Pompeu et al. (2012); and one looking at improvements from gameplay with Diabetes sufferers (Kempf & Martin, 2013). Allam et al. (2015) in their RCT on gamification in an online intervention for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients found that “physical activity increased over time for patients having access to social support sections plus gaming (unstandardised beta coefficient β = 3.39, p = .02).” Patients were also more empowered and used services less as a result. In addition to more quantitative studies such as RCTs/PCTs, meta reviews have offered important research contributions to overcoming the prevalence of different disciplinary perspectives. Often these reviews have been 77 cross-disciplinary in scope and dimension, single topic-focused, centred-upon comparative studies or in support of game design improvements. While there was a large group of studies done on violence in games (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Anderson et al., 2010), these studies do not ...
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors