Emotions and the Comprehension of Single versus Multiple Texts during Game-based Learning

ABSTRACT

This study examined 57 learners’ emotions (i.e., joy, anger, confusion, frustration) as they engaged with scientific content while learning about microbiology with Crystal Island, a game-based learning environment (GBLE). Measures of learners’ prior knowledge, in-game text comprehension, facial expressions of emotion, and posttest reading comprehension were collected to examine the relationship between emotions and single- and multiple-text comprehension. Analyses found that both discrete and non-discrete emotions were expressed during reading and answering in-game assessments of single-text comprehension. Learners expressed greater joy during reading and greater expressions of anger, confusion, and frustration during in-game assessments. Further results found that learners who expressed a high number of different emotions throughout reading and completing in-game assessments tended to have lower in-game comprehension scores whereas a higher number of different expressed emotions while completing in-game assessments was associated with greater posttest comprehension. Finally, while increased prior knowledge was associated with higher single- and multiple-text comprehension, there was no interaction between prior knowledge and emotions on multiple-text comprehension. Overall, this study found that (1) learners often express more than one emotion during GBLE activities, (2) emotions expressed while learning with a GBLE shift across different activities, and (3) emotions are related to demonstrated comprehension, but the type of activity influences this relationship. Results from this study provide implications for how emotions can be examined as learners engage in GBLE activities as well as the design of GBLEs to support learners’ emotions accounting for different activity demands to increase comprehension of single and multiple texts.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 895-2011-1006). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Participants were split into either full, partial, or no agency conditions that varied in the amount of afforded autonomy by restricting possible actions participants could take. For the purposes of this study, only data from participants in the no agency condition, which did not restrict any actions, were used.