Abstract 1: Computer Games

This article, Computer Games Application within Alternative Classroom Goal Structures, focused on how the use of computer games as a way to review mathematical ideas. In addition, the researcher looked at how different classroom structures can effect computer game achievement. This study worked with 5^th grade students in different classroom structures. The students were first divided into two main groups, (1) computer game use to review and (2) paper-pencil practice. Students were then further divided into sub-groups of (1) cooperative structure where students worked in teams to complete tasks, (2) individualistic competitive structure where students competed against each other, and (3) individualistic structure where students worked by themselves and did not compete against other students. The researcher hoped to find a correlation not only between computer games and developing mathematical learning, but that the cooperative classroom structure would further that learning.

The researcher found that computer games as compared to paper pencil practice did promote motivation for the students, but it did not develop their knowledge of the content any further than the paper-pencil group. “Findings suggested that computer games afforded greater retention over time than paper and pencil drills: game-playing participants demonstrated focused attention and enjoyment and expressed reluctance to lave computer labs when gaming session was ended (Ke, 2008).” The study also found that a cooperative structure enhances the effects of computer games on student motivation. The individualistic structure actually improved student cognitive learning, but the increase was not significant. Therefore, the effects of the computer games have limited impact on student academic performance.

Prior to reading this article, I thought that computer games would have some effect on student academic performance and would motivate my students, but I didn’t know how to effectively incorporate computer games into the classroom. The researcher brought up a valuable study that looked at structures of the classroom and its influence on computer games. I have always considered just using computer games with students at independent stations without interacting with others. However, this study shows that student interaction can motivate students even further. Currently, I have several students that have little to no motivation to do math. Though, if I begin using math computer games as review in small group settings, I may have a better chance of increasing student motivation and participation. Of course, that means I must find engaging and academically challenging computer games for my students that can be a challenge.

This research mentioned that the students were on a computer game that focused on measurement, graphing, comparing whole numbers and solving simple equations. The article explained that this computer game was not set up for students to work cooperatively, but students had to sit around one computer and try to get the highest score. I think it would be more beneficial to have students doing a whole group competition where all students are working on the same problems (maybe using a Smartboard) and the teacher can interact with the students. I understand that these computer games are just for review, but I find it important as students are reviewing for me to be around and helping them through those problems. I think having 5 students around a computer will first, not let all students be active in working on the problems and secondly, not allow misunderstandings be corrected.

There are so many different types of computer games in math that students could use, but are they needed to deliver a review. After reviewing this article, I don’t think they are absolutely needed, but I am happy to start using them if they will motivate my students.

Reference

Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 539-556. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5.