Investigating Variations in Gameplay: Cognitive Implications

There is increasing interest in creating computer games for learning, problem solving, and other high-level cognitive activities. When investigating whether gameplay is conducive to such activities, gameplay is often studied as a whole. As a result, cognitive implications can be linked to the game but not to its structural elements. Given that gameplay arises from interaction between the player and the game, it is the structural components of interaction that should be investigated to better understand the design of gameplay. Furthermore, minor variations in the components of interaction can have significant cognitive implications. However, such variation has not been studied yet. Thus, to gain a better understanding of how we can study the effect of interaction on the cognitive aspect of gameplay, we conducted an exploratory investigation of two computer games. These games were isomorphic at a deep level and only had one minor difference in the structure of their interaction. Volunteers played these games and discussed the cognitive processes that emerged. In one game, they primarily engaged in planning, but in the other game they primarily engaged in visualizing. This paper discusses the results of our investigation as well as its implications for the design of computer games.

[1]  William Ribarsky,et al.  Comparing different levels of interaction constraints for deriving visual problem isomorphs , 2010, 2010 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology.

[2]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Human-Centered Interactivity of Visualization Tools: Micro- and Macro-level Considerations , 2014, Handbook of Human Centric Visualization.

[3]  M. P. Jacob Habgood,et al.  Motivating Children to Learn Effectively: Exploring the Value of Intrinsic Integration in Educational Games , 2011 .

[4]  E. Hutchins Cognition in the wild , 1995 .

[5]  Darryl Charles,et al.  Toward an understanding of flow in video games , 2008, CIE.

[6]  Paul P. Maglio,et al.  On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  James M. Boyle,et al.  A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Toward a Framework for the Analysis and Design of Educational Games , 2010, 2010 Third IEEE International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning.

[9]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware , 2001, TCHI.

[10]  Javier Ruiz,et al.  Videogame Performance (Not Always) Requires Intelligence , 2011, Int. J. Online Pedagog. Course Des..

[11]  Kasey L. Powers,et al.  Effects of video-game play on information processing: A meta-analytic investigation , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[12]  Petri Toiviainen Visualization of tonal content with self-organizing maps and self-similarity matrices , 2005, CIE.

[13]  Gavriel Salomon,et al.  Do Technologies Make Us Smarter? Intellectual Amplification With, Of, and Through Technology , 2005 .

[14]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Distribution of Information Processing While Performing Complex Cognitive Activities with Visualization Tools , 2014, Handbook of Human Centric Visualization.

[15]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research , 2000, TCHI.

[16]  Kenton O'Hara,et al.  Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[17]  S. Vereza Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 2001 .

[18]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Toward operationalization of 'flow' in mathematics learnware , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Peta Wyeth,et al.  GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games , 2005, CIE.

[20]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Toward a Taxonomy Linking Game Attributes to Learning , 2012 .

[21]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  From Play to Thoughtful Learning: A Design Strategy to Engage Children With Mathematical Representations , 2008 .

[22]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Creative Design of Digital Cognitive Games , 2012 .

[23]  D. Kirsh Metacognition, Distributed Cognition and Visual Design , 2004 .

[24]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[25]  Ernest Adams,et al.  Fundamentals of Game Design , 2006 .

[26]  A. Clark Supersizing the Mind , 2008 .

[27]  Espen Aarseth Playing Research: Methodological approaches to game analysis , 2003 .

[28]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  Hiller A. Spires,et al.  21st Century Skills and Serious Games: Preparing the N Generation , 2008 .

[30]  Andreas Oikonomou,et al.  An investigation of the effects of game difficulty on player enjoyment , 2013, Entertain. Comput..

[31]  G. Salomon Distributed cognitions : psychological and educational considerations , 1997 .

[32]  K. Sedig,et al.  Design of digital cognitive games: Some considerations , 2013 .

[33]  Amy Bruckman,et al.  No Magic Bullet: 3D Video Games in Education , 2002 .

[34]  Frans Mäyrä,et al.  Fundamental Components of the Gameplay Experience: Analysing Immersion , 2005, DiGRA Conference.

[35]  Maia Engeli Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman . MIT Press , Cambridge, MA, U.S.A. , 2003 . 670 pp., illus. Trade. ISBN: 0-262-24045-9 . , 2004, Leonardo.