1. The document discusses feedback design in games-based learning, analyzing 5 early literacy games. 2. It finds that most games focus on practice over learning, providing only verification feedback like scores. 3. Good practices include teaching literacy concepts, setting learning objectives and success criteria. 4. Areas for further research are how game mechanics, elaborative feedback design, and "try again" features can better support learning.

1. iREAD
personalised reading
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 731724.
'YAY, YOU GOT IT RIGHT’: CHALLENGING THE
RELIANCE ON VERIFICATION FEEDBACK IN
GAMES-BASED LEARNING
L A U R A B E N T O N A N D M I N A VA S A L O U

2. http://iread-project.eu iRead Project @iread_project
iREAD
personalised reading
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 731724. 2

3. iREAD
personalised reading
• 12 meta-analyses on feedback: 196 studies and
6,972 effect sizes
• Compared to other impacts feedback is in the top
5 (e.g. direct instruction, reciprocal teaching, prior
cognitive ability)
• Variability in effectiveness within feedback design:
highest effect size for task-feedback
WHY FEEDBACK
3
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77, 1: 81-112

4. iREAD
personalised reading
WHAT IS FEEDBACK
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77, 1: 81-112
4
Where am I
going?
How am I
doing?
Where to
next?

5. iREAD
personalised reading
VERIFICATION AND ELABORATIVE
FEEDBACK
Johnson, C. I., Bailey, S. K. and Van Buskirk, W. L. 2017. Designing Effective Feedback Messages in Serious Games and
Simulations: A Research Review, P. Wouters and H. Van Oostendorp (eds.). Springer, 119-140. 5

6. iREAD
personalised reading
VERIFICATION AND ELABORATIVE
FEEDBACK
Moreno, R. 2004. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in
discovery-based multimedia. Instructional science, 32, 1: 99-113. 6
“Look there is a split
digraph that means
the ’i’ makes a long
vowel sound”

7. iREAD
personalised reading
• Developed a learning game providing further
opportunities for children to practice specific areas
of reading within an engaging game environment
• Children aged 9-11 with dyslexia
• Design work took place over two years
• Goal: to unpick if and how the feedback design
supported the students (or not)
EMPIRICAL STUDY
Vasalou, A., Khaled, R., Holmes, W. and Gooch, D. 2017. Digital games-based learning for children with dyslexia: A social
constructivist perspective on engagement and learning during group game-play. Computers & Education: 175-192 7

8. iREAD
personalised reading
WORDS MATTER
24/09/2017 8

9. iREAD
personalised reading
GAMES
24/09/2017 9
• GPC
• Syllabification
• Prefixes
• Suffixes
• Orthography-visual processing

10. iREAD
personalised reading
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
25/09/2017 10
Where
am I
going?

11. iREAD
personalised reading
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
25/09/2017
Where
am I
going?
11

12. iREAD
personalised reading
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
25/09/2017
How am
I doing?
12

13. iREAD
personalised reading
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
25/09/2017 13
Where
to next?

14. iREAD
personalised reading
METHODOLOGY
25/09/2017 14
• Participants: 8 children in Y5 and 6 playing the
game at school
• Method: video data over three weeks yielding 116
incidents
• Analysis: inductive thematic analysis, iterative
watching of themes from three lenses to gather
patterns between child, social interaction and
game play

15. iREAD
personalised reading
BREAKDOWNS WERE RECURRENT
25/09/2017 15

16. iREAD
personalised reading
IDENTIFYING FORMS OF SUPPORT
25/09/2017 16

17. iREAD
personalised reading
GAME CHARACTERS AS COLLECTIBLES
27/09/2017 17

18. iREAD
personalised reading
SUMMARY
25/09/2017 18
1. Breakdowns were frequent
2. Breakdowns were due to children’s lack of
understanding of both game and literacy
3. Children did not have a sense of continuity in their
learning

19. iREAD
personalised reading
• Goal: Critical analysis of the dimensions of
feedback that early learning games for reading
promote and exclude
• Method: five early literacy games (comprising 35
mini games) analysed
• Analytic tool: content analysis framework
developed by consolidating and iteratively testing
previous frameworks
CONTENT ANALYSIS OF COMMERCIAL
GAMES
19

20. iREAD
personalised reading
Teaching
concepts
Literacy
instruction
Game play
mechanics
Feed Up – Where
am I going?
Learning
Objective Success criteria
Feed Back – How
am I doing?
Verification
Knowledge of
Results
Knowledge of
Correct Result
Try-Again Error Flagging
Elaborative
Topic Specific
Response
Specific
Informational
Hints, Prompts or
Cues
CONTENT ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
20
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77, 1: 81-112.
Johnson, C. I., Bailey, S. K. and Van Buskirk, W. L. 2017. Designing Effective Feedback Messages in Serious Games and
Simulations: A Research Review, P. Wouters and H. Van Oostendorp (eds.). Springer, 119-140.
Shute, V. J. 2008. Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78, 1: 153-189.
Wang, H. and Sun, C.-T. 2011. Game Reward Systems: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings. In The fifth international
conference of the Digital Research Association (DIGRA),

21. iREAD
personalised reading
PRACTICE VS LEARNING
21
Teaching
Concepts

22. iREAD
personalised reading
PREVALENT PRACTICE
22
How am
I doing?

23. iREAD
personalised reading
GOOD PRACTICE:
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
23
Where
am I
going?

24. iREAD
personalised reading
GOOD PRACTICE:
SUCCESS CRITERIA
24
Where
am I
going?

25. iREAD
personalised reading
GOOD PRACTICE:
LITERACY INSTRUCTION
25
Teaching
Concepts

26. iREAD
personalised reading
AREAS FOR RESEARCH:
GAME MECHANICS
26
Teaching
Concepts

27. iREAD
personalised reading
AREAS FOR RESEARCH:
ELABORATIVE FEEDBACK DESIGN
27
How am
I doing?

28. iREAD
personalised reading
AREAS FOR RESEARCH:
TRY AGAIN
28
How am
I doing?

29. iREAD
personalised reading
• Practice versus learning games
• Prevalent practice to provide verification feedback
• Good practice:
• literacy teaching
• learning goals
• criteria setting
• Areas for research:
• Game play mechanics
• Elaborative feedback – domain issue, age issue
• Try again
IMPLICATIONS
29

30. iREAD
personalised reading
• Appropriate games based feedback for young
children, dyslexia, EFL:
• Domain-specific feedback [GPC, syntax, morphology…] –
which types are most relevant to which domain?
• Feedback for success vs. errors
• How much detail do we include in the feedback we give?
• When feedback should appear - how to balance
elaborative feedback with the flow of game play
OUR FUTURE WORK
30

31. http://iread-project.eu iRead Project @iread_project
iREAD
personalised reading
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 731724. 31
Thank you for your attention!