Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the Effects of Open Models of Learning and Enjoyment in a Digital Learning Game

  • Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital learning games are designed to foster both student learning and enjoyment. Given this goal, an interesting research topic is whether game mechanics that promote learning and those that promote enjoyment have different effects on students’ experience and learning performance. We explored these questions in Decimal Point, a digital learning game that teaches decimal numbers and operations to 5th and 6th graders, through a classroom study with 159 students and two versions of the game. One version encouraged playing and learning through an open learner model (OLM, N = 55), while one encouraged playing for enjoyment through an analogous open enjoyment model (OEM, N = 54). We compared these versions to a control version that is neutral with respect to learning and enjoyment (N = 50). While students learned in all three conditions, our results indicated no significant condition differences in learning outcomes, enjoyment, or engagement. However, the learning-oriented group engaged more in re-practicing, while the enjoyment-oriented group demonstrated more exploration of different mini-games. Further analyses of students’ interactions with the open learner and enjoyment models revealed that students who followed the learner model demonstrated better in-game learning and test performance, while following the enjoyment model did not impact learning outcomes. These findings indicate that emphasizing learning or enjoyment can lead to distinctive game play behaviors, and that open learner models can be helpful in a learning game context. In turn, our analyses have led to preliminary ideas about how to use AI to provide recommendations that are more aligned with students’ dynamic learning and enjoyment states and preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://pslcdatashop.web.cmu.edu/DatasetInfo?datasetId=3086

References

  • Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of intrinsically motivated, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(6), 734–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction, 522–560.

  • Anderman, E. M., & Dawson, H. (2011). Learning with motivation. Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction, 219214.

  • Ang, D., & Mitchell, A. (2019). Representation and frequency of player choice in player-oriented dynamic difficulty adjustment systems. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 589–600.

  • Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, A., Johnson, D., & Wyeth, P. (2016). Crowd-pleaser: Player perspectives of multiplayer dynamic difficulty adjustment in video games. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 326–337.

  • Bateman, C., Lowenhaupt, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011). Player typology in theory and practice. DiGRA Conference.

  • Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodily, R., Kay, J., Aleven, V., Jivet, I., Davis, D., Xhakaj, F., & Verbert, K. (2018). Open learner models and learning analytics dashboards: A systematic review. Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on learning analytics and knowledge, 41–50.

  • Bodily, R., & Verbert, K. (2017). Review of research on student-facing learning analytics dashboards and educational recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 405–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children’s preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 134–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, N., D’Mello, S., Baker, R., Ocumpaugh, J., Shute, V., Ventura, M., Wang, L., & Zhao, W. (2015). Automatic detection of learning-centered affective states in the wild. Proceedings of the 20th international Conference on intelligent user interfaces, 379–388.

  • Botelho, A. F., Baker, R. S., & Heffernan, N. T. (2017). Improving sensor-free affect detection using deep learning. International Conference on artificial intelligence in education, 40–51.

  • Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the game engagement questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 624–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(1–2), 87–110.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P., Hsiao, I.-H., & Folajimi, Y. (2011). QuizMap: Open social student modeling and adaptive navigation support with TreeMaps. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, 71–82.

  • Bull, S. (2020). There are open learner models about! IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies., 13, 425–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, S., Ginon, B., Boscolo, C., & Johnson, M. (2016). Introduction of learning visualisations and metacognitive support in a persuadable open learner model. Proceedings of the sixth international Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 30–39.

  • Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2010). Open learner models. In Advances in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 301–322). Springer.

  • Bull, S., & Kay, J. (2008). Metacognition and open learner models. The 3rd Workshop on Meta-Cognition and Self-Regulated Learning in Educational Technologies, at ITS2008, 7–20.

  • Bunian, S., Canossa, A., Colvin, R., & El-Nasr, M. S. (2018). Modeling individual differences in game behavior using HMM. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1804.00245.

  • Burgers, C., Eden, A., van Engelenburg, M. D., & Buningh, S. (2015). How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, M., Mattheiss, E., Orji, R., Marczewski, A., Hochleitner, W., Lankes, M., Nacke, L. E., & Tscheligi, M. (2015). Personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 811–816.

  • Cajimat, R. T., Errabo, D. D. R., Cascolan, H. M. S., & Prudente, M. S. (2020). Cause analysis utilizing e-assessment on the least mastered contents of K-12 basic education curriculum. Proceedings of the 2020 11th international Conference on E-education, E-business, E-management, and E-learning, 199–203.

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2014). Spacing and interleaving of study and practice. Applying the Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum, 131–141.

  • Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2019). When does interleaving practice improve learning?

  • Charsky, D., & Ressler, W. (2011). “Games are made for fun”: Lessons on the effects of concept maps in the classroom use of computer games. Computers & Education, 56(3), 604–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z.-H., Chou, C.-Y., Deng, Y.-C., & Chan, T.-W. (2007). Active open learner models as animal companions: Motivating children to learn through interacting with my-pet and our-pet. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(2), 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z.-H., Liao, C., Chien, T.-C., & Chan, T.-W. (2011). Animal companions: Fostering children’s effort-making by nurturing virtual pets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 166–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4(4), 253–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croxton, D., & Kortemeyer, G. (2017). Informal physics learning from video games: A case study using gameplay videos. Physics Education, 53(1), 015012.

  • Cruz-Benito, J., Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Therón, R., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2019). Measuring students’ acceptance to AI-driven assessment in eLearning: Proposing a first TAM-based research model. International Conference on human-computer interaction, 15–25.

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990). Harper & row New York.

  • Cut the Rope. (2010). ZeptoLab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_the_Rope

  • Baker, R. S., Gowda, S. M., Wixon, M., Kalka, J., Wagner, A. Z., Salvi, A., Aleven, V., Kusbit, G. W., Ocumpaugh, J., & Rossi, L. (2012). Towards sensor-free affect detection in cognitive tutor algebra. International Educational Data Mining Society.

  • Dascalu, M.-I., Bodea, C.-N., Mihailescu, M. N., Tanase, E. A., & Ordoñez de Pablos, P. (2016). Educational recommender systems and their application in lifelong learning. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(4), 290–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFalco, J. A., Rowe, J. P., Paquette, L., Georgoulas-Sherry, V., Brawner, K., Mott, B. W., Baker, R. S., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Detecting and addressing frustration in a serious game for military training. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 28(2), 152–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deterding, S. (2016). Contextual autonomy support in video game play: A grounded theory. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3931–3943.

  • Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagle, M., Corbett, A., Stamper, J., McLaren, B. M., Baker, R., Wagner, A., MacLaren, B., & Mitchell, A. (2016). Predicting individual differences for learner modeling in intelligent tutors from previous learner activities. Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization, 55–63.

  • Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2013). Digital game-based learning: Impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 67, 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, N. L., Mueller, M. L., Was, C., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2019). Why does interleaving improve math learning? The contributions of discriminative contrast and distributed practice. Memory & Cognition, 47(6), 1088–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frommel, J., Fischbach, F., Rogers, K., & Weber, M. (2018). Emotion-based dynamic difficulty adjustment using parameterized difficulty and self-reports of emotion. Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 163–171.

  • Fu, F.-L., Su, R.-C., & Yu, S.-C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education, 52(1), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Enjoy and learn with educational games: Examining factors affecting learning performance. Computers & Education, 68, 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greipl, S., Ninaus, M., Bauer, D., Kiili, K., & Moeller, K. (2018). A fun-accuracy trade-off in game-based learning. International Conference on games and learning Alliance, 167–177.

  • Guerra, J., Hosseini, R., Somyurek, S., & Brusilovsky, P. (2016). An intelligent interface for learning content: Combining an open learner model and social comparison to support self-regulated learning and engagement. Proceedings of the 21st international Conference on intelligent user interfaces, 152–163.

  • Habgood, M. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagelback, J., & Johansson, S. J. (2009). Measuring player experience on runtime dynamic difficulty scaling in an RTS game. 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games, 46–52.

  • Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player types: A meta-synthesis.

  • Harpstead, E., Richey, J. E., Nguyen, H., & McLaren, B. M. (2019). Exploring the subtleties of agency and indirect control in digital learning games. Proceedings of the 9th international Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, 121–129.

  • Harpstead, E., Zimmermann, T., Nagapan, N., Guajardo, J. J., Cooper, R., Solberg, T., & Greenawalt, D. (2015). What drives people: Creating engagement profiles of players from game log data. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 369–379.

  • Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 98, 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2000). Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 241–250.

  • Hooshyar, D., Yousefi, M., & Lim, H. (2018). Data-driven approaches to game player modeling: A systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(6), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, N., Zhang, J., & Pavlou, P. A. (2009). Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews. Communications of the ACM, 52(10), 144–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, H. G., Van Den Berg, B., Berlanga, A. J., Drachsler, H., Janssen, J., Nadolski, R., & Koper, R. (2007). Combining social-based and information-based approaches for personalised recommendation on sequencing learning activities. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(2), 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isotani, S., McLaren, B. M., & Altman, M. (2010). Towards intelligent tutoring with erroneous examples: A taxonomy of decimal misconceptions. International Conference on intelligent tutoring systems, 346–348.

  • Jasin, H., Othman, M., Zain, N. M., & Osman, M. N. (2017). Proposed framework for combining Gamification elements with open learner model in a collaborative e-learning system for programming course. Computing Research & Innovation (CRINN) Vol 2, October 2017, 377.

  • Jivet, I., Scheffel, M., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2018). License to evaluate: Preparing learning analytics dashboards for educational practice. Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on learning analytics and knowledge, 31–40.

  • Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1246–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshkangini, R., Valetto, G., & Marconi, A. (2017). Generating personalized challenges to enhance the persuasive power of gamification. Personalization in Persuasive Technology Workshop.

  • Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., & Albert, D. (2010). Personalized support, guidance, and feedback by embedded assessment and reasoning: What we can learn from educational computer games. IFIP Human-Computer Interaction Symposium, 142–151.

  • Koedinger, K. R., Baker, R. S., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., Leber, B., & Stamper, J. (2010). A data repository for the EDM community: The PSLC DataShop. Handbook of Educational Data Mining, 43, 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Brunskill, E., Baker, R. S., McLaughlin, E. A., & Stamper, J. (2013). New potentials for data-driven intelligent tutoring system development and optimization. AI Magazine, 34(3), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardou, A., Rigou, M., & Garofalakis, J. D. (2019). Open learner models in smart learning environments. In Cases on Smart Learning Environments (pp. 346–368). IGI global.

  • Li, X., He, S., Dong, Y., Liu, Q., Liu, X., Fu, Y., Shi, Z., & Huang, W. (2010). To create DDA by the approach of ANN from UCT-created data. 2010 international Conference on computer application and system modeling (ICCASM 2010), 8, V8–475.

  • Lin, P., Van Brummelen, J., Lukin, G., Williams, R., & Breazeal, C. (2020). Zhorai: Designing a conversational agent for children to explore machine learning concepts. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(09), 13381–13388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Toprac, P. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, J. D., Koedinger, K., Patel, N., Shodhan, S., Poonwala, N., & Forlizzi, J. L. (2017). Is difficulty overrated? The effects of choice, novelty and suspense on intrinsic motivation in educational games. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1028–1039.

  • Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2017). Enhancing learning outcomes through self-regulated learning support with an open learner model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 55–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2016). Mastery-oriented shared student/system control over problem selection in a linear equation tutor. International Conference on intelligent tutoring systems, 90–100.

  • Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2013). Supporting students’ self-regulated learning with an open learner model in a linear equation tutor. International Conference on artificial intelligence in education, 219–228.

  • Maass, J. K., Pavlik, P. I., & Hua, H. (2015). How spacing and variable retrieval practice affect the learning of statistics concepts. International Conference on artificial intelligence in education, 247–256.

  • Malacria, S., Scarr, J., Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., & Grossman, T. (2013). Skillometers: Reflective widgets that motivate and help users to improve performance. Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 321–330.

  • McLaren, B. M., Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Forlizzi, J. (2017). A computer-based game that promotes mathematics learning more than a conventional approach. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 7(1), 36–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mekler, E. D., Bopp, J. A., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2014). A systematic review of quantitative studies on the enjoyment of digital entertainment games. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 927–936.

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H., Harpstead, E., Wang, Y., & McLaren, B. M. (2018). Student agency and game-based learning: A study comparing low and high agency. International Conference on artificial intelligence in education, 338–351.

  • Nussbaumer, A., Kravcik, M., Renzel, D., Klamma, R., Berthold, M., & Albert, D. (2014). A framework for facilitating self-regulation in responsive open learning environments. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1407.5891.

  • Osman, K., & Bakar, N. A. (2012). Educational computer games for Malaysian classrooms: Issues and challenges. Asian Social Science, 8(11), 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, A., Symeonidis, P., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2012). A generalized taxonomy of explanations styles for traditional and social recommender systems. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 24(3), 555–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papamitsiou, Z., Economides, A. A., Pappas, I. O., & Giannakos, M. N. (2018). Explaining learning performance using response-time, self-regulation and satisfaction from content: An fsQCA approach. Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on learning analytics and knowledge, 181–190.

  • Paquette, L., Baker, R. Sj., Sao Pedro, M. A., Gobert, J. D., Rossi, L., Nakama, A., & Kauffman-Rogoff, Z. (2014). Sensor-free affect detection for a simulation-based science inquiry learning environment. International Conference on intelligent tutoring systems, 1–10.

  • Patel, R., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). When to block versus interleave practice? Evidence against teaching fraction addition before fraction Multiplication. CogSci.

  • Peddycord-Liu, Z., Cody, C., Kessler, S., Barnes, T., Lynch, C. F., & Rutherford, T. (2017). Using serious game analytics to inform digital curricular sequencing: What math objective should students play next? Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 195–204.

  • Pekrun, R. (2005). Progress and open problems in educational emotion research. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 497–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittman, C. (2013). Teaching with portals: The intersection of video games and physics education. Learning Landscapes, 6(2), 341–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., O’Keefe, P. A., Homer, B. D., Case, J., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1050–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. C., & MacFarlane, S. (2006). Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 81–88.

  • Read, J. C., MacFarlane, S., & Casey, C. (2002). Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children’s fun. Interaction Design and Children, 2, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. W. (2007). New media resistance: Barriers to implementation of computer video games in the classroom. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, J. E., Zhang, J., Das, R., Andres-Bray, J. M., Scruggs, R., Mogessie, M., Baker, R. S., & McLaren, B. M. (under review). Gaming and confrustion explain learning advantages for a math digital learning game.

  • Rohrer, D. (2012). Interleaving helps students distinguish among similar concepts. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 355–367.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampayo-Vargas, S., Cope, C. J., He, Z., & Byrne, G. J. (2013). The effectiveness of adaptive difficulty adjustments on students’ motivation and learning in an educational computer game. Computers & Education, 69, 452–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, A., & Cooper, S. (2018). Meet your match rating: Providing skill information and choice in player-versus-level matchmaking. Proceedings of the 13th international Conference on the foundations of digital games, 1–8.

  • Shute, V., Ke, F., Almond, R. G., Rahimi, S., Smith, G., & Lu, X. (2019). How to increase learning while not decreasing the fun in educational games. Learning Science: Theory, Research, and Practice, 327–357.

  • Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6).

  • Stacey, K., Helme, S., & Steinle, V. (2001). Confusions between decimals, fractions and negative numbers: A consequence of the mirror as a conceptual metaphor in three different ways. PME Conference, 4, 4–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, C., & Duncan, S. (2008). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 530–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tintarev, N., & Masthoff, J. (2011). Designing and evaluating explanations for recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook (pp. 479–510). Springer.

  • Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. D. (2007). What research has to say about designing computer games for learning. Educational Technology, 20–29.

  • Tondello, G. F., & Nacke, L. E. (2019). Player characteristics and video game preferences. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, 365–378.

  • Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443–463.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Vallat, R. (2018). Pingouin: Statistics in python. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(31), 1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28, 695–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause Review, 41(2), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2014). Advanced technologies for personalized learning, instruction, and performance. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 425–437). Springer.

  • VanLehn, K. (2016). Regulative loops, step loops and task loops. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., Nguyen, H., Harpstead, E., Stamper, J., & McLaren, B. M. (2019). How does order of gameplay impact learning and enjoyment in a digital learning game? International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 518–531.

  • Wardrip-Fruin, N., Mateas, M., Dow, S., & Sali, S. (2009). Agency reconsidered. DiGRA Conference.

  • Wechselberger, U. (2013). Learning and enjoyment in serious gaming-contradiction or complement? DiGRA Conference, 26–29.

  • Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (2013). Principles of research in behavioral science. Routledge.

  • Xie, H., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Wang, C.-C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education, 140, 103599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, M., Zhai, Y., Guo, Y., Lv, P., Li, Y., Wang, M., & Zhou, B. (2019). Personalized training through Kinect-based games for physical education. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 62, 394–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Simeoni, Z., Tran, M., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yudelson, M. V., Koedinger, K. R., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Individualized bayesian knowledge tracing models. International Conference on artificial intelligence in education, 171–180.

  • Zagal, J. P., Björk, S., & Lewis, C. (2013). Dark patterns in the design of games.

  • Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2021). A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where every stay is above average. Marketing Letters, 32(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohaib, M. (2018). Dynamic difficulty adjustment (DDA) in computer games: A review. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NSF Award #DRL-1238619. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of NSF. Thanks to Jodi Forlizzi, Rosta Farzan, Michael Mogessie Ashenafi, Scott Herbst, Craig Ganoe, Darlan Santana Farias, Rick Henkel, Patrick B. McLaren, Grace Kihumba, Kim Lister, Kevin Dhou, John Choi, and Jimit Bhalani, all of whom made important contributions to the design of, development of and early experimentation with the Decimal Point game.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Xinying Hou, Huy Anh Nguyen, J. Elizabeth Richey, Erik Harpstead, Jessica Hammer & Bruce M. McLaren

Authors
  1. Xinying Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huy Anh Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Elizabeth Richey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erik Harpstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jessica Hammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bruce M. McLaren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinying Hou.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hou, X., Nguyen, H.A., Richey, J.E. et al. Assessing the Effects of Open Models of Learning and Enjoyment in a Digital Learning Game. Int J Artif Intell Educ 32, 120–150 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00250-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00250-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation