Behaviour Mapping to Game Elements

Comprehensive behavioural mapping is used to determine the best way behaviour could be modified via the BCW, a crucial component of this process is translating behavioural mapping of target behaviours, being supported by game mechanics. Whilst the BCW process allows researchers and intervention designers to describe problem and

69

target behaviours in detail, the methodology does not present the way these behaviours can be modified in detail. What is required, is the ability to map learning methods and objectives to game mechanics. The BCW process described in Chapter 5, produces a matrix of possible behaviour change techniques, and how they would relate to the target. The manner in which these techniques are translated into game mechanics is an area of active research and exploration (Baranowski et al. 2008; Girard et al. 2013). More specifically relating to this research, Arnab et al. (2015) argues that there is a lack of common vocabulary for game designers and educators, when discussing serious games and their mechanics. Westera et al. (2008) argues that whilst many serious game design methodologies are adequate for use in evaluating whether a serious game and its constituent game mechanics are appropriate, they do not address the relationship between learning constructs and gaming elements. The way game mechanics are tied to educational constructs is still in flux; the following sections outline possible approaches to mapping serious game elements to the outputs of the BCW.

3.4.1.5.1

Gamification

Deterding et al. (2011) defines gamification as integrating game elements into a secondary purpose, or more simply, the application of gaming onto another non-play construct; serious games can be considered as the heavy integration of gamification into the non-play construct. Deterding et al. (2011) present gamification as a space on a two- dimensional axis of play, and completeness (how fragmented or complete the game matches to the entire activity), described in Figure 3-6.

70

Figure 3-6 Gamification Two-Dimensional Model

While the preceding model describes gamification as separate to Serious Games, it can be noted that the completeness axis is a sliding scale, where the level of integration of gamification into the system informs the ‘gamefulness’ of the system; it is after a certain point that the game design informs the gamification, and not the other way around (Deterding et al. 2011). While gamification describes the conceptual idea of creating games with an incentivisation structure, there is debate as to how best to translate the desired outcome of behaviours, into game mechanics. Self-determination theory, as presented by Mekler et al. (2015) claim that empowerment of the individual user through intrinsic motivation can increase feelings of competence. This study relies on the use of points, badges and leaderboards (PBL), and demonstrated that while satisfaction increased with PBL, there was no correlation between increased performance in the activity and feelings of competence. It is apparent that gamification must aim more broadly than PBL when mapping game elements to desired outcomes. Further afield, research into MMORPGs has yielded models of mapping game elements to desired outcomes (Rapp 2017). While the authors of the aforementioned research claim a comprehensive map of game elements to desired behaviours, the analysis is far from generic, and is rooted in social gaming elements and structures. Deterding et al.

71

(2011) argue that gamefulness needs to take a greater precedence over playfulness in serious game design, or more precisely, focusing on the elements by which gaming occurs through, over focusing on elements of play. It is with these thoughts in mind, that a comprehensive game design framework, for use in serious game contexts is yet to become available and be fully vetted by the body of knowledge.

3.4.1.5.2

LM-GM Model

Arnab et al. (2015) describe a model of translating learning mechanics to those of game mechanics, through the use of the LM-GM model. The core component of the LM-GM is the Serious Game Mechanic (SGM), which is: “the design decision that concretely realises

the transition of a learning practice/goal into a mechanical element of game-play for the sole

purpose of play and fun” (Lim et al. 2016, p.1). More simply, an SGM is a core translation

unit, that converts game mechanics into concrete learning mechanics, where the aggregate of these SGMs, “support intrinsic experiential learning”(Arnab et al. 2015). The LM-GM has been employed in a variety of contexts, from soft-skills education (Imbellone et al. 2015), to sexual education (Arnab et al. 2013), to university level engineering courses (Callaghan et al. 2016). describes the LM-GM framework visually. It can be observed that the right column of learning mechanics is derived from extant theories on learning and pedagogy and are employed in a variety of educational materials. The left column describes game mechanics, through which gameplay is enabled. The derivation of these game mechanics comes in part from the work of the Game Ontology Project (Zagal & Bruckman 2008) and the Game Object Model (Amory 2007).

These mechanics describe a wide-range of possible interactions the player of a video game can have. Error! Reference source not found. visually describes a possible categorisation of the LMs and GMs, into a stratified categorised model. It can be observed that LMs and GMs are stratified across six Thinking Skills, which are based on the work of Bloom et al. (1956), for describing strategies of learning. While the LM-GM model captures a wide variety of game and learning mechanics, the model is not exhaustive, and the potential for alternate or rethought mechanics is possible. The usefulness however of the tool lies in the comprehensive presentation of game

72

mechanics, which are a useful link between tools such as the BCW, and GOP for analysing behaviour change, and game mechanics respectively.

This study will attempt to use the LM-GM framework, for translating the outcomes of the BCW process, described in Chapter 5, to meaningful gameplay mechanics.