Advertisement

Discovering Strategies for Design of Purposeful Games—A Preliminary Study

  • Sandeep AthavaleEmail author
  • Girish Dalvi
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)

Abstract

Purposeful games are games having a purpose such as education, in addition to entertainment. Though there has been significant interest and research in educational game design recently, the design of games that seamlessly deliver engagement and learning is still a challenge. Games with endogenous design are likely to balance engagement and learning. Endogenous design implies that the gameplay emerges from the educational content. We, therefore, focus on discovering strategies for the endogenous design in our research. As part of preliminary study, we conduct an exploratory workshop as well as pilot studies using protocol analysis to understand strategies that designers use. The main contribution of this paper is an early report on strategies for the endogenous design of educational games. We find three broad themes of strategies—(a) the process and the steps, (b) the extraction of ‘gameable’ elements from the content, and (c) the translation to game elements. This research is a stepping-stone toward deeper research into endogenous design of educational games.

Keywords

Educational game design Design strategies Protocol analysis Endogenous design 

References

  1. 1.
    Rieber, L.P.: Seriously considering play: designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educ. Technol. Res. Devel. 44(2), 43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deen, M.: GAME games autonomy motivation & education: how autonomy-supportive game design may improve motivation to learn. Ph.D. dissertation, Doctoral dissertation. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, NL (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hubka, V.: Design tactics = methods + working principles for design engineers. Des. Stud. 4(3), 188–195 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cross, N.: Design research: a disciplined conversation. Des. Issues 15(2), 5–10 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. revised edn. The MIT Press (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motte, D., Andersson, P.E., Bjärnemo, R.: A study of the mechanical designer’s strategies and tactics during the later phases of the engineering design process. In: ASME 2004 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 315–324. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amory, A.: Game object model version II: a theoretical framework for educational game development. Edu. Technol. Res. Dev. 55(1), 51–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M.B., Bellotti, F., Freitas, S., Louchart, S., Suttie, N., Berta, R., De Gloria, A.: Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 46(2), 391–411 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prensky, M.: Types of learning and possible game styles. In: Digital Game-Based Learning (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A.: Designing effective serious games: opportunities and challenges for research. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 5 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, J.V., Wyeth, P.A., Johnson, D.: Instructional objectives to core-gameplay: a serious game design technique. In: Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, pp. 121–130. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuipers, B., Kassirer, J.P.: Causal reasoning in medicine: analysis of a protocol. Cogn. Sci. 8(4), 363–385 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suwa, M., Purcell, T., Gero, J.: Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Des. Stud. 19(4), 455–483 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akin, Ö., Lin, C.: Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Des. Stud. 16(2), 211–236 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, Abridged edn. Longman, White Plains, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gagne, R.M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., Keller, J.M., Russell, J.D.: Principles of instructional design. Perform. Improv. 44(2), 44–46 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gero, J.S., Mc Neill, T.: An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Des. Stud. 19(1), 21–61 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hagen, U.: Where do game design ideas come from? innovation and recycling in games developed in Sweden. World 2004(24) (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tata Consultancy ServicesTRDDCPuneIndia
  2. 2.IDCIIT BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations