Susan Coleman, PhD Ellen Menaker, PhD Talib Hussain, PhD IDSI IDSI Raytheon BBN Technologies [email protected][email protected]om [email protected]A Communication Framework: A Babel Fish for Instructional Game Designers
Presentation of research to better understand how different disciplines on a learning game design team think about learning game design. Includes actions design teams can take to mitigate misunderstandings. Also includes implications for a hybrid learning game design model.
Citation preview
1. A Communication Framework: A Babel Fish forInstructional
Game Designers [email_address] [email_address] [email_address]
Raytheon BBN Technologies IDSI IDSI Talib Hussain, PhD Ellen
Menaker, PhD Susan Coleman, PhD
2. Topics
Introduction
The Babel Fish
Research purpose
Participants
Procedure
What we found and what it means
3. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams 4. I need a
serious game! I need a game that has elements of fun and helps the
player attain instructional goals! 5. Research Purpose
Examine how different disciplines conceptualize serious game
elements
Identify specific actions that can be taken to mitigate
misunderstandings
Inform a hybrid serious game design model
6. Procedure
Pilot Survey
Final Learning Games Design Survey (88 items)
Demographics (7)
Rate importance of game elements (22)
Rate the agreement or disagreement with statements (33)
Rate frequency of expected change for game elements (22)
Select best definition of terms (4)
Analyzed survey data by discipline and game-type
experience
Reported findings in 5 areas
Goals, authenticity, design, feedback, fun
7. Participants
Distributed survey to the Learning Game Design COI (n=89)
49% response rate
Disciplines:
Gaming (37%)
Instructional (67%)
Gaming Experience:
Entertainment games (27%)
Simulations (36%)
Instructional games (38%)
8. Key Finding Agreement on many items, but significant
differences were detected in the levels of agreement
May impact decisions
May impact priorities
May be the source of many communication issues
9. Findings - Goals
Agreement
Communicating learning goals is important
Achieved learning goals are the most important aspect of game
evaluation
Differences
Learning objectives are important
LOs are primary driver of an instructional game
A good instructional game must produce measurable learning
outcomes
Game goals and learning objectives must align
LOs can be changed to accommodate scenario design
Usability is the most important aspect of instructional game
evaluation
Implications
Articulate alignment of LOs with game goals
Solicit multidisciplinary input into prototype evaluation
criteria
Agree on criteria for setting LO priorities
10. Findings - Authenticity
Agreement
Fantasy is OK
Tasks should align with required cognitive thinking
Differences
Fantasy should provide a useful metaphor
Important to mirror real-world tasks
Fantasy makes games more compelling
Implications
Discuss impact of design choices on associated cognitive
skills
Articulate the connection between cognitive requirements and
fantasy
11. Findings - Design
Agreement
Incorporate well-developed characters
Use dynamic graphics
Adapt game to player performance
Allow for learner control
Accommodate novice and expert
Difference
Expect key design elements to change frequently
Implications
Identify all elements that are impacted by design changes
Discuss instructional trade-offs of changes to gaming mechanics
(and vice versa)
12. Findings - Feedback
Agreement
It is important to assess performance and give feedback
It is OK to stop game to give feedback (even explicit
feedback)
Penalties are OK in an instructional game
Natural feedback alone may not be sufficient
Differences
Frequent feedback strategy changes during design are not
expected
Feedback is used for its instructional value
Feedback is used for motivation
Implications
Discuss how to design feedback to be instructionally
valuableandmotivational
Consider criteria for interrupting the game for feedback
13. Findings - Fun
Agreement
Fun is important
Fun is not necessary for instructional effectiveness
Learners should enjoy the instructional game
An engaging game is a fun game
Differences
Learning is the priority
Fun is the priority
Someone having fun is more likely to learn
Better for users to think of themselves as players rather than
learners
Implication
Reconcile recommended design changes with fun
14. Findings - Definitions
High-fidelity instructional game
Authentic thinking (75%)
Authentic environment (19%)
Authentic tasks (6%)
Authentic tools (0)
An immersive instructional game
A rich environmental context (50%)
Player is constantly engaged (25%)
An emotionally compelling context (19%)
Player is constantly interacting with other players (6%)
15. Findings - Definitions
Engagement in an instructional game
Player is always thinking (61%)
Player is always feeling (19%)
Player is always learning (11%)
Player is always doing (8%)
Adaptive instructional game
Adjusts the difficulty of challenges (81%)
Adjusts the type and frequency of feedback (14%)
Adjusts amount of information provided (3%)
Adjusts type of gaming skills provided (3%)
16. Trend There is more variation among responses from the
gaming disciplines than the instructional disciplines
Instruction has an established science that purposefully allows
us to make predications
Instructional curriculums provide a common field of
professional preparation and experience
Variation in game designer responses will likely decrease as
more is learned within the disciplines and preparation programs
mature
This could be a sampling issue and needs to be verified with
future research
17. Hybrid design model implications
Include steps that:
Set learning objectiveprioritiesearly in the design
process
Check adherence to established priorities during the design
process throughout design
Document connections between cognitive requirements and design
choices (including fantasy and fun)
Develop strategy regarding whether, when, and how to interrupt
game play for instructional reasons
Develop strategy for evaluating both instruction and game play
during development
Gain approval for all changes by lead game and instructional
designers
18. Conclusions
Communication involves more than the simple translation of
terms that a Babel fish might offer
Instructional game design teams need to understand the
expectations, principles and research upon which team members base
their actions
Future research needs to focus on further distinctions among
disciplines to explore the subtle differences and the rationale
behind them