Serious games have become increasingly available to educators. Empirical studies and meta-analyses have examined their impact on learning achievement. However, natural sciences could have a special relation to serious games by their systematic use of quantitative and predictive models that can generate microworlds and simulations. Since no known meta-analysis on serious games observed a significant impact in the specific context of science learning, the present meta-analysis synthesized results from 79 empirical studies that compared the impact on science learning achievement of instruction using serious games versus instruction using more conventional methods. Consistent with theory and past meta-analyses not specifically related to science learning, post-instruction learning achievement was weakly to moderately higher for declarative knowledge, knowledge retention and procedural knowledge for students taught with serious games. Furthermore, findings of the present work suggest that five moderator variables produced significant effects on the relationship between playing serious games and learning outcomes, and three showed consistent variations in mean effect size that could lead to significance, with more studies and larger samples. These findings are discussed in connection with previous meta-analyses' findings, potential pedagogical implications and possible future research.
Learning counterintuitive scientific concepts can be difficult for students because they often have misconceptions about natural phenomena that lead them to commit errors. Recent studies showed that students with advanced scientific training recruit brain regions associated with inhibitory control and memory retrieval to avoid committing errors for questions related to counterintuitive scientific concepts. However, the brain mechanisms used by novices in sciences to overcome errors are still unknown. In this study, novices in electricity and mechanics answered a scientific task in an functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner before and after having corrected their errors. Results show that rostrofrontal and parietal brain areas were more activated after correcting errors than before. These findings suggest that error-correction mechanisms of novices, induced by presenting to learners the correct answers at the very beginning of their learning process, are associated with memory retrieval but not inhibitory control.International surveys, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), regularly show
A previous meta-analysis found that active learning has a positive impact on learning achievements for college students in STEM fields of study. However, no similar meta-analyses have been conducted in the humanities and social sciences. Because major dissimilarities may exist between different fields or domain of knowledge, there can be issues with transferring research findings or knowledge across fields. We therefore meta-analyzed 104 studies that used assessment scores to compare the learning achieved by college students in humanities and social science programs under active instruction versus traditional lecturing. Student performance on assessment scores was found to be higher by 0.489 standard deviations under active instruction (Z = 6.521, p < 0.001, k = 111, N = 15,896). The relative beneficial effect of active instruction was found to be higher for some course subject matters (i.e., Sociology, Psychology, Language, Education, and Economics), for smaller (≤ 20 students) rather than larger class or group sizes, and for upper level rather than introductory courses. Analyses further suggest that these findings are not affected by publication bias.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.