=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3669/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Improving critical graph reading skills: The potential might lie in game-based learning
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3669/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-3669
|authors=Juho Siuko,Elizabeth Cloude,Kristian Kiili
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/SiukoCK24
}}
==Improving critical graph reading skills: The potential might lie in game-based learning==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3669/paper8.pdf
Improving critical graph reading skills: The potential
might lie in game-based learning
Juho Siuko1, Elizabeth Cloude1 and Kristian Kiili1
1 Tampere University, Kalevantie 4, 33100 Tampere, Finland
Abstract
Graph literacy is a vital aspect of critical reading. It seems that many learners would need help in
interpreting misleading graphs. Game-based learning environments could provide opportunities to
increase learners' curiosity in graph literacy and support the development of critical graph reading
skills. To test this assumption, we examined the training effects of a digital game designed to teach the
interpretation of misleading graphs. In this study, 101 (n=101) high-school students were randomly
assigned to either a game-based learning condition that played a MediaWatch graph reading game for
30 minutes or a control condition that did not get any graph reading treatment. Graph literacy was
assessed with pre-and post-tests. Epistemic curiosity was measured only in the game condition. Results
indicated significant improvement in interpreting misleading graphs for learners in the game condition
compared to the control condition. However, learners' epistemic curiosity in graph literacy did not
change significantly after playing the MediaWatch game. The findings demonstrate that game-based
learning environments can support learners' critical graph reading skills.
Keywords
Game-based learning, graph literacy, critical graph reading, misleading graphs, curiosity1
always be intentional rather than individuals’ gap in
1. Introduction knowledge to create well-formed graphs [9]. Hence,
the responsibility of identifying and interpreting
Graph literacy involves interpreting graphical misleading graphs is passed on to individuals, and the
information correctly, requiring a broad range of level of critical graph reading skills becomes a pivotal
knowledge to generate inferences about different determinant.
types of graphs (e.g., [1, 2]). Graph reading is ability to Prior studies suggest that learners who lack
fluently extract and use information from graphs [3] critical reading skills often struggle to identify
Individuals who are proficient in reading and misinformation, but pre-emptive (prebunking)
interpreting graphs tend to process more complex interventions can increase learners’ ability to identify
information and accurate conclusions while viewing misinformation [10]. Sterling pre-emptive
line or bar graphs than individuals with lower graph interventions offer a promising approach to deal with
literacy [4]. However, after learners become proficient misinformation, which is based on inoculation theory
in graph literacy, there are additional challenges since [11]. Inoculation in a misinformation context refers to
graphs can be misleading and require critical graph building resistance against false information by pre-
reading skills. emptively exposing learners to weakened forms of
A misleading graph is based on valid data, but the misinformation, which originates from concepts of
visual appearance of the graph is not aligned with its vaccination, i.e., controlling the exposure of a virus and
numerical values, distorting the message of the graph. slowly building up resistance [12, 13]. Inoculation
Several manipulation techniques can be used to create theory is based on two main mechanisms [11, 13].
misleading graphs. For example, scales of the axes can First, the aim of forewarning is to motivate resistance
be inverted, or the baseline of y-axis can be set larger (a desire to defend oneself from manipulation attacks).
than zero, creating conflicts between spatial features Second, the aim of a pre-emptive refutation (pre-
(e.g., height of the bars) and conventional features of exposure to a weakened example of the manipulation
the graph (e.g., axes labels and scales) [5, 6]. attack) is to provide people with specific knowledge
Consequently, readers may misinterpret graphs if they that they can use to refute future manipulation attacks.
only rely on visual features of a graph. Misleading Thus, the pre-emptive interventions apply vaccination
graphs immerged even in media and governmental principles to knowledge, where learners are
communications during the covid pandemic [7, 8]. 'inoculated' with a weakened form of persuasion
Moreover, producing misleading graphs might not (misinformation) to build immunity against similar
8th International GamiFIN Conference 2024 (GamiFIN 2024), April 2-
5, 2024, Ruka, Finland. juho.siuko@tuni.fi (J. Siuko);
elizabeth.cloude@tuni.fi (E. Cloude); kristian.kiili@tuni.fi (K. Kiili)
0009-0001-2143-468X (J. Siuko); 0000-0002-7599-6768 (E.
Cloude); 0000-0003-2838-6892 (K. Kiili)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. The use permitted under
Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
79
attempts faced in the future [10, 15]. Subsequently, Another GBLE, Harmony Square, let’s learners to
learners might demonstrate increased competence to witness how misinformation brings chaos to Harmony
identify misinformation. Square [24]. Narrative takes more political aspect and
Game-based learning environments (GBLEs) tries to demonstrate the effects of misinformation on
offers a medium to integrate inoculation in a more residential area. Gameplay includes producing
‘active’ way compared to more traditional and passive misinformation, and gather as much “likes”, and
learning materials such as text-based misinformation following as possible. The learners’ complete levels
campaigns [16, 17]. Thus, GBLEs may offer themed by different misinformation techniques
opportunities to increase learners’ critical graph (trolling emotions, amplification, and escalation). The
reading skills [17]. game also uses active inoculation to build resistance
against misinformation for learners by letting them
produce the misinformation. This might enhance
1.1. Theoretical background memory retention and extend the duration of the
protective effect against misinformation [16]. The
1.1.1. Critical reading games game reduced the perceived reliability of
misinformation, increased confidence in learners’
GBLEs offer advantages over traditional ability to spot misinformation, and made learners less
educational approaches by rendering more interesting likely to share misinformation in social media [24].
and engaging instructional tasks, enhancing In sum, the review [21] showed that GBLEs seem
knowledge acquisition, skill development, and to demonstrate positive results for increasing critical
learning outcomes [18, 19, 20]. While utilizing reading skills, even though the field is still in maturing
inoculation theory in GBLEs has shown promising stage. Even though, critical reading games are present
results for improving critical reading skills [21], there in the game-based learning literature, they are still
is a lack of research in the graph literacy domain. developed to focus on specific areas (e.g., news, social
Research findings are inconclusive regarding the role media posts) rather than focusing on the
of GBLEs in promoting positive emotions (e.g., misinformation in wider areas like voting or society
curiosity) that stimulate learners’ desire for problems. Moreover, the review revealed that critical
knowledge that benefit their learning outcomes [22]. graph reading was not addressed in any of the
Thus, designing GBLEs that support, and nurture reviewed papers.
learners’ epistemic curiosity could serve as a powerful
motivator for developing critical graph reading skills.
A recent systematic literature review [21]
1.1.1. Graph reading
indicated that the use of GBLEs in critical reading
education had emerged after 2021. The surfacing For learner to effectively read and interpret
research might spring from the growing importance of graphs, cognitive load plays a major part [25]. By
critical reading skills in the today’s information maze minimizing cognitive load and keeping visual
[23]. Moreover, the rising threat of misinformation complexity on reasonable level, allows learners to
might further lead to increase of published papers retrieve and process the information effectively.
regarding GBLEs’ usage in developing and supporting The general cognitive ability emerges as the
critical reading skills. Kiili and colleagues [21] found primary predictor of graph reading performance [3].
that most GBLEs designed to improve critical reading The general cognitive ability, defined as the capacity to
skills were based on inoculation theory and took a pre- tackle novel problems, thus becomes crucial in
emptive intervention approach. Simple choice-based unfamiliar graph reading tasks. In addition, visual
simulation games were one of the most popular types processing and analogical reasoning are have been
of GBLEs and provided a storyline where the learner recognized as influential in graph comprehension [3].
was either a misinformation producer or a fact- Leading models of graph comprehension have
checker. demonstrated three distinct processes that learners
Bad News, a simulation-based GBLE [16], is one utilize to draw inferences from graphical
example of a game designed to support critical reading representations (e.g., line or bar graphs; [6]). The
skills. It requires learners to produce and spread fake initial process is encoding the visual patterns to
news on social media to gain popularity and credibility recognize the primary elements in the graph (e.g., lines
as a news publisher. The game applies the process of with different slopes). The process also includes
active inoculation to make learners more skeptical making visual judgments of the elements (e.g.,
towards the selected misinformation strategies. Bad determining locations along a scale, assessing the
News introduces earnable six badges to a to teach slope, or measuring the length).
learners about common misinformation strategies: (1) The second process involves translating identified
impersonating another person, (2) creating visual features into conceptual relations [6]. For
provocative emotional content, (3) amplifying existing instance, differences in the size of spatial elements (e.g.
group polarization, (4) generating their own varying bar heights) are utilized to demonstrate the
conspiracies, (5) discrediting opponents, (6) change and differences in quantity of the variables.
practicing trolling. The results demonstrated that Bad Spatial elements refer to components found within the
News significantly reduced the perceived reliability of pattern, such as different height bars, or ascending or
tweets that embodied common misinformation descending trends.
