=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3147/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Pedagogic solutions and results in designing a mobile game for fire safety teaching
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-3147
|authors=Brita Somerkoski,Kimmo Tarkkanen,David Oliva,Anttoni Lehto,Mika Luimula
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/SomerkoskiTOLL22
}}
==Pedagogic solutions and results in designing a mobile game for fire safety teaching==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3147/paper5.pdf
Pedagogic solutions and results in designing a mobile game for
fire safety teaching
Brita Somerkoski1, Kimmo Tarkkanen2, David Oliva2, Anttoni Lehto2, Mika Luimula2
1
University of Turku, Department of Teacher Education, Yliopistonmäki, 20100 Turku, Finland
2
Turku University of Applied Sciences, Joukahaisenkatu 3, 20520 Turku, Finland
Abstract
It is both expensive, dangerous and partly impossible to practice fire safety
scenarios in real environments. Playing a digital game provides us with a view of pupils´
behavior in case of the emergency. In this paper we discuss the pedagogic principles and design
approaches followed to develop an AR-based serious game for fire safety. Based on educational
sciences, we consider learning as constructed and, as a combination of knowledge, skills and
attitudes, which were designed into game mechanics and its pedagogic flow. In the empiric part,
we describe the learning outcomes of school aged children before and after the game play. After
the game play, school aged children knew the meaning of safety signs better, and they also
knew where the signs were located at the school. With the results of this study, we conclude
that game-based mobile AR technology can help pupils to learn fire safety issues, increase
finding and observing different fire safety signs in their own built environment. As conditions
for gaming of this kind are co-development procedures, exact concepts and visuals, authenticity
and curriculum-based content of the game.
Keywords 1
Fire safety, education, game design, serious game, augmented reality
1. Introduction safety competence should be promoted among
children and young people by means of regularly
repeated training in various learning and
Earlier studies revealed [1] that it is both
operating environments. According to this target
expensive, dangerous and partly impossible to
program, new learning materials should be
practice fire safety (FS) scenarios in real
developed. [5] Also, based on the National core
environments. Respectively, the burden of fire
curriculum for basic education 2014 [6, 7] at least
related injuries includes loss of productivity as the
two school subjects contain learning fire safety.
healing process is relatively long [2]. Also, during
These are health education studies for grades 7 –
the pandemic, many industrial companies have
9 (ages 13 – 16) and environmental studies for
started to utilize mixed technologies as on-site
grades 3 – 6 (ages 10 – 12) [8]. In addition, the
trainings and competence updates have not been
Rescue Act [9] requires a general duty for
possible [3].
everyone to prevent fires.
Various strategic documents in Finland state
For these reasons and purposes, it is well
that learning fire safety is important. The focus is
argumented that there is a need for digital learning
in children and youth, because their attitudes
material in fire safety. Compared to widely used
toward fire safety are still developing. First,
standard and passive training practices, such as
according to the Basic Act for Education,
lectures or videos, digital games provide
everyone participating in education is entitled to a
immersive and engaging experience for learning.
safe learning environment. [4] Second, the
[10, 11] Based on our earlier study with a virtual
national Target Programme for the Prevention of
reality simulator, we noted that especially young
Home and Leisure injuries points out that fire
players, children under 15 years, were not able to
6th International GamiFIN Conference 2022 (GamiFIN 2022),
April 26-29 2022, Finland
EMAIL: brisom@utu.fi (B. Somerkoski)
ORCID: 0000-0003-1913-7907 (B. Somerkoski)
©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
44
exit efficiently a building with smoke on the given, but more constructed. His theory includes
corridors. Instead of looking at the floor plan or the idea of the Zone of Proximal Development
searching for safety signs to exit the virtual (ZPD) with the concept of scaffolding; initially,
building safely, young players rushed open- the learner might not manage to progress alone
mindedly and wildly in the digital gaming and might need extra support. Later on, this may
environment [12] taking risks that could cost their lead to situation that the learner manages to
lives in reality. To prevent the behavior of this complete the task without any support from
kind we designed and implemented a serious outside. [22] Our approach was to let the learner
game called Virpa – Fire Expert, which applies iterate and repeat the tasks as many times as
augmented reality (AR). needed, allowing them to memorize the task, but
Fire in the school environment is the most also providing enough time for them to assimilate
common target for safety related VR and AR the information contents.
experiments [13]. However, most of the FS Authenticity was the third principle applied in
related AR applications are targeted at wayfinding the design. Despite the game having a cartoonish
and evacuation [14] instead of general fire safety visual outlook, all fire safety related objects had
skills and FS objects. Moreover, current advanced to be well placed. The game environment was
AR applications in FS are not designed especially created following a co-developing setting [23].
for children [15, 16], and in primary schools, AR- The design team received pedagogic and
based education focus most on STEM subjects professional guidance from two fire inspectors.
