Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-6
A Dual-Scaffolding Framework Integrating Peer-Scaffolding and Cognitive-Scaffolding for an Augmented Reality-Based Educational Board Game: An Analysis of Learners’ Collective Flow State and Collaborative Learning Behavioral Patterns
The design and application of educational board games have been emphasized in game-based learning. The integration of educational board games and augmented reality (AR) can help provide extensive cognitive-scaffolding for learners. This study proposed a dual-scaffolding framework that integrated peer-scaffolding and cognitive-scaffolding for an AR educational board game. This study also conducted an empirical analysis to evaluate this framework. Forty-four college students participated in this study. The researchers investigated these learners’ flow, acceptance, and their collaborative learning behavioral patterns with the sequential analysis. Moreover, this study explored the correlation of flow and acceptance and investigated learners’ behavioral pattern differences between high collective flow groups and low collective flow groups (collective flow referred to the mean of flow from group members). The results showed that there was a positive correlation between learners’ flow and acceptance. These learners’ behavioral patterns also showed that both peer-scaffolding and cognitive-scaffolding facilitated their problem-solving process. Moreover, the study found that high collective flow groups had more reflection and analysis behaviors than low collective flow groups in game-based learning.
AnnettaL. A. (2010).
The “I’s” have it: A framework for serious educational game design. Review of General Psychology,
14(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018985
2.
BahrC.RiethH. (1989).
The effects of instructional computer games and drill and practice software on learning disabled students’ mathematics achievement. Computers in the Schools,
6(3–4), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v06n03_08
3.
BakemanR.GottmanJ. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
4.
BayirE. (2014).
Developing and playing chemistry games to learn about elements, compounds, and the periodic table: Elemental periodica, compoundica, and groupica. Journal of Chemical Education,
91(4), 531–535. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4002249
5.
BresslerD. M.BodzinA. M. (2013).
A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
29(6), 505–517.
BuilI.CatalánS.MartínezE. (2019).
The influence of flow on learning outcomes: An empirical study on the use of clickers. British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(1), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12561
8.
ChangK. E.ChangC. T.HouH. T.SungY. T.ChaoH. L.LeeC. M. (2014).
Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Computers & Education,
71, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.022
9.
ChenC. H.LawV. (2016).
Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior,
55, 1201–1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.010
10.
ChengK. H.TsaiC. C. (2014).
Children and parents’ reading of an augmented reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cognitive attainment. Computers & Education,
72, 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.003
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.
Harper Perennial.
13.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.
HarperPerennial.
14.
DavisF. D. (1989).
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,
13(3), 319–340. https://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
15.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
16.
ForondaC. L.AlfesC. M.DevP.KleinhekselA. J.NelsonD. A.OʼdonnellJ. M.SamoskyJ. T. (2017).
Virtually nursing: Emerging technologies in nursing education. Nurse Educator,
42(1), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000295
17.
GonzálezC. S. G.CollazosC. A.GuerreroL. A.MorenoL. (2016).
Game-based learning environments: Designing the collaborative learning processes. ACTA Scientiae,
18(4), 12–28.
18.
GuralnickD. (2008).
The importance of the learner’s environmental context in the design of m-learning product. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies,
2(1), 36–39.
19.
HannafinM.LandS.OliverK. (1999).
Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory,
2, 115–140.
20.
HouH. T. (2010).
Exploring the behavioural patterns in project-based learning with online discussion: Quantitative content analysis and progressive sequential analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
9(3), 52–60.
21.
HouH. T. (2011).
A case study of online instructional collaborative discussion activities for problem solving using situated scenarios: An examination of content and behavior cluster analysis. Computers & Education,
56(3), 712–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.013
22.
HouH. T. (2012).
Exploring the behavioral patterns of learners in an educational massively multiple online role-playing game (MMORPG). Computers & Education,
58(4), 1225–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.015
23.
HouH. T. (2013).
Analyzing the behavioral differences between students of different genders, prior knowledge, and learning performance with an educational MMORPG: A longitudinal case study in an elementary school. British Journal of Educational Technology,
44(3), E85–E89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01367.x
24.
HouH. T. (2015).
Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners’ flow and behavioral patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computers in Human Behavior,
48, 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.010
HouH. T.LiM. C. (2014).
Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior,
30, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.052
27.
HouH. T.LinY. H. (2015). The game-based learning activity integrating board game and mobile online searching tasks for history learning [Paper presentation]. 23th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2015), Hangzhou, China.
28.
HouH. T.LiM. C.WangC. P. (2015). Applying a simulation game to high school chemistry instruction: A case study of the “Mini-Flipped Game-Based Instruction Model” [Paper presentation]. Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE 2015), Taipei, Taiwan.
29.
HouH. T.WuY. S.ChouY. S. (2014, May 26–30). How technology acceptance affects flow antecedent and flow experience in a simulation-based science education game: A preliminary path analysis [Paper presentation]. Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE 2014), Shanghai, China.
30.
HsiehY. H.LinY. C.HouH. T. (2015).
Exploring elementary-school students’ engagement patterns in a game-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
18(2), 336.
31.
HsiehY. H.LinY. C.HouH. T. (2016).
Exploring the role of flow experience, learning performance and potential behavior clusters in elementary students’ game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments,
24(1), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.834827
32.
HwangG. J.WuP. H.ChenC. C. (2012).
An online game approach for improving students’ learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers & Education,
59(4), 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.009
33.
InkpenK. (1994).
We have never-forgetful flowers in our garden: Girls’ responses to electronic games. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
13(4), 383–403.
34.
KiiliK. (2006).
Evaluations of an experiential gaming model. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments,
2(2), 187–201.
LeBlancG.BearisonD. J. (2004).
Teaching and learning as a bi-directional activity: Investigating dyadic interactions between child teachers and child learners. Cognitive Development,
19(4), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.09.004
37.
LiC. T.KengS. H.LiY. Y.FangY. S.HouH. T. (2018, November 26–30). The development and evaluation of an educational board game integrated with augmented reality, role-playing, and situated cases for anti-drug education [Paper presentation]. ICCE International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2018), Manila, The Philippines.
38.
LinY. C.HsiehY. H.HouH. T. (2015).
Developing a self-report-based sequential analysis method for educational technology systems: A process-based usability evaluation. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
53(1), 95–123.
Moneta, G. B. (2012). Opportunity for creativity in the job as a moderator of the relation between trait intrinsic motivation and flow in work. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 491–503.
41.
MosherM. D.MosherM. W.GaroutteM. P. (2012).
Organic mastery: An activity for the undergraduate classroom. Journal of Chemical Education,
89(5), 646–648. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200015v
42.
NelsonL. M. (1999).
Collaborative problem solving. Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory,
2, 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12069
43.
RamaniG. B.SieglerR. S. (2011).
Reducing the gap in numerical knowledge between low- and middle-income preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
32(3), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.005
44.
RiveraM. W.SheerD. P.MillerJ. (2013).
Computer‐aided negotiations of water disputes: An interdisciplinary role‐playing course. Jawra Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
49(3), 700–714.
45.
RubensteinC. D.SchubertC. F. (2017).
Student and faculty perceptions of iPad integration in a prelicensure program. Nurse Educator,
42(2), 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000293
46.
SayeJ. W.BrushT. (2002).
Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
50(3), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
47.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook.
SAGE Publications.
48.
SmetanaL. K.BellR. L. (2012).
Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education,
34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
49.
TsaiM. J.HuangL. J.HouH. T.HsuC. Y.ChiouG. L. (2016).
Visual behavior, flow and achievement in game-based learning. Computers & Education,
98, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.011
50.
von WangenheimC. G.SaviR.BorgattoA. F. (2012).
DELIVER!—An educational game for teaching earned value management in computing courses. Information and Software Technology,
54(3), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.10.005
51.
VygotskyL. (1978).
Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children,
23(3), 34–41.
52.
WalkerC. J. (2010).
Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone?The Journal of Positive Psychology,
5(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271116
53.
WangS. M.ChenK. T.HouH. T.LiC. T. (2017, December 4–8). A science history educational board game with augmented reality integrating collaborative problem solving and scaffolding strategies [Paper presentation]. 25th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2017), Christchurch, New Zealand.
54.
WangS. M.HouH. T.WuS. Y. (2017).
Analyzing the knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of blog-based instructional activities using four frequent interactive strategies (problem solving, peer assessment, role playing and peer tutoring): A preliminary study. Educational Technology Research & Development,
65, 301–323.
WoutersP.Van OostendorpH. (2013).
A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in game-based learning. Computers & Education,
60(1), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.018
57.
WuH. K.LeeS. W. Y.ChangH. Y.LiangJ. C. (2013).
Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education,
62, 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
58.
YangJ. C.QuadirB.ChenN. S.MiaoQ. (2016).
Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course. The Internet and Higher Education,
30, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.04.002
