Blog

Bavelier, Green, Pouget & Schrater (2012) reviewed empirical research on the relationship between playing action video games and brain plasticity and learning. Table 7 summarizes these findings and provides a better understanding of the effect of playing videogames on different aspects of the cognitive functions of the players.

Table 7. Research on the effect on cognition of playing video games 

(Adapted from Bavelier, Green, Pouget & Schrater, 2012)

Research findings provide substantial indication that playing videogames enhances a number of different aspects of the cognitive functions of the players. Videogame players have better task switching and multi-tasking abilities than non-videogame players; they outperformed non-videogame players on tasks requiring mental rotation and spatial cognition; videogame players employed executive strategies to reduce the effects of distraction, and to suppress irrelevant information, especially in highly complex environments; they displayed enhanced resources and demonstrated a greater flexibility in resources allocation and a wiser use of these resources. These enhanced cognitive functions appear to contribute to the development of the learning to learn ability and to promote the transfer of learning.

A recent review of research findings on the effect of playing videogames on the cognitive ability of older adults revealed that “Not only do video games improve specific cognitive domains for older adults, evidence suggests they can affect global cognitive functioning as well” even when most of these video games were not originally design to improve cognitive skills (Kueider et al., 2012). Kueider & al.’s findings provide further evidence that videogame playing enhances many of the same aspects of the cognitive functions as those identified in Bavelier et al.’s review cited above. Table 8 summarizes Kueider & al.’s findings.

Table 8. Research on the effects of playing video games on cognition of older adults (50 to 86 years of age).

Adapted from (Kueider, Parisi, Gross, & Rebok, 2012b, p. 7)

In summary, research findings seem to indicate that playing videogames enhances the global cognition of older adults and slows their cognitive decline. Findings also suggest that the older adult video game players improve their reaction time, enhance their processing speed and other cognitive functions such as memory, executive function, and visuo-spatial abilities.

A number of companies have developed video game training programs designed at improving the cognitive abilities of older adults (Green & Bavelier, 2008). These training programs require the users to perform tasks “that are highly similar in content and structure with tests used on psychological assessment scales” (C . S. Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 7). According Green & Bavelier, these types of training “have shown clear improvements in abilities specific to those trained as well as maintenance of those gains from 3 months to 5 years” (p. 7); however they added that there is a lack of empirical evidence on the transfer of those skills in real life situations. Bavelier et al. (2012) came to similar conclusions: “changes in knowledge produce benefits only to the extent to which new tasks share structure with action video games. No benefits are expected in tasks that share no such structure” (p. 410), even though it is well recognized that “some mechanisms of learning appear to be shared across domains” (Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 8).

The difference between videogame playing and cognitive training is that in video game playing, the user is usually engaged in more than one cognitive function at once; however cognitive training programs are mostly designed to train users in one specific cognitive domain at a time (Green & Bavelier, 2008). The separation of domains for training “leads to faster learning during the acquisition phase, yet it can be detrimental during the retention phase, leading to less robust retention and to lesser transfer across tasks” (Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 7). On the other hand, these authors point out that “variability in learning experience will result in less extensive learning during the acquisition phase but larger transfer to new tasks during retention tests (Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 8)”. In the same way, “tasks that require very low-level representations will show less generalization of learning than those that rely on higher levels of representation” (C S Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 8). It is important to keep in mind that Green & Bavelier cautioned that this theory still needs to be tested.

Kueider at al. (2012) performed a review of research findings (a) on the effect of cognitive training on the cognition of older adults (Table 9) and (b) on the effect of training using neuropsychological software on the cognition of older adults (Table 10). It is interesting to note that research on these two types of training come to similar findings and that these findings are in line with those on the effect of playing video games on the cognition of older adults. 

Table 9. The effect of cognitive training on the cognition of older adults 

Adapted from (Kueider et al., 2012b, p. 4, 5)

Table 10. The effect of training using neuropsychological software on cognition of older adults. 

Adapted from (Kueider et al., 2012b, p. 6)

Technology is impacting what, where, when and how we learn. Easy access to videos, electronic and interactive games, laptop, tablets and cell phones plays an important role in formal and informal learning. The use of gaming for learning and assessment has increased in recent years and research is starting to investigate its benefits and potential drawbacks. Claims have been made that digital games can “teach and reinforce skills important for future jobs such as collaboration, problem-solving, and communication” (Larson McClarty, Orr, Frey, Dolan, Vassileva, McVay, 2012, p. 4). According to the Federation of American Scientists, the Entertainment Software Association and the National Science Foundation, employers are seeking “many of the skills required for success in games such as thinking, planning, learning, and technical skills”” (Larson McClarty, K., Orr, A., Frey, P. M., Dolan, R. P., Vassileva, V., McVay, 2012, p. 4). Given the apparent importance of gaming in learning, this section of the review provides a brief definition of games and analyzes research evidence on the use of digital games in learning.

Games are usually described using some typical key words such as “enjoyment, fun, rules, systems, challenge, goals, interaction” and are usually opposite to “work”. Salem and Zimmerman (2004) define games as a “system in which players engage in artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (p. 80) in (Larson McClarty, K., Orr, A., Frey, P. M., Dolan, R. P., Vassileva, V., McVay, 2012, p. 5). According to Larson McClarty & al. (2012) digital games can be described in the same terms with the added technology dimension. These authors examined the empirical evidence behind five claims that have been made regarding the benefits of digital games for learning:

1. Games are built on sound learning principles;
2. Games provide personalized learning opportunities;
3. Games provide more engagement for the learner;
4. Games teach 21^st century skills; and
5. Games provide an environment for authentic and relevant assessment” (Larson McClarty & al., 2012, p.7).

Their findings indicated that most studies were based on data gathered from students’ and teachers’ surveys and that results “consist of descriptive analysis of the impact games have on students’ attitude towards the subject being taught and their motivation to attend and engage in class” (p. 21). These authors argued that only a few studies investigated the relationship between games and academic performance and “their results are mixed because of the difference in definitions and methodologies” (p. 22). Larson McClarty & al. (2012) stress the need to identify an agreed upon set of features and to create definitions and models for the different games attributes so that a more coherent research approach can be taken to measure the efficacy of games. They added that unless research can produce clear evidence of the impact of the use of games for learning, games will continue to be considered solely as motivational device.

Summarizing the benefits of games in learning Larson McClarty & al. indicated that “what is most unique about digital games – as opposed to any other learning innovation – is the combination of motivation, engagement, adaptivity, simulation, collaboration, and data collection that can’t be achieved at scale any other way” (p. 22). They concluded that games seem to increase higher-order thinking skills and that “in general, the research supports that digital games can facilitate learning” (p. 23).