The poster summaries three studies on the topic of surface qualities in educational video games and their effects on motivation and learning outcomes (key variables in all three studies) in the case of Czech primary school children (3^rd and 4^th grade). The study A focuses on the effects of visual appearance of the learning materials, namely the level of visual unity, visual complexity and overall perceived visual attractivity of the educational video games. The study B concerns with the instructionally irrelevant animated elements in these games and how they influence the attention distribution during the learning process and affect the key variables. The study C investigates the effect of the customization features of educational video games’ visuals. The results of all three studies reveal similar pattern, which shows that manipulated surface qualities (i.e. visual attractivity, instructionally irrelevant animated elements, customization of visual appearance) may fosters children’s motivation, but they do not affect the learning outcomes. These results are discussed in the context of Emotional Design (Um et al., 2012) and Cognitive-Affective Theory of Learning with Media (Moreno, 2005). It has potential practical implications for production of educational video games.

All three studies were value added comparative studies done in laboratory conditions. The participants were Czech children 8-11 years old (3rd and 4th grade in Czech school system), randomly assigned (balanced on gender) to experimental or control group in each study (N = 53, 134, ~150). The material for all interventions was an instructional mouse-controlled video game developed specially for the purpose of this research. The topic of the game was photosynthesis and water circulation in plants. The game contained six levels interspersed with six voice-narrated self-paced slides (average gameplay ~20 min). The goal of the game was to build a plant by applying instructions provided in the slides. The measures taken in all studies were prior interest (oral semi-structured inquiry); prior knowledge (oral inquiry, drawing test); self-reported enjoyment (emoji likert scale); immediate posttest (drawing test, oral inquiry); transfer knowledge posttest (oral inquiry); free choice (behavioral). In study B we also collected data using eye-tracker (EyeLink 1000 Plus, 500Hz, default parse algorithm) device and study C also included a delayed transfer posttest (oral inquiry, 2-3 weeks after the interest). The manipulation of the target game differed in each study based on the given investigation. In study A we manipulated overall level of visual complexity and unity (Kulka, 1996). Manipulation in study B comprised of different levels of dynamicity in case of instructionally irrelevant elements in the game (e.g. weather conditions). In the manipulated version in study C participants were given the possibility to choose selected visual elements of the game (e.g. background). The whole intervention in all studies lasted approximately one hour.

The results of all studies show that investigated surface qualities of educational video games (i.e. visual attractivity, instructionally irrelevant animated elements, customization of visual appearance) fosters the motivation of children to interact with the materials but they do not affect the learning outcomes positively and thus cannot be considered instructionally effective in emotional design fashion (Um et al., 2012). However, none of them affected the learning outcomes negatively: It seems they have negligible effect on learning process whatsoever. This may be useful information for the developers of this type of games; especially in the context of informal learning. On one hand, by investing more financial resources into better visuals, unobtrusive animated elements and customizable visual appearance, it is possible to draw children’s attention a motivate them to interact with these materials. Otherwise, they attention may be drawn to other entertaining content (e.g. games on the internet). On the other hand, in low-budget projects it is possible to omit these features without compromising any instructional benefits.

Mayer, R. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369 Moreno, R. (2005). Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (L. M. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning, Eds.). IAP. Um, E. R., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026609 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020