https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=S155587&feedformat=atomControl Systems Technology Group - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T01:21:51ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.5https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Planning&diff=52120PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning2018-03-29T11:56:34Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
This table shows the planning for this project including the division of tasks. A more specific task division of the later weeks will come on a later date.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| border="1"<br />
|-<br />
! When<br />
! Who<br />
! Task<br />
|-<br />
! Week 2<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Think of 5 words, including minigame for it, to add in the game.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas & Casper<br />
| Update wiki content<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for game<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter <br />
| List questions for next meeting<br />
|- <br />
! Week 3<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Finish list of words and minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for the minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter & Thomas<br />
| Concrete test setup<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Design graphics<br />
|-<br />
! Week 4<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Look at possibility of taking test at highschool, make the minigames number 1,2<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Daniel<br />
| Make minigame number 3 and the separate minigames.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki, Find P value for control group, future ideas.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Help finishing the game where possible<br />
|-<br />
! Week 5<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Taking tests at highschool.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Improve test questionnaires, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Improve test questionnaires, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
! Week 6<br />
| Everyone, except Daniel<br />
| Take tests and analyze results<br />
|-<br />
! Week 7<br />
| Everyone, except Daniel<br />
| Final presentation and finish wiki<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Milestones==<br />
The following list contains all the milestones week by week.<br />
<br />
26-08-2018: Finished list of words and minigames<br />
<br />
05-03-2018: Finished graphic designs, finished test setup<br />
<br />
12-03-2018: Finished Game<br />
<br />
19-03-2018: Finished (most) test sessions<br />
<br />
26-03-2018: Final presentation<br />
<br />
==Deliverables==<br />
The following are the big deliverables:<br />
<br />
The final version of the game (https://github.com/Kaj0Wortel/learningGame )<br />
<br />
Report on the test results [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_State_of_the_Art&diff=52097PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art2018-03-29T11:33:46Z<p>S155587: /* Language Tutor Applications */</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
Before starting a project it is important to know what has been done before. Therefore this section will talk about previous research into learning through games as well as research done in which types of learning are effective and why. This page will give a general overview of this research.<br />
<br />
==Viability of game based learning==<br />
Research has been done using the valence, the psychological value, of game-based learning as a measuring tool. The research set out to test the following hypotheses:<br />
<br />
1. Potential learners will have greater pre-training valence for gamified instruction than for a traditional (i.e., PowerPoint-driven) instructional approach.<br />
<br />
2a.Attitudes towards game-based learning will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with positive attitudes toward game-based learning will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
<br />
2b: Experience with video games will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with video game experience will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
<br />
The results show that in the end the participants near the mean. As for the hypotheses, on average hypotheses 1 holds. As for evidence of the other two hypotheses, although there was a mean effect, participants with poor attitudes towards game-based learning and limited experience with games had poorer valence for game-based learning than for lecture-and-powerpoint instructions.<br />
<br />
==Learning concepts in games==<br />
Games have been using teaching methods to teach their players about the game, that only recently have been thought of in the realm of education. The most prominent of these have been listed by, among others, James Paul Gee in his paper Learning and games.[18] According to this paper the biggest difference between the learning methods used in education and those used in games is the general approach to teaching. Schools often focus on the content to be learned, whereas games focus on the meaning and uses of this content. That is to say that schools let their students learn the facts, while games focus on the use of those facts. Another big difference is the role of failure in learning. In games the costs of failure are relatively low and the failure itself if mostly seen as a learning opportunity. Multiple papers also talk about the role of competition. Competition is a big part of games and provides motivation to get better and learn more.[8] Games in general have shown to increase motivation considerably, making not only the way of learning more interesting but also the concept itself,making the concept more interesting. So motivation is definitely one of the biggest advantages of learning with games.<br />
<br />
==Skills developed through game based learning==<br />
Games can be used to develop a plethora of skills. Research has shown that games can teach or help to develop soft skills, like leadership. A particular study about leadership showed that the use of a game could also identify what type of leader people were.[14] This kind of effect of games, where they are used to learn something about the player, instead of the other way around, has not been used anywhere else as far as we have seen. Other research has shown that virtual worlds can be used to have engaging and effective social conferences, allowing for a good environment for discussions. Another skill taught by games is that of collaboration. Another study has shown that creative skills can be learned through games.<br />
<br />
==Language learning==<br />
This part will talk about language learning methods mostly as llaid out in the book “De Taalhacker”, or “Fluent Forever” internationally by Gabriel Wyner. First of all, it says that our visual memory is very strong. Meaning it’s a lot easier to connect a word to an image, than a word to another word. Second it points out that making a mnemonic, “ezelsbruggetje” in Dutch, is a good method of remembering things. <br />
According to Wyner, while learning a language you should use other language as little as possible. This means that when learning a language, you should do as much as possible in that language and make as little use of your own language as possible.[17]<br />
<br />
==Language Tutor Applications==<br />
There already exist multiple applications that try to teach people new languages. The most popular one being Duolingo. However, Duolingo, has very weak gamification, only incentivizing visiting the app for some valuta that can only be spend on some customization for the app itself. It also does not use the language learning methods very well. For example it doesn’t use images to learn you the words, it also makes full use of english while learning the language, making you translate english sentences directly. However, it does use a valuable technique for learning words: Space-Based Repetition (SBR). <br />
<br />
SBR, teaches you words in a sequence that keeps testing your memory and helping you remember words you learned before. It uses an algorithm to decide when a word you just got wrong/right, will be tested again. For example, you have a sequence in which a program will test you on words, and every time you get a word wrong it will repeat that word after the next 3 words. and when you get it right it will be tested after you got all the wrong words correct from last time.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - References]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Planning&diff=52096PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning2018-03-29T11:32:55Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
This table shows the planning for this project including the division of tasks. A more specific task division of the later weeks will come on a later date.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! When<br />
! Who<br />
! Task<br />
|-<br />
| Week 2<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Think of 5 words, including minigame for it, to add in the game.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas & Casper<br />
| Update wiki content<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for game<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter <br />
| List questions for next meeting<br />
|-<br />
| Week 3<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Finish list of words and minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for the minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter + Thomas<br />
| Concrete test setup<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Design graphics<br />
|-<br />
| Week 4<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Look at possibility of taking test at highschool, make the minigames number 1,2<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Daniel<br />
| Make minigame number 3 and the separate minigames.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki, Find P value for control group, future ideas.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Help finishing the game where possible<br />
|-<br />
| Week 5<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Taking tests at highschool.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Improve test questionnaires, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Improve test questionnaires, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
| Week 6<br />
| Everyone, except Daniel<br />
| Take tests and analyze results<br />
|-<br />
| Week 7<br />
| Everyone, except Daniel<br />
| Final presentation and finish wiki<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Milestones==<br />
The following list contains all the milestones week by week.<br />
<br />
26-08-2018: Finished list of words and minigames<br />
<br />
05-03-2018: Finished graphic designs, finished test setup<br />
<br />
12-03-2018: Finished Game<br />
<br />
19-03-2018: Finished (most) test sessions<br />
<br />
26-03-2018: Final presentation<br />
<br />
==Deliverables==<br />
The following are the big deliverables:<br />
<br />
The final version of the game (https://github.com/Kaj0Wortel/learningGame )<br />
<br />
Report on the test results [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Planning&diff=52094PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning2018-03-29T11:31:03Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
This table shows the planning for this project including the division of tasks. A more specific task division of the later weeks will come on a later date.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! When<br />
! Who<br />
! Task<br />
|-<br />
| Week 2<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Think of 5 words, including minigame for it, to add in the game.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas & Casper<br />
| Update wiki content<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for game<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter <br />
| List questions for next meeting<br />
|-<br />
| Week 3<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Finish list of words and minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for the minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter + Thomas<br />
| Concrete test setup<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Design graphics<br />
|-<br />
| Week 4<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Look at possibility of taking test at highschool, make the minigames number 1,2<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Daniel<br />
| Make minigame number 3 and the separate minigames.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki, Find P value for control group, future ideas.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Help finishing the game where possible<br />
|-<br />
| Week 5<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Taking tests at highschool.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Improve test questionnaires, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Improve test questionnaires, help making minigames<br />
|-<br />
| Week 6<br />
| Everyone, except Daniel<br />
| Take tests, analyze results<br />
|-<br />
| Week 7<br />
| Everyone, except Daniel<br />
| Final presentation<br />
| Finish wiki<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Milestones==<br />
The following list contains all the milestones week by week.<br />
<br />
26-08-2018: Finished list of words and minigames<br />
<br />
05-03-2018: Finished graphic designs, finished test setup<br />
<br />
12-03-2018: Finished Game<br />
<br />
19-03-2018: Finished (most) test sessions<br />
<br />
26-03-2018: Final presentation<br />
<br />
==Deliverables==<br />
The following are the big deliverables:<br />
<br />
The final version of the game (https://github.com/Kaj0Wortel/learningGame )<br />
<br />
Report on the test results [[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Results]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Future_Research&diff=52088PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Research2018-03-29T11:28:51Z<p>S155587: Created page with 'Back to the PRE2017 3 Groep9 ==Future Research== Based on the results from our research we believe that it is worth it to do further research into this subject. In order to …'</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Future Research==<br />
Based on the results from our research we believe that it is worth it to do further research into this subject. In order to help with this we will explain ways to improve our game design based on the feedback that we got from the test group. As for the test itself, we believe that for further research it would be valuable to do a larger test, with more words and a longer time limit, for reasons that will be explained below.<br />
<br />
==Time limits==<br />
As stated in the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results]], the main reason for the game not being as efficient is the time it takes to complete a rotation. From observing the test subjects we noticed that a lot of the time was spent trying to guess the meaning of the words as well as reading the initial explanations of the minigames.<br />
As far as the guessing of the words is considered, we believe this can be easily solved by putting a time limit on this part of the game, that way when a test subject does not know the meaning of the word within that time limit he will be given the answer and continue on.<br />
As for the explanations, this is not something that can be solved easily, since without them the user would not know what to do. One way of solving the problem could be by giving the explanation in a different way, such as showing them for a set time at the start of the minigame. Another way is making the controls similar for every minigame, in our current implementation, we used both the mouse and keyboard, however using only the mouse would likely be better. In the long term however we believe these explanations would not be that big of a problem.<br />
<br />
==Minigames==<br />
For improving the minigames, we got the feedback that the minigames were not linked to the words in a sufficient amount. To solve this it would be good to show the word during the minigame, this can either be at the top or bottom of the screen, or more integrated into the games themselves. For example, take the word pie, on every pie in the minigame the word torta could be shown in order to keep reminding the user of the actual word.<br />
<br />
==Test Set-up==<br />
The test set-up for future research could also be altered, we believe that the more one uses the game the more intuitive it becomes to use, which would decrease the time people spend doing basically nothing, as explained in the time limit section. Therefore a test set-up with more words to study and a longer time limit could still test the efficiency of the method and provide a more realistic setting. We believe this longer time limit for a more realistic setting could on its own change the results gotten from the game, since its a new method and having a longer time to adapt to it could improve results.<br />
<br />
We also want to test which method works better for learning on long term. We believe that due to the fact that we mainly use the visual memory, as explained in [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art]] people should be able to memorize words longer after they have played our game, than if they were to study the traditional way. Research long-term memory was impossible in this course since we would have had to stay in contact with our research subject, and you would want to test time periods like 2 weeks or even a month. This was impossible in a course of 7 weeks, since we needed at least 4 weeks to develop the game.<br />
<br />
==Other improvements==<br />
As for the other feedback that we got, most of that is accounted for in our [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Concepts]] and [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept]], but could not be implemented in time for the tests. These include o.a. teaching words both Italian to English and the other way around, as well as other general improvements such as a score system for long term use.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Future_Concepts&diff=52084PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Concepts2018-03-29T11:26:21Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Future concepts for the game==<br />
<br />
Knowing we are limited to only seven weeks to work on our game and design we have to limit the size of the game. However we think it is useful to explain what our game would have been if we had a whole year to create it. This is mainly important because this future design will tell something about our decisions made for our current game and why we think something like our game would be useful to society. Note that it is recommended to have taken a look at [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept]], since it explains the way our demo works and goes into further detail about the implementation, whereas this section will explain more about the top level structure of the game.<br />
<br />
==Space based repetition==<br />
<br />
Because our game is made with learning in mind we would if we had the time also add an option for integrating certain learning strategies into our game. A good example would be if we were to add space based repetition in there. This would then either be an option which you can turn on or of or it would be tied to the scores you can get (you would have to wait longer before you can get more score from the same word if you have them correct more often and lose score if you can’t remember older words). The reason for us wanting to add something like this in our game is to improve the long term learning capabilities of the game because space based learning helps with the long term memory by asking the same word in increasing intervals.<br />
<br />
==Structure of the levels==<br />
The game will consist of multiple sets, or levels so to speak. This section will explain how each level will be played. A level is basically a rotation, as in it rotates through a set of words until all words and their minigames in that set have been played. Now there are a few rules to these rotations. If the player correctly answers the word part of every word, the rotation ends after every word has passed once. However if the player answers wrongly, the same word will reappear after a few other words. If there are no other words left except for the wrongly answered word, the rotation will be extended by also repeating 2 or 3 words already passed, the words chosen for this will firstly be words that took more than 1 try to get correct in the current rotation, and then simply be random words from the same rotation.<br />
<br />
==Highscores==<br />
<br />
The scoring system in the game is a relative scoring system. This means the score will be represented as a percentage of how good you were at the game. This score will be given after the user finishes a “rotation”, as explained in the previous section. The score is influenced by both the performance in the minigames, and the performance in the word part. For every word question not correctly answered the maximum score percentage that the user can achieve is lowered, meaning a user cannot get a top score without knowing all the words.<br />
Apart from this scoring system, there will also be a secondary scoring system for the words only. This scoring system will also be a percentage based system.This score will be for progression through the game, and as possible feedback for teachers as explained further in the next sections.<br />
<br />
==Progress==<br />
<br />
The words to be learned by the game will be divided into different sets, or levels so to speak. These levels will start with easy words and become increasingly difficult. At the start of the game the user will only have access to the first level. In order to unlock the other levels, the user has to have managed to get a perfect score for the words in the previous level at least twice.<br />
Each level comes with a variation of minigames, which invites the replaying of older levels because some of those minigames might not be in the later levels. This way the user will keep revisiting the older levels, and thus keep repeating the older words. <br />
<br />
==Audio==<br />
<br />
A huge part of a language is pronunciation. Especially for languages like english, knowing how to write a word and how to pronounce it can have a huge difference. This is why our game should also contain audio for every word. The audio would be played automatically when the player encounters a word. <br />
<br />
==Use in educational institutes==<br />
<br />
This game is mostly focussed on self study, however it could also allow teachers to follow the progress of their students using the game. Teachers could get access to the secondary score of the students, in order to see the progress of the students</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Results&diff=52082PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results2018-03-29T11:24:40Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This part of the wiki will describe all of the results of this project. These results will be split into two parts: the test results and the user experience results. Both of these can be further split into two categories: quantitative and qualitative results. The quantitative results are the numerical test results of how many points people scored on the tests, and the ratings that people gave the different methods of studying. The qualitative results are the results gotten from the questionnaires and interviews with test participants. These results can be used to explain the values of the numerical results as well as giving more insight in the enjoyability of the game.<br />
<br />
==Test Results==<br />
[[File:Figure1.png]]<br />
<br />
<font size=”8”>Figure 1: Test scores</font><br />
<br />
Figure 1 displays the test results of both the test group, also known as game group, and the control, or traditional, group. It shows the amount of people on the y-axis and the amount of points scored on the test on the x-axis with a maximum of 15 points. As can be seen the test group converged around an average score of a 4,92, with a score off 5 being the most common. The scores for the control group are more difficult to evaluate, since they do not converge. Looking at the graph it seems like it is split into 3 groups, one group converging around a 4,5, one group around the 8.5 and the last group converging around 13. The average of the entire control group was a score of 8,36. The averages of both groups can be found in figure 2, in the second column. <br />
We will now explain how we obtained these results. Firstly we will take a look at the test group. Based on feedback given by test subjects the most important factor for the low test scores achieved by this group was the amount of time it took to finish one rotation of the game. Most test subjects did not manage to repeat every word twice, now since repetition is very important when studying it is clear that this lack of repetition is a major reason for the low scores. Other factors were that people did not think the minigames were connected enough to the words, and that the game only taught words Italian to English and not the other way around.<br />
Secondly we will look at the control group. The thing to notice here, is that the results are very spread out. Looking at the answers given to the questionnaires before taking the test, it is clear that the groups correspond to people answering they were bad, average and good at studying languages. From this we can assume that if we had more test subjects, the graph as a whole would converge to the average of a 8,36 and be less spread out. One other thing to mention here is that for the test group, there were also people that said they were bad or good at learning a language, however these results are still clustered.<br />
To summarize: the game was less efficient than the traditional method of studying, the main reasons for this being:<br />
The game took a long time.<br />
The minigames were not connected enough to the words.<br />
The game did not teach English to Italian, only Italian to English.<br />
<br />
==User Experience==<br />
[[File:Figure2.png]]<br />
<br />
<font size=”8”>Figure 2: Results</font><br />
<br />
As for the user experience we asked people to rate all different methods of studying. The results from this can be seen in figure 2. From these results we can see that both groups rated the traditional method about the same, around a 5.9, and they also both rated alternative methods, mostly WRTS, with a 8.1. As for the rating the game got, it was about the same as the traditional method, with a score of 5.73.<br />
When looking into why the game scored about the same as the traditional method we noticed that most people did enjoy the game more, but rated it about the same because they thought it was less efficient, which is a correct evaluation as shown in the previous section. As for the difference between WRTS and the traditional method, we did not get a lot of reasons for why this was, however from our own experience and by looking at the criteria for the other ratings, we can assume it is because WRTS automates a lot of the work a student otherwise has to do themselves when studying with the traditional method. It is also worth mentioning that not everyone used an alternative method, and thus did not rate it.<br />
Now as stated before, even though the game rating was about the same as the traditional method rating, the game was thought to be the more enjoyable method of learning by almost all of the test subjects. From this we can conclude that if this method of studying was improved to the point where it would be just as efficient as the traditional method, it has the potential to score about the same as other alternative methods.<br />
<br />
==Future research==<br />
Now that we have these results, we believe it is worth it to try and improve the game using the feedback that we received. The ideas for how to improve the game will be further discussed here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Research]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Results&diff=52081PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results2018-03-29T11:24:01Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This part of the wiki will describe all of the results of this project. These results will be split into two parts: the test results and the user experience results. Both of these can be further split into two categories: quantitative and qualitative results. The quantitative results are the numerical test results of how many points people scored on the tests, and the ratings that people gave the different methods of studying. The qualitative results are the results gotten from the questionnaires and interviews with test participants. These results can be used to explain the values of the numerical results as well as giving more insight in the enjoyability of the game.<br />
<br />
==Test Results==<br />
[[File:Figure1.png]]<br />
<br />
<font size=”8”>Figure 1: Test scores</font><br />
<br />
Figure 1 displays the test results of both the test group, also known as game group, and the control, or traditional, group. It shows the amount of people on the y-axis and the amount of points scored on the test on the x-axis with a maximum of 15 points. As can be seen the test group converged around an average score of a 4,92, with a score off 5 being the most common. The scores for the control group are more difficult to evaluate, since they do not converge. Looking at the graph it seems like it is split into 3 groups, one group converging around a 4,5, one group around the 8.5 and the last group converging around 13. The average of the entire control group was a score of 8,36. The averages of both groups can be found in figure 2, in the second column. <br />
We will now explain how we obtained these results. Firstly we will take a look at the test group. Based on feedback given by test subjects the most important factor for the low test scores achieved by this group was the amount of time it took to finish one rotation of the game. Most test subjects did not manage to repeat every word twice, now since repetition is very important when studying it is clear that this lack of repetition is a major reason for the low scores. Other factors were that people did not think the minigames were connected enough to the words, and that the game only taught words Italian to English and not the other way around.<br />
Secondly we will look at the control group. The thing to notice here, is that the results are very spread out. Looking at the answers given to the questionnaires before taking the test, it is clear that the groups correspond to people answering they were bad, average and good at studying languages. From this we can assume that if we had more test subjects, the graph as a whole would converge to the average of a 8,36 and be less spread out. One other thing to mention here is that for the test group, there were also people that said they were bad or good at learning a language, however these results are still clustered.<br />
To summarize: the game was less efficient than the traditional method of studying, the main reasons for this being:<br />
The game took a long time.<br />
The minigames were not connected enough to the words.<br />
The game did not teach English to Italian, only Italian to English.<br />
<br />
==User Experience==<br />
[[File:Figure2.png]]<br />
<br />
<font size=”8”>Figure 2: Results</font><br />
<br />
As for the user experience we asked people to rate all different methods of studying. The results from this can be seen in figure 2. From these results we can see that both groups rated the traditional method about the same, around a 5.9, and they also both rated alternative methods, mostly WRTS, with a 8.1. As for the rating the game got, it was about the same as the traditional method, with a score of 5.73.<br />
When looking into why the game scored about the same as the traditional method we noticed that most people did enjoy the game more, but rated it about the same because they thought it was less efficient, which is a correct evaluation as shown in the previous section. As for the difference between WRTS and the traditional method, we did not get a lot of reasons for why this was, however from our own experience and by looking at the criteria for the other ratings, we can assume it is because WRTS automates a lot of the work a student otherwise has to do themselves when studying with the traditional method. It is also worth mentioning that not everyone used an alternative method, and thus did not rate it.<br />
Now as stated before, even though the game rating was about the same as the traditional method rating, the game was thought to be the more enjoyable method of learning by almost all of the test subjects. From this we can conclude that if this method of studying was improved to the point where it would be just as efficient as the traditional method, it has the potential to score about the same as other alternative methods.<br />
<br />
==Future research==<br />
Now that we have these results, we believe it is worth it to try and improve the game using the feedback that we received. The ideas for how to improve the game will be further discussed here: [[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Future Research]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Results&diff=52079PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results2018-03-29T11:23:18Z<p>S155587: Created page with 'Back to the PRE2017 3 Groep9 ==Results== This part of the wiki will describe all of the results of this project. These results will be split into two parts: the test results…'</p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This part of the wiki will describe all of the results of this project. These results will be split into two parts: the test results and the user experience results. Both of these can be further split into two categories: quantitative and qualitative results. The quantitative results are the numerical test results of how many points people scored on the tests, and the ratings that people gave the different methods of studying. The qualitative results are the results gotten from the questionnaires and interviews with test participants. These results can be used to explain the values of the numerical results as well as giving more insight in the enjoyability of the game.<br />
<br />
==Test Results==<br />
[[Figure1.png]]<br />
<br />
<font size=”8”>Figure 1: Test scores</font><br />
<br />
Figure 1 displays the test results of both the test group, also known as game group, and the control, or traditional, group. It shows the amount of people on the y-axis and the amount of points scored on the test on the x-axis with a maximum of 15 points. As can be seen the test group converged around an average score of a 4,92, with a score off 5 being the most common. The scores for the control group are more difficult to evaluate, since they do not converge. Looking at the graph it seems like it is split into 3 groups, one group converging around a 4,5, one group around the 8.5 and the last group converging around 13. The average of the entire control group was a score of 8,36. The averages of both groups can be found in figure 2, in the second column. <br />
