Evaluating the effect of a blended collaborative/game-based learning strategy for skill reinforcement on undergraduate engineering

Figures & data

Figure 1. Implementation of the gaming tool in chemical engineering students (Source: prepared by author)

Table 1. Description of the games developed by the 5th semester students.

ID	NAME	OBJECTIVE	Players	INSPIRED BY
BARAJA_1	Taylorfun	Placing all the player’s chips on the predetermined functions on the table, before their competitors	2–3 or 4 players	Solitaire®
			Play in pairs
BARAJA_2	Taylor series	Not having any cards left after completing the approximation of the functions previously placed on the table	2–5 players	Uno®/Solitaire®
BARAJA_3	Taylor-Q	Manage to run out of chips, completing the different series.	2–5 players	Rummi-Q®
BARAJA_4	Idiot	Complete the Taylor series by flipping one card, showing it to the other participants	4 players	Idiot
BARAJA_5	Optimizing One	Running out of cards when completing the approximation of the functions previously placed on the table	2–5 players	Uno ®

Figure 2. Games designed by the students: (a) BARAJA_1 (Taylorfun) (b) BARAJA_2 (Taylor series) (c) BARAJA 3 (Taylor-Q) (d) BARAJA_4 (idiot) (e) BARAJA_5 (Optimizing One).

Table 2. ANOVA between PRE-TRAD-01 and PRE-GAME-01 groups.

	Degrees of Freedom	Sum of Squares	Average Squares	F value	P value
Strategy	1	0.09	0.027	0.021	0.880
Residuals	78	47.83	1.283

Source: Prepared by the authors.Source: Prepared by the authors.

Table 3. ANOVA for POST-TRAD-01 and POST-GAME-01 groups.

	Degrees of Freedom	Sum of Squares	Average Squares	F value	P value
Strategy	1	47.42	47.42	25.59	2.78E-6
Residuals	77	142.65	1.85

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Figure 3. Assessment of the analysis characteristics of the TRAD-01 and GAME-01 groups. 1. Smaller gap between theory and practice, 2. Participation, 3. Innovation, 4. Decision-making, 5. Written communication, 6. Creativity, 7. Goal management, 8. Intellectual stimulation, 9. Motivation, 10. Interpersonal communication, 11. Conflict management, 12. Negotiation, 13. Leadership, 14. Innovative learning, 15. Appropriate time and 16. Good learning strategy (Source: Prepared by the authors).

Figure 4. Comparison between PRE-TRAD-01 and PRE-GAME-01 groups: 1- The student does not remember how to solve the problem; 3 The student slightly remembers how to implement the series with wrong results. 5- The student clearly remembers how to apply the series to the proposed problem and answers correctly (Source: Prepared by the authors).

Figure 5. Traditional strategy: comparison of the PRE-TRAD-01 and POST-TRAD-01 groups. 1- The student does not remember how to solve the problem; 3 The student slightly remembers how to implement the series with wrong results. 5- The student clearly remembers how to apply the series to the proposed problem and answers correctly (Source: Prepared by the authors).

Figure 6. Game strategy, comparison of the PRE-GAME-01 and POST-GAME-01 groups. 1- The student does not remember how to solve the problem; 3 The student slightly remembers how to implement the series with wrong results. 5- The student clearly remembers how to apply the series to the proposed problem and answers correctly (Source: Prepared by the authors).