American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al.

(2021)

Students’ Perceived Competence and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation

in a Physics Educational Game

Renata Kuba, Valerie Shute, and Seyedahmad Rahimi,

To achieve inclusion of diverse professionals in STEM fields, educators must try to get

more children, particularly underrepresented minorities, excited about STEM areas such as

physics (Shute et al., 2020a). As researchers, we understand our educational responsibility in

supporting active learning for a wide range of learners. In this study, we explored the effects of

learning supports on students’ perceived competence (i.e., the self-perception of an individual

that they can succeed) and investigated the relationship of game features (e.g., reward

mechanism) with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in an educational game.

Theoretical Framework

The self-determination theory (SDT) is a broad framework for understanding factors that

increase motivation, leading to enhanced learning and achievement (Sheldon & Filak, 2008).

SDT distinguishes two types of motivation: intrinsic motivation, defined as behaviors performed

for the person’s inherent satisfaction, and extrinsic motivation, defined as behaviors driven by

reasons other than inherent satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, students can be

highly motivated to do a task because doing it is fun (i.e., intrinsically motivated) or because

they want to gain the approval of their teacher (i.e., extrinsically motivated). In general,

researchers agree that intrinsic motivation is an important phenomenon that leads to high-quality

learning (Ryan & Deci, 2020). However, this phenomenon exists in the nexus between each

1
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

individual and task, meaning that each person can be intrinsically motivated for some tasks but

not others (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT specifies three human needs linked to intrinsic motivation:

(1) autonomy that refers to the sense of initiative and ownership in an individual’s actions, (2)

competence that relates to the feeling of confidence and sense that the individual can succeed,

and (3) relatedness that refers to a sense of belonging, such as a social connection (Ryan & Deci,

2000).

Autonomy and Competence in Educational Games

Przybylski et al. (2010) argue that video games can foster intrinsic motivation by

simultaneously promoting autonomy, competence and relatedness. For example, players can (1)

achieve high levels of autonomy through various in-game choices available during gameplay, (2)

obtain high levels of competence in various skills needed to solve game levels by completing

paced challenges and continually experiencing enhanced competence as they advance in the

game, and (3) gain high levels of relatedness by developing social bonds through cooperation or

competition in person or with one to tens of thousands of remote peers.

Hence, researchers and game designers can apply various design features to promote

intrinsic motivation that can lead to enhanced performance (Sheldon & Filak, 2008). For

example, learning supports can help students focus on important information and engage in

learning more efficiently, leading to increased competence (Piriyasurawong, 2019; Wouters &

van Oostendorp, 2013). However, researchers found that students tend to ignore such supports

and a reward mechanism is needed to encourage students to access the learning supports (Sun et

al., 2018). Based on the SDT, rewards represent external regulation –a subtype of extrinsic

motivation—and concerns behaviors performed to achieve a separable outcome (Ryan & Deci,

2
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

2000). Ryan and Deci (2020) point out that external regulation can decrease students’ sense of

autonomy since rewards can be perceived as controllers of behaviors. Alternatively, identified

regulation, another subtype of extrinsic motivations, provides more autonomy since students can

identify the value of a task and chose to perform the task because they believe it would be

beneficial (Figure 1). Identified regulation is different from intrinsic motivation because the

latter refers to performing a task because the task is enjoyable, while identified regulation refers

to doing because it will be beneficial for them.

Figure 1

Self-Determination Theory’s Taxonomy of Motivation (Adapted from Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 61)

In this study, we explored the effects of learning supports (designed to help students

understand targeted content knowledge and solve game levels) on perceived competence, and the

effects of a free-choice condition (designed to support autonomy) on intrinsic motivation. In the

free-choice condition, students can freely navigate through the game levels and choose which

3
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

level they want to play. Additionally, we explored the relationship of an incentive system with

extrinsic motivation. Our research questions are:

1. What are the effects of accessing learning supports on students’ perceived competence?

2. What are the effects of the free-choice condition on intrinsic motivation?

3. What is the relationship between the incentive system and extrinsic motivation?

Method

Participants

We conducted a between groups repeated measure design with four conditions related to

the sequencing of game levels: adaptive (i.e., game levels are ordered based on student’s current

state of knowledge, n = 64), linear (i.e., predetermined sequence of levels, n = 68), free-choice (n

= 67), and control (n = 64). The sample consisted of 199 students (9th to 11th grade) from a large

K-12 school in the southeastern US. Students played the game in 50-minute sessions across six

days and received a $30 gift card for participation.

Instruments

Game. Physics Playground is a digital game that helps students learn conceptual physics

(e.g. Newton's laws of force and motion) and the goal is to move a ball to hit a balloon (Shute et

al., 2019). The game includes two types of levels: sketching, in which students draw simple

machines such as ramps and springboards, and manipulation, in which students adjust sliders to

change physics parameters such as gravity and air resistance and interact with puffers and

blowers (Figure 2).

4
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

Learning Supports. Students start playing tutorial levels to learn the game mechanics

and have access to various learning supports (Table 1) at any time during gameplay (Shute et al.,

2020b; Kuba et al., 2021).

Incentive System. Students earn game money when they solve levels or access learning

supports for the first time and spend game money to watch solution videos. The purpose is to

encourage students to access learning supports and control abusive access of solution videos.

Figure 2

Top: Sketching level – to solve the level, students can draw a springboard. Bottom: Manipulation

level – to solve the level, students have to manipulate the air resistance slider

5
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

Table 1
Learning supports, definitions, and rewards for accessing each support

Supports Definition Value

Glossary Brief explanations of physics terms + $5

Formulas Presented when a physics concept has an + $5

associate formula or equation, includes a
description of each formula component

Definitions Composed of a short animation about a physics + $10

term (e.g. “gravitational force”) and a drag-
and-drop quiz
Hewitt Videos Cartoon animations developed by Paul Hewitt + $10
explaining different physics concepts

Physics Videos Short animations presenting the connection + $10

between physics concepts and game solutions

Solution Videos Complete solution for the game level at hand - $60

Hints Partial solutions that direct students to the Free

correct path (e.g. “Try drawing a springboard”)
without revealing the complete solution

Measures

We created a 5-point Likert scale survey ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree. We included two items to measure students’ perceived competence (i.e., “I

performed well in the game” and “I was skilled at playing the game”) and two items to measure

intrinsic motivation (i.e., “I’d like to play this game again” and “I enjoyed the game very

much”). Additionally, several events were logged when students played the game (e.g., accessing

learning supports).

6
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

Results

Learning Supports and Students’ Perceived Competence. Descriptive statistics

showed that hints (M =5.10, SD = 5.41), physics videos (M = 3.94, SD = 4.57), and solution

videos (M =2.60, SD= 2.84) were the three most accessed supports. Hints are free and provided

partial solutions to game levels. Physics videos earn students $10 game money for the first

access and present the physics concepts underlying the game levels. Solution videos are

complete video solutions, and students have to pay $60 game money to access them.

We ran a regression analysis to identify which of the three supports had significant

predictive power of perceived competence. An F test on R2 change showed that the model,

including physics videos and hints frequencies, is significant (p = .001) in predicting perceived

competence, but adding solution videos as a predictor does not significantly increase the R2 (p =

.57). An ANOVA with only physics videos and hints as the independent variables and perceived

competence as dependent variable, holding pretest constant, showed that both supports explain a

significant amount of the variance in the value of perceived competence (F(3, 191) = 6.40; p <

.001). Additionally, the analysis showed that physics videos significantly predicted perceived

competence, holding pretest and hints constant (β = .17, t = 2.35, p = .02). In contrast, hints

negatively predicted perceived competence, holding pretest and physics videos constant (β = -

.18, t = -2.58, p = .01). To further investigate, we ran a linear regression with hints as the

independent variable and held the number of levels completed constant. The analysis also

showed a significant and negative effect of accessing hints on perceived competence (F(2, 192)

= 17.4; p < .001; β = -.20; t = -3.03, p = .003).

Free-Choice Condition and Intrinsic Motivation. We hypothesized that students in the

free-choice condition would report higher levels of intrinsic motivation than students in the

7
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

adaptive or linear condition since the free-choice condition allows students to have more

autonomy in choosing which levels they want to play. Surprisingly, results from an ANCOVA

showed no significant difference in self-reported intrinsic motivation between conditions (F(2,

191) = .47; p = .62).

Incentive System and Extrinsic Motivation. The descriptive statistics showed that

students accessed physics videos (M = 3.90, SD = 4.55) more than solution videos (M = 2.55, SD

= 2.84), even though students had game money to buy solution videos. These results suggest that

the incentive system was an effective external regulation (a subtype of extrinsic motivation) to

encourage students to access learning supports. Further, the log data showed that students

accessed physics videos multiple times even though they would not earn additional game money

by accessing the same support in the same game level (see Rahimi et al., 2021).

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the effects of learning supports on perceived competence,

the effects of the free-choice condition on intrinsic motivation, and the relationship of the

incentive system with extrinsic motivation. Our findings showed that students who watched

more physics videos reported a higher level of perceived competence than those who watched

fewer videos. In contrast, students who accessed more hints reported a lower level of perceived

competence than those who accessed fewer hints. We assumed that students who used more hints

credited part of their performance to the support, thereby decreasing their perceived competence.

Also, it is possible that watching physics videos led students to sense that they solved levels by

themselves while accessing hints led students to sense that they had help. Further, among physics

videos, hints, and solution videos, only physics videos predicted the number of levels solved (see

8
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

Shute et al., 2020a; Kuba et al., 2021). Although neither solutions videos nor hints predicted

levels solved, only hints had a negative effect on perceived competence. We assume that the

incentive system controlled usage of solution videos, leading students to watch solution videos

only when they were struggling in a level. In contrast, hints were free which led student to access

more hints, even when they were not struggling.

Further, contrary to our expectations, the free-choice condition did not reveal a

significant effect on intrinsic motivation. We hypothesize that the user interface inclined students

to play the game linearly since the interface presented the game levels in a horizontal slider (i.e.,

students had to slide the game level images to select a level to play). Future research might

explore the difference of presenting game levels in a slider versus a matrix structure, and whether

this difference influences autonomy and intrinsic motivation.

Finally, exploring the log data indicated that students accessed physics videos multiple

times, suggesting that students could perceive the value of watching physics videos. Based on the

SDT, this perceived value is known as identified regulation, a level of extrinsic motivation that is

superior to external regulation because it provides more autonomy and indicates that the student

chose to access the supports because they thought they were beneficial (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Thus, external regulation in the form of game money encouraged students to access the physics

videos for the first time, while identified regulation encouraged students to access the videos

repetitively. This finding is aligned with the SDT, suggesting that external regulation can lead to

internalization and achieve identified regulation.

Our results suggest that game resources such as learning supports and in-game stores

might be more effective in promoting perceived competence and motivation than game rules,

such as determining how students access game levels. Future research may consider exploring

9
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

methods of designing effective game features for promoting autonomy, competence, and

relatedness to various learners that can lead to high levels of intrinsic motivation, especially

when learning content is added.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, United States [award number #037988]
and the Department of Education, United States [award number #039019]. We want to acknowledge
Russell Almond, Fengfeng Ke, Curt Fulwider, Zhichun Liu, Chen Sun, and Jiawei Li for helping in
different stages of this project.

10
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

References

Kuba, R., Rahimi, S., Smith, G., Shute, V.J., & Dai, C. (2021). Using the First Principles of

Instruction and multimedia principles to design and develop in-game learning support

videos. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:10.1007/s11423-021-

09994-3

Piriyasurawong, P. (2019). Active learning using ARCS motivation on social cloud model to

enhance communication skills in foreign language. TEM Journal, 8, 290-297.

Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game

engagement. Review of general psychology, 14(2), 154-166.

Rahimi, S., Shute, V.J., Kuba, R.,Dai, C., Yang, X, Smith, G., & Fernándes, C.A. (2021). The

use and effects of incentive systems on learning and performance in educational games.

Computer & Education, 165, 1-17. doi:10.1016/[Link].2021.104135

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and

new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination

theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary

Educational Psychology. [Link]

Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness

support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 267–283. doi:10.1348/014466607X238797

Shute, V.J., Rahimi, S., Smith, G., Ke, F., Almond, R., Dai, C., Kuba, R., Yang, X., Liu, Z., &

Sun, C. (2020). Maximizing learning without sacrificing the fun: Stealth assessment,

11
American Educational Research Association International Conference Kuba et al. (2021)

adaptivity, and learning supports in educational games. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 37(1), 137-141. doi:10.1111/jcal.12473

Shute, V.J., Smith, G., Kuba, R., Dai, C., Rahimi, S., Liu, Z., & Almond, R. (2020). The design,

development, and testing of learning supports for the Physics Playground game.

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1-23. doi:10.1007/s40593-

020-00196-1

Sun, C. T., Chen, L. X., & Chu, H. M. (2018). Associations among scaffold presentation, reward

mechanisms and problem-solving behaviors in game play. Computers and Education,

119(1001), 95–111. [Link]

Wouters, P., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional

support in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60(1), 412-425.

[Link]

12