Associations Among Scaffold Presentation, Reward Mechanisms and Problem-Solving Behaviors in Game Play

Computers & Education 119 (2018) 95–111
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Associations among scaffold presentation, reward mechanisms and

T
problem-solving behaviors in game play
Chuen-Tsai Suna, Li-Xian Chena,∗, Hsiu-Mei Chub
a
Department of Computer Science, National Chiao Tung University, No. 1001, University Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan
b
Nan-Mei Primary School, No. 99, Nanshang Road, Guishan Shiang, Taoyuan County 333, Taiwan
AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Learning assistance tools used with digital games—commonly called scaffolds—can reduce player
Human-computer interface frustration and help them create problem-solving strategies while supporting achievement.
Interactive learning environments Reward mechanisms in the form of external incentives are also believed to enhance motivation
Media in education and promote learning, but possibly at the expense of excessive learner reliance. Some researchers
Teaching/learning strategies
have suggested that reward mechanisms can be used to discourage players from becoming de-
pendent on scaffolds. For this study we customized Professor Sudoku, a simplified version of the
popular digital reasoning game, to investigate the effects of scaffold presentation-plus-reward
mechanism on problem-solving behaviors and actions aimed at leveling-up. A total of 126 par-
ticipants were divided into active scaffold (providing direct assistance to players at the beginning
of a game), passive scaffold (provided by the game system when players made three mistakes
within a specified time frame), and hidden scaffold groups (accessible at any time). Each scaffold
served three functions: critical feature marking, frustration control, and demonstration. The three
groups were given point-gain and point-loss reward mechanisms. Our data indicate that the
appropriate presentation of one or more scaffolds reduced player reliance on support, thereby
increasing the potential for positive learning effects and reducing frustration. Results suggest that
the reward mechanism promoted independent problem solving instead of reliance on scaffolds,
and that the addition of scaffolds and reward mechanisms encouraged experienced players to
create new rules, overcome the limitations of existing rules, and develop more complex learning
strategies. We discuss the need to carefully design scaffold presentation type according to specific
instructional purposes, and possible benefits for teachers in terms of analyzing the difficulties
that individual students face when solving numerical problems.
1. Introduction
Digital games have been shown to promote learning in subjects such as mathematics, science, foreign language, and computer
science (Feng & Chen, 2014; Hung, Huang, & Hwang, 2014; Kao, Chiang, & Sun, 2017; Ting, 2009). Digital game-based learning
(DGBL) environments provide learners with opportunities to improve cognitive skills and increase motivation (Raybourn & Bos,
2005). Gee (2004) has presented evidence showing the capability of digital games to motivate learning, and Rosas et al. (2003) have
described how digital games positively affect learning motivation and learning outcomes. However, other researchers have reported
inconsistent results regarding the use of digital games and learning motivation (see, for example, Filsecker & Hickey, 2014). In their
review of studies on motivation and instructional games, Kebritchi, Hirumi, and Bai (2010) found that only 4 of 16 reported
∗
Corresponding author. National Chiao Tung University, Room 719, MIRC, No. 1001, University Road, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan.
E-mail address: lixian.cs98g@g2.nctu.edu.tw (L.-X. Chen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.001
Received 15 May 2016; Received in revised form 2 January 2018; Accepted 3 January 2018
Available online 08 January 2018
0360-1315/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-T. Sun et al. Computers & Education 119 (2018) 95–111
motivational increases based on the use of serious games.

Digital game characteristics such as challenge, feedback, sense of conflict and problem solving have been shown to promote active
learning (Prensky, 2001). In DGBL, degrees of learner self-determination and autonomy exert strong impacts on learning behaviors
(Chen, Jang, & Branch, 2010; Martens, Gulikers, & Bastiaens, 2004). Martens et al. found that learners with greater autonomy were
more active in executing an online task compared to learners with less autonomy. According to Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001),
individual intrinsic motivation plays a significant role in the pursuit of and response to challenges in a manner that supports a sense of
competence. The need for competence motivates individuals to seek challenges that are optimal for their capacities, and to make
persistent efforts to maintain and enhance their skills (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) has described how appropriate
challenges that correspond to learner skill level result in flow experiences in which players are neither bored nor anxious. When
studying a group of individuals with high levels of self-determined motivation who achieved the strongest flow states, Kowal and
Fortier (1999) observed that they were more likely to achieve flow experiences while remaining deeply engaged in tasks (Lee, 2005).
Combined, these studies raise several questions regarding how to help individuals achieve flow experiences when they have different
levels of self-determination and perceived autonomy.
It is challenging to find the sweet spot that makes a player feel challenged but not overwhelmed (McFarlane, Sparrowhawk, &
Heald, 2002). Kao et al. (2017) discuss ways that scaffolds can be added to game designs to strike a balance between enjoyable
(motivating) difficulty and frustration. Researchers working with self-determination theory (SDT) have shown that in addition to
providing autonomous support, the appropriate addition of game structures, guidance tools, and scaffolds can positively influence
learner engagement in a game, thus increasing the potential for positive learning effects (Fisch, 2005; Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Kim
& Hannafin, 2011; Yelland & Masters, 2007). Not only can digital game scaffolds provide assistance without interrupting learning
among frustrated players, they can also spark creative problem-solving efforts (Chen & Law, 2016). However, care must be taken
when determining proper scaffold presentation. Sun, Wang, and Chan (2011) describe how some scaffold types cause excessive
reliance, thus depriving users of learning opportunities and likely diminishing long-term learning. DGBL system designers must
therefore remain aware of potential mismatches between scaffolds and instructional goals. The use of digital user interfaces with
DGBL systems can boost scaffold presentation flexibility, but doing so raises questions concerning player frustration and self-images
as poor learners (Chen & Law, 2016). Hence, effective scaffold design requires consideration of whether learners can achieve targeted
learning goals, and acknowledgment that scaffolds have the dual potential to enhance and weaken learning motivation (Azevedo &
Hadwin, 2005). In DGBL environments it is possible to offer indirect scaffold assistance—that is, a gaming system can be programmed
to offer a scaffold after determining that a player has failed to complete a task after a certain number of times or within a specified
time frame. These kinds of questions have influenced researchers to examine the utility of scaffolds in terms of learning achievement
(Barzilai & Blau, 2014) and intrinsic motivation (Chen & Law, 2016). Acknowledging the difficulty of designing scaffolds that
successfully enhance the effectiveness of educational games (Sun et al., 2011), our primary research goal is to determine when and
how to introduce and remove scaffolds.
Another significant challenge for DGBL system designers is to maintain a sense of fun while encouraging active learning (Delen,
Liew, & Willson, 2014; Raes, Schellens, De Wever, & Vanderhoven, 2012). Katz and Assor (2007) found that games are more likely to
be considered fun when learners can connect game content with their personal lives, or when they are offered meaningful content
that matches their needs, interests, goals, capabilities and cultural backgrounds. According to behavioral psychologists, motivation is
influenced by external rewards and punishments that encourage learner performance and discourage improper behaviors; in the
context of this paper, improper behaviors include reliance on assistance tools (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Walker & Shea, 2006; Wang & Sun,
2011). According to Deci and Ryan (1985), when extrinsic rewards are introduced to an intrinsically interesting activity, participants
may perceive an effort to control their actions. When presented with properly designed reward systems, students are motivated to
explore and complete more tasks because their enjoyment and satisfaction levels are increased (Tan, Goh, Ang, & Huan, 2013).
However, most studies on this topic do not focus on digital game actions, but on the ways that rewards and punishments influence
classroom behaviors (Dad, 2004) and learning cooperation (Nikiforakis, 2010). Thus, the main goal for this study is to assess how a
point-based external control mechanism combined with game scaffolds affects the problem-solving behaviors of a group of digital
game players.
1.1. Problem solving in digital games
Digital games have been promoted as effective systems for teaching rules and knowledge (Thomas & Brown, 2009). Rieber, Smith,
and Noah (1998) assert that digital games combine motivation and self-regulation with learning, thereby providing good training
environments in support of higher-order learning experiences. Gaming contexts can provide rich settings for increasing both intrinsic
and extrinsic learner motivation (Murad, 2017; Olson, 2010). From an SDT perspective, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are be-
lieved to stimulate individuals to enact certain behaviors and to engage in more active decision-making (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic
motivation is defined as effort to achieve something regardless of external outcomes, and extrinsic motivation is defined as the use of
external rewards and positive feedback to increase learner interest in a task.
Games designed for educational purposes benefit from incorporating self-determination theory through the use of various re-
wards, appropriate paths to higher game levels and achievements, and timely feedback (Kao et al., 2017; Proulx, Romero, & Arnab,
2017). Game designers can take advantage of player willingness to engage in a continuous process of trial-and-error to overcome
digital game challenges (Cheng, She, & Annetta, 2015). When individuals have opportunities to explore and make mistakes, they can
synthesize information, discover rules, and form strategies (Ebner & Holzinger, 2007). Learners seem to take special pleasure in
finding and reacting to unexpected rules created by system designers (Sun, 2013). Chen and Sun (2016) note that new rule creation is
96
an important method used by players to modify games to make them more fun. Gee (2004) notes that players seem to be attracted to
digital games that make them feel “pleasantly frustrated,” thus motivating them to create or recycle existing expert knowledge to
interpret gaming rules and to establish new strategies. Yee (2006) has also described the ways that players create a sense of
achievement by figuring out game systems and their underlying rules. It is important to remember the nature of games as rule-based,
fixed activities with limited structures, and that most players “play by the rules” and recognize that by changing the rules or game
system, they are also changing game meaning (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). These findings indicate a need for research on self-
regulated learning and developmentally appropriate levels for scaffold learners, as well as on zones of proximal development (ZPD)
for optimal affective, motivational, and cognitive functioning.
According to Spyridakis and Isakson (1991), subjective differences such as prior knowledge are particularly important for game
play because they affect how players connect new and existing knowledge. In most cases people play games not because they are
personally interested in solving a computational problem, but because they want to be entertained (Von Ahn & Dabbish, 2008). But in
order to master a game, players need to access and reflect on prior knowledge, solve game process problems, and transfer knowledge
from other contexts (Oblinger, 2004). Oblinger notes that games incorporate specific attributes that are associated with the ways that
individuals learn, and that prior knowledge can affect game rule understanding and interpretation. Experienced players tend to
actively construct personal game meanings that differ from the original, and many highly skilled players are constantly on the
lookout for novel ways to circumvent formal game rules (Hamlen & Blumberg, 2015). Some experienced players like to challenge
game rules, while others are inclined to cheat (Kuecklich, 2004), destroy game rules (Myers, 2005), or take white-eye actions (i.e.,
disrupt or distress other players’ gaming experiences) in the interest of constructing their own gaming approaches or methods (Lin &
Sun, 2007). By doing so, they create environments in which learning experiences are no longer defined and determined by the system
alone, but by a system-player combination.
1.2. Scaffolds
Palinscar and Brown (1984) describe scaffolds as temporary supports that can be hidden or removed after successful learning (see
also McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik, & Marx, 2006). The main purpose of a scaffold is to support problem-solving and self-regulation efforts
(Azevedo & Hadwin, 2005). Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) were the first to use the terms “scaffold” and “scaffolding” to describe
tools that help students attain levels of understanding that otherwise they would likely fail to achieve. The concept is based on the
learning theories of Vygotsky (1980), who is credited with the idea of a zone of proximal development (ZPD) that exists between learner
ability to solve a problem alone, or with assistance or guidance (Fig. 1). Another purpose of using scaffolds is to reduce learner
“groping” with the help of teachers or peers. Vygotsky posited that social interaction processes support the transformation of learning
experiences into individual meaning. According to self-determination theorists, the needs of learners to interact with others can be
partly satisfied by the use of scaffolds, which can also support learner growth and development via the integration of knowledge
acquired from their instructors (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004).
Various types of scaffolds in digital games can be used to explain game rules, explore game strategies, and familiarize players with
the necessary skills to move through game levels with minimum frustration. It is important for game scaffolds to have sufficient
flexibility so that they match the needs and skill levels of different student types, and allow for inquiry processes that help players
discover their own answers (Morris et al., 2010). When players get stuck, scaffolds can make them feel more successful and motivate
them to continue playing (Chen & Law, 2016). According to SDT principles, individual needs for competence encourage players to
seek challenges that are optimal for their capacities, and to enhance their skills through practice and use (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Scaffolds can help learners go beyond their current zones of proximal development and expand their competency levels by providing
full examples or just a few hints (Kao et al., 2017). Pea (2004) suggests that scaffolds have two primary functions: to clearly express
the main features of a task to help learners focus on effective learning processes, and to demonstrate feasible methods for solving the
task. In this study we integrated three of Wood et al.’s (1976) six scaffold types: “marking critical features,” “frustration control,” and
“demonstration.” In Professor Sudoku, “marking critical features” consists of showing remaining digits to help players prioritize their
next moves; “frustration control” consists of automatic computations of possible digits, inserted number checks, and prompts for next
Fig. 1. Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (ZPD).
97
steps to help players overcome bottlenecks or errors; and “demonstration” consists of detailed tips for next steps.
1.3. Player autonomy and ZPD
According to SDT principles, autonomous individuals are capable of organizing and regulating their own behaviors, including
working toward inner coherence and integration within regulatory demands and goals (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, two problems
emerge: some students are incapable of monitoring their learning and seeking help when needed (Hadwin & Winne, 2001), and
novice players sometimes neglect or reject help that is offered (Aleven & Koedinger, 2000). To meet the needs of different individuals,
scaffolds need to be presented both implicitly and explicitly (Hadwin & Winne, 2001; Roehler & Cantlon, 1997). Depending on prior
knowledge and motivation, implicit scaffolds can move students toward specific aspects of learning without explicit direction or
instruction. Chang (2016) asserts that scaffolds that offer minimal but critical guidance may benefit learning by encouraging cog-
nitive engagement. Scaffolds are conceptually and operationally distinguished from other types of assistance in terms of their gradual
reduction and eventual elimination (Sharma & Hannafin, 2007). The most effective scaffolds support independent skill development
by facilitating successive competency levels and returning to “hidden” positions when learners demonstrate acceptable levels of
competency (Palincsar, 1998). In contrast, explicit scaffolds provide direct instruction for struggling learners (Hadwin & Winne,
2001). Moreno (2004) found that the cognitive loads of novice students could be reduced and that their learning could be enhanced
more by direct instruction than discovery. To increase overall conceptual understanding among the novice students in our sample, we
assumed that they would learn more if they were given access to direct guidance.
It is important for game designs to match learner zones of proximal development—if designs are too complex, they can prevent
learners from achieving higher cognitive levels, while too simple designs can prevent them from achieving basic levels of compe-
tence. In other words, learners need to have access to just enough information to make progress on their own (Hogan & Pressley,
1997). Game designs that are capable of accommodating learner developmental levels or stages are critical for achieving ZPD. SDT
researchers suggest that providing opportunities for choice can support individual needs for autonomy, resulting in internally per-
ceived loci of causality and enhanced intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2016). In consideration of learner autonomy, we presented
the critical feature marking, frustration control, and demonstration scaffold types in three forms: active (direct assistance), passive,
and hidden. Acknowledging that three consecutive failures can significantly increase player frustration (Andrew, 2015; Skinner,
2011), we programmed our version of Professor Sudoku to automatically provide help whenever a player made three mistakes within
a specified time frame, while limiting tool usage to three times per level to prevent learners from relying too much on scaffolds.
1.4. Reward mechanisms
Proper GBL instruction entails rewards that promote motivation, enhance conceptual understanding (Filsecker & Hickey, 2014;
Romm & Ragowsky, 2001), and give players feelings of fun. Koster (2013) suggests that fun exists at the margins of a player's
capabilities when attempting to master a problem. The primary function of a reward is to provide a goal that encourages or maintains
positive gaming experiences and motivation, and that helps players endure slow periods and overcome low points (Wang & Sun,
2011). Individuals achieve self-regulation by changing extrinsic learning motivation into intrinsic learning motivation to achieve
learning effects (Piaget, 1962)—a process known as “internalization” (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Learning performance and learning
behaviors induced by external rewards can internalize both motivation and personal learning characteristics, resulting in involuntary
learning (Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985). One SDT-focused study has shown that satisfying competence, relatedness, and autonomy
requirements promotes intrinsic motivation and internalizes extrinsic motivation (Isen & Reeve, 2005).
Behaviorists note that individual learning behaviors are established when rewards are pursued or when punishment is avoided
(Skinner, 2011). For example, point systems are typically used to indicate an individual's progress and performance, and therefore
serve as measures of self-efficacy and competitive success (Hamari, 2017). However, some cognitive theorists describe external
rewards as detrimental to intrinsic motivation because they undermine learner perceptions of competency and autonomy by focusing
on outside motivational sources (Filsecker & Hickey, 2014). Deci and Ryan (1985; 2000) point out that while external events such as
threats of punishment, deadlines, and competition exert a certain degree of influence on the behaviors of some individuals, they can
also detract from student efforts to learn how to solve problems on their own based on appropriate reinforcement mechanisms
(Bandura, 1991; McNeill et al., 2006). This raises questions on how best to provide positive reinforcement for basic needs while
eliminating negative reinforcement as learner skills improve, and considering a transitional period of intermittent reinforcement once
a target behavior has been learned (Skinner, 2011; Walker & Shea, 2006). In the version of the Professor Sudoku game used in this
study, we added a feature that penalizes incorrect guesses in an attempt to discourage players from relying too much on scaffolds and
from making random guesses. Depending on the context, this could be considered a positive or negative feature.
Whereas most commercial video games offer players external rewards in the form of points or levels (Tobias & Fletcher, 2011), we
added a point-based direct reward system in which players lost points when they used scaffolds. We used a combination of positive
reinforcement (10 points for correct answers and 1000 bonus points when no scaffolds were used to level up) and direct punishment
(2 points subtracted for each wrong answer) to investigate gaming strategy differences triggered by various combinations of active,
passive, and hidden scaffolds plus reward mechanisms.
1.5. Research goals
Our two main goals were to identify scaffold presentation and reward mechanisms that players could benefit from, and to
98
determine their effects on solution strategy development and overall learning. We manipulated various combinations of Professor
Sudoku scaffolds in an attempt to (a) identify which scaffolds were best in terms of maintaining a sense of fun among players, and (b)
determine whether such temporary support is sufficient for inducing active learning and supporting strategy development. Wanting
to emphasize gaming process rather than results, we focused on identifying actual or potential links among gaming behaviors,
scaffold presentation, and reward mechanisms. Our specific interest was in identifying the effects of different combinations of
scaffolds and rewards on player gaming behaviors, strategy changes, usage, and interactive effects.
We used the above theoretical considerations and literature findings to establish two research questions:
1. Do different scaffold presentation models and reward mechanisms affect player reliance on assistance tools?
2. Do combinations of reward mechanisms and scaffolds influence the problem-solving behaviors of players?
2. Methods
2.1. Professor Sudoku
We used existing learning theories to customize Professor Sudoku in terms of scaffold design and a rewards mechanism. The main
Sudoku game from which it is derived is one of a large number of games that require players to use innovative methods to achieve
goals (Bruner, 1972). Accordingly, it has been identified as a tool for helping players to develop reasoning skills (Baek, Kim, Yun, &
Cheong, 2008), and is being used in some schools in different parts of the world to teach logical thinking (Wilson, 2012). Sudoku
players must keep track of unoccupied fields and subsets of numbers that are already on the board. Most players focus on one number
at a time and maintain awareness of all locations where that number already exists. Backtracking, which is required when errors
occur, is part of the logical thinking process. When a player places a number in one cell and realizes that it removes the possibility of a
correct solution in another, that player becomes aware of a logical relationship between cells (Ren, Meng, & Yuan, 2011). Using the
puzzle in Fig. 2 as an example, since the cells located at positions (8, 1), (9, 6) and (4, 8) all contain the digit 9, that digit cannot
appear a second time at (4, 1), making (5, 2) the only possible cell into which 9 can be inserted. In classroom settings, Sudoku can be
played by teams of students, thereby teaching them cooperative as well as problem-solving skills that may be transferable to other
study and life situations (Emily, 2015).
Professor Sudoku has 4x4-, 6x6-, and 9x9-cell versions. We selected the 6 × 6 game (Fig. 3) based on our assessment of the general
skill level of the study participants. The large majority of early adolescent Taiwanese students have basic reasoning capabilities to
solve math problems (Heinze, Cheng, & Yang, 2004), with 11- and 12-year-old students easily solving simplified Sudoku games on
their own. Participants were given 5-min practice sessions to become familiar with the game environment, and were allowed to ask
questions before playing the game for a full 40-min session. Each group was allowed to play at 10 levels ranging from easy to difficult,
with each level having only one solution. We took advantage of Professor Sudoku's programmable backstage features to collect data on
numbers of times that tools were used, tool category (critical feature-marking, frustration control, or demonstration), and level-
passing strategy (play by the rules or play with the rules, as described in section 2.2 below). It was assumed that the assistance tools
would allow players to solve all problems. Players could only move up to the next level when they completed a full round at the
current level without scaffolds.
The critical feature-marking, frustration control, and demonstration scaffolds in our version of Professor Sudoku match Hadwin
and Winne's (2001) suggestion that they be presented in either a clear (active) or implied (passive and hidden) manner. Our version
has one critical feature-marking tool that encourages learners to pay attention to specific goals or objects: an ongoing display of the
number of remaining cells requiring digits (Fig. 4a). The game has three frustration control tools to help players deal with bottle-
necks: one that shows all possible candidates for empty cells, one that uses color to mark cells containing incorrect digits, and one that
shows which cell should be filled in next and which digit should be used to fill it (Fig. 4b). Last, the game has one demonstration
tool—players can ask the game system to “show detailed hints for the next step” (Fig. 4c), which helps them deduce game rules and
Fig. 2. An example of the “basic elimination” technique.
99
Fig. 3. Professor Sudoku screen shot.
Fig. 4. Examples of the three Professor Sudoku scaffold assistance functions.
develop their own strategies. Since the three scaffold types do not directly influence the problem-solving process (Sun et al., 2011),
we did not test the individual effects of each tool. Instead, we focused on how the combination of scaffold presentation and a simple
reward mechanism influenced problem-solving behaviors.
2.2. Pilot study
In 2011 we conducted a pilot study with 24 sixth-grade students attending a school in northern Taiwan. Based on our perceptions
of their overall skill level, for this part of our project we used the 6x6-cell version of Professor Sudoku. After a 5-min introduction to
game rules and methods, the students were allowed to play for 40 min before filling out game behavior questionnaires. Game
activities were recorded using screen capture software, which allowed us to observe the most commonly used strategies, and to find
efficient ways to present scaffold tools in later experiments.
We observed four types of game behaviors: “first solution step,” “playing method when stuck,” “tool use during game play,” and
“strategies for completing levels.” The first refers to the application of process-of-elimination techniques, including guessing and the
identification of single solutions. The second included clearing out all filled-in boxes when feeling stuck, and re-filling them without
the help of scaffolds. Tool usage was the clearest indication of scaffold reliance to solve puzzles. The two most common leveling-up
strategies were playing by the rules (e.g., using reasoning and backtracking) and playing with the rules (e.g., constantly monitoring
scores to check whether answers were correct or not). As an example of playing by the rules, we observed one player using a block-
solving method at level 1 (i.e., searching for solutions row by row, column by column, or grid by grid), relying on assistive tools after
getting stuck at level 2, and then using a mix of block-solving and focusing on rows, columns, or grids requiring only two numbers for
completion. After overcoming immediate challenges, this player returned to standard game rules and strategies. For those inclined to
play with the rules, we failed to observe changes in playing strategy when they became stuck at certain levels. Apparently they
understood that they earned points for correct answers and neither gained nor lost points when their answers were incorrect, and
therefore felt no need for tools to help them level up.
100
Fig. 5. The three Professor Sudoku scaffold presentation types.
2.3. Learner/player sample
The sample for this quasi-experimental study consisted of 193 sixth grade students (101 male, 92 female) between the ages of 11
and 12 from six classes at an elementary school in northern Taiwan. Of these, 174 completed the entire experiment and were included
in our data analysis. The gender distribution in the sample was comparable to that for all Taiwanese sixth graders in 2011 (52.3%
male, 47.7% female) (Ministry of Education, 2016). As is the case throughout the country, the students in this school are assigned to
classes based on prior achievement, indicating similarities in academic performance for all study participants. To reduce the potential
for interference, students were not told the research purpose for playing the games nor given any other information regarding group
conditions. Slight variations in statistical analyses were primarily due to missing values resulting from absences or incomplete data.
Experiments were conducted toward the end of the semester, when teachers have greater freedom to present supplementary activities
that are not part of the regular curriculum.
2.4. Scaffold presentation and reward mechanism
The three scaffold presentation models used in this research were based on information from the literature and our interest in
establishing and supporting player autonomy (Fig. 5):
1. Active, with all available assistance tools shown at the beginning of play.
2. Passive, with frustration control and demonstration tools made available whenever a player made three consecutive mistakes.
Each tool could be used a maximum of three times per level.
3. Hidden, with the player hitting a button to make the scaffold appear. This tool could also be used a maximum of three times per
level.
Based on our pilot study results, we asked a professional Professor Sudoku programmer to create six different versions of the game
with the following features: (a) mixed active scaffolding and point gain, (b) mixed active scaffolding and point loss, (c) mixed passive
scaffolding and point gain, (d) mixed passive scaffolding and point loss, (e) mixed hidden scaffolding and point gain, and (f) mixed
hidden scaffolding and point loss. He altered the original game so that it neither automatically provided hints nor gave warnings
when players made mistakes. Numbers of students assigned to play versions a-f were 29, 31, 26, 31, 28 and 29, respectively.
Throughout the experiment, all players were given puzzles at the same difficulty level and with the same number of empty cells. Since
points could be accumulated at the same level, higher scores did not necessarily indicate successful leveling up. Players accumulated
points until game time expired or all levels were mastered. They received 1000 points whenever a level was completed without the
use of one or more scaffolding tool. In three of the six experimental groups, players earned ten points every time they inserted a
correct number into a Professor Sudoku square. Points were not deducted when players used tools or filled in wrong numbers. In the
other three groups, two points were deducted whenever a player used a frustration control tool after filling in a wrong number, and
ten points were deducted whenever a player used a demonstration tool that provided the correct answer.
2.5. Procedure
As shown in Fig. 6, independent variables were scaffold type (active, passive or hidden) and reward mechanism type (point gain
or loss). Dependent variables were gaming performance (highest completed level, total tool usage, individual tool usage, and level
passing score) and play by/play with the rules (Fig. 6). We also attempted to determine whether Sudoku game-playing experience
affected problem-solving behaviors in the form of learner mastery of game rules and skills for moving to higher levels.
Our experimental procedure consisted of three steps:
1. The Professor Sudoku play procedure described in Section 2.1.

2. A screen video recording device to identify students who consistently monitored scores as a means of finding the correct digit for
each cell. These participants were placed in a “play-with-the-rules” group, and all others were assigned to a “play-by-the-rules”
group. The recordings were used to compare the two groups in terms of level completion and type of strategy when they got stuck
101
Fig. 6. Conceptual framework for this study.
at any level.
3. A twelve-item questionnaire designed to record participant self-assessments of gaming behaviors and performance. Responses
were recorded along a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“definitely disagree”) to 5 (“definitely agree”). Two sample items are
“I tried every function and chose the one that helped me pass a level,” and “My ability was enhanced and my leveling-up time
reduced when I played at the same level.” Four short-answer questions were added for purposes of confirming the problem-solving
behaviors noted in the video recordings:
1. Did you find another faster method to pass a level? If yes, please describe it. If no, do not answer questions 2-4.
2. How did you discover this method?
3. At what level did you start using this method?
4. What were the benefits of using this method?
Responses to these questions also provided the researchers with additional data on player behaviors and confirmation of using
“play-with-the-rules” strategies.
3. Results
Our first task was to analyze the effects of the three types of digital scaffolds on player behaviors. Descriptive statistics for those
behaviors according to different combinations of scaffolds and rewards are shown in Table 1. Data for main and interaction effects are
shown in Table 2. Partial eta-squared was calculated to determine effect size. According to Richardson (2011) and Lakens (2013),
partial eta-squared values of approximately 0.01, 0.06 and 0.14 indicate small, medium and large effects, respectively.
3.1. Effects of various scaffold presentation models and reward mechanisms on game behaviors
ANOVA results indicate no statistically significant interaction between scaffold type and reward mechanism (F(2, 168) = 0.86,
p = .424), but both scaffold (F (2, 168) = 9.01, p < .001, η2 = 0.097) and reward mechanism type (F (2, 168) = 26.03, p < .001,
η2 = 0.134) exerted significant effects on the total number of times that each scaffold tool was used. Results from a Scheffe's post hoc
comparison indicate that more hidden scaffolds were used than active or passive scaffolds. Total tool usage was higher among all
point gain groups compared to point loss groups (Fig. 7). Fig. 7 through 10 show confidence interval (CI) data, presented as error bars
to support visual comparisons (Streiner, 1996).
Next, we attempted to determine the effect of previous Sudoku play experience on total tool usage. Levene's tests failed to provide
sufficient evidence of variance heterogeneity between experienced and inexperienced players (p = .059 > .05). Independent sample
t-test results indicate that students in the experienced Sudoku players group used support scaffolds an average of 12.7 times per game,
compared to 19.7 times for the inexperienced group—statistically significant with a moderate effect size (t(172) = 2.267,
p = .025 < .05, d = 0.34) (Table 3).
102
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for student game behaviors according to scaffold and reward mechanism type.
Dimension Reward Active scaffold Passive scaffold Hidden scaffold

