Serious geogames are games with a spatial focus for non-entertainment purposes. Critical Spatial Thinking is the idea of applying concepts of critical thinking such as reflection, reasoning, and scepticism to challenging assumptions about spatial data, representations, methods, and analytical outcomes. In this position paper, we argue for a closer research and design connection between serious geogames and critical spatial thinking. Our position is based on our past work of developing serious geogames for general spatial thinking.
Serious geogames are an extension of serious games which
are games with non-entertainment purposes
Our position is based on our past work of developing serious
geogames for general spatial thinking
Critical spatial thinking is fundamentally concerned with
thoughtful engagement of the assumptions associated with
spatial data, methods and representations. In particular,
critical spatial thinking engages spatial reasoning and problem
solving processes
We argue that critical spatial thinking and serious geogames have a natural overlap in terms of the emphasis on critical engagement of problem solving (Figure 1). Serious geogames add a unique element to this mix. The emphasis of using spatial technologies for problem solving, like geographic information systems (GIS), enable engagement with a wide range of issues associated with critical spatial thinking, such as scale, uncertainty, and representation.
Developing effective spatial problem solving skills is also
fundamentally tied with developing critical spatial thinking
expertise
Serious GIS or SerGIS is a geogame framework designed to
allow for flexible development of geogames. Game
development flexibility comes from an authoring framework
where designers can choose a wide variety of web-based
geospatial data to create geogame scenarios. For example,
SerGIS has been used to build games that range from a wizard
of OZ scenario to bird-induced airplane crash scenario. In
SerGIS, game players go through a non-linear,
question/answer structure and are awarded points for question
responses and a final score at the end of the game. SerGIS was
originally developed to train disaster management personnel
on the capabilities of GIS for disaster management and build
general spatial thinking skills without getting into the
complexity and learning barriers that can come from formal
GIS software training
Through successive evaluation of the SerGIS framework
with game players, the incorporation of expertise into the
SerGIS game experience was found to be an important
element to enhancing the game experience for building critical
spatial thinking skills that can teach and build spatial problem
solving skills
via Incorporation of Expertise: Malmö Flood
Malmö is a coastal city located in the southern tip of Sweden across from Copenhagen. As a coastal city, Malmö is prone to flooding from intense weather events. Our team designed a SerGIS game to develop critical spatial thinking about responding to a flooding event in Malmö. In the game, players must respond to series of questions about solving floodrelated problems. Each question has three answers (Figure 2). Answers are weighted in that some answer choices are better than others for solving the problems. Each time a game player makes a choice, they are given expert feedback about the choice they made (Figure 3).
For example, note in Figure 3 when the game player selected
the ‘Kockums (RED)’ choice that was shown in Figure 2, they
were given feedback on why this was a poor choice both
geographically in terms of population characteristics and
spatially in terms of a seemingly counter intuitive spatial fact
that although the area selected is near the coast, it does not
have flooding problems. The rest of the game scenario has
expertise like this that can help to build critical spatial
thinking skills through the game experience as well as
understanding the capabilities of GIS in general as per the
original goals of SerGIS.
Although seemingly unrelated, recent work in game-based
learning in digital forensics
In Figure 4 below, we show a portion of an introductory case in a game framework called IPAR (Image, Preserve, Analyze, Report). The player unlocks and reveals clues from a “conspiracy board.” Each clue requires investigation with software, external resources, tutorials, and qualitative responses. Because of the data-driven design, such cases are relatively easy to design using spatial relationships such as graphs, as shown in Figure 5, which demonstrates the IPAR editor.
Figure 4: IPAR game framework Much like a choose-your-own adventure book, the IPAR framework provides an external interface for virtually any scenario. We propose linking the SerGIS and IPAR game frameworks, which would (a) provide easier access to editing scenarios, (b) incorporate more narrative aspects into a gaming experience, and (3) allow for expert feedback incorporation the geogame framework. 4
The narrative framework of IPAR provides a potentially fruitful key to adapting a way for users to explore space— both the convergence of problem space with actual locations. To incorporate spatial thinking into an investigative framework, the IPAR editor and engine provides a tool to plan a series of tasks. The software is extensible enough to remove the “P” (preservation) and just focus on the directed acyclic graph of tasks for a potential focus on spatial analysis.
There is extensive literature for case/problem-based learning and teaching (Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT), 2016). In these fields, students and teachers process “complex, real-life scenarios” through discussion and reflection. IPAR provides a framework for dissecting an entire case/problem into a series of smaller problems that require quantitative analysis and qualitative responses. We propose to merge IPAR and SerGIS so that learners can step through visual problems one task a time, following the directed acyclic graph(s) of IPAR as “geospatial investigators.” Moreover, this convergence provides a fascinating launching point for exploration within a 2-D or 3-D environment. For example, with the case-based problem framework, a player could be guided through a series of locations in a simulated environment (e.g., a game modeled in Unity or ArcGIS) with “clues.”
For example, perhaps a player is tasked with identifying
buildings with fire-escapes facing onto a street and
considering a potential crowd flow, depicted in Figure 6. The
combined IPAR/SerGIS framework can already handle the
problem decomposition from problem-based learning. The
player can use the motivation of being a detective to seek
visual clues (and cues!) to solve spatially complex
problems—what is missing is the spatial navigation via
integration with a visual environment, which we hope to
address as part of the IPAR/SerGIS convergence.
One future work activity would be evaluation of critical
spatial thinking ability development via our serious geogame
frameworks. This is a challenging task as valid and reliable
measures of spatial thinking ability let alone critical spatial
thinking are still a nascent field
In this position paper, we argued that there should be a closer research and design connection between serious geogames and critical spatial thinking. We provided evidence of how this perspective is particularly useful to spatial problem solving skill development using a flooding scenario from our SerGIS serious geogame frameworks. Ideally, further design and evaluation research can lead to serious geogames that address important societal problems such as disaster management and led overall improved spatial thinking via geogamification. 6