A number of commentators promote the use of computer games for education (Prensky, 2001; DeHaan 2005; Lainema & Nurmi 2006) advocating their utility for being interactive, social and highly motivational. However, insufficient empirical research has been conducted to fully validate their use, especially given the practical constraints of using computer games for instructional purposes (Connolly, Hainey & Stansfield, 2007). This paper describes some of the findings of a study designed to explore the impact of using computer games to teach first year undergraduates. In particular, it addresses the issue of how using computer games in a tertiary course changes student experiences compared to the lecture approach.

Some studies reveal that lecture based instruction is less effective than more interactive approaches (Knight & Wood, 2005) and that lectures are disliked by students (Sander et al, 2000). In addition, most students presently enrolled at university are digital natives (Prensky, 2001). It is therefore reasonable to assume that students would have improved instructional experiences through computer game instruction compared to traditional lecture. This premise has been articulated by a others, stating that the Net Generation is only engaged if learning by interaction, through experience and in exploratory ways (Oblinger & Oblinger 2005; Prensky 2001).

Evidence supports the opinion that it is not necessarily the instructional technique that inspires learning but how the student perceives that technique (Entwistle, 1991; Struyven et al, 2008) and instructional techniques that give the perception of assisting deep learning will also facilitate deep learning. Lectures give the perception of surface learning (Case & Marshall, 2004). Further, expectations of learning and learning environments are important when considering learning outcome and if expectations are met performance may be improved (Sander et al, 2000). However, some studies suggest that instruction that supports active learning, although demonstrating high student satisfaction may show little improvement in achievement when compared to lecture based instruction (O’Leary et al, 2005). Hardy et al (2003) emphasised that it is not necessarily instruction that predicts exam achievement but students’ antecedents. However, one cannot deny that learning is multi-faceted and not fully measurable through traditional tests of academic achievement such as examinations. Kirkpatrick (1994) includes both affective and cognitive variables and describes learner reaction as being important. For example a learner’s motivation to engage with the learning material is an important aspect of these reactions and it is essential that instructors engage students and instil intrinsic motivation to learn. Without motivation, most learning environments are ineffective (Lepper & Chabay, 1985). It is therefore important to understand how student experiences within a course relate to overall achievement in that course.

This study investigates the changes in learner experience brought about by changes in instructional mode and compares the experiences of high and low achieving students.

This research asks two important questions;

0. How do student experiences change when instruction is computer game based compared to lecture based?
0. How do high and low achieving students differ in terms of their experiences for instruction delivered by computer games compared to lectures?

Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., & Stansfield, M. (2007) “An application of games-based learning within software engineering”, British Journal of Educational Technology 38 (3): 416–428. DeHaan, J. W. (2005) “Acquisition of Japanese as a foreign language through a baseball videogame”, Foreign Language Annals 38, (2): 278-282. Entwistle, N. J. (1991) “Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment: Introduction to the special issue”, Higher Education 22: 201–204. Hardy, S. A., Reay, D., Thompson, R. A., & Zamboanga, B. (2003) “Student background and course involvement among first-year college students in introduction to psychology: Implications for course design and student achievement”, Psychology Learning and Teaching 3 (1): 6-10. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994) “Evaluating training programs: the four levels.” San Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler. Knight, J. K. & Wood, W. B. (2005) “Teaching more by lecturing less”, Cell Biology Education 4: 298–310. Lainema, T. & Nurmi, S. (2006) “Applying an authentic, dynamic learning environment in real world business”, Computers & Education 47: 94–115. Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985) “Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education”, Educational Psychologist 20, (4): 217-230. Oblinger, D. G. & Oblinger, J. L. (2005) “Educating the Net-Generation”, Educause. www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/ O’Leary, S., Churley-Strom, R., Diepenhorst, L., & Magrane, D. (2005) “Educational games in an obstetrics and gynecology core curriculum”, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193, (5): 1848–1851. Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, On the Horizon 9, (5). Sander, P., Coates, D., King, M., & Stevenson, K. (2000) “University students’ expectations of teaching”, Studies in Higher Education, 25, (3): 309-323. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Gielen, S., & Janssens, S. (2008) “Students’ experiences with contrasting learning environments: The added value of students’ perceptions”, Learning Environment Research, 11: 83–109.