When new media and delivery systems are introduced, they are often accompanied by claims that they provide increased learning. The temptation to ascribe learning powers to delivery systems is strong, as evidenced by repeated attempts over many decades to do so. A relatively new arrival, serious games are currently the recipient of much attention in this regard. In a new meta-analysis of learning in training programs with or without games, Sitzmann (in press) suggests that delivering training via simulation games enhances learning, while she also acknowledges that instructional methods—not delivery systems—provide the ingredients that facilitate learning. If blog posts and Internet articles provide a useful indication, many practitioners are furthering claims for increased learning and retention via serious games. These claims provide fertile ground for a new set of myths about this relatively new delivery system. Before choosing to invest in acquiring or developing serious games, decision makers should consider (a) instructional methods and (b) whether they will realize benefits from a cost and implementation perspective. They should not select serious games because of claims that the games will intrinsically enhance learning.
[1]
J. D. Fletcher,et al.
What Research Has to Say about Designing Computer Games for Learning.
,
2007
.
[2]
James E. Driskell,et al.
Games, Motivation, and Learning: A Research and Practice Model
,
2002
.
[3]
Traci Sitzmann.
A META-ANALYTIC EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER-BASED SIMULATION GAMES
,
2011
.
[4]
R. Clark.
Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media
,
1983
.
[5]
R. Clark.
Media will never influence learning
,
1994
.
[6]
Roger Smith,et al.
The Long History of Gaming in Military Training
,
2010
.
[7]
Darryl L. Sink,et al.
ISD faster better easier
,
2002
.