1 / 36

Game-Based Learning Institute: Development of Educational Games

Funded by Microsoft Research with $3 million over 3 years, this institute focuses on developing educational games for effective learning outcomes. With a team of 14 faculty members across 7 universities, their research aims to explore the interaction of various factors in game design and integration, while providing teacher support for successful implementation. The institute also collaborates with external advisors for additional expertise.

braymond
Download Presentation

Game-Based Learning Institute: Development of Educational Games

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Starting date Oct 7, 2008Funded by Microsoft Research$3 Million over 3 years14 faculty at 7 universities

  2. Organizational Structure Ken Perlin, Institute Director Jan Plass Institute Co-Director Development Education

  3. Organizational Structure • Participating researchers • M. Flanagan (Dartmouth)‏ • M. Gauthier (NYU)‏ • B. Homer (GC/CUNY)‏ • K.Isbister (NYU-Poly)‏ • C. Kinzer (Teachers College) • C. Macklin (Parsons)‏ • K. Milne (NYU)‏ • A. Phelps (RIT)‏ • C. Skelton (NYU-Poly) • J. Wein (NYU-Poly) Ken Perlin, Institute Director Jan Plass Institute Co-Director

  4. Organizational Structure Development Team Ken Perlin, Director Andy Phelps Karl Skelton Joel Wein

  5. Organizational Structure Education Team Jan Plass, director Mary Flanagan Bruce Homer Katherine Isbister Chunk Kinzer Katherine Milne

  6. Organizational Structure Scientific Advisory Board Jaron Lanier Virtual reality Will Wright (Maxis) SIMS, Spore, ... Mitch Resnick (MIT) Scratch Kaelan Doyle-Myerscough All-around game expert Microsoft Representative

  7. Organizational Structure External Institute Advisors For specific projects where other expertise is needed, additional researchers serve in an advisory capacity to the Institute.

  8. Research questions: • Interaction of • Factors • Lab versus • Authentic Setting • Design Factors • Successful • Integration • Teacher Support

  9. From design factors to learning outcomes: Factual Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge ? Procedural Knowledge Meta-cognitive Knowledge Affective Outcomes

  10. From design factors to learning outcomes: • Game-based Learning Approach Factual Knowledge Curricular Integration Conceptual Knowledge Educational Games Educational Game Design Principles Procedural Knowledge Meta-cognitive Knowledge Affective Outcomes

  11. Research Plan Development Team: Implement Observation of Game Play Features of Effective Educational Games Game Prototypes Game Design Principles Review Research on Games Education Team: Empirical Research

  12. Anatomy of a game: Player’s understanding Game mechanic - the rules of play Aesthetic design - graphics, sound, music, … Narrative Drive – the story that moves the game forward Extrinsic rewards – points, ranking, … Intrinsic rewards – improving skills

  13. Travel along surface of “Maximal flow” (Csíkszentmihályi):

  14. Our plan: • Time Line 2008 2009 2011 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 4 Years 4–10 • xx (yy)‏ • zz PHASE 3 Wide-ranging exploration Focused exploration Design Design Confirmation Game DesignEduc. Assessment

  15. Our plan: • Software: • Mini-games architecture (MGA)‏ • Individual mini-games (IMG)‏ • In-Game Journaling software (GJS) • ‏ • Post-Game analysis software tools to journal data (PGA)‏

  16. Our plan: • Dissemination and Outreach • Organize seminars within existing conferences • Invited workshops run at the Institute • Public talks/events sponsored by the Institute • Bring in high powered speakers • Publications in both educational and C.S. journals

  17. Our plan: • Responsible PI: Ken Perlin • Goals: • Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles • Literature review • Outcomes • List of design principles candidates • List of game candidates for Phase II • Prototype of journaling tools • Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers PHASE 1 Wide-ranging exploration Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ • Responsible PI: Ken Perlin • Goals • Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principl • Literature review

  18. Our plan: • Tasks/Methods • Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ • data analysis, reports of findings 
 • (Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) • Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ PHASE 1 • Deliverables and Time Line • PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ Wide-ranging exploration Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-9)‏ • Tasks/Methods • Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings 
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) • Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ • Outcomes • List of design principles candidates • List of game candidates for Phase II • Prototype of journaling tools • Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers

  19. Our plan: • Responsible PI: Jan Plass • Goals: • Deeper Analysis of 12-15 games (fewer games, more sessions); identify design principles • Outcomes • Refined list of design principles candidates • 1-2 sample games • Journaling tools • Journal analysis tool prototype • Dissemination: Empirical papers PHASE 2 • Focused Exploratory Research (Months 10–18)‏ • Responsible PI: Ken Perlin • Goals • Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles • Literature review

  20. Our plan: • Tasks/Methods • Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ • Review and approve research protocols and measures (Plass, Perlin)‏ • Build 1-2 mini-games incorporating design principles identified in Phase I (Perlin, Phelps)‏ • Test and refine journaling tools (Skelton)‏ • Design and Develop data analysis tools for journals (Skelton) • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • In-depth observation of game play in various settings, • 
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Plass, Skelton) • Think-aloud protocols of targeted game comparisons (Isbister, Milne)‏ • Design Experiments (Flanagan, Kinzer)‏ • Lab-based evaluation of exploratory games built based on principles (Homer, Plass)‏ PHASE 2 • Deliverables and Time Line • PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ • Focused Exploratory Research (Months 10–18)‏ • Tasks/Methods • Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings 
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) • Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ • Outcomes • List of design principles candidates • List of game candidates for Phase II • Prototype of journaling tools • Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers

  21. Our plan: • Responsible PI: Ken Perlin • Goals: • Develop educational games based on design principles identified in Phases I and II • Develop data analysis tools • Outcomes • Usability-tested sample games • Data analysis tools for game research • Dissemination: Empirical papers, technical papers, methods papers PHASE 3 • Development and Evaluation of G4L (Months 19–27)‏ • Responsible PI: Ken Perlin • Goals • Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles • Literature review

  22. Our plan: • Tasks/Methods • Game Design and Instrumentation • Build mini-games based on Perlin architecture, tools and prototype • (Feiner, Phelps, Flanagan, Gauthier)‏ • Implement journaling software from Plass/Perlin spec (Phelps, Skelton)‏ • Implement post-process journal-data analysis tool from Plass/Perlin spec (Phelps, Skelton)‏ • Usability Research, Think-aloud protocols, Analysis of user logs (Phelps, Isbister, Milne)‏ • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • Design Experiments (continued from Phase II) (Flanagan, Kinzer)‏ • Lab-based study of small, exploratory games (continued from Phase II) (Homer, Plass)‏ PHASE 3 • Deliverables and Time Line • PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ • Development and Evaluation of G4L (Months 19–27)‏ • Tasks/Methods • Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings 
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) • Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ • Outcomes • List of design principles candidates • List of game candidates for Phase II • Prototype of journaling tools • Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers

  23. Our plan: • Responsible PI: Jan Plass • Goals: • Validation of design principles through evaluation of games • Revisions to games and data analysis tools • Outcomes • Validated Design Principles for Educational Games • Series of Validated Educational Games • Data Analysis Toolkit for Educational Game Research • Dissemination: Empirical papers, technical papers, methods papers PHASE 4 • Confirmation (Months 28–36)‏ • Responsible PI: Ken Perlin • Goals • Analyze 25+ existing games, identify patterns for design principles • Literature review

  24. Our plan: • Tasks/Methods • Confirmation/Validation of effect of specific design factors identified in the exploratory phases • Authentic Settings: Design Experiments (continued from Phase II) (Flanagan, Kinzer) • In-situ & lab setting: (Quasi-) Experiments (60-80 participants) (Plass, Homer, Isbister)‏ • Revisions to Games (Perlin & Development Team)‏ • Revisions to Data analysis tools (Skelton & Development Team)‏ PHASE 4 • Deliverables and Time Line • PHASE I: Wide Ranging Exploration of Existing Games (Months 1-8)‏ • Confirmation (Months 28–36)‏ • Tasks/Methods • Review and approve final list of included games (Perlin, Plass)‏ • Coordinate Research by participating faculty (Plass)‏ • Observe game play in various settings, develop ‘fun maps,’ data analysis, reports of findings 
(Flanagan, Gauthier, Homer, Isbister, Kinzer, Milne, Phelps, Plass, Skelton) • Begin designing journaling tools (Skelton)‏ • Outcomes • List of design principles candidates • List of game candidates for Phase II • Prototype of journaling tools • Dissemination: Literature reviews, Empirical papers

  25. Our plan: What we will actually produce: • Software: • Mini-games architecture (MGA)‏ • Individual mini-games (IMG)‏ • InGame Journaling software (GJS)‏ • Post-Game analysis software tools for journal data (PGA)‏ • Dissemination and Outreach: • Organize seminars within existing conferences • Invited workshops run at the Institute • Public talks/events sponsored by the Institute • Publications in both educational and C.S. journals

  26. http://g4li.nyu.edu

  27. Rich Gold’s classification scheme

  28. Learning programming as a game

  29. Characters and engagement

  30. Science, Playful Interface Research, and Learning

  31. iBird

  32. UnMousePad

More Related