3.8 Article

Measuring Game Engagement: Multiple Methods and Construct Complexity

期刊

SIMULATION & GAMING
卷 45, 期 4-5, 页码 528-547

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1046878114553575

关键词

art; art complexity; attention; character customization; content analyses; customized character; EDA; educational games; electro-dermal activity; engagement; game clicks; interactivity; measurement; mouse movements; multiple methods; narrative; narrative complexity; presence; self-report; transportation

资金

  1. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via the Air Force Research Laboratory [FA8650-11-C-7176]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Engagement has been identified as a crucial component of learning in games research. However, the conceptualization and operationalization of engagement vary widely in the literature. Many valuable approaches illuminate ways in which presence, flow, arousal, participation, and other concepts constitute or contribute to engagement. However, few studies examine multiple conceptualizations of engagement in the same project. Method. This article discusses the results of two experiments that measure engagement in five different ways: survey self-report, content analyses of player videos, electro-dermal activity, mouse movements, and game click logs. We examine the relationships among these measures and assess how they are affected by the technical characteristics of a 30-minute, custom-built, educational game: use of a customized character, level of narrative complexity, and level of art complexity. Results. We found that the five measures of engagement correlated in limited ways, and that they revealed substantially different relationships with game characteristics. We conclude that engagement as a construct is more complex than is captured in any of these measures individually and that using multiple methods to assess engagement can illuminate aspects of engagement not detectable by a single method of measurement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据