A multilevel analysis of diverse learners playing life science video games: Interactions between game content, learning disability status, reading proficiency, and gender

Abstract

Extant research reports differential effects related to the efficacy of video games as a means to enhance science instruction. However, there are very few studies examining differences in learning outcomes across student-level independent variables. This study used multilevel modeling to examine the effects of three video game-enhanced life science units on the performance of 366 adolescent students from three middle schools in the central and western United States. The study included 18 life science classrooms that were taught by four teachers over a 6-week period. Independent variables included the students' National Assessment of Educational Progress reading level, presence of a learning disability, gender, and student perceptions of science and video games. Struggling readers and students with low perceptions of their skills as scientists underperformed when compared to their peers. Results across all games indicated significant learning gains for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning disability, gender, and perceptions of video games for learning were not significant predictors of student performance. Results from the study indicate that the effects of video games on science learning are mediated by individual learner characteristics and the science content. #

Effects of Multi-Genre Digital Game-Based Instruction on Students’ Conceptual Understanding, Argumentation Skills, and Learning Experiences

“…Moreover, Sadler, Romine, Stuart, and Merle-Johnson [11] revealed that digital game-based learning is more effective for average students than high-achieving students. This was further supported by Israel, Wang, and Marino [32], as their study showed that students' learning preparatory status (pretest scores, reading proficiency, etc.) could influence their learning growth in digital game-based instruction.…”

Özel Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan Öğrencilere Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Üzerine Yapılan Çalışmaların İncelenmesi

“…While experimental models and single-subject research models were considered in quantitative research methods, a case study was included in qualitative research methods. There were 11 studies using a full and quasi-experimental design with experimental and control groups (Boardman, Klingner, Buckley, Annamma, & Lasser, 2015;Botsas, 2017;Boyle, 2010aBoyle, , 2010bBoyle, 2011;Bulgren, Ellis, & Marquis, 2014;Gaddy, Bakken, & Fulk, 2008;Israel, Wang, & Marino, 2016;Lam, Doverspike, Zhao, Zhe, & Menzemer, 2008;Marino, Black, Hayes, & Beecher, 2010;McCrea Simpkins, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009). There were seven studies employing single-subject research including multiple probe design, ABAB withdrawal design, AB design with regards to quantitative research methods (Aydeniz et al, 2012;Benedek-Wood, Mason, Wood, Hoffman & McGuire, 2014;Helman, Calhoon, & Kern, 2014;Kim & Linan-Thompson, 2013;Seifert & Espin, 2012;Thornton, McKissick, Spooner, Lo, & Anderson, 2015;Wills & Mason, 2014).…”

“…İncelenen çalışmalarda nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden deneysel model ve tek denekli araştırma modelleri kullanılırken, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden deney ve kontrol gruplu tam ve yarı deneysel desen kullanılan 11 çalışma yer almaktadır (Boardman, Klingner, Buckley, Annamma, & Lasser, 2015;Botsas, 2017;Boyle, 2010aBoyle, , 2010bBoyle, , 2011Bulgren, Ellis, & Marquis, 2014;Gaddy, Bakken, & Fulk, 2008;Israel, Wang, & Marino, 2016;Lam, Doverspike, Zhao, Zhe, & Menzemer, 2008;Marino, Black, Hayes, & Beecher, 2010;McCrea Simpkins, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009). Nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden tek denekli araştırma modellerinin kullanıldığı yedi çalışma yer almaktadır.…”

Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning science: A literature review

“…Out of the 14 articles published at Journal of Research in Science Teaching (top journal in the field), 2 studies used video games (Israel et al, ; Sadler et al, ), 10 integrated simulations (Bell & Trundle, ; Chao et al, ; Chen et al, ; Gerard, Spitulnik, & Linn, 2010; Hmelo‐Silver et al, ; Jaakkola et al, ; Mulder, Bollen, de Jong, & Lazonder, ; Plass et al, ; Quellmalz, Timms, Silberglitt, & Buckley, ; Scalise & Clarke‐Midura, ), and 2 used interactive dynamic visualizations (Ryoo & Bedell, ; Ryoo & Linn, ). The video games targeted topics such as cell anatomy and functions, genes and inheritance (Israel et al, ), and one was in the form of a virtual biotechnology lab (Sadler et al, ). Moreover, simulations included tools such as PlateTechtonics interactive simulation model of convection currents and plate movements (Gerard et al, 2010) and Energy3D, a simulated environment for designing, analyzing, and constructing green buildings utilizing renewable energy (Chao et al, ).…”