Technology, Gamification, and Rewards in Education PDF

Technology, Gamification, and Rewards in Education Dr. Tina Seabrooke PSYC1022: Learning to Learn © University of Southampton LECTURE OUTLINE Technology in education Effects of searching for and saving information on memory Gamified learning Theory of gamified learn...

Technology, Gamification, and Rewards in Education Dr. Tina Seabrooke PSYC1022: Learning to Learn © University of Southampton LECTURE OUTLINE Technology in education Effects of searching for and saving information on memory Gamified learning Theory of gamified learning Rewards in learning Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards on memory Technology in Education QUESTION PROMPT What is the speed of sound?  THE GOOGLE EFFECT SPARROW ET AL. (2011) Participants presented with easy trivia questions in one block, and hard trivia questions in another block Easy example: “Are dinosaurs extinct?” Hard example: “Is Krypton’s atomic number 26?” After each block, participants completed a modified Stroop task Description of Experiment 1  Was this statement exactly what you read? SPARROW ET AL. (2011) - 1.0 0.9 Proportion correct RECOGNITION MEMORY 0.8 0.7 0.6 Participants presented with trivia statements and asked to type them 0.5 into a dialogue box and press Enter 0.4 Erased Saved Saved-folder E.g., The Tsunami disaster in Asia occurred in December 2004. 1/3 trials: “Your entry has been saved.” 1/3 trials: Your entry has been saved into the folder Was this statement saved or DATA/INFO/NAMES/ITEMS/POINTS erased? 1/3 trials: Your entry has been erased 1.0 0.9 Recognition test: Proportion correct 0.8 Was this statement exactly what you read? 0.7 Was this statement saved or erased? 0.6 0.5 0.4 Description of Experiment 3 Erased Saved Saved-folder THINKING BEFORE GOOGLING GIEBL ET AL. (2022) Participants were presented with easy or hard trivia questions Guessing improved final recall relative to being presented with the answer (pretesting effect) Googling right away also produced better cued recall than immediate presentation Thinking before Googling produced the best recall Data from Experiment 3 Gamification LANDERS’ (2014) THEORY OF GAMIFIED LEARNING Attempts to explain the causal mechanisms by which gamified tasks enhance learning Make predictions about when and how gamification interventions will enhance learning Proposes 2 processes by which gamification affects learning: A mediating process (more direct) A moderating process (less direct) LANDERS’ (2014) THEORY OF GAMIFIED LEARNING (2) LANDERS AND LANDERS (2014) Participants completed online wiki-based project Random assignment to Gamified or Control group Gamified group were part of a leaderboard (unrelated to course grades) LANDERS AND LANDERS (2014) Participants completed online wiki-based project Random assignment to Gamified or Control group Gamified group were part of a leaderboard (unrelated to course grades) Time-on-task significantly predicted academic performance Gamification significantly moderated the relationship between time-on-task and academic performance: leaderboard group made ~ 30 more edits than the control group Rewards EXTRINSIC REWARDS Participants attempted to answer trivia questions before being shown the answers Half of the participants were told that they would receive 0.25 Euros for every correct guess Memory for half of the answers tested immediately, and the rest 1 week later Money improved memory only on the delayed test Delayed test: money only improved memory for uninteresting questions Murayama and Kuhbandner (2011) THE UNDERMINING EFFECT MURAYAMA ET AL. (2010) Japanese participants completed a stop-watch (SW; experimental) and watch-stop (WS; control) task – trials randomly intermixed SW task inherently interesting, even without any extrinsic incentives Participants randomly allocated to a reward or control group Reward group: 200 yen for each point earned on the task Control group: no performance-based monetary reward (just received money for participation) Participants completed 2 sessions Performance-contingent reward instructions given before the 1st session All participants explicitly told that no performance-contingent rewards to-be delivered in 2nd session At the end of each session, participants given 3-min to freely engage in either task, or do something else MURAYAMA ET AL. (2010) – PROCEDURE MURAYAMA ET AL. (2010) – RESULTS Extrinsic monetary reward reduced the number of times participants voluntarily played the SW (intrinsically motivating) task Undermining effect persisted even when rewards were no longer contingent on performance INTRINSIC CURIOSITY - GRUBER ET AL. (2014) Summary - what have we covered? Technology in education Effects of having information available at our fingertips on memory and new learning Think before Googling! Gamified learning Landers’ theory of gamified learning Rewards in learning Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards on memory INDEPENDENT STUDY ACTIVITY (1) Without using your notes, write down as much as you can remember about Sparrow et al.’s (2011) seminal research on the Google effect Afterwards, you can fill in any gaps in your notes INDEPENDENT STUDY ACTIVITY (2) Without using your notes, describe Landers’ (2014) theory of gamified learning Can you remember the 2 processes by which gamification is suggested to affect learning? Write down as much as you can remember, or describe the theory to a friend At the end of the lecture, you can fill in any gaps in your notes INDEPENDENT STUDY ACTIVITY (3) Without using your notes, explain the undermining effect Can you recall how Murayama et al. (2010) demonstrated the undermining effect? What were their key findings? At the end of the lecture, you can fill in any gaps in your notes