Master
Reference
Proposing a Framework for the analysis of integration in Serious Games
MANZONI, Alex
Abstract
The notion of integration in educational games, namely the way in which the learning content is inserted into a game for efficient learning and increased motivation, remains relatively undefined in the literature (Szilas & Acosta, 2011), and no operational guide to analyse existing educational games has been provided to date. The goal of this master thesis is to design a tool to objectively classify and quantify educational games based on the type and degree of integration between the game and its learning content. For this purpose, two questionnaires have been created, the first assessing the primary learning outcome (cognitive, motor, affective, communicative) targeted by the game being analyzed, and the other providing a guide to classify the game's type of integration based on the framework. The framework's implications for the notion of integration in educational games will be discussed, and propositions for future research on the topic will be provided.
MANZONI, Alex. Proposing a Framework for the analysis of integration in Serious Games. Master : Univ. Genève, 2017
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:98948
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
! !
!
"#$%$&'()!*!+#*,-.$#/!0$#!12-!*(*34&'&!$0!'(1-)#*1'$(!'(!5-#'$6&!7*,-&!
!
!
! !
898:;<=!<=>?;5=!=@!AB=!C=!?D:EF=@F;:@!C=!?>!8>;F<;5=!
B@;A=<5;F>;<=!=@!5G;=@G=5!=F!F=GH@:?:7;=5!C=!?D>""<=@F;55>7=!=F!
C=!?>!+:<8>F;:@!
!!
!
!
! !!
>3-I!8*(J$('!
!!
!!
C;<=GF=B<!C=!8=8:;<=!
"#$%&'(!)*#&'(!+!,-#./0(#12!3/!4/-5./!
!KB<L!
"#$%&'(!)*#&'(!+!,-#./0(#12!3/!4/-5./!
67&#/-!8'!9%(1'!+!,-#./0(#12!3/!4/-5./!!
8/-#(/!)711/0!:#3;/0!+!,-#./0(#12!3/!4/-5./!
6'$%<!='<>%%3!+!)?/@@#/&3!='&&';!,-#./0(#1A!!
!
!!
?;=BM!8:;5!=F!>@@==!
4B"BCB!DE!FDGH!
!!
B@;A=<5;F=!C=!7=@=A=!
+>GB?F=!C=!"5LGH:?:7;=!=F!C=5!5G;=@G=5!C=!?D=CBG>F;:@!
!!
RESUME
The notion of integration in educational games, namely the way in which the learning content is inserted into a game for efficient learning and increased motivation, remains relatively undefined in the literature (Szilas & Acosta, 2011), and no operational guide to analyse existing educational games has been provided to date.
The goal of this master thesis is to design a tool to objectively classify and quantify
educational games based on the type and degree of integration between the game and its learning content.
For this purpose, two questionnaires have been created, the first assessing the primary learning outcome (cognitive, motor, affective, communicative) targeted by the game being analyzed, and the other providing a guide to classify the game’s type of integration based on the framework.
The framework’s implications for the notion of integration in educational games will be discussed, and propositions for future research on the topic will be provided.
“Proposing a Framework for the analysis of integration in Serious Games”
AlexManzoni MasterThesis
Master MALTT
Volt - 2017
Final version
Jury:
NicolasSzilas-UniversitédeGenève JulienDaCosta-UniversitédeGenève DeniseSutterWidmer-UniversitédeGenève
JacobHabgood-SheffieldHallamUniversity
Summary:
Thenotionofintegrationineducationalgames,namelythewayinwhichthelearningcontent targetedisinsertedintoagamethatisalsosupposedtobeengagingfortheplayer,remains relativelyundefinedandnotclearlyunderstoodintheliterature.Althoughattemptshave beenmadebyMalone(1981),Habgood(2005),Szilas&Acosta(2011)tooffersuggestions forwhatkindofintegrationtypesaremoreappropriatethanothers,noattemptstoprovide anoperationalguideinordertoeffectivelyanalyse(andevenquantify)thisconcepton existingeducationalgameshavebeenprovidedtodate.
Thegoalofthismasterthesisistodevelopaframeworktounifyalltherelevantcontributions tothistopicadvancedintheliterature(whileatthesametimeaddingnewnotionsto
completethem),andtoprovideatooltoobjectivelycategoriseandquantifyeducational gamesbasedonthetypeanddegreeofintegrationbetweenthegameanditslearning content.
Forthispurpose,twoquestionnaireshavebeencreated,thefirstassessingtheprimary learningoutcome(cognitive,motor,affective,communicative)targetedbythegamebeing analysed,andthesecondoneprovidingaguidetocategorisethegame’stypeofintegration basedontheframework.
Theunderlyingassumptionisthatcertaintypesofintegrationaremorerelevantthanothers dependingonthelearningoutcomestargeted.
Theframework’simplicationsforthenotionofintegrationineducationalgameswillbe discussed,andpropositionsforfutureresearchonthetopicwillbeprovided.
Index:
1.Introduction………..……...4
1.1.ThepopularityofVideogamestoday………4
1.2.Thecurrent“Seriousgames”landscape………..5
1.3.ThenotionofIntegrationineducationalgames………..6
1.4.Thefirsttheoreticalframeworkonintegration:intrinsicfantasy.………...…...6
1.5.Adifferenttheoreticalframeworkforintegration:integrationbygamemechanics……...7
1.6.Anexperimentaltestoftheefficiencyofgamesintegratedbythegamemechanics.…..8
1.7.Secondaryaspects:the“productionvalues”andcompetition………..9
1.8.Anattempttoclassifygamesintegratedbytheirmechanics………..10
1.9.Learningoutcomes………13
2.Proposingaunifyingframework……….15
2.1.Unifyingthecontributionsintheliterature……….15
2.2.Thebenefitsoftheframework.………16
3.Theelementsoftheframework………...17
3.1.Mechanics………..18
3.1.1.SystemicLearning……….18
3.1.2.Obstacles………22
3.1.3.Winningstrategies……….24
3.1.4.Centralandperiphericmechanics………..25
3.1,5.Difficulty………...……...26
3.1.6.Progression………....27
3.2.MediaandContext……….………….29
3.2.1.Story,FictionalWorld,Images………...………….29
4.1.Howitworks………32
4.2.TheItemsoftheLearningOutcomesQuestionnaire.………..33
4.3.Theweightingsforeachelementoftheframework……….34
4.3.1.Primarylearningoutcometargeted:Cognitive…….……..….…….…….…….……….34
4.3.2.Primarylearningoutcometargeted:Motor…….…….…….….…….…….…….……...36
4.3.3.Primarylearningoutcometargeted:Affective…….………....…….…….…….………..38
4.3.4.Primarylearningoutcometargeted:Communicative………...…….…….…….……...40
5.The“Guidequestions”questionnaire………...42
5.1.Howitworks………42
5.2.Itemsofthe“Guidequestions”questionnaire………43
6.AnExampleofAnalysis:ClimateChallenge………47
7.DiscussionandConclusions………50
8.References……….………53
1. Introduction:
1.1.ThepopularityofVideogamestoday
Videogamestodayareaboomingindustry,alreadygeneratingmorerevenueeachyear thanthemusicandmoviesindustries.Accordingtothe2016EntertainmentSoftware AssociationReport,48%ofU.S.householdsownagameconsoleand63%includeatleast onepersonwhoplaysvideogames3hoursormoreperweek.Accordingtothesamedata, theUSgamerdemographicisprogressivelygettingmorediverseintermsofkeyvariables suchasgenderorage,withtheaveragegameplayerbeing35yearsold,andwomennow being41%oftheentiregamerpopulation.Followingthe2017Ipsos“TheNewFacesof Gaming”report,similarresultsarefoundinEurope,with44%ofgamersbeingfemale, spendinganaverageof4.6hoursperweekonsmartphonesandtabletgamesalone.
Beinganincrediblesourceoftechnologicalinnovationandconsideringtheinterestinthe activity,videogamescanbeusedforawidevarietyofgoals,includingeducation.Video gameswithanexplicitlyeducationalgoalinmindhavethereforetriedtoharnessthe potentialandbenefitsofthetechnology,suchastheabilitytointrinsicallymotivate (Anyaegbu,Ting&Li,2012),togenerateFlowstatesinwhichtheuseriscompletely immersedintotheexperienceoftenlosingthesenseofselfandsenseoftime(Annetta, 2010),toemotionallystimulatetheusertoincludesocialactivitiessuchascompetition (Landers&Callan,2011).
Amongthefirstattemptsatdevelopingvideogameswitheducationalgoals,certain
examplescanbementionedsuchasa1971gamecalled“TheOregonTrail”(agamewhere playersexperiencethelifeofagroupof19th-centurysettlerstravelingalongtheOregon Trail,),ora1973gamecalled“LemonadeStand”fortheApple2Computer(abusiness simulatorwheretheplayermanagesalemonadestandandhastolearnbasicbusiness variablessuchasthecostsoftheactivities,theprofits,tryingtodeterminethepriceofevery glassoflemonade,etc).
Thesefirstproductions,althoughinnovativefortheirtime,werequitelimitedintermsof graphics,gameplay,andlearningexperience.Evenconsideringtheirlimitations,they representanimportantbedrockandtheywereresponsibleforstartingatrendthatwould bringusthemoresuccessfulpedagogicalgameswehavetoday.
Followingthepopularityofsuccessfulgamessuchas“BrainTraining”forNintendoDS,the productionofwhatarenowcalled“seriousgames”(pedagogicalgameswiththeexplicit intentofteachingtheplayersaspecificcontent)startedtoexpandtoincludeawidevariety ofdomains,includinghighlyspecialisedapplicationssuchassimulationsinthemedicalfield (forParkinson’sorAlzheimer’spatientsforexample),usingvirtualreality,andother
innovativegamedesigntechnologies.
1.2.Thecurrent“Seriousgames”landscape
AccordingtoaReportfromMarkets&Markets,“Seriousgames”todayfocuslessofbroader learningandinsteadtargetspecificsetofskillsinvariousdomains(oftenwiththegoalof trainingtheusersforspecifictasksorjobs),suchasmilitary,government,education, corporate,healthcare,media&advertising.Withanestimatedyearlygrowthfortheentire industryof16%until2020andarevenueof5.2billionofeuroseveryyear,thecorporateand educationaldomainsinparticulararetheonesthatareexpectedtogrowthemostforthe next3years.
AccordingtoaReportfromSamAdkins(CEOofMetaari,an“ethics-basedmarketresearch firmthatidentifiesrevenueopportunitiesforlearningtechnologysuppliers”)thatanalysedthe SeriousGamemarketsintheUSspecifically,thetrendsthataregrowingthemostinthis areaaregamesdedicatedtoyoungchildren,andtheonesusingaugmentedrealityand geolocation.
Furthermore,accordingtothesamedata,thegeneraltendencyfortheseproductsisto followthemobiletrend(whichisexpectedtoreach35%oftherevenuefromtheentire E-learningmarketuntil2020)withmanyseriousgamesbeingdevelopedforsmartphones andtabletsexclusively.
AmongtheIndustryleadersdevelopingSeriousgames,“SeriousGamesInternational”
(basedintheUK)and“BreakAwaygames”(basedintheUS)canbementioned,having createdgamessuchas“vHealthcare”(agameforhealthcareprofessionalstobetterlearn howtointeractwithpatients,howtomoreefficientlyperformtheirtasks,etc.),and“Evo”(a gamewherebiologystudentslearnhowcertaingenetictraitsintheGuineaFisharepassed fromgenerationtogeneration).
Withaseriousgamemarketsohighlydiversified,andmanyproductsthatspecificallytarget institutions’goals,itisdifficulttogenerallyassesstheeffectivenessofeducationalgames comparedtoothermediumsoflearningsuchastexts,oreducationalvideos.Existentmeta
analyseshowever,showpromisingresultssuchastheonesforseriousgamesin
educationalcontexts(Backlund&Hendrix,2013;Randel,Morris,Wetzel&Whitehill,1992), andfortheonesevaluatingvirtualreality(Virvou,Katsionis,&Manos,2005).More
specifically,thesestudiesshowthat,ontopofthebetteracquisitionoftheeducational material,oneofthebiggestbenefitusersgetfromusingavideogameformatfortheir
learningismotivational,improvingtheinterestinthedomainandwantingtocontinuetolearn atadeeperlevel,comparedtostandardformatssuchastextorclassroomexplanations.
Moreover,thetypesofgamesthatseemtoleadtothemostefficientacquisitionofthe learningcontentaretheonesthattargetspecificknowledgeorskills.
1.3.ThenotionofIntegrationineducationalgames
Regardlessofthetypeofseriousgame,itsgenre,itspublictargeted,itsapplication, thereisanimportantaspecttoalwaysconsiderwhendevelopingeducationalgames:the notionofthearticulationbetweenthegameitselfandthelearningcontent,meaninghowthe learningcontentisinsertedintothegameforefficientlearning.
Thisaspectiscentralanditissupposedtoallowthemosteffectiveacquisitionofthe
learningcontenttargetedbythedeveloperswhilecapitalisingonwhatmakesgamesfunand interestingatthesametime.
1.4.Thefirsttheoreticalframeworkonintegration:intrinsicfantasy.
Thefirstcontributionsintheliteratureonthistopichavebeentheonesthattriedtoclearly definethisconceptandtodevelopatheoreticalframeworkarounditinordertoanalyse pedagogicalgamesunderthelensoftheintegrationbetweenthelearningcontentandthe certainfeaturesinthegame,suchasthefictionalworldthegametakesplace.
Malone(1981)hasdevelopedthenotionof“intrinsic”(or“endogenous”)fantasy,wherethe learningcontentislinkedtotheimaginary,fictionalworldofthegame,and“extrinsic”(or
“exogenous”)fantasy,wherethelearningcontentandthefictionalworldarenotrelatedto eachother.
Theauthormakestheexampleofagamewheretheplayersaresupposedtounderstand theconceptoffractions,wheretheyhavetoselectthecorrectpointonaline(forexamplein themiddleofalineifit’sa“1/2”fraction),oneversionwithintrinsicfantasy,wherethe
contentarerelated)andanextrinsicfantasyversionwherethefictionalworldisreplaced withgenericgeometricalfigureswithoutanyreferencetoanyfantasycontext.
Themainhypothesiswasthatgameswithintrinsicfantasywouldbemorelikelytoincrease student’smotivationandleadtobetterlearning.
Malonehasexperimentallytestedthishypothesisinastudywherechildrenplayedaversion ofthegameaboutfractionsmentionedintegratedbyintrinsicfantasy(afictionalworldwith darts)andanextrinsicone(withonlygeometricalfigures),andtheymeasuredtheduration ofgameplayforeachversion.Theresultsdidnotconfirmtheoriginalhypothesis,sincethere wasnodifferenceindurationbetweentheintrinsicversionandtheextrinsicone.
Formaleparticipants,therewasnodifferenceinduration,whereasthedurationforfemales wasevenlowerintheintrinsicversionofthegame(theoppositeofwhatwasexpected).
Anotherstudy(Habgood,Ainsworth,Benford,2005)showedthatchildren,ifputina conditionwheretheyhadtoimagineandcreateprototypesofgamesthemselves,hada muchgreatertendencytodevelopgameswithextrinsicfantasy,whichunderlinesthe difficultyinconceivinganddevelopingintrinsicallyintegratedgames.Furthermore,they seemedtopositivelyevaluategamesprimarilybasedonotherelementsthantheirfictional world(suchasthegraphics,whetherthegamewas“fun”,whetheritwasdifficult),which seriouslyputintoquestiontheprimacyofthefictionalworldasthecentralcriterionto determinetheeffectiveintegrationofaneducationalgame.
1.5.Adifferenttheoreticalframeworkforintegration:theintegrationbygame mechanics
Thesestudiespushedtheirauthorstorejecttheideathatthefictionalworldwasthecentral aspectwhendeterminingthedegreeofintegrationinapedagogicalgame.
Malonehimselfproposedtofocusonotherelements,suchasthemechanicsofthegame itself,namelytherulesthatdeterminetheinteractionsallowedbythethegame.
ThisapproachhasnotbeendevelopedbyMalonehimself,buthasallowedotherauthorsto elaborateamuchmorecompletetheoreticalframeworktoanalysetheintegrationof
educationalgames.
Habgoodandcolleagues(Habgood,Ainsworth,2005),inspiredbyMalone’sconclusion, proposedthereforeatheoreticalframeworkaroundthenotionofefficientgamesbeing integratedaroundthegamemechanicsandnotaroundthefictionalworld.Theydefine“core
mechanics”as“themechanismthroughwhichplayersmakemeaningfulchoicesandarrive atameaningfulplayexperience”.
Withoutnecessarilyforgettingthatthefictionalworldofthegamehasitsimportanceinorder tomotivationallyengagetheplayersintocompletingthetasksrequiredinthegame,the
“coregamemechanics”areamuchmorecentralelementthatwilldeterminethesuccessof anygame(whatmakesthegame“SuperMario”funisthefactthatjumpingfromplatformto platform,avoidingenemiesandinteractingwiththeworldisfun,regardlessofitsfictional world,whichcouldbesetinancientGreeceortheMoon,withoutnecessarilylosingmostof itsappeal).
Habgood(2007)adoptsthereforethenotionofintrinsicandextrinsicintegrationsimilarto thatofMalone,butthistimethatreferstothemechanicsasopposedtothefictionalworld.
Astheauthorsthemselveshaveexplained,itiseasiertodefinethisnotionasanegative,by takingtheexampleofmanylimitededucationalgames,thatclearlyshowanextrinsictypeof integration.Forexampleplatforminggameswithcontextinformationthatissupposedto conveythelearningcontentthatappearsbetweenlevels,orquizzesatcertainpointsinthe game.
Intrinsicallyintegratedgamesshouldmakesurethattheplayerlearnsthemechanics themselves,andtoinsertthelearningelementsintothemore“fun”elementsofthegame, avoidingatensionbetweenthe“fun”partsofthegame,andthelearningpartsofagame.
1.6.Anexperimentaltestoftheefficiencyof gamesintegratedbythegame mechanics.
Habgood(2007)hastestedthenotionthatthegamemechanics(ratherthanthefictional world)representamuchmoreusefulcriteriontodeterminewhetheragamehasan
efficientlyintegratedlearningcontent.Inordertodothis,hedevelopedaneducationalgame called“ZombieDivision”.
ZombieDivisionisagameaboutteachingitsplayerstoperformmathematicaloperations (morespecifically,divisions)onthebasisofcertaindivisors(suchas2,5,or10).Inthe study,thegoalistocomparetwodifferentversionsofthegame,anintrinsicallyintegrated one,andanextrinsicallyintegratedone.
Intheintrinsicversion,theplayerimpersonatesaknightthathastofightskeletonenemies, whohavenumberattachedtotheirchest,andtheplayerhastochoosethecorrectweapon amongtheavailableonestodefeatthem(eachweaponrepresentsadifferentdivider,such
divisible,usingthedifferentdivisors.Theplayeradvancesaftereachlevel,hasafixed numberoflifepoints,andaftereacherror(choosingthewrongweaponforaskeletonthat wearsacertainnumber),theplayerloses1lifepoint,andoncethelifepointsreach0the playerhastorestartfromthebeginningofthelevel.Intheextrinsicversiontheplayerfights theskeletonswithstandard“action”mechanicswithoutanyreferencetomathematics,and performsdivisionsonlyattheendofeverylevel,inastandardquizformat.Finally,thereis anadditionalcontrolversionofthegamewithoutanyreferencetomathematicswhatsoever.
Itisimportanttonotethatin“ZombieDivision”thefictionalworldissetinancientGreece withfantasyelementssuchaslivingskeletons(the“zombies”),andtheauthorshavecreated thesethreeversionsofthegamebasedofanarticulationaroundthegamemechanics regardlessofthefictionalworld.Thefictionalworldcouldhavebeenmodifiedwithout necessarilyhavingabigimpactonthegamemechanics.
Inthestudy,threeversionsofZombieDivisionwereevaluated,utilisingmeasuresof learning(inordertoevaluatewhetheraversionofthegameallowedbetterlearning
comparedtotheothers),andofmotivation(thedurationofgameplaywiththeversionwhen theparticipantshadthechoicetoswitchtodifferentversionwhenevertheywanted)and interviewsthatshowedwhatparticipantsthoughtaboutthedifferentversionsofthegame.
Theresultsshowedthattheintrinsicversionwaschosenmoreoftencomparedtotheother versionsofthegameandthisversionleadtobettershort-termlearningofthecontent(tested withapost-testrightafterthegameplaysessions)andalong-termlearningaswell(tested withadelayedtesttwoweeksafterthefirstgameplaysession).
ThemaincontributionofHabgood’sstudyisthatitshowsforthefirsttimethatanintrinsically integrategame(byitsmechanics)caneffectivelyleadtoincreasedmotivation(suchasFlow states)andlearningcomparedtoanextrinsicallyintegratedone.
Regardingthehypothesisofbetterlearningfortheintrinsicallyintegratedversion,although nodifferenceswereobservedforshort-termlearning,theauthorsalsoshowedthatthe benefitsoftheintrinsicallyintegratedversionconcerninglearningwereprimarilylongterm ones,asmeasuredbythepost-testquestionnaireseveralweeksafterthegameplay sessions.
1.7.Secondaryaspects:the“productionvalues”andcompetition
Thestudyalsoshowedthatotheraspectsofthegamenotnecessarilyrelatedtothe mechanicswereconsidereddeterminantbytheparticipants,asobservedbytheinterviews withthem.Theplayersmentionedthatelementssuchasthegraphicsandthe3Dworld playedakeyroleintotheappreciationofthegamebytheparticipants.
Theseareusuallyreferredtoasthe“productionvalues”.
Socialelementsofcomparisonandcompetition(theparticipantsoftencomparedtheirscores tothoseoftheirpeersandweremotivatedtodobetter)werealsomentionedseveraltimes intheinterviews,andwereshowntoincreasemotivationandthegame’sappealthrough sharingstrategiesandsolutionsforthetasksinthegame.
Thesestudiesconfirmthepotentialofpedagogicalgamesthatconsiderthatanintegration bythemechanicsisthemoreappropriatewayofinsertingthelearningcontentintoan educationalgame,butalsoremindusthatotherfactorssuchasthe“productionvalues”, competition,socialcomparison,orthefictionalworld(asseeninthe“intrinsicfantasy”
approachbyMalone)havetheirimportanceaswell.
1.8.Anattempttoclassifygamesintegratedbytheirmechanics
Followingthementionedattemptsatassessingthemotivationalandeducationalbenefitsof pedagogicalgames,othersstudieshavetriedtolayoutthegroundworkforaclassificationof typesofarticulationbetweenthegamemechanicsanditslearningcontent,inordertoallow forasystematicanalysisanddevelopmentofthesetypeofgames.
Szilas&Acosta(2011)haveproposedtodistinguishbetweenmechanicsbasedon
“Systemiclearning”,“Winningstrategies”,“Obstacles”,and“Contextuallearning”.The authorsciteafewexamplesofgamesforeachtypeofintegrationandjustifytheirchoices withdetailedexplanations.
Thefirsttypeofarticulationbetweenthegamemechanicsandthelearningcontentiscalled
“systemiclearning”andinthistypeofgamestheplayereffectivelylearnsthemechanics themselves,thesystemofruleswithwhichheinteractswithforthedurationofthegaming
experience.Theplayerconstantlyinteractswiththesystemandheadjustshisactionsbased onthereactionsfromthesystemitself.
Theexamplethattheauthorsciteisthatof“Energyville”,agamewheretheplayerneedsto learnthegamemechanicsthatgoverntheenergyresourcesofacitywhereheisthemajor.
Certainactions(suchasdecidingtoreduceCO2emissions)willhavecertainundesiredor unforeseenconsequences.Whattheplayerlearnsisthemechanicsthemselves,meaning thebasicinteractionsbetweenelementinthegame(whatistheeffectofenvironmental policiesontheeconomyetc),withoutnecessarilyhavingtolearnexactlywhatkindofactual policiesagovernmentcanintroduce.
Thesecondtypeofarticulationbetweenthegamemechanicsandthelearningcontentisan integrationby“winningstrategies”.Theideawiththesetypesofgamesisthattheplayer needstoreachaspecificgoalsetbythegameandhehasdifferentavailablestrategiesto achieveit.Byfreelyexploringtheworldandthemechanics,whathewilllearnisaspecific strategyamongtheavailableonestoachievethegoalsetbythegame.Thegamegivesthe playerfeedback(whichcanbeinabinary“right/wrong”format,oramorenaturalin-game typeoffeedbackthatavoidsjudgement).
Theexampletheauthorsgiveforsuchtypeofintegrationisthegame“Dimenxian”.Inthis gametheplayerwillhavetoutilisegameinterfacesinordertopracticeandlearn
mathematicalnotions.Forexample,inordertofindameteorologicalstationtheplayerhasto reachtoadvancetothenextlevel,theplayerhastolearntouseacoordinatesinterface.
Theplayerhasdifferentstrategiesavailabletoorienthimselfusingthisinterfaceandfindthe station.Inthistypeofarticulation,thelearningcontentitselfisnotthemechanicsofthe gamebutthecorrectstrategytheplayerwillhavetouse(andthatthegamehastoreinforce thankstoappropriatefeedbackthatwillhopefullyguidetheplayertothecorrectstrategy choice).
Thethirdtypeofintegrationidentifiedbytheauthorsiscalledinteractionby“obstacles”.In thiscase,thelearningcontentisinsertedatcertainmomentsinthegamewhentheplayer willbeinfrontofan“obstacles”inordertocontinueinthegame.Theobstaclewillbe comprisedofachoicebetweendifferentoptions(forexampleamultiplechoicequestion).
Theauthorsciteasanexampleofthistypeofarticulationthegame“TrivialPursuit”,aTrivia gamewheretheplayerhastoanswermultiplechoicequestionsinvariousdomainssuchas HistoryorLiteratureandreceivespointseverytimeheanswerscorrectly.
Although“TrivialPursuit”canbeclassifiedasagameandincludesmotivationalelementsto keeptheplayerengaged,itisnotthatdifferentfromstandardmultiplechoicetestsfoundin anyschool.Clearlythisgamedoesnotutilisethepotentialofeducationalgamesfor
improvedlearningexperienceandmotivation.
Thistypeofarticulationisoftenusedinmanypedagogicalgamesinwhatareusually referredtoas“edutainment”games,amongthefirstattemptsateducationalgames,where thelearningcontentisaddedasaninconvenientadditiontoastand-alonegame,wherethe gameisvisiblydividedbetweenthe“fun”phaseandthelearningphase,creatingan
unwelcomedtensionandtheriskofbeinglabeledas“chocolate-coveredbroccoli”(Habgood, 2007).
However,thistypeofarticulation,ifefficientlyimplemented,allowsformanydifferenttypes oflearningcontenttobeconvenientlyputintoagameformatandforcertaintypesof learningcontentitmightbetheonlysolutionavailable.
ThelasttypeofintegrationidentifiedbySzilas&Acosta(2011)iswhatiscalleda
“contextualcoupling”,wherethemechanicsofthegamecanbecompletelyunrelatedtothe learningcontent,wherewhattheplayerissupposedtolearnisdisseminatedinthecontext ofthegame,itcanbefoundinthestory,inpop-upsthattheplayercanopen(oftentimes thesepop-upsbeingoptional).
Theexampletheauthorsmentiontoillustratethelimitsofthistypeofintegrationisthegame
“Versailles”,a“pointandclick”educationalgamewheretheplayerhastheoptiontoclickon certainobjectsinordertorevealinformationaboutthecontextthegame(thelearning content,whichconsistsinafrenchhistorylesson).
Thistypeofintegrationisclearlytheweakest,sinceitdoesn’tmakesurethatthecontentis actuallyabsorbedbytheplayer,anditcreatesanevenbiggertensionbetweenthelearning contentandthe“fun”portionofthegame.
Clearly,althoughtheroleofthefictionalworldthegameissetincannotbeunderestimated (assaidbefore,secondaryelementssuchasthe“productionvalues”canbesurprisingly importantindeterminingtheappealofaneducationalgame),thistypeofarticulationshould beavoided,infavorof“systemiclearning”,“winningstrategies”orattheveryleast
“obstacles”.
Szilas&SutterWidmer(2009)mentionedthenotionof“temporality”,namelytheideathat thecontactwiththelearningcontentshouldhappenatthesametimethanthemore“fun”
elementsinthegame.
1.9.Learningoutcomes:
Theliteratureonintegrationinpedagogicalgameshasalwaystriedtoevaluatethisnotionin gameswiththeideathatcertaingamedesignchoicesaretobepreferredwhenitcomesto developanefficientlyintegratedgame.However,itisalsoclearthattheeffectivenessof integrationandthetypeofintegrationthatshouldbesoughtalsodependsonthetypeof gamethatisbeingevaluated.
Forexample,thesamestandardsshouldnotbeusedtoevaluateagameaboutlearning mathandagameaboutpracticingthemovementofcertainlimbsforpatientsaffectedby Parkinson’sdisease.
Evaluationsandconsiderationsaboutthetypeofintegrationinagameshouldthereforetake intoaccountwhatisusuallyreferredtoas“Learningoutcomes”,meaningthetypeoflearning contentthatistargetedbythegame.
ThefirstattemptatclassifyinglearningoutcomescanberetracedtoBloom&Gagné(1978) andthesewereidentifiedasbeingofcognitivenature,outliningthedifferentcomponentsof suchlearningoutcomes,suchasthe“contentofthetask”(basicknowledgethelearnerhas toacquireinordertoperformtherelevantoperations)andtheintellectual“operations”to performonsuchcontent.Bloom&Gagnéfurtherdividesuchcontentin“facts”,“concepts”
(categoriesofobjects),principles(indicatingtherelationshipbetweendifferentobjects)and procedures(motorprocedures).
Theintellectualoperationsthatcanbeperformedoncelearnedareofdifferenttypes,such asretellingtheinformationbyheart(“Memorisation”),paraphrasingtheinformation
(“Summarisation”),theinformationcanbeusedtoanticipatecertainoutcomes(“Prediction”) orusedinacertainwayinordertoproducedaspecificresult(“Application”).
Thislearningoutcomes’taxonomyofBloom’s&Gagné(1987)wassubsequentlymodified byKrathwohl(2002),whoaddedanaffectivedimensiontotheframework.Hedefinesthis emotionaltypeoflearningoutcomeasfollows:
“Affectivelearningisdemonstratedbybehaviorsindicatingattitudesofawareness,interest, attention,concern,andresponsibility,abilitytolistenandrespondininteractionswithothers, andabilitytodemonstratethoseattitudinalcharacteristicsorvalueswhichareappropriateto thetestsituationandthefieldofstudy”
Inordertofurtherrefinethetaxonomyoflearningoutcomesintheliterature,Baker&Mayer (1999)addedanewsocialdimension,mentioningthatincertaincontexts,“communication skills”,“self-regulation”and“teamwork”areessentialoutcomesofthelearningexperience.
Alloftheseapproachesthatfocusedonspecificstypesoflearningoutcomes(cognitive, affective,social)weresummarizedbyWouters,vanderSpek,&vanOostendorp(2009)who proposedaunifyingframeworkthatclassifieslearningoutcomesinthedomainof
pedagogicalgamesinto4maincategories,“cognitive”,“motor”,“affective”,and
“communicative”.
Eachlearningoutcomecategorycanbefurtherdividedindifferentsub-categories.For example,regardingthecognitivelearningoutcome,thisoutcomecanbedividedin
declarativeknowledgethatiseithertextual(suchasanexplanationofhowanatomworks) ornon-textual(suchasa3Dimageofanatom),andskillssuchasproblemsolving,decision making,andsituationalawareness.
Motoroutcomescanbedividedinacquisitionormotorskills(forexampleacquiringthe motorskillsrequiredtothrowabasketballintothehoop)andcompilationofsuchmotorskills (integratingdifferentskills,theoldonesbeingintegratedinthenewones)
Affectiveoutcomescanbedividedinattitude(forexampleagamethatissupposedto
changetheplayer’sattituderegardingatopic)andmotivation(increasingthemotivationfora specificdomaintargetedbythegame).
Communicativeoutcomescanbedividedincommunicativeskills,cooperationskills (learningtobettercooperateinaboardgameforexample)andnegotiation.
Figure1:LearningoutcomesaccordingtoWouters,vanderSpek,&vanOostendorp(2009).
Thusfar,noattempttoincludethenotionoflearningoutcomesinanevaluationofthe integrationinpedagogicalgameshasbeenobservedintheliterature.
2. Proposing a unifying Framework:
2.1.Unifyingthecontributionsintheliterature
Aswehaveseeninthepreviouschapter,therehavebeeneffortsintheliteraturetoclarify thenotionofintegrationispedagogicalgames,proposingclassificationsthateachadopt differentunderlyingassumptions(suchasthefactthatgamemechanicsareamorecentral aspectofgamesthanthefictionalworldwheretheytakeplace).
Despitetheprogress,therearenoactualspecificframeworksthattrytounifytheseclaims andapproachesintoanoperationalguide.
Studentsattemptingtolearnaboutthenotionofintegrationinpedagogicalgamesare confrontedwithalimitedbodyofliteraturethatisoftentimestoocomplexandhighly theoretical,whichmakesithardforthemtoeffectivelyabsorbthematerial.
Althoughtherelevantpapershavecitedseveralexistingseriousgamestoanchorthe discussiontoconcretereallifeexamples(Habgood2007,Malone,1981;Szila&Acosta,
2011;Szilas&SutterWidmer,2009),nopracticaltooltocategorizeorsystematically analysegamesexiststoday.
Aneffortmustthereforebemadeinordertounifytheseapproachesandtheoretical frameworks,inordertodesignastandardisedtool(suchasaquestionnaireoran application)thatisabletobeusedasanoperationalguidetoanalysetheintegrationin seriousgamesinthemoststraightforwardmannerpossible.
2.2.Thebenefitsoftheframework.
Thebenefitsofusingsuchaframeworkshouldbetwo-fold.Firstofall,althoughsome knowledgeonbasicconcepts(suchasgamemechanics)willprobablyberequiredinorder tousethetool,thetoolshouldbeabletobeusedbystudentswhohaven’treached
expertiseonthetopicyet.
Secondly,ontopofbeinganoperationalguide,thetoolwillbeaninstrumentwhichclarifies doubtsoncertainconceptsthatareperhapstoodifficulttofullygraspbysimplyreading aboutthemintherelevantpapers.Forexample,astudentmighthavereadtheliteratureon thedifferencebetween“obstacles”and“systemiclearning”,butonlybyclassifyingagame answeringtospecificquestionswillhebeabletofullycomprehendtheseconceptsthathe hadonlyvaguelytheoreticallyunderstoodupuntilthatpoint.
Theframeworkwilltrytounifyexistingconcepts,theories,approaches,willbegroundedin thecurrentliterature,butwillalsotrytointroducenovelconceptsandideasonhowtothink aboutintegrationinseriousgames.
Userswhowillbenefitfromtheuseofthisframeworkwillbeoftwokinds.Firstly,the frameworkwillbeusefulforstudentswhowanttobeabletoanalysegamesandto
categorisethem,suchasuniversitystudentsoranysubjectbeinginterestedinthesubject relatedtoseriousgames.
Secondly,theframeworkwillbeusefulfordeveloperswhoareactuallycreatingserious games.Bothduringthedesignandrealisationphases,thedeveloperswillbeabletousethe frameworkasaguidetocreategamesthataremoreintegrated,allowingtheirproducttobe moreappealinganduseful.
3. The Elements of the framework
Thelogicoftheframeworkisthatitwillproduceoutputsintermsoftypology(itwillspecifyto whichcategoryofintegrationthegamebelongs)andintermsofafinal,generalscoreof integrationforeachgame.
Thefinalscorewilldependonthetypeofgamethatisbeinganalysed.Differenttypologies ofgameswillhavedifferentweightingofeachframeworkelement.Forexample,agame aboutlearningmathematicswillnothavethesameweightingofeachframeworkelement thanagameaboutlearningtomovethearmsforParkinson’sdiseasepatients.These differenttypesofgameswillbedividedbasedontheirlearningoutcomes.
Aquestionnairewillbeusedtodeterminetheselearningoutcomesforeachgamethat needstobeanalysed.Thedifferentlearningoutcomesare“Cognitive”,“Motor”,“Affective”,
“Communicative”basedontheclassificationofWouters,vanderSpek,&vanOostendorp (2009).
Thisquestionnairewillbeadministeredtotheexpertwhoneedstoanalysethegame himself/herself,ortothecorporatesponsorofthegameiftheframeworkisusedby developers.
Oncedeterminedthelearningoutcomes,anotherquestionnairewillbeusedtoclassifythe gamebasedonthedifferenttypesofintegrationandothercriteriaoftheframework.
Theweightingofeachframeworkelementtodeterminethefinalscorewillbedetermined basedontheresultsofthelearningoutcomesquestionnaire.
Thisframeworkisdividedin3maingroupsoftypesofintegration,namelythe“Mechanics”,
“Media”,“Context”.
Thegroupcalled“Mechanics”isbasedontheclassificationseenonSzilasetAcosta(2011), whichmakesadistinctionbetweenintegrationby“Obstacles”,“SystemicLearning”,“Winning Strategies”,and“ContextualLearning”,andexpandonitofferingfurthersub-categories.
Inthe“Mechanics”category,theconceptsofDifficultyandProgressionofthegame mechanicsareintroduced.
ThegroupcalledCalled“Media”referstothenatureoftheimagesandsoundsrelatedto learningcontentusedinthegame.
Finally,thegroupcalled“Context”referstotheStoryandfictionalworldofthegame.
Certaincategories(forexample,“SystemicLearning”)aredividedinothersub-categories (forexample“Necessityoflearning”),andforeachsubcategory,thegamecanbeclassified accordingtoabinarychoice(forexample,“Learningrequired”or“learningnotrequired”).
Foreachbinarychoice,oneoftheoptionsmakesthegamemoreintegrated,theotherless integrated.
Figure2:TheFramework.
Colors:
-Blue:Threemaintypesofintegration(“Media”,“Mechanics”,“Context”) -Orange:Subcategories
-Yellow:Optionsforthebinarychoices
Hereisanexplanationforeachcategoryandsub-categoryoftheframework.
3. 1. Mechanics:
3.1.1.SystemicLearning
Inthistypeofintegrationtheplayerissupposedtolearnthegamemechanicsthemselves, learningthemwhileheplays,interactingwiththeelementsofthegame.Anexampleofsuch gameisClimatechallenge,wheretheplayerimpersonatesafictional“presidentofEurope”
andhastoenactpoliciesthataresupposedtoreduceandtackleclimatechange.Theplayer choosesdifferentcardsthatactivatecertainpoliciesrelatedtothevariouscategories,such aseconomic,societal,relatedtoenergy,relatedtoprimeresources,andsoon.
Slowingdownclimatechangewillcomewithcertainconsequencestoothercategoriesinthe game,withtheideaofanecessarysacrifice,compromisebetweenthevariouscomponents ofthegame.Forexampletheplayerlearnsbyinteractingwiththegame,thatcertain componentsofthegamecanbeinfluencedbyotherones,suchaslearninghowchoosing policiestoreduceCO2emissionswillhaveanimpactoncertainresourcesavailableanda chanceoftheplayer’sreelectionaspresidentinthegame.
Theideaisthattheunderstandingofthegame’smechanicsthattheplayeracquirescanbe transferredtowhatwecallthe“systemofreference”,inthecaseofClimateChallengeit’s theactualpoliciesofvariousgovernmentstotackleclimatechangeandtheirreal
implicationsandconsequences.
Onceit’sestablished(withtheuseoftheframework)thatthegamethatisbeingevaluated hasitslearningcontentintegratedbysystemiclearning,therearesubcategoriesofthistype ofintegration:
Firstofall,wehaveabinarychoicebetweenagamethatrequiresthesystemtobe
effectivelylearnedtoadvanceinthegame,andagamethatdoesn’tmakesureinanyway thattheplayerhasacquiredthemechanicsofthegame(soitlet’stheplayerfinishthegame withouthavingacquiredandunderstoodthelearningcontent).
