Tölvumál - 01.10.2012, Blaðsíða 17

17
designed and developed as an online game, in a computer based
support, and tested with a second group of students (n=16). In
this case the dyads interaction was performed through a chat
application within the game. This interaction tool aimed to promote
and facilitate metacognitive processes among dyads.
In order to analyse user’s acceptance of the online game, the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) survey was distributed
among users with some variations from the original model (Davies
1986). The TAM has been considered in recent studies as a model
of analysing e-learning since the rise of educational technologies.
It is basically meant to be influenced by the degree to which users
consider an IT system to improve their performance (perceived
usefulness) and their perception of the IT tool facility of use
(perceived ease of use).
The users’ performance of the two different contexts was analysed
in order to find out whether there were significant differences on
the results among the two different environments. The results
were gathered at the three different stages of the game. In stage 1
the learners’ performed individually, in stage 2, they corrected their
peers, and in the 3rd stage they were required to reach a joint
agreement within their dyad.
Two hypotheses were formulated. The first hypothesis presumed
a better performance in the collaborative phase of the game in the
computer supported context. It could be due to some scaffolding
elements, not present in the face-to-face context and also
because of a chat application tool. This tool could allow peers to
interact efficiently by supporting the sharing of knowledge and
performance information (Engelman, Dehler, Bodemer, & Buder,
2009). Nevertheless results concluded that the highest and
significant differences appeared only in the individual stage, where
the paper-based groups perform higher (m=5.13; sd=0.89) than
the computer-based group (m=4.5; sd=0.79). In both other stages
the differences are not significant. A second hypothesis considered
better results in the collaborative stage for those participants with
a higher e-learning self-efficacy according to their self-reported
answers at the TAM.
Based on the results gathered in this specific experience, we can
conclude by saying that there is a slight difference, and an effect,
on students’ performance depending on the type of game context
provided. The results of this initial study on the comparison of
face-to-face and computer-based game have been developed
with fairly reduced number of participants (n=34) where the
students’ initial finance literacy was not homogenous. Despite the
limits of this experience, performance similarities outlined in this
initial study together with teachers’ readiness to distribute the
digital release of the game, has allowed to facilitate its use and
spreading; nowadays only the computer-based release is used.
ReFeRenCes
Carlson, E. (1969). Learning through Games: A New Approach to
Problem Solving. Public Affairs Press.
Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D. & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge
awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 25(4), 949-960.
Foreman, J. (2003). Next-Generation Educational Technology versus
the Lecture. Educause Review, 38(4), 12.
Fuentes, M., Romero, M. & Serrano, M. J. (2011). E-Learning: Psycho-
Pedagogical Utility, Usability and Accessibility Criteria from a
Learner Centred Perspective. In Lazarinis, F., Green, S., &
Pearson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on E­Learning
Standards and Interoperability: Frameworks and Issues. (pp. 419-
434).
Kim, B., Park, H. & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies:
Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning.
Computers and Education, 52(4), 800 810.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. & Carey, T.
(1994). Human­Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley: Harlow.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game­Based Learning. NY:McGraw-Hill.
Tricot, A. (2007). Apprentissages et documents numériques. Paris:
Belin.
Based on the results gathered in this specific experience, we
can conclude by saying that there is a slight difference, and
an effect, on students’ performance depending on the type of
game context provided.