Advertisement

Replay Penalties in Cognitive Games

  • Matthew W. Easterday
  • I. Yelee Jo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8474)

Abstract

Replay penalties that punish players by making them repeat progress are ubiquitous in video games yet noticeably absent from tutors, creating a dilemma for designers seeking to combine games and tutors to maximize interest and learning. On the one hand, replay penalties can be frustrating and waste instructional time, on the other, they may increase excitement and prevent gaming the system. This study tested the effects of replay penalties on learning and interest. In a randomized, controlled experiment with a two-group, between subjects design, 100 University students played two versions of Policy World, an educational game for teaching policy argument, with and without penalties that forced students to replay parts of the game. Results showed that replay penalties decreased learning and interest. These findings suggest a minimize penalties principle for designing cognitive games.

Keywords

intelligent tutoring educational games serious games penalties 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    VanLehn, K.: The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems. Educational Psychologist 46(4), 197–221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lane, H.C., Hays, M.J., Auerbach, D., Core, M.G.: Investigating the Relationship Between Presence and Learning in a Serious Game. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 274–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rai, D., Beck, J.E.: Math Learning Environment with Game-like Elements: An Experimental Framework. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL) 2(2), 90–110 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Easterday, M.W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., Carver, S.M.: Using Tutors to Improve Educational Games. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6738, pp. 63–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schell, J.: The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Konzack, L.: Computer Game Criticism: A Method for Computer Game Analysis. In: Mayra, F. (ed.) Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference, pp. 89–100. Tampere University Press, Tampere (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salen, K., Zimmerman, E.: Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker, R.S.J.D., de Carvalho, A., Raspat, J., Aleven, V., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R.: Educational Software Features that Encourage and Discourage “Gaming the System”. In: Dimitrova, V., Mizoguchi, R., du Boulay, B., Graesser, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: AIED 2009, pp. 475–482. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    University of Rochester: Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, IMI (Web page) (1994), retrieved from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/IMI_description.php
  10. 10.
    Easterday, M.W.: Policy World: A Cognitive Game for Teaching Deliberation. In: Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B. (eds.) Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills, pp. 225–276. Bentham Science Publishers, Oak Park (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Easterday, M.W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., Carver, S.M.: Constructing Causal Diagrams to Learn Deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19(4), 425–445 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Easterday, M.W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., Carver, S.M.: Will Google Destroy Western Democracy? Bias in Policy Problem Solving. In: Dimitrova, V., Mizoguchi, R., du Boulay, B., Graesser, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: AIED 2009, pp. 249–256. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amazon: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Video Games. Amazon (Web page) (2013), retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Phoenix-Wright-Ace-Attorney-Nintendo-DS/dp/B000B69E96
  14. 14.
    Capcom: Total Sales Units (Web page) (2012), retrieved from http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/salesdata.html
  15. 15.
    Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Scheines, R.: Causation, Prediction, and Search, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tetrad: Tetrad (Computer Software) (2008), retrieved from http://www.phil.cmu.edu/projects/tetrad/
  17. 17.
    Thompson, C.: Halo 3: How Microsoft Labs Invented a New Science of Play. Wired Magazine 15(09) (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gee, J.P.: Learning by Design: Games as Learning Machines. E-Learning 2(1), 5–16 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia Learning and Games. In: Tobias, S., Fletcher, J.D. (eds.) Computer Games and Instruction, pp. 281–305. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew W. Easterday
    • 1
  • I. Yelee Jo
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education and Social PolicyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations