learning game design team communication
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
- 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
19. Questions?
- A Communication Framework:
- A Babel Fish for Instructional Game Designers
- Paper 10394
- Susan Coleman; [email protected]
- Ellen Menaker; [email protected]
- Talib Hussain; [email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/designoflearninggames Learning Games Community of Interest :