Serious games career quest

1,299 views

Published on

implementing a SDT based motivation model in a serious game

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,299
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • highall 71 (was christopher mcgerr) medall 79 (was ally hay) lowall 45 (was grant mckenna)
  • Serious games career quest

    1. 1. Career Quest Behind the Curtain
    2. 2. De-Brief• Purpose of game• Learning goals and implementation• Experiment design and implementation
    3. 3. Affect & SGs• e-Bug == Cognitive focus + Affective instinct • i.e. “I’ll design it to be fun”• The fun of those games is derived from stealing things from games. • Platform mechanics • Story / comedy • scores etc
    4. 4. Affect and e-Bug• Why is the e-Bug game “fun” for 9-11 year olds?• Why is ANY game fun?• Why is anyTHING fun?
    5. 5. SPAM / ARC• DM spoke of the (S)PAM model of motivation (Daniel Pink). • Does anyone remember what it is?• DM spoke of the ARC model of motivation (Deci & Ryan). • Does anyone remember what it is?
    6. 6. Intrinsic Motivation• Autonomy (a feeling of having freedom, that your choices matter and you can express change)• Relatedness (a feeling of connection to people, that you & what your doing matters to your peers)• Competence (a feeling that you are good at something or are getting better at something)
    7. 7. Support for ARC• How much people feel supported in Autonomy, Relatedness and Competence predicts their subjective enjoyment of a task and the extent to which they identify with the task.• People who identify as intrinsically motivated perform better and learn / remember more.
    8. 8. ARC & Learning• Grolnick & Ryan 1987 • 3 groups of children at school • nondirected (asked to read a passage and report how interesting.) • directed (no mention of test but told instructor interested in how much they learn) • directed and told about grades
    9. 9. ARC & Learning• The first two of these groups attempt to give autonomy (not DIRECTING behaviour)• All students tested. • Students who were directed performed better on rote memorisation than first group. • grades group (least autonomous) evidenced greatest deterioration of memorised facts after a week) • grades group also had poorer conceptual learning of material than other groups.
    10. 10. ARC & Learning• Similar findings repeatedly found.• Generalisable finding is that when people are “self determined” in a learning task, they are more engaged, pay more attention, want to learn more and retain / understand better as a result.• Sounds like an important finding to me!
    11. 11. Games• Is SPAM / ARC why we like games? • Some think so. I’m starting to (ish).• Lots of (fake) Autonomy.• Relatedness is weaker (multiplayer excepted)• “balance” + great, timely feedback == Competence
    12. 12. ARC in Games• Rigby & Przybylski 2006 found: • that satisfying ARC related to: • intrinsic motivation for play • immersion in the game • +ve short term wellbeing in the player • mastery of controls essential but not sufficient
    13. 13. ARC in Games• Rigby & Ryan 2006 found: • “between-games differences in psychological need satisfaction related to popular appeal”• Two games very similar in content but judged differently by metacritic. • The ‘good’ game supported ARC better than the ‘bad’ game.
    14. 14. ARC & Games• Przybylski, Ryan and Rigby 2009 found: • Core appeal of violent games was based on ARC satisfaction • ARC predicted enjoyment, immersion and future play. Violent interests / tendencies predicted preference for future play - but NOT enjoyment.• Przybylski 2009 found that post-play aggression was not linked to violent content, but rather to low ARC support - e.g. frustration from poor mastery
    15. 15. Hypotheses• Enjoyment of a Serious Game is predicted by perceived ARC support • As self reported by players • As objectively measured• Knowledge & Attitude change will be correlated to ARC support• Certain game design strategies will support ARC better than others
    16. 16. Careers Service• Students don’t really think about employability until after graduation.• Students think “get my degree then worry about it”• Students think they have no skills outwith their degree and that their P/T work doesn’t matter• Asked if we could design a game to try to tackle these.
    17. 17. Learning Design• The “Fortnightly Planner” is to raise awareness of what is required to manage one’s employability.• The “Dilemmas” were to make students think about employability skills outside of their degree.• The “Daily Item” was intended to encourage not just “playing the game” but taking the content of the game into your real world.
    18. 18. Hypotheses• Enjoyment of a Serious Game is predicted by perceived ARC support • As self reported by players • As objectively measured• Knowledge & Attitude change will be correlated to ARC support• Certain game design strategies will support ARC better than others
    19. 19. Experiment Design• We want see if ARC support correlates to subjective engagement, objective engagement, and K&A change.• The different “versions” of the game are intended to answer the third hypothesis.
    20. 20. Autonomy Support• High: • Empowering Language • More agency by type / quantity• Medium: • Neutral language • Medium agency by type / quantity• Low: • Controlling language • Low agency by type / quantity
    21. 21. Competence• Vary • Detail of feedback • Language that suggests improvement / is neutral / or suggests poor performance • Information in advance for how their choices will affect their attainment varying to no information
    22. 22. Relatedness• High group received detailed, personal feedback at the start of each week.• Low group had an avatar we hoped they wouldn’t relate to (if also in low Autonomy group)
    23. 23. Demo
    24. 24. Early findings• K&A wise, I know of some changes to behaviour via the “daily task” • 12 students signed up for vacancies (1 got a game design job ?!?!?!?!)• At least one student did the “twitter” daily task.• 6 students got the token from CS - they now know where it is!
    25. 25. Early Findings• Of the NINE “High A, High C” students, only ONE chose to answer their own solution to dilemmas. • struck me as a bit weird!• People did not behave as I would have predicted SOLELY by their (random) groups • one of the most frequent users was a “low everything” user.
    26. 26. Results• Of course, for all but last of the hypotheses it’s “perceived” ARC support that matters.• One objective measure of engagement was daily option submissions.
    27. 27. Daily Engagement• Excluding the HACKER who had 77....• Very crudely, adding AC support values (0,1,2) and calling it SDT: 4 = 23 / 7 = 3.3 3 = 7 / 4 = 1.7 2 = 18 / 12 = 1.5 1 = 12 / 4 = 3 0 = 33 / 10 = 3.3• I can see no sign of design’s influence• I suspect personality had larger impact than my design
    28. 28. This afternoon• Focus group questions • Please think about the game. • Think about whether you felt supported in ARC • Whether the game mechanics influenced this • What you liked /disliked, what you would change etc.

    ×