A Teachable-Agent Arithmetic Game’s Effects on Mathematics Understanding, Attitude and Self-efficacy

  • Lena Pareto
  • Tobias Arvemo
  • Ylva Dahl
  • Magnus Haake
  • Agneta Gulz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6738)


A teachable-agent arithmetic game is presented and evaluated in terms of student performance, attitude and self-efficacy. An experimental pre-post study design was used, enrolling 153 3 rd and 5 th grade students in Sweden. The playing group showed significantly larger gains in math performance and self-efficacy beliefs, but not in general attitude towards math, compared to control groups. The contributions in relation to previous work include a novel educational game being evaluated, and an emphasis on self-efficacy in the study as a strong predictor of math achievements.


teachable agents mathematics achievement attitude self-efficacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rieber, L.P.: Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research & Development 44(2), 43–58 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwartz, D.L., Martin, T.: Inventing to Prepare for Learning: the Hidden Efficiency of Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction. Cognition and Instruction 22, 129–184 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E.: Role of guidance, reflection and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(1), 117–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vogel, J.F., Vogel, D.S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C.A., Muse, K., Wright, M.: Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research 34(3), 229–243 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., Bai, H.: The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Comp. & Education 55, 427–443 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ke, F.: Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structure: cognitive, metacognitive and affective evaluation. Educational Teachnology Research Development 56, 539–556 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bos, B.: Virtual math objects with pedagogical, mathematical, and cognitive fidelity. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 521–528 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Brandford, J., Schwartz, D.L., TAG-V.: Extending intelligent learning environments with teachable agents to enhance learning. In: Moore, J.D., Redfield, C.L., Johnson, W.L. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 389–397 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C., Wagster, J., Okita, S., Roscoe, R., Chin, D., Biswas, G.: Interactive Metacognition: Monitoring and Regulating a Teachable Agent. In: Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A.C. (eds.) Handbook of Metacognition in Education (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McLeod, D.B.: Research on Affect and Mathematics Learning in the JRME: 1970 to the Present. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 25(6), 637–647 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, X., Kishor, N.: Attitude Toward Self, Social Factors, and Achievement in Mathematics: A Meta-Analytic Review. Educational Psychology Review 9(2), 2 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pajares, F., Graham, L.: Self-Efficacy, Motivation Constructs, and Mathematics Performance of Entering Middle School Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24, 124–139 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: The Foundation of Agency. L. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moores, T.T., Chang, J.C.-J., Smith, D.K.: Clarifying the role of self-efficacy and metacognition as predictors of performance: construct development and test. SIGMIS Database 37(2-3), 125–132 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frenzel, A.C., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T.: Perceived learning environment and students’ emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction 17, 478–493 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ke, F., Grabowski, B.: Gameplaying for maths learning: cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology 38(3), 249–259 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sedig, K.: Toward operationalization of ‘flow’ in mathematics Learnware. Computers in Human Behavior 23, 2064–2092 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pareto, L., Schwartz, D.L., Svensson, L.: Learning by guiding a teachable agent to play an educational game. In: Proc. of the 14th Int. Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 662–664. IOS press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nilsson, A., Pareto, L.: The Complexity of Integrating Technology Enhanced Learning in Special Math Education – A Case Study. In: Wolpers, M., Kirschner, P.A., Scheffel, M., Lindstaedt, S., Dimitrova, V. (eds.) EC-TEL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6383, pp. 638–643. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer, R.E.: Should there Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. Educational Psychologist 59, 14–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Middleton, J.A., Spanias, P.A.: Motivation for Achievement in Mathematics: Findings, Generalizations, and Criticisms of the Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 30(1), 65–88 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lena Pareto
    • 1
  • Tobias Arvemo
    • 2
  • Ylva Dahl
    • 3
  • Magnus Haake
    • 4
  • Agneta Gulz
    • 5
  1. 1.Media & DesignUniversity WestSweden
  2. 2.Mathematical StatisticsUniversity WestSweden
  3. 3.School DevelopmentUddevalla SchoolsSweden
  4. 4.Lund University Design SciencesSweden
  5. 5.Lund University Cognitive ScienceSweden

Personalised recommendations