How Debriefing Strategies Can Improve Student Motivation and Self-Efficacy in Game-Based Learning

被引:20
作者
Bilgin, Cigdem Uz [1 ]
Baek, Youngkyun [2 ]
Park, Hyungsung [3 ]
机构
[1] Yildiz Tech Univ, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Boise State Univ, Boise, ID 83725 USA
[3] ShinGu Univ, Suwon 441842, Gyeonggi Do, South Korea
关键词
game-based learning; debriefing; student motivation; self-efficacy; collaborative learning environments; SIMULATION; PERFORMANCE; MANAGEMENT; EDUCATION;
D O I
10.1177/0735633115598496
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Debriefing is an important step in game-based learning environments. Fanning and Gaba defined debriefing as "facilitated or guided reflection in the cycle of experiential learning." In the present study, the effect of different debriefing strategies in terms of two factors, grouping (self vs. team) and timing (in-game vs. postgame), was investigated on the motivation and self-efficacy levels of students. In a 2 x 2 analysis of variance design, 62 sixth-grade students were randomly assigned into two debriefing groups: self-debriefing and team debriefing. About half of members in each group performed either one of the two debriefing: in-game debriefing or postgame debriefing. Students in the self-debriefing as well as in the team-briefing group played the game 3 days a week over 9 weeks. As students finished the task, motivation and self-efficacy scales were administered and semistructured interviews were conducted. Findings indicate that students showed higher motivation and self-efficacy scores in the team debriefing than in the self-debriefing. Moreover, the in-game debriefing group outperformed the postgame debriefing group in terms of self-efficacy and motivation levels. Semistructured interviews supported the quantitative results that students benefited more from collaborative debriefing sessions.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 182
页数:28
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy - An empirical assessment
    Agarwal, R
    Sambamurthy, V
    Stair, RM
    [J]. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 2000, 11 (04) : 418 - 430
  • [2] [Anonymous], 6 PHASES DEBRIEFING
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2010, THESIS
  • [4] Asakawa T., 2003, Simulation & Gaming, V34, P10, DOI 10.1177/1046878102250455
  • [5] Astin AW, 1999, J COLL STUDENT DEV, V40, P518
  • [6] Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy
    Bandura, A
    [J]. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2000, 9 (03) : 75 - 78
  • [7] Looking in the mirror: Self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises
    Boet, Sylvain
    Bould, M. Dylan
    Bruppacher, Heinz R.
    Desjardins, Francois
    Chandra, Deven B.
    Naik, Viren N.
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2011, 39 (06) : 1377 - 1381
  • [8] Cognitive versus technical debriefing after simulation training
    Bond, WF
    Deitrick, LM
    Eberhardt, M
    Barr, GC
    Kane, BG
    Worrilow, CC
    Arnold, DC
    Croskerry, P
    [J]. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2006, 13 (03) : 276 - 283
  • [9] BREDEMEIER ME, 1981, J EXP LEARN SIMULAT, V3, P73
  • [10] Butler R. E., 1993, LOFT FULL MOTION SIM