Game Development Reference

In-Depth Information

(AVRG), standard deviation (SD), minimum (Min)

and maximum (Max) values concerning Ergonom-

ics, Quality, Understanding, and Serious games

interest are presented. The data can be analysed

by the students' gender.

Average values between 6.4 and 8.5 (in a scale

ranging from 0 to 10) in the “usability” components

means that, globally, students have found ITS

PLC elegant and easy to use. The quality of the

simulation was particularly well appreciated,

ranking 8.4 in the average. The differences between

boys and girls opinions may seem a bit odd; yet,

they match the conclusions that visual cognition

in 3D electronic games is different for boys and

girls (Ziemek, 2006).

The effective “utility” of a serious game is

hard to judge since it must take into account both

students' and teacher's points of view. For the

teacher, this measure depends partially on the

results obtained by the students, as they reflect

most of the transfer of knowledge and know-how.

In the present case, the results of this group of 37

students are a little bit better than in previous years,

but the difference is not much significant. For the

students, “utility” was judged by the contribution

of ITS PLC to “learning”; in particular, to the

understanding of theoretical concepts. Table 3

resumes students' opinions about the “utility” of

ITS PLC. From there, it is possible to conclude

that, in the average, students have considered that

the software was useful to understand theoretical

concepts.

In spite of the great differences among students

about their previous knowledge in automation, it

would be interesting to investigate the correlation

between students' grades in the module and their

utility measures. Since the inquiries were not

anonymous, this was simple to do. Students' marks

were classified from the best to the worst, and

samples including the best
n
students, ranging

from
n
=7 to
n
=37 have been defined, ignoring

thus reduced size samples. Then, for each sample,

the average of the learning values provided by

those
n
students was calculated. Figure 12 shows

the result.

Table 3. Students judgment about the “utility” of ITS PLC

Question 5: Learning

AVRG

SD

Min

Max

Girls (20)

7,6

2,5

1,4

10

Boys (17)

8

1,8

3,5

10

Total (37)

7,8

2,2

1,4

10

Figure 12. Average learning versus sample size

Search Nedrilad ::

Custom Search