Transformational Play as a Curricular Scaffold: Using Videogames to Support Science Education.
Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). J Sci Educ Technol, 18, 305–320.
-
examining37Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for 3D game-based curriculum)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
researcher designed knowledge test (proximal) |
3D game-based curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.29 |
3.75 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
researcher-designed knowledge test (distal) |
3D game-based curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.57 |
2.83 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
researcher-designed performance-based transfer task |
3D game-based curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.98 |
2.25 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
This study takes place in a large Midwestern university.
Study sample
No information is provided specific to the 37 students included in the analysis.
Intervention Group
Students explored a multi-user virtual environment called the Taiga Park on a computer. The IW condition simulated an aquatic habitat. The participants interacted with other characters within 6 functional groups in the same game. "The information was presented in a first-person narrative, and the participants typically had three optional responses to the character in order to ‘‘personalize’’ their exchanges." (p. 311) They also collected water samples and brought them to a virtual laboratory for analysis. Participants took quizzes throughout their experience and complete three Quests to report their findings in the exploration.
Comparison Group
In the expository text condition the students were presented the information as a 38-page electronic textbook on a website. The contents were broken down into four separate instructional water quality-based activities. The text was followed by a four-part written assessment and three reflection questions. Participants navigated the webpages sequentially. After each section, the participants were given the opportunity to review the contents and then took the test. They also submitted three final reports.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).