MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416929854 · doi:10.1080/15391523.2025.2586570

Investigating the impacts of stealth assessment on physiological arousal during game-based learning

2025· article· en· W4416929854 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daryn A. Dever, Megan Wiedbusch, Roger Azevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Technology in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArousalCognitionData collectionElectronic learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Game-based learning environments (GBLEs) incorporate stealth assessments, unobtrusively capturing learners’ evolving knowledge and competencies. However, literature have not focused on how these assessments may impact learners’ emotional experiences during gameplay. As such, this paper captured undergraduate students’ (N = 26) physiological arousal as they played Crystal Island, a microbiology GBLE, to understand how physiology changes over time as a reaction to stealth assessments embedded in the environment. Results revealed that learners experienced greater physiological arousal while completing stealth assessments and that, as time progresses, learners experienced a steep decrease in physiological arousal after they concluded their task. This indicates that embedded stealth assessments may be more physiologically arousing than intended. Overall, while stealth assessments can be a highly effective tool for promoting deeper engagement, they must be designed with emotional regulation in mind.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.438 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on Technology in EducationSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207