No abstract

Role Game is a co-located CSCL video game played by three students sitting at one machine sharing a single screen, each with their own input device. Inspired by video console games, Role Game enables students to learn by doing, acquiring social abilities and mastering subject matter in a context of co-located collaboration. After describing the system's ludic and gaming structure, we present an experiment conducted in a kindergarten situation, whose results are subjected to a usability analysis. We conclude that a console video game for learning applications such as Role Game can easily be operated by 6-year-old students who are yet to learn to read or operate a computer. Console multiplayer games designed for learning are shown to be a powerful device for collaborative work in the classroom while maintaining its attractiveness to the gamer. They are consistent with the need to align learning software with the school curriculum, creating a socio-technical environment that can support meta-design and social creativity in an educational setting. Our findings thus confirm McFarlane´s view that they ''provide a forum in which learning arises as a result of tasks stimulated by the content of the games, knowledge is developed through the content of the game and skills are developed as a result of playing the game''.

No abstract

This study aims to understand the differences in student learning outcomes and classroom behaviour when using the interpersonal computer, personal computer and pen‐and‐paper to solve arithmetic exercises. In this multi‐session experiment, third grade students working on arithmetic exercises from various curricular units were divided into three groups. The first group used personal computers (netbooks), the second group used an interpersonal computer (ie, one projector with a screen, one computer and one mouse per child) and the third group used pen‐and‐paper. The results of the experiment indicate that all three groups achieved an increase in learning, as shown by the pretest and posttest scores. No significant difference was found between the interpersonal computer and personal computer groups. This suggests that the key characteristic shared by the two groups is the provision of feedback. The format that such feedback takes, either private (through a personal screen) or public (through a shared screen), is shown to make no difference. However, the results significantly favour groups that are provided with instant feedback (interpersonal computer and personal computer) as opposed to delayed feedback (pen‐and‐paper).

No abstract