We will now explain how we obtained these results. Firstly we will take a look at the test group. Based on feedback given by test subjects the most important factor for the low test scores achieved by this group was the amount of time it took to finish one rotation of the game. Most test subjects did not manage to repeat every word twice, now since repetition is very important when studying it is clear that this lack of repetition is a major reason for the low scores. Other factors were that people did not think the minigames were connected enough to the words, and that the game only taught words Italian to English and not the other way around.<br />
Secondly we will look at the control group. The thing to notice here, is that the results are very spread out. Looking at the answers given to the questionnaires before taking the test, it is clear that the groups correspond to people answering they were bad, average and good at studying languages. From this we can assume that if we had more test subjects, the graph as a whole would converge to the average of a 8,36 and be less spread out. One other thing to mention here is that for the test group, there were also people that said they were bad or good at learning a language, however these results are still clustered.<br />
To summarize: the game was less efficient than the traditional method of studying, the main reasons for this being:<br />
The game took a long time.<br />
The minigames were not connected enough to the words.<br />
The game did not teach English to Italian, only Italian to English.<br />
<br />
==User Experience==<br />
[[Figure2.png]]<br />
<br />
<font size=”8”>Figure 2: Results</font><br />
<br />
As for the user experience we asked people to rate all different methods of studying. The results from this can be seen in figure 2. From these results we can see that both groups rated the traditional method about the same, around a 5.9, and they also both rated alternative methods, mostly WRTS, with a 8.1. As for the rating the game got, it was about the same as the traditional method, with a score of 5.73.<br />
When looking into why the game scored about the same as the traditional method we noticed that most people did enjoy the game more, but rated it about the same because they thought it was less efficient, which is a correct evaluation as shown in the previous section. As for the difference between WRTS and the traditional method, we did not get a lot of reasons for why this was, however from our own experience and by looking at the criteria for the other ratings, we can assume it is because WRTS automates a lot of the work a student otherwise has to do themselves when studying with the traditional method. It is also worth mentioning that not everyone used an alternative method, and thus did not rate it.<br />
Now as stated before, even though the game rating was about the same as the traditional method rating, the game was thought to be the more enjoyable method of learning by almost all of the test subjects. From this we can conclude that if this method of studying was improved to the point where it would be just as efficient as the traditional method, it has the potential to score about the same as other alternative methods.<br />
<br />
==Future research==<br />
Now that we have these results, we believe it is worth it to try and improve the game using the feedback that we received. The ideas for how to improve the game will be further discussed here: [[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Future Research]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Test_Setup&diff=52078PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Test Setup2018-03-29T11:21:33Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Test Setup==<br />
The test will follow the following procedure: <br />
<br />
- Quick introduction to let the test subjects know what they are being tested on<br />
<br />
- Test subjects start answering a questionnaire about themselves<br />
<br />
- The test subjects will get 7 minutes to study <br />
<br />
- After studying there will be a 5 minute break to get rid of the words in the short term memory<br />
<br />
- The subjects will then take a test about the words that had to be studied<br />
<br />
- After the test the subjects will have to answer another questionnaire in which we ask for feedback and to rate the study methods.<br />
<br />
You might notice the 7 minutes time to study, which seems arbitrary, however it is based on some test that we did. For this test we took 15 random italian words (different from the words in our game, since we already know those), and gave ourselves 10 minutes to study them. Then we had the 5 min break and took a test. All of us scored near perfect scores, which we think could be a problem. We looked at the list of words we had and decided it was slightly easier than the random list we learned. This made us believe that 10 minutes to study this list might result in a big part of the test group getting perfect scores, which we should avoid in order to see the difference between our 2 test groups. Therefore we decided to slightly reduce the given time, with the hope that it won’t be too easy.<br />
The test subjects will be split into 2 groups,which are explained further down below. The estimate for our total subject size is 50 students from the TU/e. We will also try to find more test subjects from our former high schools, since the more test subjects the more accurate the results.<br />
<br />
==Group 1: Study using the game==<br />
This group will be told that they are playing a game in order to learn Italian words, this information will be given because if this learning method is going to be used in the future the people using this method will still be aware that they are learning Italian words when using it.<br />
<br />
The questionnaire they have to answer beforehand will be the exact same as that for the second group. This questionnaire will focus on getting information about the participants. This will include age, how much experience with learning languages the participant has as well as what languages they already speak.<br />
<br />
They will then start studying, during the studying the only tool they may use is the game. The game will be run on a computer. After this they will have their break and take the test, which is all the same as the other test group.<br />
<br />
After the test they will get a more detailed questionnaire, which is slightly different from the other group. This questionnaire will be focussed on a combination of the enjoyment gotten from the game and the perceived quality of the learning method, compared to their opinion other methods. We also asked for feedback on our game.<br />
<br />
==Group 2: Study using pen and paper==<br />
This group will be told that they have to learn the list of words given to them and take a test about it afterwards.<br />
<br />
The questionnaire they will answer beforehand is the exact same as that of group 1.<br />
<br />
During the studying this group will get a list with the English words and their translations to Italian. They will also be allowed to use scrap paper and a pen to write things down. After this they will have their break and take the exact same test as that of group 1.<br />
<br />
After the test they will get a similar questionnaire, which will focus on their rating of this method of studying and what other methods they might prefer. However because they didn’t play our game we could not ask for feedback or how they would rate it and thus creating a difference in questionnaires.<br />
<br />
==Pre-Test Questionnaire==<br />
The purpose of this questionnaire is to get a view on what level of language skills the test subject has. This is mostly to catch outliers, say a person speak 10 languages they will probably have an easier time learning the words, because they either already know them, in which case they will probably not be a test subject, or because they can recognize them from other languages. They will probably also simply be better at learning a language because of their experience.<br />
The other aspect of this test is the age, this is again to find outliers. We assume that because the test subjects will be mainly students they will fall into the same age category.<br />
<br />
What the questionnaire looked like:<br />
<br />
How many languages do you speak, and which ones?<br />
<br />
Do you like learning a language?<br />
<br />
What is your native languages?<br />
<br />
What is your age?<br />
<br />
==Post-Test Questionnaire Group 1==<br />
These are the questions that the people that have studied using the game will have to answer:<br />
<br />
Did you feel as if you were playing a game? Please explain why (not).<br />
<br />
How did you enjoy this way of learning? Please explain why it was (not) enjoyable.<br />
<br />
If this was available for every language and for more words would you use it? Please explain why you would (not) use it.<br />
<br />
Would you play a similar game (without the learning aspects), just for fun?<br />
<br />
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate this way of studying?<br />
<br />
Similarly how would you rate studying from a textbook?<br />
<br />
Do you feel this way of studying would require more or less time, compared to book studying?<br />
<br />
What way of studying do you normally use (e.g. WRTS, learning from a textbook with just a list of words and translations, or some other method)? And if this method is not learning from a textbook, how would you rate it on a scale of 1 to 10?<br />
<br />
<br />
The first 3 questions are focussed on trying to measure the amount of fun the subject had playing the game. For these questions we expect to get answers about the way this method of learning was perceived. Most importantly we can see if we have succeeded in making it feel like playing a game, and less like studying. The 4th question is important to get context on the answers of the first questions, if a person does not enjoy playing this sort of game to begin with their evaluation of our game will probably be affected. Questions 5 and 6 are to get a direct comparison between the value that the test subject gives to this method of studying compared to pen and paper studying. The 7th question is there to get insight in how effective the test subject thinks this way of studying is. The last question is there for comparison to the answers the other group give to the same question. This will allow us to see if the average is in any way influenced by having played the game.<br />
<br />
==Post-Test Questionnaire Group 2==<br />
The other group will also have to answer a few questions, though less than group 1.<br />
<br />
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate this way of studying?<br />
<br />
Do you prefer any other way of studying (e.g WRTS, or some other method), and if so how would you rate that method?<br />
<br />
The first question is there so we can compare the answers of this group to the answers of the first group, which will allow us to see if using a new method of learning has affected their view of the old method. The second question is to get some context on whether the subject would use this specific pen an paper way of studying or prefers something slightly different, e.g WRTS, duolingo. The rating will show how much they prefer their own method of studying to the ordinary pen and paper method, which can then be compared to the ratings the other group gave for the game method.<br />
<br />
==Links to actual files used for testing==<br />
The test: https://www.overleaf.com/read/qzwhzndvbrjj<br />
<br />
Questionnaire before test: https://www.overleaf.com/read/dnspkgbvwzpk<br />
<br />
Post-Test Questionnaire Group 1: https://www.overleaf.com/read/dxgbfthjvvxb<br />
<br />
Post-Test Questionnaire Group 2: https://www.overleaf.com/read/hftbdsxvbqmn</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Test_Setup&diff=52077PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Test Setup2018-03-29T11:21:08Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Test Setup==<br />
The test will follow the following procedure: <br />
<br />
- Quick introduction to let the test subjects know what they are being tested on<br />
<br />
- Test subjects start answering a questionnaire about themselves<br />
<br />
- The test subjects will get 7 minutes to study <br />
<br />
- After studying there will be a 5 minute break to get rid of the words in the short term memory<br />
<br />
- The subjects will then take a test about the words that had to be studied<br />
<br />
- After the test the subjects will have to answer another questionnaire in which we ask for feedback and to rate the study methods.<br />
<br />
You might notice the 7 minutes time to study, which seems arbitrary, however it is based on some test that we did. For this test we took 15 random italian words (different from the words in our game, since we already know those), and gave ourselves 10 minutes to study them. Then we had the 5 min break and took a test. All of us scored near perfect scores, which we think could be a problem. We looked at the list of words we had and decided it was slightly easier than the random list we learned. This made us believe that 10 minutes to study this list might result in a big part of the test group getting perfect scores, which we should avoid in order to see the difference between our 2 test groups. Therefore we decided to slightly reduce the given time, with the hope that it won’t be too easy.<br />
The test subjects will be split into 2 groups,which are explained further down below. The estimate for our total subject size is 50 students from the TU/e. We will also try to find more test subjects from our former high schools, since the more test subjects the more accurate the results.<br />
<br />
==Group 1: Study using the game==<br />
This group will be told that they are playing a game in order to learn Italian words, this information will be given because if this learning method is going to be used in the future the people using this method will still be aware that they are learning Italian words when using it.<br />
<br />
The questionnaire they have to answer beforehand will be the exact same as that for the second group. This questionnaire will focus on getting information about the participants. This will include age, how much experience with learning languages the participant has as well as what languages they already speak.<br />
<br />
They will then start studying, during the studying the only tool they may use is the game. The game will be run on a computer. After this they will have their break and take the test, which is all the same as the other test group.<br />
<br />
After the test they will get a more detailed questionnaire, which is slightly different from the other group. This questionnaire will be focussed on a combination of the enjoyment gotten from the game and the perceived quality of the learning method, compared to their opinion other methods. We also asked for feedback on our game.<br />
<br />
==Group 2: Study using pen and paper==<br />
This group will be told that they have to learn the list of words given to them and take a test about it afterwards.<br />
<br />
The questionnaire they will answer beforehand is the exact same as that of group 1.<br />
<br />
During the studying this group will get a list with the English words and their translations to Italian. They will also be allowed to use scrap paper and a pen to write things down. After this they will have their break and take the exact same test as that of group 1.<br />
<br />
After the test they will get a similar questionnaire, which will focus on their rating of this method of studying and what other methods they might prefer. However because they didn’t play our game we could not ask for feedback or how they would rate it and thus creating a difference in questionnaires.<br />
<br />
==Pre-Test Questionnaire==<br />
The purpose of this questionnaire is to get a view on what level of language skills the test subject has. This is mostly to catch outliers, say a person speak 10 languages they will probably have an easier time learning the words, because they either already know them, in which case they will probably not be a test subject, or because they can recognize them from other languages. They will probably also simply be better at learning a language because of their experience.<br />
The other aspect of this test is the age, this is again to find outliers. We assume that because the test subjects will be mainly students they will fall into the same age category.<br />
<br />
What the questionnaire looked like:<br />
<br />
How many languages do you speak, and which ones?<br />
<br />
Do you like learning a language?<br />
<br />
What is your native languages?<br />
<br />
What is your age?<br />
<br />
==Post-Test Questionnaire Group 1==<br />
These are the questions that the people that have studied using the game will have to answer:<br />
<br />
Did you feel as if you were playing a game? Please explain why (not).<br />
<br />
How did you enjoy this way of learning? Please explain why it was (not) enjoyable.<br />
<br />
If this was available for every language and for more words would you use it? Please explain why you would (not) use it.<br />
<br />
Would you play a similar game (without the learning aspects), just for fun?<br />
<br />
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate this way of studying?<br />
<br />
Similarly how would you rate studying from a textbook?<br />
<br />
Do you feel this way of studying would require more or less time, compared to book studying?<br />
<br />
What way of studying do you normally use (e.g. WRTS, learning from a textbook with just a list of words and translations, or some other method)? And if this method is not learning from a textbook, how would you rate it on a scale of 1 to 10?<br />
<br />
<br />
The first 3 questions are focussed on trying to measure the amount of fun the subject had playing the game. For these questions we expect to get answers about the way this method of learning was perceived. Most importantly we can see if we have succeeded in making it feel like playing a game, and less like studying. The 4th question is important to get context on the answers of the first questions, if a person does not enjoy playing this sort of game to begin with their evaluation of our game will probably be affected. Questions 5 and 6 are to get a direct comparison between the value that the test subject gives to this method of studying compared to pen and paper studying. The 7th question is there to get insight in how effective the test subject thinks this way of studying is. The last question is there for comparison to the answers the other group give to the same question. This will allow us to see if the average is in any way influenced by having played the game.<br />
<br />
==Post-Test Questionnaire Group 2==<br />
The other group will also have to answer a few questions, though less than group 1.<br />
<br />
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate this way of studying?<br />
<br />
Do you prefer any other way of studying (e.g WRTS, or some other method), and if so how would you rate that method?<br />
<br />
The first question is there so we can compare the answers of this group to the answers of the first group, which will allow us to see if using a new method of learning has affected their view of the old method. The second question is to get some context on whether the subject would use this specific pen an paper way of studying or prefers something slightly different, e.g WRTS, duolingo. The rating will show how much they prefer their own method of studying to the ordinary pen and paper method, which can then be compared to the ratings the other group gave for the game method.<br />
<br />
==Links to actual files used for testing==<br />
The test: https://www.overleaf.com/read/qzwhzndvbrjj <br />
Questionnaire before test: https://www.overleaf.com/read/dnspkgbvwzpk <br />
Post-Test Questionnaire Group 1: https://www.overleaf.com/read/dxgbfthjvvxb <br />
Post-Test Questionnaire Group 2: https://www.overleaf.com/read/hftbdsxvbqmn</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Game_Concept&diff=52076PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept2018-03-29T11:20:23Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Concepts behind the game==<br />
<br />
A big part of our concept is that it will be a real game, meaning that even if the learning aspects would be removed it still functions as a game that people will want to play. This is what sets our concept apart from most other existing “Games” for language learning. However to still achieve the learning we will make use of the following methods, which are very compatible with a game:<br />
<br />
Image based learning<br />
Studies have shown that it’s much easier to link an image to a word, than linking a word to another word. Most schools and traditional language courses would teach you words like this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><div align="center">Paard = Horse</div></b><br />
<br />
<br />
However the brain memorizes it a lot easier if you would do it like this instead:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Paard = [[File:Horse1.jpg]]</div><br />
<br />
Not only does this connect the word to the actual concept, but also is it actually easier for the brain to remember the word.<br />
<br />
“Mnemonics”<br />
Mnemonics are commonly used when learning. A mnemonic is a device or method to make it easier for your brain to remember things by linking it to something that is easier to remember, they are basically little scenarios you make in your mind to remember something.<br />
<br />
These “Mnemonics” are one of the fundamental methods of game based learning, since games are always based around learning in scenarios and through experience. Another fundamental concept of game-based learning is that of using the thing you want to learn as a tool, not as the end goal. This way you can give meaning to the thing that you are trying to learn.<br />
<br />
As can be seen, our game will make use of the fundamentals of game-based learning and apply them in a more specific way to the learning of words. This is a general method in which most educational games work.<br />
<br />
==The Game==<br />
Our game will revolve around learning words in Italian. For the test we are going to build a game in which we are teaching the player at least 15 words, with every word being reasonably difficult to learn. For every word there is a small minigame. To show how the game works we go through the example word “Torta” meaning pie in italian. First the word is shown on screen followed by six images.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide1.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
After this 6 images come on the screen, 1 of these is the correct image, an image of a pie, the player has to click on the correct image.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide2.PNG|400px]] [[File:Slide3.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
This test might also occur in the opposite direction, where an image and the english word will be shown, and the user has to choose out of a set of italian translations.<br />
<br />
After this little test, a minigame of about 1-5s long starts. In the minigame for “Torta” we play out the pie-smashing scenario, the player controls a foot and when they press a button the foot smashes what is below it.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide4.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
The game will let the player go through this process for every word, in a random order, before repeating it again for every word in a different order. The short duration of every minigame and test will allow for a lot of repetition, which is always needed during learning.<br />
<br />
==Game Requirements==<br />
The following is a list of requirements that our game has to fulfill.<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to an image.<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to a minigame.<br />
<br />
- The minigames should be at most 5 seconds long.<br />
<br />
- The word list needs to consists of at least 15 words, which are not too easy to learn<br />
<br />
- The game needs to be fun to play<br />
<br />
- The game needs to use the native language (English for the concept) as little as possible (only for game explanation, or clarification)<br />
<br />
- If a wrong image is chosen the user will get a lower score from the minigame.<br />
<br />
- Every minigame must appear once in random order, before the same minigame will appear again, unless the image was guessed incorrectly.<br />
<br />
==Tool specifications==<br />
The game will be run on a computer, which is the robotic device at the core of our research. The fact that it is specifically a computer and not a smartphone, which we consider to be a similar robotic device, is because we do not have the expertise to create it for a smartphone. However given knowledge about programming for smartphone devices it could easily be made to work on a smartphone, or any other similar robotic device.<br />
<br />
==The Code==<br />
The code of game is open source and can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/Kaj0Wortel/learningGame</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9&diff=52074PRE2017 3 Groep92018-03-29T11:17:57Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Education is one of the most important aspect of society, and one of the problems it is currently confronted with is the problem of innovation. Especially with the digitalization that is happening all over the world now, schools are looking for ways to include this into their educational systems. One of the possible innovation is game based learning. Over the past years there has been research into this subject. Most of this research either focuses on what teaching methods are used in games, or they focus on how games can teach something like soft skills. However, most of these researches ignore providing concrete evidence of whether these methods are actually better or worse. Now this is not all of the research but a trend can be found which is that no research has been done into whether the purely didactic value of game based learning is better compared to traditional methods. That is where our research comes into play.<br />
<br />
==USE==<br />
As stated before society is currently dealing with the innovation of education, which is something our project can help with. However apart from society there are also the users which can make use of this project. Studying can be a long and tedious process and because of this the users results can be suboptimal. Our project aims to make studying a more enjoyable process, while keeping the same efficiency, which would be an improvement for the user experience. <br />
<br />
==Objective==<br />
The question that we will try to answer is the following:<br />
<br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game better than simply cramming using a list with translations?”<br />
<br />
This question is still a bit vague so we have split it into two parts:<br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game more efficient than cramming using a list with translations?” <br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game more enjoyable than cramming using a list with translations?” <br />
<br />
Now to specify what we mean by integration in a game. We are not talking about apps such as Duolingo where a game-like element is added to the learning of words. We are taking it a step further by making an actual game, in which you happen to learn words. That is all to say that we want the learning of a language to be part of a game, unlike other apps, like Duolingo, which has a “game” as part of learning a language.<br />
<br />
==Hypothesis==<br />
We believe that this method of integrating learning into a game, will result in at least as good results as far as learning the meaning of the words is considered. That is we believe that given a test, people that have studied using the game, will do at least as good as people who studied normally.<br />
We also believe that learning with a game can actually feel like playing a game, instead of simply another way of learning, because of this we believe that this way of studying will be more enjoyable, when compared to other more traditional ways of studying.<br />
<br />
We believe in this hypothesis because of all the learning methods that can be integrated into a game. These methods can be found in the state of the art as well as in the game concept.<br />
<br />
==Method==<br />
In order to find the answer to our question, we will create our own game based on the game-based learning methods found in the literature. We will then run a test with two groups. One of these groups will have to learn a list of words in the traditional way, the other group will learn the same list of words through our game. Both groups will then be tested on their knowledge and asked for their experience during the studying. The reason we use the learning of words, is because it is simple to test and to create a game for the limited time that we were given. Learning words is also one of the most simple things to learn in the way that not a lot of things factor in, therefore it is perfect to test for purely didactic value.<br />
<br />
Further explanation of the game that will be used for testing, including game requirements: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept]]<br />
<br />
The test setup is described here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Test Setup]]<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
After all test results were collected and processed, it turned out that the traditional way of studying performed better than our learning game.<br />
More detailed information about the results can be found here: [[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Results]]<br />
<br />
==Future concepts==<br />
The future concept of the project is described here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Concepts]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
The planning of the project can be found here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning]]<br />
<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
The State of the art used for this project can be found here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art]]<br />
<br />
==Coaching Questions==<br />
The coaching questions of this project can be found here: [[Coaching Questions Group 9]]<br />
<br />
==Site map==<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Test Setup]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Results]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Concepts]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Research]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art]]<br />
<br />
[[Coaching Questions Group 9]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - References]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9&diff=52069PRE2017 3 Groep92018-03-29T11:13:11Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Education is one of the most important aspect of society, and one of the problems it is currently confronted with is the problem of innovation. Especially with the digitalization that is happening all over the world now, schools are looking for ways to include this into their educational systems. One of the possible innovation is game based learning. Over the past years there has been research into this subject. Most of this research either focuses on what teaching methods are used in games, or they focus on how games can teach something like soft skills. However, most of these researches ignore providing concrete evidence of whether these methods are actually better or worse. Now this is not all of the research but a trend can be found which is that no research has been done into whether the purely didactic value of game based learning is better compared to traditional methods. That is where our research comes into play.<br />
<br />
==USE==<br />
As stated before society is currently dealing with the innovation of education, which is something our project can help with. However apart from society there are also the users which can make use of this project. Studying can be a long and tedious process and because of this the users results can be suboptimal. Our project aims to make studying a more enjoyable process, while keeping the same efficiency, which would be an improvement for the user experience. <br />
<br />
==Objective==<br />
The question that we will try to answer is the following:<br />
<br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game better than simply cramming using a list with translations?”<br />
<br />
This question is still a bit vague so we have split it into two parts:<br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game more efficient than cramming using a list with translations?” <br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game more enjoyable than cramming using a list with translations?” <br />
<br />
Now to specify what we mean by integration in a game. We are not talking about apps such as Duolingo where a game-like element is added to the learning of words. We are taking it a step further by making an actual game, in which you happen to learn words. That is all to say that we want the learning of a language to be part of a game, unlike other apps, like Duolingo, which has a “game” as part of learning a language.<br />
<br />
==Hypothesis==<br />
We believe that this method of integrating learning into a game, will result in at least as good results as far as learning the meaning of the words is considered. That is we believe that given a test, people that have studied using the game, will do at least as good as people who studied normally.<br />
We also believe that learning with a game can actually feel like playing a game, instead of simply another way of learning, because of this we believe that this way of studying will be more enjoyable, when compared to other more traditional ways of studying.<br />
<br />
We believe in this hypothesis because of all the learning methods that can be integrated into a game. These methods can be found in the state of the art as well as in the game concept.<br />
<br />
==Method==<br />
In order to find the answer to our question, we will create our own game based on the game-based learning methods found in the literature. We will then run a test with two groups. One of these groups will have to learn a list of words in the traditional way, the other group will learn the same list of words through our game. Both groups will then be tested on their knowledge and asked for their experience during the studying. The reason we use the learning of words, is because it is simple to test and to create a game for the limited time that we were given. Learning words is also one of the most simple things to learn in the way that not a lot of things factor in, therefore it is perfect to test for purely didactic value.<br />
<br />
Further explanation of the game that will be used for testing, including game requirements: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept]]<br />
<br />
The test setup is described here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Test Setup]]<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
After all test results were collected and processed, it turned out that the traditional way of studying performed better than our learning game.<br />
More detailed information about the results can be found here: [[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Results]]<br />
<br />
==Future concepts==<br />
The future concept of the project is described here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Future Concepts]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
The planning of the project can be found here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning]]<br />
<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
The State of the art used for this project can be found here: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art]]<br />
<br />
==Coaching Questions==<br />
The coaching questions of this project can be found here: [[Coaching Questions Group 9]]<br />
<br />
==Site map==<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Game Concept]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Test Setup]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Results]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Future Concepts]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Future Research]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - Planning]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Group9 - State of the Art]]<br />
<br />
[[Coaching Questions Group 9]]<br />
<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - References]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Coaching_Questions_Group_9&diff=49130Coaching Questions Group 92018-03-11T20:27:15Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>To help your group and the teachers prepare for the tutor meetings, we would like you to answer a few questions in between sessions. The following paragraphs list the questions for each of the weeks, please write you answers directly underneath the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==After the kick-off - Week 1==<br />
<br />
*What are you expecting to learn during the Robots course?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect to learn how to work on a project with minimal guidelines and predetermined goals.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I expect to learn how to do research in a group by creating a concept of a subject that could be used a real scientific study.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect to learn to develop something with a group where we only have some basic restrictions.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I do not really have that many expectations on what I should learn knowledge-wise. What I expect is to learn to work a lot more effectively in a team, as well as how to organise a project in a good way.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching do you expect?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect a coaching consisting of feedback mostly based around questions asked by us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I mainly expect feedback to the things we write on the wiki page and feedback on our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect that the coaching only consists of telling us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' During the coaching sessions I expect the coaches to ask for an update on how far we are in the project. Then, they can gave their opinion / suggestions etc., which we may or may not incorporate into the project.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching would you prefer?<br />
'''Thomas''' I would prefer a kind of coaching with weekly feedback based on what was done that week as well as some possible tips on how to continue said work. And ofcourse the having our questions answered.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' Answers to all the questions that we encounter during our research and someone who tells us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I prefere tutors that tell us when we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I would prefer the kind of coaching where we can ask for their input once a week during the coaching sessions. With input I mean that they can give feedback on what we are doing.<br />
<br />
*What will the coaches expect of you?<br />
'''Thomas''' I think the coaches will expect a lot of initiative and autonomy of us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' To ask all the questions we have and to inform them about our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Casper'''<br />
I expect to learn how to work on a project without any guidelines, in previous DBLs or project there were always guidelines or rubrics showing what you could do to earn more points or how you should handle your project. This time it is all on yourself to decide so it will be a very new experience.<br />
I expect the coach to mainly keep the group on track to keep our focus on robots and to tell us when we have to dig deeper for our project or to tell us to actually make something concrete. I prefer to have a coach who we can just ask questions when we are unsure of what to do and that they disturb us as little as possible with for example weekly mandatory meetings. I assume the coaches expect of us to mainly keep telling them how we are progressing every week and to deliver a good project.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I think that the coaches expect from us that we finish our homework/the wiki on time and that we honour existing commitments. Also, I think that the tutors like a high commitment for the project.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I believe that they expect some form of strictness in following what they believe to be a good way of doing a project. <br />
<br />
'''After the first tutor meeting - Week 2'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
That we were allowed to use a phone as a robot in our project because we weren’t yet sure how to include robots in our project.<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
We arranged a meeting to make our idea more concrete and decide on the specifics so that we can now present our idea and explain what needs to be done<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
We looked at the possibilities and we discussed what we wanted to do with our idea and how to divide the tasks.<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
We wrote down the most important decisions we made, we already made our concept clear and globally divided the tasks.<br />
<br />
'''After the second tutor meeting - Week 3'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
That we should be able to tell why our game is different to other concepts like e.g. duolingo.<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
We worked out the test and explained our decisions on how we are going to do the testing. We are also updating the wiki page of the state of the art.<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
We discussed on what aspects our game is and has to be different than others and why. We also extensively looked at our target audience and test groups.<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
We made everything more concrete and made sure we could explain why our game is different.<br />
<br />
'''After the third tutor meeting - Week 4'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
That we had to keep in mind what our design choices were and why we made them especially keeping in mind how it would be if we had more time. We were also told that we had to keep in mind that we had to see how many people we need so that our test results are reliable.<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
We wrote down how our game would be if we had more time and we looked up how the ‘p’ value works in regards to reliable tests.<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
We prepared everything we need to do the testing so that we can start with that as soon as possible. <br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
We organised a meeting in which we discussed the last few design choices and we worked out most of the unfinished things on the wiki.<br />
<br />
'''After the fourth tutor meeting - Week 5'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fifth tutor meeting - Week 6'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the final presentation - Week 7'''<br />
<br />
*What are the major steps of the project? Please list<br />
<br />
*What is the most important thing you learned in this project? (e.g .about design or working in groups, etc)<br />
<br />
*What do you wish you had spent more time on or done differently?<br />
<br />
*What was the most enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why<br />
<br />
*What was the least enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Planning&diff=49129PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning2018-03-11T20:26:26Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
This table shows the planning for this project including the division of tasks. A more specific task division of the later weeks will come on a later date.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
! When<br />
! Who<br />
! Task<br />
|-<br />
| Week 2<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Think of 5 words, including minigame for it, to add in the game.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas & Casper<br />
| Update wiki content<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for game<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter <br />
| List questions for next meeting<br />
|-<br />
| Week 3<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Finish list of words and minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Kaj & Daniel<br />
| Framework for the minigames<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter + Thomas<br />
| Concrete test setup<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Design graphics<br />
|-<br />
| Week 4<br />
| Kaj<br />
| Look at possibility of taking test at highschool, make the minigames number 1,2<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Daniel<br />
| Make minigame number 3 and the separate minigames.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Casper<br />
| Finish graphics<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Thomas<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Wouter<br />
| Create actual test, recruit test subjects, update wiki, Find P value for control group, future ideas.<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Help finishing the game where possible<br />
|-<br />
| Week 5<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Take the tests<br />
|-<br />
| Week 6<br />
| Everyone<br />
| Analyze test results<br />
|-<br />
| Week 7<br />
| Everyone <br />
| Final presentation<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Milestones==<br />
The following list contains all the milestones week by week.<br />
<br />
26-08-2018: Finished list of words and minigames<br />
<br />
05-03-2018: Finished graphic designs, finished test setup<br />
<br />
12-03-2018: Finished Game<br />
<br />
19-03-2018: Finished (most) test sessions<br />
<br />
26-03-2018(?): Final presentation<br />
<br />
==Deliverables==<br />
The following are the big deliverables:<br />
<br />
The final version of the game<br />
<br />
Report on the test results</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_State_of_the_Art&diff=48209PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art2018-03-04T21:53:38Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
Before starting a project it is important to know what has been done before. Therefore this section will talk about previous research into learning through games as well as research done in which types of learning are effective and why. This page will give a general overview of this research.<br />
<br />
==Viability of game based learning==<br />
Research has been done using the valence, the psychological value, of game-based learning as a measuring tool. The research set out to test the following hypotheses:<br />
<br />
1. Potential learners will have greater pre-training valence for gamified instruction than for a traditional (i.e., PowerPoint-driven) instructional approach.<br />
<br />
2a.Attitudes towards game-based learning will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with positive attitudes toward game-based learning will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
<br />
2b: Experience with video games will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with video game experience will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
<br />
The results show that in the end the participants near the mean. As for the hypotheses, on average hypotheses 1 holds. As for evidence of the other two hypotheses, although there was a mean effect, participants with poor attitudes towards game-based learning and limited experience with games had poorer valence for game-based learning than for lecture-and-powerpoint instructions.<br />
<br />
==Learning concepts in games==<br />
Games have been using teaching methods to teach their players about the game, that only recently have been thought of in the realm of education. The most prominent of these have been listed by, among others, James Paul Gee in his paper Learning and games. According to this paper the biggest difference between the learning methods used in education and those used in games is the general approach to teaching. Schools often focus on the content to be learned, whereas games focus on the meaning and uses of this content. That is to say that schools let their students learn the facts, while games focus on the use of those facts. Another big difference is the role of failure in learning. In games the costs of failure are relatively low and the failure itself if mostly seen as a learning opportunity. Multiple papers also talk about the role of competition. Competition is a big part of games and provides motivation to get better and learn more. Games in general have shown to increase motivation considerably, making not only the way of learning more interesting but also the concept itself,making the concept more interesting. So motivation is definitely one of the biggest advantages of learning with games.<br />
<br />
==Skills developed through game based learning==<br />
Games can be used to develop a plethora of skills. Research has shown that games can teach or help to develop soft skills, like leadership. A particular study about leadership showed that the use of a game could also identify what type of leader people were. This kind of effect of games, where they are used to learn something about the player, instead of the other way around, has not been used anywhere else as far as we have seen. Other research has shown that virtual worlds can be used to have engaging and effective social conferences, allowing for a good environment for discussions. Another skill taught by games is that of collaboration. Another study has shown that creative skills can be learned through games.<br />
<br />
==Physical learning==<br />
Research has shown that physical activity can improve learning. It can lead to improvements in attentiveness and motivation for studying. The same paper also mentions that video games with educational value can increase physical activity and motivation by incorporating physical activity into those games.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Game_Concept&diff=48208PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept2018-03-04T21:52:37Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Concepts behind the game==<br />
<br />
A big part of our concept is that it will be a real game, meaning that even if the learning aspects would be removed it still functions as a game that people will want to play. This is what sets our concept apart from most other existing “Games” for language learning. However to still achieve the learning we will make use of the following methods, which are very compatible with a game:<br />
<br />
Studies have shown that it’s much easier to link an image to a word, than another word. Most schools and traditional language courses teach would teach you words like this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><div align="center">Paard = Horse</div></b><br />
<br />
<br />
However the brain memorizes it a lot easier if you would do it like this instead:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Paard = [[File:Horse1.jpg]]</div><br />
<br />
Not only does this connect the word to the actual concept, but also is it actually easier for the brain to remember the word. Our game will make heavy use of not only this image connection to learn the word, but also to learn other aspects of it like gender and conjugation groups. This will be done via so called “Mnemonics”, they are basically little scenarios you make in your mind to remember something.<br />
<br />
These “Mnemonics” are one of the fundamental methods of game based learning, since games are always based around learning in scenarios and through experience. Another fundamental concept of game-based learning is that of using the thing you want to learn as a tool, not as the end goal. This way you can give meaning to the thing that you are trying to learn.<br />
<br />
As can be seen, our game will make use of the fundamentals of game-based learning and apply them in a more specific way to the learning of words. This is a general method in which most educational games work.<br />
<br />
==The Game==<br />
Our game will revolve around learning words in Italian. In the demo we are going to build we are teaching the player at least 15 words, with every word being reasonably difficult to learn. For every word there is a small game. To show how the game works we go through the example word “Torta” meaning pie in italian. First the word is shown on screen while an audio clip of someone pronouncing the word is played too.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide1.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
After this 6 images come on the screen, 1 of these is the correct image, an image of a pie, the player has to click on the correct image, there is also a choice below for what the correct gender of the word is.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide2.PNG|400px]] [[File:Slide3.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
