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