[17]. They instructed with respect to visualization and
The objective of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, placement of stairs, fire stairs, exit doors, fire
the paper discusses the pedagogic principles and extinguishers, and all safety signs typically used
approaches followed to develop serious game for in Finnish public buildings.
fire safety [18]. Secondly, in the empiric part of The pedagogic solutions in the game were
this paper, we describe the learning outcomes created so that teachers are able to use this game
based on results of the questionnaire for a group as the study material during the lessons.
of school children as beta-testers (n=260). The Therefore, it was important that the grammar,
study addresses the following research question: definitions and concepts were exact and correct.
What kind of learning outcome can be achieved The National core curriculum for basic
after playing AR game in fire safety? education determines what is taught in Finnish
schools, yet the Finnish teachers hold their
2. Pedagogic design principles autonomy how they teach and what kind of
learning material they want to use. Before the
game design process started, we checked that the
Some results of the earlier studies show that to cognitive content of the game was connected with
design a successful learning game, the approach
the learning content of the National core
needs to lie on pedagogy [19]. Moreover, we curriculum for basic education. We decided to
wanted to combine the abstract learning and provide additional material for teachers, such as
concrete experience [20]. Furthermore, we slides about fire safety, lesson plans and some
understood that the game needed added value as a additional information about the game metrics.
pedagogical tool for educators, for instance fire
Universality is the fifth principle that we
authorities, public education coordinators at the applied. Despite fire safety being of interest at a
fire service, the youth activities of voluntary fire global scale, not all the safety signs are equal,
departments and school teachers. Therefore, the neither is the emergency phone number which in
game had to balance well. Our task was to create Finland and in most of the European countries is
a game that children would agree to be fun and 112. Nevertheless, the game was published for
entertaining, and the educators would consider the iOS and Android mobile devices in the two most
game to be serious enough for learning material. popular app stores at a global scale. The game is
The educational background of this game free to download and play. Most of the schools
design lies on a few basic principles. Vygotsky´s have hired a teacher, who is responsible for the
[21] theory of constructive learning is valued and hardware and software issues as well as for the use
implemented widely in Western world and of the digital learning material. They tend to check
especially in Finland. According to Vygotsky the regularly the digital content and evaluate whether
learner is an active participant who constructs his
the material is suitable to be downloaded to the
or her own learning. Therefore, learning is not
devices owned by the school. To ensure that the
45
schools were able to use the game during the
lessons we decided not to accept any purchasable
content or commercial cooperation to keep the
game clean for any kind of advertising.
3. Game mechanics design
The aim of Virpa - Fire Expert game is to teach
school children, 7–13 years old, fire safety signs
and fire safe behavior. We started the design
phase by informal brainstorming with game Figure 2: Game environment: classroom.
developers, researchers, and fire department
personnel. The aim was to find out a suitable The virtual game environment integrates with
virtual environment for such emergency the real world via an augmented reality
scenarios, and what kind of game (inter)actions functionality using machine vision algorithms.
the children and youth engage more with. Based One of the early brainstorming decisions was to
on our pedagogical aims and principles about build the game around these technologies. The
fostering knowledge, skills, attitudes, and technology enables the game design to employ
behavioral change i.e., competence [24, 25], we this dichotomy to a significant degree, while
end up focusing on developing collection of items, players are allowed to divide their attention
personal customization, scoring system, and game between these two modes of gaming largely as
world exploration. With these activities we they wish. The scanning taking place in the real
wanted the player to be an active participant while world was designed to engage players to interact
playing. with real-world environments to enable learning
Fire safety signs and the use of other items like outcomes that differ from any mobile game not
floorplans, fire alarms, fire alarm buttons and fire utilizing the same dichotomy. This approach to
extinguishers were carefully modeled into the game mechanics were hypothesized to yield more
game to improve player´s awareness towards holistic learning outcomes, possibly including
these objects existing in the real world. changes not only in players’ knowledge, skills and
Furthermore, a set of minigames and actions were attitudes towards fire safety, but also in the
designed to improve player´s knowledge and attention they pay to fire safety signs in their
skills and playing experience. every-day environment. Scanning the signs in the
The virtual game environment represents a real world occurs by activating the mobile phone
school building with three floors. (Fig. 1). Each camera and using it to catch a sign in real spaces,
floor has classrooms to unlock (Fig. 2) and a set for instance, own school or near-by public spaces
of hazards, newspapers and minigames to play (Fig. 3). The machine vision algorithm recognizes
and discover. the sign that together with a dedicated neural
network informs the game of the scanned safety
sign (Fig 4).
Figure 1: Game environment: corridor with floor
map.
The player can move freely within the three
floors and the yard surrounding the school. To get Figure 3: Players scanning the safety signs.
inside the locked classrooms (Fig. 2) which are
originally locked, the player needs to scan safety
signs in real-world buildings (Fig. 3).
46
All in all, player can collect six gold, six silver
and six bronze stars that in turn will grant access
to the room of the final exam. The final exam
includes 18 questions to evaluate the achieved
skills and knowledge. The number of the right
answers in the final exam determines again the
type of diploma awarded to the player: gold, silver
or bronze.
With knowledge and skills related questions,
the verification of player’s learning is based on a
Figure 4: Required items to unlock the classroom repeated measures research design implemented
door for answering the questions. into the game. Twelve out of 18 questions (excl.
attitude questions) form a baseline, a comparison
The technology used in Virpa Fire Expert point for each player’s personal learning on their
functions well in most of the buildings, also when way to the end of the game. The first questions of
the illumination of the building is not very each sign/room, i.e. 6 questions in total, represent
effective. The algorithm was set to identify the most genuinely each player’s baseline in
following signs: exit, fire alarm button, fire understanding fire safety signs since these
extinguisher, fire hose reel, assembling point and questions are asked before any treatment of that
defibrillator. It also could identify actual fire specific topic. Same 12 questions are repeated in
alarm buttons and extinguishers. the final exam, which allows a comparison of
After scanning a specific sign, the player could answers in the beginning and at the end of the
open the door of one of the three rooms reserved game play. The underlying assumption is that the
to teach the concepts related to specific sign. In treatment – the information the player is exposed
the first room the player meets a fire officer (Fig. to during the game play – will increase the number
2) who makes a question regarding the knowledge of correct answers in the final exam compared to
about the scanned sign (e.g., do all extinguishers the baseline answers. In addition, the final exam
have the same chemical product inside?). The consists of six new questions about same topics.
player will be granted with a bronze star linked to That is to confirm the correctness of the learning
that sign if the question was answered right (the measurement (i.e., to avoid confirmation bias).
player could change the answer infinitely). This comparison of pre- and post-intervention
Another scan of the same sign and the bronze answers produces a learning rate for each player.
star will grant the player rights to open the second Behavioral learning is built on the AR features,
room, where a skills related question is posed (e.g. which are to encourage players to move, search,
how is a fire extinguisher used?). A right answer identify and scan fire safety signs in the real
to that question grants the player a silver star. The world. In contrast to knowledge, skills and
silver star and a third scan of the same sign give attitude related questions discussed above, the
rights to open the third room, which poses an measurement of the behavioral change of the
attitude related question (e.g., how important is player lacks a similar, in-game determined
this sign?). Any answer in the attitude question baseline: We do not know how the player has
grants a gold star and an access to a final exam. acted before the game play. Thus, the verification
Pedagogically the game flow is that the of learning must assume that the player has not
teaching material presented to the player after observed any fire safety signs before the gaming
each question (e.g., knowledge of extinguishers) experience. The assumption is that each scanned
provides an answer to the next question (e.g., sign is a positive signal towards the behavioral
skills in using extinguishers). The attitude-related change, and the larger the personal sign collection
question has no correct answer, and therefore the and the number of scans is, the more the player
teaching material of the skills question prepares has changed one’s behavior in real life.
the player to the final exam. Notable is that the In addition to the number of scans and signs,
question will not immediately follow its behavioral learning and its verification is based on
corresponding teaching material as the rooms the number of visited areas. Area means the
become accessible in a partly non-linear fashion. player’s geographical (GPS) location during the
Together these questions and their corresponding sign scan. In the game back-end system, the earth
teaching material prepare the player for the final is divided into areas (squares) of 200*200 meters.
exam. To increase scans and players’ behavioral change,
47
the game rewards the player who conquers the years old) from two schools in Southwest Finland
area first. On the other hand, the player gets less area. The recruitment took place through personal
and less points in the game, if the sign scans are relations and the participants were not rewarded.
taken in the same area. The points decrease very As the players were under 15 years of age,
rapidly, which motivates players to move to new permission for game testing was asked from the
areas. Again, we must assume the baseline headmaster, the class teacher and from the
behavior: The players would have not observed parents.
any signs in a certain area without the motivation The test subjects created a nick name they had
and intervention given by the game. to use in both pre- and post-test questionnaires (T1
The collected metrics related to number of and T2). The first test questionnaire (T1) was
areas, scans and different signs will provide us carried out right before the game play and the
understanding about the behavior of the player second questionnaire (T2) about 14 days after the
and its assumed level of change due to the game. initial game play. The average play time during 14
However, we also conducted an external learning days is not known. The total of 260 (n=260) test
verification with a pre- and post-test questionnaire subjects participated in T1, and 228 subjects
during a pilot test to get more objective (n=228) in T2. Based on the nick name, we could
understanding about where, how much and often match 193 participants’ pre- and post-test
players observed fire safety signs before playing questionnaire answers, and further combine 169
the game (see Ch. 4). participants’ IDs with their game play data.
To keep the player´s interest and engagement Besides lower number of participants in T2,
on the game, between the scanning actions and the unequal nick names led to matching problems and
final exam, several minigames and items to find missing data.
and collect were placed along the school space. A Based on our earlier studies on game learning
total of nine hazards must be found and solved, for outcome and usability we included 12 multiple
instance coffee machine with damaged electric choice questions about safety signs but also
cord, mobile phone charging close to water point, players´ perceptions about how they learned in the
paint over exit plan, or object obstructing fire exit game. Questions number 1-9 of T1 were repeated
door. Six newspapers must be found and in the questionnaire T2 to allow the comparison of
collected. Each newspaper included a real story of game play effects in knowledge and behavior of
a fire event occurring a school in Finland. The participants. These were complemented in T2
three minigames were designed to also teach skills with questions number 10-14 that surveyed
and improve knowledge. In the skateboard participants’ learning and play experiences. In this
minigame, including three levels, the player needs paper, descriptive statistics is used to show and
to follow exit signs to find the fastest way to discuss learning outcomes.
escape from a building getting covered of smoke.
The FireMan minigame represented a modified 1. Have you noticed any safety signs in your school?
version of arcade game PacMan where player (no/one/many)
needs to rescue four friends before they are 2. How many kinds of safety signs have you noticed?
(0/1-2/3 or more)
reached by moving flames. The Fire extinguisher
3. How often do you notice fire safety signs? (every
minigame applied AR technology and displayed a day/ every week/ seldom)
virtual fire in the real room occupied by the player 4. Do you know where in the school area this sign is
that need to be switched off. The aim was to teach [assembly point]? (no/maybe/yes)
the operation of a real extinguisher like pull out 5. Do you know the meaning of this safety sign
the pin, aim to hose to the base of the flames, [assembly point]? (no/maybe/yes)
squeeze the handle. Furthermore, in the Fire drill 6. Have you talked about fire safety with your
exercise the player must exit the building parents? (no/once/many times)
following the exit signs. 7. Have you talked about fire safety with your friends?
(no/once/many times)
