The Role of Reflection in Learning within Puzzle-Based Games

The Role of Reflection in Learning within Puzzle-Based Games | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Case Report The Role of Reflection in Learning within Puzzle-Based Games Marcos Rojas-Pino, Jocelyn Elizabeth Nardo, David DeLiema, Shima Salehi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4378285/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In the context of science, engineering, and design, reflection has been identified as a key practice that helps one to improve their problem-solving process and adapt it in the face of new challenges. The purpose of this study is to further examine the role of reflection its triggers, and its various types in the context of puzzle-based problem-solving as players engaged in solving complex puzzles within an online puzzle-based game entitled, Baba is You .® Within each level of Baba is You® , the player is tasked with solving a puzzle by interacting with various objects, and movable word blocks. Through interacting with these word blocks, players can change the rules of the game. 25 players, 13 middle school, 12 college students, from the United States were recruited via online flyers for this study and participated in video-recorded interviews over Zoom to solve several levels. None of the players had played Baba is You ® before the study. A thematic qualitative analysis of two levels attempted by all players, Float and Changeless , were conducted to identify different types and triggers for reflection during problem solving, and its impacts on the following problem-solving actions. The findings revealed that players engage in three different main types of reflection during game play: reflection on problem orientation, reflection on observed deviation, and reflection on action-revision. Overall, findings show that there were three main types of reflection during these puzzles play sessions and they played a critical role in improving players’ problem-solving actions. Puzzle-based Learning Reflection Puzzle Games Problem-Solving Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Introduction Problem solving is traditionally described in terms of searching within a solution space, which consists of various possible states of the problem whereby the goal of the problem-solver is to find the goal state among all these possible states (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). More recently, a problem has been defined as a goal-oriented task with no given-in-advance set of instructions on how to reach the desired outcome (Tarbouriech et al., 2020 ). In science and engineering domains, we can further characterize problems as goal-oriented tasks that require the application of relevant scientific and engineering knowledge, without step-by-step guide for success, and which typically consist of several parts with multiple potential solutions (Salehi et al., 2020 ). Education communities across different fields have ubiquitously agreed that problem-solving is a significant learning goal particularly for science and engineering that should be developed throughout one’s educational path leveraging different learning environments and instructional practices (National Academies of Sciences, 2018). In recent years, the link between play-based learning, such as puzzle-based games, and developing problem-solving skill has been explored (Fontes et al., 2024 ; Liu, 2024 ). As with many other problems, the set of actions required to solve a puzzle is not clear in advance and there could be multiple ways of solving it. As a problem-solving process, solving puzzle-based games can also provide ample opportunities for practicing reflection. Reflection constitutes the metacognitive processes one engages in to monitor, evaluate, and revise their problem-solving process. Previous studies have shown how reflection can improve one’s problem-solving (Salehi, 2018 ). A number of factors can trigger reflection, but one widely recognized impetus is facing a challenge, impasse, or moment of failure (Kapur, 2008 ), what Koschmann and colleagues ( 1998 ) describe with the unifying construct of “breakdown.” Uniting breakdown and reflection, Koschmann and colleagues throw light on the “disruption in the normal functioning of things forcing the individual to adopt a more reflective or deliberative stance toward ongoing activity” (Koschmann et al., 1998 , p. 26). In puzzle-based games, when learners face non-threatening failures, these moments resemble what Kapur and colleagues have described outside of play-based settings as productive failure, which involves students failing to solve problems that are a bit too hard for them before an instructor solicits descriptions of their strategies and helps consolidate their thinking into the normative strategy to achieve a solution. Productive failure as a pedagogical approach has been shown to effectively supports student learning (Kapur, 2008 ; Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012 ; Sinha & Kapur, 2021 ). Productive failure approaches to learning design embrace the process of students falling short of arriving at a solution, reflecting on their strategies, and then learning from the prior approaches with scaffolding from an expert. In game-based settings, even without support from an expert, players who encounter impasses and then reflect on them together in collaborative discourse come away with a deeper understanding of the game’s mechanics than do players who less frequently encountered and discussed those errors (Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012 ). Similarly, in the context of puzzle-based problem-solving, when players are given a complex puzzle and are allowed to work through them on their own, they may for stretches of time find themselves stuck and unable to solve the puzzle. We explore in this paper how reflection during these stretches of failure can prove generative to the players’ learning about the game’s mechanics and effective strategies. When game players get stuck and receive immediate feedback from the game state (Gee, 2005 ; Williams-Pierce, 2019 ), this can provide a generative context for players’ reflection during problem-solving actions and corresponding revisions to their approach. We investigate this process of reflection on problem solving processes in the context an online, commercial puzzle game called Baba is You®. In the game, players solve puzzles by breaking and creating rules, which change the state of the game as they work toward defining a winning object and then touching it. In our earlier work in this context, we explored how moments of failure – what we refer to as deviations from players’ goals/intentions – can lead to valuable learning, whether through precise tinkering or through hypotheses about the causes of deviations and well-justified interventions. When players engage in atheoretical tinkering/experimentation and/or generate causal explanations for the deviations they encounter, these pathways can lead to productive revisions to their original strategies. These revisions are important because they not only lead to successful game outcomes, but they might also improve players’ overall problem-solving skills. Indeed, many game-based learning environments provide ample opportunities for players to encounter deviations and pursue tinkering, as well as providing opportunities for players to reflect on their learning experiences (Bovermann & Bastiaens, 2020 ; Gee, 2005 ; Tekinbas & Zimmerman, 2003 ). In the present study, we re-examine the two levels addressed in the prior study and extend earlier analysis by centering players’ reflections on their problem-solving process. To accomplish this new analysis, we blend two previously developed problem-solving frameworks, one that specifically addresses reflection in problem-solving, developed in the context of electrical engineering (Salehi, 2018 ), and a second that draws inspiration from computer programming debugging (DeLiema et al., 2019 , 2024 ). The reflective problem-solving framework outlines main problem-solving practices one engages in to solve complex scientific problems. This framework includes two main families: different problem-solving actions and accompanying but distinct problem-solving reflections. The latter framework outlines three puzzle-based problem-solving actions: how players identify deviations, determine their causes, and adapt their goal-oriented approach (Anderson et al., 2022 ) (DeLiema et al., 2022). In the current work, which blends the above two problem-solving frameworks, we aim to examine not only the problem-solving actions that players take during puzzle solving to address deviations but also their corresponding reflective practices players engage in to improve their problem-solving actions. The study uses a thematic qualitative analysis to identify when and which type of reflection occurred during the game play and focuses on the factors that trigger these reflection practices. The study seeks to answer: Why and how do players (middle school and college students) of a puzzle-based video game reflect during play in ways that foster their learning of game mechanics, lead to puzzle solutions, and extend their understanding of the game’s world? Literature review In the following sections, we review (1) what puzzle-based learning is, (2) what reflection is during problem-solving, and (3) what is the role of reflection in puzzle-based learning. In answering these guiding questions, we elucidate the importance of our study by understanding how players learn to solve puzzles through reflection. What is Puzzle-Based Learning? Puzzle-based learning is a teaching method that uses puzzles to engage students and help them learn. Although there are many differing definitions of the term puzzle (Liu, 2024 ), the general consensus is that puzzles are activities that offer an intellectual challenge for a player to solve (Thomas et al., 2013 ). Generally, puzzles have four principles to operationalize intellectual challenge: Puzzles adhere to universal rules (generality), rules are easy to remember (simplicity), puzzles evoke the feeling of discovery (Eureka moment), and they engage the player (entertainment). The most important principles of the puzzles are the feeling of discovery and entertainment. The feeling of discovery includes a sense of frustration, relief (when the puzzle is solved), and reward. Puzzle-based learning can be facilitated through puzzle-based games. Puzzle-based games are characterized by the presence of one or more well-defined solutions to a logical or conceptual challenge, often within a specific time limit or in conjunction with other game elements or actions. They are considered "mentally challenging" (Fontes et al., 2024 ) and can be integrated into action or adventure games or used as building blocks for more complex games. They are a specific sub-genre of video games, usually played in a series with a variation on a particular theme. These themes can include pattern recognition, logical sequence, or understanding of a process. The puzzles have a simple set of rules, and the game space is limited within a spatially defined structure such as a board, net or other closed structure. Players must solve the puzzle-type challenge before moving on to the next level, and the game's difficulty increases gradually, which facilitates learning. Learning through puzzle-based games emphasizes play and aligns with the constructivist idea that children construct new knowledge when they are actively engaged in hands-on activities that they find interesting and enjoyable. In these activities, learning through play promotes a “flow-state” (Chou et al., 2023 ; Pavlas et al., 2010 ), described as a state where the player is fully immersed in the game, losing track of time, and being completely focused on the task at hand. When in a flow state, individuals experience a sense of effortless concentration, heightened focus, and a loss of self-consciousness. The experience of flow-state is often associated with a sense of achievable goals and feedback. The activity must also be engaging and meaningful to the individual, providing a sense of purpose and intrinsic motivation. This state can be achieved when the game's difficulty level is well-matched to the player's skill level, creating a sense of challenge and engagement. When a player is in the flow state, they can perform at their best, and the experience of playing the game is highly enjoyable and satisfying. The flow state, also referred to as "being in the zone," is a psychological concept that describes a state of optimal human performance and engagement (Chou et al., 2023 ). It's a mental state where a person becomes fully absorbed in an activity, feeling completely focused and immersed, often losing track of time and external distractions. During the flow state, individuals experience a heightened sense of clarity, creativity, and enjoyment. What is Reflection? Metacognitive processes one engages in to regulate their learning process have long captured the interest of education researchers, particularly in the fields of scientific, engineering and mathematical problem-solving. Metacognition has been broadly defined as strategies for planning, monitoring, and evaluating one's understanding and performance (Muteti et al., 2021 ). Metacognition has two main components: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge refers to the knowledge people have about their own cognitive processes (Salehi, 2018 ). Metacognitive regulation refers to the strategies and actions people use to control their own learning. Examples of metacognitive strategies include setting learning goals, monitoring progress, using effective study strategies, and evaluating the effectiveness of different strategies. These strategies can help people to become more efficient and effective learners by allowing them to monitor their own understanding, identify areas where they need to improve, and adjust their approach as needed. Metacognition is a key component of self-regulation and is associated with better academic performance, critical thinking and problem-solving skills. While there is no unifying definition of reflection in problem solving (Gomes & Mendes, 2007 ), reflection in problem solving broadly refers to the metacognitive process of thinking about and evaluating one's own thought processes and actions while working on a problem]. This includes considering what actions were used, what worked well, and what could be improved upon. previous work in the context of scientific problem-solving has shown that reflection can be about different aspects of problem-solving and hence lead to different outcomes. Reflection can be about reviewing and revising: 1) the goal of the problem at hand and the assumptions that can be made to help achieve that goal, 2) previous knowledge gained that can help proceeding with solving the problem, 3) the strategies used to solve the problem, and 4) the solution proposed for the problem used (Salehi et al., 2020 ). The goal of reflection is to improve one's understanding of the problem and to develop a more effective problem-solving approach. Reflection allows for self-awareness of problem-solving actions, it helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the problem-solver, which in turn can lead to better performance and more efficient problem-solving in the future. What is the Role of Reflection in Puzzle-Based Learning? In the context of puzzle-based learning, we define reflection as the process of thinking about and evaluating one's own thought processes and actions while working on a puzzle. This includes considering what actions were used, what worked well, and what could be improved upon. The goal of reflection is to improve one's understanding of the puzzle and to develop a more effective problem-solving approach for the game. Research examining how reflection can facilitate learning through play should consider what triggers reflection, what different types of reflection are, and how they can improve player actions and consequently their approach toward their game and their understanding of the game. Prior work has developed a framework for problem-solving actions (DeLiema et al., 2019 , 2024 ) as one engages in solving the puzzle-based game of “ Baba is You® .” This prior study monitored the degree to which participants noticed deviations in gameplay by categorizing the level of detail players provided when describing moments in the game in which outcomes deviated from their expectation (see Fig. 1 ). The categories ranged from simply acknowledging the existence of a deviation (noticing deviation; ND-1) to providing a comprehensive and detailed explanation of what exactly was diverging from expectation (ND-3). Similarly, their explanations for the cause of these deviations were tracked, ranging from a basic suggestion (CE-1) to a detailed interpretation that included causal mechanisms (causal explanation; CE-3). Finally, this prior work documented how (if at all) participants revised their approach to the puzzle, with different levels of explanation provided for their changes (action revision; AR-1 to AR-3). Successfully completing the level after a revision warranted the label of "successful revision." The current paper expands on this action framework for puzzle-based games to include a central feature of a reflective problem-solving framework from science education, namely identifying different types of player reflection that inform the actions of the players and impact their effectiveness as they engage in puzzle-based games, and overall understanding of a game world. In all, the goal of the study was to generate a process-based account of different reflection types one engages while playing a puzzle-based game, what triggers these reflective practices, and their impact. Through a thematic, qualitative approach (Charmaz, 2006 ), we generated a framework to further operationalize the role of reflection in the context of how to problem-solve within the puzzle-based game, Baba is You® . Our study seeks to answer the following research questions: What does reflection look like in problem solving during puzzle-based games? What factors can trigger reflection in problem solving? Method The following section will explicate the research design, participants, puzzle-based learning context, and the data analysis by building on previous work (DeLiema et al., 