What We Can Learn from the Data: A Multiple-Case Study Examining Behavior Patterns by Students with Different Characteristics in Using a Serious Game

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 33-57

  Liu, Min ^a   Lee, Jaejin ^b   Kang, Jina ^a   Liu, Sa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Data visualization; Fantasy; Game engagement; Learning analytics; Middle school science; Problem solving; Serious games

Indexed keywords

PROBLEM SOLVING; SCAFFOLDS; STUDENTS; VISUALIZATION;

FANTASY; GAME ENGAGEMENT; LEARNING ANALYTICS; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; SERIOUS GAMES;

DATA VISUALIZATION;

EID: 84961059702     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: 22111670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-015-9263-7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Andersen, E., Liu, Y. E., Apter, E., Boucher-Genesse, F., & Popović, Z. (2010). Gameplay analysis through state projection. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on the foundations of digital games (pp. 1–8). USA. doi:10.1145/1822348.1822349
2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3. Asgari, M., & Kaufman, D. (2010). Does fantasy enhance learning in digital games? In D. Kaufman & L. Sauve (Eds.), Educational gameplay and simulation environments: Case studies and lessons learned (pp. 84–95). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
4. Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning througheducational data mining and learning analytics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2012/03/edm-la-brief.pdf
5. Blikstein, P. (2011). Using learning analytics to assess students’ behavior in open-ended program-ming tasks. In P. Long, G. Siemens, G. Conole, & D. Gašević (Eds.), Proceedings of the learning analytics knowledge conference (pp. 110–116). New York, NY: ACM.
6. Bogard, T., Liu, M., & Chiang, Y. H. (2013). Thresholds of knowledge development in complex problem solving: A multiple-case study of advanced learners’ cognitive processes. Educational Technology Research and Development,61(3), 465–503. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4.
7. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver. New York, NY: W. H. Feeman and Company.
8. Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(4), 624–634.
9. Buckingham Shum, S. (2012). Learning analytics. UNESCO policy brief. Retrieved from http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214711.pdf
10. Chittaro, L., & Ieronutti, L. (2004). A visual tool for tracing users’ behavior in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (pp. 40–47). USA.
11. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology,88(4), 715.
12. Dixit, P. N., & Youngblood, G. M. (2008) Understanding playtest data through visual data mining in interactive 3D environments. Paper presented at the 12th international conference on computer games: AI, Animation, Mobile, Interactive Multimedia and Serious Games (CGAMES). Louisville, KY.
13. Drachen, A., & Canossa, A. (2009a). Analyzing spatial user behavior in computer games using geographic information systems. In Proceedings of the 13th international MindTrek conference: Everyday life in the ubiquitous era (pp. 182–189). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1621841.1621875
14. Drachen, A., & Canossa, A. (2009b). Towards gameplay analysis via gameplay metrics. In Proceedings of the 13th international MindTrek conference: Everyday life in the ubiquitous era (pp. 202–209). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1621841.1621878
15. Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science Technology Society,24(3), 177–181. doi:10.1177/0270467604264992.
16. Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming,33(4), 441–467. doi:10.1177/1046878102238607.
18. Hsieh, P., Cho, Y., Liu, M., & Schallert, D. (2008). Examining the interplay between middle school students’ achievement goals and self-efficacy in a technology-enhanced learning environment. American Secondary Education,36(3), 33–50.
19. Hwang, W., Shadiev, R., Wang, C., & Huang, Z. (2011). A pilot study of cooperative programming learning behavior and its relationship with students’ learning performance. Computers & Education,58, 1267–1281.
20. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). The NMC horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
21. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher (Education ed.). Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
22. Koedinger, K., Cunningham, K., Skogsholm, A., & Leber, B. (2008). An open repository and analysis tools for fine-grained, longitudinal learner data. In Proceedings of first international conference on educational data mining (pp. 157–166). Canada.
