Development

The two development areas that are of particular relevance to serious game design are learning design and game design. The focus in the former is designing experiences that provide opportunities for efficient awareness and learning. The latter designs focus more on motivation and engagement of their users, in this particular case – learners.

Learning Design

This review here considers state-of-the-art learning design, thus, practices from social constructivism, development of personal learning environments (PLE) and theories around threshold concepts and variation are discussed.

Ideas around social constructivism have become widely appreciated among teaching practitioners. Notably the idea that knowledge is not simply transferred from the knowledgeable to the ignorant, but rather that novices construct their own understanding of new concepts supported by facilitation. Knowledge construction is actually its cognitive integration with previous experiences. From this perspective cognitive scaffolding; forms of support; and differences between the perspectives of teacher and learner are considered. It has been widely agreed and verified that in such a process of help in the form of guidance (or more formally cognitive scaffolding) increases the potential and effectiveness of learning. In this thesis scaffolding has been discussed in the context of PBL and IL (see Section 2.2.2). Cognitive scaffolding has gained popularity and evidential proof recently, but it has been used in an extremely wide variety of contexts, diluting the concept as a result. This ambiguity had been exemplified in greater detail by Pea (2004). Kollar, Fischer and Hesse (2006) distinguished two types of scaffolding with respect to collaborative learning: scaffolds that provide support on a content-related or conceptual level and scaffolds that provide support related to the interactive processes between the collaborators – also called collaboration scripts. Both of these are of interest for this research effort, albeit the latter appears to be more approachable by technological means. In line with the ideas of situated cognition and role models, various cognitive scaffolding

techniques have been used in working practices. Regardless of the wide variance between specific instantiations or whether these are called tutoring, coaching or mentoring, such techniques are being successfully adopted all over the world. One way to distinguish between them could be the argument that coaching and tutoring have the purpose of helping the learner to better understand the subject and learn new knowledge. Mentoring has the purpose of helping one to better understand the environment and support one’s decision-making (compare with Kollar’ findings). Another alleged difference is that tutoring involves assessment, whereas coaching and mentoring commonly rely on the (possibly indirect) assessment of workplace performance.

Devising a portfolio of assessments is work that has been considered as part of curriculum and assessment design. Biggs (2003) for example, discussed of the two different perspectives that teachers and learners take, and in the eyes of the pragmatic learners, learning starts with considering assessment and the objectives that it is going to measure at the end. These views have made a robust case that planning for assessment needs to start with a plan for the learning activity.

One of the developments in the social constructivist tradition is the study of personal

learning environments (PLE). Researchers in this field examined and reinforced emergent

practices in using online technologies to support learning. Attwell (2007) sees in the PLE concept the potential for bringing together learning and knowledge creation (for example for research and development) in organisations. Kompen, Edirisingha, & Monguet (2009) outline some benefits of PLEs for the individual learner: the ability to organise and manage information that is already known, as well as the access to new sources; the chance to integrate tools they have been using with ones that are new and useful to them; the use of the PLE to filter out relevant information. There is evidence that some learners associate entertainment and socialisation with personal learning environments (Kompen et al., 2009).

A wide variety of Web 2.0 tools can be part of the mash-up that typically comprises a PLE, as this was indicated, for example by Trinder, Guiller and colleagues (2008). In an examination of such tools, Kompen and colleagues (2009) outlined four distinct types of PLE, each defined in terms of the tools that are most heavily used: wiki-based, social network-based, aggregator page-based and browser-based. These categories are not exhaustive, but indicate preferred patterns of use. In relation to this, Kompen and colleagues recommended a bottom-up approach towards building a PLE, meaning that

they would leave the initiative to individual learners to select and bring together the tools that they prefer to use. From this perspective, serious games are only one of the tools that can be blended together with the mash-up that forms a PLE. Yet, one could investigate how these main patterns of use match similar patterns of use in gameplay.

Although distinct from the perspectives of teachers and learners, the scope of learning content is also an important decision that needs to be made during the development process. This is even more so when considering the development of serious games, as their development is more costly than traditional lecture preparation. The high cost of game development requires a very careful consideration of learning objectives and methods while designing a serious game. Research around threshold concepts tries to identify learning content that is more troublesome, but is transformative – its grasping allows for deeper understanding of the whole area. Threshold concepts are also said to be

irreversible – once learned it is difficult to ignore them when thinking; integrative –

enable the understanding of underlying interdependencies; and bounded – indicate boundaries of different subjects.

As Davies explicated, even the mere identification of threshold concepts is not a straightforward task (Davies, 2003) and there have been suggestions that these could possibly be culturally dependent (Hulpuș et al., 2010). So it should come as no surprise that the integration of threshold concepts in learning practice is also challenging. Davies and Mangan (2006) suggested this integration should undergo a process from theory to pedagogical principles to learning activities. The aim pursued in this research effort, is that these learning activities converge around game-based learning. Still, the open question that needs an answer is what pedagogical principles would connect the theory surrounding threshold concepts to game-based learning, and how could this happen. This is also aligned with the focus on practical principles that design-based research puts. According to Reeves (1999) as quoted by Herrington and colleagues (2007) “the purpose of [educational research] should be to improve, not to prove” interventions.

Although, the approach to each particular threshold concept might need to be unique and possibly also individualistic to the learner, there is one pedagogical principle that has been repeatedly brought up by researchers – the one of learning variation (Davies, 2003; Davies and Mangan, 2006; Meyer et al., 2008). Variation has been used in learning for many years, probably starting with the work of Dienes (1973), but as already mentioned Marton and Pang (2006) had developed it into to a systematic framework. Researchers, developing

the theory around threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge have argued that variation is exactly the pedagogical principle that would enable learners to grasp the complexity of a particular threshold concept. Possible evidence to support this could be sought in the parallel interests of both the phenomenographic (Pang and Marton, 2003), and threshold concepts (Davies, 2003) communities of the economics notion of supply and demand. The first group observed the effects of learning with the help of variation, the second identified widespread difficulty among learners in grasping the theory. Both focused on the parallel dynamics and interplay of the supply and demand curves as something particularly troublesome to grasp. Such a match has been reinforced by collaborative work, such as the one of Pang and Meyer (2010). However, it remains to be demonstrated that these findings in economics can be transferred also to other cases of troublesome knowledge in other domains.

Finally, findings of the phenomenographic community have converged on a theory of learning variation. Phenomenographics studies have revealed that influencing the learner’s attention through variations helped develop comprehension of challenging phenomena. Variation theory focused on an object of learning, examined in a learning study and through the provision of the necessary conditions.

According to this theory a phenomenon may be understood in different ways, where each way of understanding is associated with a different subset of features relating to the phenomenon. When a certain phenomenon needs to be understood by students, variation theory considers it to be the object of learning (Marton et al., 2004, pp. 3–4), also considered by Winn (2008). Researchers and teaching practitioners are considering different perspectives on it, which take into account all three of the following: the student’s understanding of the phenomenon (Marton’s lived object of learning, or Winn’s

experience); the planned learning activities that would support students (Marton’s intended object of learning, or Winn’s design); and the actual activities as they happen

(Marton’s enacted object of learning, or Winn’s play). Laurrilard’s conversational framework (2001) illustrated in Figure 4 considers the conceptions of the teacher and the learner, as they are conceived (respectively teacher’s concepts and student’s concepts), and how they are enacted (respectively teacher’s constructed environment and learner’s

specific actions). Marton and Winn’s perspectives on one hand, and Laurillard’s on the

other complement each other in a way that they are not derived from one another. Thus, it seems that the objects of learning as described by Marton are the aggregate representation

of the interactions that happen between the objects of Laurillard’s framework. More specifically, the teacher’s collection of reflective feedback from the constructed learning environment and corresponding adaptations represent the alterations in the intended object of learning. Similarly, the interaction between this environment and the student’s actions represent the enacted object of learning. Finally, the way the student reflects on their actions and the adaptations that they develop according to their understanding of the theory is the lived object of learning. All these considerations shed light on the idea that these objects are distinctive and need to be monitored when developing, and subsequently deploying a learning activity (and the corresponding learning technology). This thesis explores approaches to each of the manifestations of the object of learning, and thus indirectly also to Laurillard’s interactions.

Marton’s theory has resulted in a pedagogical framework, called learning study, which puts emphasis on the two notions of variation and invariance. The former essentially brings the concepts into focal awareness, while the latter draws the learner’s attention away from concepts that are less relevant to that particular learning experience (Marton and Booth, 1997). Marton and Booth explained this retraction of the invariant elements in terms of either transcendence or a situation of being taken for granted, which helps in tackling that, which has been considered relevant.

Marton and Pang used the learning study framework for curriculum design (Marton and Pang, 2006). This process can be combined with a consideration of the theory around threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. It seems reasonable to focus closely on the implications of threshold concepts for variation and allow learners to develop better insights. Furthermore, the knowledge that the particular learners bring with them to the learning activity needs to be investigated as a possible source of features to be kept invariant (Marton et al., 2004). A resemblance between variation theory and cognitive

load theory could be drawn, in that both theories put emphasis on learner’s attention and

ways to guide it in incremental steps towards the comprehension of the particular topic being taught.

As part of their work on the variation framework Marton and Pang (2006) identified four conditions that they claimed to be necessary for learning. These conditions are:

1. Contrast – A certain quality cannot be discerned without the simultaneous experience of another quality that is mutually exclusive to it.

2. Separation – A dimension of variation, which can take on different values, cannot be discerned without other dimensions of variation being invariant or varying at a different rate.

3. Generalisation – A certain value in one of the dimensions of variation cannot be discerned from other values in other dimensions of the variation, unless that dimension remains constantly set to that value while the other dimensions vary. 4. Fusion – The interaction of two dimensions of variation cannot be experienced

without experiencing the two dimensions varying simultaneously.

An argument could be made that the approach taken to achieve contrast is a local application of variation, meaning that it views the dimension of the quality of interest, independently of other possible dimensions, as exemplified by Pang (2003). This is a different from the approach of the other three conditions, where a dimension is studied in the context of its interaction with the remaining dimension. Nevertheless, while contrast focuses on a quality being present or not, separation focuses on the entire possible range of values in a dimension. Thus, introducing variation in one dimension by considering different values, serves both as a demonstration of separation for the dimension and contrast for the particular values. Various authors have supported such understanding by providing different perspectives on the same example (Lee, 2008; Lo et al., 2005, p. 21; Marton et al., 2004, p. 16) – one perspective demonstrating contrast on the quality (for example brown), the other one – separation on the dimension (in the example – colour). In his English language teaching, Lee (2008) investigated an instance of learning study from the perspective of professional improvement of teachers. However, in the description of her study, it becomes apparent that the design involved three lessons and only two of the conditions of learning: contrast and separation. Cheng and Ho (2008) designed a learning study on Chinese communicative writing in which they developed variation tasks that aim to involve only separation and fusion. In their book (Lo et al., 2005, pp. 50–56) consider several studies, which selectively involve only some of the four conditions (listed above). Games and Persuasive Technology

As the review in Section 2.3.2 shows, persuasion is a way to motivate learners to effectively engage with the learning activity. Although, the notion of persuasive technologies was introduced by Fogg’s captology (2009, 2002) relatively recently, persuasive techniques have been widely used for much longer. Games have employed such techniques to improve

player engagement and enjoyment. More specifically, the engaging power of different game-playing media and interactive storytelling approaches are discussed here.

Arguably, one of the factors facilitating learning in games, is the fact that these games support role-play experiences including the associated interactions between real people, despite the fact that these experiences happen in a virtual and fictitious environment. In a series of research publications, Anders Tychsen and his colleagues (2006), investigated the similarities and distinctive properties between different forms of role-play. In a more formal cross-format analysis (Tychsen et al., 2007), compared table-top RPGs, computer- based RPGs and a hybrid format that introduced a game master to computer-based RPGs. From that analysis, the authors concluded that table-top RPGs are the most enjoyable format in general. Arguably, this can be attributed to a combination of discussions of fictitious settings and events between players, as well as face-to-face interaction among other factors. An interesting research question is whether these are determinant factors for enjoyment, and whether their transfer to a different format would improve that medium’s enjoyability. It also has the benefit of not imposing a specific paradigm upon user input, thus allowing for creativity and innovation.

The interactive and digital storytelling (IDS) community has adopted, as a key driver, the need to develop other means of interaction beyond the ones commonly found in computer games, or in other words, beyond the typical aggressive interactions (like shooting or hitting) or financial interactions (like buying and selling). The widely discussed alternative is dialogue-based interaction. This has been pursued in a number of interactive storytelling systems. A review of early attempts can be found in Ruskov (2005), and some more recent relevant applications are considered in Section 3.1. However, due to the limitations of current natural language processing and machine understanding of the related cognitive processes, contemporary interactive storytelling systems are unable to satisfactorily comprehend free-form user utterances (Jurafsky and Martin, 2000). Ongoing research in the area so far has focused mainly on the syntax and ontological meaning of words, as well as pragmatics of utterances through classifying them as dialogue acts. To achieve this, approaches like pattern matching (Mateas and Stern, 2004) and controlled (in other words, restricted) language (Crawford, 2004) are being used. However, it could be argued that with the current level of understanding of human cognition, related to conversations, it is more carefully planned pragmatic trickery that could help build sensible dialogue- based systems, rather than profound ontological understanding of all tacit aspects inherent

in conversations.

Captology defines a functional triad (Fogg, 2002, pp. 23–25) suggesting ways how persuasive technology could be used. The three uses in his classification are as tools, as media and as social actors. It could be argued that this triad could loosely correspond to the three main groups of motivations to play, namely achievement, immersion and social motivations. However, the references in this section show that interaction with peers might be more engaging than its technological alternative. Thus, when designing for a persuasive system, technological affordances need to be considered in the context of their non- technological alternatives.