The International Journal of Game-Based Learning is indexed or listed in the following: ACM Digital Library; Bacon’s Media Directory; Cabell’s Directories; DBLP; ERIC – Education Resources Information Center; Google Scholar; INSPEC; JournalTOCs; MediaFinder; ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Journals; ProQuest Computer Science Journals; ProQuest Illustrata: Technology; ProQuest SciTech Journals; ProQuest Technology Journals; PsycINFO®; SCOPUS; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory; Web of Science (All Journals); Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
Editorial Preface v Playful Learning
Alex Moseley, , University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
Research Articles
1 What Really Happens When Adults Play? A Call for Examining the Intersection of Psychosocial Spaces, Group Energy, and Purposeful Play; Jo A. Tyler, Penn State University, Harrisburg PA, USA
11 Playing Digital Security: Youth Voices on their Digital Rights;
Conceição Costa, Lusófona University, CIC.Digital (CICANT Pole), Lisbon, Portugal Carla Sousa, Lusófona University, CIC.Digital (CICANT Pole), Lisbon, Portugal José Rogado, Lusófona University, COPELABS - ECATI, Lisbon, Portugal Sara Henriques, Lusófona University, CIC.Digital (CICANT Pole), Lisbon, Portugal
26 Perceptions of Play: Using Play-Doh to Enhance the Student Experience in Bioscience Higher Education; Gemma Lace-Costigan, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
38 Can Games Help Creative Writing Students to Collaborate on Story-Writing Tasks?;
David Jackson, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester School of Art, Manchester, England
51 We are the Game Changers: An Open Gaming Literacy Programme;
Sylvester Arnab, Coventry University, Disruptive Media Learning Lab, Coventry, United Kingdom Luca Morini, Coventry University, Disruptive Media Learning Lab, Coventry, United Kingdom Kate Green, Coventry University, Disruptive Media Learning Lab, Coventry, United Kingdom Alex Masters, Coventry University, Disruptive Media Learning Lab, Coventry, United Kingdom Tyrone Bellamy-Woods, Coventry University, Disruptive Media Learning Lab, Coventry, United Kingdom
63 Using Formal Game Design Methods to Embed Learning Outcomes into Game Mechanics and Avoid Emergent Behaviour; Simon Grey, University of Hull, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hull, United Kingdom David Grey, York St. John University, York, United Kingdom
Neil Gordon, University of Hull, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hull, United Kingdom Jon Purdy, University of Hull, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hull, United Kingdom
74 Playing Against the Game;
Bernd Remmele, University of Education Freiburg, Institute for Vocational and Business Education, Freiburg, Germany
83 Case Study 1: Playful Team Reflection Using LEGO® Serious Play®;
Tobias Seidl, Stuttgart Media University, Faculty Information and Communication, Stuttgart, Germany
87 Case Study 2: Using Games Based on Giant Dice and Time Restrictions to Enable Creativity When Teaching Artistic or Creative Subjects; Dan Barnard, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom
93 Case Study 3: Students’ Experiences of Interdisciplinary Learning while Building Scientific Video Games; Charlene Jennett, University College London, UCLIC, London, United Kingdom
Sofia Papadopoulou, University College London, Extreme Citizen Science, London, United Kingdom Jesse Himmelstein, Centre for Research and Interdisciplinary, Game Lab, Paris, France
Alexandre Vaugoux, Centre for Research and Interdisciplinary, Game Lab, Paris, France Vincent Roger, Centre for Research and Interdisciplinary, Game Lab, Paris, France Anna L. Cox, University College London, UCLIC, London, United Kingdom
98 Case Study 4: Using Game-Based Learning for Induction;
Osman Javaid, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom
Copyright
The International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL) (ISSN 2155-6849; eISSN 2155-6857), Copyright © 2017 IGI Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this journal may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher, except for noncommercial, educational use including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company names used in this journal are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. The views expressed in this journal are those of the authors but not necessarily of IGI Global.
Volume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September-2017 • ISSN: 2155-6849 • eISSN: 2155-6857
An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association
International Journal of Game-Based Learning
DOI: 10.4018/IJGBL.2017070106 Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited. ABSTRACT Thispaperoffersanapproachtodesigninggame-basedlearningexperiencesinspiredbythe Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics(MDA)model(Hunickeetal.,2004)andtheelementaltetradmodel (Schell,2008)forgamedesign.Acaseforgamebasedlearningasanactiveandsociallearning experienceispresentedincludingargumentsfrombothteachersandgamedesignersconcerningthe valueofgamesaslearningtools.TheMDAmodelisintroducedwithaclassicgame-basedexample andanon-gamebasedobservationofhumanbehaviourdemonstratinganegativeeffectofextrinsic motivators(Pink,2011)andtheneedtocloselyalignorembedlearningoutcomesintogamemechanics inordertodeliveraneffectivelearningexperience.TheMDAmodelwillthenbeappliedtocreatea gamebasedlearningexperiencewiththegoalofteachingsomeoftheaspectsofusingsourcecode controltogroupsofComputerSciencestudents.First,clearaimsintermsoflearningoutcomes forthegamearesetout.Followingthelearningoutcomes,theiterativedesignprocessisexplained withcarefulconsiderationandreflectionontheimpactofspecificdesigndecisionsonthepotential learningexperience.Thereasonsthosedecisionshavebeenmadeandwheretheremaybeconflict betweenmechanicscontributingtolearningandmechanicsforreasonsofgameplayarealsodiscussed. Thepaperwillconcludewithanevaluationofresultsfromatrialofcomputersciencestudentsand staff,andtheperceivedeffectivenessofthegameatdeliveringspecificlearningoutcomes,andthe approachforgamedesignwillbeassessed. KeywoRdS
Elemental Tetrad, Game Based Learning, Games Design, MDA Model, Source Control, Subversion
Using Formal Game design Methods to
embed Learning outcomes into Game
Mechanics and Avoid emergent Behaviour
Simon Grey, University of Hull, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hull, United KingdomDavid Grey, York St. John University, York, United Kingdom
Neil Gordon, University of Hull, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hull, United Kingdom Jon Purdy, University of Hull, School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hull, United Kingdom
INTRodUCTIoN Inthefieldofgamesdesign,designershavelongrecognisedtheroleoflearningingames.Crawford (2011,p.15)makestheassertionthat“thefundamentalmotivationforallgameplayingistolearn” claimingthatthepurposeofgameswastolearnaboutthegamedomain,solvetheproblemsand beatthechallengesitpresentsbydevelopingtherequiredskillstodoso.Koster(2010,p.46)makes aboldclaimthat,“Funisjustanotherwordforlearning.”andthatgamesareultimatelyteachers. Inthefieldofeducation,thebenefitsofpracticalapplicationandexperientiallearninghavealso beenpointsofinterest.Ofparticularinterestistheideaofactivelearning,whichBonwellandEison (1991,p.2)summariseasinvolving“studentsindoingthingsandthinkingaboutthethingstheyare doing”.Itisproposedthatgame-basedlearningfitsneatlyunderthebannerofactivelearning,but
alsothatthedesignofgamebasedlearningiscriticaltoitssuccess.Prince(2004)identifiesthree distincttypesofactivelearning.Theyarecollaborativelearning,cooperativelearningandproblem-basedlearning. Oftenthegoalofgame-basedlearningisengagementwithlearningmaterial.Forplayers, thegamestheyplayareoftenveryengaging.Gros(2007,p.23)pointsoutthat,whilstbeneficial, engagementandmotivationare“notenoughforeducationalpurposes”andalludestogamessometimes havingundesirableemergentoutcomes.However,thegoalofwinningagamerepresentsanextrinsic motivator,onethatisseparatefromthetaskinhand,asopposedtointrinsicmotivationthatcomes fromthetaskitself.Pink(2010)identifiesseveralnegativeeffectsofextrinsicmotivators,including aninabilitytoseethebiggerpicturebeyondanextrinsicmotivator.Thiscouldbearguedisimperative ingame-basedlearningotherwisetheriskisthestudentlearnshowtoplayandwinthegamewithout gaininganunderstandingofthelearningoutcomesthemselves.Desirablelearningoutcomesmustbe wellalignedwithanyextrinsicmotivatorinordertomitigateagainstanypotentialnegativeeffects. Habgood(2005)highlightstheneedforlearningmaterialtobeintrinsicallyintegratedintoa game.Inparticular,gamesdesignedforlearningshould,“embodythelearningmaterialwithinthe structureofthegamingworldandtheplayer’sinteractionswithit,providinganexternalrepresentation ofthelearningcontentthatisexploredthroughthecoremechanicsofthegameplay”(p.6).When playingagameforlearning,studentsmaywellbeengagedinthegame,butthatdoesnotnecessarily meantheyareengagedinthelearning.Itisproposedthatbyintegratinglearningoutcomesinto gamemechanicsthentheexperienceofplayingthegameandunderstandingthestrategiesavailable toachievethegame’sgoalcanbecomeamoregenuinelearningexperience. Marneetal(2012)offeraframeworkofpatternstoenableteacherstocommunicatemore effectivelywithgamedesigners.Thisframeworkbeginswithpedagogicalobjectivesanddomain simulation,againplacinglearningoutcomesattheheartofthegamemechanics.Identifyingthe desiredlearningoutcomesfromtheoutsetisheldinhighregard.
Game design Methodology
Schell(2008)describestheelementaltetradasaconceptualtoolforbetterunderstandinggames design.Fourelementsofgamedesignarelinkedtoformadiamond.Theelementsareaesthetics, story,mechanicsandtechnology.Arguablytherearestrongerlinksbetweenaestheticsandstory,and betweenmechanicsandtechnology,butthegeneralpurposeoftheconceptualtoolistoconsiderif allfouraspectsareworkingtogether,inaconsistentandsynergisticway.Theelementaltetradof gamesdesignisshowninFigure1. Gamedesignisadifficultprocessthatrequiresagreatmanydecisionsmakingitadaunting andtimeconsumingtask.Itmaybetemptingtocreategamebasedlearningartefactsby“skinning” anexistinggamebyaddingthelearningcontentasatheme,payingattentiononlytoaesthetics.An exampleofthismightbeadaptinganexistinggamebychangingthestory,forexample.Giventhe complexityofdesigningagamefromscratchitiseasytoseehowthismightbeanattractiveoption toeducatorswhowanttocombinetheengagingpowersofagamewithlearningoutcomesrelatedto theirteaching,howeverwiththisapproachsomeelementsofthetetradarenotintrinsicallyintegrated becausetheywillhavebeendevelopedindependentlyofthenewstory.Furthermore,becausethe mechanicsmaybeentirelyindependentitmaybepossibletoachievetheextrinsicgoalofwinning thegamewhilstalsocompletelybypassingthestory-basedlearningelements. Schell(2008)describesgamesasdesignedexperienceswhilstalsomakingthepointthatan experienceisuniquetoanindividual,andthatevenwhentwopeopleshareanexperiencetheyeach havetheirownindividualexperienceofthesamething.Thisisanimportantpointwhenconsidering gamesasdesignedexperiences,oreducationalgamesasdesignedlearningexperiences,asexperiences arepersonaltoanindividual,andtheremaybeadisconnectbetweenthedesignerandtheplayer.This isalsoakeytenantoftheMDAmodelofgamesdesign,whichisshowninFigure2.
TheMDAmodel(Hunickeetal,2004)identifiesagapbetweentheroleofagamedesigner,who createstherulesofagame(Mechanics)andtheplayerwhoenjoystheoverallemotionalexperienceof thegame(Aesthetics)recognisingadistinctionbetweengamedesignerandgameplayer.Inbetween therulesisemergentbehaviour(Dynamics)thatcomesaboutasaresultoftherules.Dynamicscan beunpredictableandcouldenhancethegameplayorcouldbedetrimentaltotheexperience.Asan exampleofdynamicsHunickeetal(2004)offertheconceptofbluffinginpoker,orbullyingplayers withfewerresourceswithwhichtobet.Thesebehavioursarenotexplicitlyintherules,butrather theyrepresentstrategiesthatcomeaboutasaresultoftherules. AsimilarphenomenontothedynamicemergentbehaviourdescribedbyHunickeetal(2004) existsoutsideofgames.Briefly,inaseparatestudytomeasureengagementofstudentswitha particularcourse,theauthorscollecteddatafromasign-inattendanceregistrationmechanismfor practicallaboratoryclasses.Whenstudentsattendscheduledpracticalprogrammingactivitiesthey arerequiredtosigninthroughanIP-lockedwebbasedsystem,withpersistentfailuretoregister attendanceresultinginremedialaction.Analysisofattendanceinpracticalprogrammingactivities showsonlyaveryweakcorrelationwithstudents’performanceinthemodule.Inthesameactivities, theworkgiventothestudentrequiresthemtointeractwithsourcecontrolwhichrequiresthemto uploadchangestoacentralserverseveraltimesduringeachsession.Inacomparisonoftimesstudents registeredtheirattendanceandtimeswhenstudentsinteractedwiththesourcecontrolsystemitwas notedthatfor35%ofregisteredattendancestherewerenointeractionswiththesourcecontrolsystem fortwohourseithersideofthatattendance.Inthisexamplethemechanicsorrulesarethatstudents mustsignintothelabattheappropriatetimeorfaceremedialaction.Thedesirabledynamicisthat theyattendthelab,completethelabworkandachievethelearningoutcomes.Theobserveddynamic isthatstudentsengagedwiththeattendancemonitoringsystem,butbecauseofthelackofinteraction withthesourcecontrolsystemitseemsthattheyoftenfailedtoengagewiththeteachingmaterial. Figure 1. The Elemental Tetrad (Adapted from Schell, 2008, p. 42)
