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