strategies and made learners more attuned towards The last process involves recognizing and
them. deducing information from basic (conventional)
elements in graphs (e.g. labels of the axes, legends,
80
numerical values on the scales) and integrating this RQ1: Are there differences in the degree of change
information with the information extracted during the in graph reading task scores from pre- to post-test
previous two processes [6]. For example, in bar and between the game and control conditions?
line graphs, it is required to recognize the variables Hypothesis 1a: Learners’ misleading graph
displayed on the x- and y-axes and the values these interpretation task score will increase significantly
variables acquire. more from pre- to post-test in the game condition than
Correctly interpretating a graph relies on the in the control condition.
spatial and conventional features aligning with Hypothesis 1b: Learners’ graph comparison task
learners’ spatial-to-conceptual mappings [6]. Spatial score will increase significantly more from pre- to
and conventional feature conflicts may occur when a post-test in the game condition than in the control
graph’s visual and contextual elements do not match. condition.
For example, the heights of bars may be incoherent RQ2: Are there differences in epistemic curiosity
because of the scaling of y-axis values. In the case of from pre- to post-test after learners finished learning
conflicts, learners, particularly learners with lower with MediaWatch?
graph literacy, might be led to misinterpret the graphs Hypothesis 2: Learners who play MediaWatch will
visual representation. However, number of empire demonstrate a significant increase in epistemic
studies focusing on critical graph reading is very curiosity after game-based learning.
limited, especially among adolescents, and needs
additional studies.
2. Methods
1.1.2. Epistemic curiosity
2.1. Participants and experimental
Epistemic curiosity is an epistemic emotion. design
Epistemic emotions are defined as affective states that
motivate critical reflection and inquiry [26]. They are One hundred and one 15-20-year-old (n = 101;
emotions that relate to knowledge and the generation Mage = 16.80, SDage = .71; 48% females) high-school
of knowledge. Epistemic emotions arise from the students completed this study and were recruited
cognitive qualities related with thinking, from a public school in Finland. The participants were
understanding, and learning. Epistemic curiosity, randomly assigned to one of two conditions at the
defined as an innate thirst for knowledge, may inspire beginning of the study: 1) the game condition, where
learners to generate innovative ideas, bridge gaps in learners played a game called MediaWatch, and 2) a
their understanding, and persevere when confronted control condition, where they engaged with their usual
with complex challenges [27]. Curiosity emerges from classroom lecture that did not include any graph
an information gap or inconsistency between what the reading content. The control condition without any
learner knows and what they want to know [28]. treatment was used to control the possible learning
Curiosity steers a learner to seek, obtain and utilize effects of the employed graph reading test. One
new information. Nakamura and colleagues [29] found participant from the game condition was excluded
that positive appraisals, cognitive puzzles, novelty, and from analyses due to not playing MediaWatch.
task or topic satisfaction may trigger epistemic
curiosity. Moreover, higher epistemic curiosity tends
to be simulated more likely by complex situations,
2.2. MediaWatch
such as identifying misleading information on graphs,
possibly motivating learners’ engagement with the MediaWatch is a web-based GBLE that aims to
learning material. support critical graph reading skills. Each player
works as a fact-checker on a fictional island called
Sahramoa (see Figure 1: left). The island is inhabited
1.2. Present study by four different villages, which each play a role in
contributing to different environmental crises (see
This study is a part of an on-going project in which Figure 2: right). MediaWatch is a fact-checking
we are developing a GBLE for teaching critical graph institute on the island that assigns tasks to players. The
reading. In this paper we report the evaluation results institute was established to ensure that misleading
of the first prototype of the MediaWatch game. This information is not published in the local news media.
study has two objectives. First, to examine the MediaWatch receives regular reports from each village
effectiveness of MediaWatch, a GBLE grounded in and checks the content before releasing them as public
inoculation theory, in improving critical graph reading news.
skills. Second, to assess whether learners’ self- The player’s job is to fact-check the reports by
reported epistemic curiosity increased after they interpreting multiple types of graphs (e.g., line and bar
learned critical graph reading with MediaWatch. To graphs) and selecting a title that best aligns with the
achieve these objectives, we conducted an graph (see Figure 2: left). The tasks that a player
intervention study by randomly assigning learners to completes include both manipulated and well-crafted
one of two conditions: a game condition and a control graphs. Three manipulation techniques are included:
condition. Our research questions and hypotheses are reversed x-axis, y-axis not starting from zero, and y-
as follows: axis range being too wide. In the case of manipulated
graphs, players are presented with four title options:
one that is correct, one aligned with the manipulation,
81
and two that are incorrect altogether. The title options manipulation methods used in misleading graph tasks
for well-crafted graphs include one correct and three were reversed x-axis (four items), y-axis not starting
incorrect titles. Once the player selects a title, they will from zero (four items), and y-axis with too wide range
receive feedback from a mentor character called Guido (four items). The mean score from misleading graphs
about the correctness of their title selection. Guido also is referred to as the misleading graph interpretation
explains how the graph was manipulated and reveals score. Graph comparison task type was adopted from
the village’s motive for using a manipulated graph in [31]. The assessment included six graph comparison
their environmental report (see Figure 2: right). The tasks (Figure 3: right) that can be considered as near
feedback also highlights the manipulation to ensure transfer tasks. A graph comparison task includes two
players notice it, and an example of a well-crafted graphs from which one is misleading. Half of the graph
graph is presented next to the manipulated graph (see comparison tasks contained y-axis not starting from
Figure 2: right). zero manipulation, and the other half reversed x-axis
After completing a task, the player earns manipulation. The mean score from graph comparison
experience points from a correct answer (selected tasks is referred as graph comparison score.
title). Earned experience points determine the player’s Epistemic curiosity scale was adopted from [32]
rank in the game. There are four ranks in total: intern, and translated to Finnish. It was measured using a 5-
assistant, fact-checker, and chief fact-checker, which point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly
were designed to help players reflect on their agree) and had 6 items with following example: “I am
performance. The game also includes a credibility really curious to know more about this topic”. The
meter. Correct answers increase credibility and curiosity items were averaged to measure the degree
incorrect decrease it. If credibility falls to zero, the of epistemic curiosity before and after game-based
player must start the game from the beginning. learning.
MediaWatch was designed around inoculation Math fluency was assessed as prior research has
theory through narrative and game design. shown that basic numerical abilities are key predictors
Specifically, two mechanisms of inoculation theory of performance in reading graphs [3]. Math fluency
were applied. First, the narrative is used to warn the was measured with six multiple-choice items. The
player about manipulated graphs and villages’ items measured math competences needed in
attempts to deceive the player. The aim of such interpreting the graphs of the graph reading
forewarning is to motivate players to defend assessment. An example question: “How many times
themselves from manipulation attacks. Second, the more white squares are there than black circles in the
game actively and pre-emptively exposes the players picture?”
to misleading graphs in a safe fantasy environment, Graph familiarity was measured with six 5-point
underlining the used graph manipulation techniques, Likert scale items (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly
and how they were misled (feedback). While playing agree). Participants were asked to reflect how familiar
MediaWatch, the players will reinforce their resistance they are with bar and line graphs (e.g., “I am familiar
against manipulated graphs, and the game aims to with bar and line graphs”).
equip players with specific knowledge about graph
manipulation techniques that they can use to refute
future manipulation attacks. 2.4. Procedure
The study was conducted during a regular school
2.3. Measures day in a classroom. Participants used their own
computers to access all research materials and the
Graph reading assessment. To measure the MediaWatch game.
effectiveness of playing MediaWatch on critical graph First, a researcher provided instructions and
reading skills, a multiple-choice assessment was details about the study, as well as reminded
administered to both conditions before the participants about their rights. Next, all participants
intervention (pre-test) and after the intervention received a randomly generated code, which they used
(post-test). Participants had 40 seconds to respond to to log in to the web-based questionnaire. Pre-
each graph interpretation and graph comparison task. questionnaire included consent, demographics (e.g.,
All graphs displayed quantifiable data related to age, gender, high-school grade level), as well as math
phenomena commonly encountered in geography fluency test, and self-report items to gauge learners’
classes (e.g. population growth, annual rainfall). To familiarity with graphs and their degree of curiosity
minimize the impact of prior knowledge in geography (only in the game condition). After the pre-
on the results, specific labels and titles were obscured. questionnaire, participants completed the graph
For example, specific references to countries and areas reading assessment. Next, participants of the game
in titles were substituted with generic terms like “one condition accessed the MediaWatch game with their
area” or “one country”; similarly, in data labels, names codes and played the game through during 30 minutes
of countries and areas were replaced with sequential playing session. The game containing a total of nine
alphabet letters starting from A. The assessment graph interpretation tasks. The control condition
included two types of tasks: graph interpretation tasks continued their usual class session, which was
and graph comparison tasks. Graph interpretation task unrelated to graph reading or graphs, for 30 minutes.
type was adopted from [30, 6]. Specifically, the Subsequently, both conditions completed the graph
assessment included sixteen graph interpretation reading assessment as a post-test, and the epistemic
tasks, of which four were well-crafted graph tasks, and curiosity was measured again in the game condition.
12 were misleading graph tasks (Figure 3: left). The
82
2.5. Analyses Statistical analyses were performed using
RStudio [version R 4.1.3] [34], utilizing the ‘dplyr’
First, graph assessment pre-test and post-test package [35]. Since the misleading graph
scores were calculated ratios of correct items over interpretation and graph comparison task data were
total items for the misleading graph interpretation not normally distributed and contained outliers, a
task variable and graph comparison task variable. We Wilcoxon ranked-sum test was chosen to examine
utilized normalized change scores in our analysis differences in pre and post-test scores between the
which calculate the maximum possible change from game and control conditions (RQ1).
pre to post-test on misleading graph interpretation
tasks and graph comparison tasks [33].
Figure 1: Left: Set up for MediaWatch is introduced. Right. Villages have their own backstories.
Figure 2: Left: Choosing the corresponding title. Right: Receiving feedback from Guido based on the chosen title.
Figure 3: Left: Misleading graph interpretation task with y-axis not starting from zero manipulation. Right: Graph
comparison task where left one has reversed x-axis manipulation.
83
A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to determine Learners completed 68% of the game’s tasks correctly
whether curiosity pre/post variables were normally (overall), while manipulated tasks had 66.3%, and
distributed. The results revealed that the data were well-formed tasks had a 72% accuracy rate. In
non-normally distributed, W = .948, p = .025. Thus, a addition, 20% of the responses to the manipulated
Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to address graph tasks aligned with the manipulation. Lastly, 71%
the non-normal distribution and to examine the of the incorrect responses to the manipulated graph
differences in curiosity between pre- and post- tasks were aligned with the manipulation.
measurements (RQ2). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for study
variables. To assess the internal consistency of the
used measures, Cronbach’s Alphas were calculated.
3. Results Graph familiarity (α = .78), misleading graph
interpretation (αpre = .81; αpost = .80), graph
3.1. 3.1. Descriptive statistics comparison (αpre = .68; αpost = .71), and curiosity (αpre
= .95; αpost = .95) had at least acceptable internal
On average, the learners of the game condition consistency. Well-crafted graph interpretation (αpre =
completed a singular MediaWatch graph .33) and math fluency (α = .22) had poor internal
interpretation task in 4.09 seconds (SD = 1.58). consistency, which is understandable due to the ceiling
effect.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
Game condition Control condition
Variable M Med SD Sk K M Med SD Sk K
Misleading graph
interpretation pre 0.48 0.50 0.26 0.08 -1.41 0.48 0.50 0.04 -0.07 0.93
Misleading graph
interpretation post 0.68 0.67 0.24 -0.49 -0.82 0.59 0.54 0.04 -0.16 -0.94
Graph comparison pre 0.70 0.83 0.29 -0.8 -0.55 0.53 0.75 0.05 0.01 -1.34
Graph comparison post 0.76 0.83 0.29 -1.15 0.26 0.59 0.75 0.05 -0.14 -1.41
Well-crafted graph
interpretation pre 0.99 1.00 0.45 -4.84 22.33 0.96 1.00 0.12 -3.04 8.83
Graph familiarity 4.04 4.00 0.67 -0.53 0.25 4.12 4.25 0.62 -0.36 -0.68
Math fluency 0.99 1.00 0.05 -3.19 0.25 0.97 1.00 0.08 -2.78 7.18
Curiosity pre 3.06 3.00 1.00 -0.49 -0.53 - - - - -
Curiosity post 2.96 3.00 0.94 -0.34 -0.85 - - - - -
Note. Med = Median, Sk = Skewness, K = Kurtosis.
3.2. Condition equivalence
Wilcoxon ranked-sum tests were conducted to effect size was small. A χ2 test revealed that the game
examine if learners in the game and control conditions condition (boys n = 27; girls n = 23) and control
had any pre-existing differences. The results showed condition (boys n = 24; girls n = 25) did not differ
that learners in the two conditions did not differ on significantly in the proportion of boys and girls, χ2 (1)
math fluency (W = 1148, p = .315), graph familiarity = 0.25, p = 0.617. Based on these results, we concluded
(W=1171, p=.603), and interpretation skills of well- that random assignment produced conditions that
grafted graphs (W = 1148, p = .135). The age difference were satisfactorily equivalent among these basic
was significant (W = 1001.5, p = .049, r = .20), but the characteristics.
84
3.3. Graph reading critical reading games can improve learning outcomes
[21].
The results from Wilcoxon ranked-sum test Interestingly, there was no differences in
indicated there were significant differences in conditions when it came to graph comparison task.
misleading graph interpretation change scores This finding led to reject our hypothesis (1b) assuming
between the game (Med = .50) and control condition that learners’ graph comparison tasks score will
(Med = .14), W = 906.5, p = .012, with a small to change significantly more from pre- to post-test in the
medium effect size of r = .25 (Figure 4). game condition than in the control condition. It is
Another Wilcoxon ranked-sum test revealed that possible that this task did not measure interpretation
there were no significant differences in graph of misleading graphs properly. As the task includes
comparison change scores between the game (Med = both a well-crafted and a misleading graph side by
0) and control conditions (Med = 0), W = 1358.5, p = side, the manipulation is easier to spot, and the
.558, r = .06 (Figure 4). questions are also simpler. Graph comparison task is
not as well-established in literature as the graph
interpretation task, which has been examined also
with eye tracking measures. Future research could
investigate the processing of graph comparison tasks
with eye tracking and think-aloud methods to evaluate
its suitability for graph reading assessments.
Regarding the second research question, the
results showed that playing MediaWatch did not
significantly change intensity of learners’ epistemic
curiosity. Thus, we rejected our hypothesis (2). We can
only speculate on the possible explanations for this
finding. Curiosity was only measured before and after
the game but not during gameplay. Thus, critical
information is missed on whether learners
experienced curiosity while they interacted with the
GBLE. It is possible that some learners were curious to
learn more about misleading graphs and manipulation
techniques while playing the game, but the things that
they learned in the game already satisfied their
Figure 4. Differences in normalized misleading graph curiosity. On the other hand, it is also possible that the
interpretation and graph comparison change scores graph literacy topic did not interest learners to trigger
between game and control conditions visualized as curiosity. Invoking curiosity was not considered in the
box plots. design of the game and that may also explain why there
were no differences in curiosity scores.
One limitation of this study is that the intervention
3.4. Epistemic curiosity was short and included only nine graph interpretation
tasks from which six were misleading. Accordingly, a
Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to longer intervention (multiple playing sessions) would
examine whether there were differences in curiosity be needed to better evaluate the usefulness of the
scores from pre- to post-test for learners assigned to current MediaWatch implementation [36], [37]. As we
the game condition. The results showed there were no did not conduct a delayed post-test, we do not know
significant differences between pre-test curiosity (Med how permanent the achieved learning effects are.
= 3) and post-test curiosity (Med = 3) in the game Moreover, our graph reading assessment did not
condition, W = 368, p = .23, r = .45. include a clear transfer task and thus, the results
cannot be generalized to other types of manipulated
graphs.
4. Discussion Despite the limitations, the results demonstrated
the promise of GBLE in supporting learners’ ability to
4.1. Discussion and limitations interpret misleading graphs.
The present study examined the effectiveness of a 4.2. Implications and future
GBLE called MediaWatch on learners’ developing
critical graph reading skills. We also examined directions
whether learning with MediaWatch increased
learners’ epistemic curiosity towards graph literacy This study contributed to the field of critical
after game-based learning. Our results indicated that reading games by demonstrating that a graph reading
the game condition demonstrated significant game that utilizes features of inoculation theory can
improvement (pre to post-test) in interpreting help to build resistance against graph manipulation
misleading graphs after playing MediaWatch techniques. Our findings indicates that even a short
compared to the control condition, supporting our pre-emptive intervention in the classroom context, can
hypothesis (1a). This finding is consistent with enhance learners’ ability to interpret misleading
previous research indicating that inoculation based graphs. Thus, MediaWatch proved some promise to be
used in schools.
85
Future researchers should utilize eye-tracking Data Sci. Educ., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 160-164, 2021.
devices while learners read and interpret varying doi:10.1080/26939169.2021.1915215.
graph types with MediaWatch to provide a deeper [8] O. N. Kwon, C. Han, C. Lee, K. Lee, K. Kim, G. Jo, and
insight into specific graph reading processes to inform G. Yoon, "Graphs in the COVID-19 news: A
the design of game elements that can support learners’ mathematics audit of newspapers in Korea,"
critical graph reading skills. Additionally, epistemic Educ. Stud. Math., pp. 1-18, 2021.
curiosity should be measured while learners read and [9] A. Cairo, How Charts Lie: Getting Smarter About
interpret graphs using other methods, including Visual Information. New York, NY, USA: W.W.
emote-aloud protocols [38], where the learner Norton & Company, 2019.
verbally expresses their experience of curiosity during [10] U. K. Ecker, S. Lewandowsky, J. Cook, P. Schmid,
the gameplay. We might get more coherent L. K. Fazio, N. Brashier, et al., "The psychological
comprehension what made learner curious and what drivers of misinformation belief and its
might have triggered it. Furthermore, since curiosity resistance to correction," Nat. Rev. Psychol., vol.
appears to be experienced while performing tasks, 1, no. 1, pp. 13-29, 2022.
measuring it solely before and after game session, and [11] S. Van der Linden, J. Roozenbeek, R. Maertens, M.
not during, might be a potential avenue for direction to Basol, O. Kácha, S. Rathje, and C. S. Traberg, "How
take in the future endeavors. can psychological science help counter the
Measuring graph reading processes and epistemic spread of fake news?," Span. J. Psychol., vol. 24,
curiosity in real-time during gameplay could serve to e25, 2021. doi:10.1017/SJP.2021.23.
inform how to adapt the game mechanics to best serve [12] S. Van Der Linden, "Misinformation:
the development of critical graph reading skills and susceptibility, spread, and interventions to
support different learning needs. immunize the public," Nature Medicine, vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 460-467, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41591-
022-01713-6.
Acknowledgements [13] C. S. Traberg, J. Roozenbeek, and S. van der
Linden, "Psychological inoculation against
This work was supported by Strategic Research misinformation: Current evidence and future
Council (SRC) established within the Academy of directions," The ANNALS of the American
Finland under Grants [335625, 358250]. Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 700,
no. 1, pp. 136-151, 2022.
doi:10.1177/0002716222108793.
References [14] J. Compton, S. van der Linden, J. Cook, and M.
Basol, "Inoculation theory in the post-truth era:
[1] E. G. Freedman and P. Shah, "Toward a model of Extant findings and new frontiers for contested
knowledge-based graph comprehension," in science, misinformation, and conspiracy
Proc. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Diagrams, Berlin, theories," Social and Personality Psychology
Heidelberg, 2002, pp. 18-30. Compass, vol. 15, no. 6, Art. no. e12602, 2021.
[2] P. Shah and E. G. Freedman, "Bar and line graph doi:10.1111/spc3.12602.
comprehension: An interaction of top-down and [15] J. A. Banas and S. A. Rains, "A meta-analysis of
bottom-up processes," Topics Cogn. Sci., vol. 3, research on inoculation theory," Commun.
no. 3, pp. 560-578, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1756- Monogr., vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 281-311, 2010.
8765.2009.01066.x. doi:10.1080/03637751003758193
[3] U. Ludewig, K. Lambert, T. Dackermann, K. [16] J. Roozenbeek and S. Van der Linden, "Fake news
Scheiter, and K. Möller, "Influences of basic game confers psychological resistance against
numerical abilities on graph reading online misinformation," Palgrave
performance," Psychological Research, vol. 84, Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 2019.
pp. 1198-1210, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00426-019- [17] G. Trevors and F. Ladhani, "It’s Contagious!
01144-y Examining Gamified Refutation Texts, Emotions,
[4] Y. Okan, R. Garcia-Retamero, E. T. Cokely, and A. and Knowledge Retention in a Real-World Public
Maldonado, "Individual differences in graph Health Education Campaign," Discourse Process.,
literacy: Overcoming denominator neglect in risk vol. 59, no. 5-6, pp. 401-416, 2022.
comprehension," J. Behav. Decis. Making, vol. 25, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2022.2085477.
no. 4, pp. 390-401, 2012. doi:10.1002/bdm.751 [18] M. Basol, J. Roozenbeek, and S. Van der Linden,
[5] C. Ramly, A. Sen, V. Kale, M. A. Rau, and J. Zhu, "Good news about bad news: Gamified
"Digitally Training Graph Viewers against inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive
Misleading Bar Charts," in Proc. Annu. Meet. immunity against fake news," J. Cogn., vol. 3, no.
Cogn. Sci. Soc., 2021. 1, 2020. doi:10.5334/joc.91
[6] Y. Okan, M. Galesic, and R. Garcia-Retamero, [19] J. L. Plass, R. E. Mayer, and B. D. Homer, Eds.,
"How people with low and high graph literacy Handbook of Game-Based Learning. Cambridge,
process health graphs: Evidence from eye- MA, USA: MIT Press, 2020.
tracking," J. Behav. Decis. Making, vol. 29, no. 2-3, [20] H. Lei, M. M. Chiu, D. Wang, C. Wang, and T. Xie,
pp. 271-294, 2016. doi:10.1002/bdm.1891. "Effects of game-based learning on students’
[7] C. Engledowl and T. Weiland, "Data achievement in science: A meta-analysis," J. Educ.
(Mis)representation and COVID-19: Leveraging Comput. Res., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1373-1398, 2022.
misleading data visualizations for developing doi:10.1177/07356331211064543
statistical literacy across grades 6–16," J. Stat.
86
[21] K. Kiili, J. Siuko, and M. Ninaus, "Tackling [33] J. D. Marx and K. Cummings, "Normalized
misinformation with games: a systematic change," Am. J. Phys., vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 87-91,
literature review," Interactive Learning 2007. doi:10.1119/1.2372468
Environments, pp. 1-16, 2024. [34] R Core Team (2022) R: A Language and
doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2299999 Environment for Statistical Computing. R
[22] M. M. T. Rodrigo and R. S. J. d. Baker, "Comparing Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
the incidence and persistence of learners’ affect https://www.R-project.org
during interactions with different educational [35] H. Wickham et al., "Welcome to the tidyverse," J.
software packages," in New Perspectives on Open Source Softw., vol. 4, no. 43, p. 1686, 2019.
Affect and Learning Technologies, R. A. Calvo and [36] L. A. Annetta, J. Minogue, S. Y. Holmes, and M. T.
S. K. D’Mello, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Springer, Cheng, "Investigating the impact of video games
2011, pp. 183-200. on high school students’ engagement and
[23] Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2017). Key issues in learning about genetics," Comput. Educ., vol. 53,
research on students’ critical reading and no. 1, pp. 74-85, 2009.
learning in the 21st century information society. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020
In C. Ng & B. Bartlett (Eds.), Improving reading [37] T. M. Connolly, E. A. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T.
and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. Hainey, and J. M. Boyle, "A systematic literature
77-98). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10- review of empirical evidence on computer games
4331-4_4 and serious games," Comput. Educ., vol. 59, no. 2,
[24] J. Roozenbeek and S. van der Linden, "Breaking pp. 661-686, 2012. doi:
Harmony Square: A game that 'inoculates' 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
against political misinformation," The Harvard [38] I. Di Leo, K. R. Muis, C. A. Singh, and C. Psaradellis,
Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2020. "Curiosity… Confusion? Frustration! The role and
Singapore: Springer, 2017, pp. 77-98. sequencing of emotions during mathematics
doi:10.1007/978-981-10-4331-4_4. problem solving," Contemporary Educational
[25] W. Huang, S. H. Hong, and P. Eades, "Predicting Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 121-137, 2019.
graph reading performance: a cognitive doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.001
approach," in Proc. ACM International
Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 164, pp. 207-
216, Feb. 2006.
[26] P. Wouters, C. Van Nimwegen, H. Van
Oostendorp, and E. D. Van Der Spek, "A meta-
analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects
of serious games," J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 105, no.
2, p. 249, 2013, doi:10.1037/a0031311.
[27] J. T. Huck, E. A. Day, L. Lin, A. G. Jorgensen, J.
Westlin, and J. H. Hardy III, "The role of epistemic
curiosity in game-based learning: Distinguishing
skill acquisition from adaptation," Simul. Gaming,
vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 141-166, 2020.
doi:10.1177/1046878119895557
[28] J. Litman, "Curiosity and the pleasures of
learning: Wanting and liking new information,"
Cogn. Emot., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 793-814, 2005.
[29] S. Nakamura, H. Reinders, and P. Darasawang, "A
classroom-based study on the antecedents of
epistemic curiosity in L2 learning," J.
Psycholinguist. Res., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 293-308,
2022.
[30] Y. Okan, R. Garcia-Retamero, M. Galesic, and E. T.
Cokely, "When Higher Bars Are Not Larger
Quantities: On Individual Differences in the Use
of Spatial Information in Graph Comprehension,"
Spatial Cognition & Computation, vol. 12, no. 2-3,
pp. 195-218, 2012,
doi:10.1080/13875868.2012.659302.
[31] Y. Okan, E. Janssen, M. Galesic, and E. A. Waters,
"Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict
Precursors of Health Behavior Change," Medical
Decision Making, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 183-195,
2019, doi:10.1177/0272989X19829728.
[32] H. G. Schmidt and J. I. Rotgans, "Epistemic
curiosity and situational interest: Distant cousins
or identical twins?," Educational Psychology
Review, vol. 33, pp. 325-352, 2021.
87