8. How often do you think about fire safety?
4. Data collection and analysis (never/seldom/every now and then/often)
9. What would you pay attention to if you had to leave
To study learning outcomes and play a burning school building? (open)
experiences of the game, we organized play tests 10. Have you talked about the Virpa game with your
friends? (no/once/many times)
in schools. The participants were Finnish
11. What fire safety issues did the game taught you
comprehensive school pupils aged 9-13 (avg. 10,5 best? (I find the signs easier/ I notice the signs more
48
often/ I know what the signs mean/ I know what to 5.1. Effects on fire safety
do in case of fire/ I know what to do to avoid fire/ I
think more about fire safety) knowledge, skills and behavior
12. Which part of the game taught you the best fire
safety issues? (Scanning signs, Room questions, The first three multi-choice questions were about
Newspaper stories, Minigames, Hazards, Final practical fire safety skills and behavior. Before the
exam)
game play, 22 % of respondents answered they
13. Which one was more fun: playing in the real school
or virtual school? had not seen any fire safety signs in their school
14. What was the best in the game play? (open) (Question 1). After the game play and period of
14 days, their amount had dropped to zero,
For the open-ended Question 9, a whereas the percentage of respondents who have
distinguished qualitative inductive content observed many signs had increased from 57 %
analysis was carried out (see the chapter 6.1 for (T1) to 96 % (T2) (Table 1). Thus, the proportion
results). This kind of method for analysis is used of people who observed multiple fire safety signs
when it is expected that the knowledge of the increased by 49 % (Question 1). The percentage
answers will be fragmented. We carried out this of people who observed three or more signs
separate analysis to get a holistic picture about increased by 180 % (from 27% to 88%) compared
how the pupils construct their understanding to the situation before playing the game (Question
about their measures in the fire scenario at school. 2). The percentage of people observing the signs
The question was: What would you pay attention every day increased by 67 % (from 29% to 55%)
to if you had to leave a burning school building? compared with the situation before playing the
In total, 240 (T1) and 203 (T2) participants Virpa - Fire Expert game (Question 3).
answered to this question. A typical length of Questions 4 and 5 were about fire safety
answer was 1 – 3 sentences. The written material knowledge. The percentage of respondents who
was read through several times. The students' knew the location of the assembly point sign at
answers were compiled into a matrix from which school increased from 2 % to 9 % (from 4 to 20
the meaning units, words or word clusters were respondents). Although there is a 400 % increase
retrieved. Typical for the content analysis in the situation before playing, yet 83 % of the
qualitative method, in the abstraction phase, upper respondents did not know where at school the
categories and groups were created from assembly point sign was located. One reason is
responses by selecting the meaning units from the that many participants played only inside the
text. These were individual words (for example school and did not find the sign in its real location.
exit) or related entities of a few words (for Only about 1 % of the respondents (3 participants)
example to find the assembly point). Two answered that they know the meaning of the
researchers carried out the categorizing assembly point sign before the game play
independently and the groups were compared and (Question 5). In the post-test questionnaire (T2),
discussed one by one. Eventually, the responses 22 % of respondents (49 participants) thought
were formulated into 10 main categories. A they know the meaning.
second round of categorizing answers was carried Although the fire safety skills were developing
out by both researchers individually with the based on the information that the respondents had
agreed groups. After formatting the groups, the noticed more often and a higher number of safety
meaning units were quantified to calculate the signs, it seems that playing the game did not
change in answers between T1 and T2. increase talking about fire safety with parents or
with friends (Questions 6 and 7). In addition, we
asked how often respondents were thinking of fire
5. Results safety (Question 8). 2 % of the respondents
answered they think often of fire safety. There was
The questionnaire answers of the group of 17 % increase in the figure, but only one more
comprehensive school beta-testers are compared student answered often to this question. 36 % of
before and after the game play (questions 1 to 14). the respondents answered they think every now
In addition, we present the results based on game and then of fire safety. The respective number was
metrics, such as the learning rate, the number of 38 % after the game play.
signs, scans and areas among participants.
49
Table 1
Changes in Questions 1-5
Question no. Before (T1) % After (T2) % Change %
1. Noticing safety signs in school (Many signs)? n=259 n=228
147 57 219 96 49
2. Number of safety signs (3 or more signs)? n=260 n=225
71 27 199 88 180,3
3. Noticing fire safety signs (Every day)? n=259 n=224
74 29 124 55 67,6
4. Place of assembly point sign? (Yes) n=242 n=187
4 2 20 9 400
5. Meaning of assembly point sign? (Yes) n=259 n=227
3 1 49 22 1533,3
Based on the current game data, it is hard to Table 3
verify knowledge and skills related learning Game data of real-life sign detections
outcomes: Only 47 players (28 %) out of 169 test number of players scanning 139 82,2 %
participants answered questions in the virtual average of different areas 1,39
school environment (Table 2). Naturally, even players with scans in 1 area 103 74,1 %
less, only 6 participants, took the final exam. players with > 1 area 36 25,9 %
players with > 2 areas 12 8,6 %
Therefore, the measurement of learning rate is by
players with > 3 areas 6 4,3 %
no means valid (5,1% of improvement on median of different signs found 7
average), yet possible to collect and follow in the median number of scans 38
future 2. maximum number of scans 217
Table 2 Two positive changes in results were found.
Game data of knowledge and skills questions After the game play 38 % less respondents talked
No. of players in 12 pre-knowledge question 47 about taking or leaving things in the case of
Average pre-knowledge rate (%) 30,5 % emergency (discourse of things and objects).
No. of players in post-knowledge question 6 Additionally, there was a result 141 % increase of
the meaning units mentioning the safety or exit
Average learning rate (%) 5,1 %
sign. Statistical significances have not been
calculated, yet other changes seem minor. This
Based on the game data, a total of 139 players
suggests that two week period with varying
(82,2 %) of all confirmed players (N = 169) have
amount of game play had not been effective
scanned fire safety signs, and of them, 74 % in
enough to change how participants think they
only one area (Table 3). Low number of different
would act in an emergency situation.
areas is due to playing the game mostly in school
However, we think this categorization is
premises. However, each (school) building has
valuable knowledge for fire safety
been scanned very carefully as on average
communication itself, even without
(median) each player has scanned 38 times and
quantification. These spontaneous open answers
found 7 different signs out of 9 possible. Thus,
may portray the most truthful picture of fire safety
game statistics are consistent with questionnaire
knowledge, skills and attitudes among
answers about the increase in sign observations.
participants that the gaming interventions can be
The distinguished content analysis in the open-
compared with.
ended question (Question 9) resulted in ten
categories (Table 4): discourse of things, paying
attention to others, following instructions, being
calm, responding to the fire, evacuating rapidly,
evacuation in general and empty or inappropriate
answers.
2
The game has now more than 1800 players (December 2021) and
the learning rate data accumulates fast.
50
Table 4 Table 5
Categories and changes in open answers Which element in the game best taught you?
Name of the group before after change no of percent of
% % % answers answers
Discourse of things:
Finding and scanning signs 128 57,1%
what to take or leave 13,9 8,6 -38,3
Mini games 98 43,8%
Paying attention to 21, 2 21,0 1,2
others: following, Room questions and answers 82 36,6%
watching, helping Hazards 77 34,4%
Following the given Newspaper stories 47 21 %
instructions 8,7 % 8,4 % -3,3 % Final exam 31 13,8%
Watching the safety
signs 2,8 6,9 141,3
Mini-games were mentioned as the second
Planning a safe exit out;
routing 11,5 12,7 10,5
most important in terms of learning (Table 5), but
Being calm when mini-games were also clearly perceived as the
exiting; not panicking 7,3 8,4 14,5 best aspect of the game (Question 14), which may
How to respond to the affect the perceived learning of the respondents.
fire and smoke: In open-ended Question 14, we asked what the
breathing, crawling 15,4 15,8 2,7 best part of the game was. The qualitative content
Evacuating rapidly; analysis, like in question 9, produced four themes:
immediate actions 6,1 5,7 -6,8 49 % of the respondents liked the minigames the
Evacuation in general,
decision making
most, the respective percentage of sign scanning
7,9 5,6 -29,9
Empty or inappropriate was 21 %, whereas 7 % liked most the questions
answers 5,1 7,0 38,4 and answers, and other activities (such as avatar
tuning) were mentioned best by 23 % of
respondents.
5.2. Gaming and learning 6. Conclusions
experiences
This research investigated the learning
In the Question 11 (What fire safety issues did outcome after playing AR game in fire safety.
the game teach you best? Select one or more When enhancing competence in safety culture,
options) the options “I find the signs more easily” memorizing facts and knowing the definitions or
and “I know what the signs mean” were the most concepts is not enough. Thus, we see learning as
selected (59 % and 53 % of all respondents). In a construct, and as a combination of knowledge,
line with answers in questions 6, 7, and 8, the least skills and attitudes. A well-designed learning
answered option here was “I think more often game provides possibilities for individual tasks,
about fire safety”. Yet, it was still mentioned by and it is both experiential and memorable.