UsingPink(2010)weidentifytheremedialactionforpersistentlackofattendanceasanextrinsic motivator,motivatingstudentstoengagewiththeattendancemonitoringsystem.Thefrequencywith whichstudentscircumventedtheattendancemonitoringsystemalsoshowednosignificantcorrelation withperformance,highlightingthatstudentswerewillingtocheatthesystemregardlessoftheirability. AlthoughSchell(2014,p.43)makesthepointthatinhiselementaltetrad“noneoftheelementsis moreimportantthantheothers”itisproposedthatwhendesigninggamebasedlearningexperiences thelearningoutcomesshouldbeintrinsicallyintegratedintothecoremechanicsinordertoavoid incentivisingpotentiallyundesirableemergentbehaviourthatexistsintheMDAmodelbetweenthe mechanicsandtheaesthetics. MeTHod Itisproposedthatexperienceoftheuseofsourcecontrolisavaluableskillforanycomputerscientist. Furthertothis,itisalsoproposedthatthebenefitssourcecontroloffersacomplimentarytostudents whoarelearningtoprogram.Withoutsourcecontrolexperimentingincodecarriesariskofintroducing bugs,orbreakingthecodeentirely.Sourcecontroladdstheabilitytorevertcodetoanyprevious version,reducingtheriskofexperimentationandthereforeincreasingtheopportunityforlearning. Inthisstudy,weattempttocreateacardgametoteachstudentshowcentralizedsourcecode versioncontrolsoftwareworks.InspirationhasbeentakenfromtheMDAmodelofgamedesign,the elementaltetrad,andtheideaofintrinsicintegrationoflearningoutcomes,placinggamemechanics frontandcentreofalldesignprinciples.Thissectionwillguidethereaderthroughthedesignprocess. AswithMarneetal.’s(2012)approachthefirstconsiderationwaspedagogicalobjectivesanddefining thelearningoutcomes.Nextadditionalconstraintswereconsideredrelatingtothepracticalityof whatispossibleandappropriateinateachingenvironment.Onceacoresetofmechanicswere developedbaseduponthedefinedlearningoutcomesinitialplaytestingbegan.Duringplaytesting severalmechanicsweretrialedanddiscarded.However,forthepurposesofclarityinthisdocument adescriptionofthefinalgameisofferedbeforedetailsofwhichmechanicswereremovedandwhy. Thisshouldgivethereadersomecontextinwhichtounderstandthedesigndecisionsthatweremade. Learning outcomes Centralizedsourcecodeversioncontrolsoftwareallowsmultipleprogrammerstoworktogetheron thesamesourcecodebyeditingalocalworkingcopy,committingtheirchangestoacentralized ‘golden’copyandupdatingtheirlocalworkingcopywithchangesfromotherprogrammers.The learningoutcomesofthisgameweretoincreasestudents’awarenessoftheterminologyusedbya specificimplementationofacentralizedsourcecodeversioncontrolsystemcalledSubversion(or SVN)aswellasanappreciationfortheunderlyingoperationsemployedbySVNandhelpovercome thelearningcurvethatstudentsfacewhentheyarefirstintroducedtosourcecontrol. Additional Constraints Otherpracticalconstraintswerealsoconsidered.Onerestrictionwasthefactthattherecouldonlybe afinitenumberofphysicalgameartefacts(inthiscasecards)withwhichtoplay,whereasinreality thedigitalartefactsthatthesephysicalartefactsrepresent(files,changestofiles,etc.)arepractically limitless.Anotheradditionalconstraintwasthatofplayingtime.Theoriginalgoalwasthatthegame couldbelearntandplayedtwiceinaonehoursession. design Approach Inordertoembedthelearningoutcomesandcorecomponentsofthegamemechanicsacardbased simulationofsourcecontrolwascreated,representingthegamestatethroughfilesinplayers’local WorkingCopies,andthecentralisedGoldenCopy.Playerscanchangethegamestatebyusingaction cards,whichalsocloselyrepresentthelearningoutcomes.
Actioncardsaredraftedinroundsaddinganelementofchancetothegame,whilstproviding playerswithmeaningfulchoices.Additionalmechanicswereaddedinordertocreateanon-trivial problem.Withoutthesemechanics,itwaseasytoavoidsomeofthemorecomplexinteractions withsourcecontrol.Thechangedeckcardsrepresentworkthatmustbecompleted.Thisaddstothe narrativeandalsoplacesconstraintsonwhichfilescanbechangedintheWorkingCopy.Thechange deckalsocreatesacleargoalofcommittingallchangestothegoldencopywithinalimitednumber ofrounds(ordays)beforeadeadline. Final Game
Itwouldbehelpfultofirsthaveanunderstandingofthefinalgame,entitledCheck It Out!,inorder tounderstandsomeofthedecisionsmadeinthedesigningthegame.Check It Out!isacooperative cardgamethatsimulatestheprocessofcreatingawebsiteasateamusingacentralisedsource controlsystem.Playedoversevenrounds,eachplayerhasapersonalWorkingCopyofthewebsite. AnexampleofthegamebeingplayedcanbeseeninFigure3. OverthecourseofthegameeachplayeracquiresChangecardsthatrepresentchangestheymust maketothewebsite.IneachroundplayersdraftActioncardsthattheycanusetomakechangesto theirWorkingCopy.ThegamealsofeaturesasharedGoldenCopyofthewebsite.Playersmustuse actioncardstoCommitchangesfromtheirindividualWorkingCopiestothesharedGoldenCopy. PlayerscanalsouseactioncardstoUpdatetheirindividualWorkingCopies.Playersareprevented fromperforminganactionthatwouldoverwriteanyexistingchanges.Thisismanagedbyusingten-sideddiceplaceduponfilesinboththegoldencopyandtheworkingcopytotrackrevisionnumbers ofeachfile.ThegameiswonifallthechangesarecommittedtotheGoldenCopybeforetheend ofthelastround. Table1showsasummaryofthegamemechanics,whytheywereincluded,whethertheyany unexpectedemergentbehaviourwasobservedandwhetherthatbehaviourisperceivedtohavea significantimpact.Draftingprovidesmeaningfulchoices,andallowsplayers(whounderstand whattheyshoulddo)theopportunitytoinfluencetheirsuccess.Changecardsprovideaneasyto understandexpressionofthegoalofthegameaswellaspresentinglimitationonwhatfilesaplayer canedit,whichincreasethelikelihoodofconflictsoccurring.Asthereisapracticallimitonthe numberoffilesavailabletheaddfilecardhasaspecialsetofrulesthatensurethatonlythelimited filesavailablecanbeadded;thiscausedsomeconfusionamongstplayers.Arulewhichstatesthat playersmustattempttoplayallactioncardsincreasesthelikelihoodofconflictsandgivesstudents moreopportunitytounderstandwhateveryactiondoes. discarded Mechanics Duringthefirststagesoftestingsomedifferentmechanicsweretrialedanddiscardedbecauseofthe apparentdynamicsthattheycreated.Onemechanicthatwasquicklydiscardedwasanattemptto simulateprogrammers’useofsourcecontrolindependentlybyplayingandresolvingactioncardsin twoseparatephases.Actionswereplayedinorderfacedown,andthenresolvedoneaftertheother preventingplayersfrompredictingtheexactstateofthegoldencopywhentheyplaytheircards.This provedtimeconsumingandmadecooperationbetweenplayersdifficultandsowasreplacedwitha systemwhereActioncardsareresolvedimmediatelyastheyareplayed. Anothermechanicthatwasrefinedwasthewincondition.Initiallythegamewascompetitive. Atthisstage,therewerenochangecardsandthewinconditionwasbaseduponhowmanycommits hadbeenmade,andwhichplayercommittedfilesmostrecently.Behaviouremergedasaresultof thecompetitivewinconditionwhenanotherplayerwaslikelytowin,andotherplayerswouldwork explicitlytopreventthatplayerfromwinning.Assoftwaredevelopmentisacollaborativeprocess,and sourcecontrolisacollaborativetool,thisseemedinappropriate.However,anargumentwasmadethat, inordertosuccessfullyblockaplayerfromwinning,otherplayersrequireagoodunderstandingof sourcecontrol,andsotherewasstillpotentialforlearningwhilsthavingacompetitivegoal.Another
effectofthisblockingbehaviourwasthatthetimetakentoplayagamewasextendedandbecame unpredictable,sothedecisionwasmadetomakethegameacooperativeone.Thisdemonstratesthe potentialdetrimentaleffectthatundesirableemergentbehaviourcouldhaveonstudentsachieving learningoutcomes. Anotherstrategytestedwastomakethegamesemi-cooperativebyintroducingindividualsecret goals,howeverthisoftenservedtomakeplayersbehaviourunpredictableandfrustratingforothers. Asaresult,thegamewaschangedtobecomeentirelycooperativewhichismoreinlinewiththe purposeofsourcecontrol.Thegoalnowwassimplytomakeacertainnumberofcommits. Atthisstage,anyplayercouldmakechangestoanyfile,andtheresultwasthatplayersadopted specificfilesandonlymadechangestothosefiles.Thisisagoodstrategywhenusingsourcecontrol inapracticalapplicationtoavoidsomeofthemorecomplicatedeventsthatoccurwhenanattempt ismadetooverwriteoneperson’schangeswithanother.However,thismeantthatplayersofthe gamegotnoexperienceofthoseeventsbypassingsomeoftheintendedlearningoutcomes,andthat winningbecametrivial.ThisproblemwasaddressedbyintroducingtheChangecards,whichrestrict whichfilescanbechangedbyplayersandmakeitlikelythatmultipleplayersareforcedtoworkon thesamefilesatsomepoint. Insummary,mechanicswerediscardedbecausetheyeitherhadanegativeimpactonartificial constraintssuchasthedesiredplayingtime,orbecausetheypromotedemergentbehaviourthatwas contrarytothenatureoftheuseofsourcecontrolorcompromisedthelearningoutcomes.Asaresult ofthesemechanicsbeingremovedbehavioursarosethatmeantsomeofthemoreadvancedlearning outcomeswerenolongerbeingmetbecausetheywereeasilyavoided.Toremedythis,theadditional constraintofthechangecards,wasintroducedtoincreasethelikelihoodthattheseadvancedlearning outcomeswouldariseatsomepointduringthegame.
ReSULTS
Duringthefinalstageofplaytesting,studentsandstaffwereinvitedtoplayCheck It Out!.Participants whovolunteeredtotakepartinthestudywereaskedtofilloutasurveybeforeandafterplayingand wereobservedthroughout. TheLikertscalewasusedtoprovideresponsestoallthesurveyquestions.Priortoplayingthe gameparticipantswereaskedhowwellfelttheyunderstoodsourcecontrolterminologyandhowwell theyfelttheyunderstoodcentralizedversioncontrolsystems.Theywerealsoaskedwhetherthey enjoyedplayingboardgames.Duringthepost-gamesurveythefirsttwoquestionswereaskedagain forcomparison,andparticipantswerealsoaskediftheyfeltthattheirunderstandinghadimproved. Thepost-gamesurveyalsoincludedquestionsonwhetherparticipantsthoughtthegamewasan effectivemethodforteachingstudentsaboutsourcecontrol,andwhethertheyfoundthegametobefun. Table 1. Game mechanics, their motivation and resulting dynamics behaviour
Mechanic Motivation Unexpected Emergent Behaviour Potential
Impact (Low, Medium,
High)
Drafting
Actions Provideplayerswith meaningful choices Noneobserved N/A ChangeCards Increase likelihoodof conflicts Noneobserved N/A Working Copy/ GoldenCopy Simulation Learning
Outcome Noneobserved N/A
ActionCard-
AddFile LearningOutcome Noneobserved N/A
Addfile distinctive rules Practical game constraints Addedconfusion M ActionCard-
EditFile LearningOutcome Noneobserved N/A
ActionCard -Commit Changes
Learning
Outcome Noneobserved N/A
ActionCard–
Update LearningOutcome Noneobserved N/A
ActionCard -Resolve Conflicts
Learning
Outcome Someparticipantsseemedtoviewthisasawasteofanactionandmadeapointofusingitfirsteveryround. L ActionCard
-Revert Changes
Learning
Outcome Somestudentsseemedtoviewthisasawasteofanactionandmadeapointofusingitfirsteveryround.Failingtousethisfirst sometimesresultedinstudentsrevertingchangesunnecessarily. M Allaction cardsmustbe played Increase likelihoodof conflicts Thiscombinedwithcardorderleadtosomestudentsreverting changesunnecessarily. M
Therewereatotalof23participantswhoplayedthegamein6groups.Onegroupwasmadeup of5membersofstaffwhilsttheother5groupsweremadeupofstudents. TheLikertscaleresponseswereconvertedtonumbersbyencodingthevaluesstronglydisagree, disagree,neitheragreenordisagree,agreeandstronglyagreewithnumbersfrom-2to2.Forthe questionsthatwererepeatedbeforeandafterthegameconcerningtheperceivedunderstandingof sourcecontrolterminologyandcentralisedsourcecontrolmechanisms,thestudentparticipantsshowed anaverageincreaseof0.44and0.78respectively.Inresponsetothestatement“Myunderstandinghas improved”,themajorityofstudentsansweredpositivelywithstudentsansweringagreeorstrongly agree8timeseach.Staffparticipantstypicallydidnotreportanincreaseintheirunderstanding becausetheyindicatedthattheyalreadyhadagoodunderstandingofsourcecontrol. Table2showsasummaryoftheresponsestotheremainingpost-gamequestionsforallgroups. Thegamereceivedaverypositivereceptionfromthemajorityofparticipants.Perhapsoneofthe moresurprisingaspectswasthepositiveresponsetothegamebeingfun.Thiswasnotastrong considerationwhendesigningthegame,andsoitcouldbearguedthatthislendssupportiveevidence toKoster’s(2010,p46)assertionthat“funisjustanotherwordforlearning”. observations Althoughitwasnotexplicitlystatedintherules,allgroupsthatplayedthegamechosetoshare informationonwhattheyneededtodoatsomepointinthegame.Somegroupsexplicitlycommented abouttheimportanceofcommunicationthroughoutthegame. Despitemanyplayersbeingfamiliarwithsourcecontrolitseemsthatmanyhadusedsource control,butperhapsdidnotappreciatesomeoftheintricacies,sostillappearedtohaveapositive learningoutcome. Oneofthelearningoutcomesconcernstheconflict,whichisasourcecontroltermusedwhen anupdatepulledfromthecentralizedgoldencopywouldoverwriteachangeinthelocalworking copy.Everygroupexperiencedatleastoneconflictwhilstplayingthegame,whichwasoneofthe desiredeffectsofthechangedeckmechanic. Onestudentcomplainedthatundertherulesofthegame,cardsapplytoallfilesintheworking copy,whensourcecontrolsystemsoftenallowthesamecommandstobeappliedtoindividual files.Itcouldbearguedthatapplyingthesesortsofoperationstoindividualfilesmayrepresentbad practicesothisrestrictionisdeemedacceptable.However,thepotentialforstudentstolearnthatthis restrictionistheonlywaytointeractwithversioncontrolisalittleconcerning. Oncestudentsseemedtounderstandwhatwasgoingon,theyappearedtocareabouttheoutcome. Thegameseemedwellbalancedinthatgroupseithermarginallywonormarginallylost. Participantsplayedingroupsof3,4or5players,whilstthegamesupportsupto6players.Itwas intendedthatthegamelengthshouldbethesameforallgroupsizes.Forthatreason,muchofthe decisionmakingduringthedraftingphaseoccursinparallel.However,althoughthedraftingmechanic shouldensurethelengthofthedraftingphaseisthesameforgroupsofallsizes,theactionplaying Table 2. Post-game survey responses concerning efficacy and fun
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
“CheckItOut”isaneffectivemethodof teachingaspectsofsourcecontrol 0 0 1 13 9 Learningthroughplayingagamewasmore engagingthanmoretraditionalmethods 0 1 0 5 17 Thegamewasfun 0 1 0 12 10 Iwouldplaythegameagain 0 1 0 9 13
phasetooksignificantlylonger.Onegroupoffivefailedtofinishthegameinthetimeavailableto them.Italsotooklongerforlargergroupstograsptherules. Allothergroupseithercompletedthegame,orcameveryclosetocompletingthegame.In fact,allgroupswhofelljustshortinsistedonplayinganadditionalroundtocompletethetaskwith oneextraday.Onepotentialandunanticipatedreasonforthismightbethepowerofthenarrative, inwhicheachroundrepresentedaday,countingdownthedaystoadeadlinethatmustbemet.It isproposedthathadthisbeenascoreorsomeothermorearbitrarymethodofkeepingtrackofthe roundsthenthenarrative,andthegoalthatitserveswouldbefarlesscompelling.Thecountdown ofdaystowardsadeadlineseemedtoaddathematicelementandacompellingfeedbackmechanism showinghowclosegroupsweretofailureofsuccess.Thosethatlostallplayedanadditionalround whichallowedthemtocompletethegame.ThedaytrackerisshowninFigure4. Twoobservationsleadtotheconsiderationoffuturechangestothegamerules.Thefirstisthat somestudentscommentedthatitseemedtherewastoomanyofonecardoranother,inparticular thosecardsthatwereusedtoresolveconflicts.Onegroupmadeahabitofalwaysplayingthosecards earlyintheround,whichwasnotedasemergentdynamicbehaviour.Asaresultofthisthenumber ofthesecardsmaybereduced. Thesecondobservationthatmayleadtoarulechangeisthatthebiggestfactorinthesuccess orfailureofgroupstobeatthegameappearedtobehowquicklytheywereabletoaddallrequired files.Thiscouldberemediedbychangingthewaythatafailedaddfileactionisdealtwith.Inorder topreventthegamestatefromgettingimpracticallyconfusingthereareonlyfourAddFilecards– oneforeachfilethatcanbeadded.UndercurrentrulesonceafilethatwasaddedusinganAddFile cardissuccessfullycommittedtothegoldencopyatthatpointtheAddFilecardisremovedfrom thegame.Thisisdeemednecessarytostopthestateofthegamebecomingunworkable,whichis thelikelyoutcomeifplayersstartaddingdifferentversionsofthesamefilestotheirworkingcopies. IfthechangethataddedthefileisrevertedtheAddFilecardisputinthediscardpile.Inthiscase, playersmustwaituntilalltheremainingactioncardsintheactiondeckareused,andanewaction deckiscreatedbyshufflingthediscardpile.OnewaytoremedythismightbytoinsteadputtheAdd FilecardonthetopoftheactiondeckwhenanAddFilecard’sactionisrevertedinsteadofbeing putintothediscardpile.Thenthatcardcouldbeplayedagainbysomeoneonthenextturninstead ofhavingtowaitforittobedealtagainlaterinthegame. CoNCLUSIoN ThegoalofCheckItOutwastodesignagame-basedlearningexperiencebyembeddingthelearning outcomesintothecoremechanicsinanattempttoavoidundesirableemergentbehaviourthatmay becounterproductivetothelearningexperienceoftheplayers.Whilstthiswasforthemostparta success,emergentbehaviourwasstillevidentasaresultofothermechanicsthatwereintroduced toovercomepracticalconstraintsimposeduponthegameworldthatdonotalwaysexistinthereal world.Thepracticalconstraintsaresometimesunavoidable,sothisexperiencenotonlyhighlightsthe Figure 4. Thematic day tracker
importanceofembeddinglearningoutcomesintocoregamemechanics,butalsoensuringthatany othergamemechanicsintroduceddonotcompromisethelearningoutcomesbyintroducingunwanted dynamics.Inthiscasehowever,carefulconsiderationoftheprocesshaskeptthisemergentbehaviour toaminimumandthelearningoutcomesaredeeplyintegratedasacoreaspectofthegamemechanics. Perhapsthemostsurprisingresultisthatplayersappearedtohavefunplayingthegame.This issurprisingbecausefunwasneveraconsiderationindesigningthegame.Therewasagreater expectationthatthegamewouldprovideaneffectivelearningexperiencebutwouldnotbefun. UsingthecategoriesprovidedbyHunickeetal.(2004)itisperceivedthatfunwasderivedfromthe gamesnarrative,challengeandtheaspectoffellowshipprovidedbythecooperativegameexperience. Theresultsofthesurveyareencouraging,showingthatthemajorityofstudentsthoughtthe gamewasvaluable,thattheylearnedsomethingandthatitwasfun.Itwasdisappointingthatitcould notbetestedwithmorestudents.Itwouldhavebeenespeciallyinterestingtotestwithmorestudent whowerelessfamiliarwithsourcecontrolsystems. Oneaspectthatcouldbeimprovedistheratioofdifferenttypesofcards.Thenumberofcards inthechangedeckisalteredaccordingtothegroupsizetoensurethatthechallengeofcompleting alltheworkisappropriatewithafixeddeadlineof7days.Itmaybeappropriatetoalsochangethe ratioandnumberofactioncardsaccordingtothegroupsize,butinordertodosofurthermodelling oftheproblemmightbeappropriate.Thisfallsunderthecategoryoffurtherwork. Onthetopicofteachingsourcecontrolusinggamebasedlearningthereisscopetodesigna digitalgamethatusesanSVNclientastheinteractionmechanism.Thefocusofthecardgameis onrelevantterminologyandmechanicsconcerninghowSVNworks.InordertouseSVNastudent needsapieceofclientsoftware.Itisproposedthatanentirelydifferentgamecouldbedesignedin whichstudentsustheclientsoftwaretochangethegamestate.Whilstthismightnotexposethe innerworkingsofsourcecontrolasexplicitlyatthecardgamethathasbeenpresented,itwouldgive studentspracticalexperienceofusingsourcecontrolinagame-likecontext. Inconclusion,thegoalwastodesignagametoteachstudentsaboutsourcecodecontrol. InspirationwastakenfromtheMDAmodelforgamedesignandtheelementaltetrad,whichleadtoan approachofembeddinglearningoutcomesasintrinsicallyintegratedgamemechanics.Itisproposed thatthisapproachencouragesplayerstounderstandthelearningoutcomesinordertobesuccessful inthegame.Thisaspectseemstohavebeensuccessfulwith89%ofstudentswhoparticipated indicatingthattheirunderstandingofthespecificsourcecontrolsystemhadincreasedasaresultof theexperienceplayingthegame.Whenaddingadditionalmechanicsforpragmaticreasonscarewas takentominimiseanyundesirableemergentbehavior,andthroughcarefulobservationofplayersvery littleundesirableemergentbehaviourwasidentified.Elementsofaestheticsandnarrativethatwere addedthroughgameartefactsprovidedaddedsynergywiththemechanicsaswellastheunexpected observationofanadditionalelementofmotivationformostplayers. ACKNowLedGMeNT Theauthorswouldliketoexpresstheirthankstoallofthestaffandstudentswhotookpartinthis study,andacknowledgethesupportandencouragementofthewonderfulmembersofthePlayful LearningSpecialInterestGroup.
ReFeReNCeS
Bonwell,C.C.,&Eison,J.A.(1991).ActiveLearning:CreatingExcitementintheClassroom.1991ASHE-ERICHigherEducationReports.ERICClearinghouseonHigherEducation,TheGeorgeWashingtonUniversity. Crawford,C.(2011).The Art of Computer Game Design.NewYork,NY:McGrawHillOsborneMedia. Gros,B.(2007).Digitalgamesineducation:Thedesignofgames-basedlearningenvironments.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,40(1),23–38.doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782494
Habgood,M.J.,&Ainsworth,S.E.(2011).Motivatingchildrentolearneffectively:Exploringthevalueof intrinsicintegrationineducationalgames.Journal of the Learning Sciences,20(2),169–206.doi:10.1080/10 508406.2010.508029
Hunicke,R.,LeBlanc,M.,&Zubek,R.(2004,July).MDA:Aformalapproachtogamedesignandgameresearch.
Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI(Vol.4,p.1).
Koster,R.(2010).A Theory of Fun for Game Design.Scottsdale,AZ:ParaglyphPress.
Marne,B.,Wisdom,J.,Huynh-Kim-Bang,B.,&Labat,J.M.(2012,September).Thesixfacetsofseriousgame design:amethodologyenhancedbyourdesignpatternlibrary.Proceedings of theEuropean Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning(pp.208-221).SpringerBerlinHeidelberg.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0_17 Pink,D.H.(2011).Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.NewYork,NY:Penguin.
Prince,M.(2004).Doesactivelearningwork?Areviewoftheresearch.The Journal of Engineering Education,
93(3),223–231.doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Please recommend this Publication to your librarian
For a convenient easy-to-use library recommendation form, please visit: http://www.igi-global.com/IJGBL
Volume 7 • Issue 3 • July-September 2017 • ISSN: 2155-6849 • eISSN: 2155-6857
An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association
all inquiries regarding iJgbl should be directed to the attention of:
Patrick Felicia, Editor-in-Chief • [email protected]
all manuscriPt submissions to iJgbl should be sent through the online submission system:
http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/titlesubmission/newproject.aspx
Adaptive games design for Game-Based Learning • Design of educational games for people with disabilities • Educational video games and learning management systems • Game design models and design patterns for Game-Based Learning • Instructional design for Game-Based Learning • Integration and deployment of video games in the classroom • Intelligent tutoring systems and Game-Based Learning • Learning by designing and developing video games • Learning styles, behaviors and personalities in educational video games • Mobile development and augmented reality for Game-Based Learning • Motivation, audio and emotions in educational video games • Role of instructors • Virtual worlds and Game-Based Learning
Coverage and major topiCs
The topics of interest in this journal include, but are not limited to:
The mission of the International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL) is to promote knowledge pertinent to the design of Game-Based Learning environments, and to provide relevant theoretical frameworks and the latest empirical research findings in the field of Game-Based Learning. The main goals of IJGBL are to identify, explain, and improve the interaction between learning outcomes and motivation in video games, and to promote best practices for the integration of video games in instructional settings. The journal is multidisciplinary and addresses cognitive, psychological and emotional aspects of Game-Based Learning. It discusses innovative and cost-effective Game-Based Learning solutions. It also provides students, researchers, instructors, and policymakers with valuable information in Game-Based Learning, and increases their understanding of the process of designing, developing and deploying successful educational games. IJGBL also identifies future directions in this new educational medium.
mission
Ideas For specIaL Theme Issues may Be suBmITTed To The edITor(s)-In-chIeF
