Paper ID #25391

Classroom-based Games for Student Learning and Engagement

Dr. Shannon L. Isovitsch Parks P.E., University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown
Dr. Shannon Parks is a registered Professional Engineer with over 20 years of broad-based experience
in the water resources and environmental engineering fields. She holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Civil Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University and a Masters of Science and doctoral degree
in Civil & Environmental Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. She is currently teaching water
resources and environmental engineering at University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.
Prior to joining University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, Dr. Parks’ worked for over seven years at the
Alcoa Technical Center focusing on development and commercialization of sustainable wastewater treat-
ment and solid waste reuse technologies. She also served as a member of the Alcoa Foundation Board of
Directors, providing environmental expertise to support the Foundation’s focus areas of Environment, Em-
powerment, and Education, as well as her experience with science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics (STEM) education for women. Prior to joining Alcoa in 2008, Dr. Parks worked for approximately
seven years as a consultant to government agencies, municipalities, and industrial clients performing wa-
ter resources engineering design and permitting. In addition to her corporate experience, Dr. Parks served
as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Mali, West Africa, supporting a local Non-Governmental Organization on
water sanitation projects.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2019

 Classroom-based games for student learning and engagement
Abstract
It is now generally accepted that active learning methods can help students learn material at a
deeper level, and that students enjoy game-based learning. However, most game-based learning
research has focused more on engagement benefits rather than learning, and many lack
comparison groups and details on procedures and assessment techniques. Research on
classroom-based games is most lacking in learning effectiveness studies compared to digital
games and gamification research. However, non-digital games offer many of the same
advantages as digital games and may be more accessible. This paper focuses on evaluating the
effectiveness of simple classroom-based games to enhance engagement and learning. The
evaluation is conducted with two (2) sections of an undergraduate, Introduction to
Environmental Engineering course - one section acting as the control with no game-based
learning, and the other as the experimental section utilizing game-based learning strategies. The
games utilized were ‘Heads Up’, ‘Taboo’, ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’, and ‘Two Truths
and a Lie’, and could be tailored to almost any topic. Assessment techniques include student-
based surveys, pre- and post-tests, intervention vs. comparison group statistical analysis, and
course evaluations. In this way, technical skills building, as well as attitude and perceptions are
evaluated. Results indicate that while similar learning was achieved with the games vs
traditional lecture, students’ perception was that the games were not worthwhile in replacing
lecture. Details on the games and assessment techniques are included, to allow others to easily
adapt this work.
Introduction
It is now generally accepted that active learning methods can help students learn material at a
deeper level [1], and that students enjoy game-based learning. Research has indicated that game-
based activities improve student learning and attitudes [2] by providing immediate feedback and
promoting higher intrinsic motivation [2] [3], higher levels of concentration, improved student
engagement and enhanced retention of information [4] [3]. Games have also been shown to
foster communication, teamwork [2] [5], critical thinking, and complex problem solving skills
[5], as well as alleviating the common issue in group-work where one group member dominates
[4]. Game-based learning may improve all seven dimensions of the College and University
Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI): Student Cohesiveness, Individualization,
Innovation, Involvement, Personalization, Satisfaction, and Task Orientation [5]. Further, initial
research has indicated that involving students in game design can improve engagement,
metacognition, and increase retention in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
fields. Games may even be effective assessment tools in lieu of traditional reports and exams
[6].
In spite of the multitude of papers on game-based learning and the indicated benefits, most work
has focused more on engagement benefits rather than learning [2]. While much work has been
done indicating a correlation between student engagement and learning [3], a direct correlation
does not always exist [2]. Interest in understanding the effectiveness of the use of games in
teaching is increasing, and it has been recommended that game-based learning research include
more than just student attitude and perceptions, and that the engineering community validate the
effectiveness of game-based learning strategies compared to traditionally accepted methods.
Weaknesses in past studies include lack of validation evidence or procedures for instruments,
small or self-selected sample size, lack of rigorous statistical analysis, lack of controls or
comparison groups, and a need for more details on procedures and assessment techniques so
others can replicate their work [2].
Additionally, research on classroom-based games is most lacking in learning effectiveness
studies compared to digital games and gamification research [2]. Most research on game-based
learning is focused on digital games. In a systematic literature review, approximately three times
more papers were on digital games than on classroom-based games [2]. However, non-digital
games offer many of the same advantages as digital games and may be more accessible [6].
Effective teaching requires balancing quality of content (explicit vs implicit), quality of context
(tailored vs noisy), and quality of person (detached vs engaged). There are benefits and
weaknesses to both game-based learning methods (implicit, noisy, engaged) as well as traditional
methods (explicit, tailored, detached) in these areas, and so a balance must be met to keep
students engaged, and effectively deliver and uncover academic content with the students [7].
This paper focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of classroom-based games to enhance
engagement and learning. The evaluation is conducted with two (2) sections of an
undergraduate, Introduction to Environmental Engineering course - one section acting as the
control with no game-based learning, and the other as the experimental section utilizing game-
based learning techniques. Assessment techniques include student-based surveys, pre- and post-
tests, intervention vs. comparison group statistical analysis, and course evaluations. In this way,
technical skills building, as well as attitude and perceptions are evaluated. Details on the games
and assessment techniques are included, to allow others to easily adapt this work.
Methods
This research comprises a mixed-methods study of learning and engagement of undergraduate
engineering students utilizing classroom-based games. Over the previous two (2) years, games
were integrated into lectures approximately three (3) times throughout the semester in various
courses by the same instructor, with the intent to provide a change of pace and engage students.
The classroom-based games were based on board games and television game shows. Typically,
students earned ‘bonus participation points’ by playing these games. Details on how these games
were implemented are included in Appendix A. For the focused concurrent cohort study, four
(4) different games were utilized: ‘Heads Up’, ‘Taboo’, ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’, and
‘Two Truths and a Lie’. For all games, students were asked to bring their textbooks to class.
The class was broken into 4-6 teams, each comprised of 5-10 people. The students were given 5-
10 minutes prior to the game beginning to write down 1-2 sets of questions. The remainder of
the 50-minute class period was spent on the game, with the last 5-10 minutes allotted for the
students to complete a survey.
The instructor also created a few questions to weave into the game. Sometimes students came up
with very similar questions as the instructor, but often students found more obscure information
from their textbooks. For instance, for the game ‘Heads Up’ on the topic of Risk Assessment,
where the team needs to get their teammate to say a certain word, the instructor used words such
as ‘Reference Dose’, ‘Chemical Exposure’, and ‘Hazard Index’. The students also used words
such as ‘Reference Dose’, but also ‘Neoplasm’, ‘Genotoxic’, and ‘Lymphomas’.
Assessment techniques include student-based surveys (included in Appendix B) conducted at the
end of each class (both cohorts) when a game was played in the experimental cohort, pre- and
post-quizzes, intervention vs. comparison group statistical analysis, and course evaluations. In
this way, technical knowledge as well as students experience with games in the past and their
perception of their effectiveness was evaluated.
The focus of this study was utilizing concurrent cohorts comprised of two (2) sections of an
undergraduate, Introduction to Environmental Engineering course. One section of the class was
taught utilizing traditional active learning techniques (think-pair-share, group discussion) as well
as the direct transmission method (i.e. lecturing), and the other section utilized these same
methods with the addition of game-based learning strategies. As illustrated in Figure 1, the
control section contained 26 students: 89% male, 11% female; 58% sophomores, 38% juniors,
and 4% seniors; 96% civil engineering majors, and 4% mechanical engineering majors. The
experimental section contained 44 students: 84% male, 16% female; 30% sophomores, 20%
juniors, and 50% seniors; 96% civil engineering majors and 4% civil engineering technology
majors. The students and instructor had no information on which section would be game-based
when the students signed up for their sections. Appropriate human subjects clearance was
obtained prior to the commencement of this study.

Figure 1: Cohort Description

Both sections of the course were designed to have assessments comprised of three (3) exams,
two (2) individual reports, three (3) homework sets, and six (6) quizzes. Homework sets and
quizzes covered material from three (3) to six (6), 50-minute lectures that generally supported
one (1) chapter from the textbook. In the experimental section, classroom games replaced two
(2) of two (2) lectures on Risk Assessment, two (2) of four (4) lectures on wastewater treatment,
and one (1) of three (3) lectures on solid waste management. Pre-tests were given to both
sections prior to the material for these topics to compare technical skills building with the
material presented with and without classroom-based games. See Appendix C and D for an
example of one of the pre- and post-assessments.
Results and Discussion
The first time a game was played in class prior to this study, a student commented to the
instructor: “I’m not going to lie, that was fun!” After playing the games with students playing
individually the first year, it was observed that teams would engage more students. It was also
observed that playing the games as a review, or including material previously taught in lecture,
was more effective than utilizing brand new material as the game material. An email from a
student after their final exam was integrated into an ‘Escape Room’ game stated:
“I just wanted to say how cool the final was yesterday! The whole thing was enjoyable, unique,
and took all stress away. I hope you continue to do stuff that breaks the stereotype of the typical
college professor... most notably the escape room from yesterday. The fact that you gave us Life
Savers and had the Jaws and Star Wars soundtracks playing during the test was unlike anything
I’ve experienced in college...Anyway, I want you to know that was the coolest thing I’ve seen a
professor do and definitely leaves a good taste in my mouth as I leave college!”
These previous observations served as inspiration for this study, where a 2-sample t-test was
used to determine if there is a significant difference between the mean quiz and exam scores
between a game-playing and traditional cohort. A paired t-test was used to determine if there is a
significant difference between the mean pre-test and quiz scores within each cohort. As
indicated in Table 1, the average grade in the experimental cohort was greater than the control
cohort by 5%, but this was not statistically significant (P-Value 0.134). Likewise, Table 2
illustrates average quiz (and pretest) scores to be 1 point (out of 10) higher in the experimental
cohort compared to the control, but this is not statistically significant. There was a consistent
significant difference (P-Value < 10-5) in quiz vs. pretest scores for both the experimental and
control cohorts, indicating that both groups did indeed learn. The study did not test if one cohort
had to depend more on self-learning outside of class than the other.

Table 1: Final Grade Summary Statistics

Experimental Control
Average 90 85
Variance 44 249
P-Value (Exp. Vs Control) 0.134
 Table 2: Testing Summary Statistics
Risk Solid
Wastewater
Assessment Waste
Quiz Scores 0.591 0.304 0.506
Experimental Pretest Scores 0.044 0.197 0.369
Vs Control Quiz Scores - Pretest Score
P-Value 0.296 0.782 0.655
Difference
Paired
Quiz Score vs. Pretest Score 0.000 0.000 0.000
Experimental
Paired Control Quiz Score vs. Pretest Score 0.000 0.000 0.000
Experimental 9 8 10
Quiz
Control 9 7 9
Average
Experimental 4 3 6
Pretest
Control 3 2 5
Experimental 3 3 3
Quiz
Control 9 6 4
Variance
Experimental 6 5 2
Pretest
Control 6 6 8

Figure 2 illustrates the majority of students felt that the lesson and the material presented
through classroom based games was interesting (dark gray bars > 50% indicating agreement to a
‘High Degree’). Also, 74% of students felt that the classroom based game was fun. Overall,
more students answered in agreement to positive questions such as “Today’s lesson is a
worthwhile activity” (58% vs. 28%) and “Today’s lesson increased my understanding of
environmental engineering” (46% vs. 29%) than in disagreement. Results to negatively worded
questions, support these results with less students agreeing to questions such as “Today’s lesson
was challenging” (26% vs 37%) and “Today’s lesson felt more like work than play” (4% vs.
59%).
Alternatively, Figure 3 indicates that the student’s perception of learning was greater in the
traditional lecture while only 14% would say the lesson was fun. In this control group, more
students felt that the lesson was worthwhile (63% control vs 56% experimental), important (66%
control vs 30% experimental), interesting (73% vs 61% experimental), and increased their
understanding of environmental engineering (95% vs 46% experimental).
Comparing the experimental to the control cohort, the largest difference in responses was to the
question “Today’s lesson was fun”, where the experimental group had 75% agreement vs 14% in
the control. The least difference was in response to the question “Today’s lesson is a worthwhile
activity”, with the experimental group in 56% agreement vs 63% in the control. Only 49% of the
experimental group felt that they “benefited from today’s lesson” vs. 88% in the control; and
50% of the experimental group felt that “Today’s lesson contributed to my overall satisfaction
with the course” compared to 73% in the control cohort.
Figure 2: Survey results for Experimental Cohort

Figure 3: Survey results for Control Cohort

 Figure 4: Teaching Survey Results
Figure 4 also illustrates that the control cohort’s perception of learning was greater than the
experimental cohort. The control cohort rated teacher effectiveness (second row) as 4.42 out of
5 compared to 4.1 from the experimental cohort. Comments from the experimental cohort
indicated that many students did not appreciate the game-based learning. Comments included
are shown in Table 3.
 Table 3: Teaching Evaluation Comments

Positive Negative

“I believe the games were very helpful in “Games as review instead of the only way of
stimulating my thinking.” learning material”

“Games were helpful, along with organized “Less games with more structured teaching
notes.” lessons.”

“I liked playing the games in class to learn “I didn't like the games we played because they
the material.” did not help me learn.”

“Do less games to help us learn. “

“I did not like the games as lecture material. The

games were good as review but they did not help
with learning new material.”

“I talked to some people in the class and the

games she does doesn’t seem to help me or at
least the people I have talked to. I learn better
from her notes and doing the problems rather
than her assigning groups and attempting to
guess what the right answer is with no
understanding of the material.”

“Playing games for teaching didn't help because

we didn't learn the material, we just knew the
vocab instead of how to calculate numerical
questions”

“I didn't learn any new material when we played

games instead of having lectures some days. I
read the book to keep up but the book was more
confusing and exhausting than lecture.”

“Games for a class are very fun for maybe a

friday activity but personally I don't find them
useful for trying to learn material, and possible
doing more examples in the class would be nice”

“It would be better to schedule games or

speakers at the beginning/introduction of a
lesson rather than at the end/review of a lesson.”

“Never do game lectures again”

Conclusions
While the study did not show improved learning with game-based learning over that of
traditional lecture, it did show that significant learning is occurring with the classroom-based
games on the same order as that of lecture. The game-based learning may require more
independent learning of the students, both with students preparing game questions and outside of
class in preparation for quizzes and exams. While there is some indication that students enjoy
the games and feel that they make learning fun, student perception is that they are not learning as
much from the classroom-based games compared to the traditional lecture. Given the positive
feedback from game-based learning received prior to this study, these results are surprising. It
may be that the games are a welcome diversion used on a limited basis, but when replacing
critical lecture material students feel that they are not worthwhile.
While it was hoped that the games would inspire students to open their books and prepare prior
to class, it did not appear that this happened. Students only spent the 5-10 minutes given in class
to prepare their questions, and looked for answers in the book and their notes on a question by
question basis. It was noted verbally by students that they like the games better as a review
rather than it requiring them to find the information themselves in the textbook. Perhaps the
games would be better perceived in a graduate level class, where self-learning is more
understood and appreciated. Also, these games could easily be enhanced with more explanation
and even lecture material woven into them after each question, which could improve perception
of learning.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the students who participated in this study by completing surveys
and providing feedback, as well as the student who pulled together the survey data into electronic
form for analysis.
 References
[1] K. A. Smith, S. D. Sheppard, D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson. "Pedagogies of engagement:
Classroom‐based practices." Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 87-101,
2005.
[2] C. A. Bodnar, D. Anastasio, J. A. Enszer and D. D. Burkey. "Engineers at play: Games as
teaching tools for undergraduate engineering students." Journal of Engineering Education,
vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 147-200, 2016.
[3] B. D. Coller, D. J. Shernoff and A. Strati. "Measuring Engagement as Students Learn
Dynamic Systems and Control with a Video Game." Advances in Engineering Education,
vol. 2, no. 3, 2011.
[4] J. G. O’Brien and G. Sirokman. "Teaching Vectors to Engineering Students through an
Interactive Vector Based Game." In American Society of Engineering Educators Conference
Proceedings, 2014.
[5] C. A. Bodnar and R. M. Clark. "Exploring the impact game-based learning has on classroom
environment and student engagement within an engineering product design class." In
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for
Enhancing Multiculturality, 2014. pp. 191-196.
[6] R. P. Shemran, R. M. Clark, M. M. Bilec, A. E. Landis and K. Parrish. "Board# 117:
Developing a Framework to Better Engage students in STEM via Game Design: Findings
from Year 1." In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 2017.
[7] M. Berland and V. R. Lee. “Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed
computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, vol.1, no. , pp. 65-
81, 2011.
[8] S. A. Barab, M. Gresalfi and A. Ingram-Goble. "Transformational play: Using games to
position person, content, and context." Educational Researcher, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 525-536,
2010.
 Appendix A: Game Instructions
For all games: Students are asked to bring their textbooks to class. The class is broken into 4-6
teams, each comprised of 5-10 people. An attendance sheet is passed around the class for each
team to write their team name, and each team-member’s name.
‘Two Truths and a Lie’,
The students are given 5-10 minutes prior to the game beginning to write down 1-2 sets of “two
truths and a lie”. Students use their notes and textbooks to develop two factual statements from
the lesson material and one incorrect statement.
The game begins! The instructor chooses a team to ask a question and a team to answer. This
should be done in a consistent and orderly fashion to ensure all teams have equal chance to earn
points. If the team answering the question gets it right, they earn a point. If they do not answer
correctly, the team who developed the question earns a point, and they can choose another team
to “steal” a point. If the new answering team answers correctly, they earn a point. If they answer
incorrectly, the asking team earns a second point.
‘Heads Up’,
The students are given 5-10 minutes prior to the game beginning to write down 3-5 terms from
the lesson material on notecards. The instructor collects the notecards, shuffles them, and
redistributes them to the class. The class is divided into pairs of teams, so several individual
games are played at once. A timekeeper and scorekeeper is chosen for each pair of teams.
The game begins! One player from the first team takes the deck of cards, and is given 30
seconds to guess as many terms as possible without looking at the cards. The player places a
card on their forehead so that they cannot read it but all of their teammates can. Their teammates
describe the term to the player trying to get them to guess the term. The guessing team earns a
point for every term correctly guessed.
‘Taboo’,
The students are given 5-10 minutes prior to the game beginning to write down 3-5 terms from
the lesson material on notecards. With each term, five (5) words are also written down that are
not allowed to be said by the guessing team. The instructor collects the notecards, shuffles them,
and redistributes them to the class. The class is divided into pairs of teams, so several individual
games are played at once. A timekeeper and scorekeeper is chosen for each pair of teams.
The game begins! One player from the first team takes the deck of cards, and is given 30
seconds to get their team to guess as many terms as possible without saying the ‘taboo’ words.
The guessing team earns a point for every term correctly guessed. You may play that if the team
‘passes’ a term then the opposing team earns a point.
 ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire?’
The students are given 5-10 minutes prior to the game beginning to write down 1-2 multiple
choice questions from the given chapter in their text book. Four (4) choices are given for each
question, with only one (1) choice being correct. The instructor may prepare questions as well
beforehand to ensure specific material is covered.
The game begins! The instructor chooses a team to ask a question and a team to answer. This
should be done in a consistent and orderly fashion to ensure all teams have equal chance to earn
points. The team answering the question, chooses one (1) team-member to answer. This team-
member may answer on their own and earn two (2) points if correct, or use a ‘life-line’ and earn
(1) point if correct. ‘Life-lines’ include asking their team and/or book for help, asking the class
for help, or having choices narrowed down to just two (2) so that they have a 50:50 chance of
getting it right. If the team does not answer the question right, then another team may have one
(1) chance of guessing to ‘steal’ a point.

“Escape Room”
This game was used prior to this study as part of the final exam in a senior elective on Water
Supply and Wastewater. The class size was less than 10 students.
Students arrive to the exam room to find a locked door with instructions posted on the door. The
instructions explain a fictitious scenario such as is described below:
“Los Santos has been devastated by a Sharkicane (much worse, and more realistic than a
Sharknado, since hurricanes occur over the ocean and tornado’s occur over land). As Fin, the
hero who must save the day, you must redesign the wastewater treatment plants to save Los
Santos from utter destruction and sanitation mayhem.”
It is also explained that the instructor has been struck mute and can only answer yes and no
questions. A set of keys is provided to the students with numbers on them. A technical question
is also in the set of instructions, where the answer corresponds to the number on the key which
opens the door.
Once the students enter the room, another technical question can be easily found. In this case,
the “Jaws” soundtrack was playing in the room during the game to add to the theme. Clues can
be found around the room, and as they answer one question, it leads them to a location where
they find important items such as the next question, the textbook, equation sheets, and ultimately
the final exam. Students are given an allotted amount of time such as 30 minutes to answer all
questions, and the next 60 minutes is provided for the students to complete the traditional final
exam. All students were given a bonus point for each correctly answered question during the
game.
 Appendix B: Student-based Survey

Neither
Very Very
Low Low
To what extent do you agree with the Not Low High High
Degre nor
following statements? Applicab Degre Degree Degre
e High
le e e
Degree

Today’s lesson contributed to my overall

satisfaction with this course.

Today’s lesson felt more like work than

play.

Today’s lesson felt more like play than

work.

Today’s lesson felt more like work and

play.

Today’s lesson material is challenging.

Today’s lesson was challenging.

Today’s lesson material is interesting.

Today’s lesson was interesting.

Today’s lesson was fun.

Today’s lesson allowed me to be creative.

Today’s lesson allowed me to be

innovative.

Today’s lesson allowed me to get to know

my classmates better.

Today’s lesson allowed me to get to know

my instructor better.

Today’s lesson increased my

understanding of environmental
engineering.
 What I learned in today’s lesson is
important for me as a future engineer.

Today’s lesson was useful in promoting

my learning of environmental engineering.

Today’s lesson motivated me to learn

more about environmental engineering.

Today’s lesson is a good use of class time.

Today’s lesson is a worthwhile activity.

I benefited from today’s lesson.

I learn best by doing something active

rather than thinking about it quietly first.

I like learning facts related to the real

world rather than discovering
relationships.

I learn best from written and spoken

explanations rather than pictures and
diagrams.

I learn best in linear steps rather than in

large jumps, and suddenly “getting it.”
 Appendix C: Example Pretest

CE 1503: Introduction to Environmental Engineering – CH3 PRETEST

Friday, September 7, 2018

1. Identify the four steps in the EPA Risk Assessment Process.

2. Estimate the concentration of Heptachlor in fish if the concentration in water

is 5x10-3 mg/L. The bioconcentration factor is 15,700.
 Appendix D: Example Post-assessment

CE 1503: Introduction to Environmental Engineering – CH3

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

1. (5 points) Explain the four (4) steps to conduct a baseline risk assessment.

2. (5 points) Estimate the concentration of Heptachlor in fish if the concentration in water

is 5x10-3 mg/L. The bioconcentration factor is 15,700.