35 % of all respondents denoting rather even Playing a digital game provides us with a view
distribution of answers across the different of pupils´ behavior in the case of emergency. To
options. This implies that the game manages to create a learning environment that enables
teach fire safety in a variety of ways without ‘transferring’ i.e., applying something learned in
sacrificing any aspect. This is supported in that, the game to real environment, is somewhat
on average, each respondent selected 2.8 out of 6 challenging. However, after the Virpa game play,
options. The game had sparked more debate with school aged children seemed to know the meaning
friends than fire safety issues themselves of safety signs better, and they also knew where
Different elements of the game (Table 5) seem the signs were located. Both, participants’
to be in balance in terms of perceived learning subjective answers and game data, point to
(Question 12). Only teachability of the final exam increase in their knowledge and change in
remains rather poor (14% of respondents), but the behavior. We conclude that with the help of
explanation is that this has been visited and digital game intervention the school-aged children
performed by only minor proportion of players. were able to recognize the safety signs better than
The most important element in the game in terms before. With the results of this study, we agree
of subjective learning was, as expected, the search that digital technology and AR can help pupils to
and scanning of signs (57% of respondents). learn the fire safety signs and remember fire safety
51
issues in their built environment. This is a 7. Acknowledgements
valuable finding as these actions were made
without any assistance from the school. These
The work is part of the Virpa 2 project funded
results show that playing a digital game may give
by Fire Protection Fund in Finland. Thanks to
a new start in the person´s behavior. Later, it is
both Virpa teams (Fig. 5) at Turku Game Lab in
possible that this behavior of observing carefully
the Turku University of Applied Sciences.
the safety signs in the buildings may lead to
develop a positive attitude towards fire safety.
These results and technics may be applied in many
areas, for instance the traffic or water safety.
However, we recognized that knowledge and
skills gained while playing AR game are not
necessarily transplanted to another context, place
or time. For example, our game data showed only
rare usage in other than one location.
Yet, we are aware that besides improved
statistical analysis, more objective and precise
assessment of individual behavior change would
be necessary. For example, mobile eye trackers Figure 5: The Virpa team at Turku Game Lab.
and virtual reality environments could reveal the
baseline: where, how much and how often players
observe signs before playing. One possibility for 8. References
learning game assessment setting would be a
mixed technology gaming experience [10]. The [1] S. M. F. Bernardes, F. Rebelo, E. Vilar, P.
player would firstly respond to fire alarm in VR Noriega, T. Borges, Methodological
environment. The AR game would provide approaches for use virtual reality to develop
information and teaching about how to escape. emergency evacuation simulations for
Finally, the player would re-play the VR training in emergency situations. Procedia
application and the results of before and after the Manufacturing 3 (2015), 6313–6320.
game play would be compared. Additionally, both [2] K. Haikonen, P. Lillsunde, Burden of fire
VR and AR provide possibilities for safety and injuries in Finland: lost productivity and
security games of other areas, for instance in the benefits. Journal of public health research, 5
traffic or water safety. (2016) URL:
However, we see a lot of potential in future https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2016.705.
technologies, especially solutions that are based [3] ADE Kiwa European Hot Work Certificate.
on augmented reality promoting fire safety for 2021. URL:
children and youth. Gamified solutions exist https://virtualtrainings.ade.fi/sertifioidut/eur
especially in the field of education [26] and the opean-hot-work-certificate/
schools start to be quite well equipped with the [4] Perusopetuslaki, L. 628/1998. Finlex.
technology such as personal tablets or PCs. Also, Lainsäädäntö URL: http://www.finlex.
almost all the pupils seemed to have their fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628 (2016).
individual mobile phone, and mobile games scale [5] U. Korpilahti, R. Koivula, P. Doupi, V.
well to other devices. Serious games developed Jakoaho, Safely at All Ages: Programme for
for mobile phones would fit well in the context of the Prevention of Home and Leisure Injuries
developing countries as individual phones at (2021), 2021–2030.
schools are more common than computer classes. [6] L. Hakala, T. Kujala, A touchstone of
Finally, based on our experiences and this Finnish curriculum thought and core
study, we see that the conditions for gaming of curriculum for basic education: Reviewing
this kind are co-development procedures, exact the current situation and imagining the
concepts and visuals, authenticity and curriculum- future. Prospects (2021), 1–15.
based content of the game. With these results, we [7] NCCBE The National Core Curriculum for
want to encourage other researchers to design Basic Education. Opetushallitus, Helsinki,
curriculum-based learning games. 2014.
52
[8] B. Somerkoski, E. Lindfors Turvallisuus- [18] B. Somerkoski, D. Oliva, K. Tarkkanen, M.
pedagogiikka perusasteen opetussuunni- Luimula, Digital Learning Environments -
telman perusteissa. In: E. Luukka, A. Constructing Augmented and Virtual Reality
Palomäki, L. Pihkala-Posti, J. Hanska in Fire Safety. Proceedings ACM, C4E 2020,
[9] January 10-12 Osaka, 2020.
(eds.), Opetuksen ja oppimisen ytimessä.
Suomen anedidaktisen seuran julkaisuja. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377571.3377615
Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia. 19, (2021), pp. [19] J. Hamari, D. J. Shernoff, E. Rowe, B.
53–78. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/333969 Coller, J. Asbell-Clarke, T. Edwards,
[9] Pelastuslaki, Ajantasainen lainsäädäntö, 29, Challenging games help students learn: An
(2011),https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/ empirical study on engagement, flow and
2011/20110379. immersion in game-based learning.
[10] K. Tarkkanen, A. Lehto, D. Oliva, B. Computers in human behavior, 54 (2016),
Somerkoski, T. Haavisto, M. Luimula, 170–179.
Research Study Design for Teaching and [20] E. Dale, Audiovisual methods in teaching,
Testing Fire Safety Skills with AR and VR New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston (1969).
Games. IEEE, CogInfo, Mariehamn, 23–25 [21] L. S. Vygotsky, The collected works of LS
September, 2020, pp. 167–172 Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and
[11] S. Smith, E. Ericson, Using immersive game- history of psychology. Springer Science &
based virtual reality to teach fire-safety skills Business Media, (1997).
to children. Virtual reality, 13 (2009), pp. [22] I. de Florio, Effective teaching and
87–99. successful learning: Bridging the gap
[12] D. Oliva, B. Somerkoski, K. Tarkkanen, A. between research and practice. Cambridge,
Lehto, M. Luimula, Virtual reality as a Cambridge University Press (2016). URL:
communication tool for fire safety- doi:10.1017/CBO9781316285596
Experiences from the VirPa project. [23] R. Maniak, C. Midler, Shifting from co-
Proceedings CEUR-WS-org. Vol-2359. development to co-innovation. International
GamiFIN Conference 2019, Levi, Finland, journal of automotive technology and
April 8–10, 2019, pp. 241–252. management, 8 (2008), 449–468.
[13] Y. Zhu, N. Li, Virtual and augmented reality https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs
technologies for emergency management in /10.1504/IJATM.2008.020313
the built environments: A state-of-the-art [24] J. L. Møller, P. Kines, J. Dyreborg, L.
review. Journal of Safety Science and L.Andersen, J. Z. Ajslev, The competences
Resilience, 2(1), (2021), 1-10. of successful safety and health coordinators
[14] R. Lovreglio, Virtual and Augmented reality in construction projects. Construction
for human behaviour in disasters: a review. Management and Economics, 39 (2021),
In Fire and Evacuation Modeling Technical 199–211. URL:
Conference (FEMTC) 2020, pp. 9-11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10
[15] H. Chen, L. Hou, G. K. Zhang, S. Moon, 80/01446193.2020.1818800
Development of BIM, IoT and AR/VR [25] F. E. Weinert, Contribution within the OECD
technologies for fire safety and Project Definition and Selection of
upskilling. Automation in Construction, 125, Competencies: Concepts of competence.
(2021). Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations
[16] H. Mitsuhara, C. Tanimura, J. Nemoto, M. (DeSeCo). Neuchatel, Bundesamt für
Shishibori, Expressing Disaster Situations Statistik (1999), 3–34.
for Evacuation Training Using Markerless [26] J. Koivisto, J. Hamari, The rise of
Augmented Reality, Procedia Computer motivational information systems: A review
Science, 192, (2021), 2105-2114. of gamification research. International
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.218. Journal of Information Management, 45,
[17] N. Pellas, P. Fotaris, I. Kazanidis, D. Wells, 191-210. (2019).
Augmenting the learning experience in
primary and secondary school education: A
systematic review of recent trends in
augmented reality game-based
learning. Virtual Reality, 23, 2019, 329-346.
53