Educational games have been demonstrated to increase engagement and engagement has been demonstrated to increase achievement. Therefore, the researcher attempted to investigate how to better measure engagement and refine the measurement of engagement in this study. To frame the engagement, three domains of engagement – behavioral, cognitive, and emotional– are analyzed in detail to be able to examine the qualities of each type. Moreover, three game attributes –clear goals, immediate feedback, and balance between challenges and skills- are presented and discussed as fundamental features of virtual manipulatives and educational games used in this study to make an impact on students’ engagement. To measure effects of educational games and virtual manipulatives on three domains of engagement, the researcher designed an engagement survey that examines each domain separately with their sub-domains. The Cronbach’s alphas for engagement pre-test and post-test were found .89 and .91 respectively. In this pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental design, four fifth-grade classrooms (N=86) from four schools in southwest Virginia were assigned as three experimental groups and one control group. In the first experimental group, participants played an educational game called Candy Factory and in the second experimental group, the students played another educational game called Pearl Diver on iPod Touch for eight days consecutively, for 20 minutes each. In the third experimental group, participants performed activities with virtual manipulatives, whereas in the control group, participants did paper-and-pencil iii drills for the same duration. All of the groups studied on the same topic, fractions. According to the results of ANCOVA, experimental group students’ engagement scores were found significantly higher than control group students’, F(1,80)=11.568, p=.001. When three domains of engagement were analyzed, significant differences were found among all three domains between experimental and control groups. When the researcher conducted separate analysis for educational games group and virtual manipulatives group, students who played educational games were also found significantly different than control group students in terms of all three domains of engagement and general engagement, F(1, 58)= 8.883, p=.004. In addition to this, students who did activities with virtual manipulatives showed significantly higher engagement than students who did paper-and-pencil drills in control group, F(1, 46)= 7.967, p=.007. Statistical difference was found in emotional and cognitive engagement while the results showed no significant difference in behavioral engagement between virtual manipulatives and control group students. Therefore, the three game attributes were considered as the main determining factors to engage students more to the content. / Ph. D.

The term "serious games" became popularized in 2002 as a result of an initiative to promote the use of games for education, training, and other purposes. Today, many companies are using games for training and development, often with hefty price tags. For example, the development budget for the U.S. Army recruiting game, "America's Army" was estimated at $7 million. Given their increasing use and high costs, it is important to understand whether game-based learning systems perform as billed. Research suggests that games do not always increase learning outcomes over conventional instruction. However, certain game features (e.g., rules/goals, fantasy, challenge) might be more beneficial for increasing learner motivation and learning outcomes than other game features. This study manipulated two specific game features: multimedia-based fantasy (vs. text-based fantasy) and reward (vs. no reward) in a computer-based training program on employment law. Participants (N=169) were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions or to a traditional computer-based training condition. Contrary to hypotheses, the traditional PowerPoint-like version was found to lead to better declarative knowledge outcomes on the learning test than the most game-like version, although no differences were found between conditions on any of the other dependent variables. Participants in all conditions were equally motivated to learn, were equally satisfied with the learning experience, completed an equal number of practice exercises, performed equally well on the declarative knowledge and skill-based practice, and performed equally well on the skill-based learning test. This suggests that adding the "bells and whistles" of game features to a training program won't necessarily improve learner motivation and training outcomes.