(n = 29a, n = 31b) (n = 26c, n = 31d) (n = 28e, n = 29f)
M SD M SD M SD
Maximum level solved Point gain 5.17 2.82 5.92 3.32 6.25 3.40
Point loss 4.74 2.89 5.48 2.97 6.28 2.98
Total tool usage Point gain 32.69 28.68 22.27 26.02 15.86 14.34
Point loss 16.74 18.06 4.32 6.65 6.62 6.57
Critical feature tool usage Point gain 1.72 2.45 2.38 4.54 1.64 2.15
Point loss 1.32 2.23 0.61 1.17 0.79 1.15
Frustration control tool usage Point gain 24.97 22.47 17.04 20.35 11.54 10.01
Point loss 9.29 13.32 3.00 4.89 4.90 5.49
Demonstration tool usage Point gain 6.00 10.91 2.85 3.46 2.68 3.94
Point loss 6.13 10.70 0.71 1.32 0.93 1.36
g
Level-passing score Point gain 6197.93 3290.58 6919.62 3781.62 7552.18 4001.70
Point loss 4983.16 3438.60 5698.32 3548.95 6700.97 3564.03
a
Mixed active scaffolding and point gain.
b
Mixed active scaffolding and point loss.
c
Mixed passive scaffolding and point gain.
d
Mixed passive scaffolding and point loss.
e
Mixed hidden scaffolding and point gain.
f
Mixed hidden scaffolding and point loss.
g
0 minimum score and 12,000 maximum score.
Table 2
Data for main and interaction effects of different scaffold and reward mechanism types on game behaviors.
Dimension Main effect for scaffold type Main effect for reward mechanism type Interaction effect Post hoc
F(2, 168) p F(2, 168) p F(2, 168) p
Total tool usage 9.01 .000 26.03 .000 0.86 .424 Active > Passive
Active > Hidden
Gain > Loss
Critical feature tool usage 0.27 .765 7.14 .008 1.15 .321 Gain > Loss
Frustration control tool usage 6.58 .002 32.09 .000 1.69 .188 Active > Passive
Active > Hidden
Gain > Loss
Demonstration tool usage 7.92 .001 1.50 .222 0.48 .622 Active > Passive
Active > Hidden
Fig. 7. Average total scaffold tool usage numbers.
3.2. Critical feature tool usage
ANOVA results indicate no statistically significant interaction between scaffold type and reward mechanism (F(2, 168) = 1.15,
p = .321), but a significant effect of reward mechanism type (F(2, 168) = 7.14, p = .008 < .01, η2 = 0.041) on the number of times
that a critical feature tool was used. Scheffe's post hoc comparison data indicate that critical feature tool usage was higher among all
point gain groups compared to point loss groups (Fig. 8). Regarding the effect of prior Sudoku play experience on critical feature tool
usage, Levene's test results failed to find a significant difference between variances (p = .694 > .05)—in other words, we did not
103
Fig. 8. Average critical features function scaffold usage numbers.
Fig. 9. Average frustration control function scaffold usage numbers.
Fig. 10. Average demonstration function scaffold usage numbers.
Table 3
Data for effect of prior Sudoku playing experience on game play behavior.
Behavior Experience level Number of students Average times S.D. p Cohen's d
Total tool usage Inexperienced 87 19.69 23.45 .025 0.34

Experienced 87 12.68 16.80
Critical feature tool usage Inexperienced 87 1.53 2.25 .453 0.12
Frustration control tool usage Inexperienced 87 14.24 18.23 .025 0.34
Demonstration tool usage Inexperienced 87 3.92 8.39 .194 0.20
104
find evidence of significant variance heterogeneity between the experienced and inexperienced groups. Further, no significant dif-
ference was noted for critical feature scaffold usage (t(172) = 0.752, p = .453 < .05, d = 0.12, small effect size) (Table 3).
3.3. Frustration control tool usage
Results from a repeated measures ANOVA indicate no significant interaction between scaffold type and reward mechanism type (F
(2, 168) = 1.69, p = .188), but both scaffold type (F(2, 168) = 6.58, p = .002 < .01, η2 = 0.73) and reward mechanism type (F(2,
168) = 32.09, p < .001, η2 = 0.160) exerted significant effects on the number of times that participants used the frustration control
tools. According to Scheffe's post hoc comparison results, (a) study participants used the hidden frustration control tools a sig-
nificantly greater number of times than the active and passive frustration control tools, and (b) students in the point gain groups used
them much more than students in the point loss groups (Fig. 9). Data from Levene's tests for determining whether previous Sudoku
playing experience exerted an effect on the use of frustration control scaffolds indicate no significant difference between variances
(p = .030 < .05), thus revealing heterogeneity between the experienced and inexperienced groups. Our independent sample t-test
results indicate a statistically significant difference (moderate effect size) in frustration control scaffold usage between experienced
(8.9 times per game) and inexperienced (14.2 times per game) Sudoku player groups (t(172) = 2.262, p = .025 < .05, d = 0.34)
(Table 3).
3.4. Demonstration tool usage
ANOVA results indicate no statistically significant interaction between scaffold type and reward mechanism type (F(2,
168) = 0.48, p = .622). However, scaffold type exerted a significant effect on demonstration tool usage (F(2, 168) = 7.92,
p = .001 < .01, η2 = 0.086). According to Scheffe's post hoc comparison results, the number of times study participants used the
active scaffold demonstration tool exceeded the number of times they used the passive or hidden scaffold forms (Fig. 10). We again
used Levene's tests to determine whether previous Sudoku playing experience affected the number of times that students used the
demonstration control scaffold, and found no significant differences between variances (p = .186 > .05), indicating homogeneity
between the experienced and inexperienced groups. No significant differences (small effect size) were found for the use of critical
feature scaffolds (t(172) = 1.305, p = .194 > .05, d = 0.20) (Table 3).
3.5. Effects of various scaffold presentation models and reward mechanisms on level-passing strategies
We performed chi-square multiple contingency tests to search for significant correlations to investigate variation in level passing
strategy (play-by-the-rules versus play-with-the-rules) associated with the various scaffold presentation models and reward me-
chanisms. First, we used reward mechanism type as a control variable to investigate relationships between different scaffolds and
level passing strategies, and then used scaffolds as a control variable to investigate relationships between reward mechanism type and
level passing strategy. As shown in Table 4, no significant correlations were noted between the two level passing strategies for the
three point gain (χ2(2) = 2.15, p > .05; contingency coefficient = 0.16, p > .05) or three point loss groups (χ2(2) = 5.52, p > .05;
contingency coefficient = 0.24, p > .05). Further, we did not find any significant correlations between level passing strategy and
any of the three scaffold groups: active (χ2(1) = 0.55, p > .05; contingency coefficient = 0.10, p > .05), passive (χ2(1) = 0.28,
p > .05; contingency coefficient = 0.07, p > .05), or hidden (χ2(1) = 0.02, p > .05; contingency coefficient = 0.02, p > .05).
According to these results, all of the study participants preferred following the stated game rules, regardless of scaffold presentation
model or reward mechanism type.
We also attempted to determine whether prior Sudoku playing experience exerted any effect on level passing strategy decisions.
We used prior Sudoku playing experience as a control variable to investigate relationships between different scaffolds and level
passing strategies, and then used scaffolds as a control variable to investigate relationships between prior Sudoku playing experience
Table 4
Results from Chi-square multiple contingency analysis of different scaffold presentation and reward mechanism
types on passing level strategies for all study participants.
Mode Control Level Significance
Reward mechanism as control variable

χ2 Point gain 2.15
Point loss 5.52
Contingency coefficient Point gain 0.16
Point loss 0.24
Scaffold as control variable
χ2 Active scaffold 0.55
Passive scaffold 0.28
Hidden scaffold 0.02
Contingency coefficient Active scaffold 0.10
Hidden scaffold 0.02
105
Table 5
Results from Chi-square multiple contingency analysis of effects of different scaffold presentation types and prior
Sudoku playing experience on passing level strategy for all study participants.
Mode Control level Significance
Sudoku experience as control variable

χ2 Inexperienced 0.94
Experienced 10.74*
Contingency coefficient Inexperienced 0.10
Experienced 0.33*
Scaffold as control variable
χ2 Active scaffold 0.34
Hidden scaffold 4.14*
Contingency coefficient Active scaffold 0.08
Hidden scaffold 0.26*
*p < .05.
and preferred level passing strategy. For those in the experienced group, the data indicate a significant correlation between the
scaffold presentation model and level passing strategy (χ2(2) = 10.74, p < .05; contingency coefficient = 0.33, p < .05) (Table 5).
For the students in the hidden scaffold groups, a significant correlation was observed between Sudoku playing experience and level
passing strategy (χ2(1) = 4.14, p < .05; contingency coefficient = 0.26, p < .05) (Table 6). As shown in Table 7, we observed a
significant difference between level passing strategy and type of scaffold presentation for the experienced students (χ2(2) = 10.74,
p < .05; contingency coefficient = 0.03, p < .05). Among experienced Sudoku players using the hidden scaffolds, exactly twice as
many played with the rules than played by the rules (16 versus 8, or 66.7%) (Table 6).
We also used reward mechanism as a control variable to investigate relationships between the experienced (inexperienced)
Sudoku playing groups and level passing strategy, and then used playing experience (inexperience) as a control variable to investigate
relationships between reward mechanism and level passing strategy. As shown in Table 7, no significant correlations were found
between reward mechanism and level passing strategy for any of the point gain (χ2(1) = 0.29, p > .05; contingency coeffi-
cient = 0.06, p > .05) or point loss groups (χ2(2) = 0.02, p > .05; contingency coefficient = 0.02, p > .05). Nor was any significant
correlation observed between Sudoku playing experience and level passing strategy for either experienced (χ2(1) = 0.44, p > .05;
contingency coefficient = 0.07, p > .05) or inexperienced players (χ2(1) = 0.06, p > .05; contingency coefficient = 0.06, p > .05).
These results indicate no differences in terms of following established rules between the experienced/inexperienced groups. Finally,
data from the game behavior questionnaire and video recordings indicate (a) play-by-the-rules students tended to try all scaffolds and
to show impatience in terms of quickly filling in all grids; and (b) play-with-the-rules students used scaffold tools until they un-
derstood that doing so blocked them from moving to the next level, and then deduced that by monitoring their scores they could
determine when an inserted digit was correct (Table 8). Most players in the second group either relied on a block-solving approach or
focused on rows, columns, or grids that only required one digit for completion. A smaller number arbitrarily inserted digits into any
grid, and then monitored their game scores to determine when they were right or wrong.
4. Discussion and conclusion
4.1. Scaffolds and gaming behaviors
Our data indicate significant differences regarding the effects of different types of scaffold presentation on total and individual
scaffold usage. Total and individual function time quantities for the three active scaffolds were much higher for students who used
passive and hidden scaffolds. A possible explanation is that the active scaffolds provided all assistive functions at each level of play, so
that learners could use them at any time.
Sun et al. (2011) describe how scaffold support in games tends to increase scaffold reliance. However, we found that the numbers
of times that study participants in the passive and hidden scaffold groups used the frustration control and demonstration functions
Table 6
Results from Chi-square analysis of passing level strategy for experienced Sudoku players according to scaffold presentation type.
Presentation Type Strategy (%) χ2 Contingency Coefficient
Play by the rules Play with the rules
Active 23 (76.7) 7 (23.3) 10.74* 0.03*

