You are here:

The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics using a computer-based simulation game

, University of North Dakota, United States

JCMST Volume 25, Number 2, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


Many students enter mathematics courses with a poor attitude toward mathematics (Gal & Ginsburg, 1994), making attitude as important a consideration as achievement in mathematics (e.g., CTGV, 1992; Marsh, Cairns, Relich, Barnes, & Debus, 1984; Sedighian & Sedighian, 1996). Pedagogical agents are often touted for their ability to address affective variables in learning (e.g., Moreno et al., 2001; Baylor, 2000), as are games for both attitude and achievement (e.g., Baltra, 1990; Fery & Ponserre, 2001; Kent, 1999). But few studies have examined the effect of combining agents and games, and none have examined their effect on attitude toward mathematics. This study was designed to determine the effect of contextual pedagogical advisement (CPA) and competition on attitude toward mathematics in a computer-based simulation game. A total of 123 seventh- and eighth-grade students were randomly assigned to one of five conditions formed by crossing the two independent variables and adding a control group. Results indicate that contextual pedagogical advisement can result in lower anxiety toward mathematics scores, especially under competitive conditions.


Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude toward mathematics using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(2), 165-195. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Ames, C. A. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A motivational analysis. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research
  2. Atkinson, J. W., & O’Connor, P. (1963). Effects of ability grouping in schools related to individual differences in achievement-related motivation (Report No. CRP-1283; Report No. D4615-1-F). Cooperative Research Program of
  3. Baltra, A. (1990). Language learning through computer adventure games. Simulation and Gaming, 21(4), 445-452.
  4. Barak, A., Engle, C., Katzir, L., & Fisher, W. A. (1987). Increasing the level of empathic understanding by means of a game. Simulation and Games, 18(4), 458-470.
  5. Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-effi cacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41-51.
  6. Baylor, A. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373-382.
  7. Baylor, A. L. (2002) Expanding pre-service teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents.
  8. Baylor, A. & Ryu, J. (2003). Does the presence of image and animation enhance pedagogical agent persona? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373-395.
  9. Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G., & Wheeler, M. M. (1985). Learning and mathematics games. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph Number 1.
  10. Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 40-48.
  11. Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 369-413). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Clariana, R. B. (1993). The motivational effect of advisement on attendance and achievement in computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 47-51.
  13. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
  14. Dehn, D.M., & Van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1-22.
  15. Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B., Gilley, W., & Rasmussen, K. (1993). Since Malone’s theory of intrinsically motivating instruction: What’s the score in gaming literature? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22(2), 173-183
  16. Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. (2003). Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 1-16.
  17. Dewey, J. M. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Miffl in.
  18. Druckman, D. (1995). The educational effectiveness of interactive games. In D. Crookall & K. Arai (Eds.), Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures (pp. 178-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Fery, Y., & Ponserre, S. (2001). Enhancing the control of force in putting by video game training. Ergonomics, 44(12), 1025-1037.
  20. Gal, I., & Ginsburg, L. (1994). The role of beliefs and attitudes in learning statistics: Towards an assessment framework. Journal of Statistics Education, 2(2), 1-18.
  21. Gay, G., & Mazur, J. (1993). The utility of computer tracking tools for user-centered design. Educational Technology (Research Section), 33(4), 45-59.
  22. Gray, D. M. (1988). The use and effect on performance of learner control and advisement in a computer-based educational statistics lesson (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(06), 1434A.
  23. Heyman, M. (1982). What are simulation games? Environmental Education Report (Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 1-5). Washington, DC: Center for Environmental Education.
  24. Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302-308.
  25. Jacobs, J. W., & Dempsey, J. V. (1993). Simulation and gaming: Fidelity, feedback, and motivation. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 197-227). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational instruction and feedback (pp. 197-227). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational instruction and feedback
  26. Johansen, K. J., & Tennyson, R. D. (1983). Effect of adaptive advisement on perception in learner-controlled, computer-based instruction using a rulelearning task. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 31(4), 226-236.
  27. Kent, S. L. (1999, June 23) For military, games hone combat skills. USA Today, P. 2D.
  28. Klein, J. D., Freitag, E., & Wolf, B. (1990, February). Providing practice using instructional gaming: A motivating alternative. Proceedings of selected paper presentations at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 936)
  29. Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R.W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-Building a learning companion. Proceedings of ICALT 2001, 43-48.
  30. Kraft Miller, J. L. (1981). Competition, maturation rate, and motive to avoid success in mathematics as predictors of performance on a spatial task (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(06), 2602B.
  31. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.
  32. Lancaster, D. R. (1988). The games computers play. Educational Resources and Techniques, 27(3), 29-31.
  33. Lee, Y. B., & Lehman, J. D. (1993). Instructional cueing in hypermedia: A study with active and passive learners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(10), 25-37.
  34. Lehman, C. H. (1987, April). The adult mathematics learner: Attitudes, expectations, attributions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 680)
  35. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. E. (1984). Relation of self-effi cacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Practice, 31(3), 356-362.
  36. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A. & Bhoga, R. S. (1997). The Persona Effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Association of Computing Machinery. Retrieved June 12, 2005,
  37. Lester, J. C., & Stone, B. A. (1997). Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Ray, CA.
  38. Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward theory of personal investment. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Volume 1, Student Motivation, pp. 115-144). New York: Academic Press.
  39. Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4, 333-369.
  40. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomic model of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Cognitive and affective process analysis (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  41. Malouf, D. B. (1988). The effect of instructional computer games on continuing student motivation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(4), 27-38.
  42. Marsh, H. W., Cairns, L., Relich, J., Barnes, J., & Debus, R. L. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of self-attribution and dimension of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 3-32.
  43. Miller, A. D., & Heward, W. L. (1992). Do your students really know their math facts? Using daily time trials to build fl uency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28(2), 98-104.
  44. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H. A. & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when
  45. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Volume 1. Student Motivation, pp. 39-73. New York: Academic Press.
  46. Pascale, P. J. (1974). Evaluation report for project year I of “Relating Mathematics to the Middle School Child’s Real World.” Educational Psychology Measures, 34(4), 989-995.
  47. Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  48. Remmer, A. M., & Jernstedt, G. C. (1982). Comparative effectiveness of simulation games in secondary and college level instruction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 51, 742.
  49. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A report, recommendations and an annotated bibliography (MAA Notes, No. 1). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
  50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  51. Santiago, R. S., & Okey, J. R. (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(2), 47-53.
  52. Sedighian, K., & Sedighian, A. S. (1996). Can educational computer games help educators learn about the psychology of learning mathematics in children? Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education -- the North American Chapter, Florida, USA. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from
  53. Seginer, R. (1980). Game ability and academic ability. Simulation & Games, 11(4), 403-421.
  54. Spalt, S. K. (1988). The effects of academic competition upon school system support, teacher-sponsor operational behavior, secondary school curriculum and student performance on the American College Test (Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1987. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(11), 2801A.
  55. Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-effi cacy expectations and coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91108.
  56. Tennyson, R.D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 525-532.
  57. Tennyson, R. D. (1981). Use of adaptive information for advisement in learning concepts and rules using computer-assisted instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 425-438.
  58. Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communications and Technology, 28, 169-176.
  59. Thompson, G. B. (1972). Effects of co-operation and competition on pupil learning. Educational Research, 15(1), 28-36.
  60. Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: Acase for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213-243.
  61. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23-41.
  62. Van Haneghan, J. P., & Hickey, D. (1993, March). Higher order analyses of children’s beliefs about mathematics. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
  63. VanSickle, R. L. (1986). A quantitative review of research on instructional simulation gaming: A twenty-year perspective. Theory and Research in Social Education, XIV(3), 245-264.
  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  65. Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 211-238.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Prospective Teachers’ Use of Technology in Mathematics Instruction

    Mustafa Demir, University of Detroit Mercy, United States

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2016 (Jun 28, 2016) pp. 823–828

  2. The View of Secondary School Mathematics Teachers in Australia regarding the use of Technology in the Classroom

    Rebecca Hudson, Anne Porter & Mark Nelson, University of Wollongong, Australia

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2008 (Jun 30, 2008) pp. 5771–5777

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact