Abstract
Years of research has demonstrated the efficacy of signals as scaffolds in multimedia and as visual cues in physics diagrams. The design principles for integrating such signals into digital games for learning has not been explored in similar depth. An experimental study was conducted with sixty-nine middle schoolers to assess the efficacy of using a signaling approach to direct learners’ attention to key conceptual elements within a multi-representational Newtonian physics game, SURGE Symbolic. One condition received signals integrated into the gaming environment, while one did not. Analyses demonstrated that students receiving signals scored significantly worse on posttests than non-signaled students and demonstrated less efficient gaming behaviors beyond the levels that integrated the signals. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the design principles might be refined to leverage the proven affordances of signaling.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Adams, D. M., & Clark, D. B. (2014). Integrating self-explanation functionality into a complex game environment: Keeping gaming in motion. Computers and Education, 73, 149–159.
Adams, D. M., Clark, D. B., & Virk, S. S. (2018). Worked examples in physics games: Challenges in integrating proven cognitive scaffolds into game mechanics. In D. Cvetković (Ed.), Simulations and gaming (pp. 61–73). Rijeka: InTECH Open. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72152. http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/worked-examples-in-physics-games-challenges-in-integratingproven-cognitive-scaffolds-into-game-mech
Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
Ainsworth, S. E. (2014). The multiple representation principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 464–486). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brasell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385–395.
Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51–61.
Clark, D. B., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., & Killingsworth, S. (2015). Disciplinary integration in digital games for science learning. International STEM Education Journal, 2(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0014-4. http://www.stemeducationjournal.com/content/pdf/s40594-014-0014-4.pdf
Clark, D. B., Sengupta, P., & Virk, S. S. (2016a). Disciplinarily-integrated games: Generalizing across domains and model types. In D. Russell & J. Laffey (Eds.), Handbook of research on gaming trends in P-12 education (pp. 178–194). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9629-7.
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2016b). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465431558206http://rer.sagepub.com/content/86/1/79.full.pdf+html
Clark, D. B., Virk, S. S., Barnes, J., & Adams, D. M. (2016c). Self-explanation and digital games: Adaptively increasing abstraction. Computers & Education, 103, 28–43. Online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.010.
Clark, D. B., Virk, S. S., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., Krinks, K., Killingsworth, S., Kinnebrew, J., Biswas, G., Barnes, J., Minstrell, J., Nelson, B., Slack, K., & D’Angelo, C. M. (2016d). SURGE’s evolution deeper into formal representations: The siren’s call of popular game-play mechanics. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1), 107–146. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/19359
Craig, S., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428.
De Koning, B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 731–746.
diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.
Dufour-Janvier, B., Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale: LEA.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Research Council Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 209–249.
Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics. New York: Springer.
Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the FCI. The Physics Teacher, 33, 502–506.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329–345.
Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook on research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, 6th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Litchfield, D., & Ball, L. J. (2011). Using another’s gaze as an explicit aid to insight problem solving. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(4), 649–656.
Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402–412.
Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 225–244.
Lusk, M., & Atkinson, R. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 747–764.
Madsen, A. M., Larson, A. M., Loschky, L. C., & Rebello, N. S. (2012). Differences in visual attention between those who correctly and incorrectly answer physics problems. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010122.
Madsen, A., Rouinfar, A., Larson, A. M., Loschky, L. C., & Rebello, N. S. (2013). Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020104.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377.
Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240408.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 233–262). New York: Springer.
Rouinfar, A., Agra, E., Larson, A. M., Rebello, N. S., & Loschky, L. C. (2014). Linking attentional processes and conceptual problem solving: Visual cues facilitate the automaticity of extracting relevant information from diagrams. [Original research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01094.
Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.005.
Zhang, J. J. (1996). A representational analysis of relational information displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 59–74.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1119290. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Virk, S.S., Clark, D.B. (2019). Signaling in Disciplinarily-Integrated Games: Challenges in Integrating Proven Cognitive Scaffolds Within Game Mechanics to Promote Representational Competence. In: Adesope, O.O., Rud, A.G. (eds) Contemporary Technologies in Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89680-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89680-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89679-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89680-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)