Passive 21 (63.6) 12 (36.4)
Hidden 8 (33.3) 16 (66.7)
*p < .05.
106
Table 7
Results from Chi-square multiple contingency analysis of effects of different reward mechanisms and prior Sudoku
playing experience on passing level strategy for all study participants.
Verification Mode Control Level Significance
Reward mechanism as control variable

χ2 Point gain 0.29
Point loss 0.02
Contingency coefficient Point gain 0.06
Point loss 0.02
Sudoku playing experience as control variable
χ2 Inexperienced 0.06
Experienced 0.44
Contingency coefficient Inexperienced 0.03
Experienced 0.07
Table 8
Game behavior questionnaire statistics for level-passing strategy.
Question Level-Passing Definitely Disagree Disagree Average Agree Definitely Agree Mean
Strategy (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1. I tried every function and chose the one that helped me 1 12.6 16.5 29.1 30.1 11.7 3.12
pass a level. 2 42.6 18.0 21.3 16.4 1.6 2.16
2. When stuck at a level, I could not wait to fill out all of the 1 18.4 25.2 34.0 15.5 6.8 2.67
grids using the scaffold functions. 2 47.5 26.2 16.4 4.9 4.9 1.93
3. My ability was enhanced and the level-passing time 1 4.9 15.5 26.2 29.1 24.3 3.52
became shorter when I played at the same level. 2 3.3 3.3 13.1 29.5 50.8 4.21
4. I did not use the assistance tools because of the level- 1 14.6 17.5 38.8 17.5 11.7 2.94
passing requirement. 2 6.6 14.8 24.6 11.5 42.6 3.69
5. The game design was too difficult in terms of leveling up. 1 14.6 15.5 41.7 13.6 14.6 2.98
2 36.1 23.0 29.5 9.8 1.6 2.18
6. I would try to get a higher score if I could play one more 1 9.7 5.8 13.6 32.0 38.8 3.84
time. 2 8.2 1.6 11.5 27.9 50.8 4.11
Level-passing strategy: 1, play by the rules; 2, play with the rules.
were lower compared to the active scaffold group students. Critical features were presented at all times by the three scaffold types.
However, average critical feature usage only ranged between 0.61 and 2.38 times per game per player. Compared to the frustration
control and demonstration functions, players had much less time for reasoning or analysis when using the critical feature function.
Further, our video recordings show that study participants in the play-by-the-rules group used scaffolds in three ways: those in the
active group experimented with every scaffold function, those in the passive group gradually reduced their scaffold usage, and those
in the hidden group were the most selective scaffold users. Since the passive and hidden scaffolds did not provide assistance until
users expressed a need, they gave the appearance of reduced dependence. The passive scaffolds used in this study are considered
conditional due to the game features of presenting support functions after three consecutive failures and shutting down after three
uses. In contrast, the passive and hidden scaffolds that we added to Professor Sudoku strongly encouraged students to explore and
consider other options.
We observed a tendency among experienced Sudoku players in the hidden scaffolding group to play with the rules, perhaps due to
their quick understanding of earning points when they added a correct digit to a grid, and of losing the chance to level up if they used
scaffolds. Once they figured out the basics of the reward/punishment system, they promptly learned how to use the point gain feature
to check whether an answer was correct or not without relying on a scaffold—an observation confirmed by the video recordings.
These insights, plus higher degrees of mastery, supported player autonomy when they observed changes in the game environment
and created new tactics in response (Fazey & Fazey, 2001). This is a good example of the ways that creativity can resemble cheating
(Ejsing-Duun, 2011; Hamlen & Blumberg, 2015), with cheating defined as the breaking of rules established within a game, or as
unexpected actions given game play conventions (Hamlen & Blumberg, 2015; Kuecklich, 2004). When study participants sensed that
they were not confined to limited cognitive frameworks, many searched for ways to cut corners in pursuit of leveling up. As is the case
with many other digital games, the design characteristics of Professor Sudoku encourages players to find weaknesses in the game
system that they can modify and exploit. As Hamlen and Blumberg (2015) note, what some outside observers might consider cheating
is perceived by many players as creative innovations for mastering game environments, with a direct link between amount of
experience and sensitivity to ways that game frameworks restrict their progress (Kiili, 2005). Players who perceive restrictions in
rule-based game environments are likely to reallocate their resources to achieve their leveling-up goals. The most experienced players
tend to be excellent pattern recognizers who feel a great sense of fun and satisfaction from identifying similarities and differences
(Gee, 2004).
107
4.2. Rewards and gaming behaviors
Regarding the reward mechanism used in this research, we found that the students in the point gain group used scaffolds much
more than their point loss counterparts. A significant difference in the numbers of times that critical feature-marking and frustration
control scaffolds were used was also noted between the point gain and point loss groups, likely explained by the desire of players to
keep the number of deducted points as low as possible. However, no significant difference between the two groups was noted for the
demonstration function, perhaps because that tool (which directly provides answers) has more potential to reduce the sense of game
challenge and fun. This is consistent with Land and Zembal-Saul's (2003) observation that students do not automatically use all of the
explicit problem-solving processes or tools that are offered to them.
Study participants tried to restrict their scaffold usage as much as possible, either to avoid having points deducted, or in the
interest of passing through each level with the highest possible score. As shown in Table 8, students who felt “stuck” initially used
scaffolds for assistance, but changed their behavior when they discovered that by using scaffolds they could not advance to the next
level. The video recordings indicate that in some instances, players filled each square with the same number and checked to see if
their point totals rose or fell. Other players were more skillful in using a mix of reasoning and backtracking, but they still relied on the
point reward system to check their answers. As they gained experience, players avoided these tactics altogether in order to earn the
highest possible scores, which required scaffold avoidance—an example of extrinsic motivation (Ronimus, Kujala, Tolvanen, &
Lyytinen, 2014).
Individual players who have their own ways of creating a sense of fun are less likely to want to get answers directly; however,
having too little information can prevent them from experiencing fun while learning (Chen & Sun, 2016). We found that even though
study participants initially had problems getting out of level 2, their solution times did decrease as they repeated the level—an
obvious example of eventually mastering a problem-solving strategy based on repeated practice. According to player comments and
responses to the game behavior questionnaire items, this was especially true among play-with-the-rules learners, who sensed im-
provement in their problem-solving abilities. However, play-by-the-rules students also avoided using assistance scaffolds, especially
once they understood that doing so blocked them from leveling up. We also found evidence indicating that the experienced Sudoku
players in our sample were more likely to play with the rules because of their preferences for “free form” play involving their own
methods (Myers, 2005). Evidence from our video recordings indicate that even though play-with-the-rules students were more likely
to use tactics such as monitoring their scores to determine if they had inserted correct digits, they still relied on deductive reasoning
as an important part of their problem-solving processes.
As discussed earlier, appropriate scaffold design features (e.g., proper presentation and phasing out) and reward mechanisms can
increase, or at least not significantly decrease, learning motivation and senses of challenge so as to promote learning (McNeill et al.,
2006). According to our results, maintaining interest and a sense of fun among early adolescent novice players apparently required
passive rather than direct assistance. Conversely, we found that hidden scaffolds allowed expert players to develop higher-order
strategies and to establish new behaviors. In learning contexts, players can develop new knowledge when instructors provide ap-
propriate assistance and proper rewards (Raybourn & Bos, 2005).
4.3. Main findings and limitations
We used this paper to present evidence regarding two influences on problem-solving behaviors in reasoning-based game en-
vironments: scaffold presentation (active, passive or hidden) and reward mechanism (positive or negative). Our findings indicate that
scaffold presentation influenced the game-playing behaviors of the player-learners in our sample. Active scaffolds increased the
potential for players to rely on them, while passive and hidden scaffolds decreased that potential. According to self-determination
theory (SDT), providing learners with appropriate guidance and scaffolds can positively influence their engagement with a task and
enhance positive learning effects (Fisch, 2005; Jang et al., 2010; Kim & Hannafin, 2011; Yelland & Masters, 2007). We also observed
different types of external and internal assistance strategies when study participants became stuck at a level, with experienced players
more likely to take advantage of game system quirks to achieve their goals, and with inexperienced players benefiting from having
access to various forms of assistance. Both approaches can help players to maintain learning motivation and a sense of gaming fun.
The majority of study participants eventually learned how to avoid losing points, and figured out that if they purposefully chose to
use a scaffold, they would be denied the opportunity to advance to the next game level—evidence that the reward mechanism we
integrated into Professor Sudoku exerted a positive effect on player reluctance to use scaffolds. Many players relied on scaffolds to find
correct answers at the beginning of game play, and sometimes when they got stuck at a new level. They seemed to accept the idea that
they could always repeat the same level without scaffolds, earn 1000 bonus points, and move up one more level. However, most
players only relied on scaffold assistance at the very first level, after which they were intrinsically motivated to work independently of
such assistance and to move toward game mastery on their own. Our observations support Isen and Reeve's (2005) assertion that
satisfying a need for competency not only promotes intrinsic motivation, but also internalizes extrinsic motivation. Since most game
play occurs outside of classroom settings (Prensky, 2001), players have greater freedom to make decisions regarding frequency,
timing, and duration of playing sessions; playing strategies and methods; and achievement/avatar level goals (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990). When confronted with obstacles, most players continue addressing game challenges based on their wishes to attain long-term
goals, and therefore avoid using short-term scaffolds or tips (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). According to our findings, the scaffold pre-
sentation and reward mechanisms that we added to Professor Sudoku did not impair the study participants' learning motivation, but
stimulated their sense of challenge, control, and desire for achievement. Further research is required to help identify the principles
underlying appropriate assistance, as well as rewards that classroom instructors can use to help their students develop stronger
108
knowledge structures in a range of topic areas.

We discovered that the point gain/loss system that we added to the game served as a hidden scaffold in support of testing different
digits for insertion into empty squares—an example of meaningful engagement with gameplay and problem-solving processes. This
finding supports Ebner and Holzinger's (2007) observation that when individuals are given opportunities to explore and make
mistakes, they are more likely to synthesize information, discover rules, and form strategies. It also confirms that we achieved one of
our study goals, at least in part, to design hidden scaffolds in a manner that supported player exploration, and that allowed players to
have some fun while testing the game system for weaknesses that they could exploit. Instructors need to remember that experienced
learners will always find new ways to bend or get around game rules, even in restricted environments. However, instead of inter-
preting those efforts as a form of cheating, instructors might benefit from viewing them as creative processes and using them to
achieve instructional goals (Chen & Law, 2016; Hamlen & Blumberg, 2015; Starko, 2013). Our results also confirm Hadwin and
Winne's (2001) observations that many learners are not capable of monitoring themselves, regulating their learning efforts, or seeking
help when they need it. Our findings suggest that active scaffolds are more suitable for novices, and passive and hidden scaffolds
more suitable for experienced players who are skilled at quickly analyzing game details.
Several limitations need to be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, the non-automatic characteristic of the
scaffold phasing-out mechanism means that the feature does not necessarily assist students right away. Identifying game patterns is
both an important learning tool and key source of fun (Gee, 2004), and the phasing-out of scaffolds encourages complexity in player
strategies. Researchers may want to use eye-movement tracking devices to identify students who are encountering difficulties and to
classify what kinds of challenges they repeatedly come up against, and then use the data to determine appropriate guidelines for
phasing out scaffolds (Poole & Ball, 2006). A second limitation is our sole use of a reasoning game. Future researchers will want to
test the same ideas with other game types, including scientific exploration and economics-based games. Since players are capable of
creating new playing strategies without violating game rules, researchers need to use a variety of game designs to determine how
different players take unique approaches to problem solving in order to study game-related innovation and fun in detail.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the blind reviewers of this paper for their insightful and constructive comments. They are grateful for helpful
input on paper organization from Jon Lidemann and the Professor Sudoku digital game designer, Kuang-Chen Wu. They are also
grateful for funding from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, grant number: MOST 105-2511-S-009-004-MY3
References
Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help? Paper presented at Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 292–
303). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Andrew, F. (2015). Unlocking your Child's genius. Australia: Finch Pub.
Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition–Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional
Science, 33(5), 367–379.
Baek, Y., Kim, B., Yun, S., & Cheong, D. (2008). Effects of two types of sudoku puzzles on students' logical thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second
European conference on games based learning.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.
Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education,
70, 65–79.
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world:
Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2, 59–68.
Bruner, J. S. (1972). Nature and uses of immaturity. American Psychologist, 27(8), 687.
Chang, H.-Y. (2016). How to augment the learning impact of computer simulations? The designs and effects of interactivity and scaffolding. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–15.
Cheng, M. T., She, H. C., & Annetta, L. A. (2015). Game immersion experience: Its hierarchical structure and impact on game-based science learning. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 232–253.
Chen, K.-C., Jang, S.-J., & Branch, R. M. (2010). Autonomy, affiliation, and ability: Relative salience of factors that influence online learner motivation and learning
outcomes. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 2(1), 30–50.
Chen, C.-H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 1201–1212.
Chen, L.-X., & Sun, C.-T. (2016). Self-regulation influence on game play flow state. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 341–350.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.
Dad, H. (2004). Effectiveness of reward and punishment as modifiers of students classroom behaviorPhD thesis. Rawalpindi, Pakistan: University of Arid Agriculture.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1),
1–27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di
Psichologia, 27, 17–34.
Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments.
Computers & Education, 78, 312–320.
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers
& Education, 49(3), 873–890.
Ejsing-Duun, S. (2011). Location-based games: From screen to street. Videnbasen for Aalborg UniversitetVBN, Aalborg UniversitetAalborg University, Det Humanistiske
FakultetThe Faculty of Humanities, Kommunikation-IT og LæringsdesignKommunikation-IT og Læringsdesign.
Emily, L. (2015). In Sudoku club, Scotten School students love thinking logically. Retrieved April, 2017, from http://www.theunion.com/news/16131642-113/in-sudoku-
club-scotten-school-students-love-thinking.
109
Fazey, D. M., & Fazey, J. A. (2001). The potential for autonomy in learning: Perceptions of competence, motivation and locus of control in first-year undergraduate
students. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 345–361.
Feng, C. Y., & Chen, M. P. (2014). The effects of goal specificity and scaffolding on programming performance and self-regulation in game design. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 45(2), 285–302.
Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students' motivation, engagement and learning in an
educational game. Computers & Education, 75, 136–148.
Fisch, S. M. (2005). Making educational computer games educational. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 56–61). ACM.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning by design: Games as learning machines. Digital Education Review, 8, 15–23.
Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2001). CoNoteS2: A software tool for promoting self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2–3), 313–334.
Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469–478.
Hamlen, K. R., & Blumberg, F. C. (2015). Problem solving through “cheating” in video games. Video Games and Creativity, 83.
Heinze, A., Cheng, Y.-H., & Yang, K.-L. (2004). Students' performance in reasoning and proof in Taiwan and Germany: Results, paradoxes and open questions. ZDM,
36(5), 162–171.
Hogan, K. E., & Pressley, M. E. (1997). Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Brookline Books.
Hung, C.-M., Huang, I., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Effects of digital game-based learning on students' self-efficacy, motivation, anxiety, and achievements in learning
mathematics. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(2–3), 151–166.
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and
self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 295–323.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588.
Kao, G. Y.-M., Chiang, C.-H., & Sun, C.-T. (2017). Customizing scaffolds for game-based learning in physics: Impacts on knowledge acquisition and game design
creativity. Computers & Education, 113, 294–312.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 429.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers &
Education, 55(2), 427–443.
Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13–24.
Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice.
Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.
Koster, R. (2013). Theory of fun for game design. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 355–368.
Kuecklich, J. (2004). Other playings–cheating in computer games. Paper presented at the proceedings of the other players conference.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of
progress.
Lee, E. (2005). The relationship of motivation and flow experience to academic procrastination in university students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1), 5–15.
Lin, H., & Sun, C.-T. (2007). Cash trade within the magic circle: Free-to-play game challenges and massively multiplayer online game player responses. Paper presented
at the proceedings of DiGRA.
Martens, R., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
20(5), 368–376.
McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of gamesCambridge: TEEM (Teachers evaluating educational multimedia).
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
Ministry of Education [MOE] (2016). Population statistics of school students at all levels in all city and county districts in Taiwan for the school year of 2011. Reterived from
http://stats.moe.gov.tw/result.aspx?qno=NAAyAA2.
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional
Science, 32(1), 99–113.
Morris, R., Hadwin, A. F., Gress, C. L., Miller, M., Fior, M., Church, H., et al. (2010). Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in gStudy. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26(5), 815–824.
Murad, S. S. (2017). Brain involvement in the use of games in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 7(6), 90.
Myers, D. (2005). What's good about bad play? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment.
Nikiforakis, N. (2010). Feedback, punishment and cooperation in public good experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 689–702.
Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2004(1), 1–18.
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children's motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 180.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—-a response to C. Addison Stone's “the metaphor of scaffolding its utility for the field of learning
disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370–373.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2),
117–175.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood (C. Gattegno & FM Hodgson, Trans.)NY: Norton.
Poole, A., & Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. Encyclopedia of human computer interaction, 1, 211–219.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Proulx, J.-N., Romero, M., & Arnab, S. (2017). Learning mechanics and game mechanics under the perspective of self-determination theory to foster motivation in
digital game based learning. Simulation & Gaming, 48(1), 81–97.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers &
Education, 59(1), 82–94.
Raybourn, E. M., & Bos, N. (2005). Design and evaluation challenges of serious games. CHI'05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2049–2050).
ACM.
Ren, Z., Meng, J., & Yuan, J. (2011). Depth camera based hand gesture recognition and its applications in human-computer-interaction. Paper presented at the
information, communications and signal processing (ICICS) 2011 8th International conference.
Richardson, J. T. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147.
Rieber, L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology, 38(6), 29–37.
Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist classrooms. Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues, 1.
Romm, C., & Ragowsky, A. (2001). Searching for a“ killer application” for on-line teaching-or are we? AMCIS 2001 proceedings: Vol 22.
Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). Children's engagement during digital game-based learning of reading: The effects of time, rewards, and
challenge. Computers & Education, 71, 237–246.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., et al. (2003). Beyond nintendo: Design and assessment of educational video games for first
and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(1), 71–94.
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. Research on motivation in education: The
110
classroom milieu, 2, 13–51.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being in schools: Research and observations from self-determination theory.
Handbook of motivation at school, 96.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.
Skinner, B. F. (2011). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage.
Spyridakis, J., & Isakson, C. (1991). Hypertext: A new tool and its effect on audience comprehension. Paper presented at the professional communication conference, 1991.
IPCC'91. Proceedings. The Engineered Communication., International.
Starko, A. J. (2013). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. Routledge.
Streiner, D. L. (1996). Maintaining standards: Differences between the standard deviation and standard error, and when to use each. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
41(8), 498–502.
Sun, C.-T. (2013). Game-based digital learning. Taipei: H EDU Press.
Sun, C.-T., Wang, D.-Y., & Chan, H.-L. (2011). How digital scaffolds in games direct problem-solving behaviors. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2118–2125.
Tan, J. L., Goh, D. H.-L., Ang, R. P., & Huan, V. S. (2013). Participatory evaluation of an educational game for social skills acquisition. Computers & Education, 64,
70–80.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2009). Why virtual worlds can matter. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(No.1), 37–49.
Ting, Y. (2009). Learning to hypothesize with confidence through sudoku game play. Paper presented at the English teaching forum.
Tobias, S., & Fletcher, J. (2011). Computer games and instruction. IAP.
Von Ahn, L., & Dabbish, L. (2008). Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 58–67.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
Walker, J. E., & Shea, T. M. (2006). Behavior management: A practical approach for educators (9th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Wang, H., & Sun, C.-T. (2011). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and social meanings. Paper presented at the proceedings of DiGRA 2011 conference. Think
design play.
Wilson, R. J. (2012). How to solve sudoku: A step-by-step guide. Infinite ideas.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & behavior, 9(6), 772–775.
Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3), 362–382.
111

