Digital Game Mechanisms and Their Relationship with Working Memory : A Correlational-Predictive Study
(A study extracted from a doctoral dissertation)
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the contribution of three key design mechanisms in digital educational games—user interface, auditory cues, and task difficulty—to predicting students’ working memory performance in a game-based learning environment. A predictive correlational design was employed within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework, using a sample of 370 middle school students enrolled in science courses. Game design mechanisms were assessed using a multidimensional scale aligned with the features of the selected digital educational game, alongside a working memory performance task, after establishing appropriate validity and reliability indicators for the instruments. The results indicated good to excellent overall model fit and showed that each mechanism (user interface, auditory cues, and task difficulty) had a statistically significant direct path to working memory, with the structural model demonstrating substantial explanatory power for variance in working memory performance. These findings suggest that a clear and well-structured interface, functionally designed and non-distracting auditory feedback, and optimally calibrated task difficulty operate as effective design components for enhancing working memory efficiency in digital game-based learning environments. The study recommends adopting integrated, cognitively informed design standards when developing or selecting educational games and calls for further research to validate and extend this model across different age groups, subject areas, and digital platforms.
References
2. Chen, O., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2023). A cognitive load theory approach to defining and measuring task complexity through element interactivity. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09782-w
3. Chisholm, J. D., Hickey, C., Theeuwes, J., & Kingstone, A. (2015). Action video games and improved attentional control: Disentangling selection- and response-based processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1787–1794. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0818-3
4. Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y
5. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
6. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423(6939), 534–537. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01647
7. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.
8. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
9. International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO 9241-112:2017 Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 112: Principles for the presentation of information. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/64840.html
10. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). The Guilford Press.
11. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
12. Lo, P., Thue, D., & Carstensdottir, E. (2021). What is a game mechanic? In R. Prada, A. Paiva, & N. Yee (Eds.), Entertainment Computing—ICEC 2021 (pp. 336–347). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89394-1_25
13. Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
14. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.). (2022). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333
15. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2019). Interaction design: Beyond human–computer interaction (5th ed.). Wiley.
16. Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
17. Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096
18. Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643
19. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
20. Waris, O., Soveri, A., Laine, M., Lukasik, K. M., Lehtonen, M., Soderstrom, U., ... & Jaeggi, S. M. (2019). Video gaming and working memory: A large-scale cross-sectional correlative study. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.005
Copyright (c) 2025 محمد حمادي حمدي الهذلي , أ.د. بدر بن سلمان السليمان
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
