Библиография

1. 1. Mayer R.E. Computer Games in Education // Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2019. V. 70. P. 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-010418-102744
2. 2. Zhan Z., He L., Tong Y., et. al. The effectiveness of gamification in programming education: Evidence from a meta-analysis // Comput. Educat.: Artific. Intelligence. 2022. V. 3. 100096 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CAEAI.2022.100096
3. 3. Nouchi R., Taki Y., Takeuchi H., et. al. Brain Training Game Boosts Executive Functions, Working Memory and Processing Speed in the Young Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial // PLoS One. 2013. V. 8. e55518 p. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0055518
4. 4. Huang V., Young M., Fiocco A.J. The Association Between Video Game Play and Cognitive Function: Does Gaming Platform Matter? // Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2017. V. 20. P. 689–694. https://doi.org/10.1089/CYBER.2017.0241
5. 5. Selamat S.S., Nasir M.K., Adnan N.H. Investigation of Computational Thinking Skills through Instructional Techniques, Games and Programming Tools // Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2024. V. 23. No. 10. P. 435–452. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.10.21
6. 6. Parsons D., Haden P. Parson’s Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses // Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education. Australian Computer Society, Inc. 2006. V. 52. P. 157–163.
7. 7. Murphy M., Spillane K., Cully J., et. al. Can Word Puzzles be Tailored to Improve Different Dimensions of Verbal Fluency? A Report of an Intervention Study // J. Psych. Elsevier Publ. 2016. V. 150. P. 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1182887
8. 8. Friedlander K.J., Fine P.A. Fluid Intelligence is Key to Successful Cryptic Crossword Solving // J. Expert. 2020. V. 3. P. 101–132.
9. 9. Juricic V., Radoˇsevic M. Puzzle-like programming languages in teaching programming // 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics, MIPRO 2019 – Proceedings. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. 2019. P. 542–546. hoi.org/10.239ttps://d19/MIPRO.2019.8757192
10. 10. Fakhoury S., Ma Y., Arnaoudova V., Adesope O. The Effect of Poor Source Code Lexicon and Readability on Developers’ Cognitive Load // 2018 IEEE/ACM 26th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). Gothenburg, Sweden. 2018. P. 286–28610.
11. 11. Wassila D., Tahar B. Using serious game to simplify algorithm learning // International Conference on Education and e-Learning Innovations, ICEELI 2012. 2012. P. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEELI.2012.6360569
12. 12. Liu Y., Tan J., Yang Z., et. al. Application Study of Collaborative Multi-Model in Wordle Game // 5th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computer Application (ICMLCA). 2024. P. 591–596.
13. 13. Zhang Z., Wang S., Sun D. A Study of Wordle Games Based on Mathematical Models // IEEE 2nd International Conference on Control, Electronics and Computer Technology (ICCECT). 2024. P. 813–817.
14. 14. Wang S., Zhou G., Zhang Z., et. al. Exploring wordle: a data-driven analysis of gameplay dynamics, mathematical modeling, and educational implications // Proc. SPIE 13219, Fourth International Conference on Applied Mathematics, Modelling, and Intelligent Computing (CAMMIC 2024). 2024. 132190F. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3036932
15. 15. Cunningham-Nelson S., Boles W., Trouton L., et. al. A review of chatbots in education: Practical steps forward // 30th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2019): Educators Becoming Agents of Change: Innovate, Integrate, Motivate. Engineers Australia, Brisbane, Queensland. 2019. P. 299–306.
16. 16. Setiawan H., Phillipson S. The effectiveness of Game-Based Science Learning (GBSL) to improve students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis of current research from 2010 to 2017 // REID (Research and Evaluation in Education). 2019. V. 5. P. 152–168. https://doi.org/10.21831/REID.V5I2.28073
17. 17. Karako，c B., Eryılmaz K., Turan ¨Ozpolat E., et. al. The Effect of GameBased Learning on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis Study // Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2020. V. 27. P. 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10758-020-09471-5
18. 18. Connolly T.M., Boyle E.A., MacArthur E., et. al. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games // Comput. Educ. 2012. V. 59. P. 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2012.03.004
19. 19. Vahldick A., Mendes A.J., Marcelino M.J. A review of games designed to improve introductory computer programming competencies // Proceedings – Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. 2014. P. 1–7. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044114
20. 20. Miljanovic M.A., Bradbury J.S. A review of serious games for programming // Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2018. V. 11243 LNCS. P. 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02762-9_21/COVER
21. 21. Giannakoulas A., Xinogalos S. A Review of Educational Games for Teaching Programming to Primary School Students // Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education. 2020. P. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4576-8.ch001
22. 22. Falkner N., Sooriamurthi R., Michalewicz Z. Puzzle-based learning for engineering and computer science // Computer (Long Beach Calif). 2010. V. 43. P. 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2010.113
23. 23. Khamparia A., Pandey B. Effects of visual map embedded approach on students learning performance using Briggs-Myers learning style in word puzzle gaming course // Comput. Elect. Engin. 2018. V. 66. P. 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPELECENG.2017.12.041
24. 24. Toma M., Halpern D.F., Berger D.E. Cognitive Abilities of Elite Nationally Ranked SCRABBLE and Crossword Experts // Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2014. V. 28. P. 727–737. https://doi.org/10.1002/ACP.3059
25. 25. Hambrick D.Z., Salthouse T.A., Meinz E.J. Predictors of crossword puzzle proficiency and moderators of age-cognition relations // J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1999. V. 128. P. 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.2.131
26. 26. Makasi T., Nili A., Desouza K.C., et. al. A Typology of Chatbots in Public Service Delivery // IEEE Softw. 2022. V. 39. P. 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2021.3073674
27. 27. Marikyan D., Papagiannidis S., Rana O.F., et. al. “Alexa, let’s talk about my productivity”: The impact of digital assistants on work productivity // J. Bus. Res. 2022. V. 142. P. 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.01.015
28. 28. Kimani E., Rowan K., McDuff D., et. al. A Conversational Agent in Support of Productivity and Wellbeing at Work // 8th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, ACII 2019. 2019. P. 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2019.8925488
29. 29. Gkinko L., Elbanna A. Hope, tolerance and empathy: employees’ emotions when using an AI-enabled chatbot in a digitalised workplace // Information Technology and People. 2022. V. 35. P. 1714–1743. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2021-0328/FULL/PDF
30. 30. Bavaresco R., Silveira D., Reis E., et. al. Conversational agents in business: A systematic literature review and future research directions // Comput. Sci. Rev. 2020. V. 36. 100239 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSREV.2020.100239
31. 31. Brandtzaeg P.B., Følstad A. Why people use chatbots // Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2017. V. 10673 LNCS. P. 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_30
32. 32. Fotheringham D., Wiles M.A. The effect of implementing chatbot customer service on stock returns: an event study analysis // J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2023. V. 51. P. 802–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11747-022-00841-2/TABLES/6
33. 33. Ciechanowski L., Przegalinska A., Magnuski M., et. al. In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human-chatbot interaction // Futur. Generat. Comput. Syst. 2019. V. 92. P. 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURE.2018.01.055
34. 34. Thakkar J., Raut P., Doshi Y., et. al. Erasmus AI Chatbot // Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2018. V. 6. P. 498–502. https://doi.org/10.26438/IJCSE/V6I10.498502
35. 35. Sidaoui K., Jaakkola M., Burton J. AI feel you: customer experience assessment via chatbot interviews // J. Servic. Management. 2020. V. 31. P. 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2019-0341/FULL/PDF
36. 36. Zhou L., Paul S., Demirkan H., et. al. Intelligence Augmentation: Towards Building Human-Machine Symbiotic Relationship // AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction. 2021. V. 13. P. 243–264. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00149
37. 37. Gkinko L., Elbanna A. The appropriation of conversational AI in the workplace: A taxonomy of AI chatbot users // Int. J. Inf. Management. 2023. V. 69. 102568 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2022.102568
38. 38. Rizomyliotis I., Kastanakis M.N., Giovanis A., et. al. “How mAy I help you today?” The use of AI chatbots in small family businesses and the moderating role of customer affective commitment // J. Bus. Res. 2022. V. 153. P. 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.08.035
39. 39. Chen Q., Gong Y., Lu Y., et. al. Classifying and measuring the service quality of AI chatbot in frontline service // J. Bus. Res. 2022. V. 145. P. 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.02.088
40. 40. Tam W., Huynh T., Tang A., et. al. Nursing education in the age of artificial intelligence powered Chatbots (AI-Chatbots): Are we ready yet? // Nurse Educ. Today. 2023. V. 129. 105917 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEDT.2023.105917
41. 41. Zhu Y., Zhang J., Wu J., et. al. AI is better when I’m sure: The influence of certainty of needs on consumers’ acceptance of AI chatbots // J. Bus. Res. 2022. V. 150. P. 642–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.06.044
42. 42. Ruan Y., Mezei J. When do AI chatbots lead to higher customer satisfaction than human frontline employees in online shopping assistance? Considering product attribute type // J. Retailing Consum. Ser. 2022. V. 68. 103059 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRETCONSER.2022.103059
43. 43. Janssen A., Rodr´ıguez Cardona D., Passlick J., et. al. How to Make chatbots productive – A user-oriented implementation framework // Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2022. V. 168. 102921 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHCS.2022.102921
44. 44. Lee D., Yeo S. Developing an AI-based chatbot for practicing responsive teaching in mathematics // Comput. Educ. 2022. V. 191. 104646 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2022.104646
45. 45. Liu C.C., Liao M.G., Chang C.H., et. al. An analysis of children’s interaction with an AI chatbot and its impact on their interest in reading // Comput. Educ. 2022. V. 189. 104576 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2022.104576
46. 46. Johnson C., Urazov M., Zanoli E. Escapeling: A Gamified, AI-Supported Chatbot for Collaborative Language Practice // Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2022. V. 349. P. 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90677-1_14/COVER
47. 47. Варнавский А.Н. Сравнение показателей восприятия игрового чат-бота с заданиями-головоломками для обучения программированию с показателями восприятия других образовательных инструментов // Информатика и образование. 2024. T. 39. № 4. С. 41–50. https://doi.org/10.32517/0234-0453-2024-39-4-41-50
48. 48. Варнавский А.Н. Использование игрового чат-бота для развития навыков алгоритмического и логического мышления // Информатика и образование. 2024. Т. 39. № 2. С. 48–58. https://doi.org/10.32517/0234-0453-2024-39-2-48-58
49. 49. Варнавский А.Н. Модели интереса, сложности и воспринимаемой полезности игрового чат-бота c головоломками по типу Wordle для обучения программированию // Информационные технологии. 2024. Т. 30. № 7. С. 372–381. https://doi.org/10.17587/it.30.372-381