Preparing Instructional Designers for Game-Based Learning: Part III Game Design as a Collaborative Process By Atsusi Hirumi, Bob Appelman, Lloyd Rieber, Richard Van Eck Abstract In this three part series, four professors who teach graduate level courses on the design of instructional video games discuss their perspectives on preparing instructional designers to optimize game-based learning. Part I set the context for the series and one of four panelists discussed what he believes instructional designers should know about instructional game design. In Part II, two faculty members who teach courses on instructional game design presented their perspectives on preparing instructional designers for game-based learning. Part III presents a fourth perspective along with conclusion that contrasts the four views posited in Parts I-III. Keywords: Game-Based Learning; Educational Games; Instructional Design, Instructional Game Design I believe that proper balance between education and entertainment is necessary to optimize game-based learning; a balance thought to be best achieved by combining the expertise of instructional designers and entertainment designers, ensuring both are respected and have an equitable “voice” during the design process (Hirumi & Stapleton, in press). If educators or instructional designers dominate the process, the resulting game may be neither fun, nor entertaining. Games that over-emphasize educational requirements often fall short of re- alizing the potential of play, game, and story for creating memorable experiences. Learning requirements and traditional teaching methods may be forced onto the game, undermining the dramatic flow of story and disrupting the excitement of gameplay. The game may have sound pedagogical foundations and incorporate proven educational practices, but if it is not entertaining, it will fail to meet the expectations of both producers and consumers (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008). In contrast, if entertainment designers dictate the design process, the game may not apply key pedagogical principles and players may be entertained, but may leave lacking vital skills and knowledge. The importance and depth of content information and vital instructional events may be overlooked, oversimplified or trivialized while striving to uphold compelling goals of interactive entertainment (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008). The game may distract players who may be enamored by the use of high-end graphics and animation, or by competing, scoring and winning, rather than learning (Clark, 2003). In this section, I describe how I prepare instructional designers to work effectively with entertainment designers, such as game producers, level designers, writers, programmers, animators and artists, to integrate and achieve an appropriate balance between the educational and entertainment aspects of an instructional game by addressing six key areas, including: (a) modern commercial and educational games, (b) Volume 54, Number 5 38 TechTrends • September/October 2010 generational differences and player motivations, (c) instructional and game design processes, (d) game development team members, (e) related research, and (f) development tools. While I do cover these areas individually and in various combination in workshops and professional development seminars depending on the specific needs and interests of the target learner population, for this article, I discuss how I cover the six areas during a 3 credit hour graduate course on Instructional Game Design and work with small teams in class to generate a Pitch Document, several iterations of a Concept Document, and related paper and digital prototypes. Modern Entertainment and Educational Games Simply put, the best game designers play video games. To design engaging games, I believe it is imperative for instructional designers to play games and develop a sense of what makes them entertaining, and of what modern game technology has to offer. To begin, participants play at least three commercial and three educational video games, and critique each game, constructing their own ideas of what makes games good or bad. I also ask students to contrast different game genres (e.g., first person shooter, adventure, role-playing, strategy, massive multiple player online games) and distinguish “modern” video games from those produced in the 1980’s and 1990s. I delineate five potential levels of educational applications (i.e., game as an instructional event, lesson, unit, course or program) (c.f. Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008) and ask participants to classify the games they chose to study according to genre and level of application. Participants also study a variety of “high concepts” (one or two sentences that capture the essence of the game) and formulate and post a high concept for a proposed instructional game, along with a short description of a relevant instructional context. Participants then review and discuss each other’s high concepts and form teams to design an instructional game throughout the semester. (2001c) cites eight ways that games capture and sustain players’ interest; by sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and masochism. During the second level (unit) of my course, I also ask students to read articles, as well as interview gamers, about the reasons why people play games. Generational differences provide further insights into learner needs and interests. Instructional designers analyze key learner characteristics to design instructional programs and materials (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2009). After reading articles on how current use of digital media may shape people’s minds and attitudes (e.g., Prensky, 2001a, 2001b; Oblinger, 2004; Roberts, Foehr, & Rideout, 2005), students reflect on how generational differences may affect learner analysis results (and subsequent instructional game design). At this point, teams are tasked with generating a pitch document for their instructional game, using the results of their learner, goal and context analyses to prepare short descriptions of the instructional context, high concept, genre, key features, pedagogical foundations, story, setting and gameplay (as discussed further in the next section). Instructional and Game Design Processes The majority of the course (four out of seven units) is spent discussing and applying what we know about teaching and learning (hereby referred to in general as “pedagogy”) to game design in a systematic fashion to establish a strong pedagogical foundation and help ensure a balance between education and entertainment. To work effectively with entertainment designers, I have found it is essential for instructional designers to know how and when to contribute their skills and knowledge during the overall game development process. In Unit 3 of the course (as well as in workshops), I present on overview of how to integrate ID and GD processes. I depict ID as an interactive process consisting of five basic phases, including analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). Similarly, I present GD as a process that is also often broken down into five phases, including concept development, pre-production, production, and post-production (Bates, 2004). Although the specific sequencing of tasks, the degree of documentation, and the specific tools and techniques used during each phase vary by project and organization, the basic phases and related tasks and (interim) products for both ID and GD remain basically the same. 39 Generational Differences and Player Motivations I believe that knowledge of why people play video games and how today’s millennial generation differs from past generations are important for instructional designers to create engaging games. According to Novak (2005), game players are motivated by social interaction, physical seclusion, competition, knowledge, mastery, escapism, and addiction. Similarly, Prensky Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 Table 1 identifies key tasks associated with each phase of the instructional design (ID) process and relates them to basic phases and (interim) products connected with the game development (GD) process (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008, p. 133). It is important to note there is not necessarily a direct, one-to-one correlation between the ID and GD phases (as may be suggested by Table 1). Table 1. Relating Instructional Design Phases and Tasks with Game Development Phases and Products (Reprinted with the kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media) During the Concept phase, a small team of entertainment designers will often produce a short, two-page, pitch document that summarizes key aspects of the game and notes why it will be successful. Typically, the team also prepares a five-to-ten page concept document for managers and potential investors to refer to after the “pitch” that covers the same topics as the pitch document but in greater detail. In my experience the results of a learner, context, and goal analyses may yield valuable information for the pitch document. Specifically, learner analysis helps define the target audience and provides insights into high concepts, genres, stories, settings, gameplay and game features that may be particularly interesting for members of the target population. The results of analyzing the learning context yields useful information when determining basic technical features of the game (such as platform), and the results of analyzing the performance context may be particularly important for identifying key characters and determining the settings for the game. Furthermore, goal, task, subordinate skills and/or content analysis delineates the skills and knowledge to be addressed by the game that is important for formulating a high concept, selecting an appropriate genre, story, setting and gameplay as well as establishing the pedagogical foundations for the game. While it is not a part of a pitch or concept document prepared for purely entertaining video games, I encourage instructional designers and entertainment designers to include a description of the game’s pedagogical foundations to help sell the game by demonstrating a suitable understanding of teaching and learning to managers, investors and other key stakeholders who may read the pitch and concept documents. During both the Concept Phase (as entertainment designers prepare a concept document that further elaborate on fundamental aspects of the game) and the Pre-Production Phase (as entertainment designers generate detailed design documents and plans), I have found that instructional designers may provide vital information about learning objectives, learner assessments, instructional strategies and media. For instance, the specification, clustering and sequencing of learning objectives may be particularly useful for determining appropriate gameplay, settings and/or levels. The clustering and sequencing of learning objectives may also guide the writing of a suitable story, helping writers identify key waypoints and formulate an interesting story arc. Knowledge of valid and reliable learner assessment methods may be one of the most valuVolume 54, Number 5 40 TechTrends • September/October 2010 able assets an instructional designer contributes to the game design process. Entertainment designers may be familiar with the format of conventional criterion referenced tests, such as multiple-choice, true-false, matching, and fill-inthe blank items (which helps explain the proliferations of simple game-show style games being used for training and educational purposes), but they may not have the skills and knowledge necessary to create valid and reliable questions and answers that are aligned to specified objectives. Furthermore, entertainment designers may be less familiar with the design and application of performance-based assessments, such as product and performance checklists (to measure learner’s ability to perform simple to complex procedures) and portfolio assessment rubrics (to measure problem solving and other higher-order thinking skills). Knowledge of when and how to apply alternative assessment methods is particularly important for game designers to determine if and when learner assessments should be embedded within the game or if assessments must be designed and applied outside of the game. Knowledge of alternative instructional strategies is another asset instructional designers may bring to game development process. Based on the specified learning goals and objectives, and desired pedagogical approach, instructional designers may recommend alternative strategies and work with entertainment designers to integrate key instructional events associated with a selected strategy with gameplay and story events. The selection and recommended use of media (e.g., audio, video, animated and still graphics, and text) based on targeted learning outcomes are additional tasks instructional designers are apt to complete that may yield valuable information for the team to consider as they prepare concept and detailed game design document. During Unit 3, I also note how instructional designers and entertainment designers debate the relative benefits of and apply waterfall and spiral (e.g., Novak, 2005; Huo, Verner, Zhu, & Babar, 2004; Yamamichi, Ozeki, Yokochi, & Tanaka, 1996) approaches to design as well as argue about rapid prototyping as an alternative approach for reducing what some believe is unnecessary documentation (Novak, 2005; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). During units 4-6 of the game design course, we focus on applying what we know about teaching and learning to game design by examining the relationship between the fundamental pedagogical elements of instruction and interactive entertainment as depicted in Figure 1. In entertainment, story, play, and game tend to be used interchangeably. In fact, they have very Volume 54, Number 5 Figure 1. Interacting Elements of Instructional and Interactive Entertainment Design. explicit purposes. Story uses characters and pathos (empathy and emotions) to hook the player into the subject matter. Once hooked, characters interact to take the user on an adventure through contextual worlds provoked by compelling events that evolve the conflict, dilemma and intensity (drama). Play is open ended and utilizes stimulating objects (toys) and environments (playgrounds) to invite the physical participation of the user by stimulating and provoking a response that leads to consequences that, in turn, evoke new responses in an on-going cycle. Games bring a procedural structure to the drama by providing explicit goals and challenging rules and limits for the user to apply their tools and obtain explicit and quantitative scores. To optimize game-based learning, instructional designers and entertainment designers should work together to integrate what we know about teaching and learning with the elements of interactive entertainment in a balanced and systematic manner. Story uses characters and pathos to motivate learners to achieve specified objectives. Stories also provide directed exposition that can integrate intentional learning (explicit facts, concepts, rules, principles, etc.) and foster intrinsic motivation by establishing content relevance. Play provides practice and discovery to explore the subject matter. As noted earlier, the elements of play (stimulus, response and consequences) also evoke an on-going cycle that facilitates continuous feedback, which is fundamental to learning. Game elements provide challenges for mastering learning objectives and a logical approach for assessing learning 41 TechTrends • September/October 2010 through explicit and often motivating quantitative game scores. It is the proper integration of pedagogy with story, play and game that is thought to optimize game-based learning. As participants study the integration of the key elements of pedagogy and interactive entertainment, teams generate three iterations of a concept document elaborating on their pitch document. For version 1, participants detail a story for their game, integrating key pedagogical elements as discussed in class. For version 2, they design play elements, again integrating pedagogy, and for version 3, they elaborate on the integration of pedagogy with game elements. The result is an elaborated concept document that includes all the basic components specified by video game developers (c.f., Bates, 2004; Novak, 2005) and integrates pedagogy to facilitate game-based learning. Participants will also be encouraged to generate paper and/ or digital prototypes of their game based on their concept document. Characterizing Game Developers To work effectively with a game development team, it is important for instructional designers to understand the roles and responsibilities of various members. The final level of the course requires participants to read about game development team members, including, but not limited to the “vision guy,” internal and external producers, assistant and associate producers, game designers, level designers, writers, programmers, artists, modelers, animators, and testers (Bates, 2004). Participants also review seven power bases and tactics for positively influencing team members (Schein, 1986 cited in Powers, 1999) and reflect on how they would develop and utilize their powerbases to facilitate game design. At this point in the course, participants are finalizing and preparing to present their game prototypes, so there are no particular assignments associated with characterizing game development team members. Interpreting Related Research or Distinguishing Development Tools Depending on individual needs and interests, class participants have two options for completing a semester long individual project (a) a mini literature review on game research, or (b) a portfolio on game development tools. To inform research and practice, instructional game designers should be able to characterize the research findings, as well as remain 42 abreast of current trends and issues. They should also know how to search for, access, interpret, and apply such information. Participants who choose Option 1 are to define specific questions, and locate, review, and synthesize related research to answer their questions. Participants are provided several reviews of literature (e.g., Federation of American Scientists, 2006; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; and Mitchell & SavillSmith, 2004) to help them define question and jumpstart their mini review. Around mid-term, participants are to reflect on their findings, formulate and post a question about instructional games that they then attempt to answer by locating and synthesizing published literature. For the remainder of the course, participants prepare a mini review of literature that: (a) presents the context for their review (e.g., background, problem, purpose and question); (b) describes method used to search for, locate and select articles for inclusion in their review; (c) answers original question(s), (d) notes related trends and issues, and (e) and proposes a research design for further answering with empirical data.. Participants interested in producing instructional games, rather than research, pursue Option 2 for their semester project. There is a plethora of tools that may be used to develop an entertaining and instructional game, ranging from relatively simple game shells that require no programming skills and may be used to create basic puzzle games, to advanced (and very expensive) game engines that require extensive programming skills. Furthermore, an instructional designer and/or educator may, or may not be responsible for using development tools depending on the situation. Participants who choose Option 2 are first encouraged to review a variety of game development software applications accessible at DevMaster.net, keeping in mind that that they may be only able to play with a “trial” version of certain applications unless they purchase it. Participants also directed to scan a report on game engines (Stang, 2003), as well as video game mods at games2train.com and the web game shells website at www.thiagi.com/web-gameshells.html. They then post a short description of their current knowledge of and interest in game development software applications, along with specific learning objectives.Participants’ development tool portfolios, submitted at the end of the term, include work samples that demonstrate what they have learned about development tools (e.g., printouts and screen shots of materials generated from working with selected development tools), and a narrative that (a) describes prior knowledge of game developVolume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 ment software tools and interests, (b) lists targeted learning objectives (what they want to learn about specific tools, (c) notes how work samples included in portfolio demonstrate achievement of specified objectives, and (d) reflects on their experiences (e.g., what was useful, less useful, challenges faced, limitations). As with all required assignments, an explicit assessment rubric for evaluating their portfolios is published at the beginning of the course. Future Considerations As noted earlier, I believe that a balance between education and entertainment is essential for optimizing game-based learning, and one of best ways to achieve such a balance it to facilitate collaboration between instructional and entertainment designers. Thus, a colleague with extensive experience in the entertainment industry and I are working to create tools and tactics that leverage the positive features, as well as guard against the pitfalls of both ID and Entertainment Design (ED). Together, we are developing the “Jacob’s Ladder Instructional Game Design Tactic,” illustrated in Figure 2. In short, the Jacob’s Ladder represents a highly charged, collaborative design tactic for stimulating and elevating dynamic exchanges (electrical arc) between instructional and entertainment designers into creative results that can be scaled to the available time, financial and human resources. The electrifying exchanges between ID and ED correlate with the growing intensity and dependency of instructional and entertainment designers sparring with one another. The feedback between the two prongs allows for the “climbing” of the electrical arc or idea to the desired heights and width. The consistent climb reflects the systematic instructional design process, and the sparkling expression of energy and the climatic crescendo represents the entertainment design process. Each side is equal and neither is compromised. A seemingly erratic event (a spark) becomes a predictable, consistent and repeatable flow of ideas and solutions. Successful results do not come strictly from one side or the other, nor are they compromised for sake of convergence. Success comes from the strategic exchanges between experts from different fields to achieve common goals. We recommend applying the Jacob’s Ladder game design tactic three times during pre-production: (a) at the onset, during a “Blue Sky” brainstorming session to create a pitch document; (b) soon after a decision is made to develop the game, during a “Transdisciplinary Play” date to guide concept development; and (c) after receiving support for the game concept, Volume 54, Number 5 Figure 2. Jacob’s Ladder Pre-Production Design Tactic during a “Devil’s in the Details” charrette to direct the preparation of detailed game design documents. I am now working to integrate Jacob’s Ladder Pre-Production Design Tactic and related instruments into the graduate instructional game design course. Summary In this section, I described what I believe instructional designers should know and be able to do to collaborate effectively with game developers and create instructional games that balance the educational and entertaining aspects of games to optimize game-based learning. Specifically, I identified the topics I cover in a graduate level, three credit hour course on instructional game design, including the design of modern entertainment and educational games, generational differences and (game) player motivations, instructional and game design processes, roles and characteristics of game developers, interpreting related research and distinguishing development tools. I noted that the majority of the course is spent delineating three basic components of interactive entertainment (i.e., story, play and game) and their related elements, and discussing how instructional designers should work with game developers to integrate and apply pedagogy during the design of each basic component. I also posited reasons for teaching each topic and described how I facilitate the learning of each topic through online and in-class discussions, activities and assignments. Finally, I discussed how I plan to revise and improve the course as well as identified a few additional key issues for instructional designers to consider when work43 TechTrends • September/October 2010 ing with others to design an instructional game. While the topics and the methods used to teach each topic will change over time with experience, and as the design of both entertaining and educational games continue to evolve, I believe that collaboration among experts in instructional design and entertainment design during the game development process is the key to achieving an appropriate balance between education and entertainment and to optimize game-based learning. Conclusions In responses to the question, “what do instructional designers need to know about game design to optimize game-based learning?” four experts in instructional game design demonstrate fundamental similarities in perspective. All four recognize that the use of games for training or education is not new, but advances in technology place new demands and offer new opportunities for educators and instructional designers to enhance learning. All four also emphasize the importance of finding a balance; a balance between education/learning and entertainment/fun or, as Rieber elaborates, a balance between artistic, empirical, and analytical approaches to design. Considering their backgrounds, it is easy to see why all four experts also advocate the use of instructional design processes for optimizing game-based learning, albeit with varying emphasis. All four also posit new models for design, integrating ID principles to enhance the overall production process, but with distinct differences in belief and approach. Van Eck focuses on specific ID theories and guidelines that Instructional Designers can contribute to the game development process to optimize game-based learning. In comparison, Appleman concentrates on what instructional designers need to know about new media, and what specific aspects of ID field should be retained to facilitate the transition from ID to DIE (or die as a profession). In distinct contrast, Rieber embraces the artistic components of instructional design, even though he recognizes that to prepare people to become instructional designers, it is necessary for them to learn analytic methods. However, he does not believe that instructional design can ever be reduced to a set of scientific principles and procedures and downplays analytic elements as he encourages students to explore game design. Hirumi, in turn, posits that a proper balance between education and entertainment is necessary to optimize game-based learning and presents tools and techniques for facilitating collaboration between instructional and entertainment 44 designers to ensure both have an equitable “voice” throughout the process. Differences in opinion on the application of ID theories to new media, such as instructional games, are particularly notable. Specifically, Van Eck suggests that Gagne’s nine events of instruction are not only compatible with games, but required. Rieber, in direct contrast, finds Gagne’s events of instruction, “…of little use to an educational game designer. Of course, games may be designed to fulfill one or more of the events of instruction, but the elements of a good lesson do not translate well into the elements of a good educational game.” Like Van Eck, Hirumi believes that Gagne’s nine events may be compatible, but rather than subscribing to one particular strategy, he posits guidelines for selecting and integrating a range of learner-centered and teacher-directed instructional strategies with story events based on the nature of targeted learning outcomes to optimize game-based learning. Appelman also believes that ID theories may be applied to the design of new media, centering on how Experiential Learning theories and Message Design may be used to help guide instructional game design. Taken together, the similarities and differences in perspective emphasize the need for further dialog among instructional designers and game developers to optimize game-based learning. Research is also necessary to determine the benefits, limitations and relative value of alternative approaches. Do ID theories have a place in game development? Does the integration of ID tasks and processes optimize game-based learning? These, and other related questions must be answered empirically to guide the application of pedagogy and interactive entertainment to optimize game-based learning. Robert Appelman, Ph.D. is a nationally recognized authority on multimedia production and technology education. Trained initially as a graphic designer, Dr. Appelman continued into motion picture and television production and produced award-winning titles in both of these mediums. Over the past 30 years he has combined his training as an instructional designer, researcher, and instructor with his creative experience in multimedia production. His current focus is on the integration of technology into teaching, along with the coordination of production management strategies necessary to create virtual learning environments such as games and simulations. As Director of the Virtual Xperience Lab (VX Lab) at IU, he has guided research in Game Play Analysis and learning evaluation in Virtual Learning Environments. Dr. Appelman also serves as the Secretary of the Board for the international Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Richard Van Eck, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Graduate Director of the Instructional Design & Technology pro- TechTrends • September/October 2010 Volume 54, Number 5 gram at the University of North Dakota (idt.und.edu). He has published and presented extensively in the field of gamebased learning (GBL), including the featured cover story of Educause Review, book chapters on building intelligent learning games and on the future of GBL as a field, seven keynote presentations and eleven invited speaking engagements from 2005 to 2007. He also has dozens of publications and presentations on his research in intelligent tutoring systems, pedagogical agents, authoring tools, and gender and technology, is currently conducting research on games and training with the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at UND and is designing a game to teach middle school students about air pollution. He has taught a digital game-based learning graduate course every year since 2001. Lloyd Rieber, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and coordinator of the Instructional Design & Development emphasis area within the Instructional Technology program at University of Georgia. He has written extensively on microworlds, simulations, games, and play. He co-designed, co-founded and currently teaches in the EDIT Studio, an innovative sequence of courses teaching educational multimedia design and development for which Game design is a prominent feature. He designed and programmed the WWILD Team, a web site/community devoted to experiential learning using existing games and simulations as learning objects. He also directs a project called “Homemade PowerPoint Games,” which promotes learning through designing games with technology already available in the schools. In 2006 he won the Outstanding Practice Award from AECT’s Division of Design & Development for, “In Search of Lost Wisdom,” an online game designed to help graduate students understand task analysis. Atsusi “2c” Hirumi, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and CoChair of the Instructional Technology program at the University of Central Florida. Over the past 12 years, Dr. Hirumi has centered his research on the design of alternative e-learning environments. As an extension of his research, Dr. Hirumi has focused on story and game-based approaches to teaching and learning over the last 4 years. He serves as the lead instructional designer or learning advisor, working directly with teams of game developers on the creation of five instructional games. He also leads teams of graduate students, faculty, instructional designers and game developers investigating various aspects of game-based learning. Based on his experience, Dr. Hirumi has designed and delivered graduate courses and several workshops on instructional game design, and has written a number of book chapters and journal articles, and has made over a dozen invited and refereed conference presentation on design of instructional games and game-based learning. References Bates, B. (2004). Game Design (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology. Clark, D. (2003). Computer games in education and training. Presentation at LSDA seminar Learning by playing: can computer games and simulations support teaching and learning for post-16 learners in formal, workplace and informal learning contexts? Retrieved from www.bbk. ac.uk/ccs/elearn/events.html. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The Systematic Design of Instruction (7th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S (2005). Beyond Edutainment: exploring the educational potential of computer games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from www.itu.dk/people/sen/ egenfeldt.pdf. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video game for learning. Retrieved from http:// fas.org/gamesummit/. Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (1997). Survey of Instructional development Models. ERIC Clearing House on Information and Technology. Hirumi, A. & Stapleton, C. (2008). Integrating Fundamental ID Tasks with Game Development Processes to Optimize Game-Based Learning. In C. Miller (ed). Games: Their Purpose and Potential in Education (pp. 127-160). New York: Springer Publishing. Huo, M., Verner, J., Zhu, L., & Babar, M. A. (2004). Software Quality and Agile Methods. Paper presented at the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer games for learning. Retrieved from http://www.mlearning.org/archive/docs/. Novak, J. (2005). Game Development Essentials. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1-18. Powers, E. S. (1999). The dynamics of politics in organizational change. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 122-136. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: The scientific evidence behind the Digital Native’s thinking changes, and the evidence that Digital Native-style learning works! On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-10. Prensky, M. (2001c). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York, NY: MacGraw Hill. Roberts, D., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm. Stang, B. (2003). Game engines: Features and possibilities. Institute of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling at The Technical University of Denmark. Tripp, S., & Bechelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44. Yamamichi, N., Ozeki, T., Yokochi, K., & Tanaka, T. (1996). The evaluation of new software developing process based on a spiral modeling. Paper presented at the Global Telecommunications Conference, 1996. Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 45
Please download to view
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
...

