Tews, T; Skulmoski, G; Langston, C and Patching, A (2020) Innovation in project management education: Let's get serious! Construction Economics and Building, 20(3), pp. 124-141. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
More educators use serious games (e.g., games where the primary objective is learning rather than enjoyment) to enhance learning due to benefits such as improved understanding and engagement. However, using serious games within project management education is not well understood. The aim of this research is to investigate project management serious games in higher education: i) determine the extent of gamification in PMI-accredited project management programs, and ii) survey university students about their experiences playing project management serious games. Two separate mixed-method studies reveal insights about serious games in higher education and where innovations may be leveraged. Traditional statistics were used to analyze quantitative data, and coding was used to analyze the qualitative data. The results from a global survey of ten PMI-accredited university programs suggest that serious games are embryonic but promising. A case study at one university reveals that students enjoy learning through games but caution against using games to formally assess students' learning. The paper concludes with recommendations for further research and development.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | game-based learning; gamification; serious games; simulation |
| Index terms: | gamification, university student, research and development, program, survey, statistics, project management, higher education, case study |
| Subjects: | mathematical modelling, data collection methods, educational institutions, project management theory and practice, user engagement, software systems, curriculum design, research management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Education, Research Practice, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here