Identifying Game Variables from Students’ Surveys for Prototyping Games for Learning
Games-based learning (GBL) has become increasingly important in teaching and learning. This paper explains the first two phases (analysis and design) of a GBL development project, ending up with a prototype design based on students’ and teachers’ perceptions. The two phases are part of a full cycle GBL project aiming to help secondary school students in Thailand in their study of Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE). In the course of the study, we invited 1,152 students to complete questionnaires and interviewed 12 secondary school teachers in focus groups. This paper found that GBL can serve students in their learning about CSE, enabling them to gain understanding of their sexuality, develop skills, including critical thinking skills and interact with others (peers, teachers, etc.) in a safe environment. The objectives of this paper are to outline the development of GBL variables from the research question(s) into the developers’ flow chart, to be responsive to the GBL beneficiaries’ preferences and expectations, and to help in answering the research questions. This paper details the steps applied to generate GBL variables that can feed into a game flow chart to develop a GBL prototype. In our approach, we detailed two models: (1) Game Elements Model (GEM) and (2) Game Object Model (GOM). There are three outcomes of this research – first, to achieve the objectives and benefits of GBL in learning, game design has to start with the research question(s) and the challenges to be resolved as research outcomes. Second, aligning the educational aims with engaging GBL end users (students) within the data collection phase to inform the game prototype with the game variables is essential to address the answer/solution to the research question(s). Third, for efficient GBL to bridge the gap between pedagogy and technology and in order to answer the research questions via technology (i.e. GBL) and to minimise the isolation between the pedagogists “P” and technologist “T”, several meetings and discussions need to take place within the team.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2702767Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 147
 Amory, A. (2007). "Game object model version II: a theoretical framework for educational game development.", Educational Technology Research and Development 55(1): 51-77.
 Amory, A., & Seagram, R. (2003). “Educational game models: Conceptualization and evaluation”, South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), 206–217.
 Attewell J, Savill-Smith C (2003). Mobile learning and social inclusion – focussing on learners and learning. Paper presented to the MLEARN 2003 Conference – Learning with Mobile Devices, 19–20 May 2003, London.
 Bates, B. (2004). Game Design (2nd ed.). Thomson Course Technology. ISBN 1-59200-493-8.
 Becta (2001). Computer Games in Education project. Retrieved April 15, 2108 from www.becta.org.uk/research/ research.cfm?section=1&id=2826.
 Bellotti, F., Kapralos, B., Lee, K., Pablo Moreno-Ger, & Berta, R. (2013). Assessment in and of serious games: An overview. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013 doi:10.1155/2013/136864.
 Bureau of Reproductive Health. (2015). Presented at the 36th meeting of Choices Forum at the Nation Health Security Office (NHSO) on February 24th, 2015.
 Checkland, P. (1991). From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research. In H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, & R. Hirscheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Science.
 Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organisation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Djelil, F., et al. (2014). Towards a learning game evaluation methodology in a training context: A literature review. European Conference on Games Based Learning, Academic Conferences International Limited.
 Dondi, C. and M. Moretti (2007). "A methodological proposal for learning games selection and quality assessment.", British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3): 502-512.
 Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: towards an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work , 14 (1), 133-156.
 Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, J. of Comp. Entertainm., 1, pp.20-28.
 Hendriks, V. and Maor, D. (2004).”Quality of students’ communicative strategies delivered via computermediated communications”, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(11), 5-32.
 Khowaja, K. (2017). A Serious Game Design Framework For Vocabulary Learning Of Children With Autism. Doctor Of Philosophy, University Of Malaya.
 Khowaja, K. & Salim, S. S. (2018). “Serious Game For Children With Autism To Learn Vocabulary: An Experimental Evaluation.International”, Journal Of Human–Computer Interaction, 1-26.
 Kuutti, K. (1996). “Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer interaction research”, In Nardi, B. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 Lewin, K. (1946). “Action research and minority problems”. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34– 46. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x.
 Lewin, K. (Ed.). (1952). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. London: Tavistock.
 Marciano, J. N., et al. (2014). "Evaluating multiple aspects of educational computer games: literature review and case study." International Journal of Computer Games Technology, 2014: 14.
 McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2008). The Three P's of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. In International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27.
 Maor, D. (2004) Pushing beyond the comfort zone: Bridging the gap between technology and pedagogy. In Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings ASCILITE,Perth 2004.
 Panyayong, B. (2010). Knowledge synthesis: teenage pregnancy. Nonthaburi, Thailand: Ministry of Public Health.
 Pelletier, C; Oliver, M; (2006). Activity theory and learning from digital games: implications for game design. In: Buckingham, D and Willett, R, (eds.) Digital Generations: children, young people, and new media. (pp. 67-92). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
 Prensky M (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 Prensky, M. (2003). “Digital game-based learning”. Computers in Entertainment, 1, 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/950566.950596.
 Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. GameStudies, 2 (1), Retrieved Jan 20 Th , 2019, from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/squire/.
 Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Tan, P.-H., et al. (2007). Adaptive digital game-based learning framework. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Digital interactive media in entertainment and arts, ACM.
 UNICEF and Ministry of Education. (2016). Review of Comprehensive Sexuality Education in Thailand. Bangkok, UNICEF. Retrieved September 03, 2018 from https://www.unicef.org/thailand/sites/unicef.org.thailand/files/2018-08/comprehensive_sexuality_education%20EN.pdf.
 Wenger, E. C. (2006) Communities of Practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved February 21, 2019 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm.
 Vlachopoulos, D .and Makri. A. (2017) “The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 201714:22 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1.
 Von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R.B. Davis, C.A. Mayer &.
 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
 Wallner, G and Kriglstein, S (2011) Design and evaluation of the educational game DOGeometry, Conference: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACE 2011, Lisbon, Portugal, November 8-11, 2011.