Advertisement

Automated Adaptation and Assessment in Serious Games: A Portable Tool for Supporting Learning

  • Enkhbold NyamsurenEmail author
  • Wim van der Vegt
  • Wim Westera
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10664)

Abstract

We introduce the Adaptation and Assessment (TwoA) component, an open-source tool for serious games, capable of adjusting game difficulty to player skill level. Technically, TwoA is compliant with the RAGE (Horizon 2020) game component architecture, which offers seamless portability to a variety of popular game development platforms. Conceptually, TwoA uses a modified version of the Computer Adaptive Practice algorithm. Our version offers two improvements over the original algorithm. First, TwoA improves the balancing of a player’s motivation and game challenge. Second, TwoA reduces the selection bias that may arise for items of similar difficulty by adopting a fuzzy selection rule. The improvements are validated using multi-agent simulations.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the EC H2020 project RAGE (Realising an Applied Gaming Eco-System); http://www.rageproject.eu/; Grant agreement No. 644187.

References

  1. 1.
    Zemliansky, P., Wilcox, D.: Design and Implementation of Educational Games: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Information Science Reference, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abt, C.: Serious Games. Viking Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connolly, T.M., Boyle, E.A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., Boyle, J.M.: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 59, 661–686 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    RAGE: Realising an applied gaming eco-system. http://rageproject.eu. Accessed 25 Mar 2017
  5. 5.
    Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., Van der Maas, H.L.J.: Computer adaptive practice of maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Comput. Educ. 57, 1813–1824 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klinkenberg, S.: High speed high stakes scoring rule. In: Kalz, M., Ras, E. (eds.) CAA 2014. CCIS, vol. 439, pp. 114–126. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08657-6_11 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen, B.R., Louwerse, J., Straatemeier, M., Van der Ven, S.H., Klinkenberg, S., Van der Maas, H.L.: The influence of experiencing success in math on math anxiety, perceived math competence, and math performance. Learn. Individ. Differ. 24, 190–197 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gierasimczuk, N., Van der Maas, H.L., Raijmakers, M.E.: Logical and psychological analysis of deductive mastermind. In: Proceedings of the ESSLLI Logic and Cognition Workshop, CEUR, pp. 1–13 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herbrich, R., Minka, T., Graepel, T.: TrueSkill: a Bayesian skill rating system. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 569–576. MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elo, A.E.: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present. Arco Pub., New York (1978)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Vegt, W., Nyamsuren, E., Westera, W.: RAGE reusable game software components and their integration into serious game engines. In: Kapitsaki, G.M., Santana de Almeida, E. (eds.) ICSR 2016. LNCS, vol. 9679, pp. 165–180. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-35122-3_12 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glickman, M.E.: A comprehensive guide to chess ratings. Am. Chess J. 3, 59–102 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eggen, T.J., Verschoor, A.J.: Optimal testing with easy or difficult items in computerized adaptive testing. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 30, 379–393 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hühn, J.C., Hüllermeier, E.: An analysis of the FURIA algorithm for fuzzy rule induction. In: Koronacki, J., Raś, Z.W., Wierzchoń, S.T., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in Machine Learning 1, pp. 321–344. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05177-7_16
  15. 15.
    Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Buhman, C., Comella-Dorda, S., Long, F., Robert, J., Sea-cord, R., Wallnau, K.: Technical Concepts of Component-Based Software Engineering, vol. II. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahmood, S., Lai, R., Kim, Y.S.: Survey of component-based software development. IET Softw. 1, 57–66 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enkhbold Nyamsuren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wim van der Vegt
    • 1
  • Wim Westera
    • 1
  1. 1.PenOWOpen University of the NetherlandsHeerlenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations