Difficulty and self‐efficacy: An exploratory study

Abstract

Serious games are becoming increasingly popular due to their association with increased learning outcomes when compared to traditional self‐regulated learning activities. However, the majority of research examining the outcomes of serious games has focused almost exclusively on learning outcomes. This has resulted in a lack of research examining why these types of games result in increased positive outcomes, such as engagement or performance. This study seeks to address this gap in existing research by examining the relationship between game difficulty and participants’ engagement, performance and self‐efficacy in a Pacman style maze navigation game. This required the use of hidden difficulty variations which participants were randomly assigned. Participants engaged with the game over a 5‐days practice period. Results from this study suggest that difficulty plays a considerable role in influencing participants’ self‐efficacy for the task. Self‐efficacy has been consistently linked to positive outcomes such as increased engagement and performance. This highlights the importance of difficulty as a game design factor as well as providing an insight into the manner in which serious games could be further refined in order to increase user’s self‐efficacy and associated positive outcomes. Implications for future serious games and self‐efficacy research are discussed.

Mutual relationships between the levels and changes in interest, self-efficacy, and perceived difficulty during a task

“…As for the third question (Q3), we expect, based on previous findings (Barba et al, 2016;Burns et al, 2020;Hidi, 1990;Niemivirta & Tapola, 2007;Nuutila et al, 2020;Richardson et al, 2012;Rotgans & Schmidt, 2018;Schöber et al, 2018;Talsma et al, 2018;Vainikainen et al, 2015), the initial levels of situational interest and self-efficacy to be predictive of task performance. Similarly, in line with both direct and indirect evidence (Andres, 2019;Guthrie et al, 2009;Power et al, 2020;Steensel et al, 2019), we presume the level of perceived difficulty to have a negative effect on performance, beyond and above the effects of self-efficacy and interest. The potential effects of changes in each construct on performance remain more speculative.…”

“…These negative connections have been observed in the context of a task (i.e, reading task;Fulmer & Tulis, 2013), a test (i.e., A-levels; Brown, 2018), a class (e.g., science class;Patall et al, 2018;Tanaka & Murayama, 2014), and a course (e.g., a university psychology course;Horvath et al, 2006), and further extended to inferior performance (e.g., lower course grade;Andres, 2019;Power et al, 2020;Steensel et al, 2019).…”

Airport Self-Service Technologies, Passenger Self-Concept, and Behavior: An Attributional View

“…This suggests that these passengers do not hate technology per se but are worried about the likelihood of having an unpleasant experience with airport SSTs. The findings from this research demonstrate support for the literature on positive outcomes of perceived self-efficacy [88,89]. Thus, in the presence of high self-efficacy, any anxious feelings are put at bay.…”

“…Furthermore, to improve passenger perceived airport SST performance and perceived technology self-efficacy beliefs, airport managers need to continuously seek to simplify airport SSTs in terms of design improvement concerning user interface and critical performance determiners of airport SST performance. Task difficulty is found to influence performance [90,91] and perceived self-efficacy beliefs [88,92]. This indicates that easy-to-use airport SSTs enhances perceived performance, leading to higher satisfaction.…”

Examining the role of spatial skills and mathematics motivation on middle school mathematics achievement

“…Students perceive success as reinforcing, and they will engage in mathematics if they expect to be successful. Additionally, students will tend to enjoy tasks for which they have a moderately high probability of success more than tasks for which the probability of success is near chance (Dickinson & Butt, 1989;Power, Lynch, & McGarr, 2020).…”