=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2892/paper-7
|storemode=property
|title=Prototyping an app to assist game-based activities: co-design using a qualitative approach
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2892/paper-7.pdf
|volume=Vol-2892
|authors=Maria H. Reis
}}
==Prototyping an app to assist game-based activities: co-design using a qualitative approach==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2892/paper-7.pdf
Prototyping an app to assist game-based activities: co-design
using a qualitative approach
Maria H. Reis1
1
University of Aveiro, hsreis@ua.pt, Aveiro, Digimedia, Department of Communication and Art, Portugal
Abstract
Qualitative approaches have gained prominence in the scientific community being important
to develop studies that use them, namely to assist prototyping stages. This article seeks to
contribute to the deepening of knowledge in the field of cataloging and evaluating educational
games and describes the process of designing an application's wireframes. This allowed the
gathering of the app’s functional requirements, using a qualitative methodological approach
through co-design: a focus group of eight experts from different fields such as geography,
sociology, science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics was constituted. Considering
the Communicative Design Paradigm and the Octalysis gamification model, the functional
requirements were grouped, after analysis, into six domains – Games, News, Interaction, User,
Evaluation and Language. The prototype design emerged from this process enabling the design
of 47 wireframes.
Keywords 1
educational games, game-based learning, gamification, functional requirements, prototype
1. Introduction
Incorporating games in the educational context seems to have a positive impact on the motivation,
learning, behavior and attention of students [1]. By associating a playful component, enriched by visual
and auditory tools, recognized for having a great influence on cognition [2], students can learn the topics
addressed by the game more easily. Thus, when articulated with more traditional methodologies, the
educational games seem to boost communication and produce excellent results in learning [3]. Games
can also bring along a relational approach, improving relationships between students and between the
students and the teacher [4]. From another perspective, the advantages of applying game-based learning
(GBL) in education are also centered in the learning experience (of being more active), of the immediate
feedback, of provoking behavioral changes and of being applicable in varied contexts [5].
Despite this scenario, it’s critical to better understand the advantages of using games as tools to
support learning and teaching strategies, namely in what concerns the conditions given to teachers when
selecting a game. There are some obstacles which can lead to demotivation when the teacher is
considering to use educational games in the classroom: the full compliance of the school programs
indicated by the government education authorities; the lack of peer recognition of the strategy; the
agitation caused by students; the process of choosing the game; and the technical and technological
conditions, among other.
For teachers, it is complex to quickly identify how a particular game may be relevant to a curriculum
theme, as well as the quality and accuracy of existing content within the game [4].
The creation of a digital application to support the seriation, cataloging and evaluation of educational
games, based on practical and real cases and supported by evaluation models recognized by the
scientific community, can make the process of choosing the game more robust. Thus, developing a
CHItaly 2021 Joint Proceedings of Interactive Experiences and Doctoral Consortium, July 11-13, 2021, Bolzano, Italy
EMAIL: hsreis@ua.pt (M. H. Reis)
ORCID: 0000-0002-7765-5131 (M. H. Reis)
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Wor
Pr
ks
hop
oceedi
ngs
ht
I
tp:
//
ceur
-
SSN1613-
ws
.or
0073
g
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
41
feasible and innovative application that can solve a problem in the educational community became a
reason of interest and motivation to the research presented in this paper.
To answer the starting question “How to characterize a proposal for a digital application to catalog
and evaluate an educational game?”, the experts, organized in groups, allowed the identification of
requirements for the development of the wireframes and, to motivate future users-teachers to use the
digital application, tooking into account in its genesis: the gamification principles of the Octalysis
model [11]. In addition to the cataloging items, the experts had to include, in the wireframe’s indicators,
the following dimensions for the evaluation of the games: player 'Motivation' [6], 'User Experience' [7],
[8] and 'Learning' acquired [9], exemplified for the Unlove [10] and Carmen Sandiego games. Thus,
the gathering of the prototype functional requirements use a qualitative methodological approach
through co-design; targets the interpretation and analysis of the participations of a group of experts.
The basis of this work, namely in what concerns its relations with an educational context, has been
already discussed [12], [13] and there have been important recent developments regarding two main
topics related to the study presented in this paper. Under this context, it’s worth mentioning: a proposal
for the classification of digital and non-digital games used in the field of requirements engineering [14];
and a mapping of evaluation gamification models in the field of motivation [15].
There are several references to the terms Serious Games, GBL and Gamification and how they
intersect when we focus on the theme of learning by using activities with a playful component. This
was also already portrayed previously [16].
The main objective of gamification is to support and motivate users to perform a set of tasks [17].
The theoretical-methodological model Octalysis [11] reinforces that gamification goes beyond points,
medals and rankings. Chou’s [11] tool is developed into eight cores ‘Epic meaning & calling’,
‘Development & accomplishment’, ‘Empowerment of creativity & feedback’, ‘Social influence &
relatedness’, ‘Unpredictability & curiosity’, ‘Loss & avoidance’, ‘Scarcity & impatience’ and
‘Ownership & possession’ [16].
2. A research roadmap based on a Communicative Design Paradigm
A multidisciplinary team of experts (in geography, sociology, science, technology, engineering, art
and mathematics) was created aiming at enriching the domain under study and at bringing their empiric-
al knowledge to the design of the prototype. The specialists were selected according to six inclusion
criteria: (A) an expert in the field of developing educational resources or digital educational games; (B)
a secondary school´s teacher whose class used the game or expert who participated in the study; (C) a
secondary school teacher with a clear aptitude and predisposition for the use of differentiating
methodologies in the classroom; (D) a teacher or interventional expert in reflection days, peer meetings,
class council meetings, management meetings; (E) a teacher or interventional expert in actions of the
school’s activity plan; (F) a teacher or expert who demonstrates being available to integrate the study.
The focus group (FG) was set up to listen to and gather the opinions of the experts [18] and was mirrored
in three training actions in the institution of the study.
From the point of view of the research objectives, the methodological design of this study is strongly
influenced by the approaches of Educational Design Research [19].
Gustafson et al [20] refer to different classification approaches to the processes and models of
instructional design and propose the creation of a conceptual framework - the Communicative Design
Paradigm (CDP). With the CDP, consensus prevails among the professionals involved (specialists)
throughout the process of developing an educational solution.
In this study, throughout the six stages of the CDP, the dynamics were established among the experts
of the focus group and received input from the game sessions with the students and teachers. The Focus
Group was used to, based on the opinions of the experts, gather the requirements for the model of the
digital application to be implemented, considering its main objective: to be used as a gamified resource.
This co-design was used to increase the degree of acceptance of the digital proposal [21]. This exchange
of ideas among all enabled the consensual improvement of the proposal under discussion, as detailed
below, following the procedures of the CDP framework.
42
In the 1st stage – Platform of Ideas, the focus group participated in an online explanatory session,
defining the problem, identifying restrictions and fundamental assumptions, demonstrating existing
digital solutions and attempting to conceptualize the problem.
In the 2nd and 3rd stage – Analysis of the problem and Reference framework – the experts were
encouraged to share their views in a forum of the Learning Management System (LMS) platform of the
institution under study, and, working in pairs, were invited to create mental maps representing the
requirements (domains and indicators) they considered that should be included in the application (4th
stage – development of Reports or Plans).
After sharing the electronic records on the LMS platform, moments of discussion and validation of
mental maps took place among the experts (5th stage – Evaluation of decisions of other team members).
The current stage of this study is the 6th stage – prototyping and validation of the proposed
application. Prototyping has been completed and its validation is currently underway by the focus group
and in also involve a national publisher. This stage will promote the discussion and creation of new
ideas until a coherent proposal is obtained.
3. Specification of requirements and wireframes
The analysis of the requirements for the design of the digital application model was based on the
mind maps and interactions created during the focus group experts on the LMS platform (Cf. 2). The
listed indicators were grouped into six main domains: (1) Game; (2) News panel; (3) Interaction; (4)
User; (5) Ranking; and (6) Language.
The domain (1) Game consists of the indicators: (1a) subject area (science, mathematics,
technologies, languages, visual arts, social sciences and humanities, sport, citizenship and development,
sexuality education, religions); (1b) Specifications – Fig. 1 Prototype wireframes, Games Details –
(synopsis, release date, degree of interactivity, free of charge, usage tips, mobile or desktop format,
tutorial, rules, operating system type, technical requirements such as memory / disk space, accessibility,
related games); (1c) Level of education of the target audience (preschool, 1st, 2nd and 3rd cycle of basic
education, secondary school); (1d) Type (quiz, strategy, memory/reasoning, simulator, board, family,
puzzles, mime, crossword, motricity, coloring, letter soup); (1e) Number of players (single,
multiplayer); (1f) Target audience age group (3-4 years, 5-6 years, etc., i.e. two-year grouped levels up
to 18 years); (1g) Ordering (most played, newest, most popular, alphabetically A-Z and Z-A); (1h)
Search (by game name, subject area, teaching cycle, release date); (1h) Online store (with access to
game providers); (1i) Evaluation survey (according to the dimensions, motivation, user experience and
learning).
For the domain (2) News panel – Fig. 1 Prototype wireframes, News – the following indicators are
presented: (2a) News/Updates with the possibility for the user to insert comments (launch of new
games; updates of existing games, sharing of experiences by users; key users, promotions, events related
to the games, websites of interest); (2b) Non-educational games; (2c) Scientific publications in the GBL
area; (2d) FAQs; (2e) Top 10 games.
Indicators for the domain (3) Interaction are: (3a) Public chat – Fig. 1 Prototype wireframes, Chat;
(3b) Discussion forum; (3c) Pairing (suggestion of users with a similar profile for Private Chat); (3d)
Platform notifications to the user (score status).
For the domain (4) User, the following indicators are listed: (4a) Identification (name, email,
username, avatar construction / profile picture, age, gender); (4b) Interests (areas of interest, subject
group, education levels, favorite games, followers and following); (4c) Status – Fig. 1 Prototype
wireframes, Star Club – (beginner / junior / senior / expert user rating resulting from their interaction
on the platform, badges awarded as for example the user of the month / the user who publishes the most
/ the user who shares the most, prizes such as discounts on the purchase of games or tickets for events
on games / unlocking content / custom settings of the application).
Regarding the domain (5) Ranking on the game – Fig. 1 Prototype wireframes, Games Score – the
indicators point to: (5a) Scale for each dimension under study (motivation, user experience, learning);
(5b) Overall scale (not recommended / reasonable / optimal / good / excellent based on the overall
assessment of the three dimensions under study); (5c) Platform interaction scale (most rated game, most
43
commented game); (5d) Scale of emotion regarding the effectiveness of the game applied in the
classroom (went well / badly, liked / did not like).
Regarding the domain (6) Language, the indicators listed concern the five languages (6a) used in the
application (Portuguese, English, French and Spanish).
After analyzing the requirements collected, each domain was graphically represented in 47
wireframes, of which we highlight (Fig. 1): the detailed information for game Unlove, the news panel
for games and events, the creation of conversation groups between members, the game evaluation in
the dimensions ‘Motivation’, ‘User Experience’ and ‘Learning’ and the members club and their benefits
(mirroring the gamification principles).
Figure 1: Prototype wireframes (Games Details; News; Chat; Games Score; Star Club)
4. Conclusions and future work
The prototype developed follows the requirements pointed out by the experts and is mapped to the
cores of the Octalysis model.
Points and benefits are awarded to users through their actions within the application (‘Development
& accomplishment’ and ‘Ownership & possession’). Members are thus promoted in the app's private
club evolving through different categories: Silver, Gold and Diamond. Customizing the application
layout is one of the differentiating benefits of the best performing members (Empowerment of creativity
& feedback’). The task assignment differentiation is observed according to the level of the member. An
example of this is the embed of the game evaluation questionnaire on a website, which is only available
to Diamond members (‘Epic meaning & calling’). The model makes it possible to interact between
users (chat and forum), create contact lists, follow and be followed. On the other hand, each user
understands what type the other members are and may access their favorites lists of events and games
(‘Social influence & relatedness’). The user is surprised by unexpected prizes (‘Unpredictability &
curiosity’); on the other hand, it is alerted to the possibility of points losses due to its lack of interaction
in the application ('Avoidance'). Finally, the user is informed that he is entitled to earning points, (for
instance in the case of newsletter loyalty) but that obtaining it is conditional on the evaluation of games
('Scarcity'). In the future, an interview will be applied – Validation – to the experts and to a national
editorial group, aiming to clarify their opinions and perceptions in the face of the prototype mockups,
thus complying with the 6th and last step of the CDP framework.
5. Acknowledgements
This paper and the research behind it would not have been possible without the exceptional support
of my supervisor, Ana Margarida Pisco Almeida.
44
6. References
[1] S. Syal and J. L. Nietfeld, “The impact of trace data and motivational self-reports in a game-
based learning environment,” Comput. Educ., vol. 157, no. October 2019, p. 103978, 2020.
[2] M. Matias, V. Heemann, and N. Santos, “Aspectos cognitivos da interação humano-
computador multimídia,” in Workshop sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais,
2000, vol. 3, pp. 22–32.
[3] P. S. Lisenbee and C. M. Ford, “Engaging Students in Traditional and Digital Storytelling to
Make Connections Between Pedagogy and Children’s Experiences,” Early Child. Educ. J.,
vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 129–139, 2018.
[4] J. Kirriemuir and A. Mcfarlane, “Literature Review in Games and Learning,” Futurelab, vol.
3, no. 2, p. 39, 2004.
[5] B. H. Yousefi and H. Mirkhezri, “Toward A Game-based Learning Platform: A Comparative
Conceptual Framework for Serious Games,” Proc. 2019 Int. Serious Games Symp. ISGS 2019,
pp. 74–80, 2019.
[6] J. M. Keller, Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model
Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 2010.
[7] M. P. Cota, J. Thomaschewski, M. Schrepp, and R. Gonçalves, “Efficient measurement of the
user experience. A Portuguese version,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 27, no. 34, pp. 491–498,
2014.
[8] AUTHORS, “Measurement of the User eXperience. Educational games Unlove and Carmen
Sandiego.,” in Encontro Ciência 2020 - 2, 3 e 4 de novembro de 2020, Lisboa, Portugal, 2020.
[9] B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of
educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKa, 1956.
[10] A. M. P. Almeida, J. Lima, M. J. Pereira, and M. Silva, “UNLOVE: A Digital Game for
Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Awareness,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Gender Research, 2018, pp. 342–350.
[11] Y. Chou, Actionable Gamification - beyond points, badges and leaderboards. CA: Octalysis
Media, 2016.
[12] J. de P. Pons, “La investigación educativa en el campo de los videojuegos,” 4.º Encontro sobre
jogos e mobile learning, Coimbra, pp. 25–34, 2018.
[13] Á. Torres-Toukoumidis, L. M. Romero-Rodríguez, and M. A. Pérez-Rodríguez,
“Ludificación y sus posibilidades en el entorno de blended learning: revisión documental,”
RIED. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. a Distancia, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 95, 2017.
[14] M. T. Soo and H. Aris, “Game-Based Learning in Requirements Engineering: An Overview,”
IEEE Conf. e-Learning, e-Management e-Services, IC3e 2018, pp. 46–51, 2019.
[15] L. Dalmina, J. L. V. Barbosa, and H. D. Vianna, “A systematic mapping study of gamification
models oriented to motivational characteristics,” Behav. Inf. Technol., 2019.
[16] AUTHORS, “Designing an application to support game-based learning: gathering functional
requirements from a qualitative approach,” in 16a Conferência Ibérica de Sistemas e
Tecnologias de Informação, 23 e 26 de junho de 2021, 2021. In press.
[17] Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, “From game design elements to gamefulness,”
Proc. 15th Int. Acad. MindTrek Conf. Envisioning Futur. Media Environ. - MindTrek ’11, no.
March 2014, p. 9, 2011.
[18] R. A. Krueger and M. A. Casey, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 5.a.
London: Sage Publication - International Educational and Professional Publisher, 2015.
[19] J. van den Akker, B. Bannan, A. E. Kelly, N. Nieveen, and T. Plomp, Educational Design
Research - Part A: An introduction. Enshede: SLO - Netherlands Institute for cuurriculum
development, 2013.
[20] K. Gustafson, I. Visscher-Voerman, and T. Plomp, “Educational Design and Development:
An Overview of Paradigms,” in Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training, B.
V. Springer - Science+Business Media, Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 15–29.
[21] B. Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human- Computer
Interaction, 3.a. Addison-Wesley, 1998.
45