Educational Games Research

Study: DS Neither Better Nor Worse than Paper for Memory Games

Game researchers are talking about a new study out of France regarding Nintendo’s Brain Training line of mind-stimulating games for the DS. Alain Lieury over at University of Rennes, Brittany, conducted a study of 67 ten year old players. The students were divided into four groups and given pre and post tests on memory and mathematics. Two groups used the Nintendo DS games for seven weeks. Another group used traditional paper puzzles like Soduko while the fourth group was offered no intervention. Adam Sage with The Times Online details the results:

Researchers found that children using the Nintendo DS system failed to show any significant improvement in memory tests. They did do 19 per cent better in mathematics – but so did the pencil-and-paper group, while the fourth group did 18 per cent better. When it came to memorising, the pencil-and-paper group recorded a 33 per cent improvement, while the Nintendo children were 17 per cent worse. In logic tests the Nintendo children registered a 10 per cent improvement, as did the pencil-and-paper group. The children who had no specific training improved 20 per cent.

The variety of results comes as no surprise. Researchers have long known that all things being equal, the media in which content is delivered does not affect test results. For instance, if one student attended a lecture in person while another student watched a video recording of the same lecture and a third student read a transcript of the lecture, then all things being equal the three students will likely offer identical answers when queried on the lecture’s content. The reason for this is, the content is identical despite the different delivery methods (Clark’s delivery truck metaphor).

Therefore, it seems reasonable that the same or similar exercises performed on digital devices will yield similar benefits for students as exercises performed on paper. Other variables play into the equation, however, when technology is used. For instance, a computing device on which to perform the exercises may offer a novelty effect for students, resulting in an initial increase in exercises performed. After the novelty wears off, the number of exercises between groups may level out. On the other hand, a program may be poorly written so that students using it obtain an inaccurate representation of the facts leading to lower scores in the post test.

In short, it does not appear this study either hurts or helps the notion of improving cognitive abilities through the use of handheld games. However, it can be portrayed negatively in the press since it does not fully support the notion. Anyhow, according to Sage’s news report the study will be detailed in Prof. Lieury’s new book, Stimulate Your Neurones, (his spelling) due out soon.

References:
Sage, A. (2009, January 26). Nintendo brain-trainer ‘no better than pencil and paper’. The Times Online. [Online.] Retrieved January 30, 2009 from http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article5587314.ece

Tags: Adam Sage, Alain Lieury, memory games, Soduko, Times Online, University of Rennes

Brain Science, DS, Game Discussion, Game Studies, Nintendo, Research, Serious Games, Video Game Research | John Rice | January 31, 2009 10:39 am

No Comments

By xellex, February 1, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

cool site! really love to read here! thanks for the info…
By ajsal, February 2, 2009 @ 2:32 am

A very informative report. Thanks for sharing.
By Dr. C., February 26, 2009 @ 10:52 am

Looks like one of the study groups that may have been allowed to select their tool had better results than the ones whom had their tools selected for them. This seems to support the current literature on motivational and engagement studies and the impact on work/teaching and learning.

How often do we walk into a new job or classroom and have others select our tools (fairly common these days).

Great site John!
By Leena Kapoor, March 5, 2009 @ 11:21 am

Interesting findings. Apparently the paper-pencil group and the no training group has done better than the nintendo game group. I wonder if it is because the visual medium does not challenge the human brain as much as other media which stimulates the imagination and hence creates more nerve connections in the brain.
By Sulan Dun, March 6, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

Re: “Researchers have long known that all things being equal, the media in which content is delivered does not affect test results.”

That may be a general rule, but I believe there may be exceptions. I think the issue here is that computer games often try to teach things which are already well-taught using traditional media, and so, of course, the results aren’t terribly different with or without the computer. On my website, FunBasedLearning.com, I have tried to find things are are not easy to teach using traditional media (ex. balancing chemical equations which is hard to teach lecturing and with worksheets) that I think a computer game can teach better. And I believe it is working and working well as I get fan mail from kids who say the program finally worked for them after extra teacher and tutor help couldn’t help them understand it. The computer is a tool, just like, say a screwdriver. If you try to use a screwdriver for a job that requires a hammer, and bang in nails with it, the results are going to be the same as or worse than the hammer. But if you have a screw that the hammer can’t bang in – the screwdriver works great in that case. It’s all about the nature of what you’re trying to teach.
By John Rice, March 22, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

Ms. Dun:

I think our views are not so far apart. Content may be the same, but some types of media are more efficient at transmitting the content. For instance, a researcher once indicated it is easier to learn bird calls when you can hear them rather than just reading about them.

Looks like your products are offering students a more efficient way to learn certain objectives. This is one of my (along with others) longstanding beliefs regarding the benefits of videogames in education: they offer more efficient ways of learning some things than do traditional media.