e-Bug Junior Game Design & Evaluation

1. e-Bug Junior GameDesign & Evaluation e-Bug Launch Meeting 3rd September 2009 David Farrell, City University London david.farrell.1@city.ac.uk

2. e-Bug Junior Game • Design Choices • What kind of game? • How does it teach? • How can we evaluate? • Quantitative Results (preliminary) • Qualitative Results • Comments and Next Steps

3. Target Audience • 9-11 year olds • Suitable for play at home or in school • Short attention span • Enjoy Flash games (Kongregate, Newgrounds) • Necessary to provide an action oriented game • Whilst still teaching required Learning Outcomes

4. Effective GBL? • How are games best used for learning? • Shaffer’s Epistemic Frames • SodaConstructor1, SimCity • Squire’s work with Civilization2

5. Game Concept • Designed game rules (mechanics) to support learning outcomes • Decided on a “Platform Game” (like Mario) • Player is shrunk to a tiny size and interacts with microbes • Photograph different types of cartoon microbes! • See that some microbes are useful and some harmful! • Throw soap to remove harmful microbes!

6. Platform Game

7. Mini Game • Mini game used for Food and Respiratory Hygiene learning outcomes

8. Game Show • Context • Competition • Pacing • Evaluation?

9. Capturing Data

10. Final statistics not calculated • Data has been cleaned • only minor changes expected • Total Plays : • Round 1 : • Round 2 : • Round 3 : • Round 4 : • Round 5 : 1736 652 317 181 81 54 Quantitative Results

11. Introduction to Microbes

12. Round 1 Results

13. %? • Timing of evaluation == high awareness • end of school year • swine flu • Results are % change from incorrect to correct. • Question 1 • PRE: 512 correct, 31 not sure, 102 wrong • 31 + 102 == 133 incorrect • POST: 536 correct == +24 change • (24 / 133) * 100 = 18% change in incorrect

14. Harmful Microbes

15. Round 2 Results

16. Useful Microbes

17. Round 3 Results

18. Hygiene

19. Round 4 Results

20. Antibiotics

21. Round 5 Results

22. Qualitative Results • Very positive response from players • In initial focus groups, the game ran slow • 50% of pupils said that they would “play this game again” or “recommend this game to a friend”. • When fixed, the positive rate was over 90%

23. Teacher Comments • A small number of teachers filled out questionnaire • All said they would use the game in the classroom and indicated that they had enjoyed using the game with their pupils. • Some teachers requested that audio be added to the game in order that those with lower reading ability could still engage fully.

24. Teacher Comments Cont… • “I liked the way it was an educational but also fun game the children learned things from it” • “I would definitely use the game as it is both fun and educational” • “I think that the content is good, especially if the game is being used to enhance or consolidate learning on the subject matter through taught sessions” • “The children really took to the game once the technical problems had been addressed and I know that many of them have accessed the game from home as a result of the workshop.”

25. Next Steps • The areas of the game which have shown little impact or which have had a negative impact need to be improved. • The “Blind Question Round” (part of quiz show) should be removed since the game is no longer in evaluation and users dislike that feature. • Some software bugs still persist (as with most software) • A more rigorous analysis of the data will be published