Advertisement

Effect of Whole-Body Movement on Performance and Efficiency: A Comparison of Three Controlling Methods for a Math Game

  • Antero LindstedtEmail author
  • Kristian Kiili
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11899)

Abstract

During the last decade, the number of studies investigating learning effectiveness and motivational aspects of game-based learning has increased. Nevertheless, research that considers the meaning of the User Interface (UI) in game-based learning has been sparse. This paper reports a within-subject study in which we investigated how the implementation of the UI affects students’ performance (accuracy), training efficiency (task completion duration), and user experience in a number line based math game. Ninety-three fifth graders played the same math game with three different UIs in a counter balanced order. The results revealed that the implementation of the UI influenced significantly on performance and training efficiency. Students’ estimation performance with the chair-based exertion UI (whole-body movement) was significantly worse than with the tilting UI (controlled with hands) and virtual directional pad UI (controlled with fingers). Nevertheless, the players felt that the controlling of the game was equally easy with the gaming chair than with the other two controlling methods. Actually, the majority of the students named the chair as the most preferable controlling method. The results suggest that a whole-body movement can be an engaging and viable controlling method for learning games, but its effects on performance and efficiency should be considered, especially in game-based assessment context.

Keywords

User interface Human-computer interaction Whole-body movement Game-based learning User experience Number line estimation 

References

  1. 1.
    Devlin, K.: The music of math games. Am. Sci. 101(2), 87–91 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moeller, K., Fischer, U., Nuerk, H.C., Cress, U.: Computers in mathematics education –training the mental number line. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 597–607 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kiili, K., Ketamo, H.: Evaluating cognitive and affective outcomes of a digital game-based math test. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 11(2), 255–263 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shute, V.J., Wang, L., Greiff, S., Zhao, W., Moore, G.: Measuring problem solving skills via stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 106–117 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Serrano-Laguna, A., Torrente, J., Moreno-Ger, P., Fernandez-Manjon, B.: Application of learning analytics in educational video-games. Entertain. Comput. 5(4), 313–322 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Márquez Segura, E., Waern, A., Moen, J., Johansson, C.: The design space of body games: technological, physical, and social design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3365–3374. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindstedt, A., Kiili, K., Tuomi, P., Perttula, A.: A user experience case study: two embodied cognition user interface solutions for a math learning game. Seminar.net – Int. J. Media technol. Lifelong learn. 2(12) (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staiano, A., Calvert, S.: Exergames for physical education courses: physical, social, and cognitive benefits. Child. Dev. Perspect. 5(2), 93–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pouw, W.T., Van Gog, T., Paas, F.: An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26(1), 51–72 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lieberman, D., Chamberlin, B., Medina, E., Franklin, B., Sanner, B., Vafiadis, D.: The power of play: innovations in getting active summit 2011: a science panel proceedings report from the american heart association. Circulation 123, 2507–2516 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Link, T., Moeller, K., Huber, S., Fischer, U., Nuerk, H.C.: Walk the number line – an embodied training of numerical concepts. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2, 74–84 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moeller, K., Fischer, U., Nuerk, H.C., Cress, U.: Computers in mathematics education –training the mental number line. Comput. Human Behavior 48, 597–607 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riconscente, M.M.: Results from a controlled study of the iPad fractions game Motion Math. Games Cult. 8(4), 186–214 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Przybylski, A.K., Rigby, C.S., Ryan, R.M.: A motivational model of video game engagement. Rev. Gener. Psychol. 14(2), 154 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Kim, W.W., Patel, D.: Does body movement engage you more in digital game play? and Why? In: Paiva, A.C.R., Prada, R., Picard, R.W. (eds.) ACII 2007. LNCS, vol. 4738, pp. 102–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74889-2_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindley, S.E., Le Couteur, J., Berthouze, N.L.: Stirring up experience through movement in game play: effects on engagement and social behaviour. In: Proceedings of CHI 2008, pp. 511–514. ACM press (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greipl, S., Ninaus, M., Bauer, D., Kiili, K., Moeller, K.: A fun-accuracy trade-off in game-based learning. In: Gentile, M., Allegra, M., Söbke, H. (eds.) GALA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11385, pp. 167–177. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11548-7_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, Y.J., Shute, V.J.: The interplay of game elements with psychometric qualities, learning, and enjoyment in game-based assessment. Comput. Educ. 87, 340–356 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Technology and CommunicationTampere UniversityPoriFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and CultureTampere UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations