Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-12
The Learning Process in Live-Action Simulation Games: The Impact of Personality,Motivation,Immersion,and Flow on Learning Outcome in a Simulation Game.
Against the backdrop of the cognitive-motivational process model proposed by Vollmeyer and Rheinberg (1998), this study investigates how the personality trait need for cognition in combination with a specific situation (short and long version of a live-action simulation game), current motivation, and immersion and flow (mediators) predict the learning outcome in the simulation game EVERYDAY LIFE IN THE CLASSROOM (Starker & Imhof, 2014).
Methods
N = 138 teacher students played the short 2-hour version of the simulation game, and N = 77 played the long 2-day version. Need for cognition, current motivation, immersion, flow, and learning outcome were measured by self-report questionnaires.
Results
A hierarchical regression analysis was used to determine the impact of the predictor variables (need for cognition, current motivation, immersion, and flow) on the self-evaluated learning outcome. For the 2-hour group, the predictor variables interest, challenge, and immersion (subscale: engagement) impacted self-reported learning outcome significantly positive. For the 2-day group, significant predictors were need for cognition, interest, and immersion (subscale: engrossment). In comparison of the two game versions, students playing the 2-day version reported significantly higher levels of engagement, engrossment, and learning outcome.
Conclusion
The cognitive-motivational process model of learning was partly supported: interest and immersion predict learning outcome in the live-action simulation game. The extended 2-day version of the game leads to higher levels of immersion and higher learning outcome, indicating that a longer timeframe secures the desired effects on learning outcome from simulation games. Further research needs to shed light on the interaction of personality traits and immersion.
AtkinsM.BrownG. (2002). Effective teaching in higher education. Routledge.
2.
BeierleinC.BachmannG.PüttmannA. (2005). Aktuelle Motivation, Flow-Erleben und Lernleistung beim Lernen mit SPS [Current motivation, flow and learning performance while learning SPSS]. Poster session presented at the 10th Symposium. Pädagogische Psychologie.
3.
BeißertH.KöhlerM.RempelM.BeierleinC. (2014). Eine deutschsprachige Kurzskala zur Messung des konstrukts Need for cognition: Die Need for cognition kurzskala (NfC-K)[German-language short scale for the measurement of the construct need for cognition (NfC-K)]. GESIS-working papers, 2014/32. GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-403157
4.
BekebredeG.FreeseM. (2020). Digital versus analogue simulation games: Influence on validity, play(er) experience and learning outcomes. In Marfisi-SchottmanI.BellottiF.HamonL.KlemkeR. (Eds.), Games and learning alliance: GALA 2020: Lecture notes in computer science (vol 12517). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63464-3_44
5.
BowmanS. L. (2018). Immersion and Shared Imagination in Role-Playing Games. In ZagalJ. P.DeterdingS. (Eds), Role-playing game studies: A transmedia approach (pp. 379–394). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315637532
6.
BoyleE. A.HaineyT.ConnollyT. M.GrayG.EarpJ.OttM.LimT.NinausM.RibeiroC.PereiraJ. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94(C), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003
7.
BraunE.GusyB.LeidnerB.HannoverB. (2008). Das Berliner Evaluationsinstrument für selbsteingeschätzte, studentische Kompetenzen (BEvaKomp). Diagnostica, 54(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.54.1.30.
BrownE.CairnsP. (2004, April). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 24–29 April, 2004, ACM, pp. 1297–1300. https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986048
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisW. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
12.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.Feng KaoC. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
13.
ChengM.-T.SheH.-C.AnnettaL. A. (2015). Game immersion experience: its hierarchical structure and impact on game-based science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 232–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12066
14.
ChengK. H.TsaiC. C. (2020). Students’ motivational beliefs and strategies, perceived immersion and attitudes towards science learning with immersive virtual reality: A partial least squares analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2140–2159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12956
15.
ChernikovaO.HeitzmannN.StadlerM.HolzbergerD.SeidelT.FischerF. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
ClarkD. B.Tanner-SmithE. E.KillingsworthS. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of work and play in games. Jossey Bass.
20.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.
21.
de SmaleS.OvermansT.JeuringJ.van de GrintL. (2016). The effect of simulations and games on learning objectives in tertiary education: A systematic review. In De GloriaA.VeltkampR. (Eds.), Games and learning alliance: GALA 2015: Lecture notes in computer science (9599, pp. 506–516). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40216-1_55
22.
DouglasY.HargadonA. (2000). The pleasure principle: immersion, engagement, flow. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM on Hypertext and Hypermedia, New York, NY, 30 May, 2000, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/336296.336354
23.
EngartnerT. (2010). Didaktik des Ökonomie-und Politikunterrichts [Didactics of Economic and Political Science Teaching]. UTB.
24.
EngeserS.RheinbergF.VollmeyerR.BischoffJ. (2005). Motivation, flow-erleben und lernleistung in universitären lernsettings. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie/ German Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(3), 159–172. https://dx.doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.19.3.159.
25.
ErmiL.MäyräF. (2005). Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: analysing immersion. In DiGRA (Digital Games Research Association) second international conference, Changing views: worlds in play, Canada, 16–20 June, 2005, British Columbia. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06276.41516.pdf
26.
GarrisR.AhlersR.DriskellJ. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046878102238607
27.
GeorgiouY.KyzaE. A. (2017). The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 24-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.09.014.
HamariJ.ShernoffD. J.RoweE.CollerB.Asbell-ClarkeJ.EdwardsT. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045.
30.
HensleyT. R. (1993). Come to the edge: Role playing activities in a constitutional law class. PS: Political Science & Politics, 26(1), 64–68. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/419508.
31.
HuangH.-M.LiawS.-S.LaiC.-M. (2016). Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical education: A case study of desktop and projection-based display systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.817436.
ImhofM.StarkerU.SpaudeE. (2016). Life Action Role Play and the development of teacher competences: Evaluation of “Everyday Life in the Classroom”. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 15(1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716641336
34.
JennettC.CoxA. L.CairnsP.DhopareeS.EppsA.TijsT.WaltonA. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004
35.
KrizW. C. (2011). Qualitätskriterien von Planspielanwendungen. In HitzlerS.ZürnB.TrautweinF. (Eds.), Planspiele - qualität und innovation: Neue ansätze aus theorie und praxis [Simulation Games – Quality and Innovation. New Approaches from Theory and Practice] (pp. 11–37). Books on Demand GmbH(ZMS-Schriftenreihe, 2).
36.
KrizW. C. (2014). The shift from teaching to learning: Individual, collective and organizational learning through gaming simulation. WBV.
MakranskyG.LilleholtL. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2
MichailidisL.Balaguer-BallesterE.HeX. (2018). Flow and immersion in video games: The aftermath of a conceptual challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1682. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01682.
PreußA. K. (2020). The Impact of Personality and Motivation on Immersion in Simulation Games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 10(2). DOI:10.4018/IJGBL.2020040101.
43.
RandelJ. M.MorrisB. A.WetzelC. D.WhitehillB. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192233001
44.
ReinhardM.-A.DickhäuserO. (2009). Need for cognition, task difficulty, and the formation of performance expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1062–1076. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014927
RheinbergF.VollmeyerR.EngeserS. (2003). Die Erfassung des Flow-Erlebens [The Acquisition of Flow-Experience]. In Stiensmeier-PelsterF.J.Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von motivation und selbstkonzept [Diagnostics of Motivation and Self-Concept] (pp. 261–279). Hogrefe.
48.
SalarR.AriciF.CaliklarS.YilmazR. M. (2020). A Model for augmented reality immersion experiences of university students studying in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09810-x
49.
SchedelikM. (2018). Was wird in Planspielen gelernt? Eine Zusammenschau theoretischer und empirischer Erkenntnisse. In MeßnerM. T.SchedelikM.EngartnerT. (Eds.), Handbuch Planspiele in der Sozialwissenschaftlichen Hochschullehre [Handbook of Simulation Games in Social Sciences Teaching] (pp. 71–84). Wochenschau.
50.
ShellmanS. M.TuranK. (2006). Do Simulations Enhance Student Learning? An Empirical Evaluation of an IR Simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(1), 19–32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15512160500484168
51.
SpaudeE.StarkerU.ImhofM. (2016). Unterricht als komplexes problem erfahren im Planspiel “Schulalltag”. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht/Psychology in Education and Teaching, 63(3), 193–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2378/peu2016.art17d
52.
StarkerU.ImhofM. (2014). “Komplexitätsmanagement” in der lehramtsausbildung: Das planspiel “Schulalltag” und dessen evaluation [Complexity-management in teacher education: The simulation game “Everyday Life in the Classroom” and it´s evaluation]. In KrämerM.WegerU.ZupanicM. (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und evaluation X [Didactics of Psychology Teaching and Evaluation X] (pp. 327–332). Shaker. www.psychopen.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/books/978-3-8440-3187-4/Kraemer_Tagungsband_2014_Starker.pdf
53.
Unnikrishnan NairK.RamnarayanS. (2000). Individual differences in need for cognition and complex problem solving. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(3), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2274
54.
VlachopoulosD.MakriA. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(22), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1
VollmeyerR.RheinbergF. (2003). Aktuelle motivation und motivation im verlauf [Current motivation and motivation in process]. In Stiensmeier-PelsterJ.RheinbergF. (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept [Diagnostics of Motivation and Self-Concept] (pp. 281–295). Hogrefe.
57.
VollmeyerR.RheinbergF. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different taks. Educational Psychological Review, 18(3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0.
58.
Von der WethR.StarkerU.BeckmannW.WernerA.ImhofM. (2018). Das psychologische Planspiel. Wie man lernen kann, komplexe Anforderungen nachhaltig zu bewältigen [The psychological simulation game: Learning how to manage complex requirements sustainably]. In MeßnerM. T.SchedelikM.EngartnerT. (Eds.), Handbuch planspiele in der sozialwissenschaftlichen hochschullehre [Handbook of Simulation Games in Social Sciences Teaching] (pp. 101–113). Wochenschau.
59.
WeibelD.WissmathB.MastF. W. (2010). Immersion in mediated environments: The role of personality traits. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(3), 251–256. https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0171
60.
YoungM. F.SlotaS.CutterA. B.JaletteG.MullinG.LaiB.SimeoniZ.TranM.YukhymenkoM. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312436980
