skip to main content
10.1145/2512276.2512292acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiteConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

COR: a new course framework based on elements of game design

Published:02 October 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Taking cues from the root causes of anxiety and poor student performance, a new course framework is developed using three key elements of game play. These game play elements are abstracted into an integrated teaching framework that gives students a choice in actions, options for cooperation and competition, and allows for revisions of work.

Two case studies are examined that demonstrate how this framework can be implemented. One shows how this framework can be incorporated in the final project of a systems analysis and design course. The other shows how the framework can be used in a game design course to prepare students for different career paths.

References

  1. Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K. and Tuch, A. N. Disassembling gamification: the effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. In Proceedings of the CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France, 2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Kapp, K. M. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. Pfeiffer & Company, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Raymer, R. Gamification: Using Game Mechanics to Enhance eLearning. eLearn, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D. and Wyeth, P. Orientation Passport: using gamification to engage university students. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (Canberra, Australia, 2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Deterding, S. Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual model. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, 2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Aparicio, A. F., Vela, F. L. G., Sánchez, J. L. G. and Montes, J. L. I. Analysis and application of gamification. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador (INTERACCION '12). ACM, New York, NY. DOI=10.1145/2379636.2379653 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2379636.2379653 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mandler, G. and Sarason, S. B. A study of anxiety and learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 1952, 166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R. and Calvo, M. G. Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 2 2007, 336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Eysenck, M. W. and Calvo, M. G. Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 6 1992, 409--434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (Tampere, Finland, 2011). ACM Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Deterding, S. Gamification: designing for motivation. interactions, 19, 4 2012, 14--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sheldon, L. The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game. Course Technology Press, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jenson, J., Castell, S. d. and Fisher, S. Girls playing games: rethinking stereotypes. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Future Play (Future Play '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9--16. DOI=10.1145/1328202.1328205 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1328202.1328205 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Schell, J. The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Morgan Kaufmann Pub, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sarin, R. and Vahid, F. Predicting how people play games: a simple dynamic model of choice. Games and Economic Behavior, 34, 1 2001, 104--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Malone, T. W. 1980. What makes things fun to learn? heuristics for designing instructional computer games. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems (SIGSMALL '80). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 162--169. DOI=10.1145/800088.802839 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800088.802839 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Aycock, J. and Uhl, J. Choice in the classroom. SIGCSE Bull., 37, 4 2005, 84--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Radenski, A. 2009. Freedom of choice as motivational factor for active learning. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 3 (July 2009), 21--25. DOI=10.1145/1595496.1562891 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1595496.1562891 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Wallace, S. A. and Margolis, J. Exploring the use of competetive programming: observations from the classroom. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 23, 2 2007, 33--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hercy, N. H. C., Winston, M. C. W., Calvin, C. Y. L. and Tak-Wai, C. Equal opportunity tactic: Redesigning and applying competition games in classrooms. Computers & Education, 53, 3 2009, 866--876. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Smith, K. A. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy, G. J. Peer-assessment in group projects: is it worth it? In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 7th Australasian conference on Computing education - Volume 42 (Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, 2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Dicker, S. J. and Sheppard, K. The effect of multiple drafts on structural accuracy in writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 1985, 168--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Sanford, J. Multiple Drafts of Experimental Laboratory Reports. Kendall/Hunt, City, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nuwar Mawlawi, D. Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16, 274--292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Anewalt, K., Polack-Wahl, J. A., Beidler, J. and Smarkusky, D. L. Group projects across the curriculum. J. Comput. Small Coll., 19, 2, 2003, 232--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. COR: a new course framework based on elements of game design

      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
        SIGITE '13: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education
        October 2013
        220 pages
        ISBN:9781450322393
        DOI:10.1145/2512276

        Copyright © 2013 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 the author(s) 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: 2 October 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGITE '13 Paper Acceptance Rate28of70submissions,40%Overall Acceptance Rate176of429submissions,41%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader