Abstract:

This paper aims to show how a specific practice with Video Games could be a useful tool to promote deep learning. Specifically, we have used the famous Video Game, Angry Birds, to work Projectile Motion with a sample of 110 high school students.

The findings provide evidence that specific uses can enhance traditional instruction, although they are in a preliminar stage.

Introduction

Although games have been considered to be educative tools for decades (Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Annetta et al. 2009) academic interest is quite recent (Girard et al. 2012; Kebritchi & Hirumi, 2008). The infancy of this field and its growth in the last few years have resulted in fragmentation of knowledge and inconsistency (Ke, 2009). According to Conolly et al. (2009), this phenomenon is a barrier to understanding in a deep way the games’ effect on learning. Thus, these authors propose to differentiate between Digital Commercial Games (DCG), which are originally designed with leisure aims, and Games-Based Learning (GBL) and Serious Games (SG), terms sometimes used synonymously (Corti, 2006),whoses original purposes are to promote learning and behaviour change.

In the same way, Girard et al. (2012) consider S.G and Video Games (V.G) to have only one difference: whilst in the former  the intended purpose is usefulness, in the latter is for entertainment. This criterion, they point out, “has to be present from the outset (right from the very first step in the design of SG)” (p.210).

As Marsh (2011) claims, we think every V.G or D.C.G could become S.G if they are used in a deep way. It means, used with epistemic goals.

Regardless how the definition is considered, it is this relationship between S.G and learning that has attracted the scientific community`s attention. In this sense, during the last few years different models to categorize the learning outcomes with S.G have been developed.

Thus, Garris, Ahlers & Driskell (2002) propose a model with three key categories : skill -based learning , cognitive learning (itself divided into declarative , procedural and strategic knowledge) and affective learning , next to a model proposed by Pozo ( 2008 ) in his theory of learning. O ' Neill , Wainess & Baker (2005 ) distinguish five cognitive Demands basing family in Baker and Mayer 's CRESST model of learning ( 1999 ) : Content Understanding , Problem Solving , Self -Regulation , Comunication and Collaboration / Teamwork . Wouters , van der Spek & Oostendorp (2009 ) added to the three categories proposed by Garris et al. (2002) fourth : communicative learning outcomes . This same research group concludes a subsequent meta-analysis ( Wouters , et al. , 2013 ) that training with SG is better to promote cognitive and conceptual learning than traditional instructional methods .

Results like this are not as common as one would wish (Hays , 2005 ; Papastergiou , 2009 ; Wrzeisen & Alcaniz Raya, 2010 ) , so we try to contribute towards empirical evidence and add key points to integrate these tools in educational contexts.

Research questions

• Can using Angry Birds enhance the learning of Projectile Motion?
• Is there any specific use of Angry Birds that promotes better understanding of Projectile Motion? How can we use Angry Birds to improve our knowledge about physics?
• Can Angry Birds be better than traditional instruction to learn about Projectile Motion?

References Anneta, L.A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S.Y & Cheng, M.-T (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school student’s engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53, 74-85 Baker, E. L. & Mayer, R. E. (1999) Computer-based assessment of problem solving, Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 269–282. Bourgonjon,J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R., & Valcke, M. (2013). Acceptance of game-based learning by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education 67, 21-35 Corti, K. (2006). Games-based learning: a serious business application. PIXELearning limited Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J.E. (2002). Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practical Model. Simulation & Gaming 33 (4), 441-467 Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent sudies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 207-219 Hays, R.T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: Literature review. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Instiute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Ke, F. (2009). Chapter 1, A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as a learning tools. In R. E Ferding (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1-31). Kent State University USA: IGI Global Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55, 427-443 Marsh, T. (2011). Serious games continuum: between games for purpose and experiential environments for purpose. Entertainment Computing 2, 61-68 O´Neil, Wainess & Baker (2005). Classification of learning outcomes: evidence from the computer games literature. The Curriculum Journal, 16 (4), 455-474 Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computer & Education 52, 1-12 Pozo, J.I. (2008). Aprendices y maestros. La psicología cognitiva del aprendizaje. Madrid: Alianza Editorial Wouters, P., van der Spek, E., & van Oostendorp, H. (2009). Current practices in serious games research: a review from a learning outcomes perspective. In T.M. Conolly, M. Stansfield, & E.A. Boyle (Eds.), Games-based learning: Techniques and effective practices Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E.D. (2013). A Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive and Motivational Effects of Serious Games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1005 (2), 249- 265 Wrzeisen, M. & Alcañiz Raya, M. (2010). Learning in serious virtual worlds: evaluating of learning efectiveness and appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers & Education, 55 (1), 178-187