Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: evaluating math comprehension and motivation

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an educational game in mathematics based on an apprenticeship model using a teachable agent, as well as an evaluative study of how the game affects (1) conceptual understanding and (2) attitudes towards mathematics. In addition, we discuss how collaborative and competitive affordances of the game may affect understanding and motivation. 19 students played the game in pairs once a week during math lessons for 7 weeks (the game-playing group) while another 19 students followed the regular curriculum (the control group). Math comprehension scores increased significantly for the game-playing group but not the control group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in attitude change between the two groups. Post hoc analyses indicated that game-playing primarily affected students’ confidence in explaining math to a peer, but not their enjoyment of doing so. Collaborative and competitive activities seem to carry a strong motivational influence for students to play the game.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The reason for this was that the questions should be quick to solve by anyone who has properly grasped the base-ten system. The risk of routine pencil-paper calculations is that one may produce a correct answer without understanding the conceptual basis thereof. The groups were small enough for the two researchers to ambulate and thereby ensure that no student performed pencil-paper calculations.

  2. Correspondingly, the distribution of overall results as well as of scores on the separate questions do not indicate ceiling effects or regression to the mean (so that stronger students would have “no room to learn”).

  3. For the pre-test, it is hard to see why an inclination to guess (rather than skipping the question or making an effort to answer it) would differ between the two groups. Note, however, that we base our analysis on the combination of the pre- and post-tests. On the post-test, it is possible that the two groups differed in their motivation to deal with the questions, so that more students in the game-playing group made an actual effort instead of guessing. Furthermore, if more students in the game-playing group became capable of getting the correct answer on the posttest, then fewer students in the game-playing group would be potential guessers.

References

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D. L., & TAG-V. (2001). Extending intelligent learning environments with teachable agents to enhance learning. In J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 389–397). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 186–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 55(2), 566–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1993). Rational numbers: An integration of research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (Eds.). (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with teachable agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6, 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Leelawong, K., Belynne, K., Biswas, G., Vye, N., Bodenheimer, B., & Bransford, J. (2003). Intelligent user interface design for teachable agent systems. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. Miami: The Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., & Yerasimou, T. (2008). Conversational agents and their longitudinal affordances on communication and interaction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enz, S., Zoll, C., Vannini, N., Watson, S., Aylett, R., Hall, L., et al. (2008). Virtual role-play in the classroom—experiences with fearnot! In P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (Eds.), Collaboration and the knowledge economy: Issues, applications, case studies. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, F. L., Wu, Y. L., & Ho, H. C. (2009). An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(3), 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, V. A., & Rechis, R. (2006). Children’s cooperative and competitive interactions in limited resource situations: A literature review. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 42–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskonen, K. (2007). Mathematics is—favourite subject, boring or compulsory. Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, (p. 248). Larnaca: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.

  • Jarvela, S. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5, 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Ionas, I. G. (2008). Designing effective supports for causal reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamii, C., Lewis, B. A., & Kirkland, L. (2001). Manipulatives: When are they useful? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F. (2008). Alternative goal structures for computer game-based learning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 429–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Gameplaying for maths learning: cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafortune, L. & Pons, F. (2005). The role of anxiety in metacognition in mathematics. In F. Pons, D. R. Hancock, L. Lafortune, & P-A. Doudin (Eds.). Emotions in learning (pp. 139–161). Aalborg: Aalborgs Universitetsförlag.

  • Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Bettys Brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindström, P., Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Sjödén, B. (2011). Matching and mismatching between the pedagogical design principles of a math game and the actual practices of play. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 90–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, A. K., & Ferneley, E. (2006). Embodied agents in e-learning environments: An exploratory case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie, D., Paterson, A., & Hayes-Michie, J. (1989). Learning by teaching. Second Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 207–331). Tampere: IOS Press.

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pareto, L. (2009). Teachable agents that learn by observing game playing behavior. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), July 6–10, 2009, pp. 31–40.

  • Pareto, L., Arvemo, T., Dahl, Y., Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2011). A teachable-agent arithmetic game’s effects on mathematics understanding, attitude and self-efficacy. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011, Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 6738, pp. 247–255.

  • Pareto, L., Schwartz, D. L., & Svensson, L. (2009). Learning by guiding a teachable agent to play an educational game. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, July 6–10, 2009. IOS Press, pp. 662–664.

  • Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C., Chin, D. B., Oppezo, M., Kwong, H., & Wagster, J. (2009). Interactive metacognition: monitoring and regulating a teachable agent. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 340–358). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., et al. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uresti, J., & du Boulay, B. (2004). Expertise, motivation, and teaching in learning companion systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(2), 67–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagster, J., Tan, J., Wu, Y., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. L. (2007). Do learning by teaching environments with metacognitive support help students develop better learning behaviors? In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceeding of the 29th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 695–700). Nashville: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 493–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Parts of the funding for the presented research comes from Wallenberg Global Learning Foundation (WGLN) and parts from Linköping University, Sweden.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Media, University West, 461 86, Trollhattan, Sweden

    Lena Pareto

  2. Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Box 118, 221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Magnus Haake

  3. Lund University Cognitive Science, Kungshuset, Lundagård, 222 22, Lund, Sweden

    Paulina Lindström, Björn Sjödén & Agneta Gulz

Authors
  1. Lena Pareto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magnus Haake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paulina Lindström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Björn Sjödén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Agneta Gulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agneta Gulz.

Appendices

Appendix 1: The math test questions included in the analysis

Appendix 2: The motivation questionnaire (excluding the final, open-ended question, which was not included in the analysis). The scale spans from 0 to 6

Appendix 3: Group-interview questions

  • What did you think about playing today?

  • How did it go?

  • Do you think the agents learn anything?

  • How do you know that they learn?

  • Is this a game where you compete or where you collaborate?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P. et al. A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 723–751 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation