skip to main content
10.1145/2282338.2282398acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Optimizing adaptivity in educational games

Published:29 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

One of the most promising ways that games for learning can improve education is by adapting to each child individually. However, it is often difficult to instrument game mechanics so that they can be controlled to promote learning. Furthermore, even if this parameterization is possible, there is little knowledge of how to generate adaptive level progressions that optimize engagement and learning. We have taken the first step towards enabling adaptivity in an educational game for teaching fractions through the automatic generation of levels in a way that allows for multiple axes of mathematical and spatial difficulty to be controlled independently. We propose to expand on this work by developing a framework for representing conceptual knowledge. This framework will keep track of each player's knowledge, generate game levels that are tailored to the player's knowledge and skill level, and create progressions of these levels that allow players to learn new concepts through experimentation. We will compare multiple adaptive concept sequencing algorithms by evaluating their effects on player learning and engagement through multivariate tests with tens of thousands of players.

References

  1. E. Andersen, Y.-E. Liu, R. Snider, R. Szeto, S. Cooper, and Z. Popović. On the harmfulness of secondary game objectives. In FDG '11: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. E. Andersen, Y.-E. Liu, R. Snider, R. Szeto, and Z. Popović. Placing a value on aesthetics in online casual games. In CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. E. Andersen, E. O'Rourke, Y.-E. Liu, R. Snider, J. Lowdermilk, D. Truong, S. Cooper, and Z. Popović. The impact of tutorials on games of varying complexity. In CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. D. Gloria, and L. Primavera. Adaptive experience engine for serious games. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intellig. and AI in Games, 1(4):264--280, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. A. T. Corbett and J. R. Anderson. Knowledge tracing: Modelling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact., 4(4):253--278, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. M. Csikszentmihalyi. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J. Dormans. Adventures in level design: generating missions and spaces for action adventure games. In PCGames '10: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games, pages 1--8, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dreambox Learning. Dreambox Learning K-2 Math. PC Game, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. P. Gee. Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 8:15--23, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. C. Grappiolo, Y.-G. Cheong, J. Togelius, R. Khaled, and G. N. Yannakakis. Towards player adaptivity in a serious game for conflict resolution. In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, VS-GAMES '11, pages 192--198, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. K. R. Koedinger, J. R. Anderson, W. H. Hadley, and M. A. Mark. Intelligent Tutoring Goes to School in the Big City. Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on AIED, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. N. Peirce, O. Conlan, and V. Wade. Adaptive educational games: Providing non-invasive personalised learning experiences. In Digital Games and Intelligent Toys Based Education, 2008 Second IEEE International Conference on, pages 28--35, nov. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. M. Smith, E. Andersen, M. Mateas, and Z. Popović. A case study of expressively constrainable level design automation tools for a puzzle game. In FDG '12: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. M. Smith and M. Mateas. Answer set programming for procedural content generation: A design space approach. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intellig. and AI in Games, 3(3):187--200, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Optimizing adaptivity in educational games

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader