Looking for Metacognition

Haring, Priscilla; Warmelink, Harald

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50182-6_9

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All four authors of this paper have backgrounds in psychology and/or social science, with experience in game research, in game design, and in education. We started by independently reading the selected literature describing the taxonomy [6,11,14] and the selected literature describing our five psychotherapeutic games [15][16][17][18][19][20]. The instructions provided to classify the games consisted of three steps per game: (1) Describe the possible actions by the player needed to proceed in the game.…”

Section: First Round Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We conclude with a critique on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, answers to our three research questions, and limitations of our own approach. This paper builds on an earlier exploration of using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy as an analytical framework to identify whether psychotherapeutic games include metacognition in their games [6]. From this earlier exploration we hypothesized that Bloom's Revised Taxonomy might be useful in different ways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using the Revised Bloom Taxonomy to Analyze Psychotherapeutic Games

Haring¹,

Warmelink

Valente³

et al. 2018

International Journal of Computer Games Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the scientific literature on computer games aimed at offering or aiding in psychotherapy provides little information on the relationship between the game’s design and the player’s cognitive processes. This article investigates the use of Bloom’s taxonomy in describing a psychotherapeutic game in terms of knowledge level and cognitive processing. It introduces the Revised Bloom Taxonomy and applies this to five psychotherapeutic games (Personal Investigator, Treasure Hunt, Ricky and the Spider, Moodbot, and SuperBetter) in a two-round procedure. In the first round consensus was reached on the Player Actions with Learning Objectives (PALOs) in each game. The second round sought to determine what level of knowledge and cognitive processing can be attributed to the PALOs by placing them in the taxonomy. Our low intercoder reliability in the second round indicates that Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy is not suitable to compare and contrast content between games.

show abstract