Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

The Impact of Game-Like Features on Learning from an Intelligent Tutoring System

  • Keith Millis
  • Carol Forsyth
  • Patricia Wallace
  • Arthur C. Graesser
  • Gary Timmins
Original research
First Online:

Abstract

Prior research has shown that students learn from Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). However, students’ attention may drift or become disengaged with the task over extended amounts of instruction. To remedy this problem, researchers have examined the impact of game-like features (e.g., a narrative) in digital learning environments on motivation and learning. Some of this research has concluded that the game-like features decrease learning because the features take away resources from the primary task of learning subject-matter content. However, these experiments have involved short-term interventions of less than an hour. Two experiments using college students examined the impact of adding game-like features to the ITS AutoTutor in an intervention that lasted 4 h. In one study, a game-like version was compared to a text-only version and a “do nothing” control. In another study, a game-like version was compared to a nongame version that had similar interfaces. Unlike prior research that has shown that narratives decrease learning in digitally-based learning environments, the game-like features, which included a narrative, had little impact on learning from the ITS. Reasons for the discrepancies are discussed.

Keywords

Intelligent Tutoring Systems Serious games Learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305B070349 to Northern Illinois University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

References

  1. Adams, D. M., & Clark, D. B. (2014). Integrating self-explanation functionality into a complex game environment: Keeping gaming in motion. Computers & Education, 73, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., MacNamara, A., Koenig, A., & Wainess, R. (2012). Narrative games for learning: Testing the discovery and narrative hypotheses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, R. S. J., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., Evenson, S., Roll, Il, Wagner, A. Z., et al. (2006). Adapting to when students game an Intelligent Tutoring System. In M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems 8th international conference ITS 2011, May 2011 (pp. 392–401). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, R. S. J. D., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 68, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, 5, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ChanMin, K., & Pekrun, R. (2013). Emotions and motivation in learning and performance. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 65–75). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Emotions during learning with AutoTutor. In P. J. Durlach & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Adaptive technologies for training and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dzikovska, M. O., Steinhauser, N., Farrow, E., Moore, J. D., & Campbell, G. E. (2014). BEETLE II: Deep natural language understanding and automatic feedback generation for intelligent tutoring in basic electricity and electronics. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 284–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forsyth. (2014). Predicting learning: A fine-grained analysis of learning in a serious game. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  11. Gee, J. P. (2009). Deep learning properties of good video games: How far can they go? In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 67–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Gee, J. P. (2013). Games for learning. Educational Horizons, 91, 17–20.Google Scholar
  13. Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An Intelligent Tutoring System with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Education, 48, 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graesser, A. C., Conley, M. W., & Olney, A. (2012a). Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In S. Graham & K. Harris (Eds.), APA handbook of educational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  16. Graesser, A. C., & D’Mello, S. (2012). Emotions during the learning of difficult material. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 183–225). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S. K., Hu, X., Cai, Z., Olney, A., & Morgan, B. (2012b). AutoTutor. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 169–187). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  18. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A. M., Sullins, J., McDaniel, B., et al. (2008). The relationship between affective states and dialogue patterns during interactions with AutoTutor. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 293–312.Google Scholar
  19. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., Nye, B., & Sottilare, R. (2016). Intelligent Tutoring Systems, serious games, and the Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT). In H. F. O’Neil, E. L. Baker, & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Using games and simulation for teaching and assessment (pp. 58–79). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Forsyth, C. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H. H., Ventura, M., Olney, A. M., et al. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral, Research Methods, Instruction & Computers, 36, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Halpern, D. F., Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., & Cai, Z. (2012). Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Institute for Education Sciences. (2009). Science 2009: National assessment of educational progress at grades 4, 8, and 12. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2011451.pdf.
  27. Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Motivation and performance in a game-based Intelligent Tutoring System. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1036–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, L. W., & Valente, A. (2008). Tactical language and culture training systems: Using artificial intelligence to teach foreign languages and cultures. In M. Goker & K. Haigh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (pp. 1632–1639). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  29. Koening, A. D. (2008). Exploring effective educational video game design: The interplay between narrative and game-schema construction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  30. Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2014). An empirical test of the theory of gamified learning: The effect of leaderboards on time-on-task and academic performance. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 769–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lane, H. C., Noren, D., Auerbach, D., Birch, M., & Swartout, W. (2011). Intelligent tutoring goes to the museum in the big city: A pedagogical agent for informal science education. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: 15th International conference (pp. 155–162). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning “play” into “work” and “work” into “play”: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257–307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNamara, D. S., Jackson, G. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Intelligent tutoring and games (ITaG). In Y. K. Baek (Ed.), Gaming for classroom-based learning: Digital role-playing as a motivator of study (pp. 44–65). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McQuiggan, S. W., Robinson, J., & Lester, J. (2010). Affective transitions in narrative-centered learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 40–53.Google Scholar
  37. McQuiggan, S. W., Rowe, J. P., Lee, S., & Lester, J. C. (2008). Story-based learning: The impact of narrative on learning experiences and outcomes. Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5091, 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Millis, K., Graesser, A., & Halpern, D. (2014). Operation ARA: A serious game that combines intelligent tutoring and learning principles to teach science. In V. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala, (Eds.) Applying the science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology web site: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php.
  39. National Science Foundation. (2012). National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c7/c7h.htm.
  40. Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and family: A review of 17 years of natural language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 427–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Olney, A., D’Mello, S. K., Person, N., Cade, W., Hays, P., Williams, C., et al. (2012). Guru: A computer tutor that models expert human tutors. In S. Cerri, W. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 2012 (pp. 256–261). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Richards, J., Stebbins, L., & Moellering, K. (2013). Games for a digital age: K-12 market map and investment analysis. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
  44. Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (Eds.). (2009). Serious games: Mechanisms and effects. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  45. Rowe, J., Shores, L. R., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 121, 115–133.Google Scholar
  46. Rus, V., D’Mello, S., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Recent advances in intelligent systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 34, 42–54.Google Scholar
  47. Sabourin, J. L., Rowe, J. P., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2013). Considering alternate futures to classify off-task behavior as emotion self-regulation: A supervised learning approach. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 5, 9–38.Google Scholar
  48. Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  50. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical Areas. Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  52. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, P. A. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 30, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (p. 86). Cambridge: Harvard College.Google Scholar
  56. Wang, H., Shen, C., & Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Enjoyment of digital games: What makes them “seriously” fun? In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 25–47). New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  57. Woolf, B. P. (2009). Building Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  58. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van der Spek, E. D., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northern Illinois UniversityDekalbUSA
  2. 2.Educational Testing ServicePrincetonUSA
  3. 3.University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options