Suppose children study about a complex process from narrated slides supplemented by an interactive simulation game. Would their learning be enhanced compared to learning from the same slides supplemented by a self-paced animation showing the same content as the game does?

Interactivity can be defined in many ways (e.g., Chou, 2003). For example, in the multimedia learning field, interactivity often refers to the availability of simple control options (e.g., to stop and replay of an animation) (Schieter, 2014). The scope of this work is ‘problem solving’ interactivity (Moreno & Mayer, 2005), which is a canonical feature of simulation games. It enables learners to solve problems in an active way in a simulated game environment. An alleged advantage of this type of interactivity is its positive effect on mental processes needed for knowledge construction, such as organizing a mental model in working memory in the context of prior knowledge and integrating this model within long-term memory (Moreno & Mayer, 2007). This is supposed to enhance learning (Moreno & Mayer, 2007). Furthermore, problem solving interactivity is connected to higher control over choices. According to Ryan’s and Deci’s Self Determination Theory (2000), this is supposed to increase intrinsic motivation. According to the Cognitive-Affective Theory of Learning with Media (Moreno, 2005), this should increase cognitive engagement, which, in turn, should enhance learning. On the other hand, the Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1999) posits that interactivity can negatively influence the learning by increasing cognitive load. 

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of problem solving interactivity on children’s learning outcomes. As far as we know there are only few studies focused on this issue (e.g. Sawyer et al., 2017) and none of them have been realized with children. 

Participants Participants 149 Czech children (Mage = 8,785, SDage = 0,661) randomly assigned to two groups: The first group studied from the interactive version, i.e. slides and an educational game. The second one studied from the non-interactive version, i.e. slides and an animation content-equivalent to the game. Materials We used two, almost identical multimedia learning materials, the key difference being the presence or absence of the interactivity. The topic was photosynthesis. Both materials consisted of five chapters. Each chapter started with information delivery (through narrated slides) and continued with the game or the animation. In the game version, children learnt by means of taking care of a flower and by following narrated hints. The animation demonstrated an expert-level game-play of the length of an average game-play from a previous experiment. The animation’s narration was identical to the most frequently used hints in the game (i.e., we avoided yoked design, as it is suboptimal; e.g., Craig et al., 2006). The animation was self-paced (i.e., button ‘Next’). Procedure Children were tested individually in a quiet room. First, they were asked about their prior knowledge and interest about the topic. Next, they played/watched for about 15 minutes the game/animation. Afterwards, they were asked to evaluate the target material by means of a six-point scale with smileys. Next, their knowledge was assessed by retention and transfer tests. The last step was a free choice period. Children were introduced the alternative version of the materials (i.e., the game group was shown the animation and vice versa) and they had to choose which version they want to continue with for the remaining approx. 5 min. They also evaluated both versions with the smileys. The whole intervention lasted about one hour.

A preliminary analysis shows that there is no significant difference (t(149) = -0.24957, d = -0.041, p = 0.803) in learning outcomes between the interactive and non-interactive multimedia learning materials. (Analysis of affective-motivational variables is on-going.) This generally corroborates earlier, predominantly null/mixed, findings from studies with older audiences (meta-analyzed in Wouters & Oostendorp, 2017). This tentatively points in two directions. First, on a practical level, this question whether interactive simulation games are the medium of choice in school contexts (given development of games is more costly compared to animations and games are more difficult to use in schools). Second, on a theoretical level, possible positive effects of interactivity were probably counterbalanced by negative effects of increased cognitive load (or both positive and negative influences were minimal). Of course, it is an open question to what contexts our results generalize (e.g., different levels of interactivity, different topics).

Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 265-279. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00326 Craig, S., Sullins, J., Johnson, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level-reasoning-question effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 565-591. Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In M. B. L. M. PytlikZillig (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1-19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309-326. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., & Lester, J. (2017). Is more agency better? The impact of student agency on game-based learning. In Artificial intelligence in education, aied 2017 (Vol. 10331, pp. 335–346). Scheiter, K. (2014). The Learner Control Principle in Multimedia Learning The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 487-512). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Sweller, J. (1999). Intructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Vic: The Australian Council for Educational Research LTD