Serious games possess huge market opportunities and offer possible solutions for various real-life challenges in different fields of businesses. Although the potential of serious games is well recognized, the educational and training possibilities in the field are scarce. Through cooperation and multiform learning solutions, the lack of education particularly around serious games could be filled in to answer the requirements of the future job descriptions. This paper presents results of student feedback (n=27) around a pilot study of a serious games course that bases on the survey of actual working life needs (company interviews) and was designed to bring closer the substance experts and the game development experts.
Digitalization is one of the most promising ways to increase productivity in the society
Although the potential of serious games is well recognised, the educational and training possibilities
are scarce. The actual need for cooperation is also acknowledged in the report where all the Finnish
game education was studied and listed. It is evident that there are lots of possibilities to study and
research games in different educational levels.
Serious Games Platform for Business and Education (SeGaBu) is an EU funded cooperation project targeted on generating virtual online studies (30 ECTS) on serious games based on identified working life needs. SeGaBu actors interviewed seven (n=7) of game developer companies and two other largescale companies (n=2) in Kajaani and Oulu regions in Finland interested in implementing gamified solutions into their businesses. The interviews were semi-structured, and the questions addressed to company representatives were based on possible educational solutions implemented as a part of the course. Interviews took approximately one hour each.
Several of the requirements named in the interview data introduced a category of game technology. Another category essential in serious games studies is business related topics such as budgeting, sales and marketing, and service design. The game companies highlighted the understanding of the nature of game development as utmost important even over mastering the technology since game development is always a multidisciplinary teamwork. Finding a mutual language in the team is important in order to understand each other. A serious game development team should consist of actual game developers, but also of substance experts. The course “Basics of Serious Games” (“Hyötypelien perusteet”) was constructed on the results of game company interviews incorporating both expertise in substance and game development. A main goal of this course was to share the required knowledge base and thus eliminate misunderstandings and unnecessary delays due to miscommunication.
The pilot online course “Basics of Serious Games” was implemented on the DIGMA learning platform (http://digma.fi) administered by Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK). DIGMA is a Moodle-based learning management system (LMS) designed specially to serve open education and cross-institutional studies and projects. The course content was created by Kajaani University of Applied Sciences (KAMK), and the pedagogical design and gamification implemented by KAMK and TAMK.
The course was realised in November 2016 to January 2017. The aim of the course was to offer online studies regardless of time and space. The course was targeted to persons interested in expanding their expertise in serious games. The course objectives were (based on the interview results): 1) understanding of the concept of serious games and also the role and significance of serious games in the field of the actor’s own industry; 2) getting familiar with the game development process, and acquiring the skills to act in the product owner's role in a serious games development project; 3) understanding the technology perspective, acquiring a variety of innovation methods and learning to apply a chosen method for generating and developing game ideas; and 4) learning to present own game ideas, including any relevant market research information. The learning material consisted of videos, PowerPoint presentations, web pages, games and scientific and popular articles. The studies were mainly carried out as independent studies with some extent of collaboration with peer students. The assignments consisted of group discussions, playing games, a competence test, a game evaluation and an assignment where the students accomplished brainstorming of their own serious games.
To start the course, students were assigned to describe their experience in games and motivation to join the course. In the end, the students were asked for an optional feedback of the overall course by filling in a semi-structured e-questionnaire. The feedback was analysed by conventional contents analysis, and the main findings are presented in this paper.
Unfortunately, at the time when the pilot course “Basics of Serious Games” first started, none of the add-ins supporting gamification had been installed on the LMS yet. However, there were roundabouts and other ways to gamify courses. “Basics of Serious Games” made use of levels. The higher levels stayed closed for the students, until they had passed the assignments required on the lower levels. The levels were created by enabling the standard Moodle course completion tracking, and then adjusting the conditions for opening the next course section (“level”). At the moment, Level Up! and Level Availability blocks (Level Up 2017) are installed on the DIGMA platform for controlling the students’ access from level to level.
On the pilot course, the Moodle Progress bar tool was deployed to create a Bird watcher’s table. The
idea was to scatter little bluebird icons around the course material to be searched. From pedagogical
view, the bird watching was installed to encourage students to browse through all the course material in
the course area. Currently the Stash and Stash Availability blocks
The student feedback was collected and analysed in order to get the insight of students’ opinions on this type of online multidisciplinary course. Total number of 27 (N=27) answered the online questionnaire regarding their motivation to join the course but only 12 (n=12; 44%) gave requested feedback at the end of the course by the time of data collection. The main reasons named of joining this course were: enhancement of one’s personal skills in gamification (n=15; 56%), general interest in gamification (n=9; 33%), and increased gamification skills required at work (n=3; 11%). Most of the respondents learned about the course by email (n=19; 70%), informed by teachers of some other course (n=2; 7%), by a friend (n=1; 4%), or accidentally by surfing in the net while searching any online courses (n=1; 4%). Four (n=4; 15%) did not indicate the source of information regarding the course attendance.
The course contents and objectives were clearly presented (n=12; 44%) in the beginning of the course, and they were estimated to match the implementation excellently (n=6; 22%) or well (n=6; 22%). The course was assessed to work as an online course excellently (n=9; 33%) or well (n=3; 11%) by the students, and the assignments supported excellently (n=4; 15%), well (n=7; 26%) or satisfactorily (n=1; 4%) the set course objectives. Total amount of 15 students did not respond to these questions (n=15; 56%).
The students assessed their own input in attainment of the course objectives good (n=6; 22%) or very good (n=3; 11%), and satisfactory (n=2; 7%) or poor (n=1; 4%). Seven of the participants reported having worked more than 70 hours to accomplish the course (n=7; 26%), while the rest (n=5; 19%) used less than 50 hours for the studies of this 5-credit entity (total of 135 study hours). Reported study time was used to get oriented into teaching material (n=6; 22%), accomplishing the assignments (n=6; 22%), commenting other students’ assignments (n=2; 7%) or developing one’s own game concept (n=1;4%). Four (n=4; 15%) of the respondents assessed the course too easy one as a 5credit course. Total amount of 15 students did not respond to these questions at all (n=15; 56%). (Table 1.) The workload was generally experienced reasonable compared with the course guidelines, or the guidelines being even overestimated. Some of the students described their starting level skills to be quite high which made performing the course easy and quick. On the other hand, the study hours also depended on the students’ motivation. Some of the answers indicate very thorough reading and studying of the provided materials, which naturally takes more time.
As to the identified learning outcomes, two main categories emerged: 1) meanings and application possibilities of serious gaming and gamification, and serious games terminology; and 2) understanding of the processes in serious games development. This result indicates the experienced main learning outcomes being in line with the set course goals. More in details, the main learning achievements attained in the course were an overview of requirements and processes in generating games (n=8; 30%), to realize the potential in serious games (n=6; 22%), to get an overview of existing serious games (n=3; 11%), or attaining other personal learning objectives (n=9; 33%). One student did not reply (n=1; 4%). As most rewarding parts in the course were named course materials (n=3; 19%), assignments (n=3; 19%), activating approach in the course (n=3; 19%), interaction with other students (n=3; 19%), achieving own learning objectives (n=3; 19%) and positive changes in attitudes (n=1; 5%). The course gained overall grade as very good (n=5; 19%), good (n=5; 19%) or satisfactory (n=2; 7%). 15 students did not assess the course at all (n=15; 56%). (Table 2.) better instructions in
required forms timetabling the assignments
better technical issues in exams more material in Finnish more entertainment game
elements audibility issues chat for peer communication more contact teaching The suggestions concerning course improvement (n=9) in the future were mainly technical details rather than anything to do with the course content: more material in Finnish, clearer instructions in filling the required forms, better timetabling of assignments, chat for peer communication, and removal of technical problems still existed in audibility and exams. One of the students (n=1) expected more contents of entertainment games, too, even if the course was particularly on serious games.
This paper presented results of student feedback (N=27) around a pilot study of a serious games course that bases on the survey of actual working life needs (company interviews). It was designed to bring together the substance experts and the game development experts. The main areas categorized from the interview data concerning the education of serious games development were: category of game technology, business related topics, and substance expertise. These factors were implemented as parts of the course “Basics of Serious Games”. Main objectives of the course were: 1) understanding of the concept of serious games and the role and significance of serious games in the field of the actor’s own industry, 2) getting familiar with the game development process, and acquiring the skills to act in the product owner's role in a serious games development project, 3) understanding the technology perspective, acquiring a variety of innovation methods and learning to apply a chosen method for generating and developing game ideas and 4) learning to present own game ideas, including any relevant market research information. At the end of the course, students were asked for an optional feedback of the overall course by filling a semi-structured e-questionnaire. The feedback was analysed by conventional contents analysis. The two main learning outcomes were: 1) meanings and application possibilities of serious gaming and gamification, and serious games terminology; and 2) understanding of the processes in serious games development.
Since giving feedback of the course was optional, the responses varied somewhat depending on the questions. However, the data is indicative for the future development of serious games education regarding both content and implementation. Only one of the answers related to learning outcomes was dealing the evaluation and judgement of serious games. Further emphasis may be needed in the studies to discuss what factors make the game a serious game and how the utility of the game is measured and analysed. Games in general provide a lot of data which could be used in many ways. The application to this data could also be a topic for further studies. Lack of communication with course members was mentioned in the course feedback. In general, the challenge in online courses is to enable discussion, collaboration and teaming. One of our developmental goals is to use new, gamified, teaching methods and technical tools to enhance the communication and active role of the students. Gamification of the course platform is one of the approaches to be focused on in our future studies.
Especially the gamification elements, such as “Bird watch”, ranking tables, levels, collecting treasures or coins in a Stash, adapting gamified interface on the standard LMS test tools must be further studied in our future pilot courses. A few of gamification elements were already implemented in this course but the research will continue during the other courses running on the platform. The objective is to learn how students perceive and adapt gamified approach in their online learning context. This study, however, as a pilot study offers orientation and reflects the actual needs of the game industry, working life, and student experience. The results well indicate that within our modestly gamified environment, the experienced learning outcomes were mainly in line with the course goals.
This paper discusses development processes and experiences of a piloting course on gamification education organised by SeGaBu (Serious Games Platform for Business and Education) project, implemented in 2015 –2017 and funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) in collaboration with another ESF funded project HYPE - Multidisciplinary serious game education launched out in January 2017.
Smith, R. (2007). Game impact theory: the forces that are driving the adoption of game technologies within multiple established industries. Games and Society Yearbook. block for