Understanding Collaborative Behaviours

The themes obtained from the thematic analyses of the participants’ behaviours during study sessions (Appendix3E) provided insights into the types of collaborative behaviours exhibited by the participants before, during and after interaction with the game (Appendix3F). In this work we use Xtangible, Xgamepad and Xdancemat to represent groups playing the game with the three different controllers. X ranges from A- F and represents the various groups that participated in the study. Also, we used Ci to represent the participants where i range from 1 – 12.

Before the start of game only a single group (Group D) attempted to strategize, with one of the participants observed instructing his partner on how they would play the game as described in the quote “I count one and you tilt left, two right, three shoot.” This observation occurred in the Dtangible condition and in the first ordering (i.e. pairs in the group played with the dance mat first). The pairs in the group were both boys, have known each other for 3 years and spend time with each other at school. Both pairs in the group have previous experience with PS2/PS3 controller, keyboard and game pad; additionally, just one of the participants has previous experience with wiimote, Nunchunk and balance board.

During game play, one of the Participants in groups B, C, D and E while playing with the tangible controller and groups A, B and D while playing with the gamepad were seen to direct their partners on what direction to go and their partners responded for example, one of the pairs in Btangible was observed giving instructions to his partner on what action to take as seen in the quote “Left, right, left, left shoot…” In this work, we term this dominating behaviour. We characterize this as dominating behaviour because one of the pairs controlled the interaction through verbal instructions while the other passively obeyed. In contrast, participants in Cgamepad condition were observed to begin play silently without engaging in any discussion but 10 seconds into game play, one of the participant suggested to the partner a strategy they could adopt to play as seen in the quote “Ok, maybe I shout and you press shoot.” Furthermore, pairs in conditions Atangible, Adancemat, Bdancemat, Cdancemat, Ddancemat, Cgamepad, Dgamepad, and Fgamepad were observed to glance intermittently at each other’s controllers before looking at the screen. This could be as a result of mere curiosity, in response to activities on the screen or to copy partner’s actions. The interaction map served as a means to check if pairs were aware of each other’s actions and to see whether they used it to collaborate. The participants were asked (using a

84 questionnaire) if they noticed the interaction map on the screen. As shown in Appendix3G, all the participants (10 (83%)) apart from those in group D (2(17%)) indicated they noticed the map on the screen. This result was supported by the analysis of the participants’ behaviours as one of the participants in Egamepad was observed to notice the interaction map on the screen. Also, 7 (70%) of those that noticed the map thought they knew the purpose of the map while 3 (30%) did not. However, it cannot be confirmed here if the participants used the map to inform decision on what actions to take as no further probing was made. One of the participants in

Fgamepad used ‘telling by showing’ strategy as the participant was observed to show his partner

what to do using his controller while the partner watched. Participants in Adancemat and Dgamepad asked for help from the researcher regarding the controller while one participant in Bgamepad was observed to point at the screen on two occasions during game play. Furthermore, various affective behaviours such as jumping, laughing, shouting, dancing, high levels of concentration, excitement and frustration were observed.

Although the post-game play behaviours of the participants were not analysed in detail, it was observed that participants in Cdancemat and Dgamepad argued after game play. The arguments were related to how the pairs interacted during game play for example in the quote of participants in the Cdancemat condition as shown below:

P5: “I asked you to press…”

P6: “No, you were supposed to press…”

The participants’ responses during the informal discussion with the researcher are shown in Appendix3H. As seen in the table, the participants’ responses confirmed some of the behaviours observed by the researcher such as copying from partner and dominating behaviours. Participants in Group E mentioned that they used the movement of the birds to decide what direction to go.

As shown in Table4-2, all the strategies identified in the pilot study were observed when the participants played with the game pad; four were observed when they played with the dancemat and two when they played with the tangible controller. An explanation for these observations could be that with the game pad, the physical effort of interaction is much more lower compared to tilting the tangible controller or moving the feet on the dancemat therefore,

85 the participants were lightly cognitively loaded and focussed more on the task at hand (Ang Siang, Zaphiris, & Mahmood, 2007). Furthermore, it is likely that unfamiliar methods i.e. dancemat and tangible controller proved more challenging (as they were learning to use the controllers while playing the game) that was why the participants had less opportunity to think about their strategies.

Table 5-2: Summary of strategies the participants adopted while playing the ECA game

Strategies Game pad Tangible Dance mat

Dominating _{√ √ √}

Suggestion _√ − −

Arguing _√ − √

Looking at each other’s Controllers _{√ √ √}

Ask help from researcher _√ − √

Noticed Map _√ − −

Not Talking (playing silently for 10 seconds) _√ − −

Telling by showing √ − −

Pointing at screen _√ − −

Strategy negotiation before gameplay − √ −