Associations Among Scaffold Presentation, Reward Mechanisms and Problem-Solving Behaviors in Game Play

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Associations Among Scaffold Presentation, Reward Mechanisms and Problem-Solving Behaviors in Game Play

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Computers & Education 119 (2018) 95–111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

Associations among scaﬀold presentation, reward mechanisms and

motivational increases based on the use of serious games.

1.1. Problem solving in digital games

Fig. 1. Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (ZPD).

1.3. Player autonomy and ZPD

1.4. Reward mechanisms

1.5. Research goals

2.1. Professor Sudoku

Fig. 2. An example of the “basic elimination” technique.

Fig. 3. Professor Sudoku screen shot.

Fig. 4. Examples of the three Professor Sudoku scaﬀold assistance functions.

2.2. Pilot study

Fig. 5. The three Professor Sudoku scaﬀold presentation types.

2.3. Learner/player sample

2.4. Scaﬀold presentation and reward mechanism

1. The Professor Sudoku play procedure described in Section 2.1.

Fig. 6. Conceptual framework for this study.

Dimension Reward Active scaffold Passive scaffold Hidden scaffold

F(2, 168) p F(2, 168) p F(2, 168) p

Fig. 7. Average total scaﬀold tool usage numbers.

3.2. Critical feature tool usage

Fig. 8. Average critical features function scaﬀold usage numbers.

Fig. 9. Average frustration control function scaﬀold usage numbers.

Fig. 10. Average demonstration function scaﬀold usage numbers.

Behavior Experience level Number of students Average times S.D. p Cohen's d

Total tool usage Inexperienced 87 19.69 23.45 .025 0.34

3.3. Frustration control tool usage

3.4. Demonstration tool usage

Mode Control Level Signiﬁcance

Reward mechanism as control variable

Mode Control level Signiﬁcance

Sudoku experience as control variable

4. Discussion and conclusion

4.1. Scaﬀolds and gaming behaviors

Presentation Type Strategy (%) χ2 Contingency Coeﬃcient

Play by the rules Play with the rules

Active 23 (76.7) 7 (23.3) 10.74* 0.03*

Veriﬁcation Mode Control Level Signiﬁcance

Reward mechanism as control variable

Level-passing strategy: 1, play by the rules; 2, play with the rules.

4.2. Rewards and gaming behaviors

4.3. Main ﬁndings and limitations

knowledge structures in a range of topic areas.

classroom milieu, 2, 13–51.

Вам также может понравиться