skip to main content
research-article

Educators as Gamemasters: Creating Serious Role Playing Game with

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 October 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Although multiple studies have shown the efficacy of Serious Games (SGs) in improving students' performance and learning experience, the wide use of SGs is yet to be realised. One of the challenges towards the adoption of SGs can be attributed to the complex and costly development process. In this paper, we present ARQS (Authentic Role-playing-game Quest System) tool, an educator-oriented authoring tool we developed for supporting the implementation of a serious role-playing-game (RPG). The authoring tool consists of features that simplify the creation of important RPG components e.g. avatars, virtual world. Furthermore, the authoring process employs block-based programming to configure aspects of RPG such as creating quests. The concept is adopted in order to provide a platform where educators without programming knowledge are able to use. A formative evaluation was conducted with ten educators from secondary and university levels, using a low-fidelity prototype. Outcomes from the evaluation showed promising results, attesting the potential of ARQS as an educational tool for the creation of interactive learning instructions in the form of real-world scenarios embedded within a role-playing-game.

References

  1. Azhan Ahmad, Effie L C Law, and Alex Moseley. 2020. Integrating Instructional Design Principles in Serious Games Authoring Tools: Insights from Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (NordiCHI '20), October 25--29, 2020, Tallinn, Estonia, Association for Computing Machinery. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420133Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lorin W Anderson and Benjamin Samuel Bloom. 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman,.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sylvester Arnab, Theodore Lim, Maira B Carvalho, Francesco Bellotti, Sara De Freitas, Sandy Louchart, Neil Suttie, Riccardo Berta, and Alessandro De Gloria. 2015. Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46, 2 (2015), 391--411.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jennifer C Romano Bergstrom, Erica L Olmsted-Hawala, Jennifer M Chen, and Elizabeth D Murphy. 2011. Conducting Iterative Usability Testing on a Web Site: Challenges and Benefits. J. Usability Stud. 7, 1 (2011), 9--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ivo Bril and Nick Degens. 2016. Applying formal design methods to serious game design: A case study. Proc. Eur. Conf. Games-based Learn. 2016-Janua, (2016), 873--880.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonio Calvo, Dan C. Rotaru, Manuel Freire, and Baltasar Fernandez-Manjon. 2016. Tools and approaches for simplifying serious games development in educational settings. IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf. EDUCON 10--13-Apri, April (2016), 1188--1197. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2016.7474707Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Maira B. Carvalho, Francesco Bellotti, Riccardo Berta, Alessandro De Gloria, Carolina Islas Sedano, Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge, Jun Hu, and Matthias Rauterberg. 2015. An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis and conceptual design. Comput. Educ. 87, (2015), 166--181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.023Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Thomas M. Connolly, Elizabeth A. Boyle, Ewan MacArthur, Thomas Hainey, and James M. Boyle. 2012. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 59, 2 (2012), 661--686. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. (1989), 319--340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonathon Doran and Ian Parberry. 2011. A prototype quest generator based on a structural analysis of quests from four MMORPGs. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on procedural content generation in games, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tjitske Faber, Mary Dankbaar, and Jeroen Van Merriënboer. 2019. Applying an instructional design method to serious games - Experiences and lessons learned. In 2018 9th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications, IISA 2018, 1--3. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2018.8633666Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Georgios Fesakis and Kiriaki Serafeim. 2009. Influence of the familiarization with scratch" on future teachers' opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. Proc. Conf. Integr. Technol. into Comput. Sci. Educ. ITiCSE (2009), 258--262. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1562877.1562957Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Emmanuel Fokides. 2018. Digital educational games and mathematics. Results of a case study in primary school settings. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 2 (2018), 851--867. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017--9639--5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jimmy Frerejean, Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer, Paul A. Kirschner, Ann Roex, Bert Aertgeerts, and Marco Marcellis. 2019. Designing instruction for complex learning: 4C/ID in higher education. Eur. J. Educ. 54, 4 (2019), 513--524. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12363Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. C. Girard, J. Ecalle, and A. Magnan. 2013. Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 29, 3 (2013), 207--219. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365--2729.2012.00489.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Coralie Girard, Jean Ecalle, and Annie Magnan. 2013. Serious games as new educational tools: how effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 29, 3 (2013), 207--219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Stefan Göbel, Luca Salvatore, and Robert Konrad. 2008. StoryTec: A digital storytelling platform for the authoring and experiencing of interactive and non-linear stories. Proc. - 4th Int. Conf. Autom. Solut. Cross Media Content Multi-Channel Distrib. Axmedis 2008 (2008), 103--110. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/AXMEDIS.2008.45Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Stephanie Heintz and Effie Lai Chong Law. 2015. The game genre map: A revised game classification. CHI Play 2015 - Proc. 2015 Annu. Symp. Comput. Interact. Play October (2015), 175--184. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2793123Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Anthony Herrington and Jan Herrington. 2008. Authentic learning environments in higher education By Herrington, Tony & Herrington, Jan. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467--8535.2008.00870_23.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jan Herrington and Ron Oliver. 2000. An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48, 3 (2000), 23--48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. ISO 9241--210. 2019. Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Standard 2, 1--33. Retrieved May 31, 2021 from https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. David H Jonassen. 2000. Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 48, 4 (2000), 63--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Mansureh Kebritchi. 2010. Factors affecting teachers' adoption of educational computer games: A case study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 41, 2 (2010), 256--270. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467--8535.2008.00921.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Paul Kirschner and Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer. 2012. Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A New Approach to Instruction and Instructional Design. 21st Century Educ. A Ref. Handb. 21st century Educ. A Ref. Handb. (2012), I-244-I--253. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412964012.n26Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. James D. Klein. 1991. Preservice teacher use of learning and instructional design principles. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 39, 3 (1991), 83--89. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296441Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Eric Klopfer and Kurt Squire. 2008. Environmental detectives-the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56, 2 (2008), 203--228. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007--9037--6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. António Machado, Pedro Santos, and João Dias. 2017. On the structure of role playing game quests. Rev. Ciências da Comput. 12, Especial (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Eugenio J. Marchiori, Ángel del Blanco, Javier Torrente, Iván Martinez-Ortiz, and Baltasar Fernández-Manjón. 2011. A visual language for the creation of narrative educational games. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 22, 6 (2011), 443--452. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2011.09.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Eugenio J. Marchiori, Javier Torrente, Ángel Del Blanco, Pablo Moreno-Ger, Pilar Sancho, and Baltasar Fernández-Manjón. 2012. A narrative metaphor to facilitate educational game authoring. Comput. Educ. 58, 1 (2012), 590--599. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. David Maulsby, Saul Greenberg, and Richard Mander. 1993. Prototyping an intelligent agent through Wizard of Oz. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, 277--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Gerhard Molin. 2017. The role of the teacher in game-based learning: A review and outlook. Serious Games Edutainment Appl. Vol. II (2017), 649--674. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--51645--5_28Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Jon Mueller. 2005. The Authentic Assessment Toolbox?: Enhancing Student Learning through Online Faculty Development. Merlot J. Online Learn. Teach. 1, 1 (2005), 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Tom Murray. 1999. Authoring Intelligent Tutoring Systems: An analysis of the state of the art. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 10, January 1999 (1999), 98--129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dan O'Brien, Kimberly A Lawless, and P G Schrader. 2010. A taxonomy of educational games. In Gaming for classroom-based learning: Digital role playing as a motivator of study. IGI Global, 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Marc Prensky. 2003. Digital Game-based Learning Prensky. Games2train 1, 1 (2003), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams. 2003. Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on game design. New Riders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Margarida Romero and Sylvie Barma. 2015. Teaching Pre-Service Teachers to Integrate Serious Games in the Primary Education Curriculum. Int. J. Serious Games 2, 1 (2015). DOI:https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v2i1.43Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Jeff Sauro. 2008. Task Times In Formative Usability Tests. measuring U. Retrieved January 12, 2021 from https://measuringu.com/formative-time/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. David W. Shaffer. 2006. Epistemic frames for epistemic games. Comput. Educ. 46, 3 (2006), 223--234. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Kawin Sipiyaruk, Stylianos Hatzipanagos, Patricia A. Reynolds, and Jennifer E. Gallagher. 2021. Serious Games and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Dental Education: An Integrative Review of the Literature. Computers 10, 4 (2021), 42. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10040042Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Javier Torrente, Ángel Del Blanco, Eugenio J Marchiori, Pablo Moreno-Ger, and Baltasar Fernández-Manjón. 2010. Introducing educational games in the learning process. In IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference, 1121--1126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Anders Tychsen and Thea Brolund. 2008. Tychsen et al 2008 - Motivations for Play in Computer Role-Playing Games.pdf. (2008), 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Meiqian Wang and Xudong Zheng. 2021. Using Game-Based Learning to Support Learning Science: A Study with Middle School Students. Asia-Pacific Educ. Res. 30, 2 (2021), 167--176. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00523-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. David Weintrop, David C. Shepherd, Patrick Francis, and Diana Franklin. 2017. Blockly goes to work: Block-based programming for industrial robots. Proc. - 2017 IEEE Blocks Beyond Work. B B 2017 2017-Novem, (2017), 29--36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/BLOCKS.2017.8120406Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. F. M. Williams-Bell, B. Kapralos, A. Hogue, B. M. Murphy, and E. J. Weckman. 2015. Using Serious Games and Virtual Simulation for Training in the Fire Service: A Review. Fire Technol. 51, 3 (2015), 553--584. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-014-0398--1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Katherine A. Wilson, Wendy L. Bedwell, Elizabeth Lazzara, Eduardo Salas, Shawn C. Burke, Jamie L. Estock, Kara L. Orvis, and Curtis Conkey. 2009. Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals. Simul. Gaming 40, 2 (2009), 217--266. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Pieter Wouters, Christof van Nimwegen, Herre van Oostendorp, and Erik D. van Der Spek. 2013. A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 2 (2013), 249--265. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Educators as Gamemasters: Creating Serious Role Playing Game with

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 5, Issue CHI PLAY
      CHI PLAY
      September 2021
      1535 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3490463
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2021 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: 6 October 2021
      Published in pacmhci Volume 5, Issue CHI PLAY

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)88
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader