=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1952/Critical_SpatialThinking
|storemode=property
|title=Critical Spatial Thinking And Serious Geogames: A Position
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1952/Critical_SpatialThinking.pdf
|volume=Vol-1952
}}
==Critical Spatial Thinking And Serious Geogames: A Position==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1952/Critical_SpatialThinking.pdf
Critical Spatial Thinking and Serious Geogames: A Position
Brian Tomaszewski David I. Schwartz
Rochester Institute of Rochester Institute of
Technology Technology
Rochester, NY, USA Rochester, NY, USA
bmtski@rit.edu dis@mail.rit.edu
Abstract
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.
Keywords: Serious Geogames, Scenarios, Critical Spatial Thinking.
1 Introduction due to aggregation or the classic modifiable areal unit problem
(Goodchild and Janelle, 2010). Serious games, spatial or
Serious geogames are an extension of serious games which otherwise, also have a fundamental concern with simulating
are games with non-entertainment purposes (Michael and particular scenarios and using gaming concepts, such as
Chen, 2005) and have a spatial focus. Critical Spatial scoring, game narrative, and realism to help a game player
Thinking is the idea of applying concepts of critical thinking, learn how to solve problems.
such as reflection, reasoning, and scepticism to challenging We argue that critical spatial thinking and serious geogames
assumptions about spatial data, representations, methods, and have a natural overlap in terms of the emphasis on critical
analytical outcomes (Goodchild and Janelle, 2010). In this engagement of problem solving (Figure 1).
position paper, we argue for a closer research and design
connection between serious geogames and critical spatial Figure 1: Venn diagram showing the conceptual overlap
thinking. between Critical Spatial Thinking and Serious Geogames.
Our position is based on our past work of developing serious
geogames for general spatial thinking (Blochel et al., 2013).
In our past work, we were particularly interested in using
serious geogames as simulation devices for building spatial
thinking skills in the disaster management domain
(Tomaszewski et al., 2014). The tight coupling of application
domains with serious geogames led to our call for more
incorporation of expert knowledge into serious game design
and game player feedback (Tomaszewski et al., in press). In
this position paper, we expand further upon the idea of
incorporating expert knowledge into serious game design and
the ability of expert knowledge to provide a critical spatial
thinking perspective to a game player. We used case studies
from the Serious GIS or ‘SerGIS’ game environment and a
digital forensics game to illustrate how critical spatial thinking
can be potentially gamified and evaluated. Serious geogames add a unique element to this mix. The
emphasis of using spatial technologies for problem solving,
2 Critical Spatial Thinking and Serious like geographic information systems (GIS), enable
Geogames engagement with a wide range of issues associated with
critical spatial thinking, such as scale, uncertainty, and
representation.
Critical spatial thinking is fundamentally concerned with
Developing effective spatial problem solving skills is also
thoughtful engagement of the assumptions associated with
fundamentally tied with developing critical spatial thinking
spatial data, methods and representations. In particular,
expertise (National Research Council, 2006). Development of
critical spatial thinking engages spatial reasoning and problem
expertise comes in many forms—training, education, job
solving processes (Kim and Bednarz, 2013). For example,
experience, and formal and informal mentoring. In the
understanding why a given data set may not be relevant to a
following section, we describe how our serious geogame
given problem due to scale issues or perhaps why a given data
environment called ‘SerGIS’ incorporates spatial expertise as
set could be misrepresenting an underline spatial phenomena
a critical spatial thinking element to a serious geogame
AGILE Workshop on Geogames and Geoplay 2017– Wageningen, May 09, 2017
experience. We also discuss how incorporation of narrative Figure 2: The SerGIS game framework. Note the three answer
exploration via related work in game-based education for options shown on the bottom right of the image.
digital forensics provides a promising pathway for problem
solving and enhancing the geogame experience.
3 Expertise and SerGIS
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 (Mathews et al., 2014).
Through successive evaluation of the SerGIS framework Figure 3: An example of receiving expert feedback after
with game players, the incorporation of expertise into the making a choice in SerGIS.
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 (Tomaszewski and Griffin, 2016). In the
following section, we provide a brief walkthrough of how
SerGIS engages critical spatial thinking via incorporation of
expertise using a flood disaster management scenario in
Malmö, Sweden.
3.1 SerGIS Critical Spatial Thinking Engagement
via Incorporation of Expertise: Malmö Flood
Scenario
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 flood-
related problems. Each question has three answers (Figure 2).
Answers are weighted in that some answer choices are better 3.2 Game-Based Learning Through Narrative
than others for solving the problems. Each time a game player
makes a choice, they are given expert feedback about the Although seemingly unrelated, recent work in game-based
choice they made (Figure 3). learning in digital forensics (Pan et al., 2015) has yielded
For example, note in Figure 3 when the game player selected excellent results with respect to “gamifying” a complicated
the ‘Kockums (RED)’ choice that was shown in Figure 2, they problem solving task using narrative. In developing
were given feedback on why this was a poor choice both educational material for digital forensics, prospective students
geographically in terms of population characteristics and might have preconceived notions of “hacking” from movies,
spatially in terms of a seemingly counter intuitive spatial fact TV, and other media. But the reality of true digital forensics
that although the area selected is near the coast, it does not software and its complexity can deter students from entering
have flooding problems. The rest of the game scenario has this critical field. Thus, by bridging the concept of being a
expertise like this that can help to build critical spatial digital “detective” as part of real forensics cases, a game can
thinking skills through the game experience as well as motivate students to seek clues to solve actual problems with
understanding the capabilities of GIS in general as per the actual forensics tools.
original goals of SerGIS. 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
AGILE 2017 – Wageningen, May 9-12, 2017
“conspiracy board.” Each clue requires investigation with the “P” (preservation) and just focus on the directed acyclic
software, external resources, tutorials, and qualitative graph of tasks for a potential focus on spatial analysis.
responses. Because of the data-driven design, such cases are There is extensive literature for case/problem-based learning
relatively easy to design using spatial relationships such as and teaching (Center for Research on Learning and Teaching
graphs, as shown in Figure 5, which demonstrates the IPAR (CRLT), 2016). In these fields, students and teachers process
editor. “complex, real-life scenarios” through discussion and
Figure 4: IPAR game framework 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
Figure 5: Case Editor that uses a graph structure for editing. 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.
Figure 6: Navigating through a series of spatial problems
A
B
C
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 5 Summary and Conclusions
incorporation the geogame framework.
One future work activity would be evaluation of critical
4 Convergence spatial thinking ability development via our serious geogame
frameworks. This is a challenging task as valid and reliable
The narrative framework of IPAR provides a potentially measures of spatial thinking ability let alone critical spatial
fruitful key to adapting a way for users to explore space— thinking are still a nascent field (Kim and Bednarz, 2013, Lee
both the convergence of problem space with actual locations. and Bednarz, 2012). However, the scoring mechanisms of
To incorporate spatial thinking into an investigative SerGIS combined with qualitative techniques, like think aloud
framework, the IPAR editor and engine provides a tool to plan protocol have potential to provide mixed evidence on the
a series of tasks. The software is extensible enough to remove utility of SerGIS to evaluate critical spatial thinking ability
(Mathews et al., 2014). Additionally, we plan to explore how
AGILE Workshop on Geogames and Geoplay 2017– Wageningen, May 09, 2017
broader critical thinking evaluation ideas can be incorporated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), 2015 IEEE,
into critical spatial thinking evaluation. For example, 2015. IEEE, 100-105.
analyzing game player choices or geo-game designs Tomaszewski, B. & Griffin, A. L. Students Learning about
themselves in terms of quality of critical thinking models via Disaster Situation Training using Serious Games for
categories such as these non-exhaustive examples: clarity (are GIS (SerGIS). Association of American
the spatial aspects of the game clear?), logic (does the game Geographers Annual Conference, 2016 San
choice made represent a logical choice spatially in terms of Francisco, California.
scale or analytical tool used), and depth (does the game Tomaszewski, B., Konovitz-Davern, A., Schwartz, D. I.,
player’s reasoning for a given question address the Szarzynski, J., Siedentopp, L., Miller, A. & Hartz, J.
spatial/geographical complexities of the question?) (McLean, in press. GIS and Serious Games. In:
2005). Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems,
In this position paper, we argued that there should be a COVA, T. J. & TSOU, M.-H. (eds.): Elsevier.
closer research and design connection between serious Tomaszewski, B., Szarzynski, J. & Schwartz, D. I. 2014.
geogames and critical spatial thinking. We provided evidence Serious Games for Disaster Risk Reduction Spatial
of how this perspective is particularly useful to spatial Thinking. Eighth International Conference on
problem solving skill development using a flooding scenario Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2014).
from our SerGIS serious geogame frameworks. Ideally, Vienna, Austria.
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 References
Blochel, K., Geniviva, A., Miller, Z., Nadareski, M., Dengos,
A., Feeney, E., Mathews, A., Nelson, J., Uihlein, J.,
Floeser, M., Szarzynski, J. & Tomaszewski, B.
2013. A Serious Game for Measuring Disaster
Response Spatial Thinking. ArcUser 16:12-15.
Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (Crlt). 2016.
Case-based Teaching and Problem-based Learning
[Online]. Available:
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tscbt
[Accessed: 10 April 2017].
Goodchild, M. F. & Janelle, D. G. 2010. Toward critical
spatial thinking in the social sciences and
humanities. GeoJournal 75:3-13.
Kim, M. & Bednarz, R. 2013. Development of critical spatial
thinking through GIS learning. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education 37:1-17.
Lee, J. & Bednarz, R. 2012. Components of spatial thinking:
Evidence from a spatial thinking ability test.
Journal of Geography 111:15-26.
Mathews, A., Tomaszewski, B., Szarzynski, J. & Vodacek, A.
2014. Disaster Risk Reduction Spatial Thinking: A
Serious Games Approach. 11th International
Conference of the International Association For The
Study Of Information Systems For Crisis Response
And Management (ISCRAM). University Park, PA.
Mclean, C. L. 2005. Evaluating critical thinking skills: Two
conceptualizations. Journal of Distance Education
20:1.
Michael, D. R. & Chen, S. L. 2005. Serious games: Games
that educate, train, and inform: Muska &
Lipman/Premier-Trade.
National Research Council 2006. Learning to Think Spatially:
GIS as a Support System in the K-12 Curriculum,
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pan, Y., Schwartz, D. & Mishra, S. Gamified digital forensics
course modules for undergraduates. Integrated