Now this one is a real suprise. Everyone assumes that learning that is fun delivers better results right? There’s research to support it, e-learning games are very constructivist, they motivate learners more effectively than boring old traditional learning approaches, they very hot, very now! But…

A new study suggests that whilst fun learning games are motivational for lower achievers, high achievers may percieve ‘fun’ learning as a less credible guage of excellence and as a result it undercuts their desire to excel.

In the study, participants were subliminally primed with high-achievement words (e.g. excel, compete, win) and then asked to complete a word-search puzzle.  But instead of describing the task as a serious test of verbal proficiency, the researchers called it “fun.” In the results, high achievers did worse than low achievers. Yet in earlier experiments when the test was described as serious, they did significantly better than the low achievers.

This doesnt discount the learning value of games, but it definately serves as a warning as to how we should frame the experience for learners before they begin. Perhaps the ‘fun’ learning activities should be described as serious and important learning, even if they are fun.

I wonder what the physchographics of game (xbox, playstation etc) players are in temrs of high achievers and low achievers. Do high achievers readily apply their desire to excel to games when they percieve it as just a recreational activity? Anyway interesting stuff.