Assessment of Learners’ Motivation during Interactions with Serious Games: A Study of Some Motivational Strategies in Food-Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated motivational strategies and the assessment of learners’ motivation during serious gameplay. Identifying and intelligently assessing the effects that these strategies may have on learners are particularly relevant for educational computer-based systems. We proposed, therefore, the use of physiological sensors, namely, heart rate, skin conductance, and electroencephalogram (EEG), as well as a theoretical model of motivation (Keller’s ARCS model) to evaluate six motivational strategies selected from a serious game called Food-Force. Results from nonparametric tests and logistic regressions supported the hypothesis that physiological patterns and their evolution are suitable tools to directly and reliably assess the effects of selected strategies on learners’ motivation. They showed that specific EEG “attention ratio” was a significant predictor of learners’ motivation and could relevantly evaluate motivational strategies, especially those associated with the Attention and Confidence categories of the ARCS model of motivation. Serious games and intelligent systems can greatly benefit from using these results to enhance and adapt their interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".