| Literature DB >> 27330888 |
Abstract
Digital game-based learning environments provide emerging opportunities to overcome learning barriers by combining newly developed technologies and traditional game design. This study proposes a quantitative research approach supported by expert validation interviews to designing a game-based learning framework. The goal is to improve the learning experience and decision-making skills of soccer referees in Turkey. A serious game was developed and tested on a group of referees (N = 54). The assessment results of these referees were compared with two sample t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test for both the experimental group and the control group. The findings of the current study confirmed that a game-based learning environment has greater merit over the paper-based alternatives.Entities:
Keywords: Digital game-based learning; Interactive learning environments; Serious games
Year: 2016 PMID: 27330888 PMCID: PMC4870541 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2227-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Board of the game
Fig. 2The systematic flow of the game
Fig. 3Total scores of the referees for experimental group in pre and post test
Fig. 4Total scores of the referees for control group in pre and post test
Average scores of both groups for all parts in pre-test
| Multiple choice (70) | Video (30) | Total (100) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 38.3 | 16.8 | 55.1 |
| Control group | 38.4 | 17.3 | 55.7 |
Average scores of both groups for all parts in post-test
| Multiple choice (70) | Video (30) | Total (100) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 43.6 | 22.6 | 66.1 |
| Control group | 41.2 | 20.9 | 62.0 |
Number of completed games versus difference between pre-test and post-test
| Participants | # of game sessions | Pre-test results | Post-test results | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant 1 | 12 | 76 | 80 | 4 |
| Participant 2 | 18 | 74 | 86 | 12 |
| Participant 3 | 20 | 72 | 82 | 10 |
| Participant 4 | 21 | 70 | 78 | 8 |
| Participant 5 | 24 | 68 | 80 | 12 |
| Participant 6 | 23 | 66 | 78 | 12 |
| Participant 7 | 26 | 64 | 80 | 16 |
| Participant 8 | 19 | 64 | 74 | 10 |
| Participant 9 | 14 | 64 | 72 | 8 |
| Participant 10 | 23 | 64 | 76 | 12 |
| Participant 11 | 17 | 60 | 70 | 10 |
| Participant 12 | 27 | 60 | 72 | 12 |
| Participant 13 | 36 | 56 | 84 | 28 |
| Participant 14 | 11 | 54 | 60 | 6 |
| Participant 15 | 9 | 52 | 56 | 4 |
| Participant 16 | 7 | 52 | 58 | 6 |
| Participant 17 | 6 | 52 | 56 | 4 |
| Participant 18 | 19 | 52 | 72 | 20 |
| Participant 19 | 24 | 50 | 64 | 14 |
| Participant 20 | 21 | 48 | 58 | 10 |
| Participant 21 | 29 | 48 | 72 | 24 |
| Participant 22 | 16 | 46 | 54 | 8 |
| Participant 23 | 15 | 42 | 58 | 16 |
| Participant 24 | 6 | 40 | 44 | 4 |
| Participant 25 | 9 | 34 | 42 | 8 |
| Participant 26 | 17 | 30 | 42 | 12 |
| Participant 27 | 13 | 28 | 36 | 8 |
The difference values in pre-test and post-test
| Differences in pre-test | Differences in post-test | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 10 |
| 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | −2 | 8 |
| 4 | 2 | 6 |
| 5 | 2 | 8 |
| 6 | 2 | 12 |
| 7 | −4 | 4 |
| 8 | −2 | 6 |
| 9 | −4 | 2 |
| 10 | −2 | 8 |
| 11 | −2 | 10 |
| 12 | −2 | −8 |
| 13 | −4 | −4 |
| 14 | 2 | 6 |
| 15 | 2 | 10 |
| 16 | 4 | −2 |
| 17 | −2 | 22 |
| 18 | −4 | 8 |
| 19 | −6 | 8 |
| 20 | 2 | |
| 21 | 2 | |
| 22 | −2 | |
| 23 | −10 | |
| 24 | ||
| 25 | ||
| 26 | ||
| 27 |
Evaluation of the retired referees
| Interview 1 | Interview 2 | Interview 3 | Interview 4 | Interview 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluator 1 | Positive | Positive | Positive | Positive | Positive |
| Evaluator 2 | Positive | Positive | Neutral | Positive | Positive |
| Evaluator 3 | Positive | Positive | Neutral | Positive | Neutral |
| Evaluator 4 | Positive | Positive | Positive | Positive | Positive |
| Evaluator 5 | Positive | Positive | Neutral | Positive | Positive |