Gaming in Education Voices of Spoon River School of Learning Sciences

1. Gaming in EducationVoices of Spoon RiverSchool of Learning Sciences A Case Study of the Development of an Educational Interactive Fiction Game by Instructional Game Students Evaluation of an Educational Interactive Fiction Game Design of a Multi-User Game for Learning Science Students Department of Instructional Technology Utah State University Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

2. Voices of Spoon River • Interpreter - http://nickm.com/if/faq.html • Windows - Frotz 2002 • OS X - Zoom • Game - http://it.usu.edu/cle/VOSR_r1.0.z5 Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

3. Voices of Spoon River A Case Study of the Development of an Educational Interactive Fiction Game by Instructional Game Students S.M. Duncan & Brett Shelton, Ph.D. Department of Instructional Technology Utah State University Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

4. The VOSR Team • Jared Bernotski • Tom Caswell • Marie Duncan • Marion Jensen • Jennifer Jorgensen • Jon Scoresby • Tim Stowell • Brett Shelton (advisor) Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

5. Instructional Games Class at USU • The emerging nature of the field • Elements of an effective instructional game • The qualities of “good” instructional design within a gaming environment • http://itoutreach.ed.usu.edu/~bshelton/courses/instgames/index.htm • Coming soon - most materials via http://ocw.usu.edu Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

6. Spoon River Anthology - The Book Courtesy Ms. Mudd from Springfield, Illinois http://lawrence.springfield.k12.il.us/SpoonRiverAnthology/SpoonRiverAnthology.html Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

7. Spoon River Anthology - Benefits • Out of copyright • http://www.bartleby.com/84/ • Non-linear • 9th grade English • Desired objectives • reading comprehension, poetry literary device • Unexpected(?) outcomes • problem solving, orienteering, confidence Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

8. Why Interactive Fiction? • Blends entertainment and education • Allows for narrative, interaction (NPCs, variety of actions and locations), rich description • Text-based format • Consistent with English learning objectives • Allows for similar experience as the traditional book • (http://www.ifarchive.org/ , IF wiki: http://www.ifwiki.org/ , http://nickm.com/ , http://emshort.home.mindspring.com/ , http://www.brasslantern.org/) Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

9. Instructional Technologists as Game Designers • Combines their experience with traditional instructional design theory with new exposure to game theory • Utilizes hybrid theory of “alignment” • Ensures all game activity is aligned with learning objectives • Become mini-content experts • English instruction • Spoon River Anthology • Computer science and game development • http://it.usu.edu/cle/CLE_IF_learning.html Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

10. A Few of Group B’s Instructional Goals • Learners will identify the poetic device of repetition • Learners will understand the use of symbolism in poetry • Learners will read and comprehend poetry • Learners will use a variety of problem solving techniques Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

11. Activity-Goal Alignment Game-like activities should be aligned with the instructional goals of the game Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

12. Clusters • Sibley’s Secret (Mrs. Sibley & Editor Whedon) • Hamblin’s Article (Carl Hamblin & Editor Whedon) • Cooney’s Contentment (Cooney Potter & Fiddler Jones) • The McGees (Fletcher McGee & Ollie McGee) Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

13. Design & Development Process • Cluster-based activity within design/development groups combines: • Characters • Locations • Artifacts • Resolutions • Game-related activities • Learning objectives • Iterative testing • Integration of game/code modules Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

14. Important Lessons Learned • Whole-game -> Clusters • Chaos -> Organized Readme’s • Things that didn’t work • Wordings/situations lacking clarity • Difficulty level of resolution • Suggested Improvements Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

15. Basic Process (part 1) • Read Spoon River Anthology • Identified instructional goals • Identified a game premise • Identified character relationships • Developed game challenges that: • Utilized existing character relationships • Met instructional goals Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

16. Basic Process (part 2) • Developed and tested each cluster independently • Combined and tested intra-group clusters • Combined and tested group clusters • Departmental kick-off Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

17. Next steps… • Research the game in-use with 9th grade English students • Motivation and activity-goal alignment • Expected and unexpected learning outcomes • Making VOSR accessible to those with disabilities Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

18. Voices of Spoon River Evaluation of an Educational Interactive Fiction Game S.M. Duncan, Jon Scoresby & Brett Shelton, Ph.D. Department of Instructional Technology Utah State University Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

19. Current Questions • Were the learning objectives achieved and was the game motivating to play? If yes, in what ways? If no, why not? • What are the motivational impacts of unit discussion and unit game play? • Was the motivation within the game truly gender-neutral as the game was designed? • What are the instructional benefits of using VOSR during an instructional unit on SRA? • What is the game environment overhead in VOSR? Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

20. ARCS Attention Relevance Confidence Satisfaction Keller, J.M. (1988, April). Tools for enhancing and assessing learner motivation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Society of Performance and Instruction, Washington, D.C. CPU Challenge Proclivity Uncertainty Shelton, B. E., & Wiley, D. (2006, April 7-11). Instructional designers take all the fun out of games: Rethinking elements of engagement for designing instructional games. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2006, San Francisco. Motivation Measures Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

21. Anticipated Sample • Five 9th grade English classes, each with about 32 students (≈160 total subjects) • Classes last 50 minutes • Two treatment-groups • Gameplay followed by discussion (G) • Discussion followed by gameplay (D) Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

22. Procedure (1) • Consent & assent forms sent out and collected the week prior • Classes randomly assigned a treatment group • Students complete pre-unit surveys • Classes complete their group’s first intervention • Students complete intervention specific surveys Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

23. Procedure (2) • Classes complete the second intervention • Students complete a unit test • Initial data analysis to identify a specific pool of students to further analyze • One-on-one interviews Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

24. Procedures/Analysis Diagram Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

25. Expectations & Implications • Effective classroom implementations • As related to instructionally designed games, a glimpse of potential: • Instructional benefits • Downsides Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

26. School of Learning Sciences Design of a Multi-User Game for Learning Science Students S.M. Duncan, Tim Stowell, Bobbe Allen & Brett Shelton, Ph.D. Department of Instructional Technology Utah State University Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

27. Rafael’s School of Athens Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

28. Types of Interactions • Challenge (i.e. goal/mission) • Non-directed exploration • Creation or modification of Non-Player Characters (NPCs) • Design and creation of new Challenges • Creation or modification of the game environment Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

29. Platform Requirements • Multi-User Environment • Supports • Ambiguous (i.e. MUD/MOO) interactions • Game-like interactions • Windows, OS X, Linux support • Relative ease of development & expansion (open) • Cost (lack thereof) Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

30. I.F. vs. Visual • Interactive Fiction • Fast and easy to develop and modify • Platform independent (e.g. Windows, Mac, Palmpilot, etc.) • Machine independent (e.g. don’t need the latest greatest graphics card) • Can initially, be very intimidating to players Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

31. I.F. vs. Visual • Visual • Daunting to develop and modify • Might be ported to multiple platforms • Machine dependent (e.g. performance will be effected by graphics card) • Initially welcoming to players Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

32. Unreal Engine/Tournament mod ($$) Power Render 6 - Personal Edition (W) Active Worlds (W) Multiverse.net (W) Orge 3D (S.P.) Crystal Space (B.R.) Quake III $$ - Financial Barriers W - Windows only S.P. - Single player only B.R. - Bad reviews Platforms Reviewed Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference

33. The Creative Learning Environments Lab at USU… • Instructional simulations • Educational games • New media design and experiences • Augmented reality and education • Learning Sciences • Data visualization theory and practice • Interactive immersive learning environments. http://it.usu.edu/cle/ Philadelphia Area Educational Technology Conference