MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W110181966 · doi:10.11575/prism/30342

How Are Games Educational? Learning Theories Embodied in Games

2005· article· en· W110181966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionComputer scienceGame mechanicsGlobeValue (mathematics)Turns, rounds and time-keeping systems in gamesMathematics educationResistance (ecology)Learning theoryEducational technologyPedagogyCognitive scienceMultimediaSociologyVideo game designPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the combined efforts of many dedicated researchers across the globe, the “message ” of the value of games for learning is starting to be heard in formal education, but there remains considerable resistance. One way to help overcome this resistance and influence the acceptance and integration of games as educational technology is through the connection of existing game design with scholarly and widely accepted pedagogy. This paper outlines the theories of Robert Gagné, and Howard Gardner to demonstrate how good games, even purely commercial ones, already embody the fundamental elements of these learning and instructional theories. In this way, it can be shown that good games constitute sound educational pedagogy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it