USING EDUCATIONAL VIDEO GAMES TO ENCOURAGE BEHAVIOUR CHANGE.

Coventry University Masters project

By

Michael Richards

CONTENTS

Introduction Aims of CSEC Videogames Educational videogames (I-III) Procedural knowledge Conceptual knowledge Our game (I-V) Future Development

INTRODUCTION

Michael Richards

Studying a Masters by research in engineering and knowledge management at Coventry University.

My project is aimed at designing an educational video game to help young children learn about hazard avoidance and personal safety.

AIMS OF CSEC To encourage and support activities which

contribute to a reduction in unintended injuries to children and young people.

Identify common and avoidable injuries to children and young people.

Identify activities where practical safety education could be improved, extended or introduced.

Provide children with opportunities to develop risk competence appropriate to their age and developmental stage, which is transferable to all aspects of their lives.

Enable children and young people to have the confidence put their risk competence into practice.

VIDEOGAMES

A brief history of the videogame:

`Spacewar’.

Nintendo Entertainment System (NES).

Core aspect of modern culture.

Potential educational tool.

EDUCATIONAL VIDEOGAMESI

Not a new area of study.

Academic subjects.

Obvious teaching approach.

Behavioural teaching game.

Subtle learning approach.

Hypothesis construction and testing.

EDUCATIONAL VIDEOGAMESII

Fun to play.

Allows repetition.

Conceptual Vs. Procedural learning.

PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE

The knowledge of actions.

Can be limiting.

Want children to learn appropriate actions via their knowledge, not just a procedure.

Conceptual knowledge. Better understanding of all aspects.

CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE

Exposure over multiple scenarios.

Allows for better understanding of an artefacts characteristics.

More valuable than learning predetermined procedures.

More feasible to include concepts than all procedures in a game.

EDUCATIONAL VIDEOGAMESIII

Flow Experience. Involved state of play. Pursuit of achievement. Heightened brain function & memory recall. Potential for increased knowledge retention

within educational video games. Theory of Self Determination.

Providing tasks to encourage players. Wanting to master an aspect of a game. Can be used to encourage Flow Experience.

Both are difficult to achieve!

OUR GAME I

Relevant information being taught. Home Accident Surveillance Survey (HASS) Leisure Accident Surveillance Survey (LASS)

Constructed a scoring system based on hazard likelihood and severity.

Players interact with data without knowledge of doing so.

OUR GAME II

Design of the game. Colourful. Fun. Mixed gender cartoon characters.

Rapid development lifecycle led to card game design rather than electronic. Allows for more testing and development of play

style and mechanics before going electronic.

OUR GAME III

Scoring system based on hazard likelihood and severity.

(Likelihood x Severity /10)

(below) Scores of each hazard depending on situation.

OUR GAME IV

Card game style of play. Turn based structure. Allows for repetition.

Repetition increases exposure to a larger amount of hazard and action combinations. More chances to make positive and negative

decisions. Increases conceptual knowledge.

OUR GAME V

Feedback through scoring codex. Feedback enhances learning.

Scores used to reinforce good decisions (high points) and highlight bad decisions (low/no points).

This method of feedback is designed to make the player think about the possible consequences before they take an action; this encapsulates the behaviour we intend to encourage young children to adopt.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Make the game electronic.

Similar game design.

Increase exposure.

Easily updateable with new content.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.