Serious game play in online learning design

Introduction  

Gamification has transformed online teaching and learning, with the shift to Serious Games (SG) prompted by teachers and educators looking for innovative ways to engage, motivate, guide and assess student learning. While SG boast a multitude of benefits, such as increasing engagement and empowering students, there are still some challenges to be addressed in the field around the best ways to design games with the aim of meeting learning objectives and educational outcomes. However, educators can look to guidelines to provide some direction and support when considering SG. In addition, two case studies have been included to demonstrate how SG can be useful to teach both discipline-specific and ‘soft’ skills in higher education. Finally, future developments, like the integration of learning analytics, how specific game designs work and the need for further research outside of case studies, are considered.  

Current trends  

Play for learning can be traced back centuries to Plato’s works (Wilkinson, 2016, as cited in Dimitriadou et al., 2020). However, such learning has been transformed by the integration of game-based learning (Dimitriadou et al., 2020). SG are defined as “a game in which education (in its various forms) is the primary goal, rather than entertainment” (Michael and Chen, 2005, p. 17). In 2017, the SG market was predicted to reach US$2.3 billion (Yichuan et al., 2017) and continues to grow each year. SGs are useful in education because they can promote higher levels of enjoyment and engagement in the learning process and this can lead to more pathways for meeting learning objectives (Hookham et al., 2016). This allows for a more active, rather than passive approach to learning (Dimitriadou et al., 2020). Games can be set up to replicate real-world scenarios and prepare students with the decision-making skills needed to succeed in their chosen contexts. However, the learning objectives, target audience and game design require careful consideration to ensure the game meets the needs of the students.  

SGs have been used in higher education in urban planning, engineering, health and computing, as well as a range of other disciplines. However, they have also been used outside of higher education in fire safety training and other corporate training modules. Game-based learning can be used to promote independence and empowerment (Dimitriadou et al., 2020) and increase students’ motivation to engage with learning content due to a more creative approach (Hall et al., 2014; Schulz et al., 2016). McDaniel and Telep (2009), drawing on Gee’s (2003) seminal work highlight that gaming allows users to take risks they may not necessarily take in real life. They contend, “what better way to encourage students to think outside the familiar than by allowing them to do so in an engaging, but still safe, environment?” (McDaniel and Telep, 2009, p. 425). As a tool for reflection and critical thinking, SG provide options outside of the typical learning approaches.  

There are, however, some challenges that require further thought from educators in future research and development. A prominent challenge is the lack of clear guidance or a systematic approach to producing well-designed games for learning (Hall et al., 2014; Gauthier and Jenkinson, 2018). In addition, the literature about the role that educators play and their knowledge of SG, access to resources and appropriate SG that meet the needs of both educators and students and other barriers have only recently been considered (Dimitriadou et al., 2020; Schulz et al., 2016).  

Technologies and practices  

Those looking to implement SG can consider two approaches including, games that are developed for a specific, educational purpose and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games that are adapted for educational purposes. COTS include games like Second Life and EVE Online, while games developed for educational purposes include RoboBUG (outlined in the case study below). While SG may be seen as a fun experience, regardless of whether they are adapted COTS or developed for educational purposes, it is necessary to underpin games with a sound theoretical framework. There are a range of theoretical frameworks to consider, however, the one selected should ensure that the game design meets learning outcomes for students. Rooney (2012) argues for an approach that considers both pedagogy and game design through a triadic theoretical framework, balancing play, pedagogy and fidelity (that is, the extent to which the game emulates the real world).   

McDaniel and Telep (2009) outline the best practices for integrating game-based learning into online teaching and learning design. The guidelines are as follows:  

1. Take Advantage of Existing Resources – COTS are one way to do this, but also see educational incubators like Futurelab (2008, as cited in McDaniel and Telep, 2009), for example. This allows more time to focus on pedagogical goals.  

1. Ask Students to Produce, Not Just Consume, Materials – students can be brought into the process in a range of ways, including modifying COTS or using a discussion board to brainstorm ideas about game design.  

1. Avoid Being Overly Prescriptive – flexibility is important, however, a careful plan and set of rules are necessary.  

1. Be Aware of Non-Electronic or Non-Media-Intense Games – student-constructed card or board games or other activities such as crossword puzzles or online scavenger hunts can be useful.  

1. Stay Focused on Learning, not Technology – staying focused on learning objectives and using technology to allow students to achieve these outcomes. Assessing whether the technology was successful is imperative.  

1. Provide a Critical Lead-up and Debriefing to Game Activities – Clear introduction and debriefing are essential to ensure students understand clear objectives and that games are not seen as “filler” content and instead, provide unique advantages to their learning.  

1. Embrace Interdisciplinarity – Broader introductory subjects with students from a range of disciplines can offer an opportunity for students to draw on one another and their relative strengths.  

1. Get Serious With Serious Games – SG offer simulation and controlled environments that allow students to understand the complex and messy real-world problems that they are likely to experience outside of the classroom.  

1. Consider Collaborative Technologies and Virtual Worlds to Manage Complexity – Wikis and blogs offer options for teamwork and collaboration in the virtual world.  

1. Playtest and Revise Frequently – Playtesting is used in both entertainment and educational games. This can be done through peer review, former students and the game itself (see above for a discussion of incorporating learning analytics, for example).  

These strategies are considered in the application of the two case studies below.  

Case study  

Most research on SG involves a particular case study, leading to a wealth of SG in specific disciplines to teach a range of skills. These skills range from discipline-specific skills, such as debugging computer codes, to broader soft skills, such as communication and teamwork. Two case studies are briefly covered below considering these two styles of SG.   

Adapting a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) game for soft skills: EVE online  

Pagel et al. (2021) implemented the game EVE Online to develop ‘soft skills’ in engineering students, citing the lack of learning activities addressing such skills in higher education despite their necessity in job-ready candidates. By the design of EVE Online, the game offers the ability to develop communication, teamwork and innovation in students. As Pagel et al. (2021, p. 277) outline,  

The massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) EVE Online is one of these soft skill-imparting digital games, owing in part to the nurturing of a large community around the game, sandbox-like developable custom tasks, or programming interfaces for 3rd party software. Since players succeed if they plan carefully, if they specialize, if they collaborate with other players, or if they consult with other players, the development of soft skills is fostered.  

EVE Online was implemented in four phases with specific objectives. The first phase focused on students familiarising themselves with the platform over two weeks. The second two-week phase had students form groups and develop an action plan with goals to pursue in the game. In the third phase, students played the game for ten weeks to pursue their goals. In the fourth and final phase, students spent a week evaluating the game and providing feedback on objectives. The course received positive outcomes. However, the authors note that due to the technicalities of the game, it is best suited to digital-savvy students. Other studies have considered similar learning objectives, such as increasing communication, using other platforms that may provide easier navigation (see Second Life, for example).   

Developing a SG for discipline-specific skills: RoboBUG  

Miljanovic and Bradbury (2017) developed the RoboBUG game for first-year computer science students to enhance ‘debugging’ their skills. Several key challenges were addressed in the game design and evaluation. These questions align with McDaniel and Telep’s (2009) guidelines, outlined above.  

1. Game design: How can debugging activities be represented as game tasks/actions? How can these tasks be connected to produce enjoyable and cohesive gameplay?  

1. Game learning data: What debugging topics and learning materials should be used in the game to achieve the desired learning outcomes while minimizing frustration?  

1. Game evaluation: How do we design our study to effectively assess debugging learning and level of enjoyment?  

1. Whether the combination of game design (1) and learning data (2) challenges allow players to retain debugging techniques and knowledge after completing the game.  

  RoboBUG was designed as a puzzle game to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Scientists (in this case, students) must identify and remove bugs from a robotic suit of armour (a ‘Mech Suit’). Students can use different tools to aim at specific lines of code to fix the code. There are four levels with 2-3 subproblems and a final challenge, combining tools introduced in tutorials and knowledge acquired in the previous subproblems. The results demonstrated that the game assisted students in achieving learning outcomes. The game, despite not being a COTS game, can be customised to different levels and using different programming languages.  

Future developments  

The literature highlights a range of future developments in SG. Firstly, there is a shift in recent research to the possibilities afforded by newer technologies such as AR/VR and learning analytics (Hauge et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2016; Vidakis et al., 2019). There is an opportunity to combine these technologies to provide new SG as well as a new way to evaluate and assess their success. In line with such evaluations, it is important to consider more in-depth evaluations across a wider range of cohorts. For the most part, research around SG focuses on case studies, so games are not widely evaluated or adapted to a range of learning styles and abilities. For the evaluations that have been touched on so far in the literature, there is a need to consider mechanics and the dynamics of the game carefully (Yichuan et al., 2017), as well as integrate clear instructional objectives (Pagel et al., 2021). That is, what does the instructor want students to achieve and how can this be demonstrated in the game itself? Finally, as Braad et al. (2016) note, now that SG can and do work, the focus should shift to how to make specific designs work, formalising some approaches to be used as game design patterns, while also leaving room for innovation and flexibility.  

References  

Braad, E., Žavcer, G., & Sandovar, A. (2016). Processes and Models for Serious Game Design and Development. In R. Dörner, S. Göbel, M. Kickmeier-Rust, M. Masuch, & K. Zweig (Eds.), Entertainment Computing and Serious Games: International GI-Dagstuhl Seminar 15283, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, July 5-10, 2015, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 92-118). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46152-6_5   

Dimitriadou, A., Djafarova, N., Turetken, O., Verkuyl, M., & Ferworn, A. (2021). Challenges in Serious Game Design and Development: Educators’ Experiences. 52 (2), 132-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878120944197   

Gauthier, A., & Jenkinson, J. (2018). Designing productively negative experiences with serious game mechanics: Qualitative analysis of game-play and game design in a randomized trial. Computers & Education , 127 , 66-89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.017   

Hall, J. V., Wyeth, P. A., & Johnson, D. (2014). Instructional objectives to core-gameplay: a serious game design technique Proceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/2658537.2658696  

Hauge, J. B., Berta, R., Fiucci, G., Manjón, B. F., Padrón-Nápoles, C., Westra, W., & Nadolski, R. (2014, 7-10 July 2014). Implications of Learning Analytics for Serious Game Design. 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,   

Hookham, G., Nesbitt, K., & Kay-Lambkin, F. (2016). Comparing usability and engagement between a serious game and a traditional online program Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference, Canberra, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1145/2843043.2843365  

Kang, J., Liu, M., & Qu, W. (2017). Using gameplay data to examine learning behavior patterns in a serious game. Computers in Human Behavior , 72 , 757-770. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.062   

McDaniel, R., & Telep, P. (2009). Best Practices for Integrating Game-Based Learning into Online Teaching.   

Michael, D. (2006). Serious games: games that educate, train and inform . Boston, Mass. : Thomson Course Technology.   

Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2017). RoboBUG: A Serious Game for Learning Debugging Techniques Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Tacoma, Washington, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106173  

Pagel, M., Söbke, H., & Bröker, T. (2021). Using Multiplayer Online Games for Teaching Soft Skills in Higher Education. In B. Fletcher, M. Ma, S. Göbel, J. Baalsrud Hauge, & T. Marsh, Serious Games Cham.  

Rooney, P. (2012). A Theoretical Framework for Serious Game Design: Exploring Pedagogy, Play and Fidelity and their Implications for the Design Process. 2 (J Int. J. Game-Based Learn.), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2012100103   

Schulz, R., Prinz, A., & Isabwe, G. M. N. (2016). The Use of Game World Tasks Concepts in Higher Education. In T. Marsh, M. Ma, M. F. Oliveira, J. Baalsrud Hauge, & S. Göbel, Serious Games Cham.  

Vidakis, N., Barianos, A, Trampas, A, Papadakis, S, Kalogiannakis, M and Vassilakis, K (2019). Generating Education in-Game Data: The Case of an Ancient Theatre Serious Game Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education – Volume 1: CSEDU,    

Yichuan, W., Rajan, P., Sankar, C. S., & Raju, P. K. (2017). Let Them Play: The Impact of Mechanics and Dynamics of a Serious Game on Student Perceptions of Learning Engagement. TLT , 10 (4), 514-525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2639019