Introduction:
My project, while enjoyable and fascinating, has been conceived of and delivered as a piece of coursework. This post is mostly addressed towards the academic staff interested in my work, as well as anybody who would like to further explore my theoretical background. I have previously, researched the use of gaming in the science communication and the higher educational settings (Stachyra, 2021; attached). Through my research, I have found out that play is a behaviour no only intrinsic to humans, but also animals (Gray, 2019). The gaming displays a particular set of values and parameters (Arnetta, 2010, Huizinga, 1938).
These values can be broadly summarised as:
The players understand they are playing a game.
The game has a specific space and rules.
The player feels that their actions directly affect the outcome of the game.
The player is able to track their progress within the game.
The players higher performance faculties are involved within a game.
The player can increase the mastery of the game.
Arnetta (2010) additionally introduces the following criteria for a game to be an educational game (a serious game) :
Informed teaching.
Instructional function.
A profound implication of the model and the one congruent with my other reading, the game experience lies at the core of any educational gaming effort. The game needs to be made in a way fulfilling the game principles, before it begins an efficient teaching tool. That being said, even in the most enthusiastic and successful studies (eg. Strickland & Kaylor, 2016), it is pointed out that gaming can be used to supplement the traditional classroom teaching and never to replace it. While the need for expanding and modifying the contemporary approach are expressed (Illyich, 1983, Day-Black et al., 2015), this game development approach is more focused on popularising the subject of the gut microbiota health rather than providing educational instruction. As such, the game from the outset was designed to meet the educational goals up to the "Informed Teaching" (through the use of correct terminology and the consultations with experts).
Aims and methods:
Through my previous interdisciplinary project experience, I have learned the Agile principle and I have decided to pace my project over cycles of testing, reflection, research and redevelopment.
The plan has been drafted as following:
"Project outline:
· Researching and compiling relevant scientific information.
· Researching and implementing relevant game design practice.
· Fabricating the first prototype minimum viable project.
o Game can be played by four players and be resolved.
o Placeholder board and pieces are manufactured.
o Placeholder rulesets and cards are manufactured.
· Game testing.
o Multiple parties are involved.
o Feedback is gathered and shared.
· Iterative design.
o Features are added, removed, and altered depending on feedback.
o New prototype is manufactured.
· Further game testing.
o Feedback is more specific.
o Learning outcomes are tested and followed up.
· Further design iterations and playtests.
o They are repeated until the game is both rated enjoyable and the learning outcomes are robust.
· Final product design.
o Game is designed with an aesthetically pleasing layout based on feedback.
o Game can be produced in sets ready to play.
· Commercial release of the game.
· Feedback from the general public.
o It is collected through surveys, follow up emails and game reviews.
· Project evaluation and publication."
Overall, the science communication goal taken by the project was to promote the knowledge of the gut microbiota health interactions.
The approach I have taken to the science communication is to:
a) Not contradict the science.
b) Signpost to research.
The development cycles have concluded with playtesting and reflection.
The cycle progress played out as follow:
1st Cycle - to design a game that can be played and concluded. Ran through online platforms. Closed playtests and a do-torial as a source of feedback. Proven successful. Need for alternative online technologies noted.
2nd Cycle - to introduce links to the scientific material and to produce a physical prototype. Physical prototype produced through the fablab. Online prototype coded with a friend's help and available online through a link. Limited feedback from closed tests. Proven successful. Need for live playtests noted.
3rd Cycle - to provide enjoyable, balanced gameplay and a complete physical box set. Additionally open playtests with a secure standardised data collection. Feedback received from closed tests and the open-call playtests. Need for more extensive testing and better educational/instructional handouts noted.
4th Cycle - to produce quality instructional/popular-scientific booklets and to run extensive playtests with the focus on the science communication outcomes. Ongoing.
Results and discussion:
The production process and the playtesting process are discussed in detail in other articles on this webpage.
As noted above the feedback became available. Six out of ten of the open playtesters involved have provided feedback. The prior knowledge of the subject was reported as slightly above average (5.33) and the resulting knowledged was described as very good (9.0).
The feedback was also generally favorable in terms of gameplay, although the issue of self-reported findings (Moller et al., 2013) becomes apparent, when considering the science communication outcomes. Especially in terms of scientific literacy the "ignorance of the unskilled" makes self-reported measures of subject knowledge inccaurate (Schlösser et al., 2013).
Given a small sample size in the current iteration of this study, I have chose to discuss some particular results. For example, one of my playtesters- also a postgraduate student also had a particular study interest in the microbiota health subjects. As such, their response was that both their prior subject awareness was maximal as well as their resulting awareness. The modest positive effect was reported amongst the subjects. The current responder base is perfectly sex matched (50/50) and mostly of age under 24. As such, the game needs more reach-out to players outside of the age group. Most of the responders were laypersons in terms of biological sciences and casual/sporadic boardgame players. I am currently reaching out to game stores in the Liverpool area and getting response, although unfortunatelly, at the time of writing this words, I could not organise an open playtest there because of the scheudle clashes. That being pointed out, I am aware of the potential sampling error, and I have both plans and means of addressing it. Overall, if it comes to anecdotal observations made by me as the researcher - I am happy to surmise that the game has resolved within the planned time frame on every game run. Moreover, the players dispaly Arnettas "Increasing Complexity" by leaving the table discussing and analysing their performance, as well as planning their next play-throughs. As such, I believe that the game is developing into an enjoyable Pure Game experience. The major immediate need for development is production of instructional hand-outs and perhaps videos available online. On all the playtests, I am present to explain the game and while the instruction booklets are provided, they are not relied on fully, as I am more often asked for instruction. I need to publish the game in a way, where a person ignorant of it, can pick it up and be able to play according to the rules provided. Moreover, I believe the data-collection questionnaire may need to be modified with a pre- and post- game quiz to better asses the learning outcomes. To summarise my fulfillment of goals, I believe I have managed to meet my goals well in the gameplay space. Regarding the science communication, while there are QR codes on certain cards in the game, linking to relevant research, the approach needs more content and needs to be incorporated within the instructional materials. As such, there is a limited success in the goal of pointing the player towards the relevant research, but it is rather nascent in its state. On the other hand, while playing both open and closed tests, scientists within the field of microbiology did describe the interactions within the game as analogous to real microbial ecology.
One obstacle for the project was the covid 2019 situation, with lockdowns and staff isolation limiting my access to instruction and faculties. I believe, additional time with a fully staffed and operational school facility would be beneficial to the development of the project. An example was the fabrication of cards, which I have assumed could be achieved with just the general library equipment, but proven challenging and lead to a schedule slow down as well as wasted materials. Similarly, the late reopening combined, with other responsibilities have made it harder to scheudle and run the playtesting sessions. More playtests will be required in the near future. Lastly, the project has proven quite wide-spanning in its skill and labour needs. Cerebral work of designing the gameplay had to be combined with the artistic skill of designing the board pieces and cards, together with the organisational skill of scheduling and running playtest sessions. That is not to mention researching and implementing the scientific material. It was challenging to deliver the disparate elements of the project Belly Rumble could benefit greatly from collaboration with writers, graphic designers and scientists. I think it is also in a good order to accept such prospect collaborators as the game itself is fucntional and, through its modular design principle, can easily accommodate changes and expansions.
The project has proven challenging conceptually, logistically and in terms of fabrication, but overall I feel happy with my progress. In the nearest future, I would like to (in order) design a booklet and a box-set, run more playtests (with a modified data-collection protocol), release the game and then look for collaborators for future expansions. Until then, I am happy to answer any question and queries through my contact bar. Please find my project proposal and dissertation below.
Pawel
Gray, P. (2019). Evolutionary Functions of Play. In K. Smith, P & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Play: Developmental and Evolutionary Perspectives (pp. 84–102). Cambridge University Press. https://cdn2.psychologytoday.com/assets/evol.functs.play_published.pdf Acessed at 16.06.2021
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The “I’s” Have It: A Framework for Serious Educational Game Design. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018985
Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture, 1–220. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824161
Strickland, H., & Kaylor, S. (2016). Bringing your a-game: Educational gaming for student success. Nurse Education Today, 40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.02.014
Illich, I. (1983). Deschooling Society. Harper Colophon.
Day-Black, C., Merrill, E. B., Konzelman, L., Williams, T. T., & Hart, N. (2015). Gamification: An Innovative Teaching-Learning Strategy for the Digital Nursing Students in a Community Health Nursing Course. The ABNF Journal : Official Journal of the Association of Black Nursing Faculty in Higher Education, Inc, 26(4), 90–94.
Möller, A., Kranz, M., Schmid, B., Roalter, L., & Diewald, S. (2013). Investigating Self-Reporting Behavior in Long-Term Studies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2931–2940). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481406
Schlösser, T., Dunning, D., Johnson, K. L., & Kruger, J. (2013). How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the “signal extraction” counterexplanation for the Dunning–Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 85–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.004
Comments