It’s All Fun and Games until Someone Learns Something: Assessing the Learning Outcomes of Two Educational Games
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – To determine whether educational games can be designed that are both fun and effective in improving information seeking skills. Methods – Two skills that are known to be particularly difficult for students taking a required information literacy test were identified. These skills are the ability to identify citations and the ability to search databases with keywords. Educational games were designed to address these two skills. The first game, Citation Tic Tac Toe, placed commonly used bibliographic citations into a tick tac toe style grid. Students were required to play the Tic Tac Toe game and subsequently given citation identification exercises. The second game arranged key concepts related to search phrases in a Magnetic Keyword interface. Students were observed searching databases before and after playing the Magnetic Keyword game and their pre- and post-play searches were analyzed. Results – Students who played the Tic Tac Toe game improved more from pretest to posttest than students who only took an online tutorial. In addition, students who played the Magnetic Keyword game demonstrated quicker database searching for their topics and expressed increased satisfaction with their results. Conclusions – Games can be created which have measurable educational outcomes and are fun. It is important, however, to establish the educational objective prior to beginning game design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.057 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it