2019 ). Overall, the study explores how players reflect during problem solving in ways that foster their learning of game mechanics and puzzle solutions for the game, Baba is You® . Puzzle-Based Game : Baba is You® Baba is You® is a video game developed by Finnish game designer Arvi Teikari and is a logic-based puzzle game. The game has a minimalist aesthetic and simple core mechanics, but the puzzles are complex and challenging. The game board consists of various word blocks, each with a word on it, such as "FLAG," "WALL," "YOU," "BABA,” and “IS” as well as various objects such as FLAG, WALL, ROCK, and BABA. Three-word sentences from combinations of these word blocks dictate each level's rules, such as “BABA-IS-YOU,” and “WALL-IS-STOP.” One of the game objects is assigned to be the player’s avatar by the rule “OBJECT X-IS-YOU” (e.g., BABA-IS-YOU or WALL-IS-YOU). Another object is assigned to be the win condition by the rule “OBJECT Y-IS-WIN” (e.g., FLAG-IS-WIN). The core game mechanic is that a player avatar should reach and touch an assigned “WIN” object. The player can move around their avatar using arrow keys or a joystick and interact with different word blocks and/or objects. By moving these word blocks around, players can create different sentences, hence different rules for the level they are playing, such as "BABA-IS-ROCK," or "ROCK-IS-STOP.” We chose Baba is You® for our study because it can be played without any prior content knowledge and can be completed within a few minutes, while still offering challenging levels for any player with adaptive set of rules, and hence encouraging reflection. Furthermore, the game’s structure, with movable objects and rules on the screen, allows for a clear view of the player’s approach to the puzzle, which was essential for our problem-solving analysis. The game’s open-endedness, which allows the player to question and revise goals, provides a real-world and complicated aspect to problem-solving. Furthermore, while having simple building blocks, the game progressively introduces new mechanics, which encourages the player to expand their understanding of the game’s world. Also, we aimed to study a successful puzzle-based game that has been shown to be enjoyable for players at different ages and backgrounds in gameplay. Last but not least, the game is unique as the rules of the game are manipulatable and they can and should be changed constantly by the player, and hence the game requires the player to constantly reflect and revise their understanding of the game and their problem-solving approach. Therefore, Baba is You® offers us a suitable problem-solving context to study reflection. For this study, we analyzed data from all players, focusing on two specific levels of Baba is You® : Float and Changeless. We chose these levels because players were: (a) advancing after mastering the core mechanics of the game, (b) interacting with new mechanics of the game, (c) able to solve the level typically within 5 minutes, and (d) reaching this level within a 3-hour window, which meant that all players in our sample attempted and completed these two levels. In the following, we further describe the game by reviewing the very first level of the game as well as the two levels we analyzed in this study. Puzzle Level 0: Baba is You® The Baba is You® level (Fig. 2 ) is the first level participants play in the game. This level shows four basic rules of nouns followed by a mechanism or characteristic. BABA-IS-YOU indicates that Baba is the player avatar. FLAG-IS-WIN specifies that a way to win the level is to walk baba over to the flag and touch it. WALL-IS-STOP means that the two walls shown in the screen are physical barriers, and Baba cannot pass through them. ROCK-IS-PUSH indicates that rocks can be moved by the avatar. In order to touch the flag and win, the player might push one of the rocks and then proceed through the opening to reach the flag. As the levels proceed, the player avatar, the game win object, and obstacles faced by the avatar evolve. The player changes the game rules to overcome these obstacles on their way to getting the player avatar to touch the WIN object. Puzzle Level Changeless The Changeless level (Fig. 3 ) is the ninth level of the first cluster of levels in The Lake region of the game. This level presents a unique challenge to the players because they struggle with understanding how objects such as rocks cannot be transformed into another object if they are already defined as fixed elsewhere (e.g., with the rule ROCK IS ROCK). After the first move of Baba, the flag turns into a rock, as stated by the rule FLAG-IS-ROCK, which removes the opportunity to walk to the flag, touch it, and win. The player needs to find a way to create a flag and then reach it using the available rules, which can be challenging because it requires the player to grapple with at least one new mechanic – the ROCK-IS-ROCK rule – and clarify their understanding of an additional mechanic – the order of nouns (e.g., FLAG-IS-ROCK vs ROCK-IS-FLAG). In order to solve this level, the player must rearrange FLAG-IS-ROCK to form ROCK-IS-FLAG and break the rule ROCK-IS-ROCK. By doing both changes, the Flag will re-appear (replacing the rock) and baba can then walk to it and touch it. Puzzle level Float The Float level (Fig. 4 ) is the first level of the second cluster of levels from the Solitary Island region of the game. This level presents a unique challenge to the players by introducing a new rule, BABA-IS-FLOAT. As a result, Baba floats above certain objects, such as flags, and cannot touch them; the rule BABA-IS-FLOAT is located in one of the corners of the game interface and thus cannot be modified. In order to solve the level, the player needs to find a way to assign a new avatar to themselves that is not floating, like a Rock, or assign WIN to Baba. This is the first level that requires players to come up with a strategy to deal with the new mechanism of FLOAT. Participants, Study Design, & Data For this study, we recruited 25 participants, 13 middle school students and 12 college students, through online flyers, which was approved by the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Institutional Review Board; all research procedures were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Both groups of participants were chosen to represent a range of problem-solving experience. All participants were new to the game Baba is You® . After the college students provided informed consent, and after the middle schoolers provided assent and their parents provided informed consent, participants downloaded the game, logged into Zoom with a researcher and played the game for an hour once a week for three weeks. In the first play session, the researcher and the participant took turns sharing their screens and solving the first three levels together exploring different ways to solve each one. Participants were then asked to think aloud during the other levels as if they were streaming on Twitch or YouTube. The researcher did not intervene unless they determined that the participant needed help or participants asked for help, in which case they minimally helped to support the player's problem-solving process (see Limitations). We collected data from the recorded Zoom sessions which includes video, audio, and the captured shared screen of the interview sessions as well as a range of questions asked after each session, such as the participants’ perceived difficulty of the play session, participants’ effort, their predictions about future performance in the game, and problem-solving strategies they used (see Fig. 5 ). Data Analysis We drew from a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006 ) in developing the code book and coding the data accordingly. Charmaz's grounded theory emphasizes the importance of an inductive, open-ended and flexible approach to data analysis. Charmaz emphasizes that grounded theory is not a set of fixed procedures but a sensibility that guides the researcher in their data analysis. The approach emphasizes the importance of the researcher's own perspective and emphasizes the need for reflexivity (examining one's own perspective) in data analysis. Additionally, Charmaz's grounded theory emphasizes the importance of the researcher's interaction with the data and the need to constantly revise and refine the emerging theory based on new data. To follow Charmaz’s grounded theory, instead of using commercial transcription services, the research team themselves transcribed the data using the conventions they iteratively defined to accommodate the research questions the data was addressing (see Table 1 for more details). The transcription convention followed conversation analysis conventions (Jefferson, 2004 ) and included multimodal details (e.g., (Mondada, 2006 )) about players' gestures and facial expressions. We also created a custom set of transcript conventions to document how players moved their avatars and how game rules were changed and rearranged along the way (e.g., BABA-IS-YOU in our transcripts meant that the BABA text block was recently moved to create the active rule). To ensure a high level of inter-rater reliability in our transcript process, each transcript was created by a member of our research team and then reviewed internally by a second team member. We transcribed the zoom interview sessions from the two play levels of Changeless and Float for all participants. Throughout the study, our research team spent several months analyzing players’ speech and their problem-solving actions during the game. After identifying problem-solving actions, we examined the visible and audible aspects of the data and focused on identifying the language and practices used by players that shaped their problem-solving process, specifically attending to player’s reflection that accompanied their problem-solving actions. Over a period of several months, we re-categorized the data and reached a final consensus on the coding scheme. The results of this analysis, which include examples of coded data and an exploration of how players used different problem-solving actions and reflections, are presented in the Results. Table 1 Excerpt from transcribed interview. Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:39 P: {Um:: {((baba moves around and up towards FLAG-IS-WIN)) 0:41 P: {But i can move all of these {((move around FLAG-IS-WIN)) Causal Explanation Reflection on Deviation (control) 0:43 P: ((pushes FLAG-IS-WIN towards the right)) 0:45 P: (4.0) 0:49 P: ((baba moves by BABA-IS-YOU)) Results We observed the problem-solving reflections of middle school students and college students. Although there are age differences between middle school and college students, we did not observe major distinctions in terms of reflection or actions to solve the levels. Instead, we found that the level design itself impacted players’ reflections to accomplish each level. We also identified distinct types of problem-solving reflections: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. We particularly observed that when players spent more time doing reflection on orientation, they were more likely to solve the puzzles faster. The following section answers the research questions by identifying main types of reflection during solving a puzzle-based game and exploring factors affecting these reflection practices. For identifying reflection practices, we will address the question: What does reflection look like in solving a puzzle-based game? For exploring factors affecting reflection practices, we will compare reflection practices across different players and levels. Sufficiently Challenging to Require Reflection Baba is You® was a sufficiently challenging game to authentically require reflection in problem-solving. As discussed earlier, reflection is particularly needed in the face of challenges in problem-solving to adapt the problem-solving approach to overcome impasses. For Baba is You® , players generally viewed the game as challenging, felt that they faced impasses, and reported trying hard to find a solution, and were uncertain about their ability to solve future problems. After each play session, most participants reported that they had experienced getting stuck during the session, when asked in a closed-ended question. This pattern was similar when participants were asked to assess the difficulty of the game; a significant percentage of participants in both groups (25% of middle school students and 28.57% of college students) reported that they had tried "somewhat hard" when they got stuck, and the remaining participants (about 75%) reported that they had tried "very hard." None of the participants reported that they had not tried hard. When evaluating their ability to complete levels in the next play session, most of the middle school students (90%) and college students (71.4%) said they "might" or "will probably" be able to complete upcoming levels, while the remainder felt confident in their ability to solve the upcoming problems. Such self-report measures confirm the need for and the importance of reflection for solving Baba is You® puzzles. Identifying Reflection as a Problem-Solving Practice Drawing from Salehi's 2018 research which recognized distinct types of reflection paired with problem-solving actions in scientific contexts, our study delves into various types of problem-solving reflections that accompany actions taken to solve puzzle game levels. Through a rigorous qualitative analysis, we discerned three primary reflection types: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. It's crucial to note that these reflections are distinct from, yet can coexist with, specific problem-solving actions we identified in earlier work (DeLiema et al., 2022). Orientation as a problem-solving action is defined as applying the rules of the game to understand the mechanics of the level. On the other hand, reflection on orientation involves players analyzing the accuracy of their comprehension of a level’s mechanics, their acquired knowledge of game rules, and how these rules delineate the constraints and objectives of the level. This specific type of reflection is less about acknowledging the rules and more about internalizing them to make decisions about their problem-solving actions. The players showed this type of reflection by reading the rules and evaluating their understanding of them by testing their newfound expectations of these rules. For example, if a player reviews the rules of the game and evaluates their understanding of them like, “Ok so ROCK IS PUSH, WALL IS STOP,” they are taking a moment to reflect on how each of the rules consisting of word blocks define constraints and the goal of that particular level. Here the player is internalizing how each component (i.e., ROCK IS PUSH, WALL IS STOP) has a defined role within the game play, or they may further test their understanding of the rules by running experiments. For example, they may suspect that “Baba is Float” means that Baba cannot touch any objects of the game, so they move baba over the flag a couple of times to make sure their understanding is accurate. Deviation is understood as moments in the game where the observed outcome of a player’s action differs from a player's expectations. In contrast, reflection on deviation refers to when players internally assess and recalibrate their expectation and their understanding of these unexpected outcomes, especially in light of the game’s rules. When players enact reflection on deviations, they are interpreting the rules of the game in conjunction with their expectations, leading further to reflection on orientation. Consequently, reflection on deviation triggers reflection on orientation to further refine their understanding of the game. For instance, if a player’s action does not lead to an expected outcome (e.g., they walk over the flag and don’t win the level), they might reflect on the deviation: “What happened? (.) baba is {float? (.){((moves across screen)).” Here, the player is making a judgement of their understanding of the rules (i.e., baba is {float?}) and then proceeds to move across the screen to understand how the new mechanic contradicts their previous attempt. This action catalyzes a deeper reflection on orientation, further refining the player’s comprehension and application of the game's rules. Finally, prior work identified the problem-solving action called action-revision where players revise their approach to the puzzle accompanied by varying degrees of explanation for their adjustments. Conversely, reflection on action-revision describes the introspective process wherein players evaluate and reconsider their approach and its effectiveness in light of the rules of the game, leading them to make deliberate alterations to their actions, distinct from the mere act of changing their approach without justification (i.e. trial and error). Players' reflection on action-revision frequently initiates a cascading process, where it not only adjusts their expectations derived from reflection on orientation but also aligns these expectations with insights gained from reflection on deviation, ultimately enhancing their overall understanding of the game. Consequently, when players delve into reflection on action-revisions, they might adopt a more analytical stance, such as questioning a previously applied rule: “Um: what if rock isn’t push?” This query is a manifestation of the introspective process described as reflection on action-revision. It's not merely a random attempt but a thoughtful re-evaluation of their strategy in the context of the game's rules. This reflective questioning demonstrates the player's engagement in a deeper, more systematic form of problem-solving. It also shows how their reflection on action-revision sparks a domino effect: reassessing their prior understanding from reflection on orientation and reconciling it with the insights from reflection on deviation, which collectively enriches their strategic approach to the game. Our study revealed players will cycle through each of these problem-solving reflections until eventually solve the puzzle. To illustrate each distinct problem-solving reflection, we show video snapshots and transcript from Player A. Player A is a middle school student who is playing the puzzle level Float. In Fig. 6 , we show instances and types of Player A’s reflection accompanying their actions of orientation (O), noticing deviation (ND), causal explanations (CE), revision (AR), and successful revision (SR). Figure 6 provides a schematic representation of Player A’s approach. This player first read aloud the title of the level, “FLOAT”, and reflected on orientation by analyzing the rule BABA-IS-FLOAT to understand “what that means” for the puzzle. This is the first instance of players encountering the float mechanic in the game, and Player A immediately clued in on the salience of this mechanic and started to reflect on its meaning. The transcript of Player A's think-aloud is presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Coding for player A's transcript. Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:00:00 JV.P01: float {(.) { ((drags cursor around level title)) Orientation 0:00:03 JV.P01: this is like the first level Reflection on Orientation 0:00:06 JV.P01: baba is {float? {((moves cursor on top of FLOAT)) Reflection on Orientation 0:00:07 JV.P01: {(2.0) {((moves baba towards FLOAT)) 0:00:09 JV.P01: hu:uh i wonder what that means Reflection on Orientation In Table 2 , we can see Player A evaluate the new mechanic “FLOAT” through their question, “baba is float?” with an accompanying action “{((moves cursor on top of FLOAT))”. The player then moves to capture the flag, which is how each level is typically won in the game, but Player A notices that they cannot touch the flag directly (see Table 3 ). Table 3 Coding for player A's transcript (continuation). Time Stamp Transcript Problem- Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:00:13 JV.P01: flag is win 0:00:16 JV.P01: {(1.0)* {((goes on top of flag -- nothing happens)) *((looks at BABA IS YOU® twice))* Noticing Deviation 0:00:17 JV.P01: oh its because baba is floating? moves ((baba up and down the flag)) Causal explanation of Deviation Reflection on Deviation 0:00:20 JV.P01: is he floating above {(.) the flag? {((baba takes a loop towards the left side, down, and pushes the bottom rock to the edge of stone grid)) Reflection on Deviation Player A is reflecting on the deviation they notice to further improve their understanding of the game mechanics of this level, “oh its because baba is floating,” pairing their reflection with an action to confirm their understanding of the game mechanic by testing whether baba can touch another object of the game, i.e. Rock. Player A then considers based on this new understanding how to revise the rules of the game by reflecting on action-revisions (see Table 4 ). Table 4 Coding for player A's transcript (continuation). Time Stamp Transcript Problem- Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:00:31 JV.P01: what if i don't have to be {baba} {WALL/IS-STOP} AR-2 Reflection on Action-Revision This moment marks the player beginning to consider the idea that they can cease being baba and instead become the wall, which is not floating, and then touch the flag. Overall, in this level, Player A reflects on the game mechanic of FLOAT and understands that if Baba is Float, then maybe other characters like WALL will not be floating according to the rules. Player A then makes WALL their avatar instead of Baba and touches the flag to win. Overall, this shows a defined reflection cycle whereby players productively solve the level by moving through each of the distinct problem-solving reflections: orientation, deviation, and action-revision (Fig. 7 ). The Importance of Reflection on Orientation in Solving the Puzzle Overall, our results indicate that players depended on reflection on orientation. Extended reflections on orientation at the beginning of game play or throughout the game play led players to more efficiently solve the puzzle. To start to document this pattern, we will look at Player B who is a middle school student playing the puzzle level Float (Fig. 8 ) and puzzle level Changeless (Fig. 9 ). Player B engaged in substantial reflection on orientation at the beginning of their game play both in Float and in Changeless. For the Float Level, Player B reflects on the game mechanics of float by reading the rules aloud and testing the actions (Table 5 ). Table 5 Coding for Player B's transcript in level Float. Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:00:03 JV.P04: float Baba is You® flag is win wall is stop ((baba pushes the top rock to the right)) Orientation Reflection on Orientation 0:00:06 JV.P04: baba is float (1.5) Reflection on Orientation 0:00:10 JV.P04: {whats that mean {((baba goes on top of flag)) ND-1 Reflection on Orientation 0:00:11 JV.P04: {(3.0) {((baba move horizontally back and forth on top of flag)) Having successfully understood the rules with the additional game mechanic “FLOAT”, Player B then reflects on the expected deviation that Baba will simply hover above the flag rather than successfully capture the flag to win. Player B then follows with a reflection on action-revision to circumvent the FLOAT mechanic (Table 6 ). Table 6 Coding for Player B's transcript in level Float (continuation). Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:00:41 JV.P04: maybe if I make it so something else {that I can touch IS WIN that will work? {((pushes ROCK IS PUSH to the right)) Action-Revision Reflection on Action-Revision Similarly, Player B follows a similar procedure in the Changeless level, but focusing heavily on reflection on orientation at the beginning, leading to solving the puzzle later on (Table 7 ). Table 7 Coding for Player B's transcript in level Changeless. Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:05 Marvel: {I for {((moves BABA up))} 0:06 Marvel: I forgot that you could have a, like Reflection on Orientation 0:10 Marvel: one that doesn’t have ah uhm Reflection on Orientation 0:13 Marvel: what’s it called(.) that doesn’t have like (an out) Reflection on Orientation 0:41 Marvel: I think this one is simple enough Reflection on Action-Revision 0:45 Marvel: {Just rearrange these {ROCK-IS} {FLAG/IS} Reflection on Action-Revision On the other hand, Player C who is also a middle school student playing the puzzle level Float (Fig. 10 ) and puzzle level Changeless (Fig. 11 ) pursued a different approach to reflecting on orientation during levels Float and Changeless. We can see in Fig. 10 for Player C that reflection on orientation was not as heavily present at the beginning of the Float level as it was for Player B. As their puzzle solving approach on both Float and Changeless progressed, Player C encountered deviations, and returned to reflect on orientation as part of their process. For example, at the beginning of the level Float, Player C reflected on how similar it was to the first level. Pursuing the same strategy as they had tried on that first level, Player C walked over to the flag and noticed a deviation – the baba avatar moved directly over the flag instead of touching it and winning. Player C reflected on the deviation, commenting that they couldn’t “get to that flag” (Table 8 ). Table 8 Coding for Player C's transcript in level Float. Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:00:38 JV.P03: this is like the first level or tutorial Reflection on Orientation 0:00:40 JV.P03: (3.0) 0:00:43 JV.P03: ((unintelligible)) i cant get to that flag there Reflection on Deviation (control) After many attempts, Player C was still unable to find a solution. At this moment of the game, the Player returned to a process of reflecting on orientation, noticing the BABA-IS-FLOAT rule and asking themselves what it meant. This moment of reflection was the turning point in their puzzle solving process, and led them to solve the level Float as they reflected on the essential mechanism of the puzzle (Table 9 ). Table 9 Coding for Player C's transcript in level Float (continuation). Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 0:01:28 JV.P03: wait so BABA IS FLOAT what does that mean ND-1 Reflection on Orientation Both Players B and C illustrate how important reflection on orientation is to successfully solve the level. Taking the time at the beginning of the puzzle to notice the rules and grapple with their meaning enabled players to effectively solve the level. In cases when this reflection on orientation was not thorough at the beginning of a particular level, we noticed that players would later return to reflecting on orientation as part of their process of working toward a solution to the level. Understanding Factors Affecting Reflection in Problem Solving Factor 1: The Impact of Players We sampled 25 participants: 13 middle school students and 12 college students. Despite their educational and age differences, no significant variations were observed in their problem-solving reflections or actions for the " Baba is You® " puzzles. No other demographic information was collected to further assess differences between groups. Factor 2: Level Design as an Affordance for Distinct Reflection Practices In this study, we sampled two different levels, Float and Changeless. Previously, we explained the differences between these two levels of the game. Both add new mechanisms that the players must figure out to solve the puzzle. In Float, the new mechanism is the rule called Float. In Changeless, the new mechanism is the rule Rock-is-Rock that makes the rock element unalterable until the text rule is broken. Each level elicits different patterns of problem-solving reflections to solve the game. To illustrate this point, we will review the coded reflections of Player D, a college student, in both levels. In Fig. 12 , Player D solves Float. We can see that one reflection on orientation at the beginning of the level is enough to understand the mechanics of the game and then solve it. The same Player D in the level Changeless (Fig. 13 ) struggles with the mechanics of this puzzle. This new mechanism, Rock is rock, proves more difficult for them to decipher. After the first reflection on orientation, their problem-solving actions are more similar to tinkering than they are in the level Float. Also, there are many cycles of Reflection on Action-Revision followed by reflection on deviation to better understand what the challenge is. After this back and forth between reflection on action-revision and deviation, the Player finally understands the core mechanics of the level, reflecting on orientation. In the following transcript (Table 10 ) we can see this moment when the Player states that “Rock is just rock” and “{okay, what if rock is not rock”. This reflection is pivotal to their puzzle solving process. Table 10 Coding for Player D's transcript in level Changeless. Time Stamp Transcript Problem-Solving Action Problem-Solving Reflection 1:21 P: Rock is just rock P: {okay, what if rock is not rock (1.0) {((pushes ROCK-IS-ROCK to the right side)) Reflection on Action-Revision In levels that present less difficulty, like Float, reflection on Orientation is a more fundamental reflection practice to improve one’s understanding of the problem. In levels with more difficulty and less clear mechanisms, reflection on Action-Revision and Deviation have a more substantial role to develop an effective approach in solving the problem. Discussion In this study, problem-solving actions and reflections of middle school and college students were observed. This research aims to answer questions about the main categories of reflection during puzzle-solving and explore factors influencing these reflection practices, comparing them across different players and levels. Three distinct types of reflection were identified: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. Despite the age differences of the players, no major distinctions were found in their reflection or actions to solve the levels across college and middle-school groups. Instead, the level design itself influenced players to adopt different patterns of problem-solving reflections for each level. players who spent more time reflecting on orientation tended to solve puzzles faster. We will now discuss these findings in conjunction with the literature to establish 1) reflection as a key component of problem-solving practice; 2) the role of reflection types in problem-solving practice; and 3) reflection and learning outside of game-based learning. Reflection as a Key Component of Problem-Solving Practice As discussed in the literature review and demonstrated through our findings, reflection remains a key component for problem-solving process. Reflection involves the process of thinking critically and deeply about a problem, its context, and potential solutions; consequently, without reflection players would be making decision randomly, akin to “a wild goose chase” (Schoenfeld, 2014). Reflection as a metacognitive process allows players to evaluate their own thought processes and decision-making, leading to improved problem-solving skills that help sustain players in a flow state. Baba is You® requires reflection and in turn provides opportunity for players to remain in a flow state due to its sufficient incremental challenge level. Flow states occur when the level of challenge presented by the activity matches the person’s level of skill and the task is neither too easy to bore the player nor too difficult to stress out the player, and the activity’s challenge level increases as the individual’s skills advance. This trend was observed in this study when players were asked to comment on the level of perceived difficulty during the free response. The observed trend remained consistent when participants were asked to assess the game's difficulty. A significant proportion in both groups (25% of middle school students and 28.57% of college students) reported trying "somewhat hard" when faced with challenges, while the majority (about 75%) mentioned putting in a "very hard" effort. Notably, no participants claimed to have not tried hard. Regarding their confidence in completing future levels, most middle school students (90%) and college students (71.4%) expressed they "might" or "will probably" succeed, while the rest exhibited strong confidence in solving upcoming problems. Furthermore, producing adequate flow supports players to become more aware and in control of their actions, which affords players with opportunities for reflection. This trend was observed when players had systematic reflection, which we observed through the three stages: Reflection on Orientation, Reflection on Deviation, and Reflection on Action-Revision. Players go through three stages of reflection during problem-solving in the game: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. In reflection on orientation, we observed how players generated logic rules by reviewing previous game levels and their understanding of game mechanics to accurately understand the rules of a given level. In reflection on deviation, we observed how players fine-tuned their understanding of the rules by noting contradictions or inconsistencies in their expectations. Finally, in reflection on action-revision, we observed how players made intentional changes to their actions based on their reflections from orientation and deviation. Therefore, Baba is You® as a puzzle-based game serves as a fruitful case study to observe the role of reflection on problems-solving, operationalizing our study to understand how players make decisions during their problem-solving practice. The Role of Reflection Types in Problem-Solving Practice Reflection is often considered one step within a larger suit of problem-solving practices; however, our study illustrates that reflection contains nuance but also follows a strategic cycle through the Reflection on Orientation, Reflection on Deviation, and Reflection on Action-Revision. Aligned with previous work, reflection requires appropriate assumptions and simplifications, additional knowledge needed, how well the problem-solving approach is working, and how good the solution is (Price et al., 2021 ). Before attempting to solve a problem, it's essential to have a clear understanding of its various aspects and underlying causes. Reflecting on the problem helps in breaking it down, identifying its components, and gaining insights into the relationships between different elements. During gameplay reflection, the players recognized their biases, preconceptions, and assumptions that might influence their approach to the problem such as what was done in Level 0, Changeless, and Float. Then, players drew lessons from failures, helping to avoid similar pitfalls and increase the likelihood of finding effective solutions in current situations. Finally, players were in dynamic response to adapt their strategies in-moment to enhance their learning of not only the level, but of the game itself. In summary, the different types of reflection led to a cycle of continuous improvement, encouraging players to learn from each problem-solving experience, refine their skills, and become more effective problem solvers while playing the game. Reflection and Learning Outside of Game-Based Learning Game-based learning has been shown to help students take learning initiative, adopt creative approaches, make effective decisions, develop modeling skills, build resilience, and recognize different types of problems (Thomas et al., 2013 ). Most notably, game-based learning has been essential for developing computational thinking, which is defined as the process by which humans or machines formulate a solution that can be effectively carried out (Liu, 2024 ). Computational thinking is a problem-solving approach that involves breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts, and then using logical reasoning and abstraction to develop solutions. It involves using a set of skills and strategies that are common to computer science and other computational fields, such as algorithms, data representation, and automation. Computational thinking skills are becoming increasingly important in today's digital world, and it is being used in many fields like education, healthcare, transportation, and finance (Liu, 2024 ). Moreover, game-based learning has implications for addressing prior preparation disparities for STEM students. Prior preparation disparities refer to differences or inequalities in the level of readiness or readiness-related resources among individuals or groups before engaging in a specific activity or task, which has been shown to impact Math and Science at the undergraduate level due to unequal access to education, training, resources, information, or prior experiences (Nardo et al., 2022 ). Educational technologies that draw on game-based learning principles to teach science include PhET simulations, which are a collection of free online interactive simulations developed by the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado Boulder. PhET stands for "Physics Education Technology," and the project aims to improve the teaching and learning of various science and mathematics subjects through interactive, research-based simulations. PhET simulations have proven to be effective tools for promoting active learning, conceptual understanding, and inquiry-based learning in science and math education. Our study further evidences how reflection is facilitated through game-based learning that can support the development or usage of educational technologies like PhET (Wu et al., 2021 ). Conclusion and Limitations Ultimately, our study revealed how reflection is a key practice to enhance problem-solving processes and adapt to new challenges. There were three types of reflection occurring during gameplay: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. These types of reflection were instrumental in helping players learn how to solve puzzles, particularly when facing new challenges in the game. Accordingly, we acknowledge several limitations that shape how the findings of the study should be interpreted: 1) as a qualitative study, the goal is not to argue generalizability for all middle and college aged students through 25 participants; 2) we understand the inherit subjectivity involved in coding data that can reduce the depth of the analysis; 3) the amount of prompting given by the interviewer was not standardized across all interviews, meaning some players may have received more prompting than others, and potentially engaged in reflection more often as a result. Nevertheless, we offer that our choice to use a qualitative study affords more depth to explore transcripts and video data simultaneously and the qualitative coding was guided by existing empirical frameworks that have been grounded in the literature. Finally, the prompting by the interviewer was never such that they player arrived to a solution solely based on the interviewer’s guidance. Consequently, the research provides valuable evidence of different types of reflection in puzzle-based problem-solving, what triggers them, and how they contribute to understanding game mechanics. Declarations Acknowledgements. We would like to acknowledge Craig Anderson, Jesslyn Valerie, Megan Goeke, and Basel Hussein for their input and support on the project Funding. No funding to declare Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Ethical approval The participating school principal, students, and parent/guardian for each student, provided written informed consent to participate in this study. All experimental protocols were approved by the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Institutional Review Board. Please ensure that the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board that approved your study is included in the ‘Ethics approval and consent to participate’ section. Consent to participate All participants provided consent before fieldwork commenced. Author Contribution All authors reviewed the manuscript. Authors 3-4 initiated the collaboration and project. Author 3 provided the data set and guided the analysis. Authors 1-2 performed the analysis and wrote initial drafts of the manuscript. References Anderson, C. G., Goeke, M., Hussein, B., Carpenter, Z., Salehi, S., & DeLiema, D. (2022). Baba is Hint-Designing a Scaffolding Guidebook for Game-Based Learning . Bovermann, K., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2020). Towards a motivational design? Connecting gamification user types and online learning activities. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning , 15 (1), 1–18. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis . SAGE. Chou, Y.-S., Hou, H.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Su, C.-L. (2023). Designing cognitive-based game mechanisms for mobile educational games to promote cognitive thinking: An analysis of flow state and game-based learning behavioral patterns. Interactive Learning Environments , 31 (5), 3285–3302. DeLiema, D., Dahn, M., Flood, V. J., Asuncion, A., Abrahamson, D., Enyedy, N., & Steen, F. (2019). Debugging as a context for fostering reflection on critical thinking and emotion. Deeper Learning, Dialogic Learning, and Critical Thinking: Research-Based Strategies for the Classroom. Hrsg. von Emmanuel Manalo. New York: Routledge , 209–228. DeLiema, D., Hufnagle, A., & Ovies‐Bocanegra, M. (2024). Contrasting stances at the crossroads of debugging learning opportunities. British Journal of Educational Psychology . Fontes, M. M., Morgado, L. C., Pestana, P., Pedrosa, D., & Cravino, J. P. (2024). Viewing puzzles as two-faced: Theoretical and practical implications for Puzzle-based Learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 101470. Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning and Digital Media , 2 (1), 5–16. Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions . 7 . Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation Analysis , 13–31. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction , 26 (3), 379–424. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 21 (1), 45–83. Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity , 5 (1), 25–41. Liu, T. (2024). Assessing implicit computational thinking in game‐based learning: A logical puzzle game study. British Journal of Educational Technology . Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Jürgen R, and Hans-Georg Soeffner (Eds.): Video-Analysis: Methodology and Methods: Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang , 51–67. Muteti, C. Z., Zarraga, C., Jacob, B. I., Mwarumba, T. M., Nkhata, D. B., Mwavita, M., Mohanty, S., & Mutambuki, J. M. (2021). I realized what I was doing was not working: The influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students’ study strategies in a general chemistry I course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 22 (1), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00217H Nardo, J. E., Chapman, N. C., Shi, E. Y., Wieman, C., & Salehi, S. (2022). Perspectives on Active Learning: Challenges for Equitable Active Learning Implementation. Journal of Chemical Education . https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01233 National Academies of Sciences, E. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures . https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24783/how-people-learn-ii-learners-contexts-and-cultures Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104, Issue 9). Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., & Salas, E. (2010). Game-based learning: The impact of flow state and videogame self-efficacy . 54 (28), 2398–2402. Price, A. M., Kim, C. J., Burkholder, E. W., Fritz, A. V., & Wieman, C. E. (2021). A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 20 (3), ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276 Salehi, S. (2018). Improving Problem-Solving through Reflection . Salehi, S., Wang, K. D., Toorawa, R., & Wieman, C. (2020). Can Majoring in Computer Science Improve General Problem-solving Skills? Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366808 Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research , 91 (5), 761–798. Tarbouriech, J., Garcelon, E., Valko, M., Pirotta, M., & Lazaric, A. (2020). No-regret exploration in goal-oriented reinforcement learning . 9428–9437. Tekinbas, K. S., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals . MIT press. Thomas, C., Badger, M., Ventura-Medina, E., & Sangwin, C. (2013). Puzzle-based learning of mathematics in engineering. Engineering Education , 8 (1), 122–134. Williams-Pierce, C. (2019). Designing for mathematical play: Failure and feedback. Information and Learning Sciences , 120 (9/10), 589–610. Wu, H.-T., Mortezaei, K., Alvelais, T., Henbest, G., Murphy, C., Yezierski, E. J., & Eichler, J. F. (2021). Incorporating concept development activities into a flipped classroom structure: Using PhET simulations to put a twist on the flip. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 22 (4), 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00086A Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4378285","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Case Report","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":306377425,"identity":"a10ce165-d0bd-4c7d-8892-0df3301208db","order_by":0,"name":"Marcos Rojas-Pino","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stanford University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marcos","middleName":"","lastName":"Rojas-Pino","suffix":""},{"id":306377426,"identity":"05fdf550-dffd-4c87-b219-a416d9506e24","order_by":1,"name":"Jocelyn Elizabeth Nardo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Ohio State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jocelyn","middleName":"Elizabeth","lastName":"Nardo","suffix":""},{"id":306377427,"identity":"84591ed3-f2a4-4362-8af0-1b392c93650e","order_by":2,"name":"David DeLiema","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Minnesota","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"DeLiema","suffix":""},{"id":306377428,"identity":"550826b7-3c3c-494e-9906-50ac50b48005","order_by":3,"name":"Shima Salehi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stanford University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shima","middleName":"","lastName":"Salehi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-05-06 16:46:00","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4378285/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4378285/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":57517623,"identity":"03ac757a-b58e-48f3-b951-980abbce1d3b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80377,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrior framework for problem-solving actions from DeLiema et al., 20XX to describe the Baba is You® puzzle environment and player’s puzzle approach.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/7110e2b681852f3bcb105afe.png"},{"id":57517650,"identity":"80111c56-ce0b-4137-b079-13f3c487bea1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":148823,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScreen capture of the Baba is You®level.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/b89e657748e768a042cc71c5.png"},{"id":57517621,"identity":"a1b3b39d-f446-4f3f-91f7-6294994b4ce1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:04","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":70378,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScreen capture of the Changeless level.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/e09c62d2576af85b770608da.png"},{"id":57517627,"identity":"d500a167-772b-40d4-8049-0ae90dda7c7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:06","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":68845,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScreen capture of the Float level.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/f886a86029fecfb158ad7bd6.png"},{"id":57517625,"identity":"8818816e-e294-4a3c-8c69-c83d64c31de1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:06","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":335160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe interview set-up for players over Zoom screen sharing their play.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/fbba3d10a833c70c153fa629.png"},{"id":57517649,"identity":"755ca79f-9edb-41d2-9819-f8f3f03cb205","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:11","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58095,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of player A in level Float.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/4b99616b52877811dd1e5c20.png"},{"id":57517626,"identity":"d9ec22d2-1246-4c34-8f66-11cce3777253","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:06","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":67457,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection Cycle (Problem-solving actions: orientation (O), noticing deviation (ND), causal explanations (CE), revision (AR))\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/2467a0ab4d15a845ca80ff20.png"},{"id":57517594,"identity":"d74d1af9-605e-4ff8-b25b-8da4207d6029","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:00","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":65836,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of player B in level Float.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/03627da96b883c42de51952a.png"},{"id":57517593,"identity":"f509206d-7422-4fe2-aee9-640092fc7b85","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:23:59","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of Player B in level Changeless.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/cec76ea1a5356150828858bb.png"},{"id":57517654,"identity":"80be0ef5-0f89-4a3f-84fe-70da39f45cba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:15","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":83846,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of Player C in level Float.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/e7b18a50d1424b77dfc71a76.png"},{"id":57517622,"identity":"ca27224d-36e4-4c32-8dd9-9a4daf0a239a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:04","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123952,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of Player C in level Changeless.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/a790ea6aa739eccd8e350b4f.png"},{"id":57517620,"identity":"0de5d5ad-4813-49ed-9f77-c2fae7e5a2ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:03","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"Figure 12","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75322,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of Player D in level Float.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"12.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/aae2f404fe24666de6ab09aa.png"},{"id":57517629,"identity":"ddd49332-4b7f-484d-83a1-9051d4a97716","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-31 20:24:07","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"Figure 13","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":132328,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eActions and reflections of Player D in level Changeless.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"13.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/7fda920c4d526782f2073bf7.png"},{"id":64032632,"identity":"ee475aab-bd64-4cf7-a9cd-e20f91e3c3cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-05 09:35:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2194557,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4378285/v1/ffe1c44d-b8c3-4730-a612-c364dca57065.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Role of Reflection in Learning within Puzzle-Based Games","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eProblem solving is traditionally described in terms of searching within a solution space, which consists of various possible states of the problem whereby the goal of the problem-solver is to find the goal state among all these possible states (Newell \u0026amp; Simon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e). More recently, a problem has been defined as a goal-oriented task with no given-in-advance set of instructions on how to reach the desired outcome (Tarbouriech et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In science and engineering domains, we can further characterize problems as goal-oriented tasks that require the application of relevant scientific and engineering knowledge, without step-by-step guide for success, and which typically consist of several parts with multiple potential solutions (Salehi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Education communities across different fields have ubiquitously agreed that problem-solving is a significant learning goal particularly for science and engineering that should be developed throughout one\u0026rsquo;s educational path leveraging different learning environments and instructional practices (National Academies of Sciences, 2018). In recent years, the link between play-based learning, such as puzzle-based games, and developing problem-solving skill has been explored (Fontes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As with many other problems, the set of actions required to solve a puzzle is not clear in advance and there could be multiple ways of solving it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a problem-solving process, solving puzzle-based games can also provide ample opportunities for practicing reflection. Reflection constitutes the metacognitive processes one engages in to monitor, evaluate, and revise their problem-solving process. Previous studies have shown how reflection can improve one\u0026rsquo;s problem-solving (Salehi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). A number of factors can trigger reflection, but one widely recognized impetus is facing a challenge, impasse, or moment of failure (Kapur, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), what Koschmann and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) describe with the unifying construct of \u0026ldquo;breakdown.\u0026rdquo; Uniting breakdown and reflection, Koschmann and colleagues throw light on the \u0026ldquo;disruption in the normal functioning of things forcing the individual to adopt a more reflective or deliberative stance toward ongoing activity\u0026rdquo; (Koschmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e, p. 26). In puzzle-based games, when learners face non-threatening failures, these moments resemble what Kapur and colleagues have described outside of play-based settings as productive failure, which involves students failing to solve problems that are a bit too hard for them before an instructor solicits descriptions of their strategies and helps consolidate their thinking into the normative strategy to achieve a solution. Productive failure as a pedagogical approach has been shown to effectively supports student learning (Kapur, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Kapur \u0026amp; Bielaczyc, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Sinha \u0026amp; Kapur, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Productive failure approaches to learning design embrace the process of students falling short of arriving at a solution, reflecting on their strategies, and then learning from the prior approaches with scaffolding from an expert. In game-based settings, even without support from an expert, players who encounter impasses and then reflect on them together in collaborative discourse come away with a deeper understanding of the game\u0026rsquo;s mechanics than do players who less frequently encountered and discussed those errors (Kapur \u0026amp; Bielaczyc, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, in the context of puzzle-based problem-solving, when players are given a complex puzzle and are allowed to work through them on their own, they may for stretches of time find themselves stuck and unable to solve the puzzle. We explore in this paper how reflection during these stretches of failure can prove generative to the players\u0026rsquo; learning about the game\u0026rsquo;s mechanics and effective strategies. When game players get stuck and receive immediate feedback from the game state (Gee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Williams-Pierce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), this can provide a generative context for players\u0026rsquo; reflection during problem-solving actions and corresponding revisions to their approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe investigate this process of reflection on problem solving processes in the context an online, commercial puzzle game called \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;.\u003c/em\u003e In the game, players solve puzzles by breaking and creating rules, which change the state of the game as they work toward defining a winning object and then touching it. In our earlier work in this context, we explored how moments of failure \u0026ndash; what we refer to as deviations from players\u0026rsquo; goals/intentions \u0026ndash; can lead to valuable learning, whether through precise tinkering or through hypotheses about the causes of deviations and well-justified interventions. When players engage in atheoretical tinkering/experimentation and/or generate causal explanations for the deviations they encounter, these pathways can lead to productive revisions to their original strategies. These revisions are important because they not only lead to successful game outcomes, but they might also improve players\u0026rsquo; overall problem-solving skills. Indeed, many game-based learning environments provide ample opportunities for players to encounter deviations and pursue tinkering, as well as providing opportunities for players to reflect on their learning experiences (Bovermann \u0026amp; Bastiaens, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Gee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Tekinbas \u0026amp; Zimmerman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, we re-examine the two levels addressed in the prior study and extend earlier analysis by centering players\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003ereflections\u003c/em\u003e on their problem-solving process. To accomplish this new analysis, we blend two previously developed problem-solving frameworks, one that specifically addresses reflection in problem-solving, developed in the context of electrical engineering (Salehi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), and a second that draws inspiration from computer programming debugging (DeLiema et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The reflective problem-solving framework outlines main problem-solving practices one engages in to solve complex scientific problems. This framework includes two main families: different problem-solving actions and accompanying but distinct problem-solving reflections. The latter framework outlines three puzzle-based problem-solving actions: how players identify deviations, determine their causes, and adapt their goal-oriented approach (Anderson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) (DeLiema et al., 2022). In the current work, which blends the above two problem-solving frameworks, we aim to examine not only the problem-solving actions that players take during puzzle solving to address deviations but also their corresponding reflective practices players engage in to improve their problem-solving actions. The study uses a thematic qualitative analysis to identify when and which type of reflection occurred during the game play and focuses on the factors that trigger these reflection practices. The study seeks to answer: Why and how do players (middle school and college students) of a puzzle-based video game reflect during play in ways that foster their learning of game mechanics, lead to puzzle solutions, and extend their understanding of the game\u0026rsquo;s world?\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the following sections, we review (1) what puzzle-based learning is, (2) what reflection is during problem-solving, and (3) what is the role of reflection in puzzle-based learning. In answering these guiding questions, we elucidate the importance of our study by understanding how players learn to solve puzzles through reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWhat is Puzzle-Based Learning?\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePuzzle-based learning is a teaching method that uses puzzles to engage students and help them learn. Although there are many differing definitions of the term puzzle (Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the general consensus is that puzzles are activities that offer an intellectual challenge for a player to solve (Thomas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Generally, puzzles have four principles to operationalize intellectual challenge: Puzzles adhere to universal rules (generality), rules are easy to remember (simplicity), puzzles evoke the feeling of discovery (Eureka moment), and they engage the player (entertainment). The most important principles of the puzzles are the feeling of discovery and entertainment. The feeling of discovery includes a sense of frustration, relief (when the puzzle is solved), and reward. Puzzle-based learning can be facilitated through puzzle-based games. Puzzle-based games are characterized by the presence of one or more well-defined solutions to a logical or conceptual challenge, often within a specific time limit or in conjunction with other game elements or actions. They are considered \"mentally challenging\" (Fontes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) and can be integrated into action or adventure games or used as building blocks for more complex games. They are a specific sub-genre of video games, usually played in a series with a variation on a particular theme. These themes can include pattern recognition, logical sequence, or understanding of a process. The puzzles have a simple set of rules, and the game space is limited within a spatially defined structure such as a board, net or other closed structure. Players must solve the puzzle-type challenge before moving on to the next level, and the game's difficulty increases gradually, which facilitates learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning through puzzle-based games emphasizes play and aligns with the constructivist idea that children construct new knowledge when they are actively engaged in hands-on activities that they find interesting and enjoyable. In these activities, learning through play promotes a \u0026ldquo;flow-state\u0026rdquo; (Chou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pavlas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), described as a state where the player is fully immersed in the game, losing track of time, and being completely focused on the task at hand. When in a flow state, individuals experience a sense of effortless concentration, heightened focus, and a loss of self-consciousness. The experience of flow-state is often associated with a sense of achievable goals and feedback. The activity must also be engaging and meaningful to the individual, providing a sense of purpose and intrinsic motivation. This state can be achieved when the game's difficulty level is well-matched to the player's skill level, creating a sense of challenge and engagement. When a player is in the flow state, they can perform at their best, and the experience of playing the game is highly enjoyable and satisfying. The flow state, also referred to as \"being in the zone,\" is a psychological concept that describes a state of optimal human performance and engagement (Chou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It's a mental state where a person becomes fully absorbed in an activity, feeling completely focused and immersed, often losing track of time and external distractions. During the flow state, individuals experience a heightened sense of clarity, creativity, and enjoyment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat is Reflection?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMetacognitive processes one engages in to regulate their learning process have long captured the interest of education researchers, particularly in the fields of scientific, engineering and mathematical problem-solving. Metacognition has been broadly defined as strategies for planning, monitoring, and evaluating one's understanding and performance (Muteti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Metacognition has two main components: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge refers to the knowledge people have about their own cognitive processes (Salehi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Metacognitive regulation refers to the strategies and actions people use to control their own learning. Examples of metacognitive strategies include setting learning goals, monitoring progress, using effective study strategies, and evaluating the effectiveness of different strategies. These strategies can help people to become more efficient and effective learners by allowing them to monitor their own understanding, identify areas where they need to improve, and adjust their approach as needed. Metacognition is a key component of self-regulation and is associated with better academic performance, critical thinking and problem-solving skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile there is no unifying definition of reflection in problem solving (Gomes \u0026amp; Mendes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), reflection in problem solving broadly refers to the metacognitive process of thinking about and evaluating one's own thought processes and actions while working on a problem]. This includes considering what actions were used, what worked well, and what could be improved upon. previous work in the context of scientific problem-solving has shown that reflection can be about different aspects of problem-solving and hence lead to different outcomes. Reflection can be about reviewing and revising: 1) the goal of the problem at hand and the assumptions that can be made to help achieve that goal, 2) previous knowledge gained that can help proceeding with solving the problem, 3) the strategies used to solve the problem, and 4) the solution proposed for the problem used (Salehi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The goal of reflection is to improve one's understanding of the problem and to develop a more effective problem-solving approach. Reflection allows for self-awareness of problem-solving actions, it helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the problem-solver, which in turn can lead to better performance and more efficient problem-solving in the future.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhat is the Role of Reflection in Puzzle-Based Learning?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the context of puzzle-based learning, we define reflection as the process of thinking about and evaluating one's own thought processes and actions while working on a puzzle. This includes considering what actions were used, what worked well, and what could be improved upon. The goal of reflection is to improve one's understanding of the puzzle and to develop a more effective problem-solving approach for the game. Research examining how reflection can facilitate learning through play should consider what triggers reflection, what different types of reflection are, and how they can improve player actions and consequently their approach toward their game and their understanding of the game.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior work has developed a framework for problem-solving actions (DeLiema et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) as one engages in solving the puzzle-based game of \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; This prior study monitored the degree to which participants noticed deviations in gameplay by categorizing the level of detail players provided when describing moments in the game in which outcomes deviated from their expectation (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The categories ranged from simply acknowledging the existence of a deviation (noticing deviation; ND-1) to providing a comprehensive and detailed explanation of what exactly was diverging from expectation (ND-3). Similarly, their explanations for the cause of these deviations were tracked, ranging from a basic suggestion (CE-1) to a detailed interpretation that included causal mechanisms (causal explanation; CE-3). Finally, this prior work documented how (if at all) participants revised their approach to the puzzle, with different levels of explanation provided for their changes (action revision; AR-1 to AR-3). Successfully completing the level after a revision warranted the label of \"successful revision.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current paper expands on this action framework for puzzle-based games to include a central feature of a reflective problem-solving framework from science education, namely identifying different types of player \u003cem\u003ereflection\u003c/em\u003e that inform the actions of the players and impact their effectiveness as they engage in puzzle-based games, and overall understanding of a game world. In all, the goal of the study was to generate a process-based account of different reflection types one engages while playing a puzzle-based game, what triggers these reflective practices, and their impact. Through a thematic, qualitative approach (Charmaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), we generated a framework to further operationalize the role of reflection in the context of how to problem-solve within the puzzle-based game, \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e. Our study seeks to answer the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat does reflection look like in problem solving during puzzle-based games?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat factors can trigger reflection in problem solving?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe following section will explicate the research design, participants, puzzle-based learning context, and the data analysis by building on previous work (DeLiema et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, the study explores how players reflect during problem solving in ways that foster their learning of game mechanics and puzzle solutions for the game, \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePuzzle-Based Game\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cb\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e is a video game developed by Finnish game designer Arvi Teikari and is a logic-based puzzle game. The game has a minimalist aesthetic and simple core mechanics, but the puzzles are complex and challenging. The game board consists of various word blocks, each with a word on it, such as \"FLAG,\" \"WALL,\" \"YOU,\" \"BABA,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;IS\u0026rdquo; as well as various objects such as FLAG, WALL, ROCK, and BABA. Three-word sentences from combinations of these word blocks dictate each level's rules, such as \u0026ldquo;BABA-IS-YOU,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;WALL-IS-STOP.\u0026rdquo; One of the game objects is assigned to be the player\u0026rsquo;s avatar by the rule \u0026ldquo;OBJECT X-IS-YOU\u0026rdquo; (e.g., BABA-IS-YOU or WALL-IS-YOU). Another object is assigned to be the win condition by the rule \u0026ldquo;OBJECT Y-IS-WIN\u0026rdquo; (e.g., FLAG-IS-WIN). The core game mechanic is that a player avatar should reach and touch an assigned \u0026ldquo;WIN\u0026rdquo; object. The player can move around their avatar using arrow keys or a joystick and interact with different word blocks and/or objects. By moving these word blocks around, players can create different sentences, hence different rules for the level they are playing, such as \"BABA-IS-ROCK,\" or \"ROCK-IS-STOP.\u0026rdquo; We chose \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e for our study because it can be played without any prior content knowledge and can be completed within a few minutes, while still offering challenging levels for any player with adaptive set of rules, and hence encouraging reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the game\u0026rsquo;s structure, with movable objects and rules on the screen, allows for a clear view of the player\u0026rsquo;s approach to the puzzle, which was essential for our problem-solving analysis. The game\u0026rsquo;s open-endedness, which allows the player to question and revise goals, provides a real-world and complicated aspect to problem-solving. Furthermore, while having simple building blocks, the game progressively introduces new mechanics, which encourages the player to expand their understanding of the game\u0026rsquo;s world. Also, we aimed to study a successful puzzle-based game that has been shown to be enjoyable for players at different ages and backgrounds in gameplay. Last but not least, the game is unique as the rules of the game are manipulatable and they can and should be changed constantly by the player, and hence the game requires the player to constantly reflect and revise their understanding of the game and their problem-solving approach. Therefore, \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e offers us a suitable problem-solving context to study reflection. For this study, we analyzed data from all players, focusing on two specific levels of \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e: Float and Changeless. We chose these levels because players were: (a) advancing after mastering the core mechanics of the game, (b) interacting with new mechanics of the game, (c) able to solve the level typically within 5 minutes, and (d) reaching this level within a 3-hour window, which meant that all players in our sample attempted and completed these two levels. In the following, we further describe the game by reviewing the very first level of the game as well as the two levels we analyzed in this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePuzzle Level 0: Baba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e level (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) is the first level participants play in the game. This level shows four basic rules of nouns followed by a mechanism or characteristic. BABA-IS-YOU indicates that Baba is the player avatar. FLAG-IS-WIN specifies that a way to win the level is to walk baba over to the flag and touch it. WALL-IS-STOP means that the two walls shown in the screen are physical barriers, and Baba cannot pass through them. ROCK-IS-PUSH indicates that rocks can be moved by the avatar. In order to touch the flag and win, the player might push one of the rocks and then proceed through the opening to reach the flag. As the levels proceed, the player avatar, the game win object, and obstacles faced by the avatar evolve. The player changes the game rules to overcome these obstacles on their way to getting the player avatar to touch the WIN object.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePuzzle Level Changeless\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Changeless level (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) is the ninth level of the first cluster of levels in The Lake region of the game. This level presents a unique challenge to the players because they struggle with understanding how objects such as rocks cannot be transformed into another object if they are already defined as fixed elsewhere (e.g., with the rule ROCK IS ROCK). After the first move of Baba, the flag turns into a rock, as stated by the rule FLAG-IS-ROCK, which removes the opportunity to walk to the flag, touch it, and win. The player needs to find a way to create a flag and then reach it using the available rules, which can be challenging because it requires the player to grapple with at least one new mechanic \u0026ndash; the ROCK-IS-ROCK rule \u0026ndash; and clarify their understanding of an additional mechanic \u0026ndash; the order of nouns (e.g., FLAG-IS-ROCK vs ROCK-IS-FLAG). In order to solve this level, the player must rearrange FLAG-IS-ROCK to form ROCK-IS-FLAG and break the rule ROCK-IS-ROCK. By doing both changes, the Flag will re-appear (replacing the rock) and baba can then walk to it and touch it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePuzzle level Float\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Float level (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) is the first level of the second cluster of levels from the Solitary Island region of the game. This level presents a unique challenge to the players by introducing a new rule, BABA-IS-FLOAT. As a result, Baba floats above certain objects, such as flags, and cannot touch them; the rule BABA-IS-FLOAT is located in one of the corners of the game interface and thus cannot be modified. In order to solve the level, the player needs to find a way to assign a new avatar to themselves that is not floating, like a Rock, or assign WIN to Baba. This is the first level that requires players to come up with a strategy to deal with the new mechanism of FLOAT.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants, Study Design, \u0026amp; Data\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e For this study, we recruited 25 participants, 13 middle school students and 12 college students, through online flyers, which was approved by the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Institutional Review Board; all research procedures were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Both groups of participants were chosen to represent a range of problem-solving experience. All participants were new to the game \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e. After the college students provided informed consent, and after the middle schoolers provided assent and their parents provided informed consent, participants downloaded the game, logged into Zoom with a researcher and played the game for an hour once a week for three weeks. In the first play session, the researcher and the participant took turns sharing their screens and solving the first three levels together exploring different ways to solve each one. Participants were then asked to think aloud during the other levels as if they were streaming on Twitch or YouTube. The researcher did not intervene unless they determined that the participant needed help or participants asked for help, in which case they minimally helped to support the player's problem-solving process (see Limitations). We collected data from the recorded Zoom sessions which includes video, audio, and the captured shared screen of the interview sessions as well as a range of questions asked after each session, such as the participants\u0026rsquo; perceived difficulty of the play session, participants\u0026rsquo; effort, their predictions about future performance in the game, and problem-solving strategies they used (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe drew from a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) in developing the code book and coding the data accordingly. Charmaz's grounded theory emphasizes the importance of an inductive, open-ended and flexible approach to data analysis. Charmaz emphasizes that grounded theory is not a set of fixed procedures but a sensibility that guides the researcher in their data analysis. The approach emphasizes the importance of the researcher's own perspective and emphasizes the need for reflexivity (examining one's own perspective) in data analysis. Additionally, Charmaz's grounded theory emphasizes the importance of the researcher's interaction with the data and the need to constantly revise and refine the emerging theory based on new data. To follow Charmaz\u0026rsquo;s grounded theory, instead of using commercial transcription services, the research team themselves transcribed the data using the conventions they iteratively defined to accommodate the research questions the data was addressing (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for more details). The transcription convention followed conversation analysis conventions (Jefferson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) and included multimodal details (e.g., (Mondada, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e)) about players' gestures and facial expressions. We also created a custom set of transcript conventions to document how players moved their avatars and how game rules were changed and rearranged along the way (e.g., BABA-IS-YOU in our transcripts meant that the BABA text block was recently moved to create the active rule). To ensure a high level of inter-rater reliability in our transcript process, each transcript was created by a member of our research team and then reviewed internally by a second team member. We transcribed the zoom interview sessions from the two play levels of Changeless and Float for all participants. Throughout the study, our research team spent several months analyzing players\u0026rsquo; speech and their problem-solving actions during the game. After identifying problem-solving actions, we examined the visible and audible aspects of the data and focused on identifying the language and practices used by players that shaped their problem-solving process, specifically attending to player\u0026rsquo;s reflection that accompanied their problem-solving actions. Over a period of several months, we re-categorized the data and reached a final consensus on the coding scheme. The results of this analysis, which include examples of coded data and an exploration of how players used different problem-solving actions and reflections, are presented in the Results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExcerpt from transcribed interview.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: {Um::\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((baba moves around and up towards FLAG-IS-WIN))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: {But i can move all of these\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((move around FLAG-IS-WIN))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCausal Explanation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Deviation (control)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: ((pushes FLAG-IS-WIN towards the right))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: (4.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: ((baba moves by BABA-IS-YOU))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe observed the problem-solving reflections of middle school students and college students. Although there are age differences between middle school and college students, we did not observe major distinctions in terms of reflection or actions to solve the levels. Instead, we found that the level design itself impacted players\u0026rsquo; reflections to accomplish each level. We also identified distinct types of problem-solving reflections: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. We particularly observed that when players spent more time doing reflection on orientation, they were more likely to solve the puzzles faster. The following section answers the research questions by identifying main types of reflection during solving a puzzle-based game and exploring factors affecting these reflection practices. For identifying reflection practices, we will address the question: What does reflection look like in solving a puzzle-based game? For exploring factors affecting reflection practices, we will compare reflection practices across different players and levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSufficiently Challenging to Require Reflection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e was a sufficiently challenging game to authentically require reflection in problem-solving. As discussed earlier, reflection is particularly needed in the face of challenges in problem-solving to adapt the problem-solving approach to overcome impasses. For \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, players generally viewed the game as challenging, felt that they faced impasses, and reported trying hard to find a solution, and were uncertain about their ability to solve future problems. After each play session, most participants reported that they had experienced getting stuck during the session, when asked in a closed-ended question. This pattern was similar when participants were asked to assess the difficulty of the game; a significant percentage of participants in both groups (25% of middle school students and 28.57% of college students) reported that they had tried \"somewhat hard\" when they got stuck, and the remaining participants (about 75%) reported that they had tried \"very hard.\" None of the participants reported that they had not tried hard. When evaluating their ability to complete levels in the next play session, most of the middle school students (90%) and college students (71.4%) said they \"might\" or \"will probably\" be able to complete upcoming levels, while the remainder felt confident in their ability to solve the upcoming problems. Such self-report measures confirm the need for and the importance of reflection for solving \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e puzzles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIdentifying Reflection as a Problem-Solving Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing from Salehi's 2018 research which recognized distinct types of reflection paired with problem-solving actions in scientific contexts, our study delves into various types of problem-solving reflections that accompany actions taken to solve puzzle game levels. Through a rigorous qualitative analysis, we discerned three primary reflection types: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. It's crucial to note that these reflections are distinct from, yet can coexist with, specific problem-solving actions we identified in earlier work (DeLiema et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrientation as a problem-solving action is defined as applying the rules of the game to understand the mechanics of the level. On the other hand, reflection on orientation involves players analyzing the accuracy of their comprehension of a level\u0026rsquo;s mechanics, their acquired knowledge of game rules, and how these rules delineate the constraints and objectives of the level. This specific type of reflection is less about acknowledging the rules and more about internalizing them to make decisions about their problem-solving actions. The players showed this type of reflection by reading the rules and evaluating their understanding of them by testing their newfound expectations of these rules. For example, if a player reviews the rules of the game and evaluates their understanding of them like, \u0026ldquo;Ok so ROCK IS PUSH, WALL IS STOP,\u0026rdquo; they are taking a moment to reflect on how each of the rules consisting of word blocks define constraints and the goal of that particular level. Here the player is internalizing how each component (i.e., ROCK IS PUSH, WALL IS STOP) has a defined role within the game play, or they may further test their understanding of the rules by running experiments. For example, they may suspect that \u0026ldquo;Baba is Float\u0026rdquo; means that Baba cannot touch any objects of the game, so they move baba over the flag a couple of times to make sure their understanding is accurate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeviation is understood as moments in the game where the observed outcome of a player\u0026rsquo;s action differs from a player's expectations. In contrast, reflection on deviation refers to when players internally assess and recalibrate their expectation and their understanding of these unexpected outcomes, especially in light of the game\u0026rsquo;s rules. When players enact reflection on deviations, they are interpreting the rules of the game in conjunction with their expectations, leading further to reflection on orientation. Consequently, reflection on deviation triggers reflection on orientation to further refine their understanding of the game. For instance, if a player\u0026rsquo;s action does not lead to an expected outcome (e.g., they walk over the flag and don\u0026rsquo;t win the level), they might reflect on the deviation: \u0026ldquo;What happened? (.) baba is {float? (.){((moves across screen)).\u0026rdquo; Here, the player is making a judgement of their understanding of the rules (i.e., baba is {float?}) and then proceeds to move across the screen to understand how the new mechanic contradicts their previous attempt. This action catalyzes a deeper reflection on orientation, further refining the player\u0026rsquo;s comprehension and application of the game's rules.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, prior work identified the problem-solving action called action-revision where players revise their approach to the puzzle accompanied by varying degrees of explanation for their adjustments. Conversely, reflection on action-revision describes the introspective process wherein players evaluate and reconsider their approach and its effectiveness in light of the rules of the game, leading them to make deliberate alterations to their actions, distinct from the mere act of changing their approach without justification (i.e. trial and error). Players' reflection on action-revision frequently initiates a cascading process, where it not only adjusts their expectations derived from reflection on orientation but also aligns these expectations with insights gained from reflection on deviation, ultimately enhancing their overall understanding of the game. Consequently, when players delve into reflection on action-revisions, they might adopt a more analytical stance, such as questioning a previously applied rule: \u0026ldquo;Um: what if rock isn\u0026rsquo;t push?\u0026rdquo; This query is a manifestation of the introspective process described as reflection on action-revision. It's not merely a random attempt but a thoughtful re-evaluation of their strategy in the context of the game's rules. This reflective questioning demonstrates the player's engagement in a deeper, more systematic form of problem-solving. It also shows how their reflection on action-revision sparks a domino effect: reassessing their prior understanding from reflection on orientation and reconciling it with the insights from reflection on deviation, which collectively enriches their strategic approach to the game. Our study revealed players will cycle through each of these problem-solving reflections until eventually solve the puzzle. To illustrate each distinct problem-solving reflection, we show video snapshots and transcript from Player A. Player A is a middle school student who is playing the puzzle level \u003cem\u003eFloat.\u003c/em\u003e In Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, we show instances and types of Player A\u0026rsquo;s reflection accompanying their actions of orientation (O), noticing deviation (ND), causal explanations (CE), revision (AR), and successful revision (SR).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e provides a schematic representation of Player A\u0026rsquo;s approach. This player first read aloud the title of the level, \u0026ldquo;FLOAT\u0026rdquo;, and reflected on orientation by analyzing the rule BABA-IS-FLOAT to understand \u0026ldquo;what that means\u0026rdquo; for the puzzle. This is the first instance of players encountering the float mechanic in the game, and Player A immediately clued in on the salience of this mechanic and started to reflect on its meaning. The transcript of Player A's think-aloud is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for player A's transcript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: float {(.)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{\u003cb\u003e((drags cursor around level title))\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: this is like the first level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: baba is {float?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((moves cursor on top of FLOAT))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: {(2.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((moves baba towards FLOAT))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: hu:uh i wonder what that means\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, we can see Player A evaluate the new mechanic \u0026ldquo;FLOAT\u0026rdquo; through their question, \u0026ldquo;baba is float?\u0026rdquo; with an accompanying action \u0026ldquo;{((moves cursor on top of FLOAT))\u0026rdquo;. The player then moves to capture the flag, which is how each level is typically won in the game, but Player A notices that they cannot touch the flag directly (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for player A's transcript (continuation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem- Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: flag is win\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: {(1.0)*\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((goes on top of flag -- nothing happens))\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e*((looks at \u003cem\u003eBABA IS YOU\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e twice))*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNoticing Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: oh its because baba is floating?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003emoves ((baba up and down the flag))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCausal explanation of Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: is he floating above {(.) the flag?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((baba takes a loop \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003etowards the left side, down, and pushes the \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ebottom rock to the edge of stone grid))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlayer A is reflecting on the deviation they notice to further improve their understanding of the game mechanics of this level, \u0026ldquo;oh its because baba is floating,\u0026rdquo; pairing their reflection with an action to confirm their understanding of the game mechanic by testing whether baba can touch another object of the game, i.e. Rock. Player A then considers based on this new understanding how to revise the rules of the game by reflecting on action-revisions (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for player A's transcript (continuation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem- Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P01: what if i don't have to be {baba}\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{WALL/IS-STOP}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAR-2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Action-Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis moment marks the player beginning to consider the idea that they can cease being baba and instead become the wall, which is not floating, and then touch the flag. Overall, in this level, Player A reflects on the game mechanic of FLOAT and understands that if Baba is Float, then maybe other characters like WALL will not be floating according to the rules. Player A then makes WALL their avatar instead of Baba and touches the flag to win. Overall, this shows a defined reflection cycle whereby players productively solve the level by moving through each of the distinct problem-solving reflections: orientation, deviation, and action-revision (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Importance of Reflection on Orientation in Solving the Puzzle\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, our results indicate that players depended on reflection on orientation. Extended reflections on orientation at the beginning of game play or throughout the game play led players to more efficiently solve the puzzle. To start to document this pattern, we will look at Player B who is a middle school student playing the puzzle level Float (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e) and puzzle level Changeless (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). Player B engaged in substantial reflection on orientation at the beginning of their game play both in Float and in Changeless.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the Float Level, Player B reflects on the game mechanics of float by reading the rules aloud and testing the actions (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for Player B's transcript in level Float.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P04: float \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e flag is win wall is stop\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e((baba pushes the top rock to the right))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P04: baba is float (1.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P04: {whats that mean\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((baba goes on top of flag))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eND-1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P04: {(3.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((baba move horizontally back and forth on\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003etop of flag))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaving successfully understood the rules with the additional game mechanic \u0026ldquo;FLOAT\u0026rdquo;, Player B then reflects on the expected deviation that Baba will simply hover above the flag rather than successfully capture the flag to win. Player B then follows with a reflection on action-revision to circumvent the FLOAT mechanic (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for Player B's transcript in level Float (continuation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P04: maybe if I make it so something else\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{that I can touch IS WIN that will work?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((pushes ROCK IS PUSH to the right))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAction-Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Action-Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Player B follows a similar procedure in the Changeless level, but focusing heavily on reflection on orientation at the beginning, leading to solving the puzzle later on (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for Player B's transcript in level Changeless.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarvel: {I for \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((moves BABA up))}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarvel: I forgot that you could have a, like\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarvel: one that doesn\u0026rsquo;t have ah uhm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarvel: what\u0026rsquo;s it called(.) that doesn\u0026rsquo;t have like (an out)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarvel: I think this one is simple enough\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Action-Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarvel: {Just rearrange these\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{ROCK-IS}\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{FLAG/IS}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Action-Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, Player C who is also a middle school student playing the puzzle level Float (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e) and puzzle level Changeless (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig11\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e) pursued a different approach to reflecting on orientation during levels Float and Changeless. We can see in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e for Player C that reflection on orientation was not as heavily present at the beginning of the Float level as it was for Player B. As their puzzle solving approach on both Float and Changeless progressed, Player C encountered deviations, and returned to reflect on orientation as part of their process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor example, at the beginning of the level Float, Player C reflected on how similar it was to the first level. Pursuing the same strategy as they had tried on that first level, Player C walked over to the flag and noticed a deviation \u0026ndash; the baba avatar moved directly over the flag instead of touching it and winning. Player C reflected on the deviation, commenting that they couldn\u0026rsquo;t \u0026ldquo;get to that flag\u0026rdquo; (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for Player C's transcript in level Float.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P03: this is like the first level or tutorial\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P03: (3.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:00:43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P03: ((unintelligible)) i cant get to that flag there\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Deviation (control)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter many attempts, Player C was still unable to find a solution. At this moment of the game, the Player returned to a process of reflecting on orientation, noticing the BABA-IS-FLOAT rule and asking themselves what it meant. This moment of reflection was the turning point in their puzzle solving process, and led them to solve the level Float as they reflected on the essential mechanism of the puzzle (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for Player C's transcript in level Float (continuation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0:01:28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJV.P03: wait so BABA IS FLOAT what does that mean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eND-1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth Players B and C illustrate how important reflection on orientation is to successfully solve the level. Taking the time at the beginning of the puzzle to notice the rules and grapple with their meaning enabled players to effectively solve the level. In cases when this reflection on orientation was not thorough at the beginning of a particular level, we noticed that players would later return to reflecting on orientation as part of their process of working toward a solution to the level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUnderstanding Factors Affecting Reflection in Problem Solving\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFactor 1: The Impact of Players\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe sampled 25 participants: 13 middle school students and 12 college students. Despite their educational and age differences, no significant variations were observed in their problem-solving reflections or actions for the \"\u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\" puzzles. No other demographic information was collected to further assess differences between groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFactor 2: Level Design as an Affordance for Distinct Reflection Practices\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we sampled two different levels, Float and Changeless. Previously, we explained the differences between these two levels of the game. Both add new mechanisms that the players must figure out to solve the puzzle. In Float, the new mechanism is the rule called Float. In Changeless, the new mechanism is the rule Rock-is-Rock that makes the rock element unalterable until the text rule is broken. Each level elicits different patterns of problem-solving reflections to solve the game. To illustrate this point, we will review the coded reflections of Player D, a college student, in both levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig12\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, Player D solves Float. We can see that one reflection on orientation at the beginning of the level is enough to understand the mechanics of the game and then solve it.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe same Player D in the level Changeless (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig13\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) struggles with the mechanics of this puzzle. This new mechanism, Rock is rock, proves more difficult for them to decipher. After the first reflection on orientation, their problem-solving actions are more similar to tinkering than they are in the level Float. Also, there are many cycles of Reflection on Action-Revision followed by reflection on deviation to better understand what the challenge is.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter this back and forth between reflection on action-revision and deviation, the Player finally understands the core mechanics of the level, reflecting on orientation. In the following transcript (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e) we can see this moment when the Player states that \u0026ldquo;Rock is just rock\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;{okay, what if rock is not rock\u0026rdquo;. This reflection is pivotal to their puzzle solving process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab10\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 10\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoding for Player D's transcript in level Changeless.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime Stamp\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranscript\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Action\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Solving Reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: Rock is just rock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP: {okay, what if rock is not rock (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e{((pushes ROCK-IS-ROCK to the right side))\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection on Action-Revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn levels that present less difficulty, like Float, reflection on Orientation is a more fundamental reflection practice to improve one\u0026rsquo;s understanding of the problem. In levels with more difficulty and less clear mechanisms, reflection on Action-Revision and Deviation have a more substantial role to develop an effective approach in solving the problem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, problem-solving actions and reflections of middle school and college students were observed. This research aims to answer questions about the main categories of reflection during puzzle-solving and explore factors influencing these reflection practices, comparing them across different players and levels. Three distinct types of reflection were identified: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. Despite the age differences of the players, no major distinctions were found in their reflection or actions to solve the levels across college and middle-school groups. Instead, the level design itself influenced players to adopt different patterns of problem-solving reflections for each level. players who spent more time reflecting on orientation tended to solve puzzles faster. We will now discuss these findings in conjunction with the literature to establish 1) reflection as a key component of problem-solving practice; 2) the role of reflection types in problem-solving practice; and 3) reflection and learning outside of game-based learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReflection as a Key Component of Problem-Solving Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs discussed in the literature review and demonstrated through our findings, reflection remains a key component for problem-solving process. Reflection involves the process of thinking critically and deeply about a problem, its context, and potential solutions; consequently, without reflection players would be making decision randomly, akin to \u0026ldquo;a wild goose chase\u0026rdquo; (Schoenfeld, 2014). Reflection as a metacognitive process allows players to evaluate their own thought processes and decision-making, leading to improved problem-solving skills that help sustain players in a flow state. \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e requires reflection and in turn provides opportunity for players to remain in a flow state due to its sufficient incremental challenge level. Flow states occur when the level of challenge presented by the activity matches the person\u0026rsquo;s level of skill and the task is neither too easy to bore the player nor too difficult to stress out the player, and the activity\u0026rsquo;s challenge level increases as the individual\u0026rsquo;s skills advance. This trend was observed in this study when players were asked to comment on the level of perceived difficulty during the free response. The observed trend remained consistent when participants were asked to assess the game's difficulty. A significant proportion in both groups (25% of middle school students and 28.57% of college students) reported trying \"somewhat hard\" when faced with challenges, while the majority (about 75%) mentioned putting in a \"very hard\" effort. Notably, no participants claimed to have not tried hard. Regarding their confidence in completing future levels, most middle school students (90%) and college students (71.4%) expressed they \"might\" or \"will probably\" succeed, while the rest exhibited strong confidence in solving upcoming problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, producing adequate flow supports players to become more aware and in control of their actions, which affords players with opportunities for reflection. This trend was observed when players had systematic reflection, which we observed through the three stages: Reflection on Orientation, Reflection on Deviation, and Reflection on Action-Revision. Players go through three stages of reflection during problem-solving in the game: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. In reflection on orientation, we observed how players generated logic rules by reviewing previous game levels and their understanding of game mechanics to accurately understand the rules of a given level. In reflection on deviation, we observed how players fine-tuned their understanding of the rules by noting contradictions or inconsistencies in their expectations. Finally, in reflection on action-revision, we observed how players made intentional changes to their actions based on their reflections from orientation and deviation. Therefore, \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e as a puzzle-based game serves as a fruitful case study to observe the role of reflection on problems-solving, operationalizing our study to understand how players make decisions during their problem-solving practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Role of Reflection Types in Problem-Solving Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReflection is often considered one step within a larger suit of problem-solving practices; however, our study illustrates that reflection contains nuance but also follows a strategic cycle through the Reflection on Orientation, Reflection on Deviation, and Reflection on Action-Revision. Aligned with previous work, reflection requires appropriate assumptions and simplifications, additional knowledge needed, how well the problem-solving approach is working, and how good the solution is (Price et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Before attempting to solve a problem, it's essential to have a clear understanding of its various aspects and underlying causes. Reflecting on the problem helps in breaking it down, identifying its components, and gaining insights into the relationships between different elements. During gameplay reflection, the players recognized their biases, preconceptions, and assumptions that might influence their approach to the problem such as what was done in Level 0, Changeless, and Float. Then, players drew lessons from failures, helping to avoid similar pitfalls and increase the likelihood of finding effective solutions in current situations. Finally, players were in dynamic response to adapt their strategies in-moment to enhance their learning of not only the level, but of the game itself. In summary, the different types of reflection led to a cycle of continuous improvement, encouraging players to learn from each problem-solving experience, refine their skills, and become more effective problem solvers while playing the game.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eReflection and Learning Outside of Game-Based Learning\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGame-based learning has been shown to help students take learning initiative, adopt creative approaches, make effective decisions, develop modeling skills, build resilience, and recognize different types of problems (Thomas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Most notably, game-based learning has been essential for developing computational thinking, which is defined as the process by which humans or machines formulate a solution that can be effectively carried out (Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Computational thinking is a problem-solving approach that involves breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts, and then using logical reasoning and abstraction to develop solutions. It involves using a set of skills and strategies that are common to computer science and other computational fields, such as algorithms, data representation, and automation. Computational thinking skills are becoming increasingly important in today's digital world, and it is being used in many fields like education, healthcare, transportation, and finance (Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, game-based learning has implications for addressing prior preparation disparities for STEM students. Prior preparation disparities refer to differences or inequalities in the level of readiness or readiness-related resources among individuals or groups before engaging in a specific activity or task, which has been shown to impact Math and Science at the undergraduate level due to unequal access to education, training, resources, information, or prior experiences (Nardo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Educational technologies that draw on game-based learning principles to teach science include PhET simulations, which are a collection of free online interactive simulations developed by the PhET Interactive Simulations project at the University of Colorado Boulder. PhET stands for \"Physics Education Technology,\" and the project aims to improve the teaching and learning of various science and mathematics subjects through interactive, research-based simulations. PhET simulations have proven to be effective tools for promoting active learning, conceptual understanding, and inquiry-based learning in science and math education. Our study further evidences how reflection is facilitated through game-based learning that can support the development or usage of educational technologies like PhET (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Conclusion and Limitations","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, our study revealed how reflection is a key practice to enhance problem-solving processes and adapt to new challenges. There were three types of reflection occurring during gameplay: reflection on orientation, reflection on deviation, and reflection on action-revision. These types of reflection were instrumental in helping players learn how to solve puzzles, particularly when facing new challenges in the game. Accordingly, we acknowledge several limitations that shape how the findings of the study should be interpreted: 1) as a qualitative study, the goal is not to argue generalizability for all middle and college aged students through 25 participants; 2) we understand the inherit subjectivity involved in coding data that can reduce the depth of the analysis; 3) the amount of prompting given by the interviewer was not standardized across all interviews, meaning some players may have received more prompting than others, and potentially engaged in reflection more often as a result. Nevertheless, we offer that our choice to use a qualitative study affords more depth to explore transcripts and video data simultaneously and the qualitative coding was guided by existing empirical frameworks that have been grounded in the literature. Finally, the prompting by the interviewer was never such that they player arrived to a solution solely based on the interviewer\u0026rsquo;s guidance. Consequently, the research provides valuable evidence of different types of reflection in puzzle-based problem-solving, what triggers them, and how they contribute to understanding game mechanics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to acknowledge Craig Anderson, Jesslyn Valerie, Megan Goeke, and Basel Hussein for their input and support on the project\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding to declare\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participating school principal, students, and parent/guardian for each student, provided written informed consent to participate in this study. All experimental protocols were approved by the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Institutional Review Board. \u0026nbsp;Please ensure that the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board that approved your study is included in the \u0026lsquo;Ethics approval and consent to participate\u0026rsquo; section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided consent before fieldwork commenced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors reviewed the manuscript. Authors 3-4 initiated the collaboration and project. Author 3 provided the data set and guided the analysis. Authors 1-2 performed the analysis and wrote initial drafts of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, C. G., Goeke, M., Hussein, B., Carpenter, Z., Salehi, S., \u0026amp; DeLiema, D. (2022). \u003cem\u003eBaba is Hint-Designing a Scaffolding Guidebook for Game-Based Learning\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBovermann, K., \u0026amp; Bastiaens, T. J. (2020). Towards a motivational design? Connecting gamification user types and online learning activities. \u003cem\u003eResearch and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharmaz, K. (2006). \u003cem\u003eConstructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChou, Y.-S., Hou, H.-T., Chang, K.-E., \u0026amp; Su, C.-L. (2023). Designing cognitive-based game mechanisms for mobile educational games to promote cognitive thinking: An analysis of flow state and game-based learning behavioral patterns. \u003cem\u003eInteractive Learning Environments\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(5), 3285\u0026ndash;3302.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeLiema, D., Dahn, M., Flood, V. J., Asuncion, A., Abrahamson, D., Enyedy, N., \u0026amp; Steen, F. (2019). Debugging as a context for fostering reflection on critical thinking and emotion. \u003cem\u003eDeeper Learning, Dialogic Learning, and Critical Thinking: Research-Based Strategies for the Classroom. Hrsg. von Emmanuel Manalo. New York: Routledge\u003c/em\u003e, 209\u0026ndash;228.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeLiema, D., Hufnagle, A., \u0026amp; Ovies‐Bocanegra, M. (2024). Contrasting stances at the crossroads of debugging learning opportunities. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFontes, M. M., Morgado, L. C., Pestana, P., Pedrosa, D., \u0026amp; Cravino, J. P. (2024). Viewing puzzles as two-faced: Theoretical and practical implications for Puzzle-based Learning. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, 101470.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. \u003cem\u003eE-Learning and Digital Media\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGomes, A., \u0026amp; Mendes, A. J. (2007). \u003cem\u003eLearning to program-difficulties and solutions\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. \u003cem\u003eConversation Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. \u003cem\u003eCognition and Instruction\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 379\u0026ndash;424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKapur, M., \u0026amp; Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Learning Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoschmann, T., Kuutti, K., \u0026amp; Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont\u0026rsquo;ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. \u003cem\u003eMind, Culture, and Activity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, T. (2024). Assessing implicit computational thinking in game‐based learning: A logical puzzle game study. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Technology\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation and configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. \u003cem\u003eKnoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., J\u0026uuml;rgen R, and Hans-Georg Soeffner (Eds.): Video-Analysis: Methodology and Methods: Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang\u003c/em\u003e, 51\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuteti, C. Z., Zarraga, C., Jacob, B. I., Mwarumba, T. M., Nkhata, D. B., Mwavita, M., Mohanty, S., \u0026amp; Mutambuki, J. M. (2021). I realized what I was doing was not working: The influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students\u0026rsquo; study strategies in a general chemistry I course. \u003cem\u003eChemistry Education Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 122\u0026ndash;135. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00217H\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNardo, J. E., Chapman, N. C., Shi, E. Y., Wieman, C., \u0026amp; Salehi, S. (2022). Perspectives on Active Learning: Challenges for Equitable Active Learning Implementation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Chemical Education\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c01233\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Academies of Sciences, E. (2018). \u003cem\u003eHow People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24783/how-people-learn-ii-learners-contexts-and-cultures\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewell, A., \u0026amp; Simon, H. A. (1972). \u003cem\u003eHuman problem solving\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 104, Issue 9). Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePavlas, D., Heyne, K., Bedwell, W., Lazzara, E., \u0026amp; Salas, E. (2010). \u003cem\u003eGame-based learning: The impact of flow state and videogame self-efficacy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(28), 2398\u0026ndash;2402.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrice, A. M., Kim, C. J., Burkholder, E. W., Fritz, A. V., \u0026amp; Wieman, C. E. (2021). A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment. \u003cem\u003eCBE\u0026mdash;Life Sciences Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalehi, S. (2018). \u003cem\u003eImproving Problem-Solving through Reflection\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalehi, S., Wang, K. D., Toorawa, R., \u0026amp; Wieman, C. (2020). Can Majoring in Computer Science Improve General Problem-solving Skills? \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, 156\u0026ndash;161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366808\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinha, T., \u0026amp; Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. \u003cem\u003eReview of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(5), 761\u0026ndash;798.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTarbouriech, J., Garcelon, E., Valko, M., Pirotta, M., \u0026amp; Lazaric, A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eNo-regret exploration in goal-oriented reinforcement learning\u003c/em\u003e. 9428\u0026ndash;9437.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTekinbas, K. S., \u0026amp; Zimmerman, E. (2003). \u003cem\u003eRules of play: Game design fundamentals\u003c/em\u003e. MIT press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, C., Badger, M., Ventura-Medina, E., \u0026amp; Sangwin, C. (2013). Puzzle-based learning of mathematics in engineering. \u003cem\u003eEngineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 122\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams-Pierce, C. (2019). Designing for mathematical play: Failure and feedback. \u003cem\u003eInformation and Learning Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e120\u003c/em\u003e(9/10), 589\u0026ndash;610.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, H.-T., Mortezaei, K., Alvelais, T., Henbest, G., Murphy, C., Yezierski, E. J., \u0026amp; Eichler, J. F. (2021). Incorporating concept development activities into a flipped classroom structure: Using PhET simulations to put a twist on the flip. \u003cem\u003eChemistry Education Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 842\u0026ndash;854. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00086A\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Puzzle-based Learning, Reflection, Puzzle Games, Problem-Solving","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4378285/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4378285/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn the context of science, engineering, and design, reflection has been identified as a key practice that helps one to improve their problem-solving process and adapt it in the face of new challenges. The purpose of this study is to further examine the role of reflection its triggers, and its various types in the context of puzzle-based problem-solving as players engaged in solving complex puzzles within an online puzzle-based game entitled, \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026reg; Within each level of \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, the player is tasked with solving a puzzle by interacting with various objects, and movable word blocks. Through interacting with these word blocks, players can change the rules of the game. 25 players, 13 middle school, 12 college students, from the United States were recruited via online flyers for this study and participated in video-recorded interviews over Zoom to solve several levels. None of the players had played \u003cem\u003eBaba is You\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; before the study. A thematic qualitative analysis of two levels attempted by all players, \u003cem\u003eFloat\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eChangeless\u003c/em\u003e, were conducted to identify different types and triggers for reflection during problem solving, and its impacts on the following problem-solving actions. The findings revealed that players engage in three different main types of reflection during game play: reflection on problem orientation, reflection on observed deviation, and reflection on action-revision. Overall, findings show that there were three main types of reflection during these puzzles play sessions and they played a critical role in improving players\u0026rsquo; problem-solving actions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Role of Reflection in Learning within Puzzle-Based Games","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-05-31 20:23:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4378285/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"25846923-34b5-42a1-bc59-7be3167e1ced","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 31st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-05T09:27:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-05-31 20:23:30","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4378285","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4378285","identity":"rs-4378285","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}