Game Design as a collaborative process - Hirumi

by ketry-farias-dos-passos

on

Report

Category:

Documents

Download: 0

Comment: 0

108

views

Comments

Description

Download Game Design as a collaborative process - Hirumi

Transcript

Preparing Instructional Designers for Game-Based Learning: Part III Game Design as a Collaborative Process By Atsusi Hirumi, Bob Appelman, Lloyd Rieber, Richard Van Eck Abstract In this three part series, four professors who teach graduate level courses on the design of instructional video games discuss their perspectives on preparing instructional designers to optimize game-based learning. Part I set the context for the series and one of four panelists discussed what he believes instructional designers should know about instructional game design. In Part II, two faculty members who teach courses on instructional game design presented their perspectives on preparing instructional designers for game-based learning. Part III presents a fourth perspective along with conclusion that contrasts the four views posited in Parts I-III. Keywords: Game-Based Learning; Educational Games; Instructional Design, Instructional Game Design I believe that proper balance between education and entertainment is necessary to optimize game-based learning; a balance thought to be best achieved by combining the expertise of instructional designers and entertainment designers, ensuring both are respected and have an equitable “voice” during the design process (Hirumi & Stapleton, in press). If educators or instructional designers dominate the process, the resulting game may be neither fun, nor entertaining. Games that over-emphasize educational requirements often fall short of re- alizing the potential of play, game, and story for creating memorable experiences. Learning requirements and traditional teaching methods may be forced onto the game, undermining the dramatic flow of story and disrupting the excitement of gameplay. The game may have sound pedagogical foundations and incorporate proven educational practices, but if it is not entertaining, it will fail to meet the expectations of both producers and consumers (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008). In contrast, if entertainment designers dictate the design process, the game may not apply key pedagogical principles and players may be entertained, but may leave lacking vital skills and knowledge. The importance and depth of content information and vital instructional events may be overlooked, oversimplified or trivialized while striving to uphold compelling goals of interactive entertainment (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008). The game may distract players who may be enamored by the use of high-end graphics and animation, or by competing, scoring and winning, rather than learning (Clark, 2003). In this section, I describe how I prepare instructional designers to work effectively with entertainment designers, such as game producers, level designers, writers, programmers, animators and artists, to integrate and achieve an appropriate balance between the educational and entertainment aspects of an instructional game by addressing six key areas, including: (a) modern commercial and educational games, (b) Volume 54, Number 5 38 TechTrends • September/October 2010 generational differences and player motivations, (c) instructional and game design processes, (d) game development team members, (e) related research, and (f) development tools. While I do cover these areas individually and in various combination in workshops and professional development seminars depending on the specific needs and interests of the target learner population, for this article, I discuss how I cover the six areas during a 3 credit hour graduate course on Instructional Game Design and work with small teams in class to generate a Pitch Document, several iterations of a Concept Document, and related paper and digital prototypes. Modern Entertainment and Educational Games Simply put, the best game designers play video games. To design engaging games, I believe it is imperative for instructional designers to play games and develop a sense of what makes them entertaining, and of what modern game technology has to offer. To begin, participants play at least three commercial and three educational video games, and critique each game, constructing their own ideas of what makes games good or bad. I also ask students to contrast different game genres (e.g., first person shooter, adventure, role-playing, strategy, massive multiple player online games) and distinguish “modern” video games from those produced in the 1980’s and 1990s. I delineate five potential levels of educational applications (i.e., game as an instructional event, lesson, unit, course or program) (c.f. Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008) and ask participants to classify the games they chose to study according to genre and level of application. Participants also study a variety of “high concepts” (one or two sentences that capture the essence of the game) and formulate and post a high concept for a proposed instructional game, along with a short description of a relevant instructional context. Participants then review and discuss each other’s high concepts and form teams to design an instructional game throughout the semester. (2001c) cites eight ways that games capture and sustain players’ interest; by sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and masochism. During the second level (unit) of my course, I also ask students to read articles, as well as interview gamers, about the reasons why people play games. Generational differences provide further insights into learner needs and interests. Instructional designers analyze key learner characteristics to design instructional programs and materials (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2009). After reading articles on how current use of digital media may shape people’s minds and attitudes (e.g., Prensky, 2001a, 2001b; Oblinger, 2004; Roberts, Foehr, & Rideout, 2005), students reflect on how generational differences may affect learner analysis results (and subsequent instructional game design). At this point, teams are tasked with generating a pitch document for their instructional game, using the results of their learner, goal and context analyses to prepare short descriptions of the instructional context, high concept, genre, key features, pedagogical foundations, story, setting and gameplay (as discussed further in the next section). Instructional and Game Design Processes The majority of the course (four out of seven units) is spent discussing and applying what we know about teaching and learning (hereby referred to in general as “pedagogy”) to game design in a systematic fashion to establish a strong pedagogical foundation and help ensure a balance between education and entertainment. To work effectively with entertainment designers, I have found it is essential for instructional designers to know how and when to contribute their skills and knowledge during the overall game development process. In Unit 3 of the course (as well as in workshops), I present on overview of how to integrate ID and GD processes. I depict ID as an interactive process consisting of five basic phases, including analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). Similarly, I present GD as a process that is also often broken down into five phases, including concept development, pre-production, production, and post-production (Bates, 2004). Although the specific sequencing of tasks, the degree of documentation, and the specific tools and techniques used during each phase vary by project and organization, the basic phases and related tasks and (interim) products for both ID and GD remain basically the same. 39 Generational Differences and Player Motivations I believe that knowledge of why people play video games and how today’s millennial generation differs from past generations are important for instructional designers to create engaging games. According to Novak (2005), game players are motivated by social interaction, physical seclusion, competition, knowledge, mastery, escapism, and addiction. Similarly, Prensky Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 Table 1 identifies key tasks associated with each phase of the instructional design (ID) process and relates them to basic phases and (interim) products connected with the game development (GD) process (Hirumi & Stapleton, 2008, p. 133). It is important to note there is not necessarily a direct, one-to-one correlation between the ID and GD phases (as may be suggested by Table 1). Table 1. Relating Instructional Design Phases and Tasks with Game Development Phases and Products (Reprinted with the kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media) During the Concept phase, a small team of entertainment designers will often produce a short, two-page, pitch document that summarizes key aspects of the game and notes why it will be successful. Typically, the team also prepares a five-to-ten page concept document for managers and potential investors to refer to after the “pitch” that covers the same topics as the pitch document but in greater detail. In my experience the results of a learner, context, and goal analyses may yield valuable information for the pitch document. Specifically, learner analysis helps define the target audience and provides insights into high concepts, genres, stories, settings, gameplay and game features that may be particularly interesting for members of the target population. The results of analyzing the learning context yields useful information when determining basic technical features of the game (such as platform), and the results of analyzing the performance context may be particularly important for identifying key characters and determining the settings for the game. Furthermore, goal, task, subordinate skills and/or content analysis delineates the skills and knowledge to be addressed by the game that is important for formulating a high concept, selecting an appropriate genre, story, setting and gameplay as well as establishing the pedagogical foundations for the game. While it is not a part of a pitch or concept document prepared for purely entertaining video games, I encourage instructional designers and entertainment designers to include a description of the game’s pedagogical foundations to help sell the game by demonstrating a suitable understanding of teaching and learning to managers, investors and other key stakeholders who may read the pitch and concept documents. During both the Concept Phase (as entertainment designers prepare a concept document that further elaborate on fundamental aspects of the game) and the Pre-Production Phase (as entertainment designers generate detailed design documents and plans), I have found that instructional designers may provide vital information about learning objectives, learner assessments, instructional strategies and media. For instance, the specification, clustering and sequencing of learning objectives may be particularly useful for determining appropriate gameplay, settings and/or levels. The clustering and sequencing of learning objectives may also guide the writing of a suitable story, helping writers identify key waypoints and formulate an interesting story arc. Knowledge of valid and reliable learner assessment methods may be one of the most valuVolume 54, Number 5 40 TechTrends • September/October 2010 able assets an instructional designer contributes to the game design process. Entertainment designers may be familiar with the format of conventional criterion referenced tests, such as multiple-choice, true-false, matching, and fill-inthe blank items (which helps explain the proliferations of simple game-show style games being used for training and educational purposes), but they may not have the skills and knowledge necessary to create valid and reliable questions and answers that are aligned to specified objectives. Furthermore, entertainment designers may be less familiar with the design and application of performance-based assessments, such as product and performance checklists (to measure learner’s ability to perform simple to complex procedures) and portfolio assessment rubrics (to measure problem solving and other higher-order thinking skills). Knowledge of when and how to apply alternative assessment methods is particularly important for game designers to determine if and when learner assessments should be embedded within the game or if assessments must be designed and applied outside of the game. Knowledge of alternative instructional strategies is another asset instructional designers may bring to game development process. Based on the specified learning goals and objectives, and desired pedagogical approach, instructional designers may recommend alternative strategies and work with entertainment designers to integrate key instructional events associated with a selected strategy with gameplay and story events. The selection and recommended use of media (e.g., audio, video, animated and still graphics, and text) based on targeted learning outcomes are additional tasks instructional designers are apt to complete that may yield valuable information for the team to consider as they prepare concept and detailed game design document. During Unit 3, I also note how instructional designers and entertainment designers debate the relative benefits of and apply waterfall and spiral (e.g., Novak, 2005; Huo, Verner, Zhu, & Babar, 2004; Yamamichi, Ozeki, Yokochi, & Tanaka, 1996) approaches to design as well as argue about rapid prototyping as an alternative approach for reducing what some believe is unnecessary documentation (Novak, 2005; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). During units 4-6 of the game design course, we focus on applying what we know about teaching and learning to game design by examining the relationship between the fundamental pedagogical elements of instruction and interactive entertainment as depicted in Figure 1. In entertainment, story, play, and game tend to be used interchangeably. In fact, they have very Volume 54, Number 5 Figure 1. Interacting Elements of Instructional and Interactive Entertainment Design. explicit purposes. Story uses characters and pathos (empathy and emotions) to hook the player into the subject matter. Once hooked, characters interact to take the user on an adventure through contextual worlds provoked by compelling events that evolve the conflict, dilemma and intensity (drama). Play is open ended and utilizes stimulating objects (toys) and environments (playgrounds) to invite the physical participation of the user by stimulating and provoking a response that leads to consequences that, in turn, evoke new responses in an on-going cycle. Games bring a procedural structure to the drama by providing explicit goals and challenging rules and limits for the user to apply their tools and obtain explicit and quantitative scores. To optimize game-based learning, instructional designers and entertainment designers should work together to integrate what we know about teaching and learning with the elements of interactive entertainment in a balanced and systematic manner. Story uses characters and pathos to motivate learners to achieve specified objectives. Stories also provide directed exposition that can integrate intentional learning (explicit facts, concepts, rules, principles, etc.) and foster intrinsic motivation by establishing content relevance. Play provides practice and discovery to explore the subject matter. As noted earlier, the elements of play (stimulus, response and consequences) also evoke an on-going cycle that facilitates continuous feedback, which is fundamental to learning. Game elements provide challenges for mastering learning objectives and a logical approach for assessing learning 41 TechTrends • September/October 2010 through explicit and often motivating quantitative game scores. It is the proper integration of pedagogy with story, play and game that is thought to optimize game-based learning. As participants study the integration of the key elements of pedagogy and interactive entertainment, teams generate three iterations of a concept document elaborating on their pitch document. For version 1, participants detail a story for their game, integrating key pedagogical elements as discussed in class. For version 2, they design play elements, again integrating pedagogy, and for version 3, they elaborate on the integration of pedagogy with game elements. The result is an elaborated concept document that includes all the basic components specified by video game developers (c.f., Bates, 2004; Novak, 2005) and integrates pedagogy to facilitate game-based learning. Participants will also be encouraged to generate paper and/ or digital prototypes of their game based on their concept document. Characterizing Game Developers To work effectively with a game development team, it is important for instructional designers to understand the roles and responsibilities of various members. The final level of the course requires participants to read about game development team members, including, but not limited to the “vision guy,” internal and external producers, assistant and associate producers, game designers, level designers, writers, programmers, artists, modelers, animators, and testers (Bates, 2004). Participants also review seven power bases and tactics for positively influencing team members (Schein, 1986 cited in Powers, 1999) and reflect on how they would develop and utilize their powerbases to facilitate game design. At this point in the course, participants are finalizing and preparing to present their game prototypes, so there are no particular assignments associated with characterizing game development team members. Interpreting Related Research or Distinguishing Development Tools Depending on individual needs and interests, class participants have two options for completing a semester long individual project (a) a mini literature review on game research, or (b) a portfolio on game development tools. To inform research and practice, instructional game designers should be able to characterize the research findings, as well as remain 42 abreast of current trends and issues. They should also know how to search for, access, interpret, and apply such information. Participants who choose Option 1 are to define specific questions, and locate, review, and synthesize related research to answer their questions. Participants are provided several reviews of literature (e.g., Federation of American Scientists, 2006; Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2005; and Mitchell & SavillSmith, 2004) to help them define question and jumpstart their mini review. Around mid-term, participants are to reflect on their findings, formulate and post a question about instructional games that they then attempt to answer by locating and synthesizing published literature. For the remainder of the course, participants prepare a mini review of literature that: (a) presents the context for their review (e.g., background, problem, purpose and question); (b) describes method used to search for, locate and select articles for inclusion in their review; (c) answers original question(s), (d) notes related trends and issues, and (e) and proposes a research design for further answering with empirical data.. Participants interested in producing instructional games, rather than research, pursue Option 2 for their semester project. There is a plethora of tools that may be used to develop an entertaining and instructional game, ranging from relatively simple game shells that require no programming skills and may be used to create basic puzzle games, to advanced (and very expensive) game engines that require extensive programming skills. Furthermore, an instructional designer and/or educator may, or may not be responsible for using development tools depending on the situation. Participants who choose Option 2 are first encouraged to review a variety of game development software applications accessible at DevMaster.net, keeping in mind that that they may be only able to play with a “trial” version of certain applications unless they purchase it. Participants also directed to scan a report on game engines (Stang, 2003), as well as video game mods at games2train.com and the web game shells website at www.thiagi.com/web-gameshells.html. They then post a short description of their current knowledge of and interest in game development software applications, along with specific learning objectives.Participants’ development tool portfolios, submitted at the end of the term, include work samples that demonstrate what they have learned about development tools (e.g., printouts and screen shots of materials generated from working with selected development tools), and a narrative that (a) describes prior knowledge of game developVolume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 ment software tools and interests, (b) lists targeted learning objectives (what they want to learn about specific tools, (c) notes how work samples included in portfolio demonstrate achievement of specified objectives, and (d) reflects on their experiences (e.g., what was useful, less useful, challenges faced, limitations). As with all required assignments, an explicit assessment rubric for evaluating their portfolios is published at the beginning of the course. Future Considerations As noted earlier, I believe that a balance between education and entertainment is essential for optimizing game-based learning, and one of best ways to achieve such a balance it to facilitate collaboration between instructional and entertainment designers. Thus, a colleague with extensive experience in the entertainment industry and I are working to create tools and tactics that leverage the positive features, as well as guard against the pitfalls of both ID and Entertainment Design (ED). Together, we are developing the “Jacob’s Ladder Instructional Game Design Tactic,” illustrated in Figure 2. In short, the Jacob’s Ladder represents a highly charged, collaborative design tactic for stimulating and elevating dynamic exchanges (electrical arc) between instructional and entertainment designers into creative results that can be scaled to the available time, financial and human resources. The electrifying exchanges between ID and ED correlate with the growing intensity and dependency of instructional and entertainment designers sparring with one another. The feedback between the two prongs allows for the “climbing” of the electrical arc or idea to the desired heights and width. The consistent climb reflects the systematic instructional design process, and the sparkling expression of energy and the climatic crescendo represents the entertainment design process. Each side is equal and neither is compromised. A seemingly erratic event (a spark) becomes a predictable, consistent and repeatable flow of ideas and solutions. Successful results do not come strictly from one side or the other, nor are they compromised for sake of convergence. Success comes from the strategic exchanges between experts from different fields to achieve common goals. We recommend applying the Jacob’s Ladder game design tactic three times during pre-production: (a) at the onset, during a “Blue Sky” brainstorming session to create a pitch document; (b) soon after a decision is made to develop the game, during a “Transdisciplinary Play” date to guide concept development; and (c) after receiving support for the game concept, Volume 54, Number 5 Figure 2. Jacob’s Ladder Pre-Production Design Tactic during a “Devil’s in the Details” charrette to direct the preparation of detailed game design documents. I am now working to integrate Jacob’s Ladder Pre-Production Design Tactic and related instruments into the graduate instructional game design course. Summary In this section, I described what I believe instructional designers should know and be able to do to collaborate effectively with game developers and create instructional games that balance the educational and entertaining aspects of games to optimize game-based learning. Specifically, I identified the topics I cover in a graduate level, three credit hour course on instructional game design, including the design of modern entertainment and educational games, generational differences and (game) player motivations, instructional and game design processes, roles and characteristics of game developers, interpreting related research and distinguishing development tools. I noted that the majority of the course is spent delineating three basic components of interactive entertainment (i.e., story, play and game) and their related elements, and discussing how instructional designers should work with game developers to integrate and apply pedagogy during the design of each basic component. I also posited reasons for teaching each topic and described how I facilitate the learning of each topic through online and in-class discussions, activities and assignments. Finally, I discussed how I plan to revise and improve the course as well as identified a few additional key issues for instructional designers to consider when work43 TechTrends • September/October 2010 ing with others to design an instructional game. While the topics and the methods used to teach each topic will change over time with experience, and as the design of both entertaining and educational games continue to evolve, I believe that collaboration among experts in instructional design and entertainment design during the game development process is the key to achieving an appropriate balance between education and entertainment and to optimize game-based learning. Conclusions In responses to the question, “what do instructional designers need to know about game design to optimize game-based learning?” four experts in instructional game design demonstrate fundamental similarities in perspective. All four recognize that the use of games for training or education is not new, but advances in technology place new demands and offer new opportunities for educators and instructional designers to enhance learning. All four also emphasize the importance of finding a balance; a balance between education/learning and entertainment/fun or, as Rieber elaborates, a balance between artistic, empirical, and analytical approaches to design. Considering their backgrounds, it is easy to see why all four experts also advocate the use of instructional design processes for optimizing game-based learning, albeit with varying emphasis. All four also posit new models for design, integrating ID principles to enhance the overall production process, but with distinct differences in belief and approach. Van Eck focuses on specific ID theories and guidelines that Instructional Designers can contribute to the game development process to optimize game-based learning. In comparison, Appleman concentrates on what instructional designers need to know about new media, and what specific aspects of ID field should be retained to facilitate the transition from ID to DIE (or die as a profession). In distinct contrast, Rieber embraces the artistic components of instructional design, even though he recognizes that to prepare people to become instructional designers, it is necessary for them to learn analytic methods. However, he does not believe that instructional design can ever be reduced to a set of scientific principles and procedures and downplays analytic elements as he encourages students to explore game design. Hirumi, in turn, posits that a proper balance between education and entertainment is necessary to optimize game-based learning and presents tools and techniques for facilitating collaboration between instructional and entertainment 44 designers to ensure both have an equitable “voice” throughout the process. Differences in opinion on the application of ID theories to new media, such as instructional games, are particularly notable. Specifically, Van Eck suggests that Gagne’s nine events of instruction are not only compatible with games, but required. Rieber, in direct contrast, finds Gagne’s events of instruction, “…of little use to an educational game designer. Of course, games may be designed to fulfill one or more of the events of instruction, but the elements of a good lesson do not translate well into the elements of a good educational game.” Like Van Eck, Hirumi believes that Gagne’s nine events may be compatible, but rather than subscribing to one particular strategy, he posits guidelines for selecting and integrating a range of learner-centered and teacher-directed instructional strategies with story events based on the nature of targeted learning outcomes to optimize game-based learning. Appelman also believes that ID theories may be applied to the design of new media, centering on how Experiential Learning theories and Message Design may be used to help guide instructional game design. Taken together, the similarities and differences in perspective emphasize the need for further dialog among instructional designers and game developers to optimize game-based learning. Research is also necessary to determine the benefits, limitations and relative value of alternative approaches. Do ID theories have a place in game development? Does the integration of ID tasks and processes optimize game-based learning? These, and other related questions must be answered empirically to guide the application of pedagogy and interactive entertainment to optimize game-based learning. Robert Appelman, Ph.D. is a nationally recognized authority on multimedia production and technology education. Trained initially as a graphic designer, Dr. Appelman continued into motion picture and television production and produced award-winning titles in both of these mediums. Over the past 30 years he has combined his training as an instructional designer, researcher, and instructor with his creative experience in multimedia production. His current focus is on the integration of technology into teaching, along with the coordination of production management strategies necessary to create virtual learning environments such as games and simulations. As Director of the Virtual Xperience Lab (VX Lab) at IU, he has guided research in Game Play Analysis and learning evaluation in Virtual Learning Environments. Dr. Appelman also serves as the Secretary of the Board for the international Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Richard Van Eck, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Graduate Director of the Instructional Design & Technology pro- TechTrends • September/October 2010 Volume 54, Number 5 gram at the University of North Dakota (idt.und.edu). He has published and presented extensively in the field of gamebased learning (GBL), including the featured cover story of Educause Review, book chapters on building intelligent learning games and on the future of GBL as a field, seven keynote presentations and eleven invited speaking engagements from 2005 to 2007. He also has dozens of publications and presentations on his research in intelligent tutoring systems, pedagogical agents, authoring tools, and gender and technology, is currently conducting research on games and training with the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at UND and is designing a game to teach middle school students about air pollution. He has taught a digital game-based learning graduate course every year since 2001. Lloyd Rieber, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology and coordinator of the Instructional Design & Development emphasis area within the Instructional Technology program at University of Georgia. He has written extensively on microworlds, simulations, games, and play. He co-designed, co-founded and currently teaches in the EDIT Studio, an innovative sequence of courses teaching educational multimedia design and development for which Game design is a prominent feature. He designed and programmed the WWILD Team, a web site/community devoted to experiential learning using existing games and simulations as learning objects. He also directs a project called “Homemade PowerPoint Games,” which promotes learning through designing games with technology already available in the schools. In 2006 he won the Outstanding Practice Award from AECT’s Division of Design & Development for, “In Search of Lost Wisdom,” an online game designed to help graduate students understand task analysis. Atsusi “2c” Hirumi, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and CoChair of the Instructional Technology program at the University of Central Florida. Over the past 12 years, Dr. Hirumi has centered his research on the design of alternative e-learning environments. As an extension of his research, Dr. Hirumi has focused on story and game-based approaches to teaching and learning over the last 4 years. He serves as the lead instructional designer or learning advisor, working directly with teams of game developers on the creation of five instructional games. He also leads teams of graduate students, faculty, instructional designers and game developers investigating various aspects of game-based learning. Based on his experience, Dr. Hirumi has designed and delivered graduate courses and several workshops on instructional game design, and has written a number of book chapters and journal articles, and has made over a dozen invited and refereed conference presentation on design of instructional games and game-based learning. References Bates, B. (2004). Game Design (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology. Clark, D. (2003). Computer games in education and training. Presentation at LSDA seminar Learning by playing: can computer games and simulations support teaching and learning for post-16 learners in formal, workplace and informal learning contexts? Retrieved from www.bbk. ac.uk/ccs/elearn/events.html. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The Systematic Design of Instruction (7th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S (2005). Beyond Edutainment: exploring the educational potential of computer games. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, IT-University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from www.itu.dk/people/sen/ egenfeldt.pdf. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). Harnessing the power of video game for learning. Retrieved from http:// fas.org/gamesummit/. Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (1997). Survey of Instructional development Models. ERIC Clearing House on Information and Technology. Hirumi, A. & Stapleton, C. (2008). Integrating Fundamental ID Tasks with Game Development Processes to Optimize Game-Based Learning. In C. Miller (ed). Games: Their Purpose and Potential in Education (pp. 127-160). New York: Springer Publishing. Huo, M., Verner, J., Zhu, L., & Babar, M. A. (2004). Software Quality and Agile Methods. Paper presented at the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer games for learning. Retrieved from http://www.mlearning.org/archive/docs/. Novak, J. (2005). Game Development Essentials. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The Next Generation of Educational Engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1-18. Powers, E. S. (1999). The dynamics of politics in organizational change. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 122-136. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: The scientific evidence behind the Digital Native’s thinking changes, and the evidence that Digital Native-style learning works! On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-10. Prensky, M. (2001c). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York, NY: MacGraw Hill. Roberts, D., Foehr, U. G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia030905pkg.cfm. Stang, B. (2003). Game engines: Features and possibilities. Institute of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling at The Technical University of Denmark. Tripp, S., & Bechelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44. Yamamichi, N., Ozeki, T., Yokochi, K., & Tanaka, T. (1996). The evaluation of new software developing process based on a spiral modeling. Paper presented at the Global Telecommunications Conference, 1996. Volume 54, Number 5 TechTrends • September/October 2010 45
Fly UP