유아용 교육게임에서 이탈행동에 대한 문제 유형 및 학습자 특성의 설명력 비교 연구
Comparing the Explanatory Power of Problem Type and Student Characteristics on Disengagement in Preschool Educational Games
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
온라인 학습에서 문제 유형과 학습자 특성은 모두 학습자의 이탈행동에 영향을 주는 것으로 알려져 있다. 기존 연구에서는 문제 유형과 학습자 특성 중 무엇이 학습자의 이탈행동에 상대적으로 더 중요한지를 연구하여 두 변수 중 어디에 집중하여 이탈행동에 대응할 것인지를 탐구하였다. 그러나 이러한 연구들은 중학생 이상의 연령을 대상으로 Intelligent Tutoring System(이하, ITS) 상에서 이루어져왔으며, 유아용 교육게임에서는 탐구되지 않았다. 이에 본 연구에서는 유아용 교육게임에서 문제 유형과 학습자 특성 중 어떤 변수가 세 가지 이탈행동인 게이밍, 풀이 외 행동, 중도포기를 보다 잘 설명할 수 있는지 탐구하였다. 게이밍이란, 깊게 고민하는 대신 시스템의 특성을 이용해서 문제를 푸는 행동이다. 풀이 외 행동은 학습활동과는 무관한 행동이며, 중도포기는 문제풀이를 완료하기 전 풀이를 중단하는 행동이다. 본 연구의 목적을 달성하기 위해, 유아용 교육게임 어플리케이션인 KitkitSchool을 플레이한 409명의 15,066개의 로그 데이터를 활용하여 다음 두 가지 절차를 수행하였다. 첫째, 게이밍, 풀이 외 행동, 중도포기 별로 이탈행동의 발생 여부를 레이블링하고, 문제 유형-학습자 별 이탈행동비율, 문제 유형 별 이탈행동비율, 학습자 별 이탈행동비율을 도출하였다. 둘째, 문제 유형 별 이탈행동비율과 학습자 별 이탈행동비율이 문제 유형-학습자 별 이탈행동비율에 가지는 설명력을 비교하기 위해 네 가지 분석인 선형회귀분석, 자기상관분석, 히스토그램, 베이지안 네트워크 분석을 수행하였다. 그 결과, 네 가지 분석 모두에서 문제 유형이 학습자 특성에 비해 세 가지 이탈행동을 보다 잘 설명하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과를 토대로, 유아용 교육게임에서 세 가지 이탈행동을 이해하기 위해 문제 유형을 중심으로 탐구할 것을 제안하였다.
Abstract
Both problem type and student characteristics are known to affect online learner disengagement. Therefore, examining which factor, problem type or student characteristic, has a relatively higher impact on learner’s disengagement is important in terms of helping researchers understand which of the two variables they should focus more to prevent disengagement effectively. Previous studies have compared problem type and student characteristics in school-aged children using the Intelligent Tutoring Systems(ITS); however, there have been few studies examining pre-school educational games. Therefore, this study examined the problem type or student characteristics variables in the context of educational games that could better explain the three types of disengagement: gaming, off-task, and quit. Gaming is a behavior when learners attempt to solve problems by exploiting the system’s properties rather than thinking deeply. Off-task refers to when students disengage in learning tasks, and quitting is a behavior where students give up during problem-solving activity. To identify the variable that better explains the three types of disengagement, four analyses were conducted: linear regression, self-correlation analysis, histogram, and Bayesian network. The analyses were performed using 15,066 of logged data from 409 learners who played KitkitSchool, a preschool educational game application. As a result, in all four analyses, it was found that the problem type better explained the three disengagements compared to the learner characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore problem types to more fully understand the three disengagement types in educational games.
참고문헌 (32)
- 코로나19와 콘텐츠 이용: 변화와 전만-콘텐츠 이용자 조사결과를 중심으로-, "한국콘텐츠진흥원", ~ (2020)
- Aagaard, J., "Drawn to distraction : A qualitative study of off-task use of educational technology", Computers & Education, 87, pp.90~97 (2015)
- Akyol, pa, Krishna, K., "Taking PISA seriously : How accurate are low-stakes exams?", Journal of Labor Research, 42, pp.184~243 (2021)
- Anthony, L., "Interaction and recognition challenges in interpreting children’s touch and gesture input on mobile devices", Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Interactive tabletops and surfaces, pp.225~234 (2012)
- Baker, R. S., "Is gaming the system state-or-trait? Educational data mining through the multi-contextual application of a validated behavioral model", Complete on-line proceedings of the workshop on data mining for user modeling at the 11th international conference, pp.76~80 (2007)
- Baker, R. S., "Modeling and understanding students' off-task behavior in intelligent tutoring systems", Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.1059~1068 (2007)
- Baker, R. S., "Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students “game the system”", Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.383~390 (2004)
- Baker, R. S., "Do performance goals lead students to game the system?", Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp.57~64 (2005)
- Baker, R. S., "Educational software features that encourage and discourage “Gaming the System”", 14th International conference on artificial intelligence in education, pp.475~482 (2009)
- Baker, R. S., "Assessing the disengaged behaviors of learners", Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems, 1, pp.153~164 (2013)
- Betts, J., "The development of sustained attention in children : The effect of age and task load", Child Neuropsychology, 12(3), pp.205~221 (2006)
- Campbell, F. A., "Early childhood education : Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project", Applied developmental science, 6(1), pp.42~57 (2002)
- Chiasson, S., "Design principles for children’s technology", interfaces, 7(28), pp.1~9 (2005)
- Cowan, N., "Scope of attention, control of attention, and intelligence in children and adults", Memory & cognition, 34(8), pp.1754~1768 (2006)
- Geiser, C., "States and traits", European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(4), pp.219~223 (2017)
- Gobert, J. D., "Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds", Educational Psychologist, 50(1), pp.43~57 (2015)
- Gong, Y., "The impact of gaming (?) on learning at the fine-grained level", Proceedings of the 10th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems, pp.194~203 (2010)
- Griffith, S. F., "Home learning in the new mobile age : Parent-child interactions during joint play with educational apps in the US", Journal of Children and Media, 13(1), pp.1~19 (2019)
- Hawkins, W., "Which is more responsible for boredom in intelligent tutoring systems: Students (trait) or problems (state)?", 2013 Humaine association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction, pp.618~623 (2013)
- Joiner, R., "It is best to point for young children : A comparison of children's pointing and dragging", Computers in Human Behavior, 14(3), pp.513~529 (1998)
- Kiili, K., "Digital game-based learning : Towards an experiential gaming model", The Internet and higher education, 8(1), pp.13~24 (2005)
- Lomas, J. D., "Is difficulty overrated? The effects of choice, novelty and suspense on intrinsic motivation in educational games", Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.1028~1039 (2017)
- Long, Y., "Educational game and intelligent tutoring system : A classroom study and comparative design analysis", ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction(TOCHI), 24(3), pp.1~27 (2017)
- Mills, C., "To quit or not to quit: Predicting future behavioral disengagement from reading patterns", International conference on intelligent tutoring systems, pp.19~28 (2014)
- Muldner, K., "An analysis of students’ gaming behaviors in an intelligent tutoring system : Predictors and impacts", User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 21(1), pp.99~135 (2011)
- Orbach, L., "Relation of state-and trait-math anxiety to intelligence, math achievement and learning motivation", Journal of Numerical Cognition, 5(3), pp.371~399 (2019)
- Peters, C., "Predictors and outcomes of gaming in an intelligent tutoring system", International conference on intelligent tutoring systems, pp.366~372 (2018)
- Rodrigo, M., "Comparing learners’ affect while using an intelligent tutoring system and a simulation problem solving game", International conference on intelligent tutoring systems, pp.40~49 (2008)
- Ruiperez-Valiente, J. A., "Using machine learning to detect ‘multiple-account’ cheating and analyze the influence of student and problem features", IEEE transactions on learning technologies, 12(1), pp.112~122 (2017)
- Sottilare, R. A., "Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems", Instructional Management, 2, pp.1~14 (2014)
- Tsagris, M., "Normality test : Is it really necessary?", American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 159(4), pp.548~549 (2021)
- Unsworth, N., "Attentional disengagements in educational contexts : A diary investigation of everyday mind-wandering and distraction", Cognitive research : Principles and implications, 2(1), pp.1~20 (2017)