This test might also occur in the opposite direction, where an image and the english word will be shown, and the user has to choose out of a set of italian translations.<br />
<br />
After this little test. A “micro game” starts, which is a mini game of about 1-5s long. In the micro game for “Torta” we play out the pie-smashing scenario, the player controls a foot and when they press a button the foot smashes what is below it. <br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide4.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
The game will let the player go through this process for every word, in a random order, before repeating it again for every word in a different order. The short duration of every minigame and test will allow for a lot of repetition, which is always needed during learning.<br />
<br />
==Game Requirements==<br />
The following is a list of requirements that our game has to fulfill.<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to an image, this has to be done in 2 ways:<br />
<br />
''(1) Linking the right image to a word''<br />
<br />
''(2) Linking the right word to an image''<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to a mini game.<br />
<br />
- The mini games should be at most 5 seconds long.<br />
<br />
- The game has to play an audio file of a word being pronounced by a native speaker<br />
<br />
- The word list needs to consists of at least 15 words, which are not too easy to learn<br />
<br />
- The game needs to be fun to play<br />
<br />
- The game needs to use the native language (English for the concept) as little as possible (only for game explanation, or clarification)<br />
<br />
- If wrong image is chosen the user will get less time during the minigame.<br />
<br />
- Every minigame must appear once in random order, before the same minigame will appear again, unless…<br />
<br />
- If the wrong image is chosen the minigame needs to stay in the current rotation and randomly appear again, before the start of the next rotation.<br />
<br />
==Tool specifications==<br />
The game will be run on a computer, which is the robotic device at the core of our research. The fact that it is specifically a computer and not a smartphone, which we consider to be a similar robotic device, it because we do not have the expertise to create it for a smartphone. However given knowledge about programming for smartphone devices it could easily be made to word on a smartphone, or any other similar robotic device.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Coaching_Questions_Group_9&diff=48207Coaching Questions Group 92018-03-04T21:50:28Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>To help your group and the teachers prepare for the tutor meetings, we would like you to answer a few questions in between sessions. The following paragraphs list the questions for each of the weeks, please write you answers directly underneath the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==After the kick-off - Week 1==<br />
<br />
*What are you expecting to learn during the Robots course?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect to learn how to work on a project with minimal guidelines and predetermined goals.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I expect to learn how to do research in a group by creating a concept of a subject that could be used a real scientific study.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect to learn to develop something with a group where we only have some basic restrictions.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I do not really have that many expectations on what I should learn knowledge-wise. What I expect is to learn to work a lot more effectively in a team, as well as how to organise a project in a good way.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching do you expect?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect a coaching consisting of feedback mostly based around questions asked by us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I mainly expect feedback to the things we write on the wiki page and feedback on our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect that the coaching only consists of telling us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' During the coaching sessions I expect the coaches to ask for an update on how far we are in the project. Then, they can gave their opinion / suggestions etc., which we may or may not incorporate into the project.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching would you prefer?<br />
'''Thomas''' I would prefer a kind of coaching with weekly feedback based on what was done that week as well as some possible tips on how to continue said work. And ofcourse the having our questions answered.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' Answers to all the questions that we encounter during our research and someone who tells us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I prefere tutors that tell us when we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I would prefer the kind of coaching where we can ask for their input once a week during the coaching sessions. With input I mean that they can give feedback on what we are doing.<br />
<br />
*What will the coaches expect of you?<br />
'''Thomas''' I think the coaches will expect a lot of initiative and autonomy of us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' To ask all the questions we have and to inform them about our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Casper'''<br />
I expect to learn how to work on a project without any guidelines, in previous DBLs or project there were always guidelines or rubrics showing what you could do to earn more points or how you should handle your project. This time it is all on yourself to decide so it will be a very new experience.<br />
I expect the coach to mainly keep the group on track to keep our focus on robots and to tell us when we have to dig deeper for our project or to tell us to actually make something concrete. I prefer to have a coach who we can just ask questions when we are unsure of what to do and that they disturb us as little as possible with for example weekly mandatory meetings. I assume the coaches expect of us to mainly keep telling them how we are progressing every week and to deliver a good project.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I think that the coaches expect from us that we finish our homework/the wiki on time and that we honour existing commitments. Also, I think that the tutors like a high commitment for the project.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I believe that they expect some form of strictness in following what they believe to be a good way of doing a project. <br />
<br />
'''After the first tutor meeting - Week 2'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
That we were allowed to use a phone as a robot in our project because we weren’t yet sure how to include robots in our project.<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
We arranged a meeting to make our idea more concrete and decide on the specifics so that we can now present our idea and explain what needs to be done<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
We looked at the possibilities and we discussed what we wanted to do with our idea and how to divide the tasks.<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
We wrote down the most important decisions we made, we already made our concept clear and globally divided the tasks.<br />
<br />
'''After the second tutor meeting - Week 3'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
That we should be able to tell why our game is different to other concepts like e.g. duolingo.<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
We worked out the test and explained our decisions on how we are going to do the testing. We are also updating the wiki page of the state of the art.<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
We discussed on what aspects our game is and has to be different than others and why. We also extensively looked at our target audience and test groups.<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
We made everything more concrete and made sure we could explain why our game is different.<br />
<br />
'''After the third tutor meeting - Week 4'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fourth tutor meeting - Week 5'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fifth tutor meeting - Week 6'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the final presentation - Week 7'''<br />
<br />
*What are the major steps of the project? Please list<br />
<br />
*What is the most important thing you learned in this project? (e.g .about design or working in groups, etc)<br />
<br />
*What do you wish you had spent more time on or done differently?<br />
<br />
*What was the most enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why<br />
<br />
*What was the least enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Game_Concept&diff=47726PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept2018-02-26T21:29:20Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Concepts behind the game==<br />
<br />
A big part of our concept is that it will be a real game, meaning that even if the learning aspects would be removed it still functions as a game that people will want to play. This is what sets our concept apart from most other existing “Games” for language learning. However to still achieve the learning we will make use of the following methods, which are very compatible with a game:<br />
<br />
Studies have shown that it’s much easier to link an image to a word, than another word. Most schools and traditional language courses teach would teach you words like this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><div align="center">Paard = Horse</div></b><br />
<br />
<br />
However the brain memorizes it a lot easier if you would do it like this instead:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="center">Paard = [[File:Horse1.jpg]]</div><br />
<br />
Not only does this connect the word to the actual concept, but also is it actually easier for the brain to remember the word. Our game will make heavy use of not only this image connection to learn the word, but also to learn other aspects of it like gender and conjugation groups. This will be done via so called “Mnemonics”, they are basically little scenarios you make in your mind to remember something.<br />
<br />
These “Mnemonics” are one of the fundamental methods of game based learning, since games are always based around learning in scenarios and through experience. Another fundamental concept of game-based learning is that of using the thing you want to learn as a tool, not as the end goal. This way you can give meaning to the thing that you are trying to learn.<br />
<br />
As can be seen, our game will make use of the fundamentals of game-based learning and apply them in a more specific way to the learning of words. This is a general method in which most educational games work.<br />
<br />
==The Game==<br />
Our game will revolve around learning words in Italian. In the demo we are going to build we are teaching the player at least 15 words: 5 easy words, 5 medium words and 5 hard words. For every word there is a small game. To show how the game works we go through the example word “Torta” meaning pie in italian. First the word is shown on screen while an audio clip of someone pronouncing the word is played too.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide1.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
After this 6 images come on the screen, 1 of these is the correct image, an image of a pie, the player has to click on the correct image, there is also a choice below for what the correct gender of the word is.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide2.PNG|400px]] [[File:Slide3.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
This test might also occur in the opposite direction, where an image and the english word will be shown, and the user has to choose out of a set of italian translations.<br />
<br />
After this little test. A “micro game” starts, which is a mini game of about 1-5s long. In the micro game for “Torta” we play out the pie-smashing scenario, the player controls a foot and when they press a button the foot smashes what is below it. Since there are both blue and pink pies the player has to only smash the pink pies to succeed in this micro game. After playing this game they will not only remember the word better, because of this peculiar game, but also will they remember the gender because of the mnemonic. <br />
<br />
<div align="center">[[File:Slide4.PNG|400px]]</div><br />
<br />
<br />
The game will let the player go through this process for every word, in a random order, before repeating it again for every word in a different order. The short duration of every minigame and test will allow for a lot of repetition, which is always needed during learning.<br />
<br />
==Requirements==<br />
The following is a list of requirements that our game has to fulfill.<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to an image, this has to be done in 2 ways:<br />
<br />
''(1) Linking the right image to a word''<br />
<br />
''(2) Linking the right word to an image''<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to a mini game.<br />
<br />
- The mini games should be at most 5 seconds long.<br />
<br />
- The game has to play an audio file of a word being pronounced by a native speaker<br />
<br />
- The word list needs to consists of at least 5 easy words, 5 medium words and 5 hard words.<br />
<br />
- The game needs to be fun to play<br />
<br />
- The game needs to use the native language (English for the concept) as little as possible (only for game explanation, or clarification)<br />
<br />
- If wrong image is chosen the user will get less time during the minigame.<br />
<br />
- Every minigame must appear once in random order, before the same minigame will appear again, unless…<br />
<br />
- If the wrong image is chosen the minigame needs to stay in the current rotation and randomly appear again, before the start of the next rotation.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_Game_Concept&diff=47714PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept2018-02-26T20:55:42Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==Concepts behind the game==<br />
<br />
A big part of our concept is that it will be a real game, meaning that even if the learning aspects would be removed it still functions as a game that people will want to play. This is what sets our concept apart from most other existing “Games” for language learning. However to still achieve the learning we will make use of the following methods, which are very compatible with a game:<br />
<br />
Studies have shown that it’s much easier to link an image to a word, than another word. Most schools and traditional language courses teach would teach you words like this:<br />
<br />
Paard = Horse<br />
<br />
However the brain memorizes it a lot easier if you would do it like this instead:<br />
<br />
<br />
Paard = [[File:Horse1.jpg]]<br />
<br />
Not only does this connect the word to the actual concept, but also is it actually easier for the brain to remember the word. Our game will make heavy use of not only this image connection to learn the word, but also to learn other aspects of it like gender and conjugation groups. This will be done via so called “Mnemonics”, they are basically little scenarios you make in your mind to remember something.<br />
<br />
These “Mnemonics” are one of the fundamental methods of game based learning, since games are always based around learning in scenarios and through experience. Another fundamental concept of game-based learning is that of using the thing you want to learn as a tool, not as the end goal. This way you can give meaning to the thing that you are trying to learn.<br />
<br />
As can be seen, our game will make use of the fundamentals of game-based learning and apply them in a more specific way to the learning of words. This is a general method in which most educational games work.<br />
<br />
==The Game==<br />
Our game will revolve around learning words in Italian. In the demo we are going to build we are teaching the player at least 15 words: 5 easy words, 5 medium words and 5 hard words. For every word there is a small game. To show how the game works we go through the example word “Torta” meaning pie in italian. First the word is shown on screen while an audio clip of someone pronouncing the word is played too.<br />
[[File:Slide1.PNG||thumb||upright=0.35|||upright=0.35|]]<br />
After this 6 images come on the screen, 1 of these is the correct image, an image of a pie, the player has to click on the correct image, there is also a choice below for what the correct gender of the word is.<br />
[[File:Slide2.PNG|thumb|right|upright=0.35||right|upright=0.35|]] [[File:Slide3.PNG|thumb|right|upright=0.35||right|upright=0.35|]]<br />
This test might also occur in the opposite direction, where an image and the english word will be shown, and the user has to choose out of a set of italian translations.<br />
<br />
After this little test. A “micro game” starts, which is a mini game of about 1-5s long. In the micro game for “Torta” we play out the pie-smashing scenario, the player controls a foot and when they press a button the foot smashes what is below it. Since there are both blue and pink pies the player has to only smash the pink pies to succeed in this micro game. After playing this game they will not only remember the word better, because of this peculiar game, but also will they remember the gender because of the mnemonic. <br />
[[File:Slide4.PNG|thumb|right|upright=0.35||right|upright=0.35|]]<br />
<br />
<br />
The game will let the player go through this process for every word, in a random order, before repeating it again for every word in a different order. The short duration of every minigame and test will allow for a lot of repetition, which is always needed during learning.<br />
<br />
==Requirements==<br />
The following is a list of requirements that our game has to fulfill.<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to an image, this has to be done in 2 ways:<br />
<br />
''(1) Linking the right image to a word''<br />
<br />
''(2) Linking the right word to an image''<br />
<br />
- The game has to link each word to a mini game.<br />
<br />
- The mini games should be at most 5 seconds long.<br />
<br />
- The game has to play an audio file of a word being pronounced by a native speaker<br />
<br />
- The word list needs to consists of at least 5 easy words, 5 medium words and 5 hard words.<br />
<br />
- The game needs to be fun to play<br />
<br />
- The game needs to use the native language (English for the concept) as little as possible (only for game explanation, or clarification)<br />
<br />
- If wrong image is chosen the user will get less time during the minigame.<br />
<br />
- Every minigame must appear once in random order, before the same minigame will appear again, unless…<br />
<br />
- If the wrong image is chosen the minigame needs to stay in the current rotation and randomly appear again, before the start of the next rotation.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9&diff=47711PRE2017 3 Groep92018-02-26T20:48:22Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Introduction==<br />
Education is one of the most important aspect of society, and one of the problems it is currently confronted with is the problem of innovation. Especially with the digitalization that is happening all over the world now, schools are looking for ways to include this into their educational systems. One possible innovation is that of game based learning. Over the last years there has been research into this subject. Most of this research either focuses on what teaching methods are used in games, without giving concrete evidence of whether these methods are better than traditional methods or not, or they focus on how games can teach things like soft skills, again without direct comparison to traditional methods. Now this is not all of the research but a trend can be found, and that is that no research has been done into whether the purely didactic value of game based learning is actually better than that of traditional methods. That is where our research comes into play.<br />
<br />
==Objective==<br />
The question that we will try to answer is the following:<br />
<br />
“Is learning words through integration in a game better than simply cramming using a list with translations?”<br />
<br />
Now to specify what we mean by integration in a game. We are not talking about apps such as duolingo where a game-like element is added to the learning of words, we are talking about taking it a step further and making a true game, in which you happen to learn words. That is all to say that we want the learning of a language to be part of a game, unlike other apps like Duolingo, which has a “game” as part of learning a language.<br />
<br />
== Hypothesis==<br />
We believe that this method of integrating learning into a game, will result in at least as good results as far as learning the meaning of the words is considered. We also believe that this method of learning will be seen as more fun by the test subjects, which would lead to more motivation during studying.<br />
<br />
==Method==<br />
In order to find the answer to our question, we will create our own game based on the game-based learning methods found the literature. We will then run a test with two groups. One of these groups will have to learn a list of words in the traditional way, the other group will learn the same list of words through our game. Both groups will then be tested on their knowledge and asked for their experience during the studying. The reason we use the learning of words, is because it is simple to test and to create a game for the limited time that we were given. Learning words is also one of the most simple things to learn in the way that not a lot of things factor in, therefore it is perfect to test for purely didactic value.<br />
<br />
Further explanation of the game, including game requirements: [[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Game Concept]]<br />
<br />
The precise method of testing will follow on a later date, as can be found in the planning.<br />
<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art]]<br />
<br />
==Planning==<br />
[[PRE2017 3 Groep9 - Planning]]<br />
<br />
=Coaching Questions=<br />
[[Coaching Questions Group 9]]</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_State_of_the_Art&diff=47544PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art2018-02-25T20:20:14Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [[PRE2017 3 Groep9]]<br />
<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
Before starting a project it is important to know what has been done before. Therefore this section will talk about previous research into learning through games as well as physicality in learning. This page will give a general overview of this research.<br />
<br />
==Viability of game based learning==<br />
Research has been done using the valence, the psychological value, of game-based learning as a measuring tool. The research set out to test the following hypotheses:<br />
<br />
1. Potential learners will have greater pre-training valence for gamified instruction than for a traditional (i.e., PowerPoint-driven) instructional approach.<br />
<br />
2a.Attitudes towards game-based learning will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with positive attitudes toward game-based learning will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
<br />
2b: Experience with video games will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with video game experience will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
<br />
The results show that in the end the participants near the mean. As for the hypotheses, on average hypotheses 1 holds. As for evidence of the other two hypotheses, although there was a mean effect, participants with poor attitudes towards game-based learning and limited experience with games had poorer valence for game-based learning than for lecture-and-powerpoint instructions.<br />
<br />
==Learning concepts in games==<br />
Games have been using teaching methods to teach their players about the game, that only recently have been thought of in the realm of education. The most prominent of these have been listed by, among others, James Paul Gee in his paper Learning and games. According to this paper the biggest difference between the learning methods used in education and those used in games is the general approach to teaching. Schools often focus on the content to be learned, whereas games focus on the meaning and uses of this content. That is to say that schools let their students learn the facts, while games focus on the use of those facts. Another big difference is the role of failure in learning. In games the costs of failure are relatively low and the failure itself if mostly seen as a learning opportunity. Multiple papers also talk about the role of competition. Competition is a big part of games and provides motivation to get better and learn more. Games in general have shown to increase motivation considerably, making not only the way of learning more interesting but also the concept itself,making the concept more interesting. So motivation is definitely one of the biggest advantages of learning with games.<br />
<br />
==Skills developed through game based learning==<br />
Games can be used to develop a plethora of skills. Research has shown that games can teach or help to develop soft skills, like leadership. A particular study about leadership showed that the use of a game could also identify what type of leader people were. This kind of effect of games, where they are used to learn something about the player, instead of the other way around, has not been used anywhere else as far as we have seen. Other research has shown that virtual worlds can be used to have engaging and effective social conferences, allowing for a good environment for discussions. Another skill taught by games is that of collaboration. Another study has shown that creative skills can be learned through games.<br />
<br />
==Creating a virtual World==<br />
The book "Understanding learning in virtual worlds" is a combination of multiple papers, which each provide a view on the creation of a virtual world fit for learning. One of the ideas mentioned is that of conception, that is to say that the conception of reality is just as important as the actual perception of it. This means that the meaning and context of the things perceived is just as important as the perception. That is to say that if we want to design a good virtual environment for education, it is not enough to just copy physical objects to the virtual world. Instead the focus should be on the possibility of conception. This conception can be gained through physical and social interaction, which can both be provided by a virtual environment.<br />
Other research has been done into the use of text based interviews in virtual worlds. This method of interviews is important to understand the learners' experience. Doing these interviews in-world allows us to use the location and context of the learning experience to get a better understanding.<br />
Another study argues that to create a truly effective virtual learning environment the foundations of this environment should be centered on the engagement, knowledge creation and collective reflection of the students. This allows the students to learn effectively and expand beyond the problems presented in the virtual world.<br />
<br />
==Physical learning==<br />
Research has shown that physical activity can improve learning. It can lead to improvements in attentiveness and motivation for studying. The same paper also mentions that video games with educational value can increase physical activity and motivation by incorporating physical activity into those games.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Coaching_Questions_Group_9&diff=47543Coaching Questions Group 92018-02-25T20:18:47Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>To help your group and the teachers prepare for the tutor meetings, we would like you to answer a few questions in between sessions. The following paragraphs list the questions for each of the weeks, please write you answers directly underneath the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==After the kick-off - Week 1==<br />
<br />
*What are you expecting to learn during the Robots course?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect to learn how to work on a project with minimal guidelines and predetermined goals.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I expect to learn how to do research in a group by creating a concept of a subject that could be used a real scientific study.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect to learn to develop something with a group where we only have some basic restrictions.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I do not really have that many expectations on what I should learn knowledge-wise. What I expect is to learn to work a lot more effectively in a team, as well as how to organise a project in a good way.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching do you expect?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect a coaching consisting of feedback mostly based around questions asked by us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I mainly expect feedback to the things we write on the wiki page and feedback on our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect that the coaching only consists of telling us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' During the coaching sessions I expect the coaches to ask for an update on how far we are in the project. Then, they can gave their opinion / suggestions etc., which we may or may not incorporate into the project.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching would you prefer?<br />
'''Thomas''' I would prefer a kind of coaching with weekly feedback based on what was done that week as well as some possible tips on how to continue said work. And ofcourse the having our questions answered.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' Answers to all the questions that we encounter during our research and someone who tells us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I prefere tutors that tell us when we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I would prefer the kind of coaching where we can ask for their input once a week during the coaching sessions. With input I mean that they can give feedback on what we are doing.<br />
<br />
*What will the coaches expect of you?<br />
'''Thomas''' I think the coaches will expect a lot of initiative and autonomy of us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' To ask all the questions we have and to inform them about our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Casper'''<br />
I expect to learn how to work on a project without any guidelines, in previous DBLs or project there were always guidelines or rubrics showing what you could do to earn more points or how you should handle your project. This time it is all on yourself to decide so it will be a very new experience.<br />
I expect the coach to mainly keep the group on track to keep our focus on robots and to tell us when we have to dig deeper for our project or to tell us to actually make something concrete. I prefer to have a coach who we can just ask questions when we are unsure of what to do and that they disturb us as little as possible with for example weekly mandatory meetings. I assume the coaches expect of us to mainly keep telling them how we are progressing every week and to deliver a good project.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I think that the coaches expect from us that we finish our homework/the wiki on time and that we honour existing commitments. Also, I think that the tutors like a high commitment for the project.<br />
<br />
'''Daniel''' I believe that they expect some form of strictness in following what they believe to be a good way of doing a project. <br />
<br />
'''After the first tutor meeting - Week 2'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
That we were allowed to use a phone as a robot in our project because we weren’t yet sure how to include robots in our project.<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
We arranged a meeting to make our idea more concrete and decide on the specifics so that we can now present our idea and explain what needs to be done<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
We looked at the possibilities and we discussed what we wanted to do with our idea and how to divide the tasks.<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
We wrote down the most important decisions we made, we already made our concept clear and globally divided the tasks.<br />
<br />
'''After the second tutor meeting - Week 3'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the third tutor meeting - Week 4'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fourth tutor meeting - Week 5'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fifth tutor meeting - Week 6'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the final presentation - Week 7'''<br />
<br />
*What are the major steps of the project? Please list<br />
<br />
*What is the most important thing you learned in this project? (e.g .about design or working in groups, etc)<br />
<br />
*What do you wish you had spent more time on or done differently?<br />
<br />
*What was the most enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why<br />
<br />
*What was the least enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Coaching_Questions_Group_9&diff=46727Coaching Questions Group 92018-02-18T12:55:08Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>To help your group and the teachers prepare for the tutor meetings, we would like you to answer a few questions in between sessions.<br />
The following paragraphs list the questions for each of the weeks, please write you answers directly underneath the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==After the kick-off - Week 1==<br />
<br />
*What are you expecting to learn during the Robots course?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect to learn how to work on a project with minimal guidelines and predetermined goals.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I expect to learn how to do research in a group by creating a concept of a subject that could be used a real scientific study.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect to learn to develop something with a group where we only have some basic restrictions.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching do you expect?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect a coaching consisting of feedback mostly based around questions asked by us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I mainly expect feedback to the things we write on the wiki page and feedback on our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect that the coaching only consists of telling us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching would you prefer?<br />
'''Thomas''' I would prefer a kind of coaching with weekly feedback based on what was done that week as well as some possible tips on how to continue said work. And ofcourse the having our questions answered.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' Answers to all the questions that we encounter during our research and someone who tells us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I prefere tutors that tell us when we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
*What will the coaches expect of you?<br />
'''Thomas''' I think the coaches will expect a lot of initiative and autonomy of us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' To ask all the questions we have and to inform them about our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Casper'''<br />
I expect to learn how to work on a project without any guidelines, in previous DBLs or project there were always guidelines or rubrics showing what you could do to earn more points or how you should handle your project. This time it is all on yourself to decide so it will be a very new experience.<br />
I expect the coach to mainly keep the group on track to keep our focus on robots and to tell us when we have to dig deeper for our project or to tell us to actually make something concrete. I prefer to have a coach who we can just ask questions when we are unsure of what to do and that they disturb us as little as possible with for example weekly mandatory meetings. I assume the coaches expect of us to mainly keep telling them how we are progressing every week and to deliver a good project.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I think that the coaches expect from us that we finish our homework/the wiki on time and that we honour existing commitments. Also, I think that the tutors like a high commitment for the project.<br />
<br />
'''After the first tutor meeting - Week 2'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the second tutor meeting - Week 3'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the third tutor meeting - Week 4'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fourth tutor meeting - Week 5'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fifth tutor meeting - Week 6'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the final presentation - Week 7'''<br />
<br />
*What are the major steps of the project? Please list<br />
<br />
*What is the most important thing you learned in this project? (e.g .about design or working in groups, etc)<br />
<br />
*What do you wish you had spent more time on or done differently?<br />
<br />
*What was the most enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why<br />
<br />
*What was the least enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Coaching_Questions_Group_9&diff=46726Coaching Questions Group 92018-02-18T12:49:23Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>To help your group and the teachers prepare for the tutor meetings, we would like you to answer a few questions in between sessions.<br />
The following paragraphs list the questions for each of the weeks, please write you answers directly underneath the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==After the kick-off - Week 1==<br />
<br />
*What are you expecting to learn during the Robots course?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect to learn how to work on a project with minimal guidelines and predetermined goals.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I expect to learn how to do research in a group by creating a concept of a subject that could be used a real scientific study.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect to learn to develop something with a group where we only have some basic restrictions.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching do you expect?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect a coaching consisting of feedback mostly based around questions asked by us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I mainly expect feedback to the things we write on the wiki page and feedback on our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I expect that the coaching only consists of telling us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching would you prefer?<br />
'''Thomas''' I would prefer a kind of coaching with weekly feedback based on what was done that week as well as some possible tips on how to continue said work. And ofcourse the having our questions answered.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' Answers to all the questions that we encounter during our research and someone who tells us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I prefere tutors that tell us when we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
*What will the coaches expect of you?<br />
'''Thomas''' I think the coaches will expect a lot of initiative and autonomy of us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' To ask all the questions we have and to inform them about our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Casper'''<br />
I expect to learn how to work on a project without any guidelines, in previous DBLs or project there were always guidelines or rubrics showing what you could do to earn more points or how you should handle your project. This time it is all on yourself to decide so it will be a very new experience.<br />
I expect the coach to mainly keep the group on track to keep our focus on robots and to tell us when we have to dig deeper for our project or to tell us to actually make something concrete. I prefer to have a coach who we can just ask questions when we are unsure of what to do and that they disturb us as little as possible with for example weekly mandatory meetings. I assume the coaches expect of us to mainly keep telling them how we are progressing every week and to deliver a good project.<br />
<br />
'''Kaj''' I think that the coaches expect from us that we finish our homework/the wiki on time and that we honour existing commitments.<br />
<br />
'''After the first tutor meeting - Week 2'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the second tutor meeting - Week 3'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the third tutor meeting - Week 4'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fourth tutor meeting - Week 5'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fifth tutor meeting - Week 6'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the final presentation - Week 7'''<br />
<br />
*What are the major steps of the project? Please list<br />
<br />
*What is the most important thing you learned in this project? (e.g .about design or working in groups, etc)<br />
<br />
*What do you wish you had spent more time on or done differently?<br />
<br />
*What was the most enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why<br />
<br />
*What was the least enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Coaching_Questions_Group_9&diff=46724Coaching Questions Group 92018-02-18T12:48:20Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>To help your group and the teachers prepare for the tutor meetings, we would like you to answer a few questions in between sessions.<br />
The following paragraphs list the questions for each of the weeks, please write you answers directly underneath the questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
==After the kick-off - Week 1==<br />
<br />
*What are you expecting to learn during the Robots course?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect to learn how to work on a project with minimal guidelines and predetermined goals.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I expect to learn how to do research in a group by creating a concept of a subject that could be used a real scientific study.<br />
<br />
“Kaj” I expect to learn to develop something with a group where we only have some basic restrictions.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching do you expect?<br />
'''Thomas''' I expect a coaching consisting of feedback mostly based around questions asked by us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' I mainly expect feedback to the things we write on the wiki page and feedback on our progress.<br />
<br />
“Kaj” I expect that the coaching only consists of telling us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
*What kind of coaching would you prefer?<br />
'''Thomas''' I would prefer a kind of coaching with weekly feedback based on what was done that week as well as some possible tips on how to continue said work. And ofcourse the having our questions answered.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' Answers to all the questions that we encounter during our research and someone who tells us whether we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
“Kaj” I prefere tutors that tell us when we are on the right track or not.<br />
<br />
*What will the coaches expect of you?<br />
'''Thomas''' I think the coaches will expect a lot of initiative and autonomy of us.<br />
<br />
'''Wouter''' To ask all the questions we have and to inform them about our progress.<br />
<br />
'''Casper'''<br />
I expect to learn how to work on a project without any guidelines, in previous DBLs or project there were always guidelines or rubrics showing what you could do to earn more points or how you should handle your project. This time it is all on yourself to decide so it will be a very new experience.<br />
I expect the coach to mainly keep the group on track to keep our focus on robots and to tell us when we have to dig deeper for our project or to tell us to actually make something concrete. I prefer to have a coach who we can just ask questions when we are unsure of what to do and that they disturb us as little as possible with for example weekly mandatory meetings. I assume the coaches expect of us to mainly keep telling them how we are progressing every week and to deliver a good project.<br />
<br />
“Kaj” I think that the coaches expect from us that we finish our homework/the wiki on time and that we honour existing commitments.<br />
<br />
'''After the first tutor meeting - Week 2'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the second tutor meeting - Week 3'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the third tutor meeting - Week 4'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fourth tutor meeting - Week 5'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the fifth tutor meeting - Week 6'''<br />
<br />
*What is the most interesting thing you learned in the coaching meeting of the previous week and why?<br />
<br />
*How did you incorporate coaches' feedback of the previous meeting in your project?<br />
<br />
*What new activities did you undertake during this week? What did you learn from these activities?<br />
<br />
*What did you do to prepare for next week's meeting?<br />
<br />
'''After the final presentation - Week 7'''<br />
<br />
*What are the major steps of the project? Please list<br />
<br />
*What is the most important thing you learned in this project? (e.g .about design or working in groups, etc)<br />
<br />
*What do you wish you had spent more time on or done differently?<br />
<br />
*What was the most enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why<br />
<br />
*What was the least enjoyable part of this project? Please explain why</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9_-_State_of_the_Art&diff=46572PRE2017 3 Groep9 - State of the Art2018-02-16T13:35:37Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>Back to the [http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9 Home page]<br />
==State of the Art==<br />
Before starting a project it is important to know what has been done before. Therefore this section will talk about previous research into learning through games as well as physicality in learning. This page will give a general overview of this research.<br />
<br />
==Viability of game based learning==<br />
Research has been done using the valence, the psychological value, of game-based learning as a measuring tool. The research set out to test the following hypotheses:<br />
1. Potential learners will have greater pre-training valence for gamified instruction than for a traditional (i.e., PowerPoint-driven) instructional approach.<br />
2a.Attitudes towards game-based learning will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with positive attitudes toward game-based learning will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
2b: Experience with video games will moderate the relationship between training design and valence; specifically, people with video game experience will anticipate better outcomes from gamified instruction.<br />
The results show that in the end the participants near the mean. As for the hypotheses, on average hypotheses 1 holds. As for evidence of the other two hypotheses, although there was a mean effect, participants with poor attitudes towards game-based learning and limited experience with games had poorer valence for game-based learning than for lecture-and-powerpoint instructions.<br />
<br />
==Learning concepts in games==<br />
Games have been using teaching methods to teach their players about the game, that only recently have been thought of in the realm of education. The most prominent of these have been listed by, among others, James Paul Gee in his paper Learning and games. According to this paper the biggest difference between the learning methods used in education and those used in games is the general approach to teaching. Schools often focus on the content to be learned, whereas games focus on the meaning and uses of this content. That is to say that schools let their students learn the facts, while games focus on the use of those facts. Another big difference is the role of failure in learning. In games the costs of failure are relatively low and the failure itself if mostly seen as a learning opportunity. Multiple papers also talk about the role of competition. Competition is a big part of games and provides motivation to get better and learn more. Games in general have shown to increase motivation considerably, making not only the way of learning more interesting but also the concept itself,making the concept more interesting. So motivation is definitely one of the biggest advantages of learning with games.<br />
<br />
==Skills developed through game based learning==<br />
Games can be used to develop a plethora of skills. Research has shown that games can teach or help to develop soft skills, like leadership. A particular study about leadership showed that the use of a game could also identify what type of leader people were. This kind of effect of games, where they are used to learn something about the player, instead of the other way around, has not been used anywhere else as far as we have seen. Other research has shown that virtual worlds can be used to have engaging and effective social conferences, allowing for a good environment for discussions. Another skill taught by games is that of collaboration. Another study has shown that creative skills can be learned through games.<br />
<br />
==Creating a virtual World==<br />
The book "Understanding learning in virtual worlds" is a combination of multiple papers, which each provide a view on the creation of a virtual world fit for learning. One of the ideas mentioned is that of conception, that is to say that the conception of reality is just as important as the actual perception of it. This means that the meaning and context of the things perceived is just as important as the perception. That is to say that if we want to design a good virtual environment for education, it is not enough to just copy physical objects to the virtual world. Instead the focus should be on the possibility of conception. This conception can be gained through physical and social interaction, which can both be provided by a virtual environment.<br />
Other research has been done into the use of text based interviews in virtual worlds. This method of interviews is important to understand the learners' experience. Doing these interviews in-world allows us to use the location and context of the learning experience to get a better understanding.<br />
Another study argues that to create a truly effective virtual learning environment the foundations of this environment should be centered on the engagement, knowledge creation and collective reflection of the students. This allows the students to learn effectively and expand beyond the problems presented in the virtual world.<br />
<br />
==Physical learning==<br />
Research has shown that physical activity can improve learning. It can lead to improvements in attentiveness and motivation for studying. The same paper also mentions that video games with educational value can increase physical activity and motivation by incorporating physical activity into those games.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9&diff=46351PRE2017 3 Groep92018-02-07T12:15:50Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Project Plan==<br />
Our topic will be gamification.<br />
<br />
==Week 1: Project Plan and Literature Study==<br />
The main question of our project is: How will physical interaction combined with games help with education. In our literature study we have 25 sources related to gamification and learning.</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_test&diff=46349Template:Infobox test2018-02-07T12:08:11Z<p>S155587: Created page with 'hey'</p>
<hr />
<div>hey</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9&diff=46346PRE2017 3 Groep92018-02-07T12:06:49Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Project Plan==<br />
Our topic will be gamification.<br />
<br />
{{zie dp}}<br />
{{Infobox test<br />
| attribute = testAtt<br />
}}</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_3_Groep9&diff=46344PRE2017 3 Groep92018-02-07T12:06:03Z<p>S155587: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Project Plan==<br />
Our topic will be gamification.<br />
<br />
{{Infobox test<br />
| attribute = testAtt<br />
}}</div>S155587https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_this&diff=46343Template:Infobox this2018-02-07T12:03:54Z<p>S155587: Created page with 'hey'</p>
<hr />
<div>hey</div>S155587