See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316744592

The effects of cognitive capacity and gaming

expertise on attention and comprehension:
Working memory and expertise in...

Article in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning January 2017

DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12193

CITATIONS READS

0 31

2 authors:

Yu-Hao Lee Carrie Heeter

University of Florida Michigan State University
26 PUBLICATIONS 239 CITATIONS 95 PUBLICATIONS 1,955 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RelaxU Meditation App View project

"Movement Meditations" for Virtual Reality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yu-Hao Lee on 10 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Original article
doi: 10.1111/jcal.12193

bs_bs_banner

The effects of cognitive capacity and gaming

expertise on attention and comprehension
Y.-H. Lee* & C. Heeter
*Department of Telecommunication, University of Florida, Florida, USA
Department of Media and Information, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA

Abstract Educational video games can impose high cognitive demands on its users. Two studies were
conducted to examine the cognitive process involved in playing an educational digital game.
Study 1 examined the effects of users working memory capacity and gaming expertise on
attention and comprehension of the educational messages. The results showed that gaming
experts seem to benet more from having a higher working memory capacity when processing
information from the game. However, gaming experts available working memory did not
predict better comprehension. Instead, non-experts available working memory predicted
better comprehension. Study 2 further examined whether these results were caused by
insufcient working memory allocation or different attention focus between gaming experts
and non-experts. The ndings suggest that gaming experts approach the game differently
from non-experts, focusing on familiar features and overlooking unfamiliar (educational)
information.

Keywords attention, cognitive process, digital game-based learning, expertise, working memory.

Introduction Mere exposure to educational games does not predict

learning outcomes. Only recently have researchers
Digital games are increasingly used for educational
began investigating how learners cognitively process
purposes. Digital games are particularly effective at
information in multimedia environments such as a digital
teaching complex issue through motivating learners to
game (e.g., Lang, 2000; Lang, Zhou, Schwartz, Bolls, &
solve simulated problems (Papastergiou, 2009). Games
Potter, 2000; Mayer & Johnson, 2010; Moreno & Mayer,
encourage players to take on multiple perspectives
2007; Reeves & Thorson, 1986; Vorderer, Knobloch, &
(Peng, Lee, & Heeter, 2010) and to experiment with
Schramm, 2001). Both design features and learners
different solutions in safe environments (De Freitas &
cognitive abilities affect how learners learn from games.
Neumann, 2009; Gee, 2007; Squire, 2011). However,
Certain designs facilitate cognitive processing and
reviews on the effectiveness of digital games for
learning outcomes, while other designs create
learning have been mixed (Kharrazi, Lu, Gharghabi,
unnecessary burden on learners (Mayer & Johnson,
& Coleman, 2012; Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004).
2010; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). On the learners side,
Left to their own, learners can sometimes draw
an individuals working memory capacity (WM) limits
incorrect conclusions (Barab, Thomas, Dodge,
the amount of information one can process at any given
Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005).
time. Learners who possess higher WM or can process
game-related information more efciently may have an
advantage over learners who have lower WM. As an
Accepted: 30 March 2017
Correspondence: Yu-Hao Lee, Department of Telecommunication,
interactive medium, digital games demand a large
University of Florida, Weimer Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA. amount of cognitive resources from its players. A wide
Email: leeyuhao@jou.u.edu range of cognitive abilities are involved in the process

2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 1
2 Y.-H. Lee & C. Heeter
of playing a digital game, from visualspatial navigation,
perceptual motor skills, accurate timing of responses, as
well as short-term and long-term strategic decisions
(Fisch, 2000; Green & Bavelier, 2003; Grodal, 2000;
Logie, Baddeley, Donchin, & Sheptak, 1989). Players
often must process information in various modes
simultaneously to construct a mental model of the system
(Moreno & Mayer, 2007).
As digital games become more prevalent in
educational settings, it is important to investigate
how learners cognitive abilities affect their learning
from digital games and whether some learners are
more likely to benet or become disadvantaged from
digital game-based learning. Two experiments were
conducted to examine the effects of WM and gaming
expertise (GE) on attention and comprehension. Study
1 examined how WM and GE affect attention to the
game and comprehension of the educational message.
Study 2 further used in-game behavioural data to
investigate whether the difference between gaming
experts and non-experts was due to different amount
of working memory allocated to the task or difference
in how they allocated their working memory and
attention.
Theoretical background
Working memory capacity in digital games
There is a consensus that humans have a limited WM
(Lang, 2000; Mayer & Johnson, 2010; Sweller, 1994;
Van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005). When processing
information, people continuously draw upon their
limited pool(s) of working memory to temporarily
store information and to direct their attention
(Baddeley, 2007; Lang, 2000; Moreno & Mayer,
2007). The amount of working memory involved in
a task and how working memory is allocated are
determined by media features and user characteristics
(Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller,
1994). Working memory is a cognitive system that
determines the temporary storage capacity and the
executive control of attention during information
processing (Baddeley, 2007). The temporary storage
function stores different modes (visualspatial,
phonological and episodic) of information for
processing (Baddeley, 2000), while the executive
control function selectively allocates attention to
certain information while blocking out interference.
WM is related to many higher-level cognitive abilities
such as comprehension, reasoning and problem-
solving (Bull & Scerif, 2001; Daneman & Merikle,
1996; Yuan, Steedle, Shavelson, Alonzo, & Oppezzo,
2006), all of which are commonly found in
educational digital games that require players to
simultaneously process information in different
sensory modes while constructing their mental model
of the problems.
There are two major paradigms in studying working
memory. The rst paradigm focuses on identifying
which conceptual component of working memory is
associated with different cognitive tasks, usually
through selective interference or dual task paradigms
(Baddeley, 2007; Gopher, 2006). The second
paradigm focus on examining the effects of WM on
individual performance in complex cognitive tasks
(Engle, 2002; Logie et al., 1989). This approach treats
WM as an individual trait and argues that WM
primarily inuences performance in complex
cognitive tasks through the executive control function
(e.g., Cowan et al., 2005; Engle, 2002; Kane,
Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001). This study follows
the second paradigm in focusing on the effects of WM
on attention and comprehension.
Attention control is involved in the selection of
information from external stimuli and retrieval of
existing information stored in ones long-term
memory. Individuals with higher WM can retrieve
goal-relevant information more efciently than
individuals with lower WM (Barrett, Tugade, & Engle,
2008). The attention control function of working
memory is also involved in the suppression of
automatic or habitual information processing. Kane
and Engle (2003) used a Stroop test to examine
individual differences in suppressing automatic
response and found that individuals with higher WM
made fewer errors on incongruent trials (e.g., the word
RED printed in green ink) than individuals with lower
WM, suggesting that individuals with higher WM are
more capable of focusing on identifying the colour of
the words while suppressing automatic attention to
reading the words. The goal of this study is to
investigate how WM and GE affects learners attention
and comprehension. Based on theories about working
memory, we posit that WM will predict learners
attention to the game:
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Working memory and expertise in games
H1. WM will predict more available working memory
[attention: measured through shorter secondary task
reaction time (STRT)] when playing an educational
game.
Expertise and working memory
Domain-specic expertise is another factor that
interacts with WM to inuence attention and
comprehension. Studies suggest that domain expertise
may facilitate processing of domain-related
information, but not unrelated or general information.
For example, individuals who were knowledgeable
about baseball could recall a story about a baseball
game better than individuals who were low in baseball
expertise (Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi, & Voss, 1979).
Another study found that baseball expertise facilitated
memory of baseball-related words, but not neutral ones
(Fincher-Kiefer, Post, Greene, & Voss, 1988). Domain
experts have domain-specic schema stored in their
memory to assist them in processing domain-related
information. When an expert chess player encounters
a chess set, they do not process each chess piece as
separate pieces of information. Instead, they can search
their long-term memory and retrieve a similar pattern to
facilitate their information processing. This expertise
advantage disappeared when a board of randomly
positioned chess pieces was presented (Chase & Simon,
1973). Domain experts may have an advantage when
the information can be connected to their existing
schema.
There are two types of expertise when playing
educational games expertise in the educational
content (content expertise) and expertise in playing
digital games (GE). Content expertise helps players
understand the narrative of the message, while GE
helps players identify goal-relevant and irrelevant
information on the basis of their experience with
similar games. Studies have found that gaming
experts could track objects moving at greater speeds,
were more accurate in a visual short-term memory
test, performed task switch more quickly, as well as
monitored and evaluated rotating objects faster and
more accurately (Boot, Kramer, Simons, Fabiani, &
Gratton, 2004). Because gaming experts can process
information in games more efciently, we
hypothesize that players with higher GE have more
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
3
available working memory when playing an
educational game.
H2. GE will predict more available working memory
(shorter STRT) when playing an educational game.
Working memory and comprehension in digital games
Educational digital games often embed the educational
message within its mechanics and narratives. The
mechanics of the game refers to the controls, physics,
resource and limitations that afford the interactive
experience. Narrative refers to information about
characters, events, environment and relations. As an
interactive medium, digital games require players active
input and decision making to develop a narrative
(Klimmt & Hartmann, 2006). Therefore, the rst task
for a game player is to learn the game mechanics. Only
after the player masters the mechanics can the narrative
be constructed through the players interaction with the
game (Lee & Faber, 2007). The educational message
refers to the underlying concepts and knowledge that
the source (game designer or instructor) intends to
communicate through an educational game. During
gameplay, the players working memory is allocated to
learning and processing the mechanics rst; then the
residual available working memory is allocated to
processing the narrative and educational message (Lee
& Faber, 2007). If the mechanics are too demanding,
there will be less working memory available for
processing the narrative and educational message (Elson,
Breuer, Ivory, & Quandt, 2014; Fisch, 2000). Working
memory demand is lower if the educational message is
closely embedded in the mechanics or narrative but
increases if the educational message is distant to the
mechanic and narrative (Fisch, 2000). Not all digital
games have explicit narratives, but all digital games have
mechanics, and the mechanics take precedence over
narrative and educational messages when competing
for the players working memory.
Players must process many information regarding
mechanics, narratives and educational message in an
educational game. Because gaming experts are
familiar with similar game mechanics, they may have
more available working memory to help them
identify and process goal-related information in a
game. As a result, they may benet more from
having higher WM to sustain their attention on the
4 Y.-H. Lee & C. Heeter
goal-related information and suppress automatic
responses. However, gaming experts with lower
WM may not have the capacity to control their
automatic responses and instead focus on a
narrower subset of the familiar information and feel
cognitively strained. In other words, will gaming
experts benet from having more WM? We
hypothesize that WM will moderate the effect of
GE on attention (H3).
H3. There will be an interaction effect between WM and
GE on available working memory (attention).
Participants with higher WM and GE will have more
available working memory than participants with high
GE but lower WM.
Although gaming experts may have an advantage in
allocating their working memory to processing
information in an educational game, gaming experts
may not always have an advantage in learning the
educational message. In some contexts, their existing
schema may mislead them to focus on familiar
information while overlooking new, important
information. Ricks, Turley-Ames, and Wiley (2007)
tested whether experts and non-experts were able to
detect questions designed to mislead experts into
automatic processing and construct false answers.
Their ndings showed that when the task appeared
to be within the experts expertise domain, experts
quickly activated habitual processing and failed to
detect that their answer was incorrect. In comparison,
because non-experts do not have existing schema to
guide them, they were more likely to process the
question cautiously, process more information and
answer correctly. When the task is structurally similar
to the experts expertise domain, experts may search
for familiar information while overlooking the
unfamiliar educational message as irrelevant
information. As for non-experts, because they do not
have existing schemas, they are more likely to process
the new information altogether, which can potentially
lead to better comprehension if they have sufcient
WM. Because we do not know if gaming experts will
have an advantage or be misguided by their existing
schema, we pose a research question: will gaming
experts attention to the game predict better
comprehension when compared with non-experts?
(RQ1).
Study 1
Method
Participants
Undergraduate participants (n = 93) were recruited from
a large Midwestern university. The students received
extra credits in their courses as incentives for
participating in the experiment. The mean age was
21.05 years (SD = 2.40) and ranged from 19 to 27 years.
There were slightly more men (54.8%) than women
(45.2%) in the study.
Stimuli and educational message
The educational game used in this study was The
ReDistricting Game, a game about political redistricting
and the problem of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is
the act of manipulating voting districts to gain unfair
advantage for certain political parties or interest groups
in an election. In the game, players play as a map maker
who draws voting districts. Mission 1 is a basic tutorial
about the controls and mechanics. Mission 2 is where
the educational message is introduced about partisan
gerrymandering, which requires players to draw voting
districts to favour a political party. The games goal
was to teach players about how redistricting works and
how it could easily be manipulated to undermine
democracy. The ReDistricting Game was launched in
2006 and was used by congressmen, senators and
lobbyists to bring awareness to gerrymandering and push
for legislative reforms. The game has also been adopted
in civic education courses in schools and has shown to
be effective in raising students interest and
understanding of the redistricting process and the
problems of gerrymandering (Juckett & Feinberg,
2010; Lerner, 2014).
Like many educational games, The ReDistricting
Game was designed to highlight a problem. The explicit
mechanics of the game involves manipulating election
results through gerrymandering, but the underlying
educational message is that gerrymandering is a
problematic practice and can undermine democracy.
The educational message is delivered through feedback
from non-player characters and additional hyperlinks
that provide additional information about
gerrymandering. This type of design in which the
mechanics are not closely aligned with the educational
message requires more working memory from the player
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Working memory and expertise in games
to process (Fisch, 2000). Players must rst learn the
mechanics of the game, practise gerrymandering and
then learn from the feedback and links that the intended
educational message was that gerrymandering is
problematic. A case study by Juckett and Feinberg
(2010) found that while most students enjoyed learning
about gerrymandering through this game, students with
less gaming experience were frustrated and some
preferred the traditional paper-and-pencil approach of
learning the game. Such nding suggests that learners
with varying degrees of GE may have different responses
to digital game-based learning. While not all educational
games are designed with distant mechanics and
educational messages, using a game with high working
memory demands allows this study to tease apart the
different effects of WM and GE on players available
working memory and comprehension.
Operational measures
Gaming expertise. Gaming expertise was measured by a
series of 7-point questions in the pretest survey.
Participants were asked about self-reported familiarity
and expertise with a list of different genres including
strategy, puzzle, action, sports, role-playing and
adventure. Because the game used in this study is a
strategy simulation game, the mean score of familiarity
and expertise with strategy and simulation games (four
items) was used as the measurement of GE. The mean
score was 3.48 (SD = 1.61). The items were reliable at
= 0.70. Because previous studies suggest that there
may be differences in genre preference between genders
(Lucas & Sherry, 2004), we conducted an independent
sample t-test to see if there were gender differences on
GE. The result suggests that there was no signicant
gender difference, t(90) =
1.13, p = 0.262.
Working memory capacity. Working memory capacity was
measured using the automatic operation span test
(AOSPAN; Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, & Engle, 2005).
Participants were instructed to solve math operations
while trying to remember a set of words. For example,
a question looks like this:
Is 1 28 15? Yes=No Truck responses (i.e., no response after 5000 ms from the onset)
The string of math operation and words appears one at
a time. After each set of questions, participants were
asked to identify the words in the correct order. This task
required participants to hold the words in their working
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
5
memory while processing the math calculations. Three
sets of four questions each (total of 12 questions) were
used to measure WM. WM score was calculated by the
number of correct answers ranging from 0 to 12.
Participants were given 7 s to solve each question before
the page automatically moved on; this prevented
participants from intentionally rehearsing the words. An
80% accuracy criterion on the math test was used to
ensure that participants were processing the math
question while storing the words in their working
memory instead of only focusing on the words. The
mean AOSPAN score was 5.98 (SD = 3.66).
Dependent variables
Available working memory (measured by secondary task
reaction time). Available working memory was measured
through STRT. STRT is a measurement commonly used
to measure attention through measuring available
working memory (Lang, Bradley, Park, Shin, & Chung,
2006). STRT was measured by instructing participants to
focus on a primary task (playing the game). During the
primary task, the participants were given a secondary
task of responding (pressing a button) to a signal called
the secondary task probe. The latency between the probe
and the reaction is the STRT. A shorter STRT suggests
more available working memory as it indicates the
participant has sufcient WM to process the two tasks
simultaneously. A longer STRT suggests less available
working memory because the participant cannot respond
fast enough to the secondary task probe when processing
the primary task.
In this study, the secondary task probe was a yellow
box that appeared at random times and places around
the game screen; participants were instructed to press
the space bar key as fast as you can when they the box
appeared. On average, participants were exposed to
6.31 secondary probes. Because not all the participants
received an equal number of secondary probes, to allow
comparison between participants, only the rst four
STRTs of mission 2 (which included the educational
message) were included in the analyses. Missed
were coded as missing data. The mean STRT was
1090.45 ms (or 1.09 s, SD = 489.65 ms), ranging from
461 to 3672 ms.
Comprehension. Comprehension was measured with 11
multiple-choice questions that tested the participants
6 Y.-H. Lee & C. Heeter
comprehension of the redistricting process. Four items
measured general understanding of gerrymandering, four
items pertained to redistricting principles and process,
and three measured knowledge about solutions presented
in the game. Each correct answer was given 1 point.
Thus, the comprehension score ranges from 0 to 11.
The mean comprehension score was 4.84 (out of 11,
SD = 2.31) ranging from 0 to 11. The reliability for the
comprehension items had a Cronbachs of 0.67, which
is acceptable because the questions were not
unidimensional but measured three different types of
knowledge about the redistricting process.
Control variables
Existing content knowledge about the redistricting
process may inuence the educational comprehension
scores. Two 7-point questions were used to measure the
participants self-assessment of content knowledge: I
am very familiar with the redistricting process and I
consider myself an expert in how gerrymandering
works. The questions were designed so that they do
not prime the participants to pay attention to specic
parts of the game. The two items were reliable at
r = 0.74, the mean for content knowledge was 2.86
(SD = 1.65). The score was skewed towards the lower
end, which suggests that participants had low existing
content knowledge.
Experiment procedure
The study was conducted in a computer lab at a large
Midwestern university. After agreeing to the informed
consent, the participant rst answered a short
questionnaire measuring their political involvement,
their political efcacy and content knowledge. After the
pretest questionnaires, participants read a detailed
instruction about the AOSPAN test. They were given
three practice questions to familiarize themselves with
the AOSPAN test. After the practice questions, they took
the actual AOSPAN test consisting of 12 questions.
Following the AOSPAN test, the participants read an
instruction reminding them to pay attention to the game
because they would later be tested about the contents.
The instructions were given to increase motivation and
to frame the game as a learning experience. After reading
the game instructions, the participants read an instruction
about the secondary task probe and were instructed to
respond as fast as possible. To prevent participants
from intentionally neglecting the secondary task, they
were told that if they performed poorly on the secondary
task, they need to redo the task.
The participants played mission 1 of the game
followed by mission 2 until they complete mission 2 or
for 30 min, whichever happens rst. Thirty minutes of
gameplay was determined to be appropriate because the
game was designed to be completed within one class
period. Mission 1 was a tutorial of the game mechanics
and narratives. Mission 2 introduced the core educational
message about the problems of gerrymandering. The
secondary task probe appeared at random intervals with
at least 30 s between signals. Each signal remained on
the screen for 5 s. If the participant did not respond
within the 5 s, the system recorded the response as
missing data. After the game, participants lled out a
post-test questionnaire measuring their enjoyment of
the game, their perceived challenge level and their self-
reported effort. These questions acted as distractors
before the comprehension test. This helps ensure that
the comprehension test measured information stored in
long-term memory. Comprehension was measured by
11 multiple-choice questions about redistricting
and gerrymandering. Lastly, participants answered
demographic questions including age, sex and race.
Results
Sample
Two participants were removed because they did not
meet the 80% math accuracy criterion on the AOSPAN
test. Three more were removed because they did not
respond to any secondary task probes when playing the
game. As a result, 88 participants were included in the
analyses.
Hypotheses testing
H1 posited that WM would positively predict shorter
STRT when playing the game; H2 posited that GE would
positively predict shorter STRT when playing the game.
H3 posited that there would be an interaction effect
between WM and GE on STRT. We tested the three
hypotheses through a hierarchical regression analysis.
The mean-centred WM (AOSPAN) score and mean-
centred GE score were entered into the rst block as
independent variables; the interaction term between
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Working memory and expertise in games
WM and GE was entered into the second block to test
interaction effects. The STRT score was entered as the
dependent variable.
The analysis result showed that the overall model was
signicant, F(2, 85) = 2.30, p = 0.041, adjusted
R2 = 0.08. There was no signicant main effect for
WM ( =
0.11, t =
1.02, p = 0.150) and no signicant
main effect for GE ( = 0.15, t = 1.21, p = 0.165). The
result was not consistent with H1 or H2, which suggests
that WM or GE alone did not predict available working
memory (STRT) when playing an educational game.
However, there was a signicant interaction effect
between WM and GE on available working memory
( =
0.24, t =
2.22, p = 0.014). In order to further
examine the interaction effect, we conducted a simple
slope analysis using the PROCESS plug-in for SPSS by
Hayes (2012). The standardized for participants 1 SD
below the average GE was
0.12 and was not
signicant, p = 0.233. The standardized for participants
with average GE was
0.24 but was signicant,
p = 0.014. The standardized for participants 1 SD
above the average GE was
0.39 and was also
Figure 1 Simple Slope Comparison for GE WM on Available Working Memory. GE, gaming expertise; WM, working memory capacity
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
7
signicant, p = 0.006. The simple slope analysis results
indicate that when participants had higher WM and
higher GE, their STRT was signicantly shorter,
suggesting more available working memory. However,
participants with high GE but lower WM performed
signicantly slower in STRT, suggesting that they did
not have sufcient working memory to process the game
and the secondary task at the same time. The results were
consistent with H3, gaming experts benetted from
higher WM but suffered when they have lower WM. See
Figure 1 for simple slope analysis.
RQ1 asked: Will gaming experts attention to the
game predict better comprehension when compared with
non-experts? A hierarchical regression was conducted to
examine RQ1, content knowledge and WM were entered
in the rst block as control variables; the mean-centred
GE and STRT were entered in the second block, and
the GE STRT interaction term was entered in the third
block. Comprehension score was entered as the
dependent variable. Analysis results showed that the
overall model was signicant, F(5, 82) = 3.26,
p = 0.010, adjusted R2 = 0.12. There was a signicant
8 Y.-H. Lee & C. Heeter
main effect for GE ( = 2.42, p = 0.009), a signicant
main effect for available working memory ( = 0.31,
t = 2.10, p = 0.019) and a signicant interaction effect
( =
1.97, p = 0.026). A simple slope analysis was
conducted to interpret the interaction effect. The
standardized for participants 1 SD below the average
GE was 0.286 and was signicant, p = 0.044. The
standardized for participants with mean GE was

0.680 and was also signicant, p = 0.014. The
standardized for participants 1 SD above the average
GE was
0.120 but was not signicant, p = 0.150. The
ndings suggest that when controlling for the effects of
WM and content knowledge, participants with higher
GE scored higher in comprehension in general. GE also
moderated the effect of available working memory on
comprehension. Surprisingly, the simple slope analysis
indicated that available working memory (attention)
was not a signicant predictor of comprehension for
gaming experts, but it was a signicant predictor of
comprehension for non-experts.
Study 1 discussion
Study 1 found that the learners WM moderated the
effect of GE on their available working memory
during gameplay. Specically, there was a signicant
difference between gaming experts. Gaming experts
with higher WM had more available working memory
than gaming experts with lower WM, possibly because
of having the expertise and cognitive capacity to
identify relevant information, navigate the game and
process information communicated through a game
more efciently.
While GE predicted better comprehension, we found
that the available working memory among gaming
experts did not predict comprehension. Instead, available
working memory among non-experts predicted better
comprehension. How do we interpret this result? The
ndings were consistent with literature that showed
experts benetted more from having higher WM because
they can identify relevant information and process the
information more efciently (Chi, Glaser, & Farr,
1988). However, at the same time, experts can also
over-rely on their existing schema when they recognize
the task as within their expertise domains, causing them
to focus on familiar information and overlook new
information (Ricks et al., 2007). It is unclear why gaming
experts available working memory did not predict better
comprehension of the educational message. There are at
least two potential explanations: (1) insufcient working
memory allocation or (2) misallocation of working
memory.
The rst possibility may be due to insufcient
working memory allocation. That is, gaming experts
thought the task was easy to them and allocated very
little working memory to processing the task, while
non-experts allocated more working memory to the
task because they expect to be challenged. Research
in textual comprehension has shown that experts can
perform worse when reading simple text but benetted
from reading an unstructured text because they are
challenged to use existing schema to ll in the gaps
(McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996). The
second possible explanation is misallocation of
working memory. Gaming experts might have been
focused on retrieval of their existing schema or on
identifying familiar information but not on processing
the new, unfamiliar information. In other words,
because they recognize the game mechanics, they used
their existing schema to search for similar mental
models but overlooked the unfamiliar educational
message. Study 2 was conducted to test these two
potential explanations.
Study 2
To further examine whether the results from study 1 were
caused by insufcient working memory allocation or
misplaced attention, study 2 replicated study 1 but added
a more difcult condition to test the insufcient working
memory allocation explanation. Game-behavioural data
were tracked to examine the misallocated attention
explanation. A more difcult condition was included
because studies in text comprehension have found that
experts may benet more from reading more difcult
incohesive text rather than a standard, familiar
structure. This is because the incohesive text contains
gaps that force experts to ll with their existing schema,
which improves their attention and comprehension
(McNamara et al., 1996; Oreilly & McNamara, 2007).
If the difference between gaming experts and non-
experts was due to insufcient working memory
allocation, we should see the gaming experts performing
better in comprehension (H4) in the more incohesive
condition when compared with the standard condition
used in study 1.
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Working memory and expertise in games
Another potential explanation for the different
performance between gaming experts and non-experts
is that they were focusing on different aspects of the
game. We hypothesize that gaming experts would
approach the game differently than non-experts. To
examine this explanation, in study 2, we tracked
in-game behaviour data from the server hosting the
game to examine whether the gaming experts and
non-experts approached the game differently. We
hypothesize that because gaming experts are more
likely to rely on their existing schema to guide them,
they would spend less time reading instructions (H5),
seek less help (H6), and therefore make more failed
attempts (H7). However, because they are focused on
their schema, they will spend less time reading
corrective feedback (H8).
Method
Participants
A total of 97 undergraduate participants were recruited
for study 2 from several courses at a large Midwestern
university. The mean age was 21.78 years (SD = 1.63)
with equal numbers of male and female participants
(n = 48 each, one participant did not answer).
Procedures
The experiment procedures were identical to study 1 with
the addition of a more challenging, incohesive condition
in which the participants were instructed to play mission
2 of The ReDistricting Game without playing through
the tutorials in mission 1. To reduce the possibility that
outcome difference was due to exposure time, the
participants in the incohesive condition were instructed
to play mission 2 for 5 min rst to familiarize with the
interface, then replay mission 2 again until they complete
the mission or for 30 min. The standard condition was
identical to study 1. Also, we tracked in-game
behavioural data from the server for all the participants.
To ensure that the manipulation of the incohesive
condition made the game more challenging, we asked
the participants to rate the games challenge level using
a 7-point scale. Manipulation check showed that the
incohesive condition was rated signicantly more
difcult than the standard condition, t(96) = 2.72,
p = 0.008.
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
9
In-game behaviour measurements
Time in instruction screen. The amount of time that the
players spent on the instruction screen is measured in
seconds.
Number of help functions used
The game contained a help icon that was constantly
available during gameplay for players to reference if they
need help with the controls and goals. The use of this
function is not mandatory. Thus, it is a measure of how
many times the players actively sought additional
support.
Number of failed attempts. When the players have
completed drawing voting districts, the player can submit
the map for review. The district map must meet certain
criteria mandated by redistricting laws. Cautious players
who are aware of the criteria will only make a submission
when they are condent that the districts meet the
requirements. In comparison, players who are not paying
attention to regulations will make hastier submissions
and more failed attempts.
Number of feedback read. Formative feedback was given to
players when they make changes to the map; the
feedback tells the players what they are doing right and
how they can improve. The feedback messages do not
appear unless the players actively click on the feedback
button. Therefore, this measure tracks how many times
the players actively sought feedback to learn about their
performance and correct their decisions.
Study 2 results
H4 tested whether gaming experts allocated insufcient
working memory to the game. If this explanation was
supported, we should see higher comprehension in
incohesive condition compared with the standard
condition. Following the procedures of study 1, we
conducted a hierarchical regression analysis with prior
content knowledge in the rst block as control variables,
mean-centred WM, GE and the dummy-coded game
conditions (0 = standard, 1 = incohesive) in the second
block; two-way interaction terms were entered into the
third block; and the three-way interaction term was
entered into the fourth block. Comprehension was the
dependent variable (DV). The results showed that there
was no signicant main effect for the conditions
( = 0.25, p = 0.148) nor for the interaction between
10
GE and conditions ( =
0.23, p = 0.185). The gaming
experts did not perform better in comprehension when
assigned to the incohesive condition. Therefore, the data
did not support the insufcient working memory
allocation explanation.
H5 through H8 examined the second explanation that
gaming experts were focusing on familiar mechanics, but
overlooking the educational message. To test the
hypotheses, four separate regression analyses were
conducted, total game time was entered into the rst
block as a control variable, centred WM and GE were
entered into the second block as independent variables
and the interaction term was entered into the third block.
Time spent in instructions (H5), number of help function
used (H6), number of failed attempts (H7) and number of
feedback read (H8) were the dependent variables.
For the analysis regarding time spent in instructions
(H5), there were no signicant main effects for WM
( = 0.11, p = 0.177) or GE ( = 0.14, p = 0.093), there
was also no signicant interaction effect for WM GE
( = 0.07, p = 0.268). The data were not consistent with
H5. There was no signicant difference between players
with different WM and GE on time spent in instructions.
For the analysis regarding number of help function
(H6), there was no signicant main effect for WM
( = 0.03, p = 0.399) or GE ( =
0.08, p = 0.229).
However, there was a signicant interaction effect for
WM GE ( =
0.21, p = 0.022). Gaming experts with
higher WM used fewer help functions, perhaps because
they have a false sense of understanding and do not think
they need help, and their higher WM facilitated their
retrieval of existing schema. Non-experts with higher
WM used the most help functions, perhaps because they
do not know what to focus on, yet they have the capacity
to process more new information.
For the number of failed attempts (H7), there was no
signicant main effect for WM ( =
0.08, p = 0.253)
or GE ( =
0.08, p = 0.249). However, there was a
signicant interaction effect for WM GE ( =
0.17,
p = 0.048). Gaming experts with lower WM made more
failed attempts, perhaps because they were more likely to
process the information according to their existing
schema and make rash decisions without considering
all available information.
For the number of feedback read (H8), there was no
signicant main effect for WM ( = 0.01, p = 0.451),
but there was a signicant main effect for GE
( =
0.22, p = 0.018). However, there is no signicant
Y.-H. Lee & C. Heeter
interaction effect for WM GE ( =
0.09, p = 0.197).
The data were partially consistent with H8; gaming
experts read fewer feedback, perhaps because they had
a false sense of understanding and did not need to read
additional information. WM did not moderate the
relationship between GE and number of feedback read.
Study 2 discussion
The goal of study 2 was to further examine whether the
ndings from study 1 were caused by insufcient
working memory allocated or misallocated attention
during the game. The ndings suggest that the difference
between gaming experts and non-experts was not caused
by insufcient working memory allocation but caused by
misallocation of attention possibly due to over-reliance
on existing schema. Gaming experts are more likely to
approach the game with a sense of understanding that
leads them to search for familiar information that are
coherent with their schema, overlooking important new
information such as the educational messages.
General discussion
As a complex problem-solving task, digital games can
impose high cognitive demands on players, yet few
studies have investigated how people cognitively process
information through digital games. The current study
provides important insights that can advance our
theoretical understanding of the cognitive processes
involved in digital game-based learning. Based on the
ndings, we can draw several important insights: (1)
both WM and GE inuenced available working memory
and comprehension, but the relationship between the
constructs are more complex than the common belief that
having higher WM and GE is always benecial to
learning from a digital game. (2) Gaming experts are
more likely to follow existing mental models than non-
experts. Researchers and practitioners need to not only
consider the amount of working memory demand that a
game imposes on the learners but also examine where
learners allocate their attention and design the game to
support players so that they will notice and process the
underlying educational messages.
The current study contributes to the body of studies
that showed expertise as a strong predictor of complex
cognitive tasks (Hambrick & Engle, 2002; Yuan et al.,
2006). The ndings suggest that individuals with higher
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Working memory and expertise in games
GE benetted more from higher WM in processing
information from a game. However, the gaming experts
available working memory did not predict compre-
hension. Instead, available working memory from non-
experts predicted better comprehension. Consistent
with ndings from Hambrick and Engle (2002), the
results suggest that WM and GE inuence
comprehension as separate predictors. In an
interactive media, GE not only facilitates the amount
of working memory allocated to the task, but more
importantly, expertise inuenced how individuals
approach the task. The results from study 2
suggested that gaming experts likely relied on their
existing schema when navigating the game, causing
them to overlook important yet unfamiliar educational
information, whereas non-experts approached the
game with a fresh set of eyes and processed the
information more cautiously. If the educational
message is closely integrated into familiar game
mechanics, perhaps the gaming experts may be able
to process the information more efciently, but when
the educational message is not embedded in familiar
mechanics, gaming experts can be misled by their
schema and overlook the important messages. From
a design perspective, gaming experts may benet if
the educational message is integrated into familiar
game mechanics, but they may suffer from misplaced
attention if the messages are not integrated into
familiar mechanics.
Most previous studies on cognitive processing of
mediated message have focused on non-interactive,
linear medium such as the television and radio (e.g. Lang
et al., 2000; Lang et al., 2006), a few studies examined
structural features on interactive websites (Lang, Borse,
Wise, & David, 2002; Moreno & Mayer, 2007; Wise,
Bolls, & Schaefer, 2008). Linear media allowed the
researchers to focus on characteristics of the mediated
message because all users were exposed to the same
amount of information and approached the message in
the same order. But in complex interactive media such
as digital games, player characteristics will determine
how players approach and process the information. This
adds another dimension to understanding the cognitive
processing of mediated messages in interactive
multimedia. When studying an interactive media such
as digital games, it is important to include measures of
where the cognitive resources are allocated. Future
studies could incorporate measurements such as
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
11
behavioural data or eye tracking to provide a richer
picture of not only how much working memory is
allocated but also where it is being allocated.
This study has several limitations. First, the
participants only played the game once without
additional guidance from an instructor. This may have
limited the effectiveness of the game in improving
comprehension. Second, the results from this study are
based on a single game. The ndings from this study
can only be generalized to similar game structures in
which the educational message is distant from the
mechanics and demand high WM to process. Future
studies should replicate this study in games that embed
the educational message closely with the mechanics to
investigate if gaming experts will have an advantage over
non-experts because of their focused attention. Third, the
in-game behaviour measures used in study 2 can only
infer what the participants were doing; they cannot tell
us why the participants behaved this way, while the
results suggest that gaming experts with higher WM used
less help functions, made more mistakes and clicked on
fewer feedback. This could be caused by their false sense
of understanding because of having existing schema, or it
could be caused by lack of interest in the game or the
desire to get through the study as soon as possible. More
studies are needed to parse out these possible
explanations. Finally, there may be other individual
learner factors that inuence their response to digital
game-based learning, such as their reading ability. Future
studies should take these individual differences into
account.
For game developers who often seek to maximize
player immersion, the nding that gaming experts may
block out unfamiliar information and focus narrowly on
familiar information is similar to the concept of ow
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1991; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi,
2002), in which one is fully immersed in a task that they
block out all external distractions. If this is the case,
when the educational message is not embedded within
their familiar mechanics, it is possible that ow might
be detrimental to the comprehension of the intended
message as more digital games are used as educational
tools for providing learners the opportunity to explore
complex problems through experiential learning. We
need to understand how learners approach and process
information in digital games so that educators and
developers can design better curriculum and game
systems that support different learner needs.
12
References
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of
working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417423.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2.
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action.
Oxford University Press.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H.
(2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without
guns. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53, 86107. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504859.
Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004).
Individual differences in working memory capacity and
dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 553573.
Boot, W. R., Kramer, A. F., Simons, D. J., Fabiani, M., &
Gratton, G. (2008). The effects of video game playing on
attention, memory, and executive control. Acta
Psychologica, 129, 387398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actpsy.2008.09.005.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor
of childrens mathematics ability: Inhibition, switching, and
working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19,
273293. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess.
Cognitive Psychology, 4, 5581. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0010-0285(73)90004-2.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature
of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C.,
Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. (2005). On
the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in
working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cognitive
Psychology, 51, 42100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cogpsych.2004.12.001.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal
experience. New York: Harper Collins.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and
language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review, 3, 422433. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546.
De Freitas, S., & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of exploratory
learning for supporting immersive learning in virtual
environments. Computers & Education, 52, 343352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.010.
Elson, M., Breuer, J., Ivory, J. D., & Quandt, T. (2014). More
than stories with buttons: Narrative, mechanics, and context
as determinants of player experience in digital games.
Journal of Communication, 64, 521542. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jcom.12096.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive
attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11,
1923. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160.
Y.-H. Lee & C. Heeter
Fincher-Kiefer, R., Post, T. A., Greene, T. R., & Voss, J. F.
(1988). On the role of prior knowledge and task demands
in the processing of text. Journal of Memory and Language,
27, 416428. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90065-4.
Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of childrens
comprehension of educational content on television.
Media Psychology, 2, 6391. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S1532785XMEP0201_4.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about
learning and literacy: Revised and updated edition. New
York: Macmillan.
Gopher, D. (2006). Control processes in the formation of
task units. Psychological science around the world, 2,
385404.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game
modies visual selective attention. Nature, 423, 534537.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01647.
Grodal, T. (2000). Video games and the pleasures of control. In
D. Zillman & P. Vorderer (Eds.). Media entertainment: The
psychology of its appeal (pp. 197213). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain
knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive
performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power
hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 339387. https://doi.
org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0769.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool
for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional
process modeling.
Juckett, E., & Feinberg, J. (2010). The redistricting game:
Teaching congressional gerrymandering through an online
simulation game. Social Education, 74, 274278.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The
expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38,
2331. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W.
(2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory
capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
130, 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity
and the control of attention: The contributions of goal
neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop
interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
132, 47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47.
Kharrazi, H., Lu, A. S., Gharghabi, F., & Coleman, W. (2012).
A scoping review of health game research: Past, present, and
future. Games for health: Research, Development, and
Clinical Applications, 1, 153164. https://doi.org/10.1089/
g4h.2012.0011.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games
and learning. (pp. 140) Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.
org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Games_Review.pdf.
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Working memory and expertise in games
Klimmt, C., & Hartmann, T. (2006). Effectance, self-efcacy,
and the motivation to play video games. In P. Vorderer &
J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses,
and consequences (pp. 133145). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated
message processing. Journal of Communication, 50,
4670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x.
Lang, A., Borse, J., Wise, K., & David, P. (2002). Captured by the
World Wide Web orienting to structural and content features of
computer-presented information. Communication Research,
29, 215245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029003001.
Lang, A., Bradley, S. D., Park, B., Shin, M., & Chung, Y.
(2006). Parsing the resource pie: Using STRTs to measure
attention to mediated messages. Media Psychology, 8,
369394. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_3.
Lang, A., Zhou, S., Schwartz, N., Bolls, P. D., & Potter, R. F.
(2000). The effects of edits on arousal, attention, and
memory for television messages: When an edit is an edit
can an edit be too much? Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44, 94109. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15506878jobem4401_7.
Lee, M., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Effects of product placement in
on-line games on brand memory: A perspective of the
limited-capacity model of attention. Journal of Advertising,
36, 7590. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360406.
Lerner, J. A. (2014). Making democracy fun: How game design
can empower citizens and transform politics. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Logie, R., Baddeley, A., Donchin, E., & Sheptak, R. (1989).
Working memory in the acquisition of complex cognitive
skills. Acta Psychologica, 71, 5387. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0001-6918(89)90005-X.
Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video
game play: A communication-based explanation.
Communication Research, 31, 499523.
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional
features that promote learning in a game-like environment.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 241265.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive
load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38,
4352. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W.
(1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text
coherence, background knowledge, and levels of
understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction,
14, 143. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal
learning environments. Educational Psychology Review,
19, 309326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of
ow. Handbook of positive psychology, 89105.
2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
View publication stats
13
Oreilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the
reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic,
high-knowledge readers. Discourse processes, 43, 121152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Exploring the potential of computer
and video games for health and physical education: A
literature review. Computers & Education, 53, 603622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.001.
Peng, W., Lee, M., & Heeter, C. (2010). The effects of a serious
game on role-taking and willingness to help. Journal of
Communication, 60, 723742. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1460-2466.2010.01511.x.
Reeves, B., & Thorson, E. (1986). Watching television:
Experiments on the viewing process. Communication Research,
13, 343361. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365086013003004.
Ricks, T. R., Turley-Ames, K. J., & Wiley, J. (2007). Effects of
working memory capacity on mental set due to domain
knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 35, 14561462. https://
doi.org/10.3758/BF03193615.
Spilich, G. J., Vesonder, G. T., Chiesi, H. L., & Voss, J. F.
(1979). Text processing of domain-related information for
individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90155-5.
Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: teaching and
participatory culture in the digital age. Technology,
Education Connections (the TEC Series). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difculty,
and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4,
295312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W.
(2005). An automated version of the operation span task.
Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498505. https://doi.org/
10.3758/BF03192720.
Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load
theory and complex learning: Recent developments and
future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17,
147177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.
Vorderer, P., Knobloch, S., & Schramm, H. (2001). Does
entertainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of
watching an interactive TV movie on viewers experience
of entertainment. Media Psychology, 3, 343363. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0304_03.
Wise, K., Bolls, P. D., & Schaefer, S. R. (2008). Choosing and
reading online news: How available choice affects cognitive
processing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52,
6985. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701820858.
Yuan, K., Steedle, J., Shavelson, R., Alonzo, A., & Oppezzo,
M. (2006). Working memory, uid intelligence, and science
learning. Educational Research Review, 1, 8398. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.08.005.