Innovation in Workplace Learning: Perceptions of the Value of Game-based Learning among Training and Development Professionals
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
Games are a fundamental part of the fabric of human existence. Their utility extend beyond the sole purpose of entertainment and transcends to the realm of games for learning. The impetus of this study was to examine the perceptions of game-based learning (GBL) through the lens of training and development professionals in Canada. Employing a mixed-method approach, a survey questionnaire was used to explore experience using GBL, intention to use GBL and barriers to adoption. A descriptive analysis of frequencies was performed on the quantitative data and content analysis for the open-ended qualitative survey responses. Based on the results of 172 respondents, only 43.6 percent were using GBL. Majority of respondents lacked GBL knowledge and experienced low self-efficacy for GBL design and application. This was exacerbated by social, organizational and systems-wide barriers. Increased GBL knowledge and support from leadership and peers were among the factors to mitigate GBL adoption barriers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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