Student Learning-Game Designs Emerging Learning Trajectories

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Feb 12, 2022

Student Learning-Game DesignsEmerging Learning Trajectories

Weitze, Charlotte Lærke

Published in:Proceedings of The 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning : ECGBL 2016

Publication date:2016

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):Weitze, C. L. (2016). Student Learning-Game Designs: Emerging Learning Trajectories. In T. Connolly, & L.Boyle (Eds.), Proceedings of The 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning : ECGBL 2016 (1 ed.,Vol. 1, pp. 756-764). Academic Conferences and Publishing International.

https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/326e847c-af13-4ed2-aea9-f52f740f9b2a

ECGBL 2016, 10th European Conference on Games Based Learning, 6 - 7 October 2016, Paisley, Scotland.

StudentLearning-GameDesigns:EmergingLearningTrajectoriesCharlotteLærkeWeitzeResearchLab:ITandLearningDesign,DepartmentofLearningandPhilosophy,AalborgUniversity,[email protected]: This article presents new knowledge about how students can implement learning and gameelements into analogue and digital learning games as a means of learning and teaching curriculum-basedsubjectmatter.Thepurposeof theanalysis is to identifywhat learning-gamedesignelementswereused infour learning games created by students, to investigate how these elementswere employed, to determinewhat learning trajectories emerged in the two digital game tools and to offer reflections and suggestionsregarding the learning processes students experienced when building the various learning trajectories forspecific learning goals into the digital games. The article examines how specific features in the two digitalgame tools, Scratch and RGBMaker, afford creation of learning trajectories in various ways, enabling deeplearningandgameplayprocessesfortheplayersofthegames.Accordingtothestudy,thelevelofcomplexityofthebuilt-inlearningtrajectoriesinthegameswasmirroredinthecognitivecomplexityofthestudentgamedesigners'learningprocesses.Thearticlepresentsfourstudent-createdgamesthatdemonstrateaprogressioninthedepthofpotential learningexperiences.Thestudent learning-gamedesignersre-interpretedandusedthe conceptualisedgame-mechanics in thegame tools to create complex learning trajectoriesandengaginggameplay.Theanalysiscanbeusedtoguideteachersonwhatlearning-gamedesignprocessesandelementsshouldbe supported inorder to facilitatedeep learning in this teachingand learningapproach.Thedesign-basedresearchprojectusedqualitativeresearchmethods;thisincludedaudio-andvideotapedutterancesandobservations of the teachers and students as well as analysis of the students’ paper prototype and digitallearninggames.Teachersandadultstudentsfromafull-timeuppersecondarygeneraleducationprogramatVUCStorstrømparticipatedinco-designworkshopsthroughtwoiterations.Keywords: Learning Design, Students as learning game designers, Scratch & RGBMaker, constructionism,studentsaslearningdesigners.1.IntroductionAgrowingbodyof researchaddresses theextensionof game-based learning–be it theuseof simulations,virtualworldsorgamesdevelopedwiththepurposeoflearning–toincludethecreationofgamesforlearning(Earp,2015;KafaiandBurke,2015;Whitton,2014;Weitze,2015).Whenstudentscreategamesforlearning,theytakeamoreactiveroleasgamedesignersinsteadofalessactiveroleasgameplayers(Oygardslia,2015,Weitze, 2015). The creation of games as ameans of learning originates from a constructionist pedagogicalapproach. Constructionism builds upon the thesis that there is a strong connection between design andlearning. When students design digital learning games, the activities involve making, building, andprogramming – all processes that provide a rich context for learning (Harel and Papert, 1991; Kafai andResnick,1996;Weitze,2016a).Thegamedesignerneedstothinkaboutthemeta-structuresinthegame(Earp,2015).Thisinvolvestheinteractionsandgamemechanics(whattheplayercandointhegame)andhowthedesignersetsthelearningdesignintoplayinthegame(Weitze,2016c).The educational focus in game design as a means of learning has primarily been on developing students'programming and computational thinking skills (Brennan and Resnick, 2012). Attaining specific curriculumlearninggoalsinthesecreativeprogrammingprocessesisseldomanexpressedexpectationofteachers(Kafaiand Burke, 2015, p. 323). The original goal of constructionismwas to learn by designing (and for exampleprogramming)and,alongtheway,toachieveconceptualunderstandingofsubjectssuchasmathematicsandscience(HarelandPapert,1991).Buthowshouldthe learningsituationbedesignedifstudentsaretoreachspecificcurriculum-basedlearninggoals?1.1BackgroundandpurposeofthisstudyThepurposeofthecurrentexperimentswastocreatealearningdesignthatfacilitatedthelearningprocessforstudentsbylettingthembetheirownlearningdesigners.Studentsdesignedtheirowndigitallearninggameswiththepurposeofachievingspecificlearninggoalsfromcross-disciplinarysubjectmatters.Thetermlearningdesigndescribeshowateachershapessocialprocessesandcreatesconditionsfor learning; italsodescribesthephenomenonoftheindividualstudentconstantlyre-creatingorredesigninginformationinhisorherownmeaning-creatingprocesses(SelanderandKress,2012,p.2;Laurillard,2012).Theteachersactedas learningdesignersforthestudentsinthisexperiment.Butthestudentswerealsotheirownlearningdesigners,aswell

C.L.Weitze-StudentLearning-GameDesigns:EmergingLearningTrajectories

2

as theirpeers' learningdesigners,as theydiscussed thesubjectmatter, locatedcontentandconscientiouslynegotiated how to implement learning into small digital games for their classmates – the futureplayers/learnersoftheirdigitalgames–tolearn(Weitze,2015).Themainfocusoftheresearchprocesswastocreateinnovative,effectiveandengaginglearningdesignsforstudents. As expected, the students learned by building the games while creating learning situations andbuilding learning content into these games.According to the teachers' formative assessments, the studentsreachedtheirlearninggoalsatacognitivelycomplexlevelofunderstanding–theycouldexplain,discussandcriticallythinkabouttheconceptsfromthecurriculum(AndersonandKrathwohl,2001;Weitze,2015,2016a).Students' learning processes were particularly influenced by the quality and characteristics of the learningsituationsbuilt into thegames. (Weitze,2014,2016a). It is thereforevaluable tostudywhich learning-gamedesignprocessesandelementsshouldbesupportedinordertofacilitatedeepcurriculumlearning.Thisstudythereforeinvestigatedthecharacteristicsandlearningtrajectoriesinthosegameswherestudentssucceededincreatinglearningevents,anditinvestigatedhowlearningsituationsandlearningtrajectorieswerebuiltintothe games by the students. The study also investigated how the affordances of the game design toolsfacilitated the creation of learning trajectories that enabled deep learning processes for both the studentlearning-game designers and the players. This article describes the study's second iteration, which wassuccessfulinthatmoststudentsdevelopeddigitalgamesthatwentbeyondsimplequizgames.2.MethodologyTheinvestigationwasconductedasadesign-basedresearch(DBR)studyinwhichteachersandstudentswereimportant co-designers in the development and testing process. The study usedmixedmethods. The dataincludedfieldnotes,audio-andvideotapedactionsandutterances,observations fromtheworkshops,semi-structured interviewswithteachersaftereachworkshop,semi-structured interviewswithstudentsafter thefinalworkshop, informalmeetings, videos of students’ games being discussed and playtested, the student-created digital games, evaluation documents written by the students and questionnaires. The analysis wasperformed by analysing the teachers’ and students’ utterances and the digital games, and by coding thetranscribed data, using the qualitative research software NVivo and taking an informed grounded theoryapproach (Thornberg,2012).Theanalysiswas concept-driven (using concepts from the theoryandpreviousempirical data to find themes in thedata) anduseddata-driven coding (reading thedataand searching fornewphenomenawhich arenot known frompreviouspreconceptionsof the subject) (Kvale 2009;Charmaz,2006).TheexperimentwasdevelopedthroughtwoiterationsfromSpring2014toSpring2015.2.1ResearchobjectiveandresearchdesignThis article investigates how students created learning designs for specific learning goals in the form ofanalogue games that were subsequently transformed into digital games, and what learning trajectoriesemerged insidethesedigitalgames.Theparticipants includedadultstudents(N=50) intwouppersecondarygeneral education program classes in VUC Storstrøm, an adult learning centre in Denmark. These studentsparticipated in a full-time course of study lasting two years. Game buildingwas used as ameans to reachlearning goals from the curriculum. The experiments took place in two series of three student workshopslastingfourtofivehourseach.Inthefirstiterationofthestudy,thegameconceptsdevelopedbythestudentsfailed tomove beyond the "quiz game" level. This led to superficial learning processes (Weitze, 2014). Thestudycontinuedbyexperimentingwiththeconceptualisationofwhata learningdesign is insideagameandhowtohelpstudentsimaginehowtoimplementlearningintoagamebeyondthequizlevel(Weitze,2016b).Theseconditeration(Spring2015)incorporatednewlydevelopedstrategiestohelpteacherssupportstudents'learningprocessesinthisteachingandlearningapproach(Weitze,2015,2016a).ThisiterationutilizedagamedesignexampledevelopedinthegamedesigntoolScratch(Scratch,2016)andsucceededinhelpingstudentscreatemorecomplexlearninggamesandachievedeeplearningprocesses.Thestudentsweredividedintoteamsinalliterations.Eachteamdevelopedtheirlearninggameconceptsbyfollowing instructions in anoverall learningdesign. Theaim for theoverall learningdesignwas to integrateareasofrelevantacademicsubjectsintosmallanaloguegamesthatthenweretransformedintodigitalgames.This enabled students to become their own learning designers. Another aim was for students to becomedeeplyinvolvedinthelearningprocessandcontentofthevarioussubjectmatterstobelearned.Byexaminingandreflectingontheacademicknowledge,studentswouldbecomeacademicallyproficient. Insteadofbeing"told" the academic knowledge, studentswould "do it themselves" – theywould direct their own learning


3

trajectory and create learning games that could be played by their fellow students. This would enable thestudents to become the designers of their own learning through collaboration and discussion of ideas andpossible solutions. In the second iteration, the students created the learning game designs in iterativeprocesses,addressingandquestioningthelearninggoalsandthelearningprocessinmanyways.Thelearninggoals were also addressed in the playtests that student teams carried out with other teams. The studentsbrainstormed on creating game narratives that could encompass their chosen learning goals, and theydocumentedtheirexplicitlearninggoalsforthegames.3.Learninggamedesignapproach“Gamedesign isasecond-orderdesignproblem.Agamedesignerdesignstherulesofthegamedirectlybutdesignstheplayer'sexperienceonly indirectly” (SalenandZimmerman,2004,p.171).Thesamecanbesaidaboutlearninggamedesign.3.1TheSmileyModelThe SmileyModel is a learning game design model created for building engaging learning games (Weitze,2016c).Themodelwasusedtoinspireandscaffoldthelearninggamedesignprocessesinthecurrentlearningdesign. The Smiley Model addresses how to design the learning process and how to implement learningelements intothegamewhilealsoconsideringwaystomakethegamemotivatingandengaging.TheSmileyModel uses a learning design framework that considers the following elements: designing for the students’prerequisites for learning, thesettingor learning situation, the learninggoals, content selection, creationofrelevant learning processes, and evaluation processes. Six game elements can be used to set the learningdesign intoplay: gamegoals,action spaceornarrative, rules, choices, challengesand feedback.Eachof thelearningelementsandeachofthegameelementsare intertwined.TheSmileyModeladdressestheneedtodesignthelearningprocess,tosetthelearningelementsintoplaythroughtraditionalgame-elementsandtodesignformotivationalfactors.Theanalysisinthisarticlewill,however,notaddressthemotivationalfactorsfrom themodel. Inorder tobalance learningdesignandgamedesign, the studentswere introduced to theSmileyModeloperationalizedasassignments intheoverall learningdesign.Themodelsupportedandmadethestudentsawareoftheneedtoimplementlearningandevaluationprocessesintheirgamesandsupportedtheir“gamification”oftheselearningprocesses.3.2GamedesigntoolsInthisproject,studentsusedScratch(Scratch,2016)andRGBMaker(RGBMaker,2016)asdigitalgamedesigntools. Scratch is a game editor that uses a block-based programming language and can be used to createinteractivestories,gamesandanimations.InScratch,itispossibletosharecreationswithothersinanonlinecommunity. Scratch has 77 stack blocks, equivalent to 77 various code commands, including extensions(ScratchWiki, 2016); theyarepresented in the10 categories in theblockpalette. TheScratchdesigner canmake scripts by coding/connecting blocks shaped like puzzle pieces. RGBMaker has more comprehensive"ready-made" gamemechanics built in; for example, levels arebuilt in as anoption for the gamedesigner.These features canmake it easier to create various game-mechanics in the learning game. Scratch can beregardedasamoreopengamedesigntool. Itallowsthedesignertousehisorher imaginationfreelywhencreating learning trajectories through the game design. In the overall learning design for the classes, theintentionwiththeassignmentswastostrikeabalancebetweenallowingstudentsthefreedomtoideateandcreateanaloguelearninggameprototypeswithoutbeinglimitedbytheaffordancesofthedigitalgamedesigntoolandintroducingstudentstobasicassignmentsinthegamedesigntoolsotheyareabletotransformtheanaloguegamesintodigitalgames.4.AnalysisoffourlearninggamesThefollowingisananalysisofthelearningtrajectories insidefourdigitalgamescreatedbystudentteamsintheseconditeration.Thepurposeoftheanalysis isto investigatewhat learninggamedesignelementswereusedinthestudents'learninggames,howtheseelementswereemployed,whatlearningtrajectoriesemergedin thetwodifferentdigitalgametoolsand, finally, toreflectonwhat learningprocessesthestudents in theteamshaveexperiencedbybuildingthevariouslearning-trajectoriesintothegames.4.1Learningdesignareasforthefourgames–whatwascommonandwhatvaried?TheSmileyModelanalysisofthedesignsofthefourlearninggamesrevealedthattheirlearningelementshadthree learning design areas in common: 1) Prerequisites for learning: In one sense, the prerequisites forlearningforthegames'audience–thestudents–werethesame,asstudentsparticipatedinthesameclass;


