Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research Through an Interactive Storytelling Game

Abstract

Concepts utilizing applied ethics, such as responsible conduct of research (RCR), can prove difficult to teach due to the complexity of problems faced by researchers and the many underlying perspectives involved in such dilemmas. To address this issue, we created Academical, a choice-based interactive storytelling game for RCR education that enables players to experience a story from multiple perspectives. In this paper, we describe the design rationale of Academical, and present results from an initial pilot study comparing it with traditional web-based educational materials from an existing RCR course. The preliminary results highlight that utilizing a choice-based interactive story game may prove more effective for RCR education, with significantly higher engagement and comparable or better scores for tests of RCR topics.

Full text

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Teaching Responsible Conduct of
Research Through an Interactive
Storytelling Game
Edward F. Melcer
University of California, Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
eddie.melcer@ucsc.edu
James Ryan
BBN Technologies
St. Louis Park, MN 55416, USA
jryan@bbn.com
Nick Junius
Max Kreminski
University of California, Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
njunius@ucsc.edu
mkremins@ucsc.edu
Dietrich Squinkifer
Independent Artist
Montreal, QC H3W 1R1, Canada
hey@squinky.me
Brent Hill
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
brent.hill@hsc.utah.edu
Noah Wardrip-Fruin
University of California, Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
nwf@soe.ucsc.edu
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI ’20 Extended Abstracts, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA.
© 2020 Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6819-3/20/04.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382973
Abstract
Concepts utilizing applied ethics, such as responsible con-
duct of research (RCR), can prove difficult to teach due to
the complexity of problems faced by researchers and the
many underlying perspectives involved in such dilemmas.
To address this issue, we created Academical, a choice-
based interactive storytelling game for RCR education that
enables players to experience a story from multiple per-
spectives. In this paper, we describe the design rationale of
Academical, and present results from an initial pilot study
comparing it with traditional web-based educational mate-
rials from an existing RCR course. The preliminary results
highlight that utilizing a choice-based interactive story game
may prove more effective for RCR education, with signifi-
cantly higher engagement and comparable or better scores
for tests of RCR topics.
Author Keywords
Choice-based; Role-playing; Interactive Storytelling; Narra-
tive Game; Educational Game; RCR.
CCS Concepts
•Human-centered computing → Human computer inter-
action (HCI); User studies;
LBW034, Page 1

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Introduction
Topics such as the responsible conduct of research (RCR)
are difficult to teach due to the complexity of applied ethics
and ethical decision-making [2], the need for moral rea-
soning [39], and the lack of existing educational tools that
are motivating and foster critical thinking [12]. While past
work has attempted to address these issues through alter-
native learning approaches such as group mentoring [48]
and role-playing [3, 40], these issues have still remained
largely unaddressed—resulting in ill-defined content, for-
mat, and goals, as well as minimal evidence for effective-
ness [11]. Conversely, in the context of educational games,
choice-based interactive storytelling is a popular format for
narrative videogames [7, 38, 28], and this format has been
shown to increase engagement/motivation as well as learn-
ing outcomes for rote STEM topics [35, 46, 49].
We hypothesized that the choice-based, role-playing nature
of interactive storytelling games could also be employed to
improve student engagement and learning outcomes within
ethically complex topics (such as RCR education), which
require learners to understand a variety of perspectives and
perform ethical decision-making. As a result, we created
Academical—a choice-based interactive storytelling game
for RCR education that allows players to experience a story
from multiple perspectives. In this paper, we discuss the de-
sign of Academical, and provide results from an initial pilot
study comparing engagement and learning outcomes of our
web-based game with traditional web-based educational
materials from a RCR course at the University of Utah.
Background
Choice-based Interactive Storytelling
Though it is attested as far back as the sixteenth century
[36, 27], choice-based interactive storytelling was made
famous by the Choose Your Own Adventure book series
[34, 37] and is now most prominent as a popular format
for narrative videogames [7, 38, 28]. In this format, players
navigate a plot graph [47] by making decisions (typically on
behalf of a character) at branching points in the narrative
(e.g., see Figure 2). Research in this area has typically con-
cerned the history [7, 27, 38, 36], analysis [22, 28, 23], or
generation [10, 24, 32] of works in the choice-based format.
Interactive Storytelling and Learning
Interactive storytelling has substantial potential for educa-
tion and games [5, 45]. Specifically, narrative/storytelling
is an important element that can be added to educational
games in order to maintain and increase students’ moti-
vation [4, 6, 31, 35], with some suggesting that integration
of a good story into an educational game will determine
its success or failure [8]. Interactive storytelling has been
incorporated into a number of educational games focus-
ing on topics such as history [4, 42], STEM [5, 46, 49], and
bullying [1, 44]. However, the majority of research on edu-
cational interactive storytelling games has focused on adap-
tivity [9, 16], interactivity [42, 49], emergent narrative [1],
and the game creation process [4, 43]. As a result, there is
surprisingly little work examining the impact of an interac-
tive storytelling approach on learning outcomes (exceptions
being [35, 44, 46, 49]), especially for topics with ethically
complex concepts that require a variety of perspectives.
Responsible Conduct of Research
Although students generally know that they should report
data honestly and cite sources accurately, they might not
know specific standards or obligations of RCR—such as
criteria for co-authorship and maintaining confidentiality
of manuscripts reviewed for publication [40]. The impor-
tance of RCR is such that many major funding agencies,
such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National
Science Foundation (NSF), explicitly require researchers
LBW034, Page 2

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Figure 1: A choice point from Academical’s final scenario, “Fallen Angel Y2K.” In this scene, the player controls a busy professor whose
graduate student suspects that a postdoc in the lab has fabricated research results. The two highlighted text blocks represent dialogue options
between which the player must select.
supported by their grants to receive RCR training [30, 33].
Currently, the NIH provides a guideline of nine core RCR
topics: 1) conflict of interest, 2) human and animal subjects,
3) mentoring, 4) collaboration, 5) peer review, 6) data man-
agement, 7) research misconduct, 8) authorship and pub-
lication, and 9) scientists and society [13]. Past research
on RCR education has ranged from issues teaching ethi-
cal theories underlying RCR [2] and identifying metacog-
nitive reasoning strategies that facilitate ethical decision-
making [17] to the use of group mentoring [48] and role-
playing [3, 40] for improved efficacy. However, there is still
a notable engagement issue within current RCR education,
and a critical need for a variety of tools to improve discus-
sion, engagement, and critical thinking [12]. As a result,
an interactive storytelling approach may prove effective for
increasing motivation and fostering deeper critical thinking.
Design of Academical
Academical is a work of choice-based interactive story-
telling [22, 23, 18] that was developed using the Twine au-
thoring framework [7, 38]. Figure 1 shows a screenshot
taken during gameplay, which occurs in a web browser. The
LBW034, Page 3

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
Figure 2: Plot graphs for two of
Academical’s playable scenarios,
visualized in the Twine authoring
environment. Each node in these
graphs is a Twine “passage“ (story
unit), some of which are player
choice points that link to other
passages. As the game
progresses, the scenarios become
more complex—of the two
scenarios shown here, the bottom
one comes later in the game.
game comprises nine playable scenarios, each pertain-
ing to a specific issue in RCR [13]. These scenarios are
adapted (with permission) from a series of existing educa-
tional RCR role-playing prompts [3, 40].
Each playable scenario in Academical centers on a conver-
sation between two stakeholders in the RCR issue at hand,
one of whom is controlled by the player—in the sense that
they select dialogue options for that character. By virtue of
these choices, the player will ultimately reach one of several
possible endings, a subset of which represent successful
navigations of the situation. Upon reaching a good ending
for one character, the player unlocks the other interlocutor
and may replay the scenario from that person’s viewpoint.
In turn, reaching a good ending for the second character in
a given scenario unlocks the next scenario, and the game
concludes upon completion of the final scenario. Gener-
ally, the scenarios become more complex (and difficult to
navigate) as the game proceeds, as Figure 2 illustrates.
At the outset of the project, it was decided that the format of
choice-based interactive storytelling—which allows a player
to experience a story from multiple perspectives, and to re-
play scenes to see how different actions play out—would
demonstrate the complicated nature of RCR to students
in a compelling way. In adapting the role-playing prompts,
we sought to show how seemingly obvious answers around
questions of research ethics can be complicated by factors
such as power dynamics and marginalized identities and
experiences. Instead of cleanly delineating right and wrong
answers, Academical showcases complexity and uncer-
tainty to provoke questions around how courses of action
could have unexpected consequences. In turn, while all
successful paths through the game’s scenarios represent
the player character acting responsibly, not all of the situa-
tions reach clear resolutions. Specifically, many scenarios
feature paths that appear to represent obvious solutions,
but ultimately lead to bad outcomes. Through replaying and
selecting new options, the player explores the social con-
cerns encompassing a given RCR scenario, which may
lead to a richer understanding of the ethical complications
that one can encounter while conducting research.
Pilot Study
RCR is a complicated topic to teach that requires under-
standing a variety of perspectives and dilemmas that impact
research ethics [14, 41]. As a result, we wanted to evalu-
ate whether a choice-based interactive storytelling design,
such as the one employed in Academical, could prove more
effective than traditional approaches for teaching ethically
complex topics. We hypothesized that the choice-based,
role-playing nature of Academical—which is specifically de-
signed to highlight how research ethics can be complicated
by many factors such as power dynamics and marginalized
identities—would be 1) more engaging and 2) as effective
as traditional RCR educational materials. In order to ex-
plore these hypotheses, we conducted a between-subjects
pilot study comparing our choice-based interactive story-
telling game approach with existing web-based educational
materials from an RCR course at the University of Utah.
The pilot study consisted of two conditions: 1) a group that
read through two modules of the web-based educational
RCR materials covering peer review and authorship; and
2) a group that played two chapters/levels of Academical
covering peer review and authorship content.
Procedure
Participants were told that the study was to explore differ-
ent approaches to RCR education, and that they would ei-
ther play a game or read materials teaching selected RCR
concepts. They then completed an online survey collecting
demographic information (age, prior gaming experience,
LBW034, Page 4

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
RCR Peer Review Questions
1. "According to the study
materials, peer reviewers
are asked to make
judgements about the
quality of a proposed or
completed project. This
certainly includes all
EXCEPT the following:"
(Multiple Choice)
2. "If you can figure out
the authors of a paper
you are peer reviewing
after conflicts of interest
are disclosed, should you
still review the paper?"
(Yes/No)
3. "There is no simple
solution to the problem of
bias in peer review.
However, researchers can
lessen the impact of bias
by writing transparent
reviews."
(True/False)
Table 1: The post-test RCR peer
review quiz questions. Questions
were taken from an existing RCR
course at the University of Utah.
prior RCR experience, and so forth). Upon completing the
survey, participants were randomly assigned to one of the
two conditions (web materials or Academical). After com-
pleting the RCR training for peer review and authorship,
participants were then asked to complete a post-test that
assessed their engagement with the training material and
knowledge of peer review and authorship RCR concepts.
Participants
A convenience sample of 28 university graduate and un-
dergraduate students—the target populations for RCR
training—were recruited for the study (age: µ=24.8, σ=7.6).
There were 10 female, 14 male, and 3 non-binary partici-
pants, with 1 declining to disclose gender. During the study,
participants were randomly assigned to one of the two con-
ditions: web materials (14 total; 3 female, 2 non-binary, 8
male, 1 decline to answer) and Academical game (14 total;
7 female, 1 non-binary, 6 male). None of the participants
reported prior RCR training within the past 2 years.
Measures
Temple Presence Inventory, Engagement Subscale
Engagement is an critical aspect of the learning process [15],
drastically influencing a learner’s motivation to continue in-
teracting with a system and the educational content [29]. In
order to assess participant engagement with the two edu-
cational RCR tools employed, we utilized the Engagement
subscale of the Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) [19]. The
TPI is an instrument that has been validated for use with
games [20], and measuring game engagement [21].
Peer Review and Authorship RCR Quizzes
To assess and compare how effective the two RCR tools
were for teaching peer review and authorship concepts, we
utilized two quizzes from an existing online RCR course at
the University of Utah. Each quiz consists of three ques-
tions around a respective topic, and each question is either
Post-Test Results
Measures
Web
µ σ Game
µ σ Sig
p
ES
r
TPI Engagement
Peer Review Test
23.4
2.14
9
0.77
30.1
2.93
6.1
0.27
.029
.001
.4
.56
Authorship Test 2.36 0.75 2 0.79 .23 N/A
Table 2: Post-test results for the TPI Engagement subscale, Peer
Review test, and Authorship test. The table contains mean scores,
standard deviations, t-test scores for significance, and effect
size—which is medium to large for significant differences.
true/false, yes/no, or multiple choice (see Tables 1 and 3).
Results
Prior Knowledge and Experience
According to a series of independent samples t-tests, par-
ticipants in the two conditions did not differ with respect to
age, prior game experience, or prior interactive story ex-
perience (all p values >= .12). Similarly, no participants re-
ported prior RCR training in the past 2 years. Therefore,
we can assume that participants in both groups had similar
prior RCR, game, and interactive story experience.
Engagement with RCR Training Tools
We first examine participant engagement between the dif-
ferent RCR educational tools. In order to analyze differ-
ences between the web materials and Academical game
conditions, we used an independent samples t-test. The
first row of Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for scores
on the TPI Engagement subscale, as well as significant
differences and effect sizes. Results found a significant dif-
ference in favor of Academical increasing participant en-
gagement (p = .029, r = .4), suggesting that a choice-based
LBW034, Page 5

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
RCR Authorship Questions
1. "When should
authorship for a paper be
discussed?"
(Multiple Choice)
2. "Which of the following
is NOT considered a
contribution to a paper?"
(Multiple Choice)
3. "There is disagreement
over whether authorship
should be limited to
individuals who
contributed to all phases
of a publication or
whether individuals
who made more limited
contributions deserve
authorship credit."
(True/False)
Table 3: The post-test RCR
authorship quiz questions.
Questions were taken from an
existing RCR course at the
University of Utah.
interactive story game is a more engaging experience for
RCR training than traditional web reading materials.
RCR Learning Outcomes
To better understand participants’ learning outcomes, we
analyzed post-test scores on the RCR peer review and au-
thorship quizzes. Descriptive statistics, statistical signifi-
cance, and effect sizes for the two measures are shown in
the bottom two rows of Table 2. A series of independent
samples t-tests showed that participants in the Academical
condition scored significantly higher on the peer review test
(p = .001, r = .56) and comparable to the web materials for
the authorship test, with no statistically significant difference
between scores (p = .23). This suggests that, in terms of
short-term learning, a choice-based interactive story ap-
proach can be more effective or comparable to traditional
educational RCR materials for certain RCR topics.
Discussion
Results from our pilot study highlight the potential of choice-
based interactive storytelling games for improving student
engagement and learning outcomes within RCR education.
First, the independent samples t-test for the TPI Engage-
ment subscale showed that Academical was significantly
more engaging than traditional web-based RCR educational
materials (p=.029, r=.4). This confirmed our first hypothe-
sis, and also falls in line with existing claims [4, 6, 16, 31,
42] and findings [35, 44, 49] that interactive storytelling de-
signs can improve learner engagement and motivation. Ad-
ditionally, we further extend these findings to illustrate that
interactive storytelling games can also increase motivation
when learning more ethically complex topics—beyond the
current rote STEM [35, 49] and history [4] examples.
Second, we found that short term learning outcomes for
RCR education were comparable (authorship; p=.23) or
significantly better for Academical (peer review; p=.001,
r=.56). This serves to extend current findings on the learn-
ing outcomes of educational interactive storytelling games [35,
44, 46, 49] by providing evidence for the efficacy of such
games in teaching concepts that require ethical decision-
making and multiple perspectives. Furthermore, given that
a choice-based interactive storytelling design approach is
both more engaging than traditional RCR materials and
equally/more effective for learning outcomes, Academical
is ultimately a useful tool to address the engagement and
critical thinking needs of current RCR education [12].
Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Work
In this paper we described the design of Academical, a
choice-based interactive storytelling game for RCR edu-
cation that enables players to experience a story from mul-
tiple perspectives. We also presented results from an ini-
tial pilot study comparing Academical with traditional web-
based RCR educational materials. The pilot study results
highlighted that a choice-based interactive story game de-
sign may prove to be an effective RCR education tool, with
significantly higher engagement and comparable or better
scores for tests of RCR topics. However, the sample size
is notably small for sufficiently evaluating the efficacy of an
educational game [25]. Therefore, future work will need to
further validate these results with a larger sample size to
fully prove the hypotheses, e.g., [26]. A longitudinal study
also needs to be done to examine long term learning out-
comes and improvements to RCR practices over time. Fur-
thermore, prior work has demonstrated that traditional edu-
cation approaches may increase students’ RCR knowledge,
but not their moral reasoning [39]. Given that Academical
enables a more direct exploration of ethics-based decisions,
future work should also explore if a choice-based interactive
story design can have a more substantial impact on learn-
ers’ moral reasoning.
LBW034, Page 6

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
REFERENCES
[1] Ruth S Aylett, Sandy Louchart, Joao Dias, Ana Paiva,
and Marco Vala. 2005. FearNot!–an experiment in
emergent narrative. In International Workshop on
Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 305–316.
[2] Mathieu Bouville. 2008. On using ethical theories to
teach engineering ethics. Science and Engineering
Ethics 14, 1 (2008), 111–120.
[3] Bradley J Brummel, CK Gunsalus, Kerri L Anderson,
and Michael C Loui. 2010. Development of role-play
scenarios for teaching responsible conduct of
research. Science and Engineering Ethics 16, 3
(2010), 573–589.
[4] Dimitrios Christopoulos, Pavlos Mavridis, Anthousis
Andreadis, and John N Karigiannis. 2011. Using
Virtual Environments to Tell the Story:" The Battle of
Thermopylae". In 2011 Third International Conference
on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications.
IEEE, 84–91.
[5] Polina Danilicheva, Stanislav Klimenko, Yury Baturin,
and Alexander Serebrov. 2009. Education in virtual
worlds: Virtual storytelling. In 2009 International
Conference on CyberWorlds. IEEE, 333–338.
[6] Michele D Dickey. 2006. Game design narrative for
learning: Appropriating adventure game design
narrative devices and techniques for the design of
interactive learning environments. Educational
Technology Research and Development 54, 3 (2006),
245–263.
[7] Jane Friedhoff. 2013. Untangling Twine: A Platform
Study. In Proc. DiGRA.
[8] Stefan Göbel, André de Carvalho Rodrigues, Florian
Mehm, and Ralf Steinmetz. 2009. Narrative
game-based learning objects for story-based digital
educational games. narrative 14 (2009), 16.
[9] Stefan Göbel and Florian Mehm. 2013. Personalized,
adaptive digital educational games using narrative
game-based learning objects. In Serious Games and
Virtual Worlds in Education, Professional
Development, and Healthcare. IGI Global, 74–84.
[10] Matthew Guzdial, Brent Harrison, Boyang Li, and Mark
Riedl. 2015. Crowdsourcing Open Interactive
Narrative.. In Proc. Foundations of Digital Games.
[11] Michael Kalichman. 2013. A brief history of RCR
education. Accountability in research 20, 5-6 (2013),
380–394.
[12] Michael Kalichman. 2014. Rescuing responsible
conduct of research (RCR) education. Accountability in
research 21, 1 (2014), 68–83.
[13] Michael Kalichman. 2016. Responsible Conduct of
Research Education (What, Why, and Does It Work?).
Academic medicine: journal of the Association of
American Medical Colleges 91, 12 (2016), e10.
[14] Michael W Kalichman and Dena K Plemmons. 2007.
Reported goals for responsible conduct of research
courses. Academic Medicine 82, 9 (2007), 846–852.
[15] Greg Kearsley and Ben Shneiderman. 1998.
Engagement theory: A framework for
technology-based teaching and learning. Educational
technology 38, 5 (1998), 20–23.
LBW034, Page 7

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
[16] Michael D Kickmeier-Rust, Stefan Göbel, and Dietrich
Albert. 2008. 80Days: Melding adaptive educational
technology and adaptive and interactive storytelling in
digital educational games. In Proceedings of the First
International Workshop on Story-Telling and
Educational Games (STEG’08). 8.
[17] Vykinta Kligyte, Richard T Marcy, Sydney T Sevier,
Elaine S Godfrey, and Michael D Mumford. 2008. A
qualitative approach to responsible conduct of
research (RCR) training development: Identification of
metacognitive strategies. Science and Engineering
Ethics 14, 1 (2008), 3–31.
[18] Hartmut Koenitz, Gabriele Ferri, Mads Haahr, Di˘
gdem
Sezen, and Tonguç ˙
Ibrahim Sezen. 2015. Interactive
digital narrative: history, theory and practice.
Routledge.
[19] Matthew Lombard, Theresa B Ditton, and Lisa
Weinstein. 2009. Measuring presence: the temple
presence inventory. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual
International Workshop on Presence. 1–15.
[20] Matthew Lombard, Lisa Weinstein, and Theresa
Ditton. 2011. Measuring telepresence: The validity of
the Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) in a gaming
context. In ISPR 2011: The International Society for
Presence Research Annual Conference. Edinburgh.
[21] Rosa Mikeal Martey, Kate Kenski, James Folkestad,
Laurie Feldman, Elana Gordis, Adrienne Shaw,
Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Ben Clegg, Hui Zhang,
Nissim Kaufman, and others. 2014. Measuring game
engagement: multiple methods and construct
complexity. Simulation & Gaming 45, 4-5 (2014),
528–547.
[22] Peter Mawhorter, Michael Mateas, Noah
Wardrip-Fruin, and Arnav Jhala. 2014. Towards a
theory of choice poetics. In Proc. Foundations of
Digital Games.
[23] Peter Mawhorter, Carmen Zegura, Alex Gray, Arnav
Jhala, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2018.
Choice poetics by example. In Arts, Vol. 7.
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 47.
[24] Peter Andrew Mawhorter. 2016. Artificial intelligence
as a tool for understanding narrative choices. Ph.D.
Dissertation. UC Santa Cruz.
[25] Edward F Melcer, Victoria Hollis, and Katherine
Isbister. 2017. Tangibles vs. mouse in educational
programming games: Influences on enjoyment and
self-beliefs. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI
conference extended abstracts on human factors in
computing systems. 1901–1908.
[26] Edward F Melcer and Katherine Isbister. 2018. Bots &
(Main) frames: exploring the impact of tangible blocks
and collaborative play in an educational programming
game. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
[27] Brian Moriarty. 2015. I Sing the Story Electric.
PRACTICE. (2015).
http://ludix.com/moriarty/electric.html
Accessed Jan 2 2020.
[28] John Thomas Murray. 2018. Telltale Hearts: Encoding
Cinematic Choice-based Adventure Games. Ph.D.
Dissertation. UC Santa Cruz.
[29] Heather L O’Brien and Elaine G Toms. 2008. What is
user engagement? A conceptual framework for
defining user engagement with technology. Journal of
the American society for Information Science and
Technology 59, 6 (2008), 938–955.
LBW034, Page 8

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
[30] National Institutes of Health and others. 1992.
Reminder and update: requirement for instruction in
the responsible conduct of research in national
research service award institutional training grants.
NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 21, 43 (1992).
[31] Natalia Padilla-Zea, Francisco L Gutiérrez, José Rafael
López-Arcos, Ana Abad-Arranz, and Patricia
Paderewski. 2014. Modeling storytelling to be used in
educational video games. Computers in Human
Behavior 31 (2014), 461–474.
[32] Nathan Partlan, Elin Carstensdottir, Erica Kleinman,
Sam Snodgrass, Casper Harteveld, Gillian Smith,
Camillia Matuk, Steven C Sutherland, and Magy Seif
El-Nasr. 2019. Evaluation of an
automatically-constructed graph-based representation
for interactive narrative. In Proc. Foundations of Digital
Games. ACM.
[33] SH Plimpton. 2009. NSF’s Implementation of Section
7009 of the America COMPETES Act. Fed. Regist 74,
160 (2009), 42126–42128.
[34] Jake Rossen. 2014. A Brief History of “Choose Your
Own Adventure”. Mental Floss (Apr. 10 2014).
[35] Jonathan P Rowe, Lucy R Shores, Bradford W Mott,
and James C Lester. 2011. Integrating learning,
problem solving, and engagement in
narrative-centered learning environments. International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 21, 1-2
(2011), 115–133.
[36] James Ryan. In press. A Garden, A Forking Path:
Interactive Branching Narrative in The Lady of May
(1578). In Proc. 1st Workshop on the History of
Expressive Systems.
[37] Anastasia Salter. 2014. What is your quest?: from
adventure games to interactive books. University of
Iowa Press.
[38] Anastasia Salter. 2016. Playing at empathy:
Representing and experiencing emotional growth
through Twine games. In Proc. International
Conference on Serious Games and Applications for
Health. IEEE, 1–8.
[39] Karen B Schmaling and Arthur W Blume. 2009. Ethics
instruction increases graduate students’ responsible
conduct of research knowledge but not moral
reasoning. Accountability in Research 16, 5 (2009),
268–283.
[40] Stephanie N Seiler, Bradley J Brummel, Kerri L
Anderson, Kyoung Jin Kim, Serena Wee, CK
Gunsalus, and Michael C Loui. 2011. Outcomes
assessment of role-play scenarios for teaching
responsible conduct of research. Accountability in
Research 18, 4 (2011), 217–246.
[41] Adil E Shamoo and David B Resnik. 2009.
Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University
Press.
[42] Qiulian Song, Ling He, and Xiaoqiang Hu. 2012. To
improve the interactivity of the history educational
games with digital interactive storytelling. Physics
Procedia 33 (2012), 1798–1802.
[43] Ulrike Spierling. 2008. ’Killer Phrases’: Design Steps
for a Game with Digital Role-Playing Agents. In
Transactions on edutainment I. Springer, 150–161.
LBW034, Page 9

CHI 2020 Late-Breaking Work
CHI 2020, April 25–30, 2020, Honolulu, HI, USA
[44] Scott Watson, Natalie Vannini, Megan Davis, Sarah
Woods, Marc Hall, Lynne Hall, and Kerstin
Dautenhahn. 2007. FearNot! an anti-bullying
intervention: Evaluation of an interactive virtual
learning environment. Artificial Intelligence and
Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), April 24 (2007).
[45] Sebastian A Weiß and Wolfgang Müller. 2008. The
potential of interactive digital storytelling for the
creation of educational computer games. In
International Conference on Technologies for
E-Learning and Digital Entertainment. Springer,
475–486.
[46] Jui-Feng Weng, Hsiu-lien Kuo, and Shian-Shyong
Tseng. 2011. Interactive storytelling for elementary
school nature science education. In 2011 IEEE 11th
International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies. IEEE, 336–338.
[47] Peter Weyhrauch. 1997. Guiding Interactive Fiction.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University.
[48] Caroline Whitebeck. 2001. Group mentoring to foster
the responsible conduct of research. Science and
Engineering Ethics 7, 4 (2001), 541–558.
[49] Lei Zhang, Doug A Bowman, and Caroline N Jones.
2019. Exploring Effects of Interactivity on Learning
with Interactive Storytelling in Immersive Virtual
Reality. In 2019 11th International Conference on
Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications
(VS-Games). IEEE, 1–8.
LBW034, Page 10