Investigation of The Impact of Computer-presented Brain Training Games on Students Learning

The main focus of this study is to see if the use of computer-presented brain training games done on young students would harness their brain’s overall neuroplastic potential and improve learning as a whole. The experiment was performed on a study sample that consisted of 372 second graders. The variables in the experiment were the four computer-presented brain-training games that had been designed with the intent to increase “executive function” in the students. The reason that the age group of second graders was chosen was because evidence proves that executive function skills when kids are between the ages of five and seven, foretell what their future academic success should entail. The four computer-presented brain-training games begin more simply in the first game, with training concepts of focus and attention, and then as the following games proceed, new algorithms are used to train other aspects of brain functions.

This experiment was designed with the intention of obtaining data on both short term and long term effects of computer-presented brain-training on math and reading performance and learning. It looks to address two questions, the first being can a brain training game immediately before a math or reading curricular content game improve performance on the cognitive priming? The second question being, does the brain training over several months increase performance on school-administered standardized tests of math and reading achievement beyond improvement in comparison classes that did not do the brain training?

Variables within the experiment including the four different types of brain games, as well as the areas of math and reading in which they were intended to improve children’s learning within, were conceptually and operationally defined. They did this by explaining the four games and that the complexity in goal of the game increased as the games continued, as well as stating that it is a known face that a prior stimulation will in fact alter the information processing of the brain creating an intensified stimulus response, as opposed to the “task-related visual stimulus” which delays responses to stimuli. After identifying this, it was then hypothesized that brain training would improve neurocognitive function, and the more brain training per week, the better.

The null hypothesis being that training will make no difference in academic performance. The reason for addressing this question being that it is vital to better understand how young children can process and absorb material over time, so that academic institutions are able to implement these tools in order to increase learning across the board.

The sample size used in this study consisted of three hundred and seventy-two second graders in thirteen classrooms in Fairfax County Virginia public schools. Classes within each school were randomly assigned to either the brain training plus the reading CC content game (202 student) or the brain training plus the math CC content game. Three additional schools with ten second grade classes served as controls, and did neither of the games. They avoided racial and socio economic biases by sourcing students from schools that were nearly demographically identical. This was done to show that the research is credible and not focused on only high-achieving students and excluding anyone of lower status. “Game 1 was designed to train focused attention, response inhibition, cognitive flexibility but working memory and multiple simultaneous attention. ”

There are two versions of game 1, in one students use the mouse to track a moving light and click it when the light turns red, and in another the target switches randomly between red and blue, and clicking blue causes for a slow of the game. In the second version, a magic lens jumps from one moving crate to another showing whether or not there is a monkey inside of it, if there is the child is to click it in order to “release” the monkey. The second game involves a pirate throwing things from a ches into the air, and children are to click items in target categories before they disappear from the screen. Game three is trained pattern recognition, and in the game the children are shown three objects in a row and have to pick one of three addition objects in order to complete the pattern, it begins simple and grows more complex as the game continues on. In the fourth game, the focus is on trained spatial working memory in which students have to recall the order in which the group of pirates raise their hands and then the placed in a campsite visited by animals. Directions for the games are presented on screen and through headphones.

Brain training exercises were also put into place that correlated with games like “Simon Says”. The curricular content games (CC) were designed for this experiment as well, for both reading and math games. The reading game required the students to make word chains with correct links defined by similarity of vowel sounds, and matches increase from simple to complex. The math game was created through sets of three circles connected by lines, a large circle containing a “whole” and the smaller containing its “parts”. It tested them in addition, subtraction, and concepts of ten’s and hundred’s. There was a pre-test and post-test given to all of the test subjects. Children in the game group did the brain training and CC computer games three or four times per week from February to June of 2015. Results showed that children who participated in the brain training games increased their scores significantly between the two test dates. Therefore, doing the video game before a math or reading learning games increased scores on curricular content games.

The data collected showed different cognitive priming effects for the four games, with the math game having the highest scores following the categories brain training game, as well as that the students who played the brain training games over a 12-16 week period showed greater improvement in school-administered exams of math and reading compared to the control group.

I would agree with the authors summary of these findings, they were backed by charted data and factual evidence to support the findings. The limitations within the study are mainly with the four types of brain training games since they were similar, yet had significantly different priming effects. I hypothesize that this may have been due to the fact that the experiment had high internal validity. The author also recognizes that another limitation is due to the absence of an active control in evaluation of the far-transfer effects of the achievement math and reading exams. It is my observation that another possible limitation within the study was whether or not students were all at the same mathematical or reading level, as well as were all the students good test takers, and would there be a way to measure there overall successes without an exam?

Overall, the study does provide data that shows brain training games can in fact improve cognitive priming among young students. It also provides data that shows a short brain cognitive priming game can enhance performance on the curricular content game. This experiment opens the door to the creations of potential brain enhancing games as tools for children and students everywhere to improve their cognitive as well as learning capabilities, which could enhance learning globally.