The first paragraph is understandable if you take your time. 1: definition 2: problem 3: a descritpion of the thing under study is necessary before the problem can be addressed. The 2nd paragraph is written with same structure - but which will you remember tomorrow? You already know a lot about cakes. A cake is buttery, not oily so the use of oil unusual. Also the sentence “what characteristics are required” - you already kind of know for cakes.
But as Squire says, you can’t use Civ in classrooms because it doesn’t align with curricula!
Note the use of reflection. This could be a key element of the design that I missed. Let’s spend some time thinking about this model. Can you design using this?
Remember Civ? How it’s not aligned with curricula. There lies a KEY angle for designers.
This is why I designed e-bug the way I did.
This is why I used a MDA style approach.
You can see (hopefully) how I was trying to design these activities. But there is a gap. The models aren’t enough. The game doesn’t REALLY work.
Why do YOU think the game wasn’t more successful? And why the inconsistency? Same designer / programmer / artists / scientists / teachers. I didn’t know! Had some vague ideas. But that’s a crazy way to design. You can’t rely on “vague ideas”.
They key is to ask those questions while SIMULATING THE USER IN YOUR BRAIN
I realised that there is NOTHING UI specific about CW. It’s actually about UX not UI. You just need to ask different questions - the general process is universal.
At this point, it’s not really ALL THAT different from existing practice. But Step 4 is the magic - and that is the extension. I divide step 4 into sub steps.
Links can be categorised as low risk if it is likely that the player will make the connection; moderate risk if the player should make the connection, but there is enough doubt to warrant further attention; high risk if it is unlikely that the player will make the connection.
What is the point ofGBL?You will have heard a *lot* about motivation andserious games.Is that all SG / GBL have to offer?If so, what is special about games?
Chen & Wang 2009“Engaging learners in the learning process is thepre-requisite for effective e-learning.”“However, making learning more engaging relieson considerate design of learning activities”C&W argue for the value of interactivity in qualitylearningThus - games - but what is “considerate” design?
Learning TheoriesTwo main schools: Objectivism Learning == transfer of knowledge Constructivism Learning == individual’s creating their own version of knowledge
Procedural /DeclarativeWe have evidence to support games for simpledeclarative / procedural knowledge improvement.Skill and Drill / Edutainment factual & procedural knowledge depend on strength of memory and ease of recall so “all” you have to do is repeat until it’s muscle memory. Memory, not thought.
Skill & Drill PedagogyMotivation of games is the main benefit.Goal is repeated practice of a skill until automaticMath Blaster, Brain Training, “training games”Gamification type approaches to incentivise
ConstructivismKnowledge is created through contact betweenthoughts and the world.The model is IN YOUR HEAD and is modified byhow you interpret input you get.Dewey / Piaget / Vygotski / Bruner / Gardiner /Papert
Daniel WillinghamMotor learning is the change in capacity toperform skilled movements that achievebehavioural goals in the environment. Afundamental and unresolved question inneuroscience is whether there are specific neuralsystems for representing sequential motorresponses. Defining such systems with brainimaging and other methods requires a carefuldelineation of what specifically is being learned fora given sequencing task.
Daniel WillinghamA chiffon cake replaces butter— the traditional fatin cakes— with oil. A fundamental and unresolvedquestion in baking is when to make a butter cakeand when to make a chiffon cake. Answering thisquestion with expert tasting panels and othermethods requires a careful description of whatcharacteristics are required for a cake.
SchemaWe don’t easily store “facts”, we have networks ofrelated concepts.When we encounter something new, weunderstand it in context of what we already know.So knowledge creating is a subtle modifying overtime of these networks of concepts.
Games asMicroworldsThe Shaffer & Svarovski paper I spoke about lastweek (SodaConstructing) introduces twoconcepts: Exploratoids (extension of Explanatoid) Microworlds (robust simulation of some domain)
Problem BasedLearningStep 1: Topic Introduction - why it’s importantStep 2: problem statementStep 3: generate hypothesesStep 4: acquire dataStep 5: test hypothesis
ConstructiveAlignmentBiggs 1996: Learners construct meaning from what they do Teacher makes deliberate alignment between planned learning activities and desired learning outcomes.
So here’s my ideaCognitive Walkthrough for Learning ThroughGame MechanicsCWLTGM!
CognitiveWalkthroughOne or more experts will “walk” through a set ofsteps required to accomplish a task.Before beginning, you detail as much as you canabout: What the user knows What steps are required to accomplish the taskThen you walk through each step questioning:
CW Questions1: Will the user try to achieve the right effect?2:Will the user notice that the correct action isavailable?3: Will the user associate the correctaction with the effect to be achieved?4: If thecorrect action is performed, will the user see thatprogress is being made toward solution of thetask?
Success or failurestoryFor each step you try to come up with a(believable) success or failure story. the user knows to click the print icon because she recognises the shape of the printer as representing the print function the user fails to find the left-align icon because she does not know to expand the “hidden icons” area
CW for GBLI did two things: Contextualise Extend
Contextualise: InputsWho are players and what do they know?What are the desired learning outcomes of thetask?How are game and domain entities represented?What are the interactions required for player tolearn the content
Contextualise:walkthroughStep 1: will player attempt the desired task?Step 2: Will player understand what game actionswould achieve the task?Step 3: Will player associate their correct action asmaking progress towards task completion?Assuming player executes correct actions, is itreasonable to expect learning to take place?
Step 4/1List every logical connection that must be made by the playerin order to learn through playing this part of the game. Must the player recognise domain-entity mappings? Must player understand semantic meaning of an animation or in-game action to subject domain? How many game elements must the player consider at once to understand the subject domain system?Generally - you want to avoid making LEAPS of logic, youwant to detail each small logical link.
Step 4/2For each of the logical links identify - reconsider itand ask if it is actually two or more steps of logic -if so, split it by just FORMALLY going over each item, you find mistakesRinse and repeat
Step 4/3When you are satisfied that each link is explicit, consider eachlogical link and ask whether it is reasonable to expect the playerto make this connection / logical inference. Will the imagined player understand the visual metaphors? Will the player read and understand required text? Will the player’s attention be drawn to the elements mentioned in the logical link? Will the players understand the relationship between the in- game entities, but fail to recognise how that applies to the subject domain?
At the end of step 4This is where you write your “success” or “failure”story for each item of your logical chain.I categorise into low, medium, or high risk.
What’s the point?Firstly, we can understand WHY things worked ordid not work in a given design.But more powerfully (in theory) by applying thetechnique to designs PRIOR to implementation,we can identify flaws that would not be spotted.
What nextI have handouts: The e-Bug evaluation paper (has the table explaining results) An overview of Cog Walk My (in progress) Cog Walk paperI want you to read these before the lab if you can.
LabsBetween now and the labs, I’m going to move tothe next turn of CareerQuest.So we’ll do that in the labs for 5 mins.The rest of the lab will be you applying CWLTGMto evaluate the “white blood cell” bit of the game.I want to see if you end up with the same answersas me!
ReferencesChen, M., & Wang, L. (2009). The Effects of Type of Interactivity in Experiential Game-Based Learning, 273–282.Svarovsky, G., & Shaffer, D. (2006). Sodaconstructing an Understanding of Physics: Technology-BasedEngineering Activities for Middle School Students. Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th AnnualConference, 17–23. doi:10.1109/FIE.2006.322594Farrell, David (City University, L., Kostkova, P (City University, L., Lecky, D. (Health P. A., & McNulty, C.(Health P. A. (2009). Teaching Children Hygiene Using Problem Based Learning: The Story TellingApproach to Games Based Learning. International Conference on Web-based Learning (ICWL), SecondWorkshop on Story-Telling and Educational Games (Vol. 37).Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school: A cognitive scientist answers questions abouthow the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.Queens University, Problem Based Learning. http://meds.queensu.ca/pbl/pbl_in_practice/pbl_processBiggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.springerlink.com/index/l2q3820h2436l607.pdfWharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In J. Nielsen &R. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://psych-www.colorado.edu/ics/techpubs/pdf/93-07.pdf