Mobile learning with a mobile game: design and motivational effects
By Gerhard Schwabe, Christoph Göth. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2005
377 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Information Systems
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ed8d9b53aac88983a87f539d24614a9d094c4ad9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
- Sanne F. Akkerman
- Geert Ten Dam
- Jantina Huizenga
- Wilfried Admiraal
- Hirokazu Kato
- Takafumi Taketomi
- Ana Javornik
In Information Systems
- Sanne F. Akkerman
- Geert Ten Dam
- Jantina Huizenga
- Wilfried Admiraal
- Gerhard Schwabe
- Christoph Göth
- Dirk Frohberg
- Jacobijn A. C. Sandberg
Citations in the corpus
- Mobile Learning projects - a critical analysis of the state of the art (2009, background): “The mExplorer (Schwabe & Göth 2005b) started in 2003 as part of the European Union (EU) project, MOBIlearn.”
- Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with fifth graders (2011, background): “Schwabe and Göth (2005) describe the design and analysis of a hide-and-seek mobile game exploring the opportunities to support learning through an orientation game in a university setting.”
- Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game (2009, background): “That is, we specifically examined motivation for the subject of History, whereas researchers define motivation in terms of fun and/or engagement (e.g. Schwabe & Göth 2005).”
- The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning (2011, positive): “Games in education seem to be excellent ways to combine meaningful learning with fun (cf., Author, 2009a, 2009b; Gee, 2003; Rickard & Oblinger, 2003; Schwabe & Göth, 2005; Shaffer, 2006; Shaffer, Squire, Halverson, & Gee, 2005).”
- Augmented Reality Learning Experiences: Survey of Prototype Design and Evaluation (2014, background): “[93] ease of use, intention to use, perceived correctness and responsiveness of system Crafted their own questionnaire”