skip to main content
10.1145/1836135.1836136acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Designing entertaining educational games using procedural rhetoric: a case study

Published:28 July 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the paper we describe the design and development of a video game about sustainable energy use that effectively unites fun with learning. We also present results from an initial study of the educational impact of the game. Many educational games do not properly translate knowledge, facts, and lessons into the language of games. This results in games that are often neither engaging nor educational. Our approach differs by using game mechanics to express the educational content. The design combines the fantasy elements and game play conventions of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with numbers, resources and situations based on research about real-world energy production and use. The result is a game in which the player learns about energy use simply by trying to overcome the game's challenges. We demonstrate that effective and engaging learning games can be developed as long as sound game design principles are used. Results from a combined quantitative/qualitative study show that players enjoyed the game, learned new things and became more interested in the topic of energy use. This paper will highlight key aspects of the design that we believe contributed towards making the game fun as well as educational. The game also presents a model for translating real-world topics into game mechanics using the language of procedural rhetoric. The real world is ripe with problems and situations that could inspire interesting game mechanics and provide new creative ideas for educational and traditional game designers.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

gp009-10.mp4

mp4

41.7 MB

References

  1. Abt, C. 1970. Serious Games. Viking Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, E., 1998. Designer's Notebook: Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie! http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/3260/designers_notebook_bad_game_.php. Accessed on December 21, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcoa Inc., 2009. http://alcoa.com. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogost, I. 2007. Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bogost, I. 2008. The rhetoric of video games. In The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games and Learning, K. Salen, Ed., The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 117--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogost, I., 2009. Persuasive Games: The Proceduralist Style. http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/3909/persuasive_games_the_.php. Accessed on July 2, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Broehl, J., 2006. A new chapter begins for concentrated solar power. http://renewableenergyworld.com/rea//news/article/2006/02/a-new-chapter-begins-for-concentrated-solar-power-43336. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cielo Wind Power, 2009. Completed developments. http://cielowind.com/projects/completed-development. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson & Associates, 1994. Math Blaster Episode I: In Search of Spot. Torrance, California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Energy Information Administration, 2009. Electric Power Annual. http://eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Accessed on November 20, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Frasca, G., 2003. September 12th. http://newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm. Accessed on January 9, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gee, J. 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave MacMillan. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Gee, J., 2006. What's wrong with serious games? Panel Discussion, Serious Games Summit at GDC 2006. As quoted in http://news.cnet.com/Whats-wrong-with-serious-games/2100-1043_3-6052346.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Geothermal Energy Association. 2005. Factors affecting cost of geothermal power development. Research report, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ImpactGames, 2007. PeaceMaker. http://www.peacemaker.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, and York Zimmerman, Inc., 2006. A Force More Powerful -- the Game of Nonviolent Strategy. http://www.afmpgame.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenkins, H., and Hinrichs, R., 2003. Games to Teach Project. http://icampus.mit.edu/projects/GamesToTeach.shtml. Accessed on December 21, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonassen, D. 1992. Cognitive flexibility theory and its implications for designing CBI. In Instructional models in computer-based learning environments, S. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer, and J. J. G. van Merrienboer, Eds. Spinger-Verlag, Berlin, 385--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Koster, R. 2005. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press, Scottsdale, AZ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lazzaro, N., 2004. Why we play games: 4 keys to more emotion. Game Developer's Conference 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lower Colorado River Authority, 2009. http://lcra.org. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Persuasive Games, 2009. Debt Ski. http://persuasivegames.com/games/game.aspx?game=debtski. Accessed on January 9, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pimentel, D., and Patzek, T. 2005. Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14.1, 65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Public Citizen Inc., 2005. American Electric Power Sued for Thousands of Federal, State Air Pollution Violations at Texas SWEPCO PLANT. http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=1895. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., and Przybylski, A. 2006. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion 30, 4, 347--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Spiro, R., and Jehng, J. 1990. Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology, D. Nix and R. Spiro, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 163--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Spiro, R., Coulson, R., Feltovich, P., and Anderson, D. 1988. Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In Tenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, V. Patel, Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 375--383.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Swain, C. 2007. Designing games to effect social change. In Situated Play: Proceedings of the 2007 Digital Games Research Association Conference, B. Akira, Ed. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, September, 805--809.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Swain, C., 2007. The ReDistricting Game. http://www.redistrictinggame.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas, J., 2007. North america's largest solar-electric plant switched on. http://www.metaefficient.com/news/north-americas-largest-solar-electric-plant-in-switched-on.html. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Eck, R. 2006. Digital Game-Based Learning: It's Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. EDUCAUSE Review 41, 2, 16--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. World Nuclear Association, 2009. The economics of nuclear power. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html. Accessed on December 31, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Xcel Energy, 2009. http://xcelenergy.com. Accessed on November 25, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Designing entertaining educational games using procedural rhetoric: a case study

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                Sandbox '10: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games
                July 2010
                85 pages
                ISBN:9781450300971
                DOI:10.1145/1836135

                Copyright © 2010 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 28 July 2010

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Upcoming Conference

                SIGGRAPH '24

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader