Abstract
When comparing these three reports there is a pattern that can be seen. Because the first report is more of an experimental report, the authors have more to add in the analytical section of the report. Since reports two and three are both interviews, they both are very similar to each other in the way that the authors formatted the papers. Authors of all three reports also followed a general format of a scientific lab report in such a way that most sections related to each other.
Body
Video games are a fairly recent invention with the first being “Pong” which was created in October of 1958. Thanks to Pong, our advancements have led to much more complex and intricate games. With all of this new technology a question comes to mind, “Can we use video games to improve learning and retention of information in students?” This is the question that these three lab reports focus on. All three of the lab reports focus on the importance of the creation and use of video games in early learning. The first lab report is an experimental study of the impacts of video games on learning by Tsung-Yen and Wei-Fan Chen. The second report is on the creation of games in schools and how it pushes students to be creative. The third and final report is based on the findings when interviewing game designers about how helpful video games can be for teaching in early development situations.
“Effects of Computer-Based Video Games on Children: An Experimental Study” by Tsung-Yen Chuang and Wei-Fan Chen. The authors took students and introduced them to two different types of learning techniques, one of which was a video game. The control group was students who were learning from traditional computer-assisted instruction such as PowerPoint presentations and online e-textbooks. The next step was to have an experimental group where students played a video game which implemented knowledge that was recently taught to them about the subject. This study found, “the statistical results clearly show a significant difference between computer-assisted introduction and computer-based video game playing in students’ learning achievement” (Chuang, Chen, P.4).
The second lab report was “Recognizing New Literacies: Teachers and Students Negotiating the Creation of Video Games in School” by Kathy Stanford and Leanna Madill. This report focused on the creation of video games rather than the use of them. The authors examined students’ response to learning how to create video games in school. The experiment found that students were more engaged in the video game building class compared to similar classes and students felt more accomplished when they created a video game that was able to be shared with their community (Sanford, Madill, P.3).
The final lab report was “Designing Games for Learning: Insights from Conversations with Designers” by Katherine Isbister, Mary Flanagan and Chelsea Hash. The authors interviewed game designers and questioned if video games can be a helpful learning tool. They also inquired in how to approach the creation of video games that have a main purpose to teach children. This experiment found that video games are an extremely helpful tool in the aid of teaching students. The authors also found certain traits of a video game that are crucial to make video games an effective teaching strategy (Isibister, Flanagan, Hash, P.3).
The abstract section for the three reports differed. For the first report the abstract was an informative summary of what the experiment showed. Although this was an informative abstract the authors did not add any findings. A hypothesis and findings in the abstract are very important to expect what is coming up or intended in this report or experiment. In an abstract which is a summary, I would expect to see what was found. The second and third reports abstracts were similar in their method of summarizing their experiments because they were interviewing people. The format of both of these reports was a descriptive summary. In the abstract both reports explained minor backstory and concluded with a brief summary of what they found. This was very useful because I was able to understand the basic concept behind the two reports before starting to read them.
The introduction of the first report varied from the second and third report. In the first report the introduction explained briefly why the experiment was important then transitioned straight to the questions that they thought were most important and some of the expected results. The first report also had a very strong thesis/ hypothesis that was given immediately. This thesis was important because compared to the second and third report it focused on a physical experiment that was run to more than 100 children. The fact that more than 100 students were used is crucial because it shows that the experiment was diversified. Since the second and third reports were both based off of interviews there was no statistics. This played an important role in the formatting of the paper. Unlike the first paper, the authors were not able to use numbers as a resource. Instead the authors gave background to why these interviews were conducted.
The next section was named “Research null hypothesis” for the first report and “Theoretical framework/grounding” for the second and third report. In this section the authors explained their expected results or expected hypotheses. They did not use any previous research to back up their reasoning. Using already conducted research is important because it shows that you are conducting an experiment that is furthering the knowledge of a field. These were all opinion based arguments which is shown by the authors not providing evidence to back up their claims. The fact that they were opinion based arguments is very important because it can affect the credibility that the authors have with the reader. Without the use of evidence any claim can be made and therefor nothing is proven. In the science world there would be chaos due to false facts going around. There would be minimal or no meaningful progression in society due to the fact that everything could be wrong.
After the hypothesis came the Methods section. In reports one and two the authors subcategorized their sections chronologically while the authors of the third report decided to explain their method in one long paragraph. The organization shows that the authors of the first and second report was more intricate in his techniques during their experiment. This fact is shown by the intensive result section of reports one and two. All of these reports conducted credible research. The authors diversified the selection of subjects they used. The authors of the first report took random students from a public school which creates no bias in the results. The second report interviewed and conducted research on students taking computer classes in high school which is a direct source. The final report interviewed individuals both in the field of building educational video games and non-educational video games. The creator of video games is one of the most direct sources you can get because they understand their audience. All of these reports diversified their testing to ensure no skewing of results through methods explained above.
The next section was the results/ findings section. The authors of the first report decided to expand this section into three different categories: 4. Experimental Procedures, 5. Data Collection, 6. Statistical data analysis and 7. Findings and discussions. Compared to the second and third report which only had the Data analysis and Finding section, the first report was more organized due to the fact that it was a physical experiment that was run. Looking at these sections it was easier to find specific information in the first report because the author categorized and subcategorized more than the other two reports. Although the organization of this section varied through all of the reports the ways that evidence was presented was similar. The authors all presented their finding and explained in more basic terms. The authors of the first report added graphs and charts to present data that the conducted experiment found. The graphs were very professional and made so they could be understood quickly and efficiently. The magnitude of value of the first report was greater than the second and third due to there being statistical results backing up the claims. As stated in the first report, “Multiple analysis of variance in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used” (Chuang, Chen, P.3).
For all of the reports the Discussion section was integrated into the results/findings section. When the authors presented their findings they explained it in similar terms. They all then proceeded to explain the significance of the findings and what are the implementations/ limitations. Although all of the implementations and limitations should be in a separate discussion section they fit very naturally into the results/findings section. Implementations and limitations are usually spoken about in the discussion section due to the fact that there are usually so many. The reason why these reports were able to place the implementations and limitations inside of the results section was because they were briefly talked about. Instead of going completely in depth about the implementations, the authors briefly described that educational video games can be very useful if implemented correctly in learning facilities.
The final section in all of the reports was the conclusion. In each of the reports the authors gave a short summary on why they did the experiment and presented the results to validate their hypothesis. The authors also included implementations of the research that was conducted such as the use of these techniques in schools and learning facilities. With the conclusion of each of the lab reports, all of the reports were able to present a topic and follow up the question or questions with evidence from the experiment that was conducted. Although some of the authors did not hypothesize the outcome correctly they were still able to learn from the experiment.
Although the authors of each of the three reports had unique writing styles there seemed to be a general format that was followed by all. A general format is very useful for the reader because if they are reading multiple reports about the same topic such as what we did here, they would be able to look at and compare each report side by side just by looking at the heading of each section. A general format is important because when doing intensive research, it would be very tedious to read through a full lab report to find certain information or to know if the report does not apply to your writing.
References
Chuang, T., & Chen, W., (n.d.). Effect of Computer-Based Video Games on Children: An Experimental Study.
Isbister, K., Flanagan, M., & Hash, C. (n.d.). Designing Games for Learning: Insights from Conversations with Designers.
Stanford, K., & Madill, L. (n.d.). Recognizing New Literacies: Teachers and Students Negotiating the Creation of Video Games in School.