23. Linek, S. B., Öttl, G., & Albert, D. (2010). Non-invasive data tracking in educational games: Combination of logfiles and natural language processing. In Proceedings of the international technology, education and development conference (INTED).
24. Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patters in hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development,53(1), 5–21.
25. Liu, M., Bera, S., Corliss, S., Svinicki, M., & Beth, A. (2004). Understanding the connection between cognitive tool use and cognitive processes as used by sixth graders in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research,31(3), 309–334.
26. Liu, M., Horton, L., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., Bogard, T., Kim, J., & Chang, M. (2009). Students’ problem solving as mediated by their cognitive tool use: A study of tool use patterns. Journal of Educational Computing Research,40(1), 111–139.
27. Liu, M., Horton, L., Kang, J., Kimmons, R., & Lee, J. (2013a). Using a ludic simulation to make learning of middle school space science fun. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS),5(1), 66–86.
28. Liu, M., Kang, J., Lee, J., Winzeler, E., & Liu, S. (2015). Examining through visualization what tools learners access as they play a serious game for middle school science. In C. S. Loh, Y. Sheng, & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Serious games analytics: Methodologies for performance measurement, assessment, and improvement (pp. 181–208). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05834-4.
29. Liu, M., Rosenblum, J. A., Horton, L., & Kang, J. (2014). Designing science learning with game-based approaches. Computers in the Schools,31(1–2), 84–102. doi:10.1080/07380569.2014.879776.
30. Liu, M., Yuen, T. T., Horton, L., Lee, J., Toprac, P., & Bogard, T. (2013b). Designing technology-enriched cognitive tools to support young learners’ problem solving. The International Journal of Cognitive Technology,18(1), 14–21.
31. Loh, C. S., & Sheng, Y. (2013). Measuring the (dis-)similarity between expert and novice behaviors as serious games analytics. Education and Information Technologies,. doi:10.1007/s10639-013-9263-y.
32. Lynn, S. J., & Rhue, J. W. (1986). The fantasy-prone person: Hypnosis, imagination, and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(2), 404–408.
33. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science,5(4), 333–369. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2.
34. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction,3, 223–253.
35. Martin, T., & Sherin, B. (2013). Learning analytics and computational techniques for detecting and evaluating patterns in learning: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences,22(4), 511–520. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.840466.
36. Merckelbach, H., Horselenberg, R., & Muris, P. (2001). The Creative Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ): A brief self-report measure of fantasy proneness. Personality and Individual Differences,31(6), 987–995. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00201-4.
37. Moura, D., Seif El-Nasr, M., & Shaw, C. C. (2011). Visualizing and understanding players’ behavior in video games: Discovering patterns and supporting aggregation and comparison. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on video games (pp. 11–15). New York, NY: ACM Press.
38. Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2013). Data mining in education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery,3(1), 12–27. doi:10.1002/widm.1075.
39. Scarlatos, L. L., & Scarlatos, T. (2010). Visualizations for the assessment of learning in computer games. In Paper presented at the 7th international conference & expo on emerging technologies for a smarter world (CEWIT 2010), Incheon, Korea.
40. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist,57(10), 1380–1400. doi:10.1177/0002764213498851.
41. Siemens, G., & d Baker, R. S. J. (2012). Learning analytics and educational data mining: Towards communication and collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd internationalconference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 252–254). New York, NY: ACM.
42. Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
43. Verbert, K., Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., & Duval, E. (2012). Dataset-driven research to support learning and knowledge analytics. Educational Technology and Society,15(3), 133–148.
44. Wallner, G., & Kriglstein, S. (2013). Visualization-based analysis of gameplay data—A review of literature. Entertainment Computing,4(3), 143–155. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2013.02.002.
45. Wiest, L. R. (2001). The role of fantasy contexts in word problems. Mathematics Education Research Journal,13(2), 74–90.
46. Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J. L., & Conkey, C. (2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming,40(2), 217–266. doi:10.1177/1046878108321866.