Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Cognitive Walkthrough
for Learning Through
Game Mechanics
David Farrell & David Moffat
Glasgow Caledonian University
Key Messages
• We should be adapting tools, such as
Cognitive Walkthrough to support serious
game designers.
• It’s hard t...
Information and animations for junior
and senior pupils across Europe.
Lesson packs for teachers in
junior and senior schools.
a game to teach junior pupils
a game to teach senior pupils
K. Squire & Civ III
D. W. Shaffer & Soda
War on Terror Sweatshop
Cognitive Walkthrough
• A HCI technique, well established in UI
design and evaluation.
• Instead of relying on pure instin...
Typical CW
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe users
• describe task
• describe system
• list each action required to c...
Typical CW
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user try to achieve effect?
• 4: If correct action performed, will user notice...
CW and Serious Games
• UI design is not unique in the requirement
of the designer to ‘imagine’ the user’s brain
• All inte...
Bespoke CWs
• There are many viable GBL pedagogies
• Whatever the underlying theory, there is a
risk translating that theo...
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe users
• describe task
• describe system
• list each action required to compl...
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe task
• describe system
• list each action required to com...
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe desired learning outcome
• describe system
• list each ac...
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe desired learning outcomes
• describe how game entities & ...
CWLTGM
• Stage 1:“Defining Inputs”
• describe players
• describe desired learning outcomes
• describe how game entities & ...
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user try to achieve effect?
• 2:Will user notice correct action available?
• 3:Wil...
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user notice correct action available?
• 3:Wil...
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user understand which in-game actions
might a...
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user understand which in-game actions
might a...
CWLTGM
• Stage 2:“Walkthrough”
• 1:Will user attempt the game task?
• 2:Will user understand which in-game actions
might a...
Step 4 of Walkthrough
• In the less successful area of the game, I
identified 9 separate logical links required
Findings
• Of these only 3 appea...
Conclusion
• Gap between best pedagogical theory and ‘day
to day’ game design
• Too much depends on designer instinct and
...
Future Work
• More analyses of (un)successful games with
this process
• Using CWLTGM during design process
Questions?
• I’d love to hear from anyone interested!
• david.farrell@gcu.ac.uk
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13

646

Published on

This presentation supports my paper at ECGBL13.

The central idea to the presentation is that making serious games that are reliably able to achieve their goal is really hard.

Good theory tends to be at a very high level, whereas game design happens on a day to day basis at a much lower level.

We need procedures and processes that can help designers bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Cognitive Walkthrough is a well established UI process that helps UI designers to correct their mistaken assumptions and biases by scaffolding their thinking - but there is nothing magical about UI design.

All interaction design requires the designer to think "like" another type of user.

So I'm arguing that we should adapt Cognitive Walkthrough to support our game designers, particularly serious game designers.

I also present one adaptation of Cognitive Walkthrough and use it to evaluate why very similar sections of one educational game differed greatly in their success.

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Very precise, detailed presentation. Good work.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
646
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • With close reference to the player description created earlier, the evaluator should ask questions like: • Will the player understand the visual metaphors? • Will the player read and understand required text? • Will the player’s attention be drawn to the correct elements? • Will the player understand that the meaning of game interactions has a subject domain application?
  • For the successful Soap Section, the game actions were converted into the following inferences: 1. The player must realise that the environment in which they play represents a human hand. 2. The player must understand that she isn’t “firing bullets” but rather throwing soap. 3. The player must realise that the game’s placement of bad bugs on skin represents the reality that we have harmful bugs on our skin. 4. The player must realise that the bad bugs are being washed away by the soap. 5. The player must realise that the bad bugs are bugs, and not aliens or other enemies. 6. The player must realise that this doesn’t just happen in the game; it represents reality in that soap is used in real life to remove microbes from the hand. 7. The player must understand holistically that washing her hands will remove harmful bugs.
  • 1. Player must realise that the environment they are playing in represents "inside a human body". 2. Player must realise that the bad bugs are microbes (viruses) and not aliens etc. 3. Player must realise that the game's placement of the virus inside the body represents the real-world concept of a human being infected with a virus. 4. P layer must realise it's a white blood cell! 6. Player must realise that "white blood cells" are the body's natural defences. 8. Player must realise that most “coughs and colds” are viruses. 5. Player must realise that the bad bugs when hit by the WBC are being killed. 7. Player must realise that this doesn't just happen in the game; it represents reality in the sense that white blood cells kill infections. 9. Player must understand holistically that this means that their body can kill most infections like colds and flu’s by itself.
  • • the player was considered unlikely to recognise the artwork as representing the desired domain concept from sight alone because the concept is new to the player (e.g. white blood cells); • the introductory text was unlikely to be understood (25 sentences over 5 screens, each shown for 5 seconds); • the language used in the game is not consistent with the test question asked (e.g. the game referred viruses, yet the quiz refers to “coughs and colds”); • there were too many new concepts being introduced to reasonably expect the player to understand the semantic mappings.
  • Transcript of "Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics at ECGBL13"

    1. 1. Cognitive Walkthrough for Learning Through Game Mechanics David Farrell & David Moffat Glasgow Caledonian University
    2. 2. Key Messages • We should be adapting tools, such as Cognitive Walkthrough to support serious game designers. • It’s hard to make good GBL
    3. 3. Information and animations for junior and senior pupils across Europe.
    4. 4. Lesson packs for teachers in junior and senior schools.
    5. 5. a game to teach junior pupils
    6. 6. a game to teach senior pupils
    7. 7. K. Squire & Civ III D. W. Shaffer & Soda War on Terror Sweatshop
    8. 8. Cognitive Walkthrough • A HCI technique, well established in UI design and evaluation. • Instead of relying on pure instinct, CW offers cognitive scaffolding.
    9. 9. Typical CW • Stage 1:“Defining Inputs” • describe users • describe task • describe system • list each action required to complete task
    10. 10. Typical CW • Stage 2:“Walkthrough” • 1:Will user try to achieve effect? • 4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution? • 3: Will user associate correct action with the desired effect? • 2: Will user notice correct action available?
    11. 11. CW and Serious Games • UI design is not unique in the requirement of the designer to ‘imagine’ the user’s brain • All interaction design requires the designer to simulate how someone else will think • This is also true of game design. • This is important in GBL
    12. 12. Bespoke CWs • There are many viable GBL pedagogies • Whatever the underlying theory, there is a risk translating that theory, through design into game implementation. • To be useful, a CW should map to pedagogy
    13. 13. CWLTGM • Stage 1:“Defining Inputs” • describe users • describe task • describe system • list each action required to complete task
    14. 14. CWLTGM • Stage 1:“Defining Inputs” • describe players • describe task • describe system • list each action required to complete task
    15. 15. CWLTGM • Stage 1:“Defining Inputs” • describe players • describe desired learning outcome • describe system • list each action required to complete task
    16. 16. CWLTGM • Stage 1:“Defining Inputs” • describe players • describe desired learning outcomes • describe how game entities & behaviours map to subject-domain • list each action required to complete task
    17. 17. CWLTGM • Stage 1:“Defining Inputs” • describe players • describe desired learning outcomes • describe how game entities & behaviours map to subject-domain • list actions required that are assumed to support learning
    18. 18. CWLTGM • Stage 2:“Walkthrough” • 1:Will user try to achieve effect? • 2:Will user notice correct action available? • 3:Will user associate correct action with the desired effect? • 4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?
    19. 19. CWLTGM • Stage 2:“Walkthrough” • 1:Will user attempt the game task? • 2:Will user notice correct action available? • 3:Will user associate correct action with the desired effect? • 4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?
    20. 20. CWLTGM • Stage 2:“Walkthrough” • 1:Will user attempt the game task? • 2:Will user understand which in-game actions might achieve the task goal? • 3:Will user associate correct action with the desired effect? • 4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?
    21. 21. CWLTGM • Stage 2:“Walkthrough” • 1:Will user attempt the game task? • 2:Will user understand which in-game actions might achieve the task goal? • 3:Will user associate correct action with the progress towards game task completion? • 4: If correct action performed, will user notice progress towards solution?
    22. 22. CWLTGM • Stage 2:“Walkthrough” • 1:Will user attempt the game task? • 2:Will user understand which in-game actions might achieve the task goal? • 3:Will user associate correct action with the progress towards game task completion? • 4: If correct action performed, can we expect learning to take place?
    23. 23. Step 4 of Walkthrough
    24. 24. • In the less successful area of the game, I identified 9 separate logical links required Findings • Of these only 3 appeared safe • Applying CWLTGM in this capacity offered reasonable explanation of confusing results
    25. 25. Conclusion • Gap between best pedagogical theory and ‘day to day’ game design • Too much depends on designer instinct and intuitive simulation of users’ mental model • CW is a general purpose tool, not restricted to UI design, that can help structure this process • We will need bespoke CWs depending on pedagogy
    26. 26. Future Work • More analyses of (un)successful games with this process • Using CWLTGM during design process
    27. 27. Questions? • I’d love to hear from anyone interested! • david.farrell@gcu.ac.uk
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×