Interaction Design III

Dickey, M.D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 67-83.

Engaged learning (Jones et al, 1994& Schlechty, 1997)
consist of elements: focused goal, challenging task, clear and compelling standards, protection from adverse consequences for initial failures (??), affirmation of performance, affiliation with others, novelty and variety, choice, authenticity.

Game design can inform development of problem-based constructivist learning environment.

Strategies to engage users in game design & applicability to educational design
1. POV (player position or point of view)
"god's eye" view to more immersive environment, in line with the more active participation of learner's in the learning environment (learner control & engagement)

2. narrative
Narrative as a means of reasoning and of representation.
Narratives are inherently sequential and linear in nature, however game designs are nonlinear. One solution around the discrepancy is to allow branching stories according to user interaction/choice or allow dynamic access of different parts of linear narrative.

3. interaction
"hooks" afford actions and feedback to players
Hooks are types of choices a player makes in teh course of the game. (Howland, 2002)
i.e. action, resource, tactical and strategic, time hooks
(the concept of hooks as different types of choices available to users sounds similar to the issue of learner control which is much addressed in educational research. is it always engaging? is it always benefitial?)

a) 'setting' defines the gamespace supporting narrative and a sense of immersion through manipulation of physical(spatial), temporal, environmental (visual), emotional, ethical dimensions
b) 'roles and characters'
c) 'actions, feedback, and affordances'
rules define possible actions in strive of a particular goal



************

Schwann, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefit of interactive videos: Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293-305.

3 main characteristics of "new media" is defined as
1. non-linear structure
2. concerted use of a great number of different symbol systems
3. interactivity, which gives users the opportunity to decide on the "what" and the "how" of the information presentation

The interactivity (often referred to as learner control) is discussed in detail for the cognitive implications (direct experience vs media presentation; cognitive benefits of interactive visual media).

In non-interactive presentation, media-based information presentation restricts information processing to the perspective of the designers of the material. This could enhance the experience of information processing in comparison to direct experience by presenting in a way that assists for better comprehension. However, such approach is typically designed to address a general audience as opposed to specific cognitive characteristics of each user.

Interactive presentation affords "epistemic action" (Kirsh and Maglio, 1994) where by interactive manipulation of presentation by users allows users to moderate the amount of information, mental steps, speed at which they receive the information, facilitating cognitive processing. However, interactivity could potentially increase cognitive load (extraneous load) by requiring users to hold control-related information.

Therefore, interactive dynamic visualization can only benefit learners if
- interactivity allows users to substantially reduce the cognitive demands in processing the inforamtion
- cognitive load induced by interaction with the system is minimal

In the experiment presented in the article, where learners viewed video to learn how to tie knots of different complexity in either interactive (control) or non-interactive condition, learners took advantage of the controls provided with the video and demonstrated more effective learning outcome. However, there is a limitation in extending the results of the experiment to other dynamic visualization, for the learning material was mainly procedural in nature, and the interactivity was confined to 'control' as opposed to active searching for information, which most interactive media affords.


*************

Rieber, L.P., Tzeng, S., & Tribble, K. (2004.) Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14, 307–323.

In an experiment, the researchers explored how graphical or textual explanation assist learners interacting with the system that uses Newton's law to kick a ball to a target. The result (as assessed by knowledge test on Newton's law as well as performance in the system itself) shows that graphical explanation was more benefitial. Thus, aligning the representation type of the feedback or explanation with the task demands is important.

Questions:
1. why are they referring to feedback literature when what they are providing is essentially a scaffold of information (information on the positioning of the ball)? Feedbacks in educational research pertains to the metacognitive information, assisting learner's with their self-regulation of their learning (i.e. knowing their own progress) as opposed to acquiring additional information.
2. textual feedback is not informative by design for it provides x,y coordinates of the target and the ball, implying that learners receiving such feedback had to mentally convert x, y coordinates into graphical representation, requiring an additional mental step, thus causing extraneous load, irrelevant to the concepts being learnt. This can be seen from the result where the M of principle learning for textual feedback is none different from Graphical interface without explanations and also from the frustration result. (no wonder!)