Learning by Co-Designing a Board Game to Make Chain Store Knowledge More Robust
Abstract
:1. Research Motivation and Purpose
- (1)
- In the digital era, the mobile phone is always with students;
- (2)
- A shorter concentration time is observed every year;
- (3)
- There are still small groups in the class that are difficult to reach even in an era of cross-domain learning, multiculturalism, and swaying youth;
- (4)
- There seems to be a lack of fulfillment of ambitions and talent among the learners, and the teacher does not seem to comprehend what they are trying to achieve.
- (1)
- The interaction will be brought back to the human world through board games, while at the same time, teachers will have the opportunity to teach with the help of board games;
- (2)
- Human-to-human interaction can be enhanced by sharing and learning from the results;
- (3)
- Develop chain knowledge into related board games and develop learning capabilities among students through the board game development program.
Research Purposes
2. Literature Review
2.1. Development of Board Game
2.2. Learning Engagement
2.3. Learning Outcomes
3. Curriculum Design and Research Methods
3.1. Curriculum Design
Course Design Content
3.2. Game Experience Process
4. Research Methods
4.1. Research Object
4.2. Research Tools
5. Conclusions
6. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Chain Chapters | Focus | Chain Chapters | Focus |
---|---|---|---|
1. Development History and Introduction of Chain Enterprises |
| 5. Affiliate Entrepreneurial Opportunity Assessment |
|
2. Chain Enterprise Market Opportunities |
| 6. Franchise store operation strategy |
|
3. Chain headquarters management, organization and development conditions |
| 7. The relationship between franchisees of the chain headquarters |
|
References
- Richardson, C.; Percy, M.; Hughes, J. Nursing therapeutics: Teaching student nurses care, compassion and empathy. Nurse Educ. Today 2015, 35, e1–e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razon, N. Okul Öncesi Eğitimde Oyunun, Oyunda Yetişkinin Işlevi; Ya-Pa Okulöncesi Eğitimi ve Yaygınlaştırılması Semineri: İstanbul, Turkey, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Garris, R.; Ahlers, R.; Driskell, J.E. Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. In Simulation in Aviation Training; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 475–501. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, C.K.; Davis, J.M.; Sanders, J.L.; Chapman, L.A.; Cisco, M.C.; Hady, A.R. Exploring nursing students’ level of preparedness for disaster response. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2011, 32, 380–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saarinen-Rahiika, H.; Binkley, J.M. Problem-based learning in physical therapy: A review of the literature and overview of the McMaster University experience. Phys. Ther. 1998, 78, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ozorio, B.; Fong, D.K. Chinese casino gambling behaviors: Risk taking in casinos vs. abstract investments. UNLV Gaming Res. Rev. J. 2004, 8, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Keller, J.M. An application of the ARCS model of motivational design. In Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987; pp. 289–320. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, J.S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res. 1989, 18, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.T.; Wang, T.C. A Study of Primary Students’ Technology Acceptance and Flow State When Using a Technology-Enhanced Board Game in Mathematics Education. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuzulia, R.; Kepirianto, C. Reducing student’s English dialogue anxiety in online learning through board game. Lensa 2020, 10, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, F.K.; Wang, S.; Tang, Z. Design and Evaluation of a Board Game in Food and Nutrition Education. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boghian, I.; Cojocariu, V.M.; Popescu, C.V.; Mâţӑ, L. Game-based learning. Using board games in adult education. J. Educ. Sci. Psychol. 2019, 9, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
- Kafai, Y.B. Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games Cult. 2006, 1, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azizan, M.T.; Mellon, N.; Ramli, R.M.; Yusup, S. Improving teamwork skills and enhancing deep learning via development of board game using cooperative learning method in Reaction Engineering course. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 22, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeve, J.; Tseng, C.M. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 36, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogunmokun, O.A.; Unverdi-Creig, G.I.; Said, H.; Avci, T.; Eluwole, K.K. Consumer well-being through engagement and innovation in higher education: A conceptual model and research propositions. J. Public Aff. 2021, 21, e2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipps, G.; Norris, C.; Pignal, J. Measuring school engagement. Educ. Q. Rev. 2003, 9, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
- Leithwood, K.; Jantzi, D. Transformational school leadership effects: A replication. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 1999, 10, 451–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadesse, T.; Edo, B. The relationships between student engagement and learning outcome in the undergraduate sports science program in Ethiopia. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2021, 13, 48–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piccoli, G.; Ahmad, R.; Ives, B. Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 401–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siegler, R.S.; Shipley, C. Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In Developing Cognitive Competence: New Approaches to Process Modeling; Routledge: London, UK, 1995; pp. 31–76. [Google Scholar]
- Handelsman, M.M.; Briggs, W.L.; Sullivan, N.; Towler, A. A measure of college student course engagement. J. Educ. Res. 2005, 98, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, P. Game Play: Paratextuality in Contemporary Board Games; Bloomsbury Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kyppö, J. Board Games: Throughout the History and Multidimensional Spaces; World Scientific: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Riggs, A.E.; Young, A.G. Developmental changes in children’s normative reasoning across learning contexts and collaborative roles. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 52, 1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, S.H.; Huang, Y.C. Development of learning engagement scale for college students. Psy. Test. 2012, 59, 373–396. [Google Scholar]
- Raza, S.A.; Qazi, W.; Umer, B. Examining the impact of case-based learning on student engagement, learning motivation and learning performance among university students. J. Appl. Res. High. Edu. 2019, 12, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derek, R. Educational Technology in Curriculum Development; Harpercollins College Div.: New York City, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
Weekly | Content | Teaching Activity |
---|---|---|
Week 01 | Course Introduction |
|
Week 02 | 1. History and introduction of chain enterprise development |
|
Week 03 | 2. Chain enterprise market opportunities | |
Week 04 | 3. Chain headquarters management, organization and development conditions | |
Week 05 | 4. Operation and management of chain headquarters | |
Week 06 | 5. Evaluation of joining business opportunities | |
Week 07 | 6. Franchise store operation strategy | |
Week 08 | 7. Relationship between franchisees of chain headquarters | |
Week 09 | Board Game Development and Design Speech |
|
Week 10 | Work Discussion | |
Week 11–12 | Work published | Show board game results Lead other group members to play self-designed games Board game development |
Week 13 | Learning reflection |
Facet | Question Item | Factor Loading | Cronbach Alpha | Reference Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Learning engagement | I will organize my notes carefully, to remember the key points of the chapter | 0.66 | 0.81 | [28] |
I will use the methods and knowledge I have learned to complete the homework | 0.81 | |||
I can highlight the key points of the textbook content | 0.83 | |||
I will use various methods to understand the content of the teacher’s lectures | 0.71 | |||
Emotional engagement | I get along well with my team members at school | 0.62 | 0.73 | |
I get along well with the teacher | 0.79 | |||
The teacher respects me very much | 0.82 | |||
Interactive engagement | During class, I will take the initiative to ask questions | 0.85 | 0.74 | |
When I was discussing in class, will actively express opinions | 0.87 | |||
learning outcomes | Board game design improves my learning motivation | 0.85 | 0.70 | [29] |
Board game design improves my learning efficiency | 0.82 | |||
Board game design enables me to understand chain knowledge faster | 0.65 |
Facet | Learning Outcomes | Average | Variation Homogeneity Test | ROBUST Test | F Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Learning engagement | High | 4.19 | 7.40 (0.00) ** | 7.43 (0.00) ** | |
Low | 3.94 | ||||
Emotional engagement | High | 4.69 | 2.30 (0.13) | 8.65 (0.00) ** | |
Low | 4.47 | ||||
Interactive engagement | High | 3.3 | 3.35 (0.070) * | 3.37 (0.069) * | |
Low | 3.03 |
Class A | Class B | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Board Game Name | Chapter | Chapter Focus | Average Score | Board Game Name | Chapter | Chapter Focus | Average Score |
I am the big boss | 1, 6 | 1-3, 6-2 | 4.04~4.09 | Secret code | 5, 6 | 5-2, 6-2, 6-3 | 3.69 |
Entrepreneurial journey | 3, 6 | 3-2, 3-4, 5-2 | 4.04~4.16 | Chain godfather | 2, 3, 6 | 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-3, 6-1, 6-3 | 3.79–4.21 |
Chain explorer | 1 | 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 | 2.86~3.19 | OH-YEAH | 4, 5 | 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2 | 3.1–3.8 |
Franchise franchises and shop windows in pairs | 2, 6 | 2-1, 2-2, 6-1 | 3.14–3.64 | Bang bar chain | 1, 3 | 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 | 3.93~4.53 |
Franchise battle | 1, 3 | 1-1, 1-3, 3-1, 3-3 | 4.17–4.52 | Chain Monopoly | 1, 3 | 1-1, 1-2, 3-2 | 3.71~3.76 |
I really want to eat fruit | 6 | 6-3 | 4.13 | Bomb drop card | 1, 3 | 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 | 4 |
Heart disease chain | 2, 3 | 2-2, 2-3, 3-2, 3-4 | 3.65–4.22 | Wilderness battle | 1, 2 | 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-2 | 3.6~4.53 |
BOM | 2, 4 | 2-3, 4-1, 4-2 | 3.43–3.52 | Chain tycoon | 1, 2 | 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-3 | 4.4–4.6 |
I want to be the ally | 1, 4 | 1-2, 1-3, 4-2 | 3.74–4.52 | Mind Warfare | 2, 3 | 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 | 3.93~4.2 |
Fruit Pai Pai | 4, 6 | 4-1, 4-2, 6-1 | 4–4.3 | Who is a franchisee | 4, 5 | 4-3, 5-2 | 3.2~3.38 |
Land bidding | 3, 5 | 3-4, 5-1 | 3.87–4.09 | Franchise owner’s struggle | 4, 6 | 4-1, 4-2, 6-3 | 3.7~4.2 |
Facet | Board Game Rating | Average | Variation Homogeneity Test | ROBUST Test | F Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Learning engagement | High | 4.09 | 3.68 (0.06) | 0.38 (0.54) | |
Low | 4.03 | ||||
Emotional engagement | High | 4.63 | 2.03 (0.16) | 2.81 (0.1) | |
Low | 4.5 | ||||
Interactive engagement | High | 3.19 | 0.89 (0.35) | 3.55 (0.06) * | |
Low | 3.44 | ||||
Learning outcomes | High | 4.3 | 0.04 (0.84) | 0.42 (0.20) | |
Low | 4.18 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, K.-Y.; Chang, Y.-H.; Samanta, P.K. Learning by Co-Designing a Board Game to Make Chain Store Knowledge More Robust. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040391
Lee K-Y, Chang Y-H, Samanta PK. Learning by Co-Designing a Board Game to Make Chain Store Knowledge More Robust. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(4):391. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040391
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Kuan-Yin, Yu-Hsin Chang, and Prasana Kumar Samanta. 2023. "Learning by Co-Designing a Board Game to Make Chain Store Knowledge More Robust" Education Sciences 13, no. 4: 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040391
APA StyleLee, K. -Y., Chang, Y. -H., & Samanta, P. K. (2023). Learning by Co-Designing a Board Game to Make Chain Store Knowledge More Robust. Education Sciences, 13(4), 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040391