Engagement states and learning from educational games

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development

Volumn 2013, Issue 139, 2013, Pages 21-30

  Deater Deckard, Kirby ^a   Chang, Mido ^b   Evans, Michael E ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; BELGIUM; HUMAN; NETHERLANDS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; BELGIUM; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION;

EID: 84874977312     PISSN: 15203247     EISSN: 15348687     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1002/cad.20028     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Ainley, M. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395-405.
2. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory and practice in cultural context (pp. 39-64). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Charles, M., Bustard, D., & Black, M. (2009). Experiences of promoting engagement in game-based learning. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 397-403). Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
4. Deater-Deckard, K. (2000). Parenting and child behavioral adjustment in early childhood: A quantitative genetic approach to studying family processes and child development. Child Development, 71, 468-484.
5. Deater-Deckard, K., & Wang, Z. (2012). Development of temperament and attention: Behavioral genetic approaches. In M. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
6. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19-23.
7. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
8. Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234.
9. Fox, N. A. (Ed.). (1994). Dynamic cerebral processes underlying emotion regulation. In The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations (pp. 152-166). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2-3, Serial No. 240).
10. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The Ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21-40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11. Gray, W. D. (2000). The nature and processing of errors in interactive behavior. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 205-248.
12. Hoffman, B., & Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 245-270. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9134-9
13. Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. L. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. Jones, M. G. (1998, February). Creating electronic learning environments: Games, flow and the user interface. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the national convention of the association for educational communications and technology (AECT), St. Louis, MO.
15. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47-70.
16. Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55, 427-443.
17. Kong, Q., Wong, N., & Lam, C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 4-21.
18. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
19. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5, 333-369.
20. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Toward a science of motivated learning in technology-supported environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(2), 301-308.
21. National Center for School Engagement. (2006). Quantifying school engagement: Research Report. Denver, CO: Colorado Foundation for Families and Children.
22. Neȩcka, E. (2003). Creative interaction: A conceptual schema for the process of producing ideas and judging the outcomes. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Critical Creative Processes (pp. 115-127). Hampton Press.
23. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
24. Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Educating the human brain. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26. Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. New York, NY: Routledge.
27. Rozendaal, M., Braat, B., & Wensveen, S. (2010). Exploring sociality and engagement in play through game-control distribution. AI & Society, 25, 193-201. doi:10.1007/s00146-009-0245-y
28. Rueda, M. R., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2004). Attentional control and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 283-300). New York, NY: Guilford.
29. Saxe, G. (2002). Children's developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 11, 275-300.
30. Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
31. Skoric, M., Teo, L., & Neo, R. (2009). Children and video games: Addiction, engagement, and scholastic achievement. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 567-572. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0079
32. Small, R. (2011). Motivation and new media: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59, 177-180.
33. Smith, E. V., Jr., & Smith, R. M. (2004). Introduction to Rasch measurement: Theory, models, and applications. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
34. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
35. Traub, R. E., & Rowley, G. L. (1991). Understanding reliability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 37-45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00183.x
36. Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 16-30.