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; coleman.susan@idsi.com

Ellen Menaker; menaker.ellen@idsi.com

Talib Hussain; thussain@bbn.com

http://groups.google.com/group/designoflearninggames Learning Games Community of Interest :