Measuring Engagement to Stimulate Critical Thinking

  • Patricia J. Donohue
  • Tawnya Gray
  • Dominic Lamboy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8027)


This research is a theoretical study of game-augmented instruction for learning and playing mathematics challenges. We wanted to extend our work with a unique Studio-Based Learning (SBL) model for peer-critiques of project designs. SBL had been used successfully in 15 universities as an approach for helping undergraduate computer science students improve their programming skills and code reviews. We piloted the model in a 9th-grade spatial studies class with some success in teaching freshmen how to critique their work and participate in peer reviews across teams. From those experiences we developed a framework for an interactive mobile application of the studio experience. Research with a group of student athletes revealed that before mobile development, we needed to consider the constraints of learner characteristics on the mobile environment. This study sets out the design for a pilot test of our finding that learning style may drive game features for instruction.


Mobile Learning Mathematics Physiological Measurement Engagement Physical Cognition Game Theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    CPATH II: Broadening Studio-Based Learning in Computer Education. Annual Report: 01.2010-12.2010 (February 6, 2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Camerer, C.F.: Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatfield, T.: Seven Ways Games Engage, (accessed January 25, 2013)
  4. 4.
    Clark, J.M., Paivio, A.: Dual coding theory and education. Psychology Review 3(3), 149–210 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donohue, P.J.: A Studio-Based Learning model for K-14 computational thinking in STEM content, A report prepared for the National Science Foundation Site Review, April 14-15. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa & Hilo (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gardner, H.: Frames of Mind. Basic Books, Inc., New York (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gardner, H.: Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. BasicBooks, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gee, J.P.: Learning by Design: good video games as learning machines. E-Learning 2(1), 5–16 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayer, R.: Multi-media Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayer, R.E., Anderson, R.B.: The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(4), 444–452 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koedinger, K.R.: Intelligent Cognitive Tutors as Modeling Tool and Instructional Model. In: A Position Paper for the NCTM Standards 2000 Technology Conference, June 5-6. Carnegie Mellon University (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moyer-Packenham, P.S., Salkind, G., Bolyard, J.J.: Virtual manipulatives used by K-8 teachers for mathematics instruction: Considering mathematical, cognitive, and pedagogical fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 8(3), 202–218 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regan, L., Mandryk, K.M., Calvert, T.W.: Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies. Journal of Behaviour & Information Technology (2005), (accessed February19, 2013)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia J. Donohue
    • 1
  • Tawnya Gray
    • 1
  • Dominic Lamboy
    • 1
  1. 1.Instructional TechnologiesSan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations