Learning preferences towards computerized competitive modes

An online domain-independent competitive gaming system, called JOYCE, was devised to engage students in drill-and-practice exercises. In this paper, theories underpinning the system design are explained. As in the system students are allowed to compete with others in a face-to-face situation, and in network situations where an opponent's identify is revealed or concealed, a preliminary study was conducted to examine students' preferences towards different competition modes and satisfaction towards the learning experience. Results supported JOYCE's incorporation into the learning process and the design and development of the system. Based on the obtained data it was suggested that to increase its intrinsic value and to lessen the negative emotional states which is more easily exhibited in a face-to-face competition situation anonymity is a promising feature to be included in a competitive learning system. Furthermore, various competition modes should be built into e-learning environments to satisfy peoples' different learning mode preferences.

[1]  William Sweeters.  Multimedia Electronic Tools for Learning. , 1994 .

[2]  Robert Heinich,et al.  Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning , 1996 .

[3]  Fu-Yun Yu.  The Design of Multiple Competitive Activities in a Synchronous Question-Answering Game System with Educational Agents. , 2001 .

[4]  Emmy A. Pepitone.  Children in Cooperation and Competition , 1985 .

[5]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  S. Cook,et al.  The Impact of Cooperative Learning Experiences on Cross‐Ethnic Relations and Attitudes , 1975 .

[7]  James Lockard,et al.  Microcomputers for Twenty-First Century Educators , 1994 .

[8]  E. Deci,et al.  When Trying to Win , 1981 .

[9]  H. Sullivan,et al.  Matching learner preference to amount of instruction: An alternative form of learner control , 1995 .

[10]  Robert M. Gagné,et al.  The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction , 1985 .

[11]  Laurie Thomas Lee.  On‐line anonymity: A new privacy battle in cyberspace , 1996 .

[12]  James O. Carey,et al.  The systematic design of instruction , 1978 .

[13]  Leslie J. Briggs,et al.  Principles of Instructional Design , 1974 .

[14]  R. E. Dunn,et al.  Competition and noncompetition in relationship to satisfaction and feelings toward own-group and nongroup members. , 1966, The Journal of social psychology.

[15]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[16]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Interdependence and Interpersonal Attraction Among Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Individuals: A Theoretical Formulation and a Meta-analysis of the Research , 1983 .

[17]  Stephen M. Alessi,et al.  Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development , 2000 .

[18]  Ruth Butler,et al.  Effects of intergroup competition and school philosophy on student perceptions, group processes, and performance , 1990 .

[19]  M. Goldman,et al.  Competition and non-competition and its relationship to individual and group productivity. , 1961 .

[20]  L. Festinger.  Informal social communication. , 1950, Psychological review.