Search

Research on instructional design provides inconsistent results on the use of game elements in cognitive tasks or learning. Cognitive load theory suggests that game elements increase extraneous cognitive load and, thus, may distract the users. In contrast, from an emotional design perspective, the use of game elements is argued to increase performance by providing a more interesting and motivating task environment. To contribute to this debate, the current study investigated the effect of game elements on behavioral performance, attention, and motivation. We designed two versions of the number line estimation task--one with game elements and one without. Participants completed both versions of the task while their eye-fixation behavior was recorded. Results indicated that participants paid attention to game elements, that is, they fixated them, although they were not necessary to complete the task. However, no difference in estimation accuracy was observed between the two task versions. Moreover, the task version with game elements was rated to be more attractive, stimulating, and novel, and participants reported experiencing greater flow. In sum, these data indicate that game elements seem to capture attention but also increase motivational aspects of learning tasks rather than decreasing performance.

Two types of calculation processes have been distinguished in the literature: approximate processes are supposed to rely heavily on the non-verbal quantity system, whereas exact processes are assumed to crucially involve the verbal system. These two calculation processes were commonly distinguished by manipulation of two factors in addition problems: the identity of the target and the distance of the distractor. However, in all previous studies, these two factors were not manipulated independently. In this fMRI study, we could disentangle the two factors by using a different (two-digit) number stimulus set. Both behavioral and neurofunctional data suggest that the cognitive processes involved could be best explained by the (independent) factors target and distractor distance. Based on these data we suggest that the exact/approximate distinction does not seem to be as generally valid as previously assumed. We conclude that this study may be a starting point for a closer examination of the experimental, procedural and strategic conditions of when the exact/approximate distinction is valid and when it is not. (Contains 5 tables and 4 figures.)