It has been recognised by educationalists that each student has a different way of learning and processing information (Kolb, 1984; Felder & Brent, 2005). In the classroom, the benefits derived from delivering learning content in ways that match the learner’s LS have also been identified (Smith & Renzulli, 1984; Price, 2004). As new modes of delivery of learning content such as computer-assisted learning systems (e.g. eLearning) have become increasingly popular, research into these has also identified the benefits of tailoring learning content to learning styles (Miller, 2005).
In terms of eLearning, Connolly and Stansfield (2006) have suggested, eLearning simply replicates the traditional education system (classroom style) and may be overly focussed on method of delivery, i.e. delivering materials over the web rather than on actual teaching and learning, and indeed motivating and engaging the learners in the learning process. In contrast, games, particularly video games, appear to be able to engage people over extensive periods of time and also motivate them to re-play the game repeatedly until they have mastered it (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004). Therefore, some educationalists (for example, Prensky, 2006) have considered games to be a potential platform in supporting learning and have turned their attention to what is now called games-based learning (GBL).
While many GBL applications have been developed in the last two decades, there remains a lack of empirical evidence to support the use of GBL for learning purposes (Connolly et al., 2012). Given that there appears to be genuine advantages for learning outcomes to be derived from the adaptation of teaching materials to learning styles in the classroom and remotely through eLearning, it may also be possible that GBL applications that are adapted to the individual’s LS would improve learning outcomes. Kirriemuir and McFarlane (2004) have suggested that games, unlike classroom learning or eLearning, provide a different type of engagement as they demand constant interaction and generate a ‘flow’ that could assist in engaging learners. It is therefore possible for learners to adopt different leaning styles in GBL than they adopt in other learning settings.
In the next section, adaptivity is presented followed by a review of previous empirical work in adaptive GBL. Section 3 discusses the procedure for the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) including methodology, participants and marking scheme for SQL tests. Section 4 presents the results of the RCT with a particular emphasis on learning effectiveness in relation to learning styles, programme, gender, education level and completion time. Section 5 discusses the results and future research directions.