4

butasadultstudentscomingfromvariousbackgrounds,theirprerequisitesalsovaried.2)Setting:Thesettingforthelearningdesignconsistedofanaloguelearninggamesthatweresubsequentlytransformedintodigitallearninggames.3)Learninggoals:Thelearninggoalsforthestudentscreatingthegames(andthereforealsothelearninggoalsforthegames)werethesame.TheyfocussedonHistoryandEnglishassecondlanguageandwereabouttheAmericanCivilWarandhumanrights.Theremainingelements fromtheSmileyModelwerepresented invariousways in the fourgames.Content: thecontent iswhat the learningdesignerchoosestointroducestudentstoinorderforthemtoreachtheirlearninggoal.Thelearningcontentwasdifferentinthevariousgames;thisreflectstheproblem-basedpedagogicalapproach,whichallowedtheteamstochooseandcreate their individual learning situations and learning trajectories inside their games. The chosen contentcontributedtothelearningsituationscreatedintheindividualgames.Inthefollowingsections,thegamesarepresentedinadvancingcomplexity,fromGameOnetoGameFour.4.2GameOne–QuizgameThefirstteamcreatedaquizgameinspiteoftheassignment–nottodesignaquizgame.Thegamepresentedaseriesoffourquestions.Thestudentsinthisteam,accordingtotheteachers,generallywerechallenged,andtheteachersreckonedthatitwasbettertohavedesignedaquizgamethannogameatall.Thestudentsandtheteachersreportedthatthestudentscreatingthisgamelearnedmuchmorethantheynormallywouldhavelearned;onestudentsaid,“Whatwehave learnedbycreatingthisgameIwill remembertoamuchgreaterextent thanwhatwe traditionally learn in these lessons.”According to the interviewwith thestudents, thisimprovementwas the result of this particular teaching and learning approach,where theyworked inmuchmoredepthandwereresponsiblefordevelopingagameontheirownfortheirclassmates.Itmustbenotedthatstudentsalsospentmoretimeonthesubjectmatterthantheywouldhaveinamoretraditionalteachingandlearningapproach.

Figure1:GameOnedigitalinterface(top)andmapofpossiblelearningtrajectory(bottom).UsingtheSmileyModelframework,theanalysisofGameOnerevealedthefollowing.Learningprocesses:Asitwasaquizgame,therewasnopossibilityoflearningfromanythingotherthantrialanderrorinthegame.Iftheplayer(fellowstudent)knewtheanswerinadvancefrompreviouslessons,thisgamecouldberegardedasa test of knowledge; otherwise, students could play the game by guessing. Evaluation: The game gavesummative feedback on whether the question was answered correctly or not. With regard to the gameelements,thegamegoalwastoanswerallanswerscorrectlyandthuswasequivalenttothelearninggoal.Theaction space or narrativewas a still picture in the Scratch game interface,with various questions askedbyAbrahamLincoln,whowasdepictedonamappresentingthenorthernandsouthernstatesintheUS(Figure1). Rules: If the player answered the questions correctly, he or she would pass on to the next question;otherwise,theplayerhadtostartalloveragain.Choices:Theplayercouldchoosebetweentwoanswerstothecurrent question.Challenges: The player had to know the correct answers (or guess); the player could not


5

learninthegame.Feedback:Thegamegaveimmediatefeedbackwhentheplayeransweredthequestion.Thefeedback was formulated in a humorous way, contributing to a light atmosphere directed at the adultaudience.Thegamedidnot,however,providehelpful information–forexample,explainingwhyananswerwasrightorwrongandusingthisopportunitytoteachtheplayer.Whenbuildinglearningintothisgame,thestudentshad to investigateand choosewhat relevant knowledgeabout theAmericanCivilWarandhumanrightstheirfellowstudentsshouldlearn.Theythereforelearnedbyinvestigatingthishistoricalperiodandbyformulatingandbuildinginmatchingquestionsandanswers.4.3GameTwo–InformationpresentationandquizgameIn the second game, the team started out by creating a big analogue prototype (Figure 2a). They used theprototype to create and discuss their ideas on how to build the game and how to implement learningpossibilitiesintothegame.Theteamcreatedlearningactivitiesby“placinginformation”atvariousobjectsinthegame.Theyusedpicturesoforiginalobjects fromthehistoricalperiod for the learning situations in thegame.By clicking theobjects in thedigital game (Scratch), theplayer/learnerwas introduced to knowledgeabouthumanrightsandtheCivilWar. Inorder togo to thenext level, theplayer/learnerhadtobeable torememberthis informationandanswerthegamequestions.Thegamehadabriefstorylineendingwiththegamecharacterbeingfreed.Analysisofthegamedesignelementsrevealedthefollowing.Learningprocess:Thegamepresentedpicturesof original historical artefacts which, when pressed, offered the player knowledge about the period. Theobjects and the informationdidnotalwayshavea logical connection,however (Figure2b).Evaluation: Theplayer/learner was summatively evaluated by being asked to give the correct answer to a question aboutsomething he or she had learned about in the game. Game goal: The goal was not known in advance;therefore,theimplicitgoalwastofinishthegame.Actionspace:Thesceneinthedigitalgameencompassedauthenticpicturesofobjects from thehistoricalperiod.Therefore, theplayer/learneralso implicitly learnedabouttheenvironmentandlivingconditionsinthisperiod.Rules:Iftheplayer/learneransweredthequestioncorrectly, heor shewouldpasson to thenext question/level; otherwise, heor shehad to start over again(Figure2c).Choice: Therewerenotmanychoices; inorder togoon in thegame, theplayer/learnerhad torememberinformationandsupplythecorrectanswer.Challenge:Thechallengewastorememberthecorrectanswer based on information previously introduced in the game. Feedback: The game gave immediatefeedbackwhen the player answered a question. Theplayer could revisit the information if the answerwaswrong,learningintheprocess,andthentryagain.

(2a)(2b)

(2c)Figure2:GameTwoanalogueprototype(a),digitalinterface(b)andmapofpossiblelearningtrajectory(c).Increatingthisgame,studentshadmanydiscussionsabouthowtocreatelearningsituationsinthegameandhow to integrate information about the historical period and events concerning human rights and the CivilWar.Thoughthisgame insomerespectswasstillaquizgame, italsopresented information– teaching theplayerfactsthathadtoberememberedinordertoprogress.Foreachquestionthestudentgamedesigners


6

askedinthegame,theyhadtofindthreefactstoteachtheplayer.Theyalsohadmanydiscussionsonhowtocreateanauthentic storyline in spiteof the simplegame structure.According to the teachers, the studentsachievedadeeperunderstandingofthesubjectmatterthantheynormallywouldhaveachieved.4.4GameThree–LearningbyexperienceThisgame’sstorylineencompassedachronologicaloverviewofhistoricaleventsfromtheAmericanCivilWar.Studentsreportedthattheycreatedthestorylinebytryingtoinvestigatebackwardsthroughhistory–startingwiththeendofthewarandthenseekingtodeterminewhycertainactionshadbeentakenbyeithertheNorth(Lincoln) or the South (Davis). By working backward and forward in the chronology of events, the teammappedout causal connectionsbetweenvariousevents.The specific learning trajectory for theirgamewasthatthelearner/playerwouldchoosetobeasoldierineitherthesouthernornorthernstatesandwouldlearnthrough experience and consequences in the game. The playerwould be able tomake authentic historicaldecisions and then experience the consequences. For example, as a soldier in the South, a player wouldparticipateinaparticularactionagainsttheNorthandexperiencewhattheNorthchosetodoinresponse.Allofthestudentswereintroducedtogamedesignasameansoflearningintheoveralllearningdesign.Someofthefirstassignmentsinthegamifiedoveralllearningdesignfortheclassinvolvedcreatingsmallexercisesinthe game design tool Scratch in order to become familiar with its features and affordances. According toteachers,theteamthatcreatedGameThreeexperiencedaverydeepandcomprehensivelearningexperiencewhiletheydiscussedtheirgamewitheachotherandwiththeteacher.Theirdeeplearningprocess,however,mainly took place in the analogue game construction process (Figure 3). Because they found the initialassignments in the gamedesign tool simple, they assumed theywouldhave aneasy time transforming theanaloguegameintoadigitalgame.Asitturnedout,thiswasaverydifficultprocess.Thestudentslackedthenecessaryprogrammingskills(stemmingfromnotusingtheirtimetolearnwhatwassuggestedinthatarea),buttheirdifficultywasperhapstoalargerextentduetothefactthattheyhadnotthoughtouttheirrulesforthe game in detail. This made it difficult for them to construct the digital game. According to Salen andZimmerman, “If you can plot out the rules of the games you are one step closer to being able to describespecifications for a programmable prototype” (2004, p. 148). By creatingmore specific rules, the studentswouldhavehadtothinkoutandconstructthemechanicsbehindthechoicesandconsequencesinthegame.

(3a)(3b)

(3c)Figure3:GameThreeanalogueprototype(a),digitalinterface(b)andmapof(im)possiblelearningtrajectory(c).In Game Three, the analysis of the game design for the analogue game revealed the following. Learningprocesses: The learner/player could choose between two positions and, by acting in the game, could learnthroughthehistoricalconsequencesofvariousactionstakeninthewar.Evaluation:Thestudentsdidnothaveaplanforevaluatingplayers’knowledgeinthegame.Theirgamecould,however,beseenasanexampleoflearningbyexperience.Gamegoal:Toparticipate inthewartotheend.Actionspace:Variousrelevantstillpictures and sounds, with choices and consequences written in text. Rules: The discussions among thestudentsintheteamrevealedthatstudentsintendedtoillustratethehistoricaldeterminingchoicesandtheir


7

consequences (lossof soldier lives and lossof health for the soldier-characters in the game). The rules andgamemechanicswerenotdevelopedindetailorimplementedinthedigitalgame.Thestudentshadusedalotofenergyunravellingandexploringwhatevents tookplaceandwhy.Though theyassuredus several timesthat itwouldbeeasytotransformintoadigitalgame,thiswasnothowitturnedout,a factthatfrustratedthem.Theydidnotuseanytimetoexperimentwithrulesanddetailedgamemechanicsuntiltheveryend,andthiswastoolate.Choice:Thisgamelettheplayer/learnerchoosetobeasoldierfromtheNorthortheSouth.Bycreatingagamewiththiscomprehensive information,goingbeyondaquizgameinthegamemechanics,thestudentsdevelopedadeepknowledgeaboutthesubjectmatter.Asoneof thestudents said,“Wehavelearnedbybuildingthegame,becausewehaveinvestigateditsothoroughlyandrepeateditsomanytimes.Soactuallyitisnotthestudentsplayingitthatwilllearnthemost,itisthestudentsthatarecreatingthegame–theywillrememberit…forgood,Ithink!”Theteacherwasverysatisfiedwiththeirlearningprocessaswell:“It'sonethingtobeabletorememberadate–likeinTrivialPursuit[aquizgame].Butweareinterestedinwhy ithappensinhistory,thecausalexplanations–whydoestheeventtakeplace,inwhoseinterestandsoon.Herethecreationofgamesasameansof learning isverywellchosen.” Inthisthirdgame,thestudentslearned a great deal while constructing the storyline and game design for their analogue prototype. Theirdifficulty in turning thegame intoadigitalgame,however,calls for reflectiononhowtosupportandguidefuturestudents’gamedesignprocessesinordertomaintainabalancebetweenthecomplexityofthelearninggametheywanttocreateandtheirabilitiestotransformitintoadigitalgame.4.5GameFour–Authenticstorylines,learningopportunitiesandstealthassessmentThe fourth student gamedesign team chose another gamedesign tool: RGBMaker. The affordances of thisgamedesigntool,aswellasthehardworkthestudentsputintothedesignprocess, ledtothecreationofamoreadvanceddigitallearninggamethanthepreviousthreegames.Thelearningtrajectoryinthisgamewasmuchmorecomplexandmadeitpossibletolearninvariouswayswhileplayingthegame(Figures4,5).

Figure4:GameFour analogueprototype, digital interface (top) andmapof thepossible learning trajectory(bottom).Alargerversionisavailablefollowingthereferences(Figure5).Analysisofthelearninggamedesign:Theplayerwasrepresentedbyacharacterinthegame,andthelearningprocesstookplacethroughthecharacter'sexperiences.Actionspace:Thecharacterinthegame,anenslavedpersonintheU.S.beforetheCivilWar,wasfinallyhelpedtoflee,experiencingvarioushistoricaleventsonhiswaythroughthestory.Theplayerhadseveralopportunitiestobecomeemotionallyengagedinthescenesinthe game. RGBMaker's game toolsmade it possible for the character to introduce the story to the player.Choice:Theplayercouldexplorethegameandchoosetoentervariousareas.Theplayercouldapproachothergamecharacters, choosing todoor ask something learning-related (historical)or game-related (game-play).When choosing between these possibilities, the consequences (rules) were equivalent to the historicalconsequences.Thisallowedtheplayertolearnasheorsheplayed(learningbydoing).Evaluation:Thegamecharacter met other characters along the way who gave hints about where to go and what to do. If thecharacterfollowedthese(authentichistorical)suggestions,theplayercouldmoveoninthegame,andthese


8

opportunities worked as examples of stealth assessment (Shute, 2011). Challenges: The student gamedesigners used the affordances of the game tool; for example, they interpreted/used an inherent gamemechanic in thegame-tool (escapingenemies)aspartof theoriginal story, inwhich theenslavedcharactertriedtoavoidbeingcaughtwhilefleeing.Feedback:Ifthecharactermadethewrongchoicesorwascaught,heor shewould be sent back. The game goal, revealed through the game, is to become free, andwhen thecharacter succeeds in doing this, he or she meets another character who reads the EmancipationProclamation. This game succeeded inusingboth the learning and gameelements in amoreengagingwaythanthethreepreviousgamesdid.RGBMaker and the fourth team's thoughtful use of this game design toolmade it possible to createmorecomplexandplayful learning trajectories in thisgame.Though itwas still a rather simplegamedesign tool,RGBMakerallowedstudents to implementa rangeofdifferent learningopportunities in thisgame.Creatingvarious learning opportunities (exemplified in the map in figure 4 and 5) also made the student gamedesigners’investigationsofthesubjectmatterandthecreationofauthenticstorylines,learningopportunitiesandstealthassessmentinthegamemuchmoredemanding(butalsoveryengaging).Thatis,incontrasttothecreation of a simple quiz game, this more complex game design, according to the teachers and students,demandedsearching,finding,reflectingon,implementingandevaluatinglargeramountsofinformationaboutthesubjectmatterandthelearninggoals;aswellasmorenuancedgamedesignprocesses.Thiscontributedtoamuchdeeperlearningprocessforthesestudentlearning-gamedesigners.5.BalanceinlearninggamedesignasameansoflearningandstudentreceptionWhenplanningtoletstudentslearnbycreatinglearninggames,theteacherhastoconsiderhowtomaintainabalance between the subject-matter knowledge required by the curriculum and the skills needed forcomputationalthinkingandlearninggamedesign.Inthisproject,thedevelopmentofstudents'computationalthinking skills andcodingabilitywasnotagoal in itself. Thegoalwas to learn thecross-disciplinary subjectmatter,andaccordingtotheteachersandthestudentsthemselves,mostofthestudentslearnedat leastasmuch as theywould have inmore traditional teaching and learning approaches.Most students consideredgamedesignasameansoflearningawelcomeandinspiringapproach,althoughsomestudentspreferredtostayintheanaloguephaseoflearning-gamedesign.Afewstudentsfoundthecomplexityofcreatinglearninggames and turning those games into digital games frustrating andmeaningless, as thiswas not part of theestablishedcurriculum(HistoryandEnglishassecondlanguage).5.1DiscussionandConclusionIn this experiment, adult students in an upper secondary general education program class succeeded inachievingcurriculum-basedlearninggoalsbyusinglearning-gamedesignasameansoflearning.Fourteamsofstudents implemented learningelements, created learningsituationsand learning trajectoriesandset theseelements into play in small digital games. Equivalent with what the teachers and students told they hadexperienced when interviewed, the analysis of the various learning and game elements in the four gamessuggests that the creation of more complex learning trajectories in the games results in more cognitivelycomplexlearningprocessesforthestudentlearning-gamedesigners.Forexample,inthesimplestquizgame,thestudentdesignersonlyhadtocreatesimplequestionsandanswers,whereas inthecomplexgames, thestudentscreatedcurriculum-basedstorylines,avarietyof in-gamelearningsituationsandevenimplicitwaysthatthelearner/playerwouldbeassessedinthegame.Thesemorecomplexlearningsituationsinvolveddeepworkanddeepinvestigationofthesubjectmattertobelearned.ThestudentswhousedthegamedesigntoolRGBMakerhadtoworkhardertolearntocodeinthetool,butRGBMakerfeaturedbuilt-inaffordancesthat,whenusedinathoughtfulway,supportedandinspiredthestudentstobuildcomplexlearningtrajectoriesandthereby experience complex learning processes aswell as gameplay processes. The open game design toolScratchhasmanyadvantagesandcanbeusedtotakemultiplecreativedirections.ThestudentsusingScratchdidnotprogressas far in the learning-gamedesignprocess; theirchallengewasthat theytoa largerextentthemselveshadtoinventanddevelopmorecomplexlearningtrajectoriesinthegamedesigntool.Inspiredbythe results of this experiment, future experiments will focus on creating multiple Scratch game-mechanicexampleswithmorerelevantandcomplexlearningtrajectoriesinordertoguide,inspireandsupportstudentstobuildmorecomplexlearningprocesseswhendesigninggamesasameansoflearning.6.ReferencesAnderson,L.W.andKrathwohl,D.R.(Eds.)(2001)ATaxonomyforLearning,TeachingandAssessing:ARevisionofBloom’sTaxonomyofEducationalObjectives:CompleteEdition,Longman,NewYork.


9

Barab,S.,&Dede,C.(2007)Gamesandimmersiveparticipatorysimulationsforscienceeducation:anemergingtypeofcurricula.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,16(1),pp1-3Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April) New frameworks for studying and assessing the development ofcomputational thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdfEarp,J.(2015)Gamemakingforlearning:Asystematicreviewoftheresearchliterature.InProceedingsof8thInternationalConferenceofEducation,ResearchandInnovation,pp.6426–6435.Seville,Spain:International.Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015) Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games forlearning.EducationalPsychologist,50(4),pp313-334.Kafai, Y.B.andResnick,M. (1996)Constructionism inPractice:Designing,Thinking,andLearning inaDigitalWorld,Routledge,NewYork.Selander,S.andKress,G.(2012)Læringsdesignietmultimodaltperspektiv,Copenhagen:Frydenlund.Oygardslia,K.(2015).StudentsasGameDesigners:LearningbyCreatingGameNarrativesintheClassroom.InInteractiveStorytelling(pp.341-344).SpringerInternationalPublishing.Papert,S.,&Harel,I.(1991).Constructionism.Norwood,NJ:AlexPublishing.Salen,K.andZimmerman,E.(2004)RulesofPlay.GameDesignFundamentals,TheMITPress.Shute,V. J. (2011). Stealthassessment in computer-basedgames to support learning.Computergamesandinstruction,55(2),pp503-524.Squire,K.(2011).VideoGamesandLearning:TeachingandParticipatoryCultureintheDigitalAge.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.Weitze,C.L.(2014).AnExperimentonHowAdultStudentsCanLearnbyDesigningEngagingLearningGames.MeaningfulPlay2014,16-18October2014:ConferenceProceedings.Michigan:UniversityofMichiganPress.Weitze, C.L. (2015). Learning and Motivational Processes When Students Design Curriculum-Based DigitalLearning Games, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL), Nord-TrondelagUniversityCollege,Steinkjer,Norway,8–9October2015.ACPIL.Weitze,C.L. (2016a).LearningandDesignProcesses inaGamifiedLearningDesign inwhichStudentsCreateCurriculum-BasedDigitalLearningGames;Nordgold,Ild-Lab–NordiskAntologi,-Submitted1stSept2015.Weitze,C.L(2016b).HowStudentGameDesignersDesignLearningintoGames.InProceedingsoftheAnnualConference12.0ofGames+Learning+Society,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,Pittsburgh,PA:ETC.Weitze, C.L. (2016c, in press nov16) Designing for Learning and Play - The Smiley Model as Framework.InteractionDesignandArchitecture(s)Journal-IxD&A,specialissue:PlayerandLearnereXperience,2016.SoftwareRPGMaker[Computersoftware].(2016).Retrievedfromhttp://www.rpgmakerweb.comScratch [Computer software]. (2016).Developedby the LifelongKindergartenGroupby theMITMedia Lab,Retrievedfromhttp://scratch.mit.eduScratchWikiBlocks(2016)https://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Blocks


10

Figure5:GameFour-mapofthepossiblelearningtrajectory

Student Learning-Game Designs Emerging Learning Trajectories

Documents

Transcript of Student Learning-Game Designs Emerging Learning Trajectories