The design of LGs

After having defined the focus of the study regarding GBL (i.e. the design of LGs by teachers), it seems relevant to review the literature related to the design of LGs. To do so, I first broadly review the field of game design, as explored by game studies. Afterwards, I narrow down my exploration to the literature related to educational game design, and to the role of educators in the design process.

Finally, I describe some important aspects to the design and evaluation of LGs.

2.3.1. Game designers’ frameworks

As defined by Salen and Zimmerman (2004), “game design is the process by which a game designer creates a game, to be encountered by a player, from which meaningful play emerges” (p. 80). Game studies provide numerous models proposed by game designers, on the basis of their professional practice.

Djaouti, Álvarez and Jessel (2010) reviewed 36 recent publications related to game design. The authors distinguish between different categories of game design methodologies. For example, some models concentrate on the relationship between the game and the player. In this category, the MDA framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek, 2004) divides the relationship game-player into three

57 different levels, i.e. mechanics (the formal system of rules and mathematics behind the game, including its different components and their relationships), dynamics (the behaviours of the mechanics that arise when the player plays the game) and aesthetics (the emotional responses of the player). In addition, Salen and Zimmerman (2004) propose to analyse and create games by applying three different game design schemas, i.e. rules (a formal schema which focuses on the intrinsic mathematical structures of games), play (an experiential schema which emphasizes players’ interaction with the game and other players) and culture (a contextual schema which highlights the cultural settings into which any game is embedded).

In contrast, Djaouti et al. (2010) highlight several models which concentrate on the design process and describe it in terms of succeeding stages (e.g. Adams & Rollings, 2007; Crawford, 1984;

Fullerton, 2008). I focus on these models, which are more relevant for the purpose of my research.

Indeed, they present an interesting relationship with Amabile’s model of creative process (Amabile, 1983, 1996), and enable to establish a parallel between GBL and creativity. The next paragraphs describe some of the most recognized stage-based models.

Crawford (1984) proposed a formal game design sequence, which he describes as a set of suggested habits that game designers may integrate in their practices:

 Choose a game and a topic: this stage consists of defining the fantasies and types of emotions transmitted by the game, as well as the goal to be achieved by the player. On this basis, it is necessary to select a topic, an environment, and to design a set of conditions and events.

 Research and preparation: this stage is about immersing in the topic, by reading, researching understanding the mechanics of the environment that the game attempts to represent.

 Design phase: it refers to creating, in a simultaneous manner, the outlines of three interdependent structures, namely the I/O structure (the system that communicates information between the computer and the player), the game structure (the internal architecture of causal relationships that define the obstacles the player must overcome), and the program structure (the organization of code and data that make up the entire program).

Furthermore, this stage involves an evaluation phase, which examines the quality of these three structures. If the evaluation is not conclusive, the design process starts again, or the project is aborted.

 Pre-programming phase: it refers to the preparation of the game documentation, i.e.

transferring the design results from the previous stage to paper.

 Programming phase: it consists of programming the game on an informatics support.

 Play-testing phase: it aims to gather information used to correct design and programming problems. The author highlights two forms of play-testing: the first is done by the designer in order to repair bugs, while the second form comes later when the game is given to other play-testers.

 Post-mortem: finally, it is important to listen to the critics made to the game by experts and players, so to take them into account for next games.

In addition, Adams and Rollings (2007) propose an iterative process organized around three stages:

58

 Concept stage: it consists of creating the foundations of the game, by building a general idea, defining an audience, determining the player’s role, and fulfilling the dream (i.e. considering ways to fulfil the player’s dream and determining the essence of the experience).

 Elaboration stage: it refers to moving the design work from the general to the specific, and from the theoretical to the concrete. This is done by defining the primary gameplay mode (e.g. the perspective in which the player views the game world), designing the protagonist and the game world (i.e. where the game takes place), creating the core mechanics and writing the story. Furthermore, this stage involves building, testing, and iterating. Indeed, games should be prototyped before release, and tested at every step of the design process.

 The tuning stage: it consists of making small adjustments to the levels and core mechanics in order to improve the game.

Finally, the game designer Tracy Fullerton (2008) proposes a formal model of the game design process, using the six following stages:

 Conceptualization: as Adams’ concept stage, it consists of coming up with the game concept, by brainstorming, editing and refining ideas. Afterwards, these ideas are tuned into a game, through the definition of formal elements (i.e. conflict, rules, actions of the players, target audience, supporting platform, etc.) and the design of storyboards.

 Prototyping: this stage consists of creating a working model of the idea, which enables to test its feasibility and operate eventual improvements. Usually, designers create physical prototypes, which enable them to focus on gameplay rather than on technology.

 Digital prototyping: after physical prototyping, this stage consists of elaborating a functional prototype of the game.

 Play-testing: it refers to evaluating and revising the game elements in an iterative manner, to gain an insight into whether or not the game is achieving player experience goals. Play-testing can be done through different practices, such as self-testing, testing with the target audience and group testing.

 Functionality, completeness and balance: this stage aims to ensure that gameplay is functional, complete, and balanced. Functionality ensures that the system is set to the point where someone who knows nothing about the game can play it. Internal completeness refers to avoiding loopholes and dead ends. Finally, balance refers to ensuring that the game meets the goals set for the player experience.

 Fun and accessibility: this last stage looks at fun elements (e.g. challenge, play, and story) which engage players with the formal system and keep them emotionally involved in the game, as well as the accessibility of the game for intended players.

In addition, the author provides a set of concrete phases for a game project development, including (a) concept phase (creating a concept document, project plan, budget and contract); (b) preproduction (verifying the feasibility of the idea by creating one playable level or environment of the game); (c) production (executing the vision and plan established in the previous stage, by building the

audio-59 visual resources and programing); (d) quality assurance (polishing the game); and (e) maintenance (monitoring user feedback when the game is shipped and continuing fixing bugs).

Table 1 compares the three stage-based models above mentioned.

Crawford (1984) Fullerton (2008)

Table 1: Synthesis of the different stage-based game design models

As shown in Table 1, the three models present distinct models of stages, which makes it difficult to establish a general process of game design. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of aspects which are recurrent in the different models. First, all authors highlight a concept phase (which correspond to the first two stages of Crawford’s model) which sets the foundations of the game.

Second, all models include play-testing activities with the target audience. Furthermore, Fullerton’s and Adams and Rollings’ models include prototyping activities which consist of testing feasibility.

They also highlight stages during which small adjustments are made to refine the game.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that all models regard the game design process according to an iterative approach, where the basic activities are repeated until reaching a definitive solution. Indeed, Adams and Rollings (2007) recommend building, testing and iterating. In addition, Fullerton (2008) argues, as a key condition of het centric approach, that ideas should be prototyped and play-tested early in the design process, so to operate the necessary adjustments all along the design process.

This iterative aspect of game design also appears in Salen and Zimmerman’s approach (Salen &

Zimmerman, 2004). Indeed, the authors propose a methodology through which the game is tested since the first stages (not later than 20 per cent of the way into a project schedule), thus involving end-users all along the design process. To the authors, iterative design is critical, as it is not possible to anticipate play in advance.

Finally, design documents (i.e. storyboards and other game documentation) appeared as common element in all models. Particularly, Adams and Rollings (2007) recommend producing three different documents, i.e. a high concept document, which serves as a marketing tool, a game treatment document, which outlines development requirements and a timeline, and a game script, which contains the game plot, decision trees, and gameplay elements.

60

2.3.2. Educational game design aspects

After having reviewed literature related to game design, I narrow down to the focus of my research, i.e. educational game design. Numerous authors attempted to provide methodologies for the design of LGs, either on the form of guidelines, sequences of stages, or models focusing on the different areas of action and skills involved by the design process. In this section, I highlight a range of models which are useful to set a background for educational game design in the context of my research.

a) Learning game design principles (Klopfer et al., 2009)

Klopfer et al. (2009) propose a series of principles for educational game design. Among others, the authors recommend choosing wisely (games are a powerful medium, but are not appropriate for all audiences, topics and contexts), think small (the scale and complexity of games should be determined according to the particular learning goals and context. In some cases, a small casual game is the right option), not confuse LGs with commercial games (LGs do not need to equal the high standard of commercial games in terms of budget and aesthetics), put learning and game play first (pedagogical and gaming aspects should be considered in a simultaneous and flexible manner, to allow for iteration between the two), leverage soft skills (besides of specific contents, games should promote 21^st century skills such as problem solving, collaboration and analytical thinking), define the learning goals (clearly define goals a priori enable to show measurable gains in learning), and consider the context of use of the games (i.e. people who play them, instructors who shape the experience, surrounding activities, place where they are played, etc.).

b) An experiential gaming model (Kiili, 2005)

Kiili (2005) proposed an experiential gaming model, which aims to help designers understanding the learning mechanisms in games. The model includes two cycles, i.e. gaming and design. The first one describes the gaming and learning processes which characterise games. It highlight the importance of taking into account several flow antecedents, i.e. balanced challenges, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, a sense of control, playability, focused attention, and a frame story. The second one describes the main phases which compose the game design process: first, a needs analysis enables to identify the needs of learners. Afterwards, in a preinventive phase, designers try to develop creative solutions. These solutions are then elaborated according to flow antecedents, contextual factors and instructional design principles, during a solution generation phase. Solutions are implemented with players through prototyping so to engage end-users in the design process. Finally, a reflective evaluation enables to analyse the game elements and the experience of players.

This model brings valuable considerations to integrate both flow elements and pedagogical aspects.

Nevertheless, the design cycle presents rather generic stages which do not concretely indicate how to integrate pedagogical aspects in the design process.

c) Stages of the educational game design process (Morales, 2012)

Based on models from different disciplines (i.e. game studies, design studies and pedagogical theories of learning), the design researcher Joan Morales (2012) adapts the phases from the mainly accepted frameworks of design process to the particular context of educational game design:

61

 In the informative and analytic phase, he recommends defining the objectives of the project through an initial document. This document defines the general pedagogical objectives of the game, the profile of the group of users, and the context of use.

 At the establishment of the design hypothesis phase, he advices experimenting and conceptualizing the game ideas, during which several hypotheses are considered and tested to arrive to an adequate solution. The author recommends writing down these hypotheses in a design document, which is similar to the high concept document, as described by Adams and Rollings (2007), i.e. a short document which includes a description of the main concept of the game, a list of key-content which outline the idea of the game, a general view on the project’s characteristics, and a description of the pedagogical aspects of the game.

 During synthesis phase and representation of solutions, the author proposes to select and develop one of the hypotheses considered in the previous phase. The author recommends preparing a document called game treatment (Adams & Rollings, 2007), which describes the project’s details in a definitive manner, including a general vision of the game, the main aspects of technology and audio-visual production, a first approach to production details, and a description of the game world. At the pedagogical level, consists of defining the way pedagogical objectives and resources will be integrated in the game. During this phase, initial versions of the software are tested within the work team.

 Finally, at direction of production, he suggests to define the design solutions which will guide the production phase. The author recommends elaborating an exhaustive document, similar to the design script (Adams & Rollings, 2007). It includes the creative, conceptual and functional aspects, including a continuous cycle of testing beta versions with end-users, in order to obtain feedback on their experience.

This model brings a clear set of stages which detail the integration of pedagogical aspects in the design of games, from the perspective of the design discipline. It is now necessary to elicit the different areas of actions and roles involved in the design process.

d) Skills and areas of action required for the creation of a LG

Morales (2012) describes three areas of action at stake during the design of LGs:

 The global design of the playing and learning experience: this area includes the design of the experiential aspects of the game, which will enable the player to achieve the planned gaming and educational objectives. In a holistic manner, the designer should look at the game world and the interaction system, focusing on the player’s experience and satisfaction.

 The art direction of the game world: this refers to shaping the game world through the space, characters, and game tokens. The work involves conceptualizing the game world, design characters, objects and scenes. It also includes the tasks of graphic design, composition and edition of audio elements.

 The design of the rules and the interaction system: this area consists of designing interaction experiences between the player and the game, through a system of rules which corresponds to the pedagogical strategies and the symbolic framework. These patterns should be designed in

62 order to facilitate an experience which is both entertaining and efficient from the learning perspective.

In addition, Whitton (2010) identified a range of skills and expertise that are required to create an LG from scratch, i.e. (a) the subject expert (the one who knows about the domain covered in the game, has experience teaching it, knows what the pedagogical objectives are, and what areas the students are likely to find difficult), (b) the educationalist (the one who understands GBL and learning in general, the age group and backgrounds of the learners, and the design of effective digital games for education), (c) the game designer (the one with an understanding of the elements required to make games fun and engaging), (d) the programmer (the one who can use the development software to create the game as specified by the other team members), (e) the interaction designer (the one with knowledge on user-centred design, so to ensure that the game is as usable as possible), (f) the graphic designer (the one with graphic design skills, to ensure that the game seems professional), and (g) the writer (a dedicated writer may be a useful role in the team). To the author, a single individual would be very talented to possess all of these skills, so it is likely to work in a collaborative manner.

This short review set a background for educational game design. It first enabled to appreciate the importance of taking into account several flow antecedents in the design process (Kiili, 2005). It also provided some concrete stages of action (Morales, 2012), and highlighted the different roles and expertise required to the design of a LG (Morales, 2012; Whitton, 2010).

2.3.3. Teachers as game designers: a literature gap

After having highlighted different frameworks related to the design of LGs, I concentrate on the role of educators in the design process. Nevertheless, while reviewing recent studies, I could observe a literature gap regarding practices of educational game design by teachers.

A wide range of GBL projects have been developed with the partial involvement of instructors in the game design process. For example, the LG Donjons & Radon involved the participation of physics and chemistry teachers in defining teaching models and evaluating of the game prototypes (Marne, Wisdom, Huynh-Kim-Bang, & Labat, 2012).

In addition, the <e-UCM> research group reported different cases in which educators participated in the design of LGs with eAdventure, i.e. participating in decisions related to game dynamics (Moreno-Ger et al., 2010), providing advice and feedback on the game content and flow (Marchiori, Torrente, del Blanco, Moreno-Ger, Sancho, & Fernández-Manjón, 2012), as well as collaborating in writing storyboards (Moreno-Ger, Blesius, Currier, Sierra, & Fernández-Manjón, 2007). Furthermore, Marchiori et al. (2012) reported the development of a LG based on the collaboration of two domain experts (i.e. experienced first-response emergency doctors), an educational expert and a team of computer science engineers. However, no study reports the design of eAdventure LGs in which teachers have a protagonist role.

Some basic authoring applications allow for the design of educational ICT-based activities by teachers. For example, Tarraga Mínguez (2012) highlights two authoring tools. The first one, Jclic, is a famous application which is widely used in Spanish educational centres. It enables teachers to design

63 17 different types of activities, some of them game-like (e.g. memory games, puzzles and crosswords).

The second one, EdiLim, is an editor of interactive books. It allows for the creation of web pages including different activities, such as multiple choice questions, classifications of images and texts, and dictations. These applications enable to easily design a wide range of game-like activities, and can take part of the daily practices of pre-school and primary education teachers. However, these activities cannot be considered as proper games.

2.3.4. Important aspects in the design and evaluation of LGs

On the basis of an analysis of good practices in GBL performed in the context of the ProActive project (Annex 1.1), and by exploring recent literature, I extracted a set of important aspects to be considered for the design and evaluation of LGs. These aspects can be classified in three different categories, namely gaming, pedagogical and usability aspects.

a) Gaming aspects

This category includes the different elements of games which allow for entertainment. It corresponds with the concept of gameplay, which Perrotta et al. (2013) define as “the treatment of topics and ideas

This category includes the different elements of games which allow for entertainment. It corresponds with the concept of gameplay, which Perrotta et al. (2013) define as